Goleta Beach Master Planning

Working Group

February 5, 2004

 

MINUTES

 

1.

Welcome and Introductions

Following introductions, the facilitators thanked Dr. Sylvester for his help putting coordinating the science advisors’ presentations at the workshop on January 22nd. The dates for meetings in March were confirmed: Thursday, March 4th and Thursday, March 18th. Both meetings will be held in the Airport Conference Room. Our next meeting, February 19th, will be held at the Goleta Community Center in Room #1. We agreed to meet an hour earlier, 2:30 p.m., to accommodate a long agenda. The meeting is scheduled to end at 5:30 p.m.

 

2.

Public Comments

There were no comments from members of the public.

 

3.

Updates and Background

 

Karl Treiberg, County Flood Control District, provided an update on the BEACON and opportunistic beach nourishment projects. Highlights of his comments follow:

BEACON is a joint powers agency, composed of the six coastal cities and two counties. The Goleta Beach project is the first sand replenishment project that BEACON has implemented. In October, BEACON contractors pumped 59,000 cubic yards of sand onto the west end of Goleta Beach. There is $150,00 left in the budget, and sand will be trucked up to Goleta Beach from West Beach near the Santa Barbara harbor, beginning Feb 9, taking about 3 weeks. They will place about 15,000 cubic yards in the “erosion hot spot” on the west end of Goleta Beach, with hopes that it will end up in the littoral cell.
BEACON has found that about 7% of the sand deposited into the currents moves back up the coast.

The South Central Beach Enhancement Plan will allow sand that is dredged to be placed on any number of beaches included in the Plan. The monitoring plan for the Beach nourishment project is extensive. Karl will provide a copy of this monitoring plan, which will be put on the Goleta Beach web site for interested working group members to review.
Questions for Karl are included below, with responses:

 

Q:

Are there any studies on beach sediment quality? (i.e from debris dams)

  • 40,000 cubic yards /year is available through regular Flood Control maintenance for beach quality sand.

Q:

What was the cost of the project?
 

  • 2.1 million, with $200,000 for monitoring.  Moffatt and Nichols is performing the monitoring.

Q: Since the money came from state funds, will the current budget crisis affect it?
 

  • It’s already been received and spent.
Q: Is there any way to trace where the sand goes (see 4c), for future studies?
 
  • There are dyes and/or pellets, but this is an expensive option.

4.

Review our questions from science advisors workshop

 

Some of our questions posed to the science advisors in advance were not answered. Some of the remaining questions will be handled in the EIR, and some can be addressed by the science advisors.

 

Q:

What is the source of the sand deficit?

 

  • What constitutes normality? In the 70’s the beach width was an anomaly, as previously the beach was not as wide. In the Inman and Jenkins study, the researchers notes that the El Ninos of 1963 and 1969, especially 1969 dumped a lot of sediment into the Santa Barbara littoral cell.

  • Papers suggest that the first thing that should be created is a sediment budget.

Q:

Does sand come around Pt. Conception?

  • There is no clear answer to this question. If sand does make it around Conception, Twitchell and Bradbury dams have reduced the sediment flow by 50%.

Q:

What is causing erosion? What are the solutions?

  • Art: There is simply not enough sand in the system and the waves attack the beach with less amount of sand.

  • Comment: Wasn’t the oil spill in the same year of the El Nino? Yes, in January 1969.

Q:

Do we all agree that the deprivation of sand on the beach is allowing beach erosion to take place?

  • We discussed giving the list of all the questions to the appropriate science advisors and have them put their answers in writing.

  • We need to get information about where the equilibrium of the beach is.

Sidebar Comment: We need to agree on the terms used and speak the same language. Check out the glossary in the educational brochure.

 

Q:

How long has Flood Control been placing sand at the west end?

  • 3 years.
Q: Where would sand come from for dune vegetation? How is this created? Where does the sand go after leaving the dune?
  • Comment: It appears that it is an economic sand problem. Where will the funds come from? We need to calculate the costs and determine how much comes from Federal, etc and see where the gap remains.
Q: What about dumping sand at Isla Vista and letting coastal processes take place?
  • Permits don’t allow this, and you get more “bang for your buck” by dumping sand directly at Goleta Beach.
Q: What is the cubic yard estimate of loss of sand since 1980?
  • Unknown.
Q: What effect will sand deposited at Isla Vista have on surfing?
  • Bathymetry will change, changing surf conditions.  Surfrider will be keeping tabs on this issue.
Q: How long did it take to get permits for beach nourishment?
  • About one year.

5.

Where are we now? Our accomplishments to date.
  Facilitator Lynn Rodriguez reviewed our process, meetings and accomplishments to date. We have had 2 regular meetings (prior to this one), one site visit and one workshop with our science advisors. We have had a number of presentations, a volume of written material and discussions about our process. The purpose of this initial phase has been to bring the level of knowledge of the entire group to a common level and to establish an agreed-upon process for our decision making. With the help of experts, a site visit and an extensive bibliography of articles and scientific papers, we have familiarized ourselves with the characteristics and environment at Goleta Beach and are now nearly ready to move forward with determining a preferred project in the form of a master plan for Goleta Beach Park. Jeremy Lowe had provided recommended elements of shoreline management, and we’ve been following these steps.

 

  • Next time we will have presentations on: Recreational uses, utilities, and applicable Coastal Act/Local Coastal Plan policies.

  • We may need another site visit, to the east end.

  • Comment by WG member: We’re at a good place. We’ve learned a lot of new things. We need to remember the users/people aspect to lend credibility to the process.

Q:

Is there a study of who is using the beach? Where do they come from?

 

  • Parks needs to compile Reservations data for next time.

Comment: There are concerns about all laws and policies- we need time to talk about solutions possible under these policies.

 

Q:

What is the timeline for the final product? It was hoped to done by March, but we would like to be finished by the end of April.

 

  • We need to have a balance- the people and the natural resources. Let’s not rush a decision within the time frame we have.

  • Why are stakeholders such as CalTrans is missing from our meetings? Rachel Couch reported that they declined to participate. She will try to see if someone can attend a future meeting.

Members asked about the EIR process and how it will work – once we have selected our alternatives. Facilitator Pat Saley gave the following brief synopsis:

There is always a preferred project and a no project alternative. Other alternatives are provided and reviewed as well. The EIR contains a review of the potential impacts and the mitigation measures. Under CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act), project objectives are developed. This is what should be done here, and alternatives can be developed which meet these objectives.

 

6.

Identify Initial Areas of Agreement

 

We discussed the need to identify areas of agreement on specific elements of the park and surrounding area. We began with “beach” and will continue with “park” at the next meeting.

 

Beach

  • We have a deficit of sand allowing erosion of the beach and park.

  • The beach is an important recreational asset.

  • The beach provides habitat for a variety of critters.

  • The beach is linked to recreational uses, i.e bird watching.

  • The beach is an aesthetic resource.

  • The beach is a dynamic environment.

  • The beach is an economic asset.

  • The beach is worth saving. (not all agreed)

  • The beach has unique and sensitive habitat. (not all agreed)

Lynn asked the group to put together their own thoughts on areas of agreement and submit them before the next meeting.

 
7. Next Meeting Date and Time
 
  • Next meeting is Thursday, February 19th at 2:30 p.m. at the Goleta Community Center, Room #1.
  Other Suggestions for the Next Meeting:
  • Bring a big aerial photograph to the next meeting, with transparencies so that the group can draw on them.
  • Have Jeremy Lowe come to a meeting in March.