|
|
Terri Maus-Nisich, Park
Director, gave the following update:
- BEACON is done with operations and
Terri will be finding out how much sand that Flood Control dumped
on the beach remains after the winter. BEACON is satisfied with
their results.
- With regards to the jurisdiction
issue, the proposal to do boundary analysis will cost $10,000.
- Key dates for permit requirements:
- March 31: Submitted.
- April 15- Kelp/Subtidal proposal
submitted.
- The CCC has requested additional
studies to see the impact of hard structures on the beach. The
cost of these studies will be about $200,000.
- The view decks in the Slough area
will include recycled plastic and will cost about $40,000. The
Parks Department is working with the community to create
interpretive signs.
|
|
|
|
Susan Rose thanked the group for
their time and dedication. A history reminder: this process began with a
series of community meetings as a way for everyone to have input. The Board
of Supervisors is looking for a long-term sustainable solution for the park-
a plan that can be implemented. The Coastal Commission will review hard
structures more critically and are looking for alternative solutions like
managed retreat, although we recognize that the EIR will address several
alternatives. Susan received an email from the Coastal Commission on 4/29,
which asked the group to give equal weight to alternatives. She is hearing
two views: 1) There is a strong sense to protect the park as it is today and
2) A chance to enhance what is there today and try to find a compromise. She
encouraged the group to think as creatively as possible and try to find one
proposal that meets most of the goals of the Working Group.
|
|
|
Jeremy gave a brief presentation
to discuss the two views, which are:
1. Maintain the park as it is, or
2. Move things around to allow it to retreat.
If the park is maintained as it
is, three things must be considered: the impacts down coast, impact in the
long term of rising sea level and the difficulty in permitting structures.
With managed retreat, there may not be enough room to allow for retreat to
occur. Beach nourishment can figure in both scenarios but will require a
long-term commitment.
Other Information that will be
needed for all scenarios:
3.
Policies - what is and what is not feasible.
4.
Scientific information needs to be written in a concise manner.
|
Q: |
What is the Impact of sea
level rise? |
|
A: |
About 2mm per year. |
|
|
|
|
Q: |
Aren’t structures far enough
back that they will have minimal impact? |
|
A: |
Some alternatives propose
groins and revetments that may have an impact. The waves that reach the
revetment change the shape of the beach. The revetments also change the
wave energy, which attacks the beach, and tends to have impacts down
coast. |
|
|
|
|
Q: |
Is the time frame accurate? |
|
A: |
Jeremy recommended looking
at a 50-100 year time frame. |
|
|
|
|
Q: |
Is there an appropriate time
and place for revetments? There is a feeling that Jeremy is
orchestrating the group towards no revetments. |
|
A: |
Yes, there is a time and
place for revetments, but perhaps not at Goleta Beach. |
|
|
|
|
Q: |
Would there be more erosion
without a revetment? |
|
A: |
It depends on the alignment. |
|
|
|
|
Q: |
What is the impact of buried
revetments? |
|
A: |
The most important factor is
the location relative to where the active beach is located. These are
placed as a backstop to protect structures. Eventually, though, they may
become part of the active beach.
|
A. Discussion of
Scenarios
The facilitators stated that
they hope that there will be give and take so that we can agree on one
scenario.
One suggestion was to break the “hold the line” and the “retreat” groups
into separate groups to work out separate scenarios. The group disagreed,
and thought that they should try to come to an agreement first as a group.
The table summarizing the scenarios proposed by the Working Group (dated
4-29-04) was reviewed and questions asked of the person suggesting each
scenario.
|
Scenario A: |
A shifting sandspit for the
whole park. |
|
Scenario B: |
Managed retreat on the west
end, dunes are a recreational asset, eliminate some parking, with no net
loss. Managed retreat is more proactive- moving structures, replacing
the use of the area with one where it doesn’t cost much to replace.
Phasing is moving the assets/facilities closest to the beach first, then
the utilities and other structures. |
|
Scenario C: |
The ranger residence will be
phased out eventually. Use portable facilities, remove far west parking
lot and include offsite parking above the Airport. |
|
Scenario D: |
This scenario will also
restore habitat for abalone. It is a mistake to assume that there will
be a period of no increase in beach width, as this has happened in the
past. |
|
Scenario E: |
Beach nourishment as needed.
Push the dirt out further, include rocks and add more lawn. |
|
Scenario F: |
Comments under changes to
buildings should be under changes to parking/circulation. |
|
Scenario G: |
Include continued habitat
restoration and enhanced buildings, such as outdoor art. The
recreational facilities are for active recreation. |
|
Scenario H: |
Remove west end parking and
unpermitted revetments. |
|
Scenario I: |
No active turf, add
volleyball courts under the recreational facilities, phase out far west
parking lots. |
Areas of agreement:
-
The restaurant stays for
the duration of the study (since length of lease and our planning
timeframe as basically the same).
-
All scenarios assume
continued beach nourishment.
-
The group is almost in
agreement of reconfiguring the parking lots with no net loss of
spaces.
-
Turf is preferable is next
to sand.
-
If there are erosion
control structures at the park, they should not be unattractive, they
should not impede access, and they will not obstruct views.
|
|