Santa Cruz City Council
January 9, 2024

Open airshuttles can bring visitorsfrom remote parking to the Wharf

27.126
43 S A N T A C R U Z W H A R F M A S T E R P L A N R E P O R T • O C T O B E R 2 0 1 4 Trash CollectionSystem
One of the important ways of improving the public realm of the Wharf will be by removing the trash collection facilities within the parking areas today. Currently, the way in which trash is transferred from each of the premises to a centralized location, where it is stored until collected, is not an efficient process. The use of centralized trash areas is also detrimental to the public environment, the unique status of the Wharf as a special place within the bay and its future as a recreational, scenic and open space resource.

The Master Plan recommends that the trash collection system be improved not only to eliminate the use of centralized garbage areas but also the reliance on large, heavy garbage trucks that are currently the greatest source of damage and incur the greatest amount of maintenance costs to the City today. Consideration should be given to the use of an automated vacuum collection system that has been used extensively in the Scandinavian countries for many years and which has more recently been adopted for use in the United States. An American vacuum trash collection company, Memios, has made a proposal to the City for the collection of trash and recyclables directly from each of the individual businesses as well as from staff-loaded stations on the Wharf, and the horizontal transport in a 20-inch stainless steel pipe under the Wharf to an off-site collection center to be identified by the City. This is a system which would be applied very effectively to a facility such as the Wharf, where the pipe would not need to be placed underground but could be hung below deck. If implemented for the Wharf, the system could be expanded to serve adjacent uses in the Beach Area. Furthermore, if the quantity of garbage were sufficient, the system can also be used to generate energy, thus adding measures of sustainability and cost effectiveness. The implementation of such a system would be a first in the West Coast and would distinguish the Wharf and the City for its forward thinking and commitment to green infrastructure. An additional advantage of the vacuum system is that it would eliminate the need for large heavy trash collection vehicles and thus reduce the damage that is caused to the structure and the on-going maintenance costs for repair.

Alternative approaches include the use of smaller collection trucks and more frequent pick-ups combined with smaller refuse and recycling compactor locations on the Wharf itself or with a close-by offsite collection center to which refuse and recyclables can be delivered by electric or other alternatively powered vehicles, as determined by the City Public Works Department. These approaches could improve the physical and visual environment of the Wharf and reduce maintenance costs as well.

If we look at cities today, whether large or small, trash is generally kept on premises until it is collected, thus eliminating the need for centralized trash, recyclables, cardboard and tallow collection areas. Whether the vacuum collection system is utilized or another system is selected that will minimize impacts, trash in any case should generally be collected from each of the premises directly, after hours and on a regular basis, rather than stored within the public realm of the Wharf.

27.127
M A S T E R P L A N R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S - P A R T T H R E E : I M P R O V I N G C O M M E R C I A L V I T A L I T Y A N D B U I L D I N G D E S I G N 44 Photos on the lefttop and bottom show the dominant experience of the Wharf, at day and at night, which resembles a one-sided main street. Top right photo showsthe constrained condition of the existing sidewalk with cluttered spaces adjoined by extended blank walls. Bottom right photo shows an improved storefront on the Wharf which creates a more engaging sidewalk experience and a canopy with integrated lighting.

27.128
4 5 S A N T A C R U Z W H A R F M A S T E R P L A N R E P O R T • O C T O B E R 2 0 1 4 PART THREE: IMPROVING COMMERCIAL VITALITY AND BUILDING DESIGN The Wharf began as a long, relatively narrow and open platform structure. Fromthe earliest period oftime and in subsequent expansions, the commercial buildings were located on the rugged western side of the Wharf, creating a windbreak for front doors and open entrances to the east. The eastside was also traditionally the preferred location for mooring and off-loading because of itsmore tranquil waters and protected setting. At the time it was builtin 1914, the Wharf was approximately 4.2 acres in size. While itremained thatsize forsome forty years, a series of expansions were undertaken after World War II to enlarge its footprint by approximately 3.3 acres to accommodate commercialuses,vehicular circulation andparking.

This Master Plan does not propose to add to the footprint of the Wharf for vehicular circulation, parking or commercial uses. It does, however, propose to use the existing areas more efficiently and effectively to enhance the market potential, economic viability and the visitor experience of the Wharf. Within the existing footprint of the 1,300 linear feet of commercial uses, an increase in the intensity, diversity and number of establishments is desirable to create a more vibrant and attractive pedestrian experience as well as provide for additional revenue generating uses. Infill and intensification efforts can be accommodated as leases expire, as buildings are renovated, and as market demand warrants.

To achieve the full potential for commercial development, a detailed marketing plan and a pro-active approach to tenant selection will be required. In addition, coordinated advertising and promotional efforts andpartnerships withinstitutional entitiesin science, research and education will need to be pursued. City staff has done an excellent job in maintaining and managing the Wharf to date. In the future, staff resources will need to be augmented to achieve marketing, tenanting and promotional efforts and to seek public, private and institutional funding for implementation, to guide design and development efforts and to enhance the maintenance and management.

Design and Development Standards
The Wharf today feels much like a one-sided main street, with commercial uses organized in a linear fashion and adjoined by convenient parking. Many of the commercial uses evolved as extensions of the commercial fishing industry and began as fish markets and casual eating establishments. They were developed by a group of Italian families that comprise the legacy tenants who helped to establish the commercial appeal of the Wharf. Some of the restaurants have remained with the families that originally built them. Others have changed hands over time. Although some of the buildings have been renovated, others were built in the late sixties and early seventies and are now over 40 years old and reaching the end of their economic life. A second, separate cycle of commercial development took place in the 1980’s when the City built new buildings and tenanted them for shops and restaurants. The City’s buildings are located in two clusters - one atthe north end near theWharf headquarters and the other, at whatis known asthe South Commons area,where theWharf changes direction to the southwest.

Today, there is a need for a reinvestment and a reinvigoration of many of the businesses that will continue their appeal over time.

Currently, approximately 60,000 square feet of commercialuses is occupied by tenants with a variety of short and long termground leases, building leases and licenses from the City. Of this total, approximately 40,000 square feet isleased to restaurants and 20,000 square feet to retailuses, almost all of which are located along 1,300 feet offrontage on the westside ofthe Wharf. From a market point of view, a 70/30 mix of food and beverage to retail uses is reasonable. The dining establishments are the backbone of the Wharf and provide the distinctive draw that adds to the experience and its destination appeal. The Wharf offers the largest concentration of restaurants within the area bounded by West Cliff Drive to the west and the Boardwalk to the east and has an established appeal for those looking for a sit-down dining experience in a relatively accessible location with lots of adjacent parking and with stunning views to the bay.

Although the revenues of all businesses have improved recently and are returning to pre-recession levels, there is still a great deal of concern that the major source of revenues is only generated during the summer season and in good weather and the businesses have to struggle to survive during the Fall and Winter months. This is particularly true for the retail establishments, which are predominantly tourist-oriented.

Although some of the restaurants have a loyal following and feature special offerings to residents and events to boost resident patronage, they still rely to the greatest extent on the summer tourist season. At the same time, some restaurant owners have noted that, while there are greater revenues during the summer months, the expenditures per person are not commensurate with the significant increase in visitor population.

One ofthemost critical considerations affecting the future ofthe commercial ventures has to dowith increasingmarket support and offseason appeal. Broadening the market appeal of the Wharf to a more diverse group of residents and attracting visitors who will spend more time and money in the Beach Area as a whole and on the Wharf, in particular, are key. There are other factors, however, beyond market support that contribute to the economic vitality of the commercial venues on the Wharf. They include the quality of the goods and services offered, the design and attractiveness of the individual establishments, and the promotional efforts that are undertaken.

To guide future physical improvements, the Master Plan establishes design development standards for the evolution of buildings over time.

These standards are aimed at improving the curb appeal of the businesses and the quality of the pedestrian experience on the sidewalk.

They also encourage the creation of a more extroverted place, with greater transparency and a stronger relationship between indoors and

27.129
46 S A N T A C R U Z W H A R F M A S T E R P L A N R E P O R T • O C T O B E R 2 0 1 4 Stagnaro’s provides an example of a building that maintainsthe historical mix of uses and a greater openness and engagement with the sidewalk. outdoors, between the foreground and the visual setting beyond. They also seek to develop a collective identity and a high standard of quality and sustainable design while allowing for individual expression, variety and circumstance. These standards build on examples and experience with successful retail and restaurant environments and in many cases recall some of the kinds of design features that are characteristic of the original Wharf buildings and structures.

The design and development standards integrate programmatic aspects related to the number, size and type of businesses with physical characteristics that affect economic performance. They are also based on a critical evaluation of the existing strengths and weaknesses of the commercial buildings and businesses and identify the unrealized potentials that could create a more attractive commercial environment to a broader segment of the population. Beyond the mix of tenants, the physical structures on the Wharf are, in many cases, reaching a point where reinvestment will be necessary for repair, updating and renovation. This section of the Wharf Master Plan addresses the factors that influence commercial appeal, not only of individual buildings but of the larger district. It makes recommendations that consider physical design with economic opportunity and consider the activities that can be supported by the buildings and spaces. These recommendations are aimed at attracting a greater number of people who will support the businesses throughout the year and thereby improve their economic viability and sustainability over time. They can also result in increasing the intensity and quantity of commercial development on the Wharf without increasing the footprint that these uses occupy.

Regardless of how successful the magnitude and mix of uses may be or how appealing the quality of any one establishment, if the collective image and identity of the whole falls short or if the pedestrian experience of the visitor is lacking, then it will be difficult for any individual commercial use to achieve its fullest potential. That is why, in a wellmanaged commercial center, a great deal of care is given to the total experience of the visitors and to the collective image of the whole.

27.130
M A S T E R P L A N R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S - P A R T T H R E E : I M P R O V I N G C O M M E R C I A L V I T A L I T Y A N D B U I L D I N G D E S I G N 47 Curb Appeal and the Pedestrian Experience
From a physical design stand-point,the pedestrian experience along the commercialfrontage on theWharf today does not successfully contribute to a positive visitor experience nor does it encourage the kind of window shopping that generates additional support by being a multidestinational attraction. Many of the establishments, particularly the larger restaurants, have significant lengths of blank walls, dark windows, and/or raised floors that don’t engage positively with the pedestrian. In addition, some retail storefronts are nondescript with angular facades and minimal punctured openings that distance the pedestrian from the storefront and diminish the curb appeal of the businesses to the passersby, and the upper floor businesses don’t have an adequate storefront presence along the sidewalk. These characteristics should be avoided and therefore are discouraged in the design standards and improvement programs for future development.

Historically, on the Wharf, building facades were typically more open and engaged with the outdoor environmentthatmade them appear more friendly and accessible. For example, forty percent ofthe original Miramar building façade was either open to the outside or glazed.

Today, only fourteen percent of the façade of the Miramar building is glazed and half of the building fronting the sidewalk is comprised of blankwalls. Looking at other attractive storefrontsin cities and towns around the world, itis clearthat openness and transparency contribute to the environmentthatthey create and to visitor appeal. The examples shown in accompanying graphics have glazed openings comprising approximately 40% or more of the façade. The Master Plan proposes that as renovations occur and new buildings are built on the Wharf,that the facades should become more open and achieve a 40% openness as they had in the past. One way to achieve thisis to encapsulate “back-ofthe-house” functionswith liner uses,whether they are operatedby the same establishment or by others. In addition the angular facades ofthe 1980’s buildings should be infilled to bring the storefrontsright up to the edge ofthe sidewalk and thus create a more engaging relationship to the pedestrianson thestreet.

Above are the more recent buildings on the Wharf that were built by the City in the 1980’s. Below are images of smallshops and cafes with traditionalstorefrontsthat demonstrate greater curb appeal, with more interesting and engaging environmentsfor pedestrians along the street.

27.131
48 S A N T A C R U Z W H A R F M A S T E R P L A N R E P O R T • O C T O B E R 2 0 1 4 The potential of rooftop dining should be explored and encouraged.

A few of the establishments, such as Stagnaros Bros restaurant, still maintain the historical tradition of the fish market and/or take-out food integrated with dining. In addition, some of the newer restaurants are transparent and visually permeable, allowing pedestrians to clearly see the activities inside and through to the views beyond. Restaurants such as Firefish that locate a demonstration kitchen up front and visible from the sidewalk, and retail shops that place the making of products and goods along the storefront add to their appeal and to the interest of the sidewalk experience. The Master Plan proposes to encourage and promote these characteristics in the design guidelines and improvement programs for future development on the Wharf.

But, the pedestrian experience is not created only by the commercial storefronts. It is also significantly influenced by conditions on the sidewalk.

The existing sidewalk paving is not in good condition and the limited sidewalk area has many obstructions along its length. Although the sidewalk is 13 feet wide, car bumpers generally extend into the area, allowing only approximately 11 feet for the pedestrian. This area is further constrained by ADA access ramps to establishments that have a higher finished floor than the adjacent sidewalk. It is also constrained by lighting and other appurtenances. The inability for groups of people to walk along the sidewalk and pass each other comfortably often leads to pedestrians using the roadway, thus creating pedestrian/vehicular conflicts.

Examplesfrom the Wharfthat demonstrate how the pedestrian environment can be improved by incorporating visual accessthrough the dining area to Steamer’s Lane and the West Cliff Drive area and by locating a demonstration kitchen along the storefront.

The improvement program for the sidewalk area calls for it to be widened to 15 feet and for the entire area to be repaved in concrete with a concrete curb. The design standards require that all businesses have a finished floor at sidewalk grade, or, if there are changes in grade, that they are incorporated internally within their premises, and not within the public domain. In addition, a continuous canopy that extends from the storefronts over the sidewalk is proposed to provide weather protection so as to make the pedestrian sidewalk experience more appealing at all times of the year. The canopy will also incorporate lighting that will highlight the storefronts and create an opportunity for blade signs perpendicular to the facades.

27.132
M A S T E R P L A N R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S - P A R T T H R E E : I M P R O V I N G C O M M E R C I A L V I T A L I T Y A N D B U I L D I N G D E S I G N 49 Diversity in Size, Type and Mix of Uses
Generally speaking, the restaurants on the Wharf exhibit a great deal of homogeneity in size, style, orientation, price point and product. Of the eating and drinking establishments, most offer an internalized atmosphere with sit-down dining. Most also feature the same kind of menu, with relatively minor variations. Most of the restaurants are relatively large in size and accommodate more than 100 seats. Very few offer takeout food integrated with casual dining and an open, engaging frontage that were characteristic features of the Wharf restaurants during the commercial fishing era.

The existing retail establishments also tend to be relatively homogeneous in the goods and products that are sold. Most of them market souvenir-type products, which include such items as t-shirts, sweatshirts, trinkets, shells, jewelry and a variety of knick-knacks. Many of the souvenirs have little to do with the uniqueness of the Wharf and its setting in Monterey Bay. Many residents interviewed as part of the planning process commented on the fact that the general merchandise stores have limited appeal to them. A number were particularly disturbed by the sale of seashells from tropical regions, very different from those common to Santa Cruz or the west coast of California
In the long term, as businesses evolve and change within generally the same footprint, a greater diversity and finer mix of retail and restaurant uses as well as more variation in the size of commercial establishments would be desirable.

Even if the menu of most restaurants is primarily fish, there should be more distinction between the styles of preparation – be it Ligurian, Sicilian, Thai, Vietnamese, or Mexican, for example. Also, while it is important to maintain and upgrade some of the large restaurants, they need not all be of the same size. Instead of most restaurants being comprised of 100 to 150 seats, there could be some 50-seat restaurants as well, each with its own chef and distinctive menu, catering to a diversity of eating preferences and thus allowing for greater repeat visitation. In addition, The Master Plan suggests that the existing space devoted to commercial uses could be infilled and intensified and so that within the same footprint many more businesses could be accommodated. Pacific Avenue in Downtown is an example of a typical shopping street that has 35 to 40 businesses along a similarlength.

27.133
50 S A N T A C R U Z W H A R F M A S T E R P L A N R E P O R T • O C T O B E R 2 0 1 4 The inward-oriented configuration of the Miramar Restaurant today.

The more outward oriented and open configuration of the former Miramar Restaurant. at present, there are very limited choices for take-out food for those who do not want to spend the money or time for a full sit-down meal.

Considering the bounty of the region and the values of the community, a greater emphasis on sustainable local agricultural products used in the preparation of food could be a distinguishing characteristic of the Wharf.

There are examples in Santa Cruz today of innovative small eating establishmentslike the Picnic Basket nearby to theWharf on Beach Street, or bakery/cafés like the Buttery, Kellys, Aldos, Companion or a unique coffee shop like Verve or Lulus or an ice cream counter, like the Penny Ice Creamery. Providing small spaces for young incubator businesses and fostering a creative, entrepreneurial group of culinary leaders would position the Wharf most appropriately to the demographic of the area.

From a retailstand-point,some ofthe stores offerswimwear and recreationaloutdoor attire, but these are often subsumed within the standard souvenir type products,making their market position not clearly evident.

Also, although some stores market local products, itis not easy to identify whatis differentin those productsfromwhatis sold elsewhere. The one retail establishmentthat features candies and confectionery goods could make that activity a more pronounced part of itsstorefront presence. A sister establishmentinDowntown SantaCruz integrates themakingof candy right into the storefront, creating a very interesting and engaging environment and one thatismore likely to attract patrons.

The concern is that by offering standard tourist goods for sale which could be marketed in any coastal setting throughout the US, the stores lower the quality of the Wharf brand or image, detract from the distinctive environment it offers, make themselves less appealing to a broad range of patrons, and ultimately diminish their economic success in the marketplace. The retail sector would benefit from marketing souvenirs that feature the natural environment, the scenographic and artistic qualities of the bay, the history of the Wharf in fishing and transportation, and the recreational and educational activities that contribute to and understanding of the unique environment and culture of Santa Cruz.

An example of retail diversification that could be considered is the introduction of some of the kinds of products found in shops such as

27.134
M A S T E R P L A N R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S - P A R T T H R E E : I M P R O V I N G C O M M E R C I A L V I T A L I T Y A N D B U I L D I N G D E S I G N 51 the Seymour Center, the Santa Cruz Museum of Natural History, the Monterey Bay Aquarium, the Exploratorium, the Warming Hut at Crissy Field in San Francisco or the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Exploration Center gift shop which feature games, books, and other items that relate to the uniqueness of the bay setting, its history and ecology as well as special experiences and recreational activities that the place offers to visitors and residents. The Warming Hut in San Francisco, for example, offers guidance on how merchandising can more effectively build upon the unique characteristics of place with a variety of products ranging from books, maps, guides, recreational equipment, artwork, apparel, and souvenirs that all reinforce the unique natural, cultural and historical qualities of place.

Within the range of commercial and retail uses on the Wharf today, there is no specific space devoted to cultural, educational or scientific activities. There are a wide range of scientific and research efforts underway and the Wharf has a very rich history and library of materials that could be exhibited and made more visible to the visitor. In addition to other interpretative experiences, there is the opportunity to create graphic displays of historic photos and scientific endeavors within the commercial venues on the Wharf. An indoor environment such as that within the Gateway Building or Landmark Building is best suited for the display of this kind of information where it will not be bleached by the sun nor interrupt the flow of pedestrian activity.

Today, there are 19 businesses along the 1,300-foot commercialfrontage on the westside of the Wharf. To put this number in perspective in Downtown Santa Cruz, along the same frontage on Pacific Avenue between Water and Soquel Streetsthere are between 35 to 40 businesses. In North Beach - a pedestrian-oriented San Francisco neighborhood thatis tourist-oriented and thatthe renowned author and urban activist,JaneJacobs,wrote about extensively - there are 55 businesses along thatsame length ofstreet. The purpose ofthese comparisons is not to establish a hard standard forthe number of businesses on the Wharf, but rather to indicate thatthere should be greater variety and diversity within the existing footprint ofthe Wharf. An example which describes how back-of-the-house functions can be encapsulated with liner uses in conjunction with a large restaurant

27.135
52 S A N T A C R U Z W H A R F M A S T E R P L A N R E P O R T • O C T O B E R 2 0 1 4 The Master Plan further recommends that a detailed marketing plan be prepared for tenanting the Wharf, as uses change over time. This marketing plan should establish the specific mix of tenants that are desired and that could best work in synergy with one another and contribute to the overall brand and identity of the Wharf. In addition, the City, as the business manager of this commercial center and real estate asset, should not just be reactive to proposals brought forward by a project proponent but rathertake a more proactive role in seeking out tenantsthat would help to realize the diversity and mix of shops and restaurants desired in themarketing plan. For key sites and long term leaseholds,the City should consider a competitive bid process where proposals are solicited and the most qualified and capable businessis selected. In addition,themarketing plan could also provide short-term leases forlocal incubatorbusinesses that encourage entrepreneurial innovation and the testing of retailing concepts and products.

Specific Infill and Intensification Opportunities
Infill development can contribute to the diversity of businesses as well as enhance curb appeal, creating a more vibrant and economically viable commercial area. The angular fronts of the buildings constructed in the 1980’s by the City impedes pedestrian flow and discourages window shopping. In addition, the configuration of the storefronts also does not help the identity of the retail uses. Furthermore the size and type of fenestration of the windows and cladding of the building are more readily associated with the appearance of an office building than they are of an engaging retail establishment. To address these issues, the Master Plan proposes that the remodeling of these buildings be considered in consultation with tenants prior to the expiration of leases, or if seeking new tenants for a space, in the City-issued request for proposal process.

One of the buildings generally addressed above is directly to the south of the proposed Events Pavilion and the other is atthe landward end of the commercial uses on the Wharf. The proposed remodeling of the building directly to the south of the Events Pavilion would include infilling the sawtooth edge and bringing the retailstorefront to the sidewalk edge. It would also include a new storefront that is more transparent, and more attractive to pedestrians. This remodeling effort would also result in an addition of about 730 square feet to the ground floor and if extended to the second floor would provide for a total of approximately 1,400 square feet.

In the adjacent building where Made in Santa Cruz islocated approximately 400 square feet of ground floor space could be added. In addition, ifthe second level bridge connection were extended to this building, an additional exitstair provided, and a second level built a total of 1,400 square feet of additional commercial tenant space could be provided. In thisoptionitisassumedthatthepassageway between Marinis and Made in Santa Cruz would be retained to accessthe existing restrooms on the bay side of the building. In the remodeling effort consideration could also be given to improving and enlarging the existing restrooms.

On the landward end of the Wharf,the Master Plan also proposes remodeling the 1980’sbuildings atthatlocation to infillthe sawtooth configuration and to also infillthe diagonal passageway on the westside of the Wharf. This connection will not be needed once the Westside Walkway and public access extension are completed. The infill in this area would add approximately 1,230 square feet of ground floor space.

These improvements, like those on the bayward end, should be undertakenwhen leases are up orin consultationwith the tenants. In addition to these specificopportunities,theMaster Plan encourages the development of second floor uses as well as rooftop dining with appropriate verticalaccess. These improvementswill increase theintensity of activities and free up ground floor space to create a more engaging storefront experience. Where second story spaces occur, vertical leasing should be encouraged to diminishpotential conflictsbetween tenantsoccupying differentfloors. A preliminary estimate intensificationcould resultin a 20-30% increase in developable areawithin the existing footprint ofthe commercial uses. Thisincrease does not include the potential provision of 15,000 square feet of enclosed building space forthe publicly-oriented activities,which can be a combination of non-profit and for-profituses, in the three key locations previously identified and described on the Wharf.

Examples of heraldic blade signage on the Wharftoday
An example of see-through lettering on a storefront

27.136
M A S T E R P L A N R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S - P A R T T H R E E : I M P R O V I N G C O M M E R C I A L V I T A L I T Y A N D B U I L D I N G D E S I G N 53 D E SI G N STA N DA R D S (REVISED 2023)
The design standards establish a framework to guide future development and renovation of commercial uses asthey evolve and intensify over time. However, it is recognized that there may be a project that, by design or use, is of significant merit and warrants special consideration and discretion so long as the intended design quality and Master Plan objectives are not compromised.

Building Form: For in-line commercial establishments along the western edge of the Wharf, buildings are encouraged to balance individual identity within a collective form that is simple, straightforward and appropriate to the maritime setting.

Building Height: Second floor uses and rooftop dining are encouraged within a maximumheightof 35 feet for commercial in-line buildings. For the three landmark buildings, the maximum heightshall be 40 feet, not including special appurtenances such asflagpoles and architectural projections.

Ground Floor Height: High bay spaces with transom windows to bring in light from above are encouraged for single story buildings. In two story buildings, the minimum ground floor heightshall be 12 feet floor to floor.

Windows and Glazed Openings: The minimum below canopy glazed storefront shall be 8 feet in total height of windows. The solid base of the storefront shall be no more than 36 inches in height. No dark or mirrored glass is permitted anywhere. All glazing shall be tempered or safety glass on the western façade of buildings.

Finished Floor Grade: The finished floor of all buildings shall be at sidewalk grade and any change in elevation shall be accommodated internally within the premises. Where possible, incorporate floor drains throughout all areas of buildings to facilitate recovery from internal or exterior flooding events.

Build-To Line: All storefronts shall be built to a consistent line from the face of curb of the sidewalk.

Building Transparency: Blank walls shall be strongly discouraged and the maximum length of blank walls within a storefront shall not exceed 5 feet.

For each premise, 40% of the ground floor façade along the sidewalk shall be open or glazed and visually accessible to the interior of the restaurant or storefront. For large restaurants, 100 feet of frontage or more, a minimum of 50% of the frontage shall provide for visual accessthrough the premises to the west side views. Reasonable interruption of the visual plane for such elements as hoods, cooking lines, structural columns, etc. is allowed so long as visual access is maintained.

Liner Uses: Back of the house functions shall be encapsulated with liner uses that are either operated by the same tenant or a sub-tenant. These liner uses may include small vendors, such astake-out food, ice cream, oyster bar, coffee bar and gift shops. A minimum 15-foot depth, 30-foot width and 450 square feet size is recommended.

Roof: Flat roofs are discouraged, except when used for rooftop dining. A sloped standing seam roof of no less than 4 in 12 pitch is encouraged with a light reflective color and corrosion-resistant material. Mechanical equipment shall be enclosed to prevent creating an attractive nuisance for bird nesting and hidden from view within a clerestory portion of the roof.

Sidewalk Canopy: A sidewalk canopy or roof overhang of a 12-foot depth and 12 to 15 foot height is required over the entire sidewalk adjacent to and the length of each of the premises to provide continuous weather protection for pedestrians. The canopy shall be structured to be a permanent part of the façade. Awnings or fabric extensions are not an acceptable alternative. Lighting must be incorporated in the overhang to improve the uniformity ratio of parking area lighting, and provide for sidewalk illumination.

Second Floor Use: Second floor uses are encouraged where an accessible elevator and two means of egress can be provided. Any second floor use that is separate from the ground floor must have a storefront entrance atsidewalkgrade.

Mezzanines: To open up the ground floor for publicly-oriented dining and shopping activities in large restaurants, mezzanine level spaces, comprising up to 1/3 of the ground floor, over the back-of-the-house functions are encouraged to provide additionalstorage, office and mechanical space.

These areasshall be served by stairs and a 2,000 pound lift for accessibility.

Signage: Pedestrian scale signage is encouraged. The principal identity signage shall be below canopy blade type heraldic signage that is no more than 7 square feet in size, located perpendicular to the path of movement, and providing for at least 8 feet of vertical clearance from the sidewalk.

Identity signage on the front edge of the canopy is permitted but shall be limited to two feet in height and no more than half of the frontage length.

Major identity signage is only permitted for large restaurants and only one sign per establishment with 100 feet or more of frontage including liner uses. Major identity signage shall be fabricated in metal and of high quality materials and limited in size to 1.5 square feet for each linear foot of frontage. These signs shall be no more than 7 feet by 20 feet in size and locations 15 feet above grade are encouraged.

No advertising signs can be placed on the storefront. Identity signs placed within the window area of the storefront shall be no more than 10% of the glazed area with individual letters or an identity logo that permits visibility to the interior and that creates an appropriate juxtaposition between the activity within the storefront, the identity on the glass and the outside area.

In addition, menu displays on the storefront shall be limited to 24 inches by 17 inches in size. No backlit, flashing or canned signage is permitted. No rooftop signs or any sign that is silhouetted against the sky is permitted.

Storefront Displays: In retail shops, displays must be undertaken in a way that allows for adequate visibility into forty percent of the shop. Any temporary signage related to sales or events must be coordinated with the City before they are displayed and only for a limited period of time.

Restrooms: Restrooms will not be required for small establishments less than 600 square feet in size; all restrooms shall be ADA accessible. Public restrooms will serve the smaller establishment requirements. In establishments where liner uses are integrated with the restaurant, a single set of restrooms can serve both the liner uses and the restaurant.

Active Storefronts: Exhibition kitchens and other making of products sold on premises is encouraged to be directly visible through the storefront.

Large operable windows are encouraged to create an engaging environment between indoors and outdoors.

Building Materials and Color: High quality building materials shall be utilized that are capable of withstanding the marine environment. Standing seam silver metallic roofs are encouraged in an industrial vocabulary. Buildings are encouraged to be light in color, however the storefront below the canopy can be distinctively painted for individual identity.

Garbage Collection: All garbage shall be stored on site until it is collected. In food and beverage establishments, garbage storage areas shall be enclosed and mechanically ventilated.

Green Building Design: All buildings shall be designed to green building standards atminimumequivalent to a LEED silverrating.

27.137
5 4SANTA CRU Z WHAR F MASTE R PLA N REPOR T .OCTOBE R 2014

27.138
M A S T E R P L A N R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S : I M P L E M E N T A T I O N 55

IMPLEMENTATION
The Wharf Master Plan was developed through City initiative and a grant from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration. It was prepared over a two-year period of time with significant community, stakeholder, agency and City staff input. The Wharf Master Plan establishes a comprehensive vision for how the Wharf as a historic and cultural resource can contribute more effectively to the economic vitality of the City and region, be a more fulfilling asset for the community, and enhance the recreational and open space, educational and scientific potentials while engaging more fully with the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary.

A great deal of momentum has been gained through the planning process and a great deal of support and consensus has been built with the community. It is important now to build on the positive energy that has been generated during the plan preparation process and move towards implementation.

There are a number of steps involved in implementation. They include regulatory, permitting and environmental considerations, funding andfinancingstrategies,management andoperational elements, and programdevelopment and detailed design and construction.

Regulatory and Permitting Considerations
The need for a comprehensive planning study dates to 1998 when the Beach and South of Laurel Plan was prepared. During that time, a community planning process was undertaken and many of the issues and objectives that the Wharf Master Plan has responded to were identified.

Through the Beach and South of Laurel Plan the Coastal Commission encouraged the City to update its regulatory and permitting framework to guide and facilitate improvement and development of the Wharf and to better coordinate it with the objectives and mandate of the Coastal Act. Following acceptance of the Wharf Master Plan by the City Council, environmental documentation will need to be prepared under NEPA and CEQA. The US Army Corps of Engineers has stepped forward to take the lead as the federal agency for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the City will be the local lead agency for the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). It is anticipated that permitting on the Wharf will be regulated by a Coastal Development Permit and a Coastal Commission Public Works Permit that will include all of the improvements and projects anticipated in the Wharf Master Plan. Federal permitting can follow a similar format, since there are many inter-relationships that can occur. With the assistance and leadership of Congressman Sam Farr, an interagency task force has been established and will hold regular meetings to oversee and facilitate the regulatory review, environmental documentation and permitting process.

Once the environmental documents have been circulated, comments responded and certification has occurred, regulatory documents can be adopted by the City and Coastal Commission.

Funding and Financing Strategies
The Wharf was built as a public enterprise by the City and it has been maintained and developed through the efforts of both public and private sectors. As described more fully in the Wharf Master Plan, in order to achieve the potential of the Wharf and extend its longevity into the future, public reinvestment will be required. A preliminary budget estimate for the public improvements has been prepared and is attached for reference. It identifies each of the proposed projects and the potential funds that might be required for implementation. Given the broad mandate from federal, state, regional and local entities that is addressed in the Wharf Master Plan, the City will need to seek funding from all levels of government. The US Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration’s planning grant for the Wharf Master Plan was key in its formulation, and the EDA’s future involvement will be critical in addressing the role that the Wharf can play in job creation and economic development. The State Coastal Conservancy will have an interestin achieving the public access aspects,which are the backbone ofthe Master Plan. In addition, other state agenciessuch as Wildlife Conservation Board and the Department of Boating and Waterways will be interested in realizing the proposed fishing and boating improvements. State funding for public worksthrough agenciessuch asthe California Financing Coordinating Committee should also be pursued when available. In addition, because ofthe location ofthe Wharf within the Coastal Zone and the significant role it can play in meeting a number ofstate-wide goals, consideration should be given to sponsoring special legislationthatwould allow forthe state’s share ofsalestax proceeds from this area to be reinvested in the Wharf.

Local sources of funding will also be needed. In the tradition of the City bond that originally paid forthe construction of the Wharf, a new local bond that repositionsthe Wharf forthe next 100 years would be a worthy consideration. This bond could be focused on public access, recreational and open space improvements including swimming, boating, jogging, fishing, bicycling and making the scenic qualities of the Monterey Bay more accessible to all groups. Some opportunities may also arise if some of the redevelopment bond monies that are currently tied up in the State Department of Finance were released for use at the Wharf.

It is important to keep in mind that all of the improvements itemized in the budget estimate will not be realized all at once. Many of the components will have multiple phases. Priorities should be given to those elements which can be most transformative in nature and give the greatest value for the investment that is made. From that standpoint, the implementation of the East Promenade – in part or in whole – is probably one of the key elements along with the boating improvements that will do the most to realize positive change. At the same time, though, several components can be pursued simultaneously through multiple sources of funding. It is also important to be proactive and opportu27.139 56 S A N T A C R U Z W H A R F M A S T E R P L A N R E P O R T • O C T O B E R 2 0 1 4 nistic in order to be in a position to quickly take advantage of grants and public funds that may become available for a very specific functional need. For example, the relocation of the gateway entrance and the pay stations as well as the pay-on-foot system could be an excellent category for transportation and/or parking related funding sources that could be pursued in conjunction with the implementation of the roundabout, which is a separate City project. For some projects, gaining funding on an opportunistic basis will be greatly facilitated by having completed the environmental review and permitting process, so that construction could begin relatively quickly.

Private sources of funding sources should also be considered, nurtured and pursued for public improvements. Many communities today have very effectively tapped into the philanthropic realm for funding public improvement projects. There are a number of foundations today whose mission is to promote environmental, recreational and educational themes, especially when located in an important natural setting such as the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. Corporate sponsorship can be gained from entities who want to demonstrate that they are giving back to the community and promoting environmental and educational initiatives. SantaCruzisthe home to many innovative high tech businesses that are national in scope and thatmay be interested in being a more visible part ofthe local community and a project ofsignificantstature. The LandmarkBuilding, the Pavilion and the Gateway Building are three examples of project elementsthat could become very attractive as naming opportunities and thus attract corporate participation and funding.

Asset Management and Operations
The Wharf Master Plan not only identifies public improvement projects to realize the economic development potential and community vision for the Wharf, but it also establishes guidance for the mix of uses, the size and configuration of commercial development, and standards for design and development. Much of the funding for commercial development and for tenant improvements will come from private sources, however a combination of public and private funds may be used for improvements to the foundation, shell and core of buildings. These costs could be offset either through lease incentives allowing for the amortization of the investment made by the private sector or through the use of a public financing mechanism that could partially be repaid through ground or building lease revenues.

Shortly after the Wharf’s construction in 1914, commercial development on the Wharf was undertaken through the initiative of local fishermen and businesses. In the 1980’s, the City designed, constructed, and leased new buildings and all of the commercial tenants on the Wharf today are either on a ground lease and/or building lease to the City. Some of the older tenants on ground leases built and own their buildings as well. More recently, improvements to existing buildings where ground leases were renegotiated have been undertaken by the tenant without private ownership of the buildings. In these cases, however, incentives were given in the leases for the early years of occupancy to allow for a partial amortization of improvement costs. Since 2009 the City has been utilizing a lease template which replaces older, less comprehensive “legacy leases” and has shown to be effective in maximizing the leasehold benefits to the City while providing new and existing businesses a platform for growth and reinvestment. The City should build on its existing lease model and fine tune its leasing and tenanting practices for commercial development on the Wharf in conjunction with the recommendations contained in the Wharf Master Plan.

TheWharf Master Plan hasidentified that, even without expanding the commercial footprinton the Wharf, a significant amountofintensification can take place. Some portions of the buildings that were built by the City in the 1980’s are good candidates for infill and redevelopment asleases expire or opportunities arise. Furthermore, while some ofthe older buildings have changed hands and have been renovated, others were developed more than forty years ago and are reaching the end of their economic life and should embrace opportunities forrepositioning and redevelopment. Ultimately,the successof any commercialdevelopment depends upon the creativity and entrepreneurialskill of the owner/operator to create anattractive andconvivial establishmentthat has broader market appeal to residents as well as tourists. However, there are steps that the City can take to outreach and promote the Wharf in a supportive manner. A detailed marketing plan based on the marketing strategies noted in the Wharf Master Plan should be prepared for tenanting the Wharf as uses change over time. Although the existing mix of commercial and retail is appropriate for the moment, a detailed marketing plan should establish a specific mix of tenants that are desired and that could best work in synergy with one another and contribute to the overall brand and identity of the Wharf. In addition, the Wharf Master Plan recommends thatthe City expand its role asthe business manager ofthis commercial center and realestateasset and seek out potential tenantsthat will help to enhance the diversity andmix of shops and restaurants. For key sites and long termleaseholds,the City should consider a competitive bid process where proposals are solicited and themost qualified and capable businessis selected that representsthe “best in class”. In addition, the marketing plan should identify potential localincubatorbusinesses that encourage entrepreneurialinnovation and the testing of retailing concepts and products.

Program Development, Design and Construction
The Wharf Master Plan hasidentified specific approaches to the programming of the public realm and its potential for expanding its role in education and interpretative experiences. It has also established specific standards forthe design of new commercial enterprises and hasincorporated specific design concepts forthe new promenades, boat landings, and open water swimming facilities, design of newpublic oriented buildings at key location on the Wharf, and for the improvement of the vehicular circulation and parking areas and for enhancement of the arrival experience.

The Wharf Master Plan is not in itself an end state, but rather the beginning point for a series of efforts required for implementation. As funding is secured and as private projects are proposed, continuity will be important in realizing the vision of the Plan through programming, design and construction. The implementation of the Wharf Master Plan

27.140
M A S T E R P L A N R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S : I M P L E M E N T A T I O N 57 doesn’t stop with adoption, improved operations and management or with the identification of funding sources. It will require an on-going and diligent effort in both program development and in architectural and engineering design. In both of these cases, the City needs to consider augmenting existing staff resources or engage specialized consulting support, or both, on an as-need basis or for selected targeted projects.

From a program development point of view, the next step that is required is to develop a narrative plan and more detailed program for the integration of interpretative and educational experiences seamlessly into the life of the Wharf. This is not an effort that has been previously undertaken and requires specialized skills. It also requires a closely coordinated effort with existing establishments, such as the Exploration Center, the Monterey Bay Aquarium, the Santa Cruz Wharf Outreach Network and existing entities such as the Surfing Museum and UC Santa Cruz. A permanent curator position should be established with responsibility for monitoring, managing and coordinating efforts and to periodically update the narrative plan based on on-going input and testing of its effectiveness. However, the initial effort for the formulation of a narrative plan is fairly substantial and may require the additional expertise of consultants with extensive experience and demonstrated success in this kind of effort. For example, this kind of expertise could be brought in from existing entities such as the Exploratorium in San Francisco or from specialized consultants who have devoted their careers on a to helping entities and communities successfully develop programmatic content and narrative planning. This initial effort can also include several entities in a broad symposium setting that engages all ofthe entitiesbut there still must be a responsible party to bringing it all together and developing the specific plan in adequate detail. The initial preparation of the narrative plan can also be an excellent tool for education and training ofstaff resources who will carry forward the effort on an on-going basis and become the designated curator for the program.

In terms of design, there are multiple roles that can be played to provide support to the City and augment existing staff resources, as projects move forward to implementation. For private commercial projects, architectural consultationduringnegotiations andultimately forthearchitectural review of design submissions will be required. This kind of expertise requires detailed architectural experience in the design of food and beverage establishments as well as retail shops in a festivepublicly-oriented setting. The City can engage a consultantthat can provide this expertise on an “as-need” and on a “per diem” basis. This would include consultation in the early portions of negotiationswith commercial developers and operators to establish clearparameters and identify potentials for how to best achieve both the private and public sector objectives and create successful design approaches. They would also include, on behalf of the City, detailed design review for conformity with the policies, standards and guidelines of the Wharf Master Plan and the permitting requirements associated with it. In this role, the consultant can also outreach effectively, if necessary, to other consultants in technical engineering aspects related to structural, waterproofing, mechanical or other considerations.

The construction of public projects can be undertaken by a variety of methods, including the on-going maintenance and repair efforts currently provided by City staff as well as contracting through a Design/ Build or Design/Bid/Build process. Examples of projects that would be undertaken by staff resources include the on-going replacement of piles and the repair of timber beams, stringers and deck. The level of effort that is needed for these improvements is determined to be similar to what has been previously undertaken by the staff over many years.

There are also some projects, like the repaving of the vehicular parking areas and their upgrade to provide for storm water management, that could also be undertaken on an incremental basis by City staff. These projects would rely, to a great extent, on existing staff expertise and on the information developed in the Engineering Report that accompanies the Wharf Master Plan. This approach would also be appropriate for the operating components of the pay-on-foot system. Public Works staff has experience with these kinds of installations and could contract directly with a vendor to provide and install the pay stations, ticket dispensers, control arms and other functional elements of the system in compliance with specific locational and other requirements as set forth by the City.

Some projects could be accomplished through a Design/Build process.

This approach requires the preparation of procurement documents that provide sufficient design guidance to make sure that the City’s expectations for the qualitative and performance requirements of the project are clear and can be bid without excessive contingency requirements by the Contractor. This would require additional effort beyond what has been developed in the Master Plan and Engineering Report but does not require detailed design and full construction documentation. In the Design/Build approach, the procurement documents could include the development of design details for prototypical elements and for special conditions that require unique solutions. It would also include the specification call-outs for standardized or pre-fabricated elements and performance requirements for structural, mechanical, electrical, fire protection, waterproofing systems. In undertaking a Design/Build process, the City will need to augment its in-house expertise with consultants in architectural and engineering aspects to create the procurement documents that ensure the bidding process will not be open-ended but will deliver the qualitative and performance requirements necessary for a fixed price.

An example of this kind of project could be the implementation of the promenades and boat landings as well as the waterside swimming facilities and the floats, gangways, davits and other pre-fabricated components associated with them.

The third approach for the construction of projects would be undertaken by a Design/Bid/Build process. This process requires the preparation of Final Design for the project to be undertaken and the development of drawings and specifications necessary for bidding and construction. It would be most appropriate where there are complexities that require fully integrated design detailing in order to achieve the qualitative and functional requirements of the project. This approach would require the augmentation of City staff with architectural and engineering consultants to prepare the required work and provide full basic design services. Consultants would be best engaged on a project basis in response to implementation and funding opportunities and priorities.

An appropriate example of this approach would be the implementation of the three public buildings and possibly the gateway structure at the new entrance to the Wharf.

27.141
58 S A N T A C R U Z W H A R F M A S T E R P L A N R E P O R T • O C T O B E R 2 0 1 4 EASTPROMENADE Descrip2on Qty Unit Unit Cost Low High
Bents 37 to 111 New extension with hardwood deck (30' x 1,110')includingsprinklering 33,300 SF $155 $5,161,500 $6,193,800 Bents 111 to 145 New extension forrelocated parking with asphalt paving and sprinklering (25' x 510') 12,750 SF $140 $1,785,000 $2,142,000 Bents 111 to 145 Hardwood decking over exisJng structure (30' x 445') 13,350 SF $50 $667,500 $801,000
Bents 145 to 169 New extension adjacentto South Landing with hardwood decking and sprinklering 11,550 SF $155 $1,790,250 $2,148,300 Bents 169 to 185 Stepped promenade and overlook South
Terminus of Promenade and sprinklering 8,800 SF $165 $1,452,000 $1,742,400 Bents 170 -­‐ 179 Ten20-­‐footoutriggers at 15'oncenterfor lateralstability
10 EA $32,000 $320,000 $384,000
Guardrails
All 316 stainless with sloped top,supports at 4'
on center and 316 stainless steel mesh Bents 37
to 145, 1,430 LF + Bents 145 to 185, 704 LF
2,134 LF $200 $426,800 $512,160
Primary LighJng
HesJa LED18-­‐footincludingpole, electrificaJon
and installaJon along edge of promenade at 75
feet on center
32 EA $7,500 $240,000 $288,000
WayfindingLights
Along step-­‐down edge of promenade between
Bents 37 to 68; 89 to 111; and 147 to 167. Every
20 feet including electrificaJon and installaJon
55 EA $1,200 $66,000 $79,200
Bike Racks
Landscape Forms MulJplicity Leaning Rail and
Bike Rack, 2 for every primary light fixture
(installed)
64 EA $500 $32,000 $38,400
Subtotal East Promenade $11,900,000 $14,300,000
SMALL BOAT LANDING Descrip2on Qty Unit Unit Cost Low High Bents 68 to 89
Deck level 27' x 315' = 8,505 SF hardwood deck
including sprinklering 8,505 SF $155 $1,318,275 $1,581,930 Bents 68 to 89 Pla_orm level 26' x 315 = 8,190 SF with
fiberglass decking and sprinklering 8,190 SF $95 $778,050 $933,660 Stairs and ADA Ramps and Landings
Premium for access stairs, 5' x 23' = 115 SF x 3
=345 SF. ADA ramps, 5 runs at 30 feet, 5' wide
plus 8 landings = 1,125 SF. Plus 4 stairs to lower
pla_orm level, 5' x 7' = 35 SF x 4 = 140 SF
1,610 SF $55 $88,550 $106,260
Guardrails with Handrails where
Required
Perimeter deck level = 370 LF; Pla_orm level =
682 LF; Ramps = 300 LF; Stairs = 138 LF 1,490 LF $200 $298,000 $357,600 Gangway
Prefabricated 6' x 85' gangway plus 2 pilesfor
raising in winter 1 EA $80,000 $80,000 $96,000
Float 12' x 45' plus 4 guidepiles 540 SF $90 $48,600 $58,320 Sea Lion Deterrent on Float Assume low voltage electric current 540 SF $30 $16,200 $19,440 New Davits Forsmall boats 2 EA $70,000 $140,000 $168,000 Boat Rental Kiosk Shell and core no tenant improvements 600 SF $150 $90,000 $108,000 Kyak Rental Kiosk Shell and core no tenant improvements 300 SF $150 $45,000 $54,000 Subtotal Small Boat Landing $2,900,000 $3,500,000
In Conclusion
The Wharf was originally built in 1914 to provide for
the economic development of the City and region.

Over the years, it has transformed itself a number of
times but has always continued to contribute to the
economic vitality of the area. Today, it is 100 years
old and, although significant changes were made to
the Wharf for commercial development purposes
in the 1950’s through the 1980’s, no major improvements have been undertaken since that time. In addition, while planning was undertaken in the
immediate vicinity in the late 1990’s as part of the
Beach and South of Laurel Plan, those efforts did not
go any further than to identify the significant need
to plan more specifically for the future of the Wharf.

It has not been until the preparation of this Wharf
Master Plan and Engineering Report that the City
has been able to undertake a comprehensive review
of the Wharf and its ability to respond to changing
economic and environmental conditions. The Wharf
Master Plan is the result of this comprehensive
assessment and makes recommendations for the
future that will help reposition the Wharf to better
respond to the dynamic qualities of the marketplace,
the unique characteristics of the setting, changing
environmental conditions and broader community
objectives. The implementation of these recommendations will help the Wharf realize its full potential as a contributor to the economic vitality of the city
and region; to preserve and enhance its historic and
cultural role; to improve its recreational and open
space opportunities; to enhance its role in science
and education and the stewardship of the Monterey
Bay National Marine Sanctuary; and to extend its
longevity for the enjoyment of future generations.

Monterey Bay Aquarium shopsthatfeature local and
educationalmerchandise
Interactive exhibits at the Exploratorium build “noticing skills” Preliminary Planning Level Budget Estimate

27.142
M A S T E R P L A N R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S : I M P L E M E N T A T I O N 59 SOUTHLANDING Descrip2on Qty Unit Unit Cost Low High
AccessRamp
Seven30-­‐footlongrampswith 5-­‐footlandings
inbetween Jed back to the bents supporJng the
Promenade (12' x 215') including sprinklering
2,580 SF $155 $399,900 $479,880
Landing Pla_orm with fiberglass decking at +9 MLLW (24' x 75') 1,800 SF $140 $252,000 $302,400
AccessGangway
Moveable for varying freeboards and Jdal
ranges plus libing mechanism 1 SUM $50,000 $50,000 $60,000 Guardrails and Handrails where
Required
On access ramp 430 LF; On lower pla_orm 200
LF 630 LF $250 $157,500 $189,000
Dolphins AddiJonal to the extended piles on the pla_orm 3 EA $35,000 $105,000 $126,000 Subtotal SouthLanding $1,000,000 $1,200,000
WEST PUBLICACCESS EXTENSIONS Descrip2on Qty Unit Unit Cost Low High Bents 161 to 183 At exisJng Wharf deck level with asphalt and sprinklering 3,800 SF $140 $532,000 $638,400
Bents 77 to 135
Westside public access,sloped walk to +15
MLLW, 12' x 870' with fiberglass decking and
sprinklering
10,440 SF $150 $1,566,000 $1,879,200
Guardrails Bent 161 to 183 = 355 LF; Bent 177 to 135 =
1,740 LF 2,095 LF $200 $419,000 $502,800
Subtotal West Public Access Extensions $2,500,000 $3,000,000 OPENWATER SWIMMINGFACILITY Descrip2on Qty Unit Unit Cost Low High Gangway
Prefabricated 6' x 85' gangway plus 2 pilesfor
raising in winter 1 EA $80,000 $80,000 $96,000
Float 12' x 45' plus 4 guidepiles 540 SF $90 $48,600 $58,320 Sea Lion Deterrent on Float Assume low voltage electric current 540 SF $30 $16,200 $19,440 Tenant Improvements Restrooms, changing rooms, sauna and meeJng space
1,000 SF $100 $100,000 $120,000
SubtotalOpenWater Swimming Facility $245,000 $294,000
PUBLICBUILDINGS Descrip2on Qty Unit Unit Cost Low High
GatewayBuilding High bay shell and core including foundaJon ($70 SF),tenant improvements not included 3,000 SF $270 $810,000 $972,000 LandmarkBuilding High bay shell and core including foundaJon ($100 SF),tenantimprovements notincluded 6,000 SF $350 $2,100,000 $2,520,000 EventsPavilion High bay roof and glazing including foundaJon ($50 SF), interiorimprovements notincluded 6,200 SF $200 $1,240,000 $1,488,000 SubtotalPublicBuildings $4,200,000 $5,000,000
Note: Subtotals and Grand Total are rounded.

Project costs are estimated in 2014 U.S.
dollars and will be adjusted as projects
proceed.25
25 Recommended revision - April, 2023.

RELOCATEDGATEWAY ENTRANCE &
PARKING CONTROL Descrip2on Qty Unit Unit Cost Low High
Steel Support Structure
Tube steel braced framing for: Beam 5' x 255';
Columns 8 -­‐ 2' x 3' x 14' 1 SUM $110,000 $110,000 $132,000 Roll Down Gates
Six 14' x 14' motorized stainless, Euro Grille or
equal installed 1 SUM $150,000 $150,000 $180,000
LighJng and ElectrificaJon Recessed lights per gate 3 x 6 = 18 1 SUM $36,000 $36,000 $43,200 Cladding
Aluminum cladding with three coats of Kynar
finish on allsurfaces of beam and columns 4,470 SF $40 $178,800 $214,560 Signage
Main idenJty sign: 14 leiers, 8' high with
support structure and lighJng; Secondary
idenJty signage: 43 leiers, 1' to 2' high in
stainlesssteel
1 SUM $85,000 $85,000 $102,000
Concrete Curb Islands
With 6" curb and guier, approximately 200 SF of
paving with accessible curb ramp
3 PER $4,000 $12,000 $14,400
Booths
Prefabricated accessible boothsincluding doors,
windows, wiring, HVAC and lighJng installed
3 PER $15,000 $45,000 $54,000
ParkingControl
Ticket dispenser, card readers, barrier gate
operators, loop detectors, credit card terminal
for exiJng, telephone intercom staJons and five
pay on foot automated staJons
1 SUM $322,500 $322,500 $387,000
Wharf Extension
With concrete paving to match exisJng sidewalk
on eastside 1,600 SF $150 $240,000 $288,000
Guardrail For Wharf Extension area 100 LF $200 $20,000 $24,000 Subtotalfor Relocated Gateway Entrance & Parking Control $1,200,000 $1,400,000 GRANDTOTAL $24,000,000 $29,000,000
Maker culture activitiesthatsuccessfully integrate education and interpretative experiences atthe National Maritime Museum – Hyde Street Pier.

27.143
60 S A N TA C R U Z W H A R F M A S T E R P L A N R E P O R T . O C T O B E R 2 0 1 4 6"x 12"JOISTS@18"0C
3"X 6"HARDWOOD DECKING
WITH 3/8"GAP FORDRAINAGE
-NEW 18 'HIGHLIGHT FIXTURESAT 75'ONCENTER

WITH BIRDPROTECTION
5%SLOPED CROSSWALK BEYOND
+13.00MLLW GANGWAY LANDING/LOWER DECK
24'-0" 28'-0" NEW WHARF EXISTING WHARF
27'-0" 30' 0" EAST SIDE PUBLIC ACCESS PROMENADE
SMALL BOAT LANDING EASTPROMENADE---+""*-------VEHICULAR CIRCULATION

27.144
M A S T E R P L A N R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S - PA R T T H R EE : I M P R O V I N G C O M M E R C I A L V I T A L I T Y A N D B U I L D I N G D E S I G N 61 I
+ + +
[
,
I
I
I I
I I
- -- - --r -------------- 1- - - --
12'0VERHANG

WITHDOWNLIGHTING

ROOF DRAIN
BLADE SIGN---+-<>

VISUAL ACCESS VISUAL ACCESS

RAIN BARREL SEDIMENT FILTER FOR ROOF RUN-OFF
EXISTINGWINDOWWASHINGAREA, +23 MLLW
NEW 12'WIDEWESTSIDEPUBLIC ACCESSWAY:
2"THICKFIBERGLASSDECKING
WITH 4"X 12"JOISTS AND
2 -6"X12"BEAMS ATEACH PAIROFPILES

TIEDBACKTOEXISTINGWHARF

VISUAL ACCESS

TOWARDWEST CLIFF
& COWELLS BEACH

VISUAL ACCESS

TOWHARF

STRUCTURE
0 0
0 0
12'
- MHHW+5.34 -MHW +4.64
18' 1·-0·
BUMPER

OVERHANG
15'
7' [
" 7' 2'-6" --MTL +2.87
-MLW +l.10
--MLLWO

AND PARKING SIDEWALK COMMERCIAL USES WEST PUBLIC

ACCESSWAY

27.145
62 S A N T A C R U Z W H A R F M A S T E R P L A N R E P O R T • O C T O B E R 2 0 1 4

27.146
S A N T A C R U Z W H A R F M A S T E R P L A N R E P O R T 63

A C K N OW LE DGE M E N T S
Congressman Sam Farr
Senator Bill Monning
Assemblymember Mark Stone

SANTA CRUZ CITY COUNCIL
Lynn Robinson, Mayor
Don Lane, Vice-Mayor
Pamela Comstock
David Terrazas
Cynthia Matthews
Hilary Bryant
Micah Posner

PLANNING COMMISSION
Mark Mesiti-Miller, Chair
Peter Kennedy, Vice-Chair
Christian Nielsen
Jason Nortz
Mark Primack
Mari Tustin
Peter Spellman

PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
Randy Widera, Chair
Cynthia Chase
Richard Andrews, Vice-Chair
Maria Gaura
Christine Palochak
Cece Pinheiro
Lars Shallberg

CITY STAFF
Martín Bernal, City Manager
Bonnie Lipscomb, Director, Economic Development
Dannettee Shoemaker, Director, Parks & Recreation
Juliana Rebagliati, Director,
Planning & Community Development
Mark Dettle, Director, PublicWorks
Chief Kevin Vogel, Police Department
Chief Jeff Trapp, Fire Department
Marlin Granlund, Parking Manager
Joe Hall, EconomicDevelopment
Jon Bombaci, Wharf Supervisor
Norman F. Daly, Project Manager, Wharf Master Plan
David McCormic, Project Manager, Wharf Master
Plan

PHOTO CREDITS
Estevan Guzman: Cover and Page 6
Santa Cruz City Museum of Natural History:

Geoffrey Dunn: Page 4, bottom right
Santa Cruz Sentinel: Page 9
Tam Communications: Page 30

CONSULTANTS
ROMA Design Group: Urban Design & Architecture
Boris Dramov, TeamLeader
Bonnie Fisher, Project Manager
Jim Leritz, ProjectUrbanDesigner
Eri Suzuki, Project Architect
Robert Holloway, Graphic Design
Chris Grubbs, Illustration
Moffatt & Nichol: Structural & Coastal Engineers
Brad Porter, Lead Engineer
Erica Petersen, Structures Engineer
Heath Pope, Dive Supervisor
Dilip Trivedi, Coastal Engineer and Permitting
Apex Strategies: CommunityOutreach
Eileen Goodwin
Economic & Planning Systems: Market & Financial
Jim Musbach, Principal
Ashleigh Kanat
BCV Architects: Retail Architects
Hans Baldauf, Principal
Nelson-Nygaard: Parking & Circulation
Jeffery Tumlin, Principal
Colin Burgett, Principal
Nikki Silva and Charles Prentiss: Interpretive Exhibits Mesiti-Miller Engineering: Paving and Drainage
Mark Mesiti-Miller
Axiom Engineers: Fire Protection
Steve Rawson
OTHERS
Memios:EnvironmentalandWasteManagement
Dan McKenzie
Tom Freeman
Jeff Shell
GMG Systems,Inc.: ParkingTechnologies
Kris Gospodinov

CONTRIBUTORS
Paul Michel, Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary
LisaUttal, MontereyBay National Marine Sanctuary
Gary Pezzi, MB National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council Gary Griggs, UCSC
Raphael Kudela, UCSC
Maggie Ivy, SC County Conference & Visitors Council
Bill Tysseling, Santa Cruz Area Chamber of Commerce
Charles Canfield, Santa Cruz Seaside Company
Ted Whiting, Santa Cruz Seaside Company
Kris Reyes, Santa Cruz Seaside Company
Gino Marini, Marini’s Candies
Larry Jackson, Vino Prima
Javier Paramo, Pacific Coast Kites
Vince Tuzzi, Paradise Dogs
Germaine Akin, Splash!
Dave Johnston, Venture Quest
Gary Phariss, Buccaneer Gifts
Mark Gilbert, Firefish
Steve Elb, Olitas
Dino Stagnaro, Gilda’s Restaurant
Marshall Miller, Sun Shops
TJ Moran, Sun Shops
Ken Stagnaro, Stagnaro Charters
Jane McKenzie, Santa Cruz Longboard Union
Kim Stoner, Santa Cruz Long Board Union
Barney Langner, Santa Cruz Surfing Club Preservation Society Chris Reeves, Seymour Center
John Haynes, Santa Cruz Harbor
Barry Whittal, Santa Cruz Yacht Club
Holly Bowers, MBARI
Santa Cruz Wharf Outreach Network
Eric Dimond, San Francisco Exploratorium
Geoff Dunn
Stephen Rudzinski
Al Mitchell
William Rubel
Reed Searle
Charlie Lewis
Khristina Horn
Apologies to those who also contributed but are not listed

27.147
M A S T E R P L A N R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S - P A R T T W O : E N H A N C I N G E X I S T I N G P U B L I C S P A C E A N D A C T I V I T I E S , C I R C U L A T I O N A N D P A R K I N G 29 The Bayward End – Enhancing an Experiential Focus and Destination The Master Plan emphasizes the creation of a more vibrant terminus to the Wharf experience with activities that will draw people to this strategic location. The improvements proposed at the bayward end of the East Promenade – the Stepped Edge, the Terraced Overlook, the Outriggers and the South Landing, described in the previous chapter, all contribute to this goal, however, new structures, furnishings, and programming is envisioned to create a more active and engaging space.

The bayward end of the Wharf has transformed since the
Wharf was first constructed and adapted as needs changed.

This area was first home to a roughly 30’ tall warehouse structure designed by Henry J. Brunnier to mimic the popular Mission Revival style popular along the San Francisco waterfront in the early 1900’s. This building had a scale and simplicity of form that was well fitted to its location and function. When the building was demolished, the area lost an important organizing element that supported maritime functions, a visual terminus, historic continuity, and symbolic meaning conveying activity the end of the Wharf. It is useful to remember that the reason the Wharf was extended bayward to this length was to meet the depth of water capable of accommodating the maritime functions that the Wharf and warehouse building long expressed that use. Today, even although maritime functions are no longer dominant, it is important from a historical, cultural, and wayfinding perspective to re-create a destination that serves its function, attracts interest and helps sustain the Wharf. Structures and spaces should be legible in form and rooted in authenticity, reflecting the working Wharf vernacular w i t h flexibility to adapt to new uses, activities, and needs.

Where fishing, shipping, and passenger travel were once its primary functions, the Wharf today is home to recreation, dining, and retail activities. Through these activities the Wharf has generated the resources needed to sustain the Wharf in each era. The Master Plan anticipates that change will be needed as Wharf infrastructure wears out and as structures need replacement. This opens opportunities to reimagine the variety of activities that could occur at the end of the Wharf. Thoughtful design and programming of this are is crucial to promoting a destination the encourages discovery, visitation, and offers a more vibrant, educational, and self-sustaining destination.

To this challenge, earlier drafts of the Wharf Master Plan proposed a reimagined warehouse as a new “Landmark” that would juxtapose the architectural language of the past with modern-day activities and programming to house a combination of public, educational, and commercial activities. Simple, multi-functional, and well intentioned, this proposed structure has not garnered universal support, but rather raised concerns over its size and highlighted diverse perspectives on what the Wharf terminus should be.

For many, the experience of nature alone, surrounded by panoramic views and the intimate sights and sounds of sea lions below deck form lasting memories and encourage them to come back; little else is needed. For others, the experience can leave them wanting more; more opportunities to engage with the environment and seeking greater connection between their lives and this place. The absence of clear visual cues suggesting activity, new experiences, and discovery at the end of the Wharf can cause some to forego the experience altogether and never visit the end of th eWharf, feeling that they’ve already seen all the Wharf has to offer.

The Wharf Master Plan seeks to engage all of these visitors across its entire length with distinct experiences, opportunities for learning, and more chances for novel interactions with each visit. With this goal in mind, the bayward is the natural culmination of that experience and can be enhanced to better attract visitors to activities found no where else. Proposed improvements like the Terrace Overlook and haul out ledgers, build upon existing opportunities like sea lion viewing holes, fishing, interpretation, and sight-seeing. Expanded decking and anticipated wharf repairs beneath the Dolphin offer yet more opportunities to reinvent the bayward end and future options to activate the space. The emergence of placemaking and public life as a design philosophies coupled with increased awareness of intergenerational needs, equity, and multicultural perspectives offer guidance on how the wharf can be increasingly dynamic, approachable, and translatable to an increasing diverse public. They also focus the stewardship and development of a place on human experience, equitable access, and balancing the socio-economic, environmental, and cultural values of a place. To this end, building diverse user groups and constituencies, expanding self-sustaining programming and activities, and empowering individuals to take part in iterative process of placemaking is core to ensuring public places remain valued and viable.

Perhaps more than any other part of the Master Plan, the bayward end calls for this approach; a focus on people and place first, rooted in sustainability and function.

The Power of 10 framework, invented by the Project for Public Spaces, offers one outline to a more vibrant future at the end of the Wharf. The idea is simply that places thrive when users have a range of reasons (10+) to be there. These might include a place to sit, playgrounds to enjoy, art to touch, music to hear, food to eat, history to experience, and people to meet. Ideally, some of these activities will be unique to each particular place and reflect the culture, setting, and history of the surrounding community. The study of public life, championed by Jan Gehl and others provides observational evidence of how simple interventions in the design and placement of structures, furnishings, and activities can influence who finds a place inviting and how accessible and successful it is at sustaining safety, vibrancy, and economic activity where appropriate. For a destination like the Wharf, which attracts local, regional, and global visitors, features and design interventions should be universal, supportive to all ages, and connect users to the rich tapestry of history, environment, and culture that the Wharf embodies.

Debate over the bayward end highlights the need to start fresh on how this area evolves in the future. The Master Plan commits to preserving or adapting the sea lion viewing/fishing holes and includes other improvements to enrich the end of the Wharf, but commerce remains essential to the Wharf’s sustainability. Revenues generated through the Dolphin and other wharf businesses today will need to scale over time to keep pace with increasing maintenance costs and the increased impacts of climate change. What this means for the end of the Wharf may be more than replacement in kind as the Dolphin and wharf structure age out, but should reflect the values, scale, and needs

27.148
M A S T E R P L A N R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S - P A R T T W O : E N H A N C I N G E X I S T I N G P U B L I C S P A C E A N D A C T I V I T I E S , C I R C U L A T I O N A N D P A R K I N G 30 of wharf activities at the time the development occurs. At the same time, public serving and cultural facilities should be prioritized within the 6,000 square foot maximum footprint studied for new construction in this unique destination. Future structures should integrate both indoor and outdoor experiences that were once common on the Wharf. Features that are a major attraction and draw to visitors.

Such uses could include a combination of cultural, educational, and commercial uses as well as the possibility of a small gathering and lecture facility capable of supporting multiple uses and promoting this destination attraction at the Wharf’s southern-most point. The Santa Cruz Surfing Museum has expressed its interest in locating within this part of the Wharf and considering a feasibility study to explore the potentials of a facility that could include exhibit space and classrooms, as well as a café and shop that would significantly expand what it offers visitors at the current facility at Lighthouse Point. However, plans for the end of the Wharf require a great deal of thought before settling on the appropriate use, facilities, and final disposition.

The Wharf has throughout its history survived and at times thrived through adaptation and focusing on its core function as a Wharf. When shipping and fishing where dominant, the warehouse supported those activities and generated revenues to sustain the area. As those industries declined, the end of the Wharf was saved and restored by reimagining the area as a fishing park; a bold transformation that attracted a one-time infusion of funds for the area and east parking lot.

Later introduction of a bait shop and snack bar have since evolved in to the Dolphin restaurant today. Looking toward the future new opportunities to reimage the end of the Wharf will surely arise and the focus should remain on supporting the Wharf’s core functions and its setting. The Wharf Master Plan envisions many possible new activities toward the end of the Wharf, including activities enabled through the South Landing. Through this landing new opportunities to experience the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary become possible with everything from research and educational tours, to sight-seeing and whale watching tours, charter fishing, temporary recreational vessel mooring, emergency access, and commercial fish landing. For any of these support facilities may be needed and Wharf history once again provides a guide. Through roughly three to four generations of buildings, the wharf has seen everything from small fishing shacks, pump stations, aquariums, fish freezers, and a yacht club, on up to the historic warehouse and the many commercial and retail structures today. Although these structures most often lie along the western edge of the wharf today, throughout its history they have been dispersed on nearly all areas of the Wharf, always driven by function and necessity for the use it was meant to serve.

So what does the future look like for the bayward end of the Wharf.

Only time will tell, and it is only limited by the imagination of our community and the needs of the Wharf. What is clear is that where the Wharf Master Plan process identified and studied a maximum footprint for such activities, it has also highlighted that not every possibility leads to a future that the community on whole wants to see. As change at the end of the wharf becomes a necessity, the community will be engaged in a new process of imagining, focused on the human experience of the space, diversification of media and interactions to convey the unique nature, history, and function of this space to all cultures and ages, and locked on the functions needed to sustain it long into the future.

Goals for this future process must include:
 Preservation or relocation of the sea lion/fishing holes.  Opportunities for competitive evaluation of alternative proposals from cultural, scientific, and commercial enterprises, including non-profit, for profit, and governmental agencies.  Prioritization of learning and experience within this unique landscape.
 Thoughtful consideration of scale and massing to optimize uses that contribute to a vibrant place, while also minimizing impacts to the experience of nature.
 Diverse and equitable engagement that seeks to include disadvantaged communities, residents, and stakeholder groups.  Sustainable resources to develop and maintain the bayward end and the Wharf as a whole.
 Design that promotes a sense of discovery and attracts visitors to experience, linger, and learn from the Santa Cruz Wharf.

Countless ways to achieve these goals can be imagined. In the end, future community input and balance of Wharf needs will once again guide how the bayward end evolves into a world class, local destination. A few potentials are suggested below to stimulate our collective imagination.  Existing sea lion viewing/fishing holes see enhancement or modification, but will remain.
 Uses planned for the end of the Wharf should balance public access, recreation, and education with any revenue generation needed to sustain the Wharf.
 The bayward end must include accessible and unprogrammed space, but could also include interactive exhibits, thematic play features, learning spaces, public art, or even outdoor dining, limited vendors, and picnic areas.
 Public art or focal elements could help strengthen curiosity and signal a point of interest from afar, in the same way Walton Lighthouse attracts visitors to the Santa Cruz harbor jetty.  Development could occur as one building or several, the latter of which could create a more intimate village type experience indicative of earlier periods of the Wharf.
 Service kiosks and support structures for maritime activities launching from the South Landing could bring activity to the end of the Wharf and support other activities and businesses there.  Structures could provide upper public viewing opportunities.  New interpretive features could enrich the visitor experience with multi-sensory interactions and deeper storytelling developed through the Wharf Interpretive Plan.
 Digital resources, like webcams and augmented reality, could bring new opportunities for education and learning, both onsite and around the world.

27.149
M A S T E R P L A N R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S - P A R T T W O : E N H A N C I N G E X I S T I N G P U B L I C S P A C E A N D A C T I V I T I E S , C I R C U L A T I O N A N D P A R K I N G 31 Major event day
Sunny regular day
The Master Plan proposes a widening of the end of the Wharf by approximately 10 to 12 feet and by 4,500 square feet, to create a more appropriate public access edge, opportunities for integrated science exhibits, preservation or relocation of sea lion viewing and fishing holes, and a better connection to the Westside Walkway. The Dolphin occupies a very significant site and is the only commercial use that is separated from the 1,300 foot line of commercial buildings on the Wharf. It was originally located there as a bait and tackle shop because of its relationship to nearby recreational fishing.

Today, it is a café with a fairly sizeable wind-protected seating area.

Proposals for the future renovation and adaptive reuse of the Dolphin leasehold need to be made in consideration of its strategic location and evaluated in terms of the synergy and complementary relationship that they may have to the public activity in and around the bayward end. In addition, the proposed physical improvements need to be made in deference to their scale and fit with other end of Wharf features and contribute to the mission of a dynamic destination at the end of the Wharf.

The Dolphin site plays a key role in how the end of the Wharf is developed.

The Events Pavilion will improve visitation throughout the year

BAYWARD END OPPORUNITY SITE

27.150
M A S T E R P L A N R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S - P A R T T W O : E N H A N C I N G E X I S T I N G P U B L I C S P A C E A N D A C T I V I T I E S , C I R C U L A T I O N A N D P A R K I N G 32 3 0
S A N T A C R U Z W H A R F M A S T E R P L A N R E P O R T • O C T O B E R 2 0 1 4

27.151
M A S T E R P L A N R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S - P A R T T W O : E N H A N C I N G E X I S T I N G P U B L I C S P A C E A N D A C T I V I T I E S , C I R C U L A T I O N A N D P A R K I N G 33 Several potential layouts for redevelopment at the end of the Wharf can be envisioned to preserve or relocate the sea lion/fishing hole experience. Some could even expand that experience to other parts of the Wharf.

27.152

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
City Hall
809 Center Street
Santa Cruz, California 95060

PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting

MINUTES
November 2, 2023
7:00 P.M. GENERAL BUSINESS AND MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST, COUNCIL

CHAMBERS
Call to Order-The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.

Roll Call-Commissioners Conway, Maxwell, McKelvey, Polhamus, and Kennedy were present. Commissioners Dawson and Gordon were absent with notification.

Statements of Disqualification-None.

Oral Communications-The following members of the public addressed the Commission: Jill Wynn.

Public Hearings

1. Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan/Final Environmental Impact Report Project Number: A20-0010 Hearing of the Revised Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan (WMP) and Final EIR (EIR). The EIR includes the Draft EIR (March 2020), Final EIR (September 2020), Recirculated Partial Draft EIR (April 2023), and the Final EIR, Volume 2 (August 2023) Wharf Master Plan includes proposals for improvements to enhance the sustainability and resilience of the Wharf, increase public access and recreational opportunities, and improve the economic viability of the Wharf. The Planning Commission will consider the revised WMP and EIR along with recent revisions, previous comments and recommendations put forward by staff, and the Historic Preservation Commission at its October 18, 2023 hearing, as well as other policies previously adopted by Council and incorporated in the Revised Wharf Master Plan. Environmental Determination: Environmental Impact Report, Applicant:

Economic Development and Housing, Filed: 9/25/2020.

27.153
Development Manager David McCormic presented the item to the Commission.

Sabrina Teller Esq, Stephanie Streelow, and Travis Beck were also present.

The public hearing was opened.

The following members of the public addressed the Commission: Gillian Greensite, Jon Bombaci, Aldo Giacchino, Andrea Rosenfeld, John Aird, unidentified speaker.

The public hearing was closed.

MOTION: Motion made by Commissioner Conway, seconded by Commissioner McKelvey, to recommend that the City Council adopt: a) The Draft Resolution of the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan (Attachment 1) and; b) The Resolution of the City of Council of the City of Santa Cruz Adopting Findings of Fact and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Revised Wharf Master Plan (Attachment 2) and; c) The Revised Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan, as may be subject to modifications considered by City Council.

ACTION: The motion passed by the following vote:

AYES: Conway, McKelvey, Polhamus, and Kennedy
NOES: Maxwell
ABSENT: Dawson, Gordon
Information Items-Assistant Planning Director Eric Marlatt advised the Commission of projects scheduled for future hearings.

Subcommittee/Advisory Body Oral Reports-None.

Items Referred to Future Agendas-None.

Adjournment-The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.

27.154

PLANNING COMMISSION

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: October 26, 2023
AGENDA OF: November 2, 2023
ITEM NO: A20-0010 Revised Santa Cruz Wharf
Master Plan and
Environmental Determination
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt:
a) The Draft Resolution of the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan (Attachment 1); and,
b) The Resolution of the City of Council of the City of Santa Cruz Adopting Findings of Fact and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Revised Wharf Master Plan
(Attachment 2); and
c) The Revised Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan, as may be subject to modifications considered by City Council.

BACKGROUND:

The Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan (“Master Plan” or “WMP” or “Project”) is a 20 to 30-year vision for the Wharf to expand public safety, access and recreation, promote sustainability, and preserve this iconic historic asset. The Wharf Master Plan, if approved, would establish a framework for any potential future expansion of the Wharf, including new public access, recreation, and cultural improvements as well as limited commercial infill called out in the Master Plan. The Wharf has not had a comprehensive plan and environmental review prepared since 1980, a need identified in the Beach South of Laurel Plan and subsequent Local Coastal Plan updates. Included in the Wharf Master Plan are several public space improvements that would expand the Wharf for recreational and public safety purposes, as well as design standards and policy guidance for the three new public/quasi-public buildings and commercial infill.

The Wharf Master Plan is the product of over twelve (12) years of community engagement and planning. On November 24, 2020, the City Council certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and adopted the WMP, which included several revisions in response to public comments.

Notable revisions to the plan include language to preserve or relocate the sea-lion viewing holes, bar ocean going cruise ships, enhance interpretive materials, and limit the height of commercial buildings to a maximum of 35 feet and the three public buildings to 40 feet or less, among other modifications. The staff report and minutes from the November 24, 2020 City Council Hearing, is attached for reference (Attachment 3).

27.155

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of November 2, 2023
SUBJECT: Revised Wharf Master Plan and Environmental Determination PAGE 2
CEQA Litigation
Following certification of the EIR and adoption of the Wharf Master Plan, a lawsuit was filed by an unincorporated association called Don’t Morph the Wharf (DMTW). The lawsuit challenged the adequacy of the EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) on several grounds, including insufficient analysis of recreation, aesthetics and historical impacts, the level of analysis related to alleged deferral of proposed impacts/mitigation, and a lack of evidence to support the adopted CEQA findings and the City Council’s rejection of Alternative 2, which does not include the proposed Westside Walkway. Specifically, DMTW focused on perceived impacts to birds from the Westside Walkway, concern about the aesthetic changes and their effect on the historical status of the Wharf, and complaints that impacts to fishing and the sea lion viewing holes could have reasonably been evaluated but were not.

On February 18, 2022, the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Cruz (hereinafter “Court”) granted the petition for writ of mandate on some of the grounds asserted by DMTW, making the following determinations:
1) That the City’s determination that the Project would not result in significant environmental impacts related to “recreation activities on the Wharf” was not supported by substantial evidence; and,
2) That the table in the EIR regarding Project consistency with applicable recreation and related land use policies did not provide a sufficient analysis of the “evidence of the project’s impacts on land use;” and,
3) That the City’s CEQA findings were not adequately supported by substantial evidence in the record; specifically, as regards the infeasibility of Alternative 2; and, 4) That deferring mitigation of impacts to the Sea Lion Viewing Holes is unlawful.

In one of its initial tentative rulings, the Court sided with DMTW as to the alleged inadequacy of the aesthetic/historic resource impacts analysis, but Judge Burdick later changed his mind and found the EIR’s analysis adequate on this issue. Based on the Court’s determination of the above-mentioned flaws, the Court ordered that approval of the Wharf Master Plan and EIR certification be voided, although only certain portions of the EIR were found to be flawed, until these flaws could be satisfactorily addressed. The City Council formally rescinded the Wharf Master Plan and EIR certification on October 11, 2022.

Revised and Recirculated Partial Draft EIR Process
State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5 requires a lead agency to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is included. As used in this section of the CEQA Guidelines, the term “information” can include changes in the project or environmental setting, as well as additional data or other information. New information added to an EIR is not “significant” unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or

27.156

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of November 2, 2023
SUBJECT: Revised Wharf Master Plan and Environmental Determination PAGE 3
avoid such an effect. “Significant new information” requiring recirculation includes, for example, a disclosure showing that:
(1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.
(2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. (3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it.
(4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.

In the present case, the Court found a lack of required analysis of potential recreational impacts and consistency with adopted land use policies relating to recreation. The Recirculated Partial Draft EIR (RPDEIR) provides the required analysis in a new recreational impacts chapter, in response to the Court’s judgment. There have been no substantive changes to the proposed Project, other than incorporating changes to the Wharf Master Plan that were previously adopted by the City Council in November 2020, along with minor modifications, and clarifying statements. None of these changes or conditions would warrant revisions to other sections of the EIR and no other EIR analysis has been modified.

Section 15088.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines also allows the lead agency to recirculate only the chapters or portions of the Draft EIR that have been revised. The lead agency may request that reviewers limit their comments to the revised sections, and the agency need only respond to comments received during the recirculation period that relate to the revised Draft EIR sections.

The City used this approach for recirculation of the new EIR section and Summary of Impacts as related to recreation and land use, along with clarifying statements in the project summary and project description. The court did not find fault with other sections of the EIR and the rest of the analysis remains substantially unchanged and complete.

The RPDEIR was recirculated for the required 45-day comment period from April 17, 2023 to May 31, 2023, and a community meeting was held on May 30, 2023 to discuss the revisions to the EIR and Wharf Master Plan. Responses to all substantive, relevant comments can be found in the Final EIR – Volume 2. For questions about other, unchanged, sections of the EIR, citations that reference prior responses already included in the EIR have been provided whenever possible. A Notice of Availability for the Final EIR – Volume 2 was published on Sept 1, 2023 and noticed in the Santa Cruz Sentinel on September 7 and 10, 2023. These files and the Revised Wharf Master Plan are available on the Project Website.

The RPDEIR summarizes the process undertaken by the City to revise the EIR, master plan, and outlines next steps in response to the Court ruling. The RPDEIR also provides clarifying language related to the project summary and description including policy revisions and additions in response to public comments, prior hearings and Council-adopted changes, lessons learned, and the court ruling. Lastly, the RPDEIR adds a new Section 4.8 – Recreation evaluating the potential impacts to recreation and recreational facilities that could result from Wharf Master

27.157

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of November 2, 2023
SUBJECT: Revised Wharf Master Plan and Environmental Determination PAGE 4
Plan implementation.

The recreation chapter, that was added to the EIR in the RPDEIR takes a holistic view of recreation based on the most expansive definition of recreation and recreation facility in California law. The Santa Cruz Wharf is a unique, multiple-use commercial and recreational facility that offers a much more diverse array of recreational and cultural opportunities than a typical park or recreation facility. Many of these activities don’t fit cleanly within the City’s definitions of recreation referencing outdoor activity, play, and sports, although some activities do fall within the broad category of passive recreation. There are few stand-alone public facilities like the Wharf, which offers a broad array of recreational opportunities. An overview of the RPDEIR recreational analysis is provided in the Discussion section.

Staff have also revised and augmented the proposed CEQA Findings of Fact (Attachment 2), including the discussion of the feasibility of Alternative 2 (the WMP without the Western Walkway) in response to the Court ruling. The revised discussion in the findings more fully explains and cites additional substantial evidence in the record supporting the recommended finding of infeasibility of the alternative, which is within the City Council’s discretion to decide.

Planning Commission Review
The Planning Commission is charged in its bylaws with advising “City Council on matters pertaining to Land Use and recommending the “adoption, amendment, or repeal” of Master Plans for the “physical development of the City.” The Commission is therefore asked to consider the proposed Wharf Master Plan as revised; specifically, Commissioners should consider whether and how revisions to the plan and new analysis of recreation and related land use policies, and updated CEQA findings of fact in response to the court ruling, might impact the Commission’s prior decisions to recommend City Council adoption of the Master Plan. All other aspects of the EIR and Master Plan remain unchanged from prior consideration and no new environmental impacts have been presented or identified that would substantially alter the CEQA findings.

Consideration of unchanged, and legally adequate sections of the EIR should be rooted in the existing record and EIR analysis, or objective standards established therein. Additional background on the project and prior EIR analysis can be found in the City Council staff report for November 24, 2020 (Attachments 3).

It should be noted that the Planning Commission provided feedback on the draft Master Plan at their February 20, 2014 meeting and recommended adoption of the plan and certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the CEQA Initial Study at the November 17, 2016 commission hearing (7-0). After that meeting, the City Council deferred adoption of the Master Plan until an EIR could be prepared for the project. The Planning Commission then considered EIR findings on October 15, 2020, before once again recommending that City Council adopt the plan and certify the EIR (6-1). At that hearing, the Planning Commission considered recommendations from the Historic Preservation Commission, related to historic alteration permits, and historical interpretation. The Commission also considered staff recommendations including, the prohibition of ocean liner type cruise ships and modification of the entrance signage exhibit to provide alternative examples and inspirational imagery, rather than concrete dimensions. The Commission also voted down a motion from Commissioner Dawson to remove

27.158

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of November 2, 2023
SUBJECT: Revised Wharf Master Plan and Environmental Determination PAGE 5
the landmark building. The Planning Commission’s final approved motion included a recommendation to reduce the maximum allowed height of all buildings on the Wharf to 35 feet, not including architectural appurtenances and limited projections allowed in the Zoning Code.

Review by Other Commissions
The Wharf Master Plan and EIR has also been reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) and Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). Both commissions provided input on the plan related to their missions, both prior to approval and again with the revised and recirculated version currently before the Planning Commission.

The Parks and Recreation Commission received updates and provided valuable insight on the Master Plan at public meetings on March 3, 2014 and September 14, 2020. At the September 14, 2020 hearing Commissioners raised questions regarding preservation of the “sea lion viewing” holes, landmark building, western walkway safety, equitable use of new buildings, as well as grants and available resources for the Wharf and Master Plan. Most of these topics have been more thoroughly analyzed and discussed in the new Recreation chapter of the RPDEIR.

The PRC also considered the revised Wharf Master Plan and extensive recreational analysis at its October 9, 2023 hearing. At that hearing, the PRC suggested modifications to include a safe water sport passage beneath the Wharf to reduce conflicts with fishing lines and requested that staff work to better infuse equity concerns in the plan and with its implementation. Staff is working on draft language for City Council consideration. The PRC also rejected a motion to remove the Westside Walkway (2-5), before voting (5-2) to support staff recommendations and to recommend that the City Council adopt the Wharf Master Plan, certify the EIR, and adopt required resolutions.

On October 14, 2020 the HPC recommended that the City Council adopt the Master Plan and EIR (6-0-1), together with staff recommendations, subject to minor modifications. The HPC recommended language related to requirements for historic alteration permits and actions to enhance historical interpretation. After recirculation of the EIR, the WMP and EIR were brought before the HPC again to review their prior recommendations, which were slightly modified and incorporated into the WMP by City Council in 2020. However, no new historical or aesthetic impact analysis was required by the Court ruling (because the Court found that analysis adequate and rejected the DMTW’s claims on these issues) nor has that analysis been changed in the revised EIR. Nor have any substantial new or unstudied impacts been identified, that would provide a legal basis for change of action by the commission.

The City Council adopted modifications simplified the HPC’s proposed language as appropriate for a policy document, eliminated the suggested 3,000 SF threshold for review in favor of referencing the existing ordinance, called for an integrated multi-narrative interpretive plan, as opposed to historical interpretation alone, and maintained a 40 foot maximum height for the three public buildings to maintain a varied wharf skyline, but reduced the maximum height for commercial buildings to 35’ as recommended by the HPC. The previously adopted revisions, maintained that “Consistent with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance, Historic Alteration

27.159

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of November 2, 2023
SUBJECT: Revised Wharf Master Plan and Environmental Determination PAGE 6
Permits may be required for modifications to the Wharf and associated non-historic structures.” The Staff recommendation for the October 18, 2023, HPC meeting strengthened this statement with more affirmative language related to application of the Historic Preservation Ordinance and recommended new policies to provide further guidance on implementation of the ordinance for Wharf projects; these are discussed below.

At the September 20, 2023 HPC hearing, the commission opted not to make a determination on the staff recommendation. HPC commissioners expressed concerns that the recommended action exceeded their authority, wanted absent commissioners to have opportunities for input, and requested more time to consider the record. Specifically, HPC discussion focused on the process for reviewing development projects and Commissioners expressed concern the Westside Walkway might impact historic resources or important views. As a result, the HPC continued the item to their October 18, 2023 hearing and established a subcommittee to make recommendations to the HPC for approval.

The HPC subcommittee recommendation is attached in the staff report for the October 18, 2023 hearing, along with discussion and staff response. The subcommittee recommendation includes proposed language related to development review for historical alteration permits (HAP) and recommends removal of the Westside Walkway, citing historical significance of the western wharf as perceived by the subcommittee. The EIR studied visual and historical impacts and found no significant impact. The Court disagreed with DMTW’s claim that this analysis was inadequate, thereby upholding it. The October 12, 2023 staff report responded to the subcommittee proposal with archival plans and aerial imagery documenting changes to western wharf in the vicinity of the proposed Westside Walkway. This documentation demonstrates that the west side of the Wharf was not constructed during the historical period of significance and was expanded several times from the late 1960’s through the 1980’s.

Staff does not refute the subcommittee statement that Historic Alteration Permits would be required for development projects, but rather that future policy actions are needed to address vague permit trigger requirements contained in the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Alteration Permit Ordinance. Specifically, staff recommended policies be inserted into the Master Plan that would call on the HPC and staff to develop standards clarifying what level of review would be required for different Wharf project types. For instance, staff relies on code language, including the definition of “Historic Alteration Permit, Minor” in the Zoning Code, as well as an existing HPC resolution, to provide guidance on how to implement the ordinance.

None of these provide guidance appropriate to most projects on the Wharf and leave tremendous uncertainty as to what projects may be reviewed administratively as opposed to by the HPC.

Similarly, exemptions in the permit ordinance do not clearly apply to maintenance of the historic wharf. The Wharf is a dynamic structure, which constantly requires upkeep and changes; the concern over the level of project review and whether HAP regulations apply to maintenance is of paramount importance for staff. At the October 18, 2023 meeting, several commissioners expressed strong feelings that maintenance should not be regulated by the HPC and objected to the suggestion that the preservation ordinance was characterized as potentially limiting

27.160

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of November 2, 2023
SUBJECT: Revised Wharf Master Plan and Environmental Determination PAGE 7
maintenance of historic structures, but the HPC did not take action to codify any exemption nor to recommend policy actions to leading that effect.

Topics discussed at the September hearing and compliance with Secretary of Interior Standards, also led staff to recommend that historically sensitive design guidelines be developed during implementation of the plan for new projects involving non-historic and new structures on the Wharf. Ultimately, the HPC rejected all staff recommendations and adopted a statement for City Council consideration based on the subcommittee report (4-1-2). The staff report and hearing minutes with this statement are attached for reference (Attachment 4).

Specifically, the HPC adopted statement included the subcommittees summary of Historic Alteration Permit requirements, as well as a recommendation to remove the Westside Walkway from the Master Plan. The HPC statement based this recommendation on the stated belief that the Westside Walkway would “significantly compromise the integrity of Master Engineer, Henry John Brunnier’s unique design” and that the “highly visible walkway would degrade the visual character of the wharf by introducing an appendage to the wharf that is incompatible with its original historic design.” Neither of these statements is consistent with the EIR findings, historical analysis prepared by the City’s consulting architectural historian, archival evidence presented by staff, or the HPC’s prior recommendation to approve the Master Plan. The HPC’s recommendation also cited the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards related to new additions that have gained historical significance on their own, presumably in relation to the west side additions. Efforts to clarify HPC’s rationale for assuming historical significance of more recent westside additions did not receive a response.

DISCUSSION:

After defining the Santa Cruz waterfront for more than a century, it’s easy to view the Wharf as a constant fixture, an icon of Santa Cruz’s collective identity that can only be damaged with any proposed change. The reality is that the Wharf has always changed. Life in the Pacific Ocean is hard and requires adaptation to survive. Nevertheless, many people hold Wharf memories that are so strong, vivid, and lasting, that it can be hard not to see any change to the Wharf, whether past, present, or proposed, as threatening the Wharf’s entire legacy, its history, culture, family, and even the Santa Cruz state of mind.

Conversations around the Wharf Master Plan have largely focused on the proposed improvements to the Wharf rather than its surrounding context or the underlying needs that drove the Plan. Several Master Plan goals are meant to ensure the long-term sustainability, increased resilience, and expansion of public access and recreation. To achieve these aims, Santa Cruz needs to balance the social, environmental, and economic needs of the Wharf. As the Wharf Master Plan once again approaches final consideration, it is important to revisit the Plan with these goals in mind and to put in context what an approved master plan actually means for the future of the Wharf. Additional background information on the Wharf Master Plan and initial process, can be found in the attached staff report from the November 24, 2020 (Attachment 3).

27.161

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of November 2, 2023
SUBJECT: Revised Wharf Master Plan and Environmental Determination PAGE 8
Commission Review
Santa Cruz once again considers what the future may look like for the Wharf, including the need, size, character, and appropriateness of improvements in the Wharf Master Plan. The Planning Commission (PC) is charged with advising the City Council on matters related to land use and master plans, including at the Wharf. The PC has provided important feedback and guidance in the development of the Wharf Master Plan during prior hearings. New analysis included in the recreation chapter of the RPDEIR and the updated WMP require similar counselled opinion of the PC about any implications for land use policy, should the plan be adopted and implemented.

In making its decision whether to recommend that City Council accept the EIR revisions and staff recommendation, the Planning Commission is urged to consider the long-term sustainability of the Wharf itself. Unprecedented challenges are already compounding, from climate change, to lasting pandemic impacts on Wharf businesses, as well as the Wharf’s mounting infrastructure backlog, harsh environment, and regulatory requirements; all are factors that impede the City’s ability to effectively steward the Wharf without major reinvestment. In light of the City’s structural budget crisis, the City needs a plan and environmental clearance to attract those resources from outside sources like the State and Federal infrastructure funds. With the plan already delayed for several years and a once in a generation opportunity for federal infrastructure investments, the urgency could not be more intense.

Environmental Impact Report
Following completion of a revised and recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study (“MND/IS”) and subsequent City Council direction on November 22, 2016 to prepare a full Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”), staff prepared an EIR in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the City of Santa Cruz environmental guidelines.

The EIR was then certified at the November 24, 2020 City Council Meeting, until a court order and writ in February 2022 resulting from the Don’t Morph the Wharf litigation, led the City Council to rescind the EIR and Master Plan approvals pending revisions to limited aspects of the EIR; specifically, shortcomings related to analysis of recreation and related land use policies, and rationale and evidence within the City’s findings.

The EIR is primarily a programmatic EIR that has been prepared for the Wharf Master Plan in accordance with CEQA Section 15168. However, two improvements recommended in the Wharf Master Plan - the East Promenade and Entrance Gate relocation -- have been studied under CEQA at a “project” level in the EIR since they may be constructed in the near-term and preliminary design plans have been developed.

The EIR was previously circulated for comment to the City Council, other regulatory and interested agencies, and the public during the period March 30, 2020 through May 27, 2020 for a period that extended about two weeks past the required 45-day review period. Public comments and responses are included and responded to in the Final EIR (“FEIR”). Following the Court decision in February 2022, the 2020 FEIR was decertified and additional analysis in the RPDEIR was circulated for public comment from April 17, 2023 to May 31, 2023. Responses to

27.162

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of November 2, 2023
SUBJECT: Revised Wharf Master Plan and Environmental Determination PAGE 9
comments received on the RPDEIR were published in the Final EIR Volume 2 on September 1, 2023. The EIR, the whole of which now includes the 2020 Draft EIR, the 2023 RPDEIR, and Final EIR Volumes 1 and 2, provides a detailed study of the following subjects and concluded that the improvements proposed in the Wharf Master Plan will not have a significant effect on the environment with the implementation of mitigation measures. • Aesthetics - impacts to scenic views and the visual character of the surrounding area as a result of Wharf expansion and new development;
• Biological resource impacts to the marine habitat and special status species, including potential impacts to birds;
• Cultural resource impacts related to impacts to historical resources • Geological, hydrology, and water quality impacts related to drainage and the effects of climate change and sea level rise;
• Land use policy consistency, including and especially those related to recreation; • Transportation, traffic and parking impacts;
• Water and energy demands;
• Recreation; and,
• Alternatives and Cumulative Impacts.

The complete EIR, including the Draft EIR, the RPDEIR, the Final EIR, and the Final EIR Volume 2, are all available online together with other documents relevant to the Wharf Master Plan at the Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan and Engineering Resource Page.

The FEIR identifies potentially significant environmental impacts in to biological resources (marine mammals and nesting birds) and geology, hydrology and water quality during future construction and installation of new piles, all of which can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level with implementation of the six mitigation measures included in the EIR. No new impacts or mitigation measures have been identified or are required as a result of the RPDEIR analysis and associated public comments, and there is no new analysis or findings regarding sections of the EIR that were not subject to the Court order or revised in the RPDEIR.

As part of the CEQA process, the City must adopt resolutions to certify the EIR and adopt the CEQA Findings of Fact and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The Planning Commission decision on whether to once again recommend adoption of resolutions to certify the Environmental Impact Report and adopt CEQA Findings of Fact and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and adoption of the Wharf Master Plan is meant to inform the City Council’s deliberations at their November 28, 2023. At that meeting the City Council will also consider providing direction to staff to prepare a Coastal Commission Public Works Plan for the Wharf Master Plan.

Consistency and Potential Conflicts with Adopted Plans and Policies Pertaining to Recreation.

A brief overview of how the Wharf Master Plan aligns with established guiding land use policy

27.163

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of November 2, 2023
SUBJECT: Revised Wharf Master Plan and Environmental Determination PAGE 10
documents, is provided below, with a specific focus on recreational policies as required by the Court ruling. Analysis of Wharf Master Plan consistency with the General Plan and Local Coastal Program was provided to the Planning Commission for the October 15, 2020, and City Council for the November 24, 2020 hearings and an updated version is attached to this report (Attachment 5).
 General Plan 2030:

Adoption of the Wharf Master Plan and subsequent construction of proposed structures and improvements are consistent with General Plan policies to encourage a mix of uses at the Wharf (LU3.5) and provide improved recreational and economic opportunities at the Wharf (LU3.53). These constitute primary strategies of the Wharf Master Plan and its recommended improvements. The Wharf Master Plan’s policies, actions, and improvements would maximize public access and enjoyment of coastal recreational areas, consistent with Policy PR3.3.4. Proposed expansions of the Wharf are primarily for recreational uses and would not conflict with General Plan policies protecting public access rights, intrusion on beaches from non-recreational facilities, and policies calling for expansion of public access to the shoreline from nearby roadways (PR3.3.1, PR3.3.2, and PR3.3.3). The proposed Master Plan also outlines actions and improvements that would guiding the provision of recreational and educational opportunities along the coastline at the Wharf consistent with PR3.3.1.
 Local Coastal Program (LCP):

The proposed Project would not conflict with policies related to recreation or coastal access in the City’s certified LCP. The proposed Wharf Master Plan is consistent with and fulfills LCP directives for the Wharf, including development and implementation of a promotion and management plan for the Municipal Wharf aimed at attracting local residents and enhancing recreational and economic opportunities while protecting the Monterey Bay (ED 2.4.3) and ways to enhance and promote the identity of the Wharf (ED 5.5.3).

Implementation of the Wharf Master Plan and expansion of the Wharf would provide enhanced public access with increased pedestrian access at the East Promenade and Westside Walkway, consistent with LCP Policy CD 3.5 to protect coastal recreational areas and maintain all existing coastal access points open to the public. The proposed Wharf Master Plan also is consistent with LCP policies that require the City to maintain free bicycle and pedestrian access to the Wharf (PR 1.7.1.3) as there is no charge to these users to enter the Wharf. LCP Policy PR 1.7.9 states that fishing access on the Municipal Wharf shall not be reduced. As explained above, fishing opportunities at the Wharf would not be reduced, and would actually slightly increase overall, although the means of accessing the perimeter of the Wharf to fish would change slightly to accommodate both recreational fishing and pedestrians in the same areas.

The LCP also contains Wharf Design Criteria in Table ASP-6, which includes four primary goals with policies and actions/criteria, some of which relate to recreation and access. The Wharf Master Plan is consistent with applicable goals, policies, and actions/criteria set forth in the LCP and described in the RPDEIR.

27.164

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of November 2, 2023
SUBJECT: Revised Wharf Master Plan and Environmental Determination PAGE 11
 California Coastal Act: While the Wharf Master Plan program itself is not subject to the approval by the California Coastal Commission (CCC), implementation of proposed improvements would require Coastal Development Permits from the CCC for construction. Additionally, the above-referenced Public Works Plan is intended to serve as a Master Coastal Development Permit. The RPDEIR evaluated the two near term projects, the entrance gate relocation, and East Promenade, which have been designed to a project level for consistency with Coastal Act policies related to recreation. Findings are summarized below.
o Coastal Public Access: Article 2 of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act addresses public access to the coast to provide maximum access and recreational opportunities.

The two near-term projects would maximize public access (Coastal Act § 30210) by improving multimodal access to the Wharf and beach area, while maintaining existing fishing opportunities from the east side of the Wharf. These projects would not interfere with the public’s right to coastal access (§ 30211) and do not negatively change public access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along the coast (§ 30212). The East Promenade expands and enhances pedestrian and bicycle access, consistent with Coastal Act policy directives to maintain and enhance public access to coast, including non-auto alternatives (§ 30252). Additionally, the Westside Walkway would further expand public access and help maintain the Wharf’s safety and integrity into the future with lateral strengthening, none of which would interfere with the public’s right to access. o Recreation and Visitor-Serving Uses: Article 3 of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act addresses recreation and visitor-serving uses with policies to protect coastal areas for water-oriented activities and oceanfront land for recreational use, along with coastal support areas. Priority is given to the visitor-serving commercial recreational facilities uses designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation over all other land uses, except agriculture and coastal-dependent industry. Support facilities for increased recreational boating use of coastal waters area also encouraged. The proposed Entry Gate Relocation would improve vehicular access to the Wharf and beach area in support of recreational uses, but otherwise would not impact recreational uses. The proposed East Promenade would maximize recreational opportunities (Coastal Act § 30210) for pedestrians and bicyclist use, along with continued fishing opportunities. The Santa Cruz Wharf provides free access to pedestrians and bicyclists and does not charge entrance fees, but does charge for higher impact vehicle parking to help offset Wharf maintenance and operations costs. Overall, the Wharf provides lower cost visitor and recreational facilities, consistent with Coastal Act section 30213. o Marine Environment: Article 4 of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act addresses the marine environment. Section 30233 addresses situations in which diking, filling, or dredging of open coastal waters, wetlands, estuaries, are permitted. In open coastal water, subsection (3) permits new or expanded boating facilities and the placement of structural pilings for public recreational piers that provide public access and recreational opportunities. The new piles required for the Entry Gate

27.165

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of November 2, 2023
SUBJECT: Revised Wharf Master Plan and Environmental Determination PAGE 12
Relocation and East Promenade, as well as construction of future boat landings, deck expansions, and the Westside Walkway, would be consistent with this requirement. It is also noted that section 30233 permits a range of other port, coastal-dependent, aquaculture, mineral extraction, and restoration uses.  Beach South of Laurel Area Plan (B/SOL): The proposed Wharf Master Plan and associated planning documents also fulfill the B/SOL LCP policies that require completion of a comprehensive analysis of the Wharf, including examining the feasibility of expanding maritime activity, economic activity, and visitor amenities.  Parks Master Plan 2030: Goal VI, Policy B of the Parks Master Plan seeks to protect, maintain, and enhance publicly accessible coastal, riverfront, and open space areas and provide recreational and educational experiences that reflect the unique sense of place and identity of Santa Cruz. Implementation of the proposed Wharf Master Plan would protect, maintain, enhance, and expand recreational, educational, and scientific uses at the Santa Cruz Wharf, consistent with this policy. The Parks Master Plan recommends that the Parks and Recreation Department work with the Planning and Community Development and Economic Development to implement the Wharf Master Plan.  Santa Cruz Active Transportation Plan: The Active Transportation Plan (ATP) calls for implementation of the East Promenade to improve bicycle and pedestrian access for users of all ages and abilities. The ATP also recommends the addition of more bike racks and a possible bike corral, which are contemplated in the Wharf Master Plan.  Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Management Plan: The Sanctuary Management Plan is a guiding document primarily for Federal agencies related to the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. The introduction of the Plan acknowledges that the Recreational Activities, among other topics, remain as “potential issues for future consideration.” To the extent the Management Plan discusses recreation, it appears to relate to golf balls, aerial drones, interagency coordination, regional sediment management plans, and the Davidson Seamount. The Wharf Master Plan does not conflict with any provisions of the current Sanctuary Management Plan.

Recreational Impact Analysis
In accordance with CEQA; State CEQA Guidelines (including Appendix G); City of Santa Cruz plans, policies and/or guidelines, including City CEQA Guidelines and Procedures; and agency and professional standards, staff and the City’s environmental consultant team determined that for this EIR, the project’s recreation-related impact would be considered significant if the project would:

REC-1 Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.

REC-2 Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated; or

27.166

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of November 2, 2023
SUBJECT: Revised Wharf Master Plan and Environmental Determination PAGE 13
REC-3 Conflict with established recreational, educational, cultural, or scientific uses or policies protecting or encouraging recreational uses of the area.

Assessed under the state definitions of Recreation and Recreation Facility (above), the Wharf currently provides diverse opportunities for multiple recreational uses and activities. The most common are identified below and have been evaluated under the thresholds above in RPDEIR Section 4.8 - Recreation.
 Walking, Biking, and Active Transportation
 Nature and Wildlife Viewing
 Recreational Fishing
 Small Craft Boating
 Open Water Sports
 Education and Science
 Cultural Activities, Events, and Entertainment
 Dining and Shopping
 Temporary “Pop-up” Recreation
The proposed Wharf Master Plan improvements were also evaluated for consistency with parks and recreation or land use elements and policies of the following relevant plans:
 Santa Cruz General Plan 2030
 Local Coastal Program
 California Coastal Act
 Beach/South of Laurel Area Plan
 City of Santa Cruz Parks Master Plan 2030
 Santa Cruz Active Transportation Plan
 Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Management Plan The impact analyses that follow investigate the impacts of new/expanded recreational facilities (REC-1), increased use of the Wharf (REC-2), and potential conflicts with established recreational uses or policies protecting or encouraging recreational uses (REC-3).

Impact REC-1: Result in Substantial Physical Impacts. The proposed Project would not require expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse effect on the environment. However, the Project supports new and expanded facilities that would enhance recreational uses on the Wharf and which could result in adverse physical effects on the environment (PR-1). This is considered a significant impact.

Adoption and implementation of the Wharf Master Plan would lead to future construction of improvements to the Wharf, resulting in physical alterations to the wharf structure and potential significant impacts to biological resources and marine water quality identified in the original Draft EIR. Significant impacts resulting from construction of improvements recommended in the Wharf Master Plan, include: potential impacts to fish and marine mammals, including special

27.167

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of November 2, 2023
SUBJECT: Revised Wharf Master Plan and Environmental Determination PAGE 14
status species, if present at the time of pile installation required for wharf expansion or structural improvements (Impact BIO-1a), disturbance to nesting birds if any are present at the time of construction (Impact BIO-4), and potential impacts to marine water quality due to inadvertent discharge of construction debris (HYD-2). All of these indirect potentially significant impacts related to biological resources and water quality would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level with implementation of mitigation measures included in the previously circulated Draft and Final EIR volumes. Therefore, potential indirect impacts resulting from development of new and expanded recreational facilities are considered less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation measures include marine life and bird nest monitoring, soft start and cushion blocks for pile driving, exclusion zones, and waste capture and hazardous materials/fuel containment to avoid water quality impacts.

Impact REC-2: Increased Use of Recreational Facilities. The proposed Project would potentially result in increased use of the Santa Cruz Wharf, which is considered a recreational facility, but not to the extent that such use would result in substantial accelerated physical deterioration of the facility (PR-2). This is considered a less-thansignificant impact.

Adoption and implementation of the Wharf Master Plan would support future improvements to the Wharf, which are in part, proposed to enhance public access and recreational opportunities at the Wharf as key objectives. Expansion of the Wharf envisioned in the Master Plan consists of construction of the East Promenade and Westside Walkway and construction of new and expanded boat landings, as well as new buildings that would expand public visitor recreational and educational opportunities.

Implementation of the proposed Wharf Master Plan could lead to an overall increase in visitor use at the Wharf, although there are no specific projections of future visitor use at the Wharf.

Specifically, implementation of the Wharf Master Plan could result in some increase in visitors to the Wharf due to: 1) enhancement of public spaces, including expansion, and increased public and private events at the Wharf; 2) expansion of opportunities for boat tours, fishing and research vessels, and small craft launches; and 3) potential increase in commercial uses and parking within the existing development footprint. The Wharf Master Plan and EIR conclude that enhancement of recreational and open space uses at the Wharf would create new opportunities for pedestrian and bicycle use, coastal viewing, fishing, boating, and open water swimming and boating, which could broaden its appeal to a larger population and increase year-round visitation.

Enhancing the appeal of the Wharf to visitors interested in the ecology and marine life of the MBNMS or research, education, and scientific endeavors around the Wharf would also strengthen the visitor diversity and market appeal of the Wharf. The associated improvements and activities would create more reasons for visitors to come to the Wharf and could increase the number of times and seasons of the year that they choose to visit (ROMA 2014). As previously indicated, the City estimates that approximately 2.5 million visitors currently come to the Wharf annually. Overall, it is expected that visitation would grow commensurate with regional, state, and national economic trends, increased use that could be better accommodated with the proposed improvements. A specific level of potential increased use arising from implementation

27.168

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of November 2, 2023
SUBJECT: Revised Wharf Master Plan and Environmental Determination PAGE 15
of the Wharf Master Plan cannot be accurately estimated, however. The Santa Cruz Wharf is surrounded by numerous parks, beaches, and both public and private recreational facilities, all of which combine to make the Beach Area a prominent destination for visitors as well as residents.

None of the uses proposed in the Master Plan would result in a new facility that would be considered a regional draw capable of generating substantially increased visitation to the Wharf, above what might otherwise occur with local residents and visitors already visiting the area. As indicated above, the proposed Wharf Master Plan improvements could attract visitors more frequently throughout the year and expand capacity of the Wharf to handle peak summer crowds.

There could also be an increased number of days with peak attendance due to the addition of the proposed Events Pavilion that would enable public and private events year-round. Wharf Master Plan improvements could also increase the attractiveness of the Wharf and enhance recreation and public access, consistent with the key goals of Wharf Master Plan. The improvements and facilities recommended in the Wharf Master Plan would also structurally enhance Wharf resilience and improve its capacity to safely manage increased visitation and recreational use.

There are no entrance fees to visit the Wharf, but as a mixed-use, commercial and recreational facility, a significant amount of visitation results in commerce and parking revenues that directly fund Wharf maintenance. As a result, increased use of recreational facilities does not directly correlate with potential deterioration of facilities and would lead to increased revenues for maintenance and improvements to prevent and address future deterioration. Active, year-round Wharf maintenance, funded with visitor revenues and benefiting from increased visitation significantly offsets any deterioration of the facilities that results from increased public use.

Adoption of the proposed Wharf Master Plan would also help the City attract additional investment and outside grant funding that would fund implementation and support overall sustainability, maintenance, and resilience of the Wharf. In addition, both the proposed Wharf Master Plan and its accompanying Wharf Master Plan Engineering Report provide recommendations regarding maintenance and structural improvements to accommodate future uses and users to prevent deterioration of facilities. Thus, continued and future potential increased use of the Wharf would not lead to a level of use that would result in a substantial physical deterioration of the Wharf, resulting in a less-than-significant impact.

Impact REC-3: Conflict with Existing Recreational Facility Uses and Policies. The proposed Project would not conflict with and/or eliminate established recreational, educational, or scientific uses at the Santa Cruz Wharf or conflict with policies protecting or encouraging recreational uses of the area (PR-3). This is considered a less-than-significant impact.

Future improvements recommended in the Wharf Master Plan would provide new and enhanced public access and recreational facilities, while also wrapping the Wharf in a protective layer of new publicly access recreation facilities. Strategies, policies, actions, potential impacts, and recommendations for specific improvements, are described and discussed below.

Policies and Actions
The Wharf Master Plan includes policies and actions for the preservation, restoration, improvement, and management of the Wharf, some of which recognize the Wharf’s potential as a more significant recreational resource within the unique environment of the MBNMS. The

27.169

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of November 2, 2023
SUBJECT: Revised Wharf Master Plan and Environmental Determination PAGE 16
potential of the Wharf as a more significant commercial and recreational destination would also improve the quality of recreational activities and experiences at the Wharf. The Wharf Master Plan policies and actions regarding enhanced recreational and public access opportunities are summarized on Table 4.8-1 (Attachment 6).

Proposed Facilities
The proposed Wharf Master Plan includes a range of recommendations for new facilities and improvements that would expand, enhance, and improve upon existing recreational facilities and uses at the Wharf. These also include proposals to enhance cultural, educational, and scientific research opportunities. Specific recommended improvements in the proposed Wharf Master Plan that would expand existing recreational opportunities are summarized below. The key improvements are conceptually depicted on Figure 3-2 in the Project Description.  East Promenade: This facility would result in expansion of the Wharf on the east side, which would be dedicated to pedestrians, bicyclists, and continued fishing. According to the Master Plan, the East Promenade would provide the backbone for a series of other improvements, including the Small Boat Landing, the South Landing, and a Terrace Overlook that are all intended to enhance public access along the entire length of the Wharf and add to the recreational, educational, and scenic dimensions of the Wharf that already exist.
 Westside Walkway: A new 10-12-foot wide, pedestrian walkway, supported on new piles, is proposed along the western perimeter of the Wharf that would add an approximately 870’ lowered walkway along the currently inaccessible western side of the Wharf. The new Westside Walkway would complete a full one-mile circuit of pedestrian access around the Wharf. It would be built approximately eight feet below the existing Wharf deck level to allow for undisturbed visual access from the existing restaurants and commercial spaces along the western edge of the Wharf and would provide new opportunities for fishing and viewing under the deck. Constructed from permeable materials to disrupt the force of waves, the Westside Walkway and supporting piles would also protect pilings beneath buildings from seaborne debris and storm damage.  Terrace Overlook: An overlook with amphitheater-like steps is proposed at the southernmost tip of the Wharf extending from the East Promenade. The Terrace Overlook would descend further than the edge of the East Promenade with three amphitheater steps leading to a 7-foot-wide area where the guardrail would be located.

This area would provide seating opportunities for viewing the Monterey Bay and watching wildlife off the end of the Wharf. Approximate 4,000-square-feet of additional area would remain at the end of the Wharf, that would continue to be used for fishing viewing the bay and wildlife, and other uses.
 Boat Landings: Two new accessible boat landings are proposed to accommodate a variety of water sports and provide universal access to the ocean. Both landings would be ADA compliant, allowing those with mobility challenges, children, and aging visitors, safe and equitable access to boating on the Monterey Bay. • The “Small Boat Landing” would support small recreational vessels and Wharf

27.170

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of November 2, 2023
SUBJECT: Revised Wharf Master Plan and Environmental Determination PAGE 17
operations, with the following: accessible docking facilities for kayak, paddleboard, and fishing boat rentals as well as Wharf Operations; expanded and improved support and storage space for the boating facilities; and public use for temporary tie-in of small vessels or for watercraft launches from the Wharf. The Small Boat Landing would consolidate four existing small boat landings, none of which meet ADA standards and only one open to the public, to support and expand small boat and human powered watercraft uses from a centralized ADA accessible landing.
• The “South Landing” is a larger vessel landing facility proposed at the deepwater end of the Wharf in the location originally configured for the berthing of oceangoing vessels and home to what remains of Public Landing #2.

Temporary mooring for visitor serving vessels, such as whale watching, bay tours, sports fishing, dinner cruises, and educational and scientific research vessels, including those of the MBNMS, the Monterey Bay Aquarium/Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI), and UCSC would be provided by the South Landing. This facility could also provide landings for public use and emergency evacuation or resupply in the event of disasters impacting highway access. The Wharf Master Plan, with revisions approved by the City Council in 2020, prohibits consideration of the Wharf as a terminus for cruise ships of any tonnage, to provide moorings for extended periods of time, or to provide shuttle access for any type of large ocean-going passenger vessel.  Swim Club Support Facilities: One of the three proposed new public-use buildings, the Gateway Building at the new entrance, is envisioned with potential space for a non-profit Open Water Swim Club, which could include restrooms, changing rooms, a sauna, and meeting space. The Open Water Swim Club would have direct access to the Westside Walkway, which would be connected to the bay by an 85-foot-long gangway and float, providing new ADA-accessible direct access to open water ocean swimming, paddling, and surfing at Cowell Beach. Access would be provided seasonally; during the winter months, the float would be removed and secured to a pair of piles specifically designed for that purpose.
 Visitor and Educational Uses
• The Gateway Building is proposed where the existing row of commercial buildings begins as the existing Wharf widens. The approximate 3,000-square-foot building is proposed for public uses that could support a mix of cultural, educational, scientific, and recreational activities, including visitor center, and as discussed, and support facilities for open ocean sports and swimmers as discussed above.
• The Events Pavilion is an approximately 6,000-square-foot building proposed in the “Commons,” an open space, where the Wharf changes direction to the southwest. The “Commons” is currently used in warmer months for occasional outdoor public events and concerts atop a small outdoor stage. The new facility would provide a weather-protected space capable of supporting a wider range of year-round uses, including educational and environmental programs, lectures, performances and festivals, as well as private events

27.171

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of November 2, 2023
SUBJECT: Revised Wharf Master Plan and Environmental Determination PAGE 18
such as parties and weddings. Existing restroom facilities serving the “Commons” would be improved and expanded to increase capacity, security, and meet ADA requirements.

The building is envisioned in a pavilion-like form with glass doors that open up to create an indoor/outdoor experience as weather permits.
• The Landmark Building is proposed at the bayward end of the Wharf adjacent to an existing building (the Dolphin Restaurant). It is designed to reflect the historic warehouse that once anchored the seaward end of the Wharf. Uses could include a combination of cultural, educational, and commercial uses as well as the possibility of a café, small conference, and lecture facilities, and fishing or boating support facilities. The Santa Cruz Surfing Museum has expressed its interest in using a portion of this structure. • The Master Plan also considers remodeling, infill, and intensified use of existing structures, including upper floor outdoor dining opportunities and small pocket retail spaces by the proposed Events Pavilion.
 Support Facilities
• Lifeguard HQ: Expansion or replacement of the existing lifeguard station is proposed to improve response times, expand capacity, and better accommodate service and accessibility requirements for lifeguard functions at the Wharf, Main and Cowell Beaches. An expanded Lifeguard HQ is envisioned with two-floors and a tower, to potentially include support facilities for programs like Junior Guards, storage of response vehicles and equipment, potential seasonal mooring of a fire boat from new or redesigned landings, communications equipment, and other resilience and public safety features. • Bicycle Facilities: The Master Plan proposes new parking for 64 to 150 bicycles.  Research and Education
In addition to these recreational facilities and improvements, the Wharf Master Plan supports educational and scientific endeavors at the Wharf. One of the proposed Actions seeks to integrate scientific and educational initiatives from non-profit or for project activities. Another Action seeks to promote opportunities for research and demonstration projects, including but not limited to the marine environment, energy, water use, and recycling. Specific types of projects are not identified but based on existing demonstration projects underway at the Wharf (wind research, photovoltaic energy, water quality), such projects are anticipated to be related to scientific research or environmental monitoring, and in some cases could involve temporary installations or uses. The Master Plan Actions also call for increased partnership with science and educational entities such as the MBNMS Exploration Center, the Seymour Marine Discovery Center, the Moss Landing Marine Laboratories, and the University of California at Santa Cruz.

Impacts of Wharf Master Plan on Recreation:

Implementation of the Wharf Master Plan would result in improvements that would expand recreational facilities and enhance existing recreational, cultural, educational, and scientific research uses and opportunities at the Wharf. Generally, construction of facilities recommended

27.172

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of November 2, 2023
SUBJECT: Revised Wharf Master Plan and Environmental Determination PAGE 19
in the Wharf Master Plan would expand safe access for all recreational users, further enhance existing recreational features at the Wharf, diversify recreational opportunities with ADAcompliant accessible water access, and provide new public buildings to support cultural and other activities and projects, as further explained below. Specifically, pedestrian and bicycle access would be expanded with construction of the East Promenade and Westside Walkway, which would increase access to the perimeter of the Wharf and also create a continuous walkway circuit of over one mile. Preliminary concepts for the East Promenade depict seating areas along the eastern edge of the Wharf that would support fishing, gathering, wildlife viewing, and sightseeing uses. Two new boat landings and the open water swim access float would provide ADAcompliant water access that is not currently available and expand existing kayak and rental boating opportunities, as well as provide access for paddleboarding and surfing. The South Landing would expand opportunities for recreational watercraft landing and activities like whale watches and bay tours, charter fishing charter, emergency access, research and educational tours.

Key takeaways and analysis of potential impacts on recreation resulting from the proposed Wharf Master Plan improvements area are discussed below, detailed analysis can be found in the RPDEIR at the link above:
 Walking, Biking, and Active Transportation.
o An 11% increase in the total Wharf perimeter (approximately 677 LF), nearly all of which would be accessible for walking, biking, and/other active transportation. o The creation of the East Promenade would add approximately 1.5 acres of public access space for recreational activities, like fishing, sightseeing, and a 2,200-footlong bike and pedestrian accessway that would be separated from vehicular travel. o The East Promenade would reduce or eliminate conflicts between recreational uses, such as pedestrian walks and fishing along the Wharf edge by providing separated seating areas for fishing, gathering, and sightseeing activities, separated from the flow of pedestrians and bicyclists along the Promenade. o The East Promenade also would create a multi-modal destination spur, connecting to the planned Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail.
o The Westside Walkway, which would create an approximately 815’ long lowered walkway, with ramps, and an open water swimming access float along the west side of the wharf with seasonal access to an area of the Wharf that is not currently access. This would complete a pedestrian circuit totaling over one mile around the Wharf, enhancing access for recreational walking and fitness. o Overall, the improvements are expected to reduce then net restricted and noaccess areas by approximately 22% or over 320 LF, although the Westside Walkway would provide much of this gain by opening up access to currently inaccessible west side of the Wharf.
 Nature and Wildlife Viewing.
o Completion of Master Plan improvements would significantly expand

27.173

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of November 2, 2023
SUBJECT: Revised Wharf Master Plan and Environmental Determination PAGE 20
opportunities for nature and wildlife viewing and sight-seeing through the substantial expansion of the Wharf and its perimeter with enhanced access as described above.
o The expansion of edge seating along the East Promenade and Overlook Terrace, as well as the provision of new viewing angles beneath the Wharf along the Westside Walkway (as shown on Figure 4.8-7) and on three new ADA-accessible boat landings would increase the diversity of wildlife and nature viewing opportunities and experiences.
o The Westside Walkway would also complete a full one-mile pedestrian circuit around the Wharf, providing new opportunities for views of the bay and wildlife viewing.
o Permeable materials comprising the Westside Walkway would also create an unique new visual experience of walking over the water below. o Expanded seating areas along the Wharf edge and the Overlook Terrace would offer more comfort to bird watchers and expand opportunities for bird watching and overall nature viewing. This would be an improvement over current conditions where many walkways, particularly along the east side of the Wharf, do not have sufficient width to include ocean-facing seating and still allow for ADA-compliant pedestrian access.
o Below deck access via new landings and the Westside Walkway would also create new opportunities for viewing wildlife.
o Second-floor commercial infill, including potential rooftop outdoor dining, further expands sightseeing for those engaged in recreational dining or shopping. The Landmark Building, Events Pavilion, and Gateway Building could similarly include publicly accessible viewing areas such as balconies, upper floors and mezzanines, or roof tops vistas, if desired at the time these facilities are designed. o Wi-fi or cellular infrastructure needed for enhanced public safety response, communications, and interpretive features envisioned in the Wharf Master Plan would also enable the potential installation of webcams expanding wildlife viewing opportunities to nature enthusiasts around the world. o Regarding the Sea Lion Viewing/Fishing Holes, the following language was previously adopted by City Council, making a commitment to preserve or relocate the holes, and is proposed in the Revised Wharf Master Plan.  “Any potential development at the end of the Wharf, shall preserve to the greatest extent possible, or relocate to a place of greater access and viewing quality, the popular “sea lion viewing” and “fishing” holes at the end of the Wharf. Any redesign of these features must be in keeping with the intimate experience of the current viewing holes and consistent with the character of the Wharf, as established through community engagement.”

27.174

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of November 2, 2023
SUBJECT: Revised Wharf Master Plan and Environmental Determination PAGE 21
o Figure 4.8-8 (Attachment 7) is included in the RPDEIR and has been revised for clarity in the FEIR Volume 2, in response the court’s Statement of Decision, which found that that the absence of any evaluation of potential options to relocate or preserve the Sea Lion Viewing/Fishing Holes was an unallowable deferral of required mitigation of potentially significant impacts. Figure 4.8-8 clearly depicts several opportunities for preservation or relocation at the end of the Wharf or along its length. Preservation or relocation is included in revised Wharf Master Plan, these features would not be eliminated, and thus would not result in an impact due to conflicts with established recreational uses.  Recreational Fishing.
o Fishing from the Wharf would remain available free of charge and Wharf Master Plan improvements, including construction of new boat landings and structural improvements, would not result in net reduction of fishing opportunities. o Allowable fishing space would expand by approximately 21% (nearly 1,000 LF) as result of Wharf expansions including the new East Promenade, lateral strengthening at the end of Wharf, and the Westside Walkway. o A comparison of fishing opportunities under existing conditions and with implementation of the Wharf Master Plan is provided in Figure 4.8-4, and a discussion of the following distinct fishing experiences or zones is included in the RPDEIR:
 Shore-Casting Zone
 Near-Shore Zone
 Open Ocean Zone
 Reef Fishing Zone
 Boat Fishing
o Expansion of fishing opportunities would occur across each of the distinct fishing experiences or zones described in the “Recreational Uses at the Santa Cruz Wharf” section above, but could be most pronounced for reef fishing, as the Westside Walkway and Terrace Overlook would enable up to about 800 LF of fishing among pilings and sheltered waters, approximately 430% of what is currently available within the sea lion viewing/fishing holes alone. o Master Plan improvements would however reduce the overall “tailgate fishing” area from which fishing could take place adjacent to or from one’s vehicle.  In total, tailgate fishing could be reduced by approximately 1,705 LF, although 822 LF or roughly 80-100 parking spaces would remain available for tailgate fishing in both zones that currently allow tailgate fishing, the Near-Shore and Open Ocean zones.
 This reduction would primarily occur in areas where existing sidewalks do not have enough width to accommodate both tailgate fishing and ADAcompliant pedestrian access (see representative photos of fishing “conflict zones” on Figure 4.8-3). Under current conditions, fishing from vehicles conflicts with a variety of other recreational activities, such as walking,

27.175

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of November 2, 2023
SUBJECT: Revised Wharf Master Plan and Environmental Determination PAGE 22
bird watching, and sight-seeing, and often causes pedestrians to walk amongst traffic in the roadway.
 Although tailgate fishing would be limited by proposed improvements in comparison to how visitors currently freely park vehicles and fish from the Wharf, existing conflicts with other Wharf visitors would be virtually eliminated while fishing opportunities in close proximity to parking would still be maintained as explained below.
 Tailgate fishing would largely be maintained in areas where the pathways have sufficient width to accommodate both fishing and ADA access, as well as in the East Parking Lot where the expanded East Promenade would provide a new pedestrian access separated from traffic.  In areas where tailgate fishing would be eliminated, approximately 1,000 feet would be provided instead as dedicated fishing and seating areas that would be separated from pedestrians along the Promenade. To access these areas fishers would only have to walk across the East Promenade (approximately 20 feet) to the newly constructed fishing areas with bench seating. Ramps and access steps are projected in conceptual plans proposed at regular spacing 150 to 200 feet and breaks are anticipated more frequently along seat walls.
 It is believed that regulating tailgate fishing to designated areas and restriping parking will also improve parking utilization and turnover promoting expanded public access for more Wharf visitors.  Small Craft Boating. The Wharf Master Plan would consolidate most boating operations along the eastern side of the Wharf into a single ADA-compliant Small Boat Landing.

This includes Wharf operations, as well as water access currently provided via kayak and fishing boat rentals and Public Landing No. 1, none of which currently meet ADA accessibility standards. The Small Boat Landing is expected to provide greater storage capacity for rental kayaks and fishing boats, as well as opportunities for launching of paddleboards, kayaks, and small boats and short-term mooring for visiting vessels. ADAcompliant water access provided by the Small Boat Landing would provide recreational boating access to visitors with impaired mobility, which is currently not available.

New modern davits and service equipment, installed with the landings would allow a broader variety of maritime services from the Wharf, including restocking of research vessels and equipment loading, sport fishing and commercial fish landings to restore the “ocean-to-table” culinary culture at the Wharf, fire boat mooring, and similar services for recreational watercraft, some of which may draft too deeply for the Santa Cruz Harbor and be currently unavailable locally.
 Open Water Sports. The proposed boat landings and the open water swimming access float would provide universal access for open water swimmers, bathers, and potentially divers. There is currently only limited, non-ADA compliant, water access from Public Landing #1 (approximately 1,100 feet from shore on the east side), and no water access is

27.176

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of November 2, 2023
SUBJECT: Revised Wharf Master Plan and Environmental Determination PAGE 23
available along the west side facing Cowell Beach. Construction of the proposed Small Boat Landing, South Landing, and open water swimming access float from the Westside Walkway would expand and diversify options for open water access. Enhanced lifeguard facilities proposed in the Wharf Master Plan would improve safety and response times to recreational swimmers originating from the Wharf and nearby beaches.

The two new ADA-compliant boat ramps and the open water swimming access float would also open access for other open water activities, including board sports such as paddleboarding, surfing, e-foils, and possibly windsurfing. This could increase the diversity of participants in these sports and enable surfers and paddlers for whom beach launch or stairway access along West Cliff Drive is difficult. Pedestrian and bicycle access from the Monterey Bay Scenic Trail to the Wharf and East Promenade, as well as ample parking, would promote the Wharf as an alternative launch location to nearby surf breaks. Therefore, the Wharf Master Plan would not adversely impact access to open water recreational activities.

The two new boat landings would also allow recreational scuba tours from the Wharf, while any of the landings could support scuba divers launching directly into Wharf waters. High diving or jumping from the Wharf could also be considered during the design of future landings and the Gateway Building, provided appropriate safety measures are available.
 Education and Science. Three new public facilities are proposed at the Gateway Building, Events Pavilion, and Landmark Building. These structures are intended to support a variety of public or quasi-public cultural, educational, scientific, and recreational activities including potential museums, scientific lectures, and educational tours, as well as a welcome center for visitors. The Interpretive Plan envisioned in the Master Plan would integrate diverse historical, environmental, and other educational narratives appropriate for the Wharf into a mixed media network of cultural and educational experiences for visitors to the Wharf, which might include everything from kiosks, and signage, to public art, digital, and augmented reality experiences. The South Landing would provide new port access for educational and scientific vessels, allowing for research vessels like those of MBARI or UCSC to visit or launch from the Wharf, while also providing for potential regional collaboratives between Santa Cruz and regional institutions. Ongoing partnerships with the Seymour Marine Discovery Center, the MBNMS, and Coast Snap are anticipated to support additional citizen science opportunities and interpretive installations. The improvements proposed in the Wharf Master Plan would expand educational and scientific opportunities at the Wharf.  Cultural Activities, Events, and Entertainment. The proposed new buildings (Gateway, Events Pavilion, and Landmark) would support cultural activities, events, and entertainment. This would be most significant with the Events Pavilion, which would replace the existing outdoor stage with a sheltered pavilion allowing events and gatherings year-round. The Pavilion could be opened and closed to the outdoors depending on weather conditions and use, this would result in potential expansion of cultural special events and entertainment on the Wharf. Events and Entertainment could also occur at the Landmark building, depending on final design and programming.

27.177

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of November 2, 2023
SUBJECT: Revised Wharf Master Plan and Environmental Determination PAGE 24
Implementation of an Interpretive Plan would also expand cultural activities. The presence of public art is expected to expand as one potential medium employed by the future Wharf Interpretive Plan. Thus, improvements proposed in the Wharf Master Plan would not result in significant impacts to cultural activities, events, or entertainment recreation on the Wharf.
 Dining & Shopping. Commercial infill and second floor additions are expected to diversify the dining and shopping options available at the Wharf. As indicated in Section 3, Project Description, it is estimated that approximately 22,000 square feet of commercial uses may be constructed in the future as part of infill and expansion of existing buildings. Additional commercial and ancillary uses might also be designed into future public buildings, such as event facilities and café spaces, museum gift shops, or other complementary commercial uses. This potential expansion of commercial activity could expand opportunities for recreational or leisure dining and shopping on the Wharf and would not detrimentally impact existing dining or shopping recreation.  Temporary “Pop-up” Recreation. Implementation of the Wharf Master Plan presents diverse opportunities for temporary “pop-up” recreation as sites are redeveloped and public space is expanded. Vacant sites pending reconstruction would present infrequent opportunities to prototype redevelopment plans or program event series like temporary beer gardens and pop-up commercial ventures, as well as public access and event spaces.

Within these spaces or on larger open deck expansions a broad variety of recreational facilities can be imagined, which might encompass anything from children’s play areas to public art, dining areas, science exhibits, or even sports courts. Although existing temporary recreation installations, like the Bocce Court or Sea Walls art mural at Gilda’s, would likely be removed, relocated, or change over time, the intent of such temporary recreational features is to keep the Wharf dynamic and to explore and adapt recreational facilities to attract and meet visitor interests as they change over time. The Wharf has a long history of events and pop-up recreation, and proposed improvements would not conflict with the
Project Alternatives
CEQA Guidelines (section 15126.6), require that an EIR describe and evaluate a range of reasonable alternatives to the project or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. The following Project Alternatives were considered based on the Project Objectives included in the Master Plan and summarized below:

Project Alternatives
 No Project – Required by CEQA
 Alternative 1 – Reduced Project
o Reduced width of East Promenade to 14’ from 21’
o Reduced height and size of the new public use buildings  40’ maximum height + 5 to 10% reduced footprint

27.178

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of November 2, 2023
SUBJECT: Revised Wharf Master Plan and Environmental Determination PAGE 25
 Alternative 2 – Modified Project
o Eliminate Westside Walkway
o Reduced height and size of the new public use buildings  40’ maximum height + 5 to 10% reduced footprint
Summary of Project Objectives

1. Enhance opportunities for recreational use and public access.

2. Expand and enhance maritime activities.

3. Integrate education and research initiatives.

4. Promote sustainable development and sound green building practices.

5. Enhance the pedestrian environment and provide improved bicycle facilities.

6. Prepare design approaches that will provide guidance and elevate the quality of buildings and public spaces.

7. Improve parking control systems and create a more inviting arrival experience.

8. Improve service and maintenance operations.

9. Enhance public safety.

Findings
According to CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(e), if the environmentally superior alternative is the “no project” alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. Additional requirements related to alternatives are discussed in the Draft EIR and Final EIR (Volume 1).

Based on these considerations, the Final EIR (Volume 1) stated that “Of the alternatives considered, Alternative 2 would best achieve project objectives, while also reducing the severity of identified significant impacts and therefore, is considered the environmentally superior alternative of the alternatives reviewed.” The previously adopted findings of fact stated the following as rationale for rejection of Alternative 2:
“Alternative 2 would meet all of the Project Objectives. However, under this alternative, elimination of the Westside Walkway would not protect public safety by increasing the lateral resiliency of the Wharf and protect pilings beneath buildings, as would occur with realization of the walkway in the full Project proposal. Additionally, the removal of the Westside Walkway would not expand public access, recreational opportunities, or enhance the pedestrian environment as effectively as the full project proposal. For these reasons the City Council determines that Alternative 2 is infeasible and is hereby rejected.”
The Westside Walkway has proven a particularly contentious project element that has repeatedly been challenged by Don’t Morph the Wharf and the group has requested its removal from the plan. The City maintains that, while its near-term construction is not prioritized over other elements like the East Promenade, projected long term conditions resulting from climate change may necessitate its future construction as a barrier to marine debris and to disrupt the force of waves on vulnerable pilings beneath buildings. Pilings underneath buildings generally cannot be

27.179

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of November 2, 2023
SUBJECT: Revised Wharf Master Plan and Environmental Determination PAGE 26
repaired while a structure remains. Additionally, the City asserts that public access provided by the Westside Walkway and requested by Coastal Commission staff when the plan was drafted, are necessary for achieving the project objectives above. Nevertheless, the Santa Cruz Superior Court, in its ruling on the Wharf Master Plan EIR was not satisfied that “decisionmakers engaged in the weighing process required by Public Resource Code §21081 (b)” related to consideration and rejection of Alternative 2.

Given calls to remove the walkway from the Plan and the potential of the Westside Walkway to help preserve the Wharf for the long-term as a recreation facility, as well as its potential to expand public recreational access, staff is seeking the Planning Commission’s feedback on the Westside Walkway. In particular, the Commission is asked to consider whether implementation of the Wharf Master Plan without the Westside Walkway would accomplish the Project Objectives as well as the proposed plan based on the new evidence in the recreational analysis and other additional evidence. For instance, it has been stated that the remainder of the plan would still achieve project goals, but to some degree less than the full project with the walkway intact. Staff is seeking the Planning Commission’s perspective on whether removing the Westside Walkway could still full achieve project objectives like enhancing or expanding maritime activities (like swimming and open water sports), fishing, public access, public safety, the pedestrian environment, and other considerations implied in those objectives. Detailed descriptions of project objectives can be found on page 7 of the Revised Wharf Master Plan..

Conclusion
In conclusion, implementation of the Wharf Master Plan, including two near-term projects, would not conflict with and/or eliminate established recreational, educational, or scientific uses at the Santa Cruz Wharf. There would be no reduction of recreational opportunities, and many existing opportunities would be expanded and/or enhanced, such as improved pedestrian and bicycle access, improved pedestrian paths around the entire Wharf, overall increased fishing access, improved boating opportunities for both private charters and individual small boats, recreational and educational boat tours, and support for cultural, educational, and scientificresearch projects and experiences.

Future development at the southern end of the Wharf could result in relocation of fishing holes that are popular sea lion viewing locations and recreational pastime. However, the Wharf Master Plan has been revised, per the Council’s prior direction, to require preservation or relocation of these features in order to maintain this recreational activity, and preliminary conceptual designs for the south end of the Wharf (Attachment 7) demonstrate it is feasible to do so. Thus, there is no impact associated with the relocation of the fishing/sea lion viewing holes, because both the holes and the planned development on the Wharf’s southern end could coexist.

Although the popular “tailgate” fishing from parked vehicles would be reduced by proposed improvements in comparison to current conditions, existing conflicts with other Wharf visitors would be eliminated; fishing opportunities would still be maintained a short distance from the parking area. Furthermore, implementation of new boat landings would not result in a reduction in fishing opportunities as public access to other areas of the Wharf would be opened up. The

27.180

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of November 2, 2023
SUBJECT: Revised Wharf Master Plan and Environmental Determination PAGE 27
overall opportunities for fishing at the Wharf would not substantially change, and therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with or eliminate an established recreational fishing use.

While the method of accessing many fishing opportunities would change to require a short walk (of approximately 20 feet) from one’s vehicle, similar to what currently exists at the end of the Wharf, this would not result in the elimination or substantial change of an existing recreational use or result in a significant adverse change to the physical environment, and therefore would not be considered significant. Furthermore, the new Small Boat Landing and South Landing would provide enhanced boating opportunities for fishing at sea. No other potential impacts to recreation or recreational facilities have been identified.

Therefore, neither the Wharf Master Plan nor the two near-term projects would result in significant conflicts with established recreational, educational, cultural, or scientific uses at the Wharf or policies protecting or encouraging recreational uses and facilities, and public access and recreational uses, facilities, and opportunities would be expanded and/or enhanced with implementation of the Wharf Master Plan.

The Planning Commission is urged to accept the recreational impact analysis discussed above and revisions to the Wharf Master Plan and recommend that the City Council adopt the Wharf Master Plan and resolutions necessary to certify the EIR and adopt the CEQA findings and mitigation. The Revised Wharf Master Plan and Section 4.8 of the RPDEIR describe transformational implications of recreation improvements that will not only expand recreational opportunities at the Wharf but improve its sustainability and resilience against climate change and economic shocks. These documents along with policy consistency assessed in Attachments 5 and 6 clearly portray a Master Plan that will achieve broadly established public access, recreation, and land use goals, while not conflicting with efforts to preserve and protect critical coastal resources.

The revised Final EIR, and Draft EIR, RPDEIR, and FEIR Volume 2 are all available online along with other documents relevant to the Wharf Master Plan at the Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan and Engineering Resource Page.

HEALTH IN ALL POLICIES:

Adoption of the Wharf Master Plan and implementation of the recommendations therein would expand or enhance recreational public access to the Santa Cruz Wharf, improve public safety and resilience to storm damage, and generally promote healthy lifestyles and fitness by enabling safer modes of active transportation access to the Wharf. The EIR has not identified any impacts to public health or safety as result of proposed Master Plan improvements.

27.181

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of November 2, 2023
SUBJECT: Revised Wharf Master Plan and Environmental Determination PAGE 28
Submitted by:

David McCormic
Asset and Development Manager
Approved by:

Bonnie Lipscomb
Director, Economic
Development
Eric Marlatt,
Assistant Director,
Planning and
Community
Development
ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1: Resolution of the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Santa Curz Wharf Master Plan Attachment 2: Resolution of the City of Council of the City of Santa Cruz Adopting Findings of Fact and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Revised Wharf Master Plan
Attachment 3: City Council Staff Report (without attachments) and Minutes– November 24, 2020, and November 22, 2016
Attachment 4: Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) Staff Report and Minutes – Oct. 18, 2023, and HPC Staff Report – Sept. 12, 2023
Attachment 5: Wharf Master Plan Consistency with General Plan and Local Coastal Program Attachment 6: Recreation - Summary of Policies and Actions Attachment 7: Figures 4.8-3, 4.8-4, 4.8-8A+B

27.182
ATTACHMENT 6
Table 4.8-1. Summary of Wharf Master Plan Policies & Actions Regarding Recreation Policy Policy Action
[SEE MASTER PLAN (PG. 7) FOR FULL TEXT]

3. Provide for the expansion of the perimeter of the
Wharf to create more significant opportunities for public access, fishing, open water swimming, boating and linear recreational activities that will orient the visitor to the Bay and engage the waterfront environment.
▪ Construct a wide promenade along the eastern edge.
▪ Construct a walkway on the western side.
▪ Design the access improvements to add to structural
resilience.
▪ Improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities/ connections to trail systems.
▪ Provide new accessible boating and landing facilities that will enhance water-oriented recreational, scientific and educational opportunities.
▪ Construct a small boat landing facility on the east side adjacent to the East Promenade for kayak, paddleboat and fishing boat rentals.
▪ Construct a landing facility for larger vessels at the eastern bayward end for science, education, research,
sports fishing and whale watching.
▪ Construct a new gangway, float and ladder adjacent to the Westside Walkway and near the Gateway Building to
provide access for open water swimming and water
sports.
▪ Utilize the new recreation, public access and open space improvements to enhance the identity and market appeal
of Wharf.

4. Provide public oriented activities and a built form that gives structure and orientation to the visitor experience, expresses the unique characteristics of the Wharf and
provides a more diverse and varied dimension to its
venues and offerings.
▪ Provide a stepped edge along the eastern bayward end
of the Wharf that enhances viewing opportunities to
marine life, boating and fishing activities
▪ Construct a multi-sided, all-season Events Pavilion.
▪ Construct a Gateway Building at the beginning of the
Wharf.
▪ Consider locating changing rooms, restrooms and a
sauna and a gathering space of limited size in a portion of the Gateway Building.
▪ Develop programming for public-oriented activities in new buildings and coordinate these with other
educational, scientific and cultural venues and events on the Wharf.
▪ Develop Wharf Interpretive Resources Plan to identify opportunities and strategies for conveying Wharf historic, cultural and environmental education through historic
materials, interpretive elements and public art. Consider locations to develop a museum dedication to the Wharf
and Beach area.

27.183
▪ Future development at end of Wharf shall preserve or
relocate to place of greater access and viewing quality, the popular “sea lion viewing” and “fishing” holes at the end of the Wharf.

5. Provide for an increase in the number, diversity,
seasonality and appeal of events and make the
educational, scientific, historic, environmental and
cultural dimensions of the Wharf an integral and
meaningful part of the visitor experience.
▪ Develop plan for interpretative elements and events that is updated on an ongoing basis.
▪ Designate an Events Curator to implement the plan and to manage and promote year-round events and
interpretative programs.
▪ Provide integration of scientific and educational
initiatives and nonprofit and for-profit activities within the Gateway Building.
▪ Provide interpretative elements.
▪ Encourage mobile exhibits, docents and dynamic
messaging.
▪ Provide opportunities for research and demonstration
projects.
▪ Identify an appropriate location for the Surfing Museum. ▪ Consider use of the Events Pavilion for community
celebrations.

7. Do not expand the Wharf footprint for commercial
uses but within the existing footprint, increase the
amount, intensity, diversity, and appeal of the
commercial venues on the Wharf.
▪ Consider pop-ups, events, short-term commercial uses, and temporary recreational facilities to activate
underutilized Wharf areas.

8. Improve the appearance of the commercial buildings,
the attractiveness of the storefronts and adjacent
sidewalk and the quality of the pedestrian experience.
▪ Discourage and limit blank walls, indented entrances and angular building facades. Utilize shallow liner uses along the sidewalk to encourage pedestrian engagement.
▪ Reduce impediments to pedestrian movement along the
sidewalk and maintain the finished floor of storefronts at sidewalk grade.

27.184
1300'
315' 510'
220'
315'
385'
465' 330'
540' 1620'
605'
870'
135'
Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan
Prepared for the City of Santa Cruz by ROMA Design Group and Moffa� & Nichol OC T OBER 201 4

VEHICULAR CIRCULATION & PARKING AREAS TO REMAIN

COMMERCIAL TENANT AREAS TO REMAIN

WHARF SERVICE AREAS TO REMAIN

EXISTING PUBLIC ACCESS AREAS TO REMAIN

SPECIAL PUBLIC USE PLACES TO BE IMPROVED

TOTAL EXISTING WHARF AREA

NEW PUBLIC ACCESS AREAS

TOTAL FUTURE AREA
*All numbers area approximate and rounded.

HC
9 7
49 55
62 100 66 70
HC
HC
HC
HC
HC
8 24
HC HC

HC HC HC HC
165,600 SF
52,300 SF
8,700 SF
87,100 SF
13,000 SF
327,000 SF
108,900 SF
435,600 SF

3.8 AC

1.2 AC

0.2 AC

2.0 AC

0.3 AC

7.5 AC

2.5 AC

10.0 AC
Labeled
Labeled
0 40’ 80’

27.185
ATTACHMENT 5

EXHIBIT A

WHARF MASTER PLAN CONSISTENCY WITH

GENERAL PLAN
AND

LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
Wharf Master Plan – Consistency with the General Plan
The Wharf Master Plan is consistent with multiple elements of the 2030 General Plan. General Plan goals and policies addressed by the Wharf Master Plan are:

COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT:

Goal CD1 “A Built Environment in Harmony With its Natural Setting” and Policy CD1.2.2 “Develop Minimum Standards and Guidelines for Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Development That Reflect the Character and Needs of the Districts”;
Goal CD3 “High-Quality Design That Reinforces the Community’s Unique Character” and Policy CD3.5.1 “Require Superior Quality Design for Existing or Proposed Landmark Buildings”;
Goal CD4 “Attractive Gateways, Roadways, and Landscaping” and Policy CD4.1 “Make the City’s Major Gateways Defining, Attractive, and Welcoming”; Goal CD5 “Walkable Neighborhoods and Districts of Compatible Uses and Buildings” and Policy CD5.2.2 “Encourage the Incorporation of Public Benches and Natural Seating Areas Along Public Walkways and in Public Plazas and Parks”.

With respect to the Community Design goals and policies noted above, the Wharf Master Plan establishes design standards to guide renovation and future development of commercial spaces, including the proposed Landmark Building and the Events Pavilion, and encourages the creation of more extroverted spaces with a greater transparency and stronger relationship between indoors and outdoors. The Wharf Master Plan also calls for the creation of an attractive and inviting gateway to the Wharf by relocating and remodeling the entrance gates to include an iconic sign welcoming visitors to the Wharf (CD4 and CD4.1). The proposed 29’ wide East Promenade provides a pedestrian- oriented walkway the length of the Wharf with a continual seat wall running its length. Building Design Standards in the Wharf Master Plan would provide guidelines that reflects the needs of the Wharf (CD1.2.2), expansion of wharf features, including additional public access space, open “see through” buildings, dedicated viewing areas, and similar construction techniques for wharf infrastructure as exists today, will help ensure the Wharf Master Plan achieves Goal CD1. Policy language to integrate the Historic Preservation Commission early in the design of proposed landmark buildings will help achieve high quality design (CD3.5.1). New 27.186 public access and pathways constructed with the East Promenade and Westside Walkway, will help enrich the Wharf as walkable district, while new more open, engaging, and historically sensitive buildings envisioned in the plan will help ensure compatibility in both recreational and commercial uses (CD5). Expanding the variety of seating opportunities including the Terrace Overlook and dedicated fishing/sight seeing areas along the East Promenade will incorporate public benches and natural seating areas in public spaces of the Wharf (CD5.2.2).

LAND USE ELEMENT:

LU2.3.1 “Protect, maintain, and enhance publicly accessible coastal and open space areas.” Goal LU3 “A Complementary Balance of Diverse Land Uses” and LU3.5 “Encourage a mix of uses, including public facilities, along Lower Pacific Avenue, linking Downtown with the Wharf.”
LU3.5.3 “Foster improved recreational and economic opportunities at the Municipal Wharf.”
Proposed Wharf Master Plan improvements are consistent with General Plan Land Use policies in that the improvements would diversify and enhance the mix of recreational and commercial uses at the wharf and create a stronger destination at the end of Pacific Avenue (LU3.5) with expanded opportunities for recreational and economic activities at the Wharf (LU3.5.3). The expansion of recreational areas on the Wharf will also help diversify land uses on the Wharf and beach area (LU3) with additional public space that protects and enhances publicly accessible coastal areas and access to coastal open space (LU2.3.1).

MOBILITY ELEMENT
Goal M1 “Land Use Patterns, Street Design, Parking, and Access Solutions that Facilitate Multiple Transportation Alternatives” and
Policy M1.6.1 “Design Parking Areas with Adequate Lighting, Safe Pedestrian Circulation, Adequate Landscaping, a Minimum Amount of Pavement, and Adequate Numbers of Accessible Spaces Reserved for the Physically Disabled”; Goal M2 “A Safe, Sustainable, Efficient, Adaptive, and Accessible Transportation System” and
Policy M2.1.3 “Implement Pedestrian, Bike, Mass Transit, and Road System Improvements through the Capital Improvements Program”; Goal M4 “A Citywide Interconnected System of Safe, Inviting, and Accessible Pedestrian Ways and Bikeways” and Policy M4.4 “Assure a High Level of Bicycle User Amenities”.

The Wharf Master Plan incorporates the Land Use goals and policies listed above through the proposed East Promenade, Westside Walkway, and deck expansion public spaces, that provide an additional 2.5 acres of public access. Additionally, proposed improvements to vehicle circulation and parking include a more efficient layout of parking spaces on the Wharf, additional handicapped parking spaces, and a hybrid staffing/pay-on-foot automated parking system. The East Promenade will also serve to reduce or eliminate pedestrians walking in the roadway, and its direct connection 27.187 to local scenic trail networks will establish the Wharf as a pedestrian and bicycle-oriented place. 65 to 164 bicycle parking spaces are recommended along the western edge of the East Promenade.

The Westside Walkway will further expand pedestrian and multi-modal access to the Wharf creating a full 1-mile spur circuit around the Wharf that links with the regional Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail (M4). Restriping and optimization of parking proposed in the Wharf Master Plan, works with new accessible parking and site improvements as well as dark sky/marine life protection compliant lighting, and stormwater collection proposed in the plan to enhance the quality and capacity of the Wharf parking facility (M1.6.1). Together these capital improvements will help support multi-modal transportation access to and from the Wharf (M1, M2, and M2.1.3).

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT:

Goal ED1 “A Vibrant Regional Economic Center” and
Policy ED1.1.1 “Encourage the Development of Diverse, Innovative, and Sustainable Business Enterprises That Reinforce Santa Cruz’s Position as a Regional Employment, Cultural, Visitor, and Shopping Center”;
Policy ED1.1.3 “Encourage the Development of Year-Round Businesses and Visitor Activities, Resources, and Destinations That Can Also Attract and Engage Local Residents”;
Policy ED1.3.1 “Promote the Development of Ecotourism Programs That Are or Could Become Associated with Environmentally Focused Activities such as the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, Long Marine Lab, Whale Watching, the UCSC Farm and Arboretum, and Others”;
Policy ED1.8 “Increase the Promotion of Santa Cruz as a Year-Round Tourist Destination and Enhance and Promote the Identity of Existing and Potential Visitor Areas in the City”; Policy ED6.1.2 “Recognize the Importance of and Promote the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary in Support of the City’s Tourism, Recreation, Fishing, and Aquaculture Industries.”
Policy ED6.2.1 “Support commercial projects that demonstrate a public benefit.” The Economic Development element goals and policies sync with many of the recommendations and proposals included in the Wharf Master Plan. The Plan calls for enhancement of the Wharf’s market potential, economic vitality, and visitor experiences (ED1, ED1.1.3, ED1.3.1, ED1.8, and ED6.1.2). Within the existing 1,300 linear footage of commercial uses, increasing the intensity, diversity and number of establishments is called for in order to create a more vibrant and attractive visitor experience as well as increasing revenue generating uses. The proposed Small Boat Landing and Open Wharf Swim Float will increase public access and tourism opportunities in the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary through the rental of kayaks and fishing skiffs, and the South Landing will provide opportunities for whale watching, bay cruises, sports fishing and educational and scientific research vessels to be accessible from the Wharf (ED1.3.1). The Wharf Master Plan also calls for increasing the existing nexus between the Wharf and the nearby Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Exploration Center in order to promote stewardship of the Sanctuary.

The balance of public access and limited commercial expansion supports the policy of public benefit in commercial projects (ED6.2.1).

27.188
CIVIC AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES ELEMENT:

Goal CC 6 “Minimal Solid Waste Production” and
Policy CC6.2 “Provide Convenient, Economical, and Efficient Waste and Recycling Collection Service”;
Goal CC 8 “Excellent Educational Opportunities and Resources” and Policy CC8.1 “Cooperate with Public and Private Institutions Seeking to Meet their Educational Objectives” and
Policy CC8.3 “Maximize Educational, Developmental, and Recreational Opportunities for All.

With respect to Civic and Community Facilities goals and policies regarding reduction of solid waste and efficiencies in waste and recycling collection services, the Wharf Master Plan proposes a uniquely innovative and green technology which embraces a vacuum collection system (CC6 and CC6.2). Trash and recyclables are deposited directly from each of the individual businesses and public receptacles into a horizontal tube under the Wharf. A fan/vacuum system transports the deposited material from the Wharf to an offsite collection center. Other alternatives proposed include smaller and lighter weight collection vehicles servicing the existing three collection points on the Wharf on a more frequent timetable. This would serve to reduce impacts to the Wharf roadway caused by the heavier and larger refuse/recycling trucks. Routing storm water from parking areas into centralized collection will also help reduce waste from runoff entering the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary.

The Wharf Master Plan also provides for creating additional opportunities for research and demonstration projects including but not limited to the marine environment, energy, water use and recycling. The Plan calls for fostering and participation in mutually cooperative relationships and ventures with science and educational advocates and entities such as the Santa Cruz Wharf Outreach Network, the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Exploration Center, the Seymour Marine Discovery Center (co-partners with the City in the Wharf Ecotour), the Moss Landing Marine Laboratories, and the University of California at Santa Cruz. The Wharf already hosts a variety of science and marine-oriented test beds and experiments, some of which are accessible to the public either on-site or through the internet. The Wharf Interpretive Plan also called for in the Master Plan also integrates a number of diverse narratives related to the Wharf and provides opportunities for community organizations, residents, and educational institutions to offer new education opportunities at the Wharf (CC8, CC8.1, and CC8.3).

HAZARDS, SAFETY AND NOISE ELEMENT:

Goal HZ1 “Emergency and Disaster Readiness” and
Policy HZ1.1.3 “Ensure that New Development Design, Circulation, and Access Allows for Maintaining Minimum Emergency Response Times”;
Policy HZ1.2.5 “Continue to Ensure that New Development Design and Circulation Allow for Adequate Emergency Access”;
Goal HZ5 “Minimal Light Pollution” and
Policy HZ5.1 “Reduce Light Pollution”.

27.189
Wharf Master Plan proposals speak directly to the Hazard, Safety and Noise goals and policies noted above. The East Promenade is designed to provide direct access for emergency services vehicles to all points along the Wharf. Current emergency service response times are impacted on busy summer days when traffic is at a standstill on the Wharf; the East Promenade will allow for unimpeded access and faster response times. In addition, the South Landing will serve as an access point for marine safety services as well as an evacuation point should the landward exit from the Wharf become unavailable. The Westside Walkway also adds a protective barrier along the western site of the Wharf that would help reduce impacts to load bearing pilings beneath buildings on the Wharf, which cannot repaired while a building is in place. Decking on the Westside Walkway would also provide wave force attenuation and would help dissipate wave energy before it hits buildings and decking along the Westside. Additional public access from the Westside Walkway as well as the Open Water Swim Float will provide new emergency access and fire fighting positioning along the westside of the Wharf, where it does not currently exist. All of these improvements would support the Emergency and Disaster Readiness goals and policies outlined about (HZ1, HZ1.1.3, HZ1.2.5, HZ5, and HZ5.1)
Considerable thought is devoted to the Wharf’s lighting system, and the Wharf Master Plan calls for low-level wayfinding lights and other concepts designed to protect the night sky and enhance views to the shoreline (HZ5 and HZ5.1).

PARKS, RECREATION, AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT:

Goal PR3 “Well Managed, Clean, and Convenient Public Access to Open Space Lands and Coastline”;
PR3.1.1 “Provide recreational and educational opportunities within the open space lands and coastline consistent with adopted master or management plans.” PR3.3.1 “Protect coastal bluffs and beaches from intrusion by nonrecreational structures and incompatible uses.”
PR3.3.2 “Ensure that development does not interfere with the public’s right to access the ocean (where acquired through use or other legislative authorization).” PR3.3.3 “Require new development and public works projects to provide public access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along the coast, except where it is inconsistent with public safety or protection of fragile coastal resources, or where adequate access exists nearby.”
PR3.3.4 “Maximize public access and enjoyment of recreation areas along the coastline.” Parks, Recreation, and Open Space goals and policies are directly addressed through new public space improvements such as the East Promenade, Westside Walkway, and terrace overlook proposed in the Master Plan (PR3.1.1) . In what is in effect similar to a linear park setting, the East Promenade will increase public access to the Monterey Bay, provide enhanced availability of fishing, boating, and other marine-oriented forms of recreation, provide a much-improved space for promenading, jogging, and bicycling, and will significantly add to the recreational, educational, and scenic dimensions of the Wharf. The East Promenade will also be a platform for interpretive exhibits and for other educational activities. The Westside Walkway would greatly expand recreational uses and access along the westside of the Wharf for a variety of purposes, including 27.190 fishing, sightseeing, wildlife viewing, and walking, as well as swimming and water sports accessible from the Open Water Swim Float. New boat landings (Small Boat Landing and South Landing) will provide new universal access to the water for boating and watersport activities, such as kayaking, paddleboards, wale watches, fishing charters, and research and educational activities.

Certain improvements in the Master Plan would be constructed over public trust lands, but would be limited to recreational expansions and would not intrude on beaches or coastal bluffs (PR3.3.1).

Overall the Wharf Master Plan would expand public access to ocean, for visitors of all mobilities, and would not restrict access (PR3.3.2, PR3.3.3, and PR3.3.4) Natural Resources and Conservation Element:

Goal NRC7 “Reduction in Energy Use, and Significant Production and Use of Renewable Energy” and
Policy NRC7.1 “Improve Local Energy Efficiency and Conservation”; Policy NRC7.2 “Promote Energy Efficiency and Innovation as an Integral Part of Economic Development”.

General Plan Natural Resources and Conservation goals and policies are embraced by the Wharf Master Plan through the call for sustainable development and sound green building practices.

The Wharf Master Plan recognizes that the City must lead by example on city-owned property and provide leadership in green building for all new and remodeling construction on the Wharf.

This includes consideration for storm water best management, energy conservation and renewable sources of energy and recycling and trash collection. These elements together with existing and future building code modifications resulting from a statewide commitment to climate change mitigation will help achieve the goals above (NRC7, NRC7.1, and NRC7.2) Wharf Master Plan – Consistency with Local Coastal Program In addition to the synchronicities with the 2030 General Plan goals and policies discussed above, the Wharf Master Plan meets and addresses the following policies and programs of the 1990- 2005 Local Coastal Plan as amended:

Land Use:

Policy 2.7.1 “Update Land Use and Design Guidelines for the Beach and Wharf Area Addressing the Area's Importance as a Center of Tourism and a Residential Area”; The Wharf Master Plan establishes specific design standards to guide future development and commercial uses on the Wharf as they evolve and intensify over time.

Circulation:

Policy 6.4.2.7 “Analyze Parking Supply and Demand for the Wharf and Cowell Beach and Provide Adequate Parking or Alternative Access”;
The Wharf Master Plan includes management approaches that will help make the existing parking supply more effective and efficient, and that will also increase transactional speed upon exiting. 27.191
Economic Development:

Policy 2.4.3 “Develop and Implement a Promotion and Management Plan for the Wharf Aimed at Attracting Local Residents and Enhancing Recreational and Economic Opportunities While Protecting the Monterey Bay”;
Policy 5.5.3 “Identify Ways to Enhance and Promote the Identity of Existing and Potential Visitor Areas in the City such as Downtown, Beach Area, San Lorenzo River, Yacht Harbor, UCSC, West Cliff and East Cliff Drives, and the Wharf”;
Ultimately, the success of any commercial development depends upon the creativity and entrepreneurial skill of the owner/operator to create an attractive and convivial establishment that has broader market appeal to residents as well as tourists. The Wharf Master Plan recommends that a proactive management, leasing, and detailed marketing plan be prepared for the Wharf. The marketing plan should establish the specific mix of tenants that are desired and that could best work in synergy with one another and contribute to the overall brand and identity of the Wharf. In addition, the City, as the business manager of this commercial center and real estate asset, should not just be reactive to proposals brought forward by a project proponent but rather take a more proactive role in seeking out tenants that would help to realize the diversity and mix of shops and restaurants desired in the marketing plan.

Parks and Recreation:

Policy 1.7.1.2 “Expand the Use of Park-and-Ride Lots, Public Transit, Shuttle Programs, Fee and Free Parking and Other Mass Transit Methods to Ensure Adequate Access to Beaches and the Wharf”;
The Wharf Master Plan recommends that a transit shuttle similar to the Downtown/Beach Area Trolley be provided not only to the Wharf but along it. A small scale electric shuttle dedicated specifically for trips out and back on the Wharf is also considered.

Policy 1.7.1.3 “Maintain Free Bicycle and Pedestrian Access to the Wharf”; An additional 2.5 acres of public access and up to 164 additional bicycle parking spaces are proposed in the Wharf Master Plan.

Policy 1.7.9 “Fishing Access on the Wharf Shall Not Be Reduced”.

Construction of the proposed East Promenade, South Landing and Stepped Overlook at the end of the Wharf will greatly enhance public fishing opportunities.

Policy 1.7.11 “Establish a Recreation/Waterfront Zone Encompassing the Portion of the Monterey Bay From the Mouth of the San Lorenzo River to Steamer's Lane, From the Shore to the Kelp Line, and Provide for Management of the Wharf, Beach, Water Activities, Parking and Recreational Activities in a Manner that Promotes Access and Protects the Bay.

27.192
The public access and recreational improvements proposed by the Wharf Master Plan speaks directly to increasing the potential of the Wharf as a local, regional, and state destination. Its location provides myriad opportunities for increased public appreciation and stewardship of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary.

27.193
“Tailgate” Fishing on East Side of Wharf
that Encroaches into Pedestrian
“Tailgate” Fishing on East Side of Wharf
that Encroaches into Pedestrian
Other East Side Fishing
Other East Side Fishing Fishing at the Agora Use of the Fishing Holes when Installed in the Early 1960s
End of Wharf Fishing Fishing at the Commons
Representative Photos of Existing Wharf Fishing
Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Recirculated Partial Draft EIR FIGURE 4.8-3
Z:\Projects\j1031201\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\PDEIR
SOURCE: City of Santa Cruz

27.194
High Tide Line (2016 Satellite)
Low Tide Line (2020 Satellite)
1 11 30 50 56 65 81
147 154 183
183
179 169
1 10 26 46 53 78 132
MISC. BOAT LANDINGS
NEAR
SHORE

NEAR SHORE ZONE ZONE
KAYAK

BEACH AREA SURF CASTING ZONE RENTALS OPEN OCEAN ZONE
PUBLIC

LANDING
#2

OPEN OCEAN ZONE

SURF CASTING ZONE NEAR SHORE ZONE LIFEGUARD NEAR SHORE ZONE NO PUBLIC ACCESS HQ

BEACH AREA

OPEN OCEAN ZONE
OPEN
OCEAN
ZONE
(SEA LION HOLES/

REEF ZONE

FISHING PARK)







p = 570’
p = ~200’ p = ~275’ p = 445’ p = 85’ p = 130’ p = 250’
p = ~130’ p = ~250’ p = 310’ p = 190’ p = p = 815’ 435’ p = 1,170’
p = 125’
p = 435’
p = 80’
p = 240’
p = 730’





















p = 400’








p = 125’








p =225’



p = 125’





p = 222’
p = 50’
p = 140’
p = 65’

EXISTING CONDITIONS

EXISTING FISHING AREAS

SHORE CASTING

NEAR SHORE

OPEN OCEAN
REEF

RESTRICTED

NO ACCESS
1300'
1620'
605'
VAR.

VAR. 26 46 53
89 72
180
124
SANTA CRUZ WHARF MASTER PLAN 0 40’ 80’

NEAR SHORE ZONE

BEACH AREA SURF CASTING ZONE

BEACH AREA SURF CASTING ZONE NEAR SHORE ZONE

ENTRANCE
GATES

EXPANSION
p = 480’
p = ~200’ p = ~275’
p = ~130’ p = ~250’ p = 305’
p = 111’
p = 190’ p = 276’ p = 65’
p = 275’
p = 65’ p = 155’
p = 575’ x 2 = 1,150’
p = 480’ p =630’
p =330’
p =322’
p =575’
p =220’
p =165’

NEAR SHORE ZONE OPEN WATER

SWIMMING

ACCESS FLOAT

LIFEGUARD
HQ

OPEN OCEAN ZONE

OPEN OCEAN ZONE

EAST PROMENADE

SMALL BOAT LANDING

WESTERN EXPANSION,

END, & OVERLOOK

RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDED

OPEN OCEAN ZONE

COMMERCIAL STOREFRONTS

WESTSIDE WALKWAY
p = 475’
p = 65’
p = 222’

WHARF MASTER PLAN FISHING AREAS
SHORE CASTING • SAME NET AREA
NEAR SHORE • +45 LF
OPEN OCEAN • +157 LF
REEF • +795 LF

RESTRICTED
NO ACCESS • -320 LF



























 














p = 60’
0 100
Feet

COMPARISON OF FISHING AREAS
WHARF MASTER PLAN + EXISTING CONDITIONS
1:3,600
SCALES ARE APPROXIMATE.

SOURCE: City of Santa Cruz
Z:\Projects\j1031201\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\PDEIR
FIGURE 4.8-4
Existing and Proposed Wharf Fishing Areas
Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Recirculated Partial Draft EIR (p: linear distance)

27.195
Concepts for Fishing Hole / Sea Lion Viewing Relocation Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Recirculated Partial Draft EIR FIGURE 4.8-8A SOURCE: City of Santa Cruz
Z:\Projects\j1031201\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\PDEIR

27.196
Concepts for Fishing Hole / Sea Lion Viewing Relocation Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Recirculated Partial Draft EIR FIGURE 4.8-8B SOURCE: City of Santa Cruz
Z:\Projects\j1031201\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\PDEIR

27.197

27.198

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
Parks & Recreation Department
323 Church Street
Santa Cruz, California 95060

PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION
Regular Meeting Minutes - DRAFT
October 9, 2023
4:00 PM GENERAL BUSINESS AND MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST, COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 809 CENTER ST.

Parks & Recreation Commission
Call to Order – 4:07 PM
Roll Call - Commissioners: Bradley Angell, Leonardo Cruz, Jane Mio, Jacob Pollock (via teleconference), Vice Chair Hollie Locatelli and Chair Kristina Glavis, Nik StrongCvetich (arrival 4:28 pm) Staff: Travis Beck, David McCormic, Lindsay Bass (Acting Director), Jackie Trumbull and Tremain Hedden-Jones.

Statements of Disqualification – None.

Oral Communications – None.

Announcements
1 Commission and Department Updates.

1. Presiding Officer – None.

2. Commissioners – None.

3. Department Staff (written submission)

27.199

4. Director of Parks and Recreation – Acting Director Bass commented that Director Elliot is attending a conference, provided special commendations to staff Kelly Mercer-Lebov and Rachel Kaufman on the age-friendly designation.

Chair Glavis asked if item #4 required further discussion or clarification.

Commissioners did not request further discussion.

Approval of Minutes
2 Approval of Minutes for the August 14, 2023, regular meeting of the Parks & Recreation Commission.

Approve the meeting minutes from the regular meeting of the Parks & Recreation Commission on August 14, 2023, as submitted.

Motion carried to approve the meeting minutes from the meeting of the Parks & Recreation Commission on August 14, 2023, as submitted.

General Business
3 Revised Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan and Environmental Determination Chair Glavis opened the item at 4:14 PM.

Asset Manager McCormic provided a presentation and overview of the Wharf Master Plan and the process, including revisions.

Commissioner Strong-Cvetich arrived at 4:28 PM.

Following the presentation Commissioners asked clarifying questions, and staff along with supporting consultants provided answers.

Chair Glavis invited public comment at 5:53 PM.

The following members of the public spoke:

Jon Bombaci
John Aird
Commissioners began deliberation on the item at 6:02 PM Motion carried to accept revisions to the EIR and Wharf Master Plan and recommend that City Council adopt:

27.200
a) The resolution certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (Draft Resolution Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report.pdf); and, b) The Resolution of CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report (Draft Resolution Findings of Fact.pdf) and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (Draft Resolution Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan.pdf); and,
c) The Revised Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan, subject to modifications proposed by staff.

Information Items
4 Tree Permit Information
Commissioners received the report.

Adjournment - 6:27 PM

27.201
PR Commission

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 10/04/2023
AGENDA OF: 10/09/2023
DEPARTMENT: Parks and Recreation
SUBJECT: Revised Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan and Environmental Determination RECOMMENDATION: Accept revisions to the EIR and Wharf Master Plan and recommend that City Council adopt:
a) The resolution certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (Draft Resolution Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report.pdf); and,
b) The Resolution of CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report (Draft Resolution Findings of Fact.pdf) and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (Draft Resolution Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan.pdf ); and, c) The Revised Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan, subject to modifications proposed by staff.

BACKGROUND: The Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan (“Wharf Master Plan”) is a 20-30 year vision for the Wharf to expand of public access and recreation, promote sustainability, and preserve this iconic historic asset. The Wharf Master Plan, if approved, would establish a framework for any potential future expansion of the Wharf, including new public access, recreation and cultural improvements as well as limited commercial infill called out in the Master Plan. The Wharf has not had a comprehensive plan and environmental review prepared since 1980, a need that was identified in the Beach South of Laurel Plan and subsequent Local Coastal Plan updates. Included within the proposed Wharf Master Plan framework are several public space improvements that would primarily expand the Wharf for recreational purposes, as well as design standards and policy guidance on three new public/quasi-public buildings proposed and limited commercial infill.

The Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan (“Wharf Master Plan”) is the product of over twelve (12) years of community engagement and planning, and was adopted by the City Council on November 24, 2020. Prior to approval of the Wharf Master Plan the Council considered recommendations on the final plan from several advisory commissions, including the Parks and Recreation Commission as an informational item on September 14, 2020, the Historic Preservation Commission on October 14, 2020, and the Planning Commission on October 15, 2020. The Parks and Recreation Commission also provide input on the draft plan at its March 3, 2014 hearing. At the September 14, 2020 the Parks and Recreation Commission. Commissioners raised questions regarding preservation of the “sea lion viewing” holes, landmark building, western walkway safety, equitable use of new buildings, as well as grants and available resources for the Wharf and Master Plan. City Council considered these concerns in the adoption of the Final Wharf Master Plan and several sections were added or modified to preserve or relocation the sea-lion viewing holes, bar ocean going cruise ships, enhance interpretive materials, and

27.202
lower the height of most buildings to a maximum of 35’, among other modifications. The staff report from the November 24, 2020 Council Hearing, when the plan was adopted is attached for reference (City Council Staff Report – November 24, 2020.pdf).

CEQA Lawsuit
Subsequent to adoption of the Wharf Master Plan and certification of the EIR by City Council, a lawsuit was filed by an unincorporated association called Don’t Morph the Wharf (DMTW). The lawsuit challenging the adequacy of the EIR under CEQA on several grounds including insufficient analysis of recreation, aesthetics and historical impacts, the level of analysis related to deferral of proposed impacts/mitigation, and a lack of evidence to support findings and rejection of Alternative 2, which would have removed the proposed Westside Walkway.

Specifically, the DMTW focused on perceived impacts to birds from the Westside Walkway, visual impacts to the historical nature of the Wharf, and that impacts to fishing and the sea lion could reasonably be evaluated, but were not.

On February 18, 2022, the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Cruz (hereinafter “Court”) ruled that the City’s determination that the Project would not result in significant environmental impacts related to “recreation activities on the Wharf” was not supported by substantial evidence and that the table regarding Project consistency with applicable recreation and related land use policies did not provide a sufficient analysis of the “evidence of the Project’s impacts on land use”. The Court further held that the City’s CEQA findings regarding the feasibility of Alternative 2 were not adequately supported by substantial evidence in the record. The Court ordered that approval of the Wharf Master Plan and EIR certification be voided, pending corrections required in the Court’s Writ of Mandamus. The City Council formally rescinded the Wharf Master Plan and EIR certification on October 11, 2022.

State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5 requires a lead agency to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is included. As used in this section of the CEQA Guidelines, the term “information” can include changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional data or other information. New information added to an EIR is not “significant” unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect. “Significant new information” requiring recirculation includes, for example, a disclosure showing that:
(1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.
(2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. (3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it.
(4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.

In the present case, a Court judgment and writ have been issued finding a lack of required analysis of potential recreational impacts and consistency with adopted land use policies relating to recreation. The Recirculated Partial Draft EIR (RPDEIR) provides the required analysis in a new recreational impacts chapter, in response to the Court’s judgment. There have been no

27.203
substantive changes to the proposed Project, other than to incorporate the changes to the Draft Wharf Master Plan previously that were previously adopted by the City Council in November 2020, along with minor modifications, and clarifying statements. None of these changes or conditions would warrant revisions to other sections of the EIR.

Revised Master Plan and EIR
Section 15088.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines also allows the lead agency to recirculate only the chapters or portions of the Draft EIR that have been revised. The lead agency may request that reviewers limit their comments to the revised sections, and the agency need only respond to comments received during the recirculation period that relate to the revised Draft EIR sections.

The City of Santa Cruz used this approach for recirculation of the new EIR section and Summary of Impacts as related to recreation and land use, along with clarifying statements in the project summary and project description.

The City issued a Notice of Availability for the RPDEIR on April 17, 2023 and held a community meeting to discuss the revisions to the EIR and Wharf Master Plan on May 30, 2023.

The required 45-day comment period closed on May 31, 2023 and responses to all applicable comments can be found in the Final EIR – Volume 2; the Final EIR – Volume 2 also includes citations for many questions that have been answered in other parts of the EIR and which have not changed as part of revision process. A Notice of Availability for the Final EIR – Volume 2 was published on Sept 1, 2023 and noticed in the Santa Cruz Sentinel on September 7 and 10, 2023. These files and the Revised Wharf Master Plan are available on the project website (https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/government/city-departments/economicdevelopment/development-projects/santa-cruz-wharf-master-plan).

Section 4.8 – Recreation, that was added to the EIR in the RPDEIR takes a holistic view of recreation based on the most expansive definition of recreation and recreation facility in California law. The Santa Cruz Wharf is a unique, multiple-use commercial and recreational facility that offers a much more diverse array of recreational and cultural opportunities than a typical park or recreation facility. Many of these activities which don’t fit cleanly within the City’s definitions of recreation referencing outdoor activity, play, and sports; although some activities do fall within the broad category of passive recreation. There are few stand-alone public facilities like the Wharf, which offers a broad array of recreational opportunities.

The City’s General Plan 2030 provides the following definitions of recreation:
• Recreation, Active: A type of recreation or activity that requires the use of organized play areas including, but not limited to, softball, baseball, football and soccer fields, tennis and basketball courts and various forms of children’s play equipment. • Recreation, Passive: Type of recreation or activity that does not require the use of organized play areas.

Therefore, the City has selected the broadest definition of the terms recreation and recreational facilities that are found in California Public Resources Code (PRC) section 5780.1 as the basis for the recreational impact analysis in the EIR. While these definitions are part of state law that authorizes the organization and powers of recreation and park districts, they capture the entire range of activities found in parks and recreation districts throughout all of California and are comprehensive basis for evaluating potential recreational impacts of the Wharf Master Plan.

27.204
• “Recreation” means any voluntary activity which contributes to the education, entertainment, or cultural, mental, moral, or physical development of the individual, group, or community that attends, observes, or participates. “Recreation” includes, but is not limited to, any activity in the fields of art, athletics, drama, habitat conservation, handicrafts, literature, music, nature study, open-space conservation, science, sports, and any formal or informal play that includes these activities. • “Recreation facility” means an area, place, structure, or other facility under the jurisdiction of a public agency that is used either permanently or temporarily for community recreation, even though it may be used for other purposes. “Recreation facility” includes, but is not limited to, an arts and crafts room, auditorium, beach, camp, community center, golf course, gymnasium, lake, meeting place, open space, park, parkway, playground, playing court, playing field, recreational reservoir, river, and swimming pool. A recreation facility may be owned or operated jointly by a district and other public agencies.

An overview of the RPDEIR recreational analysis is provided in the Discussion section. Staff seeks feedback on the completeness of this analysis and recommends that the Parks and Recreation Commission recommend that City Council accept the revisions to the EIR and adopt the Revised Wharf Master Plan, Findings of Fact, and Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Plan as relates to the recreational use of the Wharf.

DISCUSSION: After more than a century defining the Santa Cruz waterfront, it is all too easy to view the Wharf as an immovable and immutable fixture, an icon of Santa Cruz’s collective identity that can only be damaged by changing. The reality is that the Wharf has always changed.

Life in the Pacific Ocean is hard and requires adaptation to survive. Nevertheless, many people hold Wharf memories that are so strong, vivid, and long lasting, that it can be hard to see any change to the Wharf, whether past, present, or proposed, as anything less than threatening the Wharf’s entire legacy; its history, culture, family, and the even Santa Cruz state of mind.

Discussion about the Wharf Master Plan has largely focused on the proposed improvements to the Wharf rather than its surrounding context or the underlying needs that influenced the Plan.

Some of the main goals of the Wharf Master Plan are the long-term sustainability, increased resilience, and expansion of public access and recreation. To achieve this goal, we will need to balance the social, environmental, and economic needs of the Wharf. As the Wharf Master Plan once again approaches final consideration, it is important to revisit the Plan with these goals in mind and to put in context what an approved master plan actually means for the future of the Wharf. Additional information and background Wharf Master Plan and initial process, can be found in the attached staff reports from the November 24, 2020, and November 22, 2016 City Council Hearings ( City Council Staff Report – November 24, 2020.pdf, City Council Staff Report - November 22, 2016.pdf).

The Revised Wharf Master Plan includes several changes previously adopted by City Council, as well as minor modifications, and clarifying statements in response to the court order, the Revised Wharf Master Plan can be found at the following link -
https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/home/showpublisheddocument/93406/638202173961930000

27.205
Commission Review
Santa Cruz now considers what the future may look like for the Wharf, including the need, size, character, and appropriateness of improvements in the Wharf Master Plan. The Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) is charged with advising the City Council on matters related to parks and recreation managed facilities, including the Wharf. The PRC has provided important feedback and guidance in the development of the Wharf Master Plan during prior updates. The recreational analysis in the RPDEIR similarly requires the counselled opinion of the PRC about any implications for public recreation, should the plan be adopted and implemented.

In making its decision whether to recommend that City Council accept the EIR revisions and staff recommendation, PRC is urged to consider the long-term sustainability of the Wharf itself.

Unprecedented challenges are already compounding, from climate change, to lasting pandemic impacts on Wharf businesses, as well as the Wharf’s mounting infrastructure backlog, harsh environment, and regulatory requirements. All, are factors that impede the City’s ability to steward the Wharf effectively, without major reinvestment. In light of the City’s structural budget crisis, the City needs a plan and environmental clearance to attract those resources from outside sources like the State and federal infrastructure funds. With the plan already delayed for several years and a once in a generation opportunity as federal infrastructure investments, the urgency could not be more intense.

The RPDEIR was published for public comment from April 17, 2023 to May 31, 2023. The RPDEIR summarizes the process to revise the EIR and next steps in response to court ruling directives. The RPDEIR also provides clarifying language related to the project summary and description including policy revisions and additions in response to public comments, prior hearings and Council adopted changes, lessons learned, and the court ruling. Lastly, the RPDEIR adds a new Section 4.8 – Recreation evaluating the potential impacts to recreation and recreational facilities that could a result of Wharf Master Plan implementation.

A brief summary of the recreation analysis and findings is included in the following subsection and the RPDEIR can be found at the following link:
https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/home/showpublisheddocument/92832/638173196430570000 In accordance with CEQA; State CEQA Guidelines (including Appendix G); City of Santa Cruz plans, policies and/or guidelines, including City CEQA Guidelines and Procedures; and agency and professional standards, for this EIR, the project’s recreation-related impact would be considered significant if the project would:

REC-1 Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.

REC-2 Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated; or
REC-3 Conflict with established recreational, educational, cultural, or scientific uses or policies protecting or encouraging recreational uses of the area.

Recreation Analysis
Assessed under the state definitions of Recreation and Recreation Facility (above), the Wharf currently provides diverse opportunities for multiple recreational uses and activities. The most

27.206
common are identified below and have been evaluated under the guidelines above in Section 4.8 - Recreation.
• Walking, Biking, and Active Transportation
• Nature and Wildlife Viewing
• Recreational Fishing
• Small Craft Boating
• Open Water Sports
• Education and Science
• Cultural Activities, Events, and Entertainment
• Dining and Shopping
• Temporary “Pop-up” Recreation
The proposed Wharf Master Plan improvements were also evaluated for consistency with parks and recreation or land use elements of the following relevant plans:
• Santa Cruz General Plan 2030
• Local Coastal Program
• California Coastal Act
• Beach/South of Laurel Area Plan
• City of Santa Cruz Parks Master Plan 2030
• Santa Cruz Active Transportation Plan
• Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Management Plan The impact analyses that follow investigate the impacts of new/expanded recreational facilities (REC-1), increased use of the Wharf (REC-2), and potential conflicts with established recreational uses or policies protecting or encouraging recreational uses (REC-3).

Impact REC-1: Result in Substantial Physical Impacts. The proposed Project would not require expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse effect on the environment. However, the Project supports new and expanded facilities that would enhance recreational uses on the Wharf and which could result in adverse physical effects on the environment (PR-1). This is considered a significant impact.

Adoption and implementation of the Wharf Master Plan would lead to future construction of improvements to the Wharf, resulting in physical alterations to the wharf structure and potential significant impacts to biological resources and marine water quality identified in the original Draft EIR. Significant impacts resulting from construction of improvements recommended in the Wharf Master Plan, include: potential impacts to fish and marine mammals, including special status species, if present at the time of pile installation required for wharf expansion or structural improvements (Impact BIO-1a), disturbance to nesting birds if any are present at the time of construction (Impact BIO-4), and potential impacts to marine water quality due to inadvertent discharge of construction debris (HYD-2). All of these indirect potentially significant impacts related to biological resources and water quality would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level with implementation of mitigation measures included in the previously circulated Draft and Final EIR volumes. Therefore, potential indirect impacts resulting from development of new and expanded recreational facilities are considered less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation measures include marine life and bird nest monitoring, soft start and cushion blocks for pile driving, exclusion zones, and waste capture and hazardous materials/fuel containment to avoid water quality impacts.

27.207
Impact REC-2: Increased Use of Recreational Facilities. The proposed Project would potentially result in increased use of the Santa Cruz Wharf, which is considered a recreational facility, but not to the extent that such use would result in substantial accelerated physical deterioration of the facility (PR-2). This is considered a less-than-significant impact.

Adoption and implementation of the Wharf Master Plan would support future improvements to the Wharf, which are in part, proposed to enhance public access and recreational opportunities at the Wharf as key objectives. Expansion of the Wharf envisioned in the Master Plan consists of construction of the East Promenade and Westside Walkway and construction of new and expanded boat landings, as well as new buildings that would expand public visitor recreational and educational opportunities.

Implementation of the proposed Wharf Master Plan could lead to an overall increase in visitor use at the Wharf, although there are no specific projections of future visitor use at the Wharf.

Specifically, implementation of the Wharf Master Plan could result in some increase in visitors to the Wharf due to: 1) enhancement of public spaces, including expansion, and increased public and private events at the Wharf; 2) expansion of opportunities for boat tours, fishing and research vessels, and small craft launches; and 3) potential increase in commercial uses and parking within the existing development footprint. The Wharf Master Plan that enhancement of recreational and open space uses at the Wharf would create new opportunities for pedestrian and bicycle use, coastal viewing, fishing, boating, and open water swimming and boating, which could broaden its appeal to a larger population and increase year-round visitation (ROMA 2014).

Enhancing the appeal of the Wharf to visitors interested in the ecology and marine life of the MBNMS or research, education, and scientific endeavors around the Wharf would also strengthen the visitor diversity and market appeal of the Wharf. The associated improvements and activities would create more reasons for visitors to come to the Wharf and could increase the number of times and seasons of the year that they choose to visit (ROMA 2014). As previously indicated, the City estimates that approximately 2.5 million visitors currently come to the Wharf annually. Overall, it is expected that visitation would grow commensurate with regional, state, and national economic trends, increased use that could be better accommodated with the proposed improvements. A specific level of potential increased use arising from implementation of the Wharf Master Plan cannot be accurately estimated however. The Santa Cruz Wharf is surrounded by numerous parks, beaches, and both public and private recreational facilities, all of which combine to make the Beach Area, a prominent destination for visitors as well as residents.

None of the uses proposed in the Master Plan would result in a new facility that would be considered a regional draw capable of generating substantially increased visitation to the Wharf, above what might otherwise occur with local residents and visitors already visiting the area. As indicated above, the proposed Wharf Master Plan improvements could attract visitors more frequently throughout the year and expand capacity of the Wharf to handle peak summer crowds.

There could also be an increased number of days with peak attendance due to the addition of the proposed Events Pavilion that would enable public and private events year-round. Wharf Master Plan improvements could also increase the attractiveness of the Wharf and enhance recreation and public access, consistent with the key goals of Wharf Master Plan. The improvements and facilities recommended in the Wharf Master Plan would also structurally enhance Wharf resilience and improve its capacity to safely manage increased visitation and recreational use.

27.208
There are no entrance fees to visit the Wharf, but as a mixed-use, commercial and recreational facility, a significant amount of visitation results in commerce and parking revenues that directly fund Wharf maintenance. As a result, increased use of recreational facilities does not directly correlate with potential deterioration of facilities, and would lead to increased revenues for maintenance and improvements to prevent and address future deterioration. Active, year-round Wharf maintenance, funded with visitor revenues and benefiting from increased visitation significantly offsets any deterioration of the facilities that results from increased public use.

Adoption of the Proposed Wharf Master Plan would also help the City attract additional investment and outside grant funding that would fund implementation and support overall sustainability, maintenance, and resilience of the Wharf. In addition, both the proposed Wharf Master Plan and its accompanying Wharf Master Plan Engineering Report provide recommendations regarding maintenance and structural improvements to accommodate future uses and users to prevent deterioration of facilities. Thus, continued and future potential increased use of the Wharf would not lead to a level of use that would result in a substantial physical deterioration of the Wharf, resulting in a less-than-significant impact.

Impact REC-3: Conflict with Existing Recreational Facility Uses and Policies. The proposed Project would not conflict with and/or eliminate established recreational, educational, or scientific uses at the Santa Cruz Wharf or conflict with policies protecting or encouraging recreational uses of the area (PR-3). This is considered a less-than-significant impact.

Future improvements recommended in the Wharf Master Plan would provide new and enhanced public access and recreational facilities, while also wrapping the Wharf in a protective layer of new publicly access recreation facilities. Strategies, policies, actions, potential impacts, and recommendations for specific improvements, are described and discussed below.

Policies and Actions
The Wharf Master Plan includes policies and actions for the preservation, restoration, improvement, and management of the Wharf, some of which recognize the Wharf’s potential as a more significant recreational resource within the unique environment of the MBNMS. The potential of the Wharf as a more significant commercial and recreational destination also would improve the quality of recreational activities and experiences at the Wharf. The Wharf Master Plan policies and actions regarding enhanced recreational and public access opportunities are summarized on Table 4.8-1 (Summary of Policies and Actions.pdf).

Proposed Facilities
The proposed Wharf Master Plan includes a range of recommendations for new facilities and improvements that would expand, enhance, and improve upon existing recreational facilities and uses at the Wharf. These also include proposals to enhance cultural, educational, and scientific research opportunities. Specific recommended improvements in the proposed Wharf Master Plan that would expand existing recreational opportunities are summarized below. The key improvements are conceptually depicted on Figure 3-2 in the Project Description. • East Promenade: This facility would result in expansion of the Wharf on the east side, which would be dedicated to pedestrians, bicyclists, and continued fishing. According to the Master Plan, the East Promenade would provide the backbone for a series of other improvements, including the Small Boat Landing, the South Landing, and a Terrace Overlook that are all intended to enhance public access along the entire length of the

27.209
Wharf and add to the recreational, educational, and scenic dimensions of the Wharf that already exist.
• Westside Walkway: A new 10-12-foot wide, pedestrian walkway, supported on new piles, is proposed along the western perimeter of the Wharf that would add an approximately 870’ lowered walkway along the currently inaccessible western side of the Wharf. The new Westside Walkway would complete a full one-mile circuit of pedestrian access around the Wharf. It would be built approximately eight feet below the existing Wharf deck level to allow for undisturbed visual access from the existing restaurants and commercial spaces along the western edge of the Wharf, and would provide new opportunities for fishing and viewing under the deck. Constructed from permeable materials to disrupt the force of waves, the Westside Walkway and supporting piles would also protect pilings beneath buildings from seaborne debris and storm damage. • Terrace Overlook: An overlook with amphitheater-like steps is proposed at the southernmost tip of the Wharf extending from the East Promenade. The Terrace Overlook would descend further than the edge of the East Promenade with three amphitheater steps leading to a 7-foot-wide area where the guardrail would be located.

This area would provide seating opportunities for viewing the Monterey Bay and watching wildlife off the end of the Wharf. Approximately 4,000-square-feet of additional area would remain at the end of the Wharf, that would continue to be used for fishing, viewing the bay and wildlife, and other uses.
• Boat Landings: Two new accessible boat landings are proposed to accommodate a variety of water sports and provide universal access to the ocean. Both landings would be ADA compliant, allowing those with mobility challenges, children, and aging visitors, safe and equitable access to boating on Monterey Bay.
• The “Small Boat Landing” would support small recreational vessels and Wharf operations, with the following: accessible docking facilities for kayak, paddleboard, and fishing boat rentals as well as Wharf Operations; expanded and improved support and storage space for the boating facilities; and public use for temporary tie-in of small vessels or for watercraft launches from the Wharf. The Small Boat Landing would consolidate four existing small boat landings, none of which meet ADA standards and only one open to the public, to support and expand small boat and human powered watercraft uses from a centralized ADA accessible landing.
• The “South Landing” is a larger vessel landing facility proposed at the deepwater end of the Wharf in the location originally configured for the berthing of oceangoing vessels and home to what remains of Public Landing #2. Temporary mooring for visitor serving vessels, such as whale watching, bay tours, sports fishing, dinner cruises, and educational and scientific research vessels, including those of the MBNMS, the Monterey Bay Aquarium/Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI), and UCSC would be provided by the South Landing. This facility could also provide landings for public use and emergency evacuation or resupply in the event of disasters impacting highway access. The Wharf Master Plan, with revisions approved by the City Council in 2020, prohibits consideration of the Wharf as a terminus for cruise ships of any tonnage,

27.210
to provide moorings for extended periods of time, or to provide shuttle access for any type of large ocean-going passenger vessel.
• Swim Club Support Facilities: One of the three proposed new public-use buildings, the Gateway Building at the new entrance, is envisioned with potential space for a non-profit Open Water Swim Club, which could include restrooms, changing rooms, a sauna, and meeting space. The Open Water Swim Club would have direct access to the Westside Walkway, which would be connected to the bay by an 85-foot-long gangway and float, providing new ADA-accessible direct access to open water ocean swimming, paddling, and surfing at Cowell Beach. Access would be provided seasonally; during the winter months, the float would be removed and secured to a pair of piles specifically designed for that purpose.
• Visitor and Educational Uses
• The Gateway Building is proposed where the existing row of commercial buildings begins as the existing Wharf widens. The approximate 3,000-squarefoot building is proposed for public uses that could support a mix of cultural, educational, scientific and recreational activities, including visitor center, and as discussed, and support facilities for open ocean sports and swimmers as discussed above.
• The Events Pavilion is an approximately 6,000-square-foot building proposed in the “Commons,” an open space, where the Wharf changes direction to the southwest. The “Commons” is currently used in warmer months for occasional outdoor public events and concerts atop a small outdoor stage. The new facility would provide a weather-protected space capable of supporting a wider range of year-round uses, including educational and environmental programs, lectures, performances and festivals, as well as private events such as parties and weddings. Existing restroom facilities serving the “Commons” would be improved and expanded to increase capacity, security, and meet ADA requirements. The building is envisioned in a pavilion-like form with glass doors that open up to create an indoor/outdoor experience as weather permits. • The Landmark Building is proposed at the bayward end of the Wharf adjacent to an existing building (the Dolphin Restaurant). It is designed to reflect the historic warehouse that once anchored the seaward end of the Whard. Uses could include a combination of cultural, educational, and commercial uses as well as the possibility of a café, small conference, and lecture facilities, and fishing or boating support facilities. The Santa Cruz Surfing Museum has expressed its interest in using a portion of this structure.
• The Master Plan also considers remodeling, infill, and intensified use of existing structures, including upper floor outdoor dining opportunities and small pocket retail spaces by the proposed Events Pavilion.
• Support Facilities
• Lifeguard HQ: Expansion or replacement of the existing lifeguard station is proposed to improve response times, expand capacity, and better accommodate service and accessibility requirements for lifeguard functions at the Wharf, Main and Cowell

27.211
Beaches. An expanded Lifeguard HQ is envisioned with two-floors and a tower, to potentially include support facilities for programs like Junior Guards, storage of response vehicles and equipment, potential seasonal mooring of a fire boat from new or redesigned landings, communications equipment, and other resilience and public safety features.
• Bicycle Facilities: The Master Plan proposes new parking for 64 to 150 bicycles. • Research and Education
• In addition to these recreational facilities and improvements, the Wharf Master Plan supports educational and scientific endeavors at the Wharf. One of the proposed Actions seeks to integrate scientific and educational initiatives from non-profit or for project activities. Another Action seeks to promote opportunities for research and demonstration projects, including but not limited to the marine environment, energy, water use, and recycling. Specific types of projects are not identified, but based on existing demonstration projects underway at the Wharf (wind research, photovoltaic energy, water quality), such projects are anticipated to be related to scientific research or environmental monitoring, and in some cases could involve temporary installations or uses. The Master Plan Actions also call for increased partnership with science and educational entities such as the MBNMS Exploration Center, the Seymour Marine Discovery Center, the Moss Landing Marine Laboratories, and the University of California at Santa Cruz.

Impacts of Wharf Master Plan on Recreation:

Implementation of the Wharf Master Plan would result in improvements that would expand recreational facilities and enhance existing recreational, cultural, educational, and scientific research uses and opportunities at the Wharf. Generally, construction of facilities recommended in the Wharf Master Plan would expand safe access for all recreational users, further enhance existing recreational features at the Wharf, diversify recreational opportunities with ADAcompliant accessible water access, and provide new public buildings to support cultural and other activities and projects, as further explained below. Specifically, pedestrian and bicycle access would be expanded with construction of the East Promenade and Westside Walkway, which would increase access to the perimeter of the Wharf and also create a continuous walkway circuit of over one mile. Preliminary concepts for the East Promenade depict seating areas along the eastern edge of the Wharf that would support fishing, gathering, wildlife viewing, and sightseeing uses. Two new boat landings and the open water swim access float would provide ADAcompliant water access that is not currently available and expand existing kayak and rental boating opportunities, as well as provide access for paddleboarding and surfing. The South Landing would expand opportunities for recreational watercraft landing and activities like whale watches and bay tours, charter fishing charter, emergency access, research and educational tours.

Key takeaways and analysis of potential impacts on recreation resulting from the proposed Wharf Master Plan improvements area are discussed below, detailed analysis can be found in the RPDEIR at the link above:
• Walking, Biking, and Active Transportation.
• An 11% increase in the total Wharf perimeter (approximately 677 LF), nearly all of which would be accessible for walking, biking, and/other active transportation.

27.212
• The creation of the East Promenade would add approximately 1.5 acres of public access space for recreational activities, like fishing, sightseeing, and a 2,200-foot-long bike and pedestrian accessway that would be separated from vehicular travel. • The East Promenade would reduce or eliminate conflicts between recreational uses, such as pedestrian walks and fishing along the Wharf edge by providing separated seating areas for fishing, gathering, and sightseeing activities, separated from the flow of pedestrians and bicyclists along the Promenade.
• The East Promenade also would create a multi-modal destination spur, connecting to the planned Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail.
• The Westside Walkway, which would create an approximately 815’ long lowered walkway, with ramps, and an open water swimming access float along the west side of the wharf with seasonal access to an area of the Wharf that is not currently access.

This would complete a pedestrian circuit totaling over one mile around the Wharf, enhancing access for recreational walking and fitness.
• Overall, the improvements are expected to reduce then net restricted and no-access areas by approximately 22% or over 320 LF, although the Westside Walkway would provide much of this gain by opening up access to currently inaccessible west side of the Wharf.
• Nature and Wildlife Viewing.
• Completion of Master Plan improvements would significantly expand opportunities for nature and wildlife viewing and sight-seeing through the substantial expansion of the Wharf and its perimeter with enhanced access as described above. • The expansion of edge seating along the East Promenade and Overlook Terrace, as well as the provision of new viewing angles beneath the Wharf along the Westside Walkway (as shown on Figure 4.8-7) and on three new ADA-accessible boat landings would increase the diversity of wildlife and nature viewing opportunities and experiences.
• The Westside Walkway would also complete a full one-mile pedestrian circuit around the Wharf, providing new opportunities for views of the bay and wildlife viewing. • Permeable materials comprising the Westside Walkway would also create a unique new visual experience of walking over the water below.
• Expanded seating areas along the Wharf edge and the Overlook Terrace would offer more comfort to bird watchers and expand opportunities for bird watching and overall nature viewing. This would be an improvement over current conditions where many walkways, particularly along the east side of the Wharf, do not have sufficient width to include ocean-facing seating and still allow for ADA-compliant pedestrian access. • Below deck access via new landings and the Westside Walkway would also create new opportunities for viewing wildlife.

27.213
• Second-floor commercial infill, including potential rooftop outdoor dining, further expands sightseeing for those engaged in recreational dining or shopping. The Landmark Building, Events Pavilion, and Gateway Building could similarly include publicly accessible viewing areas such as balconies, upper floors and mezzanines, or roof tops vistas, if desired at the time these facilities are designed. • Wi-fi or cellular infrastructure needed for enhanced public safety response, communications, and interpretive features envisioned in the Wharf Master Plan would also enable the potential installation of webcams expanding wildlife viewing opportunities to nature enthusiasts around the world.
• Regarding the Sea Lion Viewing/Fishing Holes, the following language was previously adopted by City Council, making a commitment to preserve or relocate the holes, and is proposed in the Revised Wharf Master Plan. “Any potential development at the end of the Wharf, shall preserve to the greatest extent possible, or relocate to a place of greater access and viewing quality, the popular “sea lion viewing” and “fishing” holes at the end of the Wharf. Any redesign of these features must be in keeping with the intimate experience of the current viewing holes and consistent with the character of the Wharf, as established through community engagement.” • Figure 4.8-8 (Figures 4.8-3, 4.8-4, 4.8-8A+B.pdf) is included in the RPDEIR and has been revised for clarity in the FEIR Volume 2, in response the court’s Statement of Decision, which found that that the absence of any evaluation of potential options to relocate or preserve the Sea Lion Viewing/Fishing Holes was an unallowable deferral of required mitigation of potentially significant impacts. Figure 4.8-8 clearly depicts several opportunities for preservation or relocation at the end of the Wharf or along its length. Preservation or relocation is included in revised Wharf Master Plan, these features would not be eliminated, and thus would not result in an impact due to conflicts with established recreational uses.
• Recreational Fishing.
• Fishing from the Wharf would remain available free of charge and Wharf Master Plan improvements, including construction of new boat landings and structural improvements, would not result in net reduction of fishing opportunities. • Allowable fishing space would expand by approximately 21% (nearly 1,000 LF) as result of Wharf expansions including the new East Promenade, lateral strengthening at the end of Wharf, and the Westside Walkway.
• A comparison of fishing opportunities under existing conditions and with implementation of the Wharf Master Plan is provided in Figure 4.8-4, and a discussion of the following distinct fishing experiences or zones is included in the RPDEIR:
• Shore-Casting Zone
• Near-Shore Zone
• Open Ocean Zone
• Reef Fishing Zone

27.214
• Boat Fishing
• Expansion of fishing opportunities would occur across each of the distinct fishing experiences or zones described in the “Recreational Uses at the Santa Cruz Wharf” section above, but could be most pronounced for reef fishing, as the Westside Walkway and Terrace Overlook would enable up to about 800 LF of fishing among pilings and sheltered waters, approximately 430% of what is currently available within the sea lion viewing/fishing holes alone.
• Master Plan improvements would however reduce the overall “tailgate fishing” area from which fishing could take place adjacent to or from one’s vehicle. • In total, tailgate fishing could be reduced by approximately 1,705 LF, although 822 LF or roughly 80-100 parking spaces would remain available for tailgate fishing in both zones that currently allowing tailgate fishing, the Near-Shore and Open Ocean zones.
• This reduction would primarily occur in areas where existing sidewalks do not have enough width to accommodate both tailgate fishing and ADA-compliant pedestrian access (see representative photos of fishing “conflict zones” on Figure 4.8-3). Under current conditions, fishing from vehicles conflicts with a variety of other recreational activities, such as walking, bird watching, and sight-seeing, and often causes pedestrians to walk amongst traffic in the roadway.
• Although tailgate fishing would be limited by proposed improvements in comparison to how visitors currently freely park vehicles and fish from the Wharf, existing conflicts with other Wharf visitors would be virtually eliminated while fishing opportunities in close proximity to parking would still be maintained as explained below.
• Tailgate fishing would largely be maintained in areas where the pathways have sufficient width to accommodate both fishing and ADA access, as well as in the East Parking Lot where the expanded East Promenade would provide a new pedestrian access separated from traffic.
• In areas where tailgate fishing would be eliminated, approximately 1,000 feet would be provided instead as dedicated fishing and seating areas that would be separated from pedestrians along the Promenade. To access these areas fishers would only have to walk across the East Promenade (approximately 20 feet) to the newly constructed fishing areas with bench seating. Ramps and access steps are projected in conceptual plans proposed at regular spacing 150 to 200 feet and breaks are anticipated more frequently along seat walls.
• It is believed that regulating tailgate fishing to designated areas and restriping parking, will also improve parking utilization and turnover promoting expanded public access for more Wharf visitors.
• Small Craft Boating. The Wharf Master Plan would consolidate most boating operations along the eastern side of the Wharf into a single ADA-compliant Small Boat Landing.

27.215
This includes Wharf operations, as well as water access currently provided via kayak and fishing boat rentals and Public Landing No. 1, none of which currently meet ADA accessibility standards. The Small Boat Landing is expected to provide greater storage capacity for rental kayaks and fishing boats, as well as opportunities for launching of paddleboards, kayaks, and small boats and short-term mooring for visiting vessels. ADAcompliant water access provided by the Small Boat Landing would provide recreational boating access to visitors with impaired mobility, which is currently not available.

New modern davits and service equipment, installed with the landings would allow a broader variety of maritime services from the Wharf, including restocking of research vessels and equipment loading, sport fishing and commercial fish landings to restore the “ocean-to-table” culinary culture at the Wharf, fire boat mooring, and similar services for recreational watercraft, some of which may draft too deeply for the Santa Cruz Harbor and be currently unavailable locally.
• Open Water Sports. The proposed boat landings and the open water swimming access float would provide universal access for open water swimmers, bathers, and potentially divers. There is currently only limited, non-ADA compliant, water access from Public Landing #1 (approximately 1,100 feet from shore on the east side), and no water access is available along the west side facing Cowell Beach. Construction of the proposed Small Boat Landing, South Landing, and open water swimming access float from the Westside Walkway would expand and diversify options for open water access. Enhanced lifeguard facilities proposed in the Wharf Master Plan would improve safety and response times to recreational swimmers originating from the Wharf and nearby beaches.

The two new ADA-compliant boat ramps and the open water swimming access float would also open access for other open water activities, including board sports such as paddleboarding, surfing, e-foils, and possibly windsurfing. This could increase the diversity of participants in these sports and enable surfers and paddlers for whom beach launch or stairway access along West Cliff Drive is difficult. Pedestrian and bicycle access from the Monterey Bay Scenic Trail to the Wharf and East Promenade, as well as ample parking, would promote the Wharf as an alternative launch location to nearby surf breaks. Therefore, the Wharf Master Plan would not adversely impact access to open water recreational activities.

The two new boat landings would also allow recreational scuba tours from the Wharf, while any of the landings could support scuba divers launching directly into Wharf waters. High diving or jumping from the Wharf could also be considered during the design of future landings and the Gateway Building, provided appropriate safety measures are available.
• Education and Science. Three new public facilities are proposed at the Gateway Building, Events Pavilion, and Landmark Building. These structures are intended to support a variety of public or quasi-public cultural, educational, scientific, and recreational activities including potential museums, scientific lectures, and educational tours, as well as a welcome center for visitors. The Interpretive Plan envisioned in the Master Plan would integrate diverse historical, environmental, and other educational narratives appropriate for the Wharf into a mixed media network of cultural and educational experiences for visitors to the Wharf, which might include everything from

27.216
kiosks, and signage, to public art, digital, and augmented reality experiences. The South Landing would provide new port access for educational and scientific vessels, allowing for research vessels like those of MBARI or UCSC to visit or launch from the Wharf, while also providing for potential regional collaboratives between Santa Cruz and regional institutions. Ongoing partnerships with the Seymour Marine Discovery Center, the MBNMS, and Coast Snap are anticipated to support additional citizen science opportunities and interpretive installations. The improvements proposed in the Wharf Master Plan would expand educational and scientific opportunities at the Wharf. • Cultural Activities, Events, and Entertainment. The proposed new buildings (Gateway, Events Pavilion, and Landmark) would support cultural activities, events, and entertainment. This would be most significant with the Events Pavilion, which would replace the existing outdoor stage with a sheltered pavilion allowing events and gatherings year-round. The Pavilion could be opened and closed to the outdoors depending on weather conditions and use, this would result in potential expansion of cultural special events and entertainment on the Wharf. Events and Entertainment could also occur at the Landmark building, depending on final design and programming.

Implementation of an Interpretive Plan would also expand cultural activities. The presence of public art is expected to expand as one potential medium employed by the future Wharf Interpretive Plan. Thus, improvements proposed in the Wharf Master Plan would not result in significant impacts to cultural activities, events, or entertainment recreation on the Wharf.
• Dining & Shopping. Commercial infill and second floor additions are expected to diversify the dining and shopping options available at the Wharf. As indicated in Section 3, Project Description, it is estimated that approximately 22,000 square feet of commercial uses may be constructed in the future as part of infill and expansion of existing buildings. Additional commercial and ancillary uses might also be designed into future public buildings, such as event facilities and café spaces, museum gift shops, or other complementary commercial uses. This potential expansion of commercial activity could expand opportunities for recreational or leisure dining and shopping on the Wharf and would not detrimentally impact existing dining or shopping recreation. • Temporary “Pop-up” Recreation. Implementation of the Wharf Master Plan presents diverse opportunities for temporary “pop-up” recreation as sites are redeveloped and public space is expanded. Vacant sites pending reconstruction would present infrequent opportunities to prototype redevelopment plans or program event series like temporary beer gardens and pop-up commercial ventures, as well as public access and event spaces.

Within these spaces or on larger open deck expansions a broad variety of recreational facilities can be imagined, which might encompass anything from children’s play areas to public art, dining areas, science exhibits, or even sports courts. Although existing temporary recreation installations, like the Bocce Court or Sea Walls art mural at Gilda’s, would likely be removed, relocated, or change over time, the intent of such temporary recreational features is to keep the Wharf dynamic and to explore and adapt recreational facilities to attract and meet visitor interests as they change over time. The Wharf has a long history of events and pop-up recreation, and proposed improvements would not conflict with this.

27.217
Consistency and Potential Conflicts with Adopted Plans and Policies Pertaining to Recreation.
• General Plan 2030: Adoption of the Wharf Master Plan and subsequent construction of proposed structures and improvements are consistent with General Plan policies to encourage a mix of uses at the Wharf (LU3.5) and provide improved recreational and economic opportunities at the Wharf (LU3.53). These constitute primary strategies of the Wharf Master Plan and its recommended improvements. The Wharf Master Plan’s policies, actions, and improvements would maximize public access and enjoyment of coastal recreational areas, consistent with Policy PR3.3.4. • Local Coastal Program: The proposed Project would not conflict with policies related to recreation or coastal access in the City’s certified LCP. The proposed Wharf Master Plan is consistent with and fulfills LCP directives for the Wharf, including development and implementation of a promotion and management plan for the Municipal Wharf aimed at attracting local residents and enhancing recreational and economic opportunities while protecting the Monterey Bay (ED 2.4.3) and ways to enhance and promote the identity of the Wharf (ED 5.5.3).

Implementation of the Wharf Master Plan and expansion of the Wharf would provide enhanced public access with increased pedestrian access at the East Promenade and Westside Walkway, consistent with LCP Policy CD 3.5 to protect coastal recreational areas, and maintain all existing coastal access points open to the public. The proposed Wharf Master Plan also is consistent with LCP policies that require maintaining free bicycle and pedestrian access to the Wharf (PR 1.7.1.3) as there is no charge to these users to enter the Wharf. LCP Policy PR 1.7.9 states that fishing access on the Municipal Wharf shall not be reduced. As explained above, fishing opportunities at the Wharf would not be reduced, and would actually slightly increase overall, although the means of accessing the perimeter of the Wharf to fish would change slightly to accommodate both recreational fishing and pedestrians in the same areas.

The LCP also contains Wharf Design Criteria in Table ASP-6, which includes four primary goals with policies and actions/criteria, some of which relate to recreation and access. The Wharf Master Plan is consistent with applicable goals, policies, and actions/criteria set forth in the LCP and described in the RPDEIR. • California Coastal Act: While the Wharf Master Plan program itself is not subject to the approval by the California Coastal Commission (CCC), implementation of proposed improvements would require Coastal Development permits from the CCC to be constructed. The RPDEIR evaluated the two near term project components, the entrance gate relocation and East Promenade, which have designed to a project level for consistency with Coastal Act policies related to recreation. Findings are summarized below.
• Coastal Public Access: Article 2 of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act addresses public access to the coast to provide maximum access and recreational opportunities. The two near-term projects would maximize public access (§ 30210) by improving multimodal access to the Wharf and beach area, while maintaining existing fishing opportunities from the east side of the Wharf. These projects would not interfere with the public’s right to coastal access (§ 30211) and do not negatively change public

27.218
access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along the coast (§ 30212). The East Promenade expands and enhances pedestrian and bicycle access, consistent with Coastal Act policy directives to maintain and enhance public access to coast, including non-auto alternatives (§ 30252). Additionally, the Westside Walkway would further expand public access and help maintain the Wharf’s safety and integrity into the future with lateral strengthening, none of which would interfere with the public’s right to access.
• Recreation and Visitor-Serving Uses: Article 3 of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act addresses recreation and visitor-serving uses with policies to protect coastal areas for water-oriented activities and oceanfront land for recreational use, along with coastal support areas. Priority is given to the visitor-serving commercial recreational facilities uses designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation over all other land uses, except agriculture and coastal-dependent industry. Support facilities for increased recreational boating use of coastal waters area also encouraged. The proposed Entry Gate Relocation would improve vehicular access to the Wharf and beach area in support of recreational uses, but otherwise would not impact recreational uses. The proposed East Promenade would maximize recreational opportunities (30210) for pedestrians and bicyclist use, along with continued fishing opportunities. The Santa Cruz Wharf provides free access to pedestrian and bicyclists and does not charge entrance fees, but does charge for higher impact vehicle parking to help offset Wharf maintenance and operations costs. Overall, the Wharf provides lower cost visitor and recreational facilities, consistent with Coastal Act Policy 30213.
• Marine Environment: Article 4 of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act addresses the marine environment. Section 30233 addresses situations in which diking, filling, or dredging of open coastal waters, wetlands, estuaries, are permitted. In open coastal water, subsection (3) permits new or expanded boating facilities and the placement of structural pilings for public recreational piers that provide public access and recreational opportunities. The new piles required for the Entry Gate Relocation and East Promenade, as well as construction of future boat landings, deck expansions, and the Westside Walkway, would be consistent with this requirement. It is also noted that section 30233 permits a range of other port, coastal-dependent, aquaculture, mineral extraction, and restoration uses.
• Beach South of Laurel Area Plan: The proposed Wharf Master Plan and associated planning documents also fulfill the B/SOL LCP policies that require completion of a comprehensive analysis of the Wharf, including examining the feasibility of expanding maritime activity and visitor amenities.
• Parks Master Plan 2030: Goal VI, Policy B of the Parks Master Plan seeks to protect, maintain, and enhance publicly accessible coastal, riverfront, and open space areas and provide recreational and educational experiences that reflect the unique sense of place and identity of Santa Cruz. Implementation of the proposed Wharf Master Plan would protect, maintain, enhance, and expand recreational, educational, and scientific uses at the Santa Cruz Wharf, consistent with this policy. The Parks Master Plan recommends that the Parks and Recreation Department work with the Planning and Community Development and Economic Development Departments to implement the Wharf Master Plan.

27.219
• Santa Cruz Active Transportation Plan: The Active Transportation Plan (ATP) calls for implementation of the East Promenade to improve bicycle and pedestrian access for users of all ages and abilities. The ATP also recommends the addition of more bike racks and a possible bike corral, which are contemplated in the Wharf Master Plan. • Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Management Plan: The Sanctuary Management Plan is a guiding document primarily for federal agencies related to the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. The introduction of the Plan acknowledges that the Recreational Activities, among other topics, remain as “potential issues for future consideration.” To the extent the Management Plan discusses recreation, it appears to relate to golf balls, aerial drones, interagency coordination, regional sediment management plans, and the Davidson Seamount. The Wharf Master Plan does not conflict with any provisions of the current Sanctuary Management Plan.

Project Alternatives
CEQA Guidelines (section 15126.6), require that an EIR describe and evaluate a range of reasonable alternatives to the project or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. The following Project Alternatives were considered based on the Project Objectives included in the Master Plan and summarized below:

Project Alternatives
• No Project – Required by CEQA
• Alternative 1 – Reduced Project
• Reduced width of East Promenade to 14’ from 21’
• Reduced height and size of the new public use buildings • 40’ maximum height + 5 to 10% reduced footprint
• Alternative 2 – Modified Project
• Eliminate Westside Walkway
• Reduced height and size of the new public use buildings • 40’ maximum height + 5 to 10% reduced footprint
Summary of Project Objectives

1. Enhance opportunities for recreational use and public access.

2. Expand and enhance maritime activities.

3. Integrate education and research initiatives.

4. Promote sustainable development and sound green building practices.

5. Enhance the pedestrian environment and provide improved bicycle facilities.

6. Prepare design approaches that will provide guidance and elevate the quality of buildings and public spaces.

7. Improve parking control systems and create a more inviting arrival experience.

8. Improve service and maintenance operations.

9. Enhance public safety.

Findings
According to CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(e), if the environmentally superior alternative is the “no project” alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative

27.220
among the other alternatives. Additional requirements related to alternatives are discussed in the Draft EIR and Final EIR (Volume 1).

Based on these considerations, the Final EIR (Volume 1) stated that “Of the alternatives considered, Alternative 2 would best achieve project objectives, while also reducing the severity of identified significant impacts and therefore, is considered the environmentally superior alternative of the alternatives reviewed.” The previously adopted findings of fact stated the following as rationale for rejection of Alternative 2:
“Alternative 2 would meet all of the Project Objectives. However, under this alternative, elimination of the Westside Walkway would not protect public safety by increasing the lateral resiliency of the Wharf and protect pilings beneath buildings, as would occur with realization of the walkway in the full Project proposal. Additionally, the removal of the Westside Walkway would not expand public access, recreational opportunities, or enhance the pedestrian environment as effectively as the full project proposal. For these reasons the City Council determines that Alternative 2 is infeasible and is hereby rejected.”
The Westside Walkway has proven a particularly contentious project element that has repeatedly been challenged by Don’t Morph the Wharf and the group has requested its removal from the plan. The City maintains that, while its near-term construction is not prioritized over other elements like the East Promenade, projected long term conditions resulting climate changes may necessitate its future construction as a barrier to marine debris and to disrupt the force of waves on vulnerable pilings beneath buildings. Pilings which generally cannot be repaired while a building remains. Additionally, the City asserts that public access provided by the Westside Walkway and requested by Coastal Commission staff when the plan was drafted, are necessary for achieving the project objectives above. Nevertheless, the Santa Cruz Superior Court, in its ruling on the Wharf Master Plan EIR was not satisfied that “decisionmakers engaged in the weighing process required by Public Resource Code §21081 (b)” related to consideration and rejection of Alternative 2.

Given calls to remove the walkway from the Plan and the potential of the Westside Walkway to help preserve the Wharf as recreation facility as well as its potential to expand public recreational access, staff is seeking the PRC’s feedback on the Westside Walkway. In particular PRC is asked to consider whether implementation of the Wharf Master Plan without the Westside Walkway would actually accomplish the Project Objectives based on new evidence in the recreational analysis. For instance, it has been stated that the remainder of the plan would still achieve project goals, but to some degree less than the full project with the walkway intact. Staff is seeking PRC’s perspective any impacts that removing the Westside Walkway might have on project objectives like enhancing or expanding maritime activities (like swimming and open water sports), fishing, public access, public safety, the pedestrian environment, and other considerations implied in those objectives. Detailed descriptions of project objectives can be found on page 7 of the Revised Wharf Master Plan
(https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/home/showpublisheddocument/93406/638202173961930000).

Conclusion
In conclusion, implementation of the Wharf Master Plan, including two near-term projects, would not conflict with and/or eliminate established recreational, educational, or scientific uses at the Santa Cruz Wharf. There would be no reduction of recreational opportunities, and many

27.221
existing opportunities would be expanded and/or enhanced, such as improved pedestrian and bicycle access, improved pedestrian paths around the entire Wharf, overall increased fishing access, improved boating opportunities for both private charters and individual small boats, recreational and educational boat tours, and support for cultural, educational, and scientificresearch projects and experiences.

Future development at the southern end of the Wharf could result in relocation of fishing holes that are popular sea lion viewing locations and recreational pastime. However, the Wharf Master Plan has been revised to require preservation or relocation of these features in order to maintain this recreational activity, and preliminary conceptual designs demonstrate it is feasible to do so.

Thus, there is no impact associated with the relocation of the fishing/sea lion viewing holes.

Although the popular “tailgate” fishing from parked vehicles would be reduced by proposed improvements in comparison to current conditions, existing conflicts with other Wharf visitors would be eliminated; fishing opportunities would still be maintained a short distance from the parking area. Furthermore, implementation of new boat landings would not result in a reduction in fishing opportunities as public access to other areas of the Wharf would be opened up. The overall opportunities for fishing at the Wharf would not substantially change, and therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with or eliminate an established recreational fishing use.

While the method of accessing many fishing opportunities would change to require a short walk from one’s vehicle, similar to what currently exists at the end of the Wharf, this would not result in elimination or substantial change of an existing recreational use or result in a significant adverse change to the physical environment, and therefore would not be considered significant.

Furthermore, the new Small Boat Landing and South Landing would provide enhanced boating opportunities for fishing at sea. No other potential impacts to recreation or recreational facilities have been identified.

Therefore, neither the Wharf Master Plan nor the two near-term projects would result in significant conflicts with established recreational, educational, cultural, or scientific uses at the Wharf or policies protecting or encouraging recreational uses and facilities, and public access and recreational uses, facilities, and opportunities would be expanded and/or enhanced with implementation of the Wharf Master Plan.

The Parks and Recreation Commission is urged to accept the recreational impact analysis discussed above and revisions to the Wharf Master Plan, and recommend that the City Council adopt the Wharf Master Plan and resolutions necessary to certify the EIR. The Revised Wharf Master Plan and Section 4.8 of the RPDEIR describe transformational implications of recreation improvements that will not only expand recreational opportunities at the Wharf, but improve is sustainability and resilience against climate change and economic shocks.

The revised Final EIR, and Draft EIR, RPDEIR, and FEIR Volume 2 are all available online along with other documents relevant to the Wharf Master Plan at the Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan and Engineering Resource Page at http://www.cityofsantacruz.com/wharfmasterplan.

Health in All Policies:

Adoption of the Wharf Master Plan and implementation of the recommendations therein would expand or enhance recreational public access to the Santa Cruz Wharf, improve public safety and resilience to storm damage, and generally promote healthy lifestyles and fitness by enabling safer

27.222
modes of active transportation access to the Wharf. The EIR has not identified any impacts to public health or safety as result of proposed Master Plan improvements.

FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of the Wharf Master Plan would not immediately result in any impacts to the general fund. As they are prioritized, proposed projects will need to secure funds and be budgeted in the Capital Investment Program (CIP). Preliminary costs estimates for proposed improvements are provided (in 2014 dollars) in the Master Plan, beginning on page 58.

When the Master Plan was adopted the proposed improvements were estimated to cost up to $29 million, but are broken into smaller component costs. The 2014 Engineering Report also estimated the restoration cost of existing Wharf infrastructure to be approximately $11.6 million.

Both cost estimates will need to be adjusted to present day dollars as recent construction bids suggest that construction costs may be substantially higher. Grant funding will be sought to provide much of the capital costs for proposed improvements. Completion of public access components, the entrance gates, and restriping of parking, together with commercial infill, and increased seasonality through features like the Events Pavilion and a warming climate are all expected to increase ongoing revenues, and would support ongoing maintenance of both new and existing facilities.

Prepared By:

David McCormick
Asset Manager, Economic
Development
Submitted By:

Lindsay Bass
Principal Management
Analyst
Approved By:

Tony Elliot, Parks and
Recreation Director
Bonnie Lipscomb, Economic
Development and Housing
Director
ATTACHMENTS:

1. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT – NOVEMBER 24, 2020.PDF

2. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT - NOVEMBER 22, 2016.PDF

3. DRAFT RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT.PDF

4. DRAFT RESOLUTION FINDINGS OF FACT.PDF

5. DRAFT RESOLUTION MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN.PDF

6. SUMMARY OF POLICIES AND ACTIONS.PDF

7. FIGURES 4.8-3, 4.8-4, 4.8-8A+B.PDF

27.223

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
City Hall
809 Center Street
Santa Cruz, California 95060

HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Regular Meeting

MINUTES
October 18, 2023
7:00 P.M. GENERAL BUSINESS AND MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST, COUNCIL

CHAMBERS
Call to Order-The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.

Roll Call-Commissioners Durant, Kusz, Michalak, and Zwart were present.

Commissioners Lauritson and Narath were absent with notification.

Statements of Disqualification-None.

Oral Communications-None.

Approval of Minutes

1. Approval of the Minutes of September 20, 2023.

MOTION: Motion made by Commissioner Michalak, seconded by Commissioner Zwart to approve the minutes of September 20, 2023.

ACTION: The motion passed by the following vote:

AYES: Durant, Kusz, Michalak, Zwart, Subocz
NOES: None
ABSENT: Lauritson, Narath
Consent Public Hearing Agenda

2. 118 Ortalon Circle Project Number: CP23-0125 Consideration to add a singlefamily residence located at 118 Ortalon Circle in the R-1-10 (Single-Family Residence) zone district to the City's Historic Building Survey.

27.224
MOTION: Motion made by Commissioner Zwart, seconded by Commissioner Michalak, to the City Council adopt a resolution adding the property located at 118 Ortalon Circle to the City's Historic Building Survey. based on the Findings listed in the staff report dated October 13, 2023.

ACTION: The motion passed by the following vote:

AYES: Durant, Kusz, Michalak, Zwart, Subocz
NOES: None
ABSENT: Lauritson, Narath

3. 1020 River Street Project Number: CP21-0080 Historic Alteration Permit for a new 5,400 square foot dance studio building at the Tannery Arts Center in the IG/PER / FP-O (General Industrial Performance Overlay Zone / Flood Plain Overlay) zone district.

MOTION: Motion made by Commissioner Kusz, seconded by Commissioner Durant, to approve the Historic Alteration Permit based on the Findings listed below and the Conditions of Approval attached as Attachment 1 of the staff report dated October 11, 2023.

ACTION: The motion passed by the following vote:

AYES: Durant, Kusz, Michalak, Zwart, Subocz
NOES: None
ABSENT: Lauritson, Narath
Public Hearings

4. Revised Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan and Environmental Determination (FEIR – Volume 2) Project Number: AP20-0010 (continued from September 20, 2023, item 6)
MOTION: Motion made by Commissioner Michalak, seconded by Commissioner Kusz to add the following language to the Historic Preservation Commission Wharf Master Plan Subcommittee Recommendations dated October 6, 2023 (additions noted in underlined text):

The Historic Preservation Commission recommends that City Council consider the following points in its review and adoption of the Wharf Master Plan and related certification of the accompanying Final Environmental Impact Report and adoption of related CEQA Findings and Mitigation Monitoring Program:

The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) recommends the following language regarding development review on the historic Wharf, and the proposed Western Walkway.

27.225
Development Review
All development on the Wharf is subject to either an Administrative Historic Alteration Permit or an Historic Alteration Permit in accordance with historic alteration permit requirements applicable to other historic sites in the City.

Administrative Historic Alteration Permits are reviewed and approved by staff without Commission review. Historic Alteration Permits require review and approval by the HPC during a public hearing. For the Landmark Building, the Events Pavilion and the Gateway Building, the applicant shall gather input from the HPC and a consulting historic architect as early as possible in the design process. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved.

Western Walkway
The proposed Western Walkway should not be constructed because it will have a significant impact on the iconic view of the Wharf from West Cliff Drive. This is the only remaining view of the Wharf that dates to the period of significance, which has been identified as 1914-1964. This view not only shows the structural components of the wharf, but it also emphasizes the end of the Wharf which is bent to the west creating the hallmark L-shape, part of the original design.

ACTION: The motion passed by the following vote:

AYES: Durant, Kusz, Michalak, Zwart, Subocz
NOES: None
ABSENT: Lauritson, Narath
MOTION: Motion made by Commissioner Kusz, seconded by Commissioner Michalak, to reject the staff recommendations listed in the staff report dated October 12, 2023.

ACTION: The motion passed by the following vote:

AYES: Durant, Kusz, Michalak, Zwart, Subocz
NOES: None
ABSENT: Lauritson, Narath
MOTION: Motion made by Commissioner Kusz, seconded by Commissioner Michalak, to adopt and incorporate the following language with regard to the Western Walkway into the HPC Wharf Master Plan Subcommittee’s report dated October 6, 2023:

The addition of the 815-foot, Western Walkway would significantly compromise the integrity of Master Engineer, Henry John Brunnier’s unique design. The proposed lengthy, highly visible walkway would degrade the visual character of the wharf by introducing an appendage to the wharf that is incompatible with its original historic design. The proposed walkway

27.226
would cause a substantial adverse change to the visual character of the 109- year-old Santa Cruz Wharf, the longest wooden pier structure in California.

Appendix F: Historical Resources Reviews, part of the Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Draft EIR, March 2020, includes three separate analyses of the wharf’s history. All of these reports address the design elements of the Santa Cruz Wharf indicating that the structure retains integrity of design in addition to other aspects of integrity as determined by the Secretary of the Interior. These reports are unequivocal.
1) “The structure retains integrity of location and overall design, workmanship, feeling and association.”, Maley, Bridget, Principal, architecture+history, llc., Memorandum, Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan, September 26, 2017, p. 8.
2) “Integrity Discussion …the Santa Cruz Wharf appears to retain a high degree of integrity of setting, and location, and sufficient degree of design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.” DPR 523, Santa Cruz Municipal Wharf, Steffen, Fallin, Dudek, November 19, 2019. p. 10. 3) “While many of the original materials, both above and below deck, have been replaced over time in order to maintain the Municipal Wharf as a functioning structure (and, as such, lacks integrity of materials and workmanship), the Wharf does maintain its integrity of location, design, setting, feeling, and association.” DPR 523, Santa Cruz Municipal Wharf, URS Corporation, December 10, 2012, p. 4 of 12.,
ACTION: The motion passed by the following vote:

AYES: Durant, Kusz, Michalak, Subocz
NOES: Zwart
ABSENT: Lauritson, Narath
MOTION: Motion made by Commissioner Kusz, seconded by Commissioner Durant, to forward the HPC Wharf Master Plan Subcommittee’s report as amended above to the City Council as the recommendation of the Historic Preservation Commission for the Wharf Master Plan item.

ACTION: The motion passed by the following vote:

AYES: Durant, Kusz, Michalak, Subocz
NOES: Zwart
ABSENT: Lauritson, Narath
Information Items

5. Update on 106 Manor

27.227
Associate Planner Rina Zhou presented the update to the Commission. No action taken.

6. Update on 555 Soquel Retaining Wall
Item continued to the next regular meeting.

Subcommittee/Advisory Body Oral Reports-None.

Items Initiated by Members for Future Agendas-None.

Adjournment-The meeting adjourned at 9:54 p.m.

27.228

HISTORIC PRESERVATION

COMMISSION

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: October 12, 2023
AGENDA OF: October 18, 2023
ITEM: Revised Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan and Environmental Determination (FEIR – Volume 2) – [Continued from Sept. 20, 2023) RECOMMENDATION: That the Historic Preservation Commission accept the staff recommendation and recommend that the City Council adopt:
a) The resolution certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (Attachment 1); and,
b) The Resolution of CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (Attachment 2); and,
c) The Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan, subject to modifications proposed by staff.

BACKGROUND:

This item was heard at the September 20, 2023 Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) hearing, at which time the five commissioners in attendance ordered a continuance to the October 18, 2023. Materials from the September hearing are attached for reference (Attachment 1).

The Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan (“Wharf Master Plan”) is the product of over twelve (12) years of community engagement and planning, that was adopted by the City Council on November 24, 2020. In its October 14, 2020 hearing, the Historical Preservation Commission (HPC) recommended approval of the Wharf Master Plan and certification of the EIR (6-0-1), subject to additional recommendations related to Wharf projects to require a Historic Alteration Permit, incorporation of historical interpretive elements, and building heights. Additional details on those recommendations and related language that was adopted by City Council and which were recommended for review by HPC at the September 20, 2023 are included in the staff report for that hearing (Attachment 1).

After the Wharf Master Plan was adopted and the EIR certified by City Council, a lawsuit was filed by an unincorporated association called Don’t Morph the Wharf, challenging the adequacy of the EIR under CEQA. On February 18, 2022, the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Cruz (hereinafter “Court”) ruled that the City’s determination that the Project would not result in significant environmental impacts related to “recreation activities on the Wharf” and related land use policies was not supported by substantial evidence. The Court further held that the City’s determination to reject Alternative 2, which would have removed the

27.229

AGENDA REPORT
HPC Meeting of October 18, 2023
SUBJECT: Revised Wharf Master Plan and FEIR – Volume 2 (Continued) PAGE 2
Westside Walkway from the Plan, was not appropriately supported by evidence or deliberation in the record. The Court also considered other arguments from Don’t Morph the Wharf, including alleged historic and visual impacts of the Master Plan, and determined that the City had adequately evaluated the potential impacts and thus no additional analysis is required for cultural (historic) or visual impact. In response to the preceding issues, the Court ordered that the Project approvals and EIR certification be voided, until the necessary revisions are made. The City Council rescinded approvals for the Wharf Master Plan and EIR on October 11, 2022 and the Revised Master Plan and updated EIR under review have been prepared and circulated, and responses to comments have been published in response to the changes required by the Court.

State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5 requires a lead agency to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is included. As used in this section of the CEQA Guidelines, the term “information” can include changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional data or other information. New information added to an EIR is not “significant” unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect. “Significant new information” requiring recirculation includes, for example, a disclosure showing that:
(1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.

(2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. (3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it. (4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.

In the present case, a Court judgment and writ have been issued finding a lack of required analysis of potential recreational impacts and consistency with recreation related land use policies. The Recirculated Partial Draft EIR (RPDEIR) provides the required analysis in a new recreational impacts chapter, in response to the Court’s judgment. There have been no substantive changes to the proposed Project, although minor changes that were previously adopted by the City Council in November 2020 have been incorporated, along with minor modifications, and clarifying statements. None of these changes or conditions would warrant revisions to other sections of the EIR, nor additional recirculation.

Section 15088.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines also allows the lead agency to recirculate only the chapters or portions of the Draft EIR that have been revised. The lead agency may request

27.230

AGENDA REPORT
HPC Meeting of October 18, 2023
SUBJECT: Revised Wharf Master Plan and FEIR – Volume 2 (Continued) PAGE 3
that reviewers limit their comments to the revised sections, and the agency need only respond to comments received during the recirculation period that relate to the revised Draft EIR sections.

The City of Santa Cruz used this approach for recirculation of the new EIR section and Summary of Impacts as related to recreation and land use, along with clarifying statements in the project summary and project description; additional responses, referencing unchanged analysis elsewhere in the EIR or prior responses to comments on those unchanged sections have also been provided. These files and the Revised Wharf Master Plan are available on the project website.

There have been no revisions or updates to Chapters 4.1 Aesthetic Impacts or 4.3 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, and no additional analysis depicting new or unstudied potential impacts to historic resources have been raised through public comment nor added to the EIR.

The EIR finds that the proposed improvements are consistent with Secretary of Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, specifically the rehabilitation of historic structures. None of the proposed improvements would lead to a substantial adverse change to the significance or integrity of the structure. Thus, the project would have no significant impact on visual or historic resources of the Wharf.

Commission Review
Prior to the approval of the Wharf Master Plan and EIR in 2020, the HPC reviewed analysis related to aesthetic and historic resources and voted to recommend that City Council adopt the Master Plan and certify the EIR (6-0-1), subject to additional recommendations related to Wharf projects that require a Historic Alteration Permit, incorporation of historical interpretive elements, and building heights. During the deliberation at Planning Commission and City Council, the HPC’s proposed language was modified to form policy language that linked the commissions intent with applicable ordinances for historic preservation permits, rather than detailed prescriptive language that is more appropriate for implementing ordinances.

As the Wharf Master Plan and EIR are now being reconsidered for potential approval, staff returned to HPC on September 20, 2023 to review the previously approved language, which had changed from the prior HPC recommendation. No additional, analysis of historic or aesthetic impacts was required by the Court nor were any conducted for the revised EIR and no new impacts have been identified. At that hearing, Commissioners primarily appeared primarily concerned over the specificity of the following staff recommended policy language:

A. “Ensure new buildings are designed in a manner that helps restore the historical character of the Wharf without creating a false historical narrative. The three new cultural buildings and entrance signage should be developed through early consultation with the Historic Preservation Commission to establish objective project goals and to ensure the buildings align with the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation of historic resources such as the Wharf structure. Consistent with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance, Historic Alteration Permits may be required for modifications to the Wharf and associated non-historic structures.”
Specifically, several commissioners felt that the language did not reinforce the need for Historic Alteration Permits strongly enough. Staff maintains that the language references the need for

27.231

AGENDA REPORT
HPC Meeting of October 18, 2023
SUBJECT: Revised Wharf Master Plan and FEIR – Volume 2 (Continued) PAGE 4
permits as required by the applicable Historic Preservation Ordinance and that the ordinance allows for certain exemptions, like painting and limited maintenance, which more affirmative language may miss. The proposed language would also require inclusion of the HPC early on in the design process for certain new buildings, in an effort to achieve commonality in design intent with respect to the Wharf as a historic resources.

At the meeting, questions were raised about the age and historic relevance of existing buildings, which have been found not to have historical significance or are non-historic by age. Gillian Greensite also distributed an oblique aerial image of the western side of the Wharf stating that the Westside Walkway would destroy that “historic” view. Several commissioners continued this line of discussion and staff responded, per the record, that neither the western edge of the Wharf nor the view were considered historic or impactful to the historic integrity of the Wharf. Nor was the view provided by Ms.Greensite indicative of an identified significant viewshed, such as those studied in the Aesthetic Impact Chapter (4.1) and associated photo-simulation renderings (Figures 4.1-1 through 4.1-9). Commissioner Michalak, also commented that believed the historic period of significance should be longer than from 1914 to WWII.

Following an extended discussion on these matters, the HPC determined that further deliberation and time to review materials was needed to develop alternate recommendations reflecting the HPC perspective on the Wharf Master Plan. With two commissioners absent for these discussion, the Commission also voiced that a continuance would allow those commissioners time to review and provide input. Commissioner Kusz, seconded by Commissioner Lauritson then put forward a motion, which was adopted (5-0-2) to continue the item to the next regular meeting and establish a subcommittee with Commissioners Lauritson, Kusz, and Subocz to review the language of the proposed Wharf Master Plan and return with recommendations to the Commission. Staff has taken this time to review the record and additional documentation to help respond to these question ins greater detail and with greater accuracy.

The subcommittee has since returned their proposed recommendations. These are attached to this staff report (Attachment 2). Staff response to these proposals is included in the following discussion section.

DISCUSSION:

Staff has reviewed questions raised from the September 20, 2023 HPC meeting and conducted additional review to try and resolve unanswered questions. The following discussion provides summary clarification to these questions and response to the HPC subcommittee recommendations for consideration of the entire HPC.

Buildings

27.232

AGENDA REPORT
HPC Meeting of October 18, 2023
SUBJECT: Revised Wharf Master Plan and FEIR – Volume 2 (Continued) PAGE 5
As described in the EIR, “the character-defining features associated with the Santa Cruz Wharf are its location, setting, alignment, wooden materials (piers), its near-original length of 2,745 feet and its continued function as a wharf structure. The contemporary infrastructural elements on the wharf deck including roads, lighting, utilities, and buildings do not date to the 1914 period of significance identified for the Santa Cruz Wharf. As such they are considered non-contributing elements of the structure (Dudek, January 2020).”
The statement above summarizes the historical integrity defining features of the Wharf and notes that existing structures are non-contributing structures to the features that define the Wharf’s integrity. While staff is supportive of future architecture that will not degrade the Wharf’s historical integrity and reinforce it where possible, it is unclear how modifications to existing non-contributing buildings or new buildings, would or could impact the integrity defining elements described in the historic analysis. Secretary of Interior Standards for new construction in the rehabilitation of historic properties state that “a new addition should be compatible, but differentiated enough so that it is not confused as historic or original to the building. The same guidance applies to new construction…” The period of significance for the Wharf also includes a variety of structures in varying style and materials, including wood, tile, stucco, and apparent metal paneling in key architectural features, which makes determining compatible materials more difficult. Additionally, new sustainability standards and building codes, as well as lessons learned from environmental damage to existing buildings will strongly influence the design of developments on the Wharf, and in ways that might not always seem compatible with historical precedent. As projects move forward and seek historic alteration permits, based on their location on the Wharf, it is hoped that the HPC and staff can establish objective standards and guidance to direct future development and modifications to non-historic structures.

Aesthetics
Extensive analysis and photo-simulation modeling was employed to evaluate the potential visual impacts on important viewsheds resulting from implementation of the Wharf Master Plan.

CEQA guidelines recommend that objective standards be established to frame the analysis of aesthetic impacts, as the topic has historically been seen as subjective; in the words of the court, “amorphous” (Don’t Morph the Wharf v. City of Santa Cruz, Dec. 17, 2021). The Court analyzed the record, including the City’s analysis of concerns over historic impacts and aesthetics, which were petitioned by Don’t Morph the Wharf. After such review, the Court determined that sufficient analysis had been completed and that the city’s findings of no significant impact were adequately supported. This analysis can be found at the following links:

4.1 Aesthetic Impacts -
https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/home/showpublisheddocument/79577/637211553001400000 WMP EIR - Figures 4.1-1 through 4.1-9
https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/home/showpublisheddocument/79597/637211556623430000 General Plan EIR – Figure 4.3-1
https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/home/showpublisheddocument/22439/635418232770030000

27.233

AGENDA REPORT
HPC Meeting of October 18, 2023
SUBJECT: Revised Wharf Master Plan and FEIR – Volume 2 (Continued) PAGE 6
Photo-simulations provided for the aesthetic analysis were prepared using important viewsheds identified in the Santa Cruz General Plan 2030 EIR (Figure 4.3-1). These viewpoints provide an objective measure of analysis, that had been produced and vetted through widespread community process. The photo-sims therefore depict views of the Wharf and proposed improvements from common prominent viewpoints, rather than oblique angles and resolutions that are hard to replicate in daily experience without special equipment and access. For instance, the viewshed depicted by the photo provided by Ms. Greensite at the September HPC hearing, appears indicative of drone footage or a zoom photo taken from higher elevation private property, like the Dream Inn; it is not indicative of any significant public views identified in Figure 4.3-1 of the Santa Cruz General Plan 2030 EIR or other established objective standard.

To improve legibility of photo-simulations at distance, the artist who prepared the simulations portrayed railings for the Westside Walkway and landings that area similar to existing railings along the deck of the Wharf, with white paint and wide railings. In contrast, the WMP recommends transparent and minimalist railings, described as stainless steel with mesh, to improve the connection with the bay. In this way, proposed minimalist railings are suggested to more closely mimic the historical state of the Wharf, when railings were entirely absent.

Throughout its history the Wharf has gone from no railings at all to a variety of approaches. The white railing depicted is helpful for providing as easily understandable image, but the ultimate railing material and style would be selected as at the project stage and could consider approaches and coloring that reduce the visible appearance of the infrastructure.

It has also been suggested that the walkway would bisect the transparency between pilings along the western edge. When examined closely, two important visual properties can be seen when viewing the Wharf crosswise. First, views are already bisected and interrupted in several locations where the Western Walkway is proposed. This most often occurs at landings, utility enclosures, or for bracing ledgers and plank scaffolds. Second, the natural angle of the pilings results in decreased visibility between pilings as one moves away from the viewer. At the visual periphery the solid view of pilings would mask any potential visual impact of the walkway.

Westside Walkway
The recommendation proposed by the HPC subcommittee states that:
“Western Walkway
The proposed Western Walkway should not be constructed because it will have a significant impact on the iconic view of the Wharf from West Cliff Drive. This is the only remaining view of the Wharf that dates to the period of significance, which has been identified as 1914-1964. This view not only shows the structural components of the wharf but it also emphasizes the end of the Wharf which is bent to the west creating the hallmark L-shape, part of the original design.”
According to the EIR, the proposed improvements would not impact the aesthetics nor the historical integrity of the Wharf, and thus, found no significant impact of the viewshed or

27.234

AGENDA REPORT
HPC Meeting of October 18, 2023
SUBJECT: Revised Wharf Master Plan and FEIR – Volume 2 (Continued) PAGE 7
historical resources, as is suggested by the subcommittee. Visually the Westside Walkway would be compatible in materials and construction, with minimal influence across the field of view as seen from identified significant viewsheds. Design solutions, like minimalist fencing discussed above, could also be employed at project stage to further reduce walkway visibility against the Wharf structure.

Regarding the period of significance and the proposed Western Walkway site, staff has further examined the record and investigate archival plans and aerial imagery to establish the historical period of the existing westside of the Wharf. Neither historical review nor archival resources have established that the western edge of the Wharf today is original to either the Wharf itself or to its period of significance. The west side of the Wharf was expanded several times since the Wharf was constructed, generally to accommodate larger structures, public facilities, and commercial uses. Archival materials throughout Wharf history show marked differences in the width of the Wharf along the stretch proposed for the Westside Walkway. These include major expansions in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s to make way for construction of restaurants like the Miramar, Gilda’s, Malio’s (now Firefish/Woodies), and then again in the early 1980’s to facilitate construction of the Agora shops (now Bonnie’s Gifts, Sockshop, Santa Cruz Bay Co., etc.) and the Commons buildings (now the site of Olita’s and Makai). These expansions occurred on top of early twentieth century additions, as fishing shacks turned into operating businesses, like Looks Den, Santa Cruz Aquarium, and city service centers. Archival plans and imagery depicting some of these changes is provided for reference (Attachment 3).

Staff therefore maintains that the EIR analysis of aesthetic and historical impacts is correct and that the proposed Westside Walkway would not result in any significant impact to either type of resource. Furthermore, the Westside Walkway is essential to protecting vulnerable piles beneath existing buildings from marine debris and wave force damage. Pilings that cannot be replaced without removal of the buildings. The attached Wharf Storm Damage Assessment after winter storms in 1982-1983 (Attachment 4), includes a citation to this effect, showing the recent loss of four pilings beneath the Miramar and stating that “Pile missing can’t be replaced. Should be O.K.” Indeed, the building was able to survive several decades through A-frames and other interventions, before it was demolished in 2019. What is notable, is the shear scale damage that can occur from one set of storms, and that while damage is not isolated to the westside of the Wharf, wharf infrastructure damage occurring there cannot be repaired without the loss of the overlying building. Looking forward, it is not inconceivable to imagine how a less fortunate alignment of pilings damage lead to immediate loss of the building, business, and jobs. With climate change induced sea level rise and increased storm intensity, the risks are only growing.

Lastly, the Westside Walkway also promotes several project objectives including the following:

1. Enhance opportunities for recreational use and public access.

2. Expand and enhance maritime activities (open water swimming and open water sports).

4. Promote sustainable development and sound green building practices.

5. Enhance the pedestrian environment and provide improved bicycle facilities.

8. Improve service and maintenance operations.

9. Enhance public safety.

27.235

AGENDA REPORT
HPC Meeting of October 18, 2023
SUBJECT: Revised Wharf Master Plan and FEIR – Volume 2 (Continued) PAGE 8
Once again, it is worth noting that the Westside Walkway is proposed in the plan at a programmatic level for public safety, access, and recreation uses. At such time that the walkway is prioritized as a project, the state of the art for wave force mitigation may have evolved and opportunities could be explored for alternate infrastructure or minor changes such height variation, materials, and design interventions to reduce visual or operational impacts perceived at that time.

Development Review
The recommendation proposed by the HPC subcommittee states that:
“Development Review
All development on the Wharf is subject to either an Administrative Historic Alteration Permit or an Historic Alteration Permit in accordance with historic alteration permit requirements applicable to other historic sites in the City.

Administrative Historic Alteration Permits are reviewed and approved by staff without Commission review. Historic Alteration Permits require review and approval by the HPC during a public hearing.

For the Landmark Building, the Events Pavilion and the Gateway Building, the applicant shall gather input from the HPC and a consulting historic architect as early as possible in the design process.”
Staff is generally in agreement with the intent of the proposed language. The historic preservation ordinance (HPO) appears to apply to even new structures on a property with a listed historical structure, such as the Wharf. The Wharf is considered a historic structure and it provides the foundation for structures atop it, although legally its status as property is more nuanced. As such, it presumably holds true, that what requirement for other historic properties as far as compatible non-contributing structures and new construction should apply for the structure on the Wharf as well.

The concern staff has is three-fold, first, best practices for policies proposed in a master plan or guiding policy document are to provide either general direction or immutable boundaries for the work proposed in a plan. Specific details as to the implementation of rules, are better left to implementing ordinances or resolutions, which can be amended as needed in response to changing conditions; barriers to amending a master plan are far more intensive. From staff perspective, it is not that historic alteration permits will be required for many projects that is in question, but rather what are the thresholds determining what projects need HPC review vs. administrative, or exempt. Terms such as “major” or “minor” project, “development”, “alteration”, or “construction” are undefined within the HPO and rely on definitions elsewhere in the Zoning Code, if defined at all. This clouds the determination of how the HPO should be implemented and to what projects it should apply; specifically on a site that is almost entirely typified by constant construction, alteration, and modification in response to environmental and use related damage. Therefore, staff is recommending that the HPC consider adding a project

27.236

AGENDA REPORT
HPC Meeting of October 18, 2023
SUBJECT: Revised Wharf Master Plan and FEIR – Volume 2 (Continued) PAGE 9
strategy that calls for the establishment of objective thresholds to determine the level of review needed on Wharf based projects.

This raises the second staff concern, specifically how the HPO should apply to ongoing maintenance of existing Wharf infrastructure. The Wharf Crew routinely performs all manner of maintenance and construction projects at the Wharf. Most often these are in kind repairs and replacement. The Wharf however, is typified by change over its history and as one of the largest and fully staffed marine piers in nation, it is also a laboratory for testing new best practices and design approaches to address ongoing and urgent needs. Such efforts can lead to modifications and best practices, that are necessary and sometimes difficult to anticipate, but which could be considered alterations under a strict read of the ordinance. Examples, of adaptive maintenance include new design approaches to improve function, for instance bird abatement through sloped railings and roof parapets, chemically stable treatment for wood members, along with countless other minor modifications or “alterations.” The EIR anticipates continued long-term maintenance in a similar manner and has not identified any impact to the historical integrity of the Wharf. Rather active maintenance is suggested to help preserve that integrity.

The Wharf Crew’s pre-season workplan includes about 25 maintenance or minor projects anticipated during the 2023-24 fiscal year. Some work like painting, is clearly exempt from the HPO, but many others could be read as subject to the HPO, which would add tremendous workload for Parks and Recreation, Planning, and potentially the HPC. A work would pile on top of other duties and already stringent maintenance regulations from the Coastal Commission, including restrictions on major work limiting most construction to winter months between August 1st and March 15th. It is simply not feasible to continue maintaining the Wharf with the additional burden of requiring HAPs for most work, especially with current resources and staffing levels.

Although the HPO is vague on exemptions for maintenance, it does allow that unsafe and dangerous conditions as well as economic hardship, can be considered in the granting of an HAP. Nevertheless, the process of preparing plans and conducting HAP review for each instance of typical Wharf maintenance work would be administratively burdensome and exhaust valuable resources needed to preserve the structure. For this reason, staff suggests that routine maintenance and non-substantial modifications that are generally required to preserve public safety and the Wharf economy, be approved by right in line with approval rationale outlined in the HPO.

Lastly, where the historical analysis conducted for the EIR has found that existing and presumably future buildings are non-contributing structures on the historic Wharf, it is unclear what objective standards would apply for historical review of proposed alterations to those structures. For instance, the Secretary of Interior Standards discourage attempts at reproducing or reestablishing historic precedents in new construction. Staff is supportive of the desire to enhance the historical experience of the Wharf and to ensure that future development and improvements to the Wharf will not be detrimental to the Wharf’s historical integrity. It is hoped that the process of early consultation proposed for publicly sponsored projects will help

27.237

AGENDA REPORT
HPC Meeting of October 18, 2023
SUBJECT: Revised Wharf Master Plan and FEIR – Volume 2 (Continued) PAGE 10
lead to standard historic rehabilitation guidelines for other new development projects, including recommended architectural treatments, materials, and other design considerations.

To balance these concerns, staff recommends the following amended language based upon the HPC subcommittee recommendation and staff review:

Development Review
All development New construction and demolition projects on or about the Wharf are subject to review under the Historic Preservation Ordinance, and shall require an Administrative Historic Alteration Permit or an Historic Alteration Permit in accordance with historic alteration permit requirements applicable to other historic properties sites in the City.

The Historic Preservation Commission shall work with staff to establish clear thresholds that identify what types of projects will be subject to either administrative or discretionary review for historic alterations on the Wharf.

Routine Wharf maintenance, including substantially in-kind replacement, legally required improvements, emergency or life-safety improvements, and work conducted pursuant to a City Council approved Maintenance Program, shall be considered consistent with the purposes of the Historic Preservation Ordinance. Specially, that ongoing maintenance is necessary to avert unsafe or dangerous conditions, minimize economic hardship, and is essential to the long-term preservation of the Wharf. As such, Wharf maintenance shall be considered approved by right as consistent with rationale authorized by the Historic Preservation Ordinance, as may be amended.

Administrative Historic Alteration Permits are reviewed and approved by staff without Commission review. Historic Alteration Permits require review and approval by the HPC during a public hearing.

For the Landmark Building, the Events Pavilion and the Gateway Building, the applicant shall gather input from the HPC and include a consulting historic architect as early as possible in the design process.

As projects proceed, the HPC and staff should work together early to establish objective guidelines that infuse historic rehabilitation principles into projects, while conforming with Wharf Master Plan design standards.

Recommendation
The HPC is encouraged to accept the proposed revised language above and to recommend that City Council approve the Wharf Master Plan with the full project and adopt the necessary resolutions for certification of the EIR. The HPC has already recommended that Council adopt the full Master Plan and certify the EIR (6-0-1), based upon its assessment of potential impacts to aesthetic and historical resources evaluated in the EIR. The Court considered Don’t Morph the Wharf’s arguments regarding the EIR’s analysis of aesthetic and historic resources impacts and

27.238

AGENDA REPORT
HPC Meeting of October 18, 2023
SUBJECT: Revised Wharf Master Plan and FEIR – Volume 2 (Continued) PAGE 11
did not agree with them. Neither the proposed Plan nor the EIR analysis have substantially changed since the HPC’s previous consideration of the project and no new substantial evidence has been presented that would support a change in the determination of significance of historic or aesthetic impacts in the EIR. As discussed above, the subcommittee rationale for its new recommendation that City Council adopt Alternative 2 because of supposed impacts of the Western Walkway on the historic status of the Wharf does not appear to be based in any evidence. Without any additional substantial evidence that contradicts conclusions in the EIR, a new recommendation by the commission that is inconsistent with prior direction would be considered arbitrary.

HEALTH IN ALL POLICIES:

Adoption of the Wharf Master Plan and implementation of the recommendations therein would expand or enhance recreational public access to the Santa Cruz Wharf, improve public safety and resilience to storm damage, and generally promote healthy lifestyles and fitness by enabling safer modes of active transportation access to the Wharf. The EIR has not identified any impacts to public health or safety as result of proposed Master Plan improvements.

FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of the Wharf Master Plan would not immediately result in any impacts to the general fund. As they are prioritized, proposed projects will need to secure funds and be budgeted in the Capital Investment Program (CIP). Preliminary costs estimates for proposed improvements are provided (in 2014 dollars) in the Master Plan, beginning on page

58. When the Master Plan was adopted the proposed improvements were estimated to cost up to $29 million, but are broken into smaller component costs. The 2014 Engineering Report also estimated the restoration cost of existing Wharf infrastructure to be approximately $11.6 million. Both cost estimates will need to be adjusted to present day dollars as recent construction bids suggest that construction costs may be substantially higher. Grant funding will be sought to provide much of the capital costs for proposed improvements. Completion of public access components, the entrance gates, and restriping of parking, together with commercial infill, and increased seasonality through features like the Events Pavilion and a warming climate are all expected to increase ongoing revenues, and would support ongoing maintenance of both new and existing facilities.

Submitted by:

David McCormic
Asset and Development Manager
Approved by:

Bonnie Lipscomb
Director, Economic Development
Lee Butler,
Director, Planning and Community Development

27.239

AGENDA REPORT
HPC Meeting of October 18, 2023
SUBJECT: Revised Wharf Master Plan and FEIR – Volume 2 (Continued) PAGE 12
ATTACHMENTS:
 Materials from Historic Preservation Commission – September 20, 2023  HPC Subcommittee Recommendations
 Archival Evidence of Wharf Expansion
 Storm Damage Assessment 1983 and Engineering Report Assessment of Miramar Site

27.240
December 18, 2023
Mr. David McCormic
Asset and Development Manager
City of Santa Cruz
Economic Development Department
337 Locust Street
Santa Cruz, Ca 95060
Mr. McCormic:

You have requested that I review the revised Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Report (Revised 2023) and the associated Recirculated Partial Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (April 2023) and the Final EIR, Volume 2 (August 2023) and determine if, in my professional opinion, any additional historic resource impacts to the Santa Cruz Wharf would result from implementation of the revised Master Plan. I have also reviewed the following documents and information:
• October 18, 2023 Historic Preservation Commission Draft Action Summary; • October 18, 2023 Historic Preservation Commission Agenda Report, including Attachment 3 “Archival Evidence of Wharf Expansion;”
• October 18, 2023 audio recording of the Historic Preservation Commission meeting; • September 20, 2023 Historic Preservation Commission Agenda Report; • November 15, 2019 amended Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Update Sheet on the Santa Cruz Municipal Wharf by Fallin Steffen of Dudek; and • September 26, 2017 architecture + history, llc memorandum.

As I understand it, the Wharf Master Plan Project, as put forward in the 2023 project revisions and described and evaluated in the Recirculated Partial DEIR and Final EIR, Volume 2 of August 2023, has not changed substantially from the earlier project. The current project includes both the East Prominade and Westside Walkway, which were described and evaluated in the earlier project.

Based on the review of the above information and documents, I do not believe that there would be any additional impacts to historic resources. As I noted on Page 11 of my September 26, 2017 memorandum:

Future improvements would not adversely impact the physical characteristics that convey the historical significance of the Wharf as none of the improvements would alter the overall historic integrity of the resource. The Wharf has evolved and changed over time as uses, needs, and users have changed. These incremental alterations and improvements have not resulted in any significant physical changes that impacted the historic character of the Wharf.

27.241
Mr. McCormic
December 18, 2023