43.76 1. PROPERTY LINES ARE SHOWN RELATIVE TO THE WALL SECTION, REFER TO PLAN DRAWINGS FOR MORE INFORMATION ON PROPERTY LINE LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS.
2. CURBS AND STREETS ARE SHOWN RELATIVE TO THE WALL SECTION VIEW, REFER TO LAND
SURVEY, CIVIL AND LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR EXISTING CURB, GUTTER, AND STREET INFORMATION.
WALL SECTION GENERAL NOTES
WALL SECTION KEYED NOTES
LEVEL 1
24' - 6"
LEVEL 2
41' - 6"
LEVEL 3
51' - 6"
LEVEL 4
61' - 6"
LEVEL 5
71' - 6"
LEVEL 6
81' - 6"
ROOF
91' - 6"
A
PL
10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 17' - 0"
PARKING
TWO BED /
TWO BATH
TWO BED /
TWO BATH
3 3
EXIST. GRADE
22' - 9 5/8"
LEVEL 1
24' - 6"
LEVEL 2
41' - 6"
LEVEL 3
51' - 6"
LEVEL 4
61' - 6"
LEVEL 5
71' - 6"
LEVEL 6
81' - 6"
ROOF
91' - 6"
1 3' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 17' - 0"
TWO BED /
ONE BATH
TWO BED /
ONE BATH
RES. AMENITY
13 EXIST. GRADE
22' - 9 5/8"
11/30/23
Scale
Project number
Print Date
Drawn by
Checked by
189 WALNUT AVENUE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
WORKBENCHBUILT.COM
P: 831.227.2217
All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc.
ISSUES/ REVISIONS
APN number DRAFT: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
1/4" = 1'-0"
1/22/2025 12:29:27 PM
AP5.02
WALL SECTIONS
23154
08.26.2024
MB
EB
ARTHAUS OCEAN530, 542 & 548 OCEAN STREETSANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 010-011-16, 31, 30
Issue DESCRIPTION DATE
0 SB330 PRE-APPLICATION 02.23.2024
1 PLANNING PACKAGE 08.23.2024
1/4" = 1'-0"
1 NORTH FACADE WALL SECTION - B
1/4" = 1'-0"
2 WEST FACADE WALL SECTION
1 VINYL WINDOW OR SIM.
2 WINDOW TRIM / LINTEL / SILL
3 ROOF PARAPET AND PARAPET CAP / COPING / CORNICE
4 PAINTED METAL GUARDRAIL / BALCONY OR SIM.
5 ENTRY CANOPY
43.77 PROPOSED CLASS-I BICYCLE PARKING IN ACCESS CONTROLLED
COMMON ROOMS
PROPOSED CLASS-I BICYCLE PARKING WITHIN RESIDENTIAL PROPOSED CLASS-II BICYCLE PARKING
UNITS WHERE INDICATED ON PLANS
2 PROPOSED BICYCLE REPAIR STAND
STACKER PARKING NOTES:
1. STACKER PARKING STALLS: 8' 6" W x 19' 0" L (STANDARD PARKING STALL DIMENSIONS)
2. FINAL STACKER PARKING DESIGN AND MANUFACTURER TO BE DETERMINED PRIOR TO
BUILDING PERMIT SUBMISSION
3. LOCATION OF EVCS TO BE DETERMINED PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT SUBMISSION
4. EVCS PROVIDED BY A THIRD PARTY VENDOR, FINAL DESIGN TBD.
5. 60 STANDARD SPACES + 20 COMPACT SPACES = 80 TOTAL STACKER SPACES (SEE PLANS) 2 11/30/23
Scale
Project number
Print Date
Drawn by
Checked by
189 WALNUT AVENUE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
WORKBENCHBUILT.COM
P: 831.227.2217
All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc.
ISSUES/ REVISIONS
APN number
DRAFT: NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
12" = 1'-0"
1/22/2025 12:29:29 PM
AP9.01
CAR, EV, BICYCLE
PARKING, &
STORAGE INFO
23154
08.26.2024
DS
EB
ARTHAUS OCEAN530, 542 & 548 OCEAN STREETSANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 010-011-16, 31, 30
Issue DESCRIPTION DATE
0 SB330 PRE-APPLICATION 02.23.2024
1 PLANNING PACKAGE 08.23.2024
43.78 NOTE:
SIGNAGE DESIGN IS
SCHEMATIC, FINAL
DESIGN TBD.
2 18' - 6"
3'
- 7"
0' - 2"
0' - 4 1/2" WINDOW INSET 0' - 6"
FIBER CEMENT
SILL TRIM
0' - 2"
0' - 6"
FIBER CEMENT
HEAD TRIM
INTERIOR EXTERIOR
FIBER CEMENT PANEL
REVEAL JOINT
5' - 0" 2' - 6"
F
0' - 8" 0' - 6"
PARAPET CAP /
DECORATIVE CORNICE
EXTERIOR INTERIOR
FLAT ROOF WITH
TAPERED INSULATION
FOR DRAINAGE, FINAL
DESIGN TBD
DECORATIVE TRIM /
CORNICE ACCENT
2 F
EXTERIOR INTERIOR
BOLT-ON METAL
BALCONY AND
GUARDRAIL OR SIM,
FINAL DESIGN TBD
OVERHEAD LIGHT
WHERE OCCURS, SEE
AP9.11 THRU 9.17
FIBER CEMENT PANEL OR
STUCCO JOINT, SEE AP3.01
AND AP3.02
EXTERIOR GLAZED SWING
DOOR AND SIDE LITES OR
GLASS SLIDING DOOR OR
SIM, SEE FLOOR PLANS
OVERHANG
3' - 0" PROPERTY LINE
INTERIOR
EXTERIOR
0' - 4"
AT ALL EXTERIOR OUTSIDE
CORNERS, THE BUILDING
FINISH MATERIAL WILL WRAP
THE CORNER AT LEAST 4"
UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE
EXTERIOR FINISH MATERIAL A,
REFER TO ELEVATIONS
EXTERIOR FINISH
MATERIAL B, REFER
TO ELEVATIONS
F
3' - 0"
2' - 11"
EXTERIOR INTERIOR
CANOPY / OVERHANG
AT BUILDING ENTRIES,
SEE AP1.01 AND AP1.02
BUILDING SIGNAGE
WHERE OCCURS, SEE
AP3.01 AND AP3.02
FIBER CEMENT
PANEL, SEE
AP3.01 AND
AP3.02
FIBER CEMENT SOFFIT AND
SOFFIT VENT, FINAL DESIGN TBD.
BUILDING EXTERIOR
MODULATION BEYOND, SEE
AP1.02 THRU AP1.07
SLOPE
1' - 0"
METAL BALCONY WHERE
OCCURS, SEE PLAN
EXTERIOR INTERIOR
PROPERTY LINE
STOREFRONT, REF ELEVATIONS
2 11/30/23
Scale
Project number
Print Date
Drawn by
Checked by
189 WALNUT AVENUE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
WORKBENCHBUILT.COM
P: 831.227.2217
All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc.
ISSUES/ REVISIONS
APN number
DRAFT: NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
As indicated
1/22/2025 12:29:31 PM
AP9.02
SIGNAGE AND
ARCHITECTURAL
DETAILS
23154
08.26.2024
Author
Checker
ARTHAUS OCEAN530, 542 & 548 OCEAN STREETSANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 010-011-16, 31, 30
Issue DESCRIPTION DATE
0 SB330 PRE-APPLICATION 02.23.2024
1 PLANNING PACKAGE 08.23.2024
2 PLANNING REV-01 11.01.2024
1" = 1'-0" 1
SIGNAGE DETAILS
3/4" = 1'-0"
2 WINDOW HEAD / SILL SCHEMATIC DETAIL
3/4" = 1'-0"
4 PARAPET / CORNICE SCHEMATIC DETAIL
3/4" = 1'-0" 5
BALCONY SCHEMATIC DETAIL
1" = 1'-0" 6
BUILDING MATERIAL CORNER TRANSITIONS - PLAN VIEW
2 3/4" = 1'-0" 3
SCHEMATIC CANOPY DETAIL
43.79 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 23456789 10 11 12
ABCDEF
1 F2
F2
F2 F2 F2 F2 F2
F5
F5
F5
F5
F5
F5
F1 F1 F1 F1 F1
F1
F1 F2 F2
F2
F2
F2
F5
F6
F6
F6
F6
F6
F6
2 1. SEE SHEET GP SHEETS FOR GENERAL NOTES AND PROJECT INFORMATION
2. LIGHTING SHOWN IS ONLY AT EXTERIOR LOCATIONS AND IS ONLY SCHEMATIC.
3. SEE PLANS FOR ROOM NAMES.
4. SEE SURVEY FOR PROPOSED PARCEL DIMENSIONS.
5. SEE LANDSCAPE AND CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR ELEVATIONS, MATERIALS, DETAILS, DIMENSIONS AND PLANTING AREAS AT SIDEWALKS.
6. SEE LIGHTING FIXTURE SCHEDULE FOR PRELIMINARY PROPOSED LIGHT FIXTURE STYLES AND FINISHES, FINAL SELECTIONS TO BE PROVIDED IN THE BUILDING PERMIT STAGE.
7. FINAL LIGHTING PLAN WILL BE COORDINATED WITH SITE PHOTOMETRIC STUDIES PROVIDED BY A LIGHTING / ELECTRICAL ENGINEER IN THE BUILDING PERMIT STAGE.
8. ALL LIGHT FIXTURES TO BE LOCATED 12' OR MORE FROM ROOF EDGE ALONG THE REAR FACE OF THE BUILDING THAT OVERLOOKS THE RL DISTRICT PER SCMC 24.12.185.16(e)
9. LIGHT FIXTURES WILL NOT EXCEED 1260 LUMENS IN BRIGHTNESS OR 3000K IN COLOR PER SCMC 24.12.185.16(a)
10. BUILDING FACES SHALL BE ILLUMINATED SUCH THAT SURFACES LOCATED AT LEAST TEN
HORIZONTAL FEET AWAY FROM BUILDING ENTRIES SHALL HAVE AT LEAST SIXTY-SIX PERCENT
LESS LUMINANCE THAN SURFACES WITHIN TEN HORIZONTAL FEET OF BUILDING ENTRIES PER SCMC 24.12.185.16(g)
LIGHTING PLAN NOTES
DRAFT LIGHTING
FIXTURE SCHEDULE
F1 - WALL MOUNT LED DOWNLIGHT
B.O.D.: PORTICO LARGE UP & DOWNLIGHT LED
OUTDOOR WALL SCONCE
FINISH: WHITE
F2 - LINEAR LED RECESSED LIGHTING
B.O.D.: SLOT 4 RECESSED LINEAR LIGHTING
FINISH: WHITE
F3 - SURFACE MOUNT LED DOWLIGHT
B.O.D.: DESIGN CLASSICS LIGHTING FLAT LED
LIGHT SURFACE MOUNT 10-INCH ROUND
FINISH: WHITE
F4 - WALL MOUNT LED DOWLIGHT
B.O.D.: TAPER 12V 2.5W 8" WIDE LED STEP LIGHT
FINISH: WHITE
F5 - WALL MOUNT LED DOWLIGHT
B.O.D.: WATSON OUTDOOR - LED 12W -
1100 LM - 120-277V
FINISH: WHITE
F6 - STREET LIGHT
B.O.D.: PER SCMC STANDARD DETAILS
FINISH: PER SCMC STANDARD DETAILS
2 11/30/23
Scale
Project number
Print Date
Drawn by
Checked by
189 WALNUT AVENUE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
WORKBENCHBUILT.COM
P: 831.227.2217
All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc.
ISSUES/ REVISIONS
APN number DRAFT: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
As indicated
1/22/2025 12:29:38 PM
AP9.11
EXTERIOR LIGHTING
PLAN - LEVEL 1
23154
08.26.2024
OH
EB
ARTHAUS OCEAN530, 542 & 548 OCEAN STREETSANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 010-011-16, 31, 30
Issue DESCRIPTION DATE
0 SB330 PRE-APPLICATION 02.23.2024
1 PLANNING PACKAGE 08.23.2024
2 PLANNING REV-01 11.01.2024
1/16" = 1'-0"
1 LIGHTING - LEVEL 1
43.80 2
3456789 10 11 12
ABCDEF
1 F1 F1
F1
F1
F1
F1
F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1
F1 F1
F1
F3 F3 F3 F3 F3 F3 F3
F3 F3
F1
F3
F4 F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4 F4
F4
F4 F4
F3 F3 F3
F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1
F3 F3 F3 F3 F3
1. SEE SHEET GP SHEETS FOR GENERAL NOTES AND PROJECT INFORMATION
2. LIGHTING SHOWN IS ONLY AT EXTERIOR LOCATIONS AND IS ONLY SCHEMATIC.
3. SEE PLANS FOR ROOM NAMES.
4. SEE SURVEY FOR PROPOSED PARCEL DIMENSIONS.
5. SEE LANDSCAPE AND CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR ELEVATIONS, MATERIALS, DETAILS, DIMENSIONS AND PLANTING AREAS AT SIDEWALKS.
6. SEE LIGHTING FIXTURE SCHEDULE FOR PRELIMINARY PROPOSED LIGHT FIXTURE STYLES AND FINISHES, FINAL SELECTIONS TO BE PROVIDED IN THE BUILDING PERMIT STAGE.
7. FINAL LIGHTING PLAN WILL BE COORDINATED WITH SITE PHOTOMETRIC STUDIES PROVIDED BY A LIGHTING / ELECTRICAL ENGINEER IN THE BUILDING PERMIT STAGE.
8. ALL LIGHT FIXTURES TO BE LOCATED 12' OR MORE FROM ROOF EDGE ALONG THE REAR FACE OF THE BUILDING THAT OVERLOOKS THE RL DISTRICT PER SCMC 24.12.185.16(e)
9. LIGHT FIXTURES WILL NOT EXCEED 1260 LUMENS IN BRIGHTNESS OR 3000K IN COLOR PER SCMC 24.12.185.16(a)
10. BUILDING FACES SHALL BE ILLUMINATED SUCH THAT SURFACES LOCATED AT LEAST TEN
HORIZONTAL FEET AWAY FROM BUILDING ENTRIES SHALL HAVE AT LEAST SIXTY-SIX PERCENT
LESS LUMINANCE THAN SURFACES WITHIN TEN HORIZONTAL FEET OF BUILDING ENTRIES PER SCMC 24.12.185.16(g)
LIGHTING PLAN NOTES
DRAFT LIGHTING
FIXTURE SCHEDULE
F1 - WALL MOUNT LED DOWNLIGHT
B.O.D.: PORTICO LARGE UP & DOWNLIGHT LED
OUTDOOR WALL SCONCE
FINISH: WHITE
F2 - LINEAR LED RECESSED LIGHTING
B.O.D.: SLOT 4 RECESSED LINEAR LIGHTING
FINISH: WHITE
F3 - SURFACE MOUNT LED DOWLIGHT
B.O.D.: DESIGN CLASSICS LIGHTING FLAT LED
LIGHT SURFACE MOUNT 10-INCH ROUND
FINISH: WHITE
F4 - WALL MOUNT LED DOWLIGHT
B.O.D.: TAPER 12V 2.5W 8" WIDE LED STEP LIGHT
FINISH: WHITE
F5 - WALL MOUNT LED DOWLIGHT
B.O.D.: WATSON OUTDOOR - LED 12W -
1100 LM - 120-277V
FINISH: WHITE
F6 - STREET LIGHT
B.O.D.: PER SCMC STANDARD DETAILS
FINISH: PER SCMC STANDARD DETAILS
2 11/30/23
Scale
Project number
Print Date
Drawn by
Checked by
189 WALNUT AVENUE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
WORKBENCHBUILT.COM
P: 831.227.2217
All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc.
ISSUES/ REVISIONS
APN number DRAFT: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
As indicated
1/22/2025 12:29:44 PM
AP9.12
EXTERIOR LIGHTING
PLAN - LEVEL 2
23154
08.26.2024
OH
EB
ARTHAUS OCEAN530, 542 & 548 OCEAN STREETSANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 010-011-16, 31, 30
Issue DESCRIPTION DATE
0 SB330 PRE-APPLICATION 02.23.2024
1 PLANNING PACKAGE 08.23.2024
1/16" = 1'-0"
1 LIGHTING - LEVEL 2
43.81 2
3456789 10 11 12
ABCDEF
1 F1 F1
F1
F1
F1
F1
F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1
F1 F1
F1
F3
F3 F3 F3 F3 F3 F3 F3 F3 F3 F3
F3
F3 F3 F3 F3 F3 F3
1. SEE SHEET GP SHEETS FOR GENERAL NOTES AND PROJECT INFORMATION
2. LIGHTING SHOWN IS ONLY AT EXTERIOR LOCATIONS AND IS ONLY SCHEMATIC.
3. SEE PLANS FOR ROOM NAMES.
4. SEE SURVEY FOR PROPOSED PARCEL DIMENSIONS.
5. SEE LANDSCAPE AND CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR ELEVATIONS, MATERIALS, DETAILS, DIMENSIONS AND PLANTING AREAS AT SIDEWALKS.
6. SEE LIGHTING FIXTURE SCHEDULE FOR PRELIMINARY PROPOSED LIGHT FIXTURE STYLES AND FINISHES, FINAL SELECTIONS TO BE PROVIDED IN THE BUILDING PERMIT STAGE.
7. FINAL LIGHTING PLAN WILL BE COORDINATED WITH SITE PHOTOMETRIC STUDIES PROVIDED BY A LIGHTING / ELECTRICAL ENGINEER IN THE BUILDING PERMIT STAGE.
8. ALL LIGHT FIXTURES TO BE LOCATED 12' OR MORE FROM ROOF EDGE ALONG THE REAR FACE OF THE BUILDING THAT OVERLOOKS THE RL DISTRICT PER SCMC 24.12.185.16(e)
9. LIGHT FIXTURES WILL NOT EXCEED 1260 LUMENS IN BRIGHTNESS OR 3000K IN COLOR PER SCMC 24.12.185.16(a)
10. BUILDING FACES SHALL BE ILLUMINATED SUCH THAT SURFACES LOCATED AT LEAST TEN
HORIZONTAL FEET AWAY FROM BUILDING ENTRIES SHALL HAVE AT LEAST SIXTY-SIX PERCENT
LESS LUMINANCE THAN SURFACES WITHIN TEN HORIZONTAL FEET OF BUILDING ENTRIES PER SCMC 24.12.185.16(g)
LIGHTING PLAN NOTES
DRAFT LIGHTING
FIXTURE SCHEDULE
F1 - WALL MOUNT LED DOWNLIGHT
B.O.D.: PORTICO LARGE UP & DOWNLIGHT LED
OUTDOOR WALL SCONCE
FINISH: WHITE
F2 - LINEAR LED RECESSED LIGHTING
B.O.D.: SLOT 4 RECESSED LINEAR LIGHTING
FINISH: WHITE
F3 - SURFACE MOUNT LED DOWLIGHT
B.O.D.: DESIGN CLASSICS LIGHTING FLAT LED
LIGHT SURFACE MOUNT 10-INCH ROUND
FINISH: WHITE
F4 - WALL MOUNT LED DOWLIGHT
B.O.D.: TAPER 12V 2.5W 8" WIDE LED STEP LIGHT
FINISH: WHITE
F5 - WALL MOUNT LED DOWLIGHT
B.O.D.: WATSON OUTDOOR - LED 12W -
1100 LM - 120-277V
FINISH: WHITE
F6 - STREET LIGHT
B.O.D.: PER SCMC STANDARD DETAILS
FINISH: PER SCMC STANDARD DETAILS
2 11/30/23
Scale
Project number
Print Date
Drawn by
Checked by
189 WALNUT AVENUE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
WORKBENCHBUILT.COM
P: 831.227.2217
All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc.
ISSUES/ REVISIONS
APN number DRAFT: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
As indicated
1/22/2025 12:29:48 PM
AP9.13
EXTERIOR LIGHTING
PLAN - LEVEL 3 THRU 6
23154
08.26.2024
OH
EB
ARTHAUS OCEAN530, 542 & 548 OCEAN STREETSANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 010-011-16, 31, 30
Issue DESCRIPTION DATE
0 SB330 PRE-APPLICATION 02.23.2024
1 PLANNING PACKAGE 08.23.2024
1/16" = 1'-0"
1 LIGHTING - LEVEL 3
43.82 2
3456789 10 11 12
ABCDEF
1 F5 F5
F5 F5
F5
F5
F5
35' - 4"
F1 F1 F1 F1
1. SEE SHEET GP SHEETS FOR GENERAL NOTES AND PROJECT INFORMATION
2. LIGHTING SHOWN IS ONLY AT EXTERIOR LOCATIONS AND IS ONLY SCHEMATIC.
3. SEE PLANS FOR ROOM NAMES.
4. SEE SURVEY FOR PROPOSED PARCEL DIMENSIONS.
5. SEE LANDSCAPE AND CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR ELEVATIONS, MATERIALS, DETAILS, DIMENSIONS AND PLANTING AREAS AT SIDEWALKS.
6. SEE LIGHTING FIXTURE SCHEDULE FOR PRELIMINARY PROPOSED LIGHT FIXTURE STYLES AND FINISHES, FINAL SELECTIONS TO BE PROVIDED IN THE BUILDING PERMIT STAGE.
7. FINAL LIGHTING PLAN WILL BE COORDINATED WITH SITE PHOTOMETRIC STUDIES PROVIDED BY A LIGHTING / ELECTRICAL ENGINEER IN THE BUILDING PERMIT STAGE.
8. ALL LIGHT FIXTURES TO BE LOCATED 12' OR MORE FROM ROOF EDGE ALONG THE REAR FACE OF THE BUILDING THAT OVERLOOKS THE RL DISTRICT PER SCMC 24.12.185.16(e)
9. LIGHT FIXTURES WILL NOT EXCEED 1260 LUMENS IN BRIGHTNESS OR 3000K IN COLOR PER SCMC 24.12.185.16(a)
10. BUILDING FACES SHALL BE ILLUMINATED SUCH THAT SURFACES LOCATED AT LEAST TEN
HORIZONTAL FEET AWAY FROM BUILDING ENTRIES SHALL HAVE AT LEAST SIXTY-SIX PERCENT
LESS LUMINANCE THAN SURFACES WITHIN TEN HORIZONTAL FEET OF BUILDING ENTRIES PER SCMC 24.12.185.16(g)
LIGHTING PLAN NOTES
DRAFT LIGHTING
FIXTURE SCHEDULE
F1 - WALL MOUNT LED DOWNLIGHT
B.O.D.: PORTICO LARGE UP & DOWNLIGHT LED
OUTDOOR WALL SCONCE
FINISH: WHITE
F2 - LINEAR LED RECESSED LIGHTING
B.O.D.: SLOT 4 RECESSED LINEAR LIGHTING
FINISH: WHITE
F3 - SURFACE MOUNT LED DOWLIGHT
B.O.D.: DESIGN CLASSICS LIGHTING FLAT LED
LIGHT SURFACE MOUNT 10-INCH ROUND
FINISH: WHITE
F4 - WALL MOUNT LED DOWLIGHT
B.O.D.: TAPER 12V 2.5W 8" WIDE LED STEP LIGHT
FINISH: WHITE
F5 - WALL MOUNT LED DOWLIGHT
B.O.D.: WATSON OUTDOOR - LED 12W -
1100 LM - 120-277V
FINISH: WHITE
F6 - STREET LIGHT
B.O.D.: PER SCMC STANDARD DETAILS
FINISH: PER SCMC STANDARD DETAILS
2 11/30/23
Scale
Project number
Print Date
Drawn by
Checked by
189 WALNUT AVENUE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
WORKBENCHBUILT.COM
P: 831.227.2217
All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc.
ISSUES/ REVISIONS
APN number DRAFT: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
As indicated
1/22/2025 12:29:51 PM
AP9.17
EXTERIOR LIGHTING
PLAN - ROOF
23154
08.26.2024
Author
Checker
ARTHAUS OCEAN530, 542 & 548 OCEAN STREETSANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 010-011-16, 31, 30
Issue DESCRIPTION DATE
0 SB330 PRE-APPLICATION 02.23.2024
1 PLANNING PACKAGE 08.23.2024
1/16" = 1'-0"
1 LIGHTING - ROOF
43.83 4' 4' 3' 3' O.C. CONT. 3' 3' MAT THEW B . HAWKS # 6 5 0 8 L I C ENS ED L ANDS CA P E A RCH I T E C T S T A T E O F C A L I F O R N I ASIGNATURE RENEWAL DATE DATE 3/31/25 Scale Project number Print Date Drawn by Checked by 189 WALNUT AVENUE SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 WORKBENCHBUILT.COM P: 831.227.2217 All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc.
ISSUES/ REVISIONS APN number SEE PLAN
5/17/2024 11:11:25 AM 23154 11.01.2024 AR MBH
ARTHAUS OCEAN
530, 542 & 548 OCEAN STREET
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 010-011-16, 31, 30 Issue DESCRIPTION DATE L0.1 PLANNING SUBMITTAL SET 8.16.2024 11/1/2024 PLANNING REV-01 11.1.2024 0 10' 20' COMMERCIAL PARKING BIKE STORAGE RESIDENTIAL AMENITY TRASH LOBBY OCEAN STREET CLASS II BIKE RACKS (29 TOTAL RACKS FOR 58 SHORT TERM BIKE PARKING SPACES) TRASH STAGING/ LOADING ZONE (3) OVERSIZED CLASS II SEAT WALL BICYCLE PARKING STALLS (10'X3') ACCENT PAVING AT RESIDENTIAL ENTRY SMALL ACCENT TREES ADJACENT TO BUILDING MIN. 8' CLEAR PATH THROUGH SIDEWALK ZONE - TYP. SERVICE BIKE STORAGE ELEC COMMERCIAL ENTRY PATIO WITH SEAT WALL AND ACCENT PAVING ARCHITECTURAL RAILING L0.3 L0.4 SITE LANDSCAPE CONCEPT CIRCULAR BIKE RACK - PRODUCT TO BE SELECTED PAVING PER PLAN 38"Ø X 4"L MIN. GALVANIZED STEEL WEDGE ANCHOR (TYP. OF 4 PER RACK) EDGE OF PAVING - WHERE OCCURS WALL OR PHYSICAL OBSTRUCTION - WHERE OCCURS 1 36", TYP. 3534" SIDE ELEVATION PLAN 3238" 2 1 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 SURFACE-MOUNT BIKE RACK SCALE: NTS 6' MIN. BIKE PARKING SPACE LENGTH. 10' LENGTH AT OVERSIZED BIKE PARKING SPACES - SEE PLAN FOR LOCATION MIN. 5'-0" CLEAR ACCESS AISLE 9" MIN. 18" MIN. 45 4 5 LANDSCAPE WITHIN BULB OUT PLANTERS TO BE BELOW 36" IN HEIGHT - SEE PLANTING PLAN NATURAL GRAY CONCRETE PAVING AT SIDEWALK ALTERNATE SCORE PATTERN/FINISH AT DRIVEWAY FOR PEDESTRIAN SAFETY COMMERCIAL RAMP NEW 6' TALL BLACK WROUGHT IRON FENCE TO MATCH EXISTING EXISTING 6' TALL FENCE TO REMAIN NEW PEDESTRIAN GATE TO MATCH EXISTING FENCE DESIGN NEW FENCE AT PROPERTY LINE PUBLIC FRONTAGE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENT: 12 SF OF LANDSCAPE FOR EACH 30 LINEAR FEET OF BUILDING FRONTAGE. LINEAR FEET OF BUILDING: 265 SF REQUIRED LANDSCAPE ALONG OCEAN ST FRONTAGE: 108 SF LANDSCAPE PROVIDED ALONG OCEAN ST FRONTAGE: 1,224 SF RESIDENTIAL AMENITY DEDICATED IRRIGATION SERVICE, SEE CIVIL UTILITY PLAN C4.1 43.84 3' CLR. - TYP. 3' CLR. - TYP. MAT THEW B . HAWKS # 6 5 0 8 L I C ENS ED L ANDS CA P E A RCH I T E C T S T A T E O F C A L I F O R N I ASIGNATURE RENEWAL DATE DATE 3/31/25 Scale Project number Print Date Drawn by Checked by 189 WALNUT AVENUE SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 WORKBENCHBUILT.COM P: 831.227.2217 All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc.
ISSUES/ REVISIONS APN number SEE PLAN
5/17/2024 11:11:25 AM 23154 11.01.2024 AR MBH
ARTHAUS OCEAN
530, 542 & 548 OCEAN STREET
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 010-011-16, 31, 30 Issue DESCRIPTION DATE L0.2 PLANNING SUBMITTAL SET 8.16.2024 11/1/2024 PLANNING REV-01 11.1.2024 0 10' 20' LOUNGE SEATING FIRE PIT SHELF - CONCEPT IMAGERY SHEET L0.6 BBQ AND DINING AREA WITH BANQUET SEATING, FESTOON LIGHTING, AND TILE FLOORING RECIRCULATING BUBBLER ACCENT POT FOUNTAINS IN COBBLE BED AT ENTRY TO STAIR/ELEVATOR CORE ACCENT TREES IN FACETED PLANTER ALONG WALKWAY PLANTERS TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPE WHILE CREATING COMFORTABLE BUFFER FOR CIRCULATION PATH PLANTER WALLS 2ND FLOOR LANDSCAPE CONCEPT LOOSE FURNISHINGS AT LOUNGE SPACE AMENITY ELEVATOR INTERIOR CORRIDOR PREFABRICATED PLANT CONTAINERS PATIO FENCE PREFABRICATED PLANT CONTAINERS GRAVEL MAINTENANCE PATH WIRE MESH SURROUND AT STRUCTURAL POSTS TO PROVIDE VINE COVERED COLUMNS TENSION CABLE IN LINE WITH VINE COLUMNS TO ALLOW VINES TO GROW ACROSS OVERHEAD PLANE 30" PLANTER HEIGHT, TYP. 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 30" 24" 30" 18" 18" 30" 30" 30" 30" 30" 30" 30" 30" 30" 30" 30" 30" 43.85 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam B B B L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L B L B A A CL L RRRR S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S B B L C C C L L L L L S S S S S S S L L L C L L L A C L B MAT THEW B . HAWKS # 6 5 0 8 SIGNATURE RENEWAL DATE DATE 3/31/27 Scale Project number Print Date Drawn by Checked by 189 WALNUT AVENUE SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 WORKBENCHBUILT.COM P: 831.227.2217 All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc.
ISSUES/ REVISIONS APN number SEE PLAN
5/17/2024 11:11:25 AM 23154 01.22.2025 AR MBH
ARTHAUS OCEAN
530, 542 & 548 OCEAN STREET
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 010-011-16, 31, 30 Issue DESCRIPTION DATE L0.3 PLANNING SUBMITTAL SET 8.16.2024 1/22/2025 PLANNING REV-01 11.1.2024 PLANNING REV-02 01.22.2025 123 MATCHLINE, SEE L0.4 OCEAN STREET LOBBY RESIDENTIAL AMENITY RESIDENTIAL AMENITY PARKING TRASH BIKE STORAGE 0 10' 20' PRELIMINARY PLANTING PLAN BRANCIFORTE CREEK SYMBOL BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE QTY TREES ARBUTUS UNEDO 'COMPACTA' COMPACT STRAWBERRY TREE 15 GAL 9 ARBUTUS X 'MARINA' MARINA STRAWBERRY TREE MULTI-TRUNK 15 GAL 2 CORNUS FLORIDA FLOWERING DOGWOOD 15 GAL 2 GEIJERA PARVIFLORA AUSTRALIAN WILLOW 15 GAL 4 SHRUBS AGAVE CELSII 'NOVA' NOVA CENTURY PLANT 1 GAL 7 AGAVE X 'BLUE FLAME' BLUE FLAME AGAVE 5 GAL 20 CHONDROPETALUM TECTORUM SMALL CAPE RUSH 5 GAL 49 CLEMATIS ARMANDII 'APPLE BLOSSOM' EVERGREEN CLEMATIS 5 GAL 5 DIANELLA CAERULEA 'DBB03' CASSA BLUE™ FLAX LILY 5 GAL 76 LOMANDRA LONGIFOLIA 'BREEZE' BREEZE™ MAT RUSH 1 GAL 54 LOMANDRA X 'LOMLON' LIME TUFF™ DWARF MAT RUSH 1 GAL 68 LYSIMACHIA NUMMULARIA CREEPING JENNY 4" POT 76 MAHONIA AQUIFOLIUM 'COMPACTA' COMPACT OREGON GRAPE 5 GAL 22 MAHONIA X 'SOFT CARESS' SOFT CARESS MAHONIA 5 GAL 5 PODOCARPUS MACROPHYLLUS 'MAKI' MAKI YEW PODOCARPUS 5 GAL 18 POLYSTICHUM MUNITUM WESTERN SWORD FERN 1 GAL 16 RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA 'LITTLE SUR' LITTLE SUR COFFEEBERRY 1 GAL 4 SANSEVIERIA TRIFASCIATA SNAKE PLANT 1 GAL 46 SYMBOL BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE SPACING QTY GROUND COVERS CAREX GLAUCA 'BLUE ZINGER' BLUE ZINGER SEDGE 1 GAL 18" o.c. 185 CAREX TUMULICOLA FOOTHILL SEDGE 1 GAL 30" o.c. 115 LIRIOPE MUSCARI LILYTURF 1 GAL 24" o.c. 22 OPHIOPOGON JAPONICUS MONDO GRASS 1 GAL 18" o.c. 17 SISYRINCHIUM BELLUM BLUE-EYED GRASS 1 GAL 18" o.c. 15 ABCDLMPRS PLANT SCHEDULE NOTES: 1. SEE SHEET L0.6 FOR PLANT IMAGERY 2. ALL PLANTING AREAS TO RECEIVE 3" LAYER BARK MULCH. 3. STREET TREES TO BE PLANTED PER CITY TREE PLANTING DETAIL - DWG NO. 15 OF 20 ON SHEET L0.6 WATER USE LOW LOW MEDIUM MEDIUM LOW LOW LOW MEDIUM MEDIUM LOW LOW MEDIUM LOW LOW MEDIUM MEDIUM LOW LOW WATER USE MEDIUM LOW MEDIUM MEDIUM LOW 43.86 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam LL D D D D D D D D S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S C C C C C L D D D D D D C C L L L L A L L D D D A D D D B B B L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L B A B A L L S S S S S S S S L L L L L L MAT THEW B . HAWKS # 6 5 0 8 SIGNATURE RENEWAL DATE DATE 3/31/27 Scale Project number Print Date Drawn by Checked by 189 WALNUT AVENUE SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 WORKBENCHBUILT.COM P: 831.227.2217 All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc.
ISSUES/ REVISIONS APN number SEE PLAN
5/17/2024 11:11:25 AM 23154 01.22.2025 AR MBH
ARTHAUS OCEAN
530, 542 & 548 OCEAN STREET
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 010-011-16, 31, 30 Issue DESCRIPTION DATE L0.4 PLANNING SUBMITTAL SET 8.16.2024 1/22/2025 PLANNING REV-01 11.1.2024 PLANNING REV-02 01.22.2025 123 MATCHLINE, SEE L0.3 OCEAN STREET ELEC/MEP PARKING SERVICE COMMERCIAL PRELIMINARY PLANTING PLAN COMMERCIAL BIKE STORAGE SYMBOL BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE QTY TREES ARBUTUS UNEDO 'COMPACTA' COMPACT STRAWBERRY TREE 15 GAL 9 ARBUTUS X 'MARINA' MARINA STRAWBERRY TREE MULTI-TRUNK 15 GAL 2 CORNUS FLORIDA FLOWERING DOGWOOD 15 GAL 2 GEIJERA PARVIFLORA AUSTRALIAN WILLOW 15 GAL 4 SHRUBS AGAVE CELSII 'NOVA' NOVA CENTURY PLANT 1 GAL 7 AGAVE X 'BLUE FLAME' BLUE FLAME AGAVE 5 GAL 20 CHONDROPETALUM TECTORUM SMALL CAPE RUSH 5 GAL 49 CLEMATIS ARMANDII 'APPLE BLOSSOM' EVERGREEN CLEMATIS 5 GAL 5 DIANELLA CAERULEA 'DBB03' CASSA BLUE™ FLAX LILY 5 GAL 76 LOMANDRA LONGIFOLIA 'BREEZE' BREEZE™ MAT RUSH 1 GAL 54 LOMANDRA X 'LOMLON' LIME TUFF™ DWARF MAT RUSH 1 GAL 68 LYSIMACHIA NUMMULARIA CREEPING JENNY 4" POT 76 MAHONIA AQUIFOLIUM 'COMPACTA' COMPACT OREGON GRAPE 5 GAL 22 MAHONIA X 'SOFT CARESS' SOFT CARESS MAHONIA 5 GAL 5 PODOCARPUS MACROPHYLLUS 'MAKI' MAKI YEW PODOCARPUS 5 GAL 18 POLYSTICHUM MUNITUM WESTERN SWORD FERN 1 GAL 16 RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA 'LITTLE SUR' LITTLE SUR COFFEEBERRY 1 GAL 4 SANSEVIERIA TRIFASCIATA SNAKE PLANT 1 GAL 46 SYMBOL BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE SPACING QTY GROUND COVERS CAREX GLAUCA 'BLUE ZINGER' BLUE ZINGER SEDGE 1 GAL 18" o.c. 185 CAREX TUMULICOLA FOOTHILL SEDGE 1 GAL 30" o.c. 115 LIRIOPE MUSCARI LILYTURF 1 GAL 24" o.c. 22 OPHIOPOGON JAPONICUS MONDO GRASS 1 GAL 18" o.c. 17 SISYRINCHIUM BELLUM BLUE-EYED GRASS 1 GAL 18" o.c. 15 ABCDLMPRS PLANT SCHEDULE WATER USE LOW LOW MEDIUM MEDIUM LOW LOW LOW MEDIUM MEDIUM LOW LOW MEDIUM LOW LOW MEDIUM MEDIUM LOW LOW WATER USE MEDIUM LOW MEDIUM MEDIUM LOW 0 10' 20' NOTES: 1. SEE SHEET L0.6 FOR PLANT IMAGERY 2. ALL PLANTING AREAS TO RECEIVE 3" LAYER BARK MULCH. 3. STREET TREES TO BE PLANTED PER CITY TREE PLANTING DETAIL - DWG NO. 15 OF 20 ON SHEET L0.6 43.87 UP M P P P M M P P P P M P P D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D P B B C C C C CC C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C B BB B B C C C C D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D M D D D P DDD DD P P D P P DD D DD C C C C C C C C C D D D P MAT THEW B . HAWKS # 6 5 0 8 SIGNATURE RENEWAL DATE DATE 3/31/27 Scale Project number Print Date Drawn by Checked by 189 WALNUT AVENUE SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 WORKBENCHBUILT.COM P: 831.227.2217 All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc.
ISSUES/ REVISIONS APN number SEE PLAN
5/17/2024 11:11:25 AM 23154 01.22.2025 AR MBH
ARTHAUS OCEAN
530, 542 & 548 OCEAN STREET
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 010-011-16, 31, 30 Issue DESCRIPTION DATE L0.5 PLANNING SUBMITTAL SET 8.16.2024 1/22/2025 PLANNING REV-01 11.1.2024 PLANNING REV-02 01.22.2025 123 SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE QTY SHRUBS AGAVE CELSII 'NOVA' NOVA CENTURY PLANT 1 GAL 7 AGAVE X 'BLUE FLAME' BLUE FLAME AGAVE 5 GAL 20 CHONDROPETALUM TECTORUM SMALL CAPE RUSH 5 GAL 49 CLEMATIS ARMANDII 'APPLE BLOSSOM' EVERGREEN CLEMATIS 5 GAL 5 DIANELLA CAERULEA 'DBB03' CASSA BLUE™ FLAX LILY 5 GAL 76 LOMANDRA LONGIFOLIA 'BREEZE' BREEZE™ MAT RUSH 1 GAL 54 LOMANDRA X 'LOMLON' LIME TUFF™ DWARF MAT RUSH 1 GAL 68 LYSIMACHIA NUMMULARIA CREEPING JENNY 4" POT 76 MAHONIA AQUIFOLIUM 'COMPACTA' COMPACT OREGON GRAPE 5 GAL 22 MAHONIA X 'SOFT CARESS' SOFT CARESS MAHONIA 5 GAL 5 PODOCARPUS MACROPHYLLUS 'MAKI' MAKI YEW PODOCARPUS 5 GAL 18 POLYSTICHUM MUNITUM WESTERN SWORD FERN 1 GAL 16 RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA 'LITTLE SUR' LITTLE SUR COFFEEBERRY 1 GAL 4 SANSEVIERIA TRIFASCIATA SNAKE PLANT 1 GAL 46 ABCDLMPRS PLANT SCHEDULE SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE QTY TREES ARBUTUS UNEDO 'COMPACTA' COMPACT STRAWBERRY TREE 15 GAL 9 ARBUTUS X 'MARINA' MARINA STRAWBERRY TREE MULTI-TRUNK 15 GAL 2 CORNUS FLORIDA FLOWERING DOGWOOD 15 GAL 2 GEIJERA PARVIFLORA AUSTRALIAN WILLOW 15 GAL 4 SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE SPACING QTY GROUND COVERS CAREX GLAUCA 'BLUE ZINGER' BLUE ZINGER SEDGE 1 GAL 18" o.c. 185 CAREX TUMULICOLA FOOTHILL SEDGE 1 GAL 30" o.c. 115 LIRIOPE MUSCARI LILYTURF 1 GAL 24" o.c. 22 OPHIOPOGON JAPONICUS MONDO GRASS 1 GAL 18" o.c. 17 SISYRINCHIUM BELLUM BLUE-EYED GRASS 1 GAL 18" o.c. 15 PLANT SCHEDULE 0 10' 20' PRELIMINARY PLANTING PLAN NOTES: 1. SEE SHEET L0.6 FOR PLANT IMAGERY 2. ALL PLANTING AREAS TO RECEIVE 3" LAYER BARK MULCH. WATER USE LOW LOW MEDIUM MEDIUM WATER USE MEDIUM LOW MEDIUM MEDIUM LOW WATER USE LOW LOW LOW LOW MEDIUM LOW LOW MEDIUM LOW LOW MEDIUM MEDIUM LOW LOW 43.88 MAT THEW B . HAWKS # 6 5 0 8 SIGNATURE RENEWAL DATE DATE 3/31/27 Scale Project number Print Date Drawn by Checked by 189 WALNUT AVENUE SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 WORKBENCHBUILT.COM P: 831.227.2217 All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc.
ISSUES/ REVISIONS APN number SEE PLAN
5/17/2024 11:11:25 AM 23154 01.22.2025 AR MBH
ARTHAUS OCEAN
530, 542 & 548 OCEAN STREET
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 010-011-16, 31, 30 Issue DESCRIPTION DATE L0.6 PLANNING SUBMITTAL SET 8.16.2024 1/22/2025 PLANNING REV-01 11.1.2024 PLANNING REV-02 01.22.2025 123 MATERIAL/CONCEPT IMAGERY PLANT IMAGERY ARBUTUS X 'MARINA' CORNUS FLORIDA GEIJERA PARVIFLORA AGAVE CELSII 'NOVA' AGAVE X 'BLUE FLAME' CHONDROPETALUM TECTORUM DIANELLA CAERULEA 'CASSA BLUE' LOMANDRA X 'LOMLON' MAHONIA AQUIFOLIUM 'COMPACTA' MAHONIA X 'SOFT CARESS' POLYSTICHUM MUNITUM SANSEVIERIA TRIFASCIATA CAREX TUMULICOLA CAREX GLAUCA 'BLUE ZINGER' LIRIOPE MUSCARI OPHIOPOGON JAPONICUS MATERIALS AND IMAGERY ACCENT PAVING ACCENT STAIR RISERS CIRCULAR BIKE RACKS WOOD BENCH SEATING FIRE PIT LOUNGE AREA FACETED PLANTERS AT SECOND FLOOR RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA 'LITTLE SUR' SISYRINCHIUM BELLUM ARBUTUS UNEDO 'COMPACTA' CLEMATIS ARMANDII 'APPLE BLOSSOM' LYSIMACHIA NUMMULARIA PODOCARPUS MACROPHYLLUS 'MAKI' MESH FOR VINE GROWTH INTEGRATED INTO ARCHITECTURE STACKED BOND MASONRY PLANTER WALLS 43.89 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam MAT THEW B . HAWKS # 6 5 0 8 SIGNATURE RENEWAL DATE DATE 3/31/27 Scale Project number Print Date Drawn by Checked by 189 WALNUT AVENUE SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 WORKBENCHBUILT.COM P: 831.227.2217 All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc.
ISSUES/ REVISIONS APN number SEE PLAN
5/17/2024 11:11:25 AM 23154 01.22.2025 AR MBH
ARTHAUS OCEAN
530, 542 & 548 OCEAN STREET
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 010-011-16, 31, 30 Issue DESCRIPTION DATE L0.7 PLANNING SUBMITTAL SET 8.16.2024 1/22/2025 PLANNING REV-01 11.1.2024 PLANNING REV-02 01.22.2025 123IRRIGATION HYDROZONE PLAN MATCHLINE, SEE L0.4 OCEAN STREET LOBBY FITNESS LOUNGE PARKING TRASH BIKE STORAGE 0 10' 20' BRANCIFORTE CREEK WELO CALCULATIONS 43.90 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam MAT THEW B . HAWKS # 6 5 0 8 SIGNATURE RENEWAL DATE DATE 3/31/27 Scale Project number Print Date Drawn by Checked by 189 WALNUT AVENUE SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 WORKBENCHBUILT.COM P: 831.227.2217 All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc.
ISSUES/ REVISIONS APN number SEE PLAN
5/17/2024 11:11:25 AM 23154 01.22.2025 AR MBH
ARTHAUS OCEAN
530, 542 & 548 OCEAN STREET
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 010-011-16, 31, 30 Issue DESCRIPTION DATE L0.8 PLANNING SUBMITTAL SET 8.16.2024 1/22/2025 PLANNING REV-01 11.1.2024 PLANNING REV-02 01.22.2025 123IRRIGATION HYDROZONE PLAN MATCHLINE, SEE L0.3 OCEAN STREET ELEC/ MEP PARKING XFMR COMMERCIAL 0 10' 20' COMMERCIAL SERVICE WELO CALCULATIONS 43.91 UP
0 10' 20' IRRIGATION HYDROZONE PLAN
MAT THEW B . HAWKS # 6 5 0 8 SIGNATURE RENEWAL DATE DATE 3/31/27 Scale Project number Print Date Drawn by Checked by 189 WALNUT AVENUE SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 WORKBENCHBUILT.COM P: 831.227.2217 All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc.
ISSUES/ REVISIONS APN number SEE PLAN
5/17/2024 11:11:25 AM 23154 01.22.2025 AR MBH
ARTHAUS OCEAN
530, 542 & 548 OCEAN STREET
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 010-011-16, 31, 30 Issue DESCRIPTION DATE L0.9 PLANNING SUBMITTAL SET 8.16.2024 1/22/2025 PLANNING REV-01 11.1.2024 PLANNING REV-02 01.22.2025 1 23 WELO CALCULATIONS 43.92
10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T12 T13 T11T10 T9 MAT THEW B . HAWKS # 6 5 0 8 SIGNATURE RENEWAL DATE DATE 3/31/27 Scale Project number Print Date Drawn by Checked by 189 WALNUT AVENUE SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 WORKBENCHBUILT.COM P: 831.227.2217 All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc.
ISSUES/ REVISIONS APN number SEE PLAN
5/17/2024 11:11:25 AM 23154 01.22.2025 AR MBH
ARTHAUS OCEAN
530, 542 & 548 OCEAN STREET
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 010-011-16, 31, 30 Issue DESCRIPTION DATE L0.10 PLANNING SUBMITTAL SET 8.16.2024 1/22/2025 PLANNING REV-01 11.1.2024 PLANNING REV-02 01.22.2025 123 TREE DISPOSITION LEGEND SYMBOL DESCRIPTION EXISTING TREE TREE TO BE REMOVED NOTES: 1. DBH IS MEASURED 4'-6" ABOVE GRADE ON THE UPHILL SIDE OF TREE. 2. ALL TREES WITH WORK OR MATERIAL STAGING WITHIN THE DRIPLINE ARE SUBJECT TO THE TREE PROTECTION MEASURES PRESCRIBED IN THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ STANDARD TREE PROTECTION DETAILS. 3. ALL TREES TO BE REMOVED SHALL HAVE THEIR STUMPS GROUND DOWN TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 2 FEET. REMOVE ALL LARGE ROOTS FROM PLANTING AREAS A MINIMUM DISTANCE OF 5 FEET BEYOND THE DRIPLINE OF THE TREE. QTY TREE SPECIES 9 ARBUTUS X 'MARINA' TREE REPLACEMENT TABLEINSTALLATION SIZE 15 GAL SEE PLANTING PLANS ON SHEET L0.3-L0.5 FOR LOCATIONS OF PROPOSED REPLACEMENT TREES. 2 GEIJERA PARVIFLORA 15 GAL T1 PYRUS KAWAKAMII 13.75" NO REMOVE T2 LIGUSTRUM LUCIDUM 6" NO REMOVE T3 SYAGRUS ROMANZOFFIANA 14.5" YES REMOVE T4 SYAGRUS ROMANZOFFIANA 11" NO REMOVE T5 WASHINGTONIA SPP. 19" YES REMOVE T6 WASHINGTONIA SPP. 22" YES REMOVE T7 SYAGRUS ROMANZOFFIANA 11" NO REMOVE T8 SYAGRUS ROMANZOFFIANA 12" NO REMOVE T9 LEYLAND CYPRESS 16" YES REMOVE T10 LEYLAND CYPRESS 11" NO REMOVE T11 LEYLAND CYPRESS 13" NO REMOVE T12 CALOCEDRUS DECURRENS 24" YES REMOVE TREE NO. DBH TREE INVENTORY BOTANICAL NAME HERITAGE DISPOSITION 24 15 GAL 0 10' 20' TREE DISPOSITION PLAN NOTE: HERITAGE TREES T3, T5, T6, T9 AND T12 ARE PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL AND WILL REQUIRE A HERITAGE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT. ARBUTUS UNEDO 'COMPACTA' CORNUS FLORIDA 15 GAL OCEAN STREET TREE NO. BOTANICAL NAME DBH HERITAGE DISPOSITION 43.93
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 30, 2025
AGENDA OF: May 1, 2025
FROM: Rina Zhou, Senior Planner
TO: Planning Commission
SUBJECT: CP24-0071 530, 542, 548 Ocean St
This memorandum is provided in response to the request that the applicant has made for an additional waiver under State Density Bonus Law to preserve the heritage-sized cypress tree in order to address the modified condition of approval (#15) that the City proposed regarding clarification on the next steps for heritage-sized trees located on adjacent properties:
Five Heritage-sized trees will be removed with the project, if written consent of the adjacent property owner(s) expressly authorizing removal or irreversible damage to the affected heritage tree(s) on adjacent properties APN 010-011-03 and 010-011-02 is provided by the project applicant to remove the Heritagesized tree(s) located on the adjacent properties. In accordance with the replacement tree requirements, either one 24-inch box sized tree or three 15-gallon trees shall be paid for and planted by the project applicant for each heritage tree removed.
If such consent is not obtained, the applicant shall (1) revise the project plans to avoid irreparable damage and/or death to the heritage trees to the satisfaction of the City Arborist, or (2) provide evidence that pursuant to a court order or judicial decree, that they are entitled as a matter of law to remove encroaching roots and/or branches up to the property line. This condition is intended to ensure compliance with applicable laws governing private property and tree protection, and to prevent unauthorized removal or harm to trees located on property not owned or controlled by the applicant or City.
The applicant has been working with the project arborist to provide supplemental information regarding the adjacent heritage-sized trees. The project arborist has not been able to, in advance of the Planning Commission hearing, investigate the root structure of the adjacent heritage-sized cypress tree in further detail to determine whether any significant roots are growing onto the subject property and whether those roots would be impacted by the proposed development. As such, the applicant is proposing a revised design change that would consolidate some of the modulation (notches) along the ground floor of the rear elevation so that for the length of the area near and around the heritage-sized cypress tree, the building would be set back approximately 3’-1” from the rear property line on the ground floor (4 feet from the trunk of the heritage-sized cypress tree), consistent with the recommendation in the Arborist Report prepared by Kurt Fouts dated April 30, 2024, to retain the heritage-sized cypress tree. The City Arborist has indicated that three (3) times the tree diameter is the stated formula by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) for tolerable impact to heritage trees that have a trunk diameter of 16-inches such as this Leyland cypress tree.
The proposed design change would result in the ground floor of the rear façade of the building no longer conforming to the building modulation objective design standard that requires nine (9) changes in plane.
With this revised design change, only seven changes in plane are provided on the ground floor of the rear elevation. The applicant has requested a density bonus waiver to the building modulation objective design standard along the rear façade as it would physically preclude the housing development with the density bonus units and amenities, as designed and proposed. If the project was required to preserve the heritage43.94
MEMORANDUM
Planning Commission Meeting of May 1, 2025
SUBJECT: 530, 542, 548 Ocean St – Project No. CP24-0071 PAGE 2
sized tree and conform to the building modulations requirement along the rear façade, then it would require a reduction of amenity space, which is protected as part of the project as proposed. As explained under the response to other arguments, prior case law as applied to the project does not allow the City to deny requested waivers and require the applicant to redesign the project to meet objective requirements, as it would require a reduction of amenity space, or similar features that are protected as part of the project as proposed.
To memorialize the revised design, the following additional condition of approval is recommended to allow staff to review fully the revised design at the building permit stage:
Final building permit plans shall show the revised design that flips the location of the notches so two notches are combined to provide a 3’-1” setback on the ground floor of the project at the rear of the property near the heritage-sized cypress tree.
43.95 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam
WM
WM
WM
SSMH, RIM 21.8
INV 8" THRU 19.36
SSMH, RIM 21.8
INV 8" IN 18.80
INV 8" OUT 18.76
MH, RIM 22.6
INV 8" SS THRU 19.65
INV 8" SD THRU 18.34
SDMH, RIM 21.9
INV 18" SD IN 17.55
INV 24" SD OUT 17.43
CB, TC 21.8
INV 12"/18" SD IN 18.80
INV 18" SD OUT 17.65
SSMH, RIM 23.5
INV 8" IN 19.07 (S)
INV 8" IN 15.02 (N)
INV 8" OUT 14.92
SSMH, RIM 23.0
INV 8" IN 18.78
INV 8" OUT 18.67
SDMH, RIM 24.9
INV 30" SD THRU 15.35
SDFI, RIM 22.2
INV 30" SD IN 14.7
INV 50" OUT 11.4
SDMH, RIM 21.7
INV 6" SD IN 17.97
INV 6" SD IN 17.27
INV 24" SD THRU 17.14
10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam
1. SEE SHEET GP SHEETS FOR GENERAL NOTES AND PROJECT INFORMATION
FLOOR PLAN NOTES
UNIT MIX & AFFORDABLE
REQUIREMENTS
FLOOR PLAN KEYED NOTES
AFFORDABLE UNITS REQUIRED:
• 15% VLI UNITS ALLOWING A 50% DENSITY BONUS PER AB2345 • 15% MODERATE INCOME UNITS ALLOWING A 50% DENSITY
BONUS PER AB1287
• 20% LI UNITS PER SCMC 24.16.020.5.a (SCMC REQUIREMENT
MAY BE MET WITH THE SAME UNITS AS THOSE PROPOSED
FOR STATE DENSITY BONUS, NOT IN ADDITION TO)
AFFORDABLE UNITS PROVIDED:
17 VERY LOW INCOME UNITS (15%)
• ALLOWS 50% DENSITY BONUS PER AB2345
5 LOW INCOME UNITS (5%)
• COMBINED W/ 17 VLI UNITS MEETS SCMC REQUIREMENTS FOR
20% LI UNITS
17 MODERATE INCOME UNITS (10%)
• ALLOWS 50% DENSITY BONUS PER AB1287
A-# = INDICATES THE LOCATION OF AN AFFORDABLE UNIT
FLOOR LEVEL OF AFFORDABLE UNIT
2 3
TRUE
NORTH
PROJECT
NORTH
N
N
OCEAN STREET
CREEK
CENTERLINE
548
542 530
PARKING
LOBBY
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A
B
C
D
E
F
AP3.01
1 AP3.02
1 AP3.02 3
2 AP3.02
24' - 8" 25' - 0" 25' - 0" 25' - 0" 25' - 0" 25' - 0" 25' - 0" 25' - 0" 25' - 0" 25' - 0" 23' - 9" 0' - 6"
8' - 2" 28' - 2" 24' - 10" 26' - 5" 5' - 10" 25' - 5"
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY
LINE
PROPERTY
LINE
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
1 TRASH
ELEV LOBBY
RES. AMENITY
MAIL /
PACKAGE
1 AP4.01 2
AP4.01
RIPARIAN CORRIDOR
30' - 0"
DEVELOPMENT SETBACK
50' - 0"
MANAGMENT AREA
75' - 0"
RES. AMENITY
SERVICE
COMMERCIAL
BIKE STOR.
LEASING
OFFICE
ELECTRICAL
15' - 0" R.O.W.
3' - 6"
18' - 0"
22' - 6" 9' - 0" 8' - 2" 5' - 0"
1 AP4.02
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
4 10
8 14
14 13
13 13
10 7
7 3
3 E/V VAN E/V
7 7
7 7
10 SPACES (INCLUDING 2 EV)
(2 LEVEL LIFTS)
10 SPACES (INCLUDING 2 EV)
(2 LEVEL LIFTS)
10 SPACES (INCLUDING 2 EV)
(2 LEVEL LIFTS)
10 SPACES (INCLUDING 1 EV)
(2 LEVEL LIFTS)
10 SPACES
(2 LEVEL LIFTS)
10 SPACES
(2 LEVEL LIFTS)
10 SPACES
(2 LEVEL LIFTS)
10 SPACES
(2 LEVEL LIFTS)
6' - 0" 44' - 8 1/2"
26' - 7" 16' - 2" 16' - 3 1/2" 9' - 2"
39' - 1 1/2" 11' - 10" 15' - 4" 35' - 9 1/2" 6' - 6" 23' - 6" 31' - 10 1/2" 43' - 10" 15' - 0" 42' - 0 1/2" 12' - 4" 46' - 2" 13' - 4" 19' - 3" 6' - 0" 23' - 8"
13 18 CLASS-II SPACES
50% ACTIVE FRONTAGE = 132' 5 1/4"
132' - 9" ACTIVE FRONTAGE
13' - 0"
SIDEWALK
8' - 0" MIN
4' - 0"
13' - 4 1/2"
11' - 9 1/2"
10 CLASS-II SPACES
19' - 0"
19' - 1"
12' - 8"
22' - 3"
18 264' - 10 1/2" OCEAN STREET FRONTAGE
GROUND FLOOR TRANSPARENCY SCMC 24.12.185.14(a)(i):
OCEAN STREET FRONTAGE : 264' 10 1/2"
TRANSPARENCY REQUIRED: 70% OR 185' 5"
TRANSPARENCY PROVIDED: 70.5% OR 186' 10"
26' - 1 1/2"
24' - 0"
1' - 1"
5' - 6"
8 2
22' - 6"
3' - 0"
5' - 7 1/2"
18' - 6"
33' - 9 1/2"
10' - 0" REQUIRED
R-ZONE SETBACK
PROPERTY LINE
4' - 4"
RR
WORK RM.
8' - 6 1/2"
12' - 8"
3,394 GSF
6' - 6"
2 4 7 7 7 6
3 2
2 2
7 6
7 6
7 7
7 7
AP3.10
1 4
18 18
18 5
5 7 7 7 7 7 7
19 21
BIKE STOR.
19 3
2 CLASS-I BICYCLE PARKING SPACE
WILL BE INCLUDED IN AN ACCESS
CONTROLLED ROOM WITHIN THE
FUTURE COMMERCIAL T.I. AND IS
INCLUDED HERE CONCEPTUALLY
3' - 0"
10' - 0"
7 2
2 2
2 2
3' - 0"
10' - 0"
8' - 0"
2 6-7 8-9 10
1-2 3-4 5
16-17 18-19 20
11-12 13-14 15
26-27 28-29 30
21-22 23-24 25
36-37 38-39 40
31-32 33-34 35
46-47 48-49 50
41-42 43-44 45
56-57 58-59 60
51-52 53-54 55
66-67 68-69 70
61-62 63-64 65
76-77 78-79 80
71-72 73-74 75
2' - 0"
6' - 0 1/2" 27' - 10" 26' - 1" 27' - 7" 53' - 8" 55' - 2" 26' - 1" 20' - 10" 2' - 0"
2' - 0"
7' - 0"
4' - 0 1/2"
COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT 9' - 7"
9' - 6"
9' - 7"
13' - 0"
13' - 4 1/2" 9' - 6"
9' - 7" 11' - 8"
2' - 0"
2' - 0"
5' - 4"
2' - 8"
98 SF
COVERED
LANDING 100 SF COVERED
LANDING
15' - 0"
6' - 8"
3 22 CLASS-II SPACES
6 CLASS-II SPACES
1 AX.1
11/30/23
Scale
Project number
Print Date
Drawn by
Checked by
189 WALNUT AVENUE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
WORKBENCHBUILT.COM
P: 831.227.2217
All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc.
ISSUES/ REVISIONS
APN number
DRAFT: NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
As indicated
4/29/2025 12:11:30 PM
AP1.01
PROPOSED FIRST
FLOOR PLAN
23154
08.26.2024
DS
EB
ARTHAUS OCEAN530, 542 & 548 OCEAN STREETSANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 010-011-16, 31, 30
1/16" = 1'-0" 1
PLANNING - LEVEL 1
UNIT TYPE COUNT
STUDIO 151
ONE BEDROOM 4
TWO BED /
ONE BATH
40 TWO BED /
TWO BATH
30 225
KEYNOTE SCHEDULE - FLOOR PLAN
KEYNOTE MATERIAL
1 CAR STACKING SYSTEM, SEE SHEET AP9.02
2 CLASS-I BIKE PARKING, SEE SHEET AP9.02
3 CLASS-II BIKE PARKING, SEE SHEET AP9.02
4 EXTERIOR FENCE / GATE
5 SOLID/OPAQUE GUARDRAIL
6 BUILT-IN PLANTER
7 DASHED LINE INDICATES BUILDING/ CANOPY/ WALKWAY
OVERHEAD
8 OVERHEAD DOOR
10 ACCESSIBLE RAMP
11 WASHER / DRYER IN EACH UNIT, TYP.
12 ALL UNITS CONTAINS 200 CF OF STORAGE PER SCMC
24.12.1520.5
13 STRUCTURAL COLUMN / ELEMENT (INDICATIVE)
14 ELEVATOR
15 EXTERIOR CORRIDOR
16 INTERIOR CORRIDOR
17 PRIVATE BALCONY
18 GLAZED WINDOW SYSTEM, 70% GROUND FLOOR
TRANSPARENCY
19 LARGER FOOTPRINT CLASS-I BICYCLE PARKING SPACES
21 BICYCLE FIX-IT STATION, SEE AP9.01 FOR MORE INFO
22 IN-UNIT CLASS-I BICYCLE STORAGE
Issue DESCRIPTION DATE
0 SB330 PRE-APPLICATION 02.23.2024
1 PLANNING PACKAGE 08.23.2024
2 PLANNING REV-01 11.01.2024
3 PLANNING REV-02 01.22.2025
43.96 1. PROPERTY LINES ARE SHOWN RELATIVE TO THE ELEVATION, REFER TO PLAN DRAWINGS FOR MORE INFORMATION ON PROPERTY LINE LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS.
2. CURBS AND STREETS ARE SHOWN RELATIVE TO THE ELEVATION VIEW, REFER TO LAND SURVEY FOR EXISTING CURB, GUTTER, AND STREET INFORMATION.
3. SEE AP9.02 FOR ADDITIONAL DETAILS AND INFORMATION REGARDING MATERIALS AND DETAILING.
ELEVATIONS GENERAL NOTES
ELEVATION KEYED NOTES
= REQUIRED SETBACK AS INDICATED BY REAR RL
ZONING AND OCEAN STREET AREA PLAN (3)(B)(5)(C)
2 MATERIALS LEGEND
12 14
67 89
3 11
16 17
2 LEVEL 1
24' - 6"
LEVEL 2
41' - 6"
LEVEL 3
51' - 6"
LEVEL 4
61' - 6"
LEVEL 5
71' - 6"
LEVEL 6
81' - 6"
ROOF
91' - 6"
BRANCIFORTE
CREEK
10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 17' - 0"
1 AP4.01
2 AP4.01
1' - 6"
23' - 7 1/2"
5 14861511
717 107
3 2
121 13 107 137 13 11
3' - 4"
1' - 0"
5' - 8"
P.L.
ADJACENT
PROPERTY
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
P.L.
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
BRANCIFORTE
CREEK
77 2
1' - 0"
3' - 4"
1' - 0"
3' - 4"
5' - 8"
ADJ. PROPERTY:
522 OCEAN STREETUSE: COMMERCIAL
EXIST. GRADE
22' - 9 5/8"
21821222
2 4' - 1"1' - 6"
151 15 15 7' - 6" TYP
FROM AVERAGE GRADE
69' - 0" BUILDING HEIGHT
MAX PARAPET
4' - 8"
ELEV / STAIR OVERRUN
9' - 9"
2 AP3.10 2
16 163 161
2 16
3 1
AX.1
LEVEL 1
24' - 6"
LEVEL 2
41' - 6"
LEVEL 3
51' - 6"
LEVEL 4
61' - 6"
LEVEL 5
71' - 6"
LEVEL 6
81' - 6"
ROOF
91' - 6"
PARKING PODIUM
BRANCIFORTE CREEK
1 AP4.01
2 AP4.01
195
149
3 8
11 P.L.
BRANCIFORTE
CREEK
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
P.L.
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
ADJACENT
PROPERTY
1 17' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 1 EXIST. GRADE
22' - 9 5/8"
1' - 8 1/2"
ADJACENT
PROPERTY POOL
FENCE/WALL
FROM AVERAGE GRADE
69' - 0" BUILDING HEIGHT
MAX PARAPET
4' - 8"
ELEV / STAIR OVERRUN
9' - 9"
2 LEVEL 1
24' - 6"
LEVEL 2
41' - 6"
LEVEL 3
51' - 6"
LEVEL 4
61' - 6"
LEVEL 5
71' - 6"
LEVEL 6
81' - 6"
ROOF
91' - 6"
BRANCIFORTE CREEK
PARKING PODIUM
ADJ. PROPERTY:
522 OCEAN STREETUSE: COMMERCIAL
10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 17' - 0"
1 AP4.01
2 AP4.01
919
91 6
118
3 8
P.L.
ADJACENT
PROPERTY
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
P.L.
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
BRANCIFORTE
CREEK
4 EXIST. GRADE
22' - 9 5/8"
1' - 8 1/2"
449444
4 14
4 5
FROM AVERAGE GRADE
69' - 0" BUILDING HEIGHT
ELEV / STAIR OVERRUN
9' - 9"
2 1
AX.1 11/30/23
Scale
Project number
Print Date
Drawn by
Checked by
189 WALNUT AVENUE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
WORKBENCHBUILT.COM
P: 831.227.2217
All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc.
ISSUES/ REVISIONS
APN number DRAFT: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
As indicated
4/29/2025 12:12:12 PM
AP3.01
PROPOSED
ELEVATIONS
23154
08.26.2024
AS
EB
ARTHAUS OCEAN530, 542 & 548 OCEAN STREETSANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 010-011-16, 31, 30
KEYNOTE MATERIAL
1 PAINTED STUCCO OR SIM
2 MULTI-COLORED VERTICAL ORIENTED FIBER CEMENT PANEL OR GRC OR SIM.
3 PAINTED CONCRETE WALL OR SIM
4 PRELMINARY DOWNSPOUT LOCATION, FINAL DESIGN TBD, REF ROOF PLAN
5 PARAPET COPING / CORNICE (SCMC 24.12.185.15(D) CATEGORY 4), SEE AP9.02/4
6 VINYL WINDOWS OR SIM, DETAILED WITH LINTEL AND SILL (SCMC
24.12.185.15(D) CATEGORY 2)
7 GLAZED WINDOW SYSTEM OR SIM
8 PAINTED METAL GUARDRAIL / BALCONY OR SIM (SCMC
24.12.185.15(D) CATEGORY 1)
9 EXTERIOR WALKWAY, PAINTED METAL GUARDRAILS AND SUPPORT
STRUCTURE OR SIM
10 EXTERIOR SIGNAGE, FINAL DESIGN TBD
11 PAINTED METAL FENCE / GATE / SCREEN
12 OVERHEAD DOOR
13 BUILDING COLUMNS / STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS OR SIM
14 METAL MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SCREEN OR SIM
15 EXTERIOR LED DOWNLIGHT / DECORATIVE SCONCE (SCMC
24.12.185.15 (d) CATEGORY 4), SEE LIGHTING PLAN
16 EXTERIOR GLAZED TILE OR SIM.
17 FIBER CEMENT PANEL SIDING OR SIM.
1/16" = 1'-0"
1 SOUTH ELEVATION - PLANNING
1/16" = 1'-0"
2 COURTYARD ELEVATION NORTH - PLANNING
1/16" = 1'-0"
3 COURTYARD ELEVATION SOUTH - PLANNING
Issue DESCRIPTION DATE
0 SB330 PRE-APPLICATION 02.23.2024
1 PLANNING PACKAGE 08.23.2024
2 PLANNING REV-01 11.01.2024
3 PLANNING REV-02 01.22.2025
2 43.97
1. PROPERTY LINES ARE SHOWN RELATIVE TO THE ELEVATION, REFER TO PLAN DRAWINGS FOR MORE INFORMATION ON PROPERTY LINE LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS.
2. CURBS AND STREETS ARE SHOWN RELATIVE TO THE ELEVATION VIEW, REFER TO LAND SURVEY FOR EXISTING CURB, GUTTER, AND STREET INFORMATION.
3. SEE AP9.02 FOR ADDITIONAL DETAILS AND INFORMATION REGARDING MATERIALS AND DETAILING.
ELEVATIONS GENERAL NOTES
ELEVATION KEYED NOTES
= REQUIRED SETBACK AS INDICATED BY REAR RL
ZONING AND OCEAN STREET AREA PLAN (3)(B)(5)(C)
2 MATERIALS LEGEND
12 14
67 89
3 11
16 17
2 LEVEL 1
24' - 6"
LEVEL 2
41' - 6"
LEVEL 3
51' - 6"
LEVEL 4
61' - 6"
LEVEL 5
71' - 6"
LEVEL 6
81' - 6"
ROOF
91' - 6"
17' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0"
ADJ. PROPERTY:
127 MAY AVE
ADJ. PROPERTY:
129 MAY AVE
ADJ. PROPERTY:
135 MAY AVE
APPROX. HT
10' - 0"
1 AP4.01
2 AP4.01
216 1461
111
4' - 0"
1' - 0"
P.L. P.L.
ADJACENT
PROPERTY
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
ADJACENT
PROPERTY
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
4 1
11 EXIST. GRADE
22' - 9 5/8"
1' - 8 1/2"
16 142221
25' - 0" APPROX. HT.
APPROX. HT.
10' - 0"
6666662
1 55555
FROM AVERAGE GRADE
71' - 0" BUILDING HEIGHT
ELEV / STAIR OVERRUN
7' - 9"
2 3131313
2 1
AX.1
LEVEL 1
24' - 6"
LEVEL 2
41' - 6"
LEVEL 3
51' - 6"
LEVEL 4
61' - 6"
LEVEL 5
71' - 6"
LEVEL 6
81' - 6"
ROOF
91' - 6"
OCEAN STREET
ADJ. PROPERTY:
522 OCEAN ST
APPROX. HEIGHT
22' - 0"
10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 17' - 0"
1 AP4.02
10' - 9"
2 14191
1 11
3' - 4"
1' - 0"
18' - 6"
3' - 7"
P.L.
1 P.L.
ADJACENT
PROPERTY
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
ADJACENT
PROPERTY
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
45°
10 EXIST. GRADE
22' - 9 5/8"
1' - 8 1/2"
6 14
35' - 0"
5 FROM AVERAGE GRADE
69' - 0" BUILDING HEIGHT
MAX PARAPET
3' - 6 1/2"
ELEV / STAIR OVERRUN
9' - 9"
2 1 171 1711
5 5
2 LEVEL 1
24' - 6"
LEVEL 2
41' - 6"
LEVEL 3
51' - 6"
LEVEL 4
61' - 6"
LEVEL 5
71' - 6"
LEVEL 6
81' - 6"
ROOF
91' - 6"
OCEAN STREET
ADJ. PROPERTY:
135 MAY AVE
APPROX HT.
25' - 6"
10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 17' - 0"
1 AP4.02
10261
87 6
191 14
3' - 4"
1' - 0"
3' - 4"
18' - 6"
3' - 7"
P.L.
ADJACENT
PROPERTY
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
P.L.
ADJACENT
PROPERTY
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
45°
14 EXIST. GRADE
22' - 9 5/8"
1' - 8 1/2"
6 35' - 0"
55 11
FROM AVERAGE GRADE
69' - 0" BUILDING HEIGHT
MAX PARAPET
4' - 8"
ELEV / STAIR OVERRUN
9' - 9"
2 2
311 171
5 8
5 3
11/30/23
Scale
Project number
Print Date
Drawn by
Checked by
189 WALNUT AVENUE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
WORKBENCHBUILT.COM
P: 831.227.2217
All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc.
ISSUES/ REVISIONS
APN number DRAFT: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
As indicated
4/29/2025 12:12:53 PM
AP3.02
PROPOSED
ELEVATIONS
23154
08.26.2024
AS
EB
ARTHAUS OCEAN530, 542 & 548 OCEAN STREETSANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 010-011-16, 31, 30
1/16" = 1'-0"
1 NORTH ELEVATION - PLANNING
1/16" = 1'-0"
2 EAST ELEVATION - PLANNING
1/16" = 1'-0"
3 WEST ELEVATION - PLANNING
Issue DESCRIPTION DATE
0 SB330 PRE-APPLICATION 02.23.2024
1 PLANNING PACKAGE 08.23.2024
2 PLANNING REV-01 11.01.2024
3 PLANNING REV-02 01.22.2025
KEYNOTE MATERIAL
1 PAINTED STUCCO OR SIM
2 MULTI-COLORED VERTICAL ORIENTED FIBER CEMENT PANEL OR GRC OR SIM.
3 PAINTED CONCRETE WALL OR SIM
4 PRELMINARY DOWNSPOUT LOCATION, FINAL DESIGN TBD, REF ROOF PLAN
5 PARAPET COPING / CORNICE (SCMC 24.12.185.15(D) CATEGORY 4), SEE AP9.02/4
6 VINYL WINDOWS OR SIM, DETAILED WITH LINTEL AND SILL (SCMC
24.12.185.15(D) CATEGORY 2)
7 GLAZED WINDOW SYSTEM OR SIM
8 PAINTED METAL GUARDRAIL / BALCONY OR SIM (SCMC
24.12.185.15(D) CATEGORY 1)
9 EXTERIOR WALKWAY, PAINTED METAL GUARDRAILS AND SUPPORT
STRUCTURE OR SIM
10 EXTERIOR SIGNAGE, FINAL DESIGN TBD
11 PAINTED METAL FENCE / GATE / SCREEN
12 OVERHEAD DOOR
13 BUILDING COLUMNS / STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS OR SIM
14 METAL MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SCREEN OR SIM
15 EXTERIOR LED DOWNLIGHT / DECORATIVE SCONCE (SCMC
24.12.185.15 (d) CATEGORY 4), SEE LIGHTING PLAN
16 EXTERIOR GLAZED TILE OR SIM.
17 FIBER CEMENT PANEL SIDING OR SIM.
2 43.98
10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam
WM
WM
WM
SSMH, RIM 21.8
INV 8" THRU 19.36
SSMH, RIM 21.8
INV 8" IN 18.80
INV 8" OUT 18.76
MH, RIM 22.6
INV 8" SS THRU 19.65
INV 8" SD THRU 18.34
SDMH, RIM 21.9
INV 18" SD IN 17.55
INV 24" SD OUT 17.43
CB, TC 21.8
INV 12"/18" SD IN 18.80
INV 18" SD OUT 17.65
SSMH, RIM 23.5
INV 8" IN 19.07 (S)
INV 8" IN 15.02 (N)
INV 8" OUT 14.92
SSMH, RIM 23.0
INV 8" IN 18.78
INV 8" OUT 18.67
SDMH, RIM 24.9
INV 30" SD THRU 15.35
SDFI, RIM 22.2
INV 30" SD IN 14.7
INV 50" OUT 11.4
SDMH, RIM 21.7
INV 6" SD IN 17.97
INV 6" SD IN 17.27
INV 24" SD THRU 17.14
10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam
1. SEE SHEET GP SHEETS FOR GENERAL NOTES AND PROJECT INFORMATION
FLOOR PLAN NOTES
UNIT MIX & AFFORDABLE
REQUIREMENTS
FLOOR PLAN KEYED NOTES
AFFORDABLE UNITS REQUIRED:
• 15% VLI UNITS ALLOWING A 50% DENSITY BONUS PER AB2345 • 15% MODERATE INCOME UNITS ALLOWING A 50% DENSITY
BONUS PER AB1287
• 20% LI UNITS PER SCMC 24.16.020.5.a (SCMC REQUIREMENT
MAY BE MET WITH THE SAME UNITS AS THOSE PROPOSED
FOR STATE DENSITY BONUS, NOT IN ADDITION TO)
AFFORDABLE UNITS PROVIDED:
17 VERY LOW INCOME UNITS (15%)
• ALLOWS 50% DENSITY BONUS PER AB2345
5 LOW INCOME UNITS (5%)
• COMBINED W/ 17 VLI UNITS MEETS SCMC REQUIREMENTS FOR
20% LI UNITS
17 MODERATE INCOME UNITS (10%)
• ALLOWS 50% DENSITY BONUS PER AB1287
A-# = INDICATES THE LOCATION OF AN AFFORDABLE UNIT
FLOOR LEVEL OF AFFORDABLE UNIT
2 3
TRUE
NORTH
PROJECT
NORTH
N
N
OCEAN STREET
CREEK
CENTERLINE
548
542 530
PARKING
LOBBY
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A
B
C
D
E
F
AP3.01
1 AP3.02
1 AP3.02 3
2 AP3.02
24' - 8" 25' - 0" 25' - 0" 25' - 0" 25' - 0" 25' - 0" 25' - 0" 25' - 0" 25' - 0" 25' - 0" 23' - 9" 0' - 6"
8' - 2" 28' - 2" 24' - 10" 26' - 5" 5' - 10" 25' - 5"
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY
LINE
PROPERTY
LINE
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
1 TRASH
ELEV LOBBY
RES. AMENITY
MAIL /
PACKAGE
1 AP4.01 2
AP4.01
RIPARIAN CORRIDOR
30' - 0"
DEVELOPMENT SETBACK
50' - 0"
MANAGMENT AREA
75' - 0"
RES. AMENITY
SERVICE
COMMERCIAL
BIKE STOR.
LEASING
OFFICE
ELECTRICAL
15' - 0" R.O.W.
3' - 6"
18' - 0"
22' - 6" 9' - 0" 8' - 2" 5' - 0"
1 AP4.02
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
4 10
8 14
14 13
13 13
10 7
7 3
3 E/V VAN E/V
7 7
7 7
10 SPACES (INCLUDING 2 EV)
(2 LEVEL LIFTS)
10 SPACES (INCLUDING 2 EV)
(2 LEVEL LIFTS)
10 SPACES (INCLUDING 2 EV)
(2 LEVEL LIFTS)
10 SPACES (INCLUDING 1 EV)
(2 LEVEL LIFTS)
10 SPACES
(2 LEVEL LIFTS)
10 SPACES
(2 LEVEL LIFTS)
10 SPACES
(2 LEVEL LIFTS)
10 SPACES
(2 LEVEL LIFTS)
6' - 0" 44' - 8 1/2"
26' - 7" 16' - 2" 16' - 3 1/2" 9' - 2"
39' - 1 1/2" 11' - 10" 15' - 4" 35' - 9 1/2" 6' - 6" 23' - 6" 31' - 10 1/2" 43' - 10" 15' - 0" 42' - 0 1/2" 12' - 4" 46' - 2" 13' - 4" 19' - 3" 6' - 0" 23' - 8"
13 18 CLASS-II SPACES
50% ACTIVE FRONTAGE = 132' 5 1/4"
132' - 9" ACTIVE FRONTAGE
13' - 0"
SIDEWALK
8' - 0" MIN
4' - 0"
13' - 4 1/2"
11' - 9 1/2"
10 CLASS-II SPACES
19' - 0"
19' - 1"
12' - 8"
22' - 3"
18 264' - 10 1/2" OCEAN STREET FRONTAGE
GROUND FLOOR TRANSPARENCY SCMC 24.12.185.14(a)(i):
OCEAN STREET FRONTAGE : 264' 10 1/2"
TRANSPARENCY REQUIRED: 70% OR 185' 5"
TRANSPARENCY PROVIDED: 70.5% OR 186' 10"
26' - 1 1/2"
24' - 0"
1' - 1"
5' - 6"
8 2
22' - 6"
3' - 0"
5' - 7 1/2"
18' - 6"
33' - 9 1/2"
R-ZONE SETBACK
10' - 0" REQUIRED
PROPERTY LINE
4' - 4"
RR
WORK RM.
8' - 6 1/2"
12' - 8"
3,394 GSF
6' - 6"
2 4 7 7 7 6
3 2
2 2
7 6
7 6
7 7
7 7
AP3.10
1 4
18 18
18 5
5 7 7 7 7 7 7
19 21
BIKE STOR.
19 3
2 CLASS-I BICYCLE PARKING SPACE
WILL BE INCLUDED IN AN ACCESS
CONTROLLED ROOM WITHIN THE
FUTURE COMMERCIAL T.I. AND IS
INCLUDED HERE CONCEPTUALLY
3' - 0"
10' - 0"
7 2
2 2
2 2
3' - 0"
10' - 0"
8' - 0"
2 6-7 8-9 10
1-2 3-4 5
16-17 18-19 20
11-12 13-14 15
26-27 28-29 30
21-22 23-24 25
36-37 38-39 40
31-32 33-34 35
46-47 48-49 50
41-42 43-44 45
56-57 58-59 60
51-52 53-54 55
66-67 68-69 70
61-62 63-64 65
76-77 78-79 80
71-72 73-74 75
2' - 0"
6' - 0 1/2" 27' - 10" 26' - 1" 27' - 7" 26' - 7" 28' - 1" 26' - 1" 28' - 1" 26' - 1" 20' - 10" 2' - 0"
2' - 0"
7' - 0"
4' - 0 1/2"
COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT 9' - 7"
9' - 6"
9' - 7"
13' - 0"
13' - 4 1/2" 9' - 6"
9' - 7" 11' - 8"
2' - 0"
2' - 0"
5' - 4"
2' - 8"
98 SF
COVERED
LANDING 100 SF COVERED
LANDING
15' - 0"
6' - 8"
3 22 CLASS-II SPACES
6 CLASS-II SPACES
11/30/23
Scale
Project number
Print Date
Drawn by
Checked by
189 WALNUT AVENUE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
WORKBENCHBUILT.COM
P: 831.227.2217
All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc.
ISSUES/ REVISIONS
APN number
DRAFT: NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
As indicated
1/22/2025 1:39:10 P
M
AP1.01
PROPOSED FIRST
FLOOR PLAN
23154
08.26.2024
DS
EB
530
, 542 & 548 OCEAN STREET
SANTA CRUZ
, CA 95060
ARTHAUS OCEAN
010-011-16, 31, 30
1/16" = 1'-0" 1
PLANNING - LEVEL 1
UNIT TYPE COUNT
STUDIO 151
ONE BEDROOM 4
TWO BED /
ONE BATH
40 TWO BED /
TWO BATH
30 225
KEYNOTE SCHEDULE - FLOOR PLAN
KEYNOTE MATERIAL
1 CAR STACKING SYSTEM, SEE SHEET AP9.02
2 CLASS-I BIKE PARKING, SEE SHEET AP9.02
3 CLASS-II BIKE PARKING, SEE SHEET AP9.02
4 EXTERIOR FENCE / GATE
5 SOLID/OPAQUE GUARDRAIL
6 BUILT-IN PLANTER
7 DASHED LINE INDICATES BUILDING/ CANOPY/ WALKWAY
OVERHEAD
8 OVERHEAD DOOR
10 ACCESSIBLE RAMP
11 WASHER / DRYER IN EACH UNIT, TYP.
12 ALL UNITS CONTAINS 200 CF OF STORAGE PER SCMC
24.12.1520.5
13 STRUCTURAL COLUMN / ELEMENT (INDICATIVE)
14 ELEVATOR
15 EXTERIOR CORRIDOR
16 INTERIOR CORRIDOR
17 PRIVATE BALCONY
18 GLAZED WINDOW SYSTEM, 70% GROUND FLOOR
TRANSPARENCY
19 LARGER FOOTPRINT CLASS-I BICYCLE PARKING SPACES
21 BICYCLE FIX-IT STATION, SEE AP9.01 FOR MORE INFO
22 IN-UNIT CLASS-I BICYCLE STORAGE
Issue DESCRIPTION DATE
0 SB330 PRE-APPLICATION 02.23.2024
1 PLANNING PACKAGE 08.23.2024
2 PLANNING REV-01 11.01.2024
3 PLANNING REV-02 01.22.2025
ORIGINAL PLAN 45 Class-I
2 Large
94 Class-I
9 Large
43.99 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam
WM
WM
WM
SSMH, RIM 21.8
INV 8" THRU 19.36
SSMH, RIM 21.8
INV 8" IN 18.80
INV 8" OUT 18.76
MH, RIM 22.6
INV 8" SS THRU 19.65
INV 8" SD THRU 18.34
SDMH, RIM 21.9
INV 18" SD IN 17.55
INV 24" SD OUT 17.43
CB, TC 21.8
INV 12"/18" SD IN 18.80
INV 18" SD OUT 17.65
SSMH, RIM 23.5
INV 8" IN 19.07 (S)
INV 8" IN 15.02 (N)
INV 8" OUT 14.92
SSMH, RIM 23.0
INV 8" IN 18.78
INV 8" OUT 18.67
SDMH, RIM 24.9
INV 30" SD THRU 15.35
SDFI, RIM 22.2
INV 30" SD IN 14.7
INV 50" OUT 11.4
SDMH, RIM 21.7
INV 6" SD IN 17.97
INV 6" SD IN 17.27
INV 24" SD THRU 17.14
10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam 10" Beam
1. SEE SHEET GP SHEETS FOR GENERAL NOTES AND PROJECT INFORMATION
FLOOR PLAN NOTES
UNIT MIX & AFFORDABLE
REQUIREMENTS
FLOOR PLAN KEYED NOTES
AFFORDABLE UNITS REQUIRED:
• 15% VLI UNITS ALLOWING A 50% DENSITY BONUS PER AB2345 • 15% MODERATE INCOME UNITS ALLOWING A 50% DENSITY
BONUS PER AB1287
• 20% LI UNITS PER SCMC 24.16.020.5.a (SCMC REQUIREMENT
MAY BE MET WITH THE SAME UNITS AS THOSE PROPOSED
FOR STATE DENSITY BONUS, NOT IN ADDITION TO)
AFFORDABLE UNITS PROVIDED:
17 VERY LOW INCOME UNITS (15%)
• ALLOWS 50% DENSITY BONUS PER AB2345
5 LOW INCOME UNITS (5%)
• COMBINED W/ 17 VLI UNITS MEETS SCMC REQUIREMENTS FOR
20% LI UNITS
17 MODERATE INCOME UNITS (10%)
• ALLOWS 50% DENSITY BONUS PER AB1287
A-# = INDICATES THE LOCATION OF AN AFFORDABLE UNIT
FLOOR LEVEL OF AFFORDABLE UNIT
2 3
TRUE
NORTH
PROJECT
NORTH
N
N
OCEAN STREET
CREEK
CENTERLINE
548
542 530
PARKING
LOBBY
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A
B
C
D
E
F
AP3.01
1 AP3.02
1 AP3.02 3
2 AP3.02
24' - 8" 25' - 0" 25' - 0" 25' - 0" 25' - 0" 25' - 0" 25' - 0" 25' - 0" 25' - 0" 25' - 0" 23' - 9" 0' - 6"
8' - 2" 28' - 2" 24' - 10" 26' - 5" 5' - 10" 25' - 5"
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY
LINE
PROPERTY
LINE
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
1 TRASH
ELEV LOBBY
RES. AMENITY
MAIL /
PACKAGE
1 AP4.01 2
AP4.01
RIPARIAN CORRIDOR
30' - 0"
DEVELOPMENT SETBACK
50' - 0"
MANAGMENT AREA
75' - 0"
RES. AMENITY
SERVICE
COMMERCIAL
BIKE STOR.
LEASING
OFFICE
ELECTRICAL
15' - 0" R.O.W.
3' - 6"
18' - 0"
22' - 6" 9' - 0" 8' - 2" 5' - 0"
1 AP4.02
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
4 10
8 14
14 13
13 13
10 7
7 3
3 E/V VAN E/V
7 7
7 7
10 SPACES (INCLUDING 2 EV)
(2 LEVEL LIFTS)
10 SPACES (INCLUDING 2 EV)
(2 LEVEL LIFTS)
10 SPACES (INCLUDING 2 EV)
(2 LEVEL LIFTS)
10 SPACES (INCLUDING 1 EV)
(2 LEVEL LIFTS)
10 SPACES
(2 LEVEL LIFTS)
10 SPACES
(2 LEVEL LIFTS)
10 SPACES
(2 LEVEL LIFTS)
10 SPACES
(2 LEVEL LIFTS)
6' - 0" 44' - 8 1/2"
26' - 7" 16' - 2" 16' - 3 1/2" 9' - 2"
39' - 1 1/2" 11' - 10" 15' - 4" 35' - 9 1/2" 6' - 6" 23' - 6" 31' - 10 1/2" 43' - 10" 15' - 0" 42' - 0 1/2" 12' - 4" 46' - 2" 13' - 4" 19' - 3" 6' - 0" 23' - 8"
13 18 CLASS-II SPACES
50% ACTIVE FRONTAGE = 132' 5 1/4"
132' - 9" ACTIVE FRONTAGE
13' - 0"
SIDEWALK
8' - 0" MIN
4' - 0"
13' - 4 1/2"
11' - 9 1/2"
10 CLASS-II SPACES
19' - 0"
19' - 1"
12' - 8"
22' - 3"
18 264' - 10 1/2" OCEAN STREET FRONTAGE
GROUND FLOOR TRANSPARENCY SCMC 24.12.185.14(a)(i):
OCEAN STREET FRONTAGE : 264' 10 1/2"
TRANSPARENCY REQUIRED: 70% OR 185' 5"
TRANSPARENCY PROVIDED: 70.5% OR 186' 10"
26' - 1 1/2"
24' - 0"
1' - 1"
5' - 6"
8 2
22' - 6"
3' - 0"
5' - 7 1/2"
18' - 6"
33' - 9 1/2"
R-ZONE SETBACK
10' - 0" REQUIRED
PROPERTY LINE
4' - 4"
RR
WORK RM.
8' - 6 1/2"
12' - 8"
3,394 GSF
6' - 6"
2 4 7 7 7 6
3 2
2 2
7 6
7 6
7 7
7 7
AP3.10
1 4
18 18
18 5
5 7 7 7 7 7 7
19 21
BIKE STOR.
19 3
2 CLASS-I BICYCLE PARKING SPACE
WILL BE INCLUDED IN AN ACCESS
CONTROLLED ROOM WITHIN THE
FUTURE COMMERCIAL T.I. AND IS
INCLUDED HERE CONCEPTUALLY
3' - 0"
10' - 0"
7 2
2 2
2 2
3' - 0"
10' - 0"
8' - 0"
2 6-7 8-9 10
1-2 3-4 5
16-17 18-19 20
11-12 13-14 15
26-27 28-29 30
21-22 23-24 25
36-37 38-39 40
31-32 33-34 35
46-47 48-49 50
41-42 43-44 45
56-57 58-59 60
51-52 53-54 55
66-67 68-69 70
61-62 63-64 65
76-77 78-79 80
71-72 73-74 75
2' - 0"
6' - 0 1/2" 27' - 10" 26' - 1" 27' - 7" 26' - 7" 28' - 1" 26' - 1" 28' - 1" 26' - 1" 20' - 10" 2' - 0"
2' - 0"
7' - 0"
4' - 0 1/2"
COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT 9' - 7"
9' - 6"
9' - 7"
13' - 0"
13' - 4 1/2" 9' - 6"
9' - 7" 11' - 8"
2' - 0"
2' - 0"
5' - 4"
2' - 8"
98 SF
COVERED
LANDING 100 SF COVERED
LANDING
15' - 0"
6' - 8"
3 22 CLASS-II SPACES
6 CLASS-II SPACES
11/30/23
Scale
Project number
Print Date
Drawn by
Checked by
189 WALNUT AVENUE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
WORKBENCHBUILT.COM
P: 831.227.2217
All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc.
ISSUES/ REVISIONS
APN number
DRAFT: NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
As indicated
1/22/2025 1:39:10 P
M
AP1.01
PROPOSED FIRST
FLOOR PLAN
23154
08.26.2024
DS
EB
530
, 542 & 548 OCEAN STREET
SANTA CRUZ
, CA 95060
ARTHAUS OCEAN
010-011-16, 31, 30
1/16" = 1'-0" 1
PLANNING - LEVEL 1
UNIT TYPE COUNT
STUDIO 151
ONE BEDROOM 4
TWO BED /
ONE BATH
40 TWO BED /
TWO BATH
30 225
KEYNOTE SCHEDULE - FLOOR PLAN
KEYNOTE MATERIAL
1 CAR STACKING SYSTEM, SEE SHEET AP9.02
2 CLASS-I BIKE PARKING, SEE SHEET AP9.02
3 CLASS-II BIKE PARKING, SEE SHEET AP9.02
4 EXTERIOR FENCE / GATE
5 SOLID/OPAQUE GUARDRAIL
6 BUILT-IN PLANTER
7 DASHED LINE INDICATES BUILDING/ CANOPY/ WALKWAY
OVERHEAD
8 OVERHEAD DOOR
10 ACCESSIBLE RAMP
11 WASHER / DRYER IN EACH UNIT, TYP.
12 ALL UNITS CONTAINS 200 CF OF STORAGE PER SCMC
24.12.1520.5
13 STRUCTURAL COLUMN / ELEMENT (INDICATIVE)
14 ELEVATOR
15 EXTERIOR CORRIDOR
16 INTERIOR CORRIDOR
17 PRIVATE BALCONY
18 GLAZED WINDOW SYSTEM, 70% GROUND FLOOR
TRANSPARENCY
19 LARGER FOOTPRINT CLASS-I BICYCLE PARKING SPACES
21 BICYCLE FIX-IT STATION, SEE AP9.01 FOR MORE INFO
22 IN-UNIT CLASS-I BICYCLE STORAGE
Issue DESCRIPTION DATE
0 SB330 PRE-APPLICATION 02.23.2024
1 PLANNING PACKAGE 08.23.2024
2 PLANNING REV-01 11.01.2024
3 PLANNING REV-02 01.22.2025
PROPOSED MODIFICATION
RR
3'-3/4"
10 SPACES (INCLUDING 2 EV)
16-17 18-19 20
2' - 0"
COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT
10 SPACES (INCLUDING 2 EV)
16-17 18-19 20
2' - 0"
COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT
10 SPACES (INCLUDING 2 EV)
16-17 18-19 20
2' - 0"
COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT
10 SPACES (INCLUDING 2 EV)
16-17 18-19 20
2' - 0"
COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT
6 - 7 8 - 9 10 26 - 27 28 - 29 30 46 - 47 48 - 49 50 66 - 67 68 - 69 70
43.100
Cossart-Daly Law, A.P.C.
1117 State Street, Santa Barbara, California, 93101
805-380-8408 | www.cossart-dalylaw.com
February 24, 2023
Via Certified Mail & Email
Acuity Services
1764 Gilpin Street
Denver, Colorado 80218
[email protected]
Santa Barbara Midwifery and Birth Center
2958 State Street
Santa Barbara, California 93105
[email protected]
Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital
P.O. Box 689
Santa Barbara, California 93102
[email protected]
Re: Objection to Deposition Subpoenas for Production of Business Records for Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital Medical, Billing, Radiology, & Pathology, & Santa Barbara Midwifery & Birth Center
Jane Roe v. Dr. Susanne L. Ramos, MD, et al. SBSC Case No. 22CV03794 Dear Acuity Services, Santa Barbara Midwifery and Birth Center, and Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital:
I am writing regarding the Deposition Subpoenas for Production of Business Records issued by Defendant Susanne L. Ramos, MD (“Defendant”) in Jane Roe v. Dr. Susanne L. Ramos, MD, et al. (Case No. 22CV03794) for (1) all medical records from Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital, (2) all billing records from Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital, (3) all pathology records from Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital, (4) all radiology records from Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital, and (5) all medical records, communications, billing records, and radiology images from the Santa Barbara Midwifery and Birth Center for Ellen O’Connell Whittet (collectively the “Subpoenas”).1 My office has objected to the Subpoenas pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 1985.3 and 2017.020. For this reason, please do not produce (or in the case of Acuity Services, obtain) any documents in response to the Subpoenas, as this would violate Ms.
O’Connell Whittet’s constitutionally-protected right to privacy. (See e.g., California 1 The Subpoenas are attached to this letter as Exhibit A, for your reference.
February 24, 2023
Via Email
Ms. Jennifer Henderson
Mr. Mark Connely
Hall Hieatt Connely & Bowen LLP
444 Higuera Street, Third Floor
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
[email protected]
[email protected]
Re: CONFIDENTIAL Meet and Confer Correspondence Regarding Deposition Subpoenas for Production of Business Records for Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital Medical, Billing, Radiology, and Pathology and Santa Barbara Midwifery and Birth Center
Jane Roe v. Dr. Susanne L. Ramos, MD, et al. SBSC Case No. 22CV03794 Dear Ms. Henderson and Mr. Connely:
I am writing to meet and confer with you with respect to five Deposition Subpoenas for Production of Business Records in Jane Roe v. Dr. Susanne L. Ramos, MD, et al. (Case No. 22CV03794). My office is in receipt of Deposition Subpoenas for Production of Business Records issued by Defendant Susanne L. Ramos, MD (“Defendant”) for: (1) all medical records from Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital; (2) all billing records from Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital; (3) all pathology records from Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital; (4) all radiology records from Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital; and (5) all medical records, communications, billing records, and radiology images from the Santa Barbara Midwifery and Birth Center (collectively the “Subpoenas”). True and correct copies of the Subpoenas are attached to this correspondence as Attachment A. The Subpoenas have been redacted to protect the privacy of Plaintiff in this case.
As a preliminary matter, this correspondence, and any subsequent correspondence relating to this matter is confidential, as disclosure of this correspondence would violate Plaintiff Jane Roe’s (“Plaintiff’s”) right to privacy. For that reason, please do not share or disseminate this correspondence in any fashion. In the event that our meet and confer process is unsuccessful and Plaintiff is forced to file a Motion to Quash and/or Motion for Protective Order, as a matter of professional courtesy and to avoid violating Plaintiff’s right to privacy, please redact any May 9, 2025
Via Email & Hand Delivery
City of Santa Cruz City Council
City of Santa Cruz
City Clerk for City of Santa Cruz
809 Center Street, Room 10
Santa Cruz, California 95060
[email protected]
[email protected]
Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Proposed Development at 530, 542, 548 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz, California 95060
Dear Honorable Councilmembers,
My office represents Eric Grabiel (“Appellant”) with respect to the Proposed Development at 530, 542, 548 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz, California 95060 (“Project”). I am writing to appeal the Planning Commission for the City of Santa Cruz’s (“Planning Commission”) approval of the Project on May 1, 2025.
As described herein, the City of Santa Cruz (“City”) cannot issue Heritage Tree Removal permits for trees located on property owned by the Projects’ neighbors, as this would facilitate unlawful trespass and slander of title. What’s more, if the City intends to alter the Project setback in order to avoid harm to the Heritage Trees, it must have substantial evidence in the record to support a conclusion that this setback will result in the protection of the trees – it currently does not. In addition, the Project site is contaminated with arsenic, chloroform, and tetrachloroethylene (“PCE”), and is the subject of an active, albeit voluntary, hazardous waste clean-up. As such, exempting the Project from any review or mitigation under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and waiving the development setback from Branciforte Creek would pose a danger to human health and the environment. The Planning Commission Staff Report (“Planning Commission Staff Report”) failed to analyze this essential data when approving the CEQA
43.101
City Council
City of Santa Cruz
Re: 530, 542, 548 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz Appeal
exemption. The Project also does not qualify for the elimination of parking requirements under AB2097.
Each of these errors violates California law, and, if they are not remedied by the City before Project approval, would be subject to reversal by California Courts. For these reasons, I respectfully request that you grant Appellant’s appeal.
A. The City Cannot Lawfully Issue a Permit for the Removal of Heritage Trees on Adjacent Property Owners’ Property, and Substantial Evidence Must Support a Determination that the Increased Setback Will Not Harm the Heritage Trees The Planning Commission Approval for this Project included Heritage Tree permits to remove five Heritage Trees, including three trees that are located on properties that Riaz Capital does not own. (Arborist Report, p. 4 [“The other three Heritage trees grow on properties adjacent to the project, have canopies overhanging the subject property, and include a cypress, a cedar, and a walnut.”]; Planning Commission Staff Report, pp. 27, 28) Appellant raised issues about the City and Riaz Capital’s inability to legally destroy or authorize the destruction of trees that Appellant does not own.
The Commission altered the setback for the Project to protect the Heritage Cypress Tree.
The Commission Meeting Summary1 indicates that the Planning Commission approved Project plans with the following alteration to the Conditions of Approval:
Final building permit plans shall show the revised design that flips the location of the notches so two notches are combined to provide a 3’-1” setback on the ground floor of the project at the rear of the property near the heritage-sized cypress tree.
It is unclear from the record whether this will sufficiently protect the Heritage Cypress Tree, and if the existing setbacks will harm the other Heritage Trees, located on adjacent property owner’s property.2 These revised setbacks must be designed to ensure the Project will not harm the Heritage Trees.
1 At the time this letter was drafted, the Commission Meeting Minutes have not yet been published, but the City has provided a Meeting Summary on the Planning Commission website, available at https://ecm.cityofsantacruz.com/OnBaseAgendaOnline/Meetings/ViewMeeting?id=2494&docty pe=3.
2 Developer’s counsel indicated that they may cut the roots of the Heritage Trees. (Supplemental Appeal Response, p. 2.) To the extent cutting the roots of the Heritage trees would destroy or harm
43.102
City Council
City of Santa Cruz
Re: 530, 542, 548 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz Appeal
What’s more, the Commission did not alter the Zoning Administrator’s decision to approve five Heritage Tree permits, including permits for three trees that are not on Riaz Capital’s property.
The City therefore, has still unlawfully approved three Heritage Tree Removal Permits for trees that Riaz Capital does not own.
Riaz Capital has no right to alter or remove trees located on their neighbors’ private property. Trees and tree roots are real property, subject to the exclusive control of the property owner. (Civ. Code, §§ 658, 660; Morrissey v. Morrissey (1923) 191 Cal. 782, 783; Wolfe v.
Wallace (1957) 154 Cal.App.2d 523, 527; Russell v. Man (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 530, 537.) It is thus unlawful to remove or harm a tree on another’s property. To do so constitutes trespass.3 If the City issues permits for the removal of trees on adjacent properties, it will aid and abet the developer in an unlawful act.
If the City approves permits for Riaz Capital to remove heritage trees on properties that Riaz Capital does not own, the City will also be liable for slander of title. Slander of title occurs where a defendant makes a representation that publicly casts doubt about a plaintiffs’ ownership of property, the statement is untrue and the plaintiff owns the property, defendant knew that the plaintiff owned the property and that a third party might act in reliance on their false statement, and, as a result, plaintiff is harmed. (See CACI Jury Instructions No. 1730.) In Glass v. Gulf Oil (1970) 12 Cal.App.3d 412, 418, a developer was held liable for slander of title where it represented that there was a public road across plaintiff’s property from a local highway to the development.
Likewise, here, Riaz Capital’s neighbors, not Riaz Capital, own heritage trees (Civ. Code, §§ 658, 660; Morrissey v. Morrissey (1923) 191 Cal. 782, 783; Wolfe v. Wallace (1957) 154 Cal.App.2d 523, 527; Russell v. Man (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 530, 537), the City knows the neighbors own such trees, but the City is publicly casting doubt on the neighbors’ legitimate ownership the trees by indicating that they can approve permits for Riaz Capital to remove these trees. If the City approves the trees, they may not do so. (See Russell v. Man (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 530 [holding developer liable for destruction of tree roots].)
3 If Riaz Capital removes trees or harms the roots of trees on adjacent property owners’ properties, they, at minimum, will be liable to the adjacent property owners for actual damages, and at most, will be liable for treble damages. Cutting a tree on another’s property is trespass, and anyone who does so is liable for treble damages pursuant to California Civil Code section 3346 and California Code of Civil Procedure section 733. If one damages a tree by harming its roots, they are liable for the actual cost of damages. (Russell v. Man (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 530.)
43.103
City Council
City of Santa Cruz
Re: 530, 542, 548 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz Appeal
the permits, Riaz Capital’s neighbors will be harmed as a result of their unlawful conduct.
Approval of such permits would thus be illegal under California law.
The City cannot, therefore, approve the Project as proposed until there is substantial evidence in the record, including a qualified arborist’s report, that this setback will preserve the Heritage Trees’ root structure, and will not harm the Heritage Trees.
The City, also will act in excess of its authority, if it upholds the approval of permits for Riaz Capital to remove Heritage Trees on adjacent neighbors’ properties.
B. The Project Does Not Meet the California Environmental Quality Act’s Requirements for an Infill Development Exemption.
The Planning Commission approved an infill development exemption (also called a Class 32 exemption) for the Project. (Planning Commission Report, p. 1; ZA Report, pp. 11-12.) As explained below, Riaz Capital is not entitled to such an exemption, and it would be a disservice to Santa Cruz residents and the environment to permit this Project to skirt the environmental protection afforded by California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) review.
CEQA’s purpose is to maintain a quality environment for the people of California. (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21000(a).) CEQA requires “state and local governmental entities” to give “major consideration . . . to preventing environmental damage.” (Friends of the Eel River v. North Coast Railroad Authority (2017) 3 Cal.5th 677, 711; Pub. Resources Code § 21000(g).) It requires evaluation, analysis, and public disclosure of adverse environmental impacts that government approval of a project may cause. (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21002, 21002.1, 21080(a).) “CEQA must be interpreted to provide the fullest possible protection to the environment.” (See Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Com. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 112.) “Because the exemptions operate as exceptions to CEQA, they are narrowly construed.” (San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible Education v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School Dist. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1382, citing Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce v. City of Santa Monica (2002) 101 Cal. App. 4th 786, 793.) “CEQA places the burden of environmental investigation on government rather than the public.” (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 311.)
Agencies may not abuse their discretion under CEQA. “Abuse of discretion is established if the agency has not proceeded in a manner required by law or if the determination or decision is not supported by substantial evidence.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21168.5.) In CEQA litigation,
43.104
City Council
City of Santa Cruz
Re: 530, 542, 548 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz Appeal
the scope of a CEQA exemption is a question of statutory interpretation that courts review independently. (San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible Education v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School Dist. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1382.) a. The infill development exemption is not applicable in this circumstance, because the Project does not comply with Santa Cruz zoning regulations.
In order to qualify for an infill development exemption, a project must meet several requirements, including being “consistent with the… applicable zoning plan designation and regulations.” (Guidelines, § 15332(a).) The Planning Commission found that the Project was consistent with zoning, under the Density Bonus Law, Government Code section 65915 et seq.
However, as discussed below, the Project is not consistent with Santa Cruz’s Watercourse Development Permit, and the Density Bonus Law does not permit a waiver of the Watercourse Development Permit setbacks from Branciforte Creek. The Project is not consistent with applicable zoning regulations and therefore, cannot take advantage of the infill development exemption. (14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15332(a).)
b. The Project also does not qualify for an infill development exemption, because there is a reasonable possibility that it will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.
According to the CEQA Guidelines, a “categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.” (14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15332 (c); see East Peninsula Ed. Council, Inc. v. Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School Dist. (1989) 210 Cal. App. 3d 155.) “The Guidelines do not define the term ‘unusual circumstances.’” (City of Pasadena v. State of California, supra, 14 Cal. App. 4th at p. 826.)
In this case, there is hazardous waste at the Project site. It is, according to the Department of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”), an “active” clean-up site as of October 1, 2024. (Exhibit A.) According to CalEnviroStor,4 there is “contaminated soil at the site, including:
- Arsenic up to 30 mg/kg in soil near the southern border of 542 Ocean Street - Chloroform vapors up to 400 μg/m^3 in soil in the eastern portion of 548 Ocean Street 4 Department of Toxic Substances Control’s (“DTSC”) “online data management system for tracking our cleanup, permitting, enforcement, and investigation efforts at hazardous waste facilities and sites with… contamination issues.”
43.105
City Council
City of Santa Cruz
Re: 530, 542, 548 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz Appeal
- Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) vapors up to 100 μg/m^3 in soil in the eastern portion of 548 Ocean Street.” (Exhibit A.)
The contamination is located close to Branciforte Creek (“the Creek”) on 548 and 542 Ocean, near the edge of the riparian habitat. (Compare Planning Commission Report, pp. 2 to Exhibit A.)5 The site is immediately adjacent to Branciforte Creek, and as proposed, the Project would be located within 35 feet of the centerline of the Creek. (Planning Commission p. 21; ZA Report, pp. 7-8 [The Project is 16.2 feet into the Watercourse Development Permit development setback, and the development setback is 50 feet from the centerline of the Creek. 50 – 16.2 = 33.8 feet from the centerline of the Creek.]) Riaz Capital would engage in demolition and construction within the setback set by the City of Santa Cruz’s Municipal Code and the City-Wide Creeks & Wetlands Management Plan. (City-Wide Creeks & Wetlands Management Plan, Exhibit B, p. 3-10; Planning Commission p. 21; ZA Staff Report, p. 15.)6 Though the portion of the Creek adjacent to the Project site is housed in concrete, the lower portion of the Creek supports steelhead trout, monarch butterflies, yellow warblers, and yellow-breasted chats. (City-Wide Creeks & Wetlands Management Plan, Exhibit B, p. 3-10.) Steelhead trout are listed as threatened species under the Federal Endangered Species Act, Monarch Butterflies are currently being considered for endangered species status, and yellow warblers and yellow-breasted chats are California Department of Fish and Game species of special concern. (Exhibit C-E.) The Creek flows into the San Lorenzo River, which “has been designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as critical habitat for steelhead trout,” and the San Lorenzo River flows into the Pacific Ocean. (See ibid. at 3-9.)
In addition, the Project is located next to a residential neighborhood, and Riaz Capital plans to build 225 residences on the site. (Planning Commission Report, p. 2; ZA Report, p. 2.) Arsenic and Tetrachloroethylene on-site exceed DTSC’s Environmental Screening Levels, which establish safe levels for residential areas. DTSC’s Residential Screening Levels for Arsenic are .11 milligrams per kilogram. (Exhibit F, p. 2.) Thus, the Arsenic onsite is more than 270 times the amount deemed safe for residential areas. Residential screening levels for PCE are .46 μg/m^3. (Exhibit G.) PCE onsite, therefore, is 217 times the amount deemed safe for residential areas.
Disturbance of soil contamination that greatly exceeds safe levels during demolition and 5 Riaz Capital’s counsel submitted a letter from Langan CA, Inc. on May 1, 2025 to the Planning Commission. The Langan letter noted: “Groundwater contained arsenic, barium, chromium, lead, and nickel at concentrations exceeding Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and United State Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) maximum contaminant levels (MCLs).” 6 There are currently existing structures in this location, but demolition of these structures and construction of the Project would disturb contamination in the soil. (See ZA Report, p. 8.)
43.106
City Council
City of Santa Cruz
Re: 530, 542, 548 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz Appeal
construction would likely pose a threat to the health and safety of residents who live next to the Property. What’s more, proposing housing on top of toxic contamination will likely have a significant impact on human health.
We anticipate that Riaz Capital may argue that they are working with the Department of Toxic Substances Control to address the hazardous waste, and, therefore, that review under CEQA is unnecessary. But this does not vitiate the fact that these are unusual circumstances, or that the City and local stakeholders should have the opportunity to understand, comment on, and ensure protection of the environment through CEQA mitigation measures, given the toxins at issue on site.
These are clearly unusual circumstances. The Project not only is adjacent to housing, and proposes housing, but also is immediately adjacent to a watershed that supports threatened and sensitive species. Pollution from Project demolition and construction could harm such species, and pose risks to adjacent residents. This poses a very real possibility that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment. The Project, therefore, does not qualify for the infill development exemption under CEQA, and should be subject to full environmental review.
C. The Planning Commission Omitted Key Information Relevant to Whether This Project Qualifies for the Infill Development Exemption. “[W]here an agency failed to require an applicant to provide certain information mandated by CEQA and to include that information in its environmental analysis, we held the agency “failed to proceed in the manner prescribed by CEQA.” (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 435; Save Our Peninsula Committee v.
Monterey County Board of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 117-18.) “The failure to comply with the law subverts the purposes of CEQA if it omits material necessary to informed decisionmaking and informed public participation. Case law is clear that, in such cases, the error is prejudicial.” (Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 512.) In this case, the Planning Commission and Zoning Administrator Reports failed to discuss or even mention, as discussed above, the toxic materials at the Project site, nor how this will impact human health around the Project and flora and fauna in the Branciforte Creek and San Lorenzo River. (See Planning Commission Report, ZA Report.) This is a failure to include key information in its environmental analysis, and thus constitutes a reversible abuse of discretion.7 7 It would be unlawful for the City or Riaz Capital to rely on the Notice of Exemption to dismiss my client’s arguments regarding the impropriety of a CEQA exemption in this circumstance. The
43.107
City Council
City of Santa Cruz
Re: 530, 542, 548 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz Appeal
D. The Project Cannot Obtain a Waiver of the Watercourse Development Permit’s Required Setbacks from Branciforte Creek Because it Would Have an Adverse Impact on Public Health and Safety.
As discussed above, the Project is located along Branciforte Creek. (Planning Commission Report, p. 2; ZA Report, p. 2.) It therefore must obtain a Watercourse Development Permit under SCMC section 24.08.2180. To obtain a Watercourse Development Permit, the development must comply with the City-Wide Creeks & Wetlands Management Plan. (SMC § 24.08.2190.) The City of Santa Cruz’s City-Wide Creeks & Wetlands Management Plan establishes that development shall be set back 50 feet from Branciforte Creek. (See City-Wide Creeks & Wetlands Management Plan, p. 4-4.) This is designed specifically to protect water quality and riparian habitat. “The development setback width is intended to provide an appropriate water quality and habitat buffer between the riparian corridor and development…. This area should consist of appropriate plantings to spread and filter runoff, which may be transporting sediment, nutrients, and pesticides toward the watercourse.” (City-Wide Creeks & Wetlands Management Plan, Exhibit B, p. 3-6.) CEQA Guidelines provide that a notice of CEQA exemption “shall be filed, if at all, after approval of the project.” (Guidelines § 15062 (a).) Notices of exemption are not valid, and do not start the statute of limitations if they are filed prematurely. (Coalition for Clean Air v. City of Visalia (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 408, 423; Continuing Education of the Bar, Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act (2025) § 5.116 (C) [“A notice filed before the project is approved will not trigger the 35-day limitations period.”]) Under the Santa Cruz Municipal Code section
18.10.310(E), “The filing of the notice of appeal shall have the effect of staying the issuance of any permit or approval provided for by the terms of this chapter until such time as final action has occurred on the appeal, including exhaustion of available appeal processes.” The CEQA Guidelines section 15062(b) clearly state: “A notice of exemption… shall not be filed, with the county clerk or OPR until the project has been approved.” The Zoning Administrator’s Hearing was held on March 5th, 2025. (See ZA Report, p. 1.) The Zoning Administrator, at that hearing, approved the Project, including the CEQA Exemption. (See Exhibit K.) The Minutes from the March 5, 2025 Hearing Indicated that the Project could be appealed through March 17, 2025. (Ibid.) My client filed an appeal on March 17, 2025, which included a challenge to the Project’s CEQA exemption. (See Appeal.) At this time, the Project, including the CEQA exemption, had not been approved. Yet, the Notice of Approval was filed by the City on March 5, 2025. (Exhibit L.)
The City failed to proceed in a manner required by CEQA and its Municipal Code. The Notice of Exemption, therefore, is invalid, and cannot be used to preclude my client from raising challenges and exhausting administrative remedies with respect to the CEQA Exemption.
43.108
City Council
City of Santa Cruz
Re: 530, 542, 548 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz Appeal
The Proposed Project, however, if approved, “will be encroaching approximately 16.2 feet into the development setback.” (Planning Commission Report, p. 21; ZA Staff Report, p. 15.) In order to build the Project into the setback, Riaz Capital has requested a waiver from the Watercourse Development Permit setbacks as one of its fifteen requests for waivers of development standards. (Planning Commission Report, pp. 32-33; ZA Report, p. 8.) Riaz Capital, however, is not entitled to a waiver of the Creek setback under the Density Bonus Law. Developers utilizing density bonuses may be entitled to waivers, unless they have a “specific, adverse impact… on health or safety.” (Gov. Code, §65915(e)(1) [“The city or county is not required to waive or reduce development standards if the waiver or reduction would have a specific, adverse impact… on health or safety.”]) In this case, the setback waiver would have such an effect. As discussed above, the Project site is contaminated with arsenic, chloroform vapors, and Tetrachloroethylene (“PCE”), and this contamination is located near the creek edge. (Exhibit A; ZA Report, pp. 2,4, 7, 8.) Without legally required mitigation, sufficient to protect human health and safety, and environmental review and mitigation under CEQA, the Project will result in both demolition and construction in the vicinity of the toxic waste, less than 35 feet from the center of Branciforte Creek. (See generally Planning Commission Report; ZA Report; ZA Report, pp. 7-8.)8 Demolition and construction will disturb soil contamination that exceeds more than 200 times the levels deemed safe for residential areas by the State of California, and will release arsenic, chloroform, and PCE into the environment. (See Exhibit F, p. 2, Exhibit G.) As discussed above, this poses a risk to adjacent residents. In addition, developing 225 units of housing on top of soil that significantly exceeds limits deemed safe for residential areas will also have an impact on public health and safety. (See Planning Commission Report p. 2; ZA Report, p. 2.) Further, Branciforte Creek flows into the San Lorenzo River. (See City-Wide Creeks & Wetlands Management Plan, Exhibit B, p. 3-9.) San Lorenzo River flows into the Pacific Ocean, close to Santa Cruz’s main beach, Cowell’s Children’s Surfing Area, and Steamer Lane surf spots, which puts surfers, beachgoers, and other ocean users at risk. (See Exhibit H.) As discussed above, this 8 Riaz Capital’s counsel, submitted a letter from Langan CA, Inc. on May 1, 2025 to the Planning Commission. The Langan letter indicated that Terraphase Engineering, Inc. conducted and prepared a Phase II Environmental Investigation Report from March 22, 2024. To Appellant’s knowledge, this Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, and the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment have been submitted to the City, so that it can review and consider the risk of hazardous waste before approving the Project. At minimum, Riaz Capital should provide these site assessments so that the City and the public can assess these risks before issuing Project approval.
43.109
City Council
City of Santa Cruz
Re: 530, 542, 548 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz Appeal
will also harm sensitive species and riparian habitat in Branciforte Creek and the San Lorenzo River.
The Project, with the Watercourse Development Permit setback waiver, would have a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety. Riaz Capital, therefore, is not entitled to this waiver under the Density Bonus Law. As the Project does not comply with the requirements of SMC § 24.08.2190 and the City-Wide Creeks & Wetlands Management Plan, a waiver is not permissible under the Density Bonus Law.
E. The Project Does Not Qualify for the Elimination of Parking Requirements under AB2097 Nor the Santa Cruz Municipal Code.
AB2097, codified in Government Code section 65863.2, as well as Municipal Code section
24.12.220, permits the City to eliminate any parking requirements for projects that are within onehalf mile of a major transit stop. Riaz Capital has indicated that the Project is located .4 miles from a major transit stop at the River Front Transit Center. (W-Trans Draft Transportation Impact Study for 530-548 Ocean Street, p. 10.) It states: “The Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District (Santa Cruz METRO) Routes 1 and 18 each provide 15-minute headways during peak commute periods and serve the same transit stop, the River Front Transit Center, which is a 0.4 mile walk from the project site, and would thus be considered a major transit stop.” (Ibid.) This transit stop is temporary. It will be open solely during the demolition and redevelopment of the Metro Pacific Station Complex. (See Exhibit I, p. 1.) The Metro Pacific Station is slated to reopen in February 2026 - likely before Project construction even begins, and long before residents move into the Project.9 (Ibid.) By the time residents move into the development, the closest major transit station will be located at the Metro Pacific Station, located at 920 Pacific Avenue. (Ibid.) This is .6 or .8 miles from the Project, depending on one’s walking route. (Exhibit J.)10
9 In Riaz Capital’s community meeting on May 20, 2024, they referenced an expected start date for construction of December 2026.
10 City staff have asserted that the distance to a transit stop is “as the crow flies” and this, therefore, is permissible, but provide no legal basis for this assertion. Santa Cruz Municipal Code section
24.12.220 does not indicate that this distance is calculated “as the crow flies” nor does Government Code section 65863.2, which implements AB 2097.
43.110
City Council
City of Santa Cruz
Re: 530, 542, 548 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz Appeal
The Project, therefore, will not provide the ongoing traffic relief contemplated by the statute or the Municipal Code, and will likely result in a major reduction in available street parking in the vicinity of the Project. It would be improper, therefore, to permit Riaz Capital to skirt the necessary parking requirements included in the Santa Cruz Municipal Code. Appellant, therefore, respectfully requests that the City require Riaz Capital to comply with the existing Municipal Code Parking requirements.
F. The Record Does Not Contain Substantial Evidence that the Provision of Metro Bus Passes Would Physically Preclude Construction of the Project.
Riaz Capital requested a waiver of the requirement that it provide Metro Bus passes to all project residents. This requirement was formerly included in the Project as Condition of Approval
68. Under the Density Bonus Law, for qualifying projects, waivers must be provided, but only when the requirement imposed would physically preclude the construction of a development at the density, or with the requested incentives, permitted by the Density Bonus Law. (Gov. Code § 65915(e)(1).) Riaz Capital has not provided data to indicate that providing Metro Bus passes to project residents would physically preclude the construction of a development, as required by Section 65915(e)(1). Without substantial evidence of this in the record, Riaz Capital is not entitled to this waiver.
G. Conclusion
For these reasons, we request that you grant Appellant’s appeal. Thank you for carefully considering these comments.
Sincerely,
Elise Cossart-Daly
Attorney
43.111
Exhibit A
43.112
Back to Top Help
Disclaimer Contact Us
DTSC Home
Copyright © 2025 State of California
2.292969 seconds
ARTHAUS OCEAN (60003825) SIGN UP FOR EMAIL ALERTS
530 AND 542 OCEAN STREET
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
SANTA CRUZ COUNTY
SITE TYPE: VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT
PROJECT MANAGER: BENJAMIN WOOD
SUPERVISOR: RUTH CAYABYAB
OFFICE: CLEANUP
SACRAMENTO
CENSUS TRACT: 6087100800
CALENVIROSCREEN PERCENTILE SCORE: 20-25%
Site Information
CLEANUP STATUS
ACTIVE AS OF 10/1/2024
SITE TYPE: VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST: NO
ACRES: 0.8 ACRES
APN: NONE SPECIFIED
CLEANUP OVERSIGHT AGENCIES:
DTSC - SITE CLEANUP PROGRAM - LEAD AGENCY
ENVIROSTOR ID: 60003825
SITE CODE: 202510
SPECIAL PROGRAM:
FUNDING: SITE PROPONENT
ASSEMBLY DISTRICT: , 28
SENATE DISTRICT: , 17
Regulatory Profile
PAST USE(S) THAT CAUSED CONTAMINATION
NONE SPECIFIED
POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
NONE SPECIFIED
POTENTIAL MEDIA AFFECTED
NONE SPECIFIED
Site History
Update 2/5/2025:
The site is a collection of parcels zoned as Community Commercial Districts, totaling approximately 0.8 acres. Currently, the site is divided among 3 addresses: 530, 542, and 548 Ocean Street. Currently, each of these address are occupied by various commercial buildings, whose tenants include law offices, medical clinics, and social service offices. The site is located in a predominantly commercial area, and bounded to the east by single family homes, to the south by a hotel and retail spaces, to the west by Ocean Street, and to the north by Branciforte creek, followed by a multifamily residence.
The current facilities at the site were constructed between 1956 and 1968, and expanded between 1982 and 1993. Prior to 1982, 542 Ocean Street was used for residential purposes.
The project proponent plans to demolish existing structures at the site, and construct a 6-floor multifamily residence. No residential use is planned for the first floor. As of the time of this update, the expected start date for construction is unknown.
A 2023 preliminary investigation discovered contaminated soil at the site, including:
- Arsenic up to 30 mg/kg in soil near the southern border of 542 Ocean Street - Chloroform vapors up to 400 ug/m^3 in soil in the eastern portion of 548 Ocean Street - Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) vapors up to 100 ug/m^3 in soil in the eastern portion of 548 Ocean Street As of the time of this update, no source or responsible party associated with this contamination has been identified. From at least 1969 to 1982 a dry cleaning facility operated within 475 feet southeast of the site. From at least 1992 to 2001, a print shop known to handle benzene, trichloroethylene (TCE), and PCE operated within 500 feet southeast of the site.
Summary Activities Site/Facility Docs Map Related Sites CalEnviroScreen
EnviroStor https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/profile_report?global_id=60... 1 of 1 4/24/25, 4:34 PM
43.113
Exhibit B
43.114
CHAPTER 3.0
WATERCOURSE AND WETLAND SETBACK ANALYSIS
IN THIS SECTION
3.1 Setback and Land Use Analysis
3.2 Setback Areas
3.3 Existing Watercourses & Wetlands
3.3.1 San Lorenzo River Watershed
3.3.2 Arana Gulch Creek Watershed
3.3.3 Neary Lagoon Watershed
3.3.4 Arroyo Seco Watershed
3.3.5 Moore Creek Watershed
3.3.6 Other Watercourses
This chapter describes the evaluation
process that was used to rank
watercourses and wetlands, which was
then used to recommend appropriate
development setbacks for each
watercourse, consistent with physical
features, habitat conditions and land uses.
As a result of this evaluation, setback
areas are identified and described.
Existing watercourse and wetland
conditions are then described, and
recommended setbacks are presented.
3.1 SETBACK AND LAND USE ANALYSIS
3.1.1 Existing Setback Requirements
As discussed in Chapter 1.0, the City of Santa Cruz General Plan/LCP guiding riparian and wetland habitat policy (EQ 4.2) seeks to “preserve and enhance the character and quality” of the habitat, and specifies a 100-foot setback from the centerline of all riparian watercourses and from the edge of wetlands. Additionally, all riparian vegetation is included in the setback area, even if it extends beyond 100 feet (Policy EQ 4.2.2).
The locations of the existing 100-foot setback line along mapped watercourses or wetlands within City limits are depicted on the separate aerial maps available at the City Planning Department office and on the City’s website under the Planning Department’s webpage (www.ci.santa-cruz.ca.us).
Under the current regulations, approximately 1,818 parcels are located within the existing 100-foot setback area. As depicted on aerial maps, the 100-foot setback typically encompasses the majority of riparian vegetation along the watercourses and, in many instances, encompasses areas adjacent to the riparian vegetation where no riparian vegetation is present.
These adjacent areas are either undeveloped or developed with residential, commercial or industrial land uses. For some parcels, the 100-foot setback encompasses most of the parcel or even adjacent parcels.
For parcels with wetlands subject to a 100-foot wetland setback, the setback area can encompass undeveloped lands, such as the seasonal wetlands in Moore Creek Preserve. Some of the wetland setbacks, however, such as along Westlake Pond and Neary Lagoon encompass residentially developed areas, City streets and other infrastructure facilities. These parcels have been delineated on the separate aerial maps as areas that may require further biotic review if the proposed development has the potential of impacting existing resources.
City-Wide Creeks & Wetlands Management Plan
Chapter 3.0 Setback Analysis 3-1 May 2008
43.115
City-Wide Creeks & Wetlands Management Plan
Chapter 3.0 Setback Analysis 3-2 May 2008
3.1.2 Existing and Anticipated Land Use Activities Adjacent to Watercourses and Wetlands
Existing land uses adjacent to watercourses and wetlands were initially determined by a review of land use data supplied by the County of Santa Cruz Assessor’s Office. A field reconnaissance was later conducted by city staff to field check existing land uses abutting City watercourses and wetlands. Land use categories that are recorded by the Assessor’s Office include:
Residential (single and multi-family)
Commercial (retail, services, etc.)
Industrial
Institutional (e.g., government buildings, schools, churches, public facilities, UCSC lands, etc.)
Parks/Open Space (including cemeteries)
Vacant Land
In residentially zoned areas, residential yards typically abut the riparian woodland edge.
While these urban-influenced riparian habitats provide important habitat features as well as aesthetic qualities, their value to riparian-dependent biotic resources is moderated by the close proximity of existing developments. Most of the vacant residential parcels within the City occur as infill parcels (i.e., one or two vacant parcels amid an otherwise developed area) such that only a few residential development projects, with significant riparian linear-foot frontage, are anticipated. The major land use activities anticipated to occur in residentially zoned areas are listed in Table 3-1.
In commercial and industrial zoned areas, parking lots and loading docks typically abut the watercourse or edge of riparian vegetation. In some areas, the watercourse supports only herbaceous vegetation and is confined between industrial or commercial buildings (e.g., portions of lower Arroyo Seco Creek). While most of the vacant commercial and/or industrial parcels occur as infill parcels (i.e., one or two vacant parcels amid an otherwise developed area) there are some large vacant parcels, particularly in the western portion of the City. The major land use activities anticipated to occur in commercial and industrial areas include remodeling and expansion of existing commercial or industrial structures; construction of parking lots, service entrances, loading docks or other paved or impervious surfaces; and lighting and landscaping of front, side and rear of buildings, as listed on Table 3-1. Existing and anticipated land use activities within institutionally zoned areas are expected to be similar to commercial and industrial areas.
Parcels that are zoned parks and open space are expected to have less intensive land use activities adjacent to watercourses and wetlands. The major activities anticipated to occur include construction of recreational or maintenance facilities; construction of trails and overlooks; and construction of playfields, ball fields, and lighted facilities. There are few agricultural zoned parcels adjacent to watercourses and wetlands. The major activities anticipated to occur include row crops and nurseries or uses related to animal activities.
In addition to activities related to land use, public works and infrastructure improvement projects also occur in or adjacent to watercourses and wetlands. The majority of these activities are related to construction or repair of the City's storm drain system (i.e., culvert replacement, repair, cleaning) or to roadway improvements (i.e., street widening, bridge re-construction),
43.116
City-Wide Creeks & Wetlands Management Plan
Chapter 3.0 Setback Analysis 3-3 May 2008
typically conducted by City staff. Table 3-1 lists the major types of public works activities that may occur within and adjacent to the City's watercourses and wetlands.
TABLE 3-1. ANTICIPATED LAND USE ACTIVITIES ADJACENT TO WATERCOURSES &
WETLANDS
Land Use and Type of Activity Anticipated
Residential Zoned Parcels
• Remodeling and expansion of existing residential units • Construction of new units and accessory buildings, such as garages and accessory dwelling units • Construction of driveways or other paved or impervious surfaces • Landscaping of front, side and rear yards
• Installation and replacement of fences, decks and recreational structures (e.g., gazebos, hot tubs, play structures) Commercial and Industrial Zoned Parcels
• Remodeling and expansion of existing commercial or industrial structures • Construction of new commercial or industrial units
• Construction of parking lots, service entrances, loading docks or other paved or impervious surfaces • Landscaping of front, side and rear of the buildings
• Installation and replacement of lighting and fences
Parks and Open Space Zoned Parcels
• Construction of recreational or maintenance facilities • Construction of trails, bridges, overlooks
• Construction of playfields, ball fields, lighted facilities • Installation and replacement of fences
Institutionally Zoned Lands (schools, cemetery, public buildings, etc.) • Remodeling of existing structures
• Expansion or construction of new structures
• Construction of parking lots, service entrances, loading docks or other paved or impervious surfaces • Landscaping in front, side and rear of building
• Construction of recreational or maintenance facilities • Installation and replacement of lighting and fences
• Installation or maintenance of cemetery plots
Agricultural Zoned Parcels
• Construction of fences to control animals
• Barns and animal pens
• Row crops
• Nurseries
Public Works Projects / Activities1 That May Occur Within or Adjacent to Watercourses and Wetlands • Replacement or repair of existing culverts
• Maintenance of storm drains, culverts and emergency repairs • Bridge replacement, repair, or construction
• Street improvements, including widening
• Construction of new street drains or storm drains
• Stream restoration
• Marsh and wetland restoration
• Construction of pedestrian and bicycle trails
• Unearthing underground watercourses
• Replacement or repair of utility boxes and utility lines • Replacement or repair of sewer lines
• Flood control maintenance
• Water production facilities
• Vegetation and sediment management
• Mosquito and vector control
1 – projects typically conducted by City Public Works Department, but may be conducted by others
43.117
City-Wide Creeks & Wetlands Management Plan
Chapter 3.0 Setback Analysis 3-4 May 2008
3.1.3 Watercourse and Wetland Ranking and Evaluation
In developing recommendations for setbacks for the Management Plan, several factors were evaluated based upon the initial resource inventory described in Chapter 2.0. For each watercourse and wetland, site features were ranked according to the level of the function provided. Where a watercourse was positive for a factor, such as the presence of special status species, that factor was ranked high (and given a numerical value of three). If the watercourse did not provide the feature, the factor was ranked low (and given a numerical value of one). A watercourse factor was scored medium (and given a numerical value of two) if it partially provided a site feature. The rankings were not weighted. The following factors and ranking criteria were used in recommending watercourse classifications and evaluating setbacks for watercourses and wetlands in the Management Plan. Table 3-3 at the end of this chapter identifies the rankings given to the features along each of the watercourses and known wetlands within the City.
Factor A - Primary Habitat Ranking: The biological function of the watercourse, based on the type of primary habitat and its continuity to upstream or downstream habitats.
Rankings:
3 – Habitat dominated by native riparian trees and shrubs (or for known wetlands, native wetland plant species); diverse habitat structure present. 2 – Habitat is a mixture of native and non-native plant species; less complex habitat structure of overstory and understory features than in 3, above. 1 – Habitat has low species diversity; herbaceous riparian vegetation is dominant in riparian areas. Habitat may be dominated by invasive, non-native plant species.
Factor B – Special Status Species Ranking: The presence or potential presence of special status species along a watercourse or wetland.
Rankings:
3 – Known presence of special status species, or high potential for presence due to habitat conditions or close proximity of a known occurrence. 2 – Potential presence of special status species due to positive habitat conditions and ability of species to colonize site from known occurrences. 1 – Habitat has low potential for special status species due to lack of suitable habitat.
Factor C – Average Width of Riparian Corridor Ranking: The average width of vegetated area, as measured from centerline of watercourse.
Rankings:
3 – Vegetated corridor is continuous with few gaps; vegetated corridor encompasses full extent of available riparian area (determined as the width of arroyo or channel which has suitable site conditions of riparian or wetland growth). 2 – Corridor is fragmented and narrower than environmental conditions could support. 1 – Corridor is significantly degraded or non-existent (e.g., in culvert).
Factor D – Open Areas and Dispersal Ranking: The opportunity of riparian vegetation to grow outward from its existing area (i.e., expansion of existing tree canopy as trees grow and mature), the presence of an open area between the tree canopy and structures and the ability of the corridor to provide avenues for wildlife dispersal.
43.118
City-Wide Creeks & Wetlands Management Plan
Chapter 3.0 Setback Analysis 3-5 May 2008
Rankings:
3 – Corridor abuts undeveloped lands, enabling movement of animals to and from corridor and adjacent natural areas; open areas occur along the corridor to allow riparian or wetland vegetation to expand outward.
2 – Corridor abuts residential yards and landscaped areas that provide some ability for wildlife to utilize these adjacent areas; some available area for riparian vegetation to expand over time.
1 – Corridor or wetland abuts developed areas and vegetation is confined to narrow channel. Little or no ability for wildlife movement out of active channel or wetland feature.
Factor E – Enhancement and Restoration Potential Ranking: The opportunity for restoration and enhancement of the riparian corridor or wetland features, including unearthing underground segments, removal of invasive, non-native plant species and revegetation of a diverse native riparian or wetland resource.
Rankings:
3 – Corridor is in an open space area or is not confined, such that outward revegetation or restoration of the corridor is feasible (given appropriate site conditions), opportunity to remove invasive, non-native plant species and improve habitat structure occurs on site or restoration of resource feature would provide an important connection to adjacent resources areas.
2 – Corridor is confined by adjacent land uses which limits ability to expand, yet opportunities exist to improve habitat from removal of invasive, non-native plant species; erosion control or biotechnical streambank protection; restoration of resource feature would improve connection to adjacent resources areas or infill existing gaps in corridor; restoration may require land acquisition or easements. 1 – Watercourse is constrained by adjacent developments and there is little room for restoration without significant land acquisition or easements. Limited opportunity for establishment of native riparian (or wetland) resources and little continuity to adjacent resources areas or to infill existing gaps in corridor.
The consultant team proposed development setbacks for each watercourse and wetland based on the ranking of these factors. However, staff had recommended (and was directed by the Planning Commission and City Council in late 2002/early 2003) that Factors C and D be reevaluated to adequately ensure that the recommended setbacks were appropriate and feasible. Staff utilized aerial photos enlarged to a greater scale (1 inch = 200 feet) than those utilized by the consultant team to accomplish this task as a detailed analysis of existing development had not been previously conducted. A field review of the reach areas followed, visiting as many private properties as possible to gain access to the reach areas since this was not previously conducted in any level of detail. In this manner, the existing average width of the riparian corridor (if any), as well as the average distance between the watercourse/wetland and existing development was better ascertained. This level of review was conducted to ensure that the setbacks recommended by the Management Plan would be realistic and feasible, given the location of existing development, as well as meeting General Plan/LCP and Management Plan goals. The recommended setbacks for each watercourse and wetland in the City are presented in subsection 3.3 below.
43.119
City-Wide Creeks & Wetlands Management Plan
Chapter 3.0 Setback Analysis 3-6 May 2008
3.2 SETBACK AREAS
In developing recommended setbacks, a management area, riparian corridor, and development setback areas were established for each watercourse reach in the City (see Figure 3-1). Refer to the aerial photos under separate cover for the visual depiction of these areas.
Management Area. The designated management area is the area adjacent to all watercourses where any development or ground disturbance requires review to determine whether a Watercourse Development Permit is required. The management area includes a riparian corridor, a development setback area, and an additional 25 feet outward from the edge of the development setback. . The management area was determined based on the topography, resources and urban character of the specific watercourse. The 25 feet outward from the edge of the development setback is intended to provide an adequate area for permit review and be consistent with the Management Plan goals and General Plan/LCP policies to maintain or enhance water quality or riparian habitat values.
Specific limited activities are allowed within the riparian corridor and the development setback area as discussed below. New development would be allowed between the management area and the development setback; certain activities are allowed in the management area without a Watercourse Development Permit (discussed in Chapter 4.0).
Riparian Corridor. The riparian corridor is the width of riparian vegetation and/or immediate watercourse influence area, measured outward from the centerline of the watercourse. The recommended riparian corridor is the vegetated corridor that can be created or maintained along a given watercourse (or watercourse reach) taking into account current land uses and locations of existing structures, the existing width of the corridor, the topography of a given creek, and the restoration potential of the site. The riparian corridor is intended to provide an adequate riparian width to maintain or enhance habitat and water quality values. A healthy riparian corridor contains the trees and shrubs needed to provide shade, vegetative cover, and insect habitat for the watercourse food web, bank stability, and large woody debris for instream habitat. The complex root structures of woody plants are highly desirable for holding soil in place, and vegetative cover is critical to filter runoff and provide uptake of nutrients and pollutants. The riparian corridor provides area to contain storm water flows and provides a travel corridor and habitat for wildlife in addition to producing shelter and shade.
Within the riparian corridor, allowable uses are extremely limited. Habitat restoration and enhancement is encouraged (or required in certain instances), as discussed in Chapter 4.0.
Development in this area may also be subject to regulatory review and approval by numerous agencies, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Game, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and others.
Development Setback Area. The development setback area is the area outward from the edge of the designated riparian corridor where development is restricted, and is measured from the centerline of the watercourse. The development setback width is intended to provide an appropriate water quality and habitat buffer between the riparian corridor and development.
The width of the development setback area was determined to be adequate to maintain or enhance the values of the adjacent riparian and/or wetland habitat (if applicable), and if feasible given the topography and urban character of the specific watercourse (or watercourse reach). This area should consist of appropriate plantings to spread and filter runoff, which may be transporting sediment, nutrients, and pesticides toward the watercourse.
43.120
FIGURE 3-1. PROPOSED SETBACK AREAS
SOURCE: Biotic Resource Group, 2001
City-Wide Creeks & Wetlands Management Plan
Chapter 3.0 Setback Analysis 3-7 May 2008
43.121
City-Wide Creeks & Wetlands Management Plan
Chapter 3.0 Setback Analysis 3-8 May 2008
3.3 EXISTING WATERCOURSES & WETLANDS AND
RECOMMENDED SETBACKS
The environmental resources along the watercourses and wetlands within each watershed and subwatershed within the City, as well as the recommended setback areas, are described below.
Table 3-2 identifies the watercourses and wetlands that are located within the watersheds discussed in this section. Refer to the aerial photos under separate cover for the location of these areas. It should be noted that historical watercourse names were utilized whenever possible. Appendix I provides more detailed information on historical names utilized.
Potential enhancement and/or restoration measures are also described for each watercourse and are summarized on Table 3-4 at the end of this chapter. These measures include planting riparian vegetation and removal of invasive, non-native plant species. Invasive plant species are recommended for removal based on observations during 2000 and 2003 surveys, although other invasive, non-native plant species may also be present that were not detected at the time.
Opportunities to enhance wildlife habitat include preserving snags (i.e., dead trees, when they do not pose a public safety hazard) and installing bird and bat nest boxes to improve nesting sites, planting riparian trees and shrubs to improve habitat structure and diversity, maintaining vegetative cover over the water to benefit aquatic resources, and preserving large woody debris in the channel to benefit aquatic resources (including steelhead). In some areas bank erosion repair measures or removal of trash and debris also have been identified.
TABLE 3-2. CITY WATERCOURSES & WETLANDS ADDRESSED IN MANAGEMENT PLAN Watershed
San Lorenzo River Watershed
• San Lorenzo River
• Branciforte Creek
• Carbonera Creek
• Glen Canyon Creek
• Redwood Creek
• Pogonip Creek / Salz Pond
• Tick Drainage
• Arroyo de San Pedro Regaldo
• Wagner Seep
• Pasatiempo Creek
• Jessie Street Marsh & Jessie Street Channel
• Ocean Villa Creek
Arana Gulch Creek Watershed
• Arana Gulch Creek
• Hagemann Gulch
• Woods Creek
Neary Lagoon Watershed
• Neary Lagoon
• Laurel Creek / Westlake Pond
• Bay Avenue Creek
• Bayona Creek
• Chrystal Gulch
• Dodero Spring Creek / Kalkar Quarry Spring
• Longview Creek
• Ojos de Agua Creek
Arroyo Seco Watershed
• Arroyo Seco Creek
Moore Creek Watershed
• Moore Creek / Antonelli Pond
Other Watercourses
• Natural Bridges Creek
• Lighthouse Drainage
• Pilkington Creek
• Bethany Creek
43.122
City-Wide Creeks & Wetlands Management Plan
Chapter 3.0 Setback Analysis 3-9 May 2008
3.3.1 San Lorenzo River Watershed
The San Lorenzo River watershed, the largest watershed in the City, drains approximately 138 square miles, starting within the Santa Cruz Mountains, and includes the Branciforte Creek and Carbonera Creek sub-watersheds.
3.3.1.1 San Lorenzo River. This watershed drains much of the central area of Santa Cruz including Pogonip, Harvey West, Pasatiempo, the downtown area, the Ocean Street corridor and Beach Flats. The eastern boundary of this watershed abuts the western boundary of the Arana Gulch watershed. The western boundary trends from north to south from Pogonip and UCSC down along the hill behind the Westlake area, down Chestnut Street towards the wharf, skirting along the northern side of Beach Hill, bisecting Beach Hill at Cliff Street.
Within the City, the San Lorenzo River supports a wide variety of birds, animals and aquatic species. Fishery resources include steelhead trout, which use the lower river as a movement corridor to upstream spawning areas along the San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek, and the river’s lagoon is used as a nursery for young fish. The San Lorenzo River has been designated by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service as critical habitat for steelhead trout. According to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the San Lorenzo River supported coho salmon (a state- and federallylisted species) until the drought of 1976-77, although a study conducted in 1981 identified coho salmon in several tributaries in the upper watershed (outside the City). Coho salmon are found south of San Francisco in Waddell Creek, Scott Creek and Vicente Creek (northern Santa Cruz County).Accessible reaches of the San Lorenzo River are included in the critical habitat designation for the specie. Adults have been found in the San Lorenzo River during the last several winters, and limited spawning occurred in 2005. The area adjacent to the San Lorenzo River at Sycamore Grove (San Lorenzo River Upper West) has been identified as potential nesting habitat for the Yellow warbler and Yellow-breasted chat, and portions of the San Lorenzo River as potential habitat for Yuma myotis, Townsend’s western big-eared bat, and San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat.
The City portion of the San Lorenzo River watershed includes the leveed lower portion of the river from the river mouth to Highway 1 and an approximate mile upstream from the Highway 1 bridge to the City limits near Sycamore Grove. San Lorenzo River south of Highway 1, identified as the Lower San Lorenzo River, supports riparian and wetland vegetation, including herbaceous riparian and mixed riparian habitats (City of Santa Cruz, 2001). The City’s 1989 San Lorenzo River Enhancement Plan identified the restoration of biological resources on the lower San Lorenzo River including the San Lorenzo Lagoon and Jessie Street Marsh areas. In response to recent flood control improvements and regulatory changes, the City updated this plan through adoption of the San Lorenzo Urban River Plan (Urban River Plan) in 2003. The Urban River Plan provides recommendations for specific public improvements within the river channel and established design guidelines for redevelopment opportunity areas surrounding the river. New development proposed along the lower San Lorenzo River is subject to the guidelines of the Urban River Plan. Adjacent properties would be reviewed for their conformance to the Urban River Plan. Properties subject to review are delineated by the Management Area, as shown on the aerial maps.
Lands upstream of Highway 1 are properties that are subject to the guidelines in this Management Plan. This area is designated as the Upper San Lorenzo River, differentiated by an East Bank Reach and a West Bank Reach. The riparian habitat along the Upper San Lorenzo River is generally considered mixed riparian woodland. Large-sized western sycamores are a
43.123
City-Wide Creeks & Wetlands Management Plan
Chapter 3.0 Setback Analysis 3-10 May 2008
distinguishing habitat feature in Sycamore Grove, located on the west bank of the San Lorenzo River at the north edge of the City limits.
The average width of the existing riparian corridor is approximately 100 feet on the west bank and 120 feet on the east bank, as measured from the centerline of the watercourse. Land uses are primarily industrial and public facilities on the west bank, and residential, agricultural and commercial (cemeteries) on the east bank. Limited opportunities are available for riparian expansion and growth, or wildlife dispersal due to the developed nature of much of the area adjacent to the Upper San Lorenzo River. For the Upper San Lorenzo River, the Management Plan recommends that at least a 100-foot wide riparian corridor be maintained along the west bank and a 120-foot wide riparian corridor be maintained along the east bank. The recommended development setback is 120 feet on the west bank and 150 feet on the east bank.
Enhancement and restoration opportunities include the control of invasive, non-native plant species, including observed pampas grass, cape ivy, English ivy and French broom. The existing riparian woodland also offers suitable nesting habitat for riparian dependent wildlife.
Opportunities to enhance the habitat for wildlife include preserving snags and installing bird and bat nest boxes to improve nesting sites, planting riparian trees and shrubs to improve habitat structure and diversity, maintaining vegetative cover over the water, preserving large woody debris in the channel, recruitment of large woody debris, and measures to improve spawning/rearing of anadromous fish.
3.3.1.2 Branciforte Creek. Branciforte Creek is a tributary to the San Lorenzo River, entering the River just upstream from the Soquel Avenue bridge. Branciforte Creek flows year-round and is a significant source of summer baseflow for the lower San Lorenzo River. From the City limits, Branciforte Creek drains a mostly redwood-forested watershed, with predominantly rural residential land uses. Approximately 70 percent of the watercourses within the Branciforte Creek subwatershed (which includes its tributaries, Carbonera Creek and Glen Canyon Creek) are comprised of oak riparian woodland. Mixed riparian woodland and non-native riparian woodland are also primary habitats.
Like the San Lorenzo River, Branciforte Creek supports a wide variety of birds, animals and aquatic species, particularly upstream of the channelized reach. Fishery resources include steelhead trout, which use the lower portion of Branciforte Creek as a movement corridor to upstream spawning areas. Monarch butterflies are known to roost along lower Branciforte Creek and potential habitat exists in other portions of the creek (CDFG, 2001a). Potential nesting habitat for the yellow warbler and yellow-breasted chat is also present. In the upper portions of the creek exists potential habitat for several special status mammals, including San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat, Townsend’s western big-eared bat, and yuma myotis.
For purposes of the Management Plan, Branciforte Creek has been divided into two reaches.
Reach 1 is channelized in an open concrete trapezoidal flood control channel designed and constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and maintained by the City. The sides of the channel are vertical and comprised of concrete, and riparian vegetation is not present.
To provide flood protection, the channel was designed to operate optimally when there is no sediment or trees.
Reach 1 supports pockets of herbaceous riparian and mixed riparian woodland, which grows within sediment deposits within the modified channel. The extent of vegetation is dependent on
43.124
City-Wide Creeks & Wetlands Management Plan
Chapter 3.0 Setback Analysis 3-11 May 2008
the distribution of sediment deposits in the channel and the duration and frequency of the previous year’s winter storm flows. High velocity stream flows during the winter months may scour the channel, removing sediment and vegetation. As stream flows decrease, new sediment deposits occur and riparian vegetation, such as willows and alders, re-colonize the streambed.
Remnant riparian woodland occurs on the hillside east of the channelized creek in the Market Street area and between Water Street and Ocean Street, which is thought to have been part of the historic riparian woodland along the creek prior to channelization. The woodland, dominated by coast live oaks, is on slopes greater than 30 percent such that development is prohibited.
In 2003, the average width of the vegetated corridor in Reach 1 was 30 feet, with most vegetation occurring in the bed of the modified channel. Land uses along the creek in these areas are residential and commercial. In many instances, commercial parking areas and residential back yards abut the edge of the channel. A utility road parallels the modified channel in the Market Street area. Due to the channelized nature of Branciforte Creek in Reach 1, coupled with the close proximity of residential and commercial developments, there are currently few opportunities for riparian expansion and growth, or wildlife dispersal. For Branciforte Creek Reach 1, the Management Plan recommends a 30-foot wide riparian corridor and a development setback of 50 feet.
Enhancement and restoration opportunities include primarily the control of invasive, non-native plant species, including observed pampas grass, English ivy, acacia and French broom.
Opportunities to enhance wildlife habitat include installation of bird and bat nest boxes and maintaining vegetative cover over the water to benefit aquatic resources (including steelhead), if deemed compatible with flood control directives.
Reach 2 begins at the natural channel upstream of the Market Street area and extends upstream to the City limit, and is in a natural condition. Upstream of Highway 1, the creek skirts along the western boundary of DeLaveaga Park. The vegetation is characterized as oak riparian woodland, with coast live oak being the dominant tree species. Some areas are codominated by coast redwood. In 2003, the average width of the vegetated corridor in this upper reach was 50 feet with the vegetation occurring along the streambank, and in many areas, intermixed with landscaping occurring in residential backyards. Land uses along this reach of the creek are residential. Evidence of streambank erosion was noted in a few areas, wherein landowners have deposited concrete riprap and other materials on the streambank in an effort to reduce erosion. For Branciforte Creek Reach 2, the Management Plan recommends a 50-foot wide riparian corridor and a development setback of 70 feet.
Many areas along Branciforte Creek Reach 2 offer potential areas for riparian growth and wildlife dispersal, as the steep sides of the canyon have precluded development. Enhancement and restoration opportunities throughout this reach include the control of invasive, non-native plant species, including the observed pampas grass, English ivy, cape ivy, periwinkle, acacia and French broom. The woodland also offers suitable nesting habitat for riparian dependent wildlife.
Opportunities to enhance wildlife habitat include preserving snags, installing bird and bat nest boxes to improve nesting sites, planting native riparian trees and shrubs to improve habitat structure and diversity, maintaining vegetative cover over the water, preserving large woody debris in the channel, recruitment of large woody debris, and measures to improve spawning/rearing of anadromous fish.
43.125
City-Wide Creeks & Wetlands Management Plan
Chapter 3.0 Setback Analysis 3-12 May 2008
3.3.1.3 Carbonera Creek. Carbonera Creek is the primary tributary to Branciforte Creek, entering just upstream from where Market Street crosses Branciforte Creek. Carbonera Creek flows year-round, though it can dry up in some reaches during drought years (Don Alley, pers. comm., 2001). Upstream from the City of Santa Cruz, Carbonera Creek drains much of the City of Scotts Valley and the mostly redwood-forested areas to the north and east of Scotts Valley.
Carbonera Creek provides potential habitat for several special status species including the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat, Townsend’s western big-eared bat, yuma myotis, and also monarch butterflies in the upper portion of the creek. Potential nesting habitat is also present for the yellow warbler and yellow-breasted chat.
Carbonera Creek is in a natural condition. The vegetation is characterized as mixed riparian, although some areas are co-dominated by coast redwoods and coast live oak. In 2003, the average width of the vegetated corridor was 50 feet (measured outward from the creek centerline) with the vegetation occurring along the streambank, and in some areas, intermixed with landscaping occurring in residential backyards. Land uses along this creek are residential. In some instances, residential back yards abut the edge of the riparian woodland, which limits opportunities for riparian expansion and growth, as well as wildlife dispersal in these areas. Evidence of streambank erosion was also noted in a few areas in the downstream portion of the creek, wherein landowners have deposited concrete riprap and other materials on the streambank in an effort to reduce erosion. For Carbonera Creek, the Management Plan recommends a 50-foot wide riparian corridor and a development setback of 70 feet.
Some areas offer opportunities for streambank erosion repair, coupled with revegetation of native riparian woodland. Other enhancement and restoration opportunities include the control of invasive, non-native plant species, including observed pampas grass, English ivy, cape ivy, periwinkle, acacia and French broom. Many other areas along Carbonera Creek offer areas for riparian growth and wildlife dispersal, as the steep sides of the canyon have precluded development. Opportunities to enhance wildlife habitat for wildlife include preserving snags, installation of bird and bat nest boxes to improve nesting sites, plantings of native riparian trees and shrubs, maintaining vegetative cover over the water, preserving large woody debris in the channel, recruitment of large woody debris, and measures to improve spawning/rearing of anadromous fish.
3.3.1.4 Glen Canyon Creek. Glen Canyon Creek is a tributary to Branciforte Creek, entering east of the Carbonera Drive intersection with Vista Bella Drive in the Carbonera neighborhood.
Glen Canyon Creek is in a natural condition. The vegetation is characterized as oak riparian woodland, though some areas are co-dominated by coast redwood. In 2003, the average width of the vegetated corridor was 50 feet. Land uses along this reach of the creek are primarily residential, though at the northern portion of the creek the area is listed as open space. For Glen Canyon Creek, the Management Plan recommends a 50-foot wide riparian corridor and a development setback of 70 feet.
Many areas along Glen Canyon Creek offer areas for riparian growth and wildlife dispersal, as the steep sides of the canyon have precluded development. Throughout this reach, enhancement and restoration opportunities include the control of invasive, non-native plant species, including observed pampas grass, English ivy, cape ivy, periwinkle, acacia and French broom. The woodland also offers suitable nesting habitat for riparian dependent wildlife. Opportunities to enhance wildlife habitat include preserving snags, and installing bird and bat nest boxes, planting native
43.126
City-Wide Creeks & Wetlands Management Plan
Chapter 3.0 Setback Analysis 3-13 May 2008
riparian trees and shrubs, maintaining vegetative cover over the water, and preserving large woody debris in the channel.
3.3.1.5 Redwood Creek. Redwood Creek is a direct tributary to the San Lorenzo River, entering via an underground culvert at the northern end of the City limits off of Highway 9. Redwood Creek drains a small watershed in Pogonip (City lands), which has mostly redwood forest and other natural vegetation cover. In 2003, the average width of the vegetated corridor was 60 feet. For Redwood Creek, the Management Plan recommends a 60-foot wide riparian corridor and a development setback of 90 feet.
Opportunities for enhancement and restoration include the control of invasive, non-native plant species, including observed pampas grass, English ivy, cape ivy, periwinkle, acacia and French broom; other invasive, non-native plant species may also be present that were not detected during the 2003 field review. Opportunities to enhance wildlife habitat include preserving snags, and installing bird and bat nest boxes, planting native riparian trees and shrubs, maintaining vegetative cover over the water, and preserving large woody debris in the channel.
3.3.1.6 Pogonip Creek/Salz Pond. Pogonip Creek is a direct tributary to the San Lorenzo River, entering via an underground culvert in the Harvey West industrial area. Pogonip drains a small watershed in Pogonip (City lands), which has mostly redwood forest and other natural vegetation cover. Pogonip Creek has a consistent year-round baseflow due to the presence of springs emanating from the karst formation on the UCSC campus. The riparian vegetation downstream of the Pogonip open space lands is mixed riparian woodland, dominated by willows.
This short reach of creek supports a wide variety of birds, animals, and aquatic species. In the 1990s, a commercial development on Pioneer Street established a riparian mitigation area at the junction of Pioneer Street and the railroad tracks, wherein riparian trees and shrubs were established as part of an approved development plan.
Pogonip Creek is a vegetated watercourse as it exits City lands on Pogonip and travels toward the Southern Pacific Railroad (SPRR) tracks near Pioneer Street. Just downstream of the railroad tracks the creek corridor enters Salz Pond, and then is underground until its junction with the San Lorenzo River. For purposes of the Management Plan, Reach 1 is the area which is underground, from Salz Pond to the San Lorenzo River. Reach 2 extends from the edge of City property (Pogonip) where it runs between existing farmland and industrial uses to Salz Pond. Reach 3 is the area within City property. Salz Pond has its own designation.
Pogonip Reach 1 is located underground. It runs from Salz Pond to its exit point into the San Lorenzo River. For Pogonip Creek Reach 1, the Management Plan does not recommend maintaining a designated riparian corridor width or development setback for this reach since it is located in an underground culvert.
Reach 2 is bordered by a mix of land uses. The City Corporation Yard is located to the north and east, a cement business to the south, and the SPRR railroad to the west. The riparian vegetation primarily consists of herbaceous plant species, and is constrained by adjacent industrial uses, although the pond was stocked with steelhead in the past. Salz Pond is a privately-owned property located between Reach 1 and 2. Adjacent properties and the parcel containing Salz Pond would be required to conduct site-specific review prior to development approval for activities that could impact potential wetland resources. These properties are designated as such on the aerial map pages.
43.127
City-Wide Creeks & Wetlands Management Plan
Chapter 3.0 Setback Analysis 3-14 May 2008
The average width of the vegetated corridor along Pogonip Creek Reach 2 in 2003 was 40 feet.
Land uses along the north side of the creek are residential and agricultural; land uses on the south side of the creek are commercial and industrial. The commercial and industrial land uses abut the edge of the riparian woodland, which limits opportunities for riparian expansion and growth, as well as wildlife dispersal in these areas. For Pogonip Creek Reach 2, the Management Plan recommends a 40-foot wide riparian corridor and a development setback of 60 feet. A small pond exists on an adjacent residential property, which receives water from this reach. Sitespecific review would be required for this property prior to development approval for activities that could impact potential resources.
In 2003, the average width of the vegetated corridor along Reach 3 was 70 feet. Since this reach is located on City property, opportunities are available to enhance the creek corridor. For Pogonip Creek Reach 3, the Management Plan recommends a 70-foot wide riparian corridor and a development setback of 100 feet.
Opportunities for enhancement and restoration include the control of invasive, non-native plant species, including observed pampas grass, English ivy, cape ivy, periwinkle, acacia and French broom. Opportunities to enhance wildlife habitat include preserving snags, installing bird and bat nest boxes, planting native riparian trees and shrubs, maintaining vegetative cover over the water, and preserving large woody debris in the channel.
3.3.1.7 Tick Drainage. Tick Drainage is a direct tributary to the San Lorenzo River, entering via an underground culvert north of the Harvey West industrial area. Tick Drainage is a small swale located in Pogonip (City lands), which has mostly oak riparian and other natural vegetation cover.
The reach originates on City lands east of Golf Club Drive and runs north of residential properties until it crosses the railroad tracks in a culvert, and then runs down under Highway 9 and down to the San Lorenzo River.
The average width of the vegetated corridor along Tick Drainage in 2003 was 5 feet. Land uses along the north side of the creek consists of open space; land uses on the south side of the creek are rural residential and agricultural, which limits opportunities for riparian expansion and growth, as well as wildlife dispersal in these areas. This creek has little value for habitat expansion as it is dry the majority of the year and only runs during major storm events. For Tick Drainage, the Management Plan recommends a 5-foot wide riparian corridor and a development setback of 10 feet.
3.3.1.8 Arroyo de San Pedro Regaldo. This watercourse is a direct tributary to the San Lorenzo River entering just north of Highway 1. This drainage has been highly modified throughout the Harvey West area with a significant portion currently contained in culverts or roadside ditches.
The headwaters occur within Pogonip, Harvey West Park and Evergreen Cemetery. Springs in the UCSC campus provide a small year-round baseflow to this stream channel. Historically, this creek was used by Mission fathers for pasture irrigation and was named by the Portola expedition of 1769 (Clark, 1986).
For purposes of the Management Plan, Arroyo de San Pedro Regaldo has been divided into four reaches. The downstream reach of (Reach 1) is a vegetated watercourse from Highway 9 to the outfall along the San Lorenzo River. Riparian vegetation in this reach includes non-native riparian woodland (an eucalyptus grove is located at the corner of Highway 9 and Highway 1) and riparian scrub (young willows and blackberry). In 2003, the average width of the vegetated corridor along Reach 1 was 10 feet. This short reach of creek supports a limited variety of
43.128
City-Wide Creeks & Wetlands Management Plan
Chapter 3.0 Setback Analysis 3-15 May 2008
riparian wildlife due to proximity of Highway 1. The north side of the watercourse abuts industrial land uses; these land uses are directly adjacent to the vegetated watercourse. Due to the confined condition of the watercourse, this reach of Arroyo de San Pedro Regaldo has limited ability to expand or provide wildlife movement outside the active channel. For Arroyo de San Pedro Regaldo Reach 1, the Management Plan recommends a 10-foot wide riparian corridor and a development setback of 20 feet.
Enhancement and restoration opportunities include establishment of mature trees within the riparian scrub, control of industrial drainage entering the watercourse and the control of invasive, nonnative plant species. Non-native, invasive plant species observed within the corridor that are recommended for removal include pampas grass and acacia.
Reach 2a starts as a small drainage swale in a parking lot east of Dubois Street and passes through commercial and industrial uses in the Harvey West area to where it goes underground on the west side of Coral Street. The riparian vegetation along this reach is mixed riparian woodland, dominated by willows. A portion of this short reach of creek supports a variety of birds, animals and aquatic species, yet its narrow width and close proximity of adjacent land uses limits its ability to expand or provide wildlife movement outside the active channel. In the 1990s and early 2000s, commercial and residential developments were approved adjacent to the creek with mitigation that required planting riparian vegetation. Riparian plantings have been installed adjacent to the Costco development and adjacent to a residential development on Fern Street.
Invasive, non-native plants have also been removed from these areas.
In 2003, the average width of the vegetated corridor along Arroyo de San Pedro Regaldo Reach 2a was 10 feet (measured outward from the creek centerline). Land uses are residential, commercial and industrial; these uses abut the edge of the riparian woodland. For Arroyo de San Pedro Regaldo Reach 2a, the Management Plan recommends a 10-foot wide riparian corridor and a development setback of 20 feet.
Opportunities for enhancement and restoration include the control of invasive, non-native plant species, including observed pampas grass, English ivy, cape ivy, periwinkle, giant reed, acacia and French broom. Despite fences to deter unauthorized human activities within the riparian corridor, inorganic debris, human feces and other human uses were evident during field visits in 2003. These activities are degrading the quality of the riparian corridor for native wildlife and impairing the growth of native vegetation; enhancement opportunities include removal and revegetation of these degrade habitat areas.
Arroyo de San Pedro Regaldo Reach 2b runs primarily in an underground culvert from Harvey West Park between the park and Dubois Street, then it turns and runs underground along Sylvania Avenue where it joins Arroyo San Pedro Regaldo Reach 2a. For Arroyo de San Pedro Regaldo Reach 2b, the Management Plan does not recommend maintaining a designated riparian corridor width or development setback for this reach since it is almost all located below-ground and functions as a culvert.
Arroyo de San Pedro Regaldo Reach 3 drains portions of Pogonip and Harvey West Park and is located entirely on City-owned property. The riparian vegetation in this reach is mixed riparian woodland, interspersed with redwood woodland. In 2003, the average width of the vegetated corridor along Reach 3 was 40 feet. For Arroyo de San Pedro Regaldo Reach 3, the Management Plan recommends a 40-foot wide riparian corridor and a development setback of 60 feet.
43.129
City-Wide Creeks & Wetlands Management Plan
Chapter 3.0 Setback Analysis 3-16 May 2008
This reach has some ability to expand or provide wildlife movement outside the active channel since it is located on City property. Opportunities for enhancement mainly consist of control of invasive, non-native plant species, including observed English ivy and periwinkle.
3.3.1.9 Wagner Seep. Wagner Seep consists of two small separate reaches that drain a portion of Harvey West and the Evergreen Cemetery. Reach 1 starts near Meadow Court and runs through Harvey West Park a short distance until it goes into an underground culvert before Evergreen Street. Reach 2 starts near Highland Avenue and runs a short distance through Evergreen Cemetery until it goes into an underground culvert within the cemetery. The riparian vegetation along both reaches is oak riparian interspersed with adjacent redwood forest. In 2003, the average width of the vegetated corridor along both reaches was 50 feet (measured outward from the creek centerline). For Wagner Seep Reach 1 and Reach 2, the Management Plan recommends a 50- foot wide riparian corridor and a development setback of 70 feet.
These reaches support a variety of bird and animal species since they connect with adjacent open space lands which provide opportunities for wildlife dispersal. Monarch butterflies have been known to roost in the area near Evergreen Cemetery (CDFG, 2001a). Opportunities for enhancement mainly consist of control of invasive, non-native plant species., including observed English ivy, cape ivy, and periwinkle.
3.3.1.10 Pasatiempo Creek. Pasatiempo Creek is a perennial drainage that drains the area between Highway 17 and the San Lorenzo River, north of Highway 1. The lower part of the drainage consists of culverts and concrete ditch reaches that were constructed during development of the Highway 17 and Highway 1 interchange. The upstream reach consists of a deep, heavily vegetated canyon with residential developments on the adjacent bluffs.
Pasatiempo Creek has been divided into three reaches for purposes of the Management Plan. The downstream reaches of Pasatiempo Creek (Reaches 1 and 2) are modified channels. Reach 1 of Pasatiempo Creek is in an underground culvert. The culvert is located along the lot lines of residential properties between the San Lorenzo River and Ocean Street up to the Hwy 1 on-ramp.
For Pasatiempo Creek Reach 1, the Management Plan does not recommend maintaining a designated riparian corridor or development setback for this watercourse reach since it is located underground.
Reach 2 is an open, unvegetated concrete-lined channel that traverses the Highway 17 and Highway 1 interchange. There is no riparian vegetation in this reach, and this reach supports a minimal amount of riparian wildlife. Due to the confined condition of the watercourse, this reach of Pasatiempo Creek has very limited ability to expand or provide wildlife movement outside the active channel. The channel offers limited opportunities for enhancement and restoration. For Pasatiempo Creek Reach 2, the Management Plan does not recommend maintaining a designated riparian corridor or development setback for this watercourse reach since it essentially operates as a culvert.
Reach 3 is the upstream reach that abuts the City limits. The riparian vegetation in this reach is oak riparian woodland, dominated by coast live oak. This reach of creek supports a wide variety of birds, animals and aquatic species, until it reaches Highway 17 (Reach 2), wherein it becomes a modified channel. In 2003, the average width of the vegetated corridor along the upper reach of Pasatiempo Creek was 80 feet (measured outward from the creek centerline). Land uses along the creek are residential. Due to steep slopes, the residential developments are situated greater than
43.130
City-Wide Creeks & Wetlands Management Plan
Chapter 3.0 Setback Analysis 3-17 May 2008
100-feet from the centerline of the watercourse. For Pasatiempo Creek Reach 3, the Management Plan recommends a 80-foot wide riparian corridor and a development setback of 100 feet.
Reach 3 offers wildlife dispersal corridors. Opportunities for enhancement mainly consist of control of invasive, non-native plant species, including observed pampas grass, English ivy, cape ivy, periwinkle, acacia and French broom. Opportunities to enhance wildlife habitat include preserving snags, installing of bird and bat nest boxes to improve nesting sites, planting of native riparian trees and shrubs, maintaining vegetative cover over the water, and preserving large woody debris in the channel.
3.3.1.11 Jessie Street Marsh/Jessie Street Channel. Jessie Street Marsh is located off Jessie Street. The Jessie Street Channel, which runs from the San Lorenzo River to its connection to Jessie Street Marsh east of Lemos Avenue, is modified and highly urbanized on the west side.
East of the channel are open space lands owned by the City. Jessie Street Channel supports primarily modified vegetation. In 2003, the average width of the vegetated corridor was 10 feet (measured outward from the creek centerline). For Jessie Street Channel, the Management Plan recommends a 10-foot wide riparian corridor and a development setback of 15 feet.
Jessie Street Marsh is a small wetland between Jessie Street and the San Lorenzo River upstream from the channel. Activities within and adjacent to the marsh are potentially subject to further biotic review to ensure adequate resource protection. The parcels that may require site-specific review have been designated on the aerial maps; however, further review would only be required if because of either the location of the proposed development or the type of development proposed, the development has the potential of impacting the wetland resource.
3.3.1.12 Ocean Villa Creek. Ocean Villa Creek is a direct tributary to the San Lorenzo River. The watercourse originates near Seabright Avenue and traverses a small canyon to its exit to the San Lorenzo River at East Cliff Drive. This watercourse was named for the property above the creek that was the 1870 home of the Ocean Villa, a hotel and boarding house (Clark, 1986).
Ocean Villa Creek is a vegetated watercourse for most of its length. The riparian vegetation includes non-native riparian woodland (eucalyptus-dominated) in the upstream reach and mixed riparian woodland adjacent to Ocean View Park (dominated by willows). The eucalyptus grove is a potential over-wintering site for the monarch butterfly. This watercourse supports a variety of birds, animals and aquatic species, yet its narrow width and close proximity of adjacent residential land uses limits its ability to expand or provide wildlife movement outside the active channel. In 2003, the average width of the vegetated corridor along Ocean Villa Creek was 50 feet. For Ocean Villa Creek, the Management Plan recommends a 50-foot wide riparian corridor and a development setback of 70 feet.
Opportunities for enhancement and restoration include the control of invasive, non-native plant species, where consistent with preservation of the woodland qualities required for the monarch butterfly, including observed pampas grass, English ivy, cape ivy, periwinkle, acacia and French broom. The riparian woodland has been degraded by the deposition of household debris in and adjacent to the riparian corridor, which impairs the habitat quality for wildlife and impairs the growth of native vegetation. Opportunities to remove organic and inorganic debris occur along this creek reach.
43.131
City-Wide Creeks & Wetlands Management Plan
Chapter 3.0 Setback Analysis 3-18 May 2008
3.3.2 Arana Gulch Creek Watershed
The western boundary of this watershed extends from DeLaveaga Park south toward Branciforte and Seabright Avenues and discharges into the Santa Cruz Harbor. The eastern boundary of the watershed is to the east of the City limits (7th Avenue) in the unincorporated community of Live Oak. The watershed drains most of the eastern portion of the City (as well as much of western Live Oak), DeLaveaga Park, Paul Sweet Road and the neighborhoods below DeLaveaga Golf Course. For purposes of the Management Plan, the Arana Gulch Creek watershed includes the main stem of Arana Gulch Creek (within the City limits), several tributaries that originate in the DeLaveaga area and tributaries that originate in the Seabright neighborhood and enter into the upper Harbor (refer to the aerial map pages for the location of these watercourses).
3.3.2.1 Arana Gulch Creek. For purposes of the Management Plan, Arana Gulch Creek and its separate tributaries under the same name have been divided into 28 reaches. Arana Gulch Creek drains into Monterey Bay via the Santa Cruz Harbor. Its lower watershed is dominated by the City-owned Arana Gulch greenbelt property, where Arana Gulch Creek broadens out into a wetland area (Arana Wetland) before entering the upper Harbor (Arana Harbor).
Upstream from the greenbelt property it crosses under Capitola Road and Soquel Avenue and passes by Harbor High School. The upper watershed is mostly residential. Arana Gulch Creek supports one special status species. Steelhead trout use the lower reach of the creek as a movement corridor to upstream spawning areas (spawning occurs outside of City limits). The tidewater goby historically occurred in Woods Lagoon and was last observed in 1984, but not observed in a 2005 survey. Portions of Arana Gulch Creek have potential habitat for monarch butterflies and the yellow-breasted chat, while upper portions of the creek have potential nesting habitat for Cooper’s hawk. Potential habitat exists for other special status species including San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat, Townsend’s western big-eared bat, and yuma myotis.
The main stem of Arana Gulch Creek supports riparian woodland, dominated by coast live oak.
Near the upper harbor and the under-crossing at Highway 1, the creek supports dense stands of non-native riparian woodland (eucalyptus) and mixed riparian woodland (willow dominated).
Where tidal inflows from Monterey Bay reach upstream, the creek also supports a salt-brackish water marsh. This marsh is contained within the Arana Gulch City-owned greenbelt property. In this area, Arana Gulch Creek supports a wide variety of birds, animals and aquatic species. The mosaic of marsh vegetation, tall roost trees (eucalyptus) and native oaks provide a diverse habitat structure and diverse food sources for wildlife. Herons have been documented to periodically roost in the eucalyptus trees near the harbor and the mixed riparian woodland may support nesting yellow warblers (Brady LSA, 1999). Surveys for the California red-legged frog have been conducted in the creek, yet none have been detected (Brady LSA, 1999). Upstream of the greenbelt property,, the riparian corridor has been affected by adjacent commercial and residential land uses. Near Soquel Avenue, the creek has been channelized and narrowed for approximately 200 feet. Recently, the riparian area at Harbor High School has been enhanced through the planting of native riparian trees and shrubs. Passage for steelhead through this reach was also improved through an improvement project funded by CDFG and the Coastal Watershed Council. Upstream of Highway 1, Arana Gulch Creek is bound by residential development to the boundary of DeLaveaga Park. Lands adjacent to the creek within DeLaveaga Park are undeveloped.
43.132
City-Wide Creeks & Wetlands Management Plan
Chapter 3.0 Setback Analysis 3-19 May 2008
Portions of the Arana Watershed have either existing or pending management plans. The area where Arana Gulch Creek drains into Monterey Bay at the upper harbor, referred as Arana Gulch Creek Harbor, is located within the Santa Cruz Harbor. Any development within this area would be subject to the requirements of the Santa Cruz Harbor Development Plan. Properties including and adjacent to Arana Wetland would be required to conduct site-specific review prior to development approval for activities that could impact Arana Wetland’s resources. These parcels that may require site-specific review have been designated as such on the aerial maps.
The lower watershed where Arana Gulch Creek broadens into a wetland, Arana Wetland, is located within the Arana Greenbelt, and development within or adjacent to Arana Wetland would be subject to the Arana Gulch Management Plan (currently being prepared).
Upstream of the greenbelt lands, the creek has been channelized and narrowed. Arana Gulch Creek Reach 1a (the main branch), runs from the edge of the City’s greenbelt near the Capitola Road/Soquel Avenue intersection, behind a commercial strip mall near the intersection, and then crosses under Soquel Avenue east of Carl Avenue where it runs along the south and east side of the Harbor High School campus to Highway 1.
In 2003, the average width of the vegetated corridor along the main stem of Arana Gulch Creek (Reach 1a) was 60 feet. Land uses along this corridor include commercial and residential, as well as public facilities. For Arana Gulch Creek Reach 1a, the Management Plan recommends a 60- foot wide riparian corridor and a development setback of 80 feet.
Opportunities for enhancement and restoration include the control of invasive, non-native plant species, including observed pampas grass, English ivy, cape ivy, periwinkle, acacia and French broom. Opportunities to enhance wildlife habitat include preserving snags, installing bird and bat nest boxes, planting native riparian trees and shrubs, maintaining vegetative cover over the water, and preserving large woody debris in the channel.
Arana Gulch Creek Reach 1b is a small tributary to Arana 1a that drains a small residential area west of La Fonda Avenue. Arana Gulch Creek 1b originates at a storm drain and primarily supports non native vegetation. It is a short reach constrained by adjacent residential development. In 2003, the average width of the vegetated corridor along Arana Gulch Creek 1b was 20 feet. For Arana Gulch Creek Reach 1b, the Management Plan recommends a 20- foot wide riparian corridor and a development setback of 25 feet.
Arana Gulch Creek Reach 1c is a continuation of the main branch north of Highway 1 where it skirts the eastern City limits boundary adjacent to semi-rural residential development up into DeLaveaga Park. Lands adjacent to the creek within DeLaveaga Park are undeveloped. This main stem reach of Arana Gulch Creek supports riparian woodland, dominated by coast live oak.
In 2003, the average width of the vegetated corridor along Arana Gulch Creek 1c was 100 feet.
For Arana Gulch Creek Reach 1c, the Management Plan recommends a 100-foot wide riparian corridor and a development setback of 130 feet. Opportunities to restore and enhance this reach are similar to those described above for Arana Gulch Creek 1a.
Tributaries along the main branch of Arana Gulch Creek include Arana Gulch Creek Reach 1d, 1e, 1f, 1g, and 1h which are small watersheds that drain portions of DeLaveaga Park and adjacent residential areas. Arana Gulch Creek 1d is moderately constrained by residential development as it is located in a residential area near the eastern boundary of the City limits to its origination within DeLaveaga Park boundaries. Arana Gulch Creek 1e, 1f, 1g, and 1h are all located within DeLaveaga Park and are therefore unconstrained by development. These
43.133
City-Wide Creeks & Wetlands Management Plan
Chapter 3.0 Setback Analysis 3-20 May 2008
reaches support riparian woodland, dominated by coast live oak. In 2003, the average width of the vegetated corridor along Arana Gulch Creek 1d, 1e, 1f, 1g, and 1h was 40 feet (measured outward from the creek centerline). For Arana Gulch Creek Reach 1d, the Management Plan recommends a 40-foot wide riparian corridor and a development setback of 60 feet. For Arana Gulch Creek Reach 1e, 1f, 1g, and 1h, the Management Plan recommends a 55-foot wide riparian corridor and a development setback of 75 feet.
Arana Gulch Reach 2 is a very short reach section that is above-ground for one parcel north of Oak Way, goes under the street, and then is above ground for one parcel to Highway 1, where it goes underground until it hooks into the main branch of Arana Gulch Creek. Although the reach supports oak riparian woodland, it is very constrained by residential development and has little habitat value due to its short length. In 2003, the average width of the vegetated corridor along Arana Gulch Creek 2 was 10 feet (measured outward from the creek centerline). For Arana Gulch Creek Reach 2, the Management Plan recommends a 10-foot wide riparian corridor and a development setback of 15 feet.
Arana Gulch Creek Reach 3a, 3b, 3c, and 3d is a separate branch that drains a portion of DeLaveaga Park and the Prospect Heights residential neighborhood. This section of the creek originates within DeLaveaga Park within two small canyons west of the water tanks (Arana Gulch Creek 3d), then comes down in two branches on both sides of Prospect Court where it finally joins together near the intersection of Prospect Heights and Morrissey Boulevard (Arana Gulch Creek 3c), where it goes underground until it daylights under several homes north of Holway Drive. The creek goes back underground at Highway 1 (Arana Gulch Creek 3b). The creek daylights again south of Highway 1 where it runs through the Loma Prieta High School site until it goes underground at La Fonda Avenue (Arana Gulch Creek 3a). With the exception of Arana Gulch Creek 3d which is located on City property, these reaches are very constrained by residential development and public facilities. Although there is some habitat value along this branch of Arana, the majority of the existing vegetation consists of non-native or modified vegetation and is constrained by adjacent development. In 2003, the average width of the vegetated corridor along Arana Gulch Creek 3a, 3b, 3c, and 3d ranged from 5 to 40 feet. The Management Plan recommends the following setbacks:
• For Arana Gulch Creek Reach 3a, a 20-foot wide riparian corridor and a development setback of 30 feet;
• for Arana Gulch Creek 3b, a 5-foot wide riparian corridor with no additional development setback for structures;
• for Arana Gulch Creek 3c, a 15-foot wide riparian corridor and a development setback of 20 feet; and
• for Arana Gulch Creek 3d, a 55-foot wide riparian corridor and a development setback of 75 feet.
Arana Gulch Creek Reach 4a, 4b, 4c, 4d, and 4e, similar to Arana Gulch Creek 3a-3d, is a separate branch that drains a portion of DeLaveaga Park and the Prospect Heights residential neighborhood. This section of Arana originates within DeLaveaga Park within two small canyons adjacent to and below the golf course driving range (Arana Gulch Creek 4e and 4d) where it comes down in one branch through the Prospect Heights neighborhood, east of Trevethan Avenue (Arana Gulch Creek 4c). Arana Gulch Creek 4b begins at the Park Way/Allerton Street intersection, where the creek interchanges above and below ground along the front and side yards of residential properties, until it goes underground again at Morrissey Boulevard and then under Highway 1. Arana Gulch Creek 4a parallels the south side of Highway 1 until it joins up with
43.134
City-Wide Creeks & Wetlands Management Plan
Chapter 3.0 Setback Analysis 3-21 May 2008
Arana Gulch Creek 3a at the Loma Prieta High School site. Although there is some habitat value along this branch of Arana, the majority of the existing vegetation consists of non-native or modified vegetation and is constrained by adjacent development. In 2003, the average width of the vegetated corridor along Arana Gulch Creek 4a, 4b, 4c, 4d, and 4e ranged from 0 to 40 feet. The Management Plan recommends the following setbacks:
• For Arana Gulch Creek Reach 4a, a 10-foot wide riparian corridor and a development setback of 15 feet;
• for Arana Gulch Creek 4b, no setback is recommended since almost the entirety of this reach is located in a culvert;
• for Arana Gulch Creek 4c, a 5-foot wide riparian corridor and a development setback of 10 feet; and
• for Arana Gulch Creek 4d and 4e, a 55-foot wide riparian corridor and a development setback of 75 feet.
Arana Gulch Creek Reach 5a, 5b, 5c, 5d, and 5e, similar to Arana Gulch Creek 3a-3d and 4a-e above, is a separate branch that drains a portion of DeLaveaga Park and the Prospect Heights residential neighborhood. This section of Arana originates within DeLaveaga Park within two small canyons west of the driving range (Arana Gulch Creek 5e and 5d) where it comes down in one branch through the Prospect Heights neighborhood, west of Pacheco Avenue (Arana Gulch Creek 5c). Arana Gulch Creek 5b begins at a church property, where the existing church and adjacent residential development constrain the ability for the creek to expand. Arana Gulch Creek 5a begins where the creek goes underground at a church parking lot and it stays in a culvert under the Highway 1/Morrissey Boulevard interchange and then heads east parallel to the south side of Highway 1 where it joins into Arana Gulch Creek 4a. Although there is some habitat value along this branch of Arana, the majority of the existing vegetation consists of non-native or modified vegetation and is constrained by adjacent development. In 2003, the average width of the vegetated corridor along Arana Gulch Creek 5a, 5b, 5c, 5d, and 5e ranged from 0 to 40 feet.
The Management Plan recommends the following setbacks:
• For Arana Gulch Creek Reach 5a, no setback is recommended since the reach is located in a culvert;
• for Arana Gulch Creek 5b, a 10-foot wide riparian corridor and a development setback of 15 feet;
• for Arana Gulch Creek 5c, a 20-foot wide riparian corridor and a development setback of 30 feet;
• for Arana Gulch Creek 5d, a 40-foot wide riparian corridor and a development setback of 60 feet; and
• for Arana Gulch Creek 5e, a 55-foot wide riparian corridor and a development setback of 75 feet.
Arana Gulch Creek Reach 6a, 6b, and 6c is a separate branch that drains a portion of DeLaveaga Park and a small portion of the Prospect Heights residential neighborhood. This section of Arana originates within DeLaveaga Park east of the park entrance at Upper Park Road (Arana Gulch Creek 6c). The creek crosses under DeLaveaga Park Road and runs down a gulch between a residential neighborhood east of Carol Avenue (Arana Gulch Creek 6b). The creek then enters a culvert for almost 200 feet and then daylights for less than one parcel (Arana Gulch Creek 6a), where it then goes underground again for the length of the branch. Although there is some habitat value along this branch of Arana, the majority of the existing vegetation consists of non-native or modified vegetation and is greatly constrained by adjacent residential development.
43.135
City-Wide Creeks & Wetlands Management Plan
Chapter 3.0 Setback Analysis 3-22 May 2008
In 2003, the average width of the vegetated corridor along Arana Gulch Creek 6a, 6b, and 6c ranged from 0 to 40 feet. The Management Plan recommends the following setbacks:
• For Arana Gulch Creek Reach 6a, no setback is recommended since the reach is so short and is essentially an above-ground culvert;
• for Arana Gulch Creek 6b, a 20-foot wide riparian corridor and a development setback of 30 feet; and
• for Arana Gulch Creek 6c, a 55-foot wide riparian corridor and a development setback of 75 feet.
The riparian vegetation along these tributaries has some habitat value, but is significantly constrained by existing residential land uses. However, these tributaries are important for terrestrial and aquatic species due to their close proximity to Arana Gulch Creek. The tributaries offer opportunities to enhance wildlife use and provide continuity to habitats within the main stem of Arana Gulch Creek. Within all theses reaches, the riparian habitat offers opportunities for enhancement and restoration, including planting riparian vegetation and removal of invasive, nonnative plant species, including observed pampas grass, English ivy, cape ivy, periwinkle, acacia and French broom. Opportunities to enhance wildlife habitat include preserving snags, installing bird and bat nest boxes, planting native riparian trees and shrubs, maintaining vegetative cover over the water, and preserving large woody debris in the channel.
3.3.2.2 Hagemann Gulch. Hagemann Gulch is an intermittent drainage that is a tributary to Arana Gulch Creek; the gulch includes a main stem and a smaller side tributary, all of which empty into the upper harbor. The watercourse drains a residential area as well as the western portion of the Arana Gulch greenbelt property. The watercourse was named for Frederick Hagemann who owned 110 acres in the area in 1870-80s. For the purposes of the Management Plan, Hageman Gulch has been divided into two reaches.
The main stem of Hagemann Gulch (Reach 1) is a vegetated watercourse that runs from approximately the Agnes Street/Mentel Avenue intersection downstream to behind the Harbor Maintenance Yard (where it goes underground into a culvert that drains into the upper harbor). The riparian vegetation is primarily oak riparian woodland (dominated by coast live oak), yet supports patches of non-native riparian woodland (eucalyptus-dominated). This watercourse supports a variety of birds, animals and aquatic species. Raptors have been documented to periodically nest in the eucalyptus trees in the gulch (City of Santa Cruz, 1999) and potential monarch butterfly habitat exists in the upper portions of the creek. Where the riparian corridor abuts the greenbelt lands, there are opportunities for wildlife movement outside the corridor and into the adjacent natural area. The western side of the gulch is confined by residential development, wherein residential backyards directly abut the corridor.
In 2003, the average width of the vegetated corridor along Reach 1 of Hagemann Gulch was 40 feet. For Hagemann Gulch Reach 1, the Management Plan recommends a 40-foot wide riparian corridor and a development setback of 60 feet.
Enhancement and restoration opportunities include the control of invasive, non-native plant species, including observed pampas grass, English ivy, cape ivy, periwinkle, acacia, young eucalyptus trees and French broom.
Reach 2 of Hagemann Gulch is a tributary that is located near Frederick Street along the lot lines of residential properties. Due to the developed nature of the area, the corridor is narrow and significantly confined by existing land uses. In 2003, the average width of the vegetated corridor
43.136
City-Wide Creeks & Wetlands Management Plan
Chapter 3.0 Setback Analysis 3-23 May 2008
along Reach 2 of Hagemann Gulch was 10 feet. For Hagemann Gulch Reach 2, the Management Plan recommends a 10-foot wide riparian corridor and a development setback of 15 feet.
This tributary has very limited ability to be expanded to improve riparian habitat values due to the close proximity of existing land uses (residential areas and institutional uses), however, the riparian habitat would benefit from the removal of invasive, non-native plant species. Invasive plant species observed within the corridor that are recommended for removal include pampas grass, English ivy, cape ivy, periwinkle, acacia, young eucalyptus trees and French broom.
Hagemann Gulch Harbor is a reach located in an underground culvert under the Harbor Maintenance Yard that drains into the upper harbor. For Hagemann Gulch Harbor Reach, the Management Plan does not recommend maintaining a designated riparian corridor or development setback. Activities within this area would be subject to the Santa Cruz Harbor Development Plan.
3.3.2.3 Woods Creek. Woods Creek is an intermittent drainage that is a tributary to Arana Gulch Creek. For the purposes of the Management Plan, Woods Creek has been divided into two reaches. Woods Creek originates in the Seabright neighborhood south of Windham Street (Woods Creek Reach 2) and runs down the back of residential properties via a gulch that widens out southwest of Glenview Street (Woods Creek Reach 1) and eventually drains into the upper harbor north of Murray Street (Woods Creek Harbor).
Woods Creek Reach 2 is a short reach that runs from the south side of Windham Street through several small residential back yards approximately one block to Glenview Street. This reach is very constrained due to existing residential development. In 2003, the average width of the vegetated corridor along Woods Creek Reach 2 was 10 feet. For Woods Creek Reach 2, the Management Plan recommends a 10-foot wide riparian corridor and a development setback of 15 feet.
Woods Creek Reach 1 runs through the back of residential back yards adjacent to Glenview Street and widens out near the Seabright industrial neighborhood until it goes into a culvert near the Murray Street Bridge. This reach is constrained due to existing residential and commercial development. In 2003, the average width of the vegetated corridor along Woods Creek Reach 1 was 20 feet. For Woods Creek Reach 1, the Management Plan recommends a 20-foot wide riparian corridor and a development setback of 30 feet.
Woods Creek Harbor is the reach area that drains into the upper harbor. The Management Plan does not recommend maintaining a designated riparian corridor or development setback for this watercourse reach as it is located within an underground culvert. Activities within this area would be subject to the Santa Cruz Harbor Development Plan.
Woods Creek primarily supports non-native vegetation. This tributary to Arana Gulch Creek has very limited ability to be expanded to improve riparian habitat values due to the close proximity of existing land uses (residential and commercial uses), however, the riparian habitat would benefit from the removal of invasive, non-native plant species. Invasive plant species observed within the corridor that are recommended for removal include pampas grass, English ivy, cape ivy, periwinkle, acacia, young eucalyptus trees and French broom.
43.137
City-Wide Creeks & Wetlands Management Plan
Chapter 3.0 Setback Analysis 3-24 May 2008
3.3.3 Neary Lagoon Watershed
Neary Lagoon is fed by Laurel Creek and several smaller drainages and storm drains. A group of springs, emanating from the High Street area on the west side of the City provides a year-round baseflow to the many tributaries of Laurel Creek. Neary Lagoon is one of the lowest points in the City and empties into Monterey Bay near the Municipal Wharf. Its watershed likely drains a portion of UCSC, although this is uncertain because the campus is underlain by numerous limestone caves, caverns and passageways. Thus, most of the surface drainage goes underground in places and comes back out in other places, making the pathways of underground connections difficult to determine. The Neary Lagoon watershed also drains much of the Westlake area, the Mission and King Street corridor, and the California Street area. The watershed’s eastern boundary is the same as the western boundary of the San Lorenzo River watershed described previously. The watershed’s western boundary roughly parallels the western edge of the UCSC campus and upper Bay Street (to the west), roughly following Bay Street from California Street to the Coast Santa Cruz Hotel (formerly the Dream Inn).
3.3.3.1 Neary Lagoon. Neary Lagoon is a freshwater marsh/wetland that drains into Monterey Bay (near the Wharf) via a pump system operated by the City Public Works Department. It is one of the lowest points in the City, and receives runoff from a significant portion of the City’s land area.
It is likely the location of a former course of the San Lorenzo River as it meandered across its lower floodplain over the last 10,000 years. The main tributary to Neary Lagoon is the Laurel Creek drainage area, but the lagoon also receives runoff from smaller drainages and storm drains.
Neary Lagoon is an important natural area within the City’s urban setting. It provides important habitat for wildlife and is a unique resource for the community. Two federal and state species of special concern have been observed in Neary Lagoon. The tricolored blackbird roosts in the lagoon (D. Laabs, pers. Comm., 2001) and historically nested there, although nesting has not been observed in recent years (S. Gerow, pers. Comm., 2001). Southwestern pond turtles are present in this location. Potential nesting habitat exists for the yellow warbler and yellow-breasted chat.
The lagoon has been encroached upon by residential development, industrial land uses (i.e., wastewater treatment plant), the introduction of invasive, non-native plant and animal species, the receipt of urban runoff and increased public use. The Neary Lagoon Management Plan (City of Santa Cruz, 1992) was prepared as both a guide and a directive for managing the 44-acre lagoon area, most of which is wetland, riparian and woodland habitats, to ensure its long-term viability as an ecosystem and its value as a unique resource for the community. Goals, objectives and actions described in the plan are designed with the purpose of preserving and enhancing the lagoon’s environmental integrity and quality while satisfying other purposes for public recreation and safety. The Neary Lagoon Management Plan guides all aspects of operation, maintenance, protection, improvement and monitoring consistent with these purposes.
Since Neary Lagoon has an adopted management plan, is not subject to conditions in this Management Plan. Adjacent properties would be required to conduct site-specific review prior to development approval for activities that could impact Neary Lagoon’s resources. The parcels adjacent to this resource that may require site-specific review have been designated as such on the aerial maps; however, further review would only be required if, because of either the location of the proposed development or the type of development proposed, the development has the potential to impact the resource.
43.138
City-Wide Creeks & Wetlands Management Plan
Chapter 3.0 Setback Analysis 3-25 May 2008
3.3.3.2 Laurel Creek/Westlake Pond. Laurel Creek is the main tributary to Neary Lagoon. It drains a small watershed that includes part of the Mission Street corridor and reaches up into the Westlake district above.
Laurel Creek has been divided into seven reaches for purposes of the Management Plan. Reach 1 is the most downstream reach that abuts Neary Lagoon. In 2003, the average width of the vegetated corridor along this reach of Laurel Creek was 20 feet. Land uses along the creek are residential. Due to steep slopes west of the creek, some of the residential developments are situated greater than 100-feet from the centerline of the watercourse. Although constrained by residential land uses, this reach is an important area for terrestrial and aquatic species due to its close proximity to the lagoon. This reach offers some opportunity to enhance wildlife use and provide continuity to habitats within the lagoon. For Laurel Creek Reach 1, the Management Plan recommends a 20-foot wide riparian corridor and a development setback of 30 feet.
The removal of invasive plant species, coupled with revegetation efforts (with native riparian and wetland plants) would benefit the resources in this reach. Invasive plant species observed within the corridor that are recommended for removal include pampas grass, English ivy, periwinkle and French broom. The City recently implemented a restoration project for a portion of Laurel Creek that abuts this creek reach.
The upstream reaches of Laurel Creek (Reaches 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7) are modified channels.
Riparian vegetation occurs as disjunct patches or narrows strips along the channel. Landownercreated in-channel ponds were observed in some reaches, as well as documented by the public at the informational meetings. Some landowners have expressed concern on the effects of these in-stream ponds on downstream flooding. Due to the close proximity of residential land uses in these creek reaches, the creek provides only moderate amounts of riparian wildlife habitat. Due to the confined condition of the watercourse, these reaches of Laurel Creek also have very limited ability to expand or provide wildlife movement outside the active channel. In 2003, the average width of the vegetated corridor along these reaches ranged from 0 to 20 feet. The Management Plan recommends the following setbacks:
• For Laurel Creek Reach 2,4 and 6, a 10-foot wide riparian corridor and a development setback of 15 feet;
• For Laurel Creek Reach 3 and 7, a 20-foot wide riparian corridor and a development setback of 30 feet; and
• For Laurel Creek Reach 5, no setback is recommended as it is an underground culvert.
These reaches offer limited opportunities to enhance wildlife use by creating a continuous corridor of riparian vegetation and the removal of invasive, non-native plant species, including observed pampas grass, English ivy, cape ivy, periwinkle, acacia and French broom; other invasive, non-native plant species may also be present that were not detected during the 2003 field review.
Westlake Pond is at the upstream end of Laurel Creek. Historically, the pond was a natural spring, known as Majors Spring. The spring was altered to create a pond that currently covers approximately 2.7 acres. The pond currently supports expanses of turf, with some areas of freshwater marsh and riparian vegetation. In 1989, the City prepared a wildlife use study of the pond, which identified actions for water bird use and management. Southwestern pond turtles have historically been observed in the pond (Habitat Restoration Group, 1989). Sitespecific review would be required prior to development approval for activities that could
43.139
City-Wide Creeks & Wetlands Management Plan
Chapter 3.0 Setback Analysis 3-26 May 2008
impact Westlake Pond’s resources. All other actions pertaining to Westlake Pond must be consistent with the Westlake Pond Plan. The parcels containing this resource that may require site-specific review have been designated as such on the aerial maps.
3.3.3.3 Bay Avenue Creek. Bay Avenue Creek is a perennial tributary to Neary Lagoon. It drains a small watershed that includes the Bay Street corridor. The majority of the watercourse is situated between the two traffic lanes of Bay Street, between Escalona Drive and High Street. There is a short reach of watercourse immediately downstream of Escalona Drive; the watercourse is then directed into storm drains. For purposes of the Management Plan, Bay Avenue Creek has been divided into three reaches.
Reach 1, along Bay Street between Kenneth and Escalona, is a very short reach (three parcels in length) located between the street and residential properties. It is a modified channel surrounded by ornamental landscaping. Reach 2 is between the traffic lanes above Escalona Drive to Nobel Drive. Reach 3 is between the traffic lanes above Meder Street, to the intersection of Bay Street and High Street. Bay Avenue Creek Reaches 2 and 3 support mixed riparian woodland. The riparian vegetation also includes non-native tree species that were planted during construction of the Bay Street improvements. A paved, multi-use trail travels the majority of Bay Avenue Creek Reach 2. The creek provides riparian habitat in this area due to the perennial water flow and the presence of mature riparian trees. Its use by wildlife, however, is moderated by the close proximity of roadway traffic along Bay Street. In 2003, the average width of the vegetated corridor along these reaches ranged from 5 to 20 feet (measured outward from the creek centerline). The Management Plan recommends the following setbacks:
• For Bay Avenue Creek Reach 1, a 5-foot wide riparian corridor and no additional development setback;
• For Bay Avenue Creek Reach 2, a 20-foot wide riparian corridor and no a development setback of 30 feet; and
• For Bay Avenue Creek Reach 3, a 5-foot wide riparian corridor and a development setback of 10 feet.
Reach 2 is the area that has some habitat potential, though moderated by its location adjacent to Bay Street. Reach 2 offers opportunities to enhance wildlife use by the removal of invasive, nonnative plant species and diversifying the understory habitat. Invasive plant species observed within the corridor that are recommended for removal include English ivy, cape ivy, acacia and French broom .
3.3.3.4 Bayona Creek. Bayona Creek is a large swale that runs from the south side of Bayona Drive through residential backyards in a small canyon until the topography flattens out and the creek goes into an underground culvert near Escalona Drive. Bayona Creek primarily supports non-native riparian woodland. In 2003, the average width of the vegetated corridor was 20 feet. Due to the close proximity of residential land uses and the short length of the creek, there is minimal area for expansion of riparian vegetation or wildlife dispersal areas. For Bayona Creek, the Management Plan recommends a 20-foot wide riparian corridor and a development setback of 30 feet.
3.3.3.5 Chrystal Gulch. Chrystal Gulch is a small swale located between Mission Street and Walnut Avenue. The gulch is in the Mission Hill area near the end of Pine Place. The gulch was named for Dr. James Christal who arrived in Santa Cruz in 1870s; the land was subdivided in 1941 and mistakenly named Chrystal Terrace.
43.140
City-Wide Creeks & Wetlands Management Plan
Chapter 3.0 Setback Analysis 3-27 May 2008
Drainage from Chrystal Gulch enters City storm drains, which may eventually empty into Laurel Creek. The creek is intermittent and supports a dense growth of willows (mixed riparian woodland). In 2003, the average width of the vegetated corridor was 10 feet. Due to the close proximity of residential land uses, there is minimal area for riparian woodland expansion or wildlife dispersal areas. For Chrystal Gulch, the Management Plan recommends a 10-foot wide riparian corridor and a development setback of 15 feet.
There are limited opportunities to enhance this reach, including maintenance of a minimum corridor width, planting of native trees and shrubs in degraded areas and removal of invasive non-native plant species, including observed English ivy.
3.3.3.6 Dodero Spring Creek/Kalkar Quarry Spring. Dodero Spring Creek is a perennial watercourse that originates at Kalkar Quarry Spring near the boundary of the UCSC campus.
The creek was named as part of the Management Plan based on Tres Ojos de Agua, several springs located in the western section of the City.
Dodero Spring Creek traverses through residential lots in the Spring Street area. In many instances, the watercourse has been either modified, into a narrow channel supporting herbaceous riparian vegetation, or enlarged into residential ponds. Drainage from Dodero Spring Creek enters City storm drains near Mission Street and eventually empties into Laurel Creek. For purposes of the Management Plan, the watercourse has been divided into six reaches. The lower reaches of the watercourse (Reaches 1a and 1b) have been significantly narrowed and are modified channels. The watercourse supports patches of mixed riparian woodland and oak riparian woodland; however, the vegetation is not continuous along the length of the channel. Some modified channels have been altered by landowners into in-stream landscape ponds; other areas are planted with non-native landscaping. In 2003, the average width of the vegetated corridor along these reaches ranged from 5 feet for Reach 1a to 0 for Reach 1b, which is located in a culvert (measured outward from the creek centerline). The Management Plan recommends the following setbacks:
• For Dodero Spring Creek Reach 1a, a 5-foot wide riparian corridor and a development setback of 10 feet;
• For Dodero Spring Creek Reach 1b, no setbacks are recommended as this reach is located in a culvert.
Reach 1a offers opportunities for enhancement, including maintenance of a minimum corridor width, planting of native trees and shrubs in degraded areas, removing invasive non-native plant species and management of in-channel ponds. Invasive plant species observed include pampas grass, English ivy, periwinkle, acacia and French broom.
The upper reaches of the watercourse (Reaches 2, 3, 4, and 5) support mixed riparian woodland, characterized by a dense growth of willows. In 2003, the average width of the vegetated corridor ranged from 10 feet (Reaches 3 and 5) to 25 feet (Reaches 2 and 4) (measured outward from the creek centerline). Due to the close proximity of residential land uses, however, there is minimal area for riparian woodland expansion or upland wildlife dispersal areas. The Management Plan recommends the following setbacks:
• For Dodero Spring Creek Reach 2 and 4, a 25-foot wide riparian corridor and a development setback of 30 feet; and
43.141
City-Wide Creeks & Wetlands Management Plan
Chapter 3.0 Setback Analysis 3-28 May 2008
• For Dodero Spring Creek Reach 3 and 5, a 10-foot wide riparian corridor and a development setback of 15 feet.
These reaches offer limited opportunities to enhance wildlife use by creating a continuous corridor of riparian vegetation and removal of invasive, non-native plant species, including observed pampas grass, periwinkle, acacia and French broom.
Several small ponds exist on adjacent residential properties, which receive water from Dodero Spring Creek. Site-specific review would be required for these properties prior to development approval for activities that could impact potential resources. The parcels adjacent to these resources that may require site-specific review have been designated as such on the aerial maps; however, further review would only be required if, because of either the location of the proposed development or the type of development proposed, the development has the potential to impact the resource.
Dodero Spring Creek originates at Kalkar Quarry Spring near the boundary of the UCSC campus south of Coolidge Drive. Kalkar Quarry was the site of former limestone quarrying operations, which ceased in 1970. The quarry is spring-fed, but UCSC campus lands also drain through a swale into the quarry. Due to the history of the site for quarry operations, the vegetation in this area is disturbed and supports primarily modified vegetation, though there are also areas of freshwater marsh. The Management Plan recommends that site-specific review be required prior to development approval for activities that could impact Kalkar Quarry Spring resources. Parcels adjacent to this resource that may require site-specific review have been designated as such on the aerial maps; however, further review would only be required if, because of either the location of the proposed development or the type of development proposed, the development has the potential to impact the resource.
3.3.3.7 Longview Creek. Longview Creek is a perennial watercourse that gets at least a portion of its water from an underground culvert at Dodero Creek. For purposes of the Management Plan, Longview Creek has been divided into two reaches. Longview Creek Reach 1a runs from the south side of High Street through residential yards until it runs back underground at the intersection of Dodero Street and Hollywood Avenue. Longview Creek Reach 1b is a very short reach that runs along a residential property in an above-ground pipe that drains into a cement trough. Longview Creek primarily supports modified vegetation and is very constrained by existing adjacent residential development. In 2003, the average width of the vegetated corridor of Longview Creek 1a was 5 feet, measured outward from the creek centerline. Due to the close proximity of residential land uses and the relatively short length of this reach, there is minimal area for expansion of riparian vegetation or upland wildlife dispersal areas. No setback is recommended for Longview Creek 1b as it is located in an aboveground culvert.
The Management Plan recommends the following setbacks:
• For Longview Creek 1a, a 5-foot wide riparian corridor and a development setback of 10 feet; and
• For Longview Creek 1b, no setback is recommended as this reach is located in an above-ground culvert.
A small pond exists on an adjacent residential property which receives water from Longview Creek 1a. Site-specific review would be required for this property prior to development approval for activities that could impact potential resources. The parcel adjacent to this
43.142
City-Wide Creeks & Wetlands Management Plan
Chapter 3.0 Setback Analysis 3-29 May 2008
resource that may require site-specific review has been designated as such on the aerial maps; however, further review would only be required if, because of either the location of the proposed development or the type of development proposed, the development has the potential to impact the resource.
3.3.3.8 Ojos de Agua Creek. Ojos de Agua Creek is a perennial watercourse that originates from Church Spring near the intersection of High Street and Spring Street. Church Spring was one of the springs that made up the Tres Ojos de Agua. For purposes of the Management Plan, Ojos de Agua has been divided into four reaches. Ojos de Agua Creek traverses through residential lots in the Spring Street area and joins Dodero Creek near King Street. Throughout its length, the channel has been modified, either into a narrow drainage supporting herbaceous riparian vegetation, small ponds or a culvert. Drainage from Ojos de Agua Creek enters City storm drains near Mission Street and eventually empties into Laurel Creek. In 2003, the average width of the vegetated corridor ranged from 5 feet to zero (measured outward from the creek centerline). Due to the close proximity of residential land uses, there is minimal area for expansion of riparian vegetation or upland wildlife dispersal areas. The Management Plan recommends the following setbacks:
• For Ojos de Agua Creek Reaches 1 and 3, a 5-foot wide riparian corridor and a development setback of 10 feet;
• For Ojos de Agua Creek Reach 2, no setback is recommended as this reach is located in a culvert; and
• For Ojos de Agua Creek Reach 4, no setback is recommended as this reach is located in an open culvert.
Reaches 1 and 3 offer limited opportunities to enhance wildlife use by creating a minimum corridor width, planting native trees and shrubs in degraded areas, removing invasive nonnative plant species and managing in-channel ponds. Invasive plant species observed include pampas grass, English ivy, periwinkle, acacia and French broom.
3.3.4 Arroyo Seco Watershed
A portion of the westside of the City is drained by Arroyo Seco Creek and several other small creeks. The watershed includes small drainages and storm drains in a mostly residential area.
The watershed’s eastern boundary abuts the western boundary of the Neary Lagoon watershed, described previously. The watershed’s western boundary roughly follows Western Drive to Mission Street, and then travels to the coast reaching Monterey Bay near Natural Bridges State Park.
3.3.4.1 Arroyo Seco Creek. Arroyo Seco Creek is a westside watercourse that originates in springs on the UCSC campus and traverses down the marine terraces. The creek roughly parallels Western Drive to the east, traversing the westside industrial area, Derby Park, then going underground until its outfall adjacent to West Cliff Drive between Sacramento and Auburn Avenues. It drains to Monterey Bay via a culvert pipe. The upper segments of Arroyo Seco Creek have year-round flow with the lower segments becoming intermittent, with water held in deeper pools throughout the year. Twelve reaches have been identified for Arroyo Seco and its tributaries.
Arroyo Seco Creek enters the City limits from the UCSC campus from a culvert located south of High Street where it comes above-ground and parallels residential development from High Street to Meder Street. Reach 10b is a short channelized segment with modified vegetation
43.143
City-Wide Creeks & Wetlands Management Plan
Chapter 3.0 Setback Analysis 3-30 May 2008
where the creek first daylights. Reach 10a supports a dense stand of mixed riparian vegetation but is constrained by residential development to the east. In 2003, the average width of the vegetated corridor of Arroyo Seco Reach 10b was 5 feet and 20 feet along Reach 10a. The Management Plan recommends the following setbacks:
• For Arroyo Seco Creek 10a, a 20-foot wide riparian corridor and a development setback of 30 feet; and
• For Arroyo Seco Creek 10b, a 5-foot wide riparian corridor and a development setback of 10 feet.
The main stem of Arroyo Seco Creek (Reach 5), runs from the south side of Meder Street to roughly west of Escalona Drive, and supports mixed riparian woodland, dominated by willows and coast live oak. Near Meder Street, the creek supports dense stands of non-native riparian woodland (eucalyptus). The woodland occurs along the creek and on the side slopes of the arroyo.
In the absence of eucalyptus trees, the side slopes of the arroyo support riparian scrub and coastal scrub vegetation. Within the arroyo between Meder Street and Escalona Drive, the main stem (Reach 5) and side tributaries (Reaches 6, 7, 8, 9a, and 9b) support a wide variety of birds, animals and aquatic species. The presence of tall roost trees (eucalyptus) and native oaks provide a diverse habitat structure and diverse food sources for wildlife. Monarch butterflies have been documented to over-winter in the eucalyptus trees near Meder Street and the mixed riparian woodland may support nesting yellow warblers.
In 2003, the average width of the vegetated corridor along the main stem of Arroyo Seco Creek (Reach 5) was 60 feet. Land uses along the creek are residential; the majority of these land uses are situated 100 feet or more from the watercourse due to the natural terrain of the arroyo (i.e., presence of steep, undeveloped slopes). For Arroyo Seco Creek Reach 5, the Management Plan recommends a 60-foot wide riparian corridor and a development setback of 100 feet.
The small tributaries to Arroyo Seco Creek also have vegetated riparian corridors (Reaches 6, 7, 8, 9a, and 9b). The riparian vegetation along these tributaries ranges from 5 to 40 feet. Land uses along these tributaries are primarily residential. Several of the tributaries support mixed riparian woodland (Reaches 6, 7, and 8) with riparian scrub and coastal scrub vegetation on the slopes, while others (Reaches 8, 9a, and 9b) non-native riparian woodland (eucalyptus) and some modified non-native vegetation. In 2003, the average width of the vegetated corridor for these reaches were as follows (measured outward from the creek centerline): Reaches 6, 7, and 8 were 40 feet, Reach 9a was 20 feet, and Reach 9b was 5 feet. The Management Plan recommends the following setbacks:
• For Arroyo Seco Creek Reaches 6, 7, 8, a 40-foot wide riparian corridor and a development setback of 60 feet;
• For Arroyo Seco Creek Reaches 9a, a 20-foot wide riparian corridor and a development setback of 50 feet; and
• For Arroyo Seco Creek 9b, a 5-foot wide riparian corridor and a development setback of 10 feet.
Downstream of Escalona Drive in Reach 4, the riparian corridor has been affected by adjacent land uses. The creek has been encroached upon by residential land uses and is channelized where it traverses through commercial and industrial lands south of Mission Street. Reach 3 traverses the Lipton Property; which was recently restored and revegetated. Reach 3a is located in the coastal zone, and Reach 3b is located outside the coastal zone. Reach 2 occurs downstream of Delaware Avenue. The creek is confined by existing industrial land uses; but has recently been enhanced with
43.144
City-Wide Creeks & Wetlands Management Plan
Chapter 3.0 Setback Analysis 3-31 May 2008
vegetation of native riparian plantings. In 2003, the average width of the vegetated corridor was 15 feet for Reach 4, 50 feet for Reach 3, and 15 feet for Reach 2. The Management Plan recommends the following setbacks:
• For Arroyo Seco Creek Reach 4, a 15-foot wide riparian corridor and a development setback of 20 feet;
• For Arroyo Seco Creek Reach 3, a 30-foot wide riparian corridor and a development setback of 80 feet; and
• For Arroyo Seco Creek Reach 2, a 15-foot wide riparian corridor and a development setback of 20 feet.
Reach 1 of Arroyo Seco Creek traverses next to Derby Park, going underground until its outfall adjacent to West Cliff Drive, between Sacramento and Auburn Avenues. It drains to Monterey Bay via a culvert pipe. For Arroyo Seco Creek Reach 1, the Management Plan does not recommend maintaining a designated riparian corridor or development setback since it is located in a culvert.
This majority of reaches along Arroyo Seco Creek offer opportunities to enhance wildlife use by creating a continuous corridor of riparian vegetation and the removal of invasive, non-native plant species, including observed pampas grass, English ivy, periwinkle, young eucalyptus, acacia and French broom. Enhancement and restoration opportunities include the control of invasive, nonnative plant species, including observed pampas grass, cape ivy, English ivy and French broom.
Several major utility lines traverse a portion of the main branch (Reach 5); the maintenance road is used as an informal pathway. Pet access was observed during the 2003 surveys; the riparian and wetland resources would benefit from a pet litter clean-up program.
3.3.5 Moore Creek Watershed
The Moore Creek watershed drains the far-western portion of the City. It is the most undisturbed of the City’s watersheds and consists of mostly undeveloped land. The watercourse was named for Eli Moore, who owned a ranch in the area in 1840s. The watershed’s eastern boundary abuts the western boundary of the Arroyo Seco watershed, as described previously.
The western boundary of the Moore Creek watershed roughly parallels the City’s western limits.
A portion of the Moore Creek watershed is situated in the City-owned Moore Creek Preserve.
3.3.5.1 Moore Creek. Moore Creek drains into Monterey Bay at Natural Bridges State Park. The creek flows year-round. The lower portion of the creek is tidally influenced, wherein a salt and brackish water marsh is formed in Natural Bridges State Park. (Development within Natural Bridges State Park would be subject to the Natural Bridges State Park General Plan). Upstream of Delaware Avenue, the creek flows through Antonelli Pond, a man-made pond. Upstream of the pond, Moore Creek is a natural channel that drains a mostly grassland and oak woodlandforested watershed, with predominantly rural residential land uses.
Moore Creek supports a wide variety of birds, animals and aquatic species. Fishery resources may include tidewater goby (in the tidal areas in Natural Bridges State Park) as well as native nongame fish and non-native fish in Antonelli Pond. Moore Creek, including Antonelli Pond, is a known habitat for the California red-legged frog, a federally-listed species (Bulger, 2000) and southwestern pond turtles (CDFG, 2001). Cooper’s hawks have been known to nest along Moore Creek, and white-tailed kites have been known to nest in lower Moore Creek within Natural Bridges State Park (S. Gerow, pers. comm., 2001). Potential white-tailed kite habitat exists along
43.145
City-Wide Creeks & Wetlands Management Plan
Chapter 3.0 Setback Analysis 3-32 May 2008
other portions of Moore Creek. Monarch butterflies have been known to roost north of Highway 1 (CDFG, 2001a). In addition, the San Francisco popcorn flower, a state-listed endangered species and federal species of special concern, has known occurrences in the Moore Creek watershed from Moore Creek Preserve and other areas near Meder Street (Biotic Resources Group, 2001).
For purposes of the Management Plan, Moore Creek has been divided into five reaches. The lowermost reaches (Reach 1 and Antonelli Pond) support pockets of herbaceous riparian and mixed riparian woodland, which grows within sediment deposits and along the edges of Antonelli Pond. In 2003, the average width of the vegetated corridor in this lower reach (Reach 1) was 100 feet (measured outward from the creek centerline). There are several adjacent parcels with potential wetland habitat (including Antonelli Pond, which is discussed below) that would be required to conduct site-specific review prior to development approval for activities that could impact potential resources. These parcels that may require site-specific review have been designated on the aerial maps.
The upstream reaches of Moore Creek (Reaches 2, 3, 4, and 5) and tributaries support oak riparian woodland averaging 70 feet to 100 feet in width (measured outward from the creek centerline). One parcel adjacent to Moore Creek 3 contains a small wetland. Activities within and adjacent to the wetland that may require site-specific review have been designated on the aerial maps; however, further review would only be required if, because of either the location of the proposed development or the type of development proposed, the development has the potential of impacting the resource. Reaches 2 and 4 also support wide riparian corridors, averaging 100 feet. Reach 5 of Moore Creek is narrower, with an average width of 70 feet.
Due to the low level of development and the open space qualities of the area, Moore Creek provides excellent opportunities for riparian expansion and growth, as well as wildlife dispersal.
The Management Plan recommends the following setbacks:
• For Moore Creek Reaches 1 and 3, a 100-foot wide riparian corridor and a development setback of 130 feet;
• For Moore Creek Reaches 2 and 4, a 100-foot wide riparian corridor and a development setback of 150 feet; and
• For Moore Creek Reach 5, a 70-foot wide riparian corridor and a development setback of 100 feet.
The Moore Creek corridor provides excellent opportunities for wildlife dispersal. The riparian habitat offers opportunities for enhancement and restoration, including the removal of invasive, non-native plant species. Invasive plant species observed within the corridor that are recommended for removal include pampas grass, English ivy, periwinkle, young eucalyptus and French broom.
3.3.5.2 Antonelli Pond. This pond was created by the artificial impoundment of Moore Creek directly north of Delaware Avenue. Although its origins are man-made, Antonelli Pond is now an important bird and wildlife habitat area, with red-legged frogs, southwestern pond turtles, and tricolored blackbirds historically known to occur, although nesting tricolored blackbirds have not been observed in recent years (S. Gerow, pers. Comm., 2001). Potential nesting habitat is present for the yellow warbler and yellow-breasted chat. The parcel containing Antonelli Pond and adjacent properties would be required to conduct site-specific review prior to development approval for activities that could impact potential resources.
43.146
City-Wide Creeks & Wetlands Management Plan
Chapter 3.0 Setback Analysis 3-33 May 2008
3.3.6 Other Watercourses
3.3.6.1 Natural Bridges Creek. Natural Bridges Creek is an intermittent creek that drains into Monterey Bay at Natural Bridges State Park. The lower portion of the creek supports nonnative woodland (eucalyptus) that is an over-wintering site for the monarch butterfly, a city of Santa Cruz locally unique species, within Natural Bridges State Park. The California red-legged frog, a federally-listed species, is known to occur in the marsh at Natural Bridges (CDFG, 2001).
Along with Younger Lagoon, the pond at Natural Bridges provides the best potential breeding habitat for red-legged frogs in the City. Southwestern pond turtles, a state species of special concern, have also been known to occur and potentially breed in this pond (CDFG, 2001). For Natural Bridges Creek, the Management Plan recommends a 80-foot wide riparian corridor and a development setback of 100 feet. All development activities would be required to be consistent with the Natural Bridges State Park General Plan.
Enhancement and restoration opportunities include maintaining a minimum corridor width, planting native trees and shrubs in degraded areas and removing invasive non-native plant species, including observed pampas grass and French broom.
Riparian vegetation exists north of the corner of Delaware and Natural Brides Drive, north of Natural Bridges Creek. Site-specific review would be required for this parcel prior to development approval for activities that could impact any potential riparian resource. This parcel has been designated as such on the aerial maps.
3.3.6.2 Lighthouse Drainage. This drainage is located in Lighthouse Field State Beach. No setbacks are recommended for this watercourse as a management plan was previously adopted for this area in 1984. Development would be required to be consistent with the adopted management plan for Lighthouse Field. Refer to Appendix H for a discussion on the existing management plan for this drainage (Lighthouse Field State Beach General Plan).
3.3.6.3 Pilkington Creek. Pilkington Creek is an intermittent creek that drains onto Twin Lakes State Beach (near Seabright Avenue and the Natural History Museum). The watercourse flows through a gulch from roughly Seabright Avenue and Woods Street to Monterey Bay, entering at the foot of Mott Avenue. The creek was named for an early landowner, Thomas Pilkington, who came to Santa Cruz in 1853. This creek has also been known as Remington Gulch (Clark, 1986).
For purposes of the Management Plan, this creek has been divided into two reaches. Reach 1, which is located on City property adjacent to the Museum of Natural History, supports an average vegetated corridor width of 30 feet. This portion of the creek supports non-native woodland (eucalyptus and Monterey cypress). Monarch butterflies have been known to roost in this area (CDFG, 2001a). For Pilkington Creek Reach 1, the Management Plan recommends a 30-foot wide riparian corridor and a development setback of 40 feet.
Reach 2 is the upstream reach of Pilkington, which is located from Forbes Street to roughly Seabright Avenue near Woods Street. The riparian corridor along this reach is severely confined by activities associated with adjacent residential development. In 2003, the average width of the vegetated corridor along Pilkington Creek Reach 2 was 10 feet. Due to the close proximity of residential land uses, there is minimal area for riparian woodland expansion or wildlife dispersal areas. For Pilkington Creek Reach 2, the Management Plan recommends a 10- foot wide riparian corridor and a development setback of 15 feet.
43.147
City-Wide Creeks & Wetlands Management Plan
Chapter 3.0 Setback Analysis 3-34 May 2008
The creek offers limited opportunities to enhance wildlife use by maintaining a minimum corridor width, planting native trees and shrubs in degraded areas and removing invasive non-native plant species, Including observed pampas grass, English ivy, periwinkle, young eucalyptus, acacia and French broom.
3.3.6.4 Bethany Creek. Bethany Creek drains into Monterey Bay near the intersection of West Cliff Drive and Woodrow Avenue. The creek was named, for purposes of the Management Plan, for the nearby roadway. For purposes of the Management Plan, Bethany Creek was divided into two reaches. Bethany Creek Reach 1 extends from West Cliff Drive up to Delaware Avenue. This reach is perennial and supports non-native woodland comprised of planted landscape trees, shrubs and turf grasses. A multi-use trail travels along the watercourse. This creek provides some riparian habitat due to the perennial water flow and the presence of mature riparian trees. Its use by wildlife, however, is moderated by the close proximity of residential land uses and roadway traffic. In 2003, the average width of the vegetated corridor along this watercourse was 20 feet (measured outward from the creek centerline). For Bethany Creek Reach 1, the Management Plan recommends a 20-foot wide riparian corridor and a development setback of 30 feet. This reach offers opportunities to enhance wildlife use through the diversification of the overstory and understory habitat.
Reach 2 is a short reach that extends approximately five parcels directly through side and rear residential yards between Seaside Avenue and Pendegast Avenue before going back into a culvert to Reach 1. This creek provides little to no habitat value due to the lack of vegetation, the close proximity of residential land uses, and the extremely short reach distance. In 2003, the average width of the vegetated corridor along this reach was 5 feet (measured outward from the creek centerline). For Bethany Creek Reach 2, the Management Plan recommends a 50-foot wide riparian corridor and no development setback.
43.148
Rankings: see Section 3.1.3; 3= high; 2=moderate; 1=low Primary Habitat Codes: HR = Herbaceous Riparian and Wetlands MR = Mixed Riparian Woodland OR = Oak Riparian Woodland NNW = Non-native Riparian Woodland MC = Modified Channel RS = Riparian Scrub Special Status Species Codes: ST = Steelhead MB = Monarch Butterfly Over-wintering Habitat RLF = California Red-legged Frog R= Raptor Nesting Habitat SWPT = Southwestern Pond Turtle TG = Tidewater Goby City-Wide Creeks & Wetlands Management PlanChapter 3.0 Setback Analysis 3-35 May 2008 TABLE 3-3. ANALYSIS OF WATERCOURSE AND WETLAND FACTORS Factor A Factor B Factor C Factor D Factor E
Watercourse
Name
Reach Primary
Habitat
Type
(1-3)
Special
Status
Species
(1-3)
Aver.
Riparian
Width
(feet)
(1-3)
Open Areas
For
Expansion
& Dispersal
(1-3)
Enhancement
& Restoration
(1-3)
Total
Ranking
(A-E)
Reach Characteristics/Comments
Antonelli Pond MR (2) RLF (3) 100 (2) 3 3 13 • High restoration enhancement and known presence of RLF require greater setbacks
• Potential impacts from adjacent development
Arana Gulch Creek
1a MC (1)
OR (3)
ST (3) 60 (2) 2 2 11 • Known presence of ST requires protection • Constrained by adjacent commercial and residential
development
Arana Gulch Creek
1b NNW (2) 1 20 (2) 2 2 9 • Constrained by adj. residential development • Primarily carries storm flow • Shorter reach • Originates from storm drain Arana Gulch Creek
1c OR (3) ST, R
potential (3)
100 (3) 3 3 15 • Known presence of ST requires protection • Not really constrained by adjacent development • Greater buffer recommended because of limited surrounding development
Arana Gulch Creek
1d OR (3) R (2) 40 (3) 2 2 12 • Moderately constrained by adjacent residential development • Smaller watershed (Seasonal) • Small tributary to west branch Arana Gulch Creek
1e OR (3) R (2) 40 (3) 3 3 14 • Not constrained by adjacent residential development • Smaller watershed (Seasonal) • Small tributary to west branch Arana Gulch Creek
1f OR (3) R (2) 40 (2) 3 2 12 • Corridor is degraded due to presence of gun and archery range
• Smaller watershed (Seasonal) • Small tributary to west branch Arana Gulch Creek
1g OR (3) R (2) 40 (3) 3 3 14 • Not constrained by adj. residential development • Smaller watershed (Seasonal) • Small tributary to west branch
43.149
Rankings: see Section 3.1.3; 3= high; 2=moderate; 1=low Primary Habitat Codes: HR = Herbaceous Riparian and Wetlands MR = Mixed Riparian Woodland OR = Oak Riparian Woodland NNW = Non-native Riparian Woodland MC = Modified Channel RS = Riparian Scrub Special Status Species Codes: ST = Steelhead MB = Monarch Butterfly Over-wintering Habitat RLF = California Red-legged Frog R= Raptor Nesting Habitat SWPT = Southwestern Pond Turtle TG = Tidewater Goby City-Wide Creeks & Wetlands Management PlanChapter 3.0 Setback Analysis 3-36 May 2008 TABLE 3-3. ANALYSIS OF WATERCOURSE AND WETLAND FACTORS Factor A Factor B Factor C Factor D Factor E
Watercourse
Name
Reach Primary
Habitat
Type
(1-3)
Special
Status
Species
(1-3)
Aver.
Riparian
Width
(feet)
(1-3)
Open Areas
For
Expansion
& Dispersal
(1-3)
Enhancement
& Restoration
(1-3)
Total
Ranking
(A-E)
Reach Characteristics/Comments
Arana Gulch Creek
1h OR (3) R (2) 40 (3) 3 3 14 • Not constrained by adj. residential development • Smaller watershed (Seasonal) • Small tributary to west branch Arana Gulch Creek
2 OR (2) 1 10 (2) 1 1 7 • Shorter reach (one parcel) with culverts at both ends • Constrained by adjacent residential development • Primarily carries storm flow (Seasonal) Arana Gulch Creek
3a NNW (1) 1 20 (2) 2 2 8 • Shorter reach
• Primarily carries storm flow (Seasonal)
Arana Gulch Creek
3b MC (1) 1 5 (1) 1 1 5 • Shorter reach (three parcels) • Smaller watershed (Seasonal) • Constrained by adjacent residential development • Flows through center of lots and under several existing homes Arana Gulch Creek
3c OR (2) 1 15 (2) 2 2 9 • Smaller watershed (Seasonal) • Constrained by adjacent residential development • Small tributary Arana Gulch Creek
3d NNW (1) R (2) 40 (2) 2 2 9 • Not constrained by adjacent development • Smaller watershed (Seasonal) • Small tributaries
Arana Gulch Creek
4a NNW (2) 1 10 (1) 1 2 7 • Constrained by adjacent residential development and Hwy 1 • Shorter reach with culverts on each end
Arana Gulch Creek
4b MC (1) 1 0 (1) 1 1 5 • Shorter reach (less than two parcels) with culverts on each end • Serves as an open culvert
Arana Gulch Creek
4c MC (1)
NNW (1)
1 5 (1) 1 2 6 • Shorter reach with several sections in culverts • Constrained by adjacent residential development and rightof-ways Arana Gulch Creek
4d NNW (2) R (2) 40 (2) 2 2 10 • Not constrained by adjacent development Arana Gulch Creek
4e NNW (2) R (2) 40 (2) 2 2 10 • Not constrained by adjacent development Arana Gulch Creek
5a MC (1) 1 0 (1) 1 1 5 • Entire reach is in a culvert
43.150
Rankings: see Section 3.1.3; 3= high; 2=moderate; 1=low Primary Habitat Codes: HR = Herbaceous Riparian and Wetlands MR = Mixed Riparian Woodland OR = Oak Riparian Woodland NNW = Non-native Riparian Woodland MC = Modified Channel RS = Riparian Scrub Special Status Species Codes: ST = Steelhead MB = Monarch Butterfly Over-wintering Habitat RLF = California Red-legged Frog R= Raptor Nesting Habitat SWPT = Southwestern Pond Turtle TG = Tidewater Goby City-Wide Creeks & Wetlands Management PlanChapter 3.0 Setback Analysis 3-37 May 2008 TABLE 3-3. ANALYSIS OF WATERCOURSE AND WETLAND FACTORS Factor A Factor B Factor C Factor D Factor E
Watercourse
Name
Reach Primary
Habitat
Type
(1-3)
Special
Status
Species
(1-3)
Aver.
Riparian
Width
(feet)
(1-3)
Open Areas
For
Expansion
& Dispersal
(1-3)
Enhancement
& Restoration
(1-3)
Total
Ranking
(A-E)
Reach Characteristics/Comments
Arana Gulch Creek
5b MC (1) 1 10 (1) 1 1 5 • Shorter reach with a section in a culvert • Constrained by adjacent residential and commercial
development
Arana Gulch Creek
5c NNW (1) 1 20 (2) 2 2 8 • Smaller watershed (Seasonal) • Moderately constrained by adjacent residential development Arana Gulch Creek
5d NNW (1) R (2) 40 (2) 2 2 10 • Not constrained by adjacent development • Smaller watershed (Seasonal)
Arana Gulch Creek
5e NNW (1) R (2) 40 (2) 2 2 10 • Not constrained by adjacent development • Smaller watershed (Seasonal)
Arana Gulch Creek
6a MC (1) 1 0 (1) 1 1 5 • Shorter reach (approx. one parcel) with culverts on either end • Serves as an open culvert
Arana Gulch Creek
6b NNW (2) R (2) 20 (2) 2 2 10 • Moderately constrained by adjacent residential development • Smaller watershed (Seasonal)
Arana Gulch Creek
6c NNW (2) R (2) 40 (2) 2 2 10 • Not constrained by adjacent development • Smaller watershed (Seasonal)
Arana Gulch Creek Harbor
Subject to the Santa Cruz Harbor Development Plan
Arana Wetland Subject to Arana Gulch Master Plan requirement and within original jurisdiction of California Coastal Commission Arroyo de San Pedro Regaldo 1 MR (2)
HR (1)
1 10 (1) 1 1 5.5 • Constrained by adjacent commercial development & Hwy 1 • Smaller watershed (Seasonal)
Arroyo de San Pedro Regaldo
2a MC (1) 1 10 (1) 1 1 5.5 • Constrained by adjacent commercial development • Smaller watershed (Seasonal)
Arroyo de San Pedro Regaldo
2b MC (1) 1 0 (1) 1 1 5 • Shorter reach with culverts on each end • Essentially serves as an open culvert
Arroyo de San Pedro Regaldo
3 MR (3) 2 40 (3) 3 3 14 • Smaller watershed (Seasonal) • Relatively unconstrained by adjacent development
Arroyo Seco 1 MC (1) 1 0 (1) 1 1 5 • Entire reach is in a culvert Arroyo Seco 2 MC (1) 1 15 (2) 1 2 7 • Constrained by adjacent commercial development Arroyo Seco 3 MR (3) 1 50 (2) 2 2 10 • Restored channel Arroyo Seco 4 MR (2) MC (1)
1 15 (2) 1 2 7.5 • Constrained by adjacent residential and commercial development
43.151
Rankings: see Section 3.1.3; 3= high; 2=moderate; 1=low Primary Habitat Codes: HR = Herbaceous Riparian and Wetlands MR = Mixed Riparian Woodland OR = Oak Riparian Woodland NNW = Non-native Riparian Woodland MC = Modified Channel RS = Riparian Scrub Special Status Species Codes: ST = Steelhead MB = Monarch Butterfly Over-wintering Habitat RLF = California Red-legged Frog R= Raptor Nesting Habitat SWPT = Southwestern Pond Turtle TG = Tidewater Goby City-Wide Creeks & Wetlands Management PlanChapter 3.0 Setback Analysis 3-38 May 2008 TABLE 3-3. ANALYSIS OF WATERCOURSE AND WETLAND FACTORS Factor A Factor B Factor C Factor D Factor E
Watercourse
Name
Reach Primary
Habitat
Type
(1-3)
Special
Status
Species
(1-3)
Aver.
Riparian
Width
(feet)
(1-3)
Open Areas
For
Expansion
& Dispersal
(1-3)
Enhancement
& Restoration
(1-3)
Total
Ranking
(A-E)
Reach Characteristics/Comments
Arroyo Seco 5 NNW (2)
MR (2)
MB, R (2) 60 (2) 3 3 12 • Not constrained by adj. residential development except at bottom of reach and by the adjacent access road
Arroyo Seco 6 MR (3) R (2) 40 (3) 3 3 14 • Not constrained by adjacent residential development • Smaller watershed (Seasonal)
Arroyo Seco 7 MR (2) R (2) 40 (2) 3 3 12 • Not constrained by adjacent residential development • Smaller watershed (Seasonal)
Arroyo Seco 8 NNW (2)
MR (2)
R (2) 40 (2) 3 3 12 • Not constrained by adjacent residential development • Smaller watershed (Seasonal)
Arroyo Seco 9a NNW (2) R, MB (2) 20 (2) 2 3 11 • Partially restored branch • Smaller branch (Seasonal)
Arroyo Seco 9b MC (1) 1 5 (1) 1 1 5 • Shorter reach (less then one parcel) • Primarily carries stormflow
Arroyo Seco 10a MR (3) R (2) 20 (2) 2 2 11 • Eastern side constrained by adjacent residential development Arroyo Seco 10b MC (1) 1 5 (1) 1 1 5 • Shorter reach (less than one parcel) • Essentially serves as an open culvert
Bay Ave. Creek 1 MC (1) 1 5 (1) 1 1 5 • Shorter reach (approx. three parcels) with culverts on each end
• Essentially serves as an open culvert
Bay Ave. Creek
2 MR (2) 1 20 (1) 2 2 8 • Constrained by adjacent development (Bay Ave.) • Culverts at each end
Bay Ave. Creek 3 MC (1) 1 5 (1) 1 1 5 • Constrained by adjacent development (Bay Ave.) • Culverts at each end
Bayona Creek NNW (2) 1 20 (3) 2 2 10 • Smaller watershed (Seasonal) • Shorter reach with culverts at either end
Bethany Creek 1 NNW (1) 1 20 (2) 2 2 8 • Smaller watershed (Seasonal) • Entire reach interspersed with culverts • Primarily consists of landscape plantings with a parallel public pathway
43.152
Rankings: see Section 3.1.3; 3= high; 2=moderate; 1=low Primary Habitat Codes: HR = Herbaceous Riparian and Wetlands MR = Mixed Riparian Woodland OR = Oak Riparian Woodland NNW = Non-native Riparian Woodland MC = Modified Channel RS = Riparian Scrub Special Status Species Codes: ST = Steelhead MB = Monarch Butterfly Over-wintering Habitat RLF = California Red-legged Frog R= Raptor Nesting Habitat SWPT = Southwestern Pond Turtle TG = Tidewater Goby City-Wide Creeks & Wetlands Management PlanChapter 3.0 Setback Analysis 3-39 May 2008 TABLE 3-3. ANALYSIS OF WATERCOURSE AND WETLAND FACTORS Factor A Factor B Factor C Factor D Factor E
Watercourse
Name
Reach Primary
Habitat
Type
(1-3)
Special
Status
Species
(1-3)
Aver.
Riparian
Width
(feet)
(1-3)
Open Areas
For
Expansion
& Dispersal
(1-3)
Enhancement
& Restoration
(1-3)
Total
Ranking
(A-E)
Reach Characteristics/Comments
Bethany Creek 2 MC (1) 1 5 (1) 1 1 5 • Shorter reach with culverts on either side that flows intermittently through residential yards
• Essentially serves as an open culvert
Branciforte Creek
1 MC (1) ST, MB
(3)
30 (1) 1 1 7 • Known presence of ST and MB requires protection • Open concrete flood control channel
Branciforte Creek
2 MR (3) ST (3) 50 (2) 2 2 12 • Known presence of ST requires protection • Moderately constrained by adjacent residential development Carbonera Creek
MR (3) ST (3) 50 (2) 2 2 12 • Known presence of ST requires protection • Moderately constrained by adjacent residential development Chrystal Gulch MR (1) 1 10 (1) 1 2 6 • Shorter reach with culverts at either end, very limited segment in steep canyon before it goes into culvert
• Smaller watershed (Seasonal)
Dodero Spring Creek
1a MC (1) 1 5 (1) 1 2 6 • Constrained by adjacent residential development • Smaller watershed (spring-fed) • Culverts at each end Dodero Spring Creek
1b MC (1) 1 0 (1) 1 1 5 • Shorter reach (less than one parcel) that acts as an open culvert with culverts at each end
Dodero Spring Creek
2 MC (1)
MR (2)
1 25 (2) 2 2 8.5 • Smaller watershed (spring-fed)
• Moderately constrained by adjacent residential development Dodero Spring Creek
3 MC (1)
MR (2)
1 10 (2) 2 2 8.5 • Smaller watershed (spring-fed)
• Constrained by adjacent residential development • Areas adjacent to ponding water may require site-specific biotic review
Dodero Spring Creek
4 MC (1)
MR (2)
1 25 (2) 2 2 8.5 • Relatively constrained by adjacent residential development Dodero Spring Creek
5 MC (1) 1 10 (2) 2 2 8 • Shorter reach located in a wood box culvert • Constrained by adj. residential development • Areas adjacent to ponding water may require site-specific biotic review
43.153
Rankings: see Section 3.1.3; 3= high; 2=moderate; 1=low Primary Habitat Codes: HR = Herbaceous Riparian and Wetlands MR = Mixed Riparian Woodland OR = Oak Riparian Woodland NNW = Non-native Riparian Woodland MC = Modified Channel RS = Riparian Scrub Special Status Species Codes: ST = Steelhead MB = Monarch Butterfly Over-wintering Habitat RLF = California Red-legged Frog R= Raptor Nesting Habitat SWPT = Southwestern Pond Turtle TG = Tidewater Goby City-Wide Creeks & Wetlands Management PlanChapter 3.0 Setback Analysis 3-40 May 2008 TABLE 3-3. ANALYSIS OF WATERCOURSE AND WETLAND FACTORS Factor A Factor B Factor C Factor D Factor E
Watercourse
Name
Reach Primary
Habitat
Type
(1-3)
Special
Status
Species
(1-3)
Aver.
Riparian
Width
(feet)
(1-3)
Open Areas
For
Expansion
& Dispersal
(1-3)
Enhancement
& Restoration
(1-3)
Total
Ranking
(A-E)
Reach Characteristics/Comments
Glen Canyon Creek
OR (3) ST (3) 50 (3) 3 3 15 • Known presence of ST requires protection • Moderately constrained by adjacent residential development • Shorter reach (approx. two parcels) Hagemann Gulch
1 OR (3) R (2) 40 (3) 2 3 13 • Moderately constrained by adjacent residential development on western side
• Smaller watershed (Seasonal)
Hagemann Gulch
2 NNW (1)
MC (1)
1 10 (1) 1 2 6 • Constrained by adjacent residential and commercial development
• Smaller watershed; primarily carries stream flow
Jessie Street Channel
MC(1) 1 10 (1) 2 2 7 • Setback requirements to be updated when Jessie Street Marsh Plan is completed
Jessie Street Marsh
HR (2) 1 N/A (2) 2 2 9
Kalkar Quarry Spring
MC (2) 1 N/A (2) 2 2 9 • Western side is constrained by adjacent residential development
Laurel Creek 1 MR (2) SWPT
(2)
20 (2) 2 2 10 • Impacted by adj. residential development on eastern side • Corridor restored in 2002 • Reach ends where existing corridor narrows Laurel Creek 2 MC (1) 1 10 (1) 1 2 6 • Constrained by adjacent residential development Laurel Creek 3 MC (1) 1 20 (2) 1 2 7 • Moderately constrained by adjacent residential development Laurel Creek 4 MC (1) 1 10 (2) 1 2 7 • Constrained by adjacent residential development Laurel Creek 5 MC (1) 1 0 (1) 1 1 5 • Entire reach is in a culvert Laurel Creek 6 MC (1) 1 10 (1) 1 2 6 • Constrained by adjacent residential development • Reach is interspersed with culverts
Laurel Creek 7 MR (2) 1 20 (2) 2 2 9 • Moderately constrained by adjacent residential development Lighthouse Drainage Subject to Lighthouse Field State Beach General Plan (1984)
43.154
Rankings: see Section 3.1.3; 3= high; 2=moderate; 1=low Primary Habitat Codes: HR = Herbaceous Riparian and Wetlands MR = Mixed Riparian Woodland OR = Oak Riparian Woodland NNW = Non-native Riparian Woodland MC = Modified Channel RS = Riparian Scrub Special Status Species Codes: ST = Steelhead MB = Monarch Butterfly Over-wintering Habitat RLF = California Red-legged Frog R= Raptor Nesting Habitat SWPT = Southwestern Pond Turtle TG = Tidewater Goby City-Wide Creeks & Wetlands Management PlanChapter 3.0 Setback Analysis 3-41 May 2008 TABLE 3-3. ANALYSIS OF WATERCOURSE AND WETLAND FACTORS Factor A Factor B Factor C Factor D Factor E
Watercourse
Name
Reach Primary
Habitat
Type
(1-3)
Special
Status
Species
(1-3)
Aver.
Riparian
Width
(feet)
(1-3)
Open Areas
For
Expansion
& Dispersal
(1-3)
Enhancement
& Restoration
(1-3)
Total
Ranking
(A-E)
Reach Characteristics/Comments
Longview Creek 1a MC (1) 1 5 (1) 1 1 5 • Constrained by adjacent residential development and rightof-ways • Culverts at each end
Longview Creek 1b MC (1) 1 0 (1) 1 1 5 • Reach is in an open concrete culvert • Shorter reach
Moore Creek 1 MR, HR
(3)
RLF (3), SWPT, TG (2)
100 (3) 3 3 14.5 • Known presence of special status species requires protection • Subject to Natural Bridges State Park General Plan • Not constrained by adjacent development Moore Creek 2 NNW (1)
OR (3)
RLF & R (3), MB (2)
100 (3) 3 3 14 • Known presence of special status species requires protection • Not constrained by adjacent development
Moore Creek 3 NNW (1)
OR (3)
RLF (3) 100 (3) 2 2 12 • Known presence of special status species requires protection • Relatively unconstrained by adjacent residential development Moore Creek 4 OR (3) R, RLF (3) 100 (3) 3 3 15 • Known presence of special status species requires protection • Not constrained by adjacent development
Moore Creek 5 OR (3) R, RLF (2) 70 (3) 3 3 14 • Relatively unconstrained by adjacent residential development Natural Bridges Creek MR, HR
(3)
RLF (3), SWPT, TG (2)
80 (3) 3 3 14.5 • Subject to Natural Bridges State Park General Plan • Known presence of special status species requires protection • Not constrained by adjacent development Neary Lagoon Subject to Neary Lagoon Management Plan. Ocean Villa Creek NNW (2) MB (2) 50 (2) 2 2 10 • Potential presence of special status species requires protection Ojos de Agua 1 MC (1) 1 5 (1) 1 2 6 • Constrained by adjacent residential development • Smaller watershed (spring-fed) • Culverts at either end Ojos de Agua 2 MC (1) 1 0 (1) 1 1 5 • Entire reach is in a culvert Ojos de Agua 3 MC (1) 1 5 (1) 1 2 6 • Constrained by adjacent residential development • Smaller watershed (spring-fed) • Culvert at bottom end Pasatiempo 1 MC (1) 1 0 (1) 1 1 5 • Almost entire reach is within a culvert. A small portion is located in a concrete open culvert
43.155
Rankings: see Section 3.1.3; 3= high; 2=moderate; 1=low Primary Habitat Codes: HR = Herbaceous Riparian and Wetlands MR = Mixed Riparian Woodland OR = Oak Riparian Woodland NNW = Non-native Riparian Woodland MC = Modified Channel RS = Riparian Scrub Special Status Species Codes: ST = Steelhead MB = Monarch Butterfly Over-wintering Habitat RLF = California Red-legged Frog R= Raptor Nesting Habitat SWPT = Southwestern Pond Turtle TG = Tidewater Goby City-Wide Creeks & Wetlands Management PlanChapter 3.0 Setback Analysis 3-42 May 2008 TABLE 3-3. ANALYSIS OF WATERCOURSE AND WETLAND FACTORS Factor A Factor B Factor C Factor D Factor E
Watercourse
Name
Reach Primary
Habitat
Type
(1-3)
Special
Status
Species
(1-3)
Aver.
Riparian
Width
(feet)
(1-3)
Open Areas
For
Expansion
& Dispersal
(1-3)
Enhancement
& Restoration
(1-3)
Total
Ranking
(A-E)
Reach Characteristics/Comments
Pasatiempo Creek
2 MC (1) 1 0 (1) 1 1 5 • Concrete-lined V ditch and culverts within CALTRANS right-ofway Pasatiempo Creek
3 OR (3) R (2) 80 (3) 3 3 14 • Not constrained by adjacent residential development Pilkington Creek 1 NNW (2) MB (2) 30 (2) 2 2 10 • Even though a shorter reach, section is relatively unconstrained by adjacent development
Pilkington Creek 2 NNW,
MR (1)
MB (2) 10 (2) 1 2 8 • Constrained by adjacent residential development Pogonip Creek 1 MC (1) ST (3) 0 (1) 1 1 7 • Entire reach is located in a culvert • Known location of special status species
Pogonip Creek 2 MR (2) R (2) 40 (2) 3 3 12 • Moderately constrained by adjacent commercial development on the south side
Pogonip Creek 3 MR (3) R (2) 70 (3) 3 3 14 • Unconstrained by adjacent development Redwood Creek MR(2) R(2) 60(2) 2 2 10 • Moderately constrained by right-of-way at one end • Culvert at one end
Salz Pond MC (2) ST (3) N/A (2) 2 2 11 • Severely constrained by adjacent heavy industrial uses • Known presence of special status species requires protection San Lorenzo River
Lower Subject to San Lorenzo Urban River Plan • Setback is from toe of outer levee slope. • Parcels on east bank near the river mouth subject to bluff setbacks.
San Lorenzo River
Upper east bank
MR (3) ST (3)
coho (2)
120 (3) 3 3 15 • Relatively unconstrained by adjacent development • Known presence of special status species requires protection San Lorenzo River
Upper west bank
MR (3) ST (3)
coho (2)
100 (3) 3 3 15 • Moderately constrained by adjacent commercial and industrial uses
• Known presence of special status species requires protection Tick Drainage OR (2) 1 5 (1) 2 1 7 • Carries water only during storm events • Moderately constrained by adjacent development
Wagner Seep 1 OR (3) R (2) 50 (3) 3 3 14 • Not constrained by adjacent development Wagner Seep 2 OR (3) R (2) 50 (3) 3 3 14 • Not constrained by adjacent development Westlake Pond MC (1) 1 0 (1) 2 2 7 • Moderately constrained by adjacent right-of-ways
43.156
Rankings: see Section 3.1.3; 3= high; 2=moderate; 1=low Primary Habitat Codes: HR = Herbaceous Riparian and Wetlands MR = Mixed Riparian Woodland OR = Oak Riparian Woodland NNW = Non-native Riparian Woodland MC = Modified Channel RS = Riparian Scrub Special Status Species Codes: ST = Steelhead MB = Monarch Butterfly Over-wintering Habitat RLF = California Red-legged Frog R= Raptor Nesting Habitat SWPT = Southwestern Pond Turtle TG = Tidewater Goby City-Wide Creeks & Wetlands Management PlanChapter 3.0 Setback Analysis 3-43 May 2008 TABLE 3-3. ANALYSIS OF WATERCOURSE AND WETLAND FACTORS Factor A Factor B Factor C Factor D Factor E
Watercourse
Name
Reach Primary
Habitat
Type
(1-3)
Special
Status
Species
(1-3)
Aver.
Riparian
Width
(feet)
(1-3)
Open Areas
For
Expansion
& Dispersal
(1-3)
Enhancement
& Restoration
(1-3)
Total
Ranking
(A-E)
Reach Characteristics/Comments
Woods Creek 1 NNW (2) R (2) 20 (2) 2 2 10 • Moderately constrained by adjacent residential development • Smaller watershed (Seasonal)
Woods Creek 2 NNW (2) R (2) 10 (2) 1 2 9 • Constrained by adjacent residential development • Smaller watershed (Seasonal)
Woods Creek Harbor Subject to the Santa Cruz Harbor Development Plan Source: Biotic Resources Group, 2002
43.157
City-Wide Creeks & Wetlands Management Plan
Chapter 3.0 Setback Analysis 3-44 May 2008
TABLE 3-4. ENHANCEMENT POTENTIAL FOR WATERCOURSES AND WETLANDS Watercourse Name Reach Maintain
Vegetative
Cover over
water
Preserve
large woody
debris in
channel
Removal
of
Invasives
WildlifePreserve
Snags
Install
Bird or
Bat Boxes
Plant
riparian
vegetation
Other
Arana Gulch
Creek
X X X X X X Various
segments of all
reaches
Arroyo de San
Pedro Regaldo
1 X Establish mature
riparian trees &
control of Industrial drainage
Arroyo de San
Pedro Regaldo
2a X Removal of
debris and trash
Arroyo de San
Pedro Regaldo
3 X
Arroyo Seco X X X X X X Pet cleanup in
Reach 5
Bay Ave. Creek 2 X X
Bethany Creek X
Branciforte Creek 1 X X X
Branciforte Creek 2 X X X X X X
Carbonera Creek X X X X X X Stream bank
erosion repair
Chrystal Gulch X X
Dodero Spring
Creek
X X Management of
in-channel
ponds
Glen Canyon
Creek
X X X X X X
Hagemann Gulch X
Laurel Creek 1 X X
Moore Creek X
Natural Bridges
Creek
X X
Ocean Villa Creek X Removal of
debris
Ojos de Agua 1,3 X X
Pasatiempo Creek 3 X X X X X X
Pilkington Creek X X
Pogonip Creek 3 X X X X X X
Redwood Creek X X X X X X
Salz Pond
San Lorenzo River Upper X X X X X X
Wagner Seep Planting for
Monarchs
Woods Creek X
43.158
Exhibit C
43.159
2016 5-Year Review:
Summary & Evaluation of
Central California Coast Steelhead
National Marine Fisheries Service
West Coast Region
April 2016
Science, Service, Stewardship
43.160
NOAA Fisheries: 5-Year Status Review April 2016
Central California Coast Steelhead i
5-YEAR REVIEW: CENTRAL CALIFORNIA COAST STEELHEAD
Species Reviewed Evolutionarily Significant Unit or
Distinct Population Segment
steelhead
(Oncorhynchusmykiss)
Central California Coast (CCC) steelhead
43.161
NOAA Fisheries: 5-Year Status Review April 2016
Central California Coast Steelhead ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
5-YEAR REVIEW: CENTRAL CALIFORNIA COAST STEELHEAD................................I TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................................II AUTHORS..................................................................................................................................IV GENERAL INFORMATION ........................................................................................ 1
1.1 Introduction .....................................................................................................................1
1.1.1 Background on Salmonid Listing Determinations......................................... 1
1.2 Methodology Used to Complete the Review.............................................................2
1.3 Background – Summary of Previous Reviews, Statutory and Regulatory Actions, and Recovery Planning..................................................................................3
1.3.1 Federal Register Notice Announcing Initiation of This Review .................. 3
1.3.2 Listing History..................................................................................................... 3
1.3.3 Associated Rulemaking...................................................................................... 4
1.3.4 Review History.................................................................................................... 5
1.3.5 Species’ Recovery Priority Number at Start of 5-Year Review Process ...... 6
1.3.6 Recovery Plan or Outline................................................................................... 6 REVIEW ANALYSIS...................................................................................................... 7
2.1 Delineation of Species Under the Endangered Species Act...................................7
2.1.1 Summary of Relevant New Information Regarding the Delineation of CCC Steelhead DPS..................................................................................................... 8
2.2 Recovery Criteria.............................................................................................................9
2.2.1 Do the Species Have Final, Approved Recovery Plans Containing Objective, Measurable Criteria?................................................................................. 9
2.2.2 Adequacy of Recovery Criteria....................................................................... 10
2.2.3 List the Recovery Criteria as They Appear in the Recovery Plan.............. 10
2.3 Updated Information and Current Species’ Status ................................................10
2.3.1 Analysis of Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) Criteria ............................. 10
2.3.2 Five-Factor Analysis ......................................................................................... 13
43.162
NOAA Fisheries: 5-Year Status Review April 2016
Central California Coast Steelhead iii
2.4 Synthesis.........................................................................................................................37
2.4.1 ESU/DPS Viability and Statutory Listing Factors ........................................ 38 RESULTS........................................................................................................................ 39
3.1 Classification .................................................................................................................39
3.2 New Recovery Priority Number.................................................................................39 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE ACTIONS .............................................. 40 LITERATURE CITED............................................................................................................... 43
43.163
NOAA Fisheries: 5-Year Status Review April 2016
Central California Coast Steelhead iv
AUTHORS
Lead Author
West Coast Region Area Office
Darren Howe1
707-575-3152
[email protected]
Contributors
West Coast Region Area Offices
Charlotte Ambrose2
Joel Casagrande1
Bob Coey1
Joshua Fuller1
David Hines1
Brian Meux1
Amanda Morrison1
Melanie Okoro2
Rick Rogers1
Korie Schaeffer1
Erin Seghesio1
Dan Wilson1
Southwest Fisheries Science Center
Nate Mantua4
Michael O’Farrell4
Brian Spence4
Thomas Williams4
Northwest Fisheries Science Center
Lisa Crozier5
Addresses
1 777 Sonoma Avenue, Room 325, Santa Rosa, CA 95404
2 650 Capitol Mall, Sacramento, CA 95814
3 1655 Heindon Road, Arcata, CA 95521
4 110 Shaffer Road, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
5 2725 Montlake Blvd East, Seattle, WA 98112
43.164
NOAA Fisheries: 5-Year Status Review April 2016
California Central California Coast Steelhead 1
GENERAL INFORMATION
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Many West Coast salmon and steelhead (Oncorhynchus sp.) stocks have declined substantially from their historic numbers and now are at a fraction of their historical abundance. There are several factors that contribute to these declines, including: overfishing, loss of freshwater and estuarine habitat, hydropower development, poor ocean conditions, and hatchery practices.
These factors collectively led to the National Marine Fisheries Service‘s (NMFS) listing of 28 salmon and steelhead stocks in California, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA).
The ESA, under section 4(c)(2), directs the Secretary of Commerce to review the listing classification of threatened and endangered species at least once every five years. After completing this review, the Secretary must determine if any species should be: (1) removed from the list; (2) have its status changed from threatened to endangered; or (3) have its status changed from endangered to threatened. The most recent listing determinations for most salmon and steelhead occurred in 2011. NMFS completed a 5-year status review in 2011 and concluded the status for threatened Central California Coast (CCC) steelhead should remain the same. This document summarizes NMFS’s current 5-year review for the threatened CCC steelhead.
1.1.1 BACKGROUND ON SALMONID LISTING DETERMINATIONS
The ESA defines species to include subspecies and distinct population segments (DPS) of vertebrate species. A species may be listed as threatened or endangered. To identify distinct population segments of salmon species we apply the Policy on Applying the Definition of Species under the ESA to Pacific Salmon (56 FR 58612). Under this policy we identify population groups that are evolutionarily significant units (ESU) within their species. We consider a group of populations to be an ESU if it is substantially reproductively isolated from other populations and represents an important component in the evolutionary legacy of the biological species. We consider an ESU as constituting a DPS and therefore a species under the ESA.
To identify DPSs of steelhead, we apply the joint U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-National Marine Fisheries Service DPS policy (61 FR 4722) rather than the ESU policy. Under this policy, a DPS of steelhead must be discrete from other populations, and it must be significant to its taxon.
43.165
NOAA Fisheries: 5-Year Status Review April 2016
California Central California Coast Steelhead 2
Artificial propagation programs (hatcheries) are common throughout the range of ESA-listed West Coast salmon and steelhead. Prior to 2005, our policy was to include in the listed ESU or DPS only those hatchery fish deemed essential for conservation of a species. We revised that approach in response to a court decision and, on June 28, 2005, announced a final policy addressing the role of artificially propagated Pacific salmon and steelhead in listing determinations under the ESA (70 FR 37204) (hatchery listing policy). This policy establishes criteria for including hatchery stocks in ESUs and DPSs. In addition, it (1) provides direction for considering hatchery fish in extinction risk assessments of ESUs and DPSs; (2) requires that hatchery fish determined to be part of an ESU or DPS be included in any listing of the ESU or DPS; (3) affirms our commitment to conserving natural salmon and steelhead populations and the ecosystems upon which they depend; and (4) affirms our commitment to fulfilling trust and treaty obligations with regard to the harvest of some Pacific salmon and steelhead populations, consistent with the conservation and recovery of listed salmon ESUs and steelhead DPSs.
To determine whether a hatchery program is part of an ESU or DPS and therefore must be included in the listing, we consider the origins of the hatchery stock, where the hatchery fish are released, and the extent to which the hatchery stock has diverged genetically from the donor stock. We include within the ESU or DPS (and therefore within the listing) hatchery fish that are derived from the population in the area where they are released and that are no more than moderately diverged from the local population. Because the new hatchery listing policy changed the way we considered hatchery fish in ESA listing determinations, in 2005 and 2006 we completed new status reviews and ESA-listing determinations for West Coast salmon ESUs and steelhead DPSs.
1.2 METHODOLOGY USED TO COMPLETE THE REVIEW
On February 6, 2015, we announced the initiation of five year reviews for 17 ESUs of salmon and 11 DPSs of steelhead in Oregon, California, Idaho, and Washington (80 FR 6695). We requested that the public submit new information on these species that has become available since our last status reviews in 2011. In response to our request, we received no comments in regards to CCC steelhead during the public comment period.
To complete the reviews, we first asked scientists from our Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC) to collect and analyze new information about ESU and DPS viability. To evaluate viability, NMFS scientists used the Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) concept developed by McElhany et al. (2000). The VSP concept evaluates four criteria – abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity – to assess species viability. Through the application of this concept, the SWFSC considered new information on salmon and steelhead population viability criteria. They
43.166
NOAA Fisheries: 5-Year Status Review April 2016
California Central California Coast Steelhead 3
also considered new information on ESU and DPS boundaries. At the end of this process, the science teams prepared reports detailing the results of their analyses. These reports were compiled in a viability assessment report (viability assessment) (Williams et al. 2016) and used to inform the review of current status.
To further inform the reviews, we consulted salmon management biologists from the West Coast Region who are familiar with hatchery programs, habitat conditions, dam operations, and harvest management. Salmon biologists met with the SWFSC scientists to review available information on fish distribution and trends; changes to status of listing factors (i.e., habitat destruction, overutilization for commercial purposes, disease and predation pressures, inadequacy of existing regulations, other natural or man-made factors); and protective measures implemented since the last status review.
In preparing this report, we considered all relevant information, including the work of the SWFSC (Williams et al. 2016); the draft recovery plan for the species in question; technical reports prepared in support of the draft recovery plans for the species in question; the listing record (including designation of critical habitat and adoption of protective regulations); recent biological opinions issued for CCC steelhead; and the information and views provided by the geographically based management teams. The present report describes the agency‘s findings based on all of the information considered.
1.3 BACKGROUND – SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS REVIEWS, STATUTORY AND
REGULATORY ACTIONS, AND RECOVERY PLANNING
1.3.1 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE ANNOUNCING INITIATION OF THIS REVIEW 80 FR 6695; February 6, 2015
1.3.2 LISTING HISTORY
Central California Coast steelhead was originally defined as an ESU, and later revised to a DPS.
Due to identified threats to genetic integrity caused by hatchery activities, and population declines in Santa Cruz County, San Francisco Bay tributaries, and the Russian River, CCC steelhead was originally determined to be in danger of extinction (Busby et al. 1996 in Spence 2016). Upon review of new information, NMFS (1997) concluded that the ESU was not presently
43.167
NOAA Fisheries: 5-Year Status Review April 2016
California Central California Coast Steelhead 4
in danger of extinction but was likely to become so in the foreseeable future1 (Spence 2016).
Following this, CCC steelhead was listed as a threatened species in 1997 (62 FR 43937) (Table 1).
At the time of listing, both anadromous (steelhead) and resident (non-anadromous) forms of the species were considered part of the ESU; however, only the anadromous forms were listed (62 FR 43937). A court ruling in 2001 (Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans, 161 F. Supp. 2d 1154 (D. Or. 2001)) determined that listing only a subset of a species or ESU/DPS, such as the anadromous portions of the CCC steelhead, was not allowed under the ESA. Because of this court ruling, NMFS conducted updated status reviews for all west coast steelhead ESUs that took into account those non-anadromous populations below dams and other major migration barriers that were considered to be part of the steelhead ESUs (Good et al., 2005). Subsequently, NMFS decided to use the joint FWS-NMFS DPS policy to delineate steelhead-only DPSs rather than ESUs that included both steelhead and the related non-anadromous forms. Using this DPS policy, NMFS redefined the CCC steelhead ESU as a steelhead-only DPS and reaffirmed that the steelhead only DPS was a threatened species under the ESA (71 FR 834, January 5, 2006).
Table 1: Summary of the listing history under the Endangered Species Act for CCC steelhead.
Salmonid
Species
ESU/DPS Name Original Listing Revised Listing(s)
steelhead
(O. mykiss)
Central California
Coast steelhead
FR notice: 62 FR 43937
Date: 8/18/1997
Classification: Threatened
FR notice: 71 FR 834
Date: 1/5/ 2006
Re-classification:
Reaffirmed threatened
1.3.3 ASSOCIATED RULEMAKING
The ESA requires NMFS to designate critical habitat, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, for species it lists under the ESA. Critical habitat is defined as: (1) specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing, on which are found physical or biological features essential to conservation of the species, and those features which may require special management considerations or protection; and (2) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing if the agency determines that the area itself is essential for conservation of the species. We designated critical habitat for CCC steelhead in 2005 (Table 2).
1 The change in opinion was prompted by new data showing that steelhead remained present in most watersheds in the Santa Cruz Mountains and were more abundant than previously thought (Spence 2016).
43.168
NOAA Fisheries: 5-Year Status Review April 2016
California Central California Coast Steelhead 5
Section 9 of the ESA prohibits the take of species listed as endangered. The ESA defines take to mean harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct. For threatened species, the ESA does not automatically prohibit take, but instead authorizes the agency to adopt regulations it deems necessary and advisable for species conservation including regulations that prohibit take (ESA section 4(d)). NMFS originally promulgated 4(d) protective regulations for CCC steelhead in 2000 and then subsequently modified those regulations in 2005 (Table 2).
Table 2: Summary of rulemaking for 4(d) protective regulations and critical habitat for CCC steelhead.
Salmonid
Species
ESU/DPS Name 4(d) Protective
Regulations
Critical Habitat
Designations
steelhead
(O. mykiss)
Central California
Coast steelhead
ESA section 9 applies;
FR notice: 65 FR 42422
Date: 7/10/2000
Revised: 6/28/2005
(70 FR 37160)
FR notice: 70 FR 52488
Date: 9/2/2005
1.3.4 REVIEW HISTORY
Table 3 lists the numerous scientific assessments of the status of the CCC steelhead DPS. These assessments include status reviews conducted by our Northwest Fisheries Science Center and SWFSC and technical reports prepared in support of recovery planning for these species.
Table 3: Summary of previous scientific assessment for CCC steelhead Salmonid
Species
ESU/DPS Name Document Citation
steelhead
(O. mykiss)
Central California Coast
steelhead
Busby et al. 1996
Good et al. 2005
Bjorkstedt et al. 2005
Spence et al. 2008
Williams et al. 2011.
Spence and Williams 2011
Spence et al. 2012
Williams et al. 2016
43.169
NOAA Fisheries: 5-Year Status Review April 2016
California Central California Coast Steelhead 6
1.3.5 SPECIES’ RECOVERY PRIORITY NUMBER AT START OF 5-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS On June 15, 1990, NMFS issued guidelines (55 FR 24296) for assigning listing and recovery priorities. We assess three criteria to determine a species‘ priority for recovery plan development, implementation, and resource allocation: (1) magnitude of threat; (2) recovery potential; and (3) existing conflict with activities such as construction and development.
Table 4 lists the recovery priority number for CCC steelhead, as reported in the most recent report to Congress (Species in the Spotlight: Survive to Thrive, Recovering Threatened and Endangered Species, FY 2013-2014 Report to Congress; available at:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/laws/esa/final_biennial_report_2012-2014.pdf ).
1.3.6 RECOVERY PLAN OR OUTLINE
NMFS issued a public draft of the Coastal Multispecies Recovery Plan in October 2015, which includes CCC steelhead, and anticipates releasing a final plan in late 2016.
Table 4: Recovery Priority Number and Endangered Species Act Recovery Plan for CCC steelhead.
Salmonid Species ESU/DPS Name Recovery
Priority
Number
RecoveryPlan
steelhead
(O. mykiss)
Central California
Coast steelhead
5 Public Draft of the Coastal Multispecies
Recovery Plan is available at:
http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov
/protected_species/salmon_steelhead/rec
overy_planning_and_implementation/in
dex.html
43.170
NOAA Fisheries: 5-Year Status Review April 2016
California Central California Coast Steelhead 7
REVIEW ANALYSIS
In this section we review new information to determine whether CCC steelhead species‘ delineations remain appropriate.
2.1 DELINEATION OF SPECIES UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT Is the species under review a vertebrate?
ESU/DPS Name YES NO
Central California Coast steelhead X
Is the species under review listed as an ESU/DPS?
ESU/DPS Name YES NO
Central California Coast steelhead X
Was the ESU/DPS listed prior to 1996?
ESU/DPS Name YES NO Date Listed if
Prior to 1996
Central California Coast steelhead X n/a
Prior to this 5-year review, was the ESU/DPS classification reviewed to ensure it meets the 1996 ESU/DPS policy standards?
In 1991 NMFS issued a policy on how the agency would delineate DPSs of Pacific salmon for listing consideration under the ESA (56 FR 58612) as ESUs. Under this policy a group of Pacific salmon populations is considered an ESU if it is substantially reproductively isolated from other con-specific populations, and it represents an important component in the evolutionary legacy of the biological species. The 1996 joint FWS-NMFS DPS policy (61 FR 4722) affirmed that a stock (or stocks) of Pacific salmon is considered a DPS if it represents an ESU of a biological species. Accordingly, in listing the CCC steelhead ESU under the ESU policy in 1997, NMFS treated the ESU as a DPS under the ESA. NMFS considers its ESU policy to be a detailed extension of the joint DPS policy and consequently will continue to use its ESU policy with respect to Pacific salmon. For steelhead, NMFS currently uses the joint DPS policy (71 FR 834) to delineate steelhead-only DPSs under the ESA.
43.171
NOAA Fisheries: 5-Year Status Review April 2016
California Central California Coast Steelhead 8
2.1.1 SUMMARY OF RELEVANT NEW INFORMATION REGARDING THE DELINEATION OF
CCC STEELHEAD DPS
ESU/DPS Boundaries
The previous viability assessment that included CCC steelhead (Williams et al. 2011) considered studies and genetic data not available at the time of listing, and determined that available information suggested boundary changes may be warranted for coastal California steelhead DPSs, including the CCC steelhead DPS (Williams et al. 2016). Subsequent to the 2011 viability assessment, relevant data analyzed by Bjorkstedt et al. (2005) was published by Garza et al. (2014) and, based on this new information, it was recommended that a Biological Review Team (BRT) form to assess the best available information relevant to DPS boundaries and potential changes (Williams et al. 2016). The BRT review has not yet been conducted so the current viability assessment (Willams et al. 2016) uses the preexisting coastal California steelhead DPS boundaries, including those for CCC steelhead. Thus, the existing CCC steelhead DPS boundaries remain unchanged and are accordingly considered in this status review.
Membership of Hatchery Programs
Two artificial propagation programs are considered to be part of the DPS: the Don Clausen Fish Hatchery2, and Kingfisher Flat Hatchery (Monterey Bay Salmon and Trout Project) steelhead hatchery programs (71 FR 834). As part of this 5-year review, we have re-evaluated the status of these hatchery stocks and programs to determine whether they are still operational. The Don Clausen Fish Hatchery program, located in Sonoma County, is currently in operation and propagates steelhead collected from Dry Creek and the East Fork Russian River. The steelhead program at the Kingfisher Flat Hatchery, located in Santa Cruz County, has operated in past years, however it has not been implemented since the winter of 2013-2014.
The Don Clausen Fish Hatchery, located in the Dry Creek watershed continues to produce approximately 500,000 juvenile steelhead annually as part of mitigation for the loss of steelhead habitat behind Warm Springs Dam, and these fish are distributed throughout the upper and lower Russian River watershed (Spence 2016). In the last 15 years, the majority (> 95%) of steelhead arriving at the hatchery are marked fish of hatchery origin (Spence 2016).
2 The Don Clausen Fish Hatchery, located at the Lake Sonoma Dam is also known as the Warm Springs Hatchery. This hatchery is operated in coordination with the Coyote Valley Fish Facility, and egg collection facility at Lake Mendocino in the Upper Russian River Watershed. Progeny from eggs collected at both facilities (Don Clausen/Warm Springs Hatchery and the Coyote Valley Fish Facility) are reared at the Don Clausen Fish Hatchery.
43.172
NOAA Fisheries: 5-Year Status Review April 2016
California Central California Coast Steelhead 9
During years of operation, the Monterey Bay Salmon and Trout Project collect adult steelhead at two locations: the Felton Diversion Dam on the San Lorenzo River and a counting weir operated by NMFS’ Southwest Fisheries Science Center on lower Scott Creek. Since trapping on Scott Creek began in 2003, the percentage of returning adults of hatchery origin captured at the weir has averaged 33% per year, with a range of 6% to 69% (J. Kiernan, NMFS SWFSC, pers. comm. 2015). Only wild fish from the two watersheds are spawned (separately) and juveniles are released to their natal watershed. Between 1999 and 2013, the Kingfisher Flat Hatchery facility has produced an average of approximately 33,840 juvenile steelhead for release per year (Monterey Bay Salmon and Trout Project 2013). Prior to 2003, some of the juvenile steelhead were released outside of the Scott Creek or San Lorenzo River basins.
2.2 RECOVERY CRITERIA
The ESA requires that NMFS develop recovery plans for each listed species. Recovery plans must contain, to the maximum extent practicable, objective measureable criteria for delisting the species, site-specific management actions necessary to recover the species, and time and cost estimates for implementing the recovery plan.
2.2.1 DO THE SPECIES HAVE FINAL, APPROVED RECOVERY PLANS CONTAINING OBJECTIVE, MEASURABLE CRITERIA?
ESU/DPS Name YES NO
Central California Coast steelhead X
The Coastal Multispecies Recovery Plan Public Draft was released October 2015 (see 1.3.6 Recovery Plan or Outline). The public draft addresses the CCC steelhead DPS, as well as the NC steelhead DPS and the Chinook salmon ESU. This plan includes draft recovery criteria for each listed species that are objective, measureable, and based on the best available and most up to date information. Once the recovery plan is final the recovery criteria can be evaluated in the 5-Year Status Reviews. Since the recovery criteria specified in the public draft plan are subject to change, the SWFSC used viability criteria as the basis for evaluating biological viability status in this review.
The ESA requires recovery plans to incorporate (to the maximum extent practicable) objective, measurable criteria which, when met, would result in a determination in accordance with the provisions of the ESA that the species can be removed from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12). The multispecies recovery plan includes
43.173
NOAA Fisheries: 5-Year Status Review April 2016
California Central California Coast Steelhead 10
the following general types of recovery criteria: (1) population based biological criteria that consider future commercial, recreational and tribal fish harvest; (2) criteria that measure watershed health, (3) criteria that address the abatement and amelioration of threats to the species, and (4) criteria that address the five listing factors (NMFS, 2010).
2.2.2 ADEQUACY OF RECOVERY CRITERIA
Based on new information considered during this review, are the recovery criteria still appropriate?
ESU/DPS Name YES NO
Central California Coast steelhead N/A
Are all of the listing factors that are relevant to the species addressed in the recovery criteria? ESU/DPS Name YES NO
Central California Coast steelhead N/A
2.2.3 LIST THE RECOVERY CRITERIA AS THEY APPEAR IN THE RECOVERY PLAN Final recovery plans have not been issued for CCC steelhead, and recovery criteria have not been finalized. See discussion above in section 2.2.1 regarding the general nature of the draft criteria.
2.3 UPDATED INFORMATION AND CURRENT SPECIES’ STATUS
2.3.1 ANALYSIS OF VIABLE SALMONID POPULATION (VSP) CRITERIA The following DPS summary is taken from the SWFSC’s biological viability report. Please see Williams et al. 2016, for a more detailed discussion of each species VSP status.
Steelhead populations in the CCC steelhead are the most poorly monitored salmonid populations in the North-Central California Coast Recovery Domain. Population-level estimates of adult abundance are entirely lacking for 28 populations that constitute the North Coastal, Interior, Coastal San Francisco Bay, and Interior San Francisco Bay diversity strata (Figure 1). Only in the Santa Cruz Mountain stratum has implementation of the Coastal Monitoring Plan (CMP) been initiated, and here only recently. Thus, with the exception of the life-cycle monitoring station in Scott Creek, estimates of abundance span only 1-3 years for populations in this stratum. More limited monitoring efforts have produced data for a few partial populations, but the lack of data continues to make it extraordinarily difficult to assess the status and trends of populations in the
43.174
NOAA Fisheries: 5-Year Status Review April 2016
California Central California Coast Steelhead 11
DPS. The scarcity of information on steelhead abundance in the CCC DPS continues to make it difficult to assess whether conditions have changed appreciably since the previous status review of Williams et al. (2011), which concluded that the population was likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. In the North Coastal and Interior strata, steelhead still appear to occur in the majority of watersheds, though in the Russian River basin, the ratio of hatchery fish to natural origin fish returning to spawn remain largely unknown and continues to be a source of concern. New information from 3 years of CMP implementation in the Santa Cruz Mountain stratum indicates that population sizes are perhaps higher than previously thought. However, the downward trend in the Scott Creek population, which has the most robust estimates of abundance, is a source of concern. The status of populations in the two San Francisco Bay diversity strata remains highly uncertain, and it is likely that many populations where historical habitat is now inaccessible due to dams and other passage barriers are at high risk of extinction.
In summary, while data availability for this DPS remains poor, we find little new evidence to suggest that the extinction risk for this DPS has changed appreciably in either direction since publication of the last status review (Williams et al. 2011).
43.175
NOAA Fisheries: 5-Year Status Review April 2016
California Central California Coast Steelhead 12
Figure 1: Map of Central California Coast steelhead with diversity strata boundaries.
43.176
NOAA Fisheries: 5-Year Status Review April 2016
California Central California Coast Steelhead 13
2.3.2 FIVE-FACTOR ANALYSIS
Section 4(a)(1)(b) of the ESA directs us to determine whether any species is threatened or endangered because of any of the following factors: (1) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (2) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other natural or human-made factors affecting its continued existence. Section 4(b)(1)(A) requires us to make listing determinations after conducting a review of the status of the species and taking into account efforts to protect such species. Below we discuss new information relating to each of the five factors as well as efforts being made to protect the species. The 2011 status review discusses a comprehensive list of threats associated with each listing factor, while that information is still valid, this review is focused on the top three to five threats and how those threats have changed since the previous review.
Listing Factor A: Present or threatened destruction, modification or curtailment of its habitat or range
Significant habitat restoration and protection actions at the Federal, state, and local levels have been implemented to improve degraded habitat conditions and restore fish passage. While these efforts have been substantial and are expected to benefit the survival and productivity of the targeted populations, we do not yet have evidence demonstrating that improvements in habitat conditions have led to improvements in population viability. The effectiveness of habitat restoration actions and progress toward meeting the viability criteria will be monitored and evaluated with the aid of new reporting techniques. Generally, it takes one to five decades to demonstrate such increases in viability. Below, we summarize several noteworthy restoration and protection actions implemented since the last review. We also summarize the primary threats to habitat conditions that remain.
Water Quality and Quantity
Water Quality
Many surface waters in the DPS are polluted as water is discharged from agricultural operations, urban/suburban areas, and industrial sites. These discharges transport pollutants such as pesticides, sediment, nutrients, salts, pathogens, and metals into surface waters. Although conditions in most streams, rivers, and estuaries, throughout the State are much improved from 40 years ago, the rate of improvements have slowed overtime (San Francisco Estuary Partnership 2015). Contaminants such as polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), and copper have declined over time, however many potentially harmful chemicals and contaminants of emerging concern
43.177
NOAA Fisheries: 5-Year Status Review April 2016
California Central California Coast Steelhead 14
(pharmaceuticals) have yet to be addressed. Legacy pollutants such as mercury and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) limit consumption of most fish, and directly and indirectly affect endangered fish populations, as well as their designated critical habitat.
In particular, urban storm water runoff is consistently toxic to fish and stream invertebrates (McIntyre et al. 2014, McIntyre et al. 2015). The array of toxicity is variously attributed to metals from motor vehicle brake pads; petroleum hydrocarbons from vehicle emissions of oil, grease, and exhaust; as well as residential pesticide use. Urban storm water toxicity has been linked to pre-spawn mortality of coho salmon (Scholz et al. 2011); the degree of impervious surface (Feist et al. 2011); and has been directly linked to effects at the population level (Spromber and Scholz 2011). Emphasis on wastewater treatment plant upgrades and new legislative requirements (State Water Resource Control Board and Environmental Protection Agency), development and implementation of total maximum daily load programs (TMDLs) (i.e., pathogens, selenium, pesticides, pyrethroids, methylmercury, heavy metals, salts, nutrients), and adoption of new water quality standards (i.e., Basin Plans), all aid in protecting beneficial uses for aquatic wildlife.
In the future, we expect pollutants of concern will be better controlled through the implementation of green infrastructure approaches (i.e., rain gardens, green roofs, an bio-swales), industry phase-out, and state bans.
In California, approximately 9,493 miles of rivers/streams and some 513,130 acres of lakes/reservoirs are listed as impaired by irrigated agriculture through section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. Of these, approximately 2800 miles, or approximately 28 percent, have been identified as impaired by pesticides. In recent years, NOAA scientists have investigated the direct and indirect effects of pesticides on individual ESA listed species, the foodwebs on which they depend, and at the population level (Baldwin et al. 2009, Laetz et al. 2009, Macneale et al. 2010, Scholz et al. 2012). NMFS has consulted on seven batched pesticide ESA Section 7 consultations, and concluded that chlorpyrifos, diazinon, malathion, carbaryl, carbofuran, methomyl, bensulide, dimethoate, ethroprop, methidathion, naled, phorate, phosmet, 2,4-D, chlorothalonil, diuron, oryzalin, pendimethalin, and trifluralin, jeopardize the continued existence of ESA listed species and/or adversely modified critical habitat for salmonids across the West Coast Region (NMFS, 2008a, 2009, 2010, 2011b, 2013).
Since the 2011 status review, overall trends for water quality show improvements across California. New testing methods, reasonable and prudent alternatives (i.e., buffer requirements and no-spray zones), and programs have been developed to begin minimizing impacts. For example, the Irrigated Land Regulatory Program (ILRP) regulates discharge from agricultural lands. This unique program requires agricultural operators to monitor the quality of water
43.178
NOAA Fisheries: 5-Year Status Review April 2016
California Central California Coast Steelhead 15
discharged to receiving water and implement management actions when impairments are detected.
Water quality pollution poses important challenges for the conservation and recovery of ESA listed species and their habitat. Innovative and sustainable solutions such as green infrastructure and low-impact design (LID) are needed to manage pollutants as close to the source as possible.
If these solutions can be applied at a broader scale, LID technology, policies, and watershed scale programs have the potential to maintain and/or restore hydrologic and ecological functions in a watershed, thereby improving water quality for ESA listed species and the ecosystem on which the species depend.
Water Quantity
Existing surface water rights in California have over-appropriated approximately five times the natural mean annual runoff, and account for almost 1000 percent of natural surface water supplies (Grantham and Viers 2014). Dams are present in all strata3 within the DPS, and are particularly prevalent in certain regions (e.g., Russian River and San Francisco Bay tributaries).
Dams affect habitat throughout the DPS by disrupting natural hydrologic patterns and impairing sediment transport, channel morphology, substrate composition, and water quality (including temperature and turbidity) within downstream reaches (Spence et al. 2008). Operations at reservoir-related dams in the DPS often affect downstream reaches by impairing flow timing and volume. These effects impair steelhead habitat and affect steelhead migration (see Impaired Passage, below), spawning, and rearing within the affected reaches4. In addition, the current drought has revealed that water storage within reservoirs in the DPS is unreliable in times of drought; reducing water availability and exacerbating these impairments. For example, during low storage levels, Coyote Valley Dam is known to release highly turbid water for extended periods well after turbidity levels in reservoir inflows and unregulated tributaries have diminished (NMFS 2008a). Turbid flows result in degraded salmonid spawning and rearing habitat (Everest 1969), and may impair food availability for juvenile salmonids by reducing habitat diversity for benthic invertebrates and eliminating certain guilds of invertebrates from the food chain. Similarly, extended periods of warm, turbid, and reduced flow releases have been noted at dams in the San Francisco Bay Area during periods of low storage (Leicester and Smith 2014).
3 A search of the existing fish passage barriers within the DPS (CalFish 2015) indicates that dams exist in all populations within the DPS.
4 None of the large reservoir-related dams in the DPS have passage programs, and in certain regions of the DPS, especially in the San Francisco Bay area, these impaired below-reservoir stream reaches often co-occur with reaches impaired by urbanization; preventing access to headwater habitat and confining fish to reaches impaired by multiple threats (see Impaired Passage).
43.179
NOAA Fisheries: 5-Year Status Review April 2016
California Central California Coast Steelhead 16
In addition to surface water diversion, groundwater withdrawals also impair stream habitat by lowering groundwater resources5. This impairs volume, extent, timing, and temperature of surface flows. Within the DPS, groundwater withdrawals have significantly lowered groundwater in many streams draining to the San Francisco Bay – many of the reservoirs are operated to provide water storage and discharge that is used to recharge over-drafted aquifers.
Also, several groundwater basins that occur within the DPS have been identified by the California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Program as having basin priority rankings of Medium or High6 (California Department of Water Resources [DWR], 2014A, 2014B), indicating that this threat affects groundwater basins and associated watersheds within the CCC steelhead DPS.
For the first time in California history, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), signed into law in October 2014, will regulate and manage the state’s groundwater resources to ensure sustainability of the resource. More importantly, environmental beneficial uses, including cold water fisheries, are to be considered when balancing competing uses for an aquifer’s safe yield, which suggests that minimizing groundwater pumping impacts on streamflow will be an integral part of future groundwater management. Unfortunately, the SGMA slowly phases in the new regulatory scheme (e.g., overdrafted groundwater basins have 40 years to achieve a sustainable condition), suggesting that meaningful streamflow improvement resulting from the act may be decades in the future. Given the current over-allocation of surface and groundwater within the state, and the expected long delay in realizing tangible environmental improvement from the SGMA, NMFS believes currently impaired streamflow and habitat conditions will generally persist across the DPS during at least the next decade or two.
In addition to the traditional diversion operations considered above, a significant and growing new threat is the unpermitted damming and diversion of rural streams and rivers for the purpose of irrigating illicit marijuana gardens. Marijuana-related diversion dams were not a significant threat at the time of CCC steelhead listing, but are likely now the paramount threat to salmonid
5 Groundwater resources are often hydrologically linked to surface flow in adjacent stream channels. 6 California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Program ranks basins based on: 1) overlying population; 2) projected growth of overlying population; 3) public supply wells; 4) total wells; 5) overlying irrigated acreage; 6) reliance on groundwater as the primary source of water; 7) impacts on the groundwater, including overdraft, subsidence, saline intrusion, and other water quality degradation; and 8) any other information determined to be relevant by the Department (DWR, 2014B). Basin Rankings: The Ukiah Valley, Petaluma Valley, Napa-Sonoma Valley, Santa Clara Valley, Santa Cruz Purisma Formation, and West Santa Cruz Terrace Basins have been identified as Medium Priority and the Soquel Valley has been identified as High Priority (California Department of Water Resources, 2014A).
43.180
NOAA Fisheries: 5-Year Status Review April 2016
California Central California Coast Steelhead 17
survival and habitat function in many first and second-order streams located in remote, rural areas. These marijuana-related diversions represent a present, increasing threat to the DPS and are known to severely affect instream hydrology (drying out reaches), block passage, and result in the mortality of listed salmonids (See Agriculture, below for further discussion of this threat).
Estuary and Wetland Losses and Impairments
Lost wetland and estuarine habitat was identified as a factor at the time of listing and during the last 5 year review. Estuarine wetlands important to the support of CCC steelhead have been adversely affected by urbanization and historic land use practices (see Urbanization, below) and impairments remain present throughout the DPS. For example, fill associated with past development has resulted in the loss of approximately 79 percent of tidal marsh habitat and approximately 90 percent of all tidal wetlands in the San Francisco Bay (California State Coastal Conservancy et al. 2010). Further, important ongoing development stressors (e.g., urban and agricultural development) continue to affect wetlands in California, and stream-associated salt marsh and wetland habitat have shown declining health and function due to urbanization effects (California Natural Resources Agency, 2010).
For populations along the coast, estuarine habitats consist primarily of seasonal, “bar-built” lagoons. The lagoons form in spring or summer as sandbars form separating the freshwater and marine environments. The lagoons provide a highly productive environment where rearing juvenile salmonids can experience rapid growth and where the brackish waters provide an opportunity for them to acclimate to saltwater prior to ocean entry. As with San Francisco Bay, past and present development for other land use activities and water resource development has decreased lagoon habitat extent and quality. In addition, management of lagoons throughout the DPS, such as sandbar breaching for flood control, recreation, and access, has altered natural lagoon function and the quality of rearing habitat.
Restoration efforts since the time of listing have helped to reverse estuarine and wetland losses throughout the DPS; however the threat remains. For example, substantial wetland (inclusive of both estuarine and freshwater wetlands) acquisition, restoration, and enhancement progress was made at the statewide level between 2000 and 2010 (California Natural Resources Agency 2010); and important improvements have been realized within the range of CCC steelhead DPS (e.g., tidal marsh restoration within San Francisco Bay7). In addition, coastal lagoons have been studied
7 Between 2009 and 2015, 6,300 acres were reconnected to tidal influence in the greater San Francisco Bay and are expected to transition (restore) to tidal marsh habitat (San Francisco Estuary Partnership 2015). These and other efforts have brought the total acreage of tidal marsh habitat in the San Francisco Bay to approximately 50,000 acres (San Francisco Estuary Partnership 2015). Recent tidal restoration examples include the restoration of significant areas
43.181
NOAA Fisheries: 5-Year Status Review April 2016
California Central California Coast Steelhead 18
to better understand habitat and management needs. While these restoration and research efforts are important and beneficial, significant areas of estuarine habitat remain lost or impaired, such that estuarine function across the DPS remains impaired overall. These ongoing impairments coupled with the threat of ongoing development stressors (as indicated above), identify estuarine and wetland habitat impairments as a persistent threat to the species.
Timber Harvest
The effects of timber production on CCC steelhead remain the same since the last 5 year review.
Timber production is a dominant land use within smaller private timber holdings that operate in the mountains of Santa Cruz and San Mateo Counties. The effects of road building associated with timber harvest, and rural road construction in general, can destabilize hillsides and increase erosional processes that deliver fine sediment to streams and rivers. Poorly designed or constructed stream-crossings can often preclude adult and juvenile fish from migrating upstream past the crossing (see Impaired Passage, below), and can alter stream channel morphology and hydraulic characteristics both within, and upstream and downstream, of the road crossing.
On timberlands that operate in the mountains of Santa Cruz and San Mateo counties, existing instream aquatic habitat impairment is primarily a legacy effect from logging and yarding practices employed decades ago, when few environmental laws existed and regulatory oversight was limited. State Forest Practice Rules, which govern timber harvest on private lands (as occurs in the CCC steelhead DPS), have improved in recent years; however, certain regulatory protections within the DPS remain limited (see Listing Factor D, below). Where legacy effects persist (e.g., high instream sediment loads, poor LWD recruitment, etc.) continued impact to CCC steelhead habitat will likely persist for decades until watersheds naturally “heal”, evolve, and respond to the altered geomorphic and hydrologic regimes.
Agriculture
Agriculture was identified as a threat to the DPS at the time of listing and considered to be an ongoing threat during the last 5 year review. Associated stressors such as habitat fragmentation, agricultural water diversions from rivers/streams, and non-point pollutant discharge (i.e., sediment, pesticides, etc.) have likely increased slightly since the time of listing due to expanding agricultural acreage, and new stressors exist such that agriculture and ranching is considered a current threat to the DPS.
formerly developed as production salt ponds (see http://www.southbayrestoration.org/), ongoing efforts at the Cullinan Ranch Project in the San Pablo Bay area of the greater San Francisco Bay to restore 1,500 acres of tidal marsh habitat (Ducks Unlimited n.d.), and planned efforts to restore 1,000 acres of tidal marsh at Sears Point in San Pablo Bay (Sonoma Land Trust 2015).
43.182
NOAA Fisheries: 5-Year Status Review April 2016
California Central California Coast Steelhead 19
Agricultural acreage8 in Sonoma County, a portion of which is located within the northern extent of the distribution of CCC steelhead and likely contains the highest percentage of agricultural acreage within the DPS, increased from 71,017 to 76,283 between 2005 and 2013 (approximately
7.4%) (Sonoma County 2005, 2013). Further south, the coastal areas of San Mateo County and portions of Santa Cruz County within the CCC steelhead DPS contain relatively little agricultural acreage compared to counties north of San Francisco Bay. Wine grapes are by far the largest agricultural product in Sonoma County, and short-term forecasts call for increased demand for premium wines (Silicon Valley Bank 2014). Similar trends may be reasonably expected in Napa County where viticulture is prominent. Meanwhile, growth of agriculture within coastal areas of San Mateo and Santa Cruz Counties is expected to be less prominent.
Marin and Sonoma counties are also home to extensive livestock/dairy industries. Livestock grazing can damage riparian and aquatic habitat when animals are not physically excluded from streams, leading to trampling and grazing streamside vegetation, and impairing instream substrate. Where high densities of livestock congregate, animal waste can enter streams either through direct defecation by individuals in the water, or indirectly as waste is conveyed downslope following rain or irrigation events. The spatial area within the CCC steelhead DPS utilized for grazing has likely remained relatively constant since the date CCC steelhead were initially listed, and significant progress in protecting riparian habitat has recently been realized.
For instance, the Marin County Resource Conservation District has helped landowners properly fence riparian corridors that traverse their grazing lands, and Sonoma County amended their riparian corridor ordinance in 2014 to expand and clarify riparian protection requirements during land development activities (i.e., urban development or agricultural grading). However, the ordinance largely “grandfathers” all currently active parcels, meaning only new grazing development must adhere to the ordinance. So, while the threat of grazing has likely improved somewhat since listing due to ongoing restoration work, truly significant improvement will likely prove elusive until all properties are required to follow laws protecting riparian resources.
In addition to traditional agriculture (including livestock grazing), illegal marijuana cultivation occurs within the DPS. Illegal marijuana cultivation was not identified as a threat at the time of listing, but has grown into a leading threat to salmon and steelhead recovery throughout California. Illegal growers often dam and dewater creek channels to irrigate their marijuana gardens, and pesticides, fertilizers and poisons are commonly used without regard for their
8 Includes fruit, nut, vegetable and field crops, but excludes grazing and pasture lands. Crop reports for 2014 were not available.
43.183
NOAA Fisheries: 5-Year Status Review April 2016
California Central California Coast Steelhead 20
impacts on the environment. This illicit agricultural component has likely grown significantly since listing, and will continue to degrade steelhead habitat until adequate controls and regulations, such as those that govern legitimate agriculture, are enacted.
Urbanization
The threat of urbanization has been present since the time of listing and since the previous 5 year review. Within the DPS, many important CCC steelhead watersheds that overlap with dense urban areas, such as the Russian River in the northern portion of the range, San Lorenzo River in the southern portion of the range, and all tributaries to the San Francisco Bay within the range, continually suffer aquatic habitat degradation resulting from urban stressors. As natural open space is transformed into urban neighborhoods and waterways are manipulated and engineered for flood control purposes, several hydrologic and aquatic habitat impacts predictably follow and adversely affect freshwater streams and estuarine habitats. During land use conversion (including flood control structure installation), much of the natural terrain is replaced by impervious surfaces (e.g., pavement, structure roofs, etc.), causing rapid runoff of precipitation and shorter, more intense flows; and point and non-point pollution increases as oils, chemicals (e.g, fertilizers, pesticides, etc.) and other pollutants wash into streams following precipitation events. Further, urban development often encroaches onto the floodplain of creeks and rivers, destroying riparian and floodplain habitat. This eliminates refuge habitat important for fish during high flow events, and limits natural hydraulic/geomorphic processes that create and maintain complex instream habitat. In addition to riparian effects, estuarine wetlands important to CCC steelhead have also been adversely affected by urbanization and related land use practices (see Estuary and Wetland Loss and Impairment above).
Flood control projects associated with urbanized areas throughout the DPS have resulted in significant habitat losses. Within the San Francisco Bay Area, these impairments are particularly noteworthy. Many flood control channels at the Bay shoreline trap sediment, often leading to long-term maintenance problems and constraints to fish passage (see Impaired Passage, below) and ecological function. Performance problems associated with these flood control channels, most of which were built between the 1930s to the 1980s, are generally associated with design objectives and modeling applications used at the time. Designs typically focused on rapid conveyance of water out of the watershed, and applied simple hydraulic models with limited integration of river science, fluvial geomorphology, hydraulic engineering, and fisheries and wildlife ecology. Designs also typically failed to adequately consider the effects of grade control and vegetation removal. As a result, many flood control channels in the region are unsustainable and require significant efforts to maintain flood control objectives. These designs, and associated channel maintenance activities, have resulted in impaired instream habitat, loss of floodplain habitat, and poor passage conditions throughout the Bay Area.
43.184
NOAA Fisheries: 5-Year Status Review April 2016
California Central California Coast Steelhead 21
The land development practices that led to much of the urbanized condition may have improved; however, the threat from urbanization persists. Local governments are now required to consider the environment in their management and development decisions. However, urban-related impacts are likely to worsen in the future as the Bay Area population grows by a predicted 30% between the years 2010 and 2040 (Association of Bay Area Governments 2013). Future urban expansion, coupled with the ongoing effects of water resource development, has the potential to further impair stream habitat within the DPS. Ongoing restoration and protection efforts will be important to counter the effects of urbanization and provide habitat that supports the DPS.
Impaired Passage
Complete and partial passage barriers throughout the DPS impair steelhead migration and rearing. Existing passage barriers are associated with a variety of land uses, including but not limited to: diversions, large and small dams9, urbanization10, road crossings (including legacy timber roads), and, more recently, illegal marijuana cultivation. These passage barriers impair or preclude access to important habitat and, where coincident with other habitat impairments, confine fish (either temporally or completely) to impaired reaches.
Many small legacy impediments identified prior to and after listing have been remedied, and modern fish passage standards are now incorporated into new (or rebuilt) diversion designs during federal and state permitting. However, significant existing impairments remain, and as this threat may not be static or limited to existing facilities and populations, new threats may arise. For example, altered hydrologic regimes (see Climate Change, below) coupled with the effects of urbanization and aging infrastructure may lead to new or exacerbated conditions (e.g., worsening road crossings due to downcutting), and illegal marijuana cultivation may be an expanding threat. Also, the recently approved California State Water Bond (the 2014 Proposition 1) includes $2.7 billion for future reservoir and dam construction. Although potential reservoir sites have not yet been identified, the possibility remains that new water storage facilities, and associated affects, may be developed within the CCC steelhead DPS.
9 A search of the existing fish passage barriers within the DPS (CalFish 2015) indicates that dams exist in all populations within the DPS and result in: 92 partial barriers; 98 temporal barriers; 24 temporal and partial barriers; 4 temporal and total barriers; 179 total barriers; and 301 barriers whose status is either unknown or unassessed.
10 Including the flood control channels that provide flood protection in urban areas.
43.185
NOAA Fisheries: 5-Year Status Review April 2016
California Central California Coast Steelhead 22
Lacking passage programs, large reservoir-related dams in the DPS, particularly in the greater San Francisco Bay Area, both limit steelhead distribution to downstream reaches impaired by urbanization, and preclude access to important upstream spawning and rearing habitat (Spence et al. 2008). Aside from exacerbation by the recent drought, these impairments are not new since the last review, and have likely remained the same since the initial listing of the CCC steelhead DPS; indicating this as a persistent threat to the DPS. On affected streams in the DPS, this threat truncates watersheds (i.e., geographically constricts the species’ distribution), precludes access to historically important spawning and rearing reaches, confines populations to downstream low gradient reaches impaired by altered flow regimes (see Water Quantity, above) and, where coincident with urbanized areas, restricts steelhead distribution to reaches adversely affected by urbanization (see Urbanization, above). Nearly all populations within tributaries to the San Francisco Bay are affected. Although present since the time of listing and unchanged since the last 5 year review, the ongoing operation of reservoirs without passage programs is expected to perpetuate the ongoing extinction risk for these populations.
On timberlands that operate in the mountains of Santa Cruz and San Mateo Counties, existing passage impairments are primarily a legacy effect from practices employed decades ago. Given the relatively high awareness that exists regarding the importance of fish passage remediation and design, the threat of timber roads posing new fish passage impediments in the region has lessened. Also, due to efforts to address existing and legacy fish passage barriers, the overall passage condition on timber lands in the region has likely improved since listing; however, the condition has remained unchanged since the last 5 year review. However, while important passage barriers have been removed, a still greater number of lower-priority timber road-related sites remain and continue to impair steelhead movement. Also, legacy effects, where present, may persist for some time since decommissioning old logging roads (i.e., outsloping and ripping the road bed, removing culverts and dips, replanting exposed soil, etc.) can be expensive, and road restoration occurs at a slower rate compared to other restoration actions. Thus, while less immediate than other passage threats, identifying and addressing remaining barriers on timber lands remains an important action for the conservation of CCC steelhead.
Considering the importance of habitat accessibility for life cycle completion, the ongoing effects of existing barriers, and the potential for new barriers to develop in the future, passage impairment remains an important threat. Implementation of small- and large-scale passage restoration is needed to support the conservation of the DPS.
43.186
NOAA Fisheries: 5-Year Status Review April 2016
California Central California Coast Steelhead 23
Protective Efforts
Marijuana Cultivation
Two developing programs offer promise in the effort to minimize the environmental impacts of marijuana cultivation in California. The North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (NCRWQCB) has implemented a waste discharge waiver for state-legal medicinal marijuana cultivation. The waiver program attempts to regulate and manage waste discharge into surface water bodies in a manner similar to other agricultural industries in the state, such as vineyards and grazing, with a tiered approach that places prospective operations into one of four different levels based largely on the areal size of the operation. All growers regulated under the waiver program will be required to implement specific Best Management Practices identified by the NCRWQCB, with program compliance verified either through self-reporting (for the smaller farms) to inspection by state agency personnel for larger operations. While the marijuana cultivation waste discharge waiver shows promise toward minimizing water quality-related impacts resulting from marijuana cultivation in the northern part of the DPS, the realized benefit may be smaller than anticipated due to the suspected large number of illegal grows (i.e., not for medicinal uses, but for black market sales) and the low likelihood that criminal operators will voluntarily register with a state agency.
Another state development that shows much stronger potential in minimizing marijuana cultivation impacts to the environment is the recent passage of legislation assembling a statecontrolled regulatory and enforcement program for the medicinal marijuana industry. The Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act (MMRSA) will create a new state agency that will control the permitting, regulation and taxing of the medicinal marijuana industry. However, given the likely high cost of regulating and enforcing an entirely new (and formerly illegal) industry, the ability of the state to enforce the law and clean up environmental damage from illegal grows will remain uncertain until state funding levels to implement the MMSRA are finalized. Bolstering the staffs of the state agencies in charge of enforcement (i.e., CDFW and NCRWQCB) is imperative toward MMSRA’s success in minimizing environmental impacts.
Russian River Habitat Focus Area
The Russian River watershed was selected as the first Habitat Focus Area under NOAA’s Habitat Blueprint. This was an important step to increase the effectiveness of NOAA’s habitat conservation science and management efforts by identifying places where NOAA offices work to meet multiple habitat conservation objectives on a watershed scale. As part of NOAA’s Habitat Focus Area, NOAA has been working to rebuild Russian River salmonids to sustainable levels through habitat protection and restoration. NOAA’s National Weather Service has been improving frost, rainfall, and river forecasts in the Russian River watershed through improved data collection and modeling. NOAA’s Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research is working
43.187
NOAA Fisheries: 5-Year Status Review April 2016
California Central California Coast Steelhead 24
to increasing community resiliency to flooding damage through improved planning and water management strategies.
Habitat Improvement
Efforts to improve habitat conditions and restore access for CCC steelhead are ongoing throughout the range. The significance of past habitat impairments, their ongoing effects, and the threat of future habitat impairments remain current threats. However, ongoing efforts such as those being implemented to restore tidal marsh habitat (e.g.,restoration efforts discussed above for the San Francisco Bay area), study and manage coastal lagoons (e.g., as for Pescadero Creek and San Lorenzo River lagoons), fund or facilitate restoration efforts (e.g., through governmentmanaged restoration programs, as well as those implemented by local government and important nonprofit partners) are improving habitat conditions. These important habitat restoration efforts are imperative and should be expanded.
State and Federal Drought Response
In January of 2014, the Governor of California proclaimed a State of Emergency due to drought conditions. In response, NMFS and CDFW developed the Voluntary Drought Initiative Program (VDI). The purpose of the program is to provide incentives to water users in high priority watersheds throughout the State to reduce the negative effects of the drought on salmon and steelhead. The Russian River was designated as one of three top priority watersheds for this program and is the only top priority watershed within the range of CCC Steelhead. To date, 116 VDI agreements have been signed (41 for water conservation and fish rescue, 71 for independent water conservation, and four for flow augmentation) – all are located in either Green Valley Creek, Dutch Bill Creek, Mill Creek, or Mark West Creek, except for one flow augmentation agreement in Porter Creek. The 41 water conservation and fish rescue VDI agreements have been signed with CDFW. The 71 independent water conservation agreements represent over 1,900 acres of vineyard, where landowners have pledged to reduce water demand by 25% over 2013 levels. Finally, the 4 flow augmentation agreements increased summer streamflow within Porter, Dutch Bill, and Green Valley creeks, primarily by releasing previously stored water into the stream channel. Stream flow gaging records within the region show measurable improvement in drought conditions for steelhead within portions of streams covered by the flow augmentation agreements. For the last 5 years, Porter Creek flow has been maintained annually for summer rearing flow in the lower 1.5 miles of stream, and an agreement in Dutch Bill Creek was implemented in 2015 and maintains approximately 1 mile of habitat. The two remaining flow augmentation projects in Green Valley Creek contributed to re-wetting of streams in approximately one half mile of stream.
43.188
NOAA Fisheries: 5-Year Status Review April 2016
California Central California Coast Steelhead 25
In addition to voluntary efforts, in July of 2015 the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) issued Emergency Enhanced Water Conservation and Additional Water User Information for the Protection of Specific Fisheries in Tributaries to the Russian River (CCR title 23, section 876) which, in part mandated reductions in water usage in areas identified by NMFS and CDFW as at greatest risk to salmonids due to the drought. Tangible improvements in streamflow have not been observed, but these actions have increased awareness of conservation issues locally and have stimulated much of the participation in VDI’s.
Frost Protection
Water extraction from streams, or from hydraulically connected groundwater, specifically those aimed at protecting grape vines from frost damage, has the potential to strand newly emerged steelhead fry during the spring period. On October 1, 2014, the SWRCB Russian River Frost Protection Regulation went into effect. This regulation, which is being phased in over a 3 year period, will mitigate for these effects by controlling harmful stream stage changes. The use of water for frost protection is widespread in the basin and, particularly in the spring season with many frost events, this regulation is likely to promote an improvement in fry survival in tributaries, and portions of the mainstem, where steelhead spawn and rear. In addition, monitoring, risk assessment, and corrective action requirements under this regulation have generated considerable amounts of conservation activity in these areas.
Flood Protection Practices
In recent decades, Federal and local entities have recognized the issues caused by past flood control practices and are taking action to avoid perpetuating these problems into the future.
Positive efforts include implementing designs that integrate fluvial geomorphology with hydraulic engineering, remove hydraulic constrictions, restore floodplains, and provide fish passage. In addition, climate change and the associated threats of sea level rise and more severe and frequent flooding has again made flood control a priority for many local governments and private citizens. This renewed focus on flood control can be seen as a positive or negative trend, depending on the approach taken. Rebuilding flood control structures in-kind will perpetuate ongoing habitat impacts. However, applying current knowledge regarding the resiliency of natural ecosystems to climate change and the ability of healthy ecosystems to support flood protection should integrate ecosystem considerations into flood control designs – potentially resulting in habitat restoration at a grand scale, and significantly improved flood risk management. To guide future flood control projects in a direction that results in improvements to both habitat and flood protection, increased regulatory oversight will be needed to ensure flood control projects are designed to achieve long-term hydraulic, geomorphic, and ecological sustainability. Resource agencies will need to play an active role in informing communities and local flood control entities (through outreach and regulation) of how innovative flood control
43.189
NOAA Fisheries: 5-Year Status Review April 2016
California Central California Coast Steelhead 26
approaches can provide environmental benefits, long-term sustainability and cost-savings to flood protection efforts. Interagency review and coordination, and stakeholder involvement are likely to be integral to achieving these goals.
Listing Factor B: Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes
Overfishing
Overfishing as a threat to CCC steelhead survival has diminished significantly since the time of initial listing, but no significant changes have occurred to the overfishing listing factor since the last 5 year review (NMFS 2011a). Ocean harvest of steelhead is rare and an insignificant source of mortality for the DPS, and recreational fishing is limited to catch and release only of wild fish and retention of only hatchery produced fish (NMFS 2011a). During the past five years, a number of sport fishing regulation changes have gone into effect to better protect salmonids along portions of the California Coast. These have included modified low flow closures and complete seasonal closures in some populations (for CCC steelhead this includes populations within the streams of Sonoma and Marin counties) due to ongoing drought, and to reduce problematic harvest by limiting areas in which fish may be taken (e.g., reach closures on Sonoma Creek). More recently (2014-2015), CDFW modified the sport fishing regulations to allow a daily bag limit of two adult hatchery steelhead (i.e., adipose-clipped) from streams throughout the DPS. The intent of this regulation change is to better protect genetic integrity of the wild fish.
Illegal Harvest
Freshwater poaching or unintentional take of CCC steelhead may occur. Where current abundance is below the “high risk” threshold (as described in Spence et al. 2008), losing adult fish to poaching could significantly impact population productivity and genetic diversity. There is no new information to suggest the overall risk of illegal harvest has increased since the initial listing of the species and since the previous 5 year status review.
Scientific Collection, Research and Monitoring
Collection for scientific research and education programs is tightly controlled and monitored through the issuance of collection permits by NMFS and CDFW. The previous status review (NMFS 2011a) concluded scientific research and educational programs are believed to have had little or no impact on CCC steelhead populations, and no development during the past five years has altered that determination. This is consistent with the original listing (71 FR 834), which determined that collection for scientific research and education programs had little or no impact on populations in CCC steelhead DPS. Impacts associated with scientific collection are believed
43.190
NOAA Fisheries: 5-Year Status Review April 2016
California Central California Coast Steelhead 27
to be unchanged since the last status review (NMFS 2011a) and not expected to be an important source of mortality for the DPS.
Listing Factor C: Disease or predation
Disease
Many common diseases exist in the wild that affect steelhead populations, but increased individual resistance and natural ecological dynamics limit disease outbreaks and any resulting population-level impacts. No new information has emerged since listing or since the previous 5 year review that would suggest disease impacts have elevated in the time since, or that disease impacts are more than a minor factor in the present depressed state of the CCC steelhead DPS.
Predation
Predation was not considered a significant threat to CCC steelhead conservation during the past status review or at the time of listing (NMFS 2011a, 71 FR 834); however, recent research indicates that predation may affect the DPS. Adult and juvenile steelhead encounter many natural predators, and the resultant loss in abundance and productivity is likely one of myriad stressors preventing the species from attaining population viability. Predation by robust (per historical standards) pinniped populations likely impact adult steelhead escapement in larger river systems where seals/sea lions tend to aggregate (e.g., Russian River and San Lorenzo River). Marine mammal population growth increased substantially following the passage of the federal Marine Mammal Protection Act in 1972. The impacts of the increased marine mammal population on steelhead predation within the DPS are poorly understood, but have not likely increased in the past 5-years or since listing. Meanwhile, recent research has shown that increased populations of other native predators may have a greater impact on salmonid populations than previously considered. An indirect effect of urbanization is the resultant increase in opportunistic, generalist predators (e.g., western gulls or raccoons) that utilize anthropogenic resources (e.g., landfills, garbage), to increase their local carrying capacity. For example, Osterback et al. (2013) determined that juvenile salmonid mortality from western gull predation in Central California populations was greater than previously estimated.
Predation of CCC steelhead by introduced fish species, particularly various bass species, in the freshwater and marine environment is also poorly understood. Striped bass regularly occur in San Francisco and Tomales Bays, occasionally occur in coastal lagoons, and are found year round in the lower Russian River. Nearly all watersheds in the DPS support populations of introduced largemouth, smallmouth, or spotted bass. Additional studies are needed to better understand the predatory impacts these introduced species pose on steelhead populations throughout the DPS.
43.191
NOAA Fisheries: 5-Year Status Review April 2016
California Central California Coast Steelhead 28
Protective Efforts
Don Clausen Fish Hatchery Program
CDFW operates the Don Clausen Fish Hatchery Program11 to follow established disease prevention programs that safeguard both hatchery and wild populations within the Russian River. Guidelines exist for fish health and life history inspections, juvenile growth and monitoring, and treatments administered, which are reported in monthly and annual reports.
Fish health status is evaluated and verified by CDFW pathologists prior to fish releases or fish transfers to another facility, and a cumulative five year disease history is maintained for each program and reported in appropriate facility reports. Both facilities strive for suggested water chemistry standards (IHOT 1995), which require water filtration and disinfection, heating or cooling, degassing and/or aeration, or other modifications to the quantity and quality of an existing water supply, to maintain or improve conditions. Measures implemented at Don Clausen Fish Hatchery Program facilities include:
• Pathogen-free water supply for each facility, particularly for egg incubation and early rearing.
• Water supply with acceptable temperature regimes for egg incubation, juvenile rearing and adult holding.
• Water supply with appropriate water chemistry profiles, including dissolved gases: near saturation for oxygen, and less than saturation for nitrogen. • Water supply for egg incubation must not contain excessive organic debris, unsettleable solids or other characteristics that negatively affect egg quality and survival. • Disinfecting equipment, including vehicles used to transfer eggs or fish between facilities, prior to use with any other fish lot or at any other location. • Disinfecting water disposed of in properly designated areas. • Sanitizing equipment used to collect dead fish prior to use in another pond and /or fish lot.
11 Program includes operations at both the Don Clausen/Warm Springs Hatchery and the Coyote Valley Fish Facility.
43.192
NOAA Fisheries: 5-Year Status Review April 2016
California Central California Coast Steelhead 29
The Kingfisher Flat Hatchery Program12
The Monterey Bay Salmon and Trout Project operates the Kingfisher Flat Hatchery Program.
Methods implemented to protect and maintain fish health at this facility include, but are not limited to:
• Source water is sand filtered and sterilized by exposure to ultraviolet light. This filtration and sterilization process is implemented to prevent introduction of pathogens from outside the facility and to prevent disease transmission within the facility. • Water supply is monitored to ensure chemistry, dissolved gasses, and temperature are within necessary ranges for egg incubation, juvenile rearing and adult holding. • Equipment is disinfected prior to use with any other fish lot.
Listing Factor D: Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms Inadequate regulatory mechanisms have contributed substantially to the decline of the CCC steelhead DPS. Although many regulatory mechanisms and conservation efforts were in place at the time this DPS was listed, NMFS concluded that they were insufficient to provide for the attainment of properly functioning habitat conditions that would protect and conserve the species.
Federal Water Management
The CWA is administered by the EPA and is intended to protect beneficial uses of water, including consideration of habitat for anadromous salmonids and other fishery resources. In practice, implementation of the CWA has not provided the desired level of protection for fishery resources, particularly with respect to non-point sources of pollution. Section 303(d)(1)(C) and (D) of the CWA requires states to prepare TMDLs for all water bodies that do not meet State water quality standards. TMDLs are a method for quantitative assessment of environmental problems in a watershed and identifying pollution reductions needed to protect drinking water, aquatic life, recreation, and other use of rivers, lakes, and streams. EPA established TMDLs for various constituents (sediment, pathogens, pesticides, nutrients, temperature and DO, etc.) in the range of this DPS, and the State of California is developing or has developed TMDLS for a number of impaired water bodies identified on the 303(d) list.
Historically, the impacts to fish habitat from agricultural practices have not been closely regulated. The State of California does not have regulations that directly manage agricultural
12 This hatchery is also known as the Scott Creek Hatchery.
43.193
NOAA Fisheries: 5-Year Status Review April 2016
California Central California Coast Steelhead 30
practices, but instead relies on the TMDLs under the CWA to improve water quality from all sources and parties, including agricultural sources. The majority of TMDLs focus on sediment and temperature requirements and few focus on pesticide toxicity-the number one cause of stream impairment in California. In some instances, TMDLs may address all pollution sources including point sources such as sewage or industrial plant discharges, and non-point discharges such as runoff from roads, farm fields, and forests. TMDLs have the potential to provide long term benefits to listed salmonids and their habitat, but it will take time to develop and implement TMDL standards and to determine the magnitude of the benefits.
The EPA initiated section 7 consultation with NMFS' Office of Protected Resources for reregistering 37 pesticide active ingredients. NMFS completed six biological opinions concluding that: (1) the use of these pesticide ingredients is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of up to 27 listed salmonids ESUs and DPSs (NMFS 2008b, 2009, 2010, 2011b, 2012) and (2) the of these pesticide ingredients are likely result in destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat of up to 25 ESUs and DPSs (NMFS 2008b, 2009, 2010, 2011b, 2012, 2015) because of adverse effects on prey and water quality in freshwater rearing and spawning habitats and foraging areas.
The jeopardy opinions contained reasonable and prudent alternatives and measures for reducing agricultural drift and runoff of pesticide products into aquatic habitats. The opinions noted that more data is needed to evaluate the efficacy of the RPAs for reducing impacts of these pesticides, with a particular focus on water and off-channel habitats; however, they also noted that it was uncertain whether the RPAs effectively control pesticides at their sources. Biological opinions for the remaining 4 pesticide active ingredients (insecticides, herbicides and fungicides) are ongoing and are expected to be completed by 2019.
Fisheries Management and Evaluation Plan
The primary goal of a Fisheries Management and Evaluation Plan (FMEP) is to devise biologically based fishery management strategies that ensure the conservation and recovery of listed DPSs and ESUs. If approved by NOAA and implemented accordingly, an FMEP allows fisheriesrelated take of listed species to be covered under the ESA. Some benefits of the FMEP approach are long-term management planning, more public involvement, and more certainty that there will be fishing opportunities in the future. However, there is not an FMEP in place for CCC steelhead, so the management benefits and fishing-related ESA take coverage benefits afforded by FMEPs are not currently realized for CCC steelhead. In order to address this, CDFW needs to develop an FMEP to cover CCC steelhead populations where fishing-related take occurs.
43.194
NOAA Fisheries: 5-Year Status Review April 2016
California Central California Coast Steelhead 31
State Efforts
Timber Harvest
State Forest Practice Rules, which govern timber harvest on private lands (as occurs in the CCC steelhead DPS), have improved in recent years, resulting in rules providing expanded streambuffer widths, less damaging harvest techniques, and limits on riparian harvesting that will collectively improve instream and riparian habitat and function over the long-term. However, certain regulatory protections within the DPS remain limited. For example, State Forest Practice Rules that require analysis of cumulative watershed effects of proposed timber harvest practices have changed minimally since CCC steelhead were originally listed, and Board of Forestry rules that provide additional no-cut buffer protections to certain Class II-Standard watercourses13 do not apply to the area encompassing Santa Cruz and San Mateo Counties. However, improvements to cumulative watershed effects considerations may come with Forest Practice Rules that are currently being proposed by the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection; NMFS anticipates reviewing and commenting on these proposed Forest Practice Rules.
State Water Management. The SGMA, signed into law in October 2014, regulates and manages the state’s groundwater resources to ensure sustainability of the resource for the first time in California history (see Water Quantity, above). As the state adapts to future climate variability combined with a period of accelerated population growth, the demands placed upon streams and rivers in the DPS will likely grow. Importantly, environmental beneficial uses, including cold water fisheries, are to be considered when balancing competing uses for an aquifer’s safe yield, which suggests that minimizing groundwater pumping impacts on streamflow will be an integral part of future groundwater management. However, the SGMA slowly phases in the new regulatory scheme (e.g., overdrafted groundwater basins have 40 years to achieve a sustainable state), suggesting that meaningful streamflow improvement resulting from the act may be decades in the future.
Illegal Marijuana Cultivation
Regulating and managing marijuana cultivation, while not specifically a land management issue, is nevertheless critically important in the effort to minimize environmental damage resulting from illegal marijuana grows. A ballot initiative legalizing recreational use of marijuana is expected on the state ballot in 2016, and a legislative effort to craft a bill legalizing recreational use may gain traction in 2015. While these political efforts may dramatically change the
13 Board of Forestry Rules implemented in 1990 that provide additional no-cut buffer protections to certain Class IIStandard watercourses do not apply to the Southern Subdistrict of the Coast Forest. Santa Cruz and San Mateo Counties are located in the Southern Subdistrict of the Coast Forest.
43.195
NOAA Fisheries: 5-Year Status Review April 2016
California Central California Coast Steelhead 32
marijuana cultivation landscape in California, the efficacy of any regulatory scheme to minimize grow-related environmental impacts would depend on specific details unknown at this time.
Having environmental advocates (i.e., resource agencies or environmental NGOs) included as part of any legislative deliberations on the subject is critical toward crafting strong legalization laws that adequately and effectively minimize grow-related impacts.
Fishing Regulations
While state fishing regulations have seen recent (2014-2015) improvements to protect listed salmonids from recreational fishing during times of drought (see Listing Factor A above), these low flow regulations have not been fully developed for the entire DPS. For example, for the CCC steelhead DPS, closures have only been prescribed for Sonoma and Marin Counties. Extending these flow-based fishing closures to the southern portions of the DPS is needed and will better provide this protection to populations throughout the range.
Listing Factor E: Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence Drought
California has experienced well below average precipitation in each of the past 4 water years (2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015), record high surface air temperatures the past 2 water years (2014 and 2015), and record low snowpack in 2015 (Williams et al. 2016). Some paleoclimate reconstructions suggest that the current 4-year drought is the most extreme in the past 500 or perhaps more than 1000 years (Williams et al. 2016). Anomalously high surface temperatures have made this a “hot drought”, in which high surface temperatures substantially amplified annual water deficits during the period of below average precipitation (Williams et al. 2016).
The effects of this extended drought on water supplies and water temperatures are a major concern for salmonid populations in California. Drought conditions are known to reduce the amount of water available, resulting in reductions (or elimination) of flows needed for adult salmonid salmon passage, egg incubation, and juvenile rearing and migration. The high incidence of illegal stream diversions associated with illegal marijuana cultivation has been especially stressful to salmonid populations during the past four years, since the greatest demand for irrigation water overlaps with the lowest summer baseflows. Drought impacts will likely impact salmonids for several more years, since prolonged above-average precipitation is necessary to bring the state’s surface and groundwater reserves back to normal levels.
43.196
NOAA Fisheries: 5-Year Status Review April 2016
California Central California Coast Steelhead 33
Climate Change
Recent Trends in Marine and Environmental Conditions
California has experienced well below average precipitation in each of the past four water years (2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015), record high surface air temperatures the past two water years (2014 and 2015), and record low snowpack in 2015. Anomalously high surface temperatures have made this a “hot drought”, in which high surface temperatures substantially amplified annual water deficits during the period of below average precipitation. These climate anomalies have likely had negative impacts on the freshwater, estuary, and marine phases for many populations of Chinook salmon, coho salmon, and steelhead. These impacts are not yet fully apparent in the adult return data that form the basis of our status reviews, but will likely be manifested in the return data over the next several years.
The strong 2015-2016 El Niño event is predicted to substantially reduce the odds for a repeat of the extreme warmth of the past two winters, extreme precipitation deficit experienced in California the past four winters, and the extreme warmth of the offshore waters of the Northeast Pacific Ocean that have persisted for most of the past two years. The past two years have also seen persistence in the warm phase Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) pattern of North Pacific Ocean temperatures, and the warm phase of the PDO is likely to continue for another year because of it strong tendency for persistence and the expected El Niño influences on the Aleutian Low and related ocean currents in the next six months.
Williams et al. (2016) provides a more detailed discussion of these recent climate conditions and expected impacts.
Long-term Climate Change
Climate experts predict physical changes to ocean, river and stream environments along the West Coast that include: warmer atmospheric temperatures resulting in more precipitation falling as rain rather than snow; diminished snow pack resulting in altered stream flow volume and timing; increased winter flooding; lower late summer flows; a continued rise in stream temperatures; increased sea-surface temperatures; increased ocean acidity; sea-level rise; altered estuary dynamics; changes in the timing, duration and strength of nearshore upwelling, and altered marine and freshwater food-chain dynamics (see Williams et al. (2016)) for a more detailed discussion of these and other projected long-term impacts due to climate change). These longterm climate, environmental and ecosystem changes are expected to in turn cause changes in salmon and steelhead distribution, behavior, growth, and survival. While an analysis of ESU/DPS-specific vulnerabilities to climate change by life stage has not been completed, Williams et al. (2016) summarizes climate change impacts that will likely be shared among salmon and steelhead ESUs/DPSs. In summary, both freshwater and marine productivity and survival tend
43.197
NOAA Fisheries: 5-Year Status Review April 2016
California Central California Coast Steelhead 34
to be lower in warmer years for most salmon and steelhead populations considered in this assessment. These trends suggest that many populations might decline as mean temperature rises. However, the magnitude and timing of these and other changes, and specific effects on individual salmon and steelhead ESUs/DPSs, remain unclear.
Marine Environment
In marine environments, ecosystems and habitats important to sub adult and adult salmonids are likely to experience changes in temperatures, circulation and chemistry, and food supplies (Feely et al. 2004, Brewer and Barry 2008, Osgood 2008, Turley 2008). Poor ocean survival is believed to have been a key factor in the decline of salmonid populations in California. Unusually warm ocean surface temperatures and associated changes in coastal currents and upwelling, known as El Niño conditions, have periodically occurred causing reductions in primary and secondary productivity and resultant changes in prey and predator species distributions. These ecosystem changes can significantly impact ocean survival of juvenile salmonids including steelhead. Since the previous status review in 2011 (NMFS 2011a), spring upwelling generally strengthened slightly off the Pacific Northwest coastline (NWFSC 201414), suggesting adequate prey availability and relatively high ocean survival rates among CCC steelhead populations during most years.
Conversely, anomalous warming of near-shore surface waters off central California during summer 2014 (SWFSC 201415) may have decreased adult steelhead foraging success, since the warm water likely scattered baitfish and other prey organisms from traditional nearshore feeding areas.
Much of the northeast Pacific Ocean, including parts typically used by California salmon and steelhead, experienced exceptionally high upper ocean temperatures beginning early in 2014 and areas of extremely high ocean temperatures continue to cover most of the northeast Pacific Ocean (William et al. 2016). Off the coast of Southern and Baja California, upper ocean temperatures became anomalously warm in spring 2014, and this warming spread to the Central California coast in July 2014 (William et al. 2016). In fall 2014, a shift in wind and ocean current patterns caused the entire northeast Pacific domain to experience unusually warm upper ocean temperatures from the West Coast offshore for several hundred kilometers (William et al. 2016).
In spring 2015 nearshore waters from Vancouver Island south to San Francisco mostly experienced strong and, at times, above average coastal upwelling that created a relatively narrow band (~50 to 100 km wide) of near normal upper ocean temperatures, while the exceptionally high temperature waters remained offshore and in coastal regions to the south and north (William et al. 2016). The expected duration, pattern and causative mechanism of these rare
14 http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/fe/estuarine/oeip/db-coastal-upwelling-index.cfm 15 https://swfsc.noaa.gov/textblock.aspx?Division=FED&ParentMenuId=54&id=19435
43.198
NOAA Fisheries: 5-Year Status Review April 2016
California Central California Coast Steelhead 35
and anomalous oceanographic phenomena are poorly understood at the present time. Yet the increased occurrence of these phenomena coinciding with a period of documented climate variation may suggest variant ocean conditions and weather patterns may become more prevalent if climate change accelerates in the future. Also, within estuarine systems, estuarine productivity is likely to change based on climate-related changes in freshwater flows, nutrient cycling, and sediment amounts (Scavia et al. 2002).
Small Population Size
Many populations of CCC steelhead have declined in abundance to levels that are well below low-risk abundance targets, and several are, if not already extirpated, likely below the high-risk depensation thresholds specified by Spence et al. (2008). These small populations are at risk from natural stochastic processes, in addition to deterministic threats, that may make recovery of this DPS difficult to achieve. As natural populations get smaller, stochastic processes may cause alterations in genetics, breeding structure, and population dynamics that may interfere with the success of recovery efforts and need to be considered when evaluating how populations may respond to recovery actions. Even though recent data suggests some CCC steelhead populations are doing better than others, all populations remain at severely depressed levels, suggesting stochastic processes continue to remain a high threat to the species.
Invasive Species
Aquatic invasive species (AIS), are organisms (plants, animals, or pathogens) that impact the diversity or abundance of native species, the ecological stability of infested waters, and/or the commercial, agricultural, aquaculture or recreational activities dependent on such waters16. The myriad of pathways in which AIS can enter and are transported to coastal marine, estuarine, and riverine areas pose a significant management challenge. In coastal marine and fresh water environments, AIS have been shown to have major negative effects on the receiving communities where they often outcompete native species, reduce species diversity, change community structure, reduce productivity and disrupt food web function by altering energy flow among trophic levels (Cohen and Carlton 1995, Cohen and Carlton 1998, Ruiz et al. 2000, Stachowicz and Byrnes 2006). There are multiple mechanisms of impact that directly affect salmonids, such as predation and infection (disease and parasitism), and indirectly such as competition, hybridization, and habitat alterations (Mack et al. 2000, Simberloff et al. 2005).
We need to understand the role of AIS in the decline of threatened and endangered fish across multiple scales (i.e., individual populations, communities, and ecosystem process) in order to 16 The definition of aquatic invasive species is derived from the nonindigenous aquatic invasive species nuisance aquatic prevention and control act of 1990.
43.199
NOAA Fisheries: 5-Year Status Review April 2016
California Central California Coast Steelhead 36
effectively manage and recover these species and systems in the face of global climate change and the full suite of stressors. In California, approximately half of the freshwater species, which include aquatic invasive plants, animals, and pathogens, are introduced; and as many as 40 introduced species may be present in individual watersheds. Despite the abundance of AIS (plants and invertebrates taxa), there is limited information to assess their impacts on aquatic ecosystems, thus the associated implications for habitats occupied by threatened and endangered salmonids is difficult to determine (Sanderson et al. 2009). More studies are needed to specifically investigate the impacts of AIS on ESA-listed salmonid populations, their designated critical habitat, and species recovery.
NMFS recognizes that AIS pose potential risk and may reduce the number of juvenile salmonids before they transition to adulthood. The cumulative AIS impacts are potentially quite large and should be considered in conjunction with the more commonly addressed impacts on salmonids.
Control and management is necessary in areas where AIS are already established to prevent their further spread and lessen their impacts on native ecosystems.
Hatchery Effects
Hatchery programs can provide short-term demographic benefits, such as increases in abundance, during periods of low natural abundance. They also can help preserve genetic resources until limiting factors can be addressed. However, the long-term use of artificial propagation may pose risks to natural productivity and diversity. The magnitude and type of the risk depends on the status of affected populations and on specific practices in the hatchery program. To acknowledge and adequately minimize these risks, NMFS is currently crafting Hatchery Genetic Management Plans (HGMP) for the two hatchery programs presently operating within the CCC steelhead DPS.
Protective Efforts
New Zealand Mudsnail (Potamopyrgus antipodarum)
The New Zealand Mudsnail is rapidly invading California in large part because of people not cleaning their field/fishing gear or boats when moving to different a new aquatic location. The increase in this aquatic invasive species is a concern for salmonid species because they disrupt the food web, often replacing the native invertebrate that juvenile salmonids prey upon. Snails readily attach to or are wedged into the many cracks, and crevices presented by waders, boot soles, nets, and buckets. New Zealand mudsnails can live for weeks in damp, cool conditions; can easily survive on field gear for long periods of time; and can be transferred to a new environment when that gear is reused. Education and outreach campaigns and signage have brought awareness to the practices needed to clean and remove snails from field gear and boats before going to a new location.
43.200
NOAA Fisheries: 5-Year Status Review April 2016
California Central California Coast Steelhead 37
2.4 SYNTHESIS
The ESA defines an endangered species as one that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and a threatened species as one that is likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Under ESA section 4(c)(2), we must review the listing classification of all listed species at least once every five years. While conducting these reviews, we apply the provisions of ESA section 4(a)(1) and NMFS‘ implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 424.
To determine if a reclassification is warranted, we review the status of the species and evaluate the five risk factors, as identified in ESA section 4(a)(1): (1) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (2) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and (5) other natural or man-made factors affecting a species‘ continued existence. We then make a determination based solely on the best available scientific and commercial information, taking into account efforts by states and foreign governments to protect the species.
Scarce abundance data makes it extraordinarily difficult to definitively ascertain the status of the DPS and determine whether status has changed since the last status review (Spence 2016). In the North Coastal and Interior strata, steelhead still appear to occur in the majority of watersheds, and new information from 3 years of monitoring in the Santa Cruz Mountain stratum indicates that population sizes are perhaps higher than previously thought. However, monitoring and hatchery data in the Russian River watershed indicate a prevalence of hatchery fish over natural origin fish, and the Scott Creek population, which has the most robust population estimates in the DPS, has shown a downward abundance trend (Spence 2016). Further, the status of populations in the two San Francisco Bay diversity strata remains highly uncertain, and it is likely that many populations where historical habitat is now inaccessible due to dams and other passage barriers are likely at high risk of extinction (Spence 2016). In summary, while data availability for this DPS remains poor, there is little new evidence to suggest that the extinction risk for this DPS has changed appreciably in either direction since the last status review (Spence 2016).
Our analysis of the ESA section 4(a)(1) factors (see Factors A through E discussed within Section
2.3.2, above) indicates that the collective risk to the persistence of the CCC steelhead has not changed significantly since our last 2011 status review (NMFS 2011a). Improvements have been made in small fish passage barriers, and numerous habitat restoration projects have improved habitat conditions. Conversely, habitat problems are still common throughout the region, legacy effects persist in many areas, new urban growth threatens existing habitat, and many more
43.201
NOAA Fisheries: 5-Year Status Review April 2016
California Central California Coast Steelhead 38
habitat improvements and protections are likely needed to achieve viability. Harvest rates remain relatively low and the protection afforded by some regulatory mechanisms, such as implementation of TMDLs, has increased, although existing regulatory mechanisms could be improved to better protect CCC steelhead. In particular, ongoing impacts from urbanization and diversion facilities (including small diversions as well as large dams) continue to impair habitat and limit species viability, and ongoing threats associated with urban expansion and illegal marijuana cultivation are expected to continue to adversely affect the DPS. These effects, as well as the impacts that climate change pose, remain a concern for long term conservation and recovery of the DPS.
After considering the biological viability of the CCC steelhead DPS and the current status of their ESA section 4(a)(1) factors, we conclude that the status has not improved significantly since the 2011 5-Year Status Review (NMFS 2011a).
2.4.1 ESU/DPS VIABILITY AND STATUTORY LISTING FACTORS
• The SWFSC‘s review of updated information does not indicate a change in the biological risk category for CCC steelhead since the time of the last status review (Williams et al. 2016).
• Our analysis of the ESA section 4(a)(1) factors indicates that the collective risk to CCC steelhead persistence has not changed significantly since our 2011 status review.
43.202
NOAA Fisheries: 5-Year Status Review April 2016
California Central California Coast Steelhead 39
RESULTS
3.1 CLASSIFICATION
Listing Status
Based on the updated biological status of this DPS, and an updated review of the five listing factors and relevant conservation efforts, we recommend CCC steelhead DPS remain listed as threatened.
Hatchery Membership
The CCC steelhead hatchery programs have not changed substantially from the previous ESA status review. Therefore, we do not recommend any changes in hatchery membership for the CCC steelhead DPS.
3.2 NEW RECOVERY PRIORITY NUMBER
No change is recommended in the recovery priority number (5) for the CCC steelhead DPS.
43.203
NOAA Fisheries: 5-Year Status Review April 2016
California Central California Coast Steelhead 40
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE ACTIONS
In our review of the listing factors we identified several actions critical to improving the status of CCC steelhead. NMFS provided a number of recommended actions in the 2011 status review that are still relevant at this time. In this review, we focus on the most important actions to pursue over the next 5 years. Improving conditions for CCC steelhead requires improved passage, habitat, flows, and population viability. Passage improvements are needed to remedy both partial and complete barriers to migration and reach-scale movement of adults and juveniles.
Habitat improvements should include attention to in-stream and estuarine habitat complexity, and the geomorphic and watershed processes that support habitat function. Flow protections and improvements are needed to protect all life stages and habitat, and should support base (low) flows, natural-type hydrographs, and groundwater resources. Improved population monitoring is needed to better understand the status of populations and the DPS. The following identifies the most important actions to pursue over the next 5 years. • Continue to implement the California Coastal Salmonids Monitoring Program.
Funding and implementation of a coordinated program are necessary to enable tracking the status of CCC steelhead populations, evaluate the effectiveness of restoration and mitigation efforts within the DPS, and to insure the monitoring program will meet data needs to conduct status reviews for all ESA listed species.
Efforts should include:
o adult population monitoring for each core population, including those in San Francisco Bay tributaries;
o study of how CCC steelhead use estuary habitats in San Francisco Bay; and o where CCC steelhead co-occur with CCC coho, expansion of survey duration and watershed extent to better capture steelhead data.
• Remedy existing complete and partial barriers to passage. While this effort is needed throughout the range, focus on areas subjected to past urban, rural, and timber development in the San Francisco Bay area and Santa Cruz Mountains area. • Improve estuary management and support/restore estuary habitat and function (including lagoon barrier formation and breach timing) in coastal San Mateo and Santa Cruz counties by removing fill and infrastructure, and developing alternative methods of flood control.
• Support resiliency to climate change by allowing a full range of habitat for salmonids to exploit as environmental conditions shift. Maximize habitat connectivity, increase
43.204
NOAA Fisheries: 5-Year Status Review April 2016
California Central California Coast Steelhead 41
in-stream complexity, shelter, substrate condition, and habitat diversity for all life stages. While this effort is needed throughout the range, focus on areas subject to urban, rural, and timber development in the San Francisco Bay area and Santa Cruz Mountains area.
• Restore and protect active channel area(s), floodways, and floodplains to accommodate natural fluvial processes. Focus on areas affected by urbanization in the San Francisco Bay and Santa Cruz Mountains areas.
• Implement innovative and sustainable green infrastructure and low-impact design (LID) projects to manage pollutants, support ecosystem and infrastructure resiliency, and protect steelhead habitat. If applied at a broad scales, LID technology, policies, and watershed programs may protect and/or restore hydrologic and ecological functions in watersheds and support infrastructure protection and maintenance, thereby simultaneously protecting water quality and habitat for ESA listed species, and protecting necessary infrastructure. While needed throughout the range, the most immediate needs are within the areas of the greater San Francisco Bay area characterized by aging infrastructure and increasing climate-change-related flood risk.
• Protect and restore flow by:
o removing impervious surfaces, and creating or expanding flood retention land and groundwater recharge basins to reduce the flashiness of hydrographs and increase summer baseflow; and
o Implement and enforce AB 2121, which codified (in sections 1259.2 and 1259.4 of the California Water Code) CDFW and NMFS’ Water Diversion Guidelines to ensure protective flows for all life stages of steelhead (or salmonids). • Develop water conservation measures at local and State levels to include a drought management plan for each watershed that is triggered by minimum flow requirements.
• Work with EPA, SWRCB, and local stakeholders to implement actions under section 303(d)(1)(C) and (D) of the Clean Water Act to treat urban and agricultural runoff from existing and future development. This would require the State to prepare and implement Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for all water bodies that do not meet State water quality standards.
• Work with Don Clausen Fish Hatchery and Kingfisher Flat Hatchery/Scott Creek (Monterey Bay Salmon and Trout Project) programs to finalize and implement Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans (HGMPs) to preserve genotypes, minimize
43.205
NOAA Fisheries: 5-Year Status Review April 2016
California Central California Coast Steelhead 42
inbreeding and outbreeding, and to ensure a viable steelhead population. The conservation actions required by HGMPs are expected to substantially improve the genetic viability and abundance of natural steelhead populations over time. • Continue to develop protective regulations to minimize impacts from fishing during migratory periods (e.g., until sandbars open naturally) within one mile of the river mouths of the focus watersheds, and to improve freshwater sport fishing regulations to minimize take and incidental mortality of listed salmonids. Considerations may include low-flow closure thresholds, seasonal fishing closures, and angler outreach programs.
• Develop Fisheries Management and Evaluation Plans (FMEP) that: (1) incorporate delisting criteria, (2) determine impacts of fisheries management in terms of Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) parameters, (3) do not limit attainment of populationspecific criteria, (4) annually estimate the commercial and recreational fisheries bycatch and mortality rate, (5) are specifically designed to monitor and track catch and mortality of wild and hatchery salmon and steelhead stemming from recreational fishing in freshwater and the marine habitats, and (6) provide for adaptive management options as needed to ensure actual fisheries impacts do not exceed those consistent with recovery goals.
• Work with State agencies to minimize impacts from marijuana operations on listed salmonids.
43.206
NOAA Fisheries: 5-Year Status Review April 2016
California Central California Coast Steelhead 43
LITERATURE CITED
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 2013. Draft Bay Area Plan; Strategy for a Sustainable Region; Draft Forecast of Jobs, Population and Housing. March 2013.
Baldwin, D. H., J. A. Spromberg, T. K. Collier, and N. L. Scholz. 2009. A Fish of Many Scales:
Extrapolating Sublethal Pesticide Exposures to the Productivity of Wild Salmon Populations. Ecological Applications 19(8):2004-2015.
Battin, J., M. W. Wiley, M.H. Ruckelshaus, R.N. Palmer, E. Korb, K.K. Bartz, and H. Imaki. 2007.
Projected impacts of climate change on salmon habitat restoration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104: 6720-6725.
Bjorkstedt, E. P., B.C. Spence, J.C. Garza, D.G. Hankin, D. Fuller, W.E. Jones, J.J. Smith and R.
Macedo. 2005. An analysis of historical population structure for evolutionarily significant units of Chinook salmon, coho salmon, and steelhead in the north-central California coast recovery domain. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-382. 210 pp.
Brewer, P.G. and J. Barry. 2008. Rising Acidity in the Ocean: The Other CO2 Problem. Scientific American. October 7, 2008.
Busby, P. J., T. C. Wainwright, G.J. Bryant, L.J. Lierheimer, R.S. Waples, F.W. Waknitz and I.V.
Lagomarsino. 1996. Status review of West Coast steelhead from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum, NMFS-NWFSC-27. 261 pp.
California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2014A. California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) Groundwater Basin Prioritization Results – Abridged, Sorted by Overall Basin Score. Accessed September 28, 2015. http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/casgem/pdfs/lists/StatewidePriority_Abridged_0 5262014.pdf
California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2014B. Groundwater Basin Prioritization, Final CASGEM Basin Prioritization Results – June 2014. Accessed September 28, 2015. http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/casgem/basin_prioritization.cfm CalFish. (2015). California Fish Passage Assessment Database. Retrieved from:
http://www.calfish.org/tabid/420/Default.aspx.
California Natural Resources Agency. 2010. State of the state’s wetlands. June 2010. State of California. 42p. Retrieved on September 14, 2015, from:
http://www.resources.ca.gov/docs/SOSW_report_with_cover_memo_10182010.pdf.
California State Coastal Conservancy, Ocean Protection Council, National Marine Fisheries Service, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, and San Francisco Estuary Partnership. 2010. San Francisco Bay subtidal habitat goals report; Conservation planning for the submerged areas of the Bay; 50-Year Conservation Plan.
California Wetlands Monitoring Workgroup (CWMW). EcoAtlas. Accessed September 15, 2015. http://www.ecoatlas.org/regions/ecoregion/bay-delta/projects.
43.207
NOAA Fisheries: 5-Year Status Review April 2016
California Central California Coast Steelhead 44
Cohen, A. N., and Carlton, J.T.,. 1995. Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in a United States Estuary:
A Case Study of the Biolgical Invasion of the San Francisco Bay and Delta. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington DC.Cohen, A.N. and J.T. Carlton. 1998. Accelerating Invasion Rate in a High Invaded Estuary. Science 279:555-558.
Ducks Unlimited. (n.d.). Cullinan Ranch tidal restoration; website. Retrieved on September 14, 2015, from: http://www.restorecullinan.info/home.htm.
Everest, F.H. 1969. Habitat selection and spatial interaction of juvenile Chinook salmon and steelhead in two Idaho streams. PhD. Dissertation, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID. 77pp.
Feely, R.A., C.L. Sabine, K. Lee, W. Berelson, J. Kleypas, V.J. Fabry, and F.J. Millero. 2004. Impact of anthropogenic CO2 on the CaCO3 system in the oceans. Science 305, 362-366.
Feist, B. E., E. Buhle, P. Arnold, J. W. Davis, N. L. Scholz. 2011. Landscape ecotoxicology of coho salmon spawner mortality in urban streams. PLoS ONE, 6(8):e23424.
Good, T.P., R.S. Waples and P.B. Adams. 2005. Updated status of federally listed ESUs of West Coast salmon and steelhead. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, NMFS-NWFSC-66. 598 pp.
Grantham T.E., Viers J.H. 2014. 100 years of California’s water rights system: patterns, trends and uncertainty. Environmental Research Letters. 9:10pp.
IHOT (Integrated Hatchery Operations Team). 1995. Policy and procedures for Columbia basin anadromous salmonid hatcheries. Annual report to the Bonneville Power Administration, project 92–043, Portland, Oregon.
Kiernan, J. 2015. Personal Communication; Unpublished Adult Steelhead Return Data for Kingfisher Flat Hatchery.
Laetz, C. A., D.H. Baldwin, T.K. Collier, V. Hebert, J.D. Stark, and N. L. Scholz. 2009. The Synergistics Toxicity of Pesticides Mixtures: Implications for Risk Assessment and the Conservation of Endangered Pacific Salmon. Environmental Health Perspectives 117(3):348-353.
Leicester, M. and J. Smith. 2014. Stevens Creek Environmental Conditions and Fish Resources in 2013. 21 January 2014. California Department of Fish and Wildlife and San Jose State University. 47 pp.
Macneale, K. H., P.M. Kiffney, and N.L. Scholz. 2010. Pesticides, Aquatic Food Webs, and the Conservation of Pacific Salmon. . Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 8:475-482.
Mack, R.N., D. Simberloff, W.M. Lonsdale, H. Evan, M. Clout, and F.A. Bazzaz. 2000. Biotic Invasions: Causes, Epidemiology, Global Consequences, and Control. Ecological Applications 10:689-710.
McElhany, P., M.H. Rucklelshaus, M.J. Ford, T.C. Wainwright, and E.P. Bjorkstedt. 2000. Viable Salmonid Populations and the Recovery of Evolutionarily Significant Units. United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-42. 156 pp.
McIntyre, J.K., Davis, J.W., Incardona, J.P., Stark, J.D., and Scholz, N.L. 2014. Zebrafish and clean water technology: assessing the protective effects of bioinfiltration as a treatment for toxic urban runoff. Science of the Total Environment, 500-501:173-180.
43.208
NOAA Fisheries: 5-Year Status Review April 2016
California Central California Coast Steelhead 45
McIntyre, J. K., J. W. Davis, R. C. Edmunds, J. Incardona, N. L. Scholz, J. Stark. 2015. Soil bioretention protects juvenile salmon and their prey from the toxic impacts of urban stormwater runoff. Chemosphere, 132:213-219.
Monterey Bay Salmon and Trout Project (MBSTP). 2013. Kingfisher Flat Hatchery; Unpublished data.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1997. Status update for West Coast steelhead from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. Memorandum date 7 July 1997 from the Biological Review Team to the National Marine Fisheries Service Northwest Regional Office.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2008a. Biological opinion for water supply, flood control operations, and channel maintenance conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Sonoma County Water Agency, and the Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control and Water Conservation Improvement District in the Russian River watershed. NMFS-Southwest Region, Long Beach, CA. 367 pp.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). (2008b). Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation; Water Supply, Flood Control Operations, and Channel Maintenance conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Sonoma County Water Agency, and the Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control and Water Conservation Improvement District in the Russian River watershed. National Marine Fisheries Service. Southwest Region, Long Beach, CA. 367 pp. NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2009. Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation, draft biological opinion:
Environmental Protection Agency registration of pesticides containing carbaryl, carbofuran, and methomyl. www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/carbamate.pdf. Viewed 1 Aug 2011.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2010. Interim endangered and threatened species recovery planning guidance. Version 1.3. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2011a. 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation of California Coastal Chinook Salmon ESU Central California Coast Coho Salmon ESU.
National Marine Fisheries Service. Southwest Region, Long Beach, CA. 54 pp.
National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011b. Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Draft Conference and Biological Opinion for United States Environmental Protection Agency Registration of 2, 4-D, Triclopyr Bee, Diuron, Linuron, Captan, and Chlorothalonil.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 2012. Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation, Final Biological Opinion, Environmental Protection Agency Registration of Pesticides: Oryzalin, Pendimethalin, Trifluralin. Silver Springs, Marlyand. pg.1-797. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/consultations/pesticides_batch5opinion.pdf National Marine Fisheries Service. 2013. Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Draft Conference and Biological Opinion for Uniteds States Environmental Protection Agency Registrations of Pesticides Containing Diflurbenzuron, Fenbutatin Oxide, and Propargite.
43.209
NOAA Fisheries: 5-Year Status Review April 2016
California Central California Coast Steelhead 46
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2015. Species in the spotlight: survive to thrive; Recovering threatened and endangered species; FY 2013-2014 report to Congress. Silver Spring, MD. Department of Commerce, NOAA, NMFS. 37p.
National Marine Fisheries Service Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC). 2014. Coastal upwelling. Retrieved from:
http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/fe/estuarine/oeip/db-coastal-upwellingindex.cfm National Marine Fisheries Service Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC). 2014. A remarkable warming of central California’s coastal ocean. Retrieved from:
https://swfsc.noaa.gov/textblock.aspx?Division=FED&ParentMenuId=54&id=19435 Osgood, K.E. (editor). 2008. Climate Impacts on U.S. Living Marine Resources: National Marine Fisheries Service Concerns, Activities and Needs. U.S. Dep. Commerce, NOAA Tech.
Memo. NMFSF/ SPO-89, 118 pp.
Osterback, A.M. K., D. M. Frechette, A. O. Shelton, S. A. Hayes, M. H. Bond, S. A. Shaffer, and J.
W. Moore. 2013. High predation on small populations: avian predation on imperiled salmonids. Ecosphere 4(9):116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/ES13-00100.1 Ruiz, G.M., P.W. Fofonoff, J.T. Carlton, M.J. Wonham, and A.H. Hines. 2000. Invasions of Coastal Marine Communities in North America: Apparent Patterns, Process, and Bias. Annual Review Ecological Systems 31:481-531.
San Francisco Estuary Partnership. 2015. State of the Estuary Report: Status trends and update of 33 indicators of Ecosystem Health, San Francisco Bay and Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. pg 96 http://ebooks.sfei.org/soter2015/
Sanderson, B.L., K.A. Barnas, and A.M. Wargo Rub. 2009. Nonindigenous Species of the Pacific Northwest: An Overlooked Risk to Endangered Salmon. BioScience 59(3):245-256.
Schneider, S.H. 2007. The unique risks to California from human-induced climate change.
California State Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Standards; Request for Waiver of Federal Preemption, presentation May 22, 2007.
Scholz, N.L., Myers, M.S., McCarthy S.G., Labenia J.S., McIntyre J.K., et al. 2011. Recurrence DieOffs of Adult Coho Salmon Returning to Spawn in Puget Sound Lowland Urban Streams. PLos ONE 6(12):e28013. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0028013.
Scholz, N. L., E. Fleishman, I. W. L. Brown, M.L. Johnson, M.L. Brooks, C. L. Mitchelmore, and a. D. Schlenk. 2012. A Perspective on Modern Pesticides, Pelagic Fish Declinces, and Unknown Ecological Resilience in Highly Managed Ecosystems. Biosciences 62(4):428- 434.
Silicon Valley Bank. 2014. Wine Report - State of the Wine Industry: 2014. Rob McMillan, EVP & Founder, Wine Division. 42 pp.
Simberloff, D., I.M. Parker, and P.N. Windle. 2005. Introduced Species Policy, Management, and Future Research Needs. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3(1):12-20.
Sonoma County. 2005. Sonoma County Crop Report 2005. Sonoma County Agricultural Commissioners Office. June 2006. 21 pp.
Sonoma County. 2013. Sonoma County Crop Report 2013. Sonoma County Agricultural Commissioners Office. June 10, 2014. 22 pp.
43.210
NOAA Fisheries: 5-Year Status Review April 2016
California Central California Coast Steelhead 47
Sonoma Land Trust. 2015. Plans and reports: Sears Point wetland and watershed restoration project. Accessed September 15, 2015, from:
http://www.sonomalandtrust.org/publications/plans_reports.html.
Spence, B.C. 2016. North-Central California Coast Recovery Domain. Pages 26 – 47 in T.H.
Williams, B.C. Spence, D.A. Boughton, R.C. Johnson, L. Crozier, N. Mantua, M.
O’Farrell, and S.T. Lindley. 2016. Viability assessment for Pacific salmon and steelhead listed under the Endangered Species Act: Southwest. 2 February 2016 Report to National Marine Fisheries Service – West Coast Region from Southwest Fisheries Science Center, Fisheries Ecology Division 110 Shaffer Road, Santa Cruz, California 95060.
Spence, B., E. P. Bjorkstedt, J.C. Garza, J.J. Smith, D.G. Hankin, D. Fuller, W.E. Jones, R. Macedo, T.H. Williams and E. Mora. 2008. A framework for assessing the viability of threatened and endangered salmon and steelhead in North-Central California Coast Recovery Domain. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-423.
Spence, B.C., E.P. Bjorkstedt, S. Paddock, L. Nanus. 2012. Updates to biological viability criteria for threatened steelhead populations in the North-Central California Coast Recovery Domain. Santa Cruz, CA. NOAA. 15p.
Spromberg, J. A. and N. L. Scholz. 2011. Estimating the Future Decline of Wild Coho Salmon Populations Resulting from Early Spawner Die-Offs in Urbanizing Watersheds of the Pacific Northwest, USA. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 7(4):648-656.
Stachowicz, J.J. and J.E. Byrnes. 2006. Species Diversity, Invasion Success, and Ecosystem Functioning: Disentangling the Influence of Resource Competition, Facilitation, and Extrinsic Factors. Marine Ecology Progress Series 311:251-262.
Turley, C. 2008. Impacts of changing ocean chemistry in a high-CO2 world. Mineralogical Magazine 72(1). 359-362.
Williams, T.H, S.T. Lindley, B.C. Spence, and D.A. Boughton. 2011. Status review update for Pacific salmon and steelhead under the Endangered Species Act: Southwest. U.S.
Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Science Center. May 2011 – Update to 5 January 2011 report. National Marine Fisheries Service. Southwest Fisheries Science Center. Santa Cruz, California.
Williams, T.H., B.C. Spence, D.A. Boughton, R.C. Johnson, L. Crozier, N. Mantua, M. O’Farrell, and S.T. Lindley. 2016. Viability assessment for Pacific salmon and steelhead listed under the Endangered Species Act: Southwest. 2 February 2016 Report to National Marine Fisheries Service – West Coast Region from Southwest Fisheries Science Center, Fisheries Ecology Division 110 Shaffer Road, Santa Cruz, California 95060.
Federal Register
55 FR 24296. 1990. Endangered and threatened species; listing and recovery priority guidelines.
Federal Register 55:24296-24298.
56 FR 58612. 1991. Policy on Applying the Definition of Species Under the Endangered Species Act to Pacific Salmon. Federal Register 56:58612-58618.
43.211
NOAA Fisheries: 5-Year Status Review April 2016
California Central California Coast Steelhead 48
61 FR 4722. 1996. Policy regarding the recognition of distinct vertebrate population segments under the Endangered Species Act. Federal Register 61:4722-4725. 62 FR 43937. 1997. Endangered and threatened species: listing of several evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) of west coast steelhead. Federal Register 62:43937-43954. 65 FR 42422. 2000. Endangered and threatened species; final rule governing take of 14 threatened salmon and steelhead evolutionarily significant units (ESUs). Federal Register 65:42422 70 FR 37160. 2005. Endangered and threatened species: final listing determinations for 16 ESUs of West Coast Salmon, and final 4(d) protective regulations for threatened salmonid ESUs.
Federal Register 70:37160-37204.
70 FR 37204. 2005. Final Rule, Policy of the consideration of hatchery-origin fish in Endangered Species Act listing determination for Pacific Salmon and steelhead. Federal Register. 70:37204.
70 FR 52488. 2005. Endangered and threatened species; designation of critical habitat for seven evolutionarily significant units of Pacific salmon and steelhead in California. Federal Register 70:52488-52627.
71 FR 834. 2006. Endangered and threatened species: final listing determinations for 10 distinct population segments of West coast steelhead. Federal Register 71:834-862. 76 FR 50447. 2011. Endangered and Threatened Species; 5-Year Reviews for 5 Evolutionarily Significant Units of Pacific salmon and 1 Distinict Population Segment of Steelhead in California. Federal Register 76:50447
80 FR 6695. 2015. National Marine Fisheries Service. Endangered and Threatened Species; Initiation of 5-Year Reviews for 32 Listed Species of Pacific Salmon and Steelhead, Puget Sound Rockfishes, and Eulachon. Federal Register 80:6695
43.212
NOAA Fisheries: 5-Year Status Review April 2016
California Central California Coast Steelhead 49
43.213
43.214
Exhibit D
43.215
PRESS RELEASE
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reopens
public comment period for monarch
butterfly Endangered Species Act
listing proposal
Mar 18, 2025
Media Contacts
Melissa Clark
he U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is reopening the public comment period for a proposed rule to list the monarch butterfly as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. The proposed rule includes species-specific protections and flexibilities to encourage conservation of the butterfly under section 4(d) of the ESA. The comment period will be reopened for 60 days, until May 19, 2025, to give all interested parties an additional opportunity to comment on the proposed rule, Image Details
43.216
which was published on December 12, 2024. Comments that were previously submitted do not need to be resubmitted as they are already incorporated into the public record and will be fully considered in the final listing determination.
Public comments are an integral part of the ESA listing determination process, and the Service recognizes the complexity of the information requested for public comment in the proposed rule. By reopening the public comment period, the agency is ensuring everyone has a chance to share information relevant to the conservation status of the species, including the associated 4(d) rule and proposed critical habitat designation.
The reopening of the public comment period for the monarch butterfly will publish in the Federal Register Reading Room today. A reopened 60-day comment period will open on March 19, 2025, and will close on May 19, 2025. Information about how to submit comments can be found on regulations.gov by searching for docket number FWS-R3-ES-2024-0137 .
Everyone can play a role in saving the monarch butterfly. Because of the speciesʼ general habitat use and wide distribution, all sectors of society have an opportunity to participate in a broad range of conservation efforts throughout the butterflyʼs range. Learn more about the monarch butterfly, the monarch listing proposal, and how to help conserve monarch butterflies.
Story Tags
ENDANGERED AND/OR THREATENED SPECIES INSECTS POLLINATORS Press Release
Published
Mar 18, 2025
Endangered Species Act
Media Contacts
Melissa Clark
43.217
Exhibit E
43.218
Table 1 California Bird Species of Special Concerna
Taxa (Species, subspecies, and distinct populations) Season of Concernb
TAXA ASSIGNED TO THE LIST BASED SOLELY ON THE BSSC DEFINITION Taxa Extirpated from the State Totally or in Their Primary Seasonal or Breeding Role (5 taxa)
Barrow’s Goldeneye (Bucephala islandica) breeding
Sharp-tailed Grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus) year round Common Loon (Gavia immer) breeding
San Clemente Bewick’s Wren (Thryomanes bewickii leucophrys) year round Santa Barbara Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia graminea, sensu AOU 1957)c year round Taxa Listed as Federally, but Not State, Threatened or Endangered (6 taxa) Short-tailed Albatross (Phoebastria albatrus) year round Snowy Plover (coastal population) (Charadrius alexandrinus) year round Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) year round San Clemente Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus mearnsi) d year round
Alta California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) year round San Clemente Sage Sparrow (Amphispiza belli clementeae) e year round
TAXA ASSIGNED TO THE LIST BY RANKING SCHEMES
First Priority (11 taxa)
Fulvous Whistling-Duck (Dendrocygna bicolor) breeding
American White Pelican (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos) breeding Wood Stork (Mycteria americana) post-breeding
Tufted Puffin (Fratercula cirrhata) breeding
Island Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus anthonyi) year round San Diego Cactus Wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus sandiegensis) year round Le Conte’s Thrasher (San Joaquin population) (Toxostoma lecontei) year round Summer Tanager (Piranga rubra) breeding
San Clemente Spotted Towhee (Pipilo maculatus clementae) year round Channel Island Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia graminea, sensu Patten 2001)f year round Tricolored Blackbird (Agelaius tricolor) breeding
Second Priority (27 taxa)
Brant (Branta bernicla) wintering, staging
Harlequin Duck (Histrionicus histrionicus) breeding
Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) year round Mount Pinos Sooty Grouse (Dendragapus fuliginosus howardi) year round Ashy Storm-Petrel(Oceanodroma homochroa) breeding
Least Bittern (Ixobrychus exilis) breeding
Yellow Rail (Coturnicops noveboracensis) breeding, wintering Mountain Plover (Charadrius montanus) wintering
Black Tern (Chlidonias niger) breeding
Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) breeding
California Spotted Owl(Strix occidentalis occidentalis) year round Vaux’s Swift (Chaetura vauxi) breeding
Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi) breeding
Vermilion Flycatcher (Pyrocephalus rubinus) breeding
Loggerhead Shrike (mainland populations) (Lanius ludovicianus) breeding Gray Vireo (Vireo vicinior) breeding
Catalina Hutton’s Vireo (Vireo huttoni unitti) year round Purple Martin (Progne subis) breeding
43.219
Clark’s Marsh Wren (Cistothorus palustris clarkae) year round Yellow Warbler (Dendroica petechia) breeding
Sonora Yellow Warbler (Dendroica petechia sonorana) breeding Santa Cruz Is. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps obscura) year round Oregon Vesper Sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus affinis) wintering Large-billed Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis rostratus) nonbreeding Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) breeding
Alameda Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia pusillula) year round Kern Red-winged Blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus aciculatus) year round Third Priority (25 taxa)
Tule Greater White-fronted Goose (Anser albifrons elgasi) wintering Redhead (Aythya americana) breeding
Catalina California Quail (Callipepla californica catalinensis) year round Fork-tailed Storm-Petrel (Oceanodroma furcata) breeding Black Storm-Petrel (Oceanodroma melania) breeding
Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus) breeding
Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) year round
Lesser Sandhill Crane (Grus canadensis canadensis) wintering Snowy Plover (interior population) (Charadrius alexandrinus) breeding Gull-billed Tern (Gelochelidon nilotica) breeding
Black Skimmer (Rynchops niger) breeding
Cassin’s Auklet (Ptychoramphus aleuticus) breeding
Long-eared Owl (Asio otus) breeding
Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus) breeding
Black Swift (Cypseloides niger) breeding
Bendire’s Thrasher (Toxostoma bendirei) breeding
Crissal Thrasher (Toxostoma crissale) year round
Lucy’s Warbler (Vermivora luciae) breeding
San Francisco Common Yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas sinuosa) year round Yellow-breasted Chat (Icteria virens) breeding
Bryant’s Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis alaudinus) year round Song Sparrow (“Modesto”population)g (Melospiza melodia) year round Suisun Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia maxillaris) year round Samuels Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia samuelis) year round Yellow-headed Blackbird (Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus) breeding a
Subspecific taxonomy follows the AOU (1957) and subsequent revisions published in peer-reviewed journals; see species accounts for details. Boldfaced taxa also occur on the California Bird Responsibility List (Table 8). b
Given the distribution and abundance of many taxa in California vary greatly seasonally, the “season of concern” corresponds to the season, or seasons, for which a specific taxon is ranked for conservation priority on the BSSC list (see Methods).
c
Subspecific validity is uncertain. This subspecies, now extinct, was recognized by the AOU (1957), but has been merged by Patten (2001) with the San Miguel (M. m. micronyx) and San Clemente (M. m. clementae) Song Sparrows as the [Channel] Island Song Sparrow (M. m. graminea).
d
Subspecific identity of shrikes currently on San Clemente is uncertain. Mundy et al. (1997a, b) provided evidence L. l. mearnsi is genetically distinct from L. l. gambeli and L. l. anthonyi, whereas Patten and Campbell (2000) concluded, based on morphology, that the birds now on San Clemente are intergrades between L. l. mearnsi and L. l. anthonyi. e
Subspecific validity uncertain. Recognized by AOU (1957), but not by Patten and Unitt (2002). f
Subspecific validity uncertain; see comment above in footnote c regarding proposed merger of various island subspecies.
g
Recognized by AOU (1957), but not by Patten (2001).
California Department of Fish and Game ∞ April 10, 2008
43.220
Exhibit F
43.221
HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT (HHRA) NOTE NUMBER 11
Southern California Ambient Arsenic Screening Level
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL (DTSC)
HUMAN AND ECOLOGICAL RISK OFFICE (HERO)
RELEASE DATE: December 28, 2020
ISSUE
Mitigation or remediation is usually not undertaken to reduce the concentration of contaminants below ambient levels, which comprise both naturally occurring background with added anthropogenic source inputs (i.e., ambient) (US EPA, 2002).
Background and ambient concentrations of some inorganic elements can exceed riskbased concentrations. This includes arsenic, where background as well as ambient concentrations exceed the risk-based soil concentration of 0.11 mg/kg (residential soils screening level, DTSC 2019).
SUMMARY OF AMBIENT ARSENIC SCREENING LEVEL DEVELOPMENT
Background inorganic elements in soil can prove problematic for risk assessment purposes because these elements detected at a site may be comprised of naturally occurring metals, regional anthropogenic contributions or a site-specific release.
Arsenic is especially problematic since the risk-based soil concentration is 100-times below typical background and ambient soil concentrations at southern California sites not subject to site-specific releases of arsenic. DTSC collated a data set of soil concentrations from five southern California counties (Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and San Diego) and developed an upper-bound estimate of the regional ambient arsenic soil concentration that can be used as a screening tool for sites throughout southern California. Los Angeles County had the largest number of sites (19 school sites under DTSC regulation (Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD Data Set)) and the most robust arsenic data set (1097 discrete samples).
This evaluation was initiated by the former DTSC Schools Division because the largest number of new schools in the State occurred within the LAUSD. The summary statistics for the LAUSD arsenic data set, excluding outliers, were calculated and the upper-bound arsenic concentration estimated using 1) the 95% Upper Confidence Limit of the 99th percentile (UL0.95(X0.99)) of the arsenic data set, assuming a lognormal data distribution; and 2) the distribution-free, nonparametric estimate of the theoretical UL0.95(X0.99). Both statistical methods resulted in an upper-bound arsenic concentration
43.222
2 FINAL HHRA Note Number 11, Southern California Ambient Arsenic Screening Level of approximately 12 mg/kg for the Los Angeles County data set (LAUSD Data Set).
The detailed statistical evaluation of the LAUSD arsenic data set can be found at https://dtsc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2018/01/Arsenic-Cleanup-Goals-Jan09- AA.pdf. The 95% upper confidence limit of the mean (95% UCL) arsenic soil concentration was 2.4 mg/kg, for the Los Angeles County data set (Table 3). The DTSC residential use soil screening level for arsenic in soil is 0.11 mg/kg (DTSC 2019) resulting in a residential cancer risk estimate of 1E-04 for the upper-bound arsenic background screening concentration of 12 mg/kg and a residential cancer risk of 2E-05 for the 95% UCL arsenic concentration of 2.4 mg/kg.
Table 1, below, summarizes the county-based arsenic data sets for southern California.
Table 1
County No. of School Sites No. of Arsenic Samples
(after outlier removal)
Los Angeles (LAUSD Study) 19 1086
Orange County 7 224
Riverside County 15 263
San Bernardino County 6 143
San Diego County 3 179
SoCal, Excluding LAUSD1 31 809
1 All data sets were combined, excluding LAUSD, in order to compare them to WKH Eenchmark LAUSD data set.
43.223
3 FINAL HHRA Note Number 11, Southern California Ambient Arsenic Screening Level The upper-bound arsenic concentrations were similar to LA County samples for each of the other southern California counties (Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and San Diego counties), based on the graphical interpretation of the probability plots summarized in Figure 1.
Figure 1
Probability Plots of Arsenic Data Sets by County
43.224
4 FINAL HHRA Note Number 11, Southern California Ambient Arsenic Screening Level The upper bound arsenic concentration for each data set converges around 12 mg/kg.
The differences observed in the lower tails of the data sets reflect the differences and variability in detection limits for non-detected values in data collected over a 10-year period. Figure 2 presents the probability plots for the LAUSD and combined southern California data sets. The data sets show generally good overlap and the combined southern California arsenic data set (i.e., arsenic samples from counties other than Los Angeles) is consistent with the upper bound arsenic concentration of 12 mg/kg derived from the larger LAUSD data set.
Figure 2
Probability Plots for LAUSD and Combined southern California County Data Sets
43.225
5 FINAL HHRA Note Number 11, Southern California Ambient Arsenic Screening Level Figure 3 presents the box and whisker plots for the LAUSD Data Set and the southern California individual county data sets providing a comparison of the distributions of arsenic concentrations for each data set. All arsenic data sets were evaluated for outliers using graphical methods (probability plots and Q-Q plots) and outlier tests (Fourth Spread and ProUCL 5.1 Outlier Tests). While the data distributions are not identical, there is overall good overlap, as was shown by the distributions in the cumulative probability plots in Figures 1 and 2. The data sets with larger numbers of sites showed better overlap with the LAUSD Data Set, while data sets with fewer sites showed greater spread and variability.
Figure 3
Box Plots of the Southern California Data Sets
43.226
6 FINAL HHRA Note Number 11, Southern California Ambient Arsenic Screening Level Figure 4 presents the box and whisker plots for the LAUSD data set, southern California data set without LAUSD, and the combined southern California data set.
Figure 4
Box Plots, Southern California Data Sets
To further evaluate the southern California arsenic data sets, ProUCL version 5.1 was used to estimate the Upper Tolerance Limit (UTL) arsenic concentrations, consistent with the original statistical evaluations described previously. The ProUCL UTL Outputs are included in Attachment 1. Table 2 summarizes the arsenic UTL estimates for the original LAUSD Data Set, the southern California Data Set excluding LAUSD and the Combined southern California Data Set. Given the robust number of samples in each data set, the 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 99th Percentile was used, consistent with the original statistical evaluations performed and described previously.
Table 2
ProUCL 5.1 Arsenic UTL Estimates, Southern California Arsenic Data Summary Statistic LA USD Data Set SoCal Data Set,
Excluding LAUSD
Combined SoCal
Data Set
UTL with 99%
Coverage
9.8 mg/kg 12.9 11.8
43.227
7 FINAL HHRA Note Number 11, Southern California Ambient Arsenic Screening Level The ProUCL UTL estimates are consistent with the previous statistical evaluations and support an estimate of 12 mg/kg for the Combined Southern California Arsenic Data Set.
Table 3 summarizes the arsenic 95% UCL concentration estimates for the original LAUSD Data Set, the southern California Data Set excluding LAUSD and WKH Combined southern California Data Set. ProUCL Outputs are included in Attachment 2.
Table 3
Arsenic 95% UCL Estimates, Southern California Arsenic Data Summary Statistic LAUSD Data Set SoCal Data Set,
Excluding LAUSD
Combined SoCal
Data Set
95% UCL Conc. 2.4 mg/kg 4.3 mg/kg 3.1 mg/kg
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED USE:
The DTSC Site Mitigation and Restoration Program (SMRP) made a risk management decision on the acceptability of estimated risk associated with the upper-bound arsenic screening level for southern California soils.
Southern California site-specific soil concentrations which exceed 12 mg/kg may be indicative of releases of arsenic. Comparison of a site-specific 95% UCL of the mean to the 12 mg/kg upper bound concentration are statistically incorrect. The comparison, or statistical test, of site-specific 95%UCL of the mean should be to the southern California 95%UCL of the mean arsenic soil concentration of 3.1 mg/kg.
Some sites may exhibit higher levels of arsenic due to naturally occurring arsenic associated with certain geologic formations. The appropriate ambient arsenic level for these sites should be determined on a site-specific basis in consultation with the DTSC Geological Services Unit (GSU) Project Geologist and Human and Ecological Risk Office (HERO) Toxicologist. Site-specific soil arsenic concentrations, including sitespecific background arsenic levels, will be evaluated on a site-by-site basis, again in consultation with the project Geologist and Toxicologist.
Specific issues which may need to be addressed to determine the applicability of the southern California ambient arsenic data set are:
1. The location of the site be within the geographic five-County distribution of the samples used to set the 12 mg/kg upper bound on the ambient arsenic concentration; or,
43.228
8 FINAL HHRA Note Number 11, Southern California Ambient Arsenic Screening Level
2. GSU confirm that the lithology of the site is similar enough to the lithology of the samples used to set the southern California ambient soil arsenic metrics, that a comparison is appropriate; and,
3. GSU confirm there are no outcroppings of rock at the site with elevated arsenic concentrations that would make the southern California ambient soil arsenic metrics comparison inappropriate.
If you have any questions on this HHRA Note, please contact:
CY Jeng, Ph.D.
Senior Toxicologist
[email protected]
(714) 484-5359
Or
Shukla Roy-Semmen, Ph.D.
Senior Toxicologist
[email protected]
(714) 484-5448
Primary Author
William Bosan, Ph.D., HERO Senior Toxicologist (Retired)
REFERENCES
US EPA, 2002. Role of Background in the CERCLA Cleanup Program. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, OSWER 9285.6-07P. August 26, 2002.
[https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-11/documents/bkgpol_jan01.pdf] DTSC, 2019. Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) Note Number 3, DTSC-Modified Screening Levels (DTSC-SLs), April 2019. [https://dtsc.ca.gov/wpcontent/uploads/sites/31/2019/04/HHRA-Note-3-2019-04.pdf]
43.229
Attachment 1
ProUCL 5.1 UTL Outputs
43.230
FINAL HHRA Note Number 11, Southern California Ambient Arsenic Screening Level 10 represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data 95% Chebyshev UPL 10.93 99% Percentile 9.82
95% USL 19.6
95% UPL 5.77 90% Percentile 4.695
90% Chebyshev UPL 8.19 95% Percentile 5.743
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 1103 95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 6.33 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 6.3 Order of Statistic, r 1043 95% UTL with 95% Coverage 6.34 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.248 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.937 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.724 d2max (for USL) 3.898 Coefficient of Variation 0.942 Skewness 2.66
Mean of logged Data 0.412 SD of logged Data 0.84
Maximum 19.6 Third Quartile 2.8
Mean 2.14 SD 2.016
Minimum 0.154 First Quartile 0.75
Second Largest 15.1 Median 1.5
LAUSD
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 1086 Number of Distinct Observations 459 Coverage 95%
Number of Bootstrap Operations 2000
From File WorkSheet.xls
Full Precision OFF
Confidence Coefficient 95%
Nonparametric Background Statistics for Uncensored Full Data Sets User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.16/18/2019 1:02:12 PM
43.231
FINAL HHRA Note Number 11, Southern California Ambient Arsenic Screening Level 11 represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data 95% Chebyshev UPL 17.21 99% Percentile 12.88
95% USL 17.9
95% UPL 9.975 90% Percentile 8.286
90% Chebyshev UPL 13.04 95% Percentile 9.958
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 831 95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 10.36 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 10.4 Order of Statistic, r 778 95% UTL with 95% Coverage 10.4 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.28 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.93 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.736 d2max (for USL) 3.823 Mean of logged Data 0.834 SD of logged Data 1.27
Mean 3.832 SD 3.067
Coefficient of Variation 0.8 Skewness 1.099
Second Largest 16.3 Median 3.4
Maximum 17.9 Third Quartile 5.37
Total Number of Observations 809 Number of Distinct Observations 400 Minimum 0.05 First Quartile 1.46
SoCal w/o LAUSD
General Statistics
43.232
FINAL HHRA Note Number 11, Southern California Ambient Arsenic Screening Level 12 represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data 95% Chebyshev UPL 14.43 99% Percentile 11.81
95% USL 19.6
95% UPL 8.522 90% Percentile 6.212
90% Chebyshev UPL 10.82 95% Percentile 8.486
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 1919 95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 9.3 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 9.3 Order of Statistic, r 1815 95% UTL with 95% Coverage 9.3 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.179 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.936 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.704 d2max (for USL) 4.035 Mean of logged Data 0.592 SD of logged Data 1.066
Mean 2.862 SD 2.653
Coefficient of Variation 0.927 Skewness 1.755
Second Largest 17.9 Median 2.05
Maximum 19.6 Third Quartile 4
Total Number of Observations 1895 Number of Distinct Observations 677 Minimum 0.05 First Quartile 0.75
Comb. SoCal
General Statistics
43.233
FINAL HHRA Note Number 11, Southern California Ambient Arsenic Screening Level 13 Attachment 2
ProUCL 5.1 95% UCL Outputs
43.234
FINAL HHRA Note Number 11, Southern California Ambient Arsenic Screening Level 14 Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
Suggested UCL to Use
95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 2.407
97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 2.522 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 2.749 95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 2.249
90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 2.323 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 2.407 95% Standard Bootstrap UCL 2.24 95% Bootstrap-t UCL 2.248 95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL 2.248 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 2.242 Nonparametric Distribution Free UCLs
95% CLT UCL 2.241 95% Jackknife UCL 2.241
95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 2.241
95% Normal UCL 95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness)
95% Student's-t UCL 2.241 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995) 2.246 Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Assuming Normal Distribution
Coefficient of Variation 0.942 Skewness 2.66
Mean of logged Data 0.412 SD of logged Data 0.84
Maximum 19.6 Median 1.5
SD 2.016 Std. Error of Mean 0.0612
Number of Missing Observations 0
Minimum 0.154 Mean 2.14
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 1086 Number of Distinct Observations 459 Number of Bootstrap Operations 2000
LAUSD
From File WorkSheet.xls
Full Precision OFF
Confidence Coefficient 95%
Nonparametric UCL Statistics for Uncensored Full Data Sets User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.16/18/2019 1:21:47 PM
43.235
FINAL HHRA Note Number 11, Southern California Ambient Arsenic Screening Level 15 Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
Suggested UCL to Use
95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 4.302
97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 4.505 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 4.904 95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 4.026
90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 4.155 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 4.302 95% Standard Bootstrap UCL 4.01 95% Bootstrap-t UCL 4.023 95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL 4.012 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 4.009 Nonparametric Distribution Free UCLs
95% CLT UCL 4.009 95% Jackknife UCL 4.009
95% Student's-t UCL 4.009 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995) 4.013 95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 4.01
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Assuming Normal Distribution
95% Normal UCL 95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness)
Mean of logged Data 0.834 SD of logged Data 1.27
SD 3.067 Std. Error of Mean 0.108
Coefficient of Variation 0.8 Skewness 1.099
Minimum 0.05 Mean 3.832
Maximum 17.9 Median 3.4
Total Number of Observations 809 Number of Distinct Observations 400 Number of Missing Observations 0
SoCal w/o LAUSD
General Statistics
43.236
FINAL HHRA Note Number 11, Southern California Ambient Arsenic Screening Level 16 Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
Suggested UCL to Use
95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 3.128
97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 3.243 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 3.469 95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 2.961
90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 3.045 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 3.128 95% Standard Bootstrap UCL 2.962 95% Bootstrap-t UCL 2.966 95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL 2.97 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 2.966 Nonparametric Distribution Free UCLs
95% CLT UCL 2.962 95% Jackknife UCL 2.962
95% Student's-t UCL 2.962 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995) 2.965 95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 2.963
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Assuming Normal Distribution
95% Normal UCL 95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness)
Mean of logged Data 0.592 SD of logged Data 1.066
SD 2.653 Std. Error of Mean 0.061
Coefficient of Variation 0.927 Skewness 1.755
Minimum 0.05 Mean 2.862
Maximum 19.6 Median 2.05
Total Number of Observations 1895 Number of Distinct Observations 677 Number of Missing Observations 0
Comb. SoCal
General Statistics
43.237
Exhibit G
43.238
Tetrachloroethylene in Indoor Air
(PERC, Perchloroethylene, PCE)
Fact Sheet for Contaminated Sites in California
May 2022
What is Tetrachloroethylene?
· Tetrachloroethylene, also known as “PCE”, is a commercial solvent used in drycleaning fabrics, metal degreasing operations, and chemical production facilities. o California regulations require PCE be phased out from dry-cleaning machines and related equipment by January 1, 2023.1
· PCE can break down into other harmful chemicals, such as trichloroethylene, cis-1,2-dichloroethylene, trans-1,2-dichloroethylene, and vinyl chloride.
How can I be exposed to PCE?
· If a building is near PCE contamination in soil
or groundwater, PCE from below the ground
may enter indoor spaces through vapor
intrusion (see Figure). When this occurs, one
might be exposed to PCE by inhaling indoor
air. Information on contaminated properties
undergoing investigation can be found on
GeoTracker.2
· Other sources of PCE in the air include:
o Emissions from facilities that use PCE.
o Off-gassing of PCE from dry-cleaned fabrics or consumer products such as adhesives, spot/stain removers, and cleaners for automobile parts. o Vapors released during showering, if PCE is present in household water.
How might PCE affect my health?
Health effects depend on dose, duration and frequency of exposure, and individual sensitivity. At contaminated sites, there is typically a concern about health effects from long-term exposures, which can include:
· Changes in mood, memory, attention, reaction time, and vision. · Harm to the nervous system, liver, kidneys, and reproductive system. · An increased risk of cancer, such as bladder cancer or non-Hodgkin lymphoma, or multiple myeloma.
1 Phase Out of PCE from the Dry-Cleaning Process. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/phase-outperchloroethlyene-dry-cleaning-process 2 The Water Boards’ GeoTracker has information on sites that require cleanup. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/
43.239
What can I do to reduce my exposure to PCE?
· Ventilate the home frequently by opening windows and doors. · Keep PCE-containing products tightly covered to prevent evaporation into the air.
Store products containing PCE in a shed or an outside location to reduce exposure and decrease the impact on indoor air.
Chlorinated Chemicals in Your Home (CARB, 2001) provides more information on reducing exposures to PCE and other chlorinated chemicals.
What are PCE Screening Levels?
· Screening levels (SLs) are health-protective, scientifically based concentrations developed by state regulators to assess risks to human health at contaminated sites. · SLs are concentrations in air that should not pose harm to the population, including sensitive groups such as children, pregnant women, and those with health issues. · Separate SLs are set to protect against (1) a significant risk of cancer; and (2) noncancer adverse health effects.
PCE Screening Levels in Indoor Air (μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter) Screening
Level
Residential
(μg/m3)
Commercial
(μg/m3) Protects Against…
Cancer 0.46 2 A significant risk of cancer
Non-cancer 42 180 Other non-cancer adverse effects
· If contaminant concentrations are below SLs, then contamination from the site is unlikely to pose an unacceptable human health concern to humans. · If contaminant concentrations are above SLs, then regulators may require additional sampling and investigation, implementation of cleanup strategies, or other actions to reduce human exposure to PCE contamination.
For more information
California Air Resources Board (CARB). Chlorinated Chemicals in Your Home.
May 2001.
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) Note Number 3, DTSC-modified Screening Levels (DTSC-SLs).
June 2020.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Tetrachloroethylene – ToxFAQs. June 2019.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Preliminary Information on Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution, Use and Disposal: Tetrachloroethylene (Perchloroethylene). February 2017.
43.240
Exhibit H
43.241
Branciforte Creek 1
30 / 50 / 75
San Lorenzo River Lower
WATER ST
CO AE S N T
R VI ER ST
DAKOTA
AVE
A M Y VA E
LA EL Y
R S
EVI
S R T
RF ONT ST
CAP FI A CI EV
N PACIFIC AVE
LEO
N
A
R
D
S
T
BU
LK
H
EAD
ST
COO
PE
R
S
T
KN
GI HT
ST
LOC
U
ST
ST
YA M VA E
ALLEY
WATER
ST
RF NO S T T
A M A Y EV
CO AE S N T
EVA AT OKAD
YA M VA E
RIVER ST
YELLA
ALLEY
Aerial Photo Date:
August, 2003
Disclaimer: This map is a graphic representation only of data provided by the City and County of Santa Cruz. The Management Plan text and tables shall be consulted for specific required distances and setbacks.
The author assumes no responsibility nor liability for errors or ommissions. Areas intentionally unmapped include University lands, areas outside of the City limits, and some City-owned protected lands.
Prepared by City of Santa Cruz GIS Serv icesMarch, 2006 P06P08P07
N06N08N07
O06O07O08
City-wid
e
C
r
e
e
k
s
a
n
d
W
etla
n
d
s
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
nt Pla
n
´ 0 150 300 75
Feet
San Lorenzo Urban
River Plan Area Riparian Corridor
Parcel Boundaries Development Setback
Reach D elineation
J
! Biotic R eview May
Be Required
Reach C enterline
! Coastal Zone Boundary
Santa Cruz City Lim its
Current R estric tion
Managem ent Area
All projects within the
Management Area are
subject to the San Lorenzo
Urban River Plan
43.242
Exhibit I
43.243
River Front Temporary Transit Center
Pacific Station Relocation
The METRO Pacific Station complex in the city of Santa Cruz is slated for demolition and redevelopment during the period of February 2024 through February 2026. Current METRO operations at Pacific Station includes 10 active bus bays, 14 layover bus bays, a site-specific circulation system, and facilities for public/customer service interaction, operators, and security staff. METRO operates county-wide fixed-route and Highway 17 commuter service from its Santa Cruz Pacific Station complex with connections to Santa Clara County and Monterey Salinas Transit at METRO’s Watsonville Transit Center. METRO operates a fleet of 107 buses on at least 20 fixed routes and 32 paratransit vehicles.
River Front Temporary Transit Center Plans
Per the terms of the 2020 Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Santa Cruz (City) and METRO, the City is coordinating the development of a METRO Downtown Transit Center Interim Operations Plan (Plan). The Plan will design temporary traffic circulation patterns, determine associated traffic and sidewalk revisions, and identify locations for ancillary facilities to support METRO’s operations during the redevelopment of Pacific Station. Key elements include establishing a clockwise traffic flow around the area bounded by Soquel Ave., Front St., River St. and River St. South, the removal of the traffic island at the River St.
South/Front St. intersection to facilitate METRO bus movements, general traffic restriping, and conversion of River St. South to one-way southbound. The Plan will subsequently be released for bid to construct the operational design elements so that the demolition and redevelopment of the METRO Pacific Station complex may proceed.
The METRO Interim Downtown Transit Center Operations plan will utilize curbside space on Soquel Ave., Front St, River St. and River St. South to create three new bus stops and create multiple bus layover spaces. On Front Street and River St., the plan will create a shared bus/bike lane adjacent to the curb to facilitate bus movements, bus layover, bus station service, and bicycle movements. METRO plans to board and deboard passengers at three bus stops (Areas 1, 2, 3), located at the River St. South/Soquel Ave. (Area 1) intersection, at the existing stop on Soquel Ave. between River St. South & Front St (Area 2), and at the existing Front St. stop alongside CVS Pharmacy (Area 3). Layover spaces will be generally used between 5am and midnight, when most of the bus routes are out of service.
To install the shared bus/bike lane, there will need to be a reduction of on-street parking.
Existing loading curbside spaces will be maintained. A description of these parking changes is detailed below.
https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/government/city-departments/public-works/trafficengineering/metro-interim-downtown-transit-center-plan#!/ Area 1, 2, 3 Route Details
43.244
Area 1: Located at the River St. South/Soquel Ave. intersection Routes Served: 18, 19, 20, 40, 41, 42
Area 2: At the existing stop on Soquel Ave. between River St. South & Front St Routes Served: 17, 35
Area 3: At the existing Front St. stop alongside CVS Pharmacy Routes Served: 1, 2, 3, 4, 90X
Customer Service
Additionally, METRO’s Customer Service Department will also be relocated from Pacific Station to 603 Front St., across from CVS. METRO’s Customer Experience Center will be open to assist customers in-person Monday – Friday, 8:00AM – 5:00PM or by phone at (831) 425-8600.
Public Restrooms
METRO riders will have access to a public restroom near Soquel/Front Parking Garage at 601 Front St. facing Soquel Ave., located next to Oswald’s Restaurant (121 Soquel Ave.) and across the street from New Leaf.
Walking Directions from METRO’s Customer Experience Center:
Head South on Front St. Towards Soquel Ave., turn right on Soquel Ave., walk past Oswald’s Restaurant, public restrooms will be located on your right Real-Time Bus Tracking
METRO is now providing a real time bus arrival feed utilizing GTFS-RT, the transit industry standard, that enables riders to access real-time information on routes and bus locations in the most popular travel apps and websites.
Real-time arrival information enables riders to know exactly when the bus will arrive, be aware of disruptions to service, such as traffic incidents, and know how full the bus is before it arrives.
Travel with greater ease by taking advantage of real-time information that will help you make better trip decisions, using any platform you prefer:
• Transit App and other popular smartphone apps
• Google Maps and Apple Maps Trip Planners
• METRO Real-Time website
• SMS Text message “SCM XXXX” to 41411 (where XXXX is either a numeric stop ID, or transit center lane such as “rfc1” or “wtc2”) for predicted arrivals within 30 minutes For more information visit scmetro.org/apps.
43.245
Exhibit J
43.246
Imagery ©2025 Airbus, Data CSUMB SFML, CA OPC, Maxar Technologies, Map data ©2025 500 ft All routes are mostly flat
530 Ocean St, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 to 920 Walk 0.6 mile, 14 min Pacific Ave, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
4/28/25, 3:56 PM 530 Ocean St, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 to 920 Pacific Avenue, Santa Cruz, CA - Google Maps https://www.google.com/maps/dir/530+Ocean+St,+Santa+Cruz,+CA+95060/920+Pacific+Avenue,+Santa+Cruz,+CA/@36.9724865,-122.0271791,1453m/data=!3m2… 1/2
43.247
Exhibit K
43.248
Agenda Agenda Packet (/OnBaseAgendaOnline/Documents/Downloadfile/ Zoning_Administrator_Regular_Meeting_2448_Agenda_Packet_3_5_2025_10_00_00_AM.pdf? documentType=5&meetingId=2448&isAttachment=True)
Switch to Accessible View
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
City Hall
809 Center Street
Santa Cruz, California 95060
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
MINUTES
Regular Meeting
March 5, 2025
Minutes approved 4/02/25.
10:00 A.M. GENERAL BUSINESS AND MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST, COUNCIL CHAMBERS Call to Order- Zoning Administrator Samantha Haschert called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. in Council Chambers
Oral Communications- Zoning Administrator Haschert opened Oral Communications for members of the public who wished to speak regarding items not listed on the agenda. The following person(s) spoke: None.
Public Hearings
1. 150 Felker Street Project Number: CP25-0057 Assessor's Parcel Number: 008-181-23 Conditional Fence Permit to Allow a 6' 9'' Tall Fence Within the Front Setback on a Property Located in the R-M (Multiple Residence - Medium Density) Zone District. Environmental Determination:
Categorical Exemption; Applicant: Brent Adams; Filed: 5/7/2024 Applicant Brent Adams addressed the Zoning Administrator and acknowledged he had read and agreed with the Conditions of Approval contained in the staff report dated February 26, 2025.
Zoning Administrator Haschert opened the public hearing.
The following members of the public addressed the Zoning Administrator: Ernest (no last name given); Pedro Castillo; Carol Walker.
The public hearing was closed.
00:19 / 1:30:51
View Meeting - OnBase Agenda Online https://ecm.cityofsantacruz.com/OnBaseAgendaOnline/Meetings/View... 1 of 5 4/25/25, 7:06 PM
43.249
ACTION: The Zoning Administrator acknowledged the Environmental Determination and approved the Conditional Fence Permit based on the Findings listed below and the attached Conditions of Approval in Exhibit “A” of the staff report dated February 26, 2025, with the following modification to the conditions of approval:
• Condition Number 14 is stricken: Subject to the staff level approval of the Zoning Administrator or their designee, the fence colors shall remain compatible with the existing building. A mural shall be allowed on the fencing.
The last day to appeal this item is March 17, 2025, at 5:00 p.m.
2. 202 Pelton Avenue Project Number: CP24-0168 Assessor's Parcel Number: 004-282-33 Coastal Permit and Design Permit to Construct an Addition to the First Story and Second-Story Deck on a Single-Family Dwelling Unit Located on a Substandard Lot in the R-1-5/CZ-O (Single Family Residential/Coastal Zone Overlay) Zone Districts. Environmental Review: Categorical Exemption; Applicant: Fuse Architects c/o Dan Townsend; Filed: 11/07/2024 Applicant Dan Townsend addressed the Zoning Administrator and acknowledged he had read and agreed with the Conditions of Approval contained in the staff report dated February 28, 2025.
Zoning Administrator Haschert opened the public hearing.
The following members of the public addressed the Zoning Administrator: none.
The public hearing was closed.
ACTION: The Zoning Administrator acknowledged the environmental determination and approved the Coastal Permit and Design Permit to construct additions to the existing singlefamily dwelling unit on a substandard lot, based on the attached Findings and the Conditions of Approval listed in Exhibit “A” of the staff report dated 2/28/25.
The last day to appeal this item is March 17, 2025, at 5:00 p.m.
3. 530, 542, and 543 Ocean Street Project Number: CP24-0071 Assessor's Parcel Number(s) 010-011-16, -31, -30 Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit, Lot Line Adjustment, Watercourse Development Permit, Design Permit, Heritage Tree Removal Permit, Density Bonus Request, and Sign Permit to Demolish Four Commercial Buildings, Combine Three Lots into One Lot, Remove Five Heritage-Sized Trees, and Construct a Six-Story Mixed Use Building with 225 Residential Units and Ground Floor Commercial Area Within the Development Setback Area of a Category B Creek on Property Located in the C-C/FP-O (Community Commercial / Floodplain Overlay) Zone Districts and Within the Ocean Street Area Plan. Environmental Review:
Categorical Exemption; Applicant: Lisa Vilhauer, Riaz Capital; Filed: 08/26/2024.
Senior Planner Rina Zhou presented the item to the Zoning Administrator and answered questions regarding the project. Transportation Manager Matt Starkey also spoke.
Applicant Lisa Vilhauer addressed the Zoning Administrator and acknowledged she had read the Conditions of Approval and agreed with the Conditions of Approval, with a request to waive Condition of Approval Number 68.
Zoning Administrator Haschert opened the public hearing.
The following members of the public addressed the Zoning Administrator: Unidentified Speaker; Pablo Graviel; Elaine Johnson; Deborah (last name not given); Dave Mitchell; Don Landis; Tim Rooney; Linda Wiles; Rudolph Shake.
The public hearing was closed.
00:19 / 1:30:51
View Meeting - OnBase Agenda Online https://ecm.cityofsantacruz.com/OnBaseAgendaOnline/Meetings/View... 2 of 5 4/25/25, 7:06 PM
43.250
ACTION: The Zoning Administrator acknowledged the environmental determination and approved the Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit, Lot Line Adjustment, Watercourse Development Permit, Design Permit, Heritage Tree Removal Permit, Density Bonus request, and Sign Permit based on the Findings listed below and the attached Conditions of Approval in Exhibit “A” of the staff report dated February 28, 2025, with the following modifications to the conditions of approval:
• The last sentence of Condition of Approval Number 28 is stricken: The applicant shall provide 17 units at the very low-income level, 17 units at the moderate income level and 5 units at the low-income level which shall be reflected in the affordable housing development agreement. The number of units provided at the moderate-income level to obtain the additional 50-percent Density Bonus is subject to change if a formal determination is made by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).
• Condition of Approval Number 68 is stricken: Prior to final inspection of the building permit, the applicant shall provide evidence indicating that a contract has been entered into with Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District (Santa Cruz METRO) to provide unlimited local transit passes for all residents. This contract and/or subsequent contracts covering renewal shall remain in place for the life of the project, unless otherwise approved by the City.
The last day to appeal this item is March 17, 2025, at 5:00 p.m.
Adjournment-The meeting adjourned at 11:31 a.m.
00:19 / 1:30:51
View Meeting - OnBase Agenda Online https://ecm.cityofsantacruz.com/OnBaseAgendaOnline/Meetings/View... 3 of 5 4/25/25, 7:06 PM
43.251
Exhibit L
43.252
□
Notice of Exemption Appendix E
To: Office of Planning and Research
P .0. Box 3044, Room 113
Sacramento, CA 95812-3044
County Clerk
County of: _sa_n_ta_c__r_u_z ____ _ Governmental Center 701 Ocean St, Santa Cruz, Ca 95060
Project Title: Arthaus Ocean
From: (Public Agency): City of Santa Cruz
Planning Dept., 809 Ce nter St, Room 101
Sant
a Cruz, CA 95060
(Address)
Project Applicant: R_i_a_zC_a_p__it_a_l ________________________ _ Project Location - Specific:
530, 542, 548 Ocean Street
Project Location - City: Santa Cruz Project Location - County: S anta Cruz Description of Nature, Purpose and Beneficiaries of Project:
The project consists of a nonresidential demolition authorization permit, lot line adjustment, watercouĀse development permit, design permit, heritage tree removal permit, density bonus request and sign permit lo demolish four commercial buildings, combine three lots into one parcel, remove five heritage-sized trees, and construct a six-story mixed-use building with 225 residential units and ground fioor commercial area. The project includes a density bonus request pursuant to California Government Code sections 65915-65918, and the applicant reÿuested the granting of fifteen waivers and two incentive/concessions pursuant to provisions of state and local regulations
Name of Public Agency Approving Project: C_i_ty_o_f_S__an__t a_
C_r_u__z
______________ _
Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: _R_ia_z_C_a_p_i_ta_l ________________ _ Exempt Status: (check one):
D Ministerial (Sec. 21080(b)(1 ); 15268);
D Declared Emergency (Sec. Āÿ080(b)(3); 15269(a));
D Emergency Project (Sec. 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c));
� Categorical Exemption. State type and section number: Section 15332, Class 32, Infill Development Projects D Statutory Exemptions. State code number: ___________________ _ Reasons why project is exempt:
The proposed proJect qualifies for a Class 32 Categorical Exemption as afforded by CEQA, The application exhibits consistency with General FIian and zoning designations, policies, and regulations, with a proJHct site comprising 32,062 square feet(. 736 acres) In size, below the maximum threshold of five (5) acres, located within city limits and surrounded by existing resldenlial and commercial urban uses.
As a previously-developed urban infill site, the subject lot holds no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species, with none k:nown to exist on the site; development of the project would not result in any significant impact relating lo traffic, noise, air quality or water quality as support1:1d by tht:1 submitted information; and the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. Therefore, the proposal qualifies for the Calagorir.al Exemplion found in CEQA Guidelines Section i5332, infill exemption. None of thtt exceptions to the exemptions under Section 15300.2 apply to the project in that the project is not part of a larger project that could result In a cumulative impact, there are no unusual circumstances associated with the project or subject parcel, the project will not result in damage lo resources associated with an officiaUy designated scenic highway, the project site Is not Included on any lists compiled pursuant to Scclion 65962.5 of !he Government Code related to Hazardous Waste Sites, and the project will not result in substantial adverse changes in the significance of a historical resource site In that there are no known historic resources on the property.
Lead Agency
Contact Person: Rina Zhou Area Code/Telephone/Extension: 831-420-5104 If filed by applicant:
1. Attach certified document of exemption finding.
2. Has a Notice of Exemption been filed by the public agency approving the project? Yes • No Signature: � Date: Mar. 5, 2025 Title: Senior Planner
• Signed by Lead Agency Signed by Applicant
Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21110, Public Resources Code.
Reference: Sections 21108, 21152, and 21152.1, Public Resources Code.
Date Received for filing at OPR: _____ _
Revised 2011
Print Form
43.253
ARBORIST REPORTTree Survey &
Preliminary Impact Analysis
530, 542 & 548 Ocean Street
Santa Cruz, CA
APN:010-011-16, 31, 30
April 30, 2024
Prepared for:
Riaz Capital
2244 East 11th Street
Oakland, CA
Prepared by:
ISA Certified Arborist WE0681A
ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualification (TRAQ)
43.254
Table of Contents SUMMARY.................................................................................................................................. 1 Data Summary………………………………………………………………………………………...……….1
Background .................................................................................................................... 2 Assignment .................................................................................................................... 2 Limits of the Assignment................................................................................................ 2 Purpose and use of the report ....................................................................................... 2 Resources...................................................................................................................... 3 OBSERVATIONS....................................................................................................................4-7 DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................. 8 Species List.................................................................................................................... 8 Tree Evaluation and Recording Methods ...................................................................... 8 Condition Rating ............................................................................................................ 9 Suitability for Preservation ............................................................................................. 9 Tree Protection Zone ...................................................................................................10 Critical Root Zone ........................................................................................................10 Root Disturbance Distance…………………………………………………………………11
Impacts to Heritage Trees ..…………………….....………………………………………12-15 Tree Removal and Replacement……………………………………………………….….16
Certificate of Performance…………………………………………...…………………………………..17 CONCLUSION …………………………….……………………………………………………………….……………….18 RECOMMENDATIONS…………………………………………………………………………………………………..18
43.255
Attachments: Appendix A - H
Appendix A – Tree Assessment Chart
Appendix B – Criteria for Tree Assessment Chart
Appendix C - Sheet T1 - Tree Location Map
Appendix D- Glossary of Terms
Appendix E - City of Santa Cruz, Encroachment & Tree Permit Fees Appendix F – Bibliography
Appendix G - Tree Protection Guidelines & Restrictions
Protecting Trees During Construction
Project Arborist Duties & Inspection Schedule
Tree Protection Fencing
Tree Protection Signs
Monitoring
Root Pruning
Tree Work Standards & Qualifications
Appendix H - Assumptions & Limiting Conditions
43.256
Tree Survey & Impact Assessment 4/30/2024
530, 542 & 548 Ocean Avenue, Santa Cruz Page 1
SUMMARY
This report provides the following information:
1. A summary of the health and structural condition of 13 trees.
2. A preliminary evaluation of anticipated construction impacts to the trees.
3. Recommendations for retention or removal of assessed trees based on their condition, construction impacts, and future uses.
A six story multi-family apartment building is proposed at 530, 542 and 548 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz. I surveyed six Heritage trees on the property, or with canopies that overhang the subject property. A Heritage tree is protected as defined by the City of Santa Cruz Ordinance.
The Heritage trees are in good or fair condition and are suitable for incorporation into the project.
One Heritage tree will have moderate construction impacts, can be incorporated into the project, and will require mitigation methods to reduce construction impacts. Five Heritage trees are in direct conflict with the project and their removal will be necessary to accommodate construction of the building.
This report assesses anticipated impacts to affected trees and is based on a preliminary site plan. Depending on revisions to the preliminary site plan, impacts to trees may change and will require reassessment. Once the final plan set is completed, a Tree Protection Plan will be required and shall be included with the final plan set.
The Tree Assessment Chart, Appendix A is the condensed reference guide to inform all tree management decisions for the trees evaluated.
Data Summary
Table 1 – All Surveyed Trees
General
Total Trees Inventoried Count
Total 13
Species 7
Regulated Trees
Heritage Trees
All trees > 14” trunk diameter 6
Tree Disposition Categories – All Trees
R.I. – Remove due to construction impacts 12
R.C. – Remove due to condition (poor condition) 0
R.T., I.M. - Retain tree. Preservable, low or moderate impacts that can be mitigated. 1
43.257
Tree Survey & Impact Assessment 4/30/2024
530, 542 & 548 Ocean Avenue, Santa Cruz Page 2
Background
A preliminary plan set had been completed for a six story multi-family apartment building at 530, 542 and 548 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz. Riaz Capital requested my services to assess the condition of thirteen trees within or near the project limits, and the construction impacts that may affect them. Further, to provide a report with my findings, and recommendations to meet the City of Santa Cruz requirements.
Assignment
Provide an arborist report that includes an assessment of the trees within the project area. The assessment is to include the species, size (trunk diameter, height and canopy spread), condition (health and structure), and suitability for preservation ratings. Review preliminary development plans, assess potential impacts to trees, and provide recommendations for retention or removal.
To complete this assignment, the following services were performed:
Tree Survey, Assessment & Recommendations: Inventory, evaluate and make recommendations for subject trees.
Plan Review: Reviewed provided plans including Preapplication Plan Set, dated 2/28/2024, by Workbench, Architects.
Impact Assessment: Recommendations for retention or removal of assessed trees based on their condition, construction impacts, and future uses.
Limits of the Assignment
The information contained in this report covers only those items that were examined and reflects the condition of those items at the time of inspection April 22, 2024.
The inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items without climbing, dissection, excavation, probing, or coring. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies of the trees in question may not arise in the future.
Purpose and use of the report
The report is intended to provide a condition evaluation and management recommendations for the trees inventoried. This report is to be used by the applicant, their agents, and the City of Santa Cruz as a reference for existing tree conditions, and to help satisfy City of Santa Cruz planning requirements.
43.258
Tree Survey & Impact Assessment 4/30/2024
530, 542 & 548 Ocean Avenue, Santa Cruz Page 3
Resources
All information within this report is based on site plans as of the date of this report. Resources are as follows:
Preapplication Plan Set, dated 2/28/2024, by Workbench, Architects. Site Visit, Tree Inventory & Condition Evaluation, 530, 542 and 548 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz, on 4/22/2024.
City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code – Chapter 9.56 Preservation of Heritage Trees (applicable sections).
City of Santa Cruz
9.56.040 HERITAGE TREE AND HERITAGE SHRUB DESIGNATION.
Any tree, grove of trees, shrub or group of shrubs, growing on public or private property within the city limits of the city of Santa Cruz which meet(s) the following criteria shall have the “heritage” designation:
(a) Any tree which has a trunk with a circumference of forty-four inches (approximately fourteen inches in diameter or more), measured at fifty-four inches above existing grade; (b) Any tree, grove of trees, shrub or group of shrubs which have historical significance, including but not limited to those which were/are:
(1) Planted as a commemorative;
(2) Planted during a particularly significant historical era; or (3) Marking the spot of an historical event.
(c) Any tree, grove of trees, shrub or group of shrubs which have horticultural significance, including but not limited to those which are:
(1) Unusually beautiful or distinctive;
(2) Old (determined by comparing the age of the tree or shrub in question with other trees or shrubs of its species within the city);
(3) Distinctive specimen in size or structure for its species (determined by comparing the tree or shrub to average trees and shrubs of its species within the city); (4) A rare or unusual species for the Santa Cruz area (to be determined by the number of similar trees of the same species within the city);
(5) Providing a valuable habitat; or
(6) Identified by the city council as having significant arboricultural value to the citizens of the city
43.259
Tree Survey & Impact Assessment 4/30/2024
530, 542 & 548 Ocean Avenue, Santa Cruz Page 4
OBSERVATIONS
The project is located in a commercial area on Ocean Street between Soquel Avenue and Dakota Avenue in Santa Cruz. Branciforte Creek runs to the North of the project boundary. The proposed project area contains three parcels and four exisiting builidngs, (Image #1).
Image #1 – Project is located on Ocean Street, Santa Cruz. Approximate project boundaries are outlined in red.
I surveyed thirteen trees 6-inches or greater in diameter. Six trees surveyed are defined as Heritage trees according to the City of Santa Cruz ordinance. A Heritage Tree includes any species 14 inches in diameter or larger, measured at 4.5 feet above grade.
Three of the Heritage trees are palm trees growing in a landscape planter fronting Ocean Street.
The other three Heritage trees grow on properties adjacent to the project, have canopies overhanging the subject property, and include a cypress, a cedar and a walnut.
T3 T2 T1
43.260
Tree Survey & Impact Assessment 4/30/2024
530, 542 & 548 Ocean Avenue, Santa Cruz Page 5
Three Heritage palm trees grow in a landscape planter fronting Ocean Street, (Image #2).
Image #2 – Heritage trees T3, queen palm and T5 & T6 fan palm. The other palm trees in the image have trunk diameters below protected size.
Tree T3, a 14.5” diameter semi-mature queen palm grows along the Ocean Street frontage. The palm has a full, dense canopy. The trunk is straight and the palm is stable. Overall the palm is in good condition.
Tree T5, a 19” fan palm and T6, a 22” fan palm grow opposite each other at the entrance walkway for 542 Ocean Street. The trees are of similar size, have dense full canopies, and some dead fronds in the lower canopy. Both palms are in good condition.
Three other queen palms in image #2 are below protected size. The three queen palms are in fair or good condition.
Two trees that are below protected size grow in landscape planters between 542 and 548 Ocean Street. The species includes one evergreen pear and one privet. The two trees are in fair condtion.
T3
T5
T6
43.261
Tree Survey & Impact Assessment 4/30/2024
530, 542 & 548 Ocean Avenue, Santa Cruz Page 6
Five trees on the adjacent properties have canopies that overhang the project limits. (Image #3) Image #3 – Heritage trees T9, cypress, T12, cedar and T13, walnut grow on two adjacent lots and have canopies that overhang the subject property.
Three of the five trees are Heritage trees. They grow near the east property line, behind the existing businesses and are on adjacent properties. The three trees include T9, cypress, T12, incense cedar and T13, walnut.
Tree T9, a 16” cypress grows in a row with two other cypress. Most of the lower limbs on the bottom half of the tree have been removed. Canopy density in the upper half of the tree is normal. Some limbs grow beyond the canopy outline and are over extended.
Tree T9 and the other two cypress were most likely planted for screening purposes. Their branches intermingle so that the effect is a single canopy. Overall, the three trees are in fair condition.
T9
T12
T13
T11 T10
43.262
Tree Survey & Impact Assessment 4/30/2024
530, 542 & 548 Ocean Avenue, Santa Cruz Page 7
Image #4 – Heritage trees T12, cypress, and T13 walnut. Note trunk lean towards subject property of tree T12, cedar.
Tree T12 is a mature 24” Incense cedar. The cedar has a 10 – 15 degree trunk lean towards the subject property, (Image #4). The tree grows in competition for sunlight and space with the adjacent walnut. Because of this competition, most of the brancing structure is on one side of the tree. This structure creates an unbalanaced canopy with a weight bias towards the subject property. The canopy density and color is normal for the species. Overall the trees health is fair with the structure rated fair to poor due to the one sided branching structure, unbalanced canopy, and trunk lean.
Tree T13 is a mature, 30” walnut. The canopy color and density is normal for the species. The tree was topped at about 35’ above grade and branches have resprouted at the locations the tree was topped. Some of these resprouted branches may have weak attachments and could be supseptible to breakage as they incease in length. Overall, the tree is in fair condition.
T12
T13
43.263
Tree Survey & Impact Assessment 4/30/2024
530, 542 & 548 Ocean Avenue, Santa Cruz Page 8
DISCUSSION
Species List
Table 2 – Heritage Trees
HERITAGE TREES
Common Name Botanical Name Count
queen palm (Syagrus romanzoffiana) 1
fan palm (Washingtonia spp.) 2
Leyland cypress (x Hesperotropis leylandii) 1
incense cedar (Calocedrus decurrens) 1
walnut (Julgans spp.) 1
Total Heritage Tree Count 6
Table 3 – All Trees Inventoried
ALL TREES
7 species – A complete list can be found in Appendix A – Tree Assessment Chart Total Tree Count 13
Tree Evaluation and Recording Methods
Site evaluations were made on 3/27/2024. The inventory included all trees on the property or on adjacent properties with canopies overhanging the project limits. The health and structural condition of each tree was assessed and recorded. Based on the trees’ health and structural condition, each tree’s suitability for preservation was rated and recorded.
Appendix A - Tree Assessment Chart contains the tree survey data. Appendix B contains criteria used to assess and rate trees. To correlate the data in the Tree Assessment Chart to the tree’s location on the site, refer to Appendix C - Sheet T1- Tree Location Map.
43.264
Tree Survey & Impact Assessment 4/30/2024
530, 542 & 548 Ocean Avenue, Santa Cruz Page 9
Condition Rating- Heritage Trees
A tree’s condition is determined by an assessing both the health and structure, then combining the two factors to reach a condition rating. The tree’s condition is rated as poor, fair, or good.
The quantity of trees assigned for each category (good, fair, or poor), is indicated below:
Tree Condition Rating
Good - 3
Fair - 3
Poor - 0
Suitability for Preservation- Heritage Trees
A tree’s suitability for preservation is determined based on its health, structure, age, species characteristics and longevity using a scale of good, fair, or poor. The quantity of trees assigned to each category (good, fair, or poor), is listed below.
Suitability Rating
Good - 3
Fair – 3
Poor - 0
43.265
Tree Survey & Impact Assessment 4/30/2024
530, 542 & 548 Ocean Avenue, Santa Cruz Page 10
Tree Protection Zone
The tree protection zone (TPZ) is a defined area (radius from trunk), within which certain activities are prohibited or restricted to minimize potential injury to designated trees during construction.
The size of the optimal TPZ can be determined by a formula based on 1) trunk diameter 2) species tolerance to construction impacts, and 3) tree age (Matheny, N. and Clark, J 1998). In some instances, tree drip line is used as the TPZ. Development constraints can also influence the final size of the tree protection zone.
Fencing is installed to delineate the (TPZ), and to protect tree roots, trunk, and scaffold branches from construction equipment. The fenced protection area may be smaller than the optimal or designated TPZ area in some circumstances. Tree protection may also involve the armoring of the tree trunk and/or scaffold limbs with barriers to prevent mechanical damage from construction equipment. See Tree Protection Guidelines & Restrictions – Appendix E.
Once the TPZ is delineated and fenced (prior to any site work, equipment and materials move in), construction activities are only to be permitted within the TPZ if allowed for and specified by the project arborist.
Where tree protection fencing cannot be used, or as an additional protection from heavy equipment, tree wrap may be used. Wooden slats at least one inch thick are to be bound securely, edge to edge, around the trunk. A single layer or more of orange plastic construction fencing is to be wrapped and secured around the outside of the wooden slats. Major scaffold limbs may require protection as determined by the City arborist or Project arborist. Straw wattle may also be used as a trunk wrap and secured with orange plastic fencing.
Data has been entered in the Tree Assessment Chart – Appendix A, which indicates the optimal Tree Protection Zone for each tree.
Additional general tree protection guidelines are included in Tree Protection Guidelines & Restrictions – Appendix G.
Critical Root Zone
The CRZ is the biological limit of a tree’s capacity to recover from root loss. It is “the area of soil around a tree where the minimum number of roots that are biologically essential to the structural stability and health of the tree are located. There are no universally accepted methods to calculate the CRZ.” (Clark, Metheny, Smiley, et al, The Tree Protection Zone & the Critical Root Zone, 12/2021). The methods utilized to determine the Critical Root Zone are varied and can be based on professional guidelines and/or industry standards. Criteria such as trunk diameter, tree age and vigor, species tolerance, tree architecture and existing site constraints are commonly used criteria.
43.266
Tree Survey & Impact Assessment 4/30/2024
530, 542 & 548 Ocean Avenue, Santa Cruz Page 11
Critical Root Zone, Continued:
Using this information, the arborist can find the distance from the trunk that should be protected per unit of trunk diameter. The CRZ does not always represent a radius around the tree. When necessary, the area can be offset or shaped in a manner that accepts tree canopy constraints or existing conditions.
For purposes of this report the CRZ is the minimum tolerable distance between the trunk, and excavation that requires root cutting. I have estimated it to be five times the trunk Diameter at Breast Height, (DBH is 4.5’ above grade). For example, if a tree has a one-foot trunk diameter, the CRZ extends to five feet from the trunk.
If encroachment into the CRZ or TPZ is required to retain the tree during development, the arborist must provide alternative construction methods or preconstruction treatments to reduce impacts.
Root Disturbance Distance
No one can estimate and predict with absolute certainty what distance from a tree, a soil disturbance such as excavation for construction should be, to ensure it will not significantly affect tree stability or health. Or to what degree, (low, moderate or high), a tree might be impacted. There are simply too many variables involved that we cannot see or anticipate.
However, three times the D.B.H. (diameter at breast height), is a widely accepted minimum used in the industry for root disturbance, on one side of the trunk, and is supported by several research studies including (Smiley, Fraedich & Hendrickson 2002, Bartlett Tree Research Laboratories). This distance is often used during the design and planning phases of a project in order to estimate root loss due to construction activities. This distance is a guideline only and should be increased for trees with significant leans, decay or other structural problems.
The ISA, International Society of Arboriculture- Root Management (2017) publication recommends, “cutting roots at a distance greater than six times the trunk diameter (DBH) minimizes the likelihood of affecting both health and stability. This recommendation is given further direction by the companion publication, A.N.S.I. (American National Standard) A300 (Part 8)- 2013 Root Management, when roots are cut in a non-selective manner, i.e. in a straight line on one side of a tree. It says, if the cutting is “within six times the trunk diameter (DBH), mitigation shall be recommended”. Further, A.N.S.I. recommends the “minimum distance from the trunk for root cutting should be adjusted according to trunk diameter, species tolerance to root loss, tree age, health and site condition”.
In general, root cutting that occurs at a distance less than ten times the diameter of a tree should be undertaken by hand digging and hand (or Sawzall), root pruning. These methods help mitigate root loss impacts.
43.267
Tree Survey & Impact Assessment 4/30/2024
530, 542 & 548 Ocean Avenue, Santa Cruz Page 12
Construction Impacts to Heritage Trees
All Heritage trees within the project limits, including palm trees T3, queen palm, and T5 & T6, fan palm, will be in the building footprint and their removal will be necessary to accommodate the project.
The remaining Heritage trees surveyed grow on adjacent residential properties that front May Avenue. This includes tree T9 cypress, T11 incense cedar and T12, walnut. Construction impacts will affect both root loss and canopy loss for these trees. Impacts to the cypress and cedar will be high and impacts to the walnut will be moderate.
The proposed ground level setback is 1-foot 5 inches from the property line, and the adjacent lots containing Heritage trees T9, T11 & T12. Because the setback is 1-foot 5 inches from the property line, when excavation for the building foundation occurs, soil will be excavated at the property line.
Tree T9, a 16” cypress grows on the adjacent lot less than one foot from the property line, (Image #5). Excavation for the new building foundation will occur within the critical root zone of the tree, 1’ X 12” ÷ 16” trunk diameter = .75 X the trunk diameter. This linear cut across the dripline of one side of the tree exceeds the root loss tolerances for the cypress, and impacts would be high.
Several anchoring roots which stabilize the tree would be cut, increasing the risk of tree failure.
Image #5 – Heritage trees T9, T12 & T13, and distance to property line. Also shown is approximate canopy outline (green outline), that overhangs building envelope.
43.268
Tree Survey & Impact Assessment 4/30/2024
530, 542 & 548 Ocean Avenue, Santa Cruz Page 13
Construction Impacts to Heritage Trees, Continued:
Image #6 – Cypress trees T9, T10 & T11, and extent of canopy overhang on subject property.
The canopy outline of cypress tree T9 overhangs the project limits by an average of 12-feet, (Image #6), and I estimate approximately 35% to 40% of the trees live canopy would need to be pruned for new building clearance. Because of these impacts, I recommend removal of this tree.
To retain this tree, excavation across the tree dripline should not occur closer than 4 feet. At 4 feet, root losses, with mitigation, would be within the trees tolerance. At 4-feet I estimate 25-35% of the trees canopy would need to be pruned, and the cypress could tolerate this level of pruning. Cypress trees T10 and T11 are below protected size, but since they are on adjacent property and not owned by the applicant, it should be noted that impacts for these two trees would be equivalent to those discussed for cypress tree, T9.
Tree T10, a mature, 24” incense cedar grows on the adjacent lot approximately 2.5 feet from the property line, (Image #5). Excavation for the new building foundation will occur within the critical root zone of the tree, 2.5’ X 12” ÷ 24” trunk diameter = 1.25 X the trunk diameter. This linear cut across the dripline of one side of the tree exceeds the root loss tolerances for the cedar, and impacts would be high. Several anchoring roots which stabilize the tree would be cut, increasing the risk of tree failure. The cedar has a 10 - 15-degree trunk lean which further compromises it’s stability if anchoring roots are cut close to the trunk.
T11 T10 T9
43.269
Tree Survey & Impact Assessment 4/30/2024
530, 542 & 548 Ocean Avenue, Santa Cruz Page 14
Construction Impacts to Heritage Trees, Continued:
Image #7 – Trees T12, incense cedar, and T13, walnut, showing canopy overhang above subject property. An approximate amount of clearance pruning, (canopy removal cedar, red outline, and walnut, blue outline), that would be necessary to accommodate construction of the building is shown Because the cedar has a trunk lean towards the subject property, most of its branching structure over hangs the proposed building envelope, (Image #7). I estimate approximately 70 - 80% of the trees live canopy would need to be pruned for new building clearance. This species does not resprout on limbs that are stub cut. Since all growth is at the edges of the canopy on this tree, all clearance pruning cuts would leave stubs, and it is unlikely there would be any new regrowth after pruning. This amount of canopy loss would likely cause signinfcant decline, or tree mortality, as most of the trees energy reserves would be lost. Because of these impacts, I recommend removal of this tree.
For root loss impacts to be within tree T12 cedars tolerance, the building foundation would need to be a minimum of 6-feet from the tree. However, at 6-feet canopy losses would exceed the trees tolerance. Canopy loss is the limiting factor when estimating construction impacts for this tree, and it is difficult to estimate the minimum distance required between the cedar and the building. To retain this tree, I would estimate a range of 8-feet to 12-feet as the minimum distance between the cedar trunk and the building envelope.
43.270
Tree Survey & Impact Assessment 4/30/2024
530, 542 & 548 Ocean Avenue, Santa Cruz Page 15
Construction Impacts to Heritage Trees, Continued:
Tree T12 a, a mature, 30” walnut grows on the adjacent lot approximately 7.5 feet from the property line, (Image #5). Excavation for the new building foundation will occur within the critical root zone of the tree: 7.5’ X 12” ÷ 30” trunk diameter = 3 X the trunk diameter. With mitigation the walnut would suffer moderate root loss which it can tolerate, and the tree will need tree protection treatments to reduce root loss impacts. I estimate 15 - 20% of the trees live canopy would need to be pruned for new building clearance. This amount of canopy loss is within the trees tolerance.
Impact Level – Heritage Trees
Impact level rates the degree a tree may be impacted by construction activity and is primarily determined by how close the construction procedures occur to the tree. Construction impacts are rated as low, moderate, and high. The quantity of trees assigned for each category (low, moderate, high), is indicated below:
Impact Rating
Low - 0
Moderate – 1
High - 5
Mitigation Measures for Retained Trees
The trees retained on this project will require some or all of the following methods to protect them from the impacts described above and to minimize root loss during the construction phases.
Tree Protection Fencing
Hand trenching.
Supervised root pruning.
Applicant Requirements
1) After revisions are made to the preliminary plan set, A Tree Protection Plan will be required and shall be included with the final plan set. 2) A final inspection of the completed project by the Project Arborist is highly recommended. The inspection shall occur prior to removal of tree protection fencing and after all replacement trees have been installed.
Note: Any tree on site protected by the City Code will require replacement if it is damaged beyond repair as a result of construction activities.
43.271
Tree Survey & Impact Assessment 4/30/2024
530, 542 & 548 Ocean Avenue, Santa Cruz Page 16
Tree Removal- Heritage Trees
Table 3 – Tree Disposition Categories – Heritage Trees
Tree Disposition Categories – Heritage Trees
R.I. – Remove due to construction impacts 5
R.C. – Remove due to condition (poor condition) 0
R.D. - Remove due to damage to structure 0
R.T., I.M. - Retain tree. Preservable, low or moderate impacts that can be mitigated.
1 Heritage Tree Removal and Replacement Trees
This report is a preliminary evaluation of construction impacts to trees. The final disposition of the Heritage trees will be determined after planning department review. If the tree removal recommendations in this report are approved, five Heritage trees will be removed. The trees recommended for removal include trees, T3 queen palm, T5 and T6, fan palm, T9 Leland cypress and T12, incense cedar. The trees most closely meet City of Santa Cruz Criterion 3:
“A Construction project design cannot be altered to accommodate existing heritage trees or shrubs”.
A Tree Permit Application will be required and if approved the applicant must fulfill a mitigation requirement:
Tree Replanting Requirement for each tree permitted for removal:
A) Replanting three (3) fifteen gallon (15 gallon), or
B) one twenty-four-inch (24”) box specimen tree
Applicants may elect to place a refundable $250.00 bond, (per tree), with the Parks and Recreation Department and replant their own tree(s); OR • Applicants may elect to pay an in-lieu fee to the tree trust fund of $1,859 per tree for off-site mitigation. (Contributions to the Tree Trust Fund are used to purchase street trees, trees for projects, etc.)
• If the $250.00 refundable bond is placed and the tree(s) are replanted, permittee must contact the City Urban Forester, 831-420-5246 after 3 months of establishment to have the $250.00 bond returned. Once the permit is issued there is a 10-day appeal period as required by ordinance before the permit becomes effective.
• If no appeal is filed, the permit is valid for 45 days. Aggrieved parties wishing to appeal the approval of a tree permit may submit a tree appeal application and $100 fee to the Parks and Recreation Department.
Applicants shall submit written statements or landscape plans to describe how they will fulfill the replacement tree requirements. The submissions shall include: (a) the replacement tree species, (b) the container size, (c) the planting location, and (d) an in-lieu fee payment, if applicable.
Replacement trees shall receive supplemental irrigation for a period of two years or until established. Install a 2-4-inch layer of wood chip mulch around the tree dripline of new trees, and all established trees. Keep mulch away from the trunk of newly planted trees. Keep mulch a minimum of 2-feet from the trunk of established tree.
43.272
Tree Survey & Impact Assessment 4/30/2024
530, 542 & 548 Ocean Avenue, Santa Cruz Page 17
Certificate of Performance
I, Kurt Fouts, certify:
That I have personally inspected the tree(s) and/or the property referred to in this report and have stated my findings accurately to the best of my professional judgement. That I have no current interest in the vegetation or the property that is the subject of this report, and I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved. That the analysis, opinions and conclusions stated herein are my own, and were developed and prepared according to commonly accepted arboricultural practices. That my compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined conclusion that favors the cause of the client or any other party, nor upon the results of the assessment, the attainment of stipulated results, or the occurrence of any subsequent events.
That my analysis, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared according to commonly accepted arboricultural practices. That no one provided significant professional assistance to the consultant, except as indicated within the report.
I further certify that I am an International Society of Arboriculture Certified Arborist and carry an International Society of Arboriculture Tree Risk Assessment Qualification. I have been involved in the practice of arboriculture and the care and study of trees for more than 20 years.
Signed:________________________ Date: ______________________ 4/30/2024
43.273
Tree Survey & Impact Assessment 4/30/2024
530, 542 & 548 Ocean Avenue, Santa Cruz Page 18
CONCLUSION
A six story multi-family apartment building is proposed at 530, 542 and 548 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz. I surveyed six Heritage trees on the property, or with canopies that overhang the subject property. A Heritage tree is protected as defined by the City of Santa Cruz Ordinance.
The Heritage trees are in good or fair condition and are suitable for incorporation into the project.
One Heritage tree, T13, walnut, will have moderate construction impacts, can be incorporated into the project, and will require mitigation methods to reduce construction impacts.
Five Heritage trees including T3, queen palm, T5 and T6, fan palm, T9, Layland cypress, and T12, incense cedar, are in direct conflict with the project and their removal will be necessary to accommodate construction of the building. This report assesses anticipated impacts to affected trees and is based on a preliminary site plan. Depending on revisions to the preliminary site plan, impacts to trees may change and will require reassessment. Once the final plan set is completed, a Tree Protection Plan will be required and shall be included with the final plan set.
The Tree Assessment Chart, Appendix A is the condensed reference guide to inform all tree management decisions for the trees evaluated.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Obtain all necessary permits prior to removing or significantly altering any trees on site.
2. If the owners of trees on the adjacent lots agree to remove highly impacted trees, consider using the appraised value of the offsite trees as compensation.
Respectfully submitted,
Kurt Fouts ISA Certified Arborist WE0681
ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualification (TRAQ)
43.274
Tree # Species
Trunk
Diameter
@ 54
inches
a.g.
Heritage
Tree
Crown
Height &
Spread
(diameter)
Health
Rating
Structural
Rating Age
Suitability for
Preservation
(Based Upon
Condition &
Species)
Tree
Protection
Zone (in
radius feet)
Construction
Impacts (Rating
& Description)
Retention
or Removal
Code
Comments
T1 evergreen pear
(Pyrus kawakamii ) 13.75 No 35'X35' Fair Fair
Semimature
Fair 15' High (In building
footprint) R.I. Strong trunk bow. Surface roots are lifting parking curb.
T2 glossy privet
(Ligustrum lucidum ) 6" No 10'X10' Good Fair
Semimature
Good 10' High (In building
footprint) R.I.