HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-01-12; Beach Preservation Committee; MinutesMINUTES OF:
DATE OF MEETING:
TIME OF MEETING:
Beach Erosion Committee
January 12,1999
4:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER:
Chair Macklin called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Present:
Absent:
Guests:
Members Macklin, Howes, Hall, King and Bartlett
Members Prohaska, Meyer
Ray Duncan Steve Sachs
Steven Aceti Chris Webb
Noreen Sigafuss Don Jackson
Greg Smith Dave Copley
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of December 8,1998 meeting were approved 5-0.
1. INTRODUCTION OF NEW COMMITTEE MEMBER: The Committee welcomed Mr. Alan Bartlett as a
newly appointed member of the Beach Erosion Committee.
2. REGIONAL BEACH SAND PROJECT: SANDAG representative Steve Sachs provided a
presentation on the status of the Regional Beach Nourishment Project. Mr. Sachs started by
describing the history of this project and the current technical reports that have been prepared by a
team of consultants. His presentation then focused on three possible sand allocation alternatives for
beach sand replenishment and specifically the Carlsbad sites. Mr. Chris Webb of Moffat and Nichols
Engineers also provided a detailed presentation on the technical aspects of why certain locations and
alternatives were chosen.
A description of the alternatives and a summary of the proposed sand allocations are as follows:
Alternative A - Direct onshore beach nourishment based on the Shoreline Erosion Committee's
allocation method used for the Navy Hpmeporting Sand Project. In this initial effort, the quantities to
be placed at some sites have been limited to that dictated by biological constraints to minimize
environmental impacts. When a site was limited from receiving its full allocation of sand, the
additional sand was placed at the first upcoast beach that could accommodate it.
Alternative B - Nearshore beach nourishment at Oceanside, Del Mar, Mission Beach and Imperial
Beach. Nearshore sand deposition is usually done within 15 to 20 feet of water.
Alternative C - Onshore beach nourishment using the Shoreline Erosion Committee's Homeporting
Project allocation for each littoral cell as describe in Alternative B, with the maximum quantities place
at the northernmost sites in the Oceanside Littoral Cell. Sand is placed at the Mission Beach and
Imperial Beach onshore sites according the Homeporting.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED BEACHFILL QUANTITY ALTERNATIVES
(Volumes in cubic yards)
SITES
Oceanside
Carlsbad
Encinitas
Solana Beach
Del Mar (Torrey Pines North)
San Diego (Torrey Pines South)
Mission Beach
Imperial Beach
TOTALS
ALTERNATIVES
A
374,000
393,000
462,000
110,000
177,000
236,000
98,000
118,000
1,968,000
B
1,672,000
0
0
0
516,000
0
124,000
148,000
2,460,000
C
1,053,000
699,000
0
0
0
0
98,000
118,000
1,968,000
Minutes of Beach Erosion Committee
January 12,1999
Page 2
The following agencies were also consulted in order to assist in the determination of the beach
nourishment quantities and the potential permitting requirements:
State Department of Parks and Recreation U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
State Lands Commission U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
California Coastal Commission U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
California Department of Boating and Waterways U.S. Coast Guard
California Department of Fish and Game National Marine Fisheries Agency
Regional Water Quality Control Board
The Committee voiced strong concerns about the reduced quantities of sand compared to what
Carlsbad was going to receive from the Navy previously. The Committee was further concerned
about the imposed restrictions of the resource agencies. They stated that the Navy project would
have allowed a higher quantity of sand material and that there were no restrictions in the permits. Mr.
Sachs explained that there was a provision for mitigation monitoring in the Navy project that would
have been applied to the north Carlsbad site. The Committee wanted to challenge the permitting
agencies on the determination of negative impact regarding beach replenishment and that this project
would be a perfect forum. Mr. Sachs explained that this approach would delay the permitting for the
regional project and could threaten the funding timeframes.
The Committee then took a straw vote of their comments and recommendation of sand quantity
alternative. All five members present recommended that the permitting agencies should be
challenged on their mitigation requirements. Four members recommended Alternative C as the
preferred allocation. One member recommended Alternative A which would allow this project to
move forward in a timely manner.
3. PUBLIC EDUCATION WORK PLAN: The Committee selected a subcommittee to develop an outline
for a future public education presentation on beach related issues. Members appointed were: Robert
Prohaska, Chair, Member Howes and Member Alan Bartlett.
4. OLD BUSINESS:
• Future Opportunistic Sand Pilot Program - Staff is looking at the possibility of a hypothetical
project that would purchase inland sand to be placed on the beach. Staff member Jantz
suggested Member King, a retired Civil Engineer for this project.
• California Coastal Coalition membership - Due to a lack of time the Committee did not consider
Steve Aceti's request for membership.
5. NEW BUSINESS: None
6. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS:
7. PUBLIC COMMENT:
By proper motion, the meeting was adjourned at 5:45 p.m. The next meeting of the Beach Erosion
Committee will be Tuesday, February 9,1999 at the Housing and Redevelopment Conference Room.
BELINDA GUZMAN