Executive Summary
Introduction
This Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) has been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 United States Code (USC) §§ 4321-4347 (1994); the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ ) regulations implementing NEPA, 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 1500-1508; the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) NEPA Guidelines (33 CFR Part 230); the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 as amended, California Public Resources Code (Cal. Pub. Res. Code) §§ 21000-21178.1, and implementing guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, §§ 15000-15387 (1999).
The County of Santa Cruz Redevelopment Agency is the project sponsor, and agency funds would be used to construct the project. The Santa Cruz County Planning Department is the CEQA lead agency and responsible for overseeing preparation of the EIS/EIR. In order for the project to be approved and funded, the Corps must affirm that the project is permitted under the Clean Water Act and the Rivers and Harbors Act; this requirement makes the Corps the NEPA lead agency for the project. This joint EIS/EIR evaluates the impacts on the environment that could result from the proposed East Cliff Drive Bluff Protection and Parkway Project. The proposed activity is located midway between the cities of Santa Cruz and Capitola in Santa Cruz County, California, which is approximately 75 miles south of San Francisco, on the north shore of Monterey Bay (Figure 1-1) .
This proposal is unique in that it is composed of three separate but related projects. The proposed activity involves three separate construction projects that would be constructed and funded individually over approximately two years. Because the three projects are in close proximity to each other, the potential environmental impacts associated with each of the construction projects are addressed in this EIS/EIR.
The three construction projects that form the East Cliff Drive Bluff Protection and Parkway Project and that are analyzed in this EIS/EIR would be constructed in order and are referred to in this document as:
- Project 1—Construction of the main bluff protection structure between 33 rd and 36 th Avenues;
- Project 2—Parkway construction and improvements; and
- Project 3—Construction of The Hook bluff protection structure.
Top | Back to TOC
Purpose and Need (Chapter 1)
The purposes of the projects are: to increase the longevity of the public right-of-way ; to protect the road and utilities from coastal bluff erosion; and to improve and enhance public access to the coast by constructing a parkway for pedestrians and cyclists. The public right-of-way includes the road ( East Cliff Drive ), parking areas, pedestrian/bicycle path, coastal access stairways, public utilities , and park areas.
The potential loss of East Cliff Drive has been a concern for many years, and in the 1990s it became clear that continued failures would undermine the road, utilities , and public access to the coast. In 1994, the Corps completed a draft study, concluding that stabilizing and protecting the bluffs along East Cliff Drive was critically needed. A more recent threat analysis, conducted by Sanders & Associates Geostructural Engineering, Inc. in 2005, indicates that approximately 65 percent of East Cliff Drive between 33 rd and 36 th avenues is currently failing (13 percent) or may be unsafe to use within the next few years (52 percent).
The parkway component of the project (Project 2), which includes the park area, paths, restrooms, stairways, and beach and road improvements, helps to implement the California Coastal Act , Section 30001.5, which declares that one of the basic goals of the state for the coastal zone is to:
“Maximize public access to and along the coast and maximize public recreational opportunities in the coastal zone consistent with sound resources conservation principles and constitutionally protected rights of private property owners” (California Coastal Commission 2001).
The parkway component of the project would also help implement the Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail system, which is envisioned to provide a multi-use recreational and alternate transportation trail system along Monterey Bay . The parkway project would contribute to the trail by constructing a bicycle and pedestrian path and other public access amenities along East Cliff Drive , between 32 nd and 41st avenues. The vision is that, over time, such trail segments can be connected into a continuous regional trail system.
Additional benefits that have been identified through public input include the following:
- Make walking safer, especially along East Cliff Drive ;
- Retain one-way eastbound vehicle access through the area to allow enjoyment by the community;
- Reduce unnecessary drive-through traffic, and where it is necessary to divert traffic within the neighborhood, spread it throughout the area, rather than concentrating it along one street; and
- Shift traffic away from the cliff edge to slow down the rate of cliff retreat.
Top | Back to TOC
Project History
The East Cliff Drive Bluff Protection Project was initially designed as a project co-funded by Santa Cruz County and the US Army Corps, with the County and the Corps holding discrete authority over separate elements of the project. Under this structure, the project was announced to the public and a draft EIS/EIR was released to the public on March 21, 2003. A public meeting was held on April 30, 2003, public comments were received, and the County and the Corps revised the EIS/EIR and distributed the final EIS/EIR in October 2003.
Project construction depends upon the approval of the California Coastal Commission (Commission), which has authority granted under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) to manage development within the coastal corridor. Before a project can move forward, the Commission must find it consistent with the California Coastal Management Program (CCMP). Commission staff participated in regulatory review of the draft EIS/EIR and provided extensive comments, which were replied to in the final EIS/EIR. However the Commission was not satisfied with the changes made to the project and, at its hearing on November 7, 2003, found the project inconsistent with the CCMP.
At this stage, the County Redevelopment Agency is the sole project sponsor; however the Corps remains involved as a regulatory agency with jurisdiction over the project, similar to the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS). It is this federal regulatory involvement that requires NEPA documentation for the project.
In the period since January 2004, the bluff along East Cliff Drive has continued to fail. As a result, the County undertook emergency stabilization efforts in order to protect the right-of-way and public safety. These stabilization efforts consisted of three sections of soil nail wall, totaling 290 linear feet, between 32 nd and 35 th avenues. The work was conducted over a period of three months during July, August and September of 2004, using the same techniques and best management practices (BMPs) described in the project description in Section 2. The soil nail walls built as part of the emergency stabilization effort differ from the proposed projects in that only the top section of the wall was constructed, protecting only the terrace deposits above the Purisima Formation, and not the Purisima itself.
This Revised Draft EIS/EIR is designed to take into account the changes in the project area since the final EIS/EIR was distributed, and address and resolve the concerns of the public and the Commission about the original project.
Top | Back to TOC
Public Involvement Process
Public involvement is a key part of the EIS/EIR process. Since 1995, the County of Santa Cruz has met with the public on many occasions to discuss the issues relating to the cliff erosion and failure of portions of East Cliff Drive . In addition to the community meetings, the County has issued “East Cliff Drive Update” newsletters (Santa Cruz County 1995a, 1995b, 1995c, 1996, 1997) to keep the public informed, to announce community meetings, and to receive input from the public on the long-range planning for this area.
As part of this EIS/EIR process, methods to involve the public have included or will include the following:
- Publishing notices of public meetings in newspapers with wide circulation and encouraging written comments.
- Advertising a notice of intent (NOI ) under NEPA. For this document, the NOI was published in the Federal Register on Friday March 30, 2001, Vol. 66, No. 62 (Appendix B). The NOI also was sent to the California State Clearinghouse for distribution to state agencies. The purpose of the NOI is to notify the public that an EIS will be prepared (40 CFR § 1508.22). The County of Santa Cruz issued the notice of preparation (NOP ) on January 29, 2001. Under CEQA, the purpose of the NOP is to notify the responsible, trustee, and involved agencies and the public that an EIR will be prepared. The NOP also solicited guidance from these agencies as to the scope and content of the environmental information to be included in the EIR (CEQA Guidelines § 15375).
- Sending scoping letters and project information to approximately 2,000 public agencies, public interest groups, and individuals.
- Holding public meetings to gather input from members of the local community and to discuss their concerns. Before submittal of the Coastal Zone and Grading Permit application, the County held a community meeting on December 12, 2000, where discussion included design elements, environmental concerns, and the next step in the planning process. This meeting was followed by a public scoping meeting, conducted by both the Santa Cruz County Redevelopment Agency and the US Army Corps of Engineers, on April 12, 2001. This meeting fulfills the NEPA requirement to receive input from the public on the scope of the project, including the scope of the issues to be addressed (40 CFR § 1501.7). The scope consists of the range of actions, alternatives, and impacts to be considered in the EIS (40 CFR § 1508.25).
- Creating and maintaining a mailing list to disseminate information about the decision-making process.
- Holding community meetings to discuss and present the analyses, conclusions, and recommendations of the revised draft EIS/EIR.
Public Review
The draft EIS/EIR was released on March 21, 2003, and the public review period ended on May 12, 2003. Comments received during the public review period were addressed in the final EIS/EIR, distributed in October 2003.
Draft EIS/EIR
As required under NEPA, the Corps' notice of availability for the draft EIS/EIR was published in the Federal Register by the EPA on March 28, 2003. The NOA was also published in the local press and public notices were mailed to those on the mailing list, and the County of Santa Cruz filed a Notice of Completion (NOC) (required under CEQA) with the State Office of Planning and Research and the County Clerk . The public was invited to review and comment on the draft EIS/EIR during the public comment period from March 21 to May 12, 2003. The draft EIS/EIR was available for review on the County Planning Department website, as well as in the County Planning Department office and local library branches. During the public review period, written comment letters were received from five agencies, eight environmental organizations, and fifty-seven individuals. The County held a public forum to discuss the project on April 7, 2003, and the Corps held a public meeting to discuss the project on April 30, 2003. Twenty-two individuals presented comments at the public meeting.
Copies of the Corps and the County's notices of availability for the draft EIS/EIR are reproduced in Appendix B, Public Involvement, along with the transcript of the public meeting hosted by the Corps on April 30, 2003.
Final EIS/EIR
The 2003 final EIS/EIR incorporated and responded to comments on the draft EIS/EIR and was published and made available for review. An NOA of the final EIS/EIR was published in the Federal Register and in the local press, and a public notice was mailed to all individuals, agencies, and organizations who commented on the draft EIS/EIR or who had requested to be notified.
Ordinarily, there would a 30-day no action period under NEPA following distribution of the final EIS/EIR, during which the public could comment. At the end of this period, the federal agency would sign a record of decision (ROD), detailing its decisions about the project, and the County would present the final EIS/EIR to first the County Planning Commission and then the County Board of Supervisors for certification. However, because the CCC failed to find the project consistent with the LCP, no ROD was signed and the final EIS/EIR was not certified.
Revised Draft EIS/EIR
This Draft EIS/EIR will be noticed and distributed in compliance with CEQA requirements. Because the County Redevelopment Agency is now the sole project sponsor, the Corps' authorization for the bluff protection structure is limited to approving it under Nationwide Permit #13. NEPA requirements have already been satisfied through the Corps' approval of the Nationwide Permit. Additionally, the County will hold a public open house and receive public and agency comments on the project and the Revised Draft EIS/EIR. Written comments on the revised draft will be responded to in the Revised Final EIS/EIR.
Top | Back to TOC
Proposed Projects and Alternatives Considered (Chapter 2)
The three projects forming the East Cliff Drive Bluff Protection and Parkway Project would be constructed in order and would include the following features:
Project 1 (Main Bluff Protection Structure)
- Constructing an engineered bluff protection structure from 33 rd Avenue to 36 th Avenue ;
- Constructing both new and replacement beach access stairways (one at Pleasure Point Park and one at 35 th Avenue );
- Demolishing an abandoned restroom, and
- Removing concrete rubble and rock riprap. (Riprap is a protective layer of rock placed to prevent erosion of a bluff.)
Project 2 (Parkway Improvements)
- Constructing road improvements (new curb along southern edge), installing drainage structures, making pedestrian and multi-use path improvements, and making landscape improvements and installing railings as needed - from 32 nd Avenue to 41 st Avenue;
- Constructing a retaining wall near 38 th Avenue ; and
- Constructing a new restroom, developing a park site (to be referred to as Pleasure Point Park throughout this document), landscaping, and improving drainage.
Project 3 (The Hook Bluff Protection Structure)
- Constructing a second engineered bluff protection structure near the end of 41 st Avenue at The Hook ; and
- Removing, repairing, and replacing wooden stairway near 41 st Avenue.
This EIS/EIR covers the construction of all three projects by the Santa Cruz County Redevelopment Agency. The County of Santa Clara must first certify the EIR for these projects, which will also require a number of different permits and approvals from various local, state, and federal agencies. The bluff stabilization projects would require different permits than the parkway and upper bluff portions of the work. A summary is included here and in tables ES-3 and 2-5.
Project 1 (the bluff protection structure between 33 rd and 36 th avenues), because it involves construction below the high-water mark, triggers the Corps' Clean Water Act Section 404 jurisdiction; however the Corps has confirmed that it falls within Nationwide Permit Number 13 and therefore no other regulatory requirements are triggered. Project 3 (the construction at The Hook) would not trigger Corps regulatory requirements. Both bluff protection structures would, in addition, require that various federal agencies be consulted, that a special use permit be obtained from the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, and that the State Lands Commission issue a permit. Additionally, the California Coastal Commission would need to issue a Coastal Zone Development Permit for the bluff protection structures.
Project 2 (roadway, parkway, and park improvements) would require the County of Santa Cruz to issue a Coastal Zone Development Permit, to approve the Master Site Plan for Pleasure Point Park, and to issue a Grading Permit. Construction may also require permits or approvals from the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD) and the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (CCRWQCB).
Top | Back to TOC
No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative serves as a basis for comparing the other alternatives. Under this alternative, the project would not be built. Theoretically, this means that the current erosion and damage to the road section would continue, causing road closure and utility damage over time (Corps 2003). Historical rates of bluff erosion at the project site have been calculated as high as eight to twelve inches per year. However, bluff erosion does not occur at a regular rate, and individual occurrences can involve the loss of as much as six to nine feet in one episodic failure. In order to identify the risk of this kind of episodic failure, the County commissioned a threat assessment report in 2005. Sanders and Associates Geostructural Engineering, Inc. (SAGE) conducted an evaluation of the bluff at East Cliff Drive; their results indicate that roughly 65 percent of the roadway between 33 rd and 36th avenues is currently failing or in danger of immediate failure (SAGE 2005a). In addition, a SAGE slope stability analysis indicates that bluff failures from about 10 to 30 feet (3 to 9 m) could occur under static conditions or seismic loading (SAGE 2005b).
Based on this pattern of failure, as described in the SAGE report, it is clear that the No Action Alternative could result in the loss of significant portions of the roadway within the next two or three storm cycles. Loss of as little as ten feet of the bluff face could cause substantial disruption of motorized and pedestrian use of East Cliff Drive, even if the roadway were somehow to remain open. Additionally, utilities underneath East Cliff Drive would be affected very rapidly by bluff collapse.
Realistically, under this alternative, the County would continue to construct emergency bluff protection structures, where feasible, in response to future bluff failures and when public safety is threatened. However the County's efforts are unlikely to prevent erosion of the bluff, particularly where large volumes of the bluff face collapse unpredictably as a result of storms or seismic shaking.
Top | Back to TOC
Alternative 1: Full Bluff Armoring (Preferred Alternative)
Under Alternative 1, two segments of the cliff face adjacent to East Cliff Drive would be fully armored with an engineered (soil nail and shotcrete ) bluff protection structure: an 1,100-linear-foot segment, between 33 rd and 36 th avenues (Project 1), and a 300-foot segment at the end of 41 st Avenue (The Hook [Project 3] ). The bluff protection structure proposed is referred to as a soil nail wall. This soil nail wall would be supplemented with mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) retaining walls on an as needed basis in areas where the terrace deposits have failed. These walls would support build-out areas needed for parkway development. Any MSE walls used in this alternative would be subsequently covered by the soil nail wall components.
Under Project 2, the travel lane on East Cliff Drive would be reconfigured to provide a 16-foot one-way vehicle lane, curb and gutter, additional parking spaces, and separate eight-foot bicycle and eight-foot pedestrian paths.
The two proposed bluff protection structures would be designed to protect the slope and to look natural. The proposed structures would be sculpted and stained to match the existing soils and rock layers and would follow closely or hug the natural cliff face.
Soil Nail Construction
The bluff protection structures design includes a series of horizontal metal tieback rods inserted into the vertical face of the terrace deposits (the upper 15 feet of the bluff) and the underlying Purisima Formation. The base of the soil nail structures would be founded in a formed concrete footing set three feet into the bedrock, with an apron extending four feet beyond the face of the wall. Excavation of the bedrock would be required to properly prepare for the footing and apron. The footing would extend downward to approximately –3 feet NGVD (National Geographic Vertical Datum). The tieback rods (grouted steel rebars) would be fastened at the bluff face to a wire mesh grid or other reinforcing material and covered with two layers of sprayed-on concrete. The first layer (10 to 12 inches) would be the structural component covering all the steel tiebacks and reinforcing the second layer. This second layer (6 to 12 inches) would be the sculptural element, and would be shaped and colored to replicate the natural appearance of the bluffs.
Mechanically Stabilized Earth
MSE walls (like those that would be used on the bluffs along East Cliff Drive) are constructed with reinforced soil. Reinforcing elements such as steel strips, steel or polymeric grids, or geotextile sheets are placed in the soil to improve resistance. Improved resistance reinforces and strengthens the soil significantly and allows very steep slopes or even vertical walls to be constructed without support from a massive structural system at the face of the slope.
The principal purpose for using MSE is to construct an embankment, or wall at an angle steeper than could otherwise be safely constructed with plain soil. The increase in stability allows for construction of steeper slopes on firm foundations for such features as new highways and as replacements for flatter un-reinforced slopes and retaining walls .
Additionally, using MSE at the edges of a compacted fill slope provides lateral resistance during compaction. The increased resistance increases soil density and provides increased confinement for the soil at the face. Even modest amounts of reinforcement in compacted slopes have been found to prevent sloughing and reduce slope erosion.
Stairs and Abandoned Restroom (Projects 1 and 3)
Access to the beach and surf area is a major concern, as expressed through public comments. The three existing stairways in the project area would be either replaced or repaired and a new stairway would be built. The abandoned restroom would be demolished and a new restroom built at Pleasure Point Park. Table ES-1 below outlines how and which stairways would be affected.
Removal of Existing Concrete Rubble and Riprap (Project 1)
The County has proposed removing approximately 4,000 to 6,000 cubic yards of concrete rubble from the beach . This would make more beach area available to the public and improve aesthetics. If possible, the rubble would be ground down (at another off site location) into smaller sizes and reused. If this is not possible, the rubble would be disposed of at the County landfill. The rock riprap in areas where the proposed protection structures would be erected would be either removed or relocated to the proposed stairways for protection during large storms. The riprap in the vicinity of the stairs at The Hook would remain as a protective armoring to the stair supports.
Table ES- 1
Stairway Locations
Stairway
Reference Number |
Location |
Stairway Conditions |
Stairway Material |
Stairway #1 |
33rd Avenue (Pleasure Point Park) |
New stairway to be constructed. |
Concrete (for Alternative 1);
wood (for Alternatives 2, 3 and 4) |
Stairway #2 |
35th Avenue, near the abandoned restroom |
Stairway to be demolished and rebuilt a block from current location, near 36th Avenue. |
Concrete (for Alternative 1);
wood (for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4) |
Stairway #3 |
38th Avenue |
Stairway to remain in place, unaffected by project. |
Wood |
Stairway #4 |
41st Avenue (The Hook) |
Stairway to be temporarily removed, repaired, and reinstalled. |
Wood |
Any riprap or other armoring located along portions of the project area in front of private parcels where no protection structure is proposed would remain.
Road Improvements (Projects 2 and 3)
East Cliff Drive would be configured as a single, 16-foot-wide (5-meter-wide) lane, with one-way travel in the eastbound direction from 32 nd Avenue to 41 st Avenue, similar to the existing alignment. Pedestrian and bicycle paths would be constructed and additional public parking would be added. A rolled curb (a curb with a curved top that can be driven over by vehicles) between the roadway and the paved path would allow emergency use and would meet state standards for fire access. It would also control surface drainage (see below). Traffic guardrails would be removed and a new pedestrian guardrail would be installed in some locations. Some roadside signs would be required, but there would be no overall increase in signage along the proposed project site. At each of the intersections, cross walks and access ramps through the rolled curb would be installed. The width of the road in these areas would be widened to accommodate left turn requirements onto East Cliff Drive.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements (Projects 2 and 3)
Pedestrian and bicycle paths would be constructed on the south (ocean) side of East Cliff Drive. The pedestrian path would be eight feet wide, constructed of decomposed crushed granite (approximately two to three inches deep). The bicycle path would be eight feet wide, constructed of asphalt, and would be between the pedestrian path and the car lane. The bicycle path would be separated from the car lane by a rolled curb and elevated six inches above the car lane. Where sufficient width is available, a landscaped buffer, composed of coastal vegetation, would be installed along the pedestrian and bicycle paths. Additionally, crosswalks would be installed on East Cliff Drive at 34 th , 35 th , 36 th , 37 th , and 38 th avenues and at the parking lot at 41 st Avenue.
Parking Improvements (Project 2)
Existing parking spaces would be relocated and reconfigured, and new parking would be added, resulting in a net gain of 10 new parking spaces, for a total of 37 on-street public parking spaces.
Park Development (Project 2)
Pleasure Point Park is a viewing area for the beach and the surf and is heavily used by surfers as an access point to the beach below. Proposed improvements to the park include the construction of a small restroom with an outdoor shower, landscaping, and outdoor seating and picnic tables. This would also be the location of a new beach access stairway (see Table ES-1).
Storm Drainage (Projects 2 and 3)
The park site and the road and roadside sections would be designed to drain away from the top of the bluff into new catch basins. New catch basins would be equipped with improved infiltration and water quality mechanisms, as per best management practices. The project would require capping and replacing several old storm drain outfalls, whose pipes protrude near the top of the bluff. All the new storm drain lines are designed to be embedded in the bluff and would release water at the base of the cliff through the bluff protection structures. These drains would discharge water over an energy dissipater in the base of the bluff structure to prevent erosion and to minimize turbidity. The outfall pipes would also be partially covered by the bluff and would be designed to blend with the surrounding bluff structure.
Top | Back to TOC
Alternative 2: Partial Bluff Armoring with Full Parkway Improvements
Like Alternative 1, this alternative would also incorporate the construction of two soil nail bluff protection structures. But under this alternative, only the Purisima Formation (the bottom portion) of the bluffs would be armored, with the exception of washout areas. Only in the existing washout areas would the bluff armoring extend to the terrace deposits to support build-out areas for parkway development. This alternative also would incorporate MSE retaining walls with shotcrete and would be constructed as needed to retain terrace deposits and support the build-out areas. Repairs to existing retaining walls would be made on an as-needed basis. All other features of the projects, such as the parkway development and road improvements, would be the same as those described for Alternative 1.
Top | Back to TOC
Alternative 3: Partial Bluff Armoring with Limited Parkway Improvements
As with Alternative 2, this alternative would partially armor the bluffs (Purisima Formation only) to protect them from erosion. This alternative differs from Alternative 2 in that no new retaining walls would be constructed and no repairs to existing retaining walls located within the terrace deposit zone of the bluff would be made. Because there would be no measures taken to protect the terrace deposits from further erosion, only one multi-use path (a minimum of eight feet in width), for both pedestrian and bicycle use would be constructed. As described for Alternative 2, after the abandoned restrooms are demolished, the affected upper bluff may require stabilization or rebuilding, depending on its condition after demolition. Most other features of the projects, such as parkway improvements (landscaping and signage) and road improvements (parking , crosswalks, and drainage) would be the same as those described for Alternative 2.
Top | Back to TOC
Alternative 4: Groins and Notch Infilling
This alternative would not armor the bluffs but instead would use other means to protect the bluffs from erosion. Under this alternative, no retaining walls would be constructed, therefore no build-out would occur near the terrace deposits. As a result, only one multi-use path, with a minimum width of eight feet (depending on the amount of setback available) would be constructed. General parkway improvements would be made under this alternative, such as landscaping along East Cliff Drive and developing Pleasure Point Park, similar to Alternative 3.
Implementation of this alternative would involve the infilling of wave-cut notches at the base of the bluffs (between 33 rd and 36 th avenues) with concrete. Also included under this alternative would be the construction of several groins at strategic locations perpendicular to the shore. Groins are relatively short, shore-perpendicular structures that can be constructed of rock, concrete, or other materials and that stabilize a beach or that trap sand to form a protective beach. The groins would be designed to trap sand carried south by the long shore current and to create beaches along the 33 rd to 36 th avenue area.
Table ES-2 shows a comparison of the major features of each alternative.
Table ES- 2
Summary of Project Alternatives
|
Project Feature |
Alternative 1—Full Bluff Armoring |
Alternative 2—Partial Bluff Armoring with Full Parkway Improvements |
Alternative 3—Partial Bluff Armoring with Limited Parkway Improvements |
Alternative 4—
Groins and Notch Infilling |
No Action Alternative
|
Bluff Protection (in addition to emergency cribwall repairs conducted in 2004) |
Install two bluff protection structures: 1,100- foot (335-m) segment covering Purisima and 810-foot segment covering terrace between 33rd and 36th Avenues, and 300-foot (91-meter) segment at the downcoast end.
Armor the entire bluff face, including both the Purisima and terrace deposits.
Install MSE reinforcement where needed to retain terrace deposits and support buildouts for parkway development.
Fill existing undercut notches in Purisima with shotcrete. |
Two bluff protection structures, same location and length as Alternative 1.
Armor Purisima bedrock along entire area and armor the terrace deposits at the bluff top and over failing cribwalls in two washout areas.
Install MSE reinforcement, same as Alternative 1.
Fill existing undercut notches in Purisima with shotcrete. |
Two bluff protection structures, same location and length as Alternative 1.
Armoring Purisima bedrock only.
No MSE reinforcement.
Fill existing undercut notches in Purisima with shotcrete. |
No protection structures constructed on the bluff.
Three subtidal groins (between 33rd and 36th Avenues) approximately 100 feet (30 meters) long and perpendicular to shore to trap sand and form protective beaches.
No groins would be constructed at The Hook.
Fill existing undercut notches in Purisima with shotcrete .
|
No additional planned bluff protection. (Note: emergency repairs would be constructed in future, where feasible, in response to bluff failures and to assure public safety.) |
Cribwalls |
Cover one remaining cribwall by new bluff protection structure.
New retaining wall near Manzanita and 38th Avenues would not be covered by proposed bluff protection structure. |
Same as Alternative 1.
New retaining wall near Manzanita and 38th Avenues would not be covered by proposed bluff protection structure.
No new retaining walls are planned. New walls may have to be built on an emergency basis in response to future bluff failures. |
One remaining cribwall would be covered by the bluff protection structure.
New retaining wall near Manzanita and 38th Avenues would not be covered by proposed bluff protection structure.
No new retaining walls planned. New walls may have to be built on an emergency basis in response to future bluff failures.
|
One remaining cribwall and soil nail walls would remain in place.
New retaining wall near Manzanita and 38th Avenues would not be covered by proposed bluff protection structure.
Same as Alternative 3.
No new retaining walls planned. New walls may have to be built on an emergency basis in response to future bluff failures.
Same as Alternative 3. |
One remaining cribwall and soil nail walls would remain in place.
New retaining wall near Manzanita and 38th Avenues would not be covered by proposed bluff protection structure.
Same as Alternative 3. |
Beach access |
Construct one stairway, retain one stairway, and replace two stairways. |
Same as Alternative 1, but with concrete piers or caissons as support. |
Same as Alternative 1, but with concrete piers or caissons as support. |
Construct one stairway and retain three stairways, with concrete piers or caissons as support.
|
Retain and maintain three existing stairways. |
Abandoned restrooms |
Demolish abandoned restrooms.
Construct a replacement restroom and outdoor shower at Pleasure Point Park . Remove and dispose of all concrete rubble from project area.
|
Demolish abandoned restrooms.
Construct a replacement restroom and outdoor shower at Pleasure Point Park. Remove and dispose of all concrete rubble from project area.
|
Demolish abandoned restrooms.
Upon demolition, affected bluff may require stabilization or rebuilding, depending on condition.
Construct a replacement restroom and outdoor shower at Pleasure Point Park. Remove and dispose of all concrete rubble from project area.
|
Retain restroom structure as is (closed).
Construct a replacement restroom and outdoor shower at Pleasure Point Park. Remove and dispose of all concrete rubble from project area.
|
Retain restroom structure as is (closed).
|
Riprap/concrete rubble on beach |
Either remove rock riprap in areas of proposed protection structures or relocate it to where the structure terminates, near the O'Neill property; riprap may be used to protect the stairway at The Hook. |
Riprap used to protect stairways and endwalls. |
Use riprap to protect stairways and endwalls. |
Use riprap to protect stairways.
Some of the existing rock riprap could also be used in the construction of the groins .
|
Riprap and concrete rubble to remain on the beach.
|
Road improvements |
Road to remain single-lane, one-way (eastbound).
Narrow and improve road with a curb and gutter. |
Road to remain single-lane, one-way (eastbound)
, subject to competence of terrace deposits.
Road expected to narrow over time as bluff fails.
Bluff failures would be repaired based on feasibility evaluation.
|
Road improvements similar to Alternative 1, except where existing right of way width is insufficient.
Bluff expected to continue to fail, eventually requiring road closure.
|
Road improvements similar to Alternative 1, except where existing right-of-way width is insufficient.
Bluff expected to continue to fail, eventually requiring road closure. |
No road improvements.
Bluff expected to continue to fail, eventually requiring road closure. |
Utilities
(lines to be upgraded as necessary prior to construction)
|
Cap potable and sanitary sewer lines at abandoned restroom at mains along East Cliff Drive.
No changes to electrical, gas, sanitary sewer, or water lines under and along East
Cliff Drive.
|
Cap potable and sanitary sewer lines at abandoned restroom at mains along East Cliff Drive.
Bluff expected to continue to fail, eventually requiring relocation of utilities. |
Cap potable and sanitary sewer lines at abandoned restroom at mains along East Cliff Drive.
Bluff expected to continue to fail, eventually requiring relocation of utilities. |
Cap potable and sanitary sewer lines at abandoned restroom at mains along East Cliff Drive.
Bluff expected to continue to fail, eventually requiring relocation of utilities. |
No changes or improvements to existing utilities .
Bluff expected to continue to fail, eventually requiring relocation of utilities. |
Bicycle and pedestrian paths |
Create separate pedestrian and bicycle paths (each eight feet [2.4 meters] wide, where feasible), one of asphalt and one of crushed granite.
|
Same as Alternative 1. |
One multiuse path (minimum eight-foot [2.4-meter] width) would be constructed, its width depending on the amount of setback available. |
Same as Alternative 3. |
Existing asphalt multiuse path to be maintained, pending irreparable bluff failure. |
Park development |
Develop Pleasure Point Park.
Construct small restroom, install landscaping, picnic areas, and Monterey Bay Marine Sanctuary Trail interpretive exhibit.
|
Same as Alternative 1. |
Same as Alternative 1. |
Same as Alternative 1.
|
Park to be retained in present condition, with future park development subject to funding.
|
Landscape improvements |
Landscape shrubs and trees along path, with benches for viewing. |
Same as Alternative 1. |
Same as Alternative 1. |
Same as Alternative 1.
|
No new landscaping. |
Railings
|
Fencing with wooden posts and metal railings measuring 42 inches (107 centimeters) high to be installed along a portion of the ocean side of the parkway where needed for pedestrian safety.
Where sufficient setback is available, use wooden split-rail fence instead of railing. |
Same as Alternative 1. |
Same as Alternative 1. |
Same as Alternative 1. |
No new railings except as needed in the future for public safety.
Existing fences and guardrails retained. |
Parking |
Create 10 new parking spaces, in addition to the existing spaces, for a total of 37 spaces.
|
Same as Alternative 1, subject to continued bluff stability. |
Same as Alternative 1, subject to continued bluff stability.
|
Same as Alternative 1, subject to continued bluff stability.
|
Existing 27 parking spaces to remain, subject to continued bluff stability.
|
Crosswalks |
Install new crosswalks at six locations.
|
Same as Alternative 1. |
Same as Alternative 1. |
Same as Alternative 1. |
No new crosswalks installed.
|
Drainage improvements |
Design street drainage system to minimize drainage over bluff face.
Combine and connect new catch basins to upgraded filtering mechanism.
Provide additional drainage to prevent groundwater retention behind soil nail structure.
Replace storm drain lines that now protrude from the bluff face; stormwater would discharge through the face of the new structure.
|
Same as Alternative 1, except groundwater drainage system limited to drainage of retaining walls .
|
Same as Alternative 1, except no groundwater drainage system. |
Same as Alternative 1, except no groundwater drainage system.
Repair or consolidate storm drain lines protruding from bluff face, as needed. |
Normal evaluation and maintenance or replacement of drainage system.
Same as Alternative 3. |
Top | Back to TOC
Environmentally Preferable/Superior Alternative
NEPA requires that an environmentally preferable alternative be identified in the record of decision (40 CFR. § 1505.2), and CEQA requires that an environmentally superior alternative be identified in the EIR.
Under NEPA, the environmentally preferable alternative is the alternative that will promote the national environmental policy as expressed in NEPA's Section 101. Ordinarily, this means the alternative that would cause the least damage to the biological and physical environment; it also means the alternative that would best protect, preserve, and enhance the historic, cultural, and natural resources. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) recognizes that identifying the environmentally preferable alternative may involve difficult judgments, particularly when one environmental value must be balanced against another. Under CEQA, the environmentally superior alternative is generally the one that would minimize adverse impacts to the surrounding environment. It should be noted that the identification of such an alternative under CEQA or NEPA does not take into account any project benefits that may be achieved under the other alternatives, nor does it consider future impacts that may occur as a result of the project objectives not being fully implemented.
The environmentally preferable/superior alternative for this project was selected based on the following criteria:
- It would result in the least physical disturbance to the project area; and
- It would result in the smallest physical footprint (the least amount of physical construction) to the project area.
Based on the above criteria, Alternative 3 (Partial Bluff Armoring with Limited Parkway Improvement) would be the environmentally preferable/superior alternative. This alternative would armor only the bottom portion of the bluffs to protect them from erosion—the top of the bluffs would not be armored. No new retaining walls would be constructed, and no new repairs would be made to existing upper crib retaining walls. Only limited parkway improvements would be made. Because there would be no construction measures taken to protect the terrace deposits from further erosion (construction of build-out areas and armoring), only one multi-use path, at least eight feet wide, for both pedestrian and bicycle use would be constructed, further reducing the alternative's physical footprint in the project area. No vegetation would be planted along the terrace deposits. The soil nail structure under this alternative is expected to last approximately as long as the soil nail structures described under Alternatives 1 and 2, but it would only stabilize the lower portions of the bluffs. Because this alternative best met the two criteria listed above, it is considered the environmentally preferable/superior alternative.
However, while the other alternatives analyzed in this EIS/EIR did not meet the environmentally preferable/superior criteria listed above, they would result in additional beneficial impacts to the project area that are not realized in Alternative 3. For example, Alternative 1 (full bluff armoring) would result in beneficial impacts due to the prevention of future erosion of the bluffs. This would result in the preservation of the proposed bicycle and pedestrian paths, East Cliff Drive, Pleasure Point Park, existing utilities and rights-of-way, as well as preserving recreational access to the area . Although armoring the bluff would have a significant visual impact, the impact would be reduced by making the armoring look as natural as possible and by making such mitigations as adding plantings at the top of the bluff. This alternative would preserve views, would provide for beach cleanup, would enable a multi-use parkway to be built, and would provide other offsetting aesthetic benefits.
Top | Back to TOC
Permit and Review Requirements
The proposed projects will require numerous permits and review requirements from various agencies. Required permits are listed in Table ES-3.
Table ES- 3
East Cliff Drive Bluff Protection and Parkway Project
Permit and Approval Requirements
|
Bluff Protection |
|
Agency |
Permit/Approval |
Authority |
Local Government |
|
|
County of Santa Cruz |
EIR certification (the County will certify that the EIR is adequate). Adopt mitigation monitoring and reporting program. |
CEQA, Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21115; CEQA Guidelines § 15090. |
County of Santa Cruz |
County must determine if projects are consistent with its local coastal program. Construction in coastal zone requires County to issue coastal zone permit. |
California Coastal Act of 1976, Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 30000 et seq . |
County of Santa Cruz |
Grading permit, variance permit, master site plan, park master plan. |
County of Santa Cruz Code of Regulations. |
State Agencies |
|
|
California Coastal Commission |
Coastal Zone Development Permit and Coastal Commission Certification. |
California Coastal Act of 1976, Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 30000 et seq.; Coastal Zone Management Act, 16 USCA §§1451-1465. |
California State Lands Commission |
A permit would be required for construction within tidelands trust property (land below mean high tide line). |
California Public Resources Code § 6301; California Code Regulations, Title 2 §§2800-2803. |
Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board |
Construction of the proposed projects requires a general construction activity stormwater permit. A stormwater pollution prevention plan must be developed and implemented. |
State Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, Cal. Water Code §§ 13000-14958, Federal Clean Water Act, 33 USCA §1341. |
State Historic Preservation Office |
No historic properties identified within the area of potential effect; SHPO concurred. |
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 16 U.S.C. §§470-470x-6 |
State Agencies |
|
|
California Department of Fish and Game |
Interagency consultation not required because no listed species in project area. |
California Endangered Species Act, Cal. Fish & Game Code § 2090 et seq. |
Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District |
Coordination with district for use of any portable engines (used in construction) that are not exempted from district regulations. |
Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 41750-41755 et seq. |
Federal Agencies |
|
|
USACE |
Nationwide Permit #13 under Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit applies to construction. |
33 USC § 401, Section 10: 1413, Section 404 |
US Fish and Wildlife Service |
Interagency consultation, pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. No effects determination made so no formal consultation required. |
Endangered Species Act. 16 USC. §1636; 50 CFR Part 402. |
US National Marine Fisheries Service |
Interagency consultation, pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. No effects determination made, so no formal consultation required. |
Endangered Species Act. 16 USC. §1636; 50 CFR Part 402. |
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary |
Special use permits required for construction below the mean high water mark within the National Marine Sanctuary. |
National Marine Sanctuaries Act, 16 USCA §1441; 15 CFR Part 922. |
Top | Back to TOC
Comparison of Alternatives, Including Impacts and Mitigation
Table ES-4 summarizes the impacts of each of the four action alternatives. Figure ES-1 is a summary illustration of the estimated 50-year erosion rates for each alternative and the No Action Alternative. Table ES-5 provides a more detailed discussion of the impacts of the action alternatives and the No Action alternative.
Table ES- 4
Summary of Significant Impacts from Project Alternatives
Impact Description |
Alternative 1 |
Alternative 2 |
Alternative 3 |
Alternative 4 |
No Action Alternative |
Land Use |
|
|
|
|
|
Conformity with Local Land Uses and Plans |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
Recreation |
|
|
|
|
|
Effect on Recreational Use during Construction (Land Uses and Public Access) |
|
|
|
|
|
Effect on Recreational Use During Construction (Beach and Ocean Uses) |
|
|
|
|
|
Effect on Long-Term Recreational Use |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
|
Visual resources |
|
|
|
|
|
Effects on Scenic Views from Bluff Protection |
|
|
|
|
|
Effects on Scenic Views from Parkway Improvements |
|
|
|
|
|
Effects on Scenic Views from Construction |
|
|
|
|
|
Compatibility of Physical Features with Adjacent Development |
|
|
|
|
|
Consistency with General Plan and LCP |
|
|
|
|
|
Long-Term Impact on Scenic Views from Parkway Improvement and Beach Cleanup |
+ |
+ |
|
|
|
Geological Resources |
|
|
|
|
|
Enhanced Bluff or Beach Erosion Adjacent to the Project Area and Other End Effects of the Bluff Protection Structures |
|
|
|
|
|
Wave Overtopping |
|
|
|
|
|
Long-Term Slope Stability |
+ |
|
|
|
|
Sand Supply |
|
|
|
|
|
Surfing Impacts |
|
|
|
|
|
Water Resources |
|
|
|
|
|
Flood Hazard |
|
|
|
|
|
Water Quality |
|
|
|
|
|
Biological Resources |
|
|
|
|
|
Disturbance of Intertidal Habitat (Construction Related) |
|
|
|
|
|
Disturbance of Subtidal and Nearshore Habitat (Construction Related) |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
Disturbance of Special Status Species (Construction Related) |
|
|
|
|
|
Disturbance of Intertidal Habitat (Loss or Alteration) |
+ |
+ |
|
+ |
|
Disturbance of Cliff Habitat |
|
|
|
|
|
Disturbance of Offshore Habitat |
|
|
|
|
|
Traffic and Transportation |
|
|
|
|
|
Bicycle and Pedestrian access |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
Temporary Construction-Related Vehicle Trips |
|
|
|
|
|
Temporary Narrowing and Closing of East Cliff Drive |
|
|
|
|
|
Bicycle Safety at 32 nd Avenue Intersection |
|
|
|
|
|
Increase in Vehicle Trips |
|
|
|
|
|
Transit Impacts |
|
|
|
|
|
Increased Public Parking |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
Emergency Services |
|
|
|
|
|
Restricted Access – Roadway (Construction Related) |
|
|
|
|
|
Delayed Response (Construction Related) |
|
|
|
|
|
Violation of the California Fire Code |
|
|
|
|
|
Restricted Access - Stairways |
|
|
|
|
|
Long-Term Emergency Access and Response Time |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
Cultural/Paleontological Resources |
|
|
|
|
|
Paleontological Resources |
|
|
|
|
|
Cultural Resources |
|
|
|
|
|
Beneficial Impacts on Paleontological Resources |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
|
Air Quality |
|
|
|
|
|
Short-Term Construction Emissions |
|
|
|
|
|
Long-Term Operational Emissions |
|
|
|
|
|
Effects on Sensitive Receptors |
|
|
|
|
|
Consistency with MBUAPCD Air Quality Management Plan |
|
|
|
|
|
Noise |
|
|
|
|
|
Short-Term Construction Noise |
|
|
|
|
|
Long-Term Operational Noise |
|
|
|
|
|
Consistency with the Santa Cruz County General Plan Noise Element |
|
|
|
|
|
Utilities |
|
|
|
|
|
Disruption of Utility Service - Construction |
|
|
|
|
|
Stormwater Facilities |
|
|
|
|
|
Water Supply and Wastewater Treatment |
|
|
|
|
|
Solid Waste |
|
|
|
|
|
Stormwater Collection System |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
Cumulative |
|
|
|
|
|
Land Use |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
Recreation |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
Visual Resources |
|
|
|
|
|
Geological Resources and Coastal Process |
|
|
|
|
|
Water Resources |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
Biological Resources |
|
|
|
|
|
Transportation and Safety |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
Emergency Services |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
Paleontological and Cultural Resources |
|
|
|
|
|
Air Quality |
|
|
|
|
|
Noise |
|
|
|
|
|
Utilities |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
= Significant impact
= Significant impact mitigable to less than significant
= No significant impacts
+ = Beneficial Impacts
= No Impacts
Note: This summary of impacts does not reflect the potential impacts associated with future emergency repairs that would be constructed in response to bluff failures and to assure public safety.
Top | Back to TOC
Affected Environment (Chapters 3 through 14)
The Affected Environment section of each chapter describes the present physical conditions within the area of the proposed action. The region of influence is defined for each environmental issue based upon the overall extent of physical resources that may be affected directly or indirectly by the proposed action and appropriate guidelines of regulatory agencies or common professional practice. This section of the EIS/EIR describes the baseline conditions for each environmental resource against which the potential impacts of the proposed action are compared.
Top | Back to TOC
Environmental Consequences (Chapters 3 through 14)
The Environmental Consequences section of each chapter, describes the potential significant environmental consequences, or impacts, of each alternative. Mitigation measures are also identified for any impact determined to be significant. The purpose of this section is to provide the public, interested agencies, and decision-makers with a clear understanding of the environmental impacts associated with the proposed bluff protection and parkway project along East Cliff Drive . Beneficial impacts are also described for each alternative.
Top | Back to TOC
Cumulative Impacts (Chapter 15)
Chapter 15, Other Required Analyses, addresses cumulative effects, or what effects the proposed action would have on the environment, when combined with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. It also discusses Environmental Justice and the Protection of Children.
Top | Back to TOC
Consultation and Coordination (Chapter 16)
Federal, state, and local agencies were consulted prior to and during preparation of this EIS/EIR. Agencies were notified of the proposed projects by mailings; by scheduled public meetings, by publication of an NOI /NOP announcing preparation of a joint EIS/EIR, as required by NEPA and CEQA; and by public scoping meetings. The agencies' viewpoints were solicited with regard to activities within their jurisdiction.
Top | Back to TOC
References, List of Preparers, Glossary and Index (Chapters 17, 18, 19 and 20)
The final chapters of this EIS/EIR include a list of documents and personal communications used in the preparation of this document, a list of the preparers of this document and their qualifications, and a glossary and index to help facilitate the review of this document.
Top | Back to TOC
Summary of Potential Significant Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures
Table ES-6 summarizes the potential significant environmental consequences and mitigation identified for each of the proposed alternatives and the No Action Alternative. It is important to recognize, however, that the environmental impacts associated with future emergency repairs are not reflected under the No Action Alternative.
Table ES- 5
Summary of Potential Significant Impacts and Mitigations |
Alternative 1—Full Bluff Armoring (Preferred Alternative) |
Alternative 2—Partial Bluff Armoring with Full Parkway Improvements |
Alternative 3—Partial Bluff Armoring with Limited Parkway Improvements |
Alternative 4—Groins and Notch Infilling |
No Action Alternative |
Land Use |
|
|
|
|
No significant impacts were identified for this alternative. |
No significant impacts were identified for this alternative. |
No significant impacts were identified for this alternative. |
No significant impacts were identified for this alternative. |
Consistency with General Plan and LCP . The No Action Alternative would not create direct conflicts with objectives and policies in Chapter 2, Land Use, of the general plan and LCP, as outlined in Section 3.1.2 of this EIS/EIR, but it also would not promote uses fully consistent with these policies. While the project area's recreational priority use for the area would be maintained (Policy 2.22.2 Maintain Priority Uses), the general plan and LCP objectives to reserve coastal priority sites and expand these sites for public benefit would not be fulfilled (Policy 2.23.2 Designation of Priority Sites). As described in Chapter 1, the project area is expected to degrade over time, resulting in portions of the project area eventually being lost to erosion. Santa Cruz County would address bluff erosion along East Cliff Drive through emergency repairs, where feasible. However, segments of the road, including public overlooks, utilities , and trails, would eventually be lost.
Compatibility with Uses in the Project Area. Under the No Action Alternative, recreational use of the project area would continue to be compatible with the current and planned use. However, continued erosion of the project area under the No Action Alternative would not be compatible with the planned, long-term recreational use of the project area. Public facilities, such as stairways and bathrooms would eventually be lost to erosion and access to the beach would become less safe.
Compatibility with Adjacent Uses. Under the No Action Alternative, recreational use of the project area would continue to be compatible with the current and planned use of the adjacent area. However, continued erosion of the bluffs would result in the eventual loss of public right-of-way and utilities and a loss of recreational uses . |
Recreation |
|
|
|
|
Impact 4.1 Effect on Recreational Use during Construction (Land Uses and Public Access). Under Alternative 1, land-based recreation would be disrupted during construction of projects 1, 2, and 3. Disruptions during construction of projects 1 and 3 would result from partial blockage or closure of East Cliff Drive and portions of the bluff for construction and construction staging. Disruptions during Project 2 also would be similar to Project 1 but may be more substantial because construction activities for the parkway would occur over a larger part of the bluff top. This would be a significant short-term impact.
While access to the sea would be improved in the long term by replacing stairs and constructing additional stairs at Pleasure Point Park , access to the sea would necessarily be limited during construction when stairs may be blocked by construction or when stairs are being reconstructed. This would be a significant short-term impact.
Mitigation 4.1. To minimize the effects on recreational use during construction, including both land uses and public access, the following measures shall be included in the construction planning of the bluff protection structures and parkway development:
• Implement the mitigation measures for recreational access, including pedestrian and bicycle use of the path along East Cliff Drive as described in Chapter 9, Transportation and Safety.
• The Santa Cruz County Redevelopment Agency, in conjunction with the contractor(s) for the projects), shall ensure that, to the maximum extent feasible, access to key locations for viewing, such as Pleasure Point Park, the bluff near 35 th Avenue, the overlook near Larch Lane , and the overlook at The Hook , is maintained during construction.
• The Santa Cruz County Redevelopment Agency, in conjunction with the contractors for the projects, shall ensure that all stairs remain open, to the extent feasible, and that at least one stairway will remain open and accessible at all times during construction.
Implementing these mitigation measures would reduce this potential significant impact to a less than significant level. |
Impact 4.2 Effect on Recreational Use during Construction (Land Uses and Public Access) . Impacts to land-based recreation and public access during construction under Alternative 2 and potential mitigation measures would be similar to those described under Alternative 1. Where the construction period is shorter under Alternative 2 than Alternative 1, impacts would be correspondingly less. Construction time, however, is not expected to be substantially different.
Mitigation 4.2. Mitigation measures would be the same as those described under Alternative 1. Implementing these mitigation measures would reduce this potential significant impact to a less than significant level. |
Impact 4.3 Effect on Recreational Use during Construction (Land Uses and Public Access). Impacts to land-based recreation and public access during construction under Alternative 3 and potential mitigation measures would be similar to those described under Alternative 2. Where the construction period is shorter under Alternative 3 than Alternative 2, impacts would be correspondingly less. Construction time, however, is not expected to be substantially different.
Mitigation 4.3. Mitigation measures would be the same as those described under Alternative 2. Implementing these mitigation measures would reduce this potential significant impact to a less than significant level. |
Impact 4.4 Effect on Recreational Use during Construction. Impacts to land-based recreation and public access to the sea during construction under Alternative 4 and potential mitigation measures would be similar to those described under Alternative 1. While there would be no bluff stabilization, construction equipment would be using East Cliff Drive and lowering construction materials over the bluff, thereby limiting public access points. Impacts to beach and ocean use under Alternative 4 would be different but comparable in degree to those under alternatives 1, 2, and 3. There would be less construction work on bluff protection structures allowing some continued access to those areas. However, because additional work in the beach and intertidal areas would be required for groin construction, the construction impacts to these recreational uses would be greater than for other alternatives.
Mitigation 4.4. In addition to those mitigation measures described under Alternative 1, to minimize impacts to public access during construction, the Santa Cruz County Redevelopment Agency, in conjunction with the contractors for the projects, shall comply with the following:
• To the extent feasible, groins shall be constructed sequentially (one at a time rather than all at once) to avoid excessive obstruction of the beach and near-shore areas that would impede access to the beach and waves.
• Construction activities and equipment shall be restricted in number and area to avoid impeding access to waves or interference with recreational use of waves.
Implementing these mitigation measures would reduce this potential significant impact to a less than significant level.
Impact 4.5 Effect on Long-Term Recreational Use. Although the loss of bluff and associated recreational facilities would occur at a slower rate as a result of protection from wave action provided by the groins , no bluff protection would be provided near The Hook. Over the long-term, periodic closures of the beach and bluff top would be necessary to address slope failures and portions of the bluff and, ultimately, recreational facilities in this area would be lost. The impact to long-term recreational use at The Hook would be significant and unmitigable.
Mitigation 4.5. No mitigations have been identified that would reduce this impact to less than significant. This is a significant, unavoidable impact. |
Effect on Recreational Use. Under the No Action Alternative, improvements to beach access, parking , the parkway, and Pleasure Point Park would not occur. The quality of beach and water-oriented recreation would be largely unaffected. However, the quality of land-based recreational opportunities would decline over time as a result of continued bluff erosion. The existing bicycle and pedestrian lane along East Cliff Drive, portions of the overlook at the Hook, and other portions of the bluff used for passive recreational activities, such as viewing, would likely be lost to bluff failure. While Santa Cruz County would address such erosion through emergency repairs, where feasible, portions of these sites would nevertheless be lost to erosion in the near future. Further, rubble would not be cleared off the beach under this alternative.
Consistency with General Plan and LCP . Under the No Action Alternative, present access to the area for a variety of recreational opportunities would continue, consistent with several general plan policies and objectives (Policy 7.1a Parks and Recreation Opportunities; Objective 7.7a Coastal Recreation; Objective 7.7b Shoreline Access). However, future objectives and programs aimed at providing safe public access at Pleasure Point Park (7.7.15 Areas Designated for Primary Public Access; Policy 7.7.19 Improvements at Neighborhood Access Points; Policy 7.7.24 Environmentally Damaging Trails Policy; 7.7.25 Unsafe Trails), providing scenic vista improvements at Pleasure Point Park (Policy 7.7.1 Coastal Vista), and improving parking in the area could not be implemented if continued bluff erosion is not addressed.
Effect on Recreational Use during Construction . Under the No Action Alternative, no construction activities would be conducted and, therefore, there would be no impacts to land-based recreation, beach use, ocean use, or public access to the sea. |
Visual Resources |
|
|
|
|
Impact 5.1 Long-Term Effect on Scenic Views from Bluff Stabilization Structures. The bluff stabilization structures proposed under Alternative 1 represent the largest modification to the visual quality of the project area. Visual simulations of the project area following implementation of Alternative 1 are presented in Figures 5-2a and 5-2b. The stabilization structures would be constructed in two layers, with the second layer being a sculptural element that would be shaped to replicate the form, texture, and scale of the existing bluffs. The concrete would be stained to match the color of the terrace deposits along the top of the bluffs and the color of the Purisima sandstone below.
While the project design would minimize changes to the visual elements of the bluff, the bluff stabilization structures would nevertheless impact middle ground and foreground views by creating a bluff face that is more uniform in appearance than currently. Some textural variation from natural vegetation and bluff composition and some color variation would be lost. However variations in color would be incorporated into the design, and would be expected to develop over time as staining applied to the concrete takes effect.
The structures also would represent a noticeable change in close foreground views where fine distinctions of texture, color, and form can be made and the artificial nature of the structure would be apparent to viewers. The structures may be most apparent at the margins where they intersect with the adjacent bluff stabilization structures or the natural bluff face. The western end of each stabilization structure would abut existing walls beneath private residences. The eastern end of the 32nd Avenue/35th Avenue stabilization structure would abut rock riprap.
The eastern end of the 41st Avenue stabilization structure would abut the natural bluff face. These termination points would be the most visually distinct segments of the structures because there may be color contrast, differences in texture, and creation of distinct points of intersection, all of which would increase visual awareness of the structure. Because of the substantial amount of viewing along East Cliff Drive and the high degree of sensitivity to changes in the visual character of the project area, construction of the stabilization structure would have a significant impact on scenic views in the project area.
Mitigation 5.1 . To minimize visual impacts of the bluff stabilization structures, the design and construction plans for the construction of the bluff protection structures shall include the following:
• Vegetation shall be planted along the top of the bluff stabilization structure so as to replicate the pattern of natural vegetation that hangs over the bluff. These plantings shall be permanently maintained by the County with appropriate drought-tolerant vegetation.
• At the ends of the bluff stabilization structure, the color, texture and other design features of the stabilization structure shall be modified to match existing walls, riprap, or bluff face, in order to minimize visually distinct meeting points. Before the public hearing on certification of the EIR for the projects, the Santa Cruz County Redevelopment Agency shall submit to County Planning staff for review and approval written or pictorial information on how this measure would be accomplished.
Implementing these mitigation measures would reduce this potential significant impact to a less than significant level.
Impact 5.2 Long-Term Effect on Scenic Views from Parkway Improvements. Alternative 1 also would include construction of many new features, such as the stairway at 33 rd Avenue, and benches, railings, and signs along the parkway. Most of these features would be definite and regular in shape and contrast with the natural form of the bluff and beach.
Railings would be distinct geometric features that would be inconsistent with natural color, line, and form of the surrounding features. This is especially true of the railing at the edge of the bluff, where the geometric elements would be most visible in silhouette against the ocean and where it would contrast with the uneven line of the bluff top. The proposed new metal railing would be less visually obtrusive than the existing guardrails, temporary support railings, and temporary white wood barriers because these features lack any visually cohesive qualities in their design, placement, or construction. The proposed metal railing also may be less visible under certain ambient light conditions, such as bright sunlight or fog, when the distinct line and form of the railings would be softened by the highly reflective quality of the metal. Nevertheless, the use of metal for the railing would be visually inconsistent with the surrounding natural environment and materials. Signs located along the parkway also would be distinct foreground features that, depending on their attributes and placement, would contrast with the surrounding organic features of the parkway design and bluff top.
Alternative 1 would result in minor obstructions to views along East Cliff Drive and from the designated scenic overlooks at 32 nd Avenue and 41 st Avenue. In most cases, these modifications would represent a replacement of existing obstructions with newer features better suited to the visual character of the project area.
While developing the area as a whole and including extensive design features would mostly ensure a unified visual character, improvements proposed as part of Alternative 1, such as the railings, benches |