Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Beach Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission hears three concept options for Clark and Groveland beaches; ADA access and shoreline restoration top concerns
Summary
City staff presented three concept packages for Clark and Groveland Beach parks on Oct. 20 and said all Clark options remove the concrete bulkhead and enclosed swim structure in favor of natural shoreline restoration; commissioners pressed staff to prioritize full ADA routes, picnic seating and ecological protections.
Get email alerts on the Beach Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Staff presented a joint infrastructure planning update for Clark and Groveland Beach parks and walked commissioners through three concept tracks for each park, generally described as high-, medium- and low-investment options.
Clark Beach concepts (three variations) all remove the existing concrete bulkhead and the sheet-pile swim enclosure and shift the shoreline toward a more natural, habitat-oriented profile. Staff said formal swimming infrastructure would be considered primarily at Groveland and Luther Burbank parks rather than replacing the Clark enclosure in kind. In Concept 1 (highest investment), Clark would gain a new full ADA pathway from parking to the waterfront, an ADA-accessible central pier with a potential ADA kayak launch, seating steps and natural-play features; restrooms would be replaced with a smaller, gender-neutral facility. Concept 2 favored more picnic/grass area and terrace seating with a single central pier; Concept 3 is the lowest-change option, repairing piers in place and keeping more traditional beach space. Sarah Blubas, capital project manager, told commissioners that shoreline surfacing (sand, habitat gravel or pebbles) and pier configurations will be refined in design and permitting phases and that agency permitting may constrain choices.
Groveland concepts focus on improved access and larger swim and picnic amenities. Staff suggested replacing the elevated pier with a floating pier in all three concepts and upgrading restrooms; Concept 1 proposed an elevated, ADA-accessible boardwalk from the parking lot and large grass terraces down to the water; Concept 2 proposed a floating swim dock (detached float and swim features) and relocating volleyball upland; Concept 3 was the lower-change option with an expanded beach zone and a new swim platform. Staff said full ADA access from parking to water at Groveland is unlikely because of site slopes, but boardwalk or upland-access improvements could improve equity of access.
Commissioners emphasized several consistent priorities: full ADA access from parking to waterfront where feasible; preserving or adding picnic/grass seating to support families and spectators; retaining or balancing fishing opportunities and swim access (including whether to allow pier diving or detached floating swim elements); and minimizing impacts to bird or salmon habitat. Commissioners and speakers asked staff to study bird/habitat impacts, shoreline-permitting implications and how surfacing choices affect swimability and maintenance. Several commissioners supported Concept 2 elements (balance of grass picnic area and beach) at Clark and favored combining Concept 1 grass terraces into Groveland Concept 2.
Staff reported early engagement results: as of their presentation, the online survey (open Oct. 3–Nov. 3) had 104 responses. Preliminary findings cited by staff include: 63% of Clark respondents value accessible paths to the waterfront; 69% support a small watercraft launch at Clark but only 40% said an ADA-accessible launch is important; 52% indicated a rinse-off station is important even if formal swim infrastructure is reduced. For Groveland, responses were split on upland layout and pier configuration but showed notable support for Concept 2 pier options and mixed preferences for upland treatment. Staff will continue outreach (open house, on‑site events) and plans to return with preferred concepts early next year.
No formal decisions or votes were taken on the plan at this meeting. Staff will use commissioner feedback and additional public engagement to develop preferred concepts and return to the commission in early 2026 for further review.

