Docstoc

Env. Checklist FINAL 8-29-12

Document Sample
Env. Checklist FINAL 8-29-12 Powered By Docstoc
					                                      City of Santa Cruz
                           ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
                          FOR DETERMINATION OF CEQA EXEMPTION

I.      BACKGROUND
        1.     Application No: CP12-0101

        2.     Project Title: 140 Front Street

        3.     Lead Agency Name and Address:
                City of Santa Cruz Planning Department
                809 Center Street, Room 206
                Santa Cruz, CA 95060

        4.     Contact Person and Phone Number: Alex Khoury, (831) 420-5116

        5.     Project Location: 140 Front Street and 203 Laurel Street (APNs 007-033-01, 007-
               033-02, 007-033-03) in the City of Santa Cruz; see Figure 1.

        6.     Project Applicant’s/Sponsor’s Name and Address:
               OWNER: Santa Cruz Seaside Company, 400 Beach Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
               REP:     Golden State Warriors, 903 Pacific Avenue, Suite 101, Santa Cruz, CA
                        95060

        7.     General Plan Designation: High Density Residential, 30.1-55 du/acre

        8.     Zoning: RH/MU/CZO – Residential High Density / Mixed Use Overlay / Coastal Zone
               Overlay

        9.     Other public agencies whose approval is required: None are known.


II.     PROJECT DESCRIPTION
        The project application consists of a Planned Development Permit, a Special Use Permit, a
        Coastal Permit, a Design Permit, and a Boundary Adjustment to construct a 33,648 square
        foot quasi-public building, including supporting structures. The structure is proposed to be
        used for a period of five to seven years after which time it is planned that the structure will
        be removed. Further description of the permit applications is provided at the end of this
        section.

        Proposed Structure and Uses. The proposed facility includes construction of a 30,000
        square foot “Sports Arena.” Seven accessory structures, totaling 3,648 square feet, also
        are planned. Five accessory structures to the east of the arena will be connected to the
        arena via a covered walkway and will be used for team locker rooms (with restrooms and
        showers), coaches’ rooms, training area and laundry facilities. Two public restrooms will be
        provided: one to the east of the arena and one to the south. The proposed arena building




Sports Arena
Environmental Review                              -1-                                      August 2012
        will occupy nearly the entire site with a floor area ratio of 0.67. The site plan is shown on
        Figure 2.

        The Sports Arena exterior will be constructed of a steel frame with metal skin composite
        panel walls, a vinyl skin roof, and metal doors. The interior will be consist of a slab
        foundation/ac paving floor, drywall and steel stud walls, thermal insulation, steel doors,
        suspended lights, and fire sprinklers. The roof is proposed to be constructed of tensile
        fabric, which will extend laterally from the top of the sidewalls to form an airtight joint. The
        roofline would taper from approximately 53 to 29 feet in height. The roof is planned to be a
        white color with “Harbor” blue sides. A photosimulation of the proposed arena as viewed
        from Laurel Street Bridge is shown on Figure 3.The accessory structures will be
        manufactured, modular plywood buildings.

        Seating in the arena will be provided via fixed and retractable bleachers with a seating
        capacity of 2,800 seats. The principal use of the building is for the Golden State Warriors D-
        league team’s home court between the months of November and April. The team is
        expected to play 24 home games per year plus up to six additional possible playoff games.
        Games would be held on any day of the week with Monday through Saturday games
        starting either at 7:00 or 7:30 PM and Sunday games starting at 2:00, 3:00 or 5:00 PM. An
        average attendance of 2,200 persons is anticipated with a maximum seating of 2,950 seats
        (2,800 as indicated above plus 140-150 removable seats around the basketball court).

        During the six-month season when the team is in town, the team would practice every day
        from noon to 4 PM, with individual workouts in the morning or late afternoons. Game days
        would consist of both teams with an hour shoot-around from 11AM to 1 PM, back at the
        facility around 3 for a 7 PM game. Doors would open at 5:30, and games would be over by
        9:30. It is expected that patrons would be gone by approximately 9:50 PM, and the rest of
        the staff out by 11 PM. When the team is on the road, some daytime or early evening youth
        camp games may be held. Approximately 35 employees/staff are estimated to be on the
        site.
        Other basketball or sports related activities may occur in the facility throughout the year.
        Other currently anticipated sports events include UCSC men’s and women’s basketball
        games and Derby Girls (roller skating). Based on the 2012-13 schedule, the UCSC games
        would be similar to the Warriors schedule, and it is estimated that up to 15 games for the
        men’s games and approximately 18 games for the women’s games would be held at the
        facility for a total of 33 events. Approximately eight Derby Girls games are scheduled.

        The City of Santa Cruz may also use the facility as much as 30 times a year for
        miscellaneous events. Typical anticipated events include antique fairs, rock and gem shows,
        festivals and graduations. The building could accommodate up to 4,000 people with
        retracted bleachers, however, it is expected that attendance at non-Warrior events would be
        between 1,500 and 2,000 attendees per day. These other events would typically occur on
        weekends mostly during the daytime throughout the year. Holiday weekends between
        Memorial Day and Labor Day will be blacked out. At this time, no concerts or amplified
        music would be allowed at the arena without additional environmental review.

        In summary, with the planned Warriors games, UCSC and Derby Girl games in combination
        with other potential events at the arena, it is estimated that the arena will support
        approximately 100 events annually with the distribution estimated to be approximately 80
        events from October to April and 20 between May and September.



Sports Arena
Environmental Review                              -2-                                       August 2012
        Permit Applications. The Planned Development Permit modification is proposed to allow
        variations to setbacks, building height and parking, and to allow sale of alcohol at events.
        The maximum building height is proposed at slightly less than 53 feet, whereas a maximum
        of 48 feet in height is allowed in the RH zone district for principal buildings prior to
        consideration of any requested variations.

        Facility parking will not be provided at the project site. A parking analysis prepared for the
        arena indicates that 914 parking spaces would be required for the proposed use based on
        City parking regulations and requirements. There are 1,286 spaces available within walking
        distance (1,600-foot radius), primarily in the lower Front Street and downtown areas (SOURCE
        V.6).1 Approximately 756 of these spaces would be available based on estimated
        occupancy. The remaining 158 spaces would be available in the Downtown Parking District
        within 2,000 feet of the project site (Ibid.).

        The proposed boundary adjustment consists of shifting approximately 5,000 square feet of
        one lot (APN 007-033-02) into 140 Front Street lot (APN 007-033-01) to allow compliance
        with water and building codes with the proposed development. The remainder portion of
        APN 007-033-02 (1,000 square feet) will be added to the third parcel (APN 007-033-03) to
        provide driveway access to the apartments at 203 Laurel Street (APN 007-033-03). APN
        007-033-02 currently provides parking for an existing apartment building on APN 007-033-
        03 to the rear of the project site. The parking for the apartments will initially be provided
        offsite at the City-owned Laurel Street Extension lot (behind the Wheel Works business),
        approximately 300 feet to the north, either for the length of the permit or until additional
        parking can be provided for on the 203 Laurel Street lot.


III.    ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
        The 1.148-acre project site is located along lower Front Street in the City of Santa Cruz. The
        site is bordered by Front Street on the east, Spruce Street and commercial properties on the
        north, Laurel Street Extension and the San Lorenzo River on the east, and apartments on
        the south. Developed motel and residential properties within the Beach Hill area are located
        on the bluff overlooking the site to the south of the project site and existing apartment
        buildings.

        The surrounding area is developed as a mix of commercial uses along Front Street with
        residential uses in the neighborhoods west of Front Street and south and east of the project
        site. The San Lorenzo River is located to the east of the project site and Laurel Street
        Extension. A pedestrian-bike path is located on the river levee to the east.

        The site is relatively flat. The property is paved and is currently used as parking lot for the
        Seaside Company; 157 spaces are provided plus 12 parking spaces for the apartment
        complex at 203 Laurel Street adjacent to the project site on the south. There are three
        horticultural trees at the edge of the parking lot along Laurel Street, one of which is
        proposed to be removed.




        1
            See subsection V for a list of reference source documents.


Sports Arena
Environmental Review                                       -3-                             August 2012
F I G U R E 1: VICINITY LOCATION




                              Project
                              Site




Sports Arena
Environmental Review                    -4-   August 2012
F I G U R E 2: PROPOSED SITE PLAN




Sports Arena
Environmental Review                -5-   August 2012
F I G U R E 3: PHOTOSIMULATION OF ARENA STRUCTURE




Sports Arena
Environmental Review             -6-                August 2012
IV.     ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
        A. Introduction & Background

        In analyzing the proposed project, the City may consider whether existing environmental
        documents already provide an adequate analysis of potential environmental impacts. An
        earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
        provisions, it can be determined that one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in
        an earlier EIR or negative declaration (State CEQA Guidelines section 15063(c)(3)(D)). If
        an earlier analysis is used, the checklist discussion should identify: a) the earlier analyses
        and state where they are available for review; b) identify which effects were adequately
        analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether
        such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis; and c)
        describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier
        document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

        The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) also allows a lead agency to avoid
        repeating analyses that were already provided in a certified General Plan EIR (Public
        Resources Code Section 21083.3). Pursuant to section 21083.3(b), if a development project
        is consistent with the general plan of a local agency for which an environmental impact
        report was certified, the application of CEQA shall be limited to effects on the environment
        which are “peculiar to the parcel or to the project” and which were not addressed as
        significant effects in the prior environmental impact report, or which substantial new
        information shows will be more significant than described in the prior environmental impact
        report. Subsection (d) further indicates that an effect of a project upon the environment shall
        not be considered “peculiar to the parcel or to the project,” “if uniformly applied development
        policies or standards” have been previously adopted by the city or county, with a finding
        based upon substantial evidence, which need not include an environmental impact report,
        that the development policies or standards will substantially mitigate that environmental
        effect when applied to future projects, unless substantial new information shows that the
        policies or standards will not substantially mitigate the environmental effect. Under these
        provisions of CEQA, a project that is consistent with a General Plan that was adopted
        pursuant to a certified EIR, could be potentially partially or wholly exempt from CEQA.

        Section 15183 of the State CEQA Guidelines provides further guidance related to Public
        Resources Code section 21083. Specifically, if a project is consistent with an agency’s
        General Plan for which an EIR has been certified, the agency shall limit its examination of
        environmental effects to those which the agency determines, in an initial study or other
        analysis:
                 (1) Are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be
                     located,
                 (2) Were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action,
                     general plan, or community plan, with which the project is consistent,
                 (3) Are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts which were
                     not discussed in the prior EIR prepared for the general plan, community plan
                     or zoning action, or
                 (4) Are previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new
                     information which was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are



Sports Arena
Environmental Review                               -7-                                      August 2012
                       determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior
                       EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines section 15183(b).)

        Guidelines section 15183, subdivision (c) further provides that “if an impact is not peculiar to
        the parcel or to the project, has been addressed as a significant effect in the prior EIR, or
        can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or
        standards,…, then an additional EIR need not be prepared for the project solely on the
        basis of that impact.”

        B. Use of Earlier Analyses

        On June 26, 2012, the Santa Cruz City Council adopted the General Plan 2030 after
        certifying an EIR for the plan. The General Plan 2030 EIR (April 2012) includes the Draft
        EIR volume (September 2011) and the Final EIR volume (April 2012). The General Plan
        EIR reviewed all of the topics included on the Appendix G environmental checklist in the
        State CEQA Guidelines.

        The General Plan EIR is a “program” EIR prepared pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines
        Section 15168, which reviewed environmental impacts associated with future development
        and buildout within the City’s planning area that would be accommodated by the General
        Plan. A program EIR can be used for subsequent projects implemented within the scope of
        the program/plan. Typically, site-specific impacts or new impacts that weren’t addressed in
        the program EIR would be evaluated in an Initial Study, leading to preparation of a Negative
        Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration or EIR. Site-specific mitigation measures
        included in the General Plan EIR also would be a part of future development projects, and
        supplemented, as may be necessary, with site-specific mitigation measures identified in the
        subsequent environmental review process.

        As indicated above, pursuant to Public Resources Code 21083.3, a development project
        that is consistent with a General Plan for which an EIR was certified may be exempt from
        CEQA analyses that were adequately covered in the General Plan EIR. The project site is
        designated High Density Residential in the City’s recently adopted General Plan 2030 and is
        zoned RH (Residential High Density). The RH zone district permits public and quasi-public
        uses with approval of a Special Use Permit. The zoning is consistent with the General Plan
        2030, and no General Plan amendments are needed for the proposed project. Thus, the
        project would be consistent with the General Plan, and thus, meets the provisions of CEQA
        section 21083.3(b) with regards to project consistency with the City’s recently adopted
        General Plan.

        Specific future development of the project site was not noted in the General Plan 2030 EIR,
        and there were no site-specific impacts identified for the project site. However, as part of the
        overall estimated buildout, the EIR considered construction of new housing and non-
        residential uses in the city with an estimated buildout of 3,350 new residential units and
        approximately 3,150,000 square feet of new commercial, office and industrial uses (SOURCE
        V.1c, page 3-13). Future potential development at the project site (without the currently
        proposed project) based on the RH designation is estimated at approximately 95 residential
        units, consistent with the City’s adopted Housing Element for 2007 to 2014. Additionally, the
        project size of approximately 33,650 square feet would be within the overall amount of
        commercial square footage (1,090,000 square feet) evaluated at a program level in the
        General Plan EIR. The General Plan EIR also estimated office and industrial square footage



Sports Arena
Environmental Review                              -8-                                       August 2012
        buildout, but commercial square footage would appear to be the most similar to the
        proposed quasi-public use. As discussed in the following “Environmental Checklist Review”
        section, the proposed project’s impacts would be less than either a high density residential
        or commercial use at the site. For example, a 95-unit residential project on the project site
        would result in an estimated water demand of 2.4 million gallons per year (MGY) compared
        to the estimated project demand of 1.1 MGY. Similarly, a commercial use with the same
        size as the proposed project would generate a water demand of approximately 2.2 MGY.

        The General Plan 2030 EIR is on file at the City’s Planning and Community Development
        Department, 809 Center Street, Room 107, Santa Cruz, California from 8:00 AM to 12:00
        PM and 1 to 5 PM, Monday through Thursday and Friday mornings from 8:00 Am to 12:00
        PM. The documents are also available for review on the City of Santa Cruz Planning
        Department’s website at: http://www.cityofsantacruz.com/index.aspx?page=348.

        C. Environmental Checklist Review

        The purpose of the checklist presented on the following pages is to evaluate the impact
        categories to determine whether an impact has been adequately analyzed in the City’s
        recently adopted General Plan 2030 or whether any impacts peculiar to the project or
        project site would result. Where an impact was analyzed, the review provides a cross-
        reference to the pages in the General Plan EIR where information and analysis may be
        found relative to the environmental issue listed under each topic. The checklist identifies
        whether the project involves new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts
        than analyzed in the General Plan EIR or new significant impacts not peculiar to the site or
        project. As indicated above, an impact would not be considered “peculiar” to the site or
        project if uniformly applied development policies or standards will substantially mitigate an
        environmental effect. Therefore, the following review includes mitigation measures identified
        in the General Plan EIR that would be applicable to the site and/or relevant applicable
        development policies or standards that will be applied to the project.

        D. Conclusion

        Based on the following review, it has been determined that the City’s General Plan 2030
        EIR has adequately addressed the following issues, and no further environmental review is
        required pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3: agricultural and forest
        resources; greenhouse gas emissions; population and housing; public services; utilities; and
        cumulative impacts.

        The following site-specific impacts have been analyzed and determined to be less-than-
        significant in accordance with uniform General Plan policies and zoning regulations and
        standards that are to be applied to specific projects within the City: air quality; biological
        resources; cultural resources; geology and soils; hazards and hazardous materials; and
        hydrology/water quality. Thus pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3, no
        further environmental analysis is required.

        The following site-specific issues reviewed in this document were within the scope of issues
        and impacts analyzed in the General Plan 2030 EIR, and no new significant impacts have
        been identified: aesthetics; land use; noise, and transportation/traffic.




Sports Arena
Environmental Review                             -9-                                      August 2012
                                                              Does Project                  Relevant General
1. AESTHETICS.                             Where Impact is
                                                              Involve New      Any New
                                                                               Impacts
                                                                                             Plan Mitigation
                                                               Significant                    Measures or
                                            Addressed in                      Peculiar to
                                                               Impacts or                   Other Uniformly
                                            General Plan                      Project or
                                                              Substantially                    Applicable
                                              2030 EIR                          Site?
Would the project:                                            More Severe                     Development
                                                                Impacts?                       Standards

a)    Have a substantial adverse effect    DEIR, pg 4.3-2
      on a scenic vista? (V.1c-Figure      to 4.37; 4.3-13
                                           to 4.3-15              No             No               None
      4.3-1)
                                           FEIR, pg 3-2
b)    Substantially damage scenic
      resources, including but not
      limited to trees, rock               DEIR, pg 4.3-
                                                                  No             No               None
      outcroppings, and historic           14 to 4.3-17
      buildings within a state scenic
      highway?
c)    Substantially degrade the existing   DEIR, pg 4.3-7
      visual character or quality of the   to 4.3-8; 4.3-15                                 Design Permit &
                                           to 4.3-19              No             No         Review Required
      site and its surroundings?
                                           FEIR pg 3-2
d)    Create a new source of                                                                Standard Condition
                                                                                               of Approval &
      substantial light or glare which     DEIR, pg 4.3-                                    BSOL Plan Design
      would adversely affect day or                               No             No            Guidelines to
                                           19 to 4.3-20
      nighttime views in the area?                                                            prevent offsite
                                                                                                  lighting



     (a) Scenic Views. The project site is located along lower Front Street. According to maps
     developed for the City’s General Plan 2030 and included in the General Plan EIR, the project site
     is not within a mapped panoramic view. Urban views, including those of the project site, are
     identified along the San Lorenzo levee (SOURCE V.1c-Figure 4.3-1). The prominent views along the
     river levee are those of the river corridor, adjacent riparian vegetation and distant mountains to the
     north. To the south, views of buildings on Beach Hill are available at some locations. In locations
     where views of the downtown area are available, the views are dominated by structural
     development with landscaping.

     The project site is currently paved and used as a parking lot. The project site is not highly visible
     from distant vantage points, but is most visible in areas adjacent to the property. The site is
     partially visible from the San Lorenzo River levee along the segment closest to the site in which
     views from the levee are predominantly oriented toward the river channel and adjacent vegetation.
     Views away from the river consist of existing commercial development of varying age, size, and
     architectural style. Older apartment buildings adjacent to the project site are visible, as are some
     motel buildings on the Beach Hill bluff above the project site. Views of the developed portions of
     the City are available throughout the City and are not considered scenic.

     The General Plan 2030 EIR concluded that most of the future development accommodated by the
     General Plan would not be in areas that are part of a public scenic view. The EIR discussed


Sports Arena
Environmental Review                                  -10-                                          August 2012
    several limited areas in which potential disruption to scenic views could occur with future
    development, but the project site is not located within these areas. None of the General Plan
    policies and actions directed toward protection of scenic views is applicable to the project as no
    scenic views are present or would be affected by the proposed project. Neither the proposed
    project nor any other development on the site would have an adverse effect on a scenic view as
    none have been identified that include the site.

    (b) Scenic Resources. The project site is paved and used as a parking lot. It does not contain
    features that would be considered scenic resources, such as significant or prominent tree cover,
    historic buildings or visual landmarks. One non-native heritage tree (mock orange-pittosporum
    undulatum) will be removed, but it is not visually prominent or distinctive and does not represent a
    significant or prominent visual element of the surrounding area, which is characterized by existing
    commercial development with some landscaping.

    The General Plan 2030 EIR concludes that with implementation of General Plan policies and
    actions, future infill development accommodated by the Plan would not result in significant impacts
    to scenic resources. Some of these actions call for preservation of natural features and open
    space that visually define areas, as well as protection of significant vegetation and heritage trees.
    None of the General Plan policies and actions directed toward preservation of scenic resources is
    applicable to the project site as none are present on the site. The proposed project would not
    affect adjacent natural features of the San Lorenzo River. Neither the proposed project nor any
    other development on the site would have an adverse effect on scenic resources as none are
    present on the project site.

    (c) Effects on Visual Character of Surrounding Area. The project site is located along lower Front
    Street. The area is characterized by a mix of commercial uses with one- and two- story apartment
    buildings located immediately south of the project site. Buildings along Front Street are a mix of
    architectural styles, sizes and heights. The older building to the west of the project site and Front
    Street is approximately 16 feet in height. Taller buildings are located further north of the project
    site and Laurel Street in the downtown area.

    The visual character of the surrounding area is defined by existing development, as well as views
    along San Lorenzo River. The visual character along Front Street south of Laurel Street consists of
    a mix of developed commercial uses with upper portions of existing buildings on Beach Hill being
    visible from some vantage points. Vegetative cover and some trees are present on and adjacent to
    the Beach Hill cliff to the south of the project site. One large cypress tree to the southeast of the
    project site (at the top of the stairway to Beach Hill) frames the view of Beach Hill from some
    nearby vantage points. The views along northbound Front Street also are characterized by
    commercial development, as well as the vegetated Beach Hill bluff and distant mountain views.

    The project site sits at the base of Beach Hill, which is approximately 44-48 feet higher than the
    ground level of the project site. Two motels exist on the blufftop overlooking the project site, and
    residential uses are the predominant land use on Beach Hill southwest of the site along Third
    Street, including some large, older Victorian homes.

    The proposed project would result in construction of a 30,000 square foot arena with tent-like roof
    feature with a maximum height of slightly less than 53 feet at the tallest point. The roofline would
    taper at the edges to a 29-foot height. The building will occupy nearly the entire site with a floor



Sports Arena
Environmental Review                             -11-                                        August 2012
    area ratio of 0.67. A photosimulation of the proposed arena as viewed from Laurel Street Bridge is
    shown on Figure 3.

    The proposed arena height exceeds the height limits for the RH district in which the site is located.
    The RH zone permits a height up to 48 feet, and thus, the proposed project would be nearly five
    feet taller than permitted heights, but for only a portion of the roofline. The project permit
    applications include a Planned Development (PD) permit request, and the PD regulations allow a
    variation in height not to exceed one story or twenty percent of height limit (in feet) established in
    the district in which the project is proposed. The approximate five-foot exceedance at the top of the
    roof would be within this limit, and the edges of the roof would taper to a height of 29 feet, which is
    well within the district’s height limit. The height of the accessory structures are 12 feet, which is
    less than the 15-foot height limit established in the RH zone for accessory structures.

    The RH zoning district regulations discuss the need to maintain views to Beach Hill by creating
    view corridors through new structures. Section 24.10.585(3c) of the Municipal Code (design
    regulations for the RH zone district) requires that views to Beach Hill be maintained by creating
    view corridors through new structures. Pursuant to this section, portions of the building(s) shall not
    occupy more than 60 percent of the top 10 feet of the height limit, as viewed from the center of the
    Soquel Bridge. The minimum 40 percent open view to Beach Hill shall be reasonably distributed
    over the length of the building. The proposed arena structure would result in a tapered roofline for
    which approximately 65 percent of the roofline would be within the top 10 feet of the RH height
    limit. Therefore, the building will exceed Section 24.10.585(3c) requirements by five percent, and
    the building will partially block views of existing hotels and modern structures on Beach Hill as
    seen from the Soquel Street Bridge However, the tapered nature of the building reduces the
    aesthetic impact on Beach Hill compared with the design of a normal flat building. With approval of
    variations allowed for through the PD process, the project would be consistent with height
    regulations,

    The proposed structure provides an open view toward Beach Hill from the Soquel Bridge in that the
    highest point of the roof runs parallel to Front Street, so a large portion of Beach Hill view east of
    the building will remain visible. Any blockage of view toward Beach Hill by this project will be
    temporary for five to seven years and then the building will be removed and site returned to current
    use. Thus, the project would not substantially degrade the visual character of the area as viewed
    from the Soquel Creek Bridge. Additionally, existing vegetation would partially screen the arena
    structure, and views of the larger Victorian houses on Beach Hill to the southeast of the project
    site would remain intact. The building needs to be built as designed to accommodate the proposed
     use, so creating view corridors through the structure is not possible.

    In summary, the proposed arena’s maximum height of approximately 53 feet would result in a
    height that slightly extends over the top of the Beach Hill cliff at the roof’s highest point. The
    structure would be most visible in the immediate vicinity of the project, including properties to the
    south and some properties on Beach Hill. The upper portion of the structure and roofline would be
    visible from locations further from the site, such as points along the Soquel Street Bridge and
    possibly elsewhere in the City. The building also would appear slightly more massive than other
    structures in the immediate neighborhood. However, the structure would not substantially degrade
    the visual character of the area due to the existing mix of structural types and sizes in the area.
    The tallest point of the proposed arena structure is only five feet taller than the permitted height
    limit and for only a portion of the roofline, and the massing and scale of the project would be



Sports Arena
Environmental Review                             -12-                                          August 2012
    similar to other larger buildings in the area, including the building on the southwest corner of Front
    Street and Pacific, as well as larger buildings in the Downtown area.

    The General Plan 2030 EIR concluded that most of the future development accommodated by the
    General Plan would not substantially degrade the visual character of surrounding areas with
    implementation of General Plan policies and actions to develop design guidelines and review infill
    development to protect “distinctive design characteristics and landmarks of neighborhoods (CD2.1,
    CD2.3). Given the existing General Plan and zoning designations for the site, a high density project
    with a height of 48 feet could be developed on the site. Neither the proposed project nor any other
    zoning-consistent development on the site would substantially degrade the visual character of the
    surrounding area due to the character and size of the surrounding existing and planned
    developments.

    The project site has been identified for reuse and intensification in the City’s Housing Element. The
    project site also is located within the Beach and South of Laurel Comprehensive Area Plan (B/SOL
    Plan) area. The Plan was adopted by the City Council the City Council in October 1998. The
    project site was identified as an opportunity site for future development, and Design Guidelines
    were also adopted in which “large scale” commercial development is encouraged south of Laurel
    Street “to optimize use of opportunity sites” in the area south of Laurel Street. Although the
    proposed structure is planned as a temporary structure, its size and use would be consistent with
    this guideline.

    Furthermore, the proposed project, as well as other potential developments on the site, will
    undergo review of design details as part of the Design Permit review process. The purpose of the
    design permit is to promote the public health, safety and general welfare through the review of
    architectural and site development proposals and through application of recognized principles of
    design, planning and aesthetics and qualities typifying the Santa Cruz community. A design permit
    is required for multiple dwellings with more than three dwelling units, new commercial or industrial
    structures, and public projects in the coastal zone. Thus, a design permit would be required for a
    high-density residential or other project that may be proposed on the project site, and this would be
    considered an application of a uniformly applied development standard, which would not be
    peculiar to the project.

    (d) Light and Glare. The project site is located in a developed commercial area of the City just
    south of Laurel Street and the downtown area. There are existing approximately 15-foot tall light
    poles on the edge of the parking lot on the project site, as well as 28-foot tall street lights along
    Front Street.

    The proposed project will have facility and security lighting, but a specific lighting plan has not yet
    been developed. It is not likely that the project would result in the introduction of a major new
    source of light and glare, but the exterior lights, depending on height, number and location, could
    result in increased lighting to the adjacent residents on the south, properties on Beach Hill and
    wildlife habitat in the San Lorenzo River corridor, resulting in a potentially significant impact if such
    lights were not properly shielded and oriented. Standard conditions of approval applied in the
    public hearing process and from the B/SOL Plan includes Design Guidelines that were adopted by
    the City Council in October 2010 will address lighting to ensure that exterior lighting will not create
    increased light or glare on adjacent properties. Lighting in accordance with these guidelines will
    not create significant visual impacts on the surrounding neighborhood, because these standards



Sports Arena
Environmental Review                              -13-                                           August 2012
     specifically require lighting to be shielded, directed downward and oriented and selected so as not
     create offsite glare. Specifically, the Guidelines state that:
            Building illumination and architectural lighting shall be indirect and concealed from view.
             Decorative building and landscape lighting shall be subtle.
            All exterior lighting shall be selective and shielded to confine light within the site and
             prevent glare onto adjacent properties or streets.

     The General Plan 2030 EIR concluded that infill and intensified development within the City that
     would be accommodated by the General Plan would have standard window and exterior lighting
     treatments, but would not be expected to result in new sources of light and glare. Neither the
     proposed project nor any other development on the site would have an adverse effect on the visual
     quality of the surrounding area due to introduction of lighting on buildings and at the site, because
     application of standard conditions of approval and conformance with the uniformly applied Design
     Guidelines that are part of the adopted B/SOL Plan would insure that facility and site lighting does
     not result in intrusive levels of offsite illumination or glare.



2. AGRICULTURE & FOREST                                       Does Project                       Relevant General
   RESOURCES.                               Where Impact is
                                                              Involve New
                                                               Significant
                                                                                  Any New         Plan Mitigation
                                                                                                   Measures or
                                             Addressed in                     Impacts Peculiar
                                                               Impacts or       to Project or    Other Uniformly
                                             General Plan
                                                              Substantially         Site?           Applicable
                                               2030 EIR
                                                              More Severe                          Development
                                                                Impacts?                            Standards

 In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies
may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the
California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and
farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry
and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment
Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement Methodology provided in
Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.
Would the project:

a)   Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
     Farmland, or Farmland of
     Statewide Importance (Farmland),
     as shown on the maps prepared         DEIR, pg 4.15-
     pursuant to the Farmland Mapping      3; 4.15-6 to            No               No                None
     and Monitoring Program of the         4.15-8
     California Resources Agency, to
     non-agricultural use? (V.1c-Figure
     4.15-1)
b)   Conflict with existing zoning for     DEIR, pg 4.15-
                                                                   No               No                None
     agricultural use, or a Williamson     3; 4.15-6 to
     Act contract?                         4.15-8




Sports Arena
Environmental Review                                -14-                                            August 2012
2. AGRICULTURE & FOREST                                        Does Project                       Relevant General
   RESOURCES.                                Where Impact is
                                                               Involve New
                                                                Significant
                                                                                   Any New         Plan Mitigation
                                                                                                    Measures or
                                              Addressed in                     Impacts Peculiar
                                                                Impacts or       to Project or    Other Uniformly
                                              General Plan
                                                               Substantially         Site?           Applicable
                                                2030 EIR
                                                               More Severe                          Development
                                                                 Impacts?                            Standards

c)   Conflict with existing zoning for, or
     cause rezoning of, forest land (as
     defined in Public Resources Code
     section 12220(g)), timberland (as       DEIR, pg 4.15-
     defined by Public Resources Code        3; 4.15-5 to          No                No                None
     section 4526), or timberland zoned      4.15-6
     Timberland Production (as defined
     by Government Code section
     51104(g))?
d)   Result in the loss of forest land or    DEIR, pg 4.15-
                                                                   No                No                None
     conversion of forest land to non-       3; 4.15-5 to
     forest use?                             4.15-6

e)   Involve other changes in the
      existing environment which, due to
      their location or nature, could        DEIR, pg 4.15-
                                             3; 4.15-5 to          No                No                None
      result in conversion of Farmland to
                                             4.15-8
      non-agricultural use or conversion
      of forest land to non-forest use?


     The project site is located within the developed urban area of the City of Santa Cruz. The project
     site does not contain prime or other agricultural lands as mapped on the State Farmland Mapping
     and Monitoring Program, (SOURCE V.1c-Figure 4.3-1). The site is not designated for agricultural uses
     in the City’s General Plan, and is not located adjacent to agricultural lands. The project site is not
     zoned Timberland Preserve. The three onsite ornamental trees are not considered timberland.

     The General Plan 2030 EIR concluded that impacts to agricultural and forest resource would not
     occur or would be less-than-significant as a result of future development accommodated by the
     General Plan. Neither the proposed project nor any other development on the site would result in
     conversion of agricultural or forest lands or lead to conversion of agricultural or forest lands as
     these resources are not present on, adjacent to or in proximity to the project site.




Sports Arena
Environmental Review                                 -15-                                            August 2012
3. AIR QUALITY.                                               Does Project                       Relevant General
                                                              Involve New        Any New          Plan Mitigation
                                             Where Impact
                                                               Significant        Impacts          Measures or
                                            is Addressed in
                                                               Impacts or       Peculiar to      Other Uniformly
                                              General Plan
                                                              Substantially   Project or Site?      Applicable
                                                2030 EIR
                                                              More Severe                          Development
Would the project:                                              Impacts?                            Standards

a)    Conflict with or obstruct             DEIR pg 4.11-
      implementation of the applicable      11 to 4.11-12;
                                                                                                 GP EIR Mitigation
      air quality plan?                     4.11-15 to            No                No                4.11-1
                                            4.11-18
                                            FEIR pg 3-24
b)    Violate any air quality standard or   DEIR pg 4.11-                                           GP Policies &
      contribute to an existing or          6-7; 4.11-9 to                                         Actions HZ 2.2,
      projected air quality violation?      4.11-10; 4.11-                                        HZ2.2.1, HZ2.2.2,
                                            18 to 4.11-24;        No                No           LU1.2, LU1.2.1 that
                                            FEIR pg 3-24                                         require project level
                                                                                                       reviews
                                            to 3-26
c)    Result in a cumulatively
      considerable net increase of any
      criteria pollutant for which the                                                              GP Policies &
      project region is non-attainment      DEIR pg 4.11-                                          Actions HZ 2.2,
                                            6-7; 4.11-9 to                                        HZ2.2.1, HZ2.2.2,
      under an applicable federal or        4.11-10; 4.11-
                                                                  No                No           LU1.2, LU1.2.1 that
      state ambient air quality standard    18 to4.11-24                                         require project level
      (including releasing emissions                                                                   reviews
      which exceed quantitative
      thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d)    Expose sensitive receptors to         DEIR pg 4.11-
      substantial pollutant                 7 to 4.11-8;
      concentrations?                       4.11-10 to
                                                                  No                No                  None
                                            4.11-11; 4.11-
                                            18; 4.11-24
                                            to4.11-26
e)    Create objectionable odors
                                            DEIR pg 4.11-
      affecting a substantial number of     26 to4.11-27
                                                                  No                No                  None
      people?


     (a) Conflict with Air Quality Management Plan. The proposed project is a quasi-public facility that
     will not result in new population growth, and thus would not conflict with or obstruct implementation
     of the adopted Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the region. The General Plan 2030 EIR
     concluded that indirect population and housing increases accommodated by the General Plan
     could exceed forecasts included in the AQMP in the next 10-20 years. Mitigation 4.11-1 calls for
     City coordination with regional population forecast updates to ensure that the City’s population
     growth is accounted for in regional plans. Potential future housing development on the project site
     would be included in this analysis. However, the proposed project would not result in new
     residential development or population growth.

     (b-c) Project Emissions. Federal and state ambient air quality standards (AAQS) address six
     criteria pollutants, including ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, fine
     particulate matter (both PM10 and PM2.5, which refer to particles less than 10 microns and 2.5



Sports Arena
Environmental Review                                -16-                                               August 2012
    microns, respectively), and lead. The state standards, which are generally more stringent than the
    federal standards, apply to the same pollutants as the federal standards do, but also include
    sulfate, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride.

    The North Central Coast Air Basin (NCCAB), in which the project site is located, is under the
    jurisdiction of the Monterey Bay Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD) and includes Santa Cruz,
    Monterey and San Benito Counties. The NCCAB is currently in attainment for the federal PM10
    (particulate less than 10 microns in diameter), ozone, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and carbon
    monoxide standards and is unclassified or attainment for the federal PM25 and lead standards. The
    basin is designated non-attainment for the state ozone and PM10 standards, and is in attainment
    for all other state standards, except for carbon monoxide for which it is unclassified (SOURCE V.3a).

    The General Plan 2030 EIR concluded that future development accommodated by the Plan could
    result in air emissions, but overall future emissions of ozone precursor pollutants are projected to
    decrease or remain nearly unchanged over the next 20 years, and thus, project-level emissions
    would not contribute to existing or potential future violations of air quality standards. Furthermore,
    General Plan Actions LU21.2.1 and HZ2.2.1 ( as modified by the General Plan EIR), require future
    project-level review and implementation of mitigation measures if warranted, consistent with the
    adopted standards in the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District’s CEQA Guidelines.
    The General Plan EIR concluded that with implementation of the General Plan policies and actions
    and compliance with MBUAPCD requirements and air quality control measures, contributions to air
    emissions would be less-than-significant.

    The proposed project consists of construction of a sports arena, totaling approximately 33,650
    square feet. There would be vehicular traffic increases associated with the proposed project. The
    project does not include operations that would result in stationary emissions. According to the
    MBUAPCD’s CEQA Guidelines (February 2008), the proposed project square footage is below the
    District’s screening level for potential significant ozone impacts for most types of commercial uses,
    except for high use facilities such as drive-through restaurants and convenience markets
    (SOURCE V.3b). Nonetheless, the URBEMIS-2007 (Version 9.2.4) emissions model was used to
    calculate estimated daily vehicle emissions, based on the estimated project daily trip generation of
    approximately 2,200 trips (see subsection 16a below). The results, as summarized on the
    following page, indicate emissions levels are far below the MBUAPCD’s significance criteria. The
    results are shown for winter emissions which are slightly higher than or comparable to summer
    emissions. The proposed Warriors D-League games will be held in winter months.

    Demolition, excavation and construction could result in generation of dust and PM10 emissions.
    According to MBUAPCD’s “CEQA Air Quality Guidelines” (as updated in June 2008), 8.1 acres
    could be graded per day with minimal earthmoving or 2.2 acres per day with grading and
    excavation without exceeding the MBUAPCD’s PM10 threshold of 82 lbs/day. The project site area
    is approximately 1.15 acres, which would be below the 8.1 acre grading threshold or the 2.2 acre
    excavation/grading threshold. Furthermore, the URBEMIS-2007 emissions model calculated PM10
    construction emissions as approximately 5.1 pounds per day without mitigation, which is far below
    the District’s 82 pounds per day significance threshold. Thus, potential PM10 emissions during the
    limited two to four-month construction period would be less-than-significant.

    Thus, the project-level emissions review required by the General Plan 2030 and as considered in
    the General Plan EIR are less than significant compared to the MBUAPCD’s adopted CEQA



Sports Arena
Environmental Review                             -17-                                         August 2012
    significance thresholds, and the project would not violate current air quality standards or expose
    sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. It is also noted that the project would
    result in a slightly lower level of emissions than construction and operation of a high-density
    residential development (i.e., 95 dwelling units) that could also be considered on the site under
    existing General Plan and zoning designations. The URBEMIS model found that a such a use,
    while being below MBUAPCD significance thresholds, would result in slightly higher emissions
    than the project for ozone precursor ROG (25.97 pounds per day) and PM10 (19.39 pounds per
    day). The currently proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or more significant
    air quality impacts than were analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Nor would the project result in air
    emissions impacts peculiar to the site or project.

                                          Sports Arena Project
        Pollultant                        Daily total (lbs per day)            MBUAPCD Threshold [1]
            ROG                            12.33 pounds per day                      137 pounds per day 2
            Nox                             18.16 pounds per day                     137 pounds per day
            CO                             132.36 pounds per day                     550 pounds per day
            So2                             0.09 pounds per day                      150 pounds per day
            PM10                           17.39pounds per day                        82 pounds per day
             [1] Per MBUAPD’s CEQA Guidelines (SOURCE V.3b) 

    (d) Sensitive Receptors. The project site is located within a developed area of the City of Santa
    Cruz and is surrounded by primarily commercial uses, with apartment buildings located adjacent to
    the site on the south. The proposed project would not result in stationary emissions, and will not
    expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

    The General Plan 2030 EIR concluded that future development accommodated by the Plan could
    result in indirect exposure of existing or new sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations, which
    would not be considered substantial or result in a significant impact. The General Plan EIR
    discusses construction-related impacts in which diesel particulate matter could be emitted from
    construction equipment. Diesel particulate mater was identified as a toxic air contaminant (TAC) by
    the State of California in 1998. The impact was not found to be significant due to the California Air
    Resources Board ongoing adoption of regulations for in-use, off-road diesel vehicles that will
    significantly reduce particulate matter emissions by requiring fleet owners to accelerate turnover to
    cleaner engines and install exhaust retrofits. Additionally, emissions during construction are of a
    short-term duration in comparison to life-long exposure and health risks. Construction-related
    diesel emissions at the project site would be of limited duration (i.e., primarily during grading) and
    temporary. It is expected that the arena and supporting structures will be constructed within four
    months. Thus, the project would not expose sensitive receptors to potential exposure of sensitive
    receptors to diesel emissions and associated risks are considered a less-than-significant impact.




        2
           MBUAPCD does not have a threshold for ROG, which are reactive organic gases – classes of organic compounds
that react rapidly in the atmosphere to form photochemical smog or ozone. The MBUAPD has a significance threshold of 137
pounds per day of for VOC – volatile organic compounds, which are considered to be the primary compounds or precursors
contributing to the formation of ozone (SOURCE V.3b). The URBEMIS program outputs are for ROG. There is a minor
difference between the two, but the terms are mostly interchangeable.


Sports Arena
Environmental Review                                    -18-                                               August 2012
 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.                                          Does Project                     Relevant General
                                                                   Involve New        Any New        Plan Mitigation
                                                Where Impact is                       Impacts
                                                                    Significant                       Measures or
                                                 Addressed in                        Peculiar to
                                                                    Impacts or                      Other Uniformly
                                                 General Plan                        Project or
                                                                   Substantially                       Applicable
                                                   2030 EIR                            Site?
                                                                   More Severe                        Development
 Would the project:                                                  Impacts?                          Standards

 a)    Have a substantial adverse effect,
                                                DEIR pg4.8-13
       either directly or through habitat
                                                to 14; 4.8-16 to                                       GP Action
       modifications, on any species            4.8-21; 4.8-41;                                       NRC2.2.1 &
       identified as a candidate, sensitive,    4.8-43 to 4.8-                                          Project
       or special-status species in local or    44; 4.8-48 to          No               No            Assessment
       regional plans, policies, or                                                                   Protocols for
                                                4.8-51                                               Special Status
       regulations, or by the California        FEIR pg 3-22,                                           Species
       Department of Fish and Game or           3-25 to 3-40
       U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
 b)    Have a substantial adverse effect        DEIR pg 4.8-14
       on any riparian habitat or other         to 4.8-15; 4.8-
                                                24; 4.8-26 to                                          GP Action
       sensitive natural community                                                                    NRC2.2.1 &
                                                4.8-30; 4.8-22;
       identified in local or regional plans,   4.8-41 ; pg 4.8-                                        Project
                                                                       No               No
       policies, regulations or by the          38 to 4.8.40;                                         Assessment
       California Department of Fish and                                                              Protocols for
                                                4.8-48 to 4.8-                                      Sensitive Habitat
       Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife           51
       Service?                                 FEIR pg 3-22

 c)    Have a substantial adverse effect
       on federally protected wetlands as                                                              GP Action
       defined by Section 404 of the            DEIR pg 4.8-                                          NRC2.2.1 &
                                                15; 4.8-41; 4.8-                                         Project
       Clean Water Act (including, but not      38 to 4.8-39;          No               No            Assessment
       limited to, marsh, vernal pool,          4.8-48 to 4.8-                                        Protocols for
       coastal, etc.) through direct            51                                                  Sensitive Wetland
       removal, filling, hydrological                                                                    Habitat
       interruption, or other means?
 d)    Interfere substantially with the
       movement of any native resident or       DEIR pg 4.8-22
       migratory fish or wildlife species or    to 4.8-23 to
       with established native resident or      4.8-25; 4.8-41;        No               No               None
       migratory wildlife corridors, or         pg 4.8-44 to
       impede the use of native wildlife        4.8.45
       nursery sites?
 e)    Conflict with any local policies or
                                                DEIR pg 4.8-
       ordinances protecting biological         41; pg 4.8-45 to       No               No               None
       resources, such as a tree                4.8.47
       preservation policy or ordinance?
 f)    Conflict with the provisions of an       DEIR pg 4.5-11
       adopted Habitat Conservation             to 4.5-12; 4.8-
       Plan, Natural Community                  25 to 4.8-26;          Not
                                                                                   Not Applicable        None
       Conservation Plan, or other              4.8-37              Applicable
       approved local, regional, or state       FEIR pg 3-23
       habitat conservation plan?



Sports Arena
Environmental Review                                   -19-                                              August 2012
    The project site is currently developed and used as a parking lot. According to maps developed for
    the City’s General Plan 2030 and included in the General Plan EIR, the project site is not within a
    mapped sensitive habitat area (SOURCE V.1c-Figure 4.8-3). The San Lorenzo River is located to the
    east of the project site and Laurel Street Extension, however, the site is not located within the
    riparian setback or management area as designed in the City’s City-wide Creeks and Wetlands
    Management Plan. The outer edge of the mapped management area follows Laurel Street
    Extension roadway, but does not include the project site.

    The General Plan Action NRC2.2.1 indicates that evaluation and mitigation of potential impacts to
    sensitive habitat (including special-status species) will be conducted as part of the CEQA review
    process for development projects for sites located within or adjacent to these areas. The General
    Plan also includes assessment protocols for sensitive habitats and special status species.
    However, development of the project site, including the currently proposed project, will have no
    effects on biological resources, except for potential indirect impacts to the San Lorenzo River’s
    riparian and aquatic habitats related to facility lighting. Exterior lighting if not properly designed
    could illuminate offsite areas, including river habitat. Lighting is addressed in section 1(d) above,
    and with implementation of standard conditions of approval and design guidelines adopted as part
    of the Beach/South of Laurel Plan, the impact would be less than significant. Thus, neither the
    proposed project nor other potential future development would result in impacts to sensitive
    habitats, special status species or wildlife corridors.

    (e) Consistency with Local Ordinances - Tree Removal. There is one heritage tree on the project
    site – a 19-inch pittosporum undulatum, Mock Orange. This species is a shrub that has developed
    over time into a heritage size tree under City regulations. According to a review by the City
    Forester, the tree’s leaf canopy appears healthy but the tree trunk is structurally compromised, and
    there is evidence of trunk decay and bark inclusion present, all of which are predisposing the tree
    structurally to large diameter stem failure. The tree also has termites and decay in areas of
    previous pruning which over time will additionally compromise the health and stability of the tree.

    Chapter 9.56 of the City Municipal Code defines heritage trees, establishes permit requirements for
    the removal of a heritage tree, and sets forth mitigation requirements as adopted by resolution by
    the City Council. Resolution NS-23,710 adopted by the City Council in April 1998 establishes the
    criteria for permitting removal of a heritage tree and indicates that one or more of the following
    findings must be made by the Director of Parks and Recreation:
                1) The heritage tree or heritage shrub has, or is likely to have, an adverse effect upon
                    the structural integrity of a building, utility, or public or private right of way;
                2) The physical condition or health of the tree or shrub, such as disease or infestation,
                    warrants alteration or removal; or
                3) A construction project design cannot be altered to accommodate existing heritage
                    trees or heritage shrubs.

    Resolution NS-21, 436 sets forth the tree replacement / mitigation requirements for approved
    removal of a heritage tree to include replanting three 15-gallon or one 24-inch size specimen or the
    current retail value which shall be determined by the Director of Parks and Recreation. Removal
    will be permitted if found in accordance with the above criteria and requirements. Approval of a tree
    removal permit automatically requires replacement trees as set forth above.


Sports Arena
Environmental Review                             -20-                                         August 2012
     The proposed project includes removal of one heritage tree in order to develop a new driveway to
     the adjacent apartment building. The removal of one heritage tree could be considered under
     criteria 2) above due to the tree’s poor condition. In addition to the tree health concerns including
     trunk defects, the site plan cannot be reasonably altered to accommodate this tree. The tree is
     recommended for removal by the Urban Forester for the above reasons in accordance with
     issuance of the coastal permit. The site plan does not show any replacement tree planting or
     landscaping. Three 15-gallon trees or one 24-inch tree would be required under City regulations.
     Removal of a heritage tree that is consistent with the criteria, provisions and requirements set forth
     in City ordinances is not considered a significant impact. One 24-inch tree will be planted offsite in
     accordance with City requirements at a location to be determined by the Parks and Recreation
     Department.

     The currently proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or more significant
     impacts than were analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Nor would the project result in impacts
     peculiar to the site or project. With implementation of uniformly applied development standards
     (heritage tree regulations in this case), the proposed project would not conflict with local
     regulations regarding tree protection or result in a significant impact.

     (f) Habitat Conservation Plans. There are no adopted Habitat Conservation or Natural Community
     Conservation Plans in the project vicinity or within the City.



5. CULTURAL RESOURCES.                                        Does Project                       Relevant General
                                                              Involve New        Any New          Plan Mitigation
                                             Where Impact
                                                               Significant        Impacts          Measures or
                                            is Addressed in
                                                               Impacts or       Peculiar to      Other Uniformly
                                              General Plan
                                                              Substantially   Project or Site?      Applicable
                                                2030 EIR
                                                              More Severe                          Development
Would the project:                                              Impacts?                            Standards

a)    Cause a substantial adverse           DEIR pg 4.9-
      change in the significance of a       12 to4.9-14;
      historical resource as defined in     4.9-15; 4.9-21;       No                No                 None
      Section 15064.5?                      4.9-23 to 4.9-
                                            24
b)    Cause a substantial adverse           DEIR pg 4.9-                                          GP EIR Mitigation
      change in the significance of an      10 to 4.9-12;         No                No           4.9-1 and Municipal
      archaeological resource pursuant      4.9-19 to 4.9-                                          Code section
      to Section 15064.5?                   23                                                        24.12.430
                                            DEIR pg 4.9-
c)    Directly or indirectly destroy a      14 to 4.9-16;                                        GP EIR Mitigation
      unique paleontological resource or                          No                No
                                            4.9-21; 4.9-24                                            4.9-2
      site or unique geologic feature?      to 4.9-25
d)    Disturb any human remains,            DEIR pg 4.9-                                          GP EIR Mitigation
      including those interred outside of   10 to 4.9-12;                                        4.9-1 and Municipal
                                                                  No                No
      formal cemeteries?                    4.9-19 to 4.9-                                          Code section
                                            23                                                        24.12.430




Sports Arena
Environmental Review                                -21-                                              August 2012
    (a) Historical Resources. According to maps developed for the City’s General Plan 2030 and
    included in the General Plan EIR, the project site is not within a designated historic district (as
    identified in the City’s General Plan or Historic Building Survey) (SOURCE V.1c-Figure 4.9-4). The site
    is paved and used as a parking lot; there are no structures present on the site. Thus, neither the
    proposed project nor any future development on the site would result in impacts to historical
    resources.

    (b, d) Archaeological Resources. According to maps developed for the City’s General Plan 2030
    and included in the General Plan EIR, the project site is within a mapped “highly sensitive”
    archaeological area and “sensitive” historical archaeological area (SOURCE V.1c-Figures 4.9-1 and
    4.9-3). The project site is located in proximity (on or near the edge) to a recorded archaeological
    site (CA-SCR-12) that is located to the south of the project site on Beach Hill. Formally recorded in
    1950, this site is reported as a large prehistoric Native American occupation site of unknown
    antiquity that reportedly contains human remains (SOURCE V.7). The project site has been paved
    since at least 1955, and previous archaeological investigations at the site indicated that it is not
    possible to ascertain whether the nearby recorded site extends into the subsurface of the project
    site (Ibid.).

    A 1995 archaeological reconnaissance of the site recommended auger testing to determine
    presence or absence of subsurface cultural resources (SOURCE V.7). A 1996 archaeological
    reconnaissance indicated that the project site lies on the river bench below the bluff on which the
    recorded site is located (SOURCE V.4).

    The proposed project construction will result in removal of the existing onsite pavement and
    excavation for building foundations. The 1996 archaeological reconnaissance investigation
    concluded that there is slight potential for significant prehistoric archaeological resources on the
    project site as the northern boundary for the recorded site is on the bluff overlooking the project
    site (SOURCE V.4). However, there are known burials at the adjacent recorded site, and though the
    project site is located outside of the recorded site boundaries, soils at the project site are not visible
    and there is some possibility that burials or other cultural resources may be present at the site. It
    was recommended that an archaeological monitor be present during removal of the asphalt and
    excavation activities at the site (Ibid.).

    The General Plan 2030 EIR concluded that future development accommodated by the Plan could
    result in potential impacts to buried archaeological resources. However General Plan EIR
    Mitigation Measure 4.9-1 includes a new General Plan Action (HZ1.2.2) that sets forth the process
    for preparation of archaeological investigations and project-level significance determinations and
    mitigations, of which onsite archaeological monitoring is one potential element of this process.
    Archaeological investigations conducted for the project site have recommended that an
    archaeological monitor be present on site during grading and excavation, which is consistent with
    the General Plan mitigation measure and policies and actions.

    Furthermore, section 24.12.430 of the City’s Municipal Code sets forth the procedure to follow in
    the event that prehistoric or cultural features are discovered during the monitoring or accidentally
    discovered during construction. Under provisions of this Code section, work shall be halted within
    50 meters (150 feet) of the find until it can be evaluated by a qualified professional archaeologist. If
    the find is determined to be significant, the Planning Director shall be immediately notified, and
    appropriate mitigation measures shall be formulated and implemented. Additionally, the County



Sports Arena
Environmental Review                               -22-                                           August 2012
    Coroner and shall be notified in accordance with provisions of Public Resources Code 5097.98-99
    in the event human remains are found and the Native American Heritage Commission shall be
    notified in accordance with the provisions of Public Resources Code section 5097 if the remains
    are determined to be Native American.

    The proposed project would not result in significant archaeological resource impacts not otherwise
    addressed in the General Plan EIR. Nor would the project result in archaeological impacts
    peculiar to the site or project with implementation of General Plan Mitigation 4.9-1 and uniformly
    applied development standards set forth in the City’s Municipal Code (section 24.12.430). Both the
    requirements for an onsite archaeological monitor and compliance with city regulations will be
    included as Conditions of Approval.

    (c) Paleontological Resources. According to maps developed for the City’s General Plan 2030 and
    included in the General Plan EIR, the project site is within an area mapped as Holocene Alluvium
    geologic formation (SOURCE V.1c-Figures 4.9-5). Although this formation is generally considered too
    young to contain paleontological resources, it is considered moderately sensitive for
    paleontological resources because it is underlain by sedimentary geologic units that have a high
    paleontological sensitivity (SOURCE V.1c). The General Plan EIR mitigation 4.9-2 adds General Plan
    Action HA1.2.3 which requires the City to notify applicants within paleontologically sensitive areas of
    the potential for encountering such resources during construction and condition approvals that work
    will be halted and resources examined in the event of encountering paleontological resources during
    construction. If the find is significant, the City would require treatment of the find in accordance with
    the recommendations of the evaluating paleontologist. Treatment may include, but is not limited to,
    specimen recovery and curation or thorough documentation Thus, with implementation of the
    General Plan EIR mitigation measure, the proposed project would not result in significant
    paleontological resource impacts not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR.


  6. GEOLOGY & SOILS.                                         Does Project                  Relevant General
                                                              Involve New      Any New       Plan Mitigation
                                              Where Impact                     Impacts
                                                               Significant                  Measures or Other
                                              is Addressed                    Peculiar to
                                                               Impacts or                       Uniformly
                                                in General                    Project or
                                                              Substantially                    Applicable
                                              Plan 2030 EIR                     Site?
                                                              More Severe                     Development
  Would the project:                                            Impacts?                       Standards

  a)   Expose people or structures to
       potential substantial adverse
       effects, including the risk of loss,
       injury, or death involving:
        i. Rupture of a known
           earthquake fault, as               DEIR pg
           delineated on the most recent      4.10-7 to
           Alquist-Priolo Earthquake                              No             No              None
                                              4.10-9; 4.10-
           Fault Zoning Map issued by         20
           the State Geologist for the
           area or based on other
           substantial evidence of a
           known fault? Refer to Division
           of Mines and Geology Special
           Publication 42. (V.Ic)



Sports Arena
Environmental Review                                 -23-                                          August 2012
  6. GEOLOGY & SOILS.                                           Does Project                  Relevant General
                                                                Involve New      Any New       Plan Mitigation
                                               Where Impact                      Impacts
                                                                 Significant                  Measures or Other
                                               is Addressed                     Peculiar to
                                                                 Impacts or                       Uniformly
                                                 in General                     Project or
                                                                Substantially                    Applicable
                                               Plan 2030 EIR                      Site?
                                                                More Severe                     Development
  Would the project:                                              Impacts?                       Standards

        ii. Strong seismic ground              DEIR pg
                                                                                              California Building
            shaking?                           4.10-6 to            No             No          Code Seismic
                                               4.10-14; 4.10-
                                                                                               Design Criteria
                                               21 to 4.10-23
        iii. Seismic-related ground failure,                                                   California Building
             including liquefaction?                                                               Code, City
                                                                                                 Municipal Code
                                                                                              section 24.14.070 &
                                               DEIR pg
                                                                                                   GP Action
                                               4.10-12 to           No             No             HZ5.3.6.1 for
                                               4.10-13; 4.10-
                                                                                                requirements for
                                               21 to 4.10-23
                                                                                                  geotechnical
                                                                                                    reports &
                                                                                               implementation of
                                                                                               recommendations
        iv. Landslides? (V.Ic-Figure 4.10-     DEIR pg
            3)                                 4.10-13 to           No             No               None
                                               4.10-14; 4.10-
                                               22 to 4.10-24
  b)   Result in substantial soil erosion                                                     City Municipal Code
                                               DEIR pg                                         section 24.16.060
       or the loss of topsoil?                 4.10-17 to                                     and Chapter 18.45
                                                                    No             No          regarding grading
                                               4.10-18; 4.10-
                                               25 to 4.10-26                                  and erosion control
                                                                                                     plans

  c)   Be located on a geologic unit or
       soil that is unstable, or that would    DEIR pg
       become unstable as a result of          4.10-5 to4.10-
       the project, and potentially result     6; 4.10-15 to        No             No               None
       in on- or off-site landslide, lateral   4/10-16; 4.10-
       spreading, subsidence,                  24 to 4.10-25
       liquefaction or collapse?
  d)   Be located on expansive soil, as                                                        California Building
       defined in Table 18-1-B of the                                                              Code, City
       Uniform Building Code (1994),                                                             Municipal Code
       creating substantial risks to life or                                                  section 24.14.070 &
       property? (V.10)                        DER pg 4.10-                                        GP Action
                                               16 to 4.10-17;       No             No         HZ5.3.6.1 regarding
                                               4.10-19                                          requirements for
                                                                                                  geotechnical
                                                                                                    reports &
                                                                                               implementation of
                                                                                               recommendations




Sports Arena
Environmental Review                                  -24-                                            August 2012
  6. GEOLOGY & SOILS.                                       Does Project                  Relevant General
                                                            Involve New      Any New       Plan Mitigation
                                            Where Impact                     Impacts
                                                             Significant                  Measures or Other
                                            is Addressed                    Peculiar to
                                                             Impacts or                       Uniformly
                                              in General                    Project or
                                                            Substantially                    Applicable
                                            Plan 2030 EIR                     Site?
                                                            More Severe                     Development
  Would the project:                                          Impacts?                       Standards
  e)   Have soils incapable of
       adequately supporting the use of
       septic tanks or alternative waste        Not             Not            Not
                                                                                            Not Applicable
       water disposal systems where          Applicable      Applicable     Applicable
       sewers are not available for the
       disposal of waste water?


    (a-i) Fault Rupture. The project site is located in a seismically active region of California and the
    region is considered to be subject to very intense shaking during a seismic event. The City of
    Santa Cruz is situated between two major active faults: the San Andreas, approximately 11.5 miles
    to the northeast and the San Gregorio, approximately nine miles to the southwest. There are no
    active fault zones or risk of fault rupture within the City (SOURCE V.1c). The site is not located within
    a currently designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, fault rupture through the site,
    therefore, is not anticipated (SOURCE V.9).

    (a-ii-iv,c) Seismic and Geologic Hazards. According to maps developed as part of the City’s
    recently adopted General Plan 2030 and included in the General Plan EIR, the project site is
    located in an area identified as being subject to liquefaction hazards (SOURCE V.1c-Figure 4.10-4).
    One exploratory boring encountered a pavement section consisting of 2½ inches of asphalt
    concrete underlain by five inches of aggregate base underlain by five feet of stiff to very stiff clay.
    Below the depth of five feet, the boring generally encountered loose to very dense poorly graded
    sand, very dense silty sand, and dense to very dense silty gravel to a depth of approximately 50
    feet, the maximum depth explored. Free ground water was encountered during subsurface
    exploration in our boring at a depth of approximately five feet. Depth to ground water reported in
    the 1995 geotechnical report varied from 4½ to 6½ feet below grade (SOURCE V.9).

    The San Lorenzo River is located approximately 30 feet northeast of the site. Loose to medium
    dense clayey sand, silty sand, and poorly graded sand layers were encountered at depths ranging
    from approximately 2 to 50 feet below the ground surface. These soil layers have a high potential
    for liquefaction. If liquefaction were to occur, the potential for lateral spreading would be moderate
    to high in localized areas (SOURCE V.9).

    Based on the subsurface data encountered in the geotechnical investigation, there is a high
    potential for liquefaction during a major earthquake at the site to depths 50 feet. Liquefaction could
    result in 10 to 13 inches of settlement with differential settlements of approximately 1-inch across a
    horizontal distance of 50 feet. There is also a high potential for ground rupture to occur as there is
    not an adequate cap of non-liquefiable material overlying the liquefiable layers at the site. In
    addition, there is also high potential for liquefaction-induced lateral spreading to occur due to the
    close proximity of the San Lorenzo River. These phenomena could result in up to several feet of
    vertical and lateral movement of the ground surface (SOURCE V.9). Lateral spreading typically occurs
    as a form of horizontal displacement of relatively flat-lying alluvial material toward an open or “free”




Sports Arena
Environmental Review                               -25-                                          August 2012
    face such as an open body of water, channel or excavation. In soils, this movement is generally
    due to failure along a weak plane and may often be associated with liquefaction.

    The geotechnical investigation identified two methods to reduce the potential for ground rupture
    below the foundations of the proposed structure. The measures include cement-treating the upper
    three to four feet of the onsite soils and ground improvement consisting of, and rammed aggregate
    piers (RAP) or stone columns to depths on the order of 20 to 25 feet. With both mitigation
    measures, the structures can be supported on shallow footing foundations overlying the improved
    soils. The cement treatment option will provide a cap of soils, which will reduce the potential for
    ground rupture, but will likely not totally eliminate it. This treatment will not mitigate the potential for
    liquefaction-induced settlements below the treated zone, which still could be on the order of 10
    inches, nor will it reduce the potential for liquefaction-induced lateral spreading or ground rupture
    outside of the treated area. The potential will still exist for differential settlement and possibly
    significant tilting of the structure depending on the magnitude and duration of earthquake shaking.
    Deeper ground improvement should mitigate the potential for ground rupture in the treated area,
    and significantly reduce the potential for lateral spreading. Ground rupture outside of the treated
    area would still have the potential for inducing some differential settlement of the treated area.
    Liquefaction-induced settlements would be reduced to approximately 6 inches below the treated
    areas. Detailed recommendations are presented in the geotechnical report.

    The geotechnical report indicates that because the structure will be in use for approximately five
    years, the level of liquefaction mitigation as needed to maintain the structural integrity and prevent
    collapse and loss of life during an earthquake will be performed and some risk of settlement,
    ground rupture and lateral spreading at the site are considered acceptable (SOURCE V.9). The
    recommendations for liquefaction (and other site and structural design recommendation) from the
    geotechnical report will need to be incorporated into the structural design of the building for review
    and approval of the enforcing agency (i.e. Building Division, Public Works Department, etc.).

    Shallow ground water was encountered at depths of approximately 3 to 5½ feet below the existing
    ground surface. Depending on the time of the construction, it is possible that groundwater will
    impact the construction of the proposed arena structure. These impacts typically consist of
    potentially wet and unstable subgrade and the need for dewatering during construction (SOURCE
    V.9).

    In summary, the project site is located in an area of high seismic activity and will be subject to
    strong seismic shaking during an earthquake. The primary hazards at the project site are strong
    seismic shaking, liquefaction, lateral spreading and high groundwater. Thus, exposure to seismic
    hazards is a potentially significant impact. From a geotechnical engineering viewpoint, the
    proposed arena and modular buildings may be constructed as planned, provided the design and
    construction are performed in accordance with the recommendations presented in this report
    (SOURCE V.9). With implementation of recommendations of the geotechnical report and requirements
    of the California Building Code, the impact of exposure to seismic hazards would be less-than-
    significant. The geotechnical investigation provides seismic design recommendations for building
    foundations.

    Implementation of recommendations in the project geotechnical report (TRC, July 3, 2012) as
    required by the California Building Code and City regulations and policies will ensure that potential
    exposure to seismic, liquefaction and geotechnical hazards will be mitigated. The General Plan



Sports Arena
Environmental Review                                -26-                                           August 2012
    2030 EIR concluded that future development accommodated by the Plan could be exposed to
    seismic, liquefaction and geotechnical hazards, but could be mitigated with implementation of
    General Plan policies and compliance with state and local regulations, including the California
    Building Code requirements and Section 24.14.070 of the City’s Municipal Code, which would
    ensure that buildings are designed and constructed to minimize damages and reduce exposure of
    people of structures to significant seismic or geological risks. Thus, with implementation of
    uniformly applied development standards and regulations, the proposed project would not result in
    significant impacts not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR or peculiar to the project or
    site.

    (b) Erosion. The project site is not located within an area that is mapped as having high to very
    high erosion potential (SOURCE V.1c).The onsite project soils are classified as having a slight erosion
    hazard. Project development will include excavation and grading for placement of a shallow
    foundation site. The project site is relatively flat, is located within a developed urban area, and will
    be completely paved in concrete and/or asphalt. The site is located west of the San Lorenzo River,
    but is separated from the river by Laurel Street Extension and the river levees. The potential for
    offsite erosion is considered less-than-significant, although there is a potential for inadvertent
    transport of soils and sediment into the municipal storm drain system that may affect water quality
    and is reviewed below in subsection 9(f). Furthermore, the project will be subject to uniformly
    applied grading and erosion control standards and requirements set forth in the City’s Municipal
    Code Chapter 18.45 and Section 24.14.070.

    (e) Use of Septic Systems. The project will be connected to City sanitary sewers and will not use
    septic systems.


       7. GREENHOUSE GAS                                                                      Relevant
                                                              Does Project                  General Plan
          EMISSIONS.                                          Involve New      Any New       Mitigation
                                            Where Impact is                    Impacts
                                                               Significant                  Measures or
                                             Addressed in                     Peculiar to
                                                               Impacts or                      Other
                                             General Plan                     Project or
                                                              Substantially                  Uniformly
                                               2030 EIR                         Site?
                                                              More Severe                    Applicable
                                                                Impacts?                    Development
       Would the project:                                                                    Standards

       a)   Generate greenhouse gas         DEIR pg 4.12-
            emissions, either directly or   13 to 4.12-17;
            indirectly, that may have a       4.12-21 to
            significant impact on the          4.12-28            No             No            None
            environment?                    FEIR pg 3-26
                                                to 3-27


       b)   Conflict with an applicable
                                            DEIR pg 4.12-
            plan, policy or regulation
                                             18 to 4.12-20;
            adopted for the purpose of                            No             No            None
                                            4.12-29 to4.12-
            reducing the emissions of
                                                   31
            greenhouse gases?


    (a) Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Climate change refers to any significant change in measures of
    climate, such as average temperature, precipitation, or wind patterns over a period of time. Climate


Sports Arena
Environmental Review                               -27-                                            August 2012
    change may result from natural factors, natural processes, and human activities that change the
    composition of the atmosphere and alter the surface and features of the land. Significant changes
    in global climate patterns have recently been associated with global warming, an average increase
    in the temperature of the atmosphere near the Earth’s surface, attributed to accumulation of
    greenhouse house gas (GHG) emissions in the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases trap heat in the
    atmosphere, which in turn heats the surface of the Earth. Some GHGs occur naturally and are
    emitted to the atmosphere through natural processes, while others are created and emitted solely
    through human activities (SOURCE V.1c). Climate change models predict changes in temperature,
    precipitation patterns, water availability, and rising sea levels, and these altered conditions can
    have impacts on natural and human systems in California (SOURCE V.9c). Changes in temperature,
    precipitation, and sea levels can affect California’s public health, habitats, ocean and coastal
    resources, water supplies, agriculture, forestry, and energy use (Ibid.), as well as result in
    increased droughts and flooding.

    The most common GHG that results from human activity is carbon dioxide, followed by methane
    and nitrous oxide (SOURCE V.1c). The primary contributors to GHG emissions in California (as of
    2008) are transportation (about 37%), electric power production (24%), industry (20%), agriculture
    and forestry (6%), and other sources, including commercial and residential uses (13%).
    Approximately 81% of California’s emissions are carbon dioxide produced from fossil fuel
    combustion (Ibid.).

    The State of California passed the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32), which seeks to
    reduce GHG emissions generated by California. The Governor’s Executive Order S-3-05 and AB
    32 (Health & Safety Code, § 38501 et seq.) both seek to achieve 1990 emissions levels by the
    year 2020. Executive Order S-3-05 further requires that California’s GHG emissions be 80 percent
    below 1990 levels by the year 2050. AB 32 defines GHGs to include carbon dioxide, methane,
    nitrous oxide, hydrocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride.

    The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is the lead agency for implementing AB32.In
    accordance with provisions of AB 32, CARB has completed a statewide Greenhouse Gas (GHG)
    Inventory that provides estimates of the amount of GHGs emitted to, and removed from, the
    atmosphere by human activities within California. Based on review of this inventory, in December
    2007 CARB approved a 2020 emissions limit of 427 CO2 equivalent million metric tons (MMT
    CO2e)3, which is equivalent to the 1990 emissions level. In accordance with requirements of AB32,
    a Scoping Plan was released in October 2008 and adopted by CARB in December 2008, which
    includes elements for reducing the state’s greenhouse emissions to 1990 levels. The Scoping Plan
    identifies 18 emissions reduction measures that address cap-and-trade programs, vehicle gas
    standards, energy efficiency, low carbon fuel standards, renewable energy, regional transportation-
    related greenhouse gas targets, vehicle efficiency measures, goods movement, solar roofs
    program, industrial emissions, high speed rail, green building strategy, recycling, sustainable
    forests, water and air (SOURCE V.1c).

    The City’s recently adopted General Plan 2030 includes goals, policies and actions on climate
    change; including reducing community-wide greenhouse gas emissions 30 percent by 2020,


        The CO2 equivalent emissions are commonly expressed as "million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
         3

(MMTCO2E)". The carbon dioxide equivalent for a gas is derived by multiplying the tons of the gas by the associated Global
Warming Potential (GWP).


Sports Arena
Environmental Review                                     -28-                                               August 2012
      reducing 80 percent by 2050 (compared to 1990 levels), and for all new buildings to be emissions
      neutral by 2030. The City also has developed a draft Climate Action Plan that is expected to be
      adopted by the City in the Fall of 2012.

      The General Plan 2030 EIR estimated greenhouse emissions that could result from potential
      development and buildout accommodated by the plan that included 3,350 residential dwelling units
      with an associated population increase of 8,040 resident and approximately 3,140,000 additional
      square feet of new commercial, office and industrial uses by the year 2030 with an estimated 8,665
      new jobs. As indicated in section IV.B above, the City’s General Plan 2030 EIR considered
      construction of approximately 1,090,000 square feet of commercial uses throughout the City to the
      year 2030 (SOURCE V.1c). Thus, the project size of approximately 33,650 square feet would be within
      the overall amount of commercial square footage previously evaluated at a program level in the
      General Plan EIR. The General Plan EIR also estimated office and industrial square footage
      buildout, but commercial square footage would appear to be the most similar to the proposed
      quasi-public use. Additionally, construction of a residential project on the site would have been
      accounted for in the estimated 3,350 residential units projected throughout the city as part of the
      General Plan buildout.

      The General Plan EIR analysis determined that the emissions levels associated with potential
      buildout that would be accommodated by the General Plan would not be considered substantial
      compared to long-term forecasts and state and regional targets, and would actually be less than
      forecast statewide per capita emission rates. Implementation of the proposed General Plan 2030
      policies and actions, as well as planned implementation of statewide actions, would further reduce
      emissions. Therefore, the impact was considered less than significant. Since the potential
      emissions from the proposed sports arena would fall within the total level of emissions analyzed in
      the General Plan EIR, no further analysis is required.

      (b) Conflict with Applicable Plans. The project would not conflict with state plans adopted for the
      purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The City of Santa Cruz has completed a draft
      Climate Action Plan to address citywide greenhouse emissions and reduction strategies, but the
      plan has not yet been adopted. The General Plan 2030 EIR found no impacts related to conflicts
      with applicable plans related to greenhouse gas emissions and reduction strategies.



 8. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS                                                                           Relevant
                                                                 Does Project                   General Plan
    MATERIALS.                                                   Involve New                      Mitigation
                                                                  Significant     Any New       Measures or
                                              Where Impact is     Impacts or      Impacts      Other Uniformly
                                               Addressed in      Substantially   Peculiar to     Applicable
 Would the project:                          General Plan 2030   More Severe     Project or     Development
                                                   EIR             Impacts?        Site?         Standards
 a)     Create a significant hazard to the
        public or the environment
        through the routine transport,       DEIR 4.14-9 to           No             No             None
        use, or disposal of hazardous        4.14-10
        materials?
  b) Create a significant hazard to the      DEIR pg 4.14-5 to        No             No             None
     public or the environment               4.14-7; 4.14-9 to




Sports Arena
Environmental Review                                 -29-                                          August 2012
 8. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS                                                                             Relevant
                                                                  Does Project                    General Plan
    MATERIALS.                                                    Involve New                       Mitigation
                                                                   Significant      Any New       Measures or
                                               Where Impact is     Impacts or       Impacts      Other Uniformly
                                                Addressed in      Substantially    Peculiar to     Applicable
 Would the project:                           General Plan 2030   More Severe      Project or     Development
                                                    EIR             Impacts?         Site?         Standards
       through reasonably foreseeable         4.14-11
       upset and accident conditions
       involving the release of
       hazardous materials into the
       environment?
 c)    Emit hazardous emissions or            DEIR pg 4.14-5 to
       handle hazardous or acutely            4.14-7; 4.14-12
       hazardous materials,
                                                                       No              No             None
       substances, or waste within ¼
       miles of an existing or proposed
       school?
 d)    Be located on a site which is
       included on a list of hazardous
       materials sites compiled               DEIR pg 4.14-5 to
       pursuant to Government Code            4.14-7
                                                                       No              No             None
       Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
       would it create a significant
       hazard to the public or the
       environment?
 e)    For a project located within an
       airport land use plan or, where
       such a plan has not been
       adopted, within two miles of a
                                                                                      Not
       public airport or public use            Not Applicable     Not Applicable
                                                                                   Applicable
                                                                                                 Not Applicable
       airport, would the project result in
       a safety hazard for people
       residing or working in the project
       area?
 f)    For a project within the vicinity of
       a private airstrip, would the
                                                                                      Not
       project result in a safety hazard       Not Applicable     Not Applicable
                                                                                   Applicable
                                                                                                 Not Applicable
       for people residing or working in
       the project area?
 g)    Impair implementation of or            DEIR pg 4.6-2 to
       physically interfere with an           4.6-5; 4.6-33 to
       adopted emergency response             4.6-37                   No              No             None
       plan or emergency evacuation
       plan?
 h)    Expose people or structures to a
                                              DEIR pg 4.6-3 to
       significant risk of loss, injury or
                                              4.6-4; 4.6-34 to
       death involving wildland fires,        4.6-355
                                                                       No              No             None
       including where wildlands are
       adjacent to urbanized areas or



Sports Arena
Environmental Review                                    -30-                                         August 2012
 8. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS                                                                           Relevant
                                                                 Does Project                   General Plan
    MATERIALS.                                                   Involve New                      Mitigation
                                                                  Significant     Any New       Measures or
                                              Where Impact is     Impacts or      Impacts      Other Uniformly
                                               Addressed in      Substantially   Peculiar to     Applicable
 Would the project:                          General Plan 2030   More Severe     Project or     Development
                                                   EIR             Impacts?        Site?         Standards
       where residences are intermixed
       with wildlands? (V.Ic-Figure 4.6-1)




Sports Arena
Environmental Review                                 -31-                                          August 2012
    The proposed project does not involve the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or
    wastes and would not result in creation of a public health hazard. The project consists of a sports
    arena that is planned to be in use for five to seven years. As such, the proposed use will not result
    in creation of risks associated with hazardous material use, exposure to health hazards, creation of
    a health hazard, or interference with an emergency response plan. The project site is not located
    near a public airport or private airstrip.

    (g) Emergency Response. The site location and scale have no impact on emergency response or
    emergency evacuation.




  9. HYDROLOGY                                                   Does Project
                                                                 Involve New                 Relevant General Plan
                                                                                 Any New
     & WATER QUALITY.                         Where Impact is     Significant    Impacts     Mitigation Measures or
                                               Addressed in       Impacts or     Peculiar        Other Uniformly
                                             General Plan 2030   Substantiall   to Project         Applicable
                                                   EIR              y More       or Site?         Development
  Would the project:                                                Severe                         Standards
                                                                   Impacts?

  a)    Violate any water quality
                                            DEIR pg 4.6-22;
        standards or waste discharge                                 No            No                None
                                            4.7-8 to 4.7-12;
        requirements?

  b)    Substantially deplete
        groundwater supplies or
        interfere substantially with
        groundwater recharge such
        that there would be a net           DEIR pg 4.5-6 to                                  City Municipal Code
        deficit in aquifer volume or a      4.5-7; 4.5-39 to                                   section 24.16.060,
        lowering of the local ground        4.5-42; 4.7-24 to                                  Chapter 16.19 and
                                                                     No            No
        water table level (for example,     4.7-25                                           Chapter 18.45 regarding
        the production rate of pre-                                                           grading and erosion
        existing nearby wells would                                                               control plans
        drop to a level which would not
        support existing land uses or
        planned uses for which
        permits have been granted)?
  c)    Substantially alter the existing
        drainage pattern of the site or
        area, including through the         DEIR pg 4.7-5 to
        alteration of the course of a       4.7-8; 4.7-22 to
        stream or river, in a manner        4.7-24                   No            No                None
        which would result in
        substantial erosion or siltation
        on- or off-site?
  d)    Substantially alter the existing    DEIR pg 4.7-5 to
        drainage pattern of the site or     4.7-8; 4.7-22 to
        area, including through the         4.7-24                   No            No                None
        alteration of the course of a
        stream or river, or substantially



Sports Arena
Environmental Review                                  -32-                                               August 2012
  9. HYDROLOGY                                                      Does Project
                                                                    Involve New                 Relevant General Plan
                                                                                    Any New
     & WATER QUALITY.                            Where Impact is     Significant    Impacts     Mitigation Measures or
                                                  Addressed in       Impacts or     Peculiar        Other Uniformly
                                                General Plan 2030   Substantiall   to Project         Applicable
                                                      EIR              y More       or Site?         Development
  Would the project:                                                   Severe                         Standards
                                                                      Impacts?
          increase the rate or amount of
          surface runoff in a manner
          which would result in flooding
          on- or off-site?
  e)      Create or contribute runoff
          water which would exceed the                                                            General Plan 2030
          capacity of existing or planned      DEIR pg 4.7 -7 to                                  Action CC5.1.8 and
          storm water drainage systems         4.7-8; 4.7-22 to                                     Municipal Code
                                                                        No            No
                                                                                                  Chapters 16.19 and
          or provide substantial               4.7-24
                                                                                                    24.14 regarding
          additional sources of polluted
                                                                                                   drainage & BMPs
          runoff?

                                               DEIR pg 4.7-8 to                                   City Municipal Code
  f)      Otherwise substantially
                                               4.7-12; 4.7-24 to                                 Section 24.16.060 and
          degrade water quality?
                                               4.7-25                   No            No        Chapter 18.45 regarding
                                                                                                  grading and erosion
                                                                                                         control
  g)      Place housing within a 100-
          year flood-hazard area as            DEIR pg 4.7-12
          mapped on a federal Flood            to 4.7-14; 4.7-25
          Hazard Boundary or Flood             to 4.27-27               No            No                None
          Insurance Rate Map or other
          flood hazard delineation map?
  h)      Place within a 100-year flood-       DEIR pg 4.7-12
          hazard area structures which         to4.7-14; 4.7-25
          would impede or redirect flood       to 4.27-27               No            No                None
          flows? (V.Ic-Figure 4.7-1)

  i)      Expose people or structures to
          a significant risk of loss, injury
                                               DEIR pg 4.7-14
          or death involving flooding,
                                               to 4.7-15                No            No                None
          including flooding as a result
          of the failure of a levee or
          dam?
                                               DEIR pg 4.7-15;
  j)      Inundation by seiche, tsunami,
                                               4.7-25 to 4.7-26;        No            No                None
          or mudflow?
                                               4.10-14


       The project site is located within a developed area and would not affect groundwater supplies or
       violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.

       (c-e) Drainage. The project site is located within a developed urban area. The site is currently
       developed as a paved parking lot. Thus, most of the site is covered by impervious surfacing. The


Sports Arena
Environmental Review                                     -33-                                               August 2012
    General Plan 2030 EIR concluded that potential impacts related to increased stormwater drainage
    would be a less-than-significant impact with implementation of General Plan policies and actions
    to require new development to maintain pre-development runoff levels (CC5.1.8). The proposed
    project will not result in a substantial increase in impervious surfacing or runoff as the site is
    currently paved, and pre-development runoff levels will be maintained accordance with General
    Plan and City requirements. The project will not alter existing drainage patterns. The proposed
    project would not result in significant drainage impacts not otherwise addressed in the General
    Plan EIR. Nor would the project result in drainage impacts peculiar to the site or project with
    implementation of uniformly applied development standards. Drainage improvements will be
    required to be designed in accordance with City standards and Public Works requirements.

    (f) Water Quality. Within urbanized areas such as the City, pollutants frequently associated with
    storm water include sediment, nutrients, oil and grease, heavy metals, and litter. The primary
    sources of storm water pollution in urban areas include automobiles, parking lots, landscape
    maintenance, construction, illegal connections to the storm water system, accidental spills and
    illegal dumping.

    Urban runoff and other “non-point source” discharges are regulated by the 1972 Federal Clean
    Water Act (CWA), through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
    program that has been implemented in two phases through the California Regional Water Quality
    Control Boards (RWQCB). Phase I regulations, effective since 1990, require NPDES permits for
    storm water discharges for certain specific industrial facilities and construction activities, and for
    municipalities with a population size greater than 100,000. Phase II regula-tions expand the
    NPDES program to include all municipalities with urbanized areas and munici-palities with a
    population size greater than 10,000 and a population density greater than 1,000 persons per
    square mile. Phase II regulations also expand the NPDES program to include construction sites of
    one to five acres (SOURCE V.1c).

    The City of Santa Cruz (City) has developed a Storm Water Management Program (SWMP) in
    order to fulfill the requirements of the Phase II NPDES General Permit for Discharges of Storm
    Water from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) (General Permit) and to reduce
    the amount of pollutants discharged in urban runoff. In compliance with the Phase II regulations,
    the City’s comprehensive SWMP is designed to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the Maximum
    Extent Practicable (MEP) and to protect water quality (SOURCE V.1c).

    In 1998, the City of Santa Cruz adopted an ordinance for “Storm Water and Urban Runoff Pollution
    Control” (Chapter 16.19 of the city’s Municipal Code), as part of its Storm Water Management
    Program in accordance with the RWQCB’s requirements. The ordinance identifies prohibited
    discharges and required Best Management Practices (BMPs) for construction and new
    development.

    Construction activity on projects that disturb one or more acres of soil must obtain coverage under
    the State’s General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity
    (Construction General Permit, 99-08-DWQ). Construction activity subject to this permit includes
    clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground such as stockpiling or excavation. The
    Construction General Permit requires the development and implementation of a Storm Water
    Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP must list best management practices (BMPs)
    that the discharger will use to protect storm water runoff and the placement of those BMPs. The



Sports Arena
Environmental Review                             -34-                                         August 2012
     City determined that the project site would not disturb more than one acre, and thus, would not be
     subject to preparing a SWPPP. The City’s regulatory requirements and BMPs, as detailed in the
     “Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual” published by the City’s Public Works
     Department must be implemented.

     Project runoff would not result in significant water quality degradation as the existing parking lot will
     be eliminated, and the project will not include onsite parking, which would limit urban pollutants
     from vehicles from entering storm drainage facilities. Thus, no impacts to water quality are
     anticipated as a result of project stormwater runoff. Project excavation, however, could result in
     potential off-site transport of sediments into the municipal storm drain system. The General Plan
     2030 EIR concluded that with implementation of General Plan policies and adherence to City
     regulations to protect water quality, impacts from future development on water quality would be
     less-than-significant. The application of uniformly applied standards and regulations contained in
     the City’s Municipal Code regarding grading and erosion (section 24.16.060 and Chapters 16.19
     and 18.45) will be required and will mitigate potential erosion impacts during excavation and
     construction, including preparation and implementation of an erosion control plan.

     (g-j) Flood Hazards. The project site is located within the 100-year floodplain of the San Lorenzo
     River according to maps in the City’s General Plan. Flood control-levee improvements along the
     San Lorenzo River that was completed in 2000 as part of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ “San
     Lorenzo River Flood Control and Environmental Restoration Project”, changed the flood zone
     designation for the area to an A—99 zone. Under this zone designation, new buildings and
     improvements are no longer mandated to meet FEMA flood elevation construction requirements,
     but may be followed depending on the wishes of the property owner. The proposed residential
     units are not located on the ground floor, and thus, would be elevated above the 100-year
     floodplain.

     According to maps prepared for the General Plan 2030 and included in the General Plan EIR, the
     site is located within a potential tsunami inundation area, as are most of the downtown and beach
     areas of Santa Cruz (SOURCE V.1c-Figure 4.7-2). The proposed project would not lessen or worsen the
     potential for tsunami damage, although it could slightly increase the number of people potentially
     exposed to a tsunami hazards. However, because dangerous tsunamis typically have originated at
     such a great distance, it is possible to issue fairly long-range warnings of their approach and
     evacuate people if necessary. Thus, the City’s efforts to continue to periodically update its
     emergency evacuation procedures for tsunami hazard areas would respond to this concern.



10. LAND USE.                                                Does Project
                                                                                           Relevant General Plan
                                                             Involve New      Any New
                                          Where Impact is                     Impacts      Mitigation Measures or
                                                              Significant
                                           Addressed in                      Peculiar to       Other Uniformly
                                                              Impacts or
                                         General Plan 2030                   Project or          Applicable
                                                             Substantially
                                               EIR                             Site?            Development
                                                             More Severe
Would the project:                                                                               Standards
                                                               Impacts?

a)    Physically divide an              DEIR pg 4.1-21 to
                                                                 No             No                 None
      established community?            4.1-22

b)    Conflict with any applicable                               No                                None
                                        DEIR pg 4.1-9                           No
      land use plan, policy, or


Sports Arena
Environmental Review                                -35-                                            August 2012
10. LAND USE.                                                    Does Project
                                                                                               Relevant General Plan
                                                                 Involve New      Any New
                                             Where Impact is                      Impacts      Mitigation Measures or
                                                                  Significant
                                              Addressed in                       Peculiar to       Other Uniformly
                                                                  Impacts or
                                            General Plan 2030                    Project or          Applicable
                                                                 Substantially
                                                  EIR                              Site?            Development
                                                                 More Severe
Would the project:                                                                                   Standards
                                                                   Impacts?
      regulation of an agency with         to4.1-14; 4.1-25 to
      jurisdiction over the project        4.1-27
      (including, but not limited to the
      general plan, specific plan,
      local coastal program, or
      zoning ordinance) adopted for
      the purpose of avoiding or
      mitigating an environmental
      effect?
c)    Conflict with any applicable         DEIR pg 4.5-11 to
      Habitat Conservation Plan or         4.5-12; 4.8-25 to         Not            Not
                                           4.8-26; 4.8-37                                              None
      Natural Community                                           Applicable     Applicable
      Conservation Plan?                   FEIR pg 3-23


     The project site is located within a developed area of the City, and construction of the proposed
     project will not physically divide an established community. There are no existing Habitat
     Conservation or Natural Community Conservation Plans within the City.

     (b-c) Consistency with Local Policies/ Plans. The project site is designated High Density Residential
     in the City’s recently adopted General Plan 2030, but the RH (Residential High Density) zone
     district permits “public and quasi-public uses including recreational, educational, religious, cultural,
     public utility or public service” with approval of a Special Use Permit. The zoning is consistent with
     the General Plan 2030, and no General Plan amendments are needed for the proposed project.
     Thus, the project would be consistent with the General Plan. A review of the recently adopted
     General Plan 2030 did not identify any policies or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding
     or mitigating an environmental impact with which the project would result in a conflict.

     The Housing Element, which is a required General Plan element pursuant to state law, is prepared as
     a separate volume to the City’s General Plan as it requires updates every seven years in accordance
     with State law. The City’s existing Housing Element, which covers the years 2007 to 2014, was
     adopted in 2010 with final adoption and approval by the State Housing and Community
     Development Department in 2011. The Housing Element identifies the project site as being
     available for affordable housing with potential provisions of 95 units. The project would create a
     temporary structure and use on the site for the next five to seven years. Although, the site would
     be unavailable for housing during this period, the City’s Planning Department staff has indicated
     that there are other potential housing sites in the immediate vicinity of subject site that could
     potentially provide the affordable housing that would not be available at the project site for at least
     the next five to seven years. The project site has been identified in other City plans and studies.
     The site is located within the Beach and South of Laurel Comprehensive Area Plan (B/SOL Area
     Plan) that was adopted by the City Council in October 1998. The purpose of the B/SOL Area Plan
     is to guide future development and redevelopment of visitor serving and residential neighborhood




Sports Arena
Environmental Review                                    -36-                                            August 2012
     uses in terms of land use, circulation, and design. The South of Laurel Area recommendations
     seek to create a diverse, urban density residential neighborhood that is pedestrian friendly.

     The project site also is identified in the “Beach Area” coastal policies that were amended by the
     California Coastal Commission in 2002 as part of an amendment to the City’s Local Coastal
     Program (LCP) to reflect the City’s adopted B/SOL Plan. Specifically Policy 2.12 calls for
     establishment of the South of Laurel area adjacent to the river as “a high-density mixed-use area
     that will provide new market rate housing.” According to the Coastal Commission staff report, this
     policy provided the basis for the proposed zoning and addition of the RH zone district. As indicated
     above, the RH zone allows public and quasi-public uses, and this zone district was approved by
     the Coastal Commission as part of the LCP.

     A “Design Guidelines & Development Incentives Study” was recently prepared for the River/Front &
     Lower Pacific area adjacent to the downtown area. The intent of the Study is to identify design
     guidelines and incentives that the City might implement to help encourage development activity
     along the River Street, Front Street, and Lower Pacific Avenue corridor. A series of
     recommendations and alternative strategies for redevelopment have been developed and will be
     considered by the City Planning Commission and City Council, although the study is not a plan that
     will be adopted by the Council. General guidelines for redevelopment of the area emphasize
     promotion of mixed-use, river-oriented development with housing and visitor uses in some areas
     and preservation of commercial uses in other areas. The project site has been discussed by the
     community as a key site for development (e.g., housing or a conference center), but efficient
     development of the site is constrained by its size and shape. Given its significance to the area, the
     Study suggests the City explore a range of actions it might take to support and provide incentives
     for desired redevelopment. This temporary use of the project site does not prohibit the future
     development as discussed in the Study.

     The San Lorenzo Urban River Plan, adopted by the City Council in 2003, serves as a guide for
     restoring and managing natural resources, riverfront development, and public access
     improvements for the lower San Lorenzo River, as well as Jessie Street Marsh and Branciforte
     Creek. This Plan provides recommendations for specific public improvements and establishes
     design guidelines for redevelopment opportunity areas surrounding the river. New development
     proposed along the lower San Lorenzo River is subject to the guidelines of that Plan. Adjacent
     properties would be reviewed for their conformance to the San Lorenzo Urban River Plan. The
     Plan does not include any specific guidelines or recommendations pertinent to the project site.




                                                                Does Project
11. MINERAL RESOURCES.                                          Involve New                   Relevant General Plan
                                                                 Significant     Any New      Mitigation Measures or
                                             Where Impact is     Impacts or      Impacts          Other Uniformly
                                              Addressed in      Substantially   Peculiar to         Applicable
Would the project:                          General Plan 2030   More Severe     Project or         Development
                                                  EIR             Impacts?        Site?             Standards
a)    Result in the loss of availability
      of a known mineral resource          DEIR pg 4.15-3 to        No             No                 None
      that would be of value to the        4.15-4; 4.15-6
      region and the residents of the



Sports Arena
Environmental Review                                   -37-                                            August 2012
                                                               Does Project
11. MINERAL RESOURCES.                                         Involve New                   Relevant General Plan
                                                                Significant     Any New      Mitigation Measures or
                                            Where Impact is     Impacts or      Impacts          Other Uniformly
                                             Addressed in      Substantially   Peculiar to         Applicable
Would the project:                         General Plan 2030   More Severe     Project or         Development
                                                 EIR             Impacts?        Site?             Standards
     state?
b)   Result in the loss of availability
     of a locally-important mineral
     resource recovery site               DEIR pg 4.15-3 to        No             No                 None
     delineated on a local general        4.15-4; 4.15-6
     plan, specific plan, or other
     land use plan?


     There are no mineral resources within the City.



12. NOISE.                                                     Does Project
                                                                                             Relevant General Plan
                                                               Involve New      Any New
                                            Where Impact is                     Impacts      Mitigation Measures or
                                                                Significant
                                             Addressed in                      Peculiar to       Other Uniformly
                                                                Impacts or
                                           General Plan 2030                   Project or          Applicable
                                                               Substantially
                                                 EIR                             Site?            Development
                                                               More Severe
Would the project:                                                                                 Standards
                                                                 Impacts?
a)   Exposure of persons to or
     generation of noise levels in                                                              GP Action HZ3.2.1
     excess of standards                  DEIR pg 4.13-4 to                                  regarding application of
     established in the local general     4.13-8; 4.13-10 to       No             No              land use-noise
     plan or noise ordinance or           4.13-18                                            compatibility standards
                                                                                               to new development
     applicable standards of other
     agencies?
b)   Exposure of persons to or
     generation of excessive ground
                                          DEIR pg 413-.10          No             No                 None
     borne vibration or ground
     borne noise levels?
c)   Substantial permanent
     increase in ambient noise            DEIR pg 4.13-7 to                                   GP Actions HZ3.1.1 &
     levels in the project vicinity       4.13-8; 4.13-17;         No             No                HZ3.1.2
     above levels existing without        4.13-18 to 4.13-20
     the project?
d)   A substantial temporary or
     periodic increase in ambient
                                          DEIR pg 4.13-17;                                    GP Actions HZ3.1.3 &
     noise levels in the project                                   No             No                HZ3.1.5
                                          4.13-20 to4.13-22
     vicinity above levels existing
     without the project?
e)   For a project located within an
     airport land use plan or, where
     such a plan has not been             Not Applicable           No             No                 None
     adopted, within two miles of a
     public airport or public use



Sports Arena
Environmental Review                                  -38-                                             August 2012
12. NOISE.                                                    Does Project
                                                                                            Relevant General Plan
                                                              Involve New      Any New
                                           Where Impact is                     Impacts      Mitigation Measures or
                                                               Significant
                                            Addressed in                      Peculiar to       Other Uniformly
                                                               Impacts or
                                          General Plan 2030                   Project or          Applicable
                                                              Substantially
                                                EIR                             Site?            Development
                                                              More Severe
Would the project:                                                                                Standards
                                                                Impacts?
     airport, would the project
     expose people residing or
     working in the project area to
     excessive noise levels?
f)   For a project within the vicinity
     of a private airstrip, would the
     project expose people residing      Not Applicable           No             No                 None
     or working in the project area
     to excessive noise levels?


     The project site is not located near an airport or private airstrip.

     (a-b) Exposure to Noise. The primary noise source within the project area is traffic noise along
     Front Street, which connects the Downtown and Beach areas. Noise contours along City streets
     were developed as part of the General Plan 2030 based on selected noise measurements that
     were taken. The closest point to the project site is along Front Street between Cathcart and Laurel
     Streets, just north of the project site. Noise levels were found to be about 65 decibels Ldn (24-hour
     day-night average) at a distance of about 50 feet from the center of the roadway (SOURCE V.1c).

     Updated noise measurements taken for the proposed project indicate that existing ambient noise
     levels at the project site are approximately 70 decibels Ldn (SOURCE V.8). (See discussion below
     under subsection 12c for further details of the noise measurement methodology.) The General
     Plan includes “land use-noise compatibility” standards based on recommendations of the State of
     California Office of Planning and Research. For arenas, normally acceptable exterior noise levels
     are 75 decibels. The General Plan 2030 EIR concluded that with implementation of General Plan
     policies and actions and project-level environmental review, exposure to noise would be a less-
     than-significant impact. General Plan Action HZ3.2.1 specifically calls for application of noise-land
     use compatibility standards for new development. The proposed project would be sited in a
     location that would be within compatible ambient noise levels, and the people attending the events
     at the proposed sports arena would not be exposed to ambient noise levels in excess of standards
     established in the General Plan.

     The use of the proposed facility would not result in generation of or exposure to vibration as neither
     the proposed use or other existing uses in the vicinity are known to be sources of vibration.

     (c) Noise Increases. A noise study prepared for the project included noise measurements that were
     taken at six locations to provide an accurate ambient noise setting at the project site and at
     sensitive receptor sites. Seven sensitive receptor sites were analyzed to represent receivers which
     will be most susceptible to the proposed arena noise. (Two sites adjacent to the project site were
     evaluated as one site.) All of the receptor sites are residential areas, except for one which was a
     motel on Beach Hill south of the project site. The measurements included a 24-hour measurement
     at three locations, including the apartment building site adjacent to the project site. Additionally,


Sports Arena
Environmental Review                                 -39-                                            August 2012
    noise measurements were taken at the other three receptor locations during the evening period (7
    to 10 PM) when a Warriors game would be held. Based on these measurements, ambient noise
    levels at and adjacent to the project site were found to be approximately 70 dBA for Ldn levels (24-
    hour day/night measurement), and were found to be between 66.5 and 70 dBA in Ldn at the other
    receptor sites (SOURCE V.8).

    The proposed project will result primarily in evening events that would result in generation of
    increased sound levels. This is particularly true for the proposed Warriors NBA D-League
    basketball games. These events would generate sounds from the basketball game, crowd noise
    and public address systems operations. The noise impacts associated with crowd noise and the
    public address system operations from the proposed arena were assessed based on
    measurements taken during a Golden State Warriors game in 2011 in which several types of
    measurements were taken (SOURCE V.8). The analysis also considered the design of the sound
    system, sidewall height, door placement, and arena building materials.

    The noise study calculated the resultant Ldn values with the proposed project at each receptor
    location. Given the relatively high existing ambient noise levels, the maximum ambient Ldn noise
    increase with the addition of the proposed Warriors sports events would be 1.6 dBA Ldn.
    According to the City’s General Plan 2030 EIR, a change in noise level of 3 dB is considered just a
    noticeable difference, while a 5 dB change is clearly noticeable, but not dramatic. A 10 dB change
    is perceived as a halving or doubling in loudness (SOURCE V.1c). Additionally, according to the
    General Plan EIR, a project would be considered to result in a substantial permanent increase in
    ambient noise levels in the project if it would expose outdoor activity areas of noise-sensitive land
    uses to a 5 dB increase where existing noise levels are below 60 dBA Ldn or a 3 dB increase in
    noise where existing noise levels are above 60 dBA Ldn. Thus, the increase in ambient Ldn noise
    levels of up to less than 2 dB attributable to the operations of the arena would not be considered
    substantial.

    Sound attenuation of the proposed arena will be provided by multiple elements, including the
    barrier effect created by the sidewalls and bleachers. The height of the bleachers is approximately
    16.7 feet, while the sidewalls around the perimeter of the structure will reach a maximum height of
    29 feet as currently designed and will be constructed of a solid steel front. Constructing an airtight
    high mass wall behind the speakers will further reduce the transmitted noise levels outside due to
    the sound having to travel over the barrier wall. A sidewall height of 28 feet was factored into the
    noise investigation, and subsequently was slightly increased to a height of 29 feet. The sidewalls
    are proposed to be constructed of solid 26 gauge steel front and rear surfaces with a 3-inch deep
    rock wool filled core. Since they are approximately twice the height of the bleachers, the sidewalls
    will represent a sound barrier in addition to the other sound reductions discussed below. Sound
    traveling over the barrier wall will experience attenuation provided by distance traveled, barrier
    effect over the wall, and the transmission loss of tensile fabric material. The tensile fabric achieves
    some noise reduction with a STC rating of 13. In contrast, sound traveling through the sidewall will
    only experience attenuation provided by the sidewall and overall distance traveled since the tensile
    fabric does not extend to the ground. The proposed sidewall system has an overall STC rating of
    23 (SOURCE V.8). Further controls can be achieved with design and orientation of the sound system.

    The project will be conditioned to require that the sound system design, orientation of the
    speakers, and door selection and placement will be in accordance with the assumptions included




Sports Arena
Environmental Review                              -40-                                         August 2012
    in the noise study to ensure that adequate noise attenuation is achieved. These measures include
    the following measures, which are incorporated into the project Conditions of Approval:
            The speakers shall be mounted behind the bleachers facing towards the court. This design
             will mitigate the issue of aiming the speakers directly at the sidewalls/tensile fabric of the
             arena and consequently the sensitive receivers behind it.
            Selecting PA grade “horns” in lieu of full bandwidth music speakers, which will increase the
             directional control of the sound system and eliminate the production of low-frequency
             energy which the tensile fabric has a limited ability to attenuate. If a "horn" type speaker is
             selected, encasing the speakers themselves in a solid enclosure will also reduce the
             amount of sound energy emitted from the rear of the speaker.
            Locate entry doors so that there is not a direct sound path through the doors and the
             surrounding environment. Positioning these doors behind bleachers will mitigate a bulk of
             the speaker and crowd noise energy before if passes through the doors.
            Select high performance acoustical doors, which will increase the amount of noise
             transmission loss before it reaches the exterior of the structure. High performance
             acoustical doors should include proper perimeter gasket seals, as well as a threshold and
             drop door bottom. The door panel, frame and hardware should come as a complete
             package from a single manufacturer with a test report to confirm their ability to provide the
             required Sound Transmission Class (STC). The noise investigation assumed a single high
             performing STC-43 steel door wherever they are located in the final design.

    The General Plan 2030 Action HZ3.1.1 requires land uses to operate at noise levels that do not
    significantly increase surrounding ambient noise, and Action HZ3.1.2 requires design approaches
    to minimize noise impacts from new development on surrounding land uses. With the project
    conditions of approval, the project would be consistent with the General Plan Actions to minimize
    ambient noise increases. The General Plan EIR concluded that project-level environmental review
    and implementation of these policies and actions would reduce potential permanent ambient noise
    increases.

    (b,d) Temporary Noise. The proposed Warriors basketball games would result in hourly peak
    noise levels. Sounds would fluctuate over the course of any given game for up to several hours
    before 10 PM. Based on noise measurements and predicted event sound levels developed in the
    project noise investigation, hourly noise levels (measured in Leq) could increase by 5 decibels at
    sites closest to the site and less at receptors sites further from the site. As indicated above, an
    increase in 5 decibels is noticeable, but not excessively loud. The potential maximum noise levels
    would occur intermittently throughout any given game for limited durations of time. Furthermore,
    the maximum hourly Leq would occur only during approximately 30 evening events during the year
    in which the Warriors D-League basketball games are held. These events also would occur in the
    fall and winter seasons when adjacent receptors most likely affected would have less outdoor
    activity and would be indoors with closed windows.

    Chapter 9.36 of the City’s Municipal Code regulates “offensive noise.” According to section
    9.36.010a of the City Noise Ordinance, no offensive noise shall be generated between the hours of
    10:00 PM and 8:00 AM. The proposed arena and basketball games and other events would not
    operate after 10 PM. The City’s Zoning Ordinance section 24.14.260 also requires that “no person
    shall produce, suffer or allow to be produced by any machine, animal or device, or any combination



Sports Arena
Environmental Review                               -41-                                         August 2012
     of the same, on residential property, a noise level more than five dBA above the local ambient.
     This code section is typically used as the performance standard to ensure compliance with the
     Municipal Code Noise Ordinance under Title 9 Peace, Safety and Morals Section 9.36. The zoning
     code section‘s purpose is to enable potential nuisance factors to be factually and objectively
     measured where possible to protect the community. The project noise study indicates the facility
     can comply with the City’s ambient noise requirements set forth in the recently adopted General
     Plan 2030 and its EIR analysis, although there may be some periods where there are peak
     increases in sound level.

     There also will be a temporary increase in existing noise levels during construction of the project.
     Construction of the proposed project could result in noise during excavation. Noise levels would
     vary throughout a given day depending on the construction activity and type of equipment being
     used at the time. Overall, construction noise levels would be temporary, short-term and fluctuate
     throughout the construction period. It is expected that the facilities will be constructed within four
     months. Thus, the project impact related to temporary increased noise levels during construction is
     considered less than significant. In accordance with provisions set forth in section 9.36.010 of the
     Municipal Code, the project Conditions of Approval will allow construction to start on weekdays at
     7:00 am to allow the job to be completed quicker, thus reducing the length of construction noise.
     However, the conditions will prohibit use of heavy equipment between 7:00 and 8:00 AM, and will
     require that adjacent neighbors be notified of the construction schedule.

     The General Plan 2030 EIR concluded that with implementation of General Plan policies to
     minimize exposure to noise, construction impacts from future development would be less-than-
     significant. The EIR states that typical conditions of approval include limiting the day and times of
     day during which construction and/or heavy equipment use can be conducted, provision of
     notification to neighbors regarding construction schedules and implementation of a process to
     receive and respond to noise complaints. Thus, the application of uniformly applied standards and
     conditions will minimize construction noise.



13. POPULATION &                                             Does Project
                                                                                           Relevant General Plan
                                                                              Any New
    HOUSING.                              Where Impact is
                                                             Involve New
                                                              Significant     Impacts      Mitigation Measures or
                                           Addressed in                      Peculiar to       Other Uniformly
                                                              Impacts or
                                         General Plan 2030                   Project or          Applicable
                                                             Substantially
                                               EIR                             Site?            Development
                                                             More Severe
Would the project:                                                                               Standards
                                                               Impacts?
a)   Induce substantial population
      growth in an area, either
      directly (for example, by         DEIR pg 4.2-2 to         Not            Not
      proposing new homes and           4.2-6; 4.2-12 to      Applicable     Applicable
                                                                                                   None
      businesses) or indirectly (for    4,2014
      example, through extension of
      roads or other infrastructure)?
b)    Displace substantial numbers
      of existing housing,
                                        DEIR pg 4.2-14 to        Not            Not
      necessitating the construction                          Applicable     Applicable
                                                                                                   None
                                        4.2-15
      of replacement housing
      elsewhere?



Sports Arena
Environmental Review                                -42-                                            August 2012
13. POPULATION &                                                 Does Project
                                                                                               Relevant General Plan
                                                                                  Any New
    HOUSING.                               Where Impact is
                                                                 Involve New
                                                                  Significant     Impacts      Mitigation Measures or
                                            Addressed in                         Peculiar to       Other Uniformly
                                                                  Impacts or
                                          General Plan 2030                      Project or          Applicable
                                                                 Substantially
                                                EIR                                Site?            Development
                                                                 More Severe
Would the project:                                                                                   Standards
                                                                   Impacts?
c)   Displace substantial numbers
     of people, necessitating the
                                         Not Applicable              No             No                 None
     construction of replacement
     housing elsewhere?


     The proposed sports arena would not result in new population or housing demand. The site is
     currently used as a parking lot, and there would be no removal of housing or displacement of
     people.



14. PUBLIC SERVICES.

Would the project result in
substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new
or physically altered governmental
facilities or need for new or physical
altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause                                Does Project
                                                                 Involve New                   Relevant General Plan
significant environmental impacts, in
                                                                  Significant     Any New      Mitigation Measures or
order to maintain acceptable service       Where Impact is        Impacts or      Impacts          Other Uniformly
ratios, response times, or other            Addressed in         Substantially   Peculiar to         Applicable
performance objectives for any of the     General Plan 2030      More Severe     Project or         Development
public services:                                EIR                Impacts?        Site?             Standards

                                         DEIR pg 4.6-2 to
                                         4.6-4; 4.6-33 to 4.6-
a) Fire Protection?                      36
                                                                     No             No                 None

                                         FEIR pg 3-19
                                         DEIR pg 4.6-4 to
b) Police Protection?                    4.6-5; 4.6-36 to 4.6-       No             No                 None
                                         37
                                         DEIR pg 4.6-20 to
c) Schools?                              4.6-21; 4.6-40              No             No                 None
                                         to4.6-41
                                         DEIR pg 4.6-5to
                                         4.6-20; 4.6-37 to
b) Parks?                                4.6-40                      No             No                 None
                                         FEIR pg 3-20 to 3-
                                         22
c) Other Public Facilities?              Not Applicable              No             No                 None




Sports Arena
Environmental Review                                  -43-                                              August 2012
     The proposed project will be served by existing services and utilities. The project will have no
     measurable effect on existing public services in that the incremental increase in demand will not
     require expansion of any services to serve the project. Construction of new fire or police facilities to
     serve the project would not be warranted. New development will be required to install automatic fire
     sprinklers and alarms in accordance with City requirements and comply with other Fire Department
     recommendations regarding access.

     Furthermore, as indicated in section IV.B above, the City’s General Plan 2030 EIR considered
     construction of approximately 1,090,000 square feet of commercial uses throughout the City to the
     year 2030 (SOURCE V.1c). Thus, the project size of approximately 33,650 square feet would be within
     the overall amount of commercial square footage evaluated at a program level in the General Plan
     EIR. The EIR analyses concluded that impacts of potential development and buildout
     accommodated by the General Plan would be less-than-significant for fire and police protection
     services and parks and recreation. Additionally, construction of a residential project on the site
     would have been accounted for in the estimated 3,350 residential units projected throughout the
     city as part of the General Plan buildout. Since the size of the proposed sports arena would fall
     within the total amount of potential development analyzed in the General Plan EIR, no further
     analysis is required regarding public services.

     The proposed sports arena would not result in new population or increase in student enrollments.


15. RECREATION.                                                 Does Project
                                                                Involve New                   Relevant General Plan
                                                                 Significant     Any New      Mitigation Measures or
                                             Where Impact is     Impacts or      Impacts          Other Uniformly
                                              Addressed in      Substantially   Peculiar to         Applicable
                                            General Plan 2030   More Severe     Project or         Development
Would the project result in:                      EIR             Impacts?        Site?             Standards
a)    Increase the use of existing
      neighborhood and regional
      parks or other recreational          DEIR pg 4.6-5to
      facilities such that substantial     4.6-20; 4.6-37 to        No             No                 None
      physical deterioration of the        4.6-40
      facility would occur or be
      accelerated?
b)    Include recreational facilities or
      require the construction or          DEIR pg 4.6-10 to        No             No                 None
      expansion of recreational            3.6-11
      facilities?


     The proposed sports arena would not result in new population or demand for parks or recreational
     facility. The proposed use is a quasi-public recreational use.




Sports Arena
Environmental Review                                    -44-                                           August 2012
16. TRANSPORTATION                                            Does Project
    & TRAFFIC.                                                Involve New
                                                               Significant     Any New
                                                                                            Relevant General Plan
                                                                                            Mitigation Measures or
                                           Where Impact is     Impacts or      Impacts          Other Uniformly
                                            Addressed in      Substantially   Peculiar to         Applicable
                                          General Plan 2030   More Severe     Project or         Development
Would the project result in:                    EIR             Impacts?        Site?             Standards
a)   Conflict with an applicable plan,
     ordinance or policy establishing
     measures of effectiveness for
     the performance of the
     circulation system, taking into
     account all modes of                                                                      GP Actions M3.1.3,
     transportation including mass       DEIR pg 4.4-2 to                                   M3.1.4, M2.3.2 regarding
     transit and non-motorized           4.4-26; 4.4-31           No             No         traffic improvements and
     travel and relevant components      to4.4-45                                               Traffic Impact Fee
                                                                                                      Program
     of the circulation system,
     including but not limited to
     intersections, streets, highways
     and freeways, pedestrian and
     bicycle paths, and mass
     transit?
b)   Conflict with an applicable
     congestion management
     program, including, but not
     limited to level of service
     standard and travel demand          DEIR pg 4.4-2 to         No             No                  None
     measures, or other standards        4.4-26; 4.4-46
     established by the county
     congestion management
     agency for designated roads or
     highways?
c)   Result in a change in air traffic
     patterns, including either an
     increase in traffic levels or a     Not Applicable           No             No                  None
     change in location, that results
     in substantial safety risks?
d)   Substantially increase hazards
     due to a design feature (for
     example, sharp curves or            DEIR pg 4.4-45           No             No                  None
     dangerous intersections) or         to4.46
     incompatible uses (for
     example, farm equipment)?
e)   Result in inadequate                DEIR pg 4.6-33 to        No             No                  None
     emergency access?                   4.6-37
f)   Conflict with adopted policies,
     plans, or programs regarding
     public transit, bicycle, or
     pedestrian facilities, or           DEIR pg 4.2 to4.4-       No             No                  None
                                         7; 4.4-46
     otherwise decrease the
     performance or safety of such
     facilities?




Sports Arena
Environmental Review                                 -45-                                             August 2012
    There are no adopted congestion management programs for the project area, and the project
    would not conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs that support alternative transportation.
    The project is not located near an airport.

    (a-b) Traffic and Circulation. The project site is located on Front Street, just south of Laurel Street.
    Twenty-four hour counts on Laurel Street and Front Street were taken in April 2012, and the PM
    peak volumes were adjusted to reflect evening hours during which the Warriors’ games would be
    held. An analysis prepared for the Warriors project determined that intersection levels of service
    currently operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS) at ten vicinity and downtown intersections,
    both before and after the game, except at the River Stree-Highway9/Highway 1 intersection
    (SOURCE V. 5). At this intersection, a LOS of E was estimated for the hour before events (6:00 to
    7:00 PM).

    The proposed project is estimated to result in an increase in traffic, but trips are expected to
    typically occur outside the weekday peak hours. A traffic analysis was developed for the proposed
    Warriors use in which attendance of 3,200 spectators was estimated, which is a conservative
    estimate as the current maximum seating is 2,950. (The traffic analysis also evaluated a higher
    estimated attendance of 5,000, but this exceeds the current arena seating capacity of 2,950.) The
    traffic analysis assumed that five percent of the attendees would be dropped off and picked up, five
    percent would travel by alternate modes of transportation, and the remaining 90 percent would
    drive to the area with a vehicle occupancy of three attendees per car (SOURCE V.5). The analysis
    includes trip distribution and estimated parking destinations in the downtown area as there will be
    no parking provided at the arena site. The results show that none of the ten study intersections
    would operate at an unacceptable LOS (i.e., lower than D) with addition of traffic before or after
    Warriors Games, except at the River Street-Highway 9/Highway 1 intersection as further discussed
    below (Ibid.). The other study intersections include four intersections with Mission Street (Laurel,
    Walnut, Union-King, and Chestnut), two intersections with Ocean Street (Water and Soquel), two
    intersections with Laurel Street (Pacific and Front), and the Pacific Avenue/Beach Street
    intersection.

    The proposed Warriors games are estimated to result in approximately 940 trips during the hour
    before the game (6:00 to 7:00 PM) and 1,056 trips during the hour after the game (9:30 to 10:30
    PM) (SOURCE V.5) with a total of 3,200 seats. Thus, the estimate is conservatively high as the
    current arena design would accommodate a total of only 2,950 seats. The trip generation would be
    a considered a worst-case estimate as other anticipated events at the arena are expected to have
    a lower attendance (i.e., 1,500 to 2,000) and are expected to typically occur during weekends.
    Approximately 200 additional daily trips would be generated throughout the day with team
    practices, onsite employees and deliveries.

    Based on the traffic analysis, the project’s peak traffic period is after the weekday PM peak hour.
    Traffic resulting from the proposed sports arena would result in a less-than-significant traffic impact
    at nine study intersections. The River Street-Highway 9/Highway 1 intersection would operate at a
    LOS of E before and after the events (SOURCE V.5). However, the estimated delay of 70.2 seconds
    before the game and 56.0 seconds after the game are lower than the existing estimated weekday
    PM peak hour delay of 83.9 seconds (with a LOS of F) reported in the City’s General Plan 2030
    EIR (SOURCE V.1c). Since the weekday PM peak hour is the typical indicator of potential significant
    impacts, the project’s peak hour traffic would be outside the weekday PM peak period and also
    below existing peak hour conditions. It is noted that the City also experiences significant traffic



Sports Arena
Environmental Review                              -46-                                          August 2012
     during the summers and holiday weekends due to tourist traffic, but the City of Santa Cruz has
     recognized that it is not practical or desirable to build roadways sizeable enough to accommodate
     this seasonal demand, and has considered beach and visitor access congestion to be acceptable
     as long as it does not divert traffic onto residential streets (Ibid.). The General Plan 2030 has
     focused on addressing the congestion associated with the weekday travel of City residents,
     employees and customers (Ibid.). The General Plan EIR concluded that impacts at some locations,
     including the River Street-Highway 9/Highway intersection, would be significant and unavoidable,
     although measures identified in General Plan policies and actions to implement intersection
     improvements through the City’s Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) Program, reduce vehicular traffic,
     increase vehicle occupancy and support/encourage use of alternative transportation would help
     reduce traffic.

     Improvements have been identified for the River Street-Highway 9/Highway 1 intersection, but LOS
     would not be improved, although delays would be reduced (SOURCE V.1c). The City’s General Plan
     2030 accepts a lower level of service and higher congestion at major regional intersections if
     necessary improvements would be too prohibitively costly or result in significant unacceptable
     environmental impacts (M3.1.4). It is also noted that currently the City’s share of the TIF program is
     about 23%, which is expected to be changed to 15% with upcoming modifications to the program.
     Thus, although the City is exempt from payment of TIF fees for public-sponsored projects, the City
     does pay a share of the costs.

     As indicated in section IV.B above, the City’s General Plan 2030 EIR considered construction of
     approximately 1,090,000 square feet of commercial uses throughout the City to the year 2030
     (SOURCE V.1c). Thus, the project size of approximately 33,650 square feet would be within the
     potential General Plan buildout evaluated in the EIR. Based on the foregoing analysis, the
     currently proposed project would not result in new significant or more significant traffic impacts
     than analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Thus, no further environmental analysis is required
     pursuant to Public Resource Code section 21083.3.

     (d-e) Access. The project plans do not provide onsite parking or access to the site.



17. UTILITIES.                                                Does Project
                                                              Involve New                   Relevant General Plan
                                                               Significant     Any New      Mitigation Measures or
                                          Where Impact is      Impacts or      Impacts          Other Uniformly
                                           Addressed in       Substantially   Peculiar to         Applicable
                                         General Plan 2030    More Severe     Project or         Development
Would the project result in:                   EIR              Impacts?        Site?             Standards
a)    Exceed wastewater treatment
      requirements of the applicable    DEIR pg 4.6-21
                                        to4.6-25; 4.6-41 to       No             No                 None
      Regional Water Quality Control
                                        4.6-43
      Board?
b)    Require or result in the          DEIR pg 4.6-21
      construction of new water or      to4.6-25; 4.6-41 to
      wastewater treatment facilities   4.6-43; 4.5-29
                                                                  No             No                 None
      or expansion of existing          to4.5-38
      facilities, the construction or   FEIR pg 3-2 to pg
      which could cause significant     3-19



Sports Arena
Environmental Review                                 -47-                                            August 2012
17. UTILITIES.                                                 Does Project
                                                               Involve New                   Relevant General Plan
                                                                Significant     Any New      Mitigation Measures or
                                            Where Impact is     Impacts or      Impacts          Other Uniformly
                                             Addressed in      Substantially   Peculiar to         Applicable
                                           General Plan 2030   More Severe     Project or         Development
Would the project result in:                     EIR             Impacts?        Site?             Standards
      environmental effects?
c)    Require or result in the
      construction of new storm           DEIR pg 4.7 -7 to
      water drainage facilities or        4.7-8; 4.7-22 to
      expansion of existing facilities,   4.7-24
                                                                   No             No                 None
      the construction of which could
      cause significant environmental
      effects?
d)    Have sufficient water supplies
      available to serve the project      DEIR pg 4.5-3
      from existing entitlements and      to4.5-42
                                                                   No             No                 None
      resources, or are new or            FEIR pg 3-2 to pg
      expanded entitlements               3-19
      needed?
e)    Result in a determination by
      the wastewater treatment
      provider which serves or may
      serve the project that it has       DEIR pg 4.6-21
                                          to4.6-25; 4.6-41         No             No                 None
      adequate capacity to serve the
                                          ato4.6-43
      project’s projected demand in
      addition to the provider’s
      existing commitments?
f)    Be served by a landfill with        DEIR pg 4.6-25 to
      sufficient permitted capacity to    4.6-27; 4.6-43 to
                                                                   No             No                 None
      accommodate the project’s           4.6-44
      solid waste disposal needs?         FEIR pg 3-22
g)    Comply with federal, state, and
      local statutes and regulations      DEIR pg 4.6-25 to        No             No                 None
                                          4.6-27
      related to solid waste?


     The project will be served by existing utilities and will have no measurable effect on existing sewer,
     water, or storm drainage utilities in that the incremental increased demand will not require
     expansion of any of those services or construction of new facilities to serve the project.
     Furthermore, as indicated in section IV.B above, the City’s General Plan 2030 EIR considered
     construction of approximately 1,090,000 square feet of commercial uses throughout the City to the
     year 2030 (SOURCE V.1c). Thus, the project size of approximately 33,650 square feet would be within
     the overall amount of commercial square footage evaluated at a program level in the General Plan
     EIR. The EIR analyses concluded that impacts of potential development and buildout
     accommodated by the General Plan would be less-than-significant for wastewater treatment, solid
     waste disposal, and energy use. Since the size of the proposed sports arena would fall within the
     total amount of potential development analyzed in the General Plan EIR, no further analysis is
     required regarding wastewater treatment and solid waste.




Sports Arena
Environmental Review                                  -48-                                            August 2012
    (b, d) Water Supply. The project site is located within the service area of the City of Santa Cruz
    Water Department. The City of Santa Cruz Water Department serves approximately 22,000
    connections in an approximate 20 square mile area that includes lands within existing City limits, a
    portion of UCSC, a portion of Live Oak in the unincorporated area of Santa Cruz County, a small
    part of the City of Capitola and coastal agricultural lands outside City limits.

    The City’s General Plan 2030 EIR provides a comprehensive analysis of impacts of water demand
    within the City’s service area. The EIR and the City’s 2010 Urban Water Management Plan
    (UWMP), which was adopted in December 2011 in accordance with State law, assess future water
    supplies and water demand within the City’s water service area, including potential buildout
    accommodated by the General Plan.

    Water production has fluctuated over the past ten years; annual production has ranged from a high
    of nearly 4,500 MGY in 2000 to a low of approximately 3,200 MGY in 2009 (SOURCE V.2). Average
    water production between 1985 and 2010 was approximately 3,900 MGY, while average water
    production between 2006 and 2010 averaged approximately 3,500 MGY (Ibid.). The 2010 UWMP
    estimates a 20-year future water supply in the year 2030 as 4,160 MGY, depending on the
    outcome of negotiations between the City and regulatory agencies regarding releases for fish
    habitat. Continued access to the same amount of North Coast supply sources will depend on the
    outcome of a Section 10 “incidental take” permit application and accompanying Habitat
    Conservation Plan (HCP) that are being prepared by the City pursuant to the federal Endangered
    Species Act for City activities. The permit and plan must be approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The City entered into the HCP process
    in 2001, and over the past 6 years, the City has coordinated and met with U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service and NMFS on HCP-related issues and has conducted a number of studies. A draft HCP
    has not yet been completed, but the City has prepared and submitted a Draft Conservation
    Strategy that identifies and proposes minimum in-stream flows at City diversions to minimize the
    effect of diversions on habitat conditions for steelhead and coho salmon.

    The water supply estimates in the 2010 UWMP were developed using the City’s water supply
    operations model and incorporates the best available information about future operations
    beginning in 2015 under a yet to be approved Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). The final outcome
    is not known as the City of Santa Cruz is currently negotiations with the federal agencies on flow
    requirements.

    The adopted 2010 UWMP estimates a 20-year water demand of between 4,046 and 4,537 MGY in
    the year 2030 within the entire water service area. This is based on two scenarios; the higher
    demand reflects water use trends experienced between 1999 and 2004, while the lower demand
    reflects more recent water use trends experienced in 2007-08. The 2010 UWMP indicates that the
    lower demand scenario is more reasonable given recent trends and state mandates for water
    conservation (SOURCE V.2).

    In 2009, the state of California enacted SB7, which sets a goal of reducing urban per capita water
    use by 20% by December 31, 2020. Under the law, each urban retail water supplier must include a
    base daily water use, a 2020 urban water use target and an interim (2015) water use target in its
    UWMP. The baseline water use value for California as a whole is 192 gallons per capita per day
    (gpcd); the value for the Central Coast Region, which encompasses the area from Santa Cruz to
    Santa Barbara, is 154 gpcd (SOURCE V.2). Over the last 10-year period, per capita water use within



Sports Arena
Environmental Review                            -49-                                        August 2012
    the City of Santa Cruz water service area has declined from about 126 gpcd in 2001 to 93 gpcd in
    2010 (SOURCE V.2). The City’s 10-year baseline (ending 2010), determined in accordance with the
    state’s technical methodologies, is 113 gpcd. In accordance with state methodologies, the UWMP
    includes a 2020 target of 110 gpcd, and the City would be in compliance with state law if it
    maintains its per capita demand at or below this level.

    The primary water reliability issue currently facing the City of Santa Cruz is the lack of an adequate
    water supply during droughts due to the wide range in the yield of surface water sources from year
    to year and limited storage capacity. Updated modeling conducted for the 2010 UWMP found that
    the worst-year peak season shortage could range between 23 and 37% and between 42 and 51%
    with additional flow releases for fish habitat. Historically, one dry or critically dry year has not
    created a water shortage due to sufficient storage in Loch Lomond Reservoir. Based on past
    experience, however, a shortage is likely to occur when the central coast region experiences two
    or more dry or critically dry years in a row (SOURCE V.2). The total water supply estimated to be
    available to the City in single dry years (i.e., 1994) is 3,900 MG (Ibid.). However, during an extreme
    two-year drought similar to the 1976-77 event, the estimated water supply available to the City in
    the second year of that event is 2,800 MG with a resulting deficit of approximately 1,200 MG (Ibid.).
    The peak season is between April and October since this is the period that would be most affected
    by a supply shortage due to peak water demand.

    The City faces a series of ongoing challenges that potentially could lead to some loss of existing
    supply in the future, although it is uncertain at this time to what extent and which supplies might be
    affected. These considerations include: potential flow releases associated with the HCP as
    described above, the outcome of water rights petitions, groundwater availability and climate
    change issues. These considerations are described in section 4.5 of the City of Santa Cruz
    General Plan 2030 Draft EIR as updated by the Final EIR document.

    The City of Santa Cruz has been actively considering possible new water supplies for nearly 20
    years. In 2005, the City adopted an Integrated Water Plan (IWP), which identifies a water
    management strategy. This adopted strategy consists of the following three major components:
                      Water conservation programs.
                      Customer use curtailment (water use cutback) in times of shortage.
                      Supplemental water supply for drought protection provided by a 2.5 million-gallon-
                       per-day (mgd) desalination plant with potential for expansion up to 4.5 mgd in
                       increments of one mgd.

    The City is actively implementing water conservation programs. Additionally, the City and Soquel
    Creek Water District are pursuing regulatory approvals for a permanent, 2.5 mgd (with potential for
    expansion to 4.5 mgd) desalination plant. The facility would provide a backup water supply to the
    City in times of drought and would provide water to the District at other times to reduce its reliance
    on well water and avert the threat of seawater intrusion in local groundwater aquifers.

    A one year of testing at a pilot desalination plant has been completed, and environmental review is
    underway for a permanent facility, which is expected to be constructed and in operation by the year
    2016, pending completion of project-level environmental review and regulatory permit approvals,




Sports Arena
Environmental Review                               -50-                                       August 2012
    e.g., approval of a coastal development permit from the California Coastal Commission.4 The
    design and environmental review phases are currently underway. There is some uncertainty related
    to the approval and timing of the permanent desalination plant construction and operation. The
    likelihood of construction of a permanent plant is currently uncertain as design plans have not been
    completed, and it cannot be predicted at this time whether the Coastal Commission and other
    agencies would issue the necessary approvals.

    The proposed sports arena project is estimated to result in a net increase in water demand of
    approximately 1.1 MGY based on the estimated number of events per year, estimated attendance,
    and uses associated with the proposed Warriors games. The demand was developed in
    consultation with Water Department staff and includes estimates for basketball team practices,
    showers and laundry. In summary, with the planned Warriors games, UCSC and Derby Girl games
    in combination with other potential events at the arena, it is estimated that the arena will support
    approximately 100 events annually with the distribution estimated to be 80 from October to April
    and 20 between May and September. Attendance at up to 30 Warriors games could be a maximum
    of 2600 people. As a comparison, water use at the City’s Civic Auditorium is approximately 0.3
    MGY for approximately 100 annual events with an average attendance of 1,000 people.

    As indicated in section IV.B above, the City’s General Plan 2030 EIR considered construction of
    approximately 1,090,000 square feet of commercial uses throughout the City to the year 2030
    (SOURCE V.1c). Thus, the project size of approximately 33,650 square feet on this site would be
    within the overall amount of commercial square footage evaluated at a program level in the
    General Plan EIR. Based on water use rates developed for the General Plan EIR, a commercial
    project of the proposed project size would result in an estimated demand of approximately 2.2
    MGY. Additionally, construction of a residential project on the site would have been accounted for
    in the estimated 3,350 residential units projected throughout the city as part of the General Plan
    buildout. Construction of a 95-unit residential development at the project site would result in a
    water demand of 2.4 MGY. Thus, the estimated project water demand is within (and in fact, below)
    the amount the estimated water in the General Plan 2030 EIR and within the 20-year estimates
    developed in the 2010 UWMP.

    The 2010 UWMP and General Plan EIR predict that water supplies will be adequate in normal
    years to serve estimated growth within the City of Santa Cruz water service area, although the
    documents acknowledge that the outcome of the pending HCP may affect supplies. The General
    Plan 2030 EIR concluded that impacts to the City’s water supply would be significant and
    unavoidable during times of drought and potentially during normal years by the year 2030 with
    growth and development within the City’s water service area if recent water use trends change.
    Measures are identified in General Plan policies and actions to further conserve water, reduce
    demand and implement a desalination facility to provide a supplemental water supply during
    droughts.

    The currently proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or more significant water
    impacts than analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Nor would the project result in water supply
    impacts peculiar to the site or project that were not considered in the General Plan EIR. Thus,

         4
            Other potential permits, approvals and/or consultations for a permanent desalination plant and supporting
infrastructure (i.e., intake facility and distribution pipeline) may be required from various agencies, including, but not limited to
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, State Lands Commission, and California Department of Health Services.


Sports Arena
Environmental Review                                          -51-                                                    August 2012
     since the water demand generated by the proposed sports arena would fall within the total level of
     water demand analyzed in the General Plan EIR (and is less than other potential residential
     developments on the site), no further environmental analysis is required pursuant to Public
     Resource Code section 21083.3. Additionally, the project use would be in effect only for five to
     seven years.

     During periods of drought, water customers would be subject to water curtailment as may be
     enacted by the City. The increased water demand associated with the proposed project would
     mostly occur during times of the year when water restrictions typically are not in effect. The amount
     of project water demand, in comparison to total demand within the City’s water service area, would
     not cause any noticeable effects on the level of curtailment that would be required of all water
     customers in a single dry year scenario. The proposed project’s increased demand is considered
     minimal and would not have significant effects on the levels of curtailment that would be required
     throughout the service area.

     (c) Storm Drainage Facilities. See discussion above under subsection 8—Hydrology.




18. MANDATORY                                                    Does Project
                                                                 Involve New                   Relevant General Plan
   FINDINGS OF                                                    Significant     Any New      Mitigation Measures or
   SIGNIFICANCE.                            Where Impact is       Impacts or      Impacts          Other Uniformly
                                             Addressed in        Substantially   Peculiar to         Applicable
                                           General Plan 2030     More Severe     Project or         Development
Would the project result in:                     EIR               Impacts?        Site?             Standards
a)   Have the potential to degrade
     the quality of the environment,
     substantially reduce the habitat
     of a fish or wildlife species,       DEIR pg 4.8-13 to
                                          4.8-21; 4.8-24; 4.8-
     cause a fish or wildlife                                                                  GP Action NRC2.2.1 &
                                          26 to 4.8-30; 4.8-                                     Project Assessment
     population to drop below self-       41; 4.8-38 to 4.8-                                    Protocols for Special
     sustaining levels, threaten to       44; 4.8-48 to 4.8-         No             No         Status Species; GP EIR
     eliminate a plant or animal          51; 4.9-10 to 4.9-                                     Mitigation 4.9-1 and
     community, reduce the number         12; 4.9-19 to 4.9-23                                 Municipal Code section
     or restrict the range of a rare or                                                               24.12.430
                                          FEIR pg 3-22, 3-25
     endangered plant or animal or        to 3-40
     eliminate important examples
     of the major periods of
     California history or prehistory?
b)   Have impacts that are
     individually limited, but
     cumulatively considerable?
     ("Cumulatively considerable"
     means that the incremental           DEIR pg 5-8 to 5-
                                          36
     effects of a project are                                        No             No                 None
     considerable when viewed in          FEIR pg 3-27 to 3-
                                          33
     connection with the effects of
     the past projects, the effects of
     other current projects, and the
     effects of probable future



Sports Arena
Environmental Review                                   -52-                                             August 2012
18. MANDATORY                                               Does Project
                                                            Involve New                   Relevant General Plan
   FINDINGS OF                                               Significant     Any New      Mitigation Measures or
   SIGNIFICANCE.                         Where Impact is     Impacts or      Impacts          Other Uniformly
                                          Addressed in      Substantially   Peculiar to         Applicable
                                        General Plan 2030   More Severe     Project or         Development
Would the project result in:                  EIR             Impacts?        Site?             Standards
     projects.)
C)   Have environmental effects
     which will cause substantial      DEIR pg 4.13-4 to
     adverse effects on human          4.13-8; 4.13-10 to       No             No                 None
     beings, either directly or        4.13-20
     indirectly?


     (a) Quality of the Environment. The proposed project would have no significant effect on biological
     resources. The project would have no significant effect on cultural resources with implementation
     of uniformly applied development standards, regulations and policies and would not result in
     elimination of important examples of major period of California history or prehistory. The project
     would not degrade the quality of the environmental or otherwise affect fish and wildlife habitat.

     (b) Cumulative Impacts. The EIR prepared for the City’s recently adopted General Plan 2030
     identified potential significant cumulative impacts related to traffic, water supply, population and
     noise. The proposed sports arena will not result in a population increase and would not contribute
     to this cumulative impact. Additionally, the cumulative noise impact was identified for a two street
     segments outside of the project area to which the proposed project would not contribute.

     The proposed project would contribute to significant cumulative impacts related to traffic and water
     supply. As indicated in section IV.B above, the City’s General Plan 2030 EIR considered
     construction of approximately 1,090,000 square feet of commercial uses throughout the City to the
     year 2030 (SOURCE V.1c). Thus, the project size of approximately 33,650 square feet would be within
     the overall amount of commercial square footage evaluated at a program level in the General Plan
     EIR. Additionally, construction of a residential project on the site would have been accounted for in
     the estimated 3,350 residential units projected throughout the city as part of the General Plan
     buildout. Since the potential project contribution to cumulative impacts fall within the total level of
     those analyzed in the General Plan EIR for traffic and water supply, no further analysis is required
     pursuant to Public Resource Code section 21083.3.

     (c) Substantial Adverse Effects on Human Beings. No environmental effects have been identified
     that would have direct or indirect adverse effects on human beings.


V.     RERERENCES & DATA SOURCE LIST
       1.    City of Santa Cruz General Plan and EIR.
                 a) June 26, 2012. Adopted. General Plan 2030.
                 b) April 2012. “City of Santa Cruz General Plan 2030 Final EIR.”
                 c) September 2011. “City of Santa Cruz General Plan 2030 Draft EIR.”



Sports Arena
Environmental Review                               -53-                                            August 2012
       2.      City of Santa Cruz. Adopted December 2011. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan.
               Prepared by City of Santa Cruz Water Department.

       3.      Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District.
                a) August 2008. 2008 Air Quality Management Plan for the Monterey Bay Region.
                b) February 2008. “CEQA Air Quality Guidelines.”

       4.      Archaeological Consulting. August 14, 1996. “Preliminary Archaeological
               Reconnaissance of Assessor’s Parcel Number 005-183-01, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz
               County, California.”

       5.      Hatch Mott MacDonald. April 30, 2012. “The Golden State Warriors Sports Arena
               Feasibility Assessment, Santa Cruz, California.”

       6.      Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. April 30, 201. “Santa Cruz Downtown Temporary
               Basketball Arena Parking Study – 3,200 Seat Sports Arena.”

       7.      Pacific Museum Consultants. July 25, 1995.”Results of Phase 1 Archaeological
               Reconnaissance with Recommendations for a Phase II Investigation and Cultural
               Resource Management: APN 005-183-01 and -02, City of Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz
               County, California.”

       8.      Smith, Fause & McDonald. August 24, 2012. “Warriors NBA D-League Santa Cruz Arena
               Community Noise Impact Study –Investigation Findings.”

       9.      TRC. July 3, 2012. “Geotechnical Investigation Santa Cruz Warriors Arena, 140 Front Street,
               Santa Cruz, California.”

       10.     Steven Raas & Associates, Inc. January 1995. “Geotechnical Investigation for
               Riverbend Housing Project, Front Street Site, Santa Cruz, California.”




Sports Arena
Environmental Review                              -54-                                         August 2012

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:1920
posted:8/31/2012
language:Unknown
pages:54