Scotts Valley City Council
December 17, 2025

AGENDA
Meeting of the
Scotts Valley City Council
In-Person and Remote Access
Date: December 17, 2025
Time: 6:00 PM

CONTACT

INFORMATION

MEETING LOCATION POSTING
City of Scotts Valley
1 Civic Center Drive
Scotts Valley, CA 95066
(831) 440-5600
City Council Chambers
1 Civic Center Drive
Scotts Valley, CA 95066
OR
Zoom Video Conference
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83295730901
Agenda posted on 12-12-
2025 at City Hall, SV
Senior Center, SV Public
Works Building, and on the
Internet
at: www.scottsvalley.gov

ELECTED OFFICIALS CITY STAFF MEMBERS
Derek Timm, Mayor
Donna Lind, Vice Mayor
Steve Clark, Council Member
Krista Jett, Council Member
Greg Wimp, Council Member
Mali LaGoe, City Manager
Kirsten Powell, City Attorney
Cathie Simonovich, City Clerk

MEETING NOTICE AND AGENDA PACKET MATERIALS
Notice regarding City Council Meetings:

The City Council meets regularly on the 1st and 3rd Wednesday of each month at 6:00 PM in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 1 Civic Center Drive, Scotts Valley, CA 95066, and via Zoom Webinar remote access.

Agenda and Agenda Packet Materials:

The City Council agenda and the complete agenda packet are available for review by 5:00 PM the Friday before the Wednesday meeting on the Internet at the City’s website:
www.scottsvalley.gov and in the lobby of City Hall at 1 Civic Center Drive, Scotts Valley, CA.

Pursuant to Government Code §54957.5, materials related to an agenda item, submitted after distribution of the agenda packet, are available for public inspection in the lobby of City Hall during normal business hours, Monday-Friday, 8am-12 pm and 1-5 pm. In accordance with AB 1344, such documents will be posted on the City’s website at www.scottsvalley.gov.

Public Participation:

The meeting will be available on Zoom and livestreamed to the City of Scotts Valley’s YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@cityofscottsvalley
For those wishing to participate via Zoom you can join the following ways:

Zoom Webinar meeting link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83295730901 Or dial one of these numbers: (669) 900-9128 or (669) 444-9171 Webinar ID: 832 9573 0901

City Council Meeting Agenda Page 2
Date: December 17, 2025
Whether attendance is in-person or remote, you will be given opportunities to provide public comment at the appropriate times throughout the meeting. The time limit is up to 3 minutes for an individual, or 5 minutes for someone who is representing a group of three or more, at the discretion of the Mayor. Please note that this is not a question-and-answer time, but simply a time to provide comments to the Council. At the appropriate times during the meeting for public comment, on items not on the agenda, and on specific agenda items, the Mayor will announce that public comment will be accepted.

How to comment via in-person attendance:

Please proceed to the public comment podium when the Mayor opens the item for public comment.

How to comment via Zoom Webinar:

Use the webinar attendee option to “raise hand” when the Mayor opens the item for public comment. The Clerk will unmute you when it is your turn. If you have joined via Zoom phone call, dial *9 or your phone to “raise your hand”, and the Clerk will unmute you when it is your turn.

CALL TO ORDER 6:00 PM
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE and MOMENT OF SILENCE

ROLL CALL

COMMITTEE REPORTS
Council members are appointed to committees which are either City committees or committees dealing with other jurisdictions. This portion of the agenda allows the committee member to present oral or written reports to the Council regarding their committee assignments. It also allows the Council to make comments and give the committee member direction, as required.

CITY MANAGER REPORT

PUBLIC COMMENT TIME
This is the opportunity for individuals attending in person to make oral comments to the Council on any items within the purview of the Council, which are NOT part of the Agenda. No action on the item may be taken, but the Council may request the matter be placed on a future agenda. Written public comment may be emailed to the City Clerk by 5:00 PM on the day of the meeting at [email protected].

ALTERATIONS TO CONSENT AGENDA
Council can remove or add items to the Consent Agenda.

City Council Meeting Agenda Page 3
Date: December 17, 2025

CONSENT AGENDA
The Consent Agenda is comprised of items which are intended to be non-controversial and are approved without discussion. Persons wishing to speak on any item may request the item be moved to the Regular Agenda by raising their hand to be recognized by the Mayor. An item will only be moved from the Consent Agenda to the Regular Agenda if a City Council Member requests it to be moved and a majority of the Council agrees.

1. Approve City Council special meeting minutes of 11-19-2025 and 11-26-2025, and regular meeting minutes of 12-3-2025

2. Monthly Treasurer's Report - September 2025

3. Adopt Resolution No. 2077 to Ratify the 2025 California Fire Code with amendments, as adopted by the Scotts Valley Fire Protection District

4. Local Agency Special Tax and Bond Accountability Act for Fiscal Year 2024- 25 - CFD 97-1

5. Adopt Resolution Accepting the FY 2024-25 Annual AB 1600 Development Impact Fee Report

6. Update on Emergency Actions Taken for the Glenwood Road Embankment Failure Project

7. Second reading and adoption of Ordinance No. 16.143 amending the Scotts Valley Municipal Code Title 16 (Subdivisions) and Title 17 (Zoning) to clarify requirements for accessory dwelling units, junior accessory dwelling units, urban lot splits, SB 9 residential development, and ministerial design review.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

1. A public hearing to adopt a resolution certifying the 2025 Town Center Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report and Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations with respect to significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the EIR, and to adopt a resolution approving the 2025 Town Center Specific Plan

ALTERATIONS TO REGULAR AGENDA
Council can remove or add items to the Regular Agenda.

REGULAR AGENDA
Persons wishing to speak on any item may do so by raising their hand to be recognized by the Mayor.

City Council Meeting Agenda Page 4
Date: December 17, 2025

1. Nomination/Motion of Mayor/Chair (conducted by City Manager)

2. Nomination/Motion of Vice Mayor/Vice Chair (conducted by newly appointed Mayor)

3. Future Council Agenda Items

ADJOURNMENT

ADA NOTICE
The City of Scotts Valley does not discriminate against persons with disabilities. The City Council Chambers is an accessible facility. If you wish to attend a City Council meeting and require assistance such as sign language, a translator, or other special assistance or devices in order to attend and participate at the meeting, please call the City Clerk's office at (831) 440-5608 five to seven days in advance of the meeting to make arrangements for assistance. If you require the agenda of a City Council meeting be available in an alternative format consistent with a specific disability, please call the City Clerk’s Office. The California State Relay Service (TTY/VCO/HCO to Voice: English 1-800-735-2929, Spanish 1-800-855-3000; or, Voice to TTY/VCO/HCO: English 1-800-735-2922, Spanish 1-800-855-3000), provides Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf and Disabled and will provide a link between the TDD caller and users of telephone equipment.

City Council Meeting Agenda Page 5
Date: December 17, 2025

PROCEDURAL INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC

THE FOLLOWING IS THE PROCEDURE COUNCIL SHOULD TAKE IN
APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION:

1. Move the Resolution number for approval.

2. Second the motion.

3. Vote by body, a roll call vote is not required.

THE FOLLOWING IS THE PROCEDURE COUNCIL SHOULD TAKE IN
INTRODUCTION/ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE:

1. Move the Ordinance number for introduction (or adoption).

2. Move the Ordinance be introduced by title only and waive the reading of the text.

3. Read the Ordinance title.

4. Second the motion.

5. Vote by body, a roll call vote is not required.

THE FOLLOWING IS THE PROCEDURE COUNCIL SHOULD TAKE IN
PUBLIC COMMENT/PUBLIC HEARINGS:

Unless otherwise determined by the presiding officer of the meeting:

1. Three minutes allowed per individual to speak.

2. Five minutes allowed per individual representing a group of three or more. ❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖
The City of Scotts Valley does not discriminate against persons with disabilities. The City Council Chambers is an accessible facility. If you wish to attend a City Council meeting and require assistance such as sign language, a translator, or other special assistance or devices in order to attend and participate at the meeting, please call the City Clerk's office at (831) 440-5608 five to seven days in advance of the meeting to make arrangements for assistance. If you require the agenda of a City Council meeting be available in an alternative format consistent with a specific disability, please call the City Clerk’s Office. The California State Relay Service (TTY/VCO/HCO to Voice: English 1-800-735-2929, Spanish 1-800-855-3000; Voice to TTY/VCO/HCO: English 1- 800-735-2922, Spanish 1-800-855-3000; or, from or to Speech-to-Speech, English & Spanish 1- 800-854-7787), provides Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf and Disabled and will provide a link between the TDD caller and users of telephone equipment.

MINUTES
Special Meeting of the
Scotts Valley City Council
Date: November 19, 2025
Time: 5:45 PM

CONTACT

INFORMATION

MEETING LOCATION POSTING
City of Scotts Valley City Council Chambers The agenda was posted 1 Civic Center Drive 1 Civic Center Drive on 11-18-2025 at City Scotts Valley, CA Scotts Valley, CA 95066 Hall, SV Senior Center, 95066 OR SV Public Works Building,
(831) 440-5600 Zoom Video Conference and on the Internet https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83295730901 at www.scottsvalley.gov.

CALL TO ORDER 5:45 PM
The City Council meeting was called to order at 5:46 PM.

M/S: Lind/Clark
To approve the Regular Agenda with no alterations.

Carried 5/0 (AYES: Timm, Lind, Clark, Jett, Wimp)
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE and MOMENT OF SILENCE

ROLL CALL
CITY STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mali LaGoe, City Manager
Kirsten Powell, City Attorney
Dat Nguyen, Senior Civil Engineer
Cathie Simonovich, City Clerk

ELECTED OFFICIALS
PRESENT:

Derek Timm, Mayor
Donna Lind, Vice Mayor
Steve Clark, Council Member
Krista Jett, Council Member
Greg Wimp, Council Member

ALTERATIONS TO REGULAR AGENDA

REGULAR AGENDA

City Council Meeting Minutes Page 2
Date: November 19, 2025

1. Resolution Declaring an Emergency for the Glenwood Drive Slide Pursuant to Public Contract Code §1102 and Authorizing the City Manager to Cause the Repair of the Slide Pursuant to Public Contract Code §§22035 and 22050.

City Manager LaGoe presented this item and responded to questions from the Council. Senior Civil Engineer Dat Nguyen was also in attendance to answer questions. City Manager LaGoe explained on November 12, 2025, the City experienced a significant storm associated with an atmospheric river, producing nearly three inches of rainfall in 24 hours which caused debris accumulation and blockage of roadside inlets, which impeded stormwater flow. The uncontrolled stormwater along the east edge of Upper Glenwood Drive combined with sheet runoff, saturated the soil and caused a mudslide affecting approximately 30 linear feet of the roadway, undermining the pavement, and creating hazardous conditions. In addition, the bike lane was undermined by approximately two feet, requiring closure and forcing bicyclists to share the roadway with vehicles and a water main became exposed creating a risk of catastrophic failure that could disrupt water service to nearby neighborhoods. These conditions pose an immediate threat to public health, safety, and property, necessitating rapid emergency action to stabilize the site, assess hazards, and implement temporary and permanent repairs.

She explained that declaring this emergency will allow for the solicitation of a bid without the typical delay experienced from the competitive bid process, and she reiterated that this action is necessary for a timely response to the emergency.

M/S: Lind/Clark
To adopt Resolution No. 2076, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Scotts Valley declaring an emergency for the Glenwood Drive slide pursuant to the Public Contract Code §1102 and authorizing the City Manager to cause the repair of the slide pursuant to Public Contract Code §§22035 and 22050.

Carried 5/0 (AYES: Timm, Lind, Clark, Jett, Wimp)
The meeting adjourned at 6:02 PM.

Attest:

Cathie Simonovich, City Clerk
Approved:

Derek Timm, Mayor

ADJOURNMENT

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE and MOMENT OF SILENCE

ROLL CALL
CITY STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mali LaGoe, City Manager
Kirsten Powell, City Attorney
Rodolfo Onchi, Public Works Director
Cathie Simonovich, City Clerk

ELECTED OFFICIALS
PRESENT:

Derek Timm, Mayor
Donna Lind, Vice Mayor
Steve Clark, Council Member
Krista Jett, Council Member
Greg Wimp, Council Member

ALTERATIONS TO REGULAR AGENDA

REGULAR AGENDA

MINUTES
Special Meeting of the
Scotts Valley City Council
Date: November 26, 2025
Time: 9:30 AM

CONTACT

INFORMATION

MEETING LOCATION POSTING
City of Scotts Valley City Council Chambers The agenda was posted 1 Civic Center Drive 1 Civic Center Drive on 11-25-2025 at City Scotts Valley, CA Scotts Valley, CA 95066 Hall, SV Senior Center, 95066 OR SV Public Works Building,
(831) 440-5600 Zoom Video Conference and on the Internet https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83295730901 at www.scottsvalley.gov.

CALL TO ORDER 9:30 AM
The City Council meeting was called to order at 9:34 AM.

M/S: Lind/Clark
To approve the Regular Agenda with no alterations.

Carried 5/0 (AYES: Timm, Lind, Clark, Jett, Wimp)

ADJOURNMENT
City Council Meeting Minutes Page 2
Date: November 26, 2025

1. Resolution ratifying the proclamation of a local emergency for the Glenwood Drive slide
City Manager LaGoe presented this item and clarified that the special meeting held on November 19 addressed the City’s ability to procure a timely solution without following the Public Works bidding contract codes, as the City needed to engage with potential contractors promptly in order to fix the road. The action listed above is broader in that it proclaims an emergency based on the concern that the City will not have the financial resources needed to complete the job. Consequently, City Manager LaGoe proclaimed an emergency on November 19 that needed Council ratification within 7 days. She further explained the tight timeline set forth by CalOES in order to qualify for financial assistance in the future. This declaration will need to be renewed every 60 days, while the previous proclamation will need to be reviewed every 14 days during the procurement process.

M/S: Lind/Clark
To adopt Resolution No. 2079, ratifying the proclamation of a local emergency declared by the City Manager on November 19, 2025, for the Glenwood Drive slide.

Carried 5/0 (AYES: Timm, Lind, Clark, Jett, Wimp)
The meeting adjourned at 9:49 AM.

Attest:

Cathie Simonovich, City Clerk
Approved:

Derek Timm, Mayor

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE and MOMENT OF SILENCE

ROLL CALL

COMMITTEE REPORTS

MINUTES
Meeting of the
Scotts Valley City Council
Date: December 3, 2025
Time: 6:00 PM

CONTACT

INFORMATION

MEETING LOCATION POSTING
City of Scotts Valley City Council Chambers The agenda was posted 1 Civic Center Drive 1 Civic Center Drive on 11-26-2025 at City Scotts Valley, CA Scotts Valley, CA 95066 Hall, SV Senior Center, 95066 OR SV Public Works Building,
(831) 440-5600 Zoom Video Conference and on the Internet https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83295730901 at www.scottsvalley.gov.

CALL TO ORDER 6:00 PM
The City Council meeting was called to order at 6:00 PM.

Mayor Timm announced that Bryleigh Zeller is Mayor for the Day and will open the meeting, lead the pledge of allegiance, and stay through public comment time.

ELECTED OFFICIALS CITY STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

PRESENT: Mali LaGoe, City Manager
Derek Timm, Mayor Kirsten Powell, City Attorney
Donna Lind, Vice Mayor Ben Noble, Consultant Planner
Steve Clark, Council Member Cathie Simonovich, City Clerk Krista Jett, Council Member
Greg Wimp, Council Member
MAYOR FOR THE DAY:

Bryleigh Zeller
VM Lind attended a Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District (METRO) Board of Directors meeting where they received information on federal and state legislative updates which relate to the budget.

City Council Meeting Minutes
Date: December 3, 2025

PUBLIC COMMENT TIME
Street Sweeping Enforcement Program: There are new "no parking" areas on Technology Circle and El Pueblo Drive to accommodate street sweeping, which is necessary for environmental reasons including protecting Carbonera Creek. The program started this week, and a lot of debris was removed.

Repair Work — Glenwood Drive: Public Works staff will be holding a mobilization meeting with Anderson Pacific this week regarding the necessary repair work due to the Glenwood Drive slide. City Manager LaGoe noted that residents can expect traffic control as one lane will be closed during construction.

Shop Local Win Local Holiday Campaign: This campaign was launched last week in partnership with the Chamber of Commerce to encourage people to shop local this holiday season. Simply spend $10 or more at any local business and enter the receipt for a chance to win prizes. Full details can be found on the City's website.

Crafts and Cocoa Event: The Recreation Department will host the annual Crafts and Cocoa event on December 12. This is a fun family event with cookie decorating and much more.

Special Planning Commission Meeting: There will be a special meeting of the Planning Commission on December 4 at 7:30 PM to review the Town Center Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the Town Center Specific Plan. This meeting will be held in the City Council Chambers.

New Drainage - Siltanen Park: The new drainage project between Siltanen and the Glenwood preserve is complete. The Santa Cruz Land Trust completed the retaining wall and the City followed up with the new drainage below the retaining wall.

Mayor for the Day, Bryleigh Zeller, expressed that there should be more homes available for people who are homeless, and that this housing should be very affordable.

John Lewis spoke on behalf of Yes In My Back Yard (YIMBY) regarding the Town Center Specific Plan and feels that the plan falls short by 300 units in one parcel. In his opinion, this does not comply with the City's Housing Element.

Matthew Hakimi, a resident of Scotts Valley, feels that the pickleball courts are illegal, and also spoke about sewage issues, herbicide spraying, and soil toxicity.

Don Dietrich, a resident of Scotts Valley, expressed concern over the ingress and egress from the Valley Gardens project area, and suggested that this be on Mt.

Hermon rather than Lockewood Lane.

CITY MANAGER REPORT

City Council Meeting Minutes
Date: December 3, 2025

ALTERATIONS TO CONSENT AGENDA

CONSENT AGENDA
CM Clark and CM Wimp attended the Scotts Valley Boys & Girls Club's annual Clubsgiving event and learned about the various programs and recreation activities.

They also were able to see first-hand the improvements which are a direct result of the City's community grant program.

VM Lind thanked the Police Officers Association (POA) for the toy drive on Black Friday and noted that the POA will collect more toys at the tree lighting on Saturday, December 6 from 5:00 PM to 7:00 PM. All toys and non-perishable food donations will benefit Valley Churches United.

CM Wimp added that the Light up the Night celebration is a great community event with dancing, singing, and more.

CM Wimp noted that he enjoyed the event at the Boys and Girls Club, and the personal stories were particularly impactful.

City Manager LaGoe requested that the special meeting minutes from November 19 be removed from the Consent Agenda in order to add more detail. These minutes will be updated and placed on the next City Council agenda.

M/S: Lind/Jett
To approve the Consent Agenda with the alteration of removing the 11-19-2025 special meeting minutes as noted above.

Carried 5/0 (AYES: Timm, Lind, Clark, Jett, Wimp)

1. Approve City Council Special Meeting minutes of 11-19-2025 and Regular Meeting minutes of 11-19-2025

2. Approve check register dated 11-15-2025 through 11-26-2025

3. Approve Resolution No. 1955.32 Affirming the City Salary Schedules are Monthly Amounts

4. Approve Resolution No. 2076.1 Continuing the Declared Emergency for the Glenwood Drive Slide Pursuant to Public Contract Code §1102 and Authorizing the City Manager to Cause the Repair of the Slide Pursuant to Public Contract Code §§22035 and 22050.

City Council Meeting Minutes
Date: December 3, 2025

PUBLIC HEARINGS

ALTERATIONS TO REGULAR AGENDA

REGULAR AGENDA

5. Approve contract amendment with Ross Recreation Equipment, Inc. to add 10% contingency and amend scope of work to include unanticipated drainage work
Due to the timing of the public hearing, this item was heard after Regular Agenda Item 1.

1. Public hearing to consider the Planning Commission’s recommendation to amend Scotts Valley Municipal Code Title 16 (Subdivisions) and Title 17 (Zoning) to clarify requirements for accessory dwelling units, junior accessory dwelling units, urban lot splits, SB 9 residential development, and ministerial design review
City Manager LaGoe introduced this item, and Ben Noble, Contract Planner, presented this item. Contract Planner Noble and staff responded to questions from the Council.

Mayor Timm opened the public hearing at 7:49 PM. No members of the public came forward to speak on this item, and Mayor Timm closed the public hearing at 7:49 PM.

A letter received from CalHDF was received on December 3, 2025 and has been made part of the record.

M/S: Clark/Lind
To introduce Ordinance No. 16.143 with amendments to Municipal Code Title 16 (Subdivisions) and Title 17 (Zoning) to clarify requirements or accessory dwelling units, junior accessory dwelling units, urban lot splits, SB 9 residential development, and ministerial design review, and waive the reading thereof.

Carried 5/0 (AYES: Timm, Lind, Clark, Jett, Wimp)
M/S: Clark/Lind
To direct staff to maintain a policy on noticing for ADU and SB9 projects which will have ministerial Community Development Director hearings.

Carried 5/0 (AYES: Timm, Lind, Clark, Jett, Wimp)
M/S: Lind/Clark
To approve the Regular Agenda with no alterations.

Carried 5/0 (AYES: Timm, Lind, Clark, Jett, Wimp)
Due to the timing of the public hearing, this item was heard before Public Hearing Item 1.

1. Approve a Resolution of Intention to form an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD)

City Council Meeting Minutes
Date: December 3, 2025

CLOSED SESSION SUBJECT(S)

RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION
City Manager LaGoe introduced this item and Joe Dieguez from Kosmont Companies presented the item.

Scotts Valley Fire Chief Mark Correira noted that the Fire District Board of Directors has expressed interest in this partnership.

Matthew Hakimi, a resident of Scotts Valley, expressed concern over his perception that there is no revenue stream for the bonds.

Don Dietrich, a resident of Scotts Valley, expressed his support for the EIFD and volunteered to assist with speaking with the County Supervisors.

M/S: Lind/Clark
To adopt Resolution No. 2080 a resolution of the City Council of the City of Scotts Valley declaring its intention to establish the Scotts Valley Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District to finance the construction , repair, acquisition, and/or maintenance of capital improvements and facilities, including the acquisition and/or remediation of land for such improvements and facilities; establish a public financing authority; and authorizing certain other actions related thereto.

Carried 5/0 (AYES: Timm, Lind, Clark, Jett, Wimp)
M/S: Lind/Jett
To appoint Mayor Timm and Councilmember Clark to the Public Financing Authority Board, and to appoint Councilmember Jett as the alternate Board Member.

Carried 5/0 (AYES: Timm, Lind, Clark, Jett, Wimp)

2. Future Council Agenda Items
None
The City Council convened to closed session at 7:56 PM to discuss the following item:

1. Conference with legal counsel regarding real property negotiations Legal Authority: Government Code Section 54956.8
Location: 2 lots between 201 and 241 Kings Village Road, Scotts Valley; APNs 022-601-05 and 022-601-13
Staff Present: City Manager, City Attorney

CONVENE TO CLOSED SESSION

City Council Meeting Minutes
Date: December 3, 2025

REPORT ON ACTION TAKEN DURING CLOSED SESSION

ADJOURNMENT
The City Council reconvened to open session at 8:23 PM.

Mayor Timm announced that there is no report from the closed session meeting.

The meeting adjourned at 8:23 PM.

Attest:

Cathie Simonovich, City Clerk
Approved:

Derek Timm, Mayor

Dec 3, 2025
City of Scotts Valley
1 Civic Center Drive
Scotts Valley, CA 95066
By Email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
CC: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Re: Proposed Changes to the City’s ADU Ordinance
Dear Scotts Valley City Council,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter regarding the proposed amendments to the City’s accessory dwelling unit (“ADU”) ordinance, which are calendared as Public Hearing agenda item 1 for the December 3, 2025 Council hearing.

CalHDF would like to thank the City for exempting section 66323 ADUs from parking requirements, as is required by state law. (Gov. Code, § 66323, subd. (b).) However, the proposed ordinance’s geographic restrictions on ADUs violate state law, as discussed further infra.

Background
The law gives local governments authority to enact zoning ordinances that implement a variety of development standards on ADUs. (Gov. Code, § 66314.) The standards in these local ordinances are limited by state law so as not to overly restrict ADU development. (See id.) Separately from local ADU ordinances, Government Code section 66323 establishes a narrower set of ADU types that local governments have a ministerial duty to approve. “Notwithstanding Sections 66314 to 66322 ... a local agency shall ministerially approve” these types of ADUs. (Id. at subd. (a).) This means that ADUs that satisfy the minimal requirements of section 66323 must be approved regardless of any contrary provisions of the local ADU ordinance. (Ibid.) Local governments may not impose their own standards on such ADUs. (Gov. Code, § 66323, subd. (b) [“A local agency shall not impose any objective development or 2201 Broadway, PH1, Oakland, CA 94612
[email protected]

design standard that is not authorized by this section upon any accessory dwelling unit that meets the requirements of any of paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive, of subdivision (a).”].) In addition, ADUs that qualify for the protections of Government Code section 66323, like other ADUs, must be processed by local governments within 60 days of a complete permit application submittal. (Gov. Code, § 66317, subd. (a).) State law also prohibits creating regulations on ADU development not explicitly allowed by state law. Government Code Section 66315 states, “No additional standards, other than those provided in Section 66314, shall be used or imposed, including an owner-occupant requirement, except that a local agency may require that the property may be used for rentals of terms 30 days or longer.”
Impermissible Geographic Restriction
Code section 17.57.030(Q) prohibits all ADUs, including section 66323 ADUs, in certain portions of the City.

However, under no circumstances may the City prohibit ADUs developed pursuant to Government Code section 66323. Government Code section 66323, subdivision (a) imposes a duty on the City to permit ADUs in all residential and mixed-use zoning districts.

Government Code section 66323, subdivision (b) forbids the City from applying local standards. This means that the City must allow section 66323 ADUs in all residential and mixed-use districts.

The City’s staff report (pp. 53-54) contains the following legal explanation for this restriction:

The location prohibition is necessary to protect the public health and safety and is authorized by Government Code Section 66314(a) which states that a local ADU ordinance shall “designate areas within the jurisdiction of the local agency where accessory dwelling units may be permitted. The designation of areas may be based on the adequacy of water and sewer services and the impact of accessory dwelling units on traffic flow and public safety.”
However, the City may not use a provision of Government Code section 66314 to justify a restriction on section 66323 ADUs. This is because Government Code section 66323, subdivision (a) reads as follows (emphasis added):

Notwithstanding Sections 66314 to 66322, inclusive, a local agency shall ministerially approve an application for a building permit within a residential or mixed-use zone to create any of the following:
2 of 3

The authority found in Government Code section 66314, subdivision (a) therefore does not apply to section 66323 ADUs. Furthermore, an outright ban on all ADUs is an “objective development or design standard” and the City therefore may not apply it to section 66323 ADUs. (See Gov. Code, § 66323, subd. (b).)
The City must amend its ADU code to allow section 66323 ADUs on all parcels within residential and mixed-use zoning districts, as is required by Government Code section 66323.

Impermissible Discretionary Process
Code section 17.57.060(A)(2) requires Planning Commission review of certain ADUs. However, Government Code sections 66316 and 66317 explicitly prohibit any discretionary processes and all public hearings for ADUs.

The City may not conduct discretionary, public review of any ADUs. If the City wishes to allow creative designs that do not comport with the standards in its ADU ordinance, then it must establish objective criteria and approve such ADUs via a ministerial process without public hearing, as is required by state law.
⧫⧫⧫
CalHDF appreciates that the City is updating its zoning code to keep pace with changes in state law. However, CalHDF urges the City to make sure its zoning code actually complies with state law.

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

AGENDA ITEM 2.

DATE: 12/17/2025
City of Scotts Valley

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: 12/17/2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Stephanie Hill, Administrative Services Director
APPROVED: Mali LaGoe, City Manager
SUBJECT: Monthly Treasurer's Report - September 2025

SUMMARY OF ISSUE
Summary and Statutory Requirement
California Government Code Section 41004 requires the City Treasurer to submit a written report and accounting of all receipts, disbursements, and fund balances to the City Clerk and the legislative body. The attached Treasurer’s Report is prepared to fulfill this statutory requirement.

The attachment provides a summary of the City’s cash-based investment activity and financial position for September 2025. This report reflects only cash receipts, disbursements, and fund balances for the period presented. It does not include internal accounting entries, accrual adjustments, depreciation, interfund reclassifications, or other year-end transactions that occur as part of the annual audit and close process.

The FY 2024-25 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) is currently in process.

Accordingly, the beginning fund balances included in this report are unaudited and subject to change based on final year-end audit entries. Final audited fiscal year-end results will be formally reported in the ACFR upon completion of the audit.

First Quarter Financial Interpretation, July Through September The information presented reflects financial activity through the first quarter of the fiscal year.

At this early stage, the City’s financial position may appear unfavorable due to the timing of revenue receipts rather than an indication of budgetary imbalance.

Major revenue sources, most notably property tax, are not received evenly throughout the fiscal year. Property tax revenues are primarily distributed in December and April, consistent with when residents and businesses make their payments. As a result, property tax receipts are minimal during the first quarter.

Additional revenues, including certain intergovernmental revenues, grants, franchise fees, and reimbursements, are often received later in the fiscal year following eligibility confirmation and reporting processes.

On the expenditure side, several costs occur evenly throughout the year while others are concentrated early in the fiscal year. These include annual insurance premiums, contracted services, and technology licensing. This natural timing difference between early expenditures and later revenue receipts can create the appearance of short-term imbalance during the first quarter.

For these reasons, first-quarter results should be viewed as a timing snapshot rather than a performance indicator for the full fiscal year.

How to Interpret the Treasurer’s Report
The Treasurer’s Report is a cash-based snapshot of the City’s financial activity. It shows:
• Money actually received
• Money actually spent
• Current fund balances based on cash activity
This report is an important tool for monitoring:
• Short-term cash flow
• Liquidity
• Investment balances
• Disbursement activity
However, this report does not represent full accrual-based financial reporting and should not be interpreted, by itself, as a measure of full budget compliance or long-term financial condition.

Because many of the City’s largest revenues are received later in the fiscal year, including property taxes and certain sales and franchise fees, the City’s financial position can appear weaker early in the year even when revenues are tracking normally.

Similarly, some expenditures occur in concentrated periods rather than evenly throughout the year, including insurance premiums, technology systems, and major contract renewals. These timing differences normalize as the fiscal year progresses.

Relationship to the Annual Audit and Financial Forecasting The Treasurer’s Report is unaudited and reflects cash activity only. The City’s official audited financial statements are presented annually in the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) following completion of the independent audit.

Staff continuously monitors revenue and expenditure trends throughout the year using:
• Treasurer’s Reports
• Budget to actual tracking
• Cash flow projections
• Mid-year and year-end forecasts

Any significant budget variances or emerging fiscal risks will be reported to the City Council through future financial updates, mid-year budget reviews, and year-end reporting.

Ongoing Use Throughout the Fiscal Year
As the fiscal year progresses, future Treasurer’s Reports will begin to reflect:
• Major property tax distributions
• Sales and transient occupancy tax trends
• Grant reimbursements
• Stabilized expenditure patterns
Later quarters provide increased clarity regarding full-year financial performance. Early reports, particularly those from the first quarter, are best understood as liquidity and timing indicators rather than final performance results.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact in receiving and filing the report.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Review and accept the Treasurer’s Report for the month ended September 30, 2025.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. 2025.09_Monthly Treasurer's Report

Cash and Investments Balance by Fund
In accordance with California Government Code Section 53601, the City utilizes a pooled cash and investment approach. This means that all available cash from various City funds is consolidated into a single investment pool for the purpose of maximizing interest earnings and ensuring effective cash management.

The pooled funds are invested in compliance with the City's adopted Investment Policy, which is guided by the primary objectives of safety, liquidity, and yield. Investments are made only in instruments permitted under Government Code §53601, including but not limited to:
• U.S. Treasury and agency securities
• Bank certificates of deposit
• Bank demand deposits
• Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF)
• California Asset Management Program (CAMP)
• Municipal bonds
• Money market accounts
Each fund participating in the pool retains its individual equity interest and receives its proportionate share of investment earnings based on its average cash balance.

This pooling strategy provides economies of scale, increases investment diversification, and ensures that public funds are managed responsibly in accordance with state law and best practices for public sector finance.

As of September 30, 2025, the City’s unaudited cash and investments totaled $21,808,166.

Fund Category Cash Summary
General Fund $ 959,319
General Capital Improvement Fund $ 1,002,777
Special Revenue Fund - Development Impact Fees $ 3,833,732 Special Revenue Fund $ 13,294,448
Debt Service $ 769,878
Wastewater Enterprise Fund $ 1,948,013
$ 21,808,166
• A negative fund balance may occur temporarily when expenditures are incurred before related revenues are received, or when internal transfers from other funds are pending.

These timing differences are expected to be resolved in future periods as revenues are collected or transfers are completed.

Investment Type Cash Summary
Bank of America $ 315,495
LAIF $ 490,139
CAMP $ 18,664,190
SCHWAB $ 2,338,343
$ 21,808,166

City’s Current Financial Position
In accordance with California government code section 53646 (b) (3), the City is financially positioned and able to meet its estimated expenditure requirements for the next six months.

The following Fund Balance schedule represents actual funding available for all funds at the end of the monthly period. This amount differs from the above Cash Summary schedule as assets and liabilities are components of the fund balance. As illustrated in the summary below, Total Cash is adjusted by the addition of Total Assets less the amount of Total Liabilities to arrive at the Ending Fund Balance – which represents the actual amount of funds available.

Working capital represents the difference between the Wastewater Fund’s current assets (such as cash, investments, and receivables) and its current liabilities (such as accounts payable and accrued expenses). It is a measure of the Fund’s short-term financial health and its ability to meet operating obligations as they come due.

Adjusting Cash to Ending Fund Balance
Total Cash $ 21,808,166
Plus: Assets $ 8,835,171
Less: Liabilities $ (7,764,262)
Ending Fund Balance $ 22,879,075

City of Scotts Valley
Changes in Total Fund Balance
For the month ended September 30, 2025
Equity
Fund Description
Beginning Fund
Balance
07/01/2025
Increase /
(Decrease) JulyAugust Current Period
Revenue
Current Period
Expenditure
Fund Balance as
of 09/30/2025
General Fund
1 General Fund 3,248,974 (2,348,028) 1,709,467 (2,124,607) 485,806 6 Equipment Replacement Reserve 960,604 - - - 960,604
Recreation Funds (4, 28, 123) (92,151) (93,182) 38,298 (57,415) (204,450) Subtotal General Funds 4,117,428 (2,441,210) 1,747,765 (2,182,022) 1,241,960 General Capital Improvement Fund
150 Major Capital Projects 1,113,152 (24,221) 120,000 (2,261) 1,206,671 151 Capital Outlay Projects 6,589 (11,625) - (78,924) (83,960) Subtotal Capital Improvement Fund 1,119,741 (35,846) 120,000 (81,185) 1,122,711 Special Revenue Fund - Development Impact Fees
7 Drainage Construction Impact Fees 143,947 1,308 2,276 (14) 147,516 8 Traffic Impact Mitigation Fees 1,176,836 11,276 18,496 (118) 1,206,491 9 Park & Recreation Facilities Impact Fees 1,786,209 20,025 29,413 (179) 1,835,468 21 General Facility Impact Fees 6,202 856 464 (1) 7,521 27 Police Facility Building Impact Fees 410,308 1,979 5,551 (41) 417,798 86 Library Impact Fees 213,991 1,677 3,293 (21) 218,939 Subtotal Special Revenue Funds - Development Impact F 3,737,494 37,121 59,493 (375) 3,833,732 Special Revenue Fund
2 Recycling/Environment 198,335 - (250,284) (15,508) (67,456) 3 Gas Tax 1,173,854 30,858 42,807 (120) 1,247,399
5 SMIP Fees 5,722 214 111 - 6,047
17 Home Grant Program 111,064 - 1,256 (11) 112,309
19 Affordable Housing 4,001,507 70,023 40,322 (355) 4,111,497 24 Lennar Funds 621,150 - - - 621,150
31 STP Exchange Projects - - - - -
33 Tree Replacement 55,416 120 320 - 55,856
35 Green Building Funding 624,993 51,323 76 - 676,392
36 Disability Compliance 25,919 598 768 (77) 27,208
50 Pinewood Estates Maint. Dist. 222 (386) - (390) (554) 51 Mt. Hermon Traffic Mitigation 162,706 - 1,840 (16) 164,531 77 Skypark Landscape Maint. Dist. (3,988) (3,119) - (5,246) (12,353) 78 Skypark Landscape Maint. Dist. Insurance 562,869 - 6,367 (56) 569,180 88 Library Improvements (Measure S) 140 - 1,986 (17) 2,109 89 Library - Cty MOE Excess Distribution 647,062 - 5,335 (47) 652,350 115 Section 115 Set Aside - Pension 2,270,164 37,918 30,646 (385) 2,338,343 155 Measure D Sales Tax for Transportation 1,032,320 - 11,549 (102) 1,043,768 156 SB-1 (RMRA) 1,149,812 30,435 40,027 (117) 1,220,157 200 Quimby Act 204,508 - 2,313 (20) 206,801
201 Measure Q - - - - -
306 Supplemental Law Enforcement Services 156,585 - 1,771 (16) 158,341 313 Youth Focused Programs 51,173 1,822 1,240 - 54,235
317 Community And Economic Grants 472,689 - 5,347 (47) 477,989 Subtotal Special Revenue Funds - Other 13,524,223 219,806 (56,202) (22,530) 13,665,297 Debt Service
66 Debt Service 1,069,878 - - (300,000) 769,878
Subtotal Debt Service Funds 1,069,878 - - (300,000) 769,878 Wastewater Enterprise Fund
10 Wastewater Operations 574,110 (413,642) 2,053,836 (181,889) 2,032,414 11 Tertiary Operating (262,632) (75,550) - (86,624) (424,806) 12 Waterwater Treatment Facility Fee (DIF) 436,775 11,962 10,425 (44) 459,119 14 Wastewater Capital Replacement Fund 237,817 1,725,754 - (1,784,800) 178,771 Subtotal Wastewater Enterprise Funds 986,070 1,248,524 2,064,261 (2,053,357) 2,245,498 Total All Funds 24,554,833 (971,605) 3,935,317 (4,639,470) 22,879,075

City of Scotts Valley
Monthly Wire Payments
SEPTEMBER 2025
Date Vendor Description Amount
9/5/2025 Payroll Payroll 09/05/2025 $ 320,308.15
9/5/2025 PARS Payroll Deductions $ 49.50
9/5/2025 SVPOA Payroll Deductions $ 247.00
9/5/2025 PORAC Payroll Deductions $ 675.00
9/5/2025 SEIU Payroll Deductions $ 581.95
9/5/2025 COPE Payroll Deductions $ 10.00
9/5/2025 ICMA Payroll Deductions $ 10,228.95
9/5/2025 Health Equity (FSA) Payroll Deductions $ 970.82 9/5/2025 Fallen Officer Payroll Deductions $ 10.00
9/8/2025 CalPERS CalPERS Health $ 142,426.56
9/9/2025 CalPERS CalPERS Pension 09/05 PR $ 67,913.53
9/15/2025 Bank of America Bank Fees $ 817.54
9/19/2025 Payroll Payroll 09/19/2025 $ 313,825.11
9/19/2025 PARS Payroll Deductions $ 234.83
9/19/2025 SVPOA Payroll Deductions $ 247.00
9/19/2025 LEGAL Payroll Deductions $ 1,150.00
9/19/2025 COPE Payroll Deductions $ 10.00
9/19/2025 ICMA Payroll Deductions $ 10,563.96
9/19/2025 Health Equity (FSA) Payroll Deductions $ 970.82 9/19/2025 Fallen Officer Payroll Deductions $ 10.00
9/26/2025 BNY BNY LRB 2019A Payment $ 80,275.00
9/26/2025 BNY BNY LRB 2019B Payment $ 599,022.60
9/29/2025 CalPERS CalPERS UAL $ 188,768.92
$ 1,739,317.24

Check # Check Date Vendor Name Check Amount
134616 09/05/25 AAA WORKSPACE $ 464.87
134617 09/05/25 ACE PORTABLE SERVICES $ 1,500.48
134619 09/05/25 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES $ 873.92
134620 09/05/25 AQUATIC INFORMATICS INC. $ 4,997.81
134621 09/05/25 AT&T $ 1,962.06
134622 09/05/25 AT&T $ 452.53
134623 09/05/25 AT&T $ 58.49
134624 09/05/25 AUTO CARE LIFESAVER TOWING $ 90.00
134625 09/05/25 AXON ENTERPRISE, INC $ 22,323.40
134626 09/05/25 BRENDA'S FACE PAINTING $ 390.00
134627 09/05/25 BRIGHTVIEW LANDSCAPE $ 4,166.50
134628 09/05/25 BUSINESS WITH PLEASURE $ 2,327.80
134629 09/05/25 CAL-WEST LIGHTING & SIGNAL INC $ 1,539.47 134630 09/05/25 CALIFORNIA MARINE SANCTUARY $ 746.40
134631 09/05/25 CIVICPLUS $ 16,241.73
134632 09/05/25 COMCAST $ 675.41
134633 09/05/25 COMCAST $ 1,050.55
134634 09/05/25 COMMUNITY TREE SERVICE, INC. $ 9,825.00 134635 09/05/25 CRYSTAL SPRINGS WATER CO $ 311.50
134636 09/05/25 CSG CONSULTANTS, INC $ 25,794.85
134637 09/05/25 CUSHMAN CONTRACTING CORPORATIO $ 65,397.55 134638 09/05/25 DASH MEDICAL GLOVES $ 234.16
134639 09/05/25 DEPT OF JUSTICE $ 30.00
134640 09/05/25 DUDEK $ 4,305.00
134641 09/05/25 DUDEK $ 2,330.00
134642 09/05/25 DUDEK $ 4,331.25
134643 09/05/25 DUDEK $ 1,398.75
134644 09/05/25 DUDEK $ 4,897.50
134645 09/05/25 DUDEK $ 3,805.00
134646 09/05/25 DUNCAN AUTO TECH $ 1,647.48
134647 09/05/25 INDUSTRIAL SCIENTIFIC CORP $ 6,922.99
134648 09/05/25 JAMES FISCHER JR $ 28,860.00
134649 09/05/25 KARLA PATRICIA KIRCH $ 315.00
134650 09/05/25 M-GROUP $ 15,480.00
134651 09/05/25 MARQUEZ JUMPERS $ 299.00
134652 09/05/25 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE $ 741.69
134653 09/05/25 MONTEREY BAY ANALYTICAL SVCS $ 1,298.20 134654 09/05/25 OPENGOV, INC. $ 44,756.77
134655 09/05/25 PHILLIP D NEUMAN $ 34,287.80
134656 09/05/25 RIVERSIDE LIGHTING INC $ 6.16
134657 09/05/25 S.V. WATER DISTRICT $ 15,118.63
134658 09/05/25 SALINAS VALLEY SOLID WASTE $ 4,000.00

Check # Check Date Vendor Name Check Amount
134659 09/05/25 SAN LORENZO VALLEY WATER DISTR $ 380.48 134660 09/05/25 SANTA CRUZ COUNTY INFORMATION $ 1,583.46 134661 09/05/25 SCARBOROUGH LUMBER $ 5.87
134662 09/05/25 SCOTT GARNER $ 115.90
134663 09/05/25 SCOTTS VALLEY CAR WASH $ 789.29
134664 09/05/25 SCOTTS VALLEY SPRINKLER $ 104.25
134665 09/05/25 SOUTHWEST VALVE & EQUIPMENT $ 8,850.23
134666 09/05/25 SOUTHWEST VALVE & EQUIPMENT $ 39,529.60 134667 09/05/25 STERLING WATER TECHNOLOGIES $ 2,880.00
134668 09/05/25 SYCAL ENGINEERING INC $ 3,331.64
134669 09/05/25 THE HANGAR AT SKY PARK LLC $ 6,138.00
134670 09/05/25 URETSKY SECURITY $ 1,662.98
134671 09/05/25 WEX BANK $ 9,254.03
134672 09/12/25 ACE PORTABLE SERVICES $ 1,374.97
134673 09/12/25 ADAMS ASHBY GROUP, INC $ 3,500.00
134674 09/12/25 ALVAREZ IND INC CLEAN BLDG $ 615.00
134675 09/12/25 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES $ 506.63
134676 09/12/25 AT&T $ 8.85
134677 09/12/25 AT&T $ 1,716.21
134678 09/12/25 BATTERIES + BULBS #314 $ 175.30
134679 09/12/25 BKF ENGINEERS $ 20,341.50
134680 09/12/25 BRASS KEY LOCKSMITH $ 26.27
134681 09/12/25 BRISHAN INC. $ 3,950.21
134682 09/12/25 C & N TRACTORS $ 244.52
134683 09/12/25 CAL-WEST LIGHTING & SIGNAL INC $ 1,336.33 134684 09/12/25 CARLOS SOTO $ 27,172.50
134685 09/12/25 CENTRAL HOME SUPPLY $ 306.92
134686 09/12/25 DARSHANA CROSKREY $ 163.89
134687 09/12/25 DAVID SANGUINETTI $ 273.90
134688 09/12/25 DAWN BANKS $ 131.20
134689 09/12/25 DEREK TIMM $ 131.83
134690 09/12/25 DOCTORS ON DUTY $ 290.00
134691 09/12/25 ENTERPRISE FM TRUST $ 11,962.60
134692 09/12/25 ENVIRONMENTAL INNOVATIONS $ 9,169.64
134693 09/12/25 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS $ 5,665.96
134694 09/12/25 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, LLC #795 $ 109.23 134695 09/12/25 HERC RENTALS $ 793.78
134696 09/12/25 HOSE SHOP $ 14.43
134697 09/12/25 INTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP $ 15,645.00
134698 09/12/25 K & D LANDSCAPING, INC. $ 3,711.00
134699 09/12/25 KIARA JACOBSEN $ 876.00
134700 09/12/25 LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE $ 3,757.50

Check # Check Date Vendor Name Check Amount
134701 09/12/25 MARY LOUISE DEFALCO $ 53.60
134702 09/12/25 MID VALLEY SUPPLY $ 1,734.81
134703 09/12/25 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE $ 331.85
134704 09/12/25 MONTEREY BAY ANALYTICAL SVCS $ 1,395.40 134705 09/12/25 NATIONAL COMTEL NETWORK INC. $ 20.34
134706 09/12/25 NORCAL MEDTAC, LLC $ 1,422.00
134707 09/12/25 OLIN CORPORATION AS SOLE $ 5,937.98
134708 09/12/25 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO $ 84,515.53
134709 09/12/25 PATRICK AHRENS $ 38.14
134710 09/12/25 PHILLIP D NEUMAN $ 1,574.48
134711 09/12/25 PHOENIX GROUP $ 365.43
134712 09/12/25 PLACEWORKS, INC. $ 2,195.00
134713 09/12/25 PURETEC INDUSTRIAL WATER $ 59.66
134714 09/12/25 RDO EQUIPMENT CO. $ 268.97
134715 09/12/25 REGIONAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES $ 11,298.00 134716 09/12/25 S V CHAMBER OF COMMERCE $ 25,000.00
134717 09/12/25 SANTA CRUZ CO ENVIRONMENTAL $ 5,125.00
134718 09/12/25 SCARBOROUGH LUMBER $ 816.84
134719 09/12/25 SCOTTS VALLEY SANDWICH, INC. $ 430.00
134720 09/12/25 SCOTTS VALLEY SPRINKLER $ 69.11
134721 09/12/25 SECURITY CRIME PREVENTIO $ 238.15
134722 09/12/25 SHARRON BARTH $ 54.00
134723 09/12/25 STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY $ 991.62
134724 09/12/25 STEVE CLARK $ 445.90
134725 09/12/25 SUMMIT UNIFORMS $ 175.00
134726 09/12/25 SYCAL ENGINEERING INC $ 402.00
134727 09/12/25 THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON $ 4,035.00
134728 09/12/25 THE PIED PIPER INC. $ 155.50
134729 09/12/25 THOMSON REUTERS-WEST $ 416.30
134730 09/12/25 TIMOTHY D BOWEN $ 1,746.00
134731 09/12/25 U.S. BANCORP OFFICE $ 1,300.62
134732 09/12/25 USA BLUE BOOK $ 419.73
134733 09/12/25 WATSONVILLE DIESEL $ 200.00
134734 09/12/25 WBA CONSULTING $ 2,000.00
134735 09/12/25 WEBER,HAYES, & ASSOCIATES $ 300.00
134736 09/12/25 WENDY O'MEARA $ 32.80
134737 09/12/25 U.S. BANK CORPORATE $ 13,557.48
134738 09/19/25 ACCENT CLEAN & SWEEP INC $ 2,739.00
134739 09/19/25 ALVAREZ IND INC CLEAN BLDG $ 615.00
134740 09/19/25 ASSOCIATED SERVICES CO. $ 82.24
134741 09/19/25 AT&T $ 87.39
134742 09/19/25 AT&T MOBILITY $ 1,681.46

Check # Check Date Vendor Name Check Amount
134743 09/19/25 BLUETRITON BRANDS INC $ 311.38
134744 09/19/25 BUSINESS WITH PLEASURE $ 54.87
134745 09/19/25 CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL $ 600.00
134746 09/19/25 COMCAST $ 777.08
134747 09/19/25 CSG CONSULTANTS, INC $ 1,283.50
134748 09/19/25 DUNCAN AUTO TECH $ 247.50
134749 09/19/25 INTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP $ 16,338.00
134750 09/19/25 KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES INC $ 1,289.20 134751 09/19/25 LOGAN & POWELL, LLP $ 18,417.77
134752 09/19/25 MAR-KEN INTERNATIONAL POLICE $ 7,200.00 134753 09/19/25 NBS GOVERNMENT FINANCE GROUP $ 825.00
134754 09/19/25 PHILLIP D NEUMAN $ 1,107.50
134755 09/19/25 PHOENIX GROUP $ 345.36
134756 09/19/25 PITNEY BOWES GLOBAL $ 527.84
134757 09/19/25 SANTA CRUZ CO ENVIRONMENTAL $ 341.00
134758 09/19/25 SANTA CRUZ COUNTY SHERIFF $ 23,975.00
134759 09/19/25 SCARBOROUGH LUMBER $ 877.69
134760 09/19/25 SCOTTS VALLEY CAR WASH $ 269.82
134761 09/19/25 STERICYCLE INC $ 265.39
134762 09/19/25 TALLEN CALIFORNIA, LLC $ 2,187.50
134763 09/19/25 THE PIED PIPER INC. $ 70.50
134764 09/19/25 WIZIX TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC $ 853.50
134765 09/26/25 831 TACOS $ 680.00
134766 09/26/25 ACC BUSINESS $ 1,838.87
134767 09/26/25 AFLAC-FLEX ONE $ 688.11
134768 09/26/25 ALLIANT $ 621.00
134769 09/26/25 ALVAREZ IND INC CLEAN BLDG $ 451.00
134770 09/26/25 BATTERIES + BULBS #314 $ 24.09
134771 09/26/25 BKF ENGINEERS $ 19,856.50
134772 09/26/25 BKF ENGINEERS $ 2,824.00
134773 09/26/25 CENTRAL COAST SYSTEMS $ 635.00
134774 09/26/25 COMCAST $ 301.08
134775 09/26/25 COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ $ 39.00
134776 09/26/25 DARSHANA CROSKREY $ 73.84
134777 09/26/25 DEPT OF JUSTICE $ 96.00
134778 09/26/25 DIXON & SON TIRE $ 848.70
134779 09/26/25 ENVIRONMENTAL INNOVATIONS $ 9,676.87
134780 09/26/25 KOSMONT COMPANIES, INC $ 1,580.00
134781 09/26/25 LEO'S U-SAVE LIQUORS $ 51.58
134782 09/26/25 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE $ 1,530.45
134783 09/26/25 MONTEREY BAY ANALYTICAL SVCS $ 2,877.55 134784 09/26/25 MONTEREY REGIONAL $ 9,583.80

Check # Check Date Vendor Name Check Amount
134785 09/26/25 MUTUAL OF OMAHA $ 1,278.95
134786 09/26/25 PETE'S OUTFLOW TECHNICIANS $ 3,850.00
134787 09/26/25 PETERSON POWER SYSTEMS, INC. $ 1,287.93 134788 09/26/25 PETTY CASH - LAUREN LAMBERT $ 100.00
134789 09/26/25 PHILLIP D NEUMAN $ 72,083.03
134790 09/26/25 PRINICPAL LIFE INSURANCE CO $ 7,931.86
134791 09/26/25 S.V. WATER DISTRICT - BULK $ 347.36
134792 09/26/25 SCARBOROUGH LUMBER $ 190.34
134793 09/26/25 SCOTTS VALLEY CAR WASH $ 35.98
134794 09/26/25 STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL $ 220.00
134795 09/26/25 TORO PETROLEUM CORP $ 7,223.01
134796 09/26/25 URBAN FIELD STUDIO OAKLAND $ 3,367.50
134797 09/26/25 USA BLUE BOOK $ 486.15
134798 09/26/25 WEBER,HAYES, & ASSOCIATES $ 4,000.00
Checks total: $ 934,024.88

AGENDA ITEM 3.

DATE: 12/17/2025
City of Scotts Valley

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: 12/17/2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Nelson Alfaro, Building Official
APPROVED: Mali LaGoe, City Manager
SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution No. 2077 to Ratify the 2025 California Fire Code with amendments, as adopted by the Scotts Valley Fire Protection District

SUMMARY OF ISSUE
Approximately every three years, new model building code standards relating to fire and panic safety are reviewed, modified and adopted by the State Fire Marshal, and are mandated for local jurisdiction enforcement within 180 days of publication.

On November 12, 2025, the Scotts Valley Fire Protection District adopted Ordinance No. 2025- 2 adopting building standards relating to fire and panic safety that are more stringent than those building standards adopted by the State Fire Marshall; and on December 10, 2025, the Scotts Valley Fire Protection District adopted Ordinance No. 2025-3 to amend Section

25.903.2.4 of Ordinance No. 2025-2.

A city within the boundaries of a fire protection district may ratify, modify, or deny an adopted ordinance and transmit its determination to the district within 15 days of the determination.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council adopt Resolution No. 2077 to ratify the adoption of the 2025 California Fire Code and Local Amendments by the Scotts Valley Fire Protection District by Ordinance No. 2025-2 and Ordinance No. 2025-3.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. SV City letter from SVFPD

2. Resolution No. 2077 Ratify 2025 CA Fire Code

RESOLUTION NO. 2077

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCOTTS
VALLEY RATIFYING THE 2025 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE AND

AMENDMENTS ADOPTED BY THE SCOTTS VALLEY FIRE

PROTECTION DISTRICT
WHEREAS, approximately every three years, new model building code standards relating to fire and panic safety are reviewed, modified and adopted by the State Fire Marshal, and thenceforth mandated for local jurisdiction enforcement within 180 days of publication; and
WHEREAS, the Scotts Valley Fire Protection District is a fire protection district organized pursuant to Part 2.7 (commencing with Section 13800) of Division 12 of the California Health and Safety Code which jurisdiction includes the City of Scotts Valley; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 13869.7 of the California Health and Safety Code, a fire protection district may adopt building standards relating to fire and panic safety that are more stringent than those building standards adopted by the State Fire Marshal; and WHEREAS, on November 12, 2025, the Scotts Valley Fire Protection District adopted Ordinance No. 2025-2 adopting building standards relating to fire and panic safety that are more stringent than those building standards adopted by the State Fire Marshall; and on December 10, 2025, the Scotts Valley Fire Protection District adopted Ordinance No. 2025-3 to amend Section 25.903.2.4 of Ordinance No. 2025.2; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 13869.7 of the California Health and Safety Code, a city within the boundaries of a fire protection district may ratify, modify, or deny an adopted ordinance and transmit its determination to the district within 15 days of the determination; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to ratify the adopted ordinances of the Scotts Valley Fire Protection District.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED by the City Council of the City of Scotts Valley that the City Council hereby ratifies the adoption of the 2025 California Fire Code and Local Amendments by the Scotts Valley Fire Protection District by Ordinance No. 2025-2 and Ordinance No. 2025-3.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the City Clerk is hereby directed to notify the Scotts Valley Fire Protection District of such ratification and request that the Scotts Valley Fire Protection District file a copy of the findings of the District, together with the adopted ordinance expressly marked and identified to which each finding refers, with the Department of Housing and Community Development.

The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Scotts Valley at a meeting held on the 17th day of December 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Approved:

Derek Timm, Mayor
Attest:

Cathie Simonovich, City Clerk

AGENDA ITEM 4.

DATE: 12/17/2025
City of Scotts Valley

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: 12/17/2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kendra Reed, Finance Manager
APPROVED: Mali LaGoe, City Manager
SUBJECT: Local Agency Special Tax and Bond Accountability Act for Fiscal Year 2024-25 - CFD 97-1

SUMMARY OF ISSUE
Senate Bill 165, filed with the Secretary of State on September 19, 2000, enacted the Local Agency Special Tax and Bond Accountability Act (Act) to provide accountability measures associated with a local agency’s adoption of voter approved special taxes and certain forms of bonded indebtedness. The Act requires that, on or after January 1, 2001, any local special tax or bond measure subject to voter approval shall provide accountability measures that include:

1. A statement indicating the purpose of the special tax or bond;

2. A requirement that proceeds of the special tax or bond be applied to those specific identified purposes;

3. The creation of an account into which the proceeds shall be deposited; and

4. An annual report containing specified information concerning the use of the proceeds.

At present, the City of Scotts Valley has one Community Facilities District (CFD) that falls under the provisions of the act, CFD 97-1. Previous council actions, public hearings, and elections have formally established the aforementioned district, authorized the levy of the special tax, and authorized the issuance of a special tax bond to finance the acquisition of certain necessary public improvements. The documents associated with those actions fulfill, or provide for, satisfaction of the first three requirements referenced above. The purpose of this report is to comply with the Annual Report requirements (No. 4, above) of the Act as they pertain to the above referenced CFD.

FISCAL IMPACT
None.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council receive and file the Local Agency Special Tax and Bond Accountability Act report for the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2025.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. FY2425_SB 165: LOCAL AGENCY SPECIAL TAX AND BOND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

City of Scotts Valley
Fiscal Year 2025/26 Annual Report – Community Facilities District 97-1 3 1. SB 165: LOCAL AGENCY SPECIAL TAX AND BOND

ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
Senate Bill 165, filed with the Secretary of State on September 19, 2000, enacted the Local Agency Special Tax and Bond Accountability Act (the “Act”). This Act requires that any local special tax or local bond measure subject to voter approval contain a statement indicating the specific purposes of the special tax, require that the proceeds of the special tax be applied to those purposes, require the creation of an account into which the proceeds shall be deposited, and require an annual report containing specified information concerning the use of the proceeds. The Act only applies to any local special tax measure or local bond measure adopted on or after January 1, 2001, in accordance with Section 50075.1 or Section 53410 of the California Government Code.

Some of the requirements of the Act are handled at the formation of the Special Tax District and others are handled through annual reports. This Section of this report intends to comply with Sections 50075.3 and 53411 of the California Government Code that states:
“The chief fiscal officer of the issuing local agency shall file a report with its governing body no later than January 1, 2002, and at least once a year thereafter. The annual report shall contain both of the following:

1. The amount of funds collected and expended.

2. The status of any project required or authorized to be funded as identified in subdivision (a) of Sections 50075.1 [and] 53410.”
The requirements of the Act apply to the Funds for the following:

City of Scotts Valley
Community Facilities District 97-1
August 23, 2011
Purpose of Special Tax
The special tax provides funding for arterial and frontage improvements to Scotts Valley Drive between the Granite Creek interchange with State Highway 17 and Mount Hermon Road. Collectively, the improvements included street improvements, utility undergrounding, professional services, and land acquisition.

The projects funded by the Bonds are complete.

Collections and Expenditures
Fund Name
06/30/2024
Balance
Amount
Collected
Amount
Expended
06/30/2025
Balance
Special Tax Fund $400,697.14 $410,731.86 $423,995.77 $387,433.23

City of Scotts Valley
Fiscal Year 2025/26 Annual Report – Community Facilities District 97-1 4 (1) The initial amounts deposited from the 2011 refunding bonds.

Fund Name Initial Deposit (1)
6/30/2025
Balance
Amount
Expended Status
Costs of Issuance Fund $140,738.27 $0.00 $0.00 Closed
Escrow Fund 3,523,126.90 0.00 0.00 Closed
Prepayment Fund 0.00 9,005.06 0.00 Ongoing
Reserve Fund 300,599.92 438,612.91 0.00 Ongoing

AGENDA ITEM 5.

DATE: 12/17/2025
City of Scotts Valley

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: 12/17/2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kendra Reed, Finance Manager
APPROVED: Mali LaGoe, City Manager
SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution Accepting the FY 2024-25 Annual AB 1600 Development Impact Fee Report

SUMMARY OF ISSUE
Under the California Mitigation Fee Act (AB 1600), cities and counties have authority to implement development impact fees (DIF). The authority allows the City of Scotts Valley to collect funds for new development projects to cover public infrastructure, facilities, improvements, service, and community amenity costs related to the new development’s proportionate share on those facilities.

Ordinance 143 and a report prepared by the Management Services Institute (April 1990) established seven development impact mitigation fees on all development within the City. This ordinance and report continue to demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged. The identified funds are storm drainage facilities, streets and thoroughfares, parks and recreation facilities, wastewater facilities, general facilities and equipment, law enforcement facilities and equipment, and the library facility.

Under AB1600, Government Code Section 66006 requires the City to produce an annual report on the status of each DIF, listing the following:

A brief description of the type of fee in the account/fund

1. The amount of the fee

2. Beginning and ending balance of the account/fund

3. Amount of fees collected and interest earned

4. Identification of each public improvement for which fees were spent

5. An approximate date by which construction of public improvements will commence if the City has determined that sufficient funds have been collected to complete the financing on an incomplete public improvement

6. Amount of refunds or re-allocations of development impact fees made pursuant to Government Code 66001
These reports were made public on the City’s website on December 1, 2025, meeting the 15

day public posting requirements.

FISCAL IMPACT
The attached reports show that the ending fund balances for development impact fees totals $4,174,268 at June 30, 2025.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 1198.81, accepting the FY 2024- 2025 AB 1600 Development Impact Fee Annual Report and making certain findings related thereto.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Resolution No. 1198.81 FY2024-2025 DIF Report

2. FY2024-2025 Annual Impact Fee Report

RESOLUTION NO. 1198.81

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY ACCEPTING THE FY 2024-25 ANNUAL AB1600 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE

REPORT AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS RELATED THERETO
WHEREAS, on January 16, 1991, the City Council of the City of Scotts Valley approved Ordinance No. 143, an Ordinance of the City of Scotts Valley Establishing Development Impact Mitigation Fees on All New Development Within the City (the “Ordinance”); and
WHEREAS, the Ordinance and a report prepared by the Management Services Institute (the “Report”) on April 1990, established seven development impact mitigation fees on all development within the City and demonstrated a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged; and WHEREAS, the Report analyzed the need for new public facilities required for new development and recommended the establishment of the seven development impact mitigation fees on all development within the City; and WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code Section 66006 (“AB 1600”), the City is required to prepare an annual report providing the following information about those fees:
(1) A brief description of the type of fee in the account/fund; (2) The amount of the fee;
(3) Beginning and ending balances of the account/fund;
(4) Amount of fees collected and interest earned, if applicable; (5) Identification of each public improvement for which fees were spent; (6) An approximate date by which construction of public improvements will commence if the City has determined that sufficient funds have been collected to complete the financing on an incomplete public improvement; and
(7) Amount of refunds or re-allocations of development impact fees made pursuant to Government Code 66001, if applicable.

WHEREAS, Section 66001(d) of the Government Code requires that for the fifth fiscal year following the first deposit into the account or fund, and every five years thereafter, the local agency shall make certain findings with respect to that portion of the account or fund remaining unexpended, whether committed or uncommitted; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared its annual report for FY 2024-2025 which includes the required information.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Scotts Valley that the FY 2024-2025 Annual AB 1600 Development Impact Fee Report, a copy of which is attached hereto, is hereby accepted and determined to comply with the requirements of AB 1600.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Scotts Valley that any unexpended funds collected pursuant to the Ordinance were collected for the purposes outlined in the Ordinance and the Report and demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and purpose for which it was charged as they will be used for those projects or related projects as outlined in the Ordinance and the Report.

The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Scotts Valley at a regular meeting held on the 17th day of December, 2025 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Approved:____________________________
Derek Timm, Mayor
Attest: ___________________________
Cathie Simonovich, City Clerk

DEVELOPMENTAL IMPACT FEE

ANNUAL REPORT
City of Scotts Valley
www.scottsvalley.gov
For the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2025

Development Impact Fee Report
City of Scotts Valley
1 | Page
Contents
SUMMARY & BACKGROUND......................................................................................................................... 2 REQUIREMENTS OF THE MITIGATION FEE ACT (AB1600)............................................................................. 3 ANNUAL REPORT........................................................................................................................................... 4 FUND 007 – STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES FEE ........................................................................................ 4 FUND 008 – STREETS & THOROUGHFARES FEE ........................................................................................ 5 FUND 009 – PARKS & RECREATION FACILITIES FEE ................................................................................... 6 FUND 012 – WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES FEE........................................................................... 7 FUND 021 – GENERAL FACILITIES & EQUIPMENT FEE............................................................................... 8 FUND 027 – LAW ENFORCEMENT FACILITIES & EQUIPMENT FEE............................................................. 9 FUND 086 – LIBRARY FACILITIES FEE ....................................................................................................... 10 FUND SUMMARY......................................................................................................................................... 11

Development Impact Fee Report
City of Scotts Valley
2 | Page

SUMMARY & BACKGROUND
Development Impact Fees are fees imposed by local governments on new development projects to finance the acquisition, construction, and improvement of public facilities and infrastructure needed to serve those projects. California state law requires local agencies to prepare a report on the status of their Development Impact Fee (DIF) program on an annual basis and make additional findings every fifth year.

This report meets the legal requirements for Fiscal Year (FY) 24-25 (July 1, 2024 through June 30, 2025).

The City of Scotts Valley (City) first established its DIF Program on January 16, 1991, with the adoption of Ordinance No. 143. The following impact fees were established and to be imposed on the issuance of all building permits for development within the City of Scotts Valley to finance the cost of the following categories of public facilities and improvements required by new development:

Developmental
Impact Fee
Description Fund
Storm Drainage
Facilities
For payment of the actual or estimated costs of constructing and improving the storm drain facilities within the city, including any required acquisition of land.
007
Streets &
Thoroughfares
For payment of the actual or estimated costs of the design, upgrading or improvement of the traffic network, including any required acquisition of land.
008
Parks & Recreation For payment of the actual or estimated costs of constructing and improving the park and recreation facilities within the city, including any required acquisition of land, as well as grading, irrigation, and turfing costs associated therewith.
009
Wastewater
Treatment Facilities
For payment of the actual or estimated costs of constructing and improving the sewage treatment facilities within the city, including any required acquisition of land.
012
General Facilities &
Equipment
For payment of the actual or estimated costs of constructing and improving the general municipal facilities within the city, including any required acquisition of land.
021
Law Enforcement
Facilities &
Equipment
For payment of the actual or estimated costs of law enforcement facilities, equipment, and training, including any required acquisition of land.
027
Library Facilities For payment of the actual or estimated costs of constructing and improving the library facilities within the city, including any required acquisition of land.
086

Development Impact Fee Report
City of Scotts Valley
3 | Page
REQUIREMENTS OF THE MITIGATION FEE ACT (AB1600)
Assembly Bill (AB) 1600, commonly known as the Mitigation Fee Act, was enacted by the state of California in 1987 and created Section 66000 et. seq. of the Government Code and was amended by AB518 and Senate Bill (SB) 1693. AB1600 requires the city to report fee information annually and every fifth year. Within 180 days after the last day of each fiscal year, the City must make available the following information from the prior fiscal year:

1. Brief description of the type of fee in the account or fund.

2. Amount of the fee.

3. Beginning and ending balance in the account or fund.

4. Amount of fees collected, and the interest earned during the previous year.

5. Identification of each public improvement for which fees were expended and the amount of expenditures, including the total percentage of the cost of the public improvement that was funded with fees.

6. An identification of an approximate date by which the construction of the public improvement will commence if the local agency determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing on an incomplete public improvement and the public improvement remains incomplete.

7. Description of each interfund transfer or loan made from the account, including the public improvement on which the transferred or loaned fees will be expended, and when each loan will be repaid and the rate of interest the account will receive on the loan.

8. Identification of any refunds made once determined that sufficient monies have been collected to fund fee-related projects.

For the fifth fiscal year following the first deposit into the account or fund, and every five years thereafter, the City must make the following findings with respect to any remaining funds in the fee account, regardless of whether those funds are committed or uncommitted:

1. Identification of the purpose to which the fees are to be put.

2. Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged.

3. Identification of all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing in incomplete improvements identified as part of the City’s annual report.

4. Identification of the approximate dates on which the funding referred to in Requirement 3 is expected to be deposited into the appropriate account or fund.

The City must make this information available for public review and must present it at the next regularly scheduled public meeting no less than 15 days after this information is made available to the public. This report is intended to satisfy the annual reporting requirements for FY 24-25.

The City previously completed a five-year report in FY 22-23.

Development Impact Fee Report
City of Scotts Valley
4 | Page

ANNUAL REPORT
The following section provides information necessary to meet the annual reporting legal requirements for each impact fee fund. This includes a brief description of the fee, the amount of the fee, the beginning and ending balances, fee revenues collected, interest earned, and the expenditures on each project including the percentage that was funded with fees. It also includes a table summary of whether sufficient funds have been identified to complete future projects and the approximate date by which the construction of the public improvement will commence if sufficient funds have been identified. Any loans are also identified as well as any refunds from the account.

FUND 007 – STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES FEE
Residential or commercial per impervious square foot
Carbonero Creek $ 0.31
West Branch $ 0.28
Camp Evers Tributary $ 0.14
Bean Creek $ 0.19
Sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing of incomplete improvements:

Fund Balance at 7/1/2024 $ 106,765
Impact Fees Collected $ 31,863
Other Revenue/Transfers
Interest Earned 5,368
Total Source of Funds $ 37,232
Administrative (49)
Total Expenses $ (49)
Fund Balance at 6/30/2025 $ 143,947
Anticipated Capital Projects
Project Fiscal Year Projected Cost
Storm Drain Master Plan
Update FY 2026/27 $ 100,000
This fee is established for payment of the actual or estimated costs of constructing and improving the storm drainage, including acquisition of land. It assures that each new development or expansion of use pays its fair share of the West Branch-Carbonera Creek, Carbonera Creek, Camp Evers Tributary, and Bean Creek improvements needed to accommodate the cumulative impacts related to capital costs. The fees are as follows:

Development Impact Fee Report
City of Scotts Valley
5 | Page
FUND 008 – STREETS & THOROUGHFARES FEE
Residential or Commercial per unit
Mountain (R-MT-5) $ 7,115.00
Rural (R-R-2.5) $ 7,115.00
Estate (R-1-40) $ 7,115.00
Low Density (R-1-20) $ 7,115.00
Single Family (R-1-10) $ 7,115.00
Two Family (R-M-6 & R-M-8) $ 4,222.00
Multiple Family (R-H) $ 4,222.00
building) (C-S, C-SC) $ 14.15
building) (I-L, I-RD) $ 14.15
Hotel (per room) $ 4,268.00
Sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing of incomplete improvements:

Fund Balance at 7/1/2024 $ 1,047,069
Impact Fees $ 79,735
Other Revenue/Transfers
Interest 50,486
Total Revenue $ 130,221
Administrative (454)
Total Expenses $ (454)
Fund Balance at 6/30/2025 $ 1,176,836
Anticipated Capital Projects
Project Fiscal Year Projected Cost
Active Transportation Plan
Projects Unscheduled
Under
Development
Traffic Signal Upgrade FY 2027/28 & FY2029/30 $ 500,000 This fee is established for payment of the actual or estimated costs of the design, upgrading or improvement of the traffic network, including any required acquisition of land. It assures that each new development or expansion of use pays its fair share of streets improvements needed to accommodate the cumulative impacts related to capital costs. The fees are as follows:

Development Impact Fee Report
City of Scotts Valley
6 | Page
FUND 009 – PARKS & RECREATION FACILITIES FEE
Residential per unit
Mountain (R-MT-5) $ 12,636.00
Rural (R-R-2.5) $ 12,636.00
Estate (R-1-40) $ 12,636.00
Low Density (R-1-20) $ 12,636.00
Single Family Detached (R-1-10) $ 12,636.00
Single Family Attached (R-1-10) $ 9,777.00
Two Family (R-M-6 & R-M-8) $ 9,839.00
Multiple Family (R-H) $ 6,316.00
Mobile Homes and Second Unit $ 6,568.00
Sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing of incomplete improvements:

Fund Balance at 7/1/2024 $ 1,571,210
Impact Fees $ 139,734
Other Revenue/Transfers
Interest 75,949
Total Revenue $ 215,683
Administrative (684)
Total Expenses $ (684)
Fund Balance at 6/30/2025 $ 1,786,209
Anticipated Capital Projects
Project Fiscal Year Projected Cost
Al Shugart Park Construction FY 2025/26 & 2026/27 2,654,863 $ This fee is established for payment of the actual or estimated costs of constructing and improving the park facilities within the City, including acquisition of land. It assures that each new development or expansion of use pays its fair share of park development and acquisition needed to accommodate the cumulative impacts related to capital costs. The fees are as follows:

Development Impact Fee Report
City of Scotts Valley
7 | Page
FUND 012 – WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES FEE
Residential per unit
Mountain (R-MT-5) $ 7,548.00
Rural (R-R-2.5) $ 7,548.00
Estate (R-1-40) $ 7,548.00
Low Density (R-1-20) $ 7,548.00
Single Family (R-1-10) $ 7,548.00
Two Family (R-M-6 & R-M-8) $ 5,461.00
Multiple Family (R-H) $ 5,461.00
Commercial (per gallon, per day) (C-S, C-SC) $ 32.12
Industrial (per gallon, per day) (I-L, I-RD) $ 32.12
Sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing of incomplete improvements:

Fund Balance at 7/1/2024 $ 338,022
Impact Fees $ 108,559
Other Revenue/Transfers
Interest 2,452
Total Revenue $ 111,011
Administrative $ (12,258)
Total Expenses $ (12,258)
Fund Balance at 6/30/2025 $ 436,775
Anticipated Capital Projects
Project Fiscal Year Projected Cost
Wastewater Treatment Plan
Master Plan FY 2025/26 $ 350,000
MBR Upgrade FY 2025/26 $ 250,000
Collection System Pipeline
Upgrades FY 2025/26 - 2027/28 $ 900,000
This fee is established is established for the actual or estimated costs of constructing or improving the sewage treatment facilities within the City, including any required acquisition of land. It assures that each new development or expansion of use pays its fair share of wastewater facility improvements needed to accommodate the cumulative impacts related to capital costs. The fees are as follows:

Development Impact Fee Report
City of Scotts Valley
8 | Page
FUND 021 – GENERAL FACILITIES & EQUIPMENT FEE
Residential or Commercial per unit
Mountain (R-MT-5) $ 540.00
Rural (R-R-2.5) $ 540.00
Estate (R-1-40) $ 540.00
Low Density (R-1-20) $ 540.00
Single Family (R-1-10) $ 540.00
Two Family (R-M-6 & R-M-8) $ 540.00
Multiple Family (R-H) $ 540.00
Commercial (per acre) (C-S, C-SC) $ 1,425.00
Industrial (per acre) (I-L, I-RD) $ 1,376.00
Sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing of incomplete improvements:

Fund Balance at 7/1/2024 $ (5,997)
Impact Fees $ 6,349
Other Revenue/Transfers
Interest 5,901
Total Revenue $ 12,250
Administrative (51)
Total Expenses $ (51)
Fund Balance at 6/30/2025 $ 6,202
Anticipated Capital Projects
Project Fiscal Year Projected Cost
Public Works Facility
Improvements FY 2026/27
Under
Development
This fee is established for payment of the actual or estimated costs of constructing or improving the general municipal facilities within the City, including any required acquisition of land. It assures that each new development or expansion of use pays its fair share of the corporation yard, renovation of Civic Center, City maintenance fleet expansion, and Scotts Valley Senior Center improvements needed to accommodate the cumulative impacts related to capital costs. The fees are as follows:

Development Impact Fee Report
City of Scotts Valley
9 | Page
FUND 027 – LAW ENFORCEMENT FACILITIES & EQUIPMENT FEE
Residential or Commercial per unit
Mountain (R-MT-5) $ 1,249.00
Rural (R-R-2.5) $ 1,249.00
Estate (R-1-40) $ 1,249.00
Low Density (R-1-20) $ 1,249.00
Single Family (R-1-10) $ 1,249.00
Two Family (R-M-6 & R-M-8) $ 1,249.00
Multiple Family (R-H) $ 1,249.00
Commercial (per acre) (C-S, C-SC) $ 28,659.00
Industrial (per Acre) (I-L, I-RD) $ 28,659.00
Sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing of incomplete improvements:

Fund Balance at 7/1/2024 $ 377,709
Impact Fees $ 14,684
Other Revenue/Transfers
Interest 18,077
Total Revenue $ 32,761
Administrative (162)
Total Expenses $ (162)
Fund Balance at 6/30/2025 $ 410,308
Anticipated Capital Projects
Project Fiscal Year Projected Cost
Police Station Locker Room FY 2026/27 $ 233,648
Police Station Armory FY 2026/27 $ 70,000
Universal Power Supply FY 2026/27 $ 80,000
The Law Enforcement Facilities & Equipment fee was established for payment of the actual or estimated costs of law enforcement facilities, equipment, and training, including any required acquisition of land. It assures that each new development or expansion of use pays its fair share of the construction of a new police facility, equipment, and training for additional officers and dispatchers, police fleet expansion, and records management upgrade needed to accommodate the cumulative impacts related to capital costs. The fees are as follows:

Development Impact Fee Report
City of Scotts Valley
10 | Page
FUND 086 – LIBRARY FACILITIES FEE
Residential per unit
Mountain (R-MT-5) $ 1,530.00
Rural (R-R-2.5) $ 1,436.00
Estate (R-1-40) $ 1,342.00
Low Density (R-1-20) $ 1,200.00
Single Family (R-1-10) $ 1,058.00
Two Family (R-M-6 & R-M-8) $ 1,058.00
Multiple Family (R-H) $ 918.00
Sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing of incomplete improvements:

Fund Balance at 7/1/2024 $ 191,329
Impact Fees $ 13,527
Other Revenue/Transfers
Interest 9,217
Total Revenue $ 22,744
Administrative (83)
Total Expenses $ (83)
Fund Balance at 6/30/2025 $ 213,991
Anticipated Capital Projects
Project Fiscal Year Projected Cost
Building Improvements Unscheduled
Under
Development
This fee is established for payment of the actual or estimated costs of constructing and improving the library facilities within the City, including any required acquisition of land. It assures that each new development or expansion of use pays its fair share of a tier II library upgrade needed to accommodate the cumulative impacts related to capital costs. The fees are as follows:

11 | Page

FUND SUMMARY
The following table provides an accounting of each impact fee and a total impact fee account balance. The table summarizes the starting fund balance, the amount of fees collected, the interest earned, the total expenditures, and the fiscal year ending fund balance.

Description Storm Drainage
Streets &
Thoroughfares Parks & Recreation
Wastewater
Treatment
General Facilities &
Equipment
Law Enforcement
Facilities &
Equipment Library Facilities
Fund No. 007 008 009 012 021 027 086
Starting Balance
As of July 1, 2024 $ 106,765 $ 1,047,069 $ 1,571,210 $ 338,022 $ (5,997) $ 377,709 $ 191,329

REVENUES
Impact Fees $ 31,863 $ 79,735 $ 139,734 $ 108,559 $ 6,349 $ 14,684 $ 13,527 Grants $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Other Revenue $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Interest Earnings $ 5,368 $ 50,486 $ 75,949 $ 2,452 $ 5,901 $ 18,077 $ 9,217 Total Revenues $ 37,232 $ 130,221 $ 215,683 $ 111,011 $ 12,250 $ 32,761 $ 22,744

EXPENDITURES
Project Expenditures $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Adminstrative Expenditures $ (49) $ (454) $ (684) $ (12,258) $ (51) $ (162) $ (83) Total Expenditures $ (49) $ (454) $ (684) $ (12,258) $ (51) $ (162) $ (83) Transfers in $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Transfers Out $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Net Transfer/Advances $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Ending Balance
As of June 30, 2025 $ 143,947 $ 1,176,836 $ 1,786,209 $ 436,775 $ 6,202 $ 410,308 $ 213,991

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE FUND SUMMARY

AGENDA ITEM 6.

DATE: 12/17/2025
City of Scotts Valley

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: 12/17/2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Rodolfo Onchi, Public Works Director
APPROVED: Mali LaGoe, City Manager
SUBJECT: Update on Emergency Actions Taken for the Glenwood Road Embankment Failure Project

SUMMARY OF ISSUE
On November 19, 2025, the City Council declared an emergency pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 1102 resulting from the slide on Glenwood Road and authorized the City Manager to cause the repair and stabilization of the slide pursuant to Public Contract Code 22050. The City Manager was authorized to take all necessary actions to stabilize the area and initiate emergency repairs under Public Contract Code §§ 1102, 22035, and 22050. On December 3, 2025, the City Council continued the emergency declaration, confirming the City Manager’s authority to execute contracts and direct emergency work as needed.

Emergency Actions Taken
Pursuant to the emergency authority granted by the City Council, the City Manager has taken the following actions:
• Executed a Public Works Contract with Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction, Inc. for the Glenwood Road Embankment Failure Project.
• Directed Public Works staff to proceed with immediate stabilization and repair work at the slide site.

Project Scope
The emergency repair work on Glenwood Drive includes stabilization of the failing embankment and restoration of roadway safety. The contractor will provide all labor, materials, equipment, transportation, traffic control, and related incidentals necessary to perform the work on a time-and-materials basis.

Initial work elements include:
• Construction of a concrete block retaining wall
• Placement of permeable Class 2 aggregate
• Slope regrading and erosion-control measures
• Installation of a drainage dike

• Installation of cable railing
Due to variable field conditions, additional or modified work may be required to ensure the stability of the roadway. As directed by the City, the contractor may perform excavation, stabilization, drainage adjustments, utility protection, slope modifications, or other measures necessary to address safety risks or unforeseen site conditions. Work limits, quantities, and methods may be adjusted at any time by the City as needed.

The contractor will mobilize immediately upon Notice to Proceed and continue work until the roadway is stabilized and determined safe for the public.

Closure of Emergency Procurement Pathway
Now that a contract has been executed, and the emergency work is proceeding, the City is no longer operating under the public works procurement emergency authorized by PCC § 22035.

This means:
• The bypassing of normal bidding procedures is no longer needed or in effect. • Regular procurement requirements will resume for any future related work not covered under the emergency contract.

Ongoing Disaster Declaration
In a separate action, on November 26, 2025, in accordance with Government Code section 8630, the City Council declared a local emergency due to the slide. That emergency remains in effect until January 15, 2025, unless extended by the City Council.

FISCAL IMPACT
The estimated total cost for the Glenwood Road Embankment Failure Project is $300,000. This amount is unbudgetted however for cashflow purposes, funding is available in the General Fund. If actual costs exceed the City’s resources to respond, the City will seek reimbursement from state or federal disaster programs. This estimate reflects the anticipated work under the time-and-materials contract, and actual costs may vary depending on field conditions and additional work required to stabilize the roadway. This amount does not include the full cost of repair which includes professional services, and permanent repairs which may be needed after the emergency repairs are complete.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file this report providing an update on actions taken under the emergency authority previously granted by the City Council.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
None

AGENDA ITEM 7.

DATE: 12/17/2025
City of Scotts Valley

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: 12/17/2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Ben Noble, Consultant
APPROVED: Mali LaGoe, City Manager
SUBJECT: Second reading and adoption of Ordinance No. 16.143 amending the Scotts Valley Municipal Code Title 16 (Subdivisions) and Title 17 (Zoning) to clarify requirements for accessory dwelling units, junior accessory dwelling units, urban lot splits, SB 9 residential development, and ministerial design review.

SUMMARY OF ISSUE
On December 3, 2025, the City Council introduced Ordinance No. 16.143 amending the Scotts Valley Municipal Code Title 16 (Subdivisions) and Title 17 (Zoning) to clarify requirements for accessory dwelling units, junior accessory dwelling units, urban lot splits, SB 9 residential development, and ministerial design review.

FISCAL IMPACT
This action does not create a fiscal impact.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 16.143 amending the Scotts Valley Municipal Code Title 16 (Subdivisions) and Title 17 (Zoning) to clarify requirements for accessory dwelling units, junior accessory dwelling units, urban lot splits, SB 9 residential development, and ministerial design review.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Ordinance No. 16.143 ADU-SB9-Lot Splits-Ministerial Design Review

ORDINANCE NO. 16.143

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SCOTTS VALLEY AMENDING SCOTTS VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 16 (SUBDIVISIONS) AND TITLE 17 (ZONING) TO CLARIFY REQUIREMENTS FOR

ACCESSORY DWELLING UNTS, JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, URBAN LOT SPLITS, SB 9 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, AND MINISTERIAL DESIGN REVIEW
WHEREAS, Government Code Sections 66314 and 66333 authorize a local agency to adopt an ordinance regulating accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs);
WHEREAS, on December 4, 2024 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 16.142 establishing regulations for ADUs and JADUs in Scotts Valley (“ADU Ordinance”); WHEREAS, on January 27, 2025 the City submitted the ADU Ordinance to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) as required by Government Code Section 66326;
WHEREAS, on April 7, 2025 the City received a letter from HCD that identifies changes to the ADU Ordinance needed to comply with state ADU law; WHEREAS, the City desires to amend the ADU Ordinance to comply with state ADU law in a manner consistent with the findings in the April 7, 2025 HCD letter; WHEREAS, in 2025 the California Legislature approved and on October 10, 2025 the Governor signed into law AB 1154 and SB 543 which amend state ADU and JADU law; WHEREAS, the City desires to amend the ADU Ordinance to remain consistent with state ADU law as amended by AB 1154 and SB 543;
WHEREAS, Government Code Sections 66452, 65852.21 and 66411.7 (“SB 9”) requires local agencies to allow, in single-family zoning districts, two primary dwellings on one lot and an urban lot split with two dwelling units allowed on each newly created lot for projects that meet specified requirements;
WHEREAS, on May 15, 2024 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 16.141 establishing regulations for SB 9 development and urban lot splits in Scotts Valley (“SB 9 Ordinance”);
WHEREAS, SB 450 (Chapter 286, Statutes of 2024), amended the Government Code to prohibit local jurisdictions from imposing standards on SB 9 development that do not apply uniformly to development in the underlying zone unless these standards are more permissive than the generally applicable standards;
WHEREAS, on June 18, 2025 the City Council adopted Ordinance No 16.142.1

amending the City’s SB 9 Ordinance to comply with SB 450; WHEREAS, the City desires to adopt additional amendments to the SB 9 Ordinance to clarify the maximum height requirement for SB 9 development; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on November 20, 2025 at which time it considered all evidence presented, both written and oral, and at the end of the hearing voted to recommend that the City Council adopt this Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on this Ordinance on December 3, 2025, at which time it considered all evidence presented, both written and oral.

WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code sections 65852.21(k) and 66411.7(n), a local ordinance to implement SB 9 shall not be considered a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.17 and CEQA Guidelines section 15282(h), a local ordinance to implement state ADU law shall not be considered a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”); and NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Scotts Valley does hereby ordain as follows:

Section 1. Subsection F, Setbacks, in Section 16.78.040, General requirements, of Chapter 16.78, Urban Lot Splits, of Title 16, Subdivisions, of the Scotts Valley Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
”F. Setbacks. An SB 9 residential development on a parcel created by an urban lot split shall comply with the following setback requirements:

1. Minimum Yards:
a. Front: As required in the applicable zoning district. b. Side: Four feet, except that no yard is required for a new side lot line shared between two parcels created through the urban lot split. c. Rear: Four feet.

2. As provided in Section 17.55.050, an SB 9 residential development that complies with the minimum yard requirement for a single-family dwelling in the applicable zoning district is eligible for greater unit size than is allowed for SB9 residential development that does not comply with the zoning district minimum yard requirement.

3. Notwithstanding Paragraph 1 above, no setback is required for an existing structure or a structure reconstructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure.”

Section 2. The definition of junior accessory dwelling unit (JADU) in Section

17.04.130, Definition of “J” terms, of Chapter 17.04, Definitions, of Title 17, Zoning, of the Scotts Valley Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
“17.04.130 - Definition of "J" terms.
"Junior accessory dwelling unit (JADU)" means a converted accessory dwelling unit that is no more than five hundred square feet of interior livable space in size and contained entirely within a single-family residence. A junior accessory dwelling unit may include separate sanitation facilities, or may share sanitation facilities with the existing structure.”
Section 3. Section 17.50.035, Ministerial design review, of Chapter 17.50, Administrative Procedures, Required Permits and Appeals, of Title 17, Zoning, of the Scotts Valley Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
“17.50.035 Ministerial design review.

A. Purpose. Ministerial design review is a by-right approval process to determine project compliance objective standards.

B. Review Authority. The community development director shall review and act on design review applications or may refer the application to the planning commission for review and final decision.

C. Application Submittal and Review. A ministerial design review application shall be made using a form provided by the planning department, together with all required information, materials, and application fees.

D. Public Notice and Hearing.

1. No public notice or hearing is required for ministerial design review applications acted on by the community development director.

2. The following public notice and hearing requirements apply to ministerial design review applications acted on by the planning commission. a. The planning commission shall consider a ministerial design review application at a hearing with notice given in the same manner as required for discretionary design review applications.
b. After receiving public comment and considering the proposed project, the planning commission must either approve the application, deny the application, or continue the hearing to a future date.
c. The hearing may be continued only if additional information is needed to determine project conformance with objective standards. A hearing may be continued one time after which the planning commission must render a decision.

E. Decision. The planning commission shall approve a ministerial design review application if the project complies with all applicable objective standards in the general plan, any applicable specific plan, and the municipal code.

F. Appeals.

1. Ministerial design review decisions may be appealed as provided in Section

17.50.060 of this chapter.

2. The subject of appeal is limited to the determination of project conformance with applicable objective standards.”
Section 4. Subsection A, Building Height, in Section 17.55.050, Development standards, of Chapter 17.55, SB 9 Development, of Title 17, Zoning, of the Scotts Valley Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
“A. Building Height. The maximum building height for SB 9 residential development is the same as for single-family dwellings in the applicable zoning district and combining district.
”

Section 5. Subsection C, Yards, in Section 17.55.050, Development standards, of Chapter 17.55, SB 9 Development, of Title 17, Zoning, of the Scotts Valley Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
“C. Yards.

1. Minimum yards for an SB 9 residential development are as follows:
a. Front: As required in the applicable zoning district b. Side: Four feet, except that no yard is required for a new side lot line shared between two parcels created through an urban lot split. c. Rear: Four feet.

2. As provided in A and B above, an SB 9 residential development that complies with the minimum yard requirement for a single-family dwelling in the applicable zoning district is eligible for greater unit size than is allowed for SB9 residential development that does not comply with the zoning district minimum yard requirement.”
Section 6. Chapter 17.57, Accessory Dwelling Units, of Title 17, Zoning, of the Scotts Valley Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
“Chapter 17.57 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS

17.57.010 Purpose.

This chapter establishes standards for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) consistent with Government Code Sections 66310—66342. These standards are intended to increase the supply of affordable housing options in Scotts Valley while maintaining the character and quality of life of residential neighborhoods.

A. This chapter applies only to a proposed ADU as defined in Chapter 17.04 (Definitions). Standards for junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs) are found in Chapter 17.58 (Junior Accessory Dwelling Units).

B. It is the city's intent for this chapter to be consistent with state law as it is amended from time to time. In cases of conflict between this chapter and state law, state law governs.

17.57.020 Permitting process.

A. Building Permit.

1. Creating an ADU requires city approval and issuance of a building permit.

2. The city shall ministerially approve a building permit for an ADU if the application complies with this chapter and all other applicable standards. No public hearing or discretionary review is required.

B. Time Period for City Action.

1. The city shall determine whether an application to create an ADU is complete and provide written notice of this determination to the applicant not later than 15 business days after receiving the application.

2. If the city determines an application is incomplete, the city shall provide the applicant with a list of incomplete items and a description of how the application can be made complete. The list and description shall be provided with the written notice required by Paragraph (1) above.

3. After receiving a notice that the application was incomplete, an applicant may submit to the city additional application materials to cure and address the items that are deemed to be incomplete by the city.

4. In the review of additional application materials submitted pursuant to Paragraph (3) above, the city shall not require the application to include an item that was not included in the list required by paragraph (2) above.

5. If an applicant submits additional application materials pursuant to Paragraph (4) above, the city shall determine whether the additional materials remedied all incomplete items listed in the determination issued pursuant to Subsection (2) above. The city shall provide written notice of this determination to the applicant not later than 15 business days after receiving the additional materials.

6. If the city does not make a timely determination as required by this subsection, the application shall be deemed to be complete.

7. If an ADU is proposed on a lot with an existing single-family or multifamily dwelling, the city shall approve or deny the application within sixty days from the date the city receives a completed application. If the applicant requests a delay in writing, the sixty-day time period shall be tolled for the period of the delay.

8. If an ADU is proposed as part of an application to create a new single-family or multifamily dwelling, the city may delay approving or denying the ADU application until the city approves or denies the permit application for the new dwelling. The city shall approve or deny the ADU application without a public hearing or discretionary review within sixty days of action on the new dwelling.

9. If the city does not approve or deny the completed application within the required sixty-day time period, the application shall be deemed approved.

C. Comments for Denied Application.

1. If the city denies an application for an ADU, the city shall provide written comments to the applicant that list the items that are defective or deficient and describe how the application can be remedied by the applicant.

2. Written comments required by Paragraph (1) above shall be provided to the applicant not later than 15 business days after the city denies the application..

3. If the city determines an application is incomplete or denies the application, the applicant may appeal the decision to the Planning Commission and may

appeal the Planning Commission decision to the City Council. The city shall make a final decision on the appeal not later than 60 business days after receiving the applicant’s written appeal.

17.57.030 General requirements.

The requirements in this section apply to all ADUs subject to this chapter.

A. Where Allowed. An ADU is permitted:

1. In any zoning district where single-family or multifamily dwellings are a permitted use; and

2. On a lot with an existing or proposed single-family or multifamily dwelling.

B. Maximum Number per Lot.

1. Lots with Single-Family Dwellings. No more than one ADU is permitted on a lot with a single-family dwelling, except as allowed by Section 17.57.040 (Statewide Exemption ADUs).

2. Lots with Multifamily Dwellings. The number of ADUs on a lot with multifamily dwellings shall not exceed:
a. Up to twenty-five percent of existing multifamily dwellings within portions of existing multifamily dwelling structures that are not used as livable space as provided in Section 17.57.040.C (Non-Livable Multifamily Space); and
b. Up to eight detached ADUs on a lot with a existing multifamily dwelling and up to two detached ADUs on a lot with a proposed multifamily dwelling as provided in Section 17.57.040.D (Detached ADUs on Multifamily Lots).

C. Separate Sale from Primary Dwelling. An ADU shall not be sold or conveyed separately from the primary dwelling except as provided in Government Code Section 66340—66342.

D. Rental. A rented ADU shall not be leased for any period less than thirty days.

E. Guaranteed Allowance. Limits on floor area, lot coverage, open space, and front setbacks ("Specified Standards"), as outlined in Section 17.57.050 below, must permit an attached or detached ADU with at least an eight hundred square feet of interior livable space with four-foot side and rear yards ("Baseline ADU") if the proposed ADU complies with all other development standards. The community development director shall grant an exception to a Specified Standard if:

1. The Specified Standard would physically preclude the creation of a Baseline ADU otherwise allowed by this section;

2. The exception is the minimum necessary to allow for a Baseline ADU; and

3. There is no alternative to achieve a Baseline ADU without the exception.

F. Converting and Replacing Existing Structures.

1. A converted ADU may be established regardless of whether the structure in which it is located conforms to the current zoning requirement for setbacks.

2. If an existing structure is demolished and replaced with an ADU, the ADU may be constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions (i.e., footprint and height) as the demolished structure.

G. Nonconformities. The city shall not require, as a condition for approval of an ADU, the correction of nonconforming zoning conditions on the property.

H. Placement within Easement. An ADU shall not be located in an easement that prohibits habitable structures therein.

I. Foundation. An ADU shall be constructed on a permanent foundation. A manufactured home, as defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 18007, is allowed as an ADU if it is placed on a permanent foundation.

J. Vehicles/Trailers Prohibited. An ADU shall not be within a vehicle or trailer of any kind, with or without wheels.

K. Exterior Entrance. An ADU must have an exterior entrance separate from that of the primary dwelling.

L. Fire District Requirements. An ADU must comply with:

1. The California Fire Code with modifications and amendments as adopted by the Scotts Valley Fire Protection District ("Fire District"); and

2. The Santa Cruz County Fire Prevention Officers Association Fire Prevention Standards as adopted by the Fire District.

M. Fire Sprinklers.

1. Fire sprinklers are not required in an ADU where fire sprinklers were not required for the primary dwelling at the time of construction, except as provided by Paragraph 2 below.

2. If fire sprinklers were not required for the primary dwelling at the time of construction, but the primary dwelling is altered in a manner that later required fire sprinklers, an ADU created after the alteration must be provided with fire sprinklers.

3. The construction of an ADU does not trigger a requirement for fire sprinklers to be installed in an existing single-family or multifamily dwelling on the lot.

N. Parking.

1. A minimum of one off-street parking space is required for an ADU, except as provided in paragraph 3 below. The off-street parking space may be uncovered, compact, and/or tandem.

2. Driveways and parking spaces in a required setback shall comply with Zoning Code Section 17.44.030.J.2.

3. No off-street parking is required for an ADU where one or more of the following circumstances exist:
a. The ADU is approved pursuant to Section 17.57.040 (Statewide Exception Exemption ADUs).
b. The ADU is located within one-half mile walking distance of public transit. As defined in Government Code Section 66313(l), public transit means a location, including, but not limited to, a bus stop or train station, where the public may access buses, trains, subways, and other forms of transportation that charge set fares, run on fixed routes, and are available to the public.
c. The ADU is located within an architecturally and historically significant historic district.
d. The ADU is part of a proposed or existing primary dwelling or an existing accessory structure.
e. When on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant of an ADU.
f. When there is a car share vehicle located within one block of the ADU.
g. When a permit application for an ADU is submitted with a permit application to create a new single-family dwelling or a new multifamily dwelling on the same lot, provided that the ADU or the parcel satisfies any other criteria listed in this subdivision.

4. To qualify for an exception listed in paragraph 3 above, the applicant must provide supporting evidence, such as a map illustrating the location of the ADU and its proximity to a public transit stop or car share vehicle, or proof of local parking permit requirements.

5. No replacement parking is required when an ADU is created through the conversion or demolition of a garage, carport, covered parking structure, or uncovered parking space.

O. Utilities.

1. All ADUs shall be served by municipal water service, except as provided in paragraph 3 below.

2. Except as provided in paragraph 3 below, an ADU shall be served by municipal sewer services when located within two hundred feet from the point at which a connection can be made to the municipal system. For an ADU more than two hundred feet from a municipal sewer service connection, the ADU may use a septic system only if approved by the designated regulatory authority.

3. A converted ADU is not required to install a new or separate utility connections directly between the ADU and the utility unless the ADU was constructed with a new single-family dwelling.

4. The designated regulatory authority may require, as part of the application for a permit to create an ADU connected to an onsite septic system, a percolation test completed within the last five years, or, if the percolation test has been recertified, within the last ten years.

5. An ADU shall not be considered a new residential use for purposes of calculating city connection fees or capacity charges for utilities, including water and sewer service, unless the ADU was constructed with a new single-family dwelling.

P. Impact Fees. City development impact fees shall not be imposed upon the development of an ADU less than seven hundred fifty square feet of interior livable space. Any impact fees for an ADU of seven hundred fifty square feet or more of interior livable space shall be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit.

Q. Highway 17 Access Hazards. An ADU is not permitted where vehicle access to the site is provided solely from Highway 17 at the following locations as identified in the Highway 17 Access Management Plan (California Department of Transportation, 2016):

1. Driveway at PM 6.712 (Map ID #24).

2. Crescent Drive (Map ID #25).

3. Driveway at PM 6.485 (Map ID #26).

17.57.040 Statewide exemption ADUs.

Statewide Exemption ADUs described in this section require compliance only with the standards in Section 17.57.030 (General Requirements). Standards in Section

17.57.050 (Development Standards) and Section 17.57.060 (Objective Design Standards) do not apply to a Statewide Exemption ADU. Statewide exemption ADUs may be combined on a single parcel as allowed by the site and lot conditions.

A. Converted ADUs. One converted ADU per lot with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling subject to the following:

1. The converted ADU shall be within the space of a single-family dwelling or an accessory structure on a lot with a single-family dwelling.

2. A converted accessory structure may be expanded by up to one hundred fifty square feet to accommodate an entrance into the ADU.

3. The converted ADU shall have exterior access from the single-family dwelling.

4. The side and rear setbacks must be sufficient for fire and safety. If a converted ADU complies with applicable building code and Fire District requirements, side and rear setbacks shall be deemed sufficient for fire and safety.

B. Detached ADUs. One detached new construction ADU on a lot with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling.. The ADU must comply with the following:

1. Maximum floor area: Eight hundred square feet of livable space.

2. Maximum height:
a. Sixteen feet for a detached ADU on a lot with an existing or proposed single family dwelling unit.
b. Eighteen feet for a detached ADU on a lot with an existing or proposed single family or multifamily dwelling unit that is within onehalf of one mile walking distance of a major transit stop or a highquality transit corridor, as those terms are defined in Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code. An additional two feet in height is allowed to accommodate a roof pitch on the ADU that is aligned with the roof pitch of the primary dwelling unit.

3. Minimum rear and side setbacks: Four feet.

C. Non-Livable Multifamily Space.

1. Multiple ADUs within the portions of existing multifamily dwelling structures that are not used as livable space, including, but not limited to, storage rooms, boiler rooms, passageways, attics, basements, or garages, subject to the following:
a. At least one ADU is allowed within an existing multifamily dwelling up to maximum of twenty-five percent of the existing multifamily dwelling units.
b. Each ADU shall comply with building code standards for dwellings.

2. The ADU must be located within a structure containing existing multifamily units. The ADU may not be located in a detached garage, carport, or other accessory structure on the lot that contains no existing multifamily units.

3. As used in this section, livable space means a space in a dwelling intended for human habitation, including living, sleeping, eating, cooking, or sanitation.

D. Detached ADUs on Multifamily Lots. Detached ADUs located on a lot with an existing multifamily dwelling, subject to the following:

1. Maximum number:
a. On a lot with an existing multifamily dwelling, eight detached ADUs or the number of existing units on the lot, whichever is less. b. On a lot with a proposed multifamily dwelling, two detached ADUs.

2. Maximum height: Sixteen feet if the existing multifamily dwelling is one story and eighteen feet if the existing multifamily dwelling is two or more stories.

3. Minimum rear and side setbacks: Four feet.

17.57.050 Development standards.

The standards in this section apply to all ADUs not approved pursuant to Section

17.57.040 (Statewide Exemption ADUs).

A. Floor Area.

1. Minimum. The floor area of an ADU shall be no less than two hundred twenty square feet.

2. Maximum.
a. Single-Family Lots. On lots with a single-family dwelling, the interior livable space of an ADU shall not exceed the maximums shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Maximum Interior Livable Space on Single-Family Lots ADU Type and Placement on
Lot
Zoning District
R-VH, R-H, R-M R-1, R-R, R-MT
Detached and Attached [1]
Complies with district yards 1,100 sq. ft. 1,200 sq. ft.

Does not comply with district
yards
850 sq. ft. for studio/1 bdrm
1,000 sq. ft. for 2+ bdrm
Converted No maximum
Notes:
[1] The floor area of an attached ADU shall not exceed the maximums shown in this table or fifty percent of the existing primary dwelling floor area, whichever is less. b. Multifamily Lots. On lots with multifamily dwellings the floor area of an ADU shall not exceed:
(1) Eight hundred fifty sq. ft for a studio or one-bedroom ADU; and
(2) One thousand sq. ft. for an ADU with two more bedrooms.

B. Lot Coverage. An ADU shall conform to the maximum lot coverage standards of the zoning district in which it is located unless the lot coverage standard would preclude an eight hundred-square foot ADU, in which case the Community Development Director shall grant an exception to the standard as provided in Section 17.57.050.E (Guaranteed Allowance).

C. Property Line Setbacks.

1. An ADU shall be setback from property lines as required by Table 2.

Table 2: Minimum Property Line Setbacks
Property Line ADU Type
Attached Detached Converted

Front Same as primary
dwelling[1] None required Side 4 ft. 4 ft.

Rear 4 ft. 4 ft.

Notes:
[1] If the front setback standard precludes an eight hundredsquare foot ADU, the Community Development Director shall grant an exception to the standard as provided in Section

17.57.050.E (Guaranteed Allowance).

2. As provided in Subsections A (Floor Area) and E (Height) of this section, an ADU that complies with the minimum yard requirement for a singlefamily dwelling in the applicable zoning district is eligible for greater building height and unit size than is allowed for an ADU that does not comply with the zoning district minimum yard requirement.

3. See also Section 17.57.030.F (Converting and Replacing Existing Structures) for setback exceptions that apply to an ADU created by converting or replacing an existing structure.

D. Building Separation. An ADU exceeding sixteen feet in height shall comply with the minimum building separation standard in Section 17.46.070.K.

E. Height. The height of an ADU shall not exceed the maximum shown in Table 3.

Table 3: Maximum ADU Height
ADU Type and
Placement on Lot
Zoning District
R-VH, R-H, R-M R-1-10 R-1-20, R-1-40, R-R, RMT
Detached ADU
Complies with
district yards 18 ft. [1] 25 ft. 35 ft.

Does not comply
with district yards 16 ft. [1]
Attached ADU Same as required for primary dwelling
Notes:
[1] Where a maximum height of 18 feet is allowed, an additional 2 feet in height is also permitted to accommodate a roof pitch on the ADU that is aligned with the roof pitch of the primary dwelling unit.

Where height is limited to 16 feet, a maximum of 18 feet is allowed for an ADU either 1) within onehalf mile of major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21155; or 2) on lot with a multistory multifamily dwelling.

F. Hillside Residential Combining District. An ADU within the HR Hillside Residential Combining District shall comply with all objective standards in Chapter 17.40.

17.57.060 Objective design standards.

A. Applicability and Deviations.

1. The standards in this section apply to all ADUs not approved pursuant to Section 17.57.040 (Statewide Exception ADUs).

2. Deviations from standards in this section are allowed with planning commission design review approval at a noticed public hearing. To approve the deviation, the planning commission must make the findings in Section 17.50.030.E (Required Findings).

B. Driveways.

1. Vehicle access to parking spaces serving an ADU must be provided using a driveway curb cut shared with the primary dwelling.

2. The community development director may approve an exception to this requirement if the existing site layout or other physical constraints physically precludes shared use of a single driveway curb cut.

C. Massing. A building wall that faces and is within fifty feet of a street or an adjacent residential use shall not run in a continuous plane of more than twenty-five feet without one or more of the following treatments:

1. A change in wall plane with a minimum of four feet in depth for the facade.

2. A front porch or other covered entry feature with a minimum depth of three feet and width of six feet providing access to the dwelling's primary entrance.

3. An upper story stepback of at least six feet in depth for at least eighty percent of the street facing building wall.

4. A protruding window (such as a bay window) of at least two feet in depth.

D. Articulation. A building wall that faces and is within fifty feet of a street or an adjacent residential use shall not run in a continuous plane of more than fifteen feet without one of the following treatments included on the facade at every building story:

1. Window.

2. Entry door.

3. Two or more visibly contrasting primary materials and/or colors.

4. Wall mounted trellises for climbing plants
E. Roof Forms. Rooflines twenty-five feet or longer that face a street or an adjacent residential use shall be articulated with recessed or projecting gabled roof elements, roof dormers, changes in roof heights, changes in direction or pitch of roof slopes, and other similar methods.

F. Open Space.

1. An ADU shall have a minimum of one hundred square feet of private ADU open space or four hundred square feet of open space shared with the primary dwelling.

2. Required private open space shall comply with the following standards:

a. The open space shall be directly accessible from the ADU width and a minimum floor area of fifty square feet.
b. Patios shall have a minimum dimension of eight feet in depth and width and a minimum floor area of sixty-four square feet.
c. Open space may be covered but not fully enclosed. If covered, the minimum floor to ceiling height is eight and one-half feet. d. Ground level private open space shall be screened or buffered from open space utilized solely by the primary dwelling by landscaping, fencing, walls, trellises, or other screening elements.

3. If the open space standard in this subsection precludes an eight hundredsquare foot ADU, the community development director shall grant an exception to the standard as provided in Section 17.57.050.E (Guaranteed Allowance).

G. Exterior Materials. The primary wall finish material shall be wood, wood shingle, stone, brick, stucco, fiber cement or other cementitious material, or stone. T1-11 siding and all grooved or patterned wood panel or composite wood panel siding are prohibited.

H. Windows. Windows that face a street or an adjacent residential use shall comply with one of the following:

1. All windows shall feature built up profile trim/framing. Trim/framing must project at least two inches from the building wall with material that visually contrasts from the building wall.

2. Window glass shall be inset a minimum of two inches from the exterior wall or frame surface to add relief to the wall surface.

I. Neighbor Privacy.

1. If a building wall faces an adjacent residential use and does not comply with the minimum interior side or rear yard requirements of the applicable zoning district or combining district, windows on the wall must be:
a. 5-foot minimum sill height above the finished floor; b. Clerestory; or
c. Opaque/frosted glass.

2. Second-story exterior decks and balconies may not face an interior side or rear yard that abuts an adjacent residential use.

3. No portion of a rooftop deck may be closer than twenty-five feet from an interior side or rear yard that abuts an adjacent residential use.

J. Entrance Orientation. The primary entrance to a detached or attached ADU shall face either:

1. The front or interior of the parcel; or

2. A side or rear property line that abuts an alley or a public street.

K. Garage Conversions. When a garage is converted into an ADU, the garage door shall be removed and replaced with materials matching the remainder of the structure.”
Section 7. Chapter 17.58, Junior Accessory Dwelling Units, of Title 17, Zoning, of the Scotts Valley Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
“Chapter 17.58 JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS

17.58.010 Purpose.

A. This chapter establishes standards for junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs) consistent with Government Code Sections 66333—66339. These standards are intended to increase the supply of affordable housing options in Scotts Valley while maintaining the character and quality of life of residential neighborhoods.

B. This chapter applies only to a proposed JADU as defined in Chapter 17.04 (Definitions). Standards for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are found in Chapter

17.57 (Accessory Dwelling Units).

C. It is the city's intent for this chapter to be consistent with state law as it is amended from time to time. In cases of conflict between this chapter and state law, state law governs.

17.58.020 Permitting process.

Creating a JADU requires city approval and issuance of a building permit. The city shall review and act on a permit application for a JADU in the same manner as required for an accessory dwelling unit. See Section 17.57.020 (Permitting Process).

17.58.030 JADU standards.

The standards in this section apply to all JADUs.

A. Where Allowed.

1. A JADU is permitted on a residential lot zoned for single-family dwellings with a single-family dwelling built, or proposed to be built, on the lot.

2. A JADU is allowed on a lot that also contains a detached accessory dwelling unit as provided in Section 17.57.040 (State Exemption ADUs.) The JADU must be located within the single-family dwelling on the lot.

B. Maximum Number. A maximum of one JADU is permitted per lot.

C. Owner Occupancy.

1. If the JADU has shared sanitation facilities with the existing structure, the property owner shall reside in either the single-family dwelling on the lot or the JADU.

2. Owner-occupancy is not required if the JADU has separate sanitation facilities, or if the property is owned by a governmental agency, land trust, or housing organization.

D. Location Within Single-Family Dwelling. The JADU shall be contained entirely within the walls of an existing or proposed single family dwelling. For purposes of this section, enclosed uses within the dwelling, such as attached garages, are considered a part of the single-family dwelling.

E. Entrance. The JADU shall include an exterior entrance separate from the main entrance to the single-family dwelling.

F. Bathroom.

1. A JADU must either:
a. Contain its own full bathroom with a sink, toilet and shower and/or bath facilities; or
b. Share use of a full bathroom located within the primary dwelling.

2. A JADU that shares a bathroom with the primary dwelling must have an interior entry into the main living area of the primary residence.

G. Kitchen.

1. A JADU must contain, at a minimum, an efficiency kitchen with:
a. A kitchen sink, refrigeration, and cooking appliances; and b. At least three linear feet of food preparation counter space and three linear feet of cabinet space.

2. Cooking appliances may consist of either a permanent cook top and/or built-in oven, or a plug-in microwave oven, hot plate, and similar appliances intended for use on top of a countertop.

H. Parking. Off-street parking is not required for a JADU.

I. Fire Safety. For purposes of any fire or life protection ordinance or regulation, a JADU shall not be considered a separate or new dwelling unit.

J. Fire Sprinklers.

1. Fire sprinklers are not required in a JADU where fire sprinklers were not required for the primary dwelling at the time of construction, except as provided by Paragraph (2) below.

2. If fire sprinklers were not required for the primary dwelling at the time of construction, but the primary dwelling is altered in a manner that later required fire sprinklers, a JADU created after the alteration must be provided with fire sprinklers.

3. The construction of a JADU does not trigger a requirement for fire sprinklers to be installed in an existing single-family dwelling on the lot.

K. Utilities. For purposes of providing service for water, sewer, or power, including a connection fee, a JADU shall not be considered a separate or new dwelling unit unless the JADU was constructed with a new single-family dwelling.

L. A rented JADU shall not be leased for any period less than thirty days.

M. Impact Fees. City development impact fees shall not be imposed upon the development of a JADU.

17.58.040 Deed restriction.

A. Prior to occupancy of a JADU, the property owner shall file with the county recorder a declaration of restrictions containing a reference to the deed under which the property was acquired by the current owner. The deed restriction shall state that:

1. The JADU shall not be sold separately from the single-family residence; and

2. The JADU shall not exceed five hundred square feet of total floor area and shall comply with all standards in Section 17.58.030 (JADU Standards).

B. The above declarations are binding upon any successor in ownership of the property. Lack of compliance shall be cause for code enforcement.

C. The deed restriction shall lapse upon removal of the JADU established under this chapter.”
Section 8. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY. The Municipal Code amendments are consistent with the General Plan. The Municipal Code amendments are adopted for the specific purpose of complying with state housing law and to maintain consistency with the General Plan Housing Element.

Section 9. CEQA COMPLIANCE. The proposed amendments are exempt pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), which provides that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. The proposed amendments are adopted to comply with state housing laws, bringing the Zoning Code into compliance with state requirements that already apply to proposed development. In addition, the proposed ADU Ordinance amendments are exempt from CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.17 and CEQA Guidelines section 15282(h), which exempts adoption of ordinances implementing state law regarding accessory dwelling units, and the proposed SB 9 Ordinance amendments are exempt from CEQA pursuant to Government Code sections 65852.21(k) and 66411.7(n), which exempts adoption of ordinances implementing SB 9.

Section 10. SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be

declared invalid or unconstitutional.

Section 11. To the extent the provisions of the Scotts Valley Municipal Code as amended by this Ordinance are substantially the same as the provisions of that Code as they read immediately prior to the adoption of this Ordinance, then those provisions shall be construed as continuations of the earlier provisions and not as new enactments.

Section 12. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days from and after the date of its adoption.

Section 13. PUBLICATION. The City Clerk shall certify as to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause a summary thereof to be published within fifteen (15) days of adoption and shall post a certified copy of this Ordinance, including the vote for and against same, in the Office of the City Clerk, in accordance with Government Code Section 36933.

This Ordinance was introduced on the 3rd day of December, 2025, and passed and adopted on the 17th day of December, 2025, at a duly held meeting of the City Council of the City of Scotts Valley by the following votes:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED: ______________________________
Derek Timm, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Cathie Simonovich, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________
Kirsten Powell, City Attorney

City of Scotts Valley

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 1.

DATE: 12/17/2025
DATE:

TO:

FROM:

APPROVED:

SUBJECT:
12/17/2025
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Mali LaGoe, City Manager
Mali LaGoe, City Manager
A public hearing to adopt a resolution certifying the 2025 Town Center Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report and Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations with respect to significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the EIR, and to adopt a resolution approving the 2025 Town Center Specific Plan

SUMMARY OF ISSUE
For decades, the City of Scotts Valley has pursued a dream to build a Town Center on the vacant land formerly occupied by the Skypark Airport. In 2008, the City adopted the original Town Center Specific Plan based around a vision dominated by new commercial and civic uses. In the nearly two decades that have passed since that original Plan was adopted, no significant new development has taken place but several important changes have occurred that necessitated an update to the Specific Plan. This Final 2025 Town Center Specific Plan (“2025 Plan”) is responsive to these factors, including recent market demand favoring housing over commercial development, changes in retail economics favoring small-format experiential restaurants and shops, and a growing need for more diverse and affordable housing opportunities in the area. In addition, the policy context around the Plan has shifted considerably:
• In 2023, the City adopted the Scotts Valley General Plan, which called for the 2008 Town Center Specific Plan to be updated.
• The City then adopted its 2023-2031 Housing Element which required an update of the Specific Plan by December 2025 to allow for higher residential densities in the Town Center Specific Plan Area. The General Plan projected that the 2008 Town Center Specific Plan would develop a maximum of 254 housing units, whereas the 2025 Plan anticipates/analyzes up to 657 units.
• The Surplus Lands Act permits the City to sell surplus property to developers for a mixed use project that requires that mixed-use projects on government-owned ‘surplus’ land includes a minimum of 300 housing units, 25% of which are affordable to low income households. This requirement will apply to the vacant parcels which are now owned by the City of Scotts Valley.

The community’s vision is for a mixed-use Town Center that acts as a destination for

residents, a socializing and gathering space, a place for shopping and strolling, a place to live affordably, and an economic engine for the City. The Town Center will include at least 300 units in the Town Center Core area which is located in the center of the plan area (and up to 657 total units) to satisfy Surplus Lands Act requirements. The concept is for a focused area of ground-floor retail uses and other active uses closer to Mt. Hermon Road, supported by public plazas, with parking on streets and behind retail and mixed-use buildings and residential units. The desire is for the Plan to tie together the surrounding amenities of Skypark, the Hangar, library, community theater, METRO transit station, and adjacent shopping centers.

Since 2022, the City has taken a proactive approach to removing barriers that prevented the Town Center from being developed in the past. These efforts include:
• Securing $1,000,000 in Federal funding to assist with the acquisition of eight acres of vacant land from the City of Santa Cruz to assemble the full, contiguous 12+ acres of the “Town Center Core” area under City of Scotts Valley ownership. • Completing surface level environmental clean-up on these vacant Core parcels resulting in a closed case with County Environmental Health. • Contracting with renowned expert Bob Gibbs to conduct an updated retail market analysis as well as a separate consultant to identify potential commercial tenants. • Conducting extensive community and stakeholder outreach to develop a modern preferred vision that emphasizes human scale connectivity and a walkable retailsupportive environment, including an Art Wine and Beer Festival booth, a Community Open House, a booth at the Multicultural Fair, and an Online Survey with hundreds of responses from residents and stakeholders.
• Adopting the 6th Cycle Housing Element which provides a program for updating the Town Center Specific Plan to include 657 housing units. • Hiring consultants specialized in architecture, planning, and real estate development with a background working for private developers to ensure the updated vision is buildable in today’s market and economy.

The purpose of the 2025 Plan is to enshrine the community vision as described above, and articulate policies, development standards, and objective design standards that will guide new development within the Plan Area in a way that supports existing and new businesses, residents, and the overall community. The 2025 Plan will manage and direct changes in development patterns within the Plan Area through 2045 and guide present and future land uses, development intensity and scale, urban design, economic development, circulation and mobility, parking, infrastructure and public services, and community benefits/facilities. After 2025 Plan adoption, following the process laid out in the 2025 Plan’s Implementation Chapter, the City will partner with a developer (or developers) to negotiate a Development Agreement for the Town Center Core parcels that will guide the construction of the housing, commercial uses, buildings, plazas, roads, and other infrastructure necessary to support a walkable Town Center.

□ Retail frontage
Mixed-Use
(300 units minimum)
Parking
Shops and
Restaurants
llueBonnet La,,
■

PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW
On November 20, 2025, the Planning Commission held a study session to receive public comments on the Draft 2025 Specific Plan and Draft EIR. Comments were received from members of the Commission and members of the public before the study session, at the study session, and after the study session. In response to these comments, City staff recommended a series of changes to the 2025 Plan and Final EIR. These comments and changes are summarized in the attached Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 1). These changes were presented at a noticed public hearing on December 4, 2025 of the Planning Commission, and the commissioners recommended that the City Council adopt the resolutions certifying the FEIR and approving the 2025Plan. Public comments and staff’s recommended changes focused on the following four topics:

1. Allowed land uses as described in Chapter 3 & Appendix A

2. Development and objective design standards

3. Minimum parking requirements and associated standards

4. Overall site plan and public circulation network
Additional comments were received that the City will address and consider at the time of project-level review as the Town Center Core Development Agreement or other developments in the Plan Area move forward.

The City also received several letters from Santa Cruz YIMBY commenting on the 2025 Specific Plan and EIR. The City Attorney provided a response to the Planning Commission and staff wishes to further clarify the City’s response below:

Comment 1: Number of Housing Units in the Specific Plan & EIR • YIMBY Comment: The EIR should analyze 963 housing units instead of 657 units.

• City Staff Response: Staff does not agree with YIMBY’s calculation. The Town Center Specific Plan, as proposed, is compliant with the City’s HCD-certified Housing Element and is aligned with Appendix F, Table F-2: 6th Cycle RHNA Sites Inventory Analysis and Programs H-1.1 and H-1.10. The Housing Element requires that the City comply with the capacity and density standards outlined in Appendix F of the Housing Element. For the Town Center Specific Plan parcels, Appendix F includes a realistic capacity of 80%, as required by HCD. At that required capacity, the City is required to rezone the properties to allow the development of 657 units. The Specific Plan is implementing that program as outlined in Appendix F.

Comment 2: Downzoning Housing Element Sites
• YIMBY Comment: The City may not downzone APN 022-721-06 (southern portion of Skypark) without running afoul of No Net Loss law.
• City Staff Response: Staff recommends zoning this parcel as MU-N, which requires a minimum density of 20 units per acre and a maximum of 32 units per acre and requiring that when the property is rezoned, the development standards will include adequate site area designated for residential uses to meet the requirements of the Program H1.1. The Plan is therefore aligned with Appendix F, Table F-2: RHNA Sites Inventory Analysis of the Housing Element with respect to lower-income units.

Comment 3: Prohibition on Exclusively Non-Residential Projects • YIMBY Comment: The Specific Plan must ensure that lower-income sites in the Plan allow 100% residential use and may not permit exclusively non-residential development on those parcels.
• City Staff Response: The Plan will ensure that those sites identified in the 6th Cycle Housing Element, Appendix F, in the Town Center Specific Plan Area shall include adequate site area designated for exclusively residential use to meet the requirements of Program H-1.1. In addition, the Plan allows 100% residential projects by right on all sites identified in the Housing Element inventory, and residential uses will be required to occupy at least 50 percent of the total floor area of a mixed-use project in the Specific Plan Area. Furthermore, to comply with Surplus Lands Act requirements, the City will require a minimum of 300 housing units with at least 25% deed-restricted affordable units within the area declared ‘surplus.’
Comment 4: Plan Must Implement Housing Element.
• YIMBY Comment: State law requires that all rezoning programs included in a certified Housing Element be fully and faithfully implemented.
• City Staff Response: The Town Center Specific Plan, as proposed, is compliant with the City’s HCD-certified Housing Element and is aligned with Appendix F, Table F-2:
6th Cycle RHNA Sites Inventory Analysis, Programs H-1.1 and H-1.10. Staff has determined that the Specific Plan will not result in a Net Loss of RHNA sites for any income category, as outlined in the resolution approving the 2025 Plan. Staff intends to submit a zoning ordinance update for Council approval in 2026, consistent with the

requirements of the Housing Element and reflecting the 2025 Plan.

Council Considerations Regarding Intersection Level of Service at Kings Village Road The 2025 Plan contains several required transportation improvements to accommodate additional automobiles, pedestrians, and bicyclists in the Plan Area. The 2025 Plan also describes optional future roadway improvements at the Kings Village Road / Mt. Hermon Road intersection to incorporate an additional left turn lane along southbound Kings Village Road turning onto Mt. Hermon Road. This improvement could necessitate acquisition of additional right-of-way to facilitate roadway widening. The decision whether and when to implement this improvement will be made by the City Council as part of the negotiation or approval of the Core Development Agreement and during the review/approval of the Planned Development permit process for the Town Center Core. Consistent with this Plan’s Vision to create a vibrant mixed-use town center, the development of the Town Center will by its intended nature induce greater traffic congestion. As such, the City will need to balance the needs of vehicular traffic with those of non-vehicular mobility such as pedestrians and bicyclists. Therefore, any future improvements to Kings Village Road (as well as other existing roadway improvements) will require the City to take into consideration General Plan Goal M-2 (Complete Streets) and its associated policies “…to maintain a balanced multi-modal transportation network that meets the needs of all local roadway users in a manner that is suitable to the scale and character of Scotts Valley.”
The traffic analysis contained in Appendix C of the 2025 Plan for the Kings Village Road and Mt Hermon Road intersection indicates that the level of service (LOS) will drop from the existing level C to level D under future cumulative conditions (without improvements). General Plan Policy M-3.9 requires that, with the exception of Mt. Hermon Road and Scotts Valley Drive, all intersections maintain a LOS C. However, in accordance with General Plan Policy M-3.10, the City Council may accept LOS D at any City intersection considering “right-of-way constraints, and the economic feasibility of roadway infrastructure improvements,” concerns which exist at this location. As outlined more specifically in Resolution No. 2081.1, LOS D at the Kings Village Road/Mt Hermon Road is acceptable given site constraints, the economic feasibility of the improvements, the proposed multimodal transportation opportunities included in the 2025 Plan and the City’s desire to create a walkable, community amenity in the Town Center.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
Since the 2025 Plan had the potential to cause significant environmental impacts and additional growth was considered compared to the amount studied under the 2023 Housing Element EIR, a full programmatic Environmental Impact Report was prepared for the Town Center Specific Plan. The DEIR identified significant or potentially significant effects associated with the Plan’s implementation in the following environmental topics: air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, greenhouse gas emissions, noise and vibration, and transportation. The DEIR analyzed 20 environmental subjects, responding to the checklist questions from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines to assess impacts for each environmental subject. The impact conclusions are summarized below:
• The DEIR finds no impacts or less than significant impacts through required policies, standards and programs to the following environmental subjects: Aesthetics,

Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Energy, Hydrology, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Tribal Cultural Resources, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfire. • The DEIR finds less than significant impacts with mitigation incorporated into the following environmental subjects: Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Noise. • The DEIR finds that the 2025 Plan would produce significant and unavoidable impacts to Greenhouse Gases, even with mitigation incorporated. The DEIR also finds the 2025 Plan would produce significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts to Transportation.

These are impacts that are commonly generated by major developments of scale in the Bay Area and the impacts are not related to the Plan’s location within the City, i.e., this amount of development occurring elsewhere in the City would result in similar impacts due to the magnitude of development, and it is not unusual for city councils to find that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects.

The FEIR provided responses to all relevant comments made on the DEIR and made no changes to the key impact findings of the DEIR. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan has been prepared to implement the mitigation measures required for those impacts that were found to be less than significant with mitigation measures.

PUBLIC NOTICE & COMMENT
Public hearing notices were sent via email and regular mail to interested parties and posted at City Hall (Planning Department), Scotts Valley Branch Library, and the Senior Center. The FEIR was circulated publicly for the CEQA-required ten-day review period beginning on December 4, 2025 and concluding on December 15, 2025.

Public hearing notices were posted at City Hall, the Scotts Valley Public Works Building, and the Scotts Valley Senior Center and published on the Scotts Valley website and newspaper consistent with State law. Public comments received since the publication of the Planning Commission Staff Report on the project are attached for reference.

Due to file size, the 2008 Town Center Specific Plan, 2025 Town Center Specific Plan, Draft EIR and Final EIR are available on the City's website and are not directly attached to this agenda item. The link is: https://www.scottsvalley.gov/525/The-Town-Center.

FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impact associated with the recommended action is expected to be positive for the City, given that significant Development Impact Fees would be delivered to the City as a result of new development permitted within the Plan Area (proportionate to the scale of the approved projects), and the future Town Center Core project and other projects within the Plan Area would spur greater economic development generally, including increased property taxes, sales taxes, construction-related employment, and full-time employment from commercial land uses.

Currently, the parcels within the Town Center Core are undeveloped and thus offer effectively zero tax value to the City – once developed, these would represent a valuable, ongoing source of property and sales tax revenues. Staff notes that the City is pursuing an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD) as an approach to raising needed funds for capital

projects; an EIFD would not reduce the existing or "base" property tax revenue which is set by the year that the EIFD is formed, which continues to go to public agencies/service providers.

Rather, a portion of the increase in tax revenue (the “tax increment”) generated by rising property values or new construction is redirected to the EIFD, to fund needed infrastructure improvements.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends the City Council:
• Adopt Resolution No. 2081 certifying the 2025 Town Center Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, rejecting the environmentally superior alternative, adopting a statement of overriding considerations with respect to significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the DEIR, supported by substantial evidence in the record to move forward with the 2025 Plan, and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to implement the mitigation measures required for those impacts that were found to be less than significant with mitigation measures; and • Adopt Resolution No. 2081.1 approving the 2025 Town Center Specific Plan and accepting potential LOS D at the Kings Village Road & Mt. Hermon Road intersection.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. City Council Resolution No. 2081FNL

2. City Council Resolution No. 2081.1FNL

3. Staff Report from December 4, 2025 Planning Commission Hearing

4. Public Comments Received since November 27

RESOLUTION NO. 2081

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY

CERTIFING A FINAL ENVIROMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING A

STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR SIGNIFICANT AND

UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGAM FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE 2025 TOWN CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65300 requires that the City of Scotts Valley ("City") adopt and maintain a General Plan that contains certain mandated elements, describes the City's long-term goals for growth and development, and identifies policies and programs to achieve those goals; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 65450 et seq., a city may also adopt one or more specific plans to facilitate the implementation of its General Plan; and WHEREAS, on November 19, 2008, the City Council adopted the Town Center Specific Plan in order to implement the goal of the community to have a Scotts Valley Town Center (“2008 Town Center Specific Plan”); and
WHEREAS, the 2008 Town Center Specific Plan envisioned the development of 275,000 square feet of commercial space, 35,000 square feet of civic space, and 300 residential units;
WHEREAS, on November 16, 2023, the City Council adopted the updated General Plan ("General Plan") to guide future growth in the City’s Planning Area which included Action ED-1.1 which called for the 2008 Scotts Valley Town Center Specific Plan to be updated with an appropriate mix of land uses that are supported by a new market and financial feasibility analysis that is economically attractive to investors and developers; and WHEREAS, on December 7, 2023, the City Council adopted the 2023-2031 Housing Element (“Housing Element”) as part of the General Plan; and WHEREAS, Program H-1.1 of the Housing Element identified the need to update the 2008 Scotts Valley Town Center Specific Plan to allow for residential densities sufficient to accommodate 657 new residential units within the Specific Plan Area; and WHEREAS, the City hired Good City Company, Urban Field Studio, and David J. Powers and Associates to assist with the development an updated Town Center Specific Plan which met the requirements of Action ED-1.1 of the General Plan, Program H-1.1 of the Housing Element and to meet the market demands in Scotts Valley (“2025 Town Center Specific Plan”); and
WHEREAS, the 2025 Town Center Specific Plan is a document that creates a vision, policies, and objective design standards to guide new development within the Plan Area in a way that supports existing and new businesses, residents, and the overall community and provides land use regulations, development standards, and design guidelines for new development in the area; and

WHEREAS, the 2025 Town Center Specific Plan will facilitate implementation of the City's General Plan and the Housing Element by providing for up to 657 residential units as specified in the Housing Element, as well as up to 82,000 square feet of commercial uses and up to 35,000 square feet of public/civic uses; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the City prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR") (SCH No. 2025050499) for the 2025 Town Center Specific Plan. The Draft EIR was circulated for public review from October 10, 2025 to November 24, 2025. The City has considered and evaluated the comments received on the Draft EIR during the period of public review; and WHEREAS, the City has prepared and released on December 4, 2025 the Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR") for the 2025 Town Center Specific Plan which incorporates the Draft EIR, contains the City's responses to written comments received on the Draft EIR, and identifies revisions to the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, A Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program has been prepared for the project to mitigate the impacts of the projects that have been identify as less than significant with mitigation, attached hereto as Exhibit B.

WHEREAS, on November 20, 2025, the Planning Commission held a public meeting to accept comments on the Draft EIR and comments and questions on the 2025 Town Center Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, on December 4, 2025, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the 2025 Town Center Specific Plan and the Final EIR, considered all written and oral reports of City staff, provided opportunities for the public to speak, and considered all comments on the matter as reflected in the record; and, WHEREAS, on December 17, 2025, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the 2025 Town Center Specific Plan and the Final EIR, considered all written and oral reports of City staff, provided opportunities for the public to speak, and considered all comments on the matter as reflected in the record.

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

SECTION 1: The Final EIR has been completed in compliance with the requirements of CEQA and the City Council has reviewed and considered the information within the Final EIR.

SECTION 2: The Final EIR represents the independent judgement and analysis of the City.

SECTION 3: The City Council certifies the Final EIR incorporated herein by this reference based on the findings pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, Findings, as described in the Findings of Fact attached hereto as Exhibit A , which are hereby adopted, and subject to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program outlined in Exhibit B attached hereto.

The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the City Council of the City of Scotts Valley on the 17th day of December 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:

Derek Timm, Mayor
ATTEST:

Cathie Simonivich, City Clerk

EXHIBIT A
City of Scotts Valley Resolution 2081
Findings Required Under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.)
For the 2025 Scotts Valley Town Center Specific Plan

1. Introduction
A public agency may not approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified that identifies one or more significant environmental effects, unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects. Each finding much be accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091).

The City of Scotts Valley (City) prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed 2025 Scotts Valley Town Center Specific Plan (Plan) in December 2025.

The Plan envisions the Town Center as the “Heart of the City,” consistent with the broader community goal of establishing a vibrant town center. To fulfill this vision, the Plan is proposed to allow a blend of commercial and residential spaces, which would be complemented by existing amenities, including a library, community theater, movie theater, Senior Center, and Community Center, and future amenities including outdoor dining and public open spaces that encourage community gathering. The Plan includes land use, zoning, and comprehensive utility, transportation, and landscaping/public realm improvements.

The Plan anticipates new development and changes in land use over an approximate 20-year period through 2045, and would allow for up to 657 residential units (consistent with the City’s Housing Element), up to 82,000 square feet of commercial uses, and up to 35,000 square feet of public/civic uses.

The Plan will establish land use designations and zoning for the Plan area as described in the Final EIR Project Description. Therefore, the Plan will require adoption of various amendments to the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, changing certain existing land use designations in the Plan area, creating new zoning districts, and updating existing or establishing new development standards to replace some of the current zoning provisions applicable to the Plan area. These amendments would be completed to ensure consistency between the Plan, the General Plan, and the Zoning Ordinance.

The Plan may be implemented over time and in a phased approach. Due to the unique characteristics of this project, specific details regarding phasing boundaries, timing, and specific details will be determined by the Project Applicant(s) or their designee(s) in response to market demand, rapidly changing mobility technology, availability of financing, and other factors as part of the development review process for individual development projects.

If phased development occurs, development of the future phases could occur in one phase or could be in multiple future phases. Development of the future phases would include construction of the remaining square footage of development as allowed under this Plan, in addition to any associated infrastructure, parking, and landscaping and open space, subject to subsequent development approval and adherence to Plan development standards and design guidelines.

The Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth below (Findings) are presented for consideration by the Planning Commission and adoption by the City Council as the City’s independent findings under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.).

The Findings provide the written explanation, evidence, reasoning and conclusions of the City regarding the project’s environmental impacts, mitigation measures, alternatives, and the overriding considerations, which in the City’s judgement, justify approval of 2025 Scotts Valley Town Center Specific Plan despite residual environmental effects.

2. Record of Proceedings and Custodian of Record
For purposes of CEQA and the findings set forth herein, the record of proceedings for the City of Scotts Valley’s findings and determinations consist of the following documents and testimony as compiled for the project:
• The Notice of Preparation (NOP), comments received on the NOP, comments received at the public scoping meeting, and all other public notices issued by the City. • Draft EIR, associated appendices to the Draft EIR, and technical materials cited in the Draft EIR.
• Final EIR, including comment letters, responses to comments, errata and technical materials cited in the Final EIR.
• Staff reports associated with Planning Commission and City Council hearings on the project.
• Those categories of materials identified in Public Resources Code Section 21167.6, which establishes the contents for the record of proceedings.

The City is the custodian of the administrative record. The documents and materials that constitute the administrative record are available for review at the City of Scotts Valley Planning Department, 1 Civic Center Drive, Scotts Valley, CA 95066.

3. Severability
If any term, provision, or portion of these Findings or the application of these Findings to a particular situation is held by a court to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of these Findings, or their application to other actions related to the project, shall continue in full force and effect unless amended or modified by the City.

4. Findings for Significant Impacts that Can Be Avoided or Reduced to a Less Than Significant Level with Implementation of Mitigation Measures Impact AQ-1: Without application of appropriate control measures to reduce construction dust and exhaust, construction period impacts at the program level would be considered a significant impact.

Finding: Changes or alterations, as identified in Mitigation Measure (MM) AQ-1.1, have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.

Rationale/Evidence: Mitigation Measure (MM) AQ-1.1 requires that individual projects built out under the Plan quantify construction criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants (TACs).

Once those details are available, individual projects would undergo modeling to identify impacts and, if necessary, future projects would include measures to reduce emissions below the applicable Monterey Bay Air Resources District construction thresholds. Reduction measures could include various methods as outlined in the Final EIR and would help to lower construction criteria pollutants and TACs. By reducing construction period emissions, this potentially significant impact would be effectively mitigated. Projects whose construction period emissions exceeded applicable thresholds despite the application of mitigation are not covered by this resolution of findings, would require supplemental environmental review, ildithltif ltti() tht idd dd thjt’iifit

Impact AQ-2: Significant Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC) emission exposure could occur under Plan buildout.

Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, i.e.

Section 3.5 Performance Standards of the Plan, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.

Rationale/Evidence: Implementation of Section 3.5 (Performance Standards) of the Plan would reduce on-site diesel exhaust emissions and reduce construction health risk impacts by requiring projects of two acres or greater and lasting more than one year within 1,000 feet of existing sensitive receptors or worker receptors as defined by the Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD) to utilize Tier 4 engines. This performance standard would be applied to development under the Plan as applicable and would effectively mitigate these potential risks below applicable MBARD thresholds.

Impact BIO-1: The Plan buildout could impact habitats within the Plan area that may contain special status species.

Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, i.e. future projects implementing the Plan would implement General Plan Policy OSC-1.16, requiring site-specific surveys and appropriate mitigation when special status species are present, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.

Rationale/Evidence: General Plan Policy OSC-1.16 requires buildout of the Plan in the following habitat types; vernally moist grassland, mixed woodland, annual grassland, and ruderal to prepare site-specific surveys prior to development. Land mapped as containing turf or developed habitat would not require a survey due to the low possibility of native species or rare/endangered wildlife. This policy would be effective because it requires developments under the Plan to mitigate any potential impacts to such species as recommended by the biologist completing the survey, and as required by the applicable wildlife agency with jurisdiction, thus minimizing any potential impacts to special status species.

Impact BIO-2: Build out of the Plan could result in the loss of fertile eggs, nesting raptors or other migratory birds, or nest abandonment.

Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, in particular Mitigation Measure MM BIO-2.1, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.

Rationale/Evidence: Mitigation Measure MM BIO-2.1 requires that all on-site tree removal, demolition and grading occur outside the nesting and breeding season to avoid nest disturbance within existing urban trees. As an alternative, if construction during the nesting season cannot be avoided, the applicant may conduct bird surveys and establish buffer zones around nests, if identified on site. These measures would be effective by directly avoiding potential effects on nesting birds or by protecting nesting birds with the oversight of a professional biologist. MM BIO-2.1 has been made a requirement of future individual projects implementing the Plan to provide a rational and enforceable program of impact avoidance.

Impact BIO 3: Future demolition activities and tree removal under the Plan could result in direct physical disturbance of any roosting bats that may be present, possibly resulting in injury or mortality, as well as the loss of roosting sites.

Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, in particular Mitigation Measures MM BIO-3.1 through MM BIO-3.4, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.

Rationale/Evidence: MM BIO-3.1 requires future development under the plan to conduct a bat habitat survey assessment to identify all trees on-site that could support roosting bats. A preconstruction visual survey of all trees that were determined to provide potential roosting habitat will be conducted as described in the Final EIR.

MM BIO-3.2 requires a two-step removal process for trees identified as currently supporting roosting bats or to remove trees that were determined to provide potential habitat but could not be adequately visually surveyed during the preconstruction survey. MM BIO-3.2 would ensure that these trees are made less attractive for bats via tree trimming, then the following day the tree would be removed. This measure would encourage any roosting bats to vacate the tree. This measure would minimize the risks that tree removal presents to bats.

For trees that cannot be adequately surveyed during the preconstruction survey, MM BIO-3.3 requires that a qualified biologist conduct a nighttime emergence survey during the volant season to determine if bats are present. If bats are present, and it is maternity season, further investigation must determine if a maternity colony is roosting in the tree. If bats are found and it is outside of maternity season, then the process described in MM BIO-3.2 would be followed.

As per MM BIO-3.4, if a maternity colony or overwintering colony is identified on the site, then a construction-free buffer shall be established around the tree(s) until the colony is determined to be no longer active. Tree removal shall occur between March 1 and April 14 or between August 16 and October 15, utilizing the two-step removal method to avoid interfering with an active nursery and/or overwintering bats.

The above measures are enforceable, as determined by the City and a qualified biologist, and would reduce the impacts to rooting bats to a less than significant level.

Impact BIO 4: Future development projects under the Plan could place fill into jurisdictional waters.

Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.

Rationale/Evidence: General Plan policy OSC-1.18 requires that all future development applications are required to submit a biological study where an initial site inventory indicates the presence of potential for wetland species or indicators. The study shall contain a delineation of all wetland areas. This General Plan policy is enforceable and would effectively ensure that impacts to jurisdictional waters are offset by requiring development applicants to identify wetland areas and obtain permits from regulatory agencies and those regulatory permits would include adequate mitigation to reduce impacts to wetlands to less than significant levels.

Impact CUL-1: Future development projects under the Plan could indirectly or directly impact known and unknown historic buildings and structures by removing historic buildings and structures, or altering the setting for historic properties.

Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.

Rationale/Evidence: General Plan Policy OSC-4.7 ensures other options are taken into account before resources are destroyed as it prohibits the destruction of designated historical resources without prior public hearing and consideration of alternatives. MM CUL-1.1 and MM CUL-1.2 provide specific directions to prepare a historic resources evaluation for structures over 50 years old and to make sure that a qualified architectural historian documents the building if a significant historic building or structure is proposed for major renovation or alteration. These mitigation measures would effectively ensure that structures are evaluated and a historical structure would be recorded if it were to be renovated or altered. In the event a future individual project implementing the Plan would propose demolition or otherwise represents a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource, supplemental environmental review would be required, including the evaluation of preservation alternatives, and would not be covered by these findings.

Impact CUL-2: Future development projects under the Plan could inadvertently discover unknown archaeological resources during construction.

Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.

Rationale/Evidence: MM CUL 2.1 directs applicants to have a qualified archaeologist prepare a Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) prior to demolition and grading. MM CUL 2.2 and MM CUL 2.3 provide specific direction to the archaeological monitor and property owner in the event that archaeological resources are discovered during the construction process. These measures would be effective because they require halting construction, establishing setbacks, avoiding resources and contacting a qualified archaeologist to assess the find, and, if determined significant, preparation of a treatment plan including data recovery. Data recovery will include excavation and exposure of features, field documentation, and recordation. These measures ensure the appropriate treatment of buried cultural resources encountered during construction.

Impact GEO-1: Future construction activities could disturb paleontological resources, if present.

Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.

Rationale/Evidence: Mitigation Measure MM GEO-1.1 requires that if a fossil is found during construction, then excavation shall halt until the find can be examined by a qualified paleontologist. The measure directs applicants to include a standard inadvertent discovery clause on the construction plans. This measure would ensure that any finds are assessed by a qualified paleontologist and, if necessary, a paleontological treatment plan will be prepared.

Treatment may include preparation and recovery of fossil materials so that they can be housed in an appropriate museum or university collection and may also include preparation of a report for publication describing the finds. MM GEO-1.1 would ensure appropriate documentation and treatment of any uncovered paleontological resources.

Impact HAZ-1: Future development within the Plan could encounter and disturb contaminated soil, soil vapor, and groundwater, and result in adverse effects on construction workers, existing residents and employees, and nearby sensitive receptors.

Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.

Rationale/Evidence: General Plan Policy SN-4.9 ensures that the City will continue to administer through the County Comprehensive Hazardous Materials Program, pursuant to Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code. General Plan policy SN-4.11 requires the mitigation of hazard exposure from new development projects through the environmental review process, design criteria, and standards development, and SN-4.12 requires that site assessments for hazardous and toxic soil contamination be conducted prior to approving development applications as necessary.

Mitigation Measure MM HAZ-1.1 ensures that General Plan Policy SN-4.12 is implemented

Impact NOI-1: Future construction associated with development under the Plan could result in temporary construction noise impacts.

Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.

Rationale/Evidence: General Plan Policies SN-7.15 and SN-7.16 would reduce noise during the construction process by managing construction noise, including requiring preparation of a Noise Reduction Plan when construction activity occurs near sensitive land uses. MM NOI1.1 requires the applicant to include various noise reduction measures as part of all grading and building construction plans that range from limiting the time each day and days of the week of construction activity to locating staging areas and construction material areas as far away as possible from adjacent land uses, prohibiting all unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines, and designating a “disturbance coordinator” who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. Construction noise can be effectively addressed through construction timing, equipment maintenance, and placement of equipment. The above mitigation measures are enforceable, as determined by the City and the City’s noise consultant, and would be included in future projects’ construction documents.

Temporary construction noise impacts of future development under the Plan would be reduced to a less than significant level with the implementation of these General Plan policies and MM NOI-1.1.

Impact NOI-2: Future development under the Plan could result in a significant permanent noise level increase.

Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.

Rationale/Evidence: General Plan Policies SN-7.5, SN-7.7, SN-7.9, and SN-7.17 would all help to minimize potential operational noise. Policy SN-7.5 requires preparation of noise studies for projects with the potential to generate substantial noise. Per the Policies SN-7.7 and SN-7.9, a qualified acoustical consultant would be retained to review mechanical equipment systems and project-specific operations during final design of all proposed development under the Plan. Policy SN-7.17 limits truck traffic in residential and commercial areas to designated truck routes. These measures are effective because they would help to minimize operational noise under the Plan via noise studies, the use of truck routes, noise attenuation techniques, and acoustical engineering analysis.

Impact NOI-3: Ground-borne vibration levels generated by construction activities for development under the Plan exceeding the conservative 0.3 in/sec PPV limit for conventional offsite buildings would have the potential to result in a significant vibration impact.

Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.

Rationale/Evidence: Mitigation Measure MM NOI-3.1 requires that a construction vibration control plan be prepared when construction vibration has the potential to damage nearby structures. The plan shall identify necessary construction vibration controls to reduce the potential of cosmetic damage to buildings and to minimize annoyance. This measure would be effective because it gives developments under the Plan various ways to reduce construction vibration levels to a less than significant level.

5. Findings for Significant Impacts that Cannot Be Avoided or Reduced to a Less Than Significant Level (Significant and Unavoidable Effects)

Impact GHG-1: Buildout under the Plan would result in approximately 15,533 MT of CO2e annually and would not meet the State’s goal of carbon neutrality by 2045.

Finding: Specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations make additional mitigation measures or alternatives infeasible.

Rationale/Evidence: Mitigation Measure MM GHG-1.1 would require that future development 1) avoid the construction of natural gas connections for residential buildings as feasible, 2) meet CALGreen Building Standards Code requirements and include electric vehicle charging infrastructure that meets current Building Code CALGreen Tier 2 compliance, and 3) Reduce VMT per service population by 15 percent over regional average or screen out based on the Analyzing Vehicle Miles Traveled for CEQA Compliance SB 743 Implementation Guidelines for the City of Scotts Valley. Implementation of these measures would help reduce GHG emissions, however not to the point of carbon neutrality.

MM GHG-1.2 requires projects that include natural gas to enter an agreement with the City to offset their project’s GHG emissions.

The Plan would allow for growth within the region that would generate net new GHG emissions, such as vehicles on roadways which consume gasoline. Both the implementation of Mitigation Measures MM GHG-1.1 and MM GHG-1.2 would reduce GHG emissions resulting from buildout under the Plan, however, not to the point of carbon neutrality. No feasible policies or measures within the City’s control as lead agency would reduce the Plan GHG emissions sufficiently to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. As described in the Final EIR, there is no current pathway for the Plan, based on the mechanisms currently available to the City, to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. In order to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045, policies must be implemented at the state and federal level, which is outside of the City’s control.

Therefore, even with implementation of the mitigation measures described above, buildout under the Plan would not achieve carbon neutrality by 2045, in conflict with state GHG reductions goals, and result in a significant and unavoidable GHG impact. Please see Statement of Overriding Considerations below.

Impact TRAN-1: Buildout of the Plan would contribute to a significant cumulative VMT impact for commercial land uses.

Finding: Specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations make additional mitigation measures or alternatives infeasible.

Rationale/Evidence: While the General Plan includes policies and programs designed to reduce VMT to a reasonable extent, such as Policy M-3.1, M-3.18, and M-3.19, impacts associated with implementation of the General Plan would not be reduced to less than significant due to the increased development, new roadways, and increased use of the City’s and regional transportation system and therefore the General Plan EIR concluded a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact. All land use components under Plan buildout would meet the City’s screening criteria so future development projects implementing the Plan would result in a less than significant VMT impact on an individual project level.

However, the Plan as a whole when considered within the cumulative environment of General Plan buildout within the City would contribute to the VMT impact disclosed in the General Plan EIR due to its incorporation of commercial land uses. Therefore, the buildout of the Plan would contribute to a significant cumulative VMT impact.

Please see Statement of Overriding Considerations below.

6. Findings for Significant Cumulative Effects

The Final EIR discusses the project’s potential cumulative effects consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15130. This discussion considers the project’s incremental contribution to potentially significant impacts when combined with other past, present and/or probably future projects within relevant geographic limits. Impact TRAN-1 discloses that the plan would contribute to a significant VMT impact. However, on an individual project level development under the Plan would result in a less than significant VMT impact. The Plan would also contribute to cumulative GHG impacts in 2045 by not achieving carbon neutrality.

7. Findings Regarding Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes Which Would be Caused by the Project Should it be Implemented Section 15126.2(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR for certain projects to discuss the significant irreversible environmental changes that would result from implementation of a proposed project. This discussion focuses on the commitment or use of nonrenewable resources during project construction and operation.

Construction of the proposed project would require the commitment of a variety of nonrenewable or slowly renewable natural resources such as lumber and other forest products, sand and gravel, asphalt, petrochemicals, and metals. The City of Scotts Valley finds such commitments insignificant for the following reasons:

1. The project is located in a developed urban area and will not convert prime agricultural land, preclude access to mineral resources, or otherwise commit ongoing or large quantities of nonrenewable resources (through removal or nonuse).

2. None of the resources required for construction are unique, rare or in danger of being depleted by the project.

3. Use of defined water resources would not deplete or threaten existing supplies of surface or groundwater resources.

4. The project does not include components (such as a highway that provides access to a previously in accessible area) that would lead to associated secondary impacts or commit future generations to such irreversible changes.

5. The project would not lead to irreversible damage from environmental accidents because the proposed residential, commercial, mixed-use, public, and quasi-public land uses do not present such risks.

8. Findings Regarding Potential Growth Inducing Effects CEQA defines a project as growth inducing if it “could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment”. Similarly, under CEQA, a project would indirectly induce growth if it would remove an obstacle to additional growth and development, such as removing a constraint on a required public service. Increases in population could tax existing community service facilities, requiring construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects.

The City of Scotts Valley finds the following regarding the project’s potential growth inducing effects:

The Plan is an “infill” project, meaning that the Plan area is within the City’s existing boundaries, already served by existing infrastructure, and planned for urban uses. The City adopted the General Plan on November 29, 2023. The development projections in the General Plan included buildout capacity for the Plan area, with the exception of the amount of housing proposed in the Plan. The purpose of the Plan is to create a vision, policies, and objectives standards to guide new development within the Plan area in a way that supports existing and new businesses, residents, and the overall community. The Plan anticipates new development and change over an approximate 20-year period through 2045. Specifically, the Plan would allow for 657 residential units, 82,000 square feet of commercial land uses, 35,000 square feet of public/quasi-public land use, and 88,663 square feet of park improvements. The 657 residential units in the Plan were accounted for in the Housing Element and their environmental impacts, in combination with the implementation of the other Plan land uses, are analyzed in this document.

There are no undeveloped areas adjacent or in the immediate vicinity of the Plan area and the Plan would not remove any obstacles that would help facilitate additional growth that could significantly affect the physical environment. The Plan would add local serving roadways to enhance circulation in the Plan area. The Plan does not include the expansion of existing infrastructure that would facilitate growth in the Plan area beyond what is accounted for in this analysis or other areas of the City. Therefore, the Plan would not result in growth-inducing impacts beyond what was envisioned in the City’s General Plan.

9. Findings Regarding Project Alternatives
Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (c), the City of Scotts Valley makes the following findings regarding the alternatives considered in the Final EIR:

1. No Project, No New Development Alternative. The No Project, No New Development alternative would be environmentally superior but meets none of the stated objectives of the project. The No Project, No New Development Alternative would avoid all the environmental impacts of the Plan, although future GHG emissions resulting from existing development within the Town Center would likely also exceed the threshold of carbon neutrality in 2045. However, under this alternative no new housing would be constructed, and the City would not be in compliance with the 2023-2031 RHNA targets contained in the currently adopted Housing Element for the 2023 – 2031 cycle. This

alternative would not accomplish any of the Plan’s community benefits. For this reason, the alternative has been rejected.

2. No Project, Existing Plans Alternative. The No Project, Existing Plans alternative would not lessen any of the environmental impacts of the Plan. All significant and unavoidable impacts of the Plan would remain under this alternative, as the 2008 Plan would also result in GHG emissions in 2045 that would exceed the carbon neutrality threshold, and the commercial component of the 2008 Plan would lead to increased traffic generation compared to the proposed Plan, and significant project-level VMT impacts, as well as contributing to significant cumulative VMT impacts. Under this alternative, 254 units allowed under the 2008 Plan would be constructed, and therefore the City would not achieve the 657 units identified in the currently adopted Housing Element for the 2023 – 2031 cycle to be in compliance with the City’s 2023-2031 RHNA targets. This alternative would meet a portion of the City’s objectives; however, it is not environmentally superior.

Therefore, the alternative has been rejected.

3. Residential Land Use Only Alternative. The Residential Land Use Only Alternative would provide the residential development included in the Plan, but it would be implemented such that it would only allow for residential development, and preclude the mixed-use development, commercial development, and civic land uses. Infrastructure improvements, such as roadways, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and utility improvements would remain as essential elements of the Plan. This alternative would ensure the Plan meets the City’s RHNA goals for the 2023 – 2031 housing cycle.

Because this alternative would not include commercial development, it would not contribute to a cumulative commercial VMT impact, however, all other environmental impacts under this alternative would be similar to the proposed Plan. This alternative would not meet any of the critical Plan objectives that relate to commercial development or public/quasi-public land uses in the Plan (Objectives 1, 2, 3, 6, and 8). The commercial (and mixed-use) aspects of the Plan are vital to the original purpose of undertaking this planning and environmental review effort; eliminating commercial uses from the Plan results in a Plan that falls short of creating a Town Center and a gathering place. Failing to accomplish Objectives 1, 2, and 3 would represent an ineffective Plan, and therefore this alternative has been rejected, as it is undesirable from a policy perspective as the intent of the Plan is to achieve a balance of land uses and not solely to allow for sufficient housing to help achieve the City’s RHNA target for the 2023-2031 housing cycle.

10. Statement of Overriding Considerations
CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable.”
When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the Final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the Final EIR

and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record (CEQA Guidelines Section 15093).

The City of Scotts Valley concludes that the project’s relative benefits outweigh its residual environmental effects for the following reasons:

1. Compliance with Housing Element. The currently adopted Housing Element for the 2023 – 2031 cycle RHNA for the City is 1,220 units. The Housing Element discloses that 657 of the total 1,220 units will be built within the Plan Area. The Plan update would ensure that the City complies with the City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element.

2. Economic Benefits to the City of Scotts Valley. The residential and commercial uses anticipated to be developed within the Plan Area would generate significant annual property taxes, and the commercial uses, to a lesser degree, sales tax. These direct economic benefits to the City’s annual budget would provide greater opportunity for enhanced City services, programs, and capital improvements. The project would also generate construction jobs and permanent jobs once the commercial uses are developed, providing employment opportunities. The scale of these economic benefits would outweigh the residual environmental effects related to significant GHG emissions in 2045 and contributing to cumulative VMT and GHG impacts.

3. Affordable Housing and Community Benefits. The project as proposed would result in a significant net increase in affordable housing and provide a range of housing opportunities within the City. Per Policy 3-1.2 of the Plan, residential buildout under the Plan would include “a range of new housing, including market-rate and affordable rental and ownership opportunities consistent with the City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element and Surplus Lands Act requirements.”

EXHIBIT B
City of Scotts Valley Resolution 2081
Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program
For the 2025 Scotts Valley Town Center Specific Plan

RESOLUTION NO. 2081.1

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY APPROVING THE 2025 TOWN CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65300 requires that the City of Scotts Valley ("City") adopt and maintain a General Plan that contains certain mandated elements, describes the City's long-term goals for growth and development, and identifies policies and programs to achieve those goals; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 65450 et seq., a city may also adopt one or more specific plans to facilitate the implementation of its General Plan; and WHEREAS, on November 19, 2008, the City Council adopted the Town Center Specific Plan in order to implement the goal of the community to have a Scotts Valley Town Center (“2008 Town Center Specific Plan”); and
WHEREAS, the 2008 Town Center Specific Plan envisioned the development of 275,000 square feet of commercial space, 35,000 square feet of civic space, and 300 residential units;
WHEREAS, on November 16, 2023, the City Council adopted the updated General Plan ("General Plan") to guide future growth in the City’s Planning Area which included Action ED-1.1 which called for the 2008 Scotts Valley Town Center Specific Plan to be updated with an appropriate mix of land uses that are supported by a new market and financial feasibility analysis that is economically attractive to investors and developers; and WHEREAS, on December 7, 2023, the City Council adopted the 2023-2031 Housing Element (“Housing Element”) as part of the General Plan; and WHEREAS, Program H-1.1 of the Housing Element identified the need to update the 2008 Scotts Valley Town Center Specific Plan to allow for residential densities sufficient to accommodate 657 new residential units within the Specific Plan Area; and WHEREAS, the City hired Good City Company, Urban Field Studio, and David J. Powers and Associates to assist with the development an updated Town Center Specific Plan which met the requirements of Action ED-1.1 of the General Plan, Program H-1.1 of the Housing Element and to meet the market demands in Scotts Valley (“2025 Town Center Specific Plan”); and
WHEREAS, the 2025 Town Center Specific Plan is intended to replace the 2008 Town Center Specific Plan and is a document that creates a vision, policies, and objective design standards to guide new development within the Plan Area in a way that supports existing and new businesses, residents, and the overall community and provides land use regulations, development standards, and design guidelines for new development in the area; and
WHEREAS, the 2025 Town Center Specific Plan will facilitate implementation of the City's General Plan and the Housing Element by providing for up to 657 residential units as specified in the Housing Element, as well as up to 82,000 square feet of commercial uses and up to 35,000 square feet of public/civic uses; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the City prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR") (SCH No. 2025050499) for the 2025 Town Center Specific Plan. The Draft EIR was circulated for public review from October 10, 2025 to November 24, 2025. The City has considered and evaluated the comments received on the Draft EIR during the period of public review; and WHEREAS, the City has prepared and released on December 4, 2025 the Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR") for the 2025 Town Center Specific Plan which incorporates the Draft EIR, contains the City's responses to written comments received on the Draft EIR, and identifies revisions to the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, on November 20, 2025, the Planning Commission held a public meeting to accept comments on the Draft EIR and comments and questions on the 2025 Town Center Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, on December 4, 2025, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the 2025 Town Center Specific Plan and the Final EIR, considered all written and oral reports of City staff, provided opportunities for the public to speak, and considered all comments on the matter as reflected in the record; and WHEREAS, at that meeting, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council certify the Final EIR and approve the 2025 Town Center Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, on December 17, 2025, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the 2025 Town Center Specific Plan and the Final EIR, considered all written and oral reports of City staff, provided opportunities for the public to speak, and considered all comments on the matter as reflected in the record; and WHEREAS, on December 17, 2025, the City Council approved Resolution No. 2081, certifying the Final EIR and adopting a statement of overriding considerations for the 2025 Town Center Specific Plan.

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

SECTION 1: The Recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by this reference.

SECTION 2: The City Council hereby finds that the 2025 Town Center Specific Plan is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses, programs, and actions of all elements of the General Plan based on the following:

The 2025 Town Center Specific Plan is consistent with General Plan Action ED1.1 which called for the 2008 Scotts Valley Town Center Specific Plan to be updated with an appropriate mix of land uses that are supported by a new market and financial feasibility analysis that is economically attractive to investors and developers. It is also consistent with Housing Element Program H-1.1 which requires the City to update the 2008 Scotts Valley Town Center Specific Plan to allow for residential densities sufficient to accommodate 657 new residential units within the Specific Plan Area.

SECTION 3: The 2025 Town Center Specific Plan is necessary and desirable in order to implement the General Plan as the Specific Plan implements City goals and policies of the General Plan and specifically the Housing Element. The 2025 Town Center Specific Plan plans for housing consistent with Housing Element Program H1.1 and updates the 2008 Town Center Specific Plan as identified by General Plan Action ED-1.1.

SECTION 4: The City Council hereby finds the 2025 Town Center Specific Plan will promote the public health, safety, and welfare of the City’s residents by establishing goals, policies, and actions to guide the development of the Town Center.

SECTION 5: Pursuant to General Plan Policy M-3.10, the City Council hereby finds that a lower level of service (LOS D) is warranted for the project at the Mt. Hermon Kings Village Road/Mt. Hermon Road intersection based on the findings attached hereto as Exhibit A.

SECTION 6: Pursuant to Government Code section 65863, the City Council hereby determines that the 2025 Town Center Specific Plan will result in no net loss to the jurisdictional regional housing need as detailed in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein.

SECTION 7: The City Council of the City of Scotts Valley does hereby adopt the 2025 Town Center Specific Plan to replace the 2008 Town Center Specific Plan, which shall no longer be of no further force or effect.

The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the City Council of the City of Scotts Valley on the 17th day of December 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:

Derek Timm, Mayor
ATTEST:

Cathie Simonivich, City Clerk

EXHIBIT A
City of Scotts Valley Resolution No. 2081.1
Finding Regarding Level of Service
For the 2025 Scotts Valley Town Center Specific Plan
The City Council hereby finds as follows:

The traffic analysis contained in Appendix C of the 2025 Town Center Specific Plan for the Kings Village Road and Mt Hermon Road intersection indicates that the level of service (LOS) will drop from the existing level C to level D under future cumulative conditions (without improvements);
General Plan Policy M-3.9 requires that, with the exception of Mt. Hermon Road and Scotts Valley Drive, all intersections maintain a LOS C;
General Plan Policy M-3.10 allows the City Council to accept LOS D at any City intersection considering “right-of-way constraints, and the economic feasibility of roadway infrastructure improvements,” concerns which both exist at this location; General Plan Goal M-2 Complete Streets and its associated policies requires that the Council take into consideration the need “…to maintain a balanced multi-modal transportation network that meets the needs of all local roadway users in a manner that is suitable to the scale and character of Scotts Valley.”
The 2025 Plan contains several required transportation improvements to accommodate additional automobiles, pedestrians, and bicyclists in the Plan Area, in part to alleviate potential future traffic congestion;
City Council must make a finding regarding minimum required LOS in accordance with General Plan Policy M-3.9.

Therefore, the City Council hereby determines that an LOS D at the Kings Village Road/Mt Hermon Road is acceptable given site constraints, the economic feasibility of the improvements, the proposed multimodal transportation opportunities included in the 2025 Specific Plan and the City’s desire to create a walkable, community amenity in the Town Center.

EXHIBIT B
City of Scotts Valley Resolution No. 2081.1
Finding of No Net Loss
For the 2025 Scotts Valley Town Center Specific Plan

IMPLEMENTATION OF NO NET LOSS LAW
Pursuant to Government Code section 65863 (No Net Loss Law), a local jurisdiction must ensure that development opportunities remain available throughout the Housing Element planning period to accommodate the jurisdiction’s Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA).

Since the capacity to accommodate the RHNA could change if developments do not align with the capacity anticipated in the Housing Element, a local jurisdiction must constantly monitor entitlement and permitting activities to ensure that there are adequate sites to accommodate the remaining unmet RHNA by each income category at all times.

If a local jurisdiction approves a development on a parcel identified in the Housing Element Sites Inventory with fewer units than shown in the Housing Element at any income category, the jurisdiction must either make findings that the Housing Element’s remaining sites have sufficient capacity to accommodate the remaining unmet RHNA by each income category or identify and make available sufficient sites to accommodate the remaining unmet RHNA for each income category.

This document is meant to provide an example of the state-mandated findings that must be made as part of the project approval process.

Explanation of Findings for No Net Loss
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65863, the City Council finds the following:

HOUSING ELEMENT SITES
Five sites within the Town Center Specific Plan were identified in the Housing Element to accommodate a portion of the regional housing need. The estimated capacity within the Specific Plan was as follows: 497 low-income units, 39 moderate-income units, and 191 above-moderate units for a total of 657 housing units. The proposed Plan update does not reduce the total capacity of the Plan Area below what was projected in the Housing Element; the Housing Element calculated a site capacity of 427 low-/39 moderate-/191 above-moderate income units in the Specific Plan Area, whereas the capacity remaining after the Plan is updated remains the same as is listed in adopted Housing Element, across all income categories.

The minimum and maximum residential densities in the proposed Specific Plan are consistent with the Housing Element, and the remaining sites identified in the Housing Element are adequate to meet the requirements of Government Code Section 65583.2 and to accommodate the City's share of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584.

Nonetheless, the remaining sites in the Housing Element inventory are adequate to meet the requirements of Section 65583.2 and to accommodate the RHNA pursuant to Section 65584, based on the following: The Housing Element, adopted on December 19, 2023, requires that the City accommodate 427 low-/39 moderate-/191 above-moderate income units as its share of the regional housing need. If the Specific Plan is approved, the Housing Element Sites

Inventory would still have a capacity for 657 total housing units.

This finding demonstrates the remaining sites in the inventory are adequate to meet the requirements of Government Code Section 65583.2 and to accommodate the remaining share of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584. This finding includes a quantification of the remaining unmet need for the City’s share of the regional housing need at each income level and the remaining capacity of sites identified in the housing element to accommodate that need by income level.

TOWN CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
In accordance with Government Code Section 66300, which prohibits a jurisdiction from changing the general plan land use designation, specific plan land use designation, or zoning of a parcel or parcels of property to a less intensive use or reducing the intensity of land use within an existing general plan land use designation, specific plan land use designation, or zoning district in effect at the time of the proposed change below what was allowed under the land use designation or zoning ordinances of the affected county or affected city, as applicable, as in effect on January 1, 2018 unless the city or county concurrently changes the development standards, policies, and conditions applicable to other parcels within the jurisdiction to ensure that there is no net loss in residential capacity. The City conducted a Specific Plan-wide No Net Loss analysis and has determined that the Plan’s existing residential zoning capacity is 1,026 total units and with the proposed changes to Specific Plan land use designations and allowed maximum densities, the Plan’s updated residential zoning capacity would be substantially higher at 1,905 units. The 2025 Town Center Specific Plan is therefore compliant with Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (§66300).

Public Hearing: Agenda Item No. 1
12/4/2025 PC Mtg.

City of Scotts Valley

PLANNING COMMISSION

STAFF REPORT
Date: December 4, 2025
Location: Town Center Specific Plan
Request: Hold public hearing to approve a resolution recommending that Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and adopt the 2025 Scotts Valley Town Center Specific Plan (2025 Plan)
Staff Planner: Troy Reinhalter and Akoni Danielsen, Consultants

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:

1. Approve a resolution recommending that the Council certify the Final EIR and adopt the 2025 Town Center Specific Plan.

BACKGROUND
On November 20, 2025, the Planning Commission held a study session to receive public comments on the Draft 2025 Specific Plan and Draft EIR. Tonight’s public hearing follows upon this earlier study session, where comments were received from members of the Commission and members of the public. In response to comments received before the study session, at the study session, and after the study session (before this evening’s hearing), the City staff recommends a series of changes to the Final Plan and FEIR. These comments and changes are summarized in Table 1 and 3 below.

Summary of 2025 Specific Plan
The purpose of the 2025 Plan is to create a vision, policies, and objective design standards to guide new development within the Plan Area in a way that supports existing and new businesses, residents, and the overall community. The 2025 Plan would manage and direct changes in development patterns within the Plan Area through 2045 and guide present and future land uses, development intensity and scale, urban design, economic development, circulation management and mobility, infrastructure and public services, and community benefits/amenities. To this end, the 2025 Plan includes land use and zoning standards, and comprehensive utility, transportation, and landscaping/plaza/public realm improvements for

the Town Center Plan Area. Following the process laid out in the 2025 Plan (in the Implementation chapter), the City will partner with a developer (or developers) to negotiate a Development Agreement for the Town Center Core parcels that will guide the construction of the buildings, plazas, roads, and other infrastructure necessary to support a walkable Town Center.

Project Description
The 2025 Plan covers a 58-acre area bounded by Mt. Hermon Road, Skypark Drive, Blue Bonnet Lane, and includes commercial areas east of Kings Village Road. The Town Center Core comprises approximately 12 acres of mostly vacant land from the former Skypark Airport.

The 2025 Plan anticipates new development and changes over an approximate 20-year period through 2045. The goal is to create a community-oriented Downtown, with new streets, retail areas, mixed-use and residential developments, and community gathering places. To do so, it would allow for up to 657 residential units as specified in the Housing Element, as well as up to 82,000 square feet of commercial uses and up to 35,000 square feet of public/civic uses. The 2025 Plan distinguishes between the City-owned and controlled lands that make up the “Town Center Core” (where a minimum of 300 housing units will be developed in order to satisfy Surplus Lands Act requirements), and the other surrounding parcels within the 2025 Plan boundary. Differing land use and development standards apply to lands within the Core versus outside of the Core, as well as different review and permitting procedures. Adoption of the 2025 Plan will be followed by adoption of amendments to the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, which will include changing certain existing land use designations in the Plan Area, creating new zoning district(s), and updating existing or establishing new development standards to replace some of the current zoning provisions applicable to the Plan Area.

DISCUSSION
Comments Received and Changes Made to the Final 2025 Specific Plan Before, during, and after the November 20, 2025 study session, public comments were received by the City. These comments focused on four topics: allowed land uses as described in Chapter 3 and Appendix A of the Draft Plan, development and objective design standards, minimum parking requirements and associated standards, and the overall land use concept and public circulation network. Comments which resulted in changes to the Final Plan are summarized below, accompanied by the City’s detailed response or change:

Table 1: Draft Plan Comments and Changes
ALLOWED LAND USES, Chapter 3
Comment Response/Change
Bars, Tasting Rooms, Taphouses, and
Taverns should be allowed by right in MU-N.

Bars, Tasting Rooms, Taphouses, and
Taverns will be P (permitted by right) in MUN, unless operational hours after 10pm are

proposed, in which case these uses will
require a CUP.

Boutique Alcohol Sales Store should be
allowed by right in MU-N.

This use will be permitted by right in MU-N.

Medical and Dental Office uses should be
more tightly regulated in MU-TC since they
may not create the desired ground floor
activation.

Change to CUP for medical/dental offices
proposed to be located on the ground floor,
keep as P (permitted by right) in upper floors
in MU-TC.

Ensure that fitness studio use is allowed. Clarified that yoga/fitness studio is allowed under Commercial Recreation, Small Scale
(under 2,500 sq ft). Health and Wellness will
be deleted from the use table as it is covered
under Commercial Rec, Small.

For laboratories (Restricted R&D), distinguish
between small and large labs and allow small
labs with a CUP in MU-N.

Clarified that R&D office use is regulated
under Office – Research and Development,
and the land use table will distinguish
between small (less than 5,000 sq ft) and
large laboratories. Small labs will be allowed
with a CUP in MU-N.

Automobile dealerships should be permitted
or CUP in MU-N.

Increase size of permitted vehicle showroom
use from 3,000 sq ft to 5,000 sq ft.

Dealerships (defined in the use table as “auto
and light truck vehicle sales”) will continue to
be prohibited.

Concern that existing, legal non-conforming
drive-throughs would become illegal nonconforming if operation ceased for longer than six months.

New drive-through uses remain prohibited.

New standard to be added to the Plan to
clarify that the current zoning limitations on
cessation of use will not apply to existing,
legal non-conforming drive-throughs; a legal
non-confirming drive-through use may be
extended for an additional year of nonoperation with P.C. approval.

Concern raised about how to proceed with
permitting for uses not specifically listed in
Chapter 3 table or Appendix A.

Language contained in Appendix A (“The
definition or classification of a land use not
defined by this Appendix or the Municipal
Code is subject to a determination at the
discretion of the Director”) shall be copied
over to Chapter 3 of the Plan.

Additionally, public comments were submitted requesting changes to the following land uses:
restaurants, SROs, hostels, car rental, movie theater, live theater, massage, banks, night clubs, warehousing/logistics, commercial cannabis, outdoor donation box, catering/food prep, and bulk retail sales. No changes are recommended pertaining to these land uses in the 2025 Plan.

DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN STANDARDS, Chapter 3
Comment Response/Change
Proposed maximum building height of 50’
seems too high along Mt Hermon Road in
MU-TC district.

Added a new stepback standard for MU-TC
which sets a maximum building height of 40’
for 120' deep along Mt Hermon Rd,
measured from back of curb.

Proposed maximum Commercial FAR is too
low in MU-N.

Maximum Commercial FAR adjusted
upwards from 0.85 to 1.25 in MU-N.

Concerns raised that maximum density of 50
du/acre may inhibit desired residential “wrap”
Clarified that density can be moved
(aggregated) amongst multiple parcels within

typology in MU-TC. the same development project in the Plan Area. This aggregation of density does not
permit additional building height beyond the
maximum limit.

The maximum setback from Kings Village
Road in MU-N is too low at 20 feet.

Raised the maximum setback from 20 to 40
feet on Kings Village Road in MU-N.

All minimum setbacks should be 15’-20’.

Allowing Future Internal Connections with
only an 8’ setback is not appropriate.

Clarified that this standard applies to future
internal connections within the interior of a
parcel, not along an exterior edge.

Garbage Enclosures should be integrated
into the individual building design as opposed
to freestanding in a parking lot.

Standard to be added to address this
comment. Also, a proximity standard will be
added for both minimum and maximum
distances for exterior garbage
bins/enclosures from buildings.

Under Section 3.5.1 Standard #3, reduce the
required percentage of storefronts with
frontage depth greater than 40’ to 40%.

Required percentage of storefronts deeper
than 40’ will be reduced to 40%, for frontages
identified in Figure 3.2.

PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND RELATED STANDARDS, Chapter 3
Comment Response/Change
Proposed minimum parking ratios are too
low.
• Minimum parking ratio for General Retail
increased from 3.5 per 1,000 sq ft to 4.0
per 1,000 sq ft.
• New minimum parking ratio for
Commercial Recreation, Small Scale
added at 4.5 per 1,000 sq ft. Lowered the
threshold for Commercial Recreation,
Small Scale to 2,500 sq ft (from 3,500 sq
ft), compared to Commercial Recreation,
Large Scale which requires a CUP.
• Minimum parking ratio for Restaurants
increased to 10 per 1,000 sq ft for all
gross indoor area (not just dining area).
• Minimum parking ratio for second-story
office use increased to 2.5 from 2 per
1,000 sq ft.

Modifications / tenant improvements to
existing buildings without increase in square
footage should not be exempt from new Plan
standards, if this involves a change of use (to
a more intensive parking use).

Clarified that a change in use to a use that
has a higher parking requirement will trigger
a review process by Planning Department &
Planning Commission. In order to provide
less parking than required by the minimum
ratio for the new use, the applicant would be
required to demonstrate that the shared
parking district in the Core (or other future
shared parking district) contains enough
parking for all other existing uses plus the
proposed amount of parking for the new use
(this exception would be approved by the
Planning Commission, based on the above
analysis).

Minimum parking requirements should not be
counted (“shared”) across both off-street
lots/garages and on-street spaces.

Clarified that, for the purposes of meeting
minimum parking requirements, the shared
parking district boundary only applies
within/throughout the Core (not outside).

Shared parking districts may be established
elsewhere in the Plan Area, in the future.

Concerns about the parking not functioning
adequately for needs of the retailers/tenants
in the future Town Center.

Add policy that in the Development
Agreement for the Town Center Core, a
Master Parking Management Plan will be
required to be submitted & approved that
includes a semi-regular monitoring program
(presented to Council every 2 years).

Clarified that the City will ensure that the
Core Development Agreement requires
Reciprocal Easement Agreements (REA) for
Town Center Core parking lots.

There is not enough on-street parking for
major Skypark events.

The intent of the Plan is to provide parking for
normal uses/activities. Clarified that an
angled on-street parking configuration would
be permitted on Park Street, if accompanied
by regular street trees, distinct paving
treatment, and removal of the cycletrack.

Minor exceptions to standards should not
include a reduction to minimum parking
ratios.

Clarified that a minor exception does not
include reduced parking ratios. Reduction of
minimum parking ratios will require P.C.
approval as per current Zoning Code
process.

For Perimeter Parking Lot Landscaping,
reduce the required height of mature street
trees from 20’ down to 15’ to improve retail
visibility.

The minimum required height of mature
street trees in perimeter surface parking lots
will be reduced to 15’.

Section 3.6.3 C Item #4 under commercial
guidelines should be required instead of
voluntary; “where there are multiple adjacent
parking lots, they should be designed to have
vehicular connectivity, both entries and exits,
to adjacent parking lots. At the time of
development, the developing property shall
offer an easement.”
Converted this guideline into a standard, to
ensure appropriate connections between
adjacent parking lots (new and existing).

LAND USE PROGRAM / CIRCULATION NETWORK, Chapters 2 and 4 Comment Response/Change
Questions received about whether and how
the Senior Center will be included in the
future Town Center development.

Clarified that the City may declare the Senior
Center parcel as ‘surplus land,’ and may be
included in the Town Center Core
Development Agreement, and/or the City
may retain ownership of this parcel (and will
likely require that any future housing built
here include senior housing and a Senior
Center-like facility).

Concerns raised that the slender block
between Dollar Tree and Park Street (labeled
as “townhomes” on the land use concept
diagram Figure 2.3) would be better used for
non-residential or parking uses.

Removed this label from the diagram to
convey that the land use of this block is
flexible (could be retail, mixed-use,
shophouse, townhouse, and/or surface
parking).

Concerns raised that the future connection
shown connecting Park Street to the rear of
Dollar Tree should be flexible in its location.

Clarified that the public circulation and land
use concept maps are conceptual and the
precise alignment of the future

roadways/pathways may vary to some
degree from those shown in the Plan, subject
to approval by City Planning Department.

Concern that minimum density standard in
new mixed-use districts would require
construction of residential units.

Clarified that if a property owner builds
residential, a minimum density applies, but
residential development is not required for
development projects in the mixed-use zones
(aside from the Surplus Lands Act
requirement that applies in the Core).

Comments were made regarding the
adequacy of parking for residential uses.

The expectation is that parking for residential
uses will be contained within residential
lots/garages and will not be shared with
commercial uses. The exact design, quantity,
and disposition of residential parking will be
reviewed during project-level reviews.

Additional comments were received on the Specific Plan that the City will address and consider at the time of project-level review, as the Town Center Development Agreement or other developments in the Plan Area move forward.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT REVIEW (CEQA)
Key Findings
The DEIR identified significant or potentially significant effects associated with the Plan’s implementation in the following environmental topics: air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, greenhouse gas emissions, noise and vibration, and transportation. The DEIR analyzed 20 environmental subjects, responding to the checklist questions from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines to assess impacts for each environmental subject. The impact conclusions are summarized below:
• The DEIR finds no impacts or less than significant impacts through required policies, standards and programs to the following environmental subjects: Aesthetics, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Energy, Hydrology, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Tribal Cultural Resources, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfire. • The DEIR finds less than significant impacts with mitigation incorporated into the following environmental subjects: Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Noise. • The DEIR finds that the 2025 Plan would produce significant and unavoidable impacts to Greenhouse Gases, even with mitigation incorporated. The DEIR also finds the 2025 Plan would produce significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts to Transportation. • The City Council would need to reject the environmentally superior alternative and adopt a statement of overriding considerations, supported by substantial evidence in the record to move forward with the 2025 Plan. These are impacts that are commonly generated by major developments of scale in the Bay Area and the impacts are not related to the Plan’s location within the City, i.e., this amount of development occurring elsewhere in the City would result in similar impacts due to the magnitude of development, and it is not unusual for city councils to find that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable

adverse environmental effects.

The FEIR makes no changes to the key impact findings of the DEIR.

Comments Received and Changes Made to Final EIR (FEIR)
The City received 11 written public comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report, listed in Table 2 below:

Table 2: Written Comments Received on DEIR
Town Center Draft EIR Comments Agency/Source
Renee Inlow Public
Byron de Arakal (amended) Public, TRC (Adjacent Property Owner) Jessica Sierra, CDFW Agency – CA Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Kate Halper Public
Benjamin Ow and family Public (Adjacent Property Owner) Juliana Maggio Public
Nesh Dhillon, SCCFM Public, Santa Cruz County Farmer’s Market Ingrid McRoberts Agency - Caltrans
Santa Cruz YIMBY Public, SC YIMBY
Corbett Wright Public (Adjacent Property Owner)
Sue Draper Public
Comments were also received in person at the Planning Commission study session held on November 20, 2025. Table 3 below summarizes the topics raised through public comments, and the response and/or change (if any) that has been made in Final EIR:

Table 3: Summary of Response to Comments Received on DEIR Comment Topic Response in FEIR
Concerns were raised by members of the
public around traffic congestion impacts in
terms of increased intersection delays
(decreased Level of Service).

Noted – CEQA no longer requires LOS
impacts to be mitigated per SB 743.

Nonetheless, the Plan includes a number of
required and optional intersection
improvements including lengthened left turn
pockets and a new signal on Mt Hermon Road
to address potential congestion impacts.

Caltrans asked for mitigations to be
identified at SR-17 highway interchange
where La Madrona and Mt Hermon Road
intersect with the state highway.

Noted - Caltrans may recommend
improvements to state highways related to
LOS, but they do not have approval authority
over local land use projects. Traffic analysis
described in Appendix C demonstrates that
LOS remains acceptable (C or above) at this
intersection and queuing at the southbound
SR-17 ramp will not impact highway safety or
traffic operations under future cumulative
growth conditions. This analysis is attached to
the 2025 Plan and not to the DEIR/FEIR.

CDFW requested that additional, updated
biological surveys be conducted for the
project area and that additional mitigation
measures be required of future development
projects (with a focus on four local species
of concern).

The City confirms that typical biological
mitigation measures will be included in the
FEIR. The DEIR anticipated that more detailed
project-level biological surveys would be
completed by future development projects who
tier off the programmatic Specific Plan EIR.

Members of the public questioned the
adequacy of the potable water system,
stormwater system, and public services
(such as police and fire) to serve the
residential and commercial growth analyzed
under the DEIR.

The DEIR determined there are adequate
facilities, programs, and/or mitigations in place
for Public Services. The DEIR was reviewed
closely by the Scotts Valley Water District
(SVWD), as well as the state-required Water
Supply Assessment (WSA), which was
formally adopted by the District’s Board.

Santa Cruz YIMBY disputed the number of
residential units that should be studied for
the 2025 Plan and associated EIR, and
suggested that the project should be exempt
from CEQA per AB 130/SB 131.

Noted – The Specific Plan and FEIR are
legally compliant and consistent with the
adopted Housing Element which provides for
the development of 657 housing units in the
Town Center Specific Plan Area, 300 of which
shall be in the Town Center Core. The City
affirms that the 2025 Plan and FEIR were
completed according to CEQA law pertaining
to programmatic efforts. When specific
projects are proposed, they will be subject to
the applicable CEQA requirements.

Furthermore, the DEIR concluded that an
alternative with more housing than the 657
units that were studied would not be an
environmentally superior option.

Members of the public raised concerns
about parking requirements and functionality
in the future Town Center.

Noted - Parking is not a CEQA topic.

Comments on parking have been addressed
above in proposed revisions to the Specific
Plan.

PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENT
Public hearing notices were sent via email and regular mail to interested parties and posted at City Hall (Planning Department), Scotts Valley Branch Library, and the Senior Center. The FEIR will be circulated publicly for the CEQA-required ten-day review period beginning on December 4, 2025.

NEXT STEPS
The following list describes the intended timeline and upcoming meetings to adopt the 2025 Plan and certify the accompanying EIR:
• A City Council meeting to certify the EIR and adopt the 2025 Plan is scheduled for December 17; and
• Follow-up meetings with the Planning Commission and City Council will be held in early 2026 to consider associated ordinances amending the City’s General Plan and updating the Zoning Code to align with the 2025 Plan.

The 2025 Plan and EIR can be accessed on the City’s website here:
(https://www.scottsvalley.gov/TownCenter)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Attachment 1: Resolution for Planning Commission Recommending Certification of FEIR and Adoption of 2025 Town Center Specific Plan

2. Attachment 2: Staff Report for November 20, 2025 P.C. Study Session

3. Attachment 3: Public Comments received on the Draft Specific Plan and Draft EIR

RESOLUTION NO. 1809

RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY

COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF A FINAL ENVIROMENTAL IMPACT REPORT,

ADOPTION OF A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS, AND ADOPTION OF THE 2025

TOWN CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65300 requires that the City of Scotts Valley ("City") adopt and maintain a General Plan that contains certain mandated elements, describes the City's long-term goals for growth and development, and identifies policies and programs to achieve those goals; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 65450 et seq., a city may also adopt one or more specific plans to facilitate the implementation of its General Plan; and WHEREAS, on November 19, 2008, the City Council adopted the Town Center Specific Plan in order to implement the goal of the community to have a Scotts Valley Town Center (“2008 Town Center Specific Plan”); and
WHEREAS, the 2008 Town Center Specific Plan envisioned the development of 275,000 square feet of commercial space, 35,000 square feet of civic space, and 300 residential units;
WHEREAS, on November 16, 2023, the City Council adopted the updated General Plan ("General Plan") to guide future growth in the City’s Planning Area which included Action ED-1.1 which called for the 2008 Scotts Valley Town Center Specific Plan to be updated with an appropriate mix of land uses that are supported by a new market and financial feasibility analysis that is economically attractive to investors and developers; and WHEREAS, on December 7, 2023, the City Council adopted the 2023-2031 Housing Element (“Housing Element”) as part of the General Plan; and WHEREAS, Program H-1.1 of the Housing Element identified the need to update the 2008 Scotts Valley Town Center Specific Plan to allow for residential densities sufficient to accommodate 657 new residential units within the Specific Plan Area; and WHEREAS, the City hired Good City Company, Urban Field Studio, and David J. Powers and Associates to assist with the development an updated Town Center Specific Plan which met the requirements of Action ED-1.1 of the General Plan, Program H-1.1 of the Housing Element and to meet the market demands in Scotts Valley (“2025 Town Center Specific Plan”); and
WHEREAS, the 2025 Town Center Specific Plan is a document that creates a vision, policies, and objective design standards to guide new development within the Plan Area in a way that supports existing and new businesses, residents, and the overall community and provides land use regulations, development standards, and design guidelines for new development in the area; and

WHEREAS, the 2025 Town Center Specific Plan will facilitate implementation of the City's General Plan and the Housing Element by providing for up to 657 residential units as specified in the Housing Element, as well as up to 82,000 square feet of commercial uses and up to 35,000 square feet of public/civic uses; and
WHEREAS, under State law and the Municipal Code, the Planning Commission is charged with reviewing specific plans, and making recommendations to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the City prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR") (SCH No. 2025050499) for the 2025 Town Center Specific Plan. The Draft EIR was circulated for public review from October 10, 2025 to November 24, 2025. The City has considered and evaluated the comments received on the Draft EIR during the period of public review; and WHEREAS, the City has prepared and released on December 4, 2025 the Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR") for the 2025 Town Center Specific Plan which incorporates the Draft EIR, contains the City's responses to written comments received on the Draft EIR, and identifies revisions to the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, on November 20, 2025, the Planning Commission held a public meeting to accept comments on the Draft EIR and comments and questions on the 2025 Town Center Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, on December 4, 2025, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the 2025 Town Center Specific Plan and the Final EIR, considered all written and oral reports of City staff, provided opportunities for the public to speak, and considered all comments on the matter as reflected in the record.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows:

SECTION 1: The Final EIR has been completed in compliance with the requirements of CEQA and the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information within the Final EIR.

SECTION 2: The Final EIR represents the independent judgement and analysis of the City.

SECTION 3: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council certify the Final EIR attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference based on the findings pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, Findings, as described in the Findings of Fact attached hereto as Exhibit A.

SECTION 4: The Planning Commission hereby finds that the 2025 Town Center Specific Plan is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses, programs, and actions of all elements of the General Plan based on the following:

The 2025 Town Center Specific Plan is consistent with General Plan Action ED1.1 which called for the 2008 Scotts Valley Town Center Specific Plan to be updated with an appropriate mix of land uses that are supported by a new market and financial feasibility analysis that is economically attractive to investors and developers. It is also consistent with Housing Element Program H-1.1 which requires the City to update the 2008 Scotts Valley Town Center Specific Plan to allow for residential densities sufficient to accommodate 657 new residential units within the Specific Plan Area.

SECTION 5: The 2025 Town Center Specific Plan is necessary and desirable in order to implement the General Plan as the Specific Plan implements City goals and policies of the General Plan and specifically the Housing Element. The 2025 Town Center Specific Plan plans for housing consistent with Housing Element Program H-1.1 and updates the 2008 Town Center Specific Plan as identified by General Plan Action ED-1.1.

SECTION 6: The Planning Commission hereby finds the 2025 Town Center Specific Plan will promote the public health, safety, and welfare of the City’s residents by establishing goals, policies, and actions to guide the development of the Town Center.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council: (1) Certify the Final EIR, (2) Adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and (3) Adopt the 2025 Town Center Specific Plan.

The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Planning Commission of the City of Scotts Valley at a special meeting held on the 4th day of December 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
___________________________________________
Chuck Maffia, Vice Chair
___________________________________________
Taylor Bateman, Community Development Director

EXHIBIT A
City of Scotts Valley
Draft Findings Required Under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.)
For the 2025 Scotts Valley Town Center Specific Plan

1. Introduction
A public agency may not approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified that identifies one or more significant environmental effects, unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects. Each finding much be accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091).

The City of Scotts Valley (City) prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed 2025 Scotts Valley Town Center Specific Plan (Plan) in December 2025.

The Plan envisions the Town Center as the “Heart of the City,” consistent with the broader community goal of establishing a vibrant town center. To fulfill this vision, the Plan is proposed to allow a blend of commercial and residential spaces, which would be complemented by existing amenities, including a library, community theater, movie theater, Senior Center, and Community Center, and future amenities including outdoor dining and public open spaces that encourage community gathering. The Plan includes land use, zoning, and comprehensive utility, transportation, and landscaping/public realm improvements.

The Plan anticipates new development and changes in land use over an approximate 20-year period through 2045, and would allow for up to 657 residential units (consistent with the City’s Housing Element), up to 82,000 square feet of commercial uses, and up to 35,000 square feet of public/civic uses.

The Plan will establish land use designations and zoning for the Plan area as described in the Final EIR Project Description. Therefore, the Plan will require adoption of various amendments to the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, changing certain existing land use designations in the Plan area, creating new zoning districts, and updating existing or establishing new development standards to replace some of the current zoning provisions applicable to the Plan area. These amendments would be completed to ensure consistency between the Plan, the General Plan, and the Zoning Ordinance.

The Plan may be implemented over time and in a phased approach. Due to the unique characteristics of this project, specific details regarding phasing boundaries, timing, and specific details will be determined by the Project Applicant(s) or their designee(s) in response to market demand, rapidly changing mobility technology, availability of financing, and other factors as part of the development review process for individual development projects.

If phased development occurs, development of the future phases could occur in one phase or could be in multiple future phases. Development of the future phases would include construction of the remaining square footage of development as allowed under this Plan, in addition to any associated infrastructure, parking, and landscaping and open space, subject to subsequent development approval and adherence to Plan development standards and design guidelines.

The Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth below (Findings) are presented for consideration by the Planning Commission and adoption by the City Council as the City’s independent findings under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.).

The Findings provide the written explanation, evidence, reasoning and conclusions of the City regarding the project’s environmental impacts, mitigation measures, alternatives, and the overriding considerations, which in the City’s judgement, justify approval of 2025 Scotts Valley Town Center Specific Plan despite residual environmental effects.

2. Record of Proceedings and Custodian of Record
For purposes of CEQA and the findings set forth herein, the record of proceedings for the City of Scotts Valley’s findings and determinations consist of the following documents and testimony as compiled for the project:
• The Notice of Preparation (NOP), comments received on the NOP, comments received at the public scoping meeting, and all other public notices issued by the City. • Draft EIR, associated appendices to the Draft EIR, and technical materials cited in the Draft EIR.
• Final EIR, including comment letters, responses to comments, errata and technical materials cited in the Final EIR.
• Staff reports associated with Planning Commission and City Council hearings on the project.
• Those categories of materials identified in Public Resources Code Section 21167.6, which establishes the contents for the record of proceedings.

The City is the custodian of the administrative record. The documents and materials that constitute the administrative record are available for review at the City of Scotts Valley Planning Department, 1 Civic Center Drive, Scotts Valley, CA 95066.

3. Severability
If any term, provision, or portion of these Findings or the application of these Findings to a particular situation is held by a court to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of these Findings, or their application to other actions related to the project, shall continue in full force and effect unless amended or modified by the City.

4. Findings for Significant Impacts that Can Be Avoided or Reduced to a Less Than Significant Level with Implementation of Mitigation Measures Impact AQ-1: Without application of appropriate control measures to reduce construction dust and exhaust, construction period impacts at the program level would be considered a significant impact.

Finding: Changes or alterations, as identified in Mitigation Measure (MM) AQ-1.1, have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.

Rationale/Evidence: Mitigation Measure (MM) AQ-1.1 requires that individual projects built out under the Plan quantify construction criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants (TACs).

Once those details are available, individual projects would undergo modeling to identify impacts and, if necessary, future projects would include measures to reduce emissions below the applicable Monterey Bay Air Resources District construction thresholds. Reduction

measures could include various methods as outlined in the Final EIR and would help to lower construction criteria pollutants and TACs. By reducing construction period emissions, this potentially significant impact would be effectively mitigated. Projects whose construction period emissions exceeded applicable thresholds despite the application of mitigation are not covered by this resolution of findings, would require supplemental environmental review, including the evaluation of alternative(s) that avoided or reduced the project’s significant construction emissions, and the adoption of findings specific to that individual project.

Impact AQ-2: Significant Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC) emission exposure could occur under Plan buildout.

Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, i.e.

Section 3.5 Performance Standards of the Plan, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.

Rationale/Evidence: Implementation of Section 3.5 (Performance Standards) of the Plan would reduce on-site diesel exhaust emissions and reduce construction health risk impacts by requiring projects of two acres or greater and lasting more than one year within 1,000 feet of existing sensitive receptors or worker receptors as defined by the Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD) to utilize Tier 4 engines. This performance standard would be applied to development under the Plan as applicable and would effectively mitigate these potential risks below applicable MBARD thresholds.

Impact BIO-1: The Plan buildout could impact habitats within the Plan area that may contain special status species.

Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, i.e. future projects implementing the Plan would implement General Plan Policy OSC-1.16, requiring site-specific surveys and appropriate mitigation when special status species are present, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.

Rationale/Evidence: General Plan Policy OSC-1.16 requires buildout of the Plan in the following habitat types; vernally moist grassland, mixed woodland, annual grassland, and ruderal to prepare site-specific surveys prior to development. Land mapped as containing turf or developed habitat would not require a survey due to the low possibility of native species or rare/endangered wildlife. This policy would be effective because it requires developments under the Plan to mitigate any potential impacts to such species as recommended by the biologist completing the survey, and as required by the applicable wildlife agency with jurisdiction, thus minimizing any potential impacts to special status species.

Impact BIO-2: Build out of the Plan could result in the loss of fertile eggs, nesting raptors or other migratory birds, or nest abandonment.

Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, in particular Mitigation Measure MM BIO-2.1, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.

Rationale/Evidence: Mitigation Measure MM BIO-2.1 requires that all on-site tree removal, demolition and grading occur outside the nesting and breeding season to avoid nest disturbance within existing urban trees. As an alternative, if construction during the nesting season cannot be avoided, the applicant may conduct bird surveys and establish buffer zones around nests, if identified on site. These measures would be effective by directly avoiding potential effects on nesting birds or by protecting nesting birds with the oversight of a professional biologist. MM BIO-2.1 has been made a requirement of future individual projects implementing the Plan to provide a rational and enforceable program of impact avoidance.

Impact BIO 3: Future demolition activities and tree removal under the Plan could result in direct physical disturbance of any roosting bats that may be present, possibly resulting in injury or mortality, as well as the loss of roosting sites.

Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, in particular Mitigation Measures MM BIO-3.1 through MM BIO-3.4, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.

Rationale/Evidence: MM BIO-3.1 requires future development under the plan to conduct a bat habitat survey assessment to identify all trees on-site that could support roosting bats. A preconstruction visual survey of all trees that were determined to provide potential roosting habitat will be conducted as described in the Final EIR.

MM BIO-3.2 requires a two-step removal process for trees identified as currently supporting roosting bats or to remove trees that were determined to provide potential habitat but could not be adequately visually surveyed during the preconstruction survey. MM BIO-3.2 would ensure that these trees are made less attractive for bats via tree trimming, then the following day the tree would be removed. This measure would encourage any roosting bats to vacate the tree. This measure would minimize the risks that tree removal presents to bats.

For trees that cannot be adequately surveyed during the preconstruction survey, MM BIO-3.3 requires that a qualified biologist conduct a nighttime emergence survey during the volant season to determine if bats are present. If bats are present, and it is maternity season, further investigation must determine if a maternity colony is roosting in the tree. If bats are found and it is outside of maternity season, then the process described in MM BIO-3.2 would be followed.

As per MM BIO-3.4, if a maternity colony or overwintering colony is identified on the site, then a construction-free buffer shall be established around the tree(s) until the colony is determined to be no longer active. Tree removal shall occur between March 1 and April 14 or between August 16 and October 15, utilizing the two-step removal method to avoid interfering with an active nursery and/or overwintering bats.

The above measures are enforceable, as determined by the City and a qualified biologist, and would reduce the impacts to rooting bats to a less than significant level.

Impact BIO 4: Future development projects under the Plan could place fill into jurisdictional waters.

Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.

Rationale/Evidence: General Plan policy OSC-1.18 requires that all future development applications are required to submit a biological study where an initial site inventory indicates the presence of potential for wetland species or indicators. The study shall contain a delineation of all wetland areas. This General Plan policy is enforceable and would effectively ensure that impacts to jurisdictional waters are offset by requiring development applicants to identify wetland areas and obtain permits from regulatory agencies and those regulatory permits would include adequate mitigation to reduce impacts to wetlands to less than significant levels.

Impact CUL-1: Future development projects under the Plan could indirectly or directly impact known and unknown historic buildings and structures by removing historic buildings and structures, or altering the setting for historic properties.

Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.

Rationale/Evidence: General Plan Policy OSC-4.7 ensures other options are taken into account before resources are destroyed as it prohibits the destruction of designated historical resources without prior public hearing and consideration of alternatives. MM CUL-1.1 and MM CUL-1.2 provide specific directions to prepare a historic resources evaluation for structures over 50 years old and to make sure that a qualified architectural historian documents the building if a significant historic building or structure is proposed for major renovation or alteration. These mitigation measures would effectively ensure that structures are evaluated and a historical structure would be recorded if it were to be renovated or altered. In the event a future individual project implementing the Plan would propose demolition or otherwise represents a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource, supplemental environmental review would be required, including the evaluation of preservation alternatives, and would not be covered by these findings.

Impact CUL-2: Future development projects under the Plan could inadvertently discover unknown archaeological resources during construction.

Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.

Rationale/Evidence: MM CUL 2.1 directs applicants to have a qualified archaeologist prepare a Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) prior to demolition and grading. MM CUL 2.2 and MM CUL 2.3 provide specific direction to the archaeological monitor and property owner in the event that archaeological resources are discovered during the construction process. These measures would be effective because they require halting construction, establishing setbacks, avoiding resources and contacting a qualified archaeologist to assess the find, and, if determined significant, preparation of a treatment plan including data recovery. Data recovery will include excavation and exposure of features, field documentation, and recordation. These measures ensure the appropriate treatment of buried cultural resources encountered during construction.

Impact GEO-1: Future construction activities could disturb paleontological resources, if present.

Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.

Rationale/Evidence: Mitigation Measure MM GEO-1.1 requires that if a fossil is found during construction, then excavation shall halt until the find can be examined by a qualified paleontologist. The measure directs applicants to include a standard inadvertent discovery clause on the construction plans. This measure would ensure that any finds are assessed by a qualified paleontologist and, if necessary, a paleontological treatment plan will be prepared.

Treatment may include preparation and recovery of fossil materials so that they can be housed in an appropriate museum or university collection and may also include preparation of a report for publication describing the finds. MM GEO-1.1 would ensure appropriate documentation and treatment of any uncovered paleontological resources.

Impact HAZ-1: Future development within the Plan could encounter and disturb contaminated soil, soil vapor, and groundwater, and result in adverse effects on construction workers, existing residents and employees, and nearby sensitive receptors.

Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.

Rationale/Evidence: General Plan Policy SN-4.9 ensures that the City will continue to administer through the County Comprehensive Hazardous Materials Program, pursuant to Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code. General Plan policy SN-4.11 requires the mitigation of hazard exposure from new development projects through the environmental review process, design criteria, and standards development, and SN-4.12 requires that site assessments for hazardous and toxic soil contamination be conducted prior to approving development applications as necessary.

Mitigation Measure MM HAZ-1.1 ensures that General Plan Policy SN-4.12 is implemented for all developments under the Plan. Under MM HAZ 1.1, all developments under the Plan would be required to have a qualified environmental consultant prepare a Phase 1 ESA unless the Community Development Director determined the site had been adequately evaluated in a prior Phase I ESA. If determined necessary based on the findings of the Phase 1 ESA, future development would be required to complete additional testing and/or reports.

Mitigation for future projects will be implemented as deemed necessary by the required ESAs to mitigate the risk of hazardous materials being released into the environment. MM HAZ-1.1 would ensure that future development under the Plan does not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the disturbance of contaminated soil, soil vapor, and groundwater.

Impact NOI-1: Future construction associated with development under the Plan could result in temporary construction noise impacts.

Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.

Rationale/Evidence: General Plan Policies SN-7.15 and SN-7.16 would reduce noise during the construction process by managing construction noise, including requiring preparation of a Noise Reduction Plan when construction activity occurs near sensitive land uses. MM NOI1.1 requires the applicant to include various noise reduction measures as part of all grading and building construction plans that range from limiting the time each day and days of the week of construction activity to locating staging areas and construction material areas as far away as possible from adjacent land uses, prohibiting all unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines, and designating a “disturbance coordinator” who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. Construction noise can be effectively addressed through construction timing, equipment maintenance, and placement of equipment. The above mitigation measures are enforceable, as determined by the City and the City’s noise consultant, and would be included in future projects’ construction documents.

Temporary construction noise impacts of future development under the Plan would be reduced to a less than significant level with the implementation of these General Plan policies and MM NOI-1.1.

Impact NOI-2: Future development under the Plan could result in a significant permanent noise level increase.

Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.

Rationale/Evidence: General Plan Policies SN-7.5, SN-7.7, SN-7.9, and SN-7.17 would all help to minimize potential operational noise. Policy SN-7.5 requires preparation of noise studies for projects with the potential to generate substantial noise. Per the Policies SN-7.7 and SN-7.9, a qualified acoustical consultant would be retained to review mechanical equipment systems and project-specific operations during final design of all proposed development under the Plan. Policy SN-7.17 limits truck traffic in residential and commercial areas to designated truck routes. These measures are effective because they would help to

minimize operational noise under the Plan via noise studies, the use of truck routes, noise attenuation techniques, and acoustical engineering analysis.

Impact NOI-3: Ground-borne vibration levels generated by construction activities for development under the Plan exceeding the conservative 0.3 in/sec PPV limit for conventional offsite buildings would have the potential to result in a significant vibration impact.

Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.

Rationale/Evidence: Mitigation Measure MM NOI-3.1 requires that a construction vibration control plan be prepared when construction vibration has the potential to damage nearby structures. The plan shall identify necessary construction vibration controls to reduce the potential of cosmetic damage to buildings and to minimize annoyance. This measure would be effective because it gives developments under the Plan various ways to reduce construction vibration levels to a less than significant level.

5. Findings for Significant Impacts that Cannot Be Avoided or Reduced to a Less Than Significant Level (Significant and Unavoidable Effects) Impact GHG-1: Buildout under the Plan would result in approximately 15,533 MT of CO2e annually and would not meet the State’s goal of carbon neutrality by 2045.

Finding: Specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations make additional mitigation measures or alternatives infeasible.

Rationale/Evidence: Mitigation Measure MM GHG-1.1 would require that future development 1) avoid the construction of natural gas connections for residential buildings as feasible, 2) meet CALGreen Building Standards Code requirements and include electric vehicle charging infrastructure that meets current Building Code CALGreen Tier 2 compliance, and 3) Reduce VMT per service population by 15 percent over regional average or screen out based on the Analyzing Vehicle Miles Traveled for CEQA Compliance SB 743 Implementation Guidelines for the City of Scotts Valley. Implementation of these measures would help reduce GHG emissions, however not to the point of carbon neutrality.

MM GHG-1.2 requires projects that include natural gas to enter an agreement with the City to offset their project’s GHG emissions.

The Plan would allow for growth within the region that would generate net new GHG emissions, such as vehicles on roadways which consume gasoline. Both the implementation of Mitigation Measures MM GHG-1.1 and MM GHG-1.2 would reduce GHG emissions resulting from buildout under the Plan, however, not to the point of carbon neutrality. No feasible policies or measures within the City’s control as lead agency would reduce the Plan GHG emissions sufficiently to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. As described in the Final EIR, there is no current pathway for the Plan, based on the mechanisms currently available to the City, to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. In order to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045, policies must be implemented at the state and federal level, which is outside of the City’s control.

Therefore, even with implementation of the mitigation measures described above, buildout under the Plan would not achieve carbon neutrality by 2045, in conflict with state GHG reductions goals, and result in a significant and unavoidable GHG impact. Please see Statement of Overriding Considerations below.

Impact TRAN-1: Buildout of the Plan would contribute to a significant cumulative VMT impact for commercial land uses.

Finding: Specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations make additional mitigation measures or alternatives infeasible.

Rationale/Evidence: While the General Plan includes policies and programs designed to reduce VMT to a reasonable extent, such as Policy M-3.1, M-3.18, and M-3.19, impacts associated with implementation of the General Plan would not be reduced to less than significant due to the increased development, new roadways, and increased use of the City’s and regional transportation system and therefore the General Plan EIR concluded a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact. All land use components under Plan buildout would meet the City’s screening criteria so future development projects implementing the Plan would result in a less than significant VMT impact on an individual project level.

However, the Plan as a whole when considered within the cumulative environment of General Plan buildout within the City would contribute to the VMT impact disclosed in the General Plan EIR due to its incorporation of commercial land uses. Therefore, the buildout of the Plan would contribute to a significant cumulative VMT impact.

Please see Statement of Overriding Considerations below.

6. Findings for Significant Cumulative Effects
The Final EIR discusses the project’s potential cumulative effects consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15130. This discussion considers the project’s incremental contribution to potentially significant impacts when combined with other past, present and/or probably future projects within relevant geographic limits. Impact TRAN-1 discloses that the plan would contribute to a significant VMT impact. However, on an individual project level development under the Plan would result in a less than significant VMT impact. The Plan would also contribute to cumulative GHG impacts in 2045 by not achieving carbon neutrality.

7. Findings Regarding Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes Which Would be Caused by the Project Should it be Implemented Section 15126.2(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR for certain projects to discuss the significant irreversible environmental changes that would result from implementation of a proposed project. This discussion focuses on the commitment or use of nonrenewable resources during project construction and operation.

Construction of the proposed project would require the commitment of a variety of nonrenewable or slowly renewable natural resources such as lumber and other forest products, sand and gravel, asphalt, petrochemicals, and metals. The City of Scotts Valley finds such commitments insignificant for the following reasons:

1. The project is located in a developed urban area and will not convert prime agricultural land, preclude access to mineral resources, or otherwise commit ongoing or large quantities of nonrenewable resources (through removal or nonuse).

2. None of the resources required for construction are unique, rare or in danger of being depleted by the project.

3. Use of defined water resources would not deplete or threaten existing supplies of surface or groundwater resources.

4. The project does not include components (such as a highway that provides access to a previously in accessible area) that would lead to associated secondary impacts or commit future generations to such irreversible changes.

5. The project would not lead to irreversible damage from environmental accidents because the proposed residential, commercial, mixed-use, public, and quasi-public land uses do not present such risks.

8. Findings Regarding Potential Growth Inducing Effects CEQA defines a project as growth inducing if it “could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment”. Similarly, under CEQA, a project would indirectly induce growth if it would remove an obstacle to additional growth and development, such as removing a constraint on a required public service. Increases in population could tax existing community service facilities, requiring construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects.

The City of Scotts Valley finds the following regarding the project’s potential growth inducing effects:

The Plan is an “infill” project, meaning that the Plan area is within the City’s existing boundaries, already served by existing infrastructure, and planned for urban uses. The City adopted the General Plan on November 29, 2023. The development projections in the General Plan included buildout capacity for the Plan area, with the exception of the amount of housing proposed in the Plan. The purpose of the Plan is to create a vision, policies, and objectives standards to guide new development within the Plan area in a way that supports existing and new businesses, residents, and the overall community. The Plan anticipates new development and change over an approximate 20-year period through 2045. Specifically, the Plan would allow for 657 residential units, 82,000 square feet of commercial land uses, 35,000 square feet of public/quasi-public land use, and 88,663 square feet of park improvements. The 657 residential units in the Plan were accounted for in the Housing Element and their environmental impacts, in combination with the implementation of the other Plan land uses, are analyzed in this document.

There are no undeveloped areas adjacent or in the immediate vicinity of the Plan area and the Plan would not remove any obstacles that would help facilitate additional growth that could significantly affect the physical environment. The Plan would add local serving roadways to enhance circulation in the Plan area. The Plan does not include the expansion of existing infrastructure that would facilitate growth in the Plan area beyond what is accounted for in this analysis or other areas of the City. Therefore, the Plan would not result in growth-inducing impacts beyond what was envisioned in the City’s General Plan.

9. Findings Regarding Project Alternatives
Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (c), the City of Scotts Valley makes the following findings regarding the alternatives considered in the Final EIR:

1. No Project, No New Development Alternative. The No Project, No New Development alternative would be environmentally superior but meets none of the stated objectives of the project. The No Project, No New Development Alternative would avoid all the environmental impacts of the Plan, although future GHG emissions resulting from existing development within the Town Center would likely also exceed the threshold of carbon neutrality in 2045. However, under this alternative no new housing would be constructed, and the City would not be in compliance with the 2023-2031 RHNA targets contained in the currently adopted Housing Element for the 2023 – 2031 cycle. This

alternative would not accomplish any of the Plan’s community benefits. For this reason, the alternative has been rejected.

2. No Project, Existing Plans Alternative. The No Project, Existing Plans alternative would not lessen any of the environmental impacts of the Plan. All significant and unavoidable impacts of the Plan would remain under this alternative, as the 2008 Plan would also result in GHG emissions in 2045 that would exceed the carbon neutrality threshold, and the commercial component of the 2008 Plan would lead to increased traffic generation compared to the proposed Plan, and significant project-level VMT impacts, as well as contributing to significant cumulative VMT impacts. Under this alternative, 254 units allowed under the 2008 Plan would be constructed, and therefore the City would not achieve the 657 units identified in the currently adopted Housing Element for the 2023 – 2031 cycle to be in compliance with the City’s 2023-2031 RHNA targets. This alternative would meet a portion of the City’s objectives; however, it is not environmentally superior.

Therefore, the alternative has been rejected.

3. Residential Land Use Only Alternative. The Residential Land Use Only Alternative would provide the residential development included in the Plan, but it would be implemented such that it would only allow for residential development, and preclude the mixed-use development, commercial development, and civic land uses. Infrastructure improvements, such as roadways, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and utility improvements would remain as essential elements of the Plan. This alternative would ensure the Plan meets the City’s RHNA goals for the 2023 – 2031 housing cycle.

Because this alternative would not include commercial development, it would not contribute to a cumulative commercial VMT impact, however, all other environmental impacts under this alternative would be similar to the proposed Plan. This alternative would not meet any of the critical Plan objectives that relate to commercial development or public/quasi-public land uses in the Plan (Objectives 1, 2, 3, 6, and 8). The commercial (and mixed-use) aspects of the Plan are vital to the original purpose of undertaking this planning and environmental review effort; eliminating commercial uses from the Plan results in a Plan that falls short of creating a Town Center and a gathering place. Failing to accomplish Objectives 1, 2, and 3 would represent an ineffective Plan, and therefore this alternative has been rejected, as it is undesirable from a policy perspective as the intent of the Plan is to achieve a balance of land uses and not solely to allow for sufficient housing to help achieve the City’s RHNA target for the 2023-2031 housing cycle.

10. Statement of Overriding Considerations
CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable.”
When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the Final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the Final EIR

and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record (CEQA Guidelines Section 15093).

The City of Scotts Valley concludes that the project’s relative benefits outweigh its residual environmental effects for the following reasons:

1. Compliance with Housing Element. The currently adopted Housing Element for the 2023 – 2031 cycle RHNA for the City is 1,220 units. The Housing Element discloses that 657 of the total 1,220 units will be built within the Plan Area. The Plan update would ensure that the City complies with the City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element.

2. Economic Benefits to the City of Scotts Valley. The residential and commercial uses anticipated to be developed within the Plan Area would generate significant annual property taxes, and the commercial uses, to a lesser degree, sales tax. These direct economic benefits to the City’s annual budget would provide greater opportunity for enhanced City services, programs, and capital improvements. The project would also generate construction jobs and permanent jobs once the commercial uses are developed, providing employment opportunities. The scale of these economic benefits would outweigh the residual environmental effects related to significant GHG emissions in 2045 and contributing to cumulative VMT and GHG impacts.

3. Affordable Housing and Community Benefits. The project as proposed would result in a significant net increase in affordable housing and provide a range of housing opportunities within the City. Per Policy 3-1.2 of the Plan, residential buildout under the Plan would include “a range of new housing, including market-rate and affordable rental and ownership opportunities consistent with the City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element and Surplus Lands Act requirements.”

Regular Agenda Item No. 1
11/20/2025 PC Mtg.

City of Scotts Valley

PLANNING COMMISSION

STAFF REPORT
Date: November 20, 2025
Location: Town Center Specific Plan
Request: Hold study session to provide input and comments on the Public Draft 2025 Scotts Valley Town Center Specific Plan (2025 Plan) and Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)
Staff Planner: Troy Reinhalter and Akoni Danielsen, Consultants

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:

1. Receive public comments on the 2025 Plan and the DEIR; and,

2. Provide comments and questions on the 2025 Plan and DEIR.

BACKGROUND
For decades, the City of Scotts Valley has pursued a dream to build a Town Center on the vacant land formerly occupied by the Skypark Airport. During this time, several developers have looked at the site, conducted charrette exercises, and ultimately walked away from the project. In 2008, the City adopted the original Town Center Specific Plan based around a vision dominated by new commercial and civic uses. In the almost two decades that have passed since that original Plan was adopted, several changes have necessitated that a new Plan be developed. This Draft 2025 Town Center Specific Plan (“2025 Plan”) is responsive to these factors, including:
• Market forces favoring housing over commercial development. • Changes in retail markets to favor small format, experiential restaurants and shops. • The Surplus Lands Act requiring mixed-use projects on government owned ‘surplus’ land to include a minimum of 300 housing units.
• The City’s adoption of its 2023-2031 Housing Element which requires the City to update its zoning to accommodate 657 housing units in the Town Center Specific Plan Area.
• The growing need for more diverse and affordable housing opportunities in the area. • Surrounding development of Skypark, the Hangar, library and community theater, and the desire for a Plan that ties these elements together.

In addition, since 2022, the City has taken a proactive approach to removing barriers that prevented the Town Center from being developed in the past. These efforts include:
• Acquiring eight acres of vacant land from the City of Santa Cruz to assemble the full, contiguous 12+ acres of the “Town Center Core” area under City of Scotts Valley ownership.
• Surface level environmental clean-up on these vacant Core parcels resulting in a closed case with County Environmental Health.
• Conducting an updated retail analysis and engagement with a consultant to identify potential commercial tenants.
• Securing $1,000,000 in Federal funding to assist with the acquisition of the Santa Cruz-owned land (the former airport).
• Conducting extensive community and stakeholder outreach to develop a modern preferred vision that emphasizes human scale connectivity and a walkable retailsupportive environment. • Hiring consultants specialized in architecture, planning, and real estate development with a background working for private developers to ensure the updated vision is buildable in today’s market and economy.

The purpose of the 2025 Plan is to create a vision, policies, and objective design standards to guide new development within the Plan Area in a way that supports existing and new businesses, residents, and the overall community. The 2025 Plan would manage and direct changes in development patterns within the Plan Area through 2045 and guide present and future land uses, development intensity and scale, urban design, economic development, circulation management and mobility, infrastructure and public services, and community benefits/amenities. Following the process laid out in the 2025 Plan (in the Implementation chapter), the City will partner with a developer (or developers) to negotiate a Development Agreement for the Town Center Core parcels that will guide the construction of the buildings, plazas, roads, and other infrastructure necessary to support a walkable Town Center.

General Plan and Housing Element Context
In November 2023, the City adopted the updated Scotts Valley General Plan, which will guide development within the City through 2045. The General Plan included Action ED-1.1 which called for the 2008 Scotts Valley Town Center Specific Plan to be updated with an appropriate mix of land uses that are supported by a new market and financial feasibility analysis that is economically attractive to investors and developers.

In December 2023, the City adopted the Scotts Valley 6th Cycle Housing Element, covering years 2023 – 2031. Program H-1.1 of the Housing Element identified the need to update the 2008 Scotts Valley Town Center Specific Plan to allow for residential densities sufficient to accommodate 657 new residential units within the Plan Area. These units would satisfy a significant portion of the 1,220 total housing units allocated to the City through the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process. The Housing Element requires that the 2008 Scotts Valley Town Center Specific Plan be updated by December 2025 to allow densities that enable development of the number of residential units specified through RHNA.