Agenda packet — Scotts Valley City Council, May 6, 2026 (part 2 of 4)

EXHIBIT C

LAND SURVEY SERVICES FEE SCHEDULE
Effective January 1, 2026
Labor Description Hourly Rate
Principal Land Surveyor / Geomatics Principal Manager ........................................................................... $ 275.00 Senior Land Surveyor / Senior Project Manager ........................................................................................... $ 268.00 Survey Project Manager ..................................................................................................................................... $ 235.00 Project Surveyor ................................................................................................................................................. $ 200.00 Associate Surveyor ............................................................................................................................................. $ 184.00 Survey Technician (Office) ............................................................................................................................... $ 157.00 CADD Technician ............................................................................................................................................. $ 127.00 Project Coordinator ........................................................................................................................................... $ 113.00 Prevailing Wage Rates by Field Survey Personnel Classifications One Person ......................................................................................................................................................... $ 200.00 Two Person ......................................................................................................................................................... $ 360.00 Notes:
• Field survey personnel and crews are billed at a minimum of 8 hours per day only. • Field survey rates are inclusive of one survey vehicle, vehicle mileage up to 50 miles from the home office, conventional and GPS survey equipment, and standard safety equipment. • Hydrographic equipment mobilization to the site will be charged at a per day mobilization of $1350 per day. Will consist of rubber boat, and single beam (sounding unit). For multi-beam hydrographic survey, a per day mobilization fee of $2500. Determination of means and methods of the hydrographic survey will be conducted prior to the start of the survey.

SPECIAL LABOR RATES
Labor Description Hourly Rate
Hazmat Crew Supplement ..................................................................... Field Personnel Rate plus $10.00 per Person per Hour Night Shift Work ...................................................................................... Field Personnel Rate plus 12.5% per Person per Hour

AUTHORIZED OVERTIME LABOR RATES
Labor Description Hourly Rate
Saturdays and in Excess of 8 Hours on Weekdays .................................................................................... 1.5 times Regular Rate Sundays and Holidays ...................................................................................................................................... 2.0 times Regular Rate

EQUIPMENT AND OTHER DIRECT COSTS
Equipment Description Rate
Terrestrial Static Laser Scanner ............................................................................................................... Quote Provided per Project Terrestrial Mobile Laser Scanner ............................................................................................................ Quote Provided per Project Specialty Survey Equipment .................................................................................................................... Quote Provided per Project Client shall pay the costs, plus 10%, for any applicable government fees, title company charges, subconsultant fees, outside vendor costs, reproduction costs, vehicle mileage (except as noted above), travel related costs, rental vehicles and boats, rental and specialty equipment, consumable materials, digital delivery media, and delivery or messenger services incurred on Client’s behalf.

Page 175 of 570 ends

Appendix B
Geotechnical Proposal

Page 176 of 570 ends

GEOTECHNICAL

ENVIRONMENTAL

WATER RESOURCES

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

COASTAL/MARINE GEOTECHNICS
2350 Mission College Boulevard, Suite 800, Santa Clara, CA 95054  (408) 574-4900  [email protected] www.engeo.com
Project No.

P30480.000.001
January 28, 2026
Ms. Claudia Llerandi
Kennedy Jenks
2121 N. California Boulevard, Suite 810
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Subject: MBR Package Treatment Plant
700 Lundy Lane
Scotts Valley, California

PROPOSAL FOR GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
References: 1. Pacific Crest Engineering Inc. 2022. Geotechnical Investigation, City of Scotts Valley, Department of Public Works. December 2022.

2. Bowman & Williams Consulting Civil Engineers and Land Surveyors. 2022.

Demolition Plan City of Scott’s Valley DPW-701 Lundy Lane. Scotts Valley, California. August 2022.

Dear Ms. Llerandi:

We present this proposal to perform geotechnical engineering services to support the planning and design of the proposed Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) package treatment plant within the Water Reclamation Facility located at 700 Lundy Lane in Scotts Valley, California. In preparation for this proposal, we were provided with an existing geotechnical investigation report for the site dated December 2022 (Reference 1). We also reviewed publicly available demolition plans for buildings formerly located on the site.

GEOTECHNICAL BACKGROUND
The approximately 1½-acre site is located within Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 021-27-1098 in Scotts Valley, California, and is currently paved and occupied by trailers and soil/debris mounds.

Based on our review of the geotechnical investigation report performed by Pacific Crest Engineering Inc. in December 2022, we understand that the site is underlain by up to 10 feet of fill consisting of loose to medium dense sand. The fill is underlain by loose to medium dense sandy alluvial deposits. In the northern portion of the site, the native deposits include an approximately 5-foot-thick layer of highly compressible, soft, organic-rich clay that was reported below a depth of about 10 feet below grade. Bedrock was noted at depths between approximately 17 and 22 feet in most of the borings. Groundwater was recorded in all borings at depths ranging from 5 to 10 feet.

Santa Cruz County hazard mapping characterizes the site as having moderate liquefaction potential. The site is located roughly 50 feet southeast of the Evers Creek channel, posing a risk for liquefaction-induced lateral spreading.

Page 177 of 570 ends

Kennedy Jenks P30480.000.001
MBR Package Treatment Plant January 28, 2026
PROPOSAL FOR GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES Page 2
Based on the existing subsurface data and mapping, it is our opinion that the MBR plant foundation design will need to consider the presence of potentially liquefiable material and up to 5 feet of highly compressible soft organic clay underlying the site.

SCOPE OF SERVICES
Task 1: Geotechnical Report
Our proposed scope of services will include a limited field investigation to supplement the existing data. Our field exploration will focus on confirming the subsurface conditions documented in the existing borings and filling data gaps, including shear-wave velocity data for seismic site classification and soil corrosion potential for foundation and utility design. Our proposed scope of services is detailed in the following subsections.

Available Data Review
We will review the existing reports and construction documents by others, available geologic maps, topographic maps, historical aerial photographs, and other geotechnical information pertaining to the site. We will incorporate the existing boring and laboratory data in our analysis of the site.

Field Exploration
To characterize the subsurface conditions for design, we propose to supplement the existing data by exploring the site with one boring, as a confirmation boring to supplement the available historical borings, and geophysical surface wave testing at the proposed locations shown in Exhibit 1. The proposed boring will be advanced within the limits of the demolished building that was formerly at the site.

EXHIBIT 1: Proposed Exploration Site Plan

Page 178 of 570 ends

Kennedy Jenks P30480.000.001
MBR Package Treatment Plant January 28, 2026
PROPOSAL FOR GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES Page 3
• Boring – We will retain the services of a subcontractor to perform drilling one boring to bedrock. We anticipate the boring extending up to 20 feet below the existing ground surface or to rig refusal if it occurs at a shallower depth.
 We will log the soil encountered and collect soil samples using split-spoon and modified California samplers, depending on the material encountered during drilling.  We will containerize soil cuttings from the exploratory boring in 55-gallon drums and temporarily store them at a designated location on site prior to off-site disposal. Our fee assumes the material will be classified (based on the results of analytical testing) and disposed of as Class II non-hazardous material; should supplemental testing be needed, or if the material disposal costs are anticipated to be greater than assumed, we will discuss with you the changed condition prior to offhaul.
• Geophysical Surface Wave Testing – We assume that the project will follow the 2025 California Building Code (CBC), which incorporates the ASCE 7-22 standard by reference.

The ASCE 7-22 standard requires shear-wave velocity (VS) data for site classification purposes. To evaluate the seismic site conditions to support site classification in accordance with the 2025 California Building Code and ASCE 7-22, we will retain a qualified geophysical subcontractor to perform Multichannel Analysis of Surface Waves (MASW) testing. This non-invasive method will be used to measure shear-wave velocity (VS) profiles of the subsurface materials, providing data for seismic design parameters. The results will be incorporated into our geotechnical analysis and recommendations.

We anticipate that the field exploration will take approximately 1 to 2 days to complete.

Permitting and Utility Clearance
Prior to commencing our subsurface exploration services, we will obtain a geotechnical exploration drilling permit from Santa Cruz County for the proposed boring. We will coordinate and grout the exploratory boring in accordance with permit requirements.

At least 48 hours prior to drilling, we will mark the site for an Underground Service Alert (USA) utilities check. We will retain the services of a private utility locator to clear readily identifiable utilities at the proposed exploration location.

Laboratory Testing
We will perform limited laboratory testing in our ASTM-accredited in-house geotechnical laboratory to evaluate the engineering characteristics of the soil samples.

We also plan to perform soil corrosion potential testing on two samples. The testing suite will include pH, redox, resistivity, sulfate, and chloride content. The testing will be performed on samples collected within the fill material and within the organic clay layer.

Analysis and Report Preparation
We will analyze the subsurface and geophysical data and prepare a geotechnical report. The report will include the following, as appropriate.
• Discussion of the field operations and testing
• Discussion of physical properties of the typical soil/rock encountered on site

Page 179 of 570 ends

Kennedy Jenks P30480.000.001
MBR Package Treatment Plant January 28, 2026
PROPOSAL FOR GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES Page 4
• Assessment of geological and geotechnical hazards, including:
 Proximity of the site to active faults
 Treatment of geotechnical constraints such as loose/soft surface soil, existing fill, expansive soil, liquefaction, lateral spreading and others based on field exploration results  Groundwater conditions
• Site preparation and grading recommendations, including:
 Site preparation and temporary excavation considerations  Handling of on-site soil
 Acceptable fill material
 Subgrade preparation
 Fill placement and utility backfill recommendations
• Soil corrosion potential based on laboratory corrosion tests • 2025 California Building Code site class and seismic design criteria. • Foundation alternatives and design recommendations for the proposed MBR plant, including:
 Recommended depth and size of foundation
 Bearing capacity
 Lateral resistance
• Flexible and rigid pavement design recommendations
We will prepare a draft geotechnical report for your review. Following your review, we will address any comments and finalize our report. The geotechnical report will include a summary of the surface and subsurface conditions, seismicity, laboratory test data, boring log data, MASW data, and a site plan showing previous and current exploration locations and project limits.

Task 2: Consultation
We will attend project meetings and provide consultation, as needed.

FEE AND SCHEDULE
We propose to perform the above-described scope of services for the fees presented in Table 1.

TABLE 1: Fee Estimate

SCOPE FEE FEE TYPE
Task 1 – Geotechnical Report $65,000 Fixed-Fee
Task 2 – Consultation $5,000 Time-and-Expense
TOTAL $70,000
Upon authorization, we expect our field exploration to be completed within 4 to 5 weeks depending on the County of Santa Cruz drilling permit turnaround time and the availability of our drilling and geophysical testing subcontractors. We can provide our draft geotechnical report within 4 weeks of completion of the field exploration. In total, we estimate 8 to 9 weeks from authorization to delivery of a draft geotechnical report. We will finalize the draft design report following your review.

Once you have accepted our proposal, we will schedule personnel and subcontractors to perform the field exploration.

Page 180 of 570 ends

Kennedy Jenks P30480.000.001
MBR Package Treatment Plant January 28, 2026
PROPOSAL FOR GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES Page 5

ASSUMPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS
• A field work plan is not necessary.
• Necessary removal or unlocking of fences or gates, permission to enter the site from the current owner or leaseholder, and/or required use permits must be secured by the client prior to our field activities. If site access or weather conditions restrict our field operations, a revision to our fee may be necessary.
• Prior to initiating our subsurface explorations, all site utilities and utility easements, including private utility pipes, must be accurately located in the field. This information must be made available to us at least 2 days prior to our field exploration. We will accept no responsibility for damage to existing utilities or irrigation pipes.
• We can perform our fieldwork between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday; on-site access will be provided during these hours. • If potentially hazardous materials are identified visually or by odor within our exploratory boring, we will notify you as soon as possible of such an occurrence in order to decide mutually whether to continue, suspend, modify, or cease the remainder of the field exploration program. All costs incurred as a result of encountering suspected hazardous materials would be charged on a time-and-expense basis.

AUTHORIZATION
ENGEO's liability for damage due to professional negligence, acts, errors, omissions, breach of contract and consequential damages will be limited by Client to an amount not to exceed an aggregate limit of two hundred thousand dollars, or ENGEO’s fee, whichever is greater, regardless of the legal theory under which such liability is imposed.

If the above scope of services and fee are acceptable, please send a consulting agreement for our review and acceptance. We can begin services upon receipt of an executed agreement We look forward to continuing to serve you on this project. If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please call and we will be glad to discuss them with you.

Sincerely,
ENGEO Incorporated
Genesis Palacios, PhD Yanet Zepeda, GE
Staff Engineer Associate
gp/yz/nn/ca
Attachment: Preferred Client Fee Schedule
Source: Ten Arquitectos

Page 181 of 570 ends

GEOTECHNICAL

ENVIRONMENTAL

WATER RESOURCES

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

COASTAL/MARINE GEOTECHNICS
February 10, 2025 www.engeo.com

PREFERRED CLIENT FEE SCHEDULE

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Effective February 2025
President .......................................................................................................................... $495.00 per hour Principal............................................................................................................................ $415.00 per hour Associate.......................................................................................................................... $345.00 per hour Subject Matter Expert........................................................................................................ $450.00 per hour Senior............................................................................................................................... $290.00 per hour Project.............................................................................................................................. $258.00 per hour Staff.................................................................................................................................. $230.00 per hour Assistant........................................................................................................................... $183.00 per hour Construction Services Manager II ...................................................................................... $235.00 per hour* Construction Services Manager I ....................................................................................... $225.00 per hour* Senior Field Representative II............................................................................................ $195.00 per hour*/** Senior Field Representative I............................................................................................. $175.00 per hour*/** Field Representative ......................................................................................................... $161.00 per hour*/** Senior Laboratory Technician............................................................................................ $195.00 per hour Laboratory Technician....................................................................................................... $175.00 per hour Senior GIS Developer ....................................................................................................... $210.00 per hour GIS Developer .................................................................................................................. $200.00 per hour Senior GIS Analyst............................................................................................................ $205.00 per hour GIS Analyst....................................................................................................................... $190.00 per hour Senior CAD Specialist ....................................................................................................... $190.00 per hour CAD Specialist.................................................................................................................. $180.00 per hour Network Administrator....................................................................................................... $265.00 per hour Project Assistant ............................................................................................................... $155.00 per hour * Two-hour minimum portal to portal and cancellations within 24 hours. * OVERTIME RATES: Rates will be increased by a factor of 1.5 for all hours worked in excess of eight (8) Monday through Friday, and the first eight (8) hours worked on Saturday. Rates will be increased by a factor of 2.0 for all hours worked in excess of twelve (12) Monday through Friday, all hours worked in excess of eight (8) on Saturday, and all hours worked on Sundays and holidays. ** For Prevailing Wage projects, the hourly rate will be increased by $22. ** Rates will be increased by factor of 1.25 for night-shift hours (hours commencing after 4:00 p.m. or before 4:00 a.m.); rates will be increased by a factor of 1.875 (an additional factor of 1.5) for all night-shift hours in excess of eight (8); rates will be increased by a factor 2.5 for all night-shift hours worked in excess of twelve (12).

Scheduled night-shift work, which is cancelled with less than 24 hours’ notice, will be billed at night-shift rates. Night-shift work of less than 4-hour scheduled duration will be billed a minimum of 4 hours at night shift rates.

ADDITIONAL SERVICES OFFERED
In addition to our core services of geotechnical, hydrologic and environmental engineering, including construction-phase testing and observation, ENGEO provides clients with services for establishment and management of Geologic Hazard Abatement Districts (GHAD) and for Entitlement and Permitting Support (EPS). For more information about these services and associated pricing, please contact ENGEO at (925) 866-9000.

OTHER FEES
• Equipment and materials will be charged in addition to the above hourly rates. • Outside Consultants, Subcontracted Services and Equipment Rental ........................................................................... Cost plus 25% • Expert Witness, Deposition, Mediation, Arbitration, or Court Appearance (Minimum Charge) ........ $2,800.00 half day, $4,800.00 full day TERMS
Invoices will be submitted at completion of work or at approximately four week intervals and are due and payable upon receipt. Statements will be issued at monthly intervals. Charges not paid within 30 days of invoice date will accrue a late charge at a rate of 1.5 percent per month. In the event it becomes necessary to commence suit to collect amount due, Client agrees to pay attorney's fees and costs, as the court may deem reasonable until amount is paid. Fees will be applicable for one year from the effective date above; thereafter, fees will be adjusted annually. Our fees will be billed using an invoice format produced by a standardized accounting software package. A more customized itemization of charges and backup data will be provided upon Client’s requests, but at additional fees. Final reports may be withheld until outstanding invoices are paid in full.

Many risks potentially affect ENGEO by virtue of entering into this agreement to perform services on behalf of client. A principal risk is the potential for human error by ENGEO. For client to obtain the benefit of a fee that includes a nominal allowance for dealing with our liability, client agree to limit ENGEO’s liability to Client and all other parties for claims arising out of our performance of the services described in the agreement. The aggregate liability will not exceed $50,000 (or ENGEO’s fee, whichever is greater, but not more than $1,000,000) for professional acts, errors, or omissions, including attorney’s fees and costs that may be awarded to the prevailing party and client agrees to indemnify and hold harmless ENGEO from and against all liabilities in excess of the monetary limit established above.

Page 182 of 570 ends

EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS CHARGES
February 10, 2025 www.engeo.com
DESCRIPTION COST PER UNIT ($) UNIT
Air Content Meter 7.00 hour
Bailers (Disposable) 10.00 each
Coatings Thickness Kit (eg. Fireproofing, Protective Paint) 30.00 hour Concrete Crack Monitor 20.00 each
Coring Machine 30.00 hour
Double-Ring Infiltrometer 50.00 hour
Electronic Water Level Indicator 5.00 hour
Engineering Analysis Software 51.00 hour
Equipment Transport(er) 100.00 hour
Exploration Equipment (Electric Auger) 50.00 hour
Floor Flatness/Floor Level Equipment 40.00 hour
Generator 15.00 hour
GIS Website Portal Subscriptions 50.00 month
GPS Handheld Device 10.00 hour
GPR/GPS/Drone Survey Equipment 235.00 hour
Hand Auger and Soil Sampler 15.00 hour
Hydraulic Pull-Test Equipment 25.00 hour
Interface Probe 2.00 hour
Magnetic Particle Test Equipment 25.00 hour
Moisture Content Test Equipment 6.00 hour
Multi-Parameter Water Meter 15.00 hour
pH Meter/Turbidity Meter 10.00 hour
Photo Ionization Detector 20.00 hour
Reinforcing Bar Locator 100.00 hour
Sampling Tubes 10.00 each
Sand Cone Equipment and Material 5.00 hour
Schmidt Hammer 20.00 hour
Seisometer 50.00 hour
Skidmore Wilhelm Bolt Tension Calib. 40.00 hour
Slope Inclinometer/Settlement Indicator/VW Readout 50.00 hour Torque Wrench 15.00 hour
Transfer Pump 3.00 hour
Ultrasonic Equipment 50.00 hour
Vapor Emission Test Kit 40.00 kit
Vector Conversion 60.00 conversion
Vehicle, nuclear gauge, equipment, wireless communication. *Add $5.00/hr. for RTK enabled autotesting equipment. 36.00* hour Vehicle, equipment, wireless communication 26.00 hour
Vibration Monitor 1800.00 month
Water Sampling Pumps 20.00 hour
Bridge Toll actual actual
Mileage .98 mile
Parking actual actual
AutoCAD, Civil 3D, GIS, Drone Data Processing 36.00 hour BoreDM Bore Log 55.00 per log
Photocopies Black & White 0.25 each
Photocopies Color 11 x 17 1.50 each
Photocopies Color 8½ x 11 1.00 each
Plot - Black & White 3.00 square foot
Plot - Color 4.00 square foot
Postage actual actual
Scan - Black & White 1.50 each
Scan - Color 3.75 each
Telephone 0.50 minute

Page 183 of 570 ends

Appendix C
Drawings Sheet List

Page 184 of 570 ends

# 30% (PDR) 60% 90% 100% SHEET NO SHEET TITLE

GENERAL
1 * * * * G-001 TITLE SHEET, PROJECT VICINITY MAP, AND LOCATION MAP 2 * * * * G-002 DRAWING INDEX
3 * * * * G-003 GENERAL ABBREVIATIONS
4 * * * * G-004 GENERAL NOTES AND LEGENDS
5 * * * * G-005 GENERAL EQUIPMENT DESIGNATIONS AND PROCESS IDENTIFICATION CODES 6 * * * * G-006 GENERAL PROCESS SYMBOLS
7 * * * * G-007 PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
8 * * * * G-008 HYDRAULIC PROFILE
9 * * * G-009 DESIGN CRITERIA
10 * * * * G-010 SITE ACCESS, STORAGE, AND STAGING PLAN 11 * * * * G-011 SITE SEQUENCING PLAN
12 * * * * CD-301 CIVIL DEMOLITION AND TEMPORARY UTILITIES PLAN - I 13 * * * * CD-302 CIVIL DEMOLITION AND TEMPORARY UTILITIES PLAN - II 14 * * * CD-499 CIVIL DEMOLITION DETAILS - I
15 * * * CD-500 CIVIL DEMOLITION DETAILS - II
16 * * * * MD-001 MECHANICAL DEMOLITION PLAN AND DETAILS - I 17 * * * * MD-002 MECHANICAL DEMOLITION PLAN AND DETAILS - II 18 * * * * ED-001 ELECTRICAL DEMOLITION PLAN AND DETAILS - I 19 * * * * ED-002 ELECTRICAL DEMOLITION PLAN AND DETAILS - II 20 * * * * ED-003 ELECTRICAL DEMOLITION SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM - I 21 * * * * ED-004 ELECTRICAL DEMOLITION SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM - II 22 * * * * IC-001 I &C DEMOLITION DETAILS - I
23 * * * * IC-002 I &C DEMOLITION DETAILS - II
CIVIL
24 * * * * C-001 CIVIL NOTES
25 * * * C-002 CIVIL LEGEND
26 * * * C-003 STANDARD DETAILS - I
27 * * * C-004 STANDARD DETAILS - II
28 * * * * C-005 OVERALL SITE PLAN
29 * * * * C-101 HORIZONTAL CONTROL AND PAVING PLAN - I 30 * * * * C-201 GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN - I
31 * * * * C-301 YARD PIPING PLAN - I
32 * * * C-351 PIPING PROFILES - I
33 * * * C-352 PIPING PROFILES - II
34 * * C-501 DETAILS - I
35 * * C-502 DETAILS - II

ARCHITECTURAL
36 * * * * A-001 CODE SUMMARY, SCHEDULES, AND NOTES
37 * * A-002 ARCHITECTURAL STANDARD DETAILS - I
38 * * A-003 ARCHITECTURAL STANDARD DETAILS - II
39 * * * * XX-A-01 BLOWER BUILDING - FLOOR AND ROOF PLAN 40 * * * * XX-A-02 BLOWER BUILDING - EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 41 * * * XX-A-03 BLOWER BUILDING - SECTIONS

STRUCTURAL
42 * * * S-001 STRUCTURAL - GENERAL NOTES AND ABBREVIATIONS 43 * * * S-002 STRUCTURAL - SPECIAL INSPECTION AND TESTING NOTES - II 44 * * * S-003 STRUCTURAL - SPECIAL INSPECTION AND TESTING NOTES - II 45 * * * S-004 STRUCTURAL - STANDARD DETAILS - I
46 * * * S-005 STRUCTURAL - STANDARD DETAILS - II
47 * * * S-006 STRUCTURAL - STANDARD DETAILS - III
48 * * * XX-S-01 MBR - FOUNDATION PLAN AND SECTIONS
49 * * * XX-S-01 BLOWER AND ELECTRICAL BUILDING - FOUNDATION PLAN AND ROOF PLAN 50 * * * XX-S-02 BLOWER AND ELECTRICAL BUILDING - SECTIONS AND DETAILS 51 * * * XX-S-01 UV DISINFECTION CANOPY - FOUNDATION PLAN AND ROOF PLAN 52 * * * XX-S-02 UV DISINFECTION CANOPY - SECTIONS AND DETAILS 53 * * * XX-S-01 SLUDGE HOLDING TANK AND DEWATERING - FOUNDATION PLAN AND SECTIONS

DEMOLITION

DRAWING INDEX
Scotts Valley MBR (WWTP)

Page 185 of 570 ends

# 30% (PDR) 60% 90% 100% SHEET NO SHEET TITLE

DRAWING INDEX
Scotts Valley MBR (WWTP)

PROCESS MECHANICAL
54 * * * * M-001 MECHANICAL ABBREVIATIONS AND NOTES
55 * * * M-002 STANDARD DETAILS - I
56 * * * M-003 STANDARD DETAILS - II
57 * * * M-501 DETAILS - I
58 * * * M-502 DETAILS - II
59 * * * XX-M-01 ELECTRICAL BUILDING - PLAN
60 * * * XX-M-02 ELECTRICAL BUILDING - SECTIONS AND DETAILS 61 * * * * XX-M-01 INFLUENT PUMP STATION - UPPER PLAN
62 * * * * XX-M-02 INFLUENT PUMP STATION - LOWER PLAN
63 * * * * XX-M-03 INFLUENT PUMP STATION - SECTIONS AND DETAILS 64 * * * * XX-M-01 FLOW METER VAULT - PLAN AND SECTIONS 65 * * * * XX-M-01 FINE SCREENING AND GRIT REMOVAL - PLAN 66 * * * * XX-M-03 FINE SCREENING AND GRIT REMOVAL - SECTIONS AND DETAILS 67 * * * * XX-M-01 MBR EQ TANK AND FEED PUMPS - PLAN
68 * * * * XX-M-02 MBR EQ TANK AND FEED PUMPS - SECTIONS AND DETAILS 69 * * * * XX-M-01 BNR/MBR OVERALL PLAN
70 * * * * XX-M-02 BNR/MBR TANKS - PLAN
71 * * * * XX-M-04 BNR/MBR TANKS - SECTIONS - I
72 * * * * XX-M-05 BNR/MBR TANKS - SECTIONS - II
73 * * * * XX-M-01 BLOWER BUILDING - PLAN
74 * * * * XX-M-02 BLOWER BUILDING - SECTIONS AND DETAILS 75 * * * * XX-M-01 UV DISINFECTION - PLAN
76 * * * * XX-M-02 UV DISINFECTION - SECTIONS AND DETAILS 77 * * * * XX-M-01 RECYCLED WATER TANK AND TRANSFER PUMP STATION - PLAN 78 * * * * XX-M-02 RECYCLED WATER TANK AND TRANSFER PUMP STATION - SECTIONS AND DETAILS 79 * * * * XX-M-01 MBR CIP - PLAN
80 * * * * XX-M-02 MBR CIP - SECTIONS AND DETAILS
81 * * * * XX-M-01 SLUDGE HOLDING TANK AND DEWATERING - PLAN 82 * * * * XX-M-02 SLUDGE HOLDING TANK AND DEWATERING - SECTIONS 83 * * * * XX-M-03 SLUDGE HOLDING TANK AND DEWATERING - DETAILS

BUILDING MECHANICAL
84 * * * H-001 HVAC ABBREVIATIONS, NOTES, AND LEGEND
85 * * * H-002 HVAC STANDARD DETAILS
86 * * * H-003 HVAC EQUIPMENT SCHEDULES
87 * * * XX-H-01 ELECTRICAL BUILDING - HVAC PLAN
88 * * * XX-H-02 ELECTRICAL BUILDING - HVAC SECTIONS
89 * * * * XX-H-01 BLOWER BUILDING - HVAC PLAN
90 * * * XX-H-02 BLOWER BUILDING - HVAC SECTIONS

PLUMBING
91 * * * P-001 PLUMBING ABBREVIATIONS, NOTES, AND LEGEND 92 * * * P-002 PLUMBING DETAILS
93 * * * P-003 PLUMBING SCHEDULES
94 * * * XX-P-01 MBR AREA - PLUMBING PLAN - I
95 * * * XX-P-02 MBR AREA - PLUMBING PLAN - II
96 * * * XX-P-01 SOLIDS TREATMENT BUILDING - PLUMBING PLAN

Page 186 of 570 ends

# 30% (PDR) 60% 90% 100% SHEET NO SHEET TITLE

DRAWING INDEX
Scotts Valley MBR (WWTP)

ELECTRICAL
97 * * * * E-001 ELECTRICAL ABBREVIATIONS AND NOTES
98 * * * * E-002 ELECTRICAL LEGEND - I
99 * * * * E-003 ELECTRICAL LEGEND - II
100 * * * E-004 ELECTRICAL STANDARD DETAILS - I
101 * * * E-005 ELECTRICAL STANDARD DETAILS - II
102 * * E-011 DUCTBANK SECTIONS - I
103 * * E-012 DUCTBANK SECTIONS - II
104 * * * * E-021 ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN
105 * * * E-031 PANELBOARD SCHEDULES
106 * * * * E-041 SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM - I
107 * * * * E-042 SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM - II
108 * * * * E-043 SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM - III
109 * * * E-045 MCC ELEVATION
110 * * * E-052 CONTROL SCHEMATIC - I (INFLUENT PUMPS)
111 * * * E-059 CONTROL SCHEMATIC - II (RECYLED WATER PUMPS) 112 * * * E-060 CONTROL SCHEMATIC - III (SOLIDS FEED PUMP) 113 * * E-062 CONDUIT BLOCK DIAGRAM - I
114 * * E-063 CONDUIT BLOCK DIAGRAM - II
115 * * E-071 CONDUIT AND CABLE SCHEDULE - I
116 * * E-072 CONDUIT AND CABLE SCHEDULE - II
117 * * * E-XXX ELECTRICAL BUILDING - POWER AND SIGNAL PLAN 118 * * E-XXX ELECTRICAL BUILDING - LTG, RECEPT, AND GROUNDING PLAN 119 * * * E-XXX INFLUENT PUMP STATION - POWER AND SIGNAL PLAN 120 * * E-XXX INFLUENT PUMP STATION - LTG, RECEPT, AND GROUNDING PLAN 121 * * * E-XXX MBR INFLUENT FLOW METER - POWER AND SIGNAL PLAN 122 * * * E-XXX MBR AREA - POWER AND SIGNAL PLAN - I
123 * * * E-XXX MBR AREA - POWER AND SIGNAL PLAN - II
124 * * * E-XXX MBR AREA - POWER AND SIGNAL PLAN - III
125 * * E-XXX MBR AREA - LTG, RECEPT, AND GROUNDING PLAN - I 126 * * E-XXX MBR AREA - LTG, RECEPT, AND GROUNDING PLAN - II 127 * * E-XXX MBR AREA - LTG, RECEPT, AND GROUNDING PLAN - III 128 * * * E-XXX BLOWER ROOM - POWER AND SIGNAL PLAN
129 * * E-XXX BLOWER ROOM - LTG, RECEPT, AND GROUNDING PLAN 130 * * * E-XXX UV/RW AREA - POWER AND SIGNAL PLAN
131 * * E-XXX UV/RW AREA - LTG, RECEPT AND GROUNDING PLAN 132 * * * E-XXX SLUDGE STORAGE AND DEWATERING AREA - POWER AND SIGNAL PLAN 133 * * E-XXX SLUDGE STORAGE AND DEWATERING AREA - LTG, RECEPT AND GROUNDING PLAN

INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROLS
134 * * * * I-001 INSTRUMENTATION LEGEND AND NOTES
135 * * * I-002 INSTRUMENTATION STANDARD DETAILS - I
136 * * * I-003 INSTRUMENTATION STANDARD DETAILS - II
137 * * * I-004 NETWORK BLOCK DIAGRAM
138 * * * * XX-I-01 P&ID - INFLUENT PUMP STATION
139 * * * * XX-I-02 P&ID - FINE SCREENING AND GRIT REMOVAL 140 * * * * XX-I-03 P&ID - MBR EQ AND FEED PUMPS
141 * * * * XX-I-04 P&ID - BNR TRAIN - I
142 * * * XX-I-05 P&ID - BNR TRAIN - II
143 * * * * XX-I-06 P&ID - MBR TRAIN - I
144 * * * XX-I-07 P&ID - MBR TRAIN - II
145 * * * * XX-I-08 P&ID - PROCESS AERATION BLOWERS
146 * * * * XX-I-09 P&ID - MBR AIR SCOUR BLOWERS
147 * * * * XX-I-10 P&ID - MBR CIP SYSTEM
148 * * * * XX-I-11 P&ID - MBR PERMEATE PUMPS
149 * * * * XX-I-12 P&ID - UV DISINFECTION
150 * * * * XX-I-13 P&ID - UV CIP SYSTEM
151 * * * * XX-I-14 P&ID - RAS/WAS PUMPING SYSTEMS
152 * * * * XX-I-15 P&ID - RECYLED WATER BREAK TANK AND TRANSFER PUMP STATION 153 * * * * XX-I-16 P&ID - SLUDGE STORAGE AND DEWATERING 154 * * * * XX-I-17 P&ID - POLYMER STORAGE AND DOSING
155 * * * XX-I-18 CONTROL PANEL EXTERNAL ELEVATIONS
No. of sheets 76 137 155 155

Page 187 of 570 ends

Appendix D
Specifications List

Page 188 of 570 ends

# of Specs 30% (PDR) 60% 90% 100% SECTION NO. TITLE
1 * * * * 00 01 10 Table of Contents
2 * * * 00 11 13 Advertisement for Bids
3 * * * 00 21 13 Instructions to Bidders
4 * * * 00 41 00 Bid Form
5 * * * 00 41 13 Bid Form - Stipulated Sum (Single-Prime Contract) 6 * * * 00 43 13 Bid Security Form
7 * * * 00 43 25 Substitution Request Form
8 * * * 00 43 33 Proposed Products Form
9 * * * 00 43 36 Proposed Subcontractors Form
10 * * * 00 43 53 Escrow Bid Documents
11 * * * 00 45 12 Bidder's Information
12 * * * 00 45 14 Bidder's Safety Performance
13 * * * 00 45 15 Bidder's Subcontractor Qualifications 14 * * * 00 45 19 Noncollusion Affidavit
15 * * * 00 45 41 Iran Contracting Act Disclosure Form
16 * * * 00 52 00 Agreement Form
17 * * * 00 61 13.13 Performance Bond Form
18 * * * 00 61 13.16 Payment Bond Form
19 * * * 00 62 05 Proprietary Information Agreement
20 * * * 00 65 36 Warranty Form
21 * * * 00 72 00 General Conditions
22 * * * 00 73 16 Inusurance Requirements
23 * * * 00 73 19 Health and Safety Requirements
24 * * * 00 73 38 Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Requirements 25 * * * 00 73 43 Wage Rate Requirements
26 * * * 00 73 46 Wage Determination Schedule
27 * * * 00 73 83 Dispute Resolution
28 * * * 00 73 85 Clean Water State Revolving Fund Provisions

SPECIFICATIONS INDEX
Scotts Valley MBR (WWTP)
DIVISION 00 - PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS

Page 189 of 570 ends

# of Specs 30% (PDR) 60% 90% 100% SECTION NO. TITLE

SPECIFICATIONS INDEX
Scotts Valley MBR (WWTP)
DIVISION 00 - PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS
29 * * * * 01 00 00 Cover Page
30 * * * * 01 01 10 Table of Contents
31 * * * 01 10 00 Professional Responsibilities and Seals 32 * * * 01 11 00 General Information and Summary of Work 33 * * * 01 14 00 Coordination and Project Requirements 34 * * * 01 14 10 Environmental Protection
35 * * * 01 14 16 System Access Request Requirements
36 * * 01 14 50 Work Restrictions
37 * * * 01 26 00 RFI Procedures
38 * * * 01 32 10 Construction Schedules and Reports
39 * * * 01 33 00 Submittal Procedures
40 * * * 01 35 10 Delegated Design Procedures
41 * * 01 35 44 Hazardous Materials Procedures
42 * * * 01 35 45 Wastewater Discharge Emergency Response Plan 43 * * * 01 45 00 Quality Control
44 * * * 01 50 00 Temporary Facilities and Controls
45 * * 01 55 26 Traffic Control
46 * * 01 77 00 Contract Closeout
47 * * * 01 78 23 Operations and Maintenance Manuals
48 * * * 01 79 10 Training
49 * * * 01 87 13 Structural Component and Equipment Performance Requirements 50 * * 01 91 00 Commissioning
51 * * 01 91 10 Commissioning Reference Test Forms
52 * * * 02 40 00 Demolition
53 * * * 03 10 00 Concrete Formwork and Formwork Accessories 54 * * * 03 15 00 Concrete Joints and Accessories
55 * * * 03 20 00 Concrete Reinforcement and Reinforcement Supports 56 * * * 03 30 00 Concrete Mixtures, Handling, Placing and Constructing 57 * * * 03 30 50 Hot Weather Concreting
58 * * * 03 30 60 Cold Weather Concreting
59 * * * 03 33 00 Concrete Curing and Protection
60 * * * 03 35 00 Concrete Finishing
61 * * * 03 60 00 Grouts
62 * * * 03 93 50 Repair of Defective Concrete
63 * * * 04 22 00 Concrete Masonry Units
64 * * * 05 05 23 Anchors in Concrete and Masonry
65 * * * 05 10 00 Structural Metal Framing
66 * * * 05 21 00 Open Web Steel Joists
67 * * * 05 31 00 Structural Metal Deck
68 * * * 05 40 00 Cold Formed Metal Framing
69 * * * 05 50 00 Metal Fabrications (Miscellaneous Metal) 70 * * * 05 73 00 Aluminum Component Railing System
DIVISION 01 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
DIVISION 02 - EXISTING CONDITIONS
DIVISION 03 – CONCRETE
DIVISION 04 – MASONRY
DIVISION 05 – METALS

Page 190 of 570 ends

# of Specs 30% (PDR) 60% 90% 100% SECTION NO. TITLE

SPECIFICATIONS INDEX
Scotts Valley MBR (WWTP)
DIVISION 00 - PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS
71 * * 07 10 00 Water Repellant Sealer
72 * * 07 21 00 Thermal Insulation
73 * * 07 41 13 Manufactured Metal Roof Panels
74 * * 07 62 00 Flashing and Sheet Metal
75 * * 07 72 00 Roof Accessories
76 * * 07 92 00 Joint Sealants
77 * * 08 31 00 Access Hatches
78 * * 08 33 23 Overhead Coiling Doors
79 * * 08 71 00 Finish Hardware
80 * * 08 91 00 Louvers
81 * * 09 29 00 Gypsum Wallboard
82 * * 09 51 00 Acoustical Treatment
83 * * 09 91 00 Painting
84 * * 09 96 00 High-Performance Coatings
85 * * 09 96 23 Graffiti Resistant Coating
86 * * 09 96 56 Chemical Resistant Epoxy Coating
87 * * 10 00 00 Building Specialties
88 * * 10 40 00 Identifying Devices
89 * * * 13 34 17 Pre-Engineered Metal Canopy Systems
90 * * * 13 47 14 Cathodic Protection for Buried Piping 91 * * * 22 00 00 Plumbing
92 * * * 23 30 00 Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning Distribution 93 * * * 23 31 16 FRP Duct and Accessories
94 * * * 23 70 00 Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning Equipment 95 * * * 23 80 00 Commissioning of HVAC Systems
DIVISION 07 – THERMAL AND MOISTURE PROTECTION
DIVISION 09 – FINISHES
DIVISION 10 – SPECIALTIES
DIVISION 13 – SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION
DIVISION 22 – PLUMBING
DIVISION 08 – OPENINGS
DIVISION 23 – HEATING, VENTILATING, AND AIR CONDITIONING (HVAC)

Page 191 of 570 ends

# of Specs 30% (PDR) 60% 90% 100% SECTION NO. TITLE

SPECIFICATIONS INDEX
Scotts Valley MBR (WWTP)
DIVISION 00 - PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS
96 * * * 26 01 26 Electrical Tests
97 * * * 26 05 00 General Electrical Requirements
98 * * * 26 05 10 Electric Motor Drives
99 * * * 26 05 19 Low Voltage Wire and Cable
100 * * * 26 05 20 Signal Cable
101 * * * 26 05 26 Electrical Grounding
102 * * * 26 05 33 Electrical Raceway Systems
103 * * * 26 05 43 Underground Electrical Work
104 * * * 26 05 73 Power System Studies
105 * * * 26 09 00 Control Devices
106 * * * 26 22 00 Dry Type Transformers
107 * * * 26 24 13 Switchboards
108 * * * 26 24 16 Panelboards
109 * * * 26 24 19 Motor Control Centers
110 * * * 26 27 26 Wiring Devices
111 * * * 26 28 00 Protective Devices and Switches
112 * * * 26 29 13 Motor Starters
113 * * * 26 29 23 Variable Frequency Drives
114 * * * 26 33 54 Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS) 1.5kVA and Smaller 115 * * * 26 35 26 Harmonic Filters
116 * * * 26 43 00 Surge Protective Devices
117 * * * 26 50 00 Lighting
118 * * * 27 13 23 Communications Optical Fiber Backbone Cabling 119 * * * 31 00 00 Earthwork
120 * * * 31 10 00 Site Preparation
121 * * * 31 32 10 Excavation Support and Protection
122 * * * 31 43 16 Compaction Grouting
123 * * * 32 12 16 Paving and Surfacing
124 * * * 32 16 00 Concrete Curbs, Gutters and Sidewalks 125 * * * 33 01 10 Disinfection and Testing of Water Lines 126 * * * 33 05 19 Ductile Iron Pipe and Fittings
127 * * * 33 05 29 Polyvinyl Chloride Pipe – Pressure Systems 128 * * * 33 05 30 Polyvinyl Chloride Pipe – Gravity Systems 129 * * * 33 14 00 General Buried Piping Requirements
DIVISION 26 – ELECTRICAL
DIVISION 27 – COMMUNICATIONS
DIVISION 31 – EARTHWORK
DIVISION 32 – EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS
DIVISION 33 – UTILITIES

Page 192 of 570 ends

# of Specs 30% (PDR) 60% 90% 100% SECTION NO. TITLE

SPECIFICATIONS INDEX
Scotts Valley MBR (WWTP)
DIVISION 00 - PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS
130 * * * 40 05 08 Pipe Supports
131 * * * 40 05 57 Electric Valve Actuators
132 * * * 40 05 59 Sluice and Weir Gates
133 * * * 40 05 61 Gate Valves
134 * * * 40 05 62 Plug Valves
135 * * * 40 05 64 Butterfly Valves
136 * * * 40 05 65 Check Valves
137 * * * 40 05 67 Aeration Valves
138 * * * 40 05 68 Air Valves
139 * * * 40 27 00 Piping, Valves and Accessories
140 * * 40 27 10 Pipe Couplings
141 * * * 40 42 13 Piping Insulation
142 * * * 40 60 00 Instrumentation and Controls, General Requirements 143 * * * 40 60 01 Instrument Schedule
144 * * * 40 63 00 Programmable Logic Controller (PLC)
145 * * * 40 63 01 PLC Input/Output Schedule
146 * * * 40 66 00 Networking and Communication
147 * * * 40 67 00 Panels
148 * * * 40 68 10 Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) System 149 * * * * 40 68 20 Process Control Strategies and Programming 150 * * * * Overall MBR and UV Disinfection Control and Monitoring 151 * * * * MBR and UV Regulatory Monitoring and Reporting 152 * * * * Grit Removal
153 * * * * Influent Pumps and Flow Monitoring
154 * * * * Fine Screening
155 * * * * Flow Equalization and MBR Feed Pumps
156 * * * * MBR Packaged System (Anoxic, Aeration, Membranes, MLR, WAS, CIP) 157 * * * * UV Disinfection
158 * * * * RW Transfer Pumps and Storage
159 * * * * Biosolids Storage and Dewatering
160 * * * 40 71 00 Flow Measurement
161 * * * 40 72 00 Level Measurement
162 * * * 40 73 00 Pressure Measurement
163 * * * 40 74 00 Temperature Measurement
164 * * * 40 75 00 Process Analytical Instruments
165 * * * 40 78 00 Panel Mounted and Miscellaneous Field Instruments 166 * * * 41 22 13 Davit Cranes
167 * * 43 06 20 Equipment Schedule
168 * * * 43 1133 Rotary Blowers
169 * * * 43 23 31 Vertical Non-Clog Centrifugal Pumps
170 * * * 43 23 58 Rotary Lobe Pumps
171 * * * 43 24 13 Vertical Turbine Solids Handling Pumps 172 * * * 43 25 01 Submersible Wastewater Pumps
173 * * * 43 41 43 Polyethylene Storage Tanks (RW)
174 * * * Steel Storage Containers/Tanks (MBR Influent) DIVISION 40 – PROCESS PIPING AND INTEGRATION
DIVISION 41 – MATERIAL PROCESSING AND HANDLING EQUIPMENT DIVISION 43 – PROCESS GAS AND LIQUID HANDLING, PURIFICATION AND STORAGE EQUIPMENT

Page 193 of 570 ends

# of Specs 30% (PDR) 60% 90% 100% SECTION NO. TITLE

SPECIFICATIONS INDEX
Scotts Valley MBR (WWTP)
DIVISION 00 - PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS
175 * * * 46 21 33 Fine Screens
176 * * * Grit Removal
177 * * * 46 33 44 Peristaltic Chemical Metering Pumps
178 * * * 46 51 46 Fine Bubble Aeration Diffusion Equipment 179 * * * 46 61 35 Membrane Filtration Equipment
180 * * * 46 66 15 UV Disinfection Equipment
181 * * * Submersible Mixers
No of Specs 14 155 181 181
DIVISION 46 – WASTEWATER EQUIPMENT

Page 194 of 570 ends

AGENDA ITEM 5.

DATE: 5/6/2026
City of Scotts Valley

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: 5/6/2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kendra Reed, Finance Manager
APPROVED: Mali LaGoe, City Manager
SUBJECT: Investment Report for the Quarter Ended March 31, 2026

SUMMARY OF ISSUE
Attached is the quarterly investment report for the City and the Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund (SLESF) for the period ended March 31, 2026. This item is provided for Council review in accordance with California Government Code requirements. No Council action is required.

The investment portfolio is in compliance with the City’s adopted Investment Policy and California Government Code Section 53646. Sufficient liquidity is maintained to meet the City’s anticipated expenditures for the next six months.

The City primarily invests operating funds in the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF), the California Asset Management Program (CAMP), and demand deposit accounts. CAMP is a California Joint Powers Authority (JPA) established in 1989. Investments in the CAMP Cash Reserve Portfolio and CAMP Term are permitted under California Government Code Section 53601(p). CAMP is governed by a Board of Trustees consisting of experienced local agency finance professionals.

The SLESF investment report reflects the status of funds received from the State of California and restricted for front-line law enforcement services as of March 31, 2026.

Additional information regarding the State’s Pooled Money Investment Account (PMIA) and LAIF is included for reference from the California State Treasurer’s Office.

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

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file an Investment Report for the Quarter Ended March 31, 2026.

Page 195 of 570 ends

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. FY2526_Q3_Investment Report

Page 196 of 570 ends

TRUSTEE TYPE OF INVESTMENT ISSUER MATURITY DATE FACE VALUE COST MARKET VALUE VALUATION YIELD General Pooled Investments
State of California Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) State of California Demand - 1 day $ 19,016,846 $ 19,016,846 $ 19,016,482 [1] LAIF 3.980% Board of Trustees California Asset Management Program (CAMP) CAMP Demand - 1 day $ 545,844 $ 545,844 $ 545,844 CAMP 3.800% West Coast Community Bank West Coast Community Bank WCCB Demand - 1 day $ 252,745 $ 252,745 $ 252,745 WCCB 4.010% Weighted Average Rate for General Pooled Investments 3.975% Section 115 Trust
Charles Schwab Trust Bank Mutual Fund Schwab Demand - 1 day 2,322,864 2,322,864 $ 2,381,055 Schwab -0.190% Investments of Bond Proceeds
Bank of New York Mellon US Treasury Notes Bank of New York Mellon Demand - 1 day $ 409 $ 409 $ 409 Bank of New York 3.060% Bank of New York Mellon US Treasury Notes Bank of New York Mellon Demand - 1 day $ 357,949 $ 357,949 $ 357,949 Bank of New York 3.515% [2] Bank of New York Mellon US Treasury Notes Bank of New York Mellon Demand - 1 day $ 96,990 $ 96,990 $ 96,990 Bank of New York 0.000% [1] Interest is paid at maturity. Market Value based on latest factor of 0.999980831 provided by LAIF on 03/31/2026, which has been applied to face value. [2] Weighted average for all accounts.

City of Scotts Valley
Quarterly Investment Report
March 31, 2026
86%
2% 1% 11%
Portfolio Investment Allocation
Local Agency Investment Fund
CAMP
WCCB
Section 115 Trust Mutual Funds

Page 197 of 570 ends

FACE VALUE TRUSTEE/INVESTMENT TYPE YIELD
$ 279,734 $ 279,972 * California Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) 3.980% $ 279,734 $ 279,972
* Interest is paid at maturity. Market Value includes accrued interest.

Supplemental Law Enforcement Fund (SLESF)
Quarterly Investment Report
March 31, 2026

MARKET VALUE

Page 198 of 570 ends

MONTHLY PERFORMANCE
Pooled Money Investment Account
March 2026
12 Months

HIGH LOW
Average Life (days) 260 258 260 236
Certificates of Deposit & Bank Notes 10.77% 9.63% 10.77% 9.12% Commercial Paper 6.52% 5.99% 7.40% 5.38%
Treasuries 56.86% 57.66% 57.66% 51.39%
MARKET VALUE (%) of BOOK VALUE
Jun-2024 100.5652 Jun-2025 101.0035
Sep-2024 101.2007 Sep-2025 101.1558
Dec-2024 100.9316 Dec-2025 101.1164
Mar-2025 100.9501 Mar-2026 100.7756
3/31/2026 2/28/2026
Percentages may not total 100%, due to rounding.

97.5 98.0

98.5 99.0

99.5 100.0
100.5
101.0
101.5
102.0
102.5
103.0
103.5
6/24 9/24 12/24 3/25 6/25 9/25 12/25 3/26
Market Value (%) of Book Value

PMIA MARKET VALUATION
PMIA
Market Value
BV=100
Treasuries

56.86%
Agencies

21.79%
Certificates
of Deposit /
Bank Notes

10.77%
Time
Deposits

3.31%
Commercial
Paper

6.52%
Corporate
Bonds
Loans 0.59%

0.16%
PMIA Portfolio Composition
3/31/2026
$165.3 billion

0.00%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%

4.00%

5.00%

6.00%
3/20216/20219/2021
12/2021
3/20226/20229/2022
12/2022
3/20236/20239/2023
12/2023
3/20246/20249/2024
12/2024
3/20256/20259/2025
12/2025
3/2026
Average Monthly Yield Comparison - 03/2021 through 03/2026 PMIA
S&P
Fed Funds
March Yields
PMIA 3.826%
S&P GIP 3.840%
Fed Funds 3.640%

Page 199 of 570 ends

March 3.826
February 3.871
January 3.931
December 4.025
November 4.096
October 4.150
PMIA Average Life(1): 261
LAIF Fair Value Factor(1): 0.999980831
PMIA Daily(1): 3.82
PMIA Quarter to Date(1): 3.92
LAIF Apportionment Rate(2): 3.98
LAIF Earnings Ratio(2): 0.00010906180047888
LAIF Administrative Cost(1)*: TBD
Treasuries

56.86%
Agencies

21.79%
Certificates of
Deposit/Bank Notes

10.77%
Time
Deposits

3.31%
Commercial
Paper

6.52%
Corporate
Bonds

0.59%
Loans

0.16%
Notes: The apportionment rate includes interest earned on the CalPERS Supplemental Pension Payment pursuant to Government Code 20825 (c)(1) .
*The percentage of administrative cost equals the total administrative cost divided by the quarterly interest earnings. The law provides that administrative costs are not to exceed 5% of quarterly EARNINGS of the fund. However, if the 13-week Daily Treasury Bill Rate on the last day of the fiscal year is below 1%, then administrative costs shall not exceed 8% of quarterly EARNINGS of the fund for the subsequent fiscal year.

Source:
(1) State of California, Office of the Treasurer
(2) State of California, Office of the Controller
PMIA Average Monthly
Effective Yields(1)
PMIA/LAIF Performance Report
as of 04/15/26
Daily rates are now available here. View PMIA Daily Rates Quarterly Performance
Quarter Ended 03/31/26
Chart does not include $829,000.00 in mortgages, which equates to 0.001%. Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

Pooled Money Investment Account
Monthly Portfolio Composition (1)
3/31/26
$165.3 billion

Page 200 of 570 ends

AGENDA ITEM 6.

DATE: 5/6/2026
City of Scotts Valley

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 February. 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.

Third Quarter Financial Interpretation, January Through March The information presented reflects financial activity during the third quarter of the fiscal year.

By this stage, the City’s financial trends are more clearly established, and staff gains stronger visibility into anticipated year-end outcomes.

Additional recurring revenues, including sales tax, transient occupancy tax, franchise fees, and intergovernmental revenues, continue to be realized during this period. The City also begins preparing for the second major property tax distribution, which typically occurs in April.

Expenditure activity at this point reflects the majority of regular operating costs for the fiscal year. Capital project activity, contract services, and seasonal programs become more visible in third-quarter reports.

Third-quarter data is a key indicator for:
• Preliminary year-end revenue projections
• Identification of emerging budget pressures
• Early baseline assumptions for the upcoming fiscal year budget, including labor,

Page 201 of 570 ends

insurance, utilities, and contract cost trends
At this stage, financial variances are increasingly evaluated as either true structural changes or remaining timing differences.

How to Interpret the Treasurer’s Report
The Treasurer’s Report is a cash-based snapshot of the City’s financial activity. It reflects money received, money spent, and fund balances based on actual cash activity only. It does not include accruals or year-end accounting adjustments and should not be interpreted as the City’s final financial position.

Relationship to the Annual Audit and Financial Forecasting The Treasurer’s Report remains unaudited. Staff uses third-quarter information to refine yearend revenue and expenditure projections and to support upcoming budget development for the next fiscal year.

Ongoing Use Throughout the Fiscal Year
Third-quarter reporting plays a critical role in shaping forward-looking financial planning. While not final, these results offer a strong preview of anticipated year-end performance.

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 February 28, 2026.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. 2026.02_Monthly Treasurer's Report

Page 202 of 570 ends

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 February 28, 2026, the City’s unaudited cash and investments totaled $22,860,735. • 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.

Fund Category Cash Summary
General Fund $ 2,951,774
General Capital Improvement Fund $ (1,711,370)
Special Revenue Fund - Development Impact Fees $ 3,897,062 Special Revenue Fund $ 14,074,357
Debt Service $ 769,878
Wastewater Enterprise Fund $ 2,879,035
$ 22,860,735
Investment Type Cash Summary
Bank of America $ 594,609
LAIF $ 19,016,846
CAMP $ 544,090
WCCB $ 251,902
SCHWAB $ 2,453,287
$ 22,860,735

Page 203 of 570 ends

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.

Total Cash $ 22,860,735
Plus: Assets $ 5,564,818
Less: Liabilities $ (4,243,305)
Ending Fund Balance $ 24,182,247
Adjusting Cash to Ending Fund Balance

Page 204 of 570 ends

City of Scotts Valley
Changes in Total Fund Balance
For the month ended February 28, 2026
Equity
Fund Description
Beginning Fund
Balance
07/01/2025
Increase /
(Decrease) JulyJanuary
Current Period
Revenue
Current Period
Expenditure
Fund Balance as
of 02/28/2026
General Fund
1 General Fund 3,258,974 (234,095) 1,236,131 (1,342,686) 2,918,324 6 Equipment Replacement Reserve 960,604 8,892 214 - 969,711 Recreation Funds (4, 28, 123) (92,151) (193,629) 26,222 (56,614) (377,681) Subtotal General Funds 4,035,277 (418,831) 1,262,567 (1,399,300) 3,510,355 General Capital Improvement Fund
150 Major Capital Projects 841,873 (2,154,379) - (252,967) (1,565,472) 151 Capital Outlay Projects 6,589 (231,446) - (4,000) (228,857) Subtotal Capital Improvement Fund 848,462 (2,385,825) - (256,967) (1,794,329) Special Revenue Fund - Development Impact Fees
7 Drainage Construction Impact Fees 143,947 8,796 - - 152,744 8 Traffic Impact Mitigation Fees 1,176,836 48,295 - - 1,225,132 9 Park & Recreation Facilities Impact Fees 1,786,209 79,435 - - 1,865,645 21 General Facility Impact Fees 6,202 1,932 - - 8,134
27 Police Facility Building Impact Fees 410,308 12,726 - - 423,034 86 Library Impact Fees 213,991 8,382 - - 222,373
Subtotal Special Revenue Funds - Development Impact F 3,737,494 159,568 - - 3,897,062 Special Revenue Fund
2 Recycling/Environment 198,335 (57,681) - (8,567) 132,087 3 Gas Tax 1,173,854 199,077 25,165 - 1,398,096
5 SMIP Fees 5,722 (2,599) 210 - 3,333
17 Home Grant Program 511,064 2,316 - - 513,380
19 Affordable Housing 4,546,602 88,753 - (1,974) 4,633,381 24 Lennar Funds 621,150 - - - 621,150
31 STP Exchange Projects - - - - -
33 Tree Replacement 55,416 1,120 240 - 56,776
35 Green Building Funding 624,993 50,902 223 - 676,118
36 Disability Compliance 25,919 2,808 280 (28) 28,979
50 Pinewood Estates Maint. Dist. 222 (2,592) 3,445 (86) 989 51 Mt. Hermon Traffic Mitigation 162,706 3,393 - - 166,100 77 Skypark Landscape Maint. Dist. (3,988) (21,193) 22,624 (879) (3,436) 78 Skypark Landscape Maint. Dist. Insurance 562,869 11,738 - - 574,607 88 Library Improvements (Measure S) 140 22,213 - - 22,353 89 Library - Cty MOE Excess Distribution 647,062 11,508 - - 658,570 115 Section 115 Set Aside - Pension 2,270,164 143,298 40,704 (878) 2,453,287 155 Measure D Sales Tax for Transportation 1,032,320 146,554 29,712 - 1,208,586 156 SB-1 (RMRA) 1,149,812 193,121 28,723 - 1,371,655
200 Quimby Act 204,508 4,265 - - 208,772
201 Measure Q - - - - -
306 Supplemental Law Enforcement Services 156,585 86,541 21,100 - 264,226 313 Youth Focused Programs 51,173 2,006 - (2,182) 50,998 317 Community And Economic Grants 472,689 9,857 - - 482,547 Subtotal Special Revenue Funds - Other 14,469,318 895,403 172,427 (14,594) 15,522,554 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 2,324,179 1,090,870 1,636,266 (253,833) 4,797,482 11 Tertiary Operating (262,632) (202,452) - (11,392) (476,476) 12 Waterwater Treatment Facility Fee (DIF) 436,775 34,280 - - 471,055 14 Wastewater Capital Replacement Fund 237,817 (2,098,668) - (33,330) (1,894,182) Subtotal Wastewater Enterprise Funds 2,736,139 (1,175,970) 1,636,266 (298,555) 2,897,879 Total All Funds 26,896,567 (3,225,655) 3,071,260 (1,969,416) 24,803,397

Page 205 of 570 ends

City of Scotts Valley
Monthly Wire Payments
FEBRUARY 2026
Date Vendor Description Amount
2/4/2026 CalPERS CalPERS Pension 01/23 PR $ 62,429.38
2/4/2026 CalPERS CalPERS Health - February $ 145,586.11 2/4/2026 Payroll Payroll 02/06/2026 $ 305,839.92
2/6/2026 SVPOA Payroll Deductions $ 209.00
2/6/2026 PORAC Payroll Deductions $ 573.75
2/6/2026 SEIU Payroll Deductions $ 566.53
2/6/2026 COPE Payroll Deductions $ 10.00
2/6/2026 ICMA Payroll Deductions $ 12,247.98
2/6/2026 Health Equity (FSA) Payroll Deductions $ 1,272.51 2/6/2026 Fallen Officer Payroll Deductions $ 5.00
2/11/2026 CalPERS CalPERS Pension 02/06 PR $ 61,382.65
2/17/2026 Bank of America Bank Fees $ 677.06
2/18/2026 Payroll Payroll 02/20/26 $ 294,880.05
2/20/2026 PARS Payroll Deductions $ 177.47
2/20/2026 SVPOA Payroll Deductions $ 209.00
2/20/2026 LEGAL Payroll Deductions $ 1,000.00
2/20/2026 COPE Payroll Deductions $ 10.00
2/20/2026 ICMA Payroll Deductions $ 12,249.85
2/20/2026 Health Equity (FSA) Payroll Deductions $ 1,272.51 2/20/2026 Fallen Officer Payroll Deductions $ 5.00
2/23/2026 CalPERS CalPERS Health - March $ 146,058.04
2/27/2026 BNY 2017 TARB Bond Payment $ 151,240.64
2/27/2026 BNY CFD 97-1 Bond Payment $ 3,757.21
2/23/2026 CalPERS CalPERS UAL $ 188,768.92
2/26/2026 Retirees Retiree Medical March $ 45,494.07
$ 1,435,922.65

Page 206 of 570 ends

Check
Number Check Date Vendor Name Check Amount
135496 02/13/2026 A TOOL SHED, INC. 207.39 $
135497 02/13/2026 ACCENT CLEAN & SWEEP INC 5,478.00 $
135498 02/13/2026 ACE PORTABLE SERVICES 1,877.18 $
135499 02/13/2026 ACTION AUTO GLASS 779.00 $
135500 02/13/2026 ALLIANT 2,009.00 $
135501 02/13/2026 ALVAREZ IND INC CLEAN BLDG 451.00 $
135502 02/13/2026 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 1,430.57 $
135503 02/13/2026 AT&T 8.91 $
135504 02/13/2026 AT&T 285.94 $
135505 02/13/2026 BATTERIES + BULBS #314 319.46 $
135506 02/13/2026 BKF ENGINEERS 6,546.25 $
135507 02/13/2026 BRASS KEY LOCKSMITH 38.36 $
135508 02/13/2026 BRENDA LEACH ART 260.00 $
135509 02/13/2026 BRINK'S AWARDS & SIGNS 95.48 $
135510 02/13/2026 BRISHAN INC. 8,137.48 $
135511 02/13/2026 CAL-WEST LIGHTING & SIGNAL INC 6,576.10 $ 135512 02/13/2026 CENTRAL COAST SYSTEMS 465.00 $
135513 02/13/2026 CHAD PRICE 2,295.00 $
135514 02/13/2026 CITY OF SANTA CRUZ 435.00 $
135515 02/13/2026 COASTAL EVERGREEN CORP 15,242.00 $
135516 02/13/2026 COMCAST 261.04 $
135517 02/13/2026 COMCAST 2,101.10 $
135518 02/13/2026 CORIE L. ASCANI, PSY.D. 550.00 $
135519 02/13/2026 COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ 2,031.12 $
135520 02/13/2026 CRYSTAL SPRINGS WATER CO 415.10 $
135521 02/13/2026 CSG CONSULTANTS, INC 1,587.50 $
135522 02/13/2026 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION 4,466.44 $
135523 02/13/2026 DOCTORS ON DUTY 420.00 $
135524 02/13/2026 ECOLOGICAL CONCERNS 282.00 $
135525 02/13/2026 EMPLOYMENT DEV. DEPT. 326.99 $
135526 02/13/2026 ENVIRONMENTAL INNOVATIONS 9,329.85 $
135527 02/13/2026 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS 3,460.17 $
135528 02/13/2026 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, LLC #795 48.05 $ 135529 02/13/2026 FIRST ALARM 316.47 $
135530 02/13/2026 GRAINGER 41.54 $
135531 02/13/2026 HERC RENTALS 2,626.11 $
135532 02/13/2026 INTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP 2,716.89 $ 135533 02/13/2026 JC GRADING PAVING SOLUTION INC 9,750.00 $ 135534 02/13/2026 JC GRADING PAVING SOLUTION INC 24,053.08 $ 135535 02/13/2026 KATI KING 1,508.14 $
135536 02/13/2026 KENNEDY-JENKS CONSULTANTS 33,330.38 $ 135537 02/13/2026 LC ACTION POLICE SUPPLY 233.93 $

Page 207 of 570 ends

Check
Number Check Date Vendor Name Check Amount
135538 02/13/2026 LOGAN & POWELL, LLP 17,621.27 $
135539 02/13/2026 LT MUNICIPAL CONSULTANTS 2,060.00 $
135540 02/13/2026 M-GROUP 13,050.00 $
135541 02/13/2026 MBASIA 1,393.00 $
135542 02/13/2026 MCCAMPBELL ANALYTICAL, INC. 899.00 $
135543 02/13/2026 MID VALLEY SUPPLY 498.08 $
135544 02/13/2026 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE 1,338.05 $
135545 02/13/2026 MONTEREY BAY ANALYTICAL SVCS 3,052.40 $ 135546 02/13/2026 MONTEREY REGIONAL 10,520.40 $
135547 02/13/2026 MP EXPRESS, INC. 398.75 $
135548 02/13/2026 NATIONAL COMTEL NETWORK INC. 22.28 $
135549 02/13/2026 NBS GOVERNMENT FINANCE GROUP 2,137.75 $ 135550 02/13/2026 OPERATIONAL TECHNICAL SERVICES 9,444.48 $ 135551 02/13/2026 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO 70,777.00 $ 135552 02/13/2026 PERFECTMIND INC 4,000.00 $
135553 02/13/2026 PHILLIP D NEUMAN 37,125.58 $
135554 02/13/2026 PHOENIX GROUP 370.48 $
135555 02/13/2026 PURETEC INDUSTRIAL WATER 59.66 $
135556 02/13/2026 ROSS RECREATION EQUIPMENT INC. 248,121.59 $ 135557 02/13/2026 S.V. WATER DISTRICT 750.00 $
135558 02/13/2026 SANTA CRUZ CO ENVIRONMENTAL 628.00 $
135559 02/13/2026 SCARBOROUGH LUMBER 670.93 $
135560 02/13/2026 SCOTTS VALLEY SPRINKLER 636.46 $
135561 02/13/2026 STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY 944.39 $
135562 02/13/2026 STERLING WATER TECHNOLOGIES 12,040.72 $ 135563 02/13/2026 SYCAL ENGINEERING INC 4,799.77 $
135564 02/13/2026 THE PIED PIPER INC. 226.00 $
135565 02/13/2026 THOMSON REUTERS-WEST 416.30 $
135566 02/13/2026 THRIVE BRIGHT LLC 6,300.00 $
135567 02/13/2026 TORO PETROLEUM CORP 8,620.48 $
135568 02/13/2026 USA BLUE BOOK 752.38 $
135569 02/13/2026 VEOLIA WATER TECHNOLOGIES 4,294.85 $
135570 02/13/2026 WAGE WORKS 125.00 $
135571 02/13/2026 WEX BANK 7,427.88 $
135572 02/13/2026 WILLIAM WISEMAN 2,558.00 $
135573 02/13/2026 WIZIX TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC 670.20 $
135574 02/13/2026 ADOBE ANIMAL HOSPITAL SOQUEL 206.98 $ 135575 02/13/2026 AGILE OCCUPATIONAL MEDICINE 2,395.00 $ 135576 02/13/2026 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 738.50 $
135577 02/13/2026 AT&T 4,492.29 $
135578 02/13/2026 COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ 208.00 $
135579 02/13/2026 IACP 440.00 $

Page 208 of 570 ends

Check
Number Check Date Vendor Name Check Amount
135580 02/13/2026 MP EXPRESS, INC. 139.16 $
135581 02/13/2026 NORTH BAY FORD-LINCOLN- 144.96 $
135582 02/13/2026 RALEY'S 47.22 $
135583 02/13/2026 SANTA CRUZ LIVE SCAN, INC. 30.00 $
135584 02/13/2026 SCOTT GARNER 273.00 $
135585 02/13/2026 STERICYCLE INC 338.66 $
135586 02/13/2026 ZOLL MEDICAL CORPORATION 772.64 $
135587 02/20/2026 AT&T 56.24 $
135588 02/20/2026 AT&T MOBILITY 126.97 $
135589 02/20/2026 BARBARA LANSDOWNE 500.00 $
135590 02/20/2026 BECKY MCNULTY 500.00 $
135591 02/20/2026 BKF ENGINEERS 1,470.00 $
135592 02/20/2026 BLUETRITON BRANDS INC 94.02 $
135593 02/20/2026 COMCAST 777.68 $
135594 02/20/2026 CSG CONSULTANTS, INC 37,127.30 $
135595 02/20/2026 DAWN BANKS 199.20 $
135596 02/20/2026 ENTERPRISE FM TRUST 13,137.52 $
135597 02/20/2026 EXCHANGE CLUB OF SCOTTS VALLEY 420.00 $ 135598 02/20/2026 FOREVER FIREWOOD, INC. 908.00 $
135599 02/20/2026 GOOD CITY COMPANY 8,770.00 $
135600 02/20/2026 ISAIAH PEKARY 2,705.94 $
135601 02/20/2026 JOANNA HAROS 279.00 $
135602 02/20/2026 JOEL RIGLER 500.00 $
135603 02/20/2026 K & D LANDSCAPING, INC. 3,711.00 $
135604 02/20/2026 KARRIYMA PEKARY 250.00 $
135605 02/20/2026 KAYLA WEISS 500.00 $
135606 02/20/2026 LEAF CAPITAL FUNDING LLC 806.54 $
135607 02/20/2026 LUCA FITZGERALD 500.00 $
135608 02/20/2026 MARY LOUISE DEFALCO 54.00 $
135609 02/20/2026 MISSION COMMUNICATIONS, LLC 2,903.60 $ 135610 02/20/2026 MONTEREY BAY ANALYTICAL SVCS 1,181.00 $ 135611 02/20/2026 O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE,INC 106.37 $
135612 02/20/2026 OLIN CORPORATION AS SOLE 5,972.66 $
135613 02/20/2026 OPERATIONAL TECHNICAL SERVICES 9,444.48 $ 135614 02/20/2026 PETERSON POWER SYSTEMS, INC. 11,631.87 $ 135615 02/20/2026 PHILLIP D NEUMAN 3,764.92 $
135616 02/20/2026 SANTA CRUZ CO ENVIRONMENTAL 767.25 $
135617 02/20/2026 SCARBOROUGH LUMBER 1,409.96 $
135618 02/20/2026 SHARRON BARTH 162.00 $
135619 02/20/2026 STRATEGIC GOVERNMENT RESOURCES 4,152.50 $ 135620 02/20/2026 THE PIED PIPER INC. 155.50 $
135621 02/20/2026 TRITON CONSTRUCTION 300.00 $

Page 209 of 570 ends

Check
Number Check Date Vendor Name Check Amount
135622 02/20/2026 URBAN FIELD STUDIO OAKLAND 4,535.00 $ 135623 02/20/2026 VISIT SANTA CRUZ COUNTY 25,260.05 $
135624 02/20/2026 YOGA FOR ALL MOVEMENT 69.00 $
135625 02/26/2026 ACC BUSINESS 1,838.87 $
135626 02/26/2026 AFLAC-FLEX ONE 883.70 $
135627 02/26/2026 AGILE OCCUPATIONAL MEDICINE 925.00 $
135628 02/26/2026 ALEXIS TROLL 34.50 $
135629 02/26/2026 AMY EVANS 25.00 $
135630 02/26/2026 ANA PATON-MORALES 30.00 $
135631 02/26/2026 ART CLEANERS 3,057.85 $
135632 02/26/2026 AT&T MOBILITY 1,616.55 $
135633 02/26/2026 BAY TREE, LLC 4,604.58 $
135634 02/26/2026 BKF ENGINEERS 7,865.00 $
135635 02/26/2026 BRINK'S AWARDS & SIGNS 252.97 $
135636 02/26/2026 BSAFE PLAYGROUND INSPECTION 1,600.00 $ 135637 02/26/2026 CALDER CONSULTING GROUP 2,800.00 $
135638 02/26/2026 CENTRAL COAST REGIONAL WATER 4,212.00 $ 135639 02/26/2026 COMCAST 386.27 $
135640 02/26/2026 DAVID J. POWERS & ASSOC 1,034.89 $
135641 02/26/2026 DEPT OF JUSTICE 231.00 $
135642 02/26/2026 DKF SOLUTIONS GROUP LLC 7,992.00 $
135643 02/26/2026 ERIKA TAUREIELLO 25.00 $
135644 02/26/2026 GRACE KAU 30.00 $
135645 02/26/2026 GREEN WASTE RECOVERY, LLC 13,455.23 $ 135646 02/26/2026 JULIE GONZALEZ 25.00 $
135647 02/26/2026 KARLA LOPEZ 30.00 $
135648 02/26/2026 KATE KOROLEVA 30.00 $
135649 02/26/2026 KATI KING 1,508.14 $
135650 02/26/2026 KOSMONT COMPANIES, INC 1,822.50 $
135651 02/26/2026 KRISTINA LANPHEIR 30.00 $
135652 02/26/2026 MAR-KEN INTERNATIONAL POLICE 300.00 $ 135653 02/26/2026 MARIO ANIMA 25.00 $
135654 02/26/2026 MEGHAN FOHL 28.75 $
135655 02/26/2026 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE 427.41 $
135656 02/26/2026 MONTEREY BAY ANALYTICAL SVCS 4,261.00 $ 135657 02/26/2026 MP EXPRESS, INC. 128.75 $
135658 02/26/2026 MUTUAL OF OMAHA 1,238.25 $
135659 02/26/2026 NATALIA PETROV 30.00 $
135660 02/26/2026 NATE GILLESPIE 25.00 $
135661 02/26/2026 NICOLE PETERSON 26.37 $
135662 02/26/2026 OPENGOV, INC. 3,225.00 $
135663 02/26/2026 OPERATIONAL TECHNICAL SERVICES 2,951.40 $

Page 210 of 570 ends

Check
Number Check Date Vendor Name Check Amount
135664 02/26/2026 PHILLIP D NEUMAN 5,828.51 $
135665 02/26/2026 PRINICPAL LIFE INSURANCE CO 7,684.57 $ 135666 02/26/2026 PRIYA ASUNCION 30.00 $
135667 02/26/2026 PRODESSE PROPERTY GROUP 5,378.40 $
135668 02/26/2026 REBALYN WOLFINGTON 30.00 $
135669 02/26/2026 ROBERT ORMONDE 285.34 $
135670 02/26/2026 ROD MARKELL 1,974.00 $
135671 02/26/2026 S.V. WATER DISTRICT 5,105.38 $
135672 02/26/2026 S.V. WATER DISTRICT - BULK 95.36 $
135673 02/26/2026 SAN LORENZO VALLEY WATER DISTR 75.23 $ 135674 02/26/2026 SCARBOROUGH LUMBER 162.28 $
135675 02/26/2026 SCOTTS VALLEY CAR WASH 108.91 $
135676 02/26/2026 SCOTTS VALLEY SPRINKLER 131.52 $
135677 02/26/2026 STRATEGIC GOVERNMENT RESOURCES 5,227.50 $ 135678 02/26/2026 SUMMIT UNIFORMS 2,542.97 $
135679 02/26/2026 TALLEN CALIFORNIA, LLC 2,187.50 $
135680 02/26/2026 TODD YOUNG 3,245.00 $
135681 02/26/2026 U.S. BANK CORPORATE 24,521.82 $
135682 02/26/2026 URETSKY SECURITY 800.00 $
$ 917,407.40

Page 211 of 570 ends

AGENDA ITEM 7.

DATE: 5/6/2026
City of Scotts Valley

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: 5/6/2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Stephanie Hill, Administrative Services Director
APPROVED: Mali LaGoe, City Manager
SUBJECT: Second reading and adoption of Ordinance No. 15.14 an amendment to the Business License Tax Ordinance to establish economic development event exemption and associated administrative fee

SUMMARY OF ISSUE
The proposed ordinance amends Chapter 5.04.080 of the Municipal Code to establish a limited exemption from the business license tax for vendors participating exclusively in qualifying Economic Development Events. The ordinance also authorizes the City Council, or designee, to designate such events and administer the program.

The City’s current Business License Tax Ordinance does not distinguish between permanent businesses and vendors operating at temporary events, which can create administrative challenges for short-duration community events.

The proposed amendment reinstates a narrowly tailored exemption consistent with prior City practice. Economic Development Events are defined as City-sponsored or authorized events intended to promote tourism, economic activity, and community engagement. The exemption applies only to events lasting no more than two consecutive days, with each occurrence of a recurring event treated separately.

On April 15, 2026, the ordinance was introduced for first reading and is now presented for second reading and adoption, effective after 30 days.

FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed program is designed to be cost-recovery in nature. The Economic Development Event Vendor License Fee will offset administrative costs associated with program oversight and implementation.

While the exemption may result in a minor reduction in business license tax revenue from temporary vendors, this impact is expected to be limited and may be offset by increased economic activity generated by events.

Page 212 of 570 ends

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council adopt Ordinance No. 15.14.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Ordinance No. 15.14 Business License Amendment - Econ. Dev. Special Events

Page 213 of 570 ends

ORDINANCE NO. 15.14

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY AMENDING TITLE 5, CHAPTER 5.04 BY AMENDING SECTION 5.04.080 TO ADD AN

EXEMPTION FOR COUNCIL DESIGNATED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SPECIAL EVENTS
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Scotts Valley introduced an ordinance to establish a business license tax (“BLT”) on August 7, 2024, which was approved by a majority of the voters of Scotts Valley on November 5, 2024; and WHEREAS, the BLT established exemptions from the business license tax for certain businesses operating in the City of Scotts Valley; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 2 of Ordinance No 15.13, the City Council has the ability to amend the ordinance so long as such amendments do not increase the tax; and
WHEREAS, the BLT currently requires all businesses operating within City limits to obtain a business license and pay the applicable tax; and WHEREAS, the BLT does not differentiate vendors participating in temporary events such as festivals, markets, and community-based economic development activities; and WHEREAS, a prior version of the BLT included a limited exemption for certain temporary or City-supported events; and
WHEREAS, these events provide important economic and community benefits and not having a limited exemption for these temporary events can create administrative challenges for both vendors and event organizers; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to establish a narrowly tailored exemption consistent with prior City practice and ensuring continued regulatory compliance and cost recovery.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY as follows:

Section 1. Title 10, Chapter 5.04, Section 5.04.080 is hereby amended to add subsection 5.04.080H. Council-Designated Economic Development Special Events to read as follows:
“Section 5.04.080 H. Council-Designated Economic Development Special Events 1) Limited Exemption Authorized.

The business license tax imposed under this Chapter shall not apply to a vendor, exhibitor, or merchant that operates solely at a special event formally designated by the City Council, or City Council designee, as an economic development event

Page 214 of 570 ends

under this subsection. For purposes for this Section, an “Economic Development Event” is defined as a temporary event that:
a) Is intended to promote tourism, economic activity, community engagement, or local business visibility within the City;
b) Is sponsored, co-sponsored, or formally authorized by the City; c) Occurs for no more than two (2) consecutive calendar days; d) Shall take place on public or private property within the City; and e) Includes vendors, exhibitors, or merchants participating only for the duration of the event.

Each individual occurrence of an event shall be considered a separate Economic Development Event, regardless of whether the event is part of a recurring series, program, or branded activity but a consecutive multi-day event shall be considered one Economic Development Event.
2) Vendor Limitation.

A vendor may receive an exemption under this subsection for no more than three (3) Economic Development Events within a single fiscal year. A vendor that participates in more than three Economic Development Events in a fiscal year shall be required to obtain and pay for a business license in accordance with this Chapter. 3) Vendor Eligibility Criteria.

To qualify for the exemption, all of the following conditions must be met:
a) The vendor operates within the City only for the duration of the designated special event;
b) The vendor does not maintain a permanent or ongoing business location within the City, including but not limited to commercial storefronts or regularly operating home-based businesses;
c) The vendor conducts no other business activity within the City during the same fiscal year outside of the designated event; and
d) The vendor complies with all other applicable federal, state, and local laws and permit requirements.
4) Economic Development Event Vendor License Fee.
a) As a condition of designating an event as an Economic Development Event, the event organizer shall pay an Economic Development Event Vendor License Fee, established by resolution of the City Council to recover the City’s reasonable costs associated with administering the exemption, including, but not limited to, staff review, vendor verification, and compliance monitoring.

Page 215 of 570 ends

b) If the event organizer elects not to pay the administrative fee on behalf of participating vendors, each vendor, exhibitor, or merchant participating in the Economic Development Event shall be required to individually apply for and obtain an Economic Development Event Vendor License and pay the applicable fee established by resolution of the City Council.
c) The City may require the event organizer to provide a list of participating vendors and other reasonably necessary information to administer this Section. 5) Scope of Exemption.

This exemption applies only to the business license tax imposed under this Chapter and does not relieve any person or entity from compliance with other applicable federal, state, or local laws, including, but not limited to, seller’s permit requirements, health permits, encroachment permits, or public safety regulations. 6) Administrative Authority.

The Collector may require documentation reasonably necessary to verify eligibility and may deny the exemption if the requirements of this subsection are not satisfied.” Section 2. 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 ordinance cannot reasonably be said to have a significant effect on the environment.

Section 3. 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 4. 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 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days from and after the date of its adoption.

Section 6. PUBLICATION. The City Clerk shall certify as to the adoption of this

Page 216 of 570 ends

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 15th day of April, 2026, and passed and adopted on the 6th day of May, 2026, at a duly held meeting of the City Council of the City of Scotts Valley by the following votes:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:
______________________________
Donna Lind, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Cathie Simonovich, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________
Kirsten Powell, City Attorney

Page 217 of 570 ends

AGENDA ITEM 8.

DATE: 5/6/2026
City of Scotts Valley

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: 5/6/2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Scott Garner, Police Captain
APPROVED: Mali LaGoe, City Manager
SUBJECT: Second reading and adoption of Ordinance No. 22-200.4 approving LexiPol Policy 706 pertaining to the funding, acquisition, and use of military equipment as mandated by Assembly Bill 481

SUMMARY OF ISSUE
California Assembly Bill 481 (AB 481) requires law enforcement agencies to obtain governing body approval, by ordinance, for the funding, acquisition, and use of designated “military equipment,” and to annually review and renew that approval. The City of Scotts Valley has remained in compliance since adopting its initial ordinance in May 2022, with annual renewals in 2023, 2024, and 2025. AB 481 also mandates an annual report detailing equipment use, inventory, costs, complaints, policy compliance, and future acquisitions. The Scotts Valley Police Department presented its 2026 annual report at a public meeting on March 16, 2026, with no public attendance, again during the April 15th City Council meeting, and proposed replacing three outdated rifles. Also, on April 15th, as required by AB 481, the City Council introduced Ordinance No. 22-200.4, reaffirming Lexipol Policy 706 governing the use of military equipment. At tonight's meeting, the City Council will consider adopting Ordinance No. 22-200.4. If adopted, the Ordinance will be effective in 30 days.

FISCAL IMPACT
Adoption of Ordinance No. 22-200.4 has no fiscal impact.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 22-200.4.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. 2025 AB 481 Annual Report

2. AB481 Ordiance 2025

Page 218 of 570 ends

SCOTTS VALLEY POLICE DEPARTMENT
2025 AB 481 ANNUAL REPORT
Chief Jayson Rutherford
April 15th, 2026
Public Hearing on 3/16/2026

Page 219 of 570 ends

2025 AB 481 ANNUAL REPORT
2 | P a g e
AB 481 Military Equipment Use Compliance Requirements:
• Approval of the Military Equipment Use Policy (Completed 5/2022 Policy #706) • Approval of the Military Equipment Use Ordinance (Completed 5/2022 Ord. # 22-200) • Publishing the Policy (Completed 5/2022)
• Annual Report
Annual Report:

In 2022, Assembly Bill 481 required all California Law Enforcement to declare any equipment categorized as Military Equipment. Furthermore, agencies were required to get permission from their governing bodies to possess and utilize that equipment. The Scotts Valley Police abided by the law and obtained permission to utilize two items on the list. In addition, AB 481 requires all agencies to provide an annual report to their governing body and open to public viewing.

Items deemed to be “military equipment” by AB 481 are used as a component of overall best practices for Law Enforcement throughout the country. These tools have been tested in the field and are used by officers to enhance citizen safety and officer safety. Loss of these items would jeopardize the welfare of citizens and SVPD officers.

Officers are trained on all department issued equipment before utilizing the equipment in the field. Officers receiving the equipment undergo training on the nomenclature, functionality, and risks associated with the use of the equipment. Furthermore, officers are required to requalify annually.

Officers must comply with mandated training as regulated by Federal, State and Local statutes. Most of the training is managed and administered by the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST), which sets minimum training standard for California law enforcement officers.

AB 481 requires six elements to be included in the annual report for each type of equipment, which are outlined below.
1) Summary of how each type of equipment was used and the purpose of that use:

The Scotts Valley Police Department received approval to use Category 10 - Specialized Firearms (AR-15 .223/5.56 patrol rifle) and Category 14 -Kinetic Energy Weapons (Remington 870 shotgun converted to “less-lethal” only). These tools are essential to effectively respond to active threats, protect the community, and de-escalate dangerous situations when possible.

Page 220 of 570 ends

2025 AB 481 ANNUAL REPORT
3 | P a g e
Rifles and Less-Lethal Shotguns were deployed during the annual rifle range and qualification training dates in January 2025. Additionally, a lateral hire successfully completed the rifle / less lethal certification course in December 2025.

There was one rifle and no shotgun discharged during the below listed field deployment(s).

Rifles and/or Less-Lethal shotguns were deployed during the following incidents:

SVPD Officer Assigned to the Santa Cruz County Anti-Crime Team:

1. WPD Case Number, Date/Duration: 10/17/25 (45 Mins), Synopsis: SVPD employee assigned to SCCACT assisted WPD in a warrant service of a violent gang member with firearms. Prohibited firearm(s) recovered.

2. CHP Case Number, Date/Duration: 07/30/25 (25 Mins), Synopsis: SCCACT assisted SCARE in a warrant service of a suspect who was in possession of firearms as a prohibited person.

3. Case: 25W-01975, Date/Duration: 07/01/25 (1 hour), Synopsis: Search warrant execution on subject with prohibited firearms. 14 firearms recovered.

4. Case: 25W-00969, Date/Duration: 04/06/25 (1.5 hour), Synopsis: Search warrant for possession of firearms as a prohibited person. 15 firearms recovered.

5. Case: 25W-00827, Date/Duration: 03/21/25 (20 mins), Synopsis: Search warrant service for a suspect who was in possession of firearms/narcotics as a prohibited person. 5 firearms and illegal controlled substances were recovered.

6. WPD Case number, Date/Duration: 03/14/25 (20 mins), Synopsis: Search warrant service for a suspect who was in possession of several assault weapons. Several illegal firearms were recovered.

7. WPD case, Date/Duration: 01/15/25 (2 hours), Synopsis: SCCACT assisted WPD with an occupied residential burglary. A SVPD officer assigned to SCCACT covered a perimeter position until SWAT arrived.

Page 221 of 570 ends

2025 AB 481 ANNUAL REPORT
4 | P a g e
Scotts Valley Police Operations Deployments:

8. 26V-00068: Officer deployed their department issued AR15 during the search of a residence that had been burglarized.

9. 26V-00208: Officer deployed his department issued AR15 during the search of a business that had been burglarized.

10. 25V-00483: Date/Duration: 06/03/2025 (5 minutes) SVPD Officers had to dispatch an injured deer on La Madrona near Silverwood.
2) Quantity possessed of each type of equipment:

The department currently has 16 patrol rifles and 5 less lethal shotguns in our inventory. 3) Annual costs for each type of equipment, “including acquisition, personnel, training, transportation, maintenance, storage, upgrade, and other ongoing costs”:

City Council approved $5808.35 to purchase three new Colt AR-15 rifles to replace three outdated existing Bushmaster rifles.

SVPD Officers completed an eight-hour rifle and less-lethal shotgun training and qualification in January 2025. The cost of the ammunition for this training was $1200.

SVPD Lateral hire completed an eight-hour rifle and less lethal training and qualification in December, 2025. The cost of the ammunition for this training was $100. 4) Summary of complaints or concerns received for each type of equipment:

There were no complaints or concerns received.
5) Information disclosing violations of military equipment policies and actions taken in response, as well as result of internal audits:

There were no violations of Scotts Valley Police Lexipol policy 706, Military Equipment. 6) Plans to acquire additional military equipment in the coming year, and the quantity sought:

SVPD currently has 3 Bushmaster AR-15 rifles and 11 Colt AR-15 rifles. The Bushmaster rifles were purchased in 2010 and need replacing due to prolonged use and wear. In 2025,

Page 222 of 570 ends

2025 AB 481 ANNUAL REPORT
5 | P a g e
we received approval from the City Council to replace three Bushmaster rifles with three new Colt rifles. The three Bushmaster rifles were taken out of service and destroyed, so the number of rifles in our inventory remained the same.

In 2026, we are proposing to replace an additional three outdated Bushmaster rifles with three new Colt rifles. The three Bushmaster rifles will be taken out of service and destroyed, so the number of rifles in our inventory will remain the same. The total cost of the three new Colt rifles completely outfitted with sling, Aimpoint optic, and tactical light will be $5990.00.

This amount is already included in the budget and does not impact the General Fund.

Page 223 of 570 ends

004
ORDINANCE NO. 22-200.4

ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY AMENDING TITLE 9 OF THE SCOTTS VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING CHAPTER 9.22, USE OF MILITARY EQUIPMENT BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WHEREAS, on September 30, 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill 481, relating to the use of military equipment by law enforcement agencies; and WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 481 (AB 481), codified at California Government Code sections 7070 through 7075, requires law enforcement agencies to obtain approval of the applicable governing body, by an ordinance adopting a “military equipment” use policy at a regular meeting held pursuant to open meeting laws prior to taking certain actions relating to the funding, acquisition, or use of “military equipment”. The term “military equipment” is defined in California Government Code Section 7070; and WHEREAS, AB 481 allows the City Council to approve the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment, within its jurisdiction only if it makes specified determinations; and WHEREAS, the proposed military equipment use policy is found within Scotts Valley Police Department Lexipol Policy Manual, General Order 706. The policy was published on February 16, 2022 and displayed on the Scotts Valley Police Department website on March 10, 2022 is being presented to the City Council on April 15, 2026. A copy of the policy is attached hereto as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Scotts Valley Police Department Policy 706 meets the requirements of California Government Code 7070; and
WHEREAS, this ordinance adds to the Municipal Code to affirm Scotts Valley Police Department Policy 706 and authorize the use of “military equipment” by the members of the Scotts Valley Police Department as described in Policy 706; and WHEREAS, in the enactment of this ordinance, the City followed the guidelines adopted by the State of California and published in the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000, et seq. and found this activity is not a “project” as defined by California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The foregoing facts are adopted as findings of the City Council as though set forth in fully within the body of this ordinance.

SECTION 2. That Chapter 9.22 of Title 9 of the Scotts Valley Municipal Code reads as follows:

Page 224 of 570 ends

006
“CHAPTER 9.22 - MILITARY EQUIPMENT USE POLICY.

Section 9.22.010- Findings and Purpose
Sec. 9.22.010 – Findings and Purpose.
(a) The City Council has made the following determinations:
(1) The military equipment inventoried and presented to the City Council is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety; and
(2) The Military Equipment Use Policy (“Policy”) will safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties; and (3) The military equipment identified in the Military Equipment Use Policy is reasonably cost effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objective of Officer and civilian safety; and
(4) Prior military equipment use complied with the applicable Equipment Use Policy (which included equipment now defined as military equipment) that was in effect at the time, or if prior uses did not comply with the accompanying Military Equipment Use Policy, corrective action has been taken to remedy nonconforming uses and ensure future compliance.
(b) The Police Department has submitted a proposed Policy to the City Council and has made those documents available on the Police Department’s website for at least 30 days prior to the public hearing concerning the military equipment at issue.
(c) The Policy was considered by the City Council as an agenda item in an open session of a regular meeting, noticed in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, at which public comment was permitted.
(d) The Policy shall be made publicly available on the Police Department’s website for as long as the military equipment is available for use. (e) The Police Department shall submit an annual military equipment report to the City Council, containing the information required in Government Code Section 7072, and the City Council shall determine whether each type of military equipment identified in that report has complied with the standards for approval set forth in (a)(1)-(4) above.
(f) The City Council shall review this ordinance, and vote on whether to renew it, on an annual basis at a regular meeting, in accordance with Government Code Section 7071(e)(2)
(g) The City Council approves the use of the Policy and finds that it satisfies the requirements of Government Code Section 7070(d).”

Page 225 of 570 ends

006
SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision of such Ordinance and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof.

SECTION 4. REPEALS CONFLICTING ORDINANCES. All other ordinances of the City of Scotts Valley or provisions of the Scotts Valley Municipal Code which are in conflict with this Ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict.

SECTION 5. CEQA COMPLIANCE. The City Council finds and determines that the enactment of this Ordinance is not a “project” as that term is used in the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA;” Cal. Pub. Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) or the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code of Regs., Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.).

Therefore, no environmental assessment is required or necessary.

SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE. The above and foregoing ordinance was introduced for a first reading on April 15, 2026, and passed and adopted on May 6, 2026, at a duly held meeting of the City Council of the City of Scotts Valley by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED: ______________________________
Donna Lind, Mayor
ATTEST:

Cathie Simonovich, City Clerk

APPROVED
AS TO FORM:

Kirsten Powell, City Attorney

Page 226 of 570 ends

AGENDA ITEM 9.

DATE: 5/6/2026
City of Scotts Valley

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: 5/6/2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kirsten Powell, City Attorney
APPROVED: Mali LaGoe, City Manager
SUBJECT: Second reading and adoption of Ordinance No. 202 designating no stopping, no parking areas

SUMMARY OF ISSUE
On April 15, 2026, the City Council introduced Ordinance No. 202 designating no stopping and no parking areas. Chapter 10.08 of the Scotts Valley Municipal Code regulates parking within the City but does not specifically designate no parking areas within the City. No parking areas are designated in the California Vehicle but additional means of designation are appropriate.

Ordinance No. 202 identifies the no parking areas in the City and gives the Public Works Director the ability to designate no parking areas consistent with applicable traffic engineering standards. In addition, the City Council has the ability to designate no parking areas by resolution. Tonight, the City Council should consider adopting Ordinance No. 202. If adopted, the ordinance will be effective in 30 days.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with adoption of Ordinance No. 202. If any areas are designated for no parking, minimal costs will be incurred to properly sign or mark the no parking areas.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 202 designating no stopping and no parking areas.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Ordinance No. 202 No Parking Areas

Page 227 of 570 ends

ORDINANCE NO. 202

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 10.08 BY ADDING SECTION 10.08.035

DESIGNATING NO STOPPING, NO PARKING AREAS

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY as follows:

Section 1. Title 10, Chapter 10.08 of the Scotts Valley Municipal Code is hereby amended by adopting a new Section 10.08.035 to read as follows:
“10.08.035 No stopping, no parking areas – Designations.

No operator of any vehicle shall stop, stand, park or leave standing any vehicle, whether attended or unattended, in any of the following places, except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or in compliance with the direction of a police officer, other authorized officer or official traffic control device:

A. Within any loading zone for any purpose other than unloading or loading of passengers or materials; provided, that no stop for the loading or unloading of passengers shall be made for more than five minutes; or provided, that no stop for the loading or unloading of materials shall be made for more than 20 minutes.

B. Within a bus stop zone, unless the vehicle is a bus or a school bus.

C. In a designated “No Parking,” “No Stopping,” or any time-specific no parking or no stopping zone when signs or markings, as prescribed in California Vehicle Code Section 21458, are placed giving notice of such prohibition.

D. Within a designated on-road bicycle lane anywhere on the city street system.

E. Within any divisional or median island unless authorized and clearly indicated with appropriate signs or markings.

F. In any area where the Public Works Director determines that the parking or stopping of a vehicle would constitute a traffic hazard or would endanger life or property consistent with applicable traffic engineering standards, when such area is indicated by appropriate signs or by red paint upon the curb surface.

G. In any area established by resolution of the city council as a no parking or no stopping area, when such area is indicated by appropriate signs or by red paint upon the curb surface.”
Section 2. 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.

Page 228 of 570 ends

The proposed amendments are adopted to restrict parking in particular areas and cannot be said to reasonably have a significant effect on the environment.

Section 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days from and after the date of its adoption.

Section 6. 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.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:
______________________________
Donna Lind, Mayor

Page 229 of 570 ends

ATTEST:
_________________________________
Cathie Simonovich, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________
Kirsten Powell, City Attorney

Page 230 of 570 ends

AGENDA ITEM 1.

DATE: 5/6/2026
City of Scotts Valley

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: 5/6/2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kirsten Powell, City Attorney
APPROVED: Mali LaGoe, City Manager
SUBJECT: Public Hearing to consider the adoption of Fire Facility Impact Fees to be collected by the City on behalf of the Scotts Valley Fire Protection District

SUMMARY OF ISSUE
Pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code §§ 66000-66025), local agencies may establish, increase, or impose fees as a condition of approval of development to mitigate the impacts of such development on public facilities. The City has codified those fees in Chapter

15.20. Currently, the City collects the following impact fees: General Facilities and Equipment, Wastewater Treatment Facilities, Law Enforcement Facilities, Equipment and Training, Storm Drainage Facilities, Parks and Recreation Facilitieis, Library Facilities, Streets and Thoroughfares and Administrative Overhead fees.

New development within the City also increases the need and demand for fire protection services and other emergency services, including, but not limited to, the need for certain capital facilities and other capital assets provided by the Scotts Valley Fire Protection District ("District"). At the request of the District and in compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act, the City Council may establish impact fees that are collected on behalf of the District upon new development within the District and the City. As climate change extends and exacerbates fire risk in California, the District is in need of greater resources to protect the community.

To address that need, the District has prepared a Fire Facilities Impact Fee Study (“Report”) for the purposes of establishing the legal and policy basis for imposing a fire facilties impact fee within the District. The impact fee will be used to fund the acquisition and construction of fire protection and emergency fire protection services. On November 12, 2025, the Board of Directors of the District adopted Resolution No. 2025-18, approving the Report, making the required findings under the Mitigation Fee Act, and requesting the City Council adopt the impact fees proposed. The City has made the Report available for public review 10 days prior to the public hearing by the City Council and notice of the public hearing was published in the Scotts Valley Press Banner on April 17, 2026, and April 24, 2026, in accordance with Section 66018 of the Mitigation Fee Act.

In order to collect the fire facilities impact fees on behalf the District, the City must amend Section 15.20.030 of the Municipal Code to add the fee and approve a resolution adopting the fees as set by the District. In addition, the City Council is being asked to authorize the City

Page 231 of 570 ends

Manager to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the District which memorializes the terms upon which the Fees will be imposed, collected and distributed, including a payment of 5% of each fee to the City and indemnification by the District for any challenges to the fees.

FISCAL IMPACT
The adoption of the ordinance and the collection of the fees on behalf of the District will result in a recovery of 5% of the fees collected by the City. At this time, it is difficult to determine the exact amount of fees that will be collected as it is based on development projects.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

1. Introduce Ordinance No. 203, amending Section 15.20.030 of the Municipal Code to establish a Fire Facility Impact Fee and waive the reading thereof; and

2. Adopt Resolution No. 2092, Adopting the Scotts Valley Fire District Fire Facilities Impact Fee Study and Impact Fees and Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into that Certain Agreement with the Scotts Valley Fire Protection District Regarding the Collection of the Impact Fees.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Ordinance No. 203 Fire Impact Fees

2. Resolution No. 2092 SVFD DIF

3. Exhibit B SVFPD - Impact Fee Collection MOU

Page 232 of 570 ends

ORDINANCE NO. 203

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY AMENDING SECTION 15.20.030 OF TITLE 15, CHAPTER 15.20 OF THE SCOTTS VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE

TO ESTABLISH A FIRE FACILITIES IMPACT FEE AND PROVIDING FOR ITS ADOPTION BY

RESOLUTION OF THE SCOTTS VALLEY FIRE DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS WHEREAS, this Ordinance sets forth the requirements for establishing and administering a development impact fee program imposed by the City of Scotts Valley ("City") on behalf of the Scotts Valley Fire District ("District"); and WHEREAS, new development within the boundaries of the Scotts Valley Fire Protection District (“District”) impacts and necessitates the need and demand for fire protection services and other emergency services, including, but not limited to, the need for certain District capital facilities and other District capital assets; and WHEREAS, wildfires are a frequent natural disaster in California, causing significant harm and loss to individuals, communities, property, and great swaths of natural landscape, and the frequency, duration and size of wildfires have increased over the last several decades; and
WHEREAS, as climate change extends and exacerbates fire risk in California, there are areas within the District that are at relatively high risk for fire and according to the Santa Cruz County Climate Vulnerability Technical Compendium (January 2025), the decadal probability of a wildfire is projected to increase to the 50th and 90th percentiles for 2040s and 2070s, respectively, compared to historical baseline for emissions scenarios; and WHEREAS, on June 11, 2025, the District adopted the Scotts Valley Fire District Hazard Map Ordinance No. 2025-1, establishing fire hazard severity zones (FHSZ) within the District, including FHSZs high and moderate fire hazard zones, thereby increasing the importance of fire protection services and capital facilities; and
WHEREAS, the District has prepared the required documentation to comply with the California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code §§66000- 66025) including a Fire Facilities Impact Fee Study dated July 22, 2025 (“Nexus Study”) which established the legal and policy basis to support a new Impact Fee program within the District; and
WHEREAS, there is a reasonable relationship between the fees used and the types of development projects on which the fee is imposed for the reasons set forth in the District's resolution and nexus study attached to this Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the Public Facilities, including Fire Facilities, Equipment, and Apparatus, and the development projects on which the fee is imposed for the reasons set forth in the District's resolution and nexus study attached to this Ordinance; and

Page 233 of 570 ends

WHEREAS, on November 12, 2025, after considering the Nexus Study and testimony received at a public hearing, the Board of Directors of the District established a Fire Facility Fee and made the following findings pursuant to Government Code § 66001:

1. The broad purpose of the Impact Fees is to protect public health, safety, and general welfare by providing adequate District facilities. The specific purpose of the Impact Fees is to fund the acquisition or construction of fire protection and emergency fire protection services and other emergency services, including, but not limited to, the need for certain capital facilities and other capital assets (collectively, “Fire Protection Facilities and Assets”) provided by the District attributable to new development in the District.

2. The uses of the Impact Fees will be used to fund the District’s Fire Protection Facilities and Assets to serve new development. The specific Fire Protection Facilities and Assets are further set forth in the District’s Capital Improvement Plan (“CIP”), which was approved by the Board on November 12, 2025. The CIP indicates the approximate location, size, time of availability, and estimates of costs for all Fire Protection Facilities and Assets that may be funded with Impact Fees.

3. The uses of the Impact Fees are reasonably related to the types of development projects for which the Impact Fees are imposed, in that the Impact Fees will be used to expand the District’s Fire Protection Facilities and Assets to meet the additional demand generated by new development.

4. The Impact Fees bear a reasonable relationship to the need for Fire Protection Facilities and Assets and the type of development on which the Impact Fees are imposed.

The Nexus Study demonstrates that there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the Impact Fees and the cost of the Fire Protection Facilities and Assets attributable to the new development within the District’s boundaries.

WHEREAS, the District requests the establishment and administration of a development impact fee because the District lacks statutory authority to impose development impact mitigation fees independently, and the District has prepared all of the supporting documentation to support the findings required to establish the fee, collect the fee and comply with all necessary reporting and accounting procedures for the fee.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Scotts Valley hereby ordains as follows:

Section 1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated into the findings herein.

Section 2. Section 15.20.030 of Chapter 15.20 of Title 15 of the Scotts Valley Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
“SECTION 15.20.030. The following development impact fees are hereby established and imposed on the issuance of all building permits for development within the city to finance the cost of the following categories of public facilities and improvements required by new development:

A. General Facilities and Equipment. A development impact fee is hereby established for general facilities and equipment.

Page 234 of 570 ends

B. Wastewater Treatment Facilities. A development impact fee is hereby established for wastewater treatment facilities.

C. Law Enforcement Facilities, Equipment and Training. A development impact fee is hereby established for law enforcement facilities, equipment and training.

D. Storm Drainage Facilities. A development impact fee is hereby established for storm drainage facilities.

E. Park and Recreation Facilities. A development impact fee is hereby established for park and recreation facilities.

F. Library Facilities. A development impact fee is hereby established for library facilities.

G. Streets and Thoroughfares. A development impact fee is hereby established for streets and thoroughfares.

H. Administrative Overhead. A development impact fee is hereby established for administrative overhead to cover the cost of general administration of this chapter and any resolution adopted pursuant hereto, performance of accounting tasks associated herewith, supervision and handling of funds, preparation and/or updating of master facilities plans and/or capital financing plans, and the like. This fee shall be set as a percentage of the fees set forth in subsections A through G, above, which are collected pursuant to this chapter. This fee does not relate to and is not designed to cover administrative costs incurred by the city in the case of any specific public facility constructed with the fees referenced in subsections A through G, above, since such project specific administrative costs are included in and shall be recovered from such fees.

I. Fire Facilities Impact Fee. A development impact fee is hereby established for fire facilities.

The specific amount of the fee shall be established by resolution of the Scotts Valley Fire District or its successor.

Except as provided above, the city council shall, by council resolution, set forth the specific amount of the fees, describe the benefit and impact area on which the fees are imposed, list the specific public improvements to be financed and describe the estimated cost of these facilities.” Section 3. 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 establishment of the Fire Facilities Fee does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.

Section 4. 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 5. 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 6. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days from and after the date of its adoption.

Page 235 of 570 ends

Section 7. 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 6th date of May, 2026, and passed and adopted on the 20th day of May, 2026, at a duly held meeting of the City Council of the City of Scotts Valley by the following votes:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED: ______________________________
Donna Lind, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Cathie Simonovich, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________
Kirsten Powell, City Attorney

Page 236 of 570 ends

SV/SVFCImpactFeeReso5.1.26FNL
RESOLUTION NO. 2092

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY

ADOPTING THE SCOTTS VALLEY FIRE DISTRICT FIRE FACILITIES IMPACT FEE

STUDY AND IMPACT FEES AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER

INTO THAT CERTAIN AGREEMENT WITH THE SCOTTS VALLEY FIRE DISTRICT

REGARDING THE COLLECTION OF THE IMPACT FEES
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code §§ 66000- 66025), local agencies may establish, increase, or impose fees as a condition for approval of development to mitigate the impacts of such development on public facilities; and WHEREAS, new development within the boundaries of the Scotts Valley Fire Protection District (“District”) impacts and necessitates the need and demand for fire protection services and other emergency services, including, but not limited to, the need for certain District capital facilities and other District capital assets; and WHEREAS, wildfires are a frequent natural disaster in California, causing significant harm and loss to individuals, communities, property, and great swaths of natural landscape, and the frequency, duration and size of wildfires have increased over the last several decades; and
WHEREAS, as climate change extends and exacerbates fire risk in California, there are areas within the District that are at relatively high risk for fire and according to the Santa Cruz County Climate Vulnerability Technical Compendium (January 2025), the decadal probability of a wildfire is projected to increase to the 50th and 90th percentiles for 2040s and 2070s, respectively, compared to historical baseline for emissions scenarios; and
WHEREAS, on June 11, 2025, the District adopted the Scotts Valley Fire District Hazard Map Ordinance No. 2025-1, establishing fire hazard severity zones (FHSZ) within the District, including FHSZs high and moderate fire hazard zones, thereby increasing the importance of fire protection services and capital facilities; and WHEREAS, on November 12, 2025, the District approved the Fire Facilities Impact Fee Study dated July 22, 2025 (“Nexus Study”) which established the legal and policy basis to support a new Impact Fee program within the District and adopted the fees in accordance with the study (“Impact Fees”); and
WHEREAS, the District has requested that the City establish and administer a development impact fee on its behalf because the District lacks statutory authority to impose development impact mitigation fees independently, and the District has prepared all of the supporting documentation to support the findings required to establish the Impact Fees, collect the Impact Fees and comply with all necessary reporting and accounting procedures for the Impact Fees; and

Page 237 of 570 ends

2 SV/SVFCImpactFeeReso5.1.26FNL
WHEREAS, in order to collect the Impact Fees on behalf of the District, the City and the District shall enter an agreement documenting the obligations of the parties; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), this action is not a “project” because the Resolution provides for the creation of a funding mechanism for Fire Protection Facilities and Assets but does not involve a commitment to any specific projects for such purposes that may result in a potentially significant impact on the environment. (CEQA Guidelines § 15378(b)(4).) CEQA also provides, in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), that where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is exempt from CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to adopt the Nexus Study, approve the Impact Fees established by the Nexus Study and adopted by the District and authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with the District regarding the collection of the impact fees.

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

1. Nexus Study. The City Council hereby approves the Nexus Study provided as Attachment “A” that is incorporated into this Resolution. When adopting the Nexus Study, in accordance with Government Code § 66001, the District made the following findings:
a. The broad purpose of the Impact Fees is to protect public health, safety, and general welfare by providing adequate District facilities. The specific purpose of the Impact Fees is to fund the acquisition or construction of fire protection and emergency fire protection services and other emergency services, including, but not limited to, the need for certain capital facilities and other capital assets (collectively, “Fire Protection Facilities and Assets”) provided by the District attributable to new development in the District. b. The uses of the Impact Fees will be used to fund the District’s Fire Protection Facilities and Assets to serve new development. The specific Fire Protection Facilities and Assets are further set forth in the District’s Capital Improvement Plan (“CIP”), which was approved by the Board on November 12, 2025. The CIP indicates the approximate location, size, time of availability, and estimates of costs for all Fire Protection Facilities and Assets that may be funded with Impact Fees.
c. The uses of the Impact Fees are reasonably related to the types of development projects for which the Impact Fees are imposed, in that the Impact Fees will be used to expand the District’s Fire Protection Facilities and Assets to meet the additional demand generated by new development.

Page 238 of 570 ends

3 SV/SVFCImpactFeeReso5.1.26FNL
d. The Impact Fees bear a reasonable relationship to the need for Fire Protection Facilities and Assets and the type of development on which the Impact Fees are imposed.
e. The Nexus Study demonstrates that there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the Impact Fees and the cost of the Fire Protection Facilities and Assets attributable to the new development within the District’s boundaries.

The City Council hereby adopts those findings.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby approves the following Impact Fees on new development within the City:

Development
Type Units
Impact Fee
per Unit
Avg Sq
Ft
per Unit
Impact
Fee
per Sq Ft
All Residential DU $ 1,262 2,485 $ 0.51
Assisted Living Bed $ 10,693
Hotel/Motel Room $ 743
Commercial-Retail KSF $ 1,040
Office KSF $ 668
Industrial KSF $ 149
The City will hereby collect the Impact Fees on behalf of the District in accordance with Scotts Valley Municipal Code Chapter 15.20 and that certain Memorandum of Understanding by and between Scotts Valley Fire District and City of Scotts Valley for the Establishment, Imposition and Collection of Impact Fees (“MOU”), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute the MOU.

The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Scotts Valley at a regular meeting held on the 6th day of May, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:
________________________________
Donna Lind, Mayor
ATTEST:

Page 239 of 570 ends

4 SV/SVFCImpactFeeReso5.1.26FNL
_________________________
Cathie Simonovich, City Clerk

Page 240 of 570 ends

5 SV/SVFCImpactFeeReso5.1.26FNL
Exhibit “A”
Nexus Study

Page 241 of 570 ends

Page 242 of 570 ends

Page 243 of 570 ends

Page 244 of 570 ends

Page 245 of 570 ends

Page 246 of 570 ends

Page 247 of 570 ends

Page 248 of 570 ends

Page 249 of 570 ends

Page 250 of 570 ends

Page 251 of 570 ends

Page 252 of 570 ends

Page 253 of 570 ends

Page 254 of 570 ends

Page 255 of 570 ends

Page 256 of 570 ends

Page 257 of 570 ends

Page 258 of 570 ends

Page 259 of 570 ends

Page 260 of 570 ends

Page 261 of 570 ends

Page 262 of 570 ends

Page 263 of 570 ends

Page 264 of 570 ends

Page 265 of 570 ends

Page 266 of 570 ends

Page 267 of 570 ends

Page 268 of 570 ends

be added by new development to buildout and the cost per call for service used in the impact fee calculations. Table 3.6 shows that calculation. In Table 3.6, calls for service generated by public facilities are excluded from the projected revenue calculation because no impact fees will be imposed on those facilities.

Table 3.6 Projected Revenue
Added Calls
for Service 1
331
Cost
per Call 2
$7,553.09
Projected
Revenue 3
$2,501,319
1 See Table 2.3; added calls from public facilities and K-12 public schools are excluded because the District does not collect impact fees from those types of development
2 See Table 3.4
3 Projected revenue = added calls for service X cost per call The revenue projected in Table 3.6 assumes that future development occurs as shown in Chapter 2. Actual revenue may vary depending on the actual mix of development that occurs in the District between the date of this report and buildout of undeveloped land in the District.

To ensure that revenue from impact fees does not exceed the cost of future facilities needed to serve added development, projected revenue should be compared with the estimated cost of future Fire Department facilities, apparatus and equipment.

The District plans to obtain added capacity in their facilities · needed to serve future development through either the retrofit of existing Station 1, or a replacement Station, as well as retrofits and added equipment to existing training facilities. The cost of these improvements ranges from approximately $10 million up to $29 million based on the District's knowledge of project parameters at this time. Additionally, the District requires purchase of a ladder truck, which is estimated to cost approximately $2 million. The projected $2.9 million in impact fee revenue shown in Ta pie 3.6 will cover a portion of the facility improvement costs needed for the District to serve its buildout service population; therefore, there is no anticipated risk of the revenue from impact fees exceeding the cost of future facilities needed to serve added development. '
Updating the Fees
The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on the current estimated replacement costs for fire district facilities, apparatus and vehicles. We recommend that the fees be reviewed and adjusted annually using local cost data or an index such as the Engineering News Record Building Cost Index or the California Construction Cost Index.

See the Implementation Chapter for more on indexing of fees.

Scotts Valley Fire Protection District
Development Impact Fee Study
July 22, 2025

Page 3 ends

Page 269 of 570 ends

Page 270 of 570 ends

Page 271 of 570 ends

Page 272 of 570 ends

Page 273 of 570 ends

Page 274 of 570 ends

Page 275 of 570 ends

Page 276 of 570 ends

Page 277 of 570 ends

Page 278 of 570 ends

Page 279 of 570 ends

6 SV/SVFCImpactFeeReso5.1.26FNL
Exhibit “B”
Memorandum of Understanding

Page 280 of 570 ends

Memorandum of Understanding 1 | Page
Scotts Valley Fire District
City of Scotts Valley
54612157.12/006612.00006

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

BY AND BETWEEN SCOTTS VALLEY FIRE DISTRICT

AND CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT, IMPOSITION AND COLLECTION OF IMPACT FEES THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (“MOU”) is made this ______ day of __________ 2026 (“Effective Date”), by and between SCOTTS VALLEY FIRE DISTRICT (“District”), a fire district organized and existing pursuant to the Fire Protection District Law of 1987 and charged with providing fire protection services within its jurisdictional boundaries, and the CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY (“City”), a California general law city and municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the constitution and laws of the state of California. The District and City may be referred to herein individually as a “Party” or collectively as the “Parties.”

RECITALS
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code §§ 66000-66025), local agencies may establish, increase, or impose fees (“Impact Fees”) as a condition of approval of development to mitigate the impacts of such development on public facilities; and
WHEREAS, new development within the District and the City increases the need and demand for fire protection services and other emergency services, including, but not limited to, the need for certain capital facilities and other capital assets provided by the District; and
WHEREAS, wildfires are a frequent natural disaster in California, causing significant harm and loss to individuals, communities, property, and great swaths of natural landscape, and the frequency, duration and size of wildfires have increased over the last several decades; and
WHEREAS, as climate change extends and exacerbates fire risk in California, there are areas within the District and the City that are at relatively high risk for fire and according to the Santa Cruz County Climate Vulnerability Technical Compendium (January 2025), the decadal probability of a wildfire is projected to increase to the 50th and 90th percentiles for 2040s and 2070s, respectively, compared to historical baseline for emissions scenarios; and WHEREAS, on June 11, 2025, the District adopted the Scotts Valley Fire District Hazard Map Ordinance No. 2025-1, establishing fire hazard severity zones (FHSZ) within the District, including FHSZs high and moderate fire hazard zones, thereby increasing the need for fire protection services and facilities; and WHEREAS, the City may be asked to review and approve new development projects located within the District, including within FHSZ that are designated as high and moderate; and WHEREAS, at the request of the District and in compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act, the City Council may establish impact fees that are collected on behalf of the District upon new development within the District and the City pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act; and
WHEREAS, the District has caused to be prepared a Fire Facilities Impact Fee Study (“Report”) for the purposes of establishing the legal and policy basis for imposing the Impact Fee within the District, and the City has reviewed the Report, which is incorporated herein and made by reference a part hereof; and WHEREAS, on November 12, 2025, the Board of Directors of the District adopted Resolution No. 2025-18, approving the Report, making the required findings in Government Code section 66001(a), and requesting the City Council adopt the Impact Fees proposed therein; and
WHEREAS, the Report was made available for public review 10 days prior to the public hearing conducted by the District and for 10 days prior to the public hearing conducted by the City Council and notice of the City’s public hearing was published in the Scotts Valley Press Banner on April 17, 2026, and April 24, 2026, in accordance with Section 66018 of the Mitigation Fee Act; and

Page 281 of 570 ends

Memorandum of Understanding 2 | Page
Scotts Valley Fire District
City of Scotts Valley
54612157.12/006612.00006
WHEREAS, on May 6, 2026, the City Council conducted a public hearing and then adopted Ordinance No. 203, establishing the Fire Facilities Fee, and adopting Resolution No. 2092 approving the Report and adopting the Impact Fees therein; and
WHEREAS, the City and District now desire to memorialize the terms upon which the Impact Fees shall be imposed, collected, and distributed, pursuant to the terms of this MOU.

NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:

AGREEMENT

1. ESTABLISHMENT OF IMPACT FEES. In seeking to establish a new Impact Fee for fire protection services, the District shall provide the City with all information, documentation, studies, reports, and proposed findings required under the Mitigation Fee Act. District shall provide the amount of the Impact Fee to be collected through the City’s development process from any development project within the boundaries of District and the City and shall transmit said proposed fee amount in writing to the City with all supporting documentation.

District hereby warrantsthat any proposed establishment of an Impact Fee complies with all provisions of the Mitigation Fee Act.

Once adopted by the City, any establishment of an Impact Fee (or amendment or change to an existing fee) shall not become effective until sixty (60) days after final City approval pursuant to Government Code section 66017(a).

2. CALCULATION OF IMPACT FEES. District understands that City staff shall rely on the information and analysis District provides to the City.

3. ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGE. In consideration of the City collecting Impact Fees on behalf of District, City shall retain five percent (5%) of all Impact Fees collected on behalf of District as an administrative charge. The administrative charge provided for in this MOU shall be applied to any fee disbursed after execution of this MOU even if the impact fee was collected prior to execution of this MOU.

4. DISBURSEMENT PROCEDURE. City and District agree that the City shall disburse Impact Fees, less the Administrative charge, to the District on a monthly basis, unless otherwise agreed to by both Parties. For inquiries relating to the disbursement of Impact Fees, the City may contact the District’s Administration Department and the District may contact the City’s Finance Department.

5. TIME OF IMPACT FEE COLLECTION. Any new Impact Fee will not be collected until the date of the final inspection or when the certificate of occupancy is issued, whichever comes first, unless otherwise specified by the Mitigation Fee Act or other State law.

6. RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER THE MITIGATION FEE ACT.

6.1. Compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act. District hereby warrants that any Impact Fees the City imposes and collects on its behalf complies with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act. District agrees to assist the City with any inquiries related to the collection or the amount of Impact Fees, including, but not limited to, whether certain projects are exempt from the collection of Impact Fees.

6.2. Deposit, and Disbursement of Fees. City shall deposit collected Impact Fees in accordance with Government Code section 66006(a). The City shall disburse fees to the District on a monthly basis, unless otherwise agreed to by both Parties. In the event any issues arise about the disbursement of collected Impact Fees, the District and the City shall work together in good faith to resolve the issues within a reasonable time and the City may withhold disbursement until the issue is resolved.

Page 282 of 570 ends

Memorandum of Understanding 3 | Page
Scotts Valley Fire District
City of Scotts Valley
54612157.12/006612.00006

6.3. Accounting and Audit. The City shall account for the collected funds, and the District shall account for the expended Impact Fees in compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act. The District shall have the sole responsibility to account for the expenditure of Impact Fees and perform, at its sole expense, any audit required under the Mitigation Fee Act. To the extent that the District requires information from the City to comply with the Mitigation Fee Act, including, but not limited to, Government Code section 66006(b), the District may request that information from the City in writing and the City shall respond, in writing, with that information in no more than ten (10) calendar days.

Per Government Code section 66006(e), the City shall also inform an applicant at the time of the collection of Impact Fees: (1) that the applicant has a right to request an audit pursuant to Government Code section 66023; (2) that the applicant has a right to file a written request for mailed notice of the meeting of when the City Council is reviewing the Annual Report (defined below); and (3) the website link where the Annual Report (defined below) is made available.

6.4. Annual Reporting Requirements. The District shall ensure compliance with the annual reporting requirements (“Annual Report”) under Government Code section 66006(b). The District shall be responsible for preparing the Annual Report regarding the Impact Fees and shall provide the Annual Report to the City no later than sixty (60) days before the Annual Report is statutorily required to be made available to the public. For clarity, the District shall provide the Annual Report to the City on or before November 1st of each calendar year.

Upon request from the District, the City shall provide the necessary information relating to the Impact Fees for the District to prepare the Annual Report. Such information from the City shall not be unreasonably delayed.

The City shall ensure that the City Council makes the Annual Report available to the public no later than one hundred eighty (180) days after the last day of the fiscal year, in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act, as amended. Further, the City shall ensure that the Annual Report and the notice of the time and place of the City Council meeting whereby the City Council considers approval of the Annual Report be provided not less than fifteen (15) days after the Annual Report is made available to the public.

The Parties understand and agree that cooperation between the City and the District is necessary to comply with Annual Report requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act.

6.5. Five-Year Report. The District shall ensure compliance with the five-year reporting and findings requirements (“Five-Year Report”) under Government Code section 66001(d). The District shall be responsible for preparing the Five-Year Report regarding the Impact Fees and shall provide the FiveYear Report for the City Council to consider, at the same time the District provides the Annual Report, and will provide it no later than sixty (60) days before the Annual Report is statutorily required to be made available to the public. It is the District’s intention to report to the public the information included the Five-Year Report on an annual basis.

Upon request from the District, the City shall provide the necessary information relating to the Impact Fees for the District to prepare the Five-Year Report. Such information from the City shall not be unreasonably delayed. The Parties understand and agree that cooperation between the City and the District shall be necessary to comply with the Five-Year Report requirements under the Mitigation Fee Act.

The City shall ensure that the City Council considers the approval of the Five-Year Report at the same time the City Council considers the Annual Report.

Page 283 of 570 ends

Memorandum of Understanding 4 | Page
Scotts Valley Fire District
City of Scotts Valley
54612157.12/006612.00006

6.6. Posting Impact Fees. In accordance with Government Code section 65940.1, both the City and the District shall make any Impact Fees imposed on behalf of the District, including a written fee schedule, available on its respective websites.

7. DISPUTES AS TO IMPACT FEES. In the event of any disputes arising from claims related to the Impact Fees, the District and the City shall work together in good faith to resolve the issues within a reasonable time. If the Parties cannot resolve the issues in dispute within sixty (60) days, then the Parties agree that any and all disputes, claims or controversies arising out of or relating to this MOU shall be submitted to non-binding mediation prior to instituting litigation in any court. The Parties shall cooperate with one another in selecting a mediator and in scheduling the mediation proceedings. The Parties agree that they shall participate in the mediation in good faith and that they shall share equally in its costs. The mediation shall be held in Santa Cruz County. Any agreements reached in mediation shall be enforceable as settlement agreements in any court having jurisdiction over the matter. Such agreements shall be binding upon the Parties and may be entered as a judgment in accordance with applicable legal standards.

In the event of any application to reduce or appeal an Impact Fee by an applicant, disagreement regarding the amount or the application of any Impact Fees collected, or any protest under Government Code section 66020, the City shall provide a copy of the protest or appeal to the District within forty-eight (48) hours, unless the period ends on a weekend or holiday, in which case it extends to the next business day. The District shall review the protest or appeal and provide a written response to the City within 20days. If the City disagrees or questions the written response, the Parties shall meet in good faith and within 5 business days to discuss the response and agree to language acceptable to both Parties. In the event the Parties cannot agree, the City shall adopt the District’s response subject to the District’s duty to indemnify the City as provided in Section 8 below. The District shall reimburse the City for any expenses, including, but not limited to, staff time incurred addressing the protest or appeal.

The Parties understand and acknowledge that a protest or appeal relating to the Impact Fee must be filed at the time of approval or conditional approval of the development, or within ninety (90) days after the date of the imposition of the Impact Fee.

8. INDEMNIFICATION. The District shall hold harmless, indemnify and defend the City, its elective and appointive boards, commissions, officers, agents, and employees from and against any and all claims, costs, damages, liability, losses, or suits (including court costs and attorney fees) regarding the District’s impact fees and the imposition or collection of the Impact Fees. This indemnity shall not apply to any claims brought by the District for default of this Agreement, or for claims brought by the City or any third party where the underlying injury or damage is finally determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to arise solely from the negligent or willful misconduct of City.

The District’s duty to indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless as set forth in this section shall include the duty to defend (by counsel reasonably satisfactory to the City) as set forth in California Civil Code § 2778. The District’s responsibility to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, its elective and appointive boards, commissions, officers, agents, and employees under this section shall not extend to the active negligence or willful misconduct of the City. This section shall survive the termination of this Agreement.

9. TERMINATION OF MOU. Either Party may terminate this MOU by providing one hundred eighty (180) days’ written notice to the other Party for any reason. Termination of the MOU relieves the City of the obligation to collect Impact Fees only after expiration of the one hundred eighty (180) days’ notice, unless the Parties mutually agree in writing to cease collection of the Impact Fees sooner. In addition, the City reserves the right to stop collecting the Impact Fees, and agrees to provide the District notice within seventy-two (72) hours of

Page 284 of 570 ends

Memorandum of Understanding 5 | Page
Scotts Valley Fire District
City of Scotts Valley
54612157.12/006612.00006
the City evoking such right, only in the event of a change in law related to the collection of impact fees or the filing of a lawsuit which challenges the City’s right to impose or collect the Impact Fee.

10. COUNTERPARTS. This MOU may be executed in counterparts, and all counterparts together shall be construed as one document. Counterparts hereof that are transmitted by facsimile or electronic transmission shall be given identical legal effect as an original.

11. GOVERNING LAW. This MOU shall be governed by, and the rights, duties and obligations of the Parties shall be determined and enforced in accordance with, the laws of the State of California. All actions or proceedings brought to enforce the terms and conditions of this MOU shall be maintained in Santa Cruz County, California.

No such action may be instituted by either party until they have met and conferred in good faith over any disputed issues.

12. SEVERANCE. Any provision, sentence, or word of this MOU that proves to be invalid or illegal shall in no way affect, impair, or invalidate any other provision, sentence, or word of this MOU and such other provisions, sentences, and words shall remain in full force and effect.

13. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This MOU contains the entire agreement of the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior negotiations, understandings, or agreements. This MOU may be modified only in writing signed by both Parties.

14. AUTHORITY. Each Party warrants to each other that the individual signing this MOU on behalf of such party is fully authorized to bind such party and agrees to be bound by this MOU as of the effective date of this Agreement.

15. DRAFTING PARTY. This MOU is created as a joint effort of both Parties and shall not be interpreted against either Party as the drafter of the MOU.

16. ATTORNEYS’ FEES. In the event either Party institutes legal action to enforce its rights under this MOU, in whatever forum, public or private, each Party shall be solely responsible for its costs and attorneys’ fees. No court shall have authority or jurisdiction to rule or order contrary to this section.

17. NO THIRD-PARTY RIGHTS. This MOU has been created exclusively for the benefit of the signatory parties and no rights are created in any third party by entry into this MOU.

18. EFFECTIVE DATE. The effective date of this MOU shall be upon execution by the Parties.

ACCEPTED AND AGREED on the date indicated below:

Dated: , 2026

SCOTTS VALLEY FIRE DISTRICT
By:

Print Name:

Print Title:

Dated: , 2026

CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY
By:

Print Name:

Print Title:

Page 285 of 570 ends

Memorandum of Understanding 6 | Page
Scotts Valley Fire District
City of Scotts Valley
54612157.12/006612.00006
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By:
[Name]
District Attorney
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By:

Kirsten Powell
City Attorney
ATTEST:

By:
[Name]
District Clerk
ATTEST:

By:

Cathie Simonovich
City Clerk

Page 286 of 570 ends

AGENDA ITEM 2.

DATE: 5/6/2026
City of Scotts Valley

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: 5/6/2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Stephanie Hill, Administrative Services Director
APPROVED: Mali LaGoe, City Manager
SUBJECT: Public Hearing to consider Resolution 1198.81 adopting proposed Fiscal Year 2026-27 User Fee Schedule and Charges

SUMMARY OF ISSUE
In 2024, the City of Scotts Valley (the “City”) engaged NBS to conduct an independent user fee study analysis of the City’s cost-based user fees and charges for planning, building, public works, recreation, police and administrative services. This study reviewed the current service delivery methods, staffing, and costs to determine the appropriate fee structures and costs of services provided for each service.

In general, fees related to building, police, public works and administrative services are typically set by agencies at or near full cost recovery. Planning fee cost recovery levels are set based on several considerations such as economic development initiatives, the level and extent of undeveloped or potentially redeveloped property, and the development marketplace relative to other communities within the region.

Each year, typically as part of the budget process, the City reviews User Fees to ensure they remain clear, appropriate, and reflective of actual service costs. Proposed updates take into account local cost increases to the City as well as broader inflationary trends, including changes in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). For User Fees subject to a general percentage adjustment, a 4% increase is currently being proposed.

Key changes are noted below:
• Economic Development Event Vendor Fee
• Delinquent Lien Fee
• Firearms - CCW Standard Permit reduction
• Building Department fees for certain repairs and remodels • Engineering Night Work Inspections
The User Fee Schedule is subject to a public hearing prior to adoption. At the conclusion of the public hearing this evening, and subject to any modifications, the Council could then adopt the User Fee Schedule through approval of the attached resolution. Cal. Government Code §66017(a) requires that any fees associated with processing applications and permits relative

Page 287 of 570 ends

to development projects (as defined) may not be effective sooner than 60 days after final action is taken on the fees after a public hearing. Other fees could go into effect immediately if the City Council so chose. Instead of implementing fees on mixed dates, staff is recommending that all fees and charges be implemented on July 6, 2026.

Recreation fee updates are not included in this item. These fees are typically reviewed and adjusted at the beginning of the calendar year to better align with peak event planning.

FISCAL IMPACT
It is estimated that the increase will generate $50,000 per year and will be factored into the respective budgets.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended the City Council approve Resolution 1198.81 adopting the proposed FY2026/27 User Fee Schedule and Charges.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Exhibit A FY2627 User Fees

2. Resolution 1198.81 User Fees and Charges

Page 288 of 570 ends

Administrative / Miscellaneous Fees
Business License Application Related:

New application fee - Local business per license [6] $ 261 $ 271 New application fee - Non-local business per license [6] $ 60 $ 62 Location change fee (same business) per license [6] $ 146 $ 151 Name change fee (no substantive business change) per license [6] $ 41 $ 42 Duplicate business license fee each $ 10 $ 10
Economic Development Event Vendor Fee - Event
administered
each [6] New $ 25
Economic Development Event Vendor Fee - City
administered
each [6] New $ 50
Business License Tax per license [1] See Ordinance See Ordinance Credit Card Processing Fees per transaction [8] Actual Cost Actual Cost Duplication - Digital copies per USB drive [2] At actual USB cost At actual USB cost Duplication - Photo copies each [2] $0.10 per page for
public records
$0.10 per page for
public records
Elections - Petition Filing Fee per filing [2] $ 200 $ 200 Entertainment Permit - Not on City property:

New application per permit [4] $ 728 $ 757
Renewal application per permit [4] $ 660 $ 686
Notary service fee (per signature) per signature [2] $ 15 $ 15 Occasional Sales Permit per permit $ 154 $ 160
Rental of Council chambers each [3] $ 34 $ 35
If non-profit each [3] $ - $ -
Returned payment charges:

First returned check each $ 25 $ 25
Each additional check each $ 35 $ 35
Chargeback Recovery Fee each New $ 25
Delinquent Lien Fee each New $ 25
Subpoena Summons Response per day deposit [5] $ 275 $ 275 Other services with no fee listed per hour [7] $ 309 $ 321 [Notes]
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
Non-refundable. Separate fees from Police apply for massage, tobacco, and second hand dealer permits.

Fee Name Fee Type / Unit Notes Current Fee Amount
Fee set per Business License Ordinance;
Fee Set by the State of California;
Fee for facility rental;
See Recreation fee schedule for event permits occurring on City property Should the actual cost of salary compensation plus travel expenses exceed the $ 275 per day threshold, the difference shall be due to the City by the requesting party. If the actual cost is less than $ 275 per day, then the City shall refund the difference.

For services requested of City staff which have no fee listed in this fee schedule, the City Manager or the City Manager's designee shall determine the appropriate fee based on the established hourly rates for this department/division. Additionally, the City will pass-through to the applicant any discrete costs incurred from the use of external service providers if required to process the specific application.

Pursuant to California Government Code Section 6159, the City is authorized to accept credit or debit card payments and may assess an administrative fee to cover costs incurred for processing the payment. This fee will not exceed the actual cost to the City.

Proposed Fee
Amount

Page 289 of 570 ends

Fee Name Fee Type / Unit Notes Current Fee Amount
Proposed Fee
Amount
Police Department Fees
Alarm Services: [1]
Annual Registration
per permit/per
year
$ 92 $ 95
Second or More False Alarm in One Month per occurrence $ 177 $ 184 Auto Abatement per request $ 268 $ 278
Auto Impound - Release of Stored Vehicles: $ -
City Processing Fee per request $ 187 $ 195
Tow/Storage each [4] Actual Cost
Bingo License:

New per license [2] $ 88 $ 88
Renewal per license [2] $ 44 $ 44
Body Cam Video Release/Editing per request $ 364 $ 378
Clearance Letter (charged for Employment, Licensing,
and Certification Purposes Only)
per request $ 30 $ 31
Firearms - CCW Standard Permit (2-year):

New per permit $ 1,290 $ 489
Renewal per permit $ 1,083 $ 200
Junior Police Academy (JPA) per participant $ 104 $ 100 Licenses:

Secondhand Dealer License per license $ 416 $ 432
Tobacco Licensing per license [5] $ 138 $ 143
Massage Permit Fees:

Massage Establishment Permit per permit $ 416 $ 432
Initial Application Per Therapist per application $ 277 $ 288 Post Storage Hearings per hour $ 118 $ 122
Special security service incurred in responding to loud or unruly gathering following 1st response (per minute)
per officer/ per
minute
[3] $ 4 $ 4
Taxicab Driver's Permit per permit $ 91 $ 94
Uniformed Private Security:

Minimum 4 hours per request $ 474 $ 492
Each 15 minutes thereafter per 15 minutes $ 30 $ 31
Vehicle Repossession Release Fee per request [6] $ 15
Other services with no fee listed: [7]
Sworn per hour $ 118 $ 122
Non-Sworn per hour $ 118 $ 92
[Notes]
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
Fee set per Government Code 41612
Pursuant to SVMC 5.26.080, the number of false alarms is established through the user fee resolution.

Fee set per 326.5 of the Penal Code
Pursuant to SVMC 9.20.050, the Special Security Service fee is in addition to the fine for violating the SVMC.

Towing / Storage are charged separately at actual cost in addition to staff time; Pursuant to SVMC 5.22, Tobacco Retailer Licenses
For services requested of City staff which have no fee listed in this fee schedule, the City Manager or the City Manager's designee shall determine the appropriate fee based on the established hourly rates for this department/division. Additionally, the City will pass-through to the applicant any discrete costs incurred from the use of external service providers if required to process the specific application.

Page 290 of 570 ends

Fee Name Fee Type / Unit Notes Current Fee Amount
Proposed Fee
Amount
Planning Department Fees
Addressing Fee:

Minimum Fee - Up to 7 hours flat $ 2,860 $ 2,974
Hourly Rate - Over 7 hours hourly $ 408 $ 424
Application Intake & File Maintenance:

Minor or Singular Discretionary Permit Applications
(per planning application)
flat $ 817 $ 849
Major Discretionary Permits or Multiple Applications
Filed for One Project (per planning application)
flat $ 1,634 $ 1,699
Annexation Fee:

Minimum Fee - Up to 35 hours flat $ 14,302 $ 14,874
Hourly Rate - Over 35 hours hourly $ 408 $ 424
Amendment:

Minimum Fee - Up to 10 hours flat $ 4,086 $ 4,249
Hourly Rate - Over 10 hours hourly $ 408 $ 424
Appeal Processing:

City Council flat [4]
25% of original
permit fee or
approved application
with minimum fee of
$408
25% of original
permit fee or
approved application
with minimum fee of
$408
Board of Appeals flat [4]
25% of original
permit fee or
approved application
with minimum fee of
$408
25% of original
permit fee or
approved application
with minimum fee of
$408
Bee Keeping Permit flat $ 408 $ 424
Certificate of Compliance:

Minimum Fee - Up to 10 hours flat $ 4,086 $ 4,249
Hourly Rate - Over 10 hours hourly $ 408 $ 424
Researched by City Attorney actual [5] Actual Cost Actual Cost CEQA REVIEW:

Environment Assessment flat $ 408 $ 424
Environmental Impact Report, Administration:

Minimum Fee - Up to 74 hours flat $ 30,238 $ 31,447
Hourly Rate - Over 74 hours hourly $ 408 $ 424
Consultants [3] Actual Cost Actual Cost
Mitigation Monitoring :

Minimum Fee - Up to 10 hours flat $ 4,086 $ 4,249
Hourly Rate - Over 10 hours hourly $ 408 $ 424
Mitigated Negative Declaration:

Minimum Fee - Up to 40 hours flat $ 16,345 $ 16,998
Hourly Rate - Over 40 hours hourly $ 408 $ 424
Consultants
City Staff Admin flat $ 4,086 $ 4,249
Consultants [3] Actual Cost Actual Cost
Negative Declaration:

Minimum Fee - Up to 20 hours flat $ 8,172 $ 8,498
Hourly Rate - Over 20 hours hourly $ 408 $ 424
Consultants
City Staff Admin flat $ 3,269 $ 3,399
Consultants [3] Actual Cost Actual Cost

Page 291 of 570 ends

Fee Name Fee Type / Unit Notes Current Fee Amount
Proposed Fee
Amount
Planning Department Fees
Notice of Determination:

City Filing Fee flat $ 612 $ 636
County Fee flat [2]
As set by Santa Cruz
County
As set by Santa Cruz
County
Fish & Game Certification:

Filing Fee flat $ 817 $ 849
F & G Negative Declaration Fee flat [2]
As set by Fish and
Game
As set by Fish and
Game
F & G EIR Fee flat [2]
As set by Fish and
Game
As set by Fish and
Game
Code Compliance (per hour) hourly $ 408 $ 424
Cultural Resource Alteration:

Minimum Fee - Up to 8 hours flat $ 3,269 $ 3,399
Hourly Rate - Over 8 hours hourly $ 408 $ 424
Design Review:

Residential with Hillside - Up to 20 hours flat $ 8,172 $ 8,498 Hourly Rate - Over 20 hours hourly $ 408 $ 424
Residential - Up to 15 hours flat $ 6,129 $ 6,374
Hourly Rate - Over 15 hours hourly $ 408 $ 424
Commercial / Industrial - Up to 20 hours flat $ 8,172 $ 8,498 Hourly Rate - Over 20 hours hourly $ 408 $ 424
Sign Programs:

Minimum Fee - Up to 20 hours flat $ 8,172 $ 8,498
Hourly Rate - Over 20 hours hourly $ 408 $ 424
Free Standing Signs:

Major - Up to 10 hours flat $ 4,086 $ 4,249
Hourly Rate - Over 10 hours hourly $ 408 $ 424
Minor- Up to 6 hours flat $ 2,451 $ 2,549
Hourly Rate - Over 6 hours hourly $ 408 $ 424
Signs with Staff Level Review:

Major - Up to 5 hours flat $ 2,043 $ 2,124
Hourly Rate - Over 5 hours hourly $ 408 $ 424
Minor - Up to 2.5 hours flat $ 1,021 $ 1,061
Hourly Rate - Over 2.5 hours hourly $ 408 $ 424
Development Agreement:

Minimum Fee - Up to 35 hours flat $ 14,302 $ 14,874
Hourly Rate - Over 35 hours hourly $ 408 $ 424
Final Inspection:

Minimum Fee - Up to 6 hours flat $ 2,451 $ 2,549
Hourly Rate - Over 6 hours hourly $ 408 $ 424
General or Specific Plan Amendment:

Minimum Fee - Up to 35 hours flat $ 14,302 $ 14,874
Hourly Rate - Over 35 hours hourly $ 408 $ 424
General Plan Maintenance:

Applies to all building permits flat [4]

0.0055 per $1
building valuation

0.0055 per $1
building valuation
Historical Landmark Determination:

Minimum Fee - Up to 20 hours flat $ 8,172 $ 8,498
Hourly Rate - Over 20 hours hourly $ 408 $ 424
Home Occupation Review flat $ 136 $ 141
IPHCP Certificate of Inclusion flat $ 1,634 $ 1,699

Page 292 of 570 ends

Fee Name Fee Type / Unit Notes Current Fee Amount
Proposed Fee
Amount
Planning Department Fees
LAND DIVISIONS:

Land Division/Tentative map Entitlement (5 lots or more):

Minimum Fee - Up to 35 hours flat $ 14,302 $ 14,874
Hourly Rate - Over 35 hours hourly $ 408 $ 424
Land Division / Final Map Review (5 lots or more):

Minimum Fee - Up to 20 hours flat $ 8,172 $ 8,498
Hourly Rate - Over 20 hours hourly $ 408 $ 424
Minor Land Division / Tentative Map Entitlements (4 lots or less):

Minimum Fee - Up to 30 hours flat $ 12,258 $ 12,748
Hourly Rate - Over 30 hours hourly $ 408 $ 424
Minor Land Division / Parcel Map Review (4 lots or less):

Minimum Fee - Up to 10 hours flat $ 4,086 $ 4,249
Hourly Rate - Over 10 hours hourly $ 408 $ 424
Lot Line Adjustment Review:

Minimum Fee - Up to 2 hours flat $ 817 $ 849
Hourly Rate - Over 2 hours hourly $ 408 $ 424
Planned Development:

Minimum Fee - Up to 26 hours flat $ 10,624 $ 11,048
Hourly Rate - Over 26 hours hourly $ 408 $ 424
Preliminary Review flat $ 10,215 $ 10,623
Public Hearing Notice and Radius Noticing: flat
City Council Meeting $ 817 $ 849
Planning Commission Meeting $ 817 $ 849
Recordation Fee:

City Filing Fee flat $ 612 $ 636
County Recorder Fee (subject to change) flat [2]
As determined by
Santa Cruz County
As determined by
Santa Cruz County
Road Name Change flat $ 2,860 $ 2,974
Time Extension:

Minimum Fee - Up to 12 hours flat $ 4,903 $ 5,099
Hourly Rate - Over 12 hours hourly $ 408 $ 424
Heritage Tree Designation
Minimum Fee - Up to 15 hours flat $ 6,129 $ 6,374
Hourly Rate - Over 15 hours hourly $ 408 $ 424
Tree Removal Permit -
Heritage Tree
Minimum Fee - Up to 15 hours flat $ 6,129 $ 6,374
Hourly Rate - Over 15 hours hourly $ 408 $ 424
Protected Tree flat $ 136 $ 141
Use Permit:

Major (excluding residential) - up to 20 hours flat $ 8,172 $ 8,498 Hourly Rate - over 20 hours hourly $ 408 $ 424
Minor - up to 10 hours flat $ 4,086 $ 4,249
Hourly Rate - over 10 hours hourly $ 408 $ 424
Variance Application:

Minimum Fee - Up to 30 hours flat $ 12,258 $ 12,748
Hourly Rate - Over 30 hours hourly $ 408 $ 424

Page 293 of 570 ends

Fee Name Fee Type / Unit Notes Current Fee Amount
Proposed Fee
Amount
Planning Department Fees

ZONING FEES
Zone Change / Ordinance Amendment:

Minimum Fee - Up to 26 hours flat $ 10,624 $ 11,048
Hourly Rate - Over 26 hours hourly $ 408 $ 424
Plan Check:

Hillside flat $ 2,043 $ 2,124
Major flat $ 3,269 $ 3,399
Minor flat $ 1,021 $ 1,061
Over the counter flat $ 204 $ 212
Research Letters:

Minimum Fee - Up to 1 hours flat $ 408 $ 424
Hourly Rate - Over 1 hours hourly $ 408 $ 424
Other services with no fee listed hourly [1] $ 408 $ 424 [Notes]
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
Fee set by City Policy;
For services requested of City staff which have no fee listed in this fee schedule, the City Manager or the City Manager's designee shall determine the appropriate fee based on the established hourly rates for this department/division. Additionally, the City will pass-through to the applicant any discrete costs incurred from the use of external service providers if required to process the specific application.

Fee Set by the State of California or County of Santa Cruz; Consultant costs are charged separately at actual cost in addition to staff time; Attorney costs are charged separately at actual cost in addition to staff time;

Page 294 of 570 ends

Fee Name Fee Type / Unit Notes Current Fee Amount
Proposed Fee
Amount
Building Department Fees

NEW CONSTRUCTION, ADDITIONS, REMODELS
Building Permits - New Construction, Addition,
Remodels, unless otherwise specified. Includes
associated Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical:
$1 - $5,000 minimum fee $ 1,093 $ 1,136
5,001
base fee @
$5,001 $ 1,093 $ 1,136
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1000 $ 34 $ 35 25,001
base fee @
25,001
$ 1,789 $ 1,860
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1000 $ 38 $ 39 100,001
base fee @
$100,001 $ 4,639 $ 4,824
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1000 $ 10 $ 10 500,001
base fee @
$500,001 $ 8,798 $ 9,149
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1000 $ 23 $ 23 1,000,001
base fee @
$1,000,001 $ 20,476 $ 21,295
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1000 $ 2 $ 2 5,000,001
base fee @
$5,000,001 $ 30,415 $ 31,631
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1000 $ 4 $ 4 Deck Repairs & Replacement
Valuation ≤ $25,000 Per permit New $ 1,800
Valuation > $25,000 Per permit New $ 2,700
Kitchen Remodels
Valuation ≤ $40,000 Per permit New $ 2,300
Valuation > $40,000 Per permit New $ 3,500
Bathroom remodels
Valuation ≤ $25,000 Per permit New $ 1,900
Valuation > $25,000 Per permit New $ 2,500
Pools Repairs
Valuation ≤ $50,000 Per permit New $ 2,700
Valuation > $50,000 Per permit New $ 3,500

Page 295 of 570 ends

Fee Name Fee Type / Unit Notes Current Fee Amount
Proposed Fee
Amount
Building Department Fees
Building Plan Check and Processing (deposit) - New
Construction, Addition, Remodels, unless otherwise
specified. Includes associated Mechanical, Plumbing,
Electrical
$1 - $5,000 minimum fee $ 828 $ 861
5,001
base fee @
$5,001 $ 828 $ 861
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1000 $ 20 $ 20 25,001
base fee @
25,001
$ 1,242 $ 1,291
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1000 $ 23 $ 23 100,001
base fee @
$100,001 $ 3,037 $ 3,158
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1000 $ 7 $ 7 500,001
base fee @
$500,001 $ 6,212 $ 6,460
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1000 $ 29 $ 30 1,000,001
base fee @
$1,000,001 $ 20,984 $ 21,823
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1000 $ - $ - 5,000,001
base fee @
$5,000,001 $ 22,088 $ 22,971
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1000 $ 4 $ 4

Page 296 of 570 ends

Fee Name Fee Type / Unit Notes Current Fee Amount
Proposed Fee
Amount
Building Department Fees

MINOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS / MISCELLANEOUS

PERMITS
Demolition permit per permit $ 773 $ 803
Change of Occupancy Permit per permit $ 883 $ 918
Re-roof permit per permit $ 441 $ 458
Septic tank inspection per permit $ 1,104 $ 1,148
Sewer Lateral Connection Inspection per permit $ 993 $ 1,032 Solar / PV Permit: [2]
Residential
1-15 kWh per permit $ 450 $ 450
Over 15 kWh ea. 1 kWh $ 15 $ 15
Residential - Thermal
1-10 kWth per permit $ 450 $ 450
Over 10 kWth ea. 1 kWth $ 15 $ 15
Commercial
1-50 kWh per permit $ 773 $ 803
51-250 kWh ea. 1 kWh $ 7 $ 7
250 kWh per permit $ 1,901 $ 1,977
Over 250 kWh ea. 1 kWh $ 5 $ 5
Commercial - Thermal
1-30 kWth per permit $ 773 $ 803
31 - 260 kWth ea. 1 kWth $ 7 $ 7
260 kWth per permit $ 1,901 $ 1,977
Over 260 kWth ea. 1 kWth $ 5 $ 5
Window Projects under $5,000 BPV (projects >$5,000
BPV use valuation permit scale):

Retrofit per permit $ 312 $ 324
Replacement per permit $ 520 $ 540
MECHANICAL / PLUMBING / ELECTRICAL Stand-alone
Permits (i.e. no framing)
Standalone Water Heater Permit per permit $ 176 $ 183
Residential/Simple Standalone MEP Permit (fee includes
up to 3 from the list below)
per permit $ 276 $ 287
Simple Mechanical Items: [7]
HVAC change out - existing dwelling
Ventilation fan connected to a single duct
Duct systems
Miscellaneous mechanical (wall furnace,
condensing units, heat pump, mini-split, gas
outlet/gas test, etc.)
Other simple mechanical
Simple Electrical Items: [7]
Receptacle, switch, and lighting outlets
Lighting fixtures
Pole or platform-mounted lighting fixtures
Residential appliances
Motor or sump pump
Services of 600 volts or less and not over 400
amperes in rating
Miscellaneous apparatus, conduits, and conductors
Portable generators less than 10,000 W
Temporary power panel/service
Other simple electrical

Page 297 of 570 ends

Fee Name Fee Type / Unit Notes Current Fee Amount
Proposed Fee
Amount
Building Department Fees
Simple Plumbing Items: [7]
Plumbing fixtures
Building sewer
Rainwater systems
Water piping and/or water treating equipment
Repair or alteration of drainage or vent piping
Gas test
Gas outlets
Residential remodel/repairs - bathrooms
Solar water systems
Sewer lateral inspection
Other simple plumbing
Residential Standalone MEP Permits >3 Items and
Complex/Commercial Standalone MEP Permits
per permit [8] Per Valuation Table Per Valuation Table

OTHER MISCELLANEOUS FEES AND CHARGES
Other misc. inspections & reinspections per inspection $ 220 $ 228 Plan Review - Additional as required by changes,
additions or revisions to plans
First hour per review $ 257 $ 267
Each Additional 30 minutes per 1/2 hour $ 110 $ 114
Inspections outside of normal business hours
per hour - 4 hour
minimum
$ 237 $ 246
Planning Application Review per review $ 441 $ 458
Use of Consultants per project [6] Actual Costs Actual Costs Appeal Processing-Building:

City Council Appeals
per appeal -
minimum
[1]
25% of original
permit fee or
approved application
subject to minimum
fee of $220.
25% of original
permit fee or
approved application
subject to minimum
fee of $228.

Board of Appeals appeal
per appeal -
minimum
[1]
25% of original
permit fee or
approved application
subject to minimum
fee of $220.
25% of original
permit fee or
approved application
subject to minimum
fee of $228.

Building Permit Extension of Expired Permit per permit $ 165 $ 171 Building Permit Reinstatement of Expired Permit:

No Changes to Scope of Project per permit $ 165 $ 171
Changes to Scope of Project Required per permit [3]
50% of original
permit fee
50% of original
permit fee
General Plan Maintenance per permit [3]
.0055 per $1 building
valuation (all building
permits)
.0055 per $1 building
valuation (all building
permits)
Green Building Education Fund per permit [3]
.0025 per $1 building
valuation (all building
permits)
.0025 per $1 building
valuation (all building
permits)
Permit Technology Fee per permit [5]
4% of total value of
permit fees assessed
4% of total value of
permit fees assessed
State Building Standards Fee (CSBC) per permit [3]
.00004 per $1
building valuation, $1
min
.00004 per $1
building valuation, $1
min

Page 298 of 570 ends

Fee Name Fee Type / Unit Notes Current Fee Amount
Proposed Fee
Amount
Building Department Fees
Strong Motion Instrumentation Program (SMIP):

Commercial/Industrial per permit [4]
.00028 per $1
building valuation, $
.50 min
.00028 per $1
building valuation, $
.50 min
Residential per permit [4]
.00013 per $1
building valuation, $
.50 min
.00013 per $1
building valuation, $
.50 min
Other services with no fee listed per hour [5] $ 220 $ 228 [Notes]
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
Items in this list are covered by the "Residential/Simple Standalone MEP Permit" fee Fees will be set by building valuation scale above
Set by City Policy: 25% of original permit fee or approved application subject to minimum fee; Fee set by State GC 66015. Recommended fees cannot exceed maximum shown Set by City Policy;
Fee Set by State;
For services requested of City staff which have no fee listed in this fee schedule, the City Manager or the City Manager's designee shall determine the appropriate fee based on the established hourly rates for this department/division. Additionally, the City will pass-through to the applicant any discrete costs incurred from the use of external service providers if required to process the specific application.

Consultant costs are charged separately at actual cost in addition to staff time;

Page 299 of 570 ends

Fee Name Fee Type / Unit Notes Current Fee Amount
Proposed Fee
Amount
Engineering Department Fees

ENCROACHMENT PERMITS
Non Construction Items per project $ 347 $ 360
Level A per project $ 695 $ 722
• Sidewalk, curb, or gutter repairs up to 20 linear feet on residential streets, collector streets or arterial streets • Utility service repairs on residential streets
• Utility service repairs on collector streets - trenchless Level B per project $ 2,434 $ 2,531
• Sidewalk, curb, or gutter repairs over 20 linear feet on collector streets or arterial streets
• Utility service repairs on collector streets
• Utility service repairs on arterial street - trenchless • New facilities and trenchless projects (utility
connections, sidewalk, etc.) on residential streets
Level C per project $ 3,477 $ 3,616
• Sidewalk, curb, or gutter repairs on collector streets or arterial streets with lane closures
• Utility service repairs on arterial streets
• New facilities and trenchless projects (utility
connections, sidewalk, etc.) on collector streets
• Utility main installation open trench (all underground utilities) on residential streets
Level D per project $ 8,694 $ 9,041
• New facilities and trenchless projects (utility
connections, sidewalk, etc.) on arterial streets
• Utility main installation open trench (all underground utilities) on collector streets
Level E per project $ 13,910 $ 14,466
• Utility main installation open trench (all underground utilities) on arterials streets
Night work inspection (if required) per request [5] New Actual Cost Permit Extensions per request $ 173 $ 179
Utility - Annual Blanket Permit per request [3] $ 1,217 $ 1,265

LAND DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING FEES
Lot Line Adjustment or Merger:

Base Fee per project $ 173 $ 179
Recording Fee per record-ation $ 173 $ 179
Certificate of Correction each $ 1,043 $ 1,084
Certification of Compliance each $ 695 $ 722
Easement/Abandonment Request per request $ 1,043 $ 1,084

Page 300 of 570 ends

Fee Name Fee Type / Unit Notes Current Fee Amount
Proposed Fee
Amount
Engineering Department Fees

PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW/ SUPPORT
Annexation per project $ 695 $ 722
Design Review:

Other than Single-Family Residential - Up to 4 hours flat / hourly [7] $ 1,391 $ 1,446 Single-Family Residential/ADU - Up to 1 hr flat / hourly [7] $ 347 $ 360 Development Agreement per project $ 695 $ 722
Environmental Assessment per project $ 1,043 $ 1,084
Neg Dec / Mitigated Neg Dec per project $ 695 $ 722
Environmental Impact Report, Administration per project $ 1,043 $ 1,084 General Plan Amendment per project $ 347 $ 360
Land Divisions (Tentative Map Entitlement Review):

Land Division / Tentative Map Entitlement Review (5
lots or more)
per project $ 1,391 $ 1,446
Minor Land Division/ Tentative Map Entitlement
Review (4 lots or less)
per project $ 1,043 $ 1,084
Planned Development - Up to 4 hrs flat / hourly [7] $ 1,391 $ 1,446 Tentative Map Extension / Modification per project $ 695 $ 722 Use Permit:

Major (excluding single family residential) per project $ 1,217 $ 1,265 Minor per project $ 347 $ 360
Variance per project $ 347 $ 360
Zone Change / Zoning Ordinance Amendment per project $ 347 $ 360 Other Planning related reviews per hour $ 347 $ 360

OTHER ENGINEERING FEES
Final/Parcel Map or Amending Parcel Map Check:

First 4 lots per project $ 2,434 $ 2,531
Over 4 Lots per lot $ 869 $ 903
City Surveyor Fee
Deposit for
actual City
Surveyor
[4] $ 4,000 $ 4,000
Improvement Plan Review per page $ 521 $ 541
Improvement Permit/Inspection:
10,000
base fee @
$10,000 $ 2,086 $ 2,169
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1000 $ 121 $ 125 50,000
base fee @
$50,000 $ 6,955 $ 7,233
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1000 $ 69 $ 71 100,000
base fee @
$100,000 $ 10,433 $ 10,850
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1000 $ 34 $ 35 500,000
base fee @
$500,000 $ 24,343 $ 25,316
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1000 $ 20 $ 20 1,000,000 base fee @ $1M $ 34,777 $ 36,168
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1000 $ 34 $ 35

Page 301 of 570 ends

Fee Name Fee Type / Unit Notes Current Fee Amount
Proposed Fee
Amount
Engineering Department Fees
Agreements per project $ 695 $ 722
Reversion to Acreage per project $ 695 $ 722
Revision to Plan Check for previously approved projects, or for 4th and subsequent submittal on a single project per revision $ 347 $ 360
Storm Water Compliance Project Plan Review: per project Tier 1 $ 347 $ 360
Tier 2 $ 869 $ 903
Tier 3 - City Admin Cost (consultant costs are passed
through to applicant) - deposit
$ 4,521 $ 4,701
Tier 4 - City Admin Cost (consultant costs are passed
through to applicant) - deposit
$ 4,521 $ 4,701
Review of Annual Reports of privately maintained postconstruction treatment devices per report $ 347 $ 360
Storm water Inspection per inspection $ 695 $ 722
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) per project $ 695 $ 722 Transportation/Hauling:

Per Trip Fee per trip [6] $ 16 $ 16
Oversize/Heavy Load Permit Fee per year [6] $ 173 $ 179 Hourly Rates:

Engineering Services per hour [1] $ 347 $ 360
Inspection Services per hour [1] $ 347 $ 360
Miscellaneous Services per hour [1] $ 347 $ 360
Peer Review by City consultant per project [5] Actual Cost Records Research - Engineering per request $ 347 $ 360

WASTEWATER
Permits:

Direct Discharge Permit per permit $ 2,782 $ 2,893
Other Wastewater Fees:

Wastewater stoppage investigation per instance $ 1,391 $ 1,446 Discharge report review per report $ 695 $ 722
Permit Technology Fee - Applies to all permits per permit [2] 4% of total value of
permit fees assessed
4% of total value of
permit fees assessed
[Notes]
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
For services requested of City staff which have no fee listed in this fee schedule, the City Manager or the City Manager's designee shall determine the appropriate fee based on the established hourly rates for this department/division. Additionally, the City will pass-through to the applicant any discrete costs incurred from the use of external service providers if required to process the specific application.

Set by City Policy;
Administrative Processing Fee only. Actual costs to the City are billed to applicant as work is performed.

Annual deposit to be determined by City
Actual costs to the City are billed to applicant as work is performed.

For services such as night inspections, soils, water, traffic, parcel or final map review, etc. Actual costs to the City are billed to applicant as work is performed.

Per trip fee is per Vehicle Code section 35795(b)(1). Permit fee is for City review.

Flat fee covers up to stated hours. Additional time is billed at the hourly rate.

Page 302 of 570 ends

Fee Name Fee Type / Unit Notes Current Fee Amount
Proposed Fee
Amount
Parks and Recreation Fees No Changes - Updates in January Administrative Fees:

Administrative Fee: applies per rental or reservation for any facility, and per instructor class/program contract.

Gazebo / Garden Plot / Class per reservation $ 9
Facility Rental per reservation $ 33
Reservation Change Processing Fee per request $ 20
Cleaning Fee per rental [1]
Actual Cost per
Cleaning Contract
Damage Deposit deposit [2] $ 520
FACILITY RENTALS:

Community Center 3 hour minimum
Weekday- Hourly (3hr min.) per hour [2] [3] $ 165
Weekday- Daily daily [2] [3] $ 1,320
Weekend- Hourly (3hr min.) per hour [2] [3] $ 215
Weekend- Daily daily [2] [3] $ 1,720
Kitchen Rental daily [2] [3] $ 45
Patio/Backyard daily [2] [3] $ 45
Senior Center 3 hour minimum
Weekday- Hourly (3hr min.) per hour [2] [3] $ 115
Weekday- Daily daily [2] [3] $ 920
Weekend- Hourly (3hr min.) per hour [2] [3] $ 145
Weekend- Daily daily [2] [3] $ 1,160
Kitchen Rental daily [2] [3] $ 45
Patio/Backyard daily [2] [3] $ 45
OUTDOOR PARKS - Sitanen, Skypark, Hocus Pocus,
McDorsa, Skypark Outdoor Classroom:

Events with less
than 50
attendees
Hocus Pocus & Skypark Playground Gazebo 2 hour minimum
Weekday- Hourly per hour [2] [3] $ 35
Weekend- Hourly per hour [2] [3] $ 40
Siltanen, Skypark Large Gazebo, MacDorsa Gazebo 2 hour minimum Weekday- Hourly per hour [2] [3] $ 45
Weekend- Hourly per hour [2] [3] $ 50
FIELDS / COURTS/ GARDEN:

Skypark
Single Field per field, per hour [2] [3] $ 30
Siltanen
Single Fields #1 - 4 per field, per hour [2] [3] $ 30
Majors Field per field, per hour [2] [3] $ 30
Athletic Field Lights per day [2] $ 22
Snack Shack Concessions Room per day [2] $ 33

Page 303 of 570 ends

Fee Name Fee Type / Unit Notes Current Fee Amount
Proposed Fee
Amount
Parks and Recreation Fees
Outdoor Court Rental
Bocce Ball Court per hour [2] $ 9
Tennis Court per hour [2] $ 13
Pickleball Court per hour [2] $ 8
Basketball Court per hour [2] $ 13
Skatepark Rental per hour [2] $ 35
Garden Plot Rental Fee per sqft [2] $ 2
OTHER RENTALS / USE:

Permitted Use of NON SPECIFIED Outdoor spaces/parks
for classes. Teaching in outdoor spaces.
per year permit [2] $ 52
Per class/use per class/use [2] $ 19
Permitted Use of Inflatables in Outdoor Spaces per permit [2] $ 19 Sports leagues and clubs, or other long term use per agreement [5] Established through
separate agreement
Entertainment Permit / Special Events In City Parks:

Events of 50+ attendees or with sound or
entertainment
50+ attendees [5]
Application Review per application [2] $ 275
Special Permits for Sound, Inflatables, etc. per permit [4] Based on permits
required.

Senior Center Annual Membership Fee
Annual Membership per year [2] $ 35
Activities- Non member per activity [2] $ 5
Activities- Member per activity [2] $ 3
Classes- Non member per class [7]
Set based on
individual class and
program needs.

Classes- Member per class [7]
Set based on
individual class and
program needs.

Advertisement
City Activity Guide per guide [2] $ 75
Other publications and advertisements varies [5]
Varies on
program/ad

Page 304 of 570 ends

Fee Name Fee Type / Unit Notes Current Fee Amount
Proposed Fee
Amount
Parks and Recreation Fees
Recreation Classes and Programs: [5]
Set based on
individual class and
program needs.

Hourly rate for City Staff services per hour [6] Actual cost [Notes]
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7] Set by Recreation Division Manager based on individual class and program needs.

Cleaning Fees are charged separately at actual cost, in addition to staff time; Set by City Policy;
Discounts: 1) Residents may receive a 15% discount, where applicable. Proof of Scotts Valley residency is required. 2) Non-profits may receive a 25% discount, where applicable. Proof of non-profit status in a form accepted by City Staff required. 3) Cannot combine multiple discounts. 4) Discounts do not apply to instructor led or pay to participate programs;
Additional fees may apply for special permits for sound, inflatables etc.; Recreation Division Manager may set fees via a separate agreement, approved by the City Manager, for special events, sports leagues/clubs, or other programming that require longer term use and/or considerable staff resources or planning. Fees shall follow a similar structure based on the facilities, resources, and permits being utlized, but allow for pricing based on continuous use, other benefits of service to the community, or other factors based on the program.

Fees for recreational classes and programs offered by the City shall be set at the discretion of the Parks and Recreation Department Director, these can be based on a combination of facility rentals and application fees or done with a separate profit share agreement.

Page 305 of 570 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 1198.81

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY APPROVING THE USER FEES AND CHARGES UPDATES FOR JULY 6, 2026 WHEREAS, Resolution No. 1198.10 establishing a schedule of fees and charges (“Fees and Charges Schedule”) for city services was adopted by the City Council of the City of Scotts Valley on June 6, 1990; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has amended the Fees and Charges Schedule for city service by resolution from time to time since its original adoption; and WHEREAS, the City desires to amend the Fees and Charges schedule to reflect the services provided and updated costs of providing those service to the community; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 3.40.040(a) of the City’s Municipal Code, rates of fees and charges to be charged and collected in order to recover the percentage of costs reasonably borne in providing services shall be set by resolution, and pursuant to Section

3.40.050 and 3.40.060 of the Municipal Code, any new or increased charges are to be set after public hearing and notice as required; and
WHEREAS, notice of time and place of public hearing, including a general explanation of the matter to be considered, has been provided in compliance with the provisions of that ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has held a public hearing concerning the adoption of the proposed changes to the Fees and Charges Schedule that is proposed to go into effect not earlier than July 6, 2026.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED as follows:

1. The Fees and Charges Schedule changes are hereby amended as stated in Exhibit A to this Resolution.

2. The resolution shall take effect 60 days following its adoption, with an effective date of July 6, 2026.

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 6th day of May, 2026 by the following vote:

Page 306 of 570 ends

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Approved: ____________________________
Donna Lind, Mayor
Attest: ___________________________
Cathie Simonovich, City Clerk

Page 307 of 570 ends

AGENDA ITEM 3.

DATE: 5/6/2026
City of Scotts Valley

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: 5/6/2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Amanda Armstrong, Human Resources Manager
APPROVED: Mali LaGoe, City Manager
SUBJECT: Public Hearing for presentation of Vacancy Status and Recruitment Strategies per AB 2561

SUMMARY OF ISSUE
In response to Assembly Bill 2561 (AB 2561), signed into law by Governor Newsom on September 22, 2024, the City of Scotts Valley presents this report in compliance with new transparency requirements related to staffing vacancies. AB 2561 mandates that public agencies hold at least one public hearing each fiscal year before the adoption of their budgets to report on vacancy levels, evaluate hiring and retention efforts, and allow for participation by recognized bargaining groups. This report includes workforce data for the 2025 calendar year, along with the most current staffing status as of April 15, 2026.

Assembly Bill 2561 (AB 2561) amended the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act by adding Government Code Section 3502.3, which requires local public agencies to enhance transparency and accountability in public sector staffing. The purpose of AB 2561 is to address growing concerns over staffing shortages in public agencies, which can lead to increased workloads, employee burnout, lower morale, and reduced service delivery to citizens. To mitigate these impacts, the law requires agencies to:
• Report annually on vacancies, recruitment activity, and retention strategies; • Identify any policies or practices that may hinder hiring or retention; • Provide recognized bargaining groups an opportunity to present during the public hearing; and
• If any bargaining group vacancy rate reaches or exceeds 20% of authorized positions, provide additional data upon request, including applicant volume, hiring timelines, and efforts to improve compensation, benefits, and working conditions.

Recognized bargaining groups, including the Service Employees International Union 521 (SEIU), Mid-Management, Scotts Valley Police Bargaining Unit (SVPBU), Scotts Valley Police Supervisors Associate (SVPSA) have been invited to participate in this public hearing in accordance with AB 2561.

Workforce Overview
As of April 15, 2026, the City of Scotts Valley has 65 (FTE) budgeted positions. Of the 65

Page 308 of 570 ends

FTE’s, 56 are represented by bargaining groups. No bargaining group currently meets or exceeds the 20% vacancy threshold that would trigger enhanced reporting under AB 2561.

The City’s overall vacancy rate is currently 0%.

Vacancy rates are calculated as follows: Vacancy Rate (%) = (Number of Vacant Positions in employee group / Total Number of Authorized Positions) x 100.

The following table summarizes the City’s vacancy rate by employee group as of April 15, 2026.

Employee Group FTE’S
Budgeted
Vacancies Vacancy Rate
SEIU 20 0 0%
Mid-Management 11 0 0%
SVPBU 18 0 0%
SVPSA 7 0 0%
Vacancies within the City arise from a range of factors, including retirements, internal promotions, resignations, and terminations. In 2025, the City filled 8 full-time positions. Human Resources and Hiring Managers reviewed 457 applications for full-time positions demonstrating consistent interest in City employment opportunities.

However, a high volume of applications does not always indicate a strong pool of qualified candidates. The City often receives applications from across the country and internationally, many of which are from individuals seeking remote-only roles or from candidates who do not meet minimum qualifications. Additionally, some qualified candidates choose not to proceed in the recruitment process due to the areas high cost of living or compensation levels that do not align with their expectations or desired lifestyle.

Employee Separations
In 2025, 11 employees separated from the City of Scotts Valley.

Employee Retention
Employee retention remains a central focus of the City’s workforce strategy. In 2025, the City implemented several initiatives designed to improve employee satisfaction, promote longevity, and enhance professional growth.
• Ongoing professional development through in-person and online training programs, including offerings from the LCW Training Consortium and KnowledgeWave Training portal.
• The City continues to prioritize team building as a key component of organizational effectiveness. This focus is supported through regular in-person sessions that encourage collaboration, trust-building, and open communication among staff. • Quarterly meetings are held to bring teams together, foster cross-departmental engagement, and ensure alignment with the City’s strategic objectives.

Page 309 of 570 ends

The average tenure for employees is currently 5 years.

Organizational Self-Assessment
As part of its workforce planning and in alignment with AB 2561, the City continues to assess internal practices and workforce conditions to identify and address recruitment and retention challenges. Current areas of focus include:
• Exploring new advertising methods and platforms, particularly for hard-to-fill positions such as Police Officers;
• Ensuring that compensation and benefits remain competitive within the region; • Reviewing recruitment best practices and improving the onboarding experience.

This ongoing self-assessment helps the City to become an employer of choice, supports organizational resilience, and ensures the effective delivery of public services.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to receiving and filing this report.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
No action is needed.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
None

Page 310 of 570 ends

AGENDA ITEM 1.

DATE: 5/6/2026
City of Scotts Valley

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: 5/6/2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Rodolfo Onchi, Public Works Director
APPROVED: Mali LaGoe, City Manager
SUBJECT: Adoption of the Santa Cruz County Safety Action Plan

SUMMARY OF ISSUE
Traffic-related fatalities and serious injuries remain a significant public health and safety concern nationwide and across Santa Cruz County, and in Scotts Valley. Rural roadways, urban arterials, intersections, and corridors with higher speeds or limited facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists present unique safety challenges across Scotts Valley and throughout Santa Cruz County. In response to these concerns, Santa Cruz County, the City of Scotts Valley, and the City of Watsonville partnered to develop the Santa Cruz County Safety Action Plan, which supports a coordinated, regional approach to enhancing traffic safety.

The Safety Action Plan was developed using funding from the Federal Highway Administration’s Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Grant Program, established under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. The SS4A program provides federal funding to support local and regional agencies prevent roadway deaths and serious injuries through data-driven planning and implementation. Completion of an SS4A-compliant Safety Action Plan positions participating jurisdictions to compete for future SS4A Implementation grants and other safety implementation funding opportunities.

As part of this effort, the Santa Cruz County Safety Action Plan evaluated recent crash trends using data from the California Highway Patrol’s Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS). The analysis identified priority locations, corridors, and systemic safety needs across the unincorporated County and participating cities. Based on this analysis, and informed by input from agency staff, project stakeholders, and the community, the Safety Action Plan established a set of engineering improvements, policy and program recommendations, and implementation strategies tailored to the different roadway contexts within the County.

A robust public and stakeholder engagement process was critical in the development of the Safety Action Plan. Outreach included bilingual online surveys, interactive mapping, in-person pop-up events, and stakeholder working group meetings. This engagement helped identify local safety concerns, validate data-driven findings, and inform recommended safety countermeasures and priorities.

The Safety Action Plan identifies several priority locations within the City of Scotts Valley for

Page 311 of 570 ends

focused safety improvements. These include the intersections of Mount Hermon Road and Scotts Valley Drive, Scotts Valley Drive and Bean Creek Road, Mount Hermon Road and Kings Village Road, and Mount Hermon Road and Lockewood Lane. In addition, the Scotts Valley Drive corridor between Mount Hermon Road and Glenwood Drive is identified as a key study area due to its collision history, proximity to schools, and community concerns related to speeding and bicycle and pedestrian safety.

Recommended safety improvements at these locations include a combination of intersection and corridor treatments designed to reduce conflicts and improve visibility. These may include enhanced pedestrian crossings, upgraded striping and signage, signal timing modifications, and improvements to better manage turning movements. The Plan also supports consideration of traffic-calming strategies such as roundabouts, protected intersections, and lane reconfiguration to reduce vehicle speeds and improve overall safety performance.

This Safety Action Plan is intended to serve as an ongoing resource and implementation roadmap for City staff as they identify and pursue funding through various programs to implement the identified safety improvements. The recommendations included are based on a comprehensive analysis of traffic data, collision history, community input, and staff coordination, providing a strong, data-driven foundation for improving roadway safety.

The Plan is intended to guide and prioritize safety improvements. However, adoption does not commit the City to implementing every recommendation as presented. Rather, the Plan will serve as a strategic framework to help shape future projects, support grant applications, and inform the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Implementation of specific improvements will continue to be evaluated based on funding availability, project feasibility, and City Council direction as projects advance.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact associated with the adoption of the Santa Cruz County Safety Action Plan. Preparation of the Plan was funded through the Federal Highway Administration’s Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Grant Program.

Adoption of the Plan does not commit the City to any specific capital expenditures.

Implementation of recommended safety improvements identified in the Plan will occur over time and will be subject to future City Council approval, available funding, and prioritization through the City’s Capital Improvement Program.

The Plan positions the City to pursue external funding opportunities, including SS4A Implementation grants, Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds, and other state and federal grant programs, which may offset or fully fund future project costs. Matching funds may be required for certain grant programs and will be identified on a project-by-project basis.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve Resolution No. 2090 authorizing the adoption of the Santa Cruz County Safety Action Plan, affirming the City’s commitment to improving roadway safety, and authorizing staff to use the Plan to guide future project prioritization and pursue state and federal grant funding opportunities.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page 312 of 570 ends

1. Resolution No.2090_Safety Action Plan Adoption

2. Santa Cruz County Safety Action Plan_Final_04152026

Page 313 of 570 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2090

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY

ADOPTING THE SANTA CRUZ COUNTY SAFETY ACTION PLAN AND

AUTHORIZING ITS USE TO GUIDE FUTURE ROADWAY SAFETY

IMPROVEMENTS AND FUNDING EFFORTS
WHEREAS, traffic-related fatalities and serious injuries remain a significant public health and safety concern both nationally and locally; and
WHEREAS, the City of Scotts Valley, in partnership with Santa Cruz County and the City of Watsonville, participated in the development of the Santa Cruz County Safety Action Plan to support a coordinated, regional approach to improving roadway safety; and WHEREAS, the Safety Action Plan was funded through the Federal Highway Administration’s Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Grant Program, established under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, to support data-driven strategies to reduce roadway fatalities and serious injuries; and
WHEREAS, the Safety Action Plan includes analysis of crash data, identification of priority safety needs, and recommended engineering, policy, and programmatic improvements; and
WHEREAS, the Safety Action Plan incorporates input from community members, stakeholders, and agency staff through a robust public engagement process; and WHEREAS, adoption of the Safety Action Plan will position the City to pursue future state and federal funding opportunities, including SS4A Implementation grants and Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funding; and
WHEREAS, the Safety Action Plan is intended to serve as a strategic framework to guide and prioritize safety improvements and inform future Capital Improvement Program (CIP) planning; and
WHEREAS, adoption of the Safety Action Plan does not commit the City to implementation of any specific project or expenditure, and all future improvements will be subject to City Council approval and available funding; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Scotts Valley that the City adopts the Santa Cruz County Safety Action Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council authorizes staff to utilize the Safety Action Plan to guide future roadway safety planning efforts and to pursue applicable state and federal grant funding opportunities.

Page 314 of 570 ends

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 6th day of May 2026 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Approved:

Donna Lind, Mayor
Attest: ___________________________
Cathie Simonovich, City Clerk

Page 315 of 570 ends

Santa Cruz County

Page 316 of 570 ends

ii | Santa Cruz County Safety Action Plan
Prepared for:

County of Santa Cruz
Community Development and
Infrastructure
701 Ocean Street
Santa Cruz, CA, 95060
City of Scotts Valley
Public Works
701 Lundy Ln
Scotts Valley, CA 95066
City of Watsonville
Public Works
250 Main Street
Watsonville, CA 95076
Prepared by:

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
10 South Almaden Boulevard
Suite 1250
San Jose, CA 95113
669-800-4130
This document, together with the concepts
and designs presented herein, as an
instrument of service, is intended only for
the specific purpose and client for which
it was prepared. Reuse of and improper
reliance on this document without written
authorization and adaptation by KimleyHorn and Associates, Inc. shall be without liability to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Page 317 of 570 ends

iii | Santa Cruz County Safety Action Plan

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The County of Santa Cruz, City of Scotts Valley, and City of Watsonville employees and partners were instrumental in the development, review, and refinement of this Safety Action Plan. Kimley-Horn would like to express their appreciation to the supporting staff and partners for their participation and contributions.

County of Santa Cruz
Russell Chen, Civil Engineer
Steve Wiesner, Assistant Director of
Public Works
Greg Martin, Senior Civil Engineer
Jeffrey de los Santos, Civil Engineer
Corinne Hyland, Senior Health
Services Manager/Public Information
Officer
Tiffany Martinez, County
Communications Officer
City of Scotts Valley
Rodolfo Onchi, Director of Public Works
City of Watsonville
Murray Fontes, Principal Engineer, Assistant
Director of Public Works
Christian Miranda, Admin Analyst
Consultant Team
Robert Paderna
Frederik Venter
Ali Mustafa
Brandi Childress
Zachary Ramalingam
Kristen Mei
Shahrzad Rahgozar

STATUTORY NOTICE
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code - Section 409: Discovery and admission as evidence of certain reports and surveys
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data compiled or collected for the purpose of identifying, evaluating, or planning the safety enhancement of potential accident sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway- highway crossings, pursuant to sections 130, 144, and 148 of this title or for the purpose of developing any highway safety construction improvement project which may be implemented utilizing Federal-aid highway funds shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data.

Page 318 of 570 ends

iv | Santa Cruz County Safety Action Plan
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments ..............................................................................................................................iii

1. Introduction........................................................................................................................................2

1.1. SS4A Grant Program.................................................................................................................................................................................2

1.2. Safe Systems Approach..........................................................................................................................................................................3

1.3. Vision Zero.............................................................................................................................................................................................................4

2. Community Engagement................................................................................................................6

2.1. Online Community Outreach..........................................................................................................................................................8

2.2. In Person Community Events............................................................................................................................................................11

2.3. Community Stakeholder Group...................................................................................................................................................14

2.4. Focus Group Engagement ..............................................................................................................................................................15

3. Data Analysis Approach ............................................................................................................... 19

4. Safety Analysis ................................................................................................................................21

4.1. Unincorporated Santa Cruz County....................................................................................................................................... 21

4.2. City of Scotts Valley ................................................................................................................................................................................. 31

4.3. City of Watsonville.....................................................................................................................................................................................41

5. Countermeasure Toolbox.............................................................................................................52

5.1. Engineering Countermeasures ..................................................................................................................................................52

5.2. Non-Infrastructure Countermeasures..................................................................................................................................61

6. Safety Projects ............................................................................................................................... 63

6.1. Case Study Locations...........................................................................................................................................................................63

6.2. Corridor Improvements .....................................................................................................................................................................70

6.3. Systemic Safety Improvements ..................................................................................................................................................71

7. Actions & Strategies.......................................................................................................................73

8. Review of Existing Policies, Programs, and Plans.................................................................... 80

9. Implementation..............................................................................................................................82

9.1. Evaluation.........................................................................................................................................................................................................82

9.2. Implementation..........................................................................................................................................................................................82

9.3. Next Steps......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 84

Page 319 of 570 ends

v | Santa Cruz County Safety Action Plan
List of Appendices
Appendix A Online Survey Comments
Appendix B In-Person Tabling Map Comments
Appendix C Focus Group Feedback
Appendix D Intersection Network Screening Results
Appendix E Segment Network Screening Results
Appendix F Project Sheets
Appendix G Corridor Improvements
Appendix H Review of Policies, Programs and Planning Documents Appendix I Funding Sources
List of Figures
Figure 1 – Interactive Engagement Poster for Pop-Up Events..........................................................................................6 Figure 2 – Sample of Social Media Promotional for the Project..................................................................................... 7 Figure 3 – Bilingual Postcard Developed for Distribution (Front) .................................................................................. 7 Figure 4 – Bilingual Postcard Developed for Distribution (Back) .................................................................................. 7 Figure 5 – Online Interactive Map Platform........................................................................................................................................8 Figure 6 – Interactive Engagement Board...........................................................................................................................................11 Figure 7 – Watsonville Earth Day Event....................................................................................................................................................11 Figure 8 – Live Oak Farmers Market Event.......................................................................................................................................... 12 Figure 9 – Felton Farmers Market Event................................................................................................................................................ 12 Figure 10 – Scotts Valley Farmers Market Event........................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 11 – Scotts Valley Family Fun Day Event.............................................................................................................................. 13 Figure 12 – Stakeholder Meeting #4 on November 18th, 2025.......................................................................................15 Figure 13 – Focus Group Meeting on November 5th, 2025................................................................................................16 Figure 14 – Focus Group Meeting Breakout Group #1............................................................................................................16

Page 320 of 570 ends

vi | Santa Cruz County Safety Action Plan
Figure 15 – Focus Group Meeting Breakout Group #2...........................................................................................................16 Figure 16 – Annual Crashes in Unincorporated Santa Cruz County.......................................................................22 Figure 17 – Unincorporated Santa Cruz County Crash Types .......................................................................................22 Figure 18 – Unincorporated Santa Cruz County KSI Crash Map.................................................................................23 Figure 19 – Primary Collision Factors (County Facilities) ....................................................................................................24 Figure 20 – Unincorporated Santa Cruz County EPDO.........................................................................................................27 Figure 21 – Aggressive and Impaired Driving Crashes (Unincorporated County)...................................28 Figure 22 – Santa Cruz County Priority Locations......................................................................................................................30 Figure 23– Annual Crashes in the City of Scotts Valley .....................................................................................................32 Figure 24 – City of Scotts Valley Crash Types ..............................................................................................................................32 Figure 25 – City of Scotts Valley KSI Crash Map..........................................................................................................................33 Figure 26 – Primary Collision Factor (City of Scotts Valley) ...........................................................................................34 Figure 27 – Scotts Valley EPDO Map.........................................................................................................................................................37 Figure 28 – Aggressive and Impaired Driving Crashes (City of Scotts Valley)............................................38 Figure 29 – Scotts Valley Case Study Locations ........................................................................................................................ 40 Figure 30 – Annual Crashes in the City of Watsonville..........................................................................................................41 Figure 31 – City of Watsonville Crash Types ....................................................................................................................................42 Figure 32 – Primary Collision Factors (Watsonville).................................................................................................................43 Figure 34 – Watsonville EPDO Map.......................................................................................................................................................... 48 Figure 35 – Aggressive and Impaired Driving ............................................................................................................................. 49 Figure 36 – Watsonville Case Study Locations............................................................................................................................ 50 Figure 37 – CMF Calculation............................................................................................................................................................................52 Figure 38 – CRF Calculation.............................................................................................................................................................................52 Figure 39 – CMF Method Sample Calculation...............................................................................................................................53 List of Figures (cont.)

Page 321 of 570 ends

vii | Santa Cruz County Safety Action Plan
List of Tables
Table 1 – Crashes by Facility Type (Unincorporated County) ....................................................................................... 21 Table 2 – Unincorporated Santa Cruz County K+SI Crashes Compared to Statewide .....................25 Table 3 – Unincorporated Santa Cruz County OTS Ranking (2022) ........................................................................26 Table 4 – Crashes by Facility Type (City of Scotts Valley) ................................................................................................. 31 Table 5 – City of Scotts Valley K+SI Crashes Compared to Statewide K+SI Crashes ...........................35 Table 6 – City of Scotts Valley OTS Rankings (2022)...............................................................................................................36 Table 7 – Crashes by Facility Type (City of Watsonville)......................................................................................................41 Table 8 – City of Watsonville K+SI Crashes Compared to Statewide K+SI Crashes.............................. 45 Table 9 – City of Watsonville OTS Rankings (2022).................................................................................................................. 46 Table 10 – Santa Cruz County Engineering Countermeasure Toolbox............................................................... 54 Table 11 – Near-Term, Mid-Term, and Long-Term Improvements...........................................................................60 Table 12 – Non-Infrastructure Countermeasures Toolbox.................................................................................................61 Table 13 – Safety Projects..................................................................................................................................................................................64 Table 14 – Systemic Intersection Improvements .........................................................................................................................71 Table 15 – Actions and Strategies..............................................................................................................................................................74 Table 16 – Emphasis Areas................................................................................................................................................................................83

Page 322 of 570 ends

viii | Santa Cruz County Safety Action Plan
List of Acronyms
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ADT Average Daily Traffic
ARIDE Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CCR Critical Crash Rate
CHP California Highway Patrol
CMF Crash Modification Factor
CRF Crash Reduction Factor
DRE Drug Recognition Expert
EPDO Equivalent Property Damage Only
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
GIS Geographic Information System
HFST High Friction Surface Treatment
HSM Highway Safety Manual
K+SI Fatal and Severe Injury Crashes
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
PDO Property Damage Only
RRFB Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
SHSP Strategic Highway Safety Plan
SWITRS Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System

Page 323 of 570 ends

Introduction
1

Page 324 of 570 ends

2 | Santa Cruz County Safety Action Plan

1. Introduction
The Santa Cruz County Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Safety Action Plan has been developed to improve road safety across unincorporated Santa Cruz County, the City of Scotts Valley, and the City of Watsonville. This plan identifies traffic safety improvements based on a review of crash data and input from the staff, stakeholders, and the community.

This project also aims to provide a foundation for a decision-making framework so that the County and Cities may identify, prioritize, and implement proven safety countermeasures from the toolbox in the following years. This report is intended to serve as an ongoing resource for county and city staff as they identify and pursue funding through various programs to implement the identified safety improvements.

The Safety Action Plan summarizes the existing safety context for Santa Cruz County, the City of Scotts Valley, and the City of Watsonville based on crash data obtained from the California Highway Patrol (CHP) Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) database. This data has been used to identify safety trends, high-crash locations, and locations with unusual crash patterns or high-crash severities within the two cities and county. The analysis was conducted using a network screening process for the roadway systems maintained by the two cities and the county using crash records spanning a five-year period from January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2023. Section 3 of the report describes the analysis techniques that were used and why these methods were chosen.

1.1. SS4A Grant Program
The Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Grant Program, established under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021), provides federal funding to support regional, local, and Tribal initiatives aimed at preventing roadway deaths and serious injuries. Administered by the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), the program aligns with the national Vision Zero goal of eliminating traffic fatalities and serious injuries.

SS4A funding is available for both Action Plan development and Implementation projects.

Action Plans establish a data-driven framework for identifying, prioritizing, and addressing the most significant roadway safety issues in a community, while Implementation grants provide resources to carry out projects and strategies identified in these plans.

Identifies Traffic
Safety Improvements
Safety Action Plan Purpose:

Foundation for
Decision-making
Resource
for Funding

Page 325 of 570 ends

3 | Santa Cruz County Safety Action Plan
For Santa Cruz County, the City of Scotts Valley, and the City of Watsonville, participation in the SS4A program provides an opportunity to advance a coordinated, regionally significant Safety Action Plan. By leveraging federal resources, these jurisdictions can identify local crash trends, evaluate safety challenges, and establish evidence-based strategies to reduce fatal and serious injury collisions. This collaborative planning effort not only strengthens eligibility for future federal Implementation funding but also supports long-term goals of improving roadway safety, enhancing mobility for all users, and fostering safer, more resilient communities across the county.

1.2. Safe Systems Approach
The Safe System Approach (SSA) is the guiding framework for roadway safety in the United States, promoted by the U.S. Department of Transportation and central to the Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) program. The approach acknowledges that while human errors are inevitable, roadway deaths and serious injuries are preventable. Rather than placing sole responsibility on road users, the Safe System Approach emphasizes designing a transportation system that anticipates mistakes and reduces crash forces to prevent fatal or life-altering outcomes. The approach is built around five core elements:

Safe Roads – Designing and
operating roadways that prioritize
safety for all users.

Safe Speeds – Managing speeds to
reduce the likelihood and severity of
crashes.

Safe Vehicles – Promoting vehicle
technologies and standards that
protect occupants and vulnerable
road users.

Safe Road Users – Encouraging
safe behaviors through education,
enforcement, and equitable policies.

Post-Crash Care – Ensuring timely,
effective emergency response to
reduce the severity of injuries.

By applying these principles, the Safe System Approach shifts from a reactive to a proactive safety strategy, focusing on system-wide improvements rather than isolated fixes. For Santa Cruz County, the City of Scotts Valley, and the City of Watsonville, adopting the Safe Systems Approach ensures that roadway design, policy decisions, and safety strategies consider all users—drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders alike. This comprehensive, humancentered framework supports the jurisdictions’ collective efforts to move toward zero fatalities and serious injuries, while creating safer and more equitable transportation networks for the community.

Page 326 of 570 ends

4 | Santa Cruz County Safety Action Plan

1.3. Vision Zero
Vision Zero is an international traffic safety movement that originated in Sweden in the 1990s and has since been adopted by cities and regions across the United States. The core principle of Vision Zero is that no loss of life on our roadways is acceptable. Unlike traditional approaches that often view traffic deaths and severe injuries as inevitable, Vision Zero establishes the ethical imperative that the transportation system must be designed to prioritize human life and health.

Vision Zero strategies emphasize proactive, systemic safety improvements that account for human mistakes and vulnerabilities. The initiative promotes safer roadway design, equitable enforcement, community engagement, and policies that encourage safe speeds and protect the most vulnerable users, such as pedestrians and bicyclists. Across the U.S., adoption of Vision Zero has accelerated in recent years as communities recognize the need for bold, measurable commitments to eliminate severe and fatal crashes.

For the Santa Cruz County, the City of Watsonville, and the City of Scotts Valley, Vision Zero would provide both a unifying goal and a policy framework that aligns with federal initiatives like the SS4A Grant Program and the Safe System Approach. By embracing Vision Zero, these jurisdictions may affirm their commitment to a future where residents and visitors alike can travel safely—whether by car, bicycle, foot, or transit—without the risk of death or lifechanging injury.

Page 327 of 570 ends

Community
Engagement
2

Page 328 of 570 ends

6 | Santa Cruz County Safety Action Plan

2. Community Engagement
Kimley-Horn’s Public Engagement Plan for the Santa Cruz County Safety Action Plan included strategies and activities to reach a broad cross-section of the community throughout the county. The plan included one round of public outreach as well as extensive stakeholder engagement with agency partners and interested parties.

Outreach and engagement efforts
occurred between March 2025 and
August 2025 and consisted of two main
components:
1 In-person pop-up events
2 Online Santa Cruz County
Safety Action Plan Survey &
Interactive Map hosted on
Social Pinpoint
In person Public Engagement officially launched on April 2, 2025, with the first pop-up event held at the Ecology Action Watsonville Family Fun Day. The in-person effort consisted of six pop-ups over a four-month period at various community hubs in Santa Cruz County, Scotts Valley and Watsonville. Ecology Action supported all the in-person events. Interactive poster boards were stationed at the in-person pop-up events, allowing participants to place dots and vote on their top three safety challenges (pictured below).

Figure 1 – Interactive Engagement Poster for Pop-Up Events

Page 329 of 570 ends

7 | Santa Cruz County Safety Action Plan
The online survey, provided in both English and Spanish, and interactive mapping tool was also made public on March 4, 2025 and remained open for five months until August 1, 2025.

The online survey was promoted through the County of Santa Cruz Department of Community Development and Infrastructure’s various communication channels, including a project webpage, e-newsletters, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram (pictured below).

Figure 2 – Sample of Social Media Promotional for the Project Postcards featuring a QR code to the Santa Cruz County Safety Action Plan survey and interactive map were developed and handed out at. All collateral was disseminated in both English and Spanish, including social media graphics (examples pictured below).

Figure 3 – Bilingual Postcard Developed for
Distribution (Front)
Figure 4 – Bilingual Postcard Developed for
Distribution (Back)

Page 330 of 570 ends

8 | Santa Cruz County Safety Action Plan

2.1. Online Community Outreach
The online survey engagement resulted in a total of 1,240 contributions. The online interactive social map had 893 contributors and site-specific comments recorded, and the survey form received 347 contributions. A total of 4 in-person surveys were also completed. Pop-up events throughout the Santa Cruz County aided participation in the online survey platform in addition to the in-person interactive poster board. Comments and surveys received during online engagement can be found in Appendix A.

Figure 5 – Online Interactive Map Platform

2.1.1. Online Social Map: Top Contributions by Location Rank City Total Percentage
1 Live Oak 72 8.07%
2 Watsonville 65 7.29%
3 Scotts Valley 64 7.17%
4 Aptos 57 6.39%
5 Soquel 55 6.17%
Rank City Total Percentage
6 Santa Cruz 36 4.04%
7 Pleasure Point 35 3.93%
8 Capitola 33 3.7%
9 Twin Lakes 32 3.59%
10 Lighthouse 29 3.25%

Page 331 of 570 ends

9 | Santa Cruz County Safety Action Plan
The interactive social map mainly had contributions concerned with bike safety, followed by pedestrian safety, vehicle safety, and bus/transit safety.

Online Social Map: Top Bike Safety
Contributions by Location
Rank City Total Percentage
1 Aptos 33 7.47%
2 Live Oak 33 7.47%
3 Soquel 28 6.33%
4 Watsonville 28 6.33%
5 Scotts Valley 27 6.11%
Online Social Map: Top Pedestrian
Safety Contributions by Location
Rank City Total Percentage
1 Watsonville 31 10.03%
2 Like Oak 30 9.71%
3 Scotts Valley 25 8.09%
4 Pleasure Point 22 7.12%
5 Aptos 19 6.15%
Online Social Map: Top Vehicle
Safety Contributions by Location
Rank City Total Percentage
1 Scotts Valley 12 9.45%
2 Soquel 11 8.66%
3 Live Oak 9 7.09%
4 Watsonville 6 4.72%
5 Lighthouse 6 4.72%
Online Social Map: Top Bus/Transit
Safety Contributions by Location
Rank City Total Percentage
1 Twin Lakes 2 14.29%
2 Mission St Corridor 2 14.29%
3 Watsonville 2 14.29%
4 Aptos 1 7.14%
5 Felton 1 7.14%
Survey Summary
Online and paper surveys collected from various efforts revealed that over half of the respondents live within Unincorporated Santa Cruz County. Most respondents noted that they mainly drive solo as their primary mode of travel, with a large handful of participants noting that they mainly bike and walk. Survey participants expressed that they feel the safest as a driver when traveling through Santa Cruz County. The top three safety challenges expressed by survey users were:

Bicycle infrastructure Aggressive Driving Poor Pavement Quality 1 2 3
When asked how conditions could be made safer for people traveling through Santa Cruz County, the top three solutions were: 1) provide physical barriers that separate vehicles from pedestrians & cyclists, 2) improve existing bike lanes, 3) create new bike lanes. A combination of these top three improvements was selected the most often, but all remained within the top three.

Page 332 of 570 ends

10 | Santa Cruz County Safety Action Plan

2.1.2. Key Themes from the Survey
Out of the 1,240 comments received from the online survey platform, key areas of focus and themes were as follows:

1. Safety Concerns Across Different Modes
of Transportation:
/ Many respondents feel safest as drivers
but express significant safety concerns
as pedestrians and cyclists.
/ Poor road conditions, lack of sidewalks,
and inadequate bike lanes are
repeatedly mentioned as primary
concerns.

2. Aggressive Driving Behavior:
/ Common safety challenges include
aggressive driving behaviors such as
speeding, tailgating, and unsafe lane
changes.
/ Distracted driving, particularly phone use,
is frequently cited as a major problem.

3. Traffic Congestion and Visibility Issues:
/ Traffic congestion poses safety risks,
especially during school drop-off and
pick-up times, as well as morning and
evening rush hours.
/ Issues with intersection visibility due to
parked vehicles, vegetation, and poor
lighting are highlighted.

4. Infrastructure and Repair Needs:
/ Significant needs for roadway and
pavement repairs, with many roads
described as having potholes, cracks,
and overall poor quality.
/ Calls for improving existing sidewalks,
creating new bike lanes, and adding
physical barriers to separate vehicles
from pedestrians and cyclists.

5. Enforcement and Education:
/ Need for better enforcement of traffic
laws, including speed limits and stop sign
adherence.
/ Suggestions for more educational
programs to teach safe driving, biking,
and walking practices, especially for
students and young cyclists.

6. Specific Areas Requiring Attention:
/ Various specific roads and intersections
mentioned as problematic, including
Freedom Blvd, Highway 17, Soquel Drive,
and areas around schools.
/ Requests for improvements in areas
like Scotts Valley, Watsonville, and
unincorporated Santa Cruz County.
/ Based on public feedback, safety
improvements were developed for
numerous locations across the County
such as Freedom Blvd at Day Valley Rd,
McDonald Rd, and Buena Vista Dr, Scotts
Valley Dr at Granite Creek Rd, and Empire
Grade Rd/High Street.

7. Support for Non-Car Transportation
Options:
/ Increased desire for safe walking and
biking paths, especially separate from
vehicle traffic.
/ Encouragement for public transportation
improvements and more reliable, safer
alternatives for commuting.

8. Wildlife Conservation Concerns:
/ Concerns about wildlife safety alongside
human traffic safety, with mentions of
wildlife crossings to protect animals.

Page 333 of 570 ends

11 | Santa Cruz County Safety Action Plan
These themes collectively highlight the community’s concerns regarding traffic safety, infrastructure maintenance, aggressive driving, and the need for better enforcement and educational initiatives to ensure safer travel within the Santa Cruz County.

All feedback received from the Public Engagement effort will be incorporated into initial concepts and strategies for proposed improvements. These proposed improvements will be developed in concurrence with County staff, the Stakeholder Working Group, and elected leadership.

2.2. In Person Community Events
The following is a detailed account of the six (6) in-person pop-up events held throughout the Project area. Two in-person events were conducted in unincorporated Santa Cruz County, the City of Scotts Valley, and the City of Watsonville. Full respondent surveys can be found in Appendix B.

Event 1: Ecology Action Watsonville Family Fun Day (April 2, 2025) Landmark Elementary School
Watsonville, CA
At the Watsonville Family Fun Day, the
Project team spoke with youth, their parents,
and school staff about the Santa Cruz Safety
Action Plan using interactive boards. The
team distributed palm cards to all
organizations and left extras at the front
office. Key safety challenges identified
included speeding, distracted driving, drivers
failing to yield, narrow or broken sidewalks,
impaired driving, and cars not stopping at
stop signs. Participants also raised concerns
about bike safety, noting many cyclists
without helmets, and driver safety, observing
drivers without seatbelts and engaging in
“brake checking.”
Event 2: Watsonville Earth Day
(April 27, 2025)
358 Main St, Watsonville,
California 95076
At Watsonville’s Earth Day event, the Project
team engaged with over 70 individuals from
the 600 attendees, including youth, parents,
Spanish-speaking community members,
Figure 6 – Interactive Engagement Board
Figure 7 – Watsonville Earth Day Event

Page 334 of 570 ends

12 | Santa Cruz County Safety Action Plan
and Watsonville residents. Our bilingual team facilitated inclusive interactions, making the engagement fun with a spin wheel and stickers. Key safety concerns raised included drivers not yielding to pedestrians and cyclists, speeding, cars running stop signs or red lights, lack of pedestrian crossings, and narrow or broken sidewalks. Specific comments highlighted the need for more pedestrian crossings, better lighting, upkeeping RRFBs near Safeway, and addressing scooters on roads instead of bike lanes.

Event 3: Live Oak Farmers Market (May 4, 2025)
21400 E Cliff Dr, Santa Cruz, CA 95062
At the Live Oak market, the Project team
discussed the Santa Cruz Safety Action Plan
with both locals and tourists. While three
paper surveys were completed, most people
preferred taking palm cards to complete
the survey later. The team engaged with
19 people, distributed 14 palm cards, and
gathered 7 comment cards. Key concerns
included drivers not yielding to pedestrians
and cyclists, and unsafe biking conditions
on busy roads, especially for children.

Specific comments highlighted unsafe
crosswalks, insufficient room for biking with
kids, dangerous blind turns, and the need for
more bike lanes.

Event 4: Felton Farmers Market (May 6, 2025)
120 Russell Ave, Felton, CA 95018
At the Felton farmers market kickoff, the
Project team discussed the Santa Cruz
Safety Action Plan with attendees, most
of whom lived locally or along Highway 9.

Concerns centered on the lack of bike and
pedestrian facilities, with some noting they
had to walk on the side of the highway to
reach the market. The team engaged with
24 people, identifying top safety challenges
such as narrow or missing bike lanes, drivers
failing to yield, speeding, narrow or broken
sidewalks, lack of pedestrian crossings, poor
access for people with disabilities, distracted
driving, and poor pavement conditions.

Figure 8 – Live Oak Farmers Market Event
Figure 9 – Felton Farmers Market Event

Page 335 of 570 ends

13 | Santa Cruz County Safety Action Plan
Event 5: Scotts Valley Farmers Market (May 31, 2025)
5060 Scotts Valley Dr,
Scotts Valley, CA 95066
Engagement was low at this location due to
the nonprofit table being set up outside the
actual market, leading to low foot traffic and
minimal interaction. The team managed
to share one palm card and received
feedback on three challenge areas: missing
bike lanes, missing sidewalks, and drivers
failing to yield.

Event 6: Scotts Valley Family Fun Day (July 19, 2025)
Skypark - 361 Kings Village Rd
Scotts Valley, CA 95066
The Scotts Valley Family Fun Day served as
an excellent community outreach event,
drawing local families to engage with
agencies and non-profits. Approximately
30 community members, primarily from
within the project area, attended and
engaged steadily from 10am to 3pm. Most
were interested in the interactive challenge
area board and opted to visit the project
webpage later rather than complete the
survey on-site. Key issues raised included
e-bike safety concerns and high traffic
speeds around schools, hindering children
from biking to school. A Metro bus driver
suggested more public education to
promote courteous driving around buses.

Figure 10 – Scotts Valley Farmers Market
Event
Figure 11 – Scotts Valley Family Fun
Day Event

Page 336 of 570 ends

14 | Santa Cruz County Safety Action Plan

2.3. Community Stakeholder Group

2.3.1. Member List
A stakeholder group was formed to review and provide feedback for the Project. This group was comprised of staff from the following agencies:
• County of Santa Cruz
• City of Santa Cruz
• City of Watsonville
• City of Scotts Valley
• City of Capitola
• Watsonville Vision Zero Task Force
• University of California Santa Cruz
• Cabrillo College
• Santa Cruz County Fire Department
• Santa Cruz METRO
• Santa Cruz Metro Transit District
• Santa Cruz County Office of Education
• Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation
Commission (SCCRTC) / Bicycle Advisory
Committee
• Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office
• Community Traffic Safety Coalition
• Bike Santa Cruz County
• Mission: Pedestrian
• Greenway
• California Highway Patrol
• CTSC
• Friends of the Rail and Trail
• Ecology Action

2.3.2. Recap of Meetings
The Project team met with the Santa Cruz Transportation Safety Action Plan Stakeholders to share information about the Project, solicit feedback, and gain support:

March 4, 2025:

Stakeholder Meeting #1
Topics Covered
/ Project Background and Timeline
/ Stakeholder Expectations and
Commitment
/ Collision Data Analysis
/ Community Engagement
April 23, 2025:

Stakeholder Meeting #2
Topics Covered
/ Top Safety Challenge Areas
/ Community Engagement Updates
/ Case Study Locations
August 13, 2025:

Stakeholder Meeting #3
Topics Covered
/ Community Engagement
/ Countermeasure Toolbox
/ Case Study Locations
November 18, 2025:

Stakeholder Meeting #4
Topics Covered
/ Public Engagement Summary
/ Actions and Strategies
/ Case Study (Corridor) Improvements
/ Safety Action Plan Outline
/ Project Schedule

Page 337 of 570 ends

15 | Santa Cruz County Safety Action Plan
Figure 12 – Stakeholder Meeting #4 on November 18th, 2025

2.4. Focus Group Engagement
On November 5th, 2025, the Project team organized and met at the Aptos Branch Library with select members of the public to engage in a Focus Group meeting. A total of eighteen participants from all over Santa Cruz County came to participate in the meeting.

A summary of participant geographic representation can be found below:
• Watsonville (3)
• Pleasure Point (3)
• Scotts Valley (2)
• Live Oak (2)
• Westside (2)
• Downtown Santa Cruz (2)
• Aptos (1)
• Felton (1)
• Soquel (1)
• East/Midtown (1)

Page 338 of 570 ends

16 | Santa Cruz County Safety Action Plan
Figure 13 – Focus Group Meeting on November 5th, 2025
The Focus Group meeting included a presentation covering an overview of the project and a glimpse of the proposed countermeasures and case study locations. Participants were then split into two breakout groups to engage in discussion surrounding seven Focus Group questions.

Figure 14 – Focus Group Meeting
Breakout Group #1
Figure 15 – Focus Group Meeting
Breakout Group #2

Page 339 of 570 ends

17 | Santa Cruz County Safety Action Plan

2.4.1. Key Themes from Breakout Group Discussion
Countermeasures participants found ineffective:
1 Bike Boxes
2 Speed Feedback Signs
3 Sharrows
Things participants would like to see less of in the community:
1 Broken infrastructure
2 Hazards in Bike Lanes
3 Impatient and aggressive driving behavior
Education efforts that would help make the community safer:
1 Educate children on bike safety
2 Educate bicyclists and e-bikers on traffic safety
3 Organize safety bike rides to determine the best routes Countywide or Citywide improvements that participants would like to see implemented:
1 Safer bike infrastructure (ex. Protected & wider bike lanes) 2 Enhanced pedestrian safety (ex. Increase number of crosswalks with flashing lights) 3 Traffic and roadway improvements (ex. Lane & road diets, bulb outs, and daylighting) Community feedback from the focus group meeting can be found in Appendix C. The intersection and corridor improvements presented in Appendix F and Appendix G include elements requested by the public such as enhanced cycling infrastructure and road diets/ protected intersection treatments.

Page 340 of 570 ends

Data Analysis
Approach
3

Page 341 of 570 ends

19 | Santa Cruz County Safety Action Plan

3. Data Analysis Approach
A critical step in developing a comprehensive Safety Action Plan (SAP) is conducting a detailed analysis of local crash trends, roadway conditions, and community safety challenges. The safety analysis provides the evidence base that guides decision-making, helping jurisdictions identify where and why severe and fatal crashes are occurring, and which populations or roadway users are most affected.

Using a network screening process, locations within the County that would most likely benefit from safety enhancements were identified. The outcome of this analysis helps inform the identification and prioritization of engineering and non-infrastructure safety countermeasures that are most likely to improve roadway safety across Santa Cruz County. This method is well established and conducive to large-scale safety analyses, such as countywide safety assessments. The network screening process ranks intersections and roadway segments by the number of crashes that occurred at each location over the analysis period, and then identifies areas that had more of a given type of crashes than would be expected for that type of location. It should be noted that the City of Scotts Valley has a smaller sample size of crashes on its municipal roadway network, and that caution should be exercised when interpolating year-to-year trends.

Analysis methods such as the critical crash rate and equivalent property damage only were also used to determine crash frequency and severity at each location. The results of the network screening analysis are shown in Appendix D and Appendix E. These appendices present all of the intersections and roadway segments with three or more crashes. The appendices are color-coded to highlight crash trends and emphasis areas for further study and countermeasure development. The following sections describe the data analysis process.

Page 342 of 570 ends

Safety
Analysis
4

Page 343 of 570 ends

21 | Santa Cruz County Safety Action Plan

4. Safety Analysis

4.1. Unincorporated Santa Cruz County
Approximately 1695 injury crashes occurred on County facilities between 1/1/2019 and 12/31/2023.

Table 1 presents a breakdown of crash severity by facility type. Unsignalized intersections experienced approximately 54% of all injury crashes, followed by roadway segments with 31% of injury crashes. Approximately 60% of all fatal crashes on County facilities occurred on roadway segments, while approximately half of all severe injury crashes occurred at unsignalized intersections. Signalized intersections, which make up a smaller proportion of County intersections, experienced approximately 14.6% of injury crashes and 11.6% of KSI crashes.

Table 1 – Crashes by Facility Type (Unincorporated County) Severity
Signalized
Intersection
Unsignalized
Intersection
Roadway
Segment Total
Crashes % Crashes % Crashes % Crashes %
Fatal 1 0.1% 12 0.7% 19 1.1% 32 1.9%
Severe Injury 33 1.9% 128 7.6% 98 5.8% 259 15.3%
Other Visible
Injury 99 5.8% 427 25.2% 272 16.0% 798 47.1%
Complaint of Pain 115 6.8% 353 20.8% 138 8.1% 606 35.8% Total 248 14.6% 920 54.3% 527 31.1% 1695 100%
Source: TIMS Crash Data 2019-2023
A total of 32 fatal crashes and 259 severe injury crashes occurred during the study period as shown in Figure 16. Year 2020 experienced the fewest injury crashes of any year within the study period, with crashes trending upwards for the following two years. The total number of crashes decreased between 2022 and 2023. The total number of KSI crashes per year increased from 2019 to 2022 and then decreased in 2023 to below 2019 values.

The most common crash types during the study period were Hit-Object (559), Rear-End (278), Broadside crashes (254), and Vehicle-Bicycle crashes (239) as seen in Figure 17. Hit-Object crashes are common in rural areas with mountainous terrain, typically involving a single vehicle departing from the road and striking a fixed object adjacent to the roadway. Rearend crashes most commonly occur at intersections and involve a vehicle striking the back of another vehicle slowing to turn or comply with traffic controls. Broadsides are crashes where a driver strikes the side of another vehicle at close to a right angle (T-bone); these occur most commonly at intersections.

The most common crash types contributing to fatalities and severe injuries during the study period were Hit-Object (100), Vehicle-Bicycle crashes (66), Vehicle-Pedestrian crashes (28) and Broadsides (28). Though vulnerable road users (bicycles and pedestrians) were involved in approximately 20% of all crashes, they accounted for a disproportionately large share (33%) of all KSI crashes.

Page 344 of 570 ends

22 | Santa Cruz County Safety Action Plan
Figure 18 presents a map of KSI crashes on County facilities.

Figure 16 – Annual Crashes in Unincorporated Santa Cruz County Source: TIMS Crash Data 2019-2023
Figure 17 – Unincorporated Santa Cruz County Crash Types Source: TIMS Crash Data 2019-2023

Page 345 of 570 ends

23 | Santa Cruz County Safety Action Plan
Figure 18 – Unincorporated Santa Cruz County KSI Crash Map Source: TIMS Crash Data 2019-2023

Page 346 of 570 ends

24 | Santa Cruz County Safety Action Plan
The most common primary collision factors (PCFs) on County facilities were improper turning (22%), unsafe speed (20.7%), and DUIs (20.4%) as seen in Figure 19. The most common PCFs for KSI crashes were improper turning and DUIs (25% each), followed by unsafe speed (15%).

Figure 19 – Primary Collision Factors (County Facilities) Source: TIMS Crash Data 2019-2023

Page 347 of 570 ends

25 | Santa Cruz County Safety Action Plan

4.1.1. Regional Safety Performance
SHSP Statewide Comparison Table
The California Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) focuses on 16 challenge areas identified by the SHSP Executive Leadership and Steering Committees. These challenge areas were identified after an in-depth analysis of California K+SI (fatal and severe injury) crash data as well as an extensive statewide outreach process that involved hundreds of diverse traffic stakeholders around the state. Table 2 presents a comparison of unincorporated Santa Cruz County’s K+SI crashes to the statewide K+SI crashes based on SWITRS data from 2013-2022.

Table 2 presents that unincorporated Santa Cruz County has historically been higher than the statewide average in the following emphasis areas: lane departures, bicyclists, impaired driving, motorcyclists, and aging drivers.

Table 2 – Unincorporated Santa Cruz County K+SI Crashes Compared to Statewide Challenge Areas Comparison
Percent of Fatal and Severe Injury
Crashes (2013-2022) % Point
Unincorporated Difference
Santa Cruz County Statewide
Lane Departures Higher 65.5% 42.1% 23.4%
Bicyclists Higher 14.0% 7.3% 6.7%
Impaired Driving Higher 29.9% 23.9% 6.0%
Motorcyclists Higher 24.2% 20.8% 3.4%
Aging Drivers Higher 13.6% 12.8% 0.8%

1. Percentages will not add up to 100%, as a fatality or severe injury could have involved multiple Challenge Areas (i.e., a young driver that was impaired and unrestrained) OTS Rankings
The California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) publishes annual reports ranking agencies of similar population by their crash profile. The rankings presented in Table 3 were formed following OTS’s review of crash data within Santa Cruz County, compared to the other 58 California counties. These rankings provide a comparative perspective on where Santa Cruz County stands in terms of roadway safety outcomes. The county ranked relatively high— meaning worse relative performance—in several crash categories. Santa Cruz County ranked:
• 2nd statewide for crashes involving alcohol, crashes involving bicycles, and crashes involving young bicyclists (younger than 15 years old). • 3rd statewide for crashes involving drivers under age 21 who had been drinking. • 4th statewide for crashes involving drivers ages 21–34 who had been drinking. • 5th statewide for both pedestrian crashes and speed-related crashes. • 6th statewide for crashes involving aging pedestrians (age 65 years old and higher) This data reinforces the opportunity for a comprehensive, systemic safety strategy that addresses driving behavior and protects vulnerable road users.

Page 348 of 570 ends

26 | Santa Cruz County Safety Action Plan
Table 3 – Unincorporated Santa Cruz County OTS Ranking (2022) Crash Category
Victims
Killed and
Injured
OTS
Ranking
Total Fatal and
Injury 1429 11/58
Alcohol Involved 319 2/58
Had Been Drinking
Driver < 21 37 3/58
Had Been Drinking
Driver 21 – 34 136 4/58
Motorcycles 117 14/58
Crash Category
Victims
Killed and
Injured
OTS
Ranking
Pedestrians 94 5/58
Pedestrians 65+ 17 6/58
Bicycle 165 2/58
Bicyclist < 15 18 2/58
Speed Related 305 5/58
Nighttime
(9:00pm – 2:59am) 167 9/58
Hit and Run 118 11/58
Source: Santa Cruz County OTS Ranking (2022)
Notes:

1. Number 1 in the rankings is the highest, or “worst”. So, for Group B, a ranking of 1/56 is the highest or worst. 29/58 is average, and 58/58 is the lowest or best.

2. County rankings include all crashes, killed and injured within county borders.

4.1.2. Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO)
A location’s Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) value is a normalized value representing the severity of the crashes which occurred there. A high EPDO value indicates that KSI crashes have likely occurred, or that a higher quantity of other injury crashes have occurred at that location.

In unincorporated Santa Cruz County, the roadway network is characterized by a predominance of longer rural segments (both mountainous and agricultural) and unsignalized intersections. These roadways often follow curvilinear alignments through higher elevations, reflecting the county’s mountainous and coastal terrain. Such conditions can contribute to limited sight distances, higher travel speeds, and fewer controlled crossing opportunities. The following intersections experienced the highest crash severity during the study period and are pictured in Figure 20:
1 Carlton Rd & Thompson Rd with an EPDO value of 479 (14 crashes total: 1 fatal, 1 serious injury, 5 other visible injury, and 7 complaint of pain crashes) 2 Soquel Dr & Robertson St with an EPDO value of 456 (11 crashes total: 2 serious injury, 4 other visible injury, and 5 complaint of pain crashes)
3 17th Ave & Capitola Rd with an EPDO value of 451 (14 crashes total: 3 serious injury, 5 other visible injury, and 6 complaint of pain crashes)
The following three roadway segments with the highest EPDO values during the study period were:
1 Mount Hermon Rd (btwn Graham Hill Rd – Covenant Ln) with an EPDO value of 571 (10 crashes total: 1 fatal, 2 serious injury, 5 other visible injury, and 3 complaint of pain crashes) 2 Lake View Rd (btwn Hwy 129 – Crestwood Dr) with an EPDO value of 530 (7 total crashes: 3 serious injury, 2 other visible injury, and 2 complaint of pain crashes) 3 Soquel Dr (btwn Porter St – Main St/N Main St) with an EPDO value of 519 (6 total crashes; 3 serious injury, 1 other visible injury, and 2 complaint of pain crashes) Note: Many of these High EPDO locations along Soquel Dr will be improved as part of the existing Soquel Drive Buffered Bike Lane & Congestion Mitigation Project.

Page 349 of 570 ends

27 | Santa Cruz County Safety Action Plan
Figure 20 – Unincorporated Santa Cruz County EPDO
Source: TIMS Crash Data 2019-2023

Page 350 of 570 ends

28 | Santa Cruz County Safety Action Plan

4.1.3. Aggressive & Impaired Driving
Caltrans recognizes aggressive driving and impaired driving as statewide road safety challenge areas. Aggressive driving is defined as crashes where the primary collision factor included traffic signals/signs violations, unsafe speed, and following too closely. Caltrans defines any crashes where the driver had been drinking as an impaired driving crash.

Unincorporated Santa Cruz County reported 412 aggressive driving crashes and 438 impaired driving crashes, as presented in Figure 21. Aggressive driving contributed to 17.5% of all KSIs while impaired driving was a factor in 34.7% of KSIs.

Figure 21 – Aggressive and Impaired Driving Crashes (Unincorporated County) Source: TIMS Crash Data 2019-2023
The intersections with the most aggressive driving crashes within unincorporated County were:
1 Green Valley Rd & Holohan Rd/Airport Blvd (11 aggressive driving crashes, 17 injury crashes total)
2 17th Ave & Capitola Rd (8 aggressive driving crashes, 14 injury crashes total) 3 Robertson St & Soquel Dr (6 aggressive driving crashes, 11 injury crashes total) The intersections with the most impaired driving crashes within unincorporated County were:
1 Freedom Blvd & Buena Vista Dr (5 impaired driving crashes, 7 injury crashes total) 2 Green Valley Rd & Minto Rd (5 impaired driving crashes, 10 injury crashes total) 3 Soquel Dr & Sunset Way/State Park Dr (4 impaired driving crashes, 8 injury crashes total) Total: 412
Total: 438

Page 351 of 570 ends

29 | Santa Cruz County Safety Action Plan

4.1.4. Case Study Locations
The network screening tables for unincorporated County were reviewed in partnership with County Staff and the stakeholder group. Case study locations were selected for further study in a data driven process and are presented in Figure 22. Factors such as crash severity, relative crash rates, Countywide emphasis areas, vulnerable road users, and proximity to schools were considered. Locations with programmed improvements or recently completed projects were typically not included in the short list of case study locations with the goal of studying new locations.

Signalized Intersections
• Capitola Road & 17th Avenue
• Soquel Road & Thurber Lane/Commercial Way
Unsignalized Intersections
• Portola Drive & 41st Avenue
• Freedom Boulevard & McDonald Road
• Freedom Boulevard & Day Valley Road
• Freedom Boulevard & Buena Vista Drive/Compton Terrace (shared location with the City of Watsonville)
• Carlton Road & Thompson Road
Roadway Segments
• Holohan Road (Grimmer Road to Cottage Road)
• Lakeview Road (Riverside Drive to Crestwood Drive)
• Empire Grade (Fire Break Road to Bay Drive)
• Mt Hermon Rd (Graham Hill Road to Covenant Lane)
• Graham Hill Rd from Summit Drive to Lockewood Lane)
• Felton Empire Road (Krazy Acre Lane to Empire Grade)
Empire Grade Road between Bay Drive and Fire Break Road was identified as a study corridor based on a review of crash data, coordination with the stakeholder group, and public comments. Safety improvements for this corridor and the other case study locations are discussed in Section 6.2.

Page 352 of 570 ends

30 | Santa Cruz County Safety Action Plan
Figure 22 – Santa Cruz County Priority Locations
Source: TIMS Crash Data 2019-2023

Page 353 of 570 ends

31 | Santa Cruz County Safety Action Plan

4.2. City of Scotts Valley

4.2.1. City Collision Trends
Approximately 80 injury crashes occurred on the City of Scotts Valley facilities between 1/1/2019 and 12/31/2023. Table 4 presents a breakdown of crash severity by facility type. Signalized intersections experienced 50% of injury crashes, followed by unsignalized intersections at 31.3% and roadway segments at 18.8%. Signalized and unsignalized intersections each experienced five KSI crashes during the study period. Understanding that 81% of crashes occurred at intersections, it is expected that intersection safety improvements will provide maximum safety benefit to the City.

Table 4 – Crashes by Facility Type (City of Scotts Valley) Severity
Signalized
Intersection
Unsignalized
Intersection
Roadway
Segment Total
Crashes % Crashes % Crashes % Crashes %
Fatal 1 1.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 1.3%
Severe Injury 4 5.0% 5 6.3% 1 1.3% 10 12.5%
Other Visible
Injury 24 30.0% 15 18.8% 11 13.8% 50 62.5%
Complaint of Pain 11 13.8% 5 6.3% 3 3.8% 19 23.8%
Total 40 50.0% 25 31.3% 15 18.8% 80 100%
Source: TIMS Crash Data 2019-2023
During the study period there was 1 fatal crash and 10 severe injury crashes as shown in Table 4.

Year 2020 experienced the fewest injury crashes of any year within the study period, with crashes trending upwards for each of the following years until 2023 when it decreased (Figure 23).

The total number of KSI crashes per year increased from 2019 to 2021 and then decreased in 2022 and 2023, with no KSIs occurring in 2023. Because of the smaller size of the City compared to Santa Cruz County and the lower quantity of crashes, it is recommended that caution be applied when interpolating year-to-year trends.

Page 354 of 570 ends

32 | Santa Cruz County Safety Action Plan
Figure 23– Annual Crashes in the City of Scotts Valley
Source: TIMS Crash Data 2019-2023
The most common crash types during the study period were Rear-End (17), Hit-Object (17), Broadside (15), and Vehicle-Bicycle crashes (15), as seen in Figure 24. Rear-ends and broadside crashes are consistent with the predominance of intersection crashes, while the trend of bicyclevehicle crashes is consistent with the regional safety comparisons found in Section 4.2.2.

The most common crash types contributing to fatalities and severe injuries during the study period were Vehicle-Bicycle crashes (4), Vehicle-Pedestrian crashes (2) and Hit-Object Crashes (2). Though vulnerable road users (bicycles and pedestrians) were involved in approximately 24% of all crashes, they accounted for a disproportionately large share (55%) of all KSI crashes.

In light of this crash history, it is recommended that the City prioritize safety improvements for pedestrians and cyclists.

Figure 25 presents a map of KSI crashes on the City of Scotts Valley facilities. A fatal crash occurred at the intersection of Mt Hermon Road and Scotts Valley Road.

Figure 24 – City of Scotts Valley Crash Types
Source: TIMS Crash Data 2019-2023

Page 355 of 570 ends

33 | Santa Cruz County Safety Action Plan
Figure 25 – City of Scotts Valley KSI Crash Map
Source: TIMS Crash Data 2019-2023

Page 356 of 570 ends

34 | Santa Cruz County Safety Action Plan
Note: The intersection of Scotts Valley Drive and Mt Hermon Road experienced one fatal crash and two severe injury crashes.

As shown in Figure 26, the most common primary collision factors (PCFs) observed over the study period for the City of Scotts Valley were unsafe speed (22, 27%), and automobile ROW (15, 19%). Driving under the influence and violations regarding traffic signals and signs each made up 8% of total crashes. The most common PCFs for KSI crashes were unsafe speed (4, 36%), followed by automobile ROW (2, 18%); the following each accounted for one KSI (9%): improper turning, DUIs, driving on the wrong side of the road, pedestrian violations, and violating pedestrian right of way.

Traffic calming treatments such as protected intersections, roundabouts, and road diets are effective at lowering vehicle speeds and reducing the likelihood of crashes related to unsafe speed. These treatments also reduce the number of conflict points between vehicles and have the potential to prevent crashes related to automobile right of way violations. Crashes related to DUIs and traffic signals and signs violations can be addressed through enhanced striping, signage, and enforcement.

Figure 26 – Primary Collision Factor (City of Scotts Valley)

Page 357 of 570 ends

35 | Santa Cruz County Safety Action Plan
Source: TIMS Crash Data 2019-2023

4.2.2. Regional Safety Performance
SHSP Statewide Comparison Table
Table 5 presents a comparison of the City of Scotts Valley’s K+SI crashes to the statewide K+SI crashes based on SWITRS data from 2013-2022. The City has historically been higher than the statewide average in the following areas: aggressive driving, aging drivers, bicyclists, distracted driving, occupant protection, and pedestrians.

Table 5 – City of Scotts Valley K+SI Crashes Compared to Statewide K+SI Crashes Challenge Areas Comparison
Percent of Fatal and Severe Injury
Crashes (2013-2022) % Point
Difference
Scotts Valley Statewide
Aggressive Driving Higher 57.1% 33.4% 23.7%
Aging Drivers Higher 33.3% 12.8% 20.5%
Bicyclists Higher 23.8% 7.3% 16.5%
Distracted Driving Higher 19.0% 4.4% 14.6%
Occupant
Protection Higher 14.3% 13.1% 1.2%
Pedestrians Higher 19.0% 18.9% 0.1%
Notes:

1. Percentages will not add up to 100%, as a fatality or severe injury could have involved multiple Challenge Areas (i.e., a young driver that was impaired and unrestrained) OTS Rankings
The 2022 OTS rankings presented in Table 6 were formed following OTS’s review of crash data within the City of Scotts Valley, compared to 104 other cities in the state within the same group based on population size (10,001 – 25,000). These rankings provide a comparative perspective on where the City of Scotts Valley stands in terms of roadway safety outcomes. The City of Scotts Valley ranked low (meaning worse relative performance) in two categories:
• 13th statewide for crashes involving bicyclists age under 15. • 18th statewide for crashes involving pedestrian age under 15.

The elevated ranking for crashes involving pedestrian and cyclist youths indicates that schoolzone safety treatments would be an appropriate countermeasure, as well as youth-focused safety education programs.

Page 358 of 570 ends

36 | Santa Cruz County Safety Action Plan
Table 6 – City of Scotts Valley OTS Rankings (2022)
Crash Category Victims Killed and Injured OTS Ranking
Pedestrians 1 18/104
Bicycle 2 53/104
Bicyclist < 15 1 13/104
Speed Related 8 42/104
Source: City of Scotts Valley OTS Rankings (2022)
Notes:

1. The figures in the ranking column show as two numbers divided by a slash. The first number is that city’s ranking in that category. The second number is the total number of cities/counties within that “Group”.For instance, if you see “18/104”, that means that city ranks 18th out of 104 cities of similar size.

2. Number 1 in the rankings is the highest, or “worst”. A ranking of 1/104 is the highest or worst. 52/104 is average, and 104/104 is the lowest or best.

3. City rankings are for incorporated cities only, for local streets in those cities, and state highways that run through cities with shared jurisdiction with the CHP and the city. City rankings do not include numbers of crashes, killed or injured on freeways and on state highways where cities do not have jurisdiction.

4.2.3. Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO)
The City of Scotts Valley is a smaller city located in the middle of Santa Cruz County. The roadway network is largely suburban in character, with a mix of residential streets and arterial corridors that serve as key connections to surrounding communities. Many of these roadways feature signalized intersections along primary corridors, while neighborhood streets remain unsignalized with lower traffic volumes. The city’s topography, set within the Santa Cruz Mountains, introduces rolling grades and curving alignments that can influence vehicle speeds and visibility.

The top three intersections in the City of Scotts Valley with the highest EPDO are:
1 Mount Hermon Rd & Scotts Valley Dr/Whispering Pines Dr with an EPDO value of 455 (Signalized) (14 total crashes: 1 fatal, 2 serious injury, 6 other visible injury, and 5 complaint of pain crashes)
2 El Rancho Dr & Hwy 17 NB Off-Ramp with an EPDO value of 223 (Unsignalized) (4 total crashes: 1 serious injury and 3 other visible injury crashes) 3 Mount Hermon Rd & King Valleys Rd with an EPDO value of 175 (Signalized) (7 total crashes: 1 serious injury, 4 other visible injury, and 2 complaint of pain crashes) The roadway segments observed and studied for the analysis yielded low EPDO values, with a total of 6 segments having the an EPDO value of 11. Figure 27 presents the locations with higher-EPDO values.

Page 359 of 570 ends

37 | Santa Cruz County Safety Action Plan
Figure 27 – Scotts Valley EPDO Map

Page 360 of 570 ends

38 | Santa Cruz County Safety Action Plan
The high-EPDO intersections would benefit from safety treatments such as signal modernization, protected intersection upgrades, protected left-turn phasing, speed management, and enhanced pedestrian crossings. Treatments such as protected intersections and buffered bike lanes would also help enhance road safety for cyclists for vulnerable road users, as cyclists and pedestrians accounted for over 50% of KSI crashes in the study period.

4.2.4. Aggressive and Impaired Driving
Caltrans recognizes aggressive driving and impaired driving as statewide road safety challenge areas. Of the 80 injury crashes reported from 2019-2023, 30 involved aggressive driving and 11 were due to impaired driving, accounting for 38% and 14% of all crashes respectively, as presented in Figure 28. There were total of 11 fatal or severe injury crashes, 4 were due to aggressive driving and 2 due to impaired driving accounting for 36% and 18% of all KSI crashes respectively.

Scotts Valley, being a smaller, urban city in Santa Cruz, had relatively less crashes in general compared to other cities in the county. However, Scotts Valley had a high instance of aggressive and impaired driving crashes for its size. Majority of both aggressive and impaired driving crashes occurred along its major intersections and roadways where larger volumes of traffic, pedestrians, and cyclists are present.

Figure 28 – Aggressive and Impaired Driving Crashes (City of Scotts Valley) Total: 30
Total: 11

Page 361 of 570 ends

39 | Santa Cruz County Safety Action Plan
The intersections with the most total of aggressive and impaired driving crashes within the City of Scotts Valley were:
1 Mount Hermon Road & Scotts Valley Drive (2 aggressive driving crashes, and 1 impaired driving crash)
2 Mount Hermon Road & Glen Canyon Road (2 aggressive driving crashes) 3 Mount Hermon Road & Lockewood Lane/Skypark Drive (2 aggressive driving crashes) 4 Scotts Valley Drive & Bean Creek Road (2 aggressive driving crashes)

4.2.5. Case Study Locations
The network screening tables for the City of Scotts Valley were reviewed in partnership with City of Scotts Valley Staff and the stakeholder group. Case study locations were selected for further study in a data driven process. Factors such as crash severity, relative crash rates, emphasis areas, vulnerable road users, and proximity to schools were considered. Locations which had recently been improved as part of an existing project were not included as case study intersections to allow an opportunity for the study of new locations. The following signalized intersections were selected for further study:
• Mount Hermon Road & Scotts Valley Drive
• Scotts Valley Road & Bean Creek Road
• Mount Hermon Road & Kings Village Road
• Mount Hermon Road & Lockewood Lane
Scotts Valley Drive between Mount Hermon Road and Glenwood Drive was identified as a study corridor based on a review of crash data. This is consistent with comments received from the public, which requested safety improvements by schools and improved bicycle infrastructure, especially at locations such as Scotts Valley Drive and Mount Hermon Road, and Scotts Valley Drive and Granite Creek Road. Safety improvements for this corridor and the other case study locations are discussed in Section 6.2.

Page 362 of 570 ends

40 | Santa Cruz County Safety Action Plan
Figure 29 – Scotts Valley Case Study Locations

Page 363 of 570 ends

41 | Santa Cruz County Safety Action Plan

4.3. City of Watsonville

4.3.1. City Collision Trends
The majority of injury crashes (61%) occurred at unsignalized intersections. Another 26.9% of crashes occurred at signalized intersections, while the remaining 12% occurred along roadway segments. As shown in Table 7 there is a higher occurrence of KSI collisions at unsignalized intersections (4 fatal, 15 severe injury). Signalized intersections also have a higher count of KSI collisions (4 fatal, 9 severe injury) as compared to roadway segments (4 fatal, 6 severe injury).

While roadway segment collisions only accounted for 12% (50) of all crashes, about 20% (10) of those roadway segment collisions resulted in a fatality or severe injury.

Table 7 – Crashes by Facility Type (City of Watsonville) Severity
Signalized
Intersection
Unsignalized
Intersection
Roadway
Segment Total
Crashes % Crashes % Crashes % Crashes %
Fatal 4 1% 4 1% 4 1% 12 2.9%
Severe Injury 9 2.2% 15 3.6% 6 1.4% 30 7.2%
Other Visible
Injury
24 5.7% 85 20.3% 12 2.9% 121 28.9%
Complaint of Pain 75 17.9% 152 36.4% 28 6.7% 255 61.0%
Total 112 26.9% 250 61.2% 50 12% 418 100%
Source: TIMS Crash Data 2019-2023
There were approximately 418 injury crashes which occurred on City facilities between 1/01/2019 and 12/31/2023, as shown in Figure 30. The year 2020 experienced the fewest crashes of any year within the study period, with crashes trending upwards each of the following two years.

The total number of crashes decreased from 2022 to 2023. The total number of KSI crashes per year increased from 2019 to 2022 and then decreased in 2023 to below 2019 values.

Figure 30 – Annual Crashes in the City of Watsonville
Source: TIMS Crash Data 2019-2023

Page 364 of 570 ends

42 | Santa Cruz County Safety Action Plan
The most common crash types during the study period were Broadside collisions (142), Vehicle-Pedestrian collisions (76), and Rear-End collisions (67) as seen in Figure 31. Pedestrian crashes typically involve a single vehicle striking a pedestrian. Pedestrian crashes are most common in urban cities with an increase of foot traffic and pedestrian crossing sites.

Broadsides are crashes where a driver strikes the side of another vehicle at close to a right angle (T-bone); these occur most commonly at intersections. Rear-end crashes most commonly occur at intersections and involve a vehicle striking the back of another vehicle slowing to turn or comply with traffic controls. Watsonville’s urban environment and extensive road network results in higher density of intersections where these types of collisions can occur.

The most common crash types contributing to fatalities and severe injuries during the study period were Pedestrian (17), Broadside (9), and Hit Object (5) and Bicycle-Vehicle (5). Despite vulnerable road users (bicyclists and pedestrians) only accounting for 30% of all crashes, they accounted for a disproportionately large (52%) of all KSI crashes.

Figure 31 – City of Watsonville Crash Types
Source: TIMS Crash Data 2019-2023
Based on the crash data used for this analysis, the leading cause of crashes in the City of Watsonville during the study period included automobile right of way (30%), unsafe speed (15%), driving or bicycling under the influence of alcohol or drug use (11%), and traffic signals and signs (10%). While any of these factors can occur at both intersections and along roadway

Page 365 of 570 ends

43 | Santa Cruz County Safety Action Plan
segments, factors such as automobile ROW, pedestrian ROW, and traffic signals and signs are more likely to play a role in collisions occurring at intersections where interactions between pedestrians and vehicles are more frequent and where intersection control and signage dictate vehicle movement. These trends are presented in Figure 32 and are consistent with the regional crash comparisons in found in Table 8 and Table 9.

Figure 32 – Primary Collision Factors (Watsonville)
The primary collision factors (PCF) which contributed the most to KSI crashes included pedestrian violations (19%), driving or cycling under the influence of alcohol or drugs (19%), improper turning (14%), automobile right of way (12%), traffic signals and signs (12%), and pedestrian right of way (10%). Pedestrian violations account for a larger share of KSI collisions (19%) than of all crashes (9%), underscoring the heightened vulnerability of pedestrians and cyclists to severe injury. This increase also suggests a need for improved pedestrian and cyclist infrastructure to help reduce such violations.

Figure 33 presents a map of KSI crashes on the Watsonville facilities.

Page 366 of 570 ends

44 | Santa Cruz County Safety Action Plan
Figure 33 – City of Watsonville KSI Crash Map

Page 367 of 570 ends

45 | Santa Cruz County Safety Action Plan

4.3.2. Regional Safety Performance
SHSP Statewide Comparison Table
The California Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) focuses on 16 challenge areas identified by the SHSP Executive Leadership and Steering Committees after an in-depth analysis of California K+SI (fatal and severe injury) crash data as well as an extensive statewide outreach process that involved hundreds of diverse traffic stakeholders around the state contains a comparison of the City of Watsonville’s K+SI crashes to the statewide K+SI crashes based on SWITRS data from 2013-2022. Table 8 presents that the City of Watsonville has historically been higher than the statewide average in the following areas: pedestrians, intersections and bicyclists. Table 8 also presents a summary of the challenge areas and percentages for the City’s and statewide averages.

Table 8 – City of Watsonville K+SI Crashes Compared to Statewide K+SI Crashes Challenge Areas Comparison
Percent of Fatal and Severe Injury
Crashes (2013-2022) % Point
Difference
Scotts Valley Statewide
Pedestrians Higher 45.5% 18.9% 26.6%
Intersections Higher 35.9% 24.3% 11.6%
Bicyclists Higher 16.6% 7.3% 9.2%
Notes:

1. Percentages will not add up to 100%, as a fatality or severe injury could have involved multiple Challenge Areas (i.e., a young driver that was impaired and unrestrained) These figures demonstrate that vulnerable road users face a disproportionate safety risk in Watsonville. Intersections also come in as a challenge area in the City of Watsonville highlighting room for improvement at intersections where pedestrians and bicyclists may also be at higher risk if proper infrastructure is not present.

OTS Rankings
Table 9 presents how the City of Watsonville ranked in the 2022 OTS rankings. For the 2022 OTS rankings, the City of Watsonville was compared to 104 other cities in the state within the same group (C) based on population size (50,001 – 100,000). Compared to other cities in the same group in 2022, the City of Watsonville ranked among the top half in crashes involving pedestrians, hit and run, and crashes involving drivers that had been drinking in underage and ages 21—34 populations.

Page 368 of 570 ends

46 | Santa Cruz County Safety Action Plan
Table 9 – City of Watsonville OTS Rankings (2022)
Crash Category Victims Killed and Injured OTS Ranking
Total Fatal and Injury 180 25/104
Alcohol Involved 27 18/104
Had Been Drinking Driver < 21 4 8/104
Had Been Drinking Driver 21 – 34 15 9/104
Motorcycles 13 15/104
Pedestrians 31 3/104
Pedestrians < 15 4 14/104
Pedestrians 65+ 4 24/104
Bicycle 17 16/104
Composite 111 14/104
Speed Related 27 33/104
Nighttime (9:00pm – 2:59am) 13 55/104
Hit and Run 25 6/104
Source: City of Watsonville OTS Rankings (2022)
Notes:

1. The figures in the ranking column show as two numbers divided by a slash. The first number is that city’s ranking in that category. The second number is the total number of cities/counties within that “Group”. For instance, if you see “18/104”, that means that city ranks 18th out of 104 cities of similar size.

2. Number 1 in the rankings is the highest, or “worst”. A ranking of 1/104 is the highest or worst. 52/104 is average, and 104/104 is the lowest or best.

The City of Watsonville is ranked relatively high in the following:
• 3rd statewide for crashes involving pedestrians.
• 6th statewide for hit and run crashes.
• 8th statewide for crashes involving people under 21 years old that have been drinking. • 9th statewide for crashes involving persons between the ages of 21 – 34 that had been drinking.

This data reinforces the opportunity and need for pedestrian and vulnerable road user infrastructure improvements as well as a comprehensive and systematic strategy that addresses driver behavior.

Page 369 of 570 ends

47 | Santa Cruz County Safety Action Plan

4.3.3. Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO)
The roadway network in Watsonville is urban with a grid-like pattern of arterial, collector, and local streets serving a compact community. Many intersections are signalized, particularly along major corridors that carry both local and regional traffic. However, the city also contains a number of wide, multi-lane roadways that can encourage higher travel speeds and create barriers for pedestrians and cyclists.

In the City of Watsonville, the intersections with the highest EPDO values are:
• Freedom Blvd & Blanca Ln with an EPDO value of 422 (Unsignalized) (7 crashes total: 2 serious injury, 2 other visible injury, and 3 complaint of pain crashes) • Green Valley Rd & Carnation Dr with an EPDO value of 366 (Signalized) (4 crashes total: 2 fatal, 1 serious injury, and 1 complaint of pain crash) • Harkins Slough Rd & Ohlone Pkwy with an EPDO value of 288 (Signalized) (9 crashes total: 1 fatal, 1 serious injury, 1 other visible, and 6 complaint of pain crashes) In the City of Watsonville, the roadway segments with the highest EPDO values are:
• Miles Ln (between Kimberly Ln/Santa Clara St – Freedom Blvd) with an EPDO value of 342 (3 crashes total: 2 serious injury and 1 other visible injury) • Airport Blvd (Neilson St – Hangar Way) with an EPDO value of 182 (3 crashes total: 1 serious injury, 1 other visible injury, and 1 complaint of pain crash) Figure 34 presents a map of these high EPDO locations.

Page 370 of 570 ends

48 | Santa Cruz County Safety Action Plan
Figure 34 – Watsonville EPDO Map

Page 371 of 570 ends

49 | Santa Cruz County Safety Action Plan

4.3.4. Aggressive and Impaired Driving
During the study period the City of Watsonville experienced 58 injury crashes resulting from aggressive driving behavior and 40 injury crashes due to impaired driving. As seen in Figure 35, these crashes occurred mostly at intersections, with signalized intersections experiencing the highest proportion. Out of 42 fatal or severe crashes, 9 involved aggressive driving and 13 involved impaired driving, accounting for 52% of all KSI crashes.

Figure 35 – Aggressive and Impaired Driving

4.3.5. Case Study Locations
The network screening tables for the City of Watsonville were reviewed in partnership with City of Watsonville Staff, County staff, and the stakeholder group. Case study locations were selected for further study in a data driven process and are pictured in Figure 36. Factors such as crash severity, relative crash rates, emphasis areas, vulnerable road users, and proximity to schools were considered. Locations with programmed improvements or recently completed projects were typically not included in the short list of case study locations with the goal of studying new locations.

Signalized Intersections
• Ohlone Parkway and Harkins Slough
• Freedom Boulevard and Green Valley Road
Unsignalized Intersections
• Freedom Boulevard and Buena Vista Drive/
Compton Terrace (shared location with the
Santa Cruz County)
• Green Valley Road and Carey Avenue
• Rodriquez Street and 2nd Street
Green Valley Road between Harkins Slough Road and Airport Boulevard/Holohan Road was identified as a study corridor based on a review of crash data. Safety improvements for this corridor and the other case study locations are discussed in Section 6.2.

Total: 58
Total: 40

Page 372 of 570 ends

Scotts Valley City CouncilMay 6, 2026

Scotts Valley City Council
May 6, 2026