Goleta Beach

Goleta Beach Master Planning

Working Group

March 4, 2004

MINUTES

Welcome and Introductions

Overview of paperwork given to the group: policies, references.

Public Comments

No public comments.

Minutes from February 19th Meeting

There were no comments or changes to the minutes for the last meeting

Updates

BEACON: Karl Treiberg distributed a spreadsheet on the costs of the project. This spreadsheet has been put on the website. For the last round of sand deposited, the total dumped was 18,589 yards at a cost of $150,963 ($8.58/yd). Due to the large swells in the previous week, half of this sand is gone. If the deposited sand had not been there, the park would have continued to erode. The sand is clearly moving down coast, and will show up in the cross sections during monitoring. The cost does not include permitting, engineering or monitoring. A comment was made about dyeing the sand to see where it goes. This is expensive, however.

Q:	Does the harbor dredge regularly?
	The Corp of Engineers dredges the harbor, but does not deposit the sand out far enough so 7% of this sand ends up at West Beach, around 15,000 yards of sand would be available yearly. But additional funds would be needed to truck sand every year. In the BEACON Demonstration project trucking was more cost effective than barging the sand, because BEACON used contracted Flood Control truckers. County Parks: The Parks staff monitors at several (6) different measuring points. This monitoring shows where sand was gained and lost. The emergency revetment is still covered. They submitted a plan for the revetment to the Coastal Conservancy a month ago, but have not heard back from them. State Lands are also interested in conducting a survey.
Q:	Are documents available such as the Carrying Capacity Study (CCS), as references for working group?
	The Goleta Beach website has a section with documents and publications which includes the CCS and Moffat & Nichol reports among other resources. (Additional resources and links are listed in working group members’ binders. A revised list will be added to the website before meeting #7).

Possible Utility Line Relocation

Goleta Sanitary District

They have a 36-inch pipe one mile offshore parallel to Goleta pier, perpendicular to the beach. The pier extends about 1500 feet. This pipe discharges wastewater from the treatment plan, and is the only pipe for this.
Sewer access: There is a concrete vault west of the parking lot, at the west end of the restaurant, parallel to the restrooms. This is the facility that could be at risk. The cost to open it up is $250,000, and to move it back would cost at least $500,000.

Southern California Gas Company

They have a 36-inch pipe one mile offshore parallel to Goleta pier, perpendicular to the beach. The pier extends about 1500 feet. This pipe discharges wastewater from the treatment plan, and is the only pipe for this.
Sewer access: There is a concrete vault west of the parking lot, at the west end of the restaurant, parallel to the restrooms. This is the facility that could be at risk. The cost to open it up is $250,000, and to move it back would cost at least $500,000.

The pipe under Goleta Beach (the Miller-one well) runs into the main storage, with pipes connecting to outside areas like Ventura. The pressure of the pipes is 500-1000 lbs. Nothing is connected to this line; it is just used for transferring to the main storage center.
Potential cost to move the pipe: They have no right of way to move the pipe. A lot of the pipe exists in the Cal-Trans right of way. The biggest cost is in the permitting/EIR process. For example, with the Carpinteria custody transfer station; $ 1 million was spent over three years for the EIR process.
· Digging a new pipeline (construction only): $500-800,000.

Q:	Who is the easement with?
A:	Unknown
Q:	Are there emergency plans for routing?
A;	The California Utilities Commission governs them. With landslides, they were able to get permits to run the pipe above the ground. There is no emergency line.
Q:	Are there any emergency easements?
A:	· With an earthquake, for example, they can maintain service due to the looping nature of the pipeline, but pressure would not be maintained. In summary then, this is a main storage area and transmission lines to customers are not impacted.
Q:	How deep is the pipe?
A:	· Unknown, Tim Mahoney will find out.
Q:	If the pipe is damaged (in an emergency), who pays?
A:	Price of gas is set by the PUC, so cost will be passed on to the customer.

Goleta Water District

The pipe is a recycled water line.
Costs:
1. To relocate 1000 feet at the west end: $300-500,000.
2. Relocate line onto Highway 217 (move across the Slough): $700-1,000,000.
3. Relocate pipeline in a northerly direction (which eliminates the pipeline in the Park): $4-5 million.
  - This is a single deadline pipe-customers down line don’t get water if it breaks. This amounts to about 1000 acres ft for the golf course, and schools, and frees up potable water.
  - The pipe runs into Goleta Sanitary District for treatment, also into UCSB, out to El Colegio, Storke Avenue, to Bacara and ultimately to Glen Annie golf course and Dos Pueblos High School, as well as other key sites.
  - The decision to place the pipe where it’s at is due to cost, it was determined to be too expensive to place the pipe along Hollister.
  - They sell the water at less than what it costs to produce it (to encourage use of reclaimed water). (Cost .90/100 cubic feet-cost to produce?)

Q:	Is there an emergency plan?
A:	The valves are shut off. Since this water is used primarily for irrigation, this is an interruptible water supply. However in the summer customers like the Golf Course get upset at the lack of water for maintaining their greens. Post Office on Hollister uses this entirely for their toilets.
Q:	Is there an easement with Cal-Trans?
A:	· It is possible to use their right of way, but must go through the permit process.
Goleta Beach uses the water for the restroom in the middle of the park, as well as for irrigation.

Other questions and comments regarding utilities:

They must be able to raise money to move the lines
Sale of certificates of participation?
How long have pipes existed? What are the maintenance schedules?
The Gas Company just cleaned the pipes, and the useful life is very far into the future.
Water: Pipes existed for 10 years, and useful life 50-100 years.

How long will it take to move these pipes?

Due to the permitting process, 2-4 years for the reclaimed water pipes.

County Owned Utilities:

Potable water, electrical, telephone and sewer.
Sewer: Gravity feed to the lift station-a 4-inch pressure line. To move this inland, it would cost from $150-300,000 (the higher cost if a new lift station is required) if the line was moved offsite, this would cost $450,000. This would require a bridge crossing and new lift station.
Potable water line-this is sub metered from the Airport. If rerouted inland 1100 feet, this would cost about $40,000.
To reroute the electrical and telephone lines (900 lineal feet), would cost about $50,000.
Total cost: $240,000-540,000. This includes the cost of removal (or abandonment-where lines would need to be removed)

Review of Areas of Agreement – Development of Objectives:

In order the guide discussion regarding scenarios, it is important for the Working Group to agree on its desired goal and objectives for the master planning process. A draft was presented to the group, taken from comments at previous meetings. The group agreed upon a revised set of objectives, to be distributed to the group later in the week. A summary of the points discussed follows.

The goal statement focuses on a 20-year time horizon because that is the County’s planning horizon for projects. Include the balance of park and beach in the goal statement.
There was a discussion about what “park” means and so it was suggested to substitute Goleta Beach Park, which includes the beach and the park.
“Sustainable” is ambiguous. Is it very meaningful? The Board includes attainable and sustainable in its discussions of goals for the Park.
Jeremy Lowe: Some guidance is needed when defining long term-over 20 years. He suggested using “works with natural processes” instead of sustainable. By including natural processes-this includes the context of the environment such as the slough, ocean, etc.
The goal statement should not include “charged” words.
We need to recognize that the park is a dynamic area.

Review of Conceptual Alternatives

Draft scenarios were distributed to the group. These were developed by staff (Susan Rose’s office and Parks Department) as a starting point for discussion, in the interest of saving time at working group meetings. Jeremy Lowe has reviewed each scenario but did not have time to suggest revisions or alterations. It is expected that the scenarios will be revised by working group members and that new scenarios may be created. Facilitator Lynn Rodriguez suggested that Jeremy describe each scenario and help answer questions.

Terri Maus-Nisich, County Parks Director, commented that the scenarios developed were broad based for Working Group members to begin discussions. Not every scenario is presented. The four scenarios set forth are to put something “on the table” and start discussion. There are no costs attached, as we don’t want to limit the alternatives.

Variables that can change: Offshore structures, kelp, parking, and ranger residence.
Constants in each scenaario: Beach nourishment, repairs to existing revetment.

Scenarios

Hold the line: Rock revetment all around the beach.
This doesn’t address erosion problems. It maintains real estate. It doesn’t take into account dissipating ocean waves or undermining of the revetment. Long-term maintenance is needed, with a constant cycle of renourishment. This doesn’t stabilize the shoreline or the beach.
Managed retreat:
This gives the active beach more space in which to evolve. What shape is the beach trying to be? What is the stable position of the beach? Can this be accommodated with managed retreat? Don’t put structures within “red line” area. This is limited by the amount of space; look at ways of bringing the shoreline forward.
Extend escarpment: (derived using variables)
Move the shoreline forward. Extend the length of the escarpment, and prefill the area. This provides a stable hold for the shoreline to build on. The length of the structure depends on how big of a beach you want.

If the escarpment becomes a groin, the losses of sand lie on the other side of the groin.

Offshore breakwater: The length and position of offshore structures reduces wave energy and traps sediment. Pre-fill must also be done with offshore breakwaters. This structure takes sediment out of the littoral cell and has impacts down shore. This propagates the creation of additional structures down shore.

Must allow for natural change to occur. This may include a combination of structures and/or a reorganization of structures on land. It may also require a change in uses.
East End Retreat
This allows natural process at the east end to take place. It includes potential new parking areas, and relocating the east end parking. The ranger station is being phased out and will be removed. In this area maintenance shed or viewing area can take its place. This is a tradeoff in landscaped areas for parking. It removes the need to relocate utilities.
Variables
Other options utilizing a number of changing variables were discussed. A list of suggestion “tools” or solutions was provided.

The Working Group was asked to consider all information, review scenarios, and be prepared to thoughts for scenarios on March 18, 2004.

Concluding remarks:

What is a stable beach? These questions will need to be addressed in alternatives in the EIR.
A naturalized headland existed on the west end before the area eroded.
Inshore bathymetry is needed.

Next meeting dates:

March 18, 2:30 at the Airport Administrative Building. The final meeting date(s) will be determined at the next meeting. Spring break for local schools falls during the next regularly scheduled meeting date.