San Lorenzo Urban River Plan

San LorenzoUrban River Plan

A Plan for the

San Lorenzo River,

Branciforte Creek and

Jessie Street Marsh

Prepared by:City of Santa Cruz

San Lorenzo Urban River Plan Task Forcewith assistance from

Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Programof the National Park Service

Adopted June 24, 2003

Acknowledgements 3

Executive Summary 5

Chapter 19Purpose, Context and Goals

1.1 Purpose of the San LorenzoUrban River Plan 9

1.2 Goals and Benefits of the Plan 101.3 The Planning Area and

River Reach Descriptions 101.4 Relationship to Existing City Plans 131.5 Plan Organization 13

Chapter 2 15Plan Setting and Background

2.1 Physical Setting 152.2 Social Setting: Development of the

City of Santa Cruz 172.3 The History of Flooding in Santa Cruz 182.4 Current Planning and the San Lorenzo

Urban River Plan Task Force 19

Chapter 3 21Riverwide Concepts and Programs

3.1 The San Lorenzo Riverway 213.2 Defining the Riverway:

System-wide Recommendations 22

Chapter 4 23Reach Specific Recommendations

4.1 Design Improvements 254.2 Site Specific Recommendations

in River Reaches 29Estuarine Reach 29Transitional Reach 39Riverine Reach 49

Chapter 5 55Branciforte Creek

5.1 Area Description and Current Conditions 555.2 Reach Specific Recommendations for

Branciforte Creek 58

Chapter 6 61Significant Riverfront Areas

6.1 Front Street Riverfront Area 616.2 Salz Tannery to 64

Sycamore Grove Riverfront Area6.3 Beach Flats Riverfront Area 71

Table of Contents

PB SAN LORENZO URBAN RIVER PLAN

Chapter 7 73Plan Implementation

7.1 San Lorenzo River Committee 73Recommendations 74

7.2 Project Phasing and Projected Costs 757.3 Funding Opportunities 75

Chapter 8 79References

Appendix ALower San Lorenzo River and LagoonEnhancement Plan

Appendix BJessie Street Marsh Management Plan

5ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The San Lorenzo Urban River Plan couldnot have been developed without the dedicationof the San Lorenzo Urban River Plan TaskForce, City staff and the community. The City ofSanta Cruz would like to extend special thanksto the National Park Service Rivers, Trails andConservation Assistance Program for their guid-ance and support of this project.

Santa Cruz City Council (Plan Adoption)Emily Reilly, MayorScott Kennedy, Vice MayorTim FitzmauriceCynthia MathewsEd PorterMark PrimackMike Rotkin

Santa Cruz City Council (Plan Development)Christopher Krohn, MayorEmily Reilly, Vice MayorTim FitzmauriceScott KennedyEd PorterMark PrimackKeith Sugar

San Lorenzo Urban River Plan Task Force1999-2002Kathleen AboodKay Archer BowdenFrank BarronCaitlin BeanNicole BeckCheryl BentleyTom BihnBryan BriggsJohn BurnettTom DeetzRobert DeFreitasTamara DoanBruce DykarKaitilin GaffneyGary GriggsDavid HammJoe Hayes

Acknowledgements

Paul JohnsonMathew JohnstonPeter LittmanDennis LowerySusan MartinezPatricia MatejcekWilliam MayJane MioBarbara NovelliRachel Emerson

O’MalleyTerrence PershallSue PowellLee SlaffTina SlosbergEric StolzbergBruce Van AllenCheryl Van De VeerAmy West


City StaffRichard C. Wilson, City ManagerMartín Bernal, Assistant City ManagerJoe Hall, Assistant Director, Redevelopment

AgencyDonna Meyers, Project ManagerTasha Loveness, Public Art CommitteeCheryl Schmitt, Bicycle & Pedestrian Coor-

dinatorHank Myers, Public Works DepartmentSiobahn O’Neill, Public Works DepartmentDena Robertson, Parks and RecreationJim Keller, GIS Coordinator

National Park ServiceRivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance ProgramStaff

Linda Stonier, Project ManagerSally Sheridan, Landscape ArchitectSuzanne Bourgninon, Intern

Consultants

Gary Kittleson, Kittleson EnvironmentalPlanning

Val Haley, Native Vegetation NetworkMitch Swanson,

Swanson Hydrology & GeomorphologyJeff Hagar, FisheriesDon Alley, FisheriesBuster Simpson, ArtistAmerican Society of Landscape Architects

Northern California ChapterBalance Hydrologics, Inc

2002 Design Charrette Participants

Kate BoltonTodd BronkAllegra BukojemskyDaniel CressyMartin FloresGeorge FoyNadine NemecDerek Shubert

7EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

IntroductionIn 1999 the Santa Cruz City Council initiated

a new phase of planning for the San LorenzoRiver, Jessie Street Marsh and BranciforteCreek. The City Council appointed a citizen com-mittee, the San Lorenzo Urban River Plan TaskForce (Task Force), to update plans for thesewaterways and asked the committee to under-take a planning process that would result in rec-ommendations for programs and projects thatwould enhance the habitat, safety and aestheticsof these waterways within City limits. The CityCouncil’s interest in providing updated plans forthe River, creek and marsh was instigated byseveral significant events: the initiation of theU.S. Army Corps of Engineers flood control im-provement project beginning in 1999; the listingof the steelhead trout and coho salmon as feder-ally threatened species; and federal designationof the San Lorenzo River as critical habitat forthese species. The Task Force initiated a 3-yearplanning process to accomplish the City Coun-cil’s directive with the outcome being the SanLorenzo Urban River Plan. The Task Force wasassisted in its planning process by the Rivers,Trails and Conservation Assistance Program ofthe National Park Service.

The San Lorenzo Urban River Plan (UrbanRiver Plan) provides an update to the SanLorenzo River Design Concept Plan (1987) andthe San Lorenzo River Enhancement Plan(1989). These earlier plans guided flood control,vegetation restoration, and public access im-provements along the San Lorenzo River andJessie Street Marsh from 1989 through the late1990s. The Urban River Plan provides a 20-year comprehensive plan for the areas of theSan Lorenzo River, Branciforte Creek and Jess-ie Street Marsh within city limits. The Urban Riv-er Plan provides a vision for the San LorenzoRiver, Branciforte Creek and Jessie StreetMarsh that promotes conservation and en-hancement of the river as a wildlife area withcomplimentary recreation and community uses.Recommendations and guidelines for habitatenhancement, public access, river trail ameni-ties, recreational use, public art, and communityprograms are addressed in the Urban RiverPlan. The Urban River Plan includes conceptualplans for areas adjacent to the River. Theseconceptual plans are provided only to stimulatepotential design ideas and are not required forparticular properties in development applica-tions. In general, the Urban River Plan advo-

ExecutiveSummary


cates river-oriented development to promote theRiver as an amenity to downtown Santa Cruz.

The Plan is comprised of several compo-nents including:

Recommendations for river-wide programsincluding public access and recreation, man-agement and maintenance, and community out-reach and education of the river trail (SanLorenzo Riverway) and associated parkland ar-eas (Chapter 3); Recommendations for specificsites and access points along the River (Chap-ter 4); Recommendations for Branciforte Creek(Chapter 5); Recommendations for SignificantRiverfront Areas that require special attentionwith regards to development guidelines, publicaccess and aesthetics (Chapter 6); Recommen-dations for implementation including fundingstrategies and a timeline for projects and pro-grams (Chapter 7); The Lower San LorenzoRiver and Lagoon Management Plan (AppendixA), the updated restoration and managementplan for the river; Recommendations from theJessie Street Marsh Management Plan (Appen-dix B).

Plan Recommendations:Restoration of the River is the First Priority

All of the recommendations in the SanLorenzo Urban River Plan were developedthrough the work of the Task Force and during

several public workshops facilitated by the Na-tional Park Service. The recommendations rec-ognize that the River is first a habitat area forfish and wildlife and second a passive recre-ational area for enjoyment by the community.Therefore the plan includes the Lower SanLorenzo River and Lagoon Management Planas Appendix A. The Lower San Lorenzo Riverand Lagoon Management Plan provides man-agement and restoration recommendations forimproving fish and wildlife habitat along the low-er 3 miles of the River. It is the intent of theTask Force that the next 15-20 years of historyalong the San Lorenzo is a story about restora-tion and recovery of fish and wildlife. Readersshould review the Lower San Lorenzo River andLagoon Management Plan in Appendix A to ac-quaint themselves with the goals and recom-mendations of this plan.

The Urban River Plan focuses on recommen-dations designed to integrate the San LorenzoRiver, Jessie Street Marsh and Branciforte Creekinto the surrounding urban fabric of the City ofSanta Cruz. Recommendations are focused onsystem-wide themes such as public access andrecreation, operations and maintenance, andcommunity outreach and education. Site-specificrecommendations regarding riverfront places thatcan be created and enhanced over the next 20years are provided.

A Final Note:Establish a Permanent River Committee

It is the desire of the San Lorenzo UrbanRiver Plan Task Force to witness the successfulimplementation of the San Lorenzo Urban RiverPlan over the next 20 years; bringing to realitythe dream of a beautiful, natural river to SantaCruz. To accomplish this goal, the Task Forcehas developed a detailed implementation planthat includes a recommendation for the estab-lishment of a permanent River committee by theCity of Santa Cruz. This is the first step in en-suring implementation of the San Lorenzo Ur-ban River Plan and its accompanyingdocuments the Lower San Lorenzo River andLagoon Management Plan and the JessieStreet Marsh Management Plan.

9CHAPTER 1 • PURPOSE, CONTEXT AND GOALS

1.1 Purpose of the San LorenzoUrban River Plan

The San Lorenzo Urban River Plan (UrbanRiver Plan) provides an update to the 1987 SanLorenzo River Design Concept Plan and the1989 San Lorenzo River Enhancement Plan.These earlier plans guided flood control, vege-tation restoration, and public access improve-ments along the San Lorenzo River (River) andJessie Street Marsh from 1989 through the late1990s. In 1999, the Santa Cruz City Council re-quested that the plans for the San Lorenzo Riv-er be updated due to: the initiation of the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers flood control improve-ment project beginning in 1999; the listing ofthe steelhead trout and coho salmon as federal-ly threatened species; and federal designationof the San Lorenzo River as critical habitat forthese species. The City Council appointed a cit-izen task force, the San Lorenzo Urban RiverPlan Task Force, to complete the plan updateemphasizing community involvement as thefoundation for plan development. The CityCouncil requested that the San Lorenzo UrbanRiver Plan Task Force update restoration anddesign plans for the River as well as addressBranciforte Creek in the planning update pro-cess.

This San Lorenzo Urban River Plan articu-lates a community vision for the corridor encom-passing the lower Lorenzo River, BranciforteCreek and Jessie Street Marsh as both a wild-life area, as well as a community recreation andpublic open space amenity. It contains recom-mendations for habitat enhancement, public ac-cess and trail improvements, public art, and

1Purpose, Contextand Goals

“Seeing the photographs ofthe San Lorenzo River in the past,I realize its potential as a natural andaesthetic focus of our community.”

Resident commentMay 5, 2001 Public Workshop


community programs. It seeks to guide the Cityof Santa Cruz in reestablishing and improvingits management of and relationship to this ma-jor, recently expanded landscape feature overthe next 20 years.

1.2 Goals and Benefits of the PlanAcknowledging the validity of previous aspi-

rations and efforts to improve the San LorenzoRiver, while recognizing the nature of those ef-forts as ongoing, the San Lorenzo Urban RiverTask Force re-adopted the following goals fromthe 1987 and 1989 plans to guide their work:

• Enhance and restore biotic values of theRiver, creek and marsh as habitat for fishand wildlife

• Maintain flood control capacity of the SanLorenzo River and Branciforte Creek

• Improve the scenic and recreational value ofthe Riverfront

• Improve public access and pedestrian/bicy-cle movement to and along the River

• Improve the urban and neighborhood inter-face with the San Lorenzo River, BranciforteCreek, and Jessie Street Marsh

• Incorporate the San Lorenzo River, Branci-forte Creek, and Jessie Street Marsh into thesurrounding urban fabric of downtown andneighborhoods.

First and foremost was the Task Force’s in-terest in restoring the River as a functional river-ine ecosystem. The Lower San Lorenzo Riverand Lagoon Management Plan comprises thebiological restoration plan for the River and La-goon and is included in the Urban River Plan asAppendix A. This restoration plan lays the foun-dation from which the remaining recommenda-tions for the River were developed.

As the Urban River Plan aims to revitalizethe San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creekas an attractive, safe, convenient and multi-pur-pose community feature, economic and com-munity health benefits can be expected toaccrue from achieving these goals.

Many examples of successful river-orienteddowntowns—San Luis Obispo, Sacramento,Santa Rosa, Redding, give testimony to thebenefits of using waterways to enhance urbanlivability and character. River-oriented redevel-opment can expand retail and commercial busi-ness opportunities. Designed creatively, theseareas will become attractions for residents and

visitors seeking riverfront dining and shoppingexperiences. In addition, downtown businessescan increase their revenue by catering to a wild-life-viewing, hiking, kayaking and bicycling cli-entele.

Connecting downtown to the Beach andBoardwalk, the improved River corridor alsoprovides alternative transportation options forthe community, lessening traffic congestion andair pollution. And, the health benefits to theCity’s residents from having access to a contin-uous 5-mile recreation corridor adjacent todense urban neighborhoods should not beoverlooked. The National Center for DiseaseControl is promoting greenways and the oppor-tunities they afford for regular exercise—walk-ing, hiking, biking—as highly important inmodern life for controlling obesity and maintain-ing good health among children and adultsalike.

1.3 The Planning Area andRiver Reach DescriptionsThe San Lorenzo Urban River Plan ad-

dresses the lower three miles of the San Loren-zo River, from the northern Santa Cruz Citylimits, to the rivermouth at the Pacific Ocean, aswell as Jessie Street Marsh and the lower onemile of Branciforte Creek including its conflu-ence with the San Lorenzo. Figure 1 shows theplanning area and associated planning reach-es.

The project area encompasses the Riverchannel itself, the levees to the toe of the out-side slope, and certain adjacent riverfront areas(see Chapter 6). The Branciforte Creek compo-nent includes the flood control channel, alongwith City-owned easements west and east ofthe channel within City limits, from the creek’sconfluence with the San Lorenzo River east tothe City limits at Highway 1.

In a change from the earlier River plans, anew approach to addressing the River by reach,in order to more accurately reflect biologicaland hydrological conditions of the River envi-ronment, as well as distinctive adjacent neigh-borhood and downtown areas, was developedfor this plan. A description of the River reachesfollows (see Figure 1).

The Estuarine Reach, extending from the riv-ermouth to the Laurel Street Bridge, was modi-fied by the flood control channel and is devoidof riparian vegetation for most of its length. Due


Figure 1Plan Area

with River ReachDesignations



to tidal action, however, this reach is trans-formed into a lagoon when the sandbar at theriver mouth closes in the late summer. The Es-tuarine Reach then becomes a nursery foryoung steelhead and salmon migrating out tosea from the watershed. Neighborhoods bor-dering this reach include Beach Flats and Low-er Ocean Street. Natural resourceenhancements to this reach are contained inthe Lower San Lorenzo River and Lagoon Man-agement Plan component of this document.

The Transitional Reach is located between theLaurel Street Bridge and the Water Street Bridge.The designation of this reach reflects its dual na-ture as a freshwater reach some of the year, anda brackish reach part of the year, depending upontidal action and the closure of the sandbar at therivermouth. River Street South, Front Street andSan Lorenzo Park border this reach. BranciforteCreek enters near the Soquel Avenue Bridge.

The Riverine Reach, from the Water StreetBridge to upstream of the Highway One Bridge,is not influenced by tidal action, so freshwaterpredominates. It contains more extensive ripari-an growth than the lower two reaches. Thisreach is bordered by the Felker Street and Jo-sephine Street neighborhoods, the El Rio Mo-bile Home Park, and the Gateway ShoppingCenter.

1.4 Relationship to Existing City Plans This San Lorenzo Urban River Plan is the

City’s guide for restoring, managing, and main-taining natural resources, riverfront develop-ment, as well as recreation and public accessimprovements for the lower San Lorenzo River,Jessie Street Marsh and Branciforte Creek. Itcontains conceptual ideas, as well as site-spe-cific recommendations, for accomplishing thegoals that guided the Plan’s development. Con-ceptual plans are provided to stimulate potentialdesign ideas and are not intended as require-ments for development opportunities, but ratherto provide ideas that promote river-oriented de-velopment. Refinements to the concepts, andspecific strategies for implementing the recom-mendations will need to come from the commu-nity, the City Council and staff.

At present, several other adopted plans ofthe City of Santa Cruz also address the plan-ning area for the San Lorenzo Urban RiverPlan. Described below, they include the 1991Downtown Recovery Plan, 1998 Jessie Street

Marsh Management Plan, and the City of SantaCruz General Plan and Local Coastal Plan(1990-2005). The San Lorenzo Urban RiverPlan reflects the intent of these other plans, andwill be incorporated into their updates as appro-priate.

The Downtown Recovery Plan is an adopt-ed specific plan providing a framework for pub-lic and private actions related to rebuilding thedowntown after the 1989 Loma Prieta earth-quake. The Plan identifies the River as a majordowntown open space, and recognizes its po-tential “as a naturalistic open space, wildlifehabitat, and recreational amenity: a gardenpromenade that can provide a more contem-plative and reflective experience to the hustleand bustle of Pacific Avenue.” It recommendsriverfront improvement and creation of linkagesto downtown as a top priority in rebuildingdowntown.

The Jessie Street Marsh Management Planwas adopted in 1998. Its recommendations areincorporated directly into the San Lorenzo Ur-ban River Plan (see Appendix B).

The City of Santa Cruz General Plan andLocal Coastal Plan (1990-2005) is a long-range,comprehensive guide for physical developmentof the City. It contains goals for pursuing envi-ronmental, land use, design, housing, circula-tion, economic, cultural and community facilityneeds. The Local Coastal Plan, part of the Gen-eral Plan, comprises a land use plan, imple-menting ordinances, and maps, applicable tothe City’s coastal zone areas.

Future updates of the General Plan and Lo-cal Coastal Program will incorporate recommen-dations from the San Lorenzo Urban River Planfor “significant riverfront areas” including FrontStreet, Salz Tannery, and Beach Flats, as wellas bicycle and pedestrian plans, and capital im-provement plans for adjacent park and recre-ation areas. Additionally, the recommendationsof the Urban River Plan should be referenced inregional plans referring to the San Lorenzo Riv-er and watershed.

1.5 Plan OrganizationThe San Lorenzo Urban River Plan includes

a wide range of guidance and recommenda-tions for enhancement of the natural and urbanfeatures of the planning area. For ease of presuse, the plan is organized into seven chaptersand two appendices. The appendices compriseother adopted plans incorporated into this plan,

as described below. In addition, a Public ArtMaster Plan for the River was developed as acompanion document to the Urban River Plan.

Chapter 1 - Presents the purpose, goals,and benefits of the Plan; describes the planningarea, relationship to existing City plans and or-ganizational structure of the plan.

Chapter 2 - A brief description of the Riverand its historical setting; describes River plan-ning activities through the present, including thework of the San Lorenzo Urban River Plan TaskForce in developing this plan.

Chapter 3 - Presents system-wide recom-mendations for the River, concentrating on pub-lic access, recreation, management andmaintenance, and community outreach and ed-ucation.

Chapter 4 - Provides site-specific recom-mendations for public areas located along thethree reaches of the River described above.These include improvements to existing parks,parking areas, signage and general trail charac-teristics to provide for a more unified recreationexperience for trail users.

Chapter 5 - Addresses Branciforte Creek,providing recommendations regarding floodcontrol and natural resources, beautificationand recreational improvements and neighbor-hood programs.

Chapter 6 - Discusses three “significant riv-erfront areas” deserving special planning atten-tion to urban development and design, publicaccess, and aesthetics.

Chapter 7 - Addresses implementation of theUrban River Plan; provides recommendations re-garding department roles, project phasing, andfunding strategies.

Appendix A - Contains the Lower SanLorenzo River and Lagoon Management Plan,which represents the current biological plan forthe River. This plan is the underpinning for theUrban River Plan, from which opportunities andconstraints for recreation and community usesalong the River were identified. Therefore, rec-ommendations in the Urban River Plan are con-sistent with the goals of the Lower San LorenzoRiver and Lagoon Management Plan.

Appendix B - Contains the recommenda-tions of the Jessie Street Marsh ManagementPlan, which is incorporated by reference intothe Urban River Plan.

2.1 Physical SettingThe San Lorenzo River drains a 138-square

mile watershed from the steep, forested SantaCruz mountains to the alluvial floodplain in theCity of Santa Cruz (Figure 2). The San LorenzoRiver was designated in 1976 as part of theState Protected Waterways Program (a pro-gram recognizing outstanding and valuable wa-terways within California) due to its scenic valueand value as a steelhead trout fishery. The SanLorenzo River was at one time the largest steel-head fishery on the Central Coast, south of theRussian River. The San Lorenzo River water-shed is also home to California’s northernmoststand of Central Coast Cottonwood-Sycamoreriparian forest. This unique 10-acre forest oc-curs in the lower floodplain at Pogonip adjacentto the River at the upstream end of the studyarea for this plan.

Major modifications have occurred to theSan Lorenzo River over the last 50 years lead-ing to overall decline in the health of the River.The upper River was impacted by massive tim-ber harvesting activities in the early 1900s, theconstruction of Loch Lomond reservoir in 1960and the increasing development of the SanLorenzo Valley during the 1970s through the1990s. The most notable modification was thechannelization of the lower three miles of theRiver into a levee flood control structure by theU.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 1957-59. Jess-ie Street Marsh and Branciforte Creek were alsoimpacted by the levee project as these two wa-terways were modified by that project. JessieStreet Marsh was filled during the constructionof the levee project and Branciforte Creek waschannelized in a cement culvert in 1959.

The San Lorenzo River is currently in astate of decline as a viable river ecosystem andpopulations of steelhead trout and coho salmonhave dwindled over the last 20 years. The Riversuffers from poor water quality, excessive sedi-mentation, loss of connectivity with its historicflood plain, loss of native riparian habitat, andreduced stream flows due to water extractionfor increased urban uses. The coho salmon andsteelhead trout were listed as threatened spe-cies under the federal Endangered Species Actin 1996 and 1997 respectively. Several maintributaries of the River, including Branciforte,Carbonera, Zayante and Bean Creeks, are list-ed as impaired waterbodies by the State WaterResources Control Board for contaminants in-cluding sediment, nutrients, and pathogens.

2Plan Setting & Back-ground

Figure 2San Lorenzo River

Watershed

Because of these impairments and designa-tions, the River is receiving increased attentionby state and local governments with a goal ofrestoring the river for fish and wildlife. Localgovernments and water purveyors are alsostrategizing on ways to accommodate the con-flicting needs of urban water use with wildlifeprotection. Despite its relative decline, the SanLorenzo River still supports unique resourceswhich can be enjoyed by the Santa Cruz com-munity and larger regional populace. The Riverprovides habitat to over 100 species of birds,including nine species of special concern recog-nized by the State of � California. BranciforteCreek and Jessie Street marsh are importanttributaries to the San Lorenzo River. These wa-terways are valued as prominent features of thelower river, important to its functionality as anatural system, and a recreational feature ofdowntown Santa Cruz.

Branciforte CreekBranciforte Creek drains approximately 17

square miles in the eastern portion of the SanLorenzo River watershed and empties into theSan Lorenzo River just north of Soquel Avenuein the City of Santa Cruz. The lower mile ofBranciforte Creek was channelized in 1957-1959 as part of the U.S. Army Corps of Engi-neers San Lorenzo River Flood Control Project(Figure 3).

Branciforte Creek supports a run of nativesteelhead trout and several important bird spe-cies. Although coho salmon have not spawned inBranciforte in recent years, the California Depart-

ment of Fish and Game has indicated that Bran-ciforte Creek has the potential to support cohosalmon with appropriate habitat restoration inparts of the watershed (Gilchrist, 1999). TheSanta Cruz Bird Club has recognized the conflu-ence area of Branciforte Creek and CarboneraCreek as a birding “hot spot” and several rare orunusual bird species have been reported in thearea over the years by the Bird Club.

Jessie Street MarshJessie Street Marsh lies on the eastern

bend of the San Lorenzo River mouth as it emp-ties into Monterey Bay. Historically, the marshwas part of a large tidal estuary connected tothe San Lorenzo River and encompassing muchof what is now lower Ocean Street and down-town Santa Cruz (RRM Design Group, 1998).Jessie Street Marsh was originally a brackishsaltwater marsh. It received seasonal freshwa-ter inflows from rainfall and perennial springflow in the Branciforte Bluff area and it was reg-ularly inundated with saltwater when sandbarsformed a lagoon at the mouth of the San Loren-zo River. Jessie Street Marsh was hydrologicallycut off from the San Lorenzo River by construc-tion of a levee during the 1957-1959 flood con-trol project on the San Lorenzo River. The leveeblocks all river flood flows and most tidal flowsfrom entering the marsh.

Jessie Street Marsh has been the focus of arestoration and management plan completed in1998. The plan provides recommendations topreserve and enhance the natural resources ofthe marsh, improve water quality, manage floodwaters consistent with the protection of naturalresources and provide public access and edu-cation in appropriate areas of the marsh (RRMDesign Group, 1998). The Jessie Street MarshManagement Plan is incorporated into the Ur-ban River Plan by reference (see Appendix B).

2.2 Social Setting: Development of theCity of Santa CruzSpanish explorers first encountered the San

Lorenzo River in 1769. Prior to this discovery,the native Ohlone Indians used the river as aresource for food gathering and hunting butconstructed their reed structures well outsidethe floodplain of the river. An Ohlone village,“Aulina” or “place of red abalones,” was locatedat the rivermouth near what is today calledBeach Flats.

Figure 3Branciforte Creek Flood

Control Channel

When the Spaniards arrived they began set-tling in the floodplain and built the Santa CruzMission Chapel near the river in 1791. A floodin the winter of 1792 destroyed the chapel, andit was moved to the top of Mission Hill in 1792.The mission era saw the floodplains of the SanLorenzo River used for agriculture—most nota-bly cattle and sheep grazing (3,300 head of cat-tle and 3,500 sheep once grazed in thefloodplain) and crops including wheat, barley,corn, and fruit trees. At the same time, the vil-lage of Branciforte was also established on theeast side of the San Lorenzo River.

Between 1791 and the 1840s the town ofSanta Cruz and the Villa de Branciforte werelocated outside of the floodplain on the tops ofthe bluffs to the east and west of the river. Asthe population of the area grew in the late Mexi-can and early American periods, houses andcommercial buildings began to be built in thespace available between the bluffs (McMahon,1997). In 1846 Beach Flats became know asSchooner Flats and one of California’s earliestboat-building yards opened. In 1866 the newcounty courthouse was built on Cooper Streetand the center of town development shiftedaway from Mission Hill bluff to the floodplain ofthe river. The City was incorporated by the Cali-fornia Legislature in March 1876 with 6,000 res-idents.

During the 1890s and early 1900s, SantaCruz became known as a regional tourist attrac-tion with the San Lorenzo River being a primaryfocus because of its steelhead fishery. At onepoint in time, 12 public docks were locatedalong the lower River, and the opening of steel-head season would fill downtown hotels withtravelers. Other events in the history of the SanLorenzo included the annual Venetian WaterCarnivals that involved decorated boat parades,concerts, balls, a Water Olympics, and fire-works. The carnivals were held during the early1900s.

The City’s largest Chinatown was also locat-ed along the river on Front Street from 1870 to1894 when it was destroyed by fire (Lehman,2000). Chinatown activities included marketgardens grown in the San Lorenzo River bottombehind Front Street. After a fire in 1894, a sec-ond Chinatown was built on Midway Island inthe San Lorenzo River (at the site of today’sLongs/Zanotto’s parking lot). This Chinatownwas eventually destroyed by floods in 1905 and1940.

Present day conditions on the River are lessthan favorable with social and criminal problemsbeing prevalent along the entire three-mile leveesection. Drug dealing, prostitution, and drug useare common along the River especially duringsummer and fall when low water levels allow forlarge illegal camps to be established in the riverbottom. These camps result in large amounts oftrash and human waste entering the River duringthe summer season and with the first winterrains. Increasingly these problems have come tothe attention of the community and new efforts atcleaning up the River have been initiated by thecommunity and the City. These efforts need con-tinued support to be successful.

2.3 The History of Flooding in Santa CruzAs development encroached upon the

floodplain of the San Lorenzo River, floods be-gan to take their toll upon the community. Eigh-teen flood events occurred from 1862-1958.Some of these floods were minor events butothers were quite severe and caused extensivedamage. The first serious flood to hit the grow-ing town was in the winter of 1862. This floodcaused extensive damage and eroded the baseof Mission Hill 30 feet. The response to thisflood by the townspeople was the earliest formof flood control: they built a bulkhead to stabi-lize the riverbank near the base of Mission Hilland they began to change the river channel sothat it would run past Mission Hill instead ofstraight at it (McMahon, 1997). At the same timethe bulkhead was built, property owners alongthe western edge of the river began to fill theirlots to raise the grade by as much as four feetto prevent the river from flooding their proper-ties. The City of Santa Cruz established its firstSan Lorenzo River Commission in the late1870s to address the flooding impacts of theriver.

Flooding continued with events recorded in1878, 1881, 1890, 1895, 1907, 1911, 1940, and1941. The costliest, deadliest and most well-known flood in the history of Santa Cruz was onDecember 22, 1955. The river flowed down Pa-cific Avenue at a depth of three to four feet andcaused multi-millions of dollars in damage andeight deaths. Following the 1955 flood, the low-er 2.5 miles of the San Lorenzo River waschannelized into a flood control structure in1957-59 in a cooperative project of the City ofSanta Cruz and the U.S. Army Corps of Engi-neers (Corps).

The $2.2 million flood control project con-structed riprap levee banks, removed all vege-tation from the river’s banks and dredged thebottom of the river channel approximately 5-8feet. When the project was competed in 1959,the City retained maintenance responsibilitiesfor the flood control channel. These mainte-nance responsibilities included annually dredg-ing the channel bottom 5-8 feet below sea leveland continued eradication of any vegetationgrowing on the river’s banks.

1987 and 1989 San Lorenzo River PlansTwo river planning efforts for the San Loren-

zo River were undertaken during the 1980s inresponse to several issues requiring immediateattention - the most important being the docu-mented reduction of flood protection for down-town Santa Cruz due to natural filling of theflood control channel with sediment. By the late1970s, the Corps estimated sediment in thechannel had reduced the flood control project’scapacity from 100-year flood protection to lessthan 30-year flood protection (City of SantaCruz, 1989). Riverine habitat for nativeanadramous fish (salmon and steelhead) was indecline and the sterile River had become aneyesore with its denuded banks and dredgedstreambed.

A major flood in January 1982 provided newevidence of the River’s ability to scour the stre-ambed during large flood events and demon-strated a larger flood capacity than previouslyassumed. The Corps reinitiated studies on theRiver following this event, concluding that re-placing flow-constricting bridges at Water Streetand Riverside Avenue while constructing a 3-foot high floodwall atop the levee banks wouldprovide the necessary infrastructure for protec-tion against a 100-year flood. The Corps alsomaintained that the City should continue dredg-ing the flood control channel of approximately1,200 cubic yards of sediment per year.

These new findings and recommendationsprompted the Santa Cruz City Council to initiateplanning efforts on the San Lorenzo River. Thefirst effort - the San Lorenzo River Design Con-cept Plan adopted in 1987 - described a multi-objective design for the flood controlimprovement project and for enhancing the riveras an urban open space. A key recommenda-tion of this plan was to develop a biological en-hancement plan to maximize biological

resources within the constraints of the Corp’sflood control requirements.

Consequently, the City initiated the biologi-cal planning process in 1988 with a team ofconsultants under the direction of a Council-ap-pointed San Lorenzo River Restoration Commit-tee. The 1989 San Lorenzo River EnhancementPlan provided details, specifications and tech-niques for:

• Planting native riparian vegetation to estab-lish and maintain a continuous corridor of ri-parian habitat;

• Managing the lagoon at the river mouth;• Implementing sediment and drainage main-

tenance practices that are sensitive to bio-logical resources;

• Establishing a monitoring program to collectnew data to increase knowledge of the riversystem and refine management plans;

• Adapting and coordinating the flood controldesign planning process with the ArmyCorps of Engineers and the City’s restorationplan.The City approved the San Lorenzo River

Design Concept Plan and the San Lorenzo Riv-er Enhancement Plan in 1988 and 1989 andboth plans were incorporated into the GeneralPlan and Local Coastal Plan. The 1989 LomaPrieta earthquake discontinued the City’s focuson the River for a time, as the City began to re-build the downtown and repair critical public in-frastructure including portions of the leveedamaged in the earthquake. Reconstruction ofthe Riverside Avenue Bridge, Soquel AvenueBridge, and Water Street Bridge was accom-plished between 1991 and 1996.

Concurrently, the Corps began to designthe flood control improvement project, proceed-ing with a plan to raise and rebuild the leveesby 2-4 feet rather than construct a continuousfloodwall. The Corps design incorporated na-tive vegetation components recommended inthe City’s 1989 San Lorenzo River Enhance-ment Plan and the construction of a continuousbicycle and pedestrian path the length of thelevees. The Corps plan was completed in 1996and Congress authorized funding the sameyear. In its authorization, Congress ordered theCorps to combine the flood protection projectand vegetation improvements into one project.The San Lorenzo River Flood Control and En-vironmental Restoration Project commencedconstruction in 1999 with completion estimatedby 2003.

2.4 Current Planning and the San Lorenzo UrbanRiver Plan Task Force

In 1999 the Santa Cruz City Council ap-pointed the San Lorenzo Urban River Plan TaskForce (Task Force) to update the San LorenzoRiver Design Concept Plan and the San Loren-zo River Enhancement Plan. These plans need-ed updating due to the federal listing of thesteelhead trout and coho salmon as threatenedspecies, the designation of the San LorenzoRiver as critical habitat for coho and steelhead,and because the Corps flood control improve-ment project had begun construction. The 22-member citizen Task Force was charged toundertake a planning process to develop pro-grams and projects that would further enhancethe habitat, safety and aesthetics of the SanLorenzo River within City limits. The City Coun-

cil gave the Task Force the following five tasks:

1. Update the River Enhancement and DesignConcept Plans utilizing scientific and techni-cal recommendations and public participationand recommend specific actions for imple-mentation and financing of the updated Ur-ban River Plan;

2. Coordinate and participate in activities of theCounty of Santa Cruz and other state and fed-eral agencies on the improvement of the SanLorenzo River watershed and the BranciforteCreek watershed;

3. Develop a management plan including defin-ing habitat baseline data and a monitoringprogram;

4. Study and analyze flood issues and the po-tential for habitat restoration in the Branci-forte Creek watershed;

5. Work with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineersand all relevant federal, state and local agen-cies to ensure that the work to be conductedby the Corps is carried out in a manner con-sistent with habitat restoration, enhancementof water quality, improvement of aestheticsvalues, and all applicable federal, state, andlocal environmental regulations.

From 1999 to 2002 the Task Force reviewedthe existing river plans, conducted public work-shops and compiled public comments into rec-ommendations for the San Lorenzo Urban RiverPlan. Working with a consultant team of biolo-gists and hydrologists the Task Force completedthe update to the San Lorenzo EnhancementPlan, producing the Lower San Lorenzo Riverand Lagoon Management Plan in January2002. The management plan is incorporatedinto the Urban River Plan (see Appendix A) andprovides the foundation for appropriate recre-ational uses and features along the River thatare non-impacting to fisheries and wildlife re-sources.

For development of the Urban River Plan,the Rivers, Trails and Conservation AssistanceProgram of the National Park Service assistedin planning and implementing public workshopsto gather information and input from the com-munity. The National Park Service helped toproduce useful products such as newslettersand plan drafts for review by the Task Force. Inaddition to the major tasks described above, theTask Force (with assistance from the NationalPark Service), completed several other activitiesduring the planning process including the fol-lowing:

• Initiated the planning process with public

IntroductionIntegrating the San Lorenzo River, Jessie

Street Marsh and Branciforte Creek into the sur-rounding urban fabric of the City of Santa Cruzpresented the Task Force with one of the great-est challenges during the three-year planningprocess that culminated with this Urban RiverPlan. For over five decades the San LorenzoRiver has been relegated to a back alley ofdowntown. The height and scale of the leveesprovides a visual and physical barrier for ac-cessing the river. From street level, the Rivercannot be seen from downtown and adjacentneighborhoods thus resulting in a lack of in-volvement by the community. In a sense, theriver is not part of the landscape of Santa Cruz,it is hidden behind the massive earthen levees.This sense of abandonment has opened doorsfor undesireable activities to predominate alongthe River. Illegal camps and activities such asdrugs and prostitution make the area inviting tosome, threatening to most. Conservation andstewardship efforts are extremely challenged inthis environment often resulting in complete in-action towards these complicated problems.

3.1 The San Lorenzo Riverway

The Task Force recognized that fostering anew way of thinking about the River requiredcommunity involvement. The Task Force initiat-ed a series of public workshops to gather com-ments about the River from the community.Each workshop focused on presenting back-ground information on the history and planningprocess of the Urban River Plan and encour-aged community members to express theirideas, concerns, issues and opportunities forthe River. Information from these workshopshelped the Task Force discern user needs anddesires for the River corridor, identify problemareas, and locate important pedestrian connec-tions. The next step was to host a design char-rette in partnership with the National ParkService and American Society of Landscape Ar-chitects to generate solutions to these specificchallenges and illustrate the resulting designconcepts.

This three-day workshop was held in Janu-ary of 2002 and brought together artists, land-scape designers, planners, citizens, and policymakers to identify a new focus for the River.The outcomes from the workshop reiteratedwhat the Task Force had already

3Riverwide Conceptsand Programs

Beyond the value of commerce riversbring to cities is the value of theambience, of amenity, of aestheticpresence they provide. Rivers offerfluid, free-flowing counterpoint to therigid structures and predictable order ofcities. They introduce a corridor ofnature between corridors of asphalt andthey remind city dwellers of the naturalworld beyond the urban boundary.

Dave Bolling, authorHow to Save a River

acknowledged—that the San Lorenzo River isan important open space area in the City andthat the community has many opportunities tocreate a new, positive relationship with the Riv-er for the future.

In January 2002, in a symbolic first step torecognize and embrace the River as part of theurban life of Santa Cruz, the Task Force re-named the levee trail system and its related fa-cilities and amenities (currently commonlyreferred to as “the levee”) as the “San LorenzoRiverway.” In doing so, the Task Force hopedto create not only a new linear city park but anew nomenclature for referring to the River—one that recognizes its value as a recreationfeature, an alternative transportation corridor,and a significant fish and wildlife habitat and anamenity worthy of community support and in-volvement. “San Lorenzo Riverway” capturesthese goals in a recognizable place namefor the newly completed flood control projectand trail system.

3.2 Defining the Riverway:System-wide RecommendationsThe Urban River Plan recognizes the San

Lorenzo Riverway as an exciting network ofplaces to be discovered during one’s journeyalong the River. It can indeed become the sig-nature of the City over the next 20 years. TheRiverway includes riverfront places, river views,and river-related activities that will be developedor enhanced to integrate the River into thedowntown fabric. This section of the plan pro-vides recommendations for ongoing and futuretreatment of the San Lorenzo Riverway to en-hance its function as an open space area,transportation corridor, a recreation feature, andan environ for community activities. These rec-ommendations focus on system-wide themesthat are not reach specific and are both physicaland programmatic in nature.

The River as an AlternativeTransportation Corridor

The Corps flood control improvement projecthas provided substantial improvements to thetrail system along the levee crest, however ad-ditional improvements such as completing bicy-cle and pedestrian bridges, improved access atexisting ramps, and directional signage are stillneeded. The river pathway system provides thebest opportunity to maintain an alternative

transportation route accommodating pedestri-ans, bicycles, and wheelchairs from the beachto the River Street/Highway 1 area. This looptrail system, with its many east-west lateral ac-cess points to adjacent neighborhoods, offersalternative transportation options for residentsand visitors. Increased use of the River trail sys-tem will help alleviate existing illegal activitiesalong the Riverway.

The following system-wide recommendationsmeet the goals of improving public access andpedestrian/bicycle movement to and along theRiver, as well as improving the urban and neigh-borhood interface with the San Lorenzo River,Branciforte Creek and Jessie Street Marsh.

Recommendations• Complete pedestrian/bicycle bridges at High-

way One/Felker Street and the confluence ofBranciforte Creek and the San Lorenzo Riv-er. Secure funding for design and construc-tion of these projects.

• Complete the upgrade and widening of theUnion Pacific Railroad Trestle at the river-mouth to provide safer pedestrian and bicy-cle use along this route.

• Improve pedestrian/bicycle access betweenthe Riverway and Jessie Street Marsh andOceanview Park.

• Identify and program parking areas for trailsystem users into current and future trans-portation planning efforts. Provide signageand facilities such as stairs and ramps lead-ing up to the trail in order to dissuade “short-cuts” through landscaping.

• Access and pathways in the Front Street cor-ridor should be designed to draw people outof the downtown to the River.

• Access and pathways from the neighbor-hoods at Ocean Street and Barson Streetshould be designed to facilitate pedestrianand bicycle use.

• Continue to provide disabled access to ar-eas and facilities of the river.

The River as a Recreation Feature

For all its current and potential contributionsto the quality of life in Santa Cruz, the SanLorenzo Riverway offers perhaps the greatestopportunity for enhancing recreational use ofthe River. Recreational access along the Riverprovides opportunities for public interaction withthe River corridor for enjoyment, education and

continued stewardship. A multitude of recre-ational opportunities exist along the Riverway:hiking, picnicing, bicycling, jogging, skating,birdwatching, etc. Water-based activities suchas kayaking and canoeing are increasingly pop-ular sports. Participants in public workshops or-ganized to solicit input for this Urban River Planadvocated to allow kayaks and other smallboats access to the River for at least seasonaluse. While existing City policy (Santa Cruz CityMunicipal Code Section 9.66.090 and Section9.66.030) prohibits the use of water sportsequipment and boats in the San Lorenzo River,this plan recommends consideration of futurepossibilities for providing water-based recre-ational opportunities on a limited basis.

The following system-wide recommenda-tions meet the plan goal of improving the scenicand recreational value of the River.

Recommendations

• Develop a San Lorenzo Riverway trail im-provement program that addresses infra-structure improvements (lighting, safety, callboxes), signage, wayfinding, interpretationand trail linkages. Trail lighting should be de-signed to be non-intrusive to fish and wildlifeand energy efficient.

• Develop a system of unpaved nature pathson the levee slopes near riparian areas toenhance wildlife viewing activities. Designbird-viewing platforms and observationdecks so as not to disturb wildlife. Platformsand observation decks should be construct-ed so as to avoid conflicts with flood capaci-ty.

• Develop a map of the San Lorenzo Riverwayincluding regional trail links (Sanctuary Sce-nic Trail and California Coastal Trail) and keylateral access areas. Place the map at direc-tional locations along the Riverway.

• Develop recreational guides for the river andassociated activities. Investigate potential forcreation of par course along the Riverway.

• Review existing City ordinances prohibitinguse of the river for kayaking and canoeing;explore opportunities for establishing a sea-sonal boating program with appropriatelaunching facilities and public safety mea-sures. The boating program should be de-signed so as to avoid conflicts with fish andwildlife and public safety.

System-wide Operations and Maintenance

The San Lorenzo Riverway represents oneof the most significant investments of publicfunds over the last ten years. The Riverway in-cludes over 3,000 native plants and 2.5 linearmiles of parkland that now need to be main-tained. Although past expenditures on the riverhave largely been directed toward flood controlmaintenance and operations, the Riverway is asubstantial new public park and open space inthe City and will require increased expendi-tures for staffing, operations, and capital im-provements. Increased expenditures can alsobe expected in other departments such as po-lice, fire, and public works (transportation) asthe community makes more and more use ofthe Riverway.

The following system-wide recommenda-tions meet the Urban River Plan goal maintain-ing the flood capacity of the River andBranciforte Creek and enhancing the biologicalvalues of the River for fish and wildlife.

Recommendations• Establish a “River Coordinator” position to

facilitate coordination of maintenance, man-agement, restoration, and monitoringprojects for the river. The River Coordinatorwould seek and procure project grants, co-ordinate with City staff and communitygroups, and be the lead staff for plan imple-mentation.

• Provide adequate operations and mainte-nance staffing levels in the Parks and Recre-ation and Public Works departments tomaintain existing Riverway facilities and rec-ommended improvements of the Urban Riv-er Plan.

• Establish a staff-level “River Managementand Maintenance Coordinating Group” com-prised of staff from Parks and Recreation,Public Works, Water, Planning, Police, Fire,and Redevelopment to coordinate ongoingmanagement and maintenance projects onthe levee and in the river.

• The City should devote consistent attentionto issues of public safety, maintenance, andenforcement of ordinances to reduce harm-ful effects of human activity (e.g. camping,illegal activities) that degrades environmentalor recreational qualities.

• Develop and implement a litter control pro-gram on the San Lorenzo Riverway includingmonthly large-scale cleanups of areas that

SAN LORENZO URBAN RIVER PLANPB

present public health hazards.• Work with code enforcement to continue

abatement of illegal dumping along the SanLorenzo Riverway.

• Evaluate conditions of landscaped areasand conditions of native vegetation installedas part of the flood control improvementproject. Work with a qualified botanist to de-velop a replacement plant list should mortali-ty occur in landscape areas and ensureimplementation of remediation plans.

• Develop a river management and steward-ship training program for City of Santa Cruzstaff to inform staff of the river’s sensitive re-sources and unique management require-ments.

• Investigate options for volunteer programsand community service programs to assist

with maintenance and management respon-sibilities.

• Conduct annual vegetation and sedimentmanagement program for flood control main-tenance.

Community Outreach and EducationPublic outreach and education are a critical

component of the San Lorenzo Urban RiverPlan. These programs will expand the commu-nity’s awareness of the San Lorenzo River,Jessie Street Marsh, and Branciforte Creek in-creasing community involvement and conserva-tion of these waterways. Increased publicinvolvement in the River will help the City meetits management responsibilities for the River.Public interest in and use of the Riverway willfocus more “eyes” on the River and its ameni-ties, raise contributions of volunteer hours andservices, and educate a new generation aboutthe River, its natural and cultural history, anddevelop a sense of pride and ownership.

The following recommendations will help toachieve the plan goal of incorporating the River,marsh, and creek into downtown and neighbor-hood activities.

Recommendations

• Provide regular updates about the River andcreek to the community via the newspaperand media (ie., Community Television, localradio station, or City-based website).

• Develop an “Adopt- A-Riverbank” programfor participation by local businesses,schools, community and neighborhoodgroups. Activities could include litter control,planting, and ecological monitoring.

• Conduct annual River tours and priority plan-ning sessions for the City Council.

• Develop multi-lingual materials and educa-tional products about the River.

• Participate in National River Cleanup Weekannually during the second week of May asan awareness raising celebration.

• Work with local schools and outdoor educa-tion programs to utilize the River as an out-door classroom.

• Develop and implement a docent programfor natural history tours in cooperation withthe Museum of Natural History or Parks De-partment Ranger Programs.

• Establish a “Friends of the San LorenzoRiver” non-governmental organization topartner with the City of Santa Cruz and oth-er agencies and organizations on publicoutreach programs and Riverway projects.

25CHAPTER 4 • REACH SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS

IntroductionThis chapter provides reach specific recom-

mendations for sites along the San LorenzoRiverway. As described in Chapter 1, for plan-ning purposes, the Riverway has been dividedinto three distinct reaches: the Estuarine Reach(rivermouth to Laurel Street); Transitional Reach(Laurel Street to Water Street); and the RiverineReach (Water Street to Highway 1). This systemof division reflects the biologic and hydrologicconditions of the River environment as well asthe distinct neighborhood and urban areas ad-jacent to the River.

By dividing the River into distinct reaches,projects can be clearly defined and priorities seton improvements to the Riverway over the 20-year plan period. One of the most importantcomponents of the plan is that it be comprisedof realistic projects that can be accomplishedwithin a defined time period. It is the intent ofthe Task Force that the plan include aestheticas well as functional improvements for the Riv-erway—that the Riverway gain a sense of unifi-cation as projects are completed in specificreaches and sites. The Riverway will then be-come an important recreational and transporta-tion corridor for residents and visitors. Aspreviously mentioned, conceptual plans areprovided to stimulate potential design ideas andto encourage appropriate uses, scale and orien-tation in adjacent areas along the River. Con-ceptual plans included in this chapter are forexample purposes only.

4.1 Design ImprovementsThe San Lorenzo Riverway consists of sev-

eral existing public sites and accessways. Dur-ing the development of the Urban River Plan,the Task Force collected public comment aboutopportunities for existing areas and sites alongthe Riverway. This information was compiledand presented to Task Force members, artists,landscape designers, and planners as part ofthe design workshop held in January 2002. Thegoal of the design workshop was to provideideas for “fine tuning” the existing sites and ac-cessways along the Riverway to provide a moreunified recreation area for the community. Par-ticipants in the design workshop visited and re-viewed the existing parks adjacent to theRiverway as well as parking areas (formal andinformal), street connections, signage and gen-eral trail characteristics and use patterns. Tak-

4ReachSpecificRecommendations

Figure 4Focus sites are existing

sites that can be made intoriver-oriented public spaces


ing this information, the participants developedthree different types of improvements that couldbe done along the Riverway to provide a moreunified recreation experience.

The three types of design improvementsthat could be implemented at existing sitesalong the Riverway include focus sites, accessnodes, and urban interface connections.

Focus sites are public spaces within or adja-cent to the Riverway corridor that create a desti-nation or unique Riverway experience for theRiverway user (Figure 4). Most focus sites willbe located on existing Riverway land, but insome cases focus sites may involve land acqui-sition or easements. Focus sites are intended toincrease Riverway use, increase awarenessand appreciation for the Riverway, create con-

Figure 5Access nodes are located whereramps and the Riverway trailconverge

sistency in pathway treatments and amenitiesand add visual focal points. Improvements tofocus sites will include the following:

• Plazas and public spaces• Entry features• Interpretative features• Public art Seating• Education facilities• Defining trail access parking areas through

striping and entry markersAccess nodes are sites where existing

streets, bridges, and/or stairways converge withthe Riverway trail and provide opportunities forseating, public art, and signage (Figure 5). Ac-cess nodes are important features along theRiverway because they provide the user with asense that they are traveling along a network ofinterconnected places with common landscapefeatures such as design elements (ie., pave-ment treatments, walls or vertical markers), andwayfinding elements.

Access nodes should indicate to the River-way user that they have arrived on the River-way and the Riverway is there to discover andexplore. Access nodes will include the followingelements:

• Pavement treatments (to differentiate from

Figure 6Natural Materials

Palette of RiverwayFeatures

Saltate bench

Sandblastedtext on saltates identifieslocation,name of park, interpretivefacts, etc.

Prefab concrete (tolook like stone)

trash can


Figure 7Natural

MaterialsPalette ofRiverwayFeatures

Drinkingfountain

Identification, interpretationor regulation panel inset intostone

Stucco/stone cap benchand planter

Figure 9Sample interpretive

treatment: River’sPerch

Figure 8Sample pavementtreatment: TrailCrossroads


Figure 10Estuarine R

each Map

N


asphalt path and announce the connectionto the Riverway corridor)

• Thematic fencing/walls/arbors• Seating• Directional and informational signage• Public art features• Riverway markers

Figures 6-9 show sample design standardsfor access nodes. In general, materials shouldbe natural (ie., stone or stucco) and designed tobe vandal-proof and non-intrusive to the unde-veloped feel of the Riverway. It is preferred thatthese features be design build rather than se-lected from a catalog.

Urban interface connections are envisioned as“fingers of green” that expand and connect theRiverway corridor into the community andneighborhoods through the installation of streettrees, pavement treatments, and public art ele-ments along specific streets and corridors.These “fingers of green” provide hints and re-minders to visitors and residents that by follow-ing the routes they will end up at the River andRiverway trail. Urban interface connections mayalso include directional signage or orientationsymbols from downtown areas and other neigh-borhood areas such as Beach Flats and lowerOcean Street. Public art is another element thatcan play on river themes and remind the com-munity that the River is nearby.

4.2 Site Specific Recommendationsin River ReachesThe following discussion addresses im-

provements to each of the three planningreaches and identifies focus sites, accessnodes, and urban interface connections locatedwithin each reach.

The San Lorenzo Riverway currently con-

sists of a 12-foot wide asphalt path running thelength of the levee on the west and east banksfor a total of five linear miles. The Riverway trailincludes American Disabilities Act (ADA) acces-sible ramps at all major bridges. Other ameni-ties such as seating, lighting, signage, publicart, and interpretive elements do not currentlyexist on the Riverway. The Riverway is land-scaped on the outer banks with native ripariantrees and shrubs. The inner banks are not land-scaped but have a mix of native and nonnativeplants characteristics of streams on the CentralCoast. The three planning reaches and their ex-isting characteristics are described below. Rec-ommendations for focus sites, access nodes,and urban interface connections follow thereach descriptions. Conceptual designs devel-oped in the design charette are included foreach site to provide conceptual ideas for exist-ing areas.

Estuarine ReachThe Estuarine Reach is the last segment of

the San Lorenzo Riverway and runs from LaurelStreet to the rivermouth (Figure 10). The Estua-rine Reach refers to the portion of the Riverwhere tidal action changes the aquatic environ-ment to a brackish system and influences thetypes of plants that can grow in the area. TheEstuarine reach also becomes a lagoon in thelate summer when the sandbar at the river-mouth closes and freshwater inflows cause theestuary to fill and become a lagoon. During theperiod of sandbar closure the lagoon slowlyconverts to freshwater. The Estuarine Reach isone of the most complicated areas biologicallyand hydrologically in the river system.

Neighborhood areas adjacent to the Estua-rine Reach include Beach Flats, Seabright andLower Ocean Street. The neighborhoods in thisreach are developed with housing and commer-cial land uses. The Santa Cruz Beach Board-walk and its associated facilities including theThird Street parking lot are located in the Estua-rine Reach. Jessie Street Marsh is located onthe southeast bank of this reach immediatelyupstream of the rivermouth. Existing parks inthis reach include Mike Fox Tennis Park andJessie Street Marsh Park. In this reach the Riv-erway can be accessed via ramps at Riverside

Figure 11Mike Fox ParkFocus Site


Figure 12C

onceptualPlan for M

ikeFox Tennis

Park


Avenue Bridge, Canfield Avenue, Jessie Street,Third Street, and near the Trestle Bridge at theterminus of the levee. The Southern PacificRailroad Trestle Bridge located at the terminusof the Riverway provides east-west access overthe River from the Seabright area to BeachFlats.

Focus Sites—The Estuarine Reach includes fourfocus sites: Mike Fox Park, the Riverbend/Lau-rel Street Extension area, the terminus of theRiverway trail on the east bank at Jessie StreetMarsh, and the Trestle Bridge area. Improve-ments at these focus sites include defining trailaccess parking with marked spaces and entrysites, creating additional river view areasthrough construction of small thematic plazasand informal nature trails, and enhancing recre-ational use.

Mike Fox Park is a large regional park locat-ed on the east side of the River on San LorenzoBoulevard. Except for four public tennis courtsand several picnic tables, much of the park is un-improved. There is no designated parking areaand access to the Riverway trail is from thenorthern and southern ends of the park via pe-destrian and maintenance vehicle access ramps

(Figure 11).Streambanks are flatter in this area and a

small seasonal beach is formed along the river-bank from the Riverside Avenue Bridge up-stream. Improvements proposed for Mike FoxPark include defining parking with marked spac-es and entry sites, providing additional picnicareas, and creating a seasonal events plaza atthe northern end of the park on an existing turfarea. Creation of an informal nature path on theinner levee bank with seasonal overlooks andseating will provide opportunities for wildlifewatching and streambank and River monitoring.The park may also serve as a location for a kay-ak vendor if seasonal boating is ever estab-lished for the river. This park would also beappropriate for a public restroom. See Figure12 for additional concepts that may be imple-mented at this focus site.

The Riverbend/Laurel Street Extension areais currently in design and construction planningas a cooperative project with the U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers as Phase 3 of the SanLorenzo River Flood Control Improvement andEnvironmental Restoration Project. Construc-tion is anticipated to occur in 2003/2004. Im-provements will include a one-way road from

Figure 13Conceptual Plan for

Riverbend/Laurel StreetExtension Focus Site


Figure 14Conceptual Plan for

Riverbend/Laurel StreetExtension Focus Site:

River View Plaza

Laurel Street Extension to Third Street, a Riverview plaza off Third Street and a pedestrian/bike trail that will complete the Riverway trail un-der the Riverside Bridge. The River view plazawill provide opportunities to interpret the culturaland natural history of the River. See Figures 13and 14 for conceptual drawings of the improve-ments at this focus site.

The terminus of the Riverway trail on theeast bank is at East Cliff Drive directly acrossfrom Jessie Street Marsh (Figure 15). The termi-nus is landscaped but has no other improve-ments. This area could be improved throughproviding a River view plaza area which would

Figure 15Jessie StreetFocus Site

Figure 17Trestle Bridge

Focus Site

Figure 18Trestle Bridge

Focus Site


Figure 16Conceptual Planfor Jessie Street

Focus Site


Figure 19Conceptual Plan for Trestle

Bridge Focus Site


take advantage of the views and natural andcultural features of this site. This area shouldalso emphasize a relationship with Jessie StreetMarsh through signage, interpretation, and edu-cational planting areas of appropriate flora. Ex-isting site conditions and public safetyconstraints make it difficult to provide a formalconnection to Jessie Street Marsh without majortransportation improvements at this site. Con-flicts with vehicular traffic going both directionson East Cliff Drive are common in this area dueto the lack of a signal light or crosswalk. Origi-nal plans for the River developed in 1987 dis-cussed the idea of a cantilevered bicycle trailabove the River along East Cliff Drive. This de-

Figure 22Third Street Ramp Access

Node

Figure 23Barson StreetAccess Node

Figure 20Beach Hill Stairs Access

Node

Figure 21Canfield Avenue Access

Node

sign should be reconsidered in transportationimprovement plans for this area to address pub-lic access and safety concerns. Additional con-sideration should be given to creating anunderpass to connect the east Riverway trailwith the Oceanview Park trail and Jessie StreetMarsh. See Figure 16 for conceptual plans forthis focus site.

The Trestle Bridge area is a confusing arrayof public and private property hampered by thepresence of the wall along the Santa Cruz BeachBoardwalk’s log ride and the private parking areaat the terminus of the levee trail. Yet the TrestleBridge area offers dramatic views of the river andMonterey Bay and the beach (see Figures 17


Figure 24Sum

mary M

ap ofIm

provements in Estuarine

Reach


Specific Location Improvement Type Recommended Improvements

Mike Fox Park Focus Area • Define trail access parking with marked spaces andentry • Provide additional picnic areas

• Create plaza and community gathering circle andprogram community events and celebrations

• Possible future kayak vendor site• Install public restrooms• Add nature trails with seasonal overlooks• Add Riverway markers, directional and interpretive

signage, and public art opportunitiesRiverbend/ Focus Area • Create Riverview plazaLaurel Street Extension • Add interpretive features

focusing on the area’s historyTrail terminus Focus Area • Create Riverview plaza highlighting the cultural andat East Cliff Drive natural history of the River and Bay.(Jessie Street Marsh) • Add Seating

• Add Riverway markers, directional and interpretivesignage, and public art opportunities

Trestle Bridge area/ Focus Area • Make beach access more user friendlyRivermouth • Construct River view plaza

• Emphasize gateway to Riverway trail with Riverwaymarkers, directional and interpretive signs, a staffed

kiosk,and other public art opportunites

• Connect to the trails over the Trestle Bridge andBoardwalk.

• Identify opportunity to acquire parking lot forredevelopment

as a River restoration area.

Third Street Access Node • Pavement treatment• Provide orientation symbols• Install public art

Canfield Avenue Access Node • Pavement treatment• Provide orientation symbols

Barson Access Node • Pavement treatment• Provide orientation symbols• Improvements for bikes and strollers

Beach Hill Stairway Access Node • Pavement treatment• Provide orientation symbols• Install public art

Lower Ocean to Urban Interface • Plant street treesEast Cliff ConnectionBarson Street to Urban Interface • Plant street treesRiverside ConnectionEast Cliff to Urban Interface • Plant street treesSan Lorenzo Point Connection

Table 1Summary Table of

Improvements in EstuarineReach


Figure 25TransitionalReach Map

N


Figure 26Branciforte Creek

Confluence Area - ExistingConditions

and 18) and is the gateway to the San LorenzoRiverway at its southern terminus. Goals for im-provements to this focus area include ‘cluing’Riverway users that beach access is availableand that bicycle and pedestrian access is avail-able over the Trestle to the east side of the River.The trestle bridge could also incorporate publicart features. The site would be fitting for a Riverview plaza that takes advantage of the views toMonterey Bay and should highlight the culturaland natural resources of the area. Another fea-ture of the site is the large parking lot off of ThirdStreet. This parcel should be considered for res-toration to wetland habitat to lessen the visualimpact of the parking lot adjacent to the River.Chapter 6 addresses this area in more detail.Figure 19 shows conceptual plans for the TrestleBridge site.

Access Nodes - The Estuarine Reach includesfour sites appropriate for access nodes. Thesesites include (1) the Beach Hill stairway fromCliff Street where it ends at Laurel Street exten-sion, (2) the Riverway trail access ramp at Can-field Avenue, (3) the Riverway trail access rampat Third Street, and (4) a Riverway trail accessramp at the western end of Barson Street (Fig-ures 20-23). Improvements to these accessnodes will include pavement treatments, themat-ic fencing/walls/arbors, and directional and infor-mational signage. Refer to figures 6-9previously for sample design treatments for usein these access nodes. Improving these nodeswill help to orient users to the Riverway trail.

Urban Interface Connections - Urban interface con-nections should be provided at three sites in theEstuarine Reach: (1) Lower Ocean Street toEast Cliff Drive, (2) Barson Street to OceanStreet, and (3) East Cliff Drive to San LorenzoPoint. Improvements to these streets should in-clude street trees and signage indicating the lo-cation of the Riverway. These “fingers of green”will help to define connections to the Riverwayfrom adjacent neighborhoods and arterials.

Figure 24 and Table 1 summarize all of theimprovements at sites in the Estuarine Reach.

Transitional ReachThe Transitional Reach includes the area

from the Laurel Street Bridge to the WaterStreet Bridge (Figure 25). This area changeswith the closure of the sandbar during the latersummer and fall. When the sandbar is closed

this reach fills with freshwater and provides ad-ditional habitat for steelhead. At times of theyear when the sandbar is open extreme tidescan bring saltwater into this area. During mostof the year this reach is freshwater and includesimportant riparian habitat areas along SanLorenzo Park. Branciforte Creek enters thisreach just above Soquel Avenue.

The neighborhood areas adjacent to thisreach include Pacific Avenue and downtown,Front Street and San Lorenzo Park. Land usesin this area of the river are largely commercial,retail, office, and recreational. The TransitionalReach includes San Lorenzo Park, a large re-gional park, and Mimi De Marta park, a smallneighborhood park, both on the east side of theriver. The Santa Cruz County Government Cen-ter is also located on the east bank. Front Streetis located on the west bank in this reach. Front


Figure 27C

onceptualPlan forBranciforteC

reekC

onfluenceSite


Figure 28Royal Taj/Soquel Avenue

Existing Conditions

Street is addressed in more detail in Chapter 6of this plan. There are many public accesspoints throughout this reach, including ADAramps at Laurel Street, Soquel Avenue, andWater Street Bridges. Circulation between thewest and east banks is facilitated by a pedestri-an bridge at San Lorenzo Park.

Focus Sites - The focus sites in the Transi-tional Reach include the Branciforte Creek/Da-kota Avenue area, the Soquel Bridge/Royal Tajarea, and Mimi de Marta Park. Improvementsfor focus sites in thisreach emphasize provid-ing increased educationaland interpretive elementsas well as enhanced rec-reational and access fea-tures. These focus sitesare located along theeastern bank and are tar-geted at neighborhoodand regional users of theRiverway.

Existing conditions atthe Branciforte Creek/Da-kota Avenue area (Figure26) include dumpsterstorage, chain link fenc-ing and non-native trees.Access to the river andcreek is limited by over-grown vegetation andhomeless encampmentsprevent safe access from

San Lorenzo Park and Dakota Street. Con-nection to San Lorenzo Park, the Riverwaytrail and Branciforte Creek is undefined. Theconfluence area of Branciforte Creek and SanLorenzo River does provide dramatic views ofthe River. These opportunities, as well as de-fined trail connections, should be capitalizedon in this focus site. Proposed improvementsinclude a River view plaza at the north side ofBranciforte Creek with a seasonal access tothe creek and River via stairs and a temporarycreek crossing (Figure 27). Redesign of the

existing north wall of theflood control channelshould also be consid-ered to lessen the visualbluntness of the wall. Astep down design of thewall may be appropriatewithout compromising theengineered flood controlintegrity. Reconfigurationof the point of land north-east of the confluenceshould also be explored.A seasonally opened na-ture path at the conflu-ence features interpretiveinformation and over-looks. On the south sideof Branciforte Creek op-portunities exist to rede-velop the Dakota Streetoffice complex to bemore river oriented and

Figure 31Mimi De Marta

Focus SiteExisting Conditions


Figure 29C

onceptualPlan for R

oyalTaj/Soquel

Avenue FocusSite


Figu

re 3

0C

once

ptua

lPl

an fo

rR

oyal

Taj/

Soqu

elAv

enue

Focu

s S

ite -

Red

evel

oped


Figure 32Conceptual Plan for Mimi

De Marta Focus Site


to possibly accommodate a River EducationCenter and parking in the future.

Another significant feature that will occur inthe Branciforte Creek/Dakota Avenue area isthe construction of a pedestrian/bicycle bridgethat connects the existing Riverway path underSoquel Bridge and over Branciforte Creek toSan Lorenzo Park. While the bridge is not cur-rently designed, it is programmed for construc-tion within the next 10 years. This bridge willgreatly enhance the access options on the eastbank of the Riverway. It is an opportunity to in-tegrate public art, and will also serve to bringpeople to the proposed River view plaza at the

Figure 34Pedestrian

Bridge East Bank AccessNode

Figure 33Pedestrian

Bridge West BankAccess Node

confluence with Branciforte Creek. A conceptualroute for the bridge and trail is shown in Figure27 in relation to the River view plaza and otherimprovements proposed for this site.

The Soquel Bridge/Royal Taj area suffersfrom an incomplete and confusing parking lotand bikeway design that conflict with vehicleand parking uses. The Riverway trail abruptlyterminates at the entrance to the restaurantparking lot at Riverside Avenue. The Riverwaytrail is indicated only by its raised elevation fromthe parking area in certain areas, but is not


Figure 35Summary Map ofImprovements in

Transitional Reach



Branciforte Creek/ Focus Area • Construct River view plazaDakota Avenue • Provide River access through informal trail and

overlook features• Add seasonal creek crossing• Incorporate future River Education Center• Construct pedestrian/bicycle bridge over Branciforte

Creek• Relocate dumpster and maintenance facilities• Connect to Riverway and Branciforte trails and

San Lorenzo Park.• Add Riverway markers, directional and interpretive

signage, and public art opportunities.Soquel Avenue Bridge/ Focus Area • Define trail access parking with marked spaces andentryRoyal Taj • Separate bike path from parking

• Prevent illegal parking on bike path• Identify potential site for public restroom• Landscape parking area with trees• Install boulder (saltate) barrier for bike path• Add Riverway markers, directional and interpretive

signage, and public art opportunitiesMimi de Marta Park Focus Area • Define trail access parking with marked spaces andentry

• Add additional recreation elements• Construct River view plaza at levee top• Create informal nature trail• Add Riverway markers, directional and interpretive

signage, and public art opportunitiesFront Street Plaza @ Focus Area • Construct River view plazaCathcart or Maple Lane • Add Riverway markers, directional and interpretivesignage, (see Chapter 6) and public art opportunitiesExisting pedestrian bridge Access Node • Provide orientation signage

• Create interpretive featuresCathcart Ramp Access Node • Provide orientation signage

• Create interpretive featuresMaple Lane Ramp Access Node • Provide orientation signage

• Create interpretive featuresChurch/Cooper Urban Interface • Plant street treesStreets via Galleria Connection • Provide orientation symbolsPacific Avenue Urban Interface • Plant street treesvia Cathcart Connection • Provide orientation symbols

• Install public artPacific Avenue Urban Interface • Plant street treesvia Maple Lane Connection • Provide orientation symbols

• Install public art

Table 2Summary Table of

Improvements inTransitional Reach


Figure 36Riverine

Reach Map

N


striped and cars often park on it obstructing trailusers (Figure 28). The driveway/trail area isalso used by delivery trucks, creating additionalconfusion in the area. The area is devoid ofvegetation and illegal dumping occurs here andunder Soquel Bridge.

Proposals for this area include formalizingthe parking area for the restaurant as two small-er lots with trees screening the bridge and So-quel Drive (Figure 29) and delineating theRiverway trail with boulders or other rock ele-ments to carry with the theme of the river sal-tates (see Public Art Master Plan) thusdiscouraging illegal parking and undefined vehi-cle use. This area could also be a site for anadditional public restroom but would require ne-gotiations with property owners. If redevelop-ment were to occur on this area, a river orientedcommercial use could be created (Figure 30)with parking and trail uses more clearly delin-eated at the Riverside Drive frontage. Direction-al and informational signs, Riverway markers,and additional plantings will help define thisarea.

Mimi de Marta Park is a small neighborhoodpark with only limited facilities (2 picnic bench-es). The park is located at the terminus ofBroadway Avenue. A cul-de-sac provides infor-mal parking (Figure 31) and a large ramp pro-vides pedestrian and bicycle access to theRiverway trail. Maintenance vehicles also usethis ramp. This small park is located in an areathat receives significant neighborhood trafficand could be enhanced through defining trailaccess parking with marked spaces and an en-try marker, adding additional recreational ele-ments (ie., sand volleyball or basketball court,picnic areas) and developing a thematic riverplaza area and informal nature trail for bird-watching and other wildlife viewing activities(Figure 32).

Access Nodes - Access nodes should be createdat both sides of the existing pedestrian bridgenear the County Government Center in theTransitional Reach (Figures 33 and 34) and atCathcart Street and Maple Street off of FrontStreet. The bridge currently provides the mainaccess for pedestrians and bicyclists crossingthe river and is an important route from theCounty Government Center to downtown andPacific Avenue. The access nodes should bedesigned to compliment one another as well asprovide directional and interpretive informationfor trail users. Improvements should include

Figure 38Gateway PlazaFocus Site

Figure 37Felker Street

Focus Site

Figure 39Pedestrian

Bridge and TrailConnection

LocationsSteven Grover & Associates


pavement treatments, directional and informa-tional signage, and Riverway markers.

Urban Interface Connections - The goal of the ur-ban interface connections in the TransitionalReach is to provide features that connect down-town areas with the River via “green corridors”of trees and landscaping. Street trees and sig-nage should be provided from Pacific Avenuevia Cathcart Street and Maple Lane to the River.Dakota Street should also be treated as an ur-ban interface connection to draw attention tothe Branciforte Creek confluence area.

Figure 35 and Table 2 summarize all of theimprovements at sites in the Transitional Reach.

Riverine ReachThe Riverine Reach extends from the Water

Street Bridge to Highway One (Figure 36). Thisreach is entirely freshwater during all times ofthe year. Extensive stands of riparian vegeta-tion are found in this reach. The nomenclaturefor the reach reflects its behavior as a freshwa-ter river system with habitat supportive of fishand wildlife. Tidal action does not affect the hy-drology in this area of the River.

Neighborhoods and commercial areas adja-

Figure 42Josephine Street Access

Node

Figure 43West Bank Water Street

BridgeAccess Node

Figure 44East Bank Water Street

BridgeAccess Node

cent to this reach include Felker Street, Jose-phine Street, the El Rio Mobile Home Park,and the Gateway Shopping Center. There arefour Riverway trail access points on the eastbank at Felker Street, Pryce Street, KennanStreet and Blaine Street. Felker Street is identi-fied as a focus site connecting to the proposedbridge across the River. Three public accesspoints are located on the west bank as welland include the Gateway Plaza commercialarea, Josephine Street and El Rio MobileHome Park. The Gateway Center access is apublic plaza connected to the top of the levee.

Focus Sites - The focus sites along the RiverineReach include the Felker Street cul-de-sac andthe levee crest plaza located at Gateway Cen-ter (Figures 37 and 38). These two sites will belinked together with the construction of the newpedestrian bridge programmed for construction


Figure 40Conceptual Plan

for Felker Street Focus Site & Gateway Plaza




Felker Street Focus Area • Define trail access parking with marked spaces andentry

• Create stair access up levee: incorporate art intorisers

• Provide handicap access side trail• Provide vertical entry feature• Incorporate small thematic plaza as gateway feature• Tie to pedestrian bridge• Revegetate social trails• Plan for future trail connection under Highway 1• Create public art area near Highway 1 bridge for

vertical announcement piecesGateway Center Plaza Focus Area • Integrate pathway into existing plaza:

add focal feature to plaza• Create lower plaza in shopping center area• Program both public spaces for events• Tie to pedestrian bridge• Consider formation of dog area• Partner with Gateway businesses for joint use of

facilitiesJosephine Street Access Node • Incorporate pavement treatment

• Construct low boulder wall/saltates• Provide orientation signage

Felker Street Urban Interface • Plant street treesConnection • Provide orientation symbols Table 3

Summary Tableof Improvements

in Riverine Reach

Figure 45Summary Map ofImprovements inRiverine Reach

IntroductionBranciforte Creek is an important feature in

both the biotic and hydrologic character of theSan Lorenzo River and the urban area sur-rounding the River. Branciforte Creek flows intothe San Lorenzo River near Dakota Street andSoquel Avenue. Its natural appearance ismasked by the concrete flood control structurethat runs the first one-mile of the creek from itsconfluence with the River. The 1987 San Loren-zo River Design Concept Plan did not providesite-specific recommendations for BranciforteCreek and largely left the creek out of the plan-ning discussion. During plan development bythe San Lorenzo Urban River Plan Task Forcein 2000, it was agreed that Branciforte Creekwas an integral component of the river andshould be included in the updated San LorenzoUrban River Plan.

This chapter provides recommendations forBranciforte Creek and its surrounding neighbor-hoods. The planning area includes the Branci-forte Creek corridor (including the flood controlchannel along with City-owned easements westand east of the channel) from the creek’s con-fluence east to the City limits north of Highway1 (Figure 46). Private properties adjacent to thecreek are not part of the planning area.

5.1 Area Description and Current Conditions

Branciforte Creek is the largest tributaryflowing into the San Lorenzo River in the Cityof Santa Cruz. Branciforte Creek drains an ap-proximate 17-square mile watershed and in-cludes the drainage area of Carbonera Creek.The lowest one-mile of the creek was convert-ed into a concrete flood control channel duringthe construction of the San Lorenzo RiverFlood Control Project from 1957-1959 by theU.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). Theflood control channel begins at the confluencewith the San Lorenzo River and continues5,200 feet upstream. The channel is trapezoi-dal (mostly rectangular) in shape with sidewallsvarying from 13 to 22 feet in height and approx-imately 35 feet wide. A fish passage channelbuilt in the center of the concrete channel isdesigned to provide passage for steelheadtrout during low flow and drought conditions(Figure 47). Carbonera Creek enters Branci-forte Creek approximately one-quarter mile up-stream from the upper end of the flood controlchannel. Carbonera Creek drains the areas of

5BranciforteCreek

Figure 46Branciforte Creek

Planning Area Map

Scotts Valley and the western area of the SanLorenzo Valley. The flood control channel is de-signed to convey the estimated 125-year recur-rence interval flood. At the time of planning andconstruction, the Corps estimated the 125-yearflood equal to 8,400 cubic feet per second.

The flood control channel is currently im-paired due to accumulation of sediment andvegetation throughout the channel. A flood con-veyance assessment conducted in 2001 con-cluded that the sediment and vegetation isimpacting the design flood capacity of the chan-nel by a significant degree (Balance Hydrolog-ics Inc., 2001). The maintenance agreementwith the Corps requires the City of Santa Cruzto “prevent any encroachment in the projectchannel which would interfere with its properfunctioning for flood control” including keepingthe channel clear of debris, weeds, and wildgrowth and ensuring the capacity of the chan-nel is not being reduced by the formation ofshoals (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1959).In recent decades, the area surrounding ScottsValley has undergone rapid development, dra-matically increasing the impervious surfacepresent along Carbonera Creek. This land usechange has modified the timing of when floodcrests arrive at the flood control channel ofBranciforte Creek. The increased urbanizationin the watershed presumably decreases theamount of time between when rains falls towhen a flood peak is generated in the creek(Balance Hydrologics Inc., 2001). City officialshave estimated that the flood peak arrives ap-proximately one and a half times sooner thanwhen the flood control channel was first con-structed in 1959 (1.5 hours versus 3 hours).

Beginning above the flood control channelnear Market Street, Branciforte Creek becomesa natural channel with native riparian habitat onboth streambanks. Branciforte Creek is knownto support steelhead trout (a federally listedthreatened species). The California Departmentof Fish and Game conducted a stream invento-ry of fishery habitat and species present in1996. The inventory was largely focused on thenatural channel of Branciforte Creek and of-fered little insight as to habitat conditions in theflood-control channel (Balance Hydrologics Inc.,2001). At the time of the survey steelhead wereobserved well above the flood control channel(between 3 and 8 miles upstream). Recom-mendations resulting from the 1996 Departmentof Fish and Game study included conducting a

sediment-source study and developing man-agement strategies based on the recommenda-tions of the sediment source study. The reportalso recommended increasing woody cover inpools and flatwater habitats and continuedstudy of water temperatures.

Additional fisheries study was completed bythe Department of Fish and Game in November2001 in the flood control channel portion ofBranciforte Creek. That study concluded thatalthough there was limited steelhead spawningand rearing habitat noted within the concretechannel, the quality of habitat was not optimal(California Department of Fish and Game, un-published). The study concluded that althoughthe concrete channel is providing little or nohabitat for spawning and rearing, it is essentialthat the channel be maintained for optimal adultand juvenile salmonid passage (California De-partment of Fish and Game, unpublished).Passage of salmonids is both an issue fordownstream migration (occurring in summerand late fall) and for upstream migration (be-ginning as early as January or February).Downstream migration and passage may beimpeded by low flows, high temperatures andlack of escape cover. These conditions maylead to stranding of young fish or predation bybirds and other predators if the fish cannot hidein deeper water. Upstream migration is compli-cated by high stream flows (usually associatedwith storm flows) and lack of resting areas forfish migrating upstream. Without off stream orinstream resting areas (slow water areas, boul-ders) upmigrating steelhead can fall victim to

Figure 47Branciforte Creek Channel

with Fish Channel

exhaustion. Neighbors in the immediate area ofthe flood control channel have reported seeingupmigrating steelhead in the flood controlchannel in recent years.

The natural and channelized portions ofBranciforte Creek provide habitat for birds,small mammals, and amphibians and reptiles.Bird censuses performed in 1999 on the naturalpart of the channel (Gilchrist, 1999) identified18different species, although no special statusspecies were observed during the census. Lo-cally, Branciforte Creek is known as a birding“hot spot” and members of the Santa Cruz BirdClub visit the area frequently.

The neighborhoods immediately adjacent tothe channelized creek include Market Street,Reed Way, Berkeley Way, and Dakota and MayAvenues. Land use in the immediate neighbor-ing areas is primarily residential with some of-fice uses near Market Street. San Lorenzo Parkis located at the confluence of BranciforteCreek and the San Lorenzo River. The creek isaccessed by two utility access roads. One be-gins at May Street and continues north to WaterStreet along the east bank of the creek and theother access road begins on the west bank atMay Avenue and continues to Market and GrantStreets. These roads are owned and maintainedby the City of Santa Cruz and provide accessfor maintenance of the flood control channel byCity vehicles as well as emergency access.

Branciforte Creek benefits greatly from theinvolvement of a local neighborhood group, theNeighbors of Branciforte Watershed. This grouphas been instrumental in recruiting volunteers towork on creek projects including volunteer wa-ter quality monitoring. The Neighbors group hashosted several informational workshops andcreek field trips and continues to host projectssuch as planting days and creek cleanups.Their continued involvement in the creek will beessential to the success of improving the creekas a natural and community resource.

Branciforte Creek faces many challenges inboth its biological recovery and in its role as aprominent neighborhood feature. Recoveringfish and wildlife species to the Creek is ham-pered by a lack of current studies and assess-ments. There is much anecdotal informationconcerning the Creek and its previous popula-tions of steelhead. Current studies have been

spotty and incomplete in most conclusions re-garding the effects of the flood control channelon steelhead. Even less information is availableregarding bird habitat. A comprehensive as-sessment of the watershed (biological and hy-drological conditions) has not been completednor has an examination of the physical condi-tions of the watershed (i.e., sediment sources).These types of studies will need to be complet-ed for an effective watershed-wide recovery ef-fort for Branciforte Creek.

The Creek is a prominent feature in the lo-cal neighborhood. Neighbors are especially in-terested in improving the appearance of theCreek and its access road and fencing. TheCreek and access roads are considered anamenity by many neighbors as the route pro-vides a safe and quiet pedestrian and bikeroute to the downtown. Neighbors have ex-pressed concerns about illegal camping in theCreek and illegal dumping of trash and garbagealong the access road and in the Creek. In gen-eral, neighbors have expressed an interest inkeeping the Creek cleaner and healthier for en-joyment by neighbors and the community.

General Recommendations forBranciforte Creek

• Conduct a watershed-wide, sediment sourceinvestigation to develop a sediment-controlplan for benefiting aquatic life and reducingsediment delivery to the flood control chan-nel. The sediment-source investigationshould focus on Carbonera Creek and main-stem Branciforte Creek.

• Continue investigations into providing en-hanced habitat for steelhead trout compati-ble with flood protection and with addedemphasis on areas upstream of the floodcontrol channel but within City ownership(i.e., Delaveaga Park).

• Continue volunteer water quality monitoringprogram and expand into monitoring streamflow in summer months.

• In cooperation with federal and state agen-cies pursue long-term solutions for steel-head passage and habitat enhancement inthe flood control channel.

• Identify opportunities for land acquisitionalong the creek corridor for increased floodconveyance and storage.

5.2 Reach Specific Recommendations forBranciforte Creek

For purposes of providing recommendationsfor the Urban River Plan, Branciforte Creek hasbeen broken into three reaches to reflect com-mon issues and needs in each reach. Thereaches include Reach 1 (confluence of SanLorenzo River to the Water Street Bridge);Reach 2 (Water Street Bridge to beginning ofthe natural channel) and Reach 3 (natural chan-nel to City limits including the confluence ofCarbonera Creek and upstream reach withinCity limits). Recommendations for each reachare provided with regards to flood control andnatural resource considerations, beautificationand recreational improvements and programsfor addressing neighborhood concerns and is-sues.

Reach 1(Confluence of San Lorenzo River to theWater Street Bridge)

Reach 1 includes the flood control channelfrom the confluence with the San Lorenzo Riverto the Water Street Bridge. This reach includesaccess roads on both sides of the creek begin-ning at May Avenue and continuing north toWater Street. The access roads are used regu-larly by neighbors for walking and bicycling;however, the western access road is moreheavily used. Problems with illegal camping anddumping are more common on the eastern ac-cess road and neighbors have expressed con-cerns about these activities in this area. Theaccess roads are for flood control maintenanceand emergency access. The roads are not rec-ognized as formal trails by the City of SantaCruz and so they receive no regular mainte-nance as would be more typical of a City parkor trail area. The access roads are maintainedat 12 feet in width and the toe ditches on eitherside of the maintenance road are cleared of de-bris and garbage. A 2-acre parcel of vacant landowned by the City is located just south of WaterStreet on the east bank.

This reach is especially impacted by sedi-ment and vegetation and requires maintenancefor ensuring design flood capacity. Severalstorm drains empty into the flood control chan-nel/creek within this reach. The County of SantaCruz Environmental Health Department hasdocumented high levels of fecal coliform dis-charging from the storm drain near OceanStreet (Ricker, 2000). This reach benefits fromextensive riparian vegetation from neighboringresidences. Several important species are

found along this reach including box elder andCalifornia buckeye.

Recommendations• Develop and implement a sediment and veg-

etation maintenance program within thisreach consistent with Corps flood controlmaintenance requirements. The programshould reflect necessary protections forsteelhead passage requirements and waterquality. Sediment and vegetation mainte-nance activities should be restricted to oc-curring only in June 15 through October toavoid impacts to steelhead.

• Conduct sediment removal downstream intothe zone of confluence with the San LorenzoRiver by excavating 1 to 2 feet of sedimentfrom the bed of the existing channel beforethe onset of winter rains. The sediment de-posited in the channel between the conflu-ence and Ocean Street can remain if thedepth does not exceed one foot and reduc-es to zero at Ocean Street.

• In cases where limited funding is available,maintenance activities can focus on vegeta-tion removal and sediment bars may be leftin place. However, periodic removal of sedi-ment will be required to ensure design floodcapacity.

• Improve the storm drain at Ocean Street byproviding dry-weather diversion to the sewagetreatment plant.

• Produce an informational door hanger forresidents concerning water quality, illegaldumping, and use of native species in land-scaping.

• Investigate the feasibility of constructing apedestrian bridge linking the east and westaccess roads south of Water Street.

• Work with the property owners at 550 WaterStreet to obtain an easement for completingthe access road to Water Street on the westside.

• Work with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineersto remove chain link fencing and replacewith more aesthetic fencing.

• Investigate installation of wall treatments forexterior walls of the flood control channel.

• Implement native riparian planting alongcreekside areas in City ownership on theeast bank consistent with providing neces-sary access for emergency and mainte-nance vehicles.

• Remove non-native trees in areas owned by

the City of Santa Cruz and replace with ap-propriate native tree species.

• Post signs and enforce City ordinances re-garding camping and dumping.

• Provide and maintain dispensers for dogwaste disposal.

Reach 2(Water Street to natural stream channel)

Reach 2 includes the flood control channelfrom Water Street to the beginning of the natu-ral stream channel. The access road continuesin this reach but only on the west bank. andcontinues to the beginning of the natural chan-nel. A pedestrian bridge crosses the creek atBerkeley Way providing a crossing from theeast side of the creek to the west side and Hub-bard Street. There are several small areas ofvacant city owned property along this reach in-cluding at the corner of Water and MarketStreets, at the pedestrian bridge, and at the Se-nior Center. This reach also benefits from ma-ture riparian forest most of its length. Thesetrees are primarily found on private propertiesadjacent to the flood control channel and in-clude many native riparian species (box elder,alder, buckeye).

This reach is less impacted by sediment andvegetation in the channel except in its mostsouthern reach near Water Street where sedi-ment and vegetation are impairing the channel.Stormdrains also empty into this reach at WaterStreet and the Senior Center. These drainshave not been documented with high levels offecal coliform, however limited testing has beendone on these drain outflows.

Recommendations• Conduct sediment and vegetation manage-

ment as necessary in the flood control chan-nel to maintain design flood capacity.

• Conduct water quality investigation of stormdrain outflows in this area.

• Improve city-owned areas with native ripari-an trees and shrubs.

• Provide a “Welcome to Branciforte Creek”sign at Water and Market Street on west ac-cess road. Include a watershed-wide mapshowing the Creek and San Lorenzo River.

• Remove non-native trees in areas owned bythe City of Santa Cruz and replace with ap-propriate native tree species.

• Post signs and enforce city ordinances re-garding camping and dumping.

• Continue use of west access road by pedes-trians and bicyclists.

IntroductionThe San Lorenzo River is a defining feature

in downtown Santa Cruz. The river corridor, re-cently named the “San Lorenzo Riverway,” hasbecome the City’s newest park and open spacearea, providing five linear miles of trails whichconnect the western and eastern sides of down-town and the beach to Highway One and areasnorth of the City limits. Previous planning effortsfor the San Lorenzo River recognized that cer-tain key downtown areas should be connectedto the River. The San Lorenzo River DesignConcept Plan (1987) identified Front Street be-tween Water Street and Laurel Street as aprime location for residential and commercialdevelopment to be oriented towards the River.The Design Concept Plan also identified oppor-tunities for improving the rivermouth area forpublic use and recreation.

The San Lorenzo River is also discussed inthe Downtown Recovery Plan (1991). TheDowntown Recovery Plan identifies the river asa major downtown open space and recognizesits potential “as a naturalistic open space, wild-life habitat, and recreational amenity: a ‘gardenpromenade’ that can provide a more contempla-tive and reflective experience to the hustle andbustle of Pacific Avenue.” The Downtown Re-covery Plan is an adopted specific plan of theCity that provides a framework for public andprivate actions related to rebuilding the down-town after the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake.The Downtown Recovery Plan recommendsthat the improvement of the riverfront and thecreation of linkages to the downtown should bea top priority in the rebuilding of the downtown.To date this has not been completed due to thetimeline of rebuilding the levees for 100-yearflood protection.

In the planning process for the San LorenzoUrban River Plan, the river corridor north ofHighway 1 also emerged as a significant oppor-tunity to integrate the river with surroundingneighborhoods and the larger San Lorenzo Riv-er watershed. The San Lorenzo Urban RiverPlan therefore designates three “Significant Riv-erfront Areas” described below and providesrecommendations for design guidelines and im-provements for riverfront development, access,and aesthetics.

6.1 Front Street Riverfront AreaFor the purposes of this plan, the Front

6Significant RiverfrontAreas

Figure 48Front Street Riverfront Area

N

Street Riverfront Area extends between thewest bank of the San Lorenzo River up to andincluding Front Street from Laurel Street northto South River Street (Figure 48). The FrontStreet Riverfront Area is the prime opportunitysite to engage the community with the SanLorenzo River. Improved public access is a pri-mary goal of the San Lorenzo Urban RiverPlan.

As mentioned above, the 1991 DowntownRecovery Plan includes design guidelines andrecommendations for this area. While commer-cial development and municipal parking lots arethe current major land use, redevelopment isexpected to occur here over the next 5-10 yearsproviding an opportunity for encouraging devel-opment that acknowledges and interacts withthe river. Two factors play a significant role inthe potential for redevelopment along the FrontStreet area: the pressing need for housing inSanta Cruz and the pending removal of the ex-isting floodplain designation in the Front Streetarea.

Prompted by high housing costs and trans-portation issues, in September 2000 the CityCouncil requested an analysis of ways to facili-tate the construction of new housing in theFront Street area. The City’s Planning Depart-ment conducted an opportunities and con-straints analysis and quantified 449 potentialhousing units which may be located in the FrontStreet Riverfront Area. Studies to date have in-dicated that a parcel consolidation strategymight allow for the most efficient developmentof the area between Soquel and Laurel Streets.A parcel consolidation strategy looks at ways tocombine properties and ownership patterns toprovide contiguous development options andpatterns. The City is continuing to study theFront Street corridor to determine housing de-velopment options and viability. In any case, theFront Street Riverfront Area will develop with amore dense housing and commercial develop-ment pattern in the future. Recommendations inthe Urban River Plan aim to encourage newand redeveloped housing and commercialbuildings to take advantage of their riverfrontlocation.

The Front Street area is currently designat-ed as an A-11 Federal Emergency ManagementAgency (FEMA) flood plain. New constructionin areas with this designation must meet FEMAflood elevation and flood proofing requirements.Additionally, any new property purchases, refi-

nances, and construction projects, which re-quire a loan from a federally insured financialinstitution must purchase flood insurance. Resi-dents and businesses in the Front Street floodplain area pay approximately $1 million in floodinsurance premiums per year. A major goal ofthe San Lorenzo River Flood Control and Envi-ronmental Restoration Project was to improvethe flood protection offered by the existing riverlevees so that the system would provide 100-year FEMA flood protection and eliminate theneed for mandatory flood insurance on develop-ment in flood plain areas. The economic bene-fits resulting from removal of the flood plaindesignation (and the consequent elimination offlood insurance payments) for the Front Streetarea could translate into less expensive devel-opment requirements for construction and moreflexibility for combining commercial and residen-tial uses.

The San Lorenzo Urban River Plan ac-knowledges the importance of the Front StreetRiverfront Area as appropriate for mixed-use,riverfront development that may include hous-ing, commercial, retail and office uses. Howev-er, the Urban River Plan also stresses thatthese uses should not conflict with the recre-ational and wildlife values of the River. The fol-lowing recommendations detail specific designguidelines for the Front Street Riverfront Area.

Recommendations• Maintain existing development standards in

the Downtown Recovery Plan (DRP) for theFront Street Riverfront Area including princi-pal permitted uses for ground-level and up-per-floors, conditional uses, and height andstep back requirements. Maintain maximumheight restriction to 50 feet with develop-ment above 35 feet in height stepping backat least 10 feet at an angle not to exceed 42degrees. (DRP, p. 47-50)

• Maintain the ten-foot setback area betweenresidential and commercial uses adjacent tothe levee trail from the western edge of thetrail. The setback area should be filled toraise the adjacent ground-level use to thesame elevation as the levee trail. This areashould also incorporate outdoor public seat-ing or visually accessible garden space forresidential development. Trees planted aspart of the San Lorenzo Flood Control Im-provement Project should be maintained andincorporated into new development. (DRP, p.

51)• Maintain design guidelines for residential

and commercial development with the ex-ception of limiting building materials to morenatural wood, brick and stone; avoid overuseof concrete and stucco. (DRP, p. 51)

• The river promenade proposed in the origi-nal San Lorenzo Design Concept Plan be-tween Soquel Drive and Laurel Street shouldbe reconceptualized as a more natural, lessformal looking “trail” with adjacent gardenspace and native trees to be accommodatedin the ten-foot setback area.

• Establish a river plaza or park within the FrontStreet Riverfront Area between Soquel Driveand Laurel Street on the west bank (upstreamorientation). Redevelopment of the MetroStation affords an opportunity for connectinga plaza or park with a public area on the eastside of Front Street. Other favorable sites arethe terminus with Cathcart Street and the ter-minus with Maple Street (Figures 49 & 50).

• Maintain the wooden roof-truss buildingsalong Front Street as architectural artifactsto demonstrate the “working waterfront”character of the area.

• Ensure that any parcel consolidation strate-gy provides for public access from the FrontStreet sidewalk to the levee. Maintain theten-foot step back requirement betweenbuildings included in the Downtown Recov-ery Plan for any development. Encouragepedestrian traffic through creative invitingdesign and incorporate water features, gar-dens, paving, and stairways up the levee asdesign features.

• Redevelop the Long’s-Zan-otto’s site to create a trueconnection to the River fromthe downtown area. Pre-serve views to the Riverfrom buildings along thewest side of Front Street.Concentrate developmenton the north and south por-tions of the site to allow fora transition from the publicspace at Front and CooperStreets (the Octagon Muse-um and plaza) and the Mu-seum of Art and History to aRiver promenade and thepedestrian bridge to SanLorenzo Park. Avoid large

expanses of parking in project design, at-tempt to “green” parking areas by usingtrees common to the River for a more naturalvisual impact.

• Consider abandonment of River StreetSouth for use as a riverfront promenade andpublic space for festivals and other outdooractivities once a comprehensive develop-ment plan is promoted for the Long’s-Zanot-to’s area.

• Maintain views from both taller downtownbuildings to the River and from the River trailto distant mountains and ridges, avoiding cre-ation of a development “wall” between thedowntown and the River.

• Preserve views along the Front Street areato and from Beach Hill, a significant historicfeature in this area.

• Encourage local business opportunitiesalong Front Street and avoid “box” stores inthis area.

6.2 Salz Tannery to Sycamore Grove River-front Area

The west bank of the San Lorenzo Rivernorth of Highway One offers immense opportu-nities to expand the San Lorenzo Riverway trailto the natural area of the upper River, Sy-camore Grove, and Pogonip. Existing Cityproperties at Sycamore Grove and Pogonip of-fer an opportunity for hikers to travel from therivermouth north to Pogonip and Henry CowellState Parks in Felton. Redevelopment of theSalz Tannery site will be an important compo-nent to providing these trail connections.

The Salz Tannery to Sycamore Grove River-front Area extends north ofHighway One on the west bankof the River upstream to Sy-camore Grove, a natural areaalong the River. The SycamoreGrove natural area is ownedand maintained by the City ofSanta Cruz Parks and Recre-ation Department. Figure 51shows the project area.

Salz Tannery is a historicsite on the City’s historic regis-ter. The tannery operation wasclosed in late 2001 and the siteand accompanying buildingsare currently for sale. TheCity’s Redevelopment Agencyis assisting the property owner

Figure 49Conceptual Plan for Front

Street Plazas

Figure 50Conceptual Plan for Front

Street Plaza at CathcartStreet

Figure 51Salz Tannery/Sycamore

Grove Riverfront Area

N

SalzTannery

Figure 52Beach Flats

Riverfront Area

N

in investigating possible reuses for the property.The current state of the property transfer andpotential reuse is unknown.

The 10-acre Sycamore Grove is included inthe Pogonip Master Plan (1998) which estab-lishes management actions in Pogonip and Sy-camore Grove including removal of non-nativespecies and revegetation. The plan also callsfor passive recreation and educational uses in-cluding a nature trail, interpretive displays, andpicnic tables for field trips and passive recre-ation. Although the Pogonip Master Plan doesnot call for a connector trail route south to thelower river and San Lorenzo Riverway trail, thisis a logical connection and is recommendedhere.

Recommendations

• Negotiate a public easement along the westbank of the San Lorenzo River north ofHighway One to Sycamore Grove to providefor eventual trail connection from the SanLorenzo Riverway trail to Sycamore Grove.

• Maintain the native riparian forest north ofHighway One.

• Protect views of the River from Highway Onebridge.

• Develop an 8-10’ wide trailnorth of Highway One alongthe top and edge of the Riverbank in a meandering patternwith a natural material (e.g.decomposed granite) surface.

• Provide connections from apossible park and ride lot (atHighway One and RiverStreet) to the Riverway; pro-vide signs and maps to north

and south connecting trails.• Encourage redevelopment

of a portion of the Salz Tan-nery site as a river orienta-tion center; investigatepotential partnerships withCalifornia State Parks andthe State Coastal Conser-vancy for this use.

6.3 Beach Flats Riverfront Area

The Beach Flats Riverfront Area is the ter-minus for the San Lorenzo Riverway and pro-vides the connection between the beach areaand the River. The Beach Flats neighborhoodhas a long history of interaction with the Riverand its environs. This area is located along thewest bank from the Riverside Avenue Bridgesouth to the rivermouth. Figure 52 shows theboundaries of this area. Currently this neighbor-hood is separated from the River by Third Streetand the expansive 8-acre Boardwalk parking lotextending from Uhden Street to Beach Street.The parking lot and Third Street create a physi-cal and psychological barrier that inhibits resi-dents from interacting with the river.

The area is densely developed with residen-tial and commercial uses and includes the San-ta Cruz Beach Boardwalk, a regional touristattraction. Many of the homes in the area arehistoric buildings and longtime residents of theneighborhood recall the River prior to channel-ization by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.Stories of boating on the River, surviving floodsand fishing off backyard docks capture thesense of relationship with the River that thissmall neighborhood had in the past. Issueswith increasing crime in the area as well as traf-fic on Third Street, currently dissuade neighborsfrom utilizing the River for recreation.

The Beach Flats neighborhood is plannedfor regional visitor commercial uses and highdensity residential. Redevelopment in BeachFlats over the next 20 years should seek to re-integrate the neighborhood with the Riverthrough pedestrian linkages, park furniture andlighting, and improved access to the beach andrivermouth. Spectacular views and connectionsto regional trail systems such as the CaliforniaCoastal Trail and Monterey Bay Sanctuary Sce-nic Trail makes the Beach Flats Riverfront Areaa potential magnet for residents and visitors.

Recommendations

The following recommendations address theBeach Flats Riverfront Area.

IntroductionImplementation of the San Lorenzo Urban

River Plan will require focused attention fromthe City and the community into the future, aswell as dedicated financing for both mainte-nance/operations and capital projects. The Ur-ban River Plan provides policies, programs andprojects for the San Lorenzo River, BranciforteCreek, and Jessie Street Marsh. These policies,programs and projects include improvementsfor public access, riverfront amenities, and com-munity involvement. The plan is designed forimplementation over 20 years. An incrementalapproach to implementation is most appropriatewith a concentration on identifying a sustainablefinancing structure as one of the most importantearly steps.

The San Lorenzo Urban River Plan sets avision for the San Lorenzo River, BranciforteCreek and Jessie Street Marsh as a network ofnatural areas to be discovered during one’sjourney along the river. It is desired that the SanLorenzo River and Riverway become a healthyand vibrant habitat for fish and wildlife and aclean, safe and enjoyable place for recreationby residents and visitors. Goals of integratingthe River with adjacent neighborhoods and thedowntown can be realized through a well-orga-nized implementation plan. This implementationchapter presents a series of recommendationsregarding establishment of a permanent Riveradvisory body, establishment of a staff level co-ordinating group, operations and maintenanceneeds, project phasing and costs, and fundingopportunities.

7.1 San Lorenzo River CommitteeThe San Lorenzo Urban River Plan would

benefit from having a Council-appointed perma-nent San Lorenzo River Committee assigned toassure the implementation of the plan and itsassociated recommendations. In reviewing cur-rent management strategies for implementationof projects and maintenance along the River itis apparent that a permanent River advisorybody is desirable to address the multi-depart-mental, multi-agency nature of managing andmaintaining the River into the future. Atpresent, San Lorenzo River management is-sues are split between the City’s Public Works,Parks and Recreation, Planning and Police de-partments and Redevelopment Agency. Whileall of these departments will have continuing in-

We don’t want this plan to sit on the shelf. Wewant this vision to become a reality for theCity of Santa Cruz.

—MemberSan Lorenzo Urban River Plan Task Force

7PlanImplementation

terests and issues in management of the Riverand/or adjacent development areas, continuingthis confusing and overlapping relationship intothe future is not desirable.

A permanent advisory group that focuses onthe River and takes into account the sometimesconflicting interests of Parks, Public Works, Wa-ter, Planning, Police, the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers and the public is vital. Several othercities have followed a similar process followingcompletion of plans for rivers and creeks includ-ing the City of Santa Rosa, the City of Napa,and Portland, Oregon. The following discussionaddresses some of the primary issues that apermanent river advisory body would be helpfulin addressing.

Funding - The establishment of a permanentRiver advisory group demonstrates a commit-ment by the City to long-term programmatic im-provements on the River. This is a signal topotential funding agencies such as the StateCoastal Conservancy, California Department ofFish and Game, and California State Parks thatthe City is committed to providing resource pro-tection and improvements along the River.These agencies are poised to distribute over$575 million in funds for river enhancement ac-tivities over the next 5-8 years as a result ofPropositions 12 & 40. Unless the City is orga-nized to effectively pursue a share of thesegrant funds, the ability to capitalize on theiravailability to accomplish many of the proposedriver improvement projects will be severely di-minished. The alternatives will then be that theCouncil will be unable to implement theseprojects or will need to dedicate City funds forthese improvements.

Urban River Plan Implementation - Along with out-lining restoration priorities for the River, the SanLorenzo Urban River Plan recommends severalenhancements and improvements to the exist-ing river levee trail system and acknowledgesfuture projects will continue to occur near andon the River levee, including the two pedestrianbridges (Highway One and Branciforte Creek),redevelopment along the Front Street corridor,redevelopment of the Salz Tannery site andgeneral improvements for pedestrian and bicy-cle access and trail connections to other areasalong the River corridor. The Plan also detailsways in which the City could offset some main-tenance costs on the River with implementationof community programs such as Adopt-A-River-

bank, volunteer trash cleanup programs andother volunteer activities such as docent pro-grams. All of these projects and programs willbenefit from consistent direction from an advi-sory group focused on the River.

Adaptive Management and HabitatMonitoring - The Lower San Lorenzo River andLagoon Management Plan calls for “adaptivemanagement” of the river channel to ensuresuccess in habitat recovery and maintenance offlood capacity. Adaptive management is a set ofpractices in which habitat enhancements aremonitored scientifically, and modified or re-moved if their biological or hydrological impactsdiverge from the Plan’s goals. A permanent ad-visory body could conduct regular reviews ofthe monitoring reports and recommend adjust-ment of restoration and management proce-dures as appropriate.

Watershed Focus - The existing San Lorenzo Ur-ban River Plan Task Force has been instrumen-tal in developing a watershed perspective withregards to the management of the lower Riverand lagoon, Branciforte Creek and Jessie StreetMarsh. A permanent River Committee wouldfurther provide a mechanism for the City tocommunicate to other watershed stakeholderson concurrent goals regarding river restorationand flood protection. This will be especially im-portant with regards to Endangered Species Actrequirements for the steelhead trout and cohosalmon and will also help in offsetting potentialcosts regarding endangered species manage-ment.

Clarifying River Functions AmongDepartments - Past focus on the River has beenthe implementation of the flood control improve-ment project and associated levee improve-ments and landscaping. Currently severaldepartments have responsibilities on the Riverwith differing focuses and priorities (see Table4). A River Committee could play an importantrole in responding to issues from staff, depart-ments and Council regarding the River.

Recommendations• Create a San Lorenzo River Committee

charged with providing oversight for imple-mentation of the San Lorenzo Urban RiverPlan (including Branciforte Creek and JessieStreet Marsh). This group will be advisory tothe City Council and other policy-making

commissions. Potential duties may include:Act in an advisory capacity to the CityCouncil in environmental matters pertain-ing to the San Lorenzo River within theCity limits (including Branciforte Creekand Jessie Street Marsh), and the en-hancement, maintenance and manage-ment thereof;Draft and recommend measures to imple-ment the policies and programs of theSan Lorenzo Urban River Plan and theLower San Lorenzo River and LagoonManagement Plan;Convene a Technical Advisory Committeeas necessary to serve in a scientific advi-sory role for adaptive management and

monitoring along the San Lorenzo River,Branciforte Creek, and Jessie StreetMarsh;

• Establish a River Coordinator position to co-ordinate implementation of projects and pro-grams in the Urban River Plan and staff theSan Lorenzo River Committee.

• Continue the staff level River ManagementCoordinating Group currently in operationand consisting of staff from the Public Works,Parks and Recreation, Planning, and Rede-velopment departments to coordinate and im-plement projects and programs on the SanLorenzo River, Branciforte Creek and JessieStreet Marsh. The River Coordinator can as-sist in staffing this group

7.2 Project Phasing and Projected Costs

The San Lorenzo Urban River Plan includesboth policy and project recommendations forthe San Lorenzo River and Riverway. Policy lev-el recommendations will need to be adoptedinto appropriate planning and policy documents.Projects and programs will need to be imple-mented according to available funding and pri-orities as defined by the Plan and communityinput. Table 5 provides a list of projects accord-ing to a timeline defined by the Task Force andwith a priority assigned.

7.3 Funding Opportunities

Implementation of the Urban River Plan willbe dependent on the availability of funds to ac-complish the various projects and programs.Funding sources are available from both localsources and from state and federal funding pro-grams. The funding strategy for implementationshould focus on grouping common projects andprograms comprehensively to be more competi-tive for grant funding. Identifying local fundsthat could be used for “match” funds will assistin making grant applications more competitivewith the idea of leveraging local dollars for addi-tional funds.

The Urban River Plan benefits from being amulti-focused plan and so therefore projectscan be proposed to a variety of funding sourcesincluding river parkway and greenway pro-grams, environmental education programs, na-tive plant programs, water quality andwatershed programs, restoration programs, andcommunity stewardship programs. Partnerships

CityDepartment Activity

Public • Channel MaintenanceWorks • Permitting In-channel

Vegetation Management• Levee Maintenance• Storm Drain Maintenance• Bicycle and Pedestrian

Improvements

Parks and • Outer Levee Slope Mainte-nanceRecreation • Pathway Maintenance

• Trash Removal/Large Scale Cleanups

• Irrigation Maintenance

City • Project ManagementManager • Future Studies

• Monitoring• Permitting• Staff to River Commission• Obtaining Funding• Community Outreach

Redevelopment • Flood Insurance/Certifica-tionAgency • Redevelopment Planning

• Property Acquisition& Negotiations

Planning • General Plan andDepartment Local Coastal Plan policy

• Specific Plans

Fire and • Public SafetyPolice • Vandalism

Table 4Department Roles

with local agencies such as Santa Cruz County,the Santa Cruz County Resource ConservationDistrict, Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctu-ary, California Coastal Commission, CoastalConservancy, and local nonprofits will alsomake grant applications more competitive.

Grant SourcesSeveral federal, state and private grant

funding sources are available for implementingprojects and programs of the San Lorenzo Ur-ban River Plan. A brief summary of these grantsources is discussed below.

Federal GrantsNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-

tration NOAA Community Based RestorationProgram - Various small grant programs fo-cused on restoration of riparian, riverine andanadramous fisheries

National Park ServiceLand and Water Conservation Fund - For devel-opment of outdoor recreation facilities and ac-quisitions of wetlands

Environmental Protection Agency & RiverNetworkWatershed Assistance Grants - For general op-erating support and projects

Environmental Protection AgencyWetlands Program Grants - Wetland protectionefforts including monitoring, mitigation trackingandacquisitions.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceWetland Protection Program DevelopmentGrant - For restoration and acquisition of wet-lands valuable to fish and wildlife

U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServicePartners for Fish and Wildlife - For on-the-ground efforts to restore or enhance nativeplant and animal communities

State GrantsCalifornia Department of Fish and GameWildlife Conservation Board - Acquisition andprotection of fish and wildlife habitat

Coastal ConservancyCoastal Access and Watershed Management

Grants - Projects supporting public access, ri-parian restoration, watershed planning and res-toration

State Water Resources Control BoardNonpoint Source Pollution Grant Program -Projects improving water quality, watershedplanning and implementation, coastal waterquality

California Department of Fish and GameFisheries Restoration Grants Program - Resto-ration, planning, monitoring of nativeanadramous fisheries

California Transportation Commission -State and federal transportation programs forbicycle and pedestrian access

California State ParksHabitat Conservation Fund Program -Anadramous fish habitat, wetlands habitat, ri-parian habitat, and trails programs

California State ParksRecreational Trails Program - Non-motorizedtrails programs

California Resources AgencyCoastal Resources Grant Program - Coastalhabitat protection, public access and recreation,coastal facilities, coastal management

Private GrantsNational Fish and Wildlife Foundation -Provides funding through a variety of programsfor fish and wildlife restoration

Santa Cruz County Fish and Game Commission-Local commission that distributes fine moniescollected from local Fish and Game violations

Other Financing Strategies

Capital Improvement ProgramCapital improvement projects outlined in the

plan can be incorporated into the annually-up-dated Capital Improvement Program of the City.Projects will need to assigned and initiated by aspecific department for inclusion into the pro-gram.

Local Bond InitiativesA local ballot measure could be drafted to

identify programs and projects to be financedthrough the measure. The City of Santa Bar-bara recently passed such a measure, MeasureB, which provides approximately $2 million an-nually for creeks restoration and water qualityprograms.

Tabl

e 5

Proj

ect P

hasi

ng, C

osts

and

Prio

ritie

s

Rec

omm

enda

tion

Des

crip

tion

Est

imat

edIm

plem

enta

tion

Type

Cos

tP

riorit

y

Cap

ital P

roje

cts

Ped

estri

an/B

ike

Brid

ge &

trai

l con

nect

ions

@ H

ighw

ay O

neM

ajor

tran

spor

tatio

n im

prov

emen

t$2

.5 m

illio

n1s

t Prio

rity

Ped

estri

an/B

ike

Brid

ge @

Bra

ncifo

rte C

reek

Maj

or tr

ansp

orta

tion

impr

ovem

ent

$2 m

illio

n1s

t Prio

rity

Ped

estri

an/B

ike

Impr

ovem

ents

to R

ailro

ad B

ridge

Maj

or tr

ansp

orta

tion

impr

ovem

ent

$1 m

illio

n1s

t Prio

rity

Focu

s S

ite -

Bra

ncifo

rte C

reek

Con

fluen

ce A

rea

Pub

lic p

laza

/orie

ntia

tion/

educ

atio

n$1

50,0

001s

t Prio

rity

Focu

s S

ite -

Jess

ie S

treet

Mar

sh In

terfa

ce A

rea

Pub

lic p

laza

/inte

rpre

tatio

n$5

0,00

01s

t Prio

rity

Focu

s S

ite -

Tres

tle B

ridge

Are

aP

ublic

pla

za/tr

ail a

cces

s/or

ient

atio

n$1

00,0

001s

t Prio

rity

Focu

s S

ite -

Laur

el S

treet

Ext

ensi

onP

ublic

pla

za/in

terp

reta

tion

$40,

000

1st P

riorit

yU

rban

Inte

rface

Con

nect

ions

Orie

ntat

ion

$60,

000

1st P

riorit

yP

edes

trian

/Bik

e Im

prov

emen

t to

Eas

t Clif

f Driv

e B

luff

Maj

or tr

ansp

orta

tion

impr

ovem

ent

$5 m

illio

n2n

d P

riorit

yFo

cus

Site

- Fe

lker

Stre

etP

ublic

pla

za/o

rient

atio

n/in

terp

reta

tion$

75,0

002n

d P

riorit

yFo

cus

Site

- G

atew

ay C

ente

r Pla

zaP

ublic

pla

za fo

r fe

stiv

als

$50,

000

2nd

Prio

rity

Focu

s S

ite -

Roy

al T

aj/S

oque

l Ave

nue

Pub

lic p

laza

/pub

lic r

estro

om/p

arki

ng$2

00,0

002n

d P

riorit

yFo

cus

Site

- M

imi D

e M

arta

Par

kP

ublic

pla

za/o

rient

atio

n/in

terp

reta

tion$

75,0

002n

d P

riorit

yFo

cus

Site

- M

ike

Fox

Par

kTr

ail a

cces

s/ka

yak

laun

ch$7

5,00

02n

d P

riorit

yA

cces

s N

ode

- Bea

ch H

ill S

tairw

ayO

rient

atio

n$2

5,00

02n

d P

riorit

yA

cces

s N

ode

- Thi

rd S

treet

Ram

p - E

ast B

ank

Orie

ntat

ion

$10,

000

2nd

Prio

rity

Acc

ess

Nod

e - B

arso

n St

reet

Orie

ntat

ion

$15,

000

2nd

Prio

rity

Acc

ess

Nod

e - J

osep

hine

Stre

etO

rient

iatio

n$1

0,00

03r

d P

riorit

yA

cces

s N

ode

- Exi

stin

g P

edes

trian

Brid

geO

rient

atio

n$1

0,00

03r

d P

riorit

yA

cces

s N

ode

- Can

field

Ave

nue

Ram

pO

rient

atio

n$1

0,00

03r

d P

riorit

y

Pla

nnin

g &

Pro

gram

min

gC

ompl

ete

San

Lor

enzo

Riv

erw

ayTr

ail I

mpr

ovem

ent P

lan

Pla

nnin

g$3

0,00

01s

t Prio

rity

Est

ablis

h a

nong

over

nmen

tal s

uppo

rt gr

oup

Pro

gram

min

gN

A1s

t Prio

rity

Bra

ncifo

rte C

reek

Sed

imen

t Stu

dyP

lann

ing

$75,

000

1st P

riorit

yB

ranc

iforte

Cre

ek -

Long

Ter

m F

ish

Pas

sage

Stu

dyP

lann

ing

$50,

000

1st P

riorit

yFr

ont S

treet

Red

evel

opm

ent P

lann

ing

Stud

ies

Pla

nnin

g$5

0,00

01s

t Prio

rity

Sal

z Ta

nner

y P

lann

ing

Stud

ies

Pla

nnin

g$5

0,00

02n

d P

riorit

yB

each

Fla

ts P

lann

ing

Stud

ies

Pla

nnin

g$5

0,00

02n

d P

riorit

y

Bra

ncifo

rte C

reek

- R

esto

ratio

n P

lan

for

Del

avea

ga P

ark

Pro

gram

min

g$7

5,00

03r

d P

riorit

yR

ecom

men

datio

nD

escr

iptio

nE

stim

ated

Impl

emen

tatio

nTy

peC

ost

Prio

rity

Staf

fing,

Ope

ratio

ns a

nd M

aint

enan

ceE

stab

lish

a R

iver

Coo

rdin

ator

pos

ition

Staf

fing

$90,

000

1st P

riorit

yP

rovi

de 3

.0 F

TE fo

r Riv

erw

ay m

aint

enan

ce a

nd o

ps.

Staf

fing

$175

,000

1st P

riorit

yP

rovi

de fo

r mon

thly

litte

r aba

tem

ent p

rogr

am in

sum

mer

Ope

ratio

ns/m

aint

enan

ce$5

0,00

01s

t Prio

rity

Inve

stig

ate

volu

ntee

r se

rvic

es a

vaila

ble

Ope

ratio

ns/m

aint

enan

ce$0

1st P

riorit

yD

evel

op r

epla

cem

ent p

lant

rec

omm

enda

tions

for

land

scap

ing

Ope

ratio

ns/m

aint

enan

ce$5

,000

1st P

riorit

y

Pol

icy

Des

igna

te a

per

man

ent S

an L

oren

zo R

iver

Com

mis

sion

Pol

icy

NA

1st P

riorit

yR

evie

w C

ity C

ode

Sec

tion

9.66

.090

and

9.6

6.03

0 fo

r ka

yaki

ngP

olic

yN

A1s

t Prio

rity

Mai

ntai

n ex

istin

g Fr

ont S

treet

dev

elop

men

t & s

etba

ck s

tand

ards

Pol

icy

NA

1st P

riorit

yR

evis

e Fr

ont S

treet

des

ign

guid

elin

es fo

r bu

ildin

g m

ater

ials

Pol

icy

NA

1st P

riorit

yD

esig

nate

a p

ublic

trai

l adj

acen

t to

Sal

z Ta

nner

yP

olic

yN

A2n

d P

riorit

y Tabl

e 5

(con

td.)

Proj

ect P

hasi

ng, C

osts

and

Prio

ritie

s

Balance Hydrologics, Inc., Conveyance Assess-ment of the Branciforte Creek Flood ControlChannel with Preliminary Recommendations forthe Enhancement of Conveyance and FisheryConditions, November 2001.

California Department of Fish and Game, Bran-ciforte Creek Stream Survey, unpublished draft,February 15, 2002.

City of Santa Cruz, Bicycle Transportation Plan2000, May 2000.

City of Santa Cruz, Downtown Recovery Plan,September 1991.

City of Santa Cruz & RRM Design Group, JessieStreet Marsh Management Plan, September1998.

City of Santa Cruz & Swanson Hydrology andGeomorphology, Lower San Lorenzo River andLagoon Management Plan, May 2002.

City of Santa Cruz, Pogonip Final Master Plan,July 1998.

City of Santa Cruz & ROMA Design Group, SanLorenzo River Design Concept Plan, July 1987.

City of Santa Cruz, Philip Williams and Associ-ates & Mitchell L. Swanson, The San LorenzoRiver Enhancement Plan, 1989.

Gilchrist, John & Associates, Branciforte andCarbonera Creeks Biotic Survey and Manage-ment Plan, Draft, December 1999.

Lehman, Susan, Economic Development of theCity of Santa Cruz 1850-1950, 2000.

McMahon, David, The History of Floods on theSan Lorenzo River in the City of Santa Cruz,1997.

Ricker, John, Evaluation of Urban Water QualityReport-Task 4 Report. In: Draft San LorenzoRiver Watershed Management Plan Update,2000.

Simpson, Buster, Levee as Armature: TowardArt, Ecology and Community. A Public Art Mas-ter Plan for the San Lorenzo Urban River Plan,September 2002.

Steven Grover & Associates, Pre-Design reportSan Lorenzo River Bicycle and PedestrianBridge, December 2001.

Steven Grover & Associates, Schematic DesignReport San Lorenzo River Bicycle and Pedestri-an Bridge, March 2002.

8References

Appendix A Lower San Lorenzo River and Lagoon En-hancement Plan

Appendix B Jessie Street Marsh Management Plan, 1998

Summary of Management Plan ActionsIncorporated by reference

Hydrology Actions

• Action H-1: Modify Operation of ExistingSlide Gate at East Cliff Drive and San Loren-zo River

• Action H-2: Create Tidal Channel betweenEast Cliff Drive and Lemos Avenue

• Action H-3: Fill Existing Channel betweenEast Cliff and Lemos Avenue

• Action H-4: Create new Salt/Brackish Marshplain between East Cliff Drive and LemosAvenue

• Action H-5: Create New Freshwater Channelbetween Lemos Avenue and Barson Street

• Action H-6: Create Open Water Areas be-tween Lemos Avenue and Barson Street

Action H-7: Create Sediment Retention Basinnear Barson Street

• Action H-8: Partially fill Existing drainageswale between Lemos Avenue and BarsonStreet

Habitat Restoration andEnhancement Actions

• Action R-1: Create New Salt/Brackish WaterMarsh between East Cliff Drive and LemosAvenue

• Action R-2: Enhance Existing EucalyptusGrove near East Cliff Drive

• Action R-3: Create New Raised Berm andVegetative Screening near Residences be-tween East Cliff Drive and Lemos Avenue

• Action R-4: Retain and Enhance FreshwaterMarsh Habitat between Lemos Avenue andBarson Street

• Action R-5: Create New Freshwater MarshHabitat

• Action R-6: Retain and Enhance Existing Ri-parian Habitat

• Action R-7: Create New Riparian Habitat be-tween Lemos Avenue and Barson Street

• Action R-8: Retain and Enhance ExistingOak Woodland

• Action R-9: Create New Oak Woodland• Action R-10: Retain and Enhance Existing

Saltgrass Grassland• Action R-11: Remove/Control Invasive, Non-

native species

Public Access Actions

• Action P-1: Construct bridge and Boardwalkacross Marsh Channel near Lemos Avenueand Jessie Street

• Action P-2: Construct Footpaths within Up-per and Lower Marsh Areas

• Action P-3: Construct Gates and Split-RailFences and Install Boulders

• Action P-4: Construct Trail and Steps toOceanview Park

• Action P-5: Install Interpretive and Public Ac-cess Sign

• Action P-6: Install benches, Bicycle Racks,and Trash Containers

• Action P-7: Long-Term Site Maintenance• Action P-8: Improve Existing Trail to Ocean-

view Park

Date post:	10-Feb-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	phungthien
View:	220 times
Download:	0 times

San Lorenzo Urban River Plan

Documents