City moves forward with wharf master plan
Court rescinded plan
The city of Santa Cruz Economic Development Department presented the revised environmental impact report for the rescinded wharf master plan at a virtual meeting Wednesday afternoon.
The wharf master plan was finalized in 2014 and invalidated by court order in winter 2022 due to complications with the plan's associated environmental impact report, which was also rescinded.
At the virtual meeting, Economic Development Asset Manager David McCormic said that the city is moving forward with the seemingly scrapped plan, in order to make necessary infrastructural improvements to the Santa Cruz Wharf and increase its capacity to produce income for the city.
“The greater need is really financial,” said McCormic. “We hate to say it's about the money but there are substantial infrastructural backlogs for the wharf. As we all saw this winter these structures are incredibly vulnerable.
During the meeting, McCormic said that the wharf costs the city government about $1 million annually and would need somewhere in the ballpark of $12 million to $14 million to bring the structure to “a good state.” He said that without an active wharf master plan, the city loses out on grant funding opportunities for improvement projects.
“The current wharf financials aren't really sustainable,” said McCormic. “It comes down to the fact that outside funding is needed and we need an improved environmental document to get there.”
After the city's approximately 15-month-long legal battle with the local group called Don't Morph the Wharf, which claimed the city's environmental impact report was incomplete and inconsistent, and that the wharf master plan would have significant environmental, recreational
and historical impacts, Judge Paul Burdick ruled for Don't Morph the Wharf.
According to the judgment, Burdick found that the city of Santa Cruz failed to follow the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act in approving the wharf master plan and its environmental impact report. The court ordered that the city then set aside the wharf master plan and its environmental report and to halt all projects in the plan until they can prove compliance with the law, save for a few projects highlighted in the suit such as the relocation of the wharf's entrance.
The judgment states that if the city creates and recirculates a revised environmental impact report that meets the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, and revises the wharf master plan, it could still move forward. With that in mind, the city revised the impact report and recirculated it for public review, which began April 17 and concluded Thursday.
According to the city's website, the recirculated partial draft report adds a new analytical recreation section that considers the impacts of the implementation of the wharf master plan, and construction of the first two projects to be implemented pursuant to the plan — the entry gate relocation and the east promenade. The recirculated partial draft environmental impact report document also adds minor revisions and clarifying statements to the project description section. All other sections of the draft
environmental impact report from 2020 remain unchanged.
Some of the major issues associated with the lawsuit included the construction of a lowered walkway on the wharf's west side, which the petitioner said would disturb marine life, the construction of a “landmark building” at the end of the wharf that would eliminate the sea lion viewing holes, and reducing recreational areas where people can fish, among other concerns.
At the meeting Wednesday, McCormick expressed what the wharf master plan, created shortly after the 2011 tsunami, would do, and also stressed what it wouldn't do.
“Most importantly, it sets rules, goals and guidelines for how the wharf should develop, or how it should be maintained,” said McCormic. “There's been a lot of misconceptions, however, and we just wanted to be clear that the wharf master plan will not immediately authorize any development. It's just the first stage in allowing us to start engaging other public entities.”
He said that the plan would not allow any ocean liners or cruise ships to park at the wharf, and that it would not result in the loss of the sea lion viewing holes, although they could be relocated, and also that any new buildings would not exceed about 40 feet and fishing areas would be expanded, except for “tailgate fishing,” where people fish out of their vehicles, which would be reduced
under the proposed plan.
During the question and answer period of the meeting, concerns were expressed by community members such as Gillian Greensite, who made some corrections to McCormic's presentation in regard to the court's ruling, which she felt the city was not following by not creating an entirely new environmental impact report.
“So the entire (environmental impact report) has been set aside, has been rescinded — the certification of it — as has the wharf master plan,” said McCormic in response. “Our understanding, from our (California Environmental Quality Act) counsel, is that the court ruling is that we have to revise the particularly deficient parts of the (environmental impact report) before we can put it all back together to recertify.”
McCormic said that he hoped the revised environmental report would be approved by the Santa Cruz City Council this fall. It would then go to the California Coastal Commission for approval, and it would take a few years before any of the wharf master plan projects would move forward.
“The near-term project would likely be the entrance gate or parts of the east promenade,” said McCormic. “I don't anticipate anything breaking ground before two or three years at best.”