Ventana Chapter - Conservation Issues > Arana Gulch Greenbelt again targeted for development

Photo Jean Brocklebank 2006

The facts remain clear: The City has proposed development on Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area in the Coastal Zone on Greenbelt property the public expects to be restored and maintained to enhance its natural resources. Photo: Jean Brocklebank

The City of Santa Cruz has released its Draft Master Plan and the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the 68-acre Greenbelt property called Arana Gulch. The City plans to finalize the Master Plan concurrently with the final EIR for the proposed project that would bring bridges, ramps, paved trails and retaining walls to the creeks, riparian woodlands and meadows of this Greenbelt.

Arana Gulch Greenbelt is a biologically unique and fragile environment. It is the only place on earth where a distinct subspecies of the Santa Cruz tarplant grows. This rare plant is listed as "threatened" by the Federal Government and as "endangered" by the State of California.

The Arana Gulch Greenbelt provides irreplaceable habitat for this and many other species, including Steelhead trout, great blue heron, Francisco dusky-footed woodrat, purple needlegrass, California oatgrass, California poppy, yarrow, owl's clover, Indian soap root, yellow Mariposa lily, golden brodiaea, California voles, Botta's pocket gopher, fox, skunk, long-tailed weasel, snakes, red-tailed hawks, red-shouldered hawks, Choris's popcorn flower, San Francisco popcorn flower, Gairdner's yampah, and more, too numerous to list in this article.

Until the late 1980s, the presence of cattle on the property assisted the rare tarplant by removing the annual, non-native grasses and restoring the strong sunlight that it requires. Since the cattle were removed, the number of tarplants has declined, as the City has failed to implement effective restoration and management strategies for this endangered species. Simple, inexpensive methods of controlling annual grasses such as mowing and raking or the seasonal use of sheep could accomplish the task. Funds for such management have been available from the California Department of Fish and Game.

The proposed project seeks to use federal highway monies to expand and construct a network of paved paths, bridges, ramps and retaining walls throughout the Greenbelt to provide "a bicycle connection" to be shared with wheelchairs, skateboarders, and pedestrians. The paved, highly-engineered paths are very different from the dirt paths and trails carefully developed to protect sensitive species on other city greenbelt properties.

These 3 trees by Arana Gulch may be cut down by the City of Santa Cruz to make room for two more cars.
Will the City of Santa Cruz decide to cut down these three native coast live oaks (including the heritage tree on the right) along Soquel Avenue near Capitola Road? The trees are at the north end of the Arana Gulch Greenbelt.
In March the City Transportation Commission voted unanimously to save the trees and shorten the stacking length of the proposed right turn lane by two cars. Because the right turn arrow will be green most of the time, the extra length is not needed.
Ask City Council members to follow the advice of their Transportation Commission and save these trees. Email them at citycouncil@ci.santa-cruz.ca.us.
Photo: Richard Stover

The environmental damage of this development would be significant and could not be mitigated according to the draft EIR. It is this biotic destruction which has engendered opposition from the California Native Plant Society. Proposed paved trails would traverse existing tarplant habitat, and the city would have to apply for a permit to "take" (kill) these endangered plants if they proceed with the project.

In addition, the retaining walls and ramp required to link the bikeway to Brommer Street would be built in the floodplain north of the Harbor's dry storage yard in an area the Coastal Commission has required the Harbor District to vacate, protect, and revegetate. The Coastal Commission has repeatedly communicated to the City that the resources in this area are protected by the Coastal Act. The Commission has also previously informed the City of its concern that the bikeway project "would not avoid identified biological impacts as required by the Local Coastal Programs and the Coastal Act."

As required by California law (CEQA), Alternatives to the Project are presented in the Draft EIR. These are outlined on page 9. Ironically, only Alternative 2, which would destroy critical tarplant habitat (including seedbed) in a significant and unmitigable way, promises to attract sufficient funding to enable the City to manage the tarplant. The promise that the federal monies received for the paved bicycle connection would provide sufficient funds to develop and implement a Tarplant Management Plan is vague and unenforceable.

None of the proposed alternatives includes a commitment and specific plan to restore and properly manage the endangered tarplant which the city has known about since before it purchased the property.

The facts remain clear: The City has proposed development on Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas in the Coastal Zone on Greenbelt property the public expects to be restored and maintained to enhance its natural resources. Instead, the city is proposing biotic destruction that would be significant, unmitigable and irreversible.

Many Sierra Club members are bicycle riders. The Club supports transportation which reduces emissions and minimizes fuel consumption and impacts on the land. Bicycling is one of the best ways to travel. The Club supports bike lanes on Soquel Avenue and on the rail corridor (one-quarter mile south of the project). Both of these routes are environmentally superior to destroying habitat on the Arana Gulch Greenbelt.

This issue will likely come to the Planning Commission and the Parks and Recreation Commission in early summer. Watch for the dates in The Ventana and other local media. For more information check the Sierra Club website, www/ventana.sierraclub.org, or email Patricia Matejcek, patachek@juno.com.

Alternative 1 would keep the site in its existing condition. No Master Plan and no Santa Cruz Tarplant Adaptive Management Program would be adopted. Management actions would be limited and the Arana Gulch Interim Management Plan would remain in effect. No new trails would be developed on the site. This alternative would eliminate most of the project impacts but would not contribute to the achievement of any of the project objectives.

Alternative 2 would include the same paved trail system as the proposed project but would not include any trail segments within Port District property. Trail access to Arana Gulch would continue to be provided by the existing trail segment along the western edge of the dry storage area at the Upper Harbor. This alternative would include the long-term Santa Cruz Tarplant Adaptive Management Program.

Alternative 3 would have the same trail network as the proposed project except that no trails would be paved and no trails would comply with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. Due to unpaved surfaces and gradients, trails would not be accessible for wheelchairs and some street bicycles. Without funding for paved, multi-use trails, there would be uncertainty about funding and implementing the Santa Cruz Tarplant Adaptive Management Program.

Alternative 4 would provide unpaved trails and would not include the Hagemann Gulch Bridge. This alternative would provide public access for pedestrians and some bicyclists but would not comply with ADA requirements. Since no bridge across Hagemann Gulch would be constructed, this alternative would not provide a new west entrance or east-west trail connection. As with Alternative 3, all trails would remain unpaved and not qualify for federal funding, resulting in uncertainty about funding and implementing the Tarplant Management Plan.

This alternative would provide the same trails as proposed by the project, but none of the trails would be paved. This alternative would provide public access for pedestrians and some bicyclists but would not comply with ADA requirements. Like the proposed project, this alternative would provide north-south and east-west trail connections. Due to unpaved surfaces and gradients, however, these trail connections would not be accessible to wheelchair users and some types of bicycles.