Those that listened closely Thursday evening around 6:45pm might have heard a dull thud that echoed around the county. That was the sound of several dozen jaws hitting the ground inside the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors Chambers when the California Coastal Commission voted unanimously against the city’s Arana Gulch Master Plan and its controversial paved bicycle path, a decade and a half in the planning.
The surprise decision by the nine commissioners came despite the recommendation of the commission’s own staff, which had approved the project, as well as the endorsements by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and an upholding by a state appellate court. As Commissioner Mark Stone put it in expressing his disapproval of the plan, he was voting no because, despite environmental elements, it was still “mostly a transportation project.”
“Clearly there is a large transportation element of this project,” said Stone, who is also a Santa Cruz County Supervisor. “The part that really troubles me when I look at this is that it does in fact bisect the [Santa Cruz tarplant] habitat. I can’t justify paving through [environmentally sensitive habitat area].”
The commission’s decision caps a 15-year fight over the fate of the 68-acre greenbelt that pitted bicyclists and wheelchair users—who touted the increased accessibility that a paved path connecting Broadway and Brommer streets would provide—against certain environmentalists who believe such a path would jeopardize a threatened plant that grows in the area. The ruling—though technically a “continuation,” meaning the city may come back to the commission when it has a new plan—effectively sends city leaders back to the drawing board. After the hearing, Santa Cruz Councilmember Cynthia Mathews was not shy in voicing her frustration.
“I’m extremely disappointed,” said Mathews. “I think the future of any productive management plan for that area is now very much in danger.”
The Arana Gulch Master Plan, for which the path was but one part, also incorporated a comprehensive management plan for the tarplant that included seasonal cattle grazing and monitoring by botanists. The added environmental elements came through previous rejections by the Coastal Commission when the plan had only included the bike path and provided little relief for the struggling flower. Yet the stigma that labeled the plan as a transportation project in years past seemed to stick in the opinions of commissioners, who pointed to the enthusiasm of cyclists as proof that the project remained chiefly a roadway.
“The arguments made by People Power and other bicyclists only reinforce the fact that this is a transportation project,” said Commissioner Sara Wan just before the ruling. “The project, overall, is a good one, in everything but the bicycle path.”
Mathews said she’s not sure if the city will continue to push for a comprehensive plan for Arana Gulch or if she’s prepared to drop the divisive bicycle path. A compromise, recently accepted by the California Native Plant Society (and therefore more likely to appeal to tarplant defenders) is to build a bike path that skirts the southern edge of the Arana Gulch property, near the harbor.
For Richard Stover, a member of the CNPS, the decision by the commission is a “wake-up call” to city planners.
“The city now has to actually look seriously at other alternatives,” he said after the hearing. “The project could end up a whole lot better.”
