Goleta Beach Master Planning

Working Group

February 19, 2004

MINUTES

1.

Welcome and Introductions

Visiting speakers were welcomed along with Dr. Robert Norris, UCSB Coastal Geology professor and well-known coastal erosion researcher, who will be attending the next few meetings as a scientific liaison. Working group members were reminded of dates for next two meetings in March: Thursday, March 4th and Thursday, March 18th. Both meetings will be held in the Airport Conference Room. The meeting on March 4th will begin at 2:30 p.m. (another 3 hour meeting to accommodate a long agenda).

2.

Public Comments

There were no comments from the public.

4.

Updates and Background

Caltrans was contacted by 2nd District Executive Assistant, Alissa Hummer. She was told that Cal Trans does not have any major problem conceptually with relocating utility lines in the road right of way, though a permit must be granted out of the Sacramento office, not the regional office.

Terri Maus, Parks Department Director reported on the Coastal Commission permit conditions. She noted that staff is working to draft the plans as noted within the permit conditions. The draft plan to address permit conditions relating to continued coverage of the emergency revetment was submitted on February 1, 2004. To date there has been no response to the draft plan by the Coastal Commission.

Karl Treiberg, Flood Control District gave an update on the BEACON Beach Nourishment Project, Phase II, which involves trucking roughly 18,000 cubic yards of sand from West Beach (Santa Barbara Harbor) to Goleta Beach. Karl answered questions about costs of trucking versus costs of barging sand. Trucking costs roughly $8.00/cubic yard, while barging cost $11.75/cubic yard. 60,000 cubic yards were transported via barge to Goleta Beach in November 2003. The total expense for trucking will be approximately $142,000. A complete cost breakdown can be obtained by contacting Karl after the project is finished at the end of February.

A new feature has been added to the website: “Recent Updates” located on the main page and linked to other pages that have recently been added.

The facilitators urged working group members to bring any concerns or comments on how the process is going directly to them or the group. Working Group members are encouraged to keep focused on the long-term solution for the park. Several broad alternative scenarios will be presented on March 4th. Pros and cons of each alternative were requested for next meeting answering the questions, “What solutions/services are provided?” and, “What are the problems with it?” If Working Group members have ideas to include, please bring them to the March 4th meeting and they can be incorporated into the alternatives. The alternatives are generated to serve as a catalyst for discussion for the March 4th meeting.

5.

Recreational Uses at Goleta Beach – Presentation by County Parks Staff

Terri Maus, Director for Parks, presented an overview of concepts for consideration pertaining to recreation and usage of Goleta Beach Park. The power point presentation is now available on Goleta Beach web site.

Key concepts for consideration were the trends in recreation patterns among Californians and the correlation with that offered at Goleta Beach Park. The presentation also provided information on the overall amenities of the park, visitation, other areas of beach access in the south coast area, and concepts in terms of accessibility and parking requirements given the amenities and configuration of the park. It was noted specific estimates for parking in passive parks such as Goleta Beach do not have a set standard. However, recent efforts have been made by SBCAG to attempt to quantify need. Based on an estimate of the average lineal feet of shoreline available at Goleta Beach, approximately 520 spaces should be available. Presently 540 are available. Terri Maus set forth a concern about finding a strategy to balance potential loss of parking and access to the area to ensure that all resources are convenient and accessible. From a parking determination and management perspective it is important to look at availability of alternative transportation opportunities and user profiles in order to accurately determine the overall need. MTD will be contacted to get ridership statistics from another beach park – Arroyo Burro.

Following the presentation there was discussion among committee members regarding the 1 to 1.5 million- persons count for visitation. It was indicated by Terri Maus that the methodology for assuming visitation (2.5 persons per vehicle) is consistent among all County Parks and that Goleta Beach remain the most heavily visited park in the overall system. Some Working Group members suggested that a new count be conducted to update the numbers.

In addition to visitation the question of parking and the amount of parking required for the area as discussed. Questions were posed regarding reconfiguration of the lots. County staff indicated that there was opportunity to use the lots more efficiently (i.e. get more parking spaces in the same area) by re-striping and removing several of the larger internal planters. Additional discussion occurred regarding the use of the far west end parking area by staff, students and visitors to UCSB. Overall the committee expressed concern about the volume and consistency of use. At this time a strategy to address the particular issue was not set forward, other than it will need to be considered in the overall planning for the park.
 

6.

What is Managed Retreat ?

7.

Coastal Act and Local Coastal Plan Policies

Gary Timm, District Manager for the California Coastal Commission (CCC) gave a brief presentation on Coastal Act Policies and Practices. He focused on three areas of particular interest in the Goleta Beach case: access, marine resource protection, and shoreline protective devices (SPDs). He noted that the trend currently is to review hard structures more critically for the following reasons:

SPDs can potentially cause significant adverse effects to shoreline, especially access,
SPDs can contribute to the scouring effect, resulting in loss of beach over time.
SPDs fix beaches at the toe of the seawall.

The CCC is looking more to managed retreat and beach nourishment as having less adverse impacts to shoreline. They are also looking at impacts of eventual or potential sea level rise.

CCC permits for the Dec. 2002 rock revetment strongly emphasize looking at alternatives. The CCC is concerned that there not be a predetermined bias toward hard structures. He agreed with the County that CCC would have jurisdiction. Could be a joint permit, with County’s portion appealable to the CCC. It could come as an amendment to County’s Local Coastal Program (LCP). State Lands Commission (SLC) can do a determination to clarify the jurisdictional question, which is based on the mean high tide line, a difficult thing to measure in the dynamic shoreline.

WG member question: Can CCC apply LCP policies in making determination for permits in their jurisdiction? In appeals jurisdiction LCP applies; exception is access where both Coastal Act and LCP policies apply.

An audience member noted that many other policies apply as well, such as 302-3-3.

It was noted that many pre-coastal act seawalls exist and are rarely removed. Enforcement staff is still insufficient, and even many post-Coastal Act un-permitted seawalls remain un-permitted. CCC staff must prioritize violation enforcement, and generally use the following criteria: access, biological resources, and filling in sensitive areas.

Mr. Timm noted that balance is a critical principle regarding coastal issues, and there is no clear-cut formula. Commission roles are to issue permits, grant LCP amendments, and review EIRs.

Mr. Timm emphasized that interpretation and context are key in project review. Managed retreat is being looked at more carefully because it saves space for a beach to be a beach.

In a consensus process, he does not recommend conclusions, but letting the process of reviewing alternatives filter out the merits and problems of a project.

Jackie Campbell, Deputy Director of Development Review Division of County Planning and Development Department discussed the County’s Local Coastal Program (LCP). She noted that the County’s Coastal Plan is not the LCP, though they are often confused. The LCP consists of three components:

• County Coastal Plan

• Zoning Ordinances

• Maps – zoning, overlays, comprehensive plan design, LCP designation.

The County’s Coastal Plan is more restrictive than the Coastal Act. The County’s role is to review projects for policy consistency. Policies are often open to interpretation on their strength and strictness and are applied situationally. It is difficult to plan a project according to policy, but projects can be checked against policy as they develop. Further information on each section of the LCP as well as the text of the County Coastal Plan can be found on the web site. The entire County Coastal Plan was distributed to the Working Group members at a prior meeting.

Possible Utility Line Relocation

Insufficient time remained to address this topic.  Topic will be addressed at next meeting.

Areas of Agreement

Insufficient time remained to address this topic and the formulation of key objectives. In order to begin the process, the facilitators will review and synthesize the areas of agreement based on prior working group and community working group efforts for consideration at March 4 meeting.

Dates for next two meetings in March: Thursday, March 4^th and Thursday, March 18^th.  Both meetings will be held in the Airport Conference Room.  Utilities relocation discussion will take place at next meeting.  Areas of agreement will be continued and we will begin working on developing alternatives.  Staff will work with Jeremy Lowe to come up with 3-4 alternatives that incorporate a variety of concepts, which the group will respond to at next meeting.