Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Coastal Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates proposed playground on beach between Fifth and Sixth streets, cites erosion and permitting hurdles
Summary
Council examined a proposal to place a community-built playground on the dune between the boardwalk and parking lot near Fifth Street. Staff said state environmental rules likely prohibit hard surfacing and plumbing on the beach, bulkhead permitting could cost about $30,000, and neighborhood support was limited; council declined to direct staff to advance work without clearer member support.
Council discussion on Oct. 23 centered on a proposal to place a playground on a dune space between Fifth and Sixth streets near the boardwalk. Staff described site constraints and regulatory limits that, they said, significantly complicate building on the beach.
Michael, who briefed the council, said environmental reviewers indicated the playground would have to be “on the beach” with no hard surface and that “no plumbing could be run through the beach there,” limiting options such as water features. He also said a bulkhead-permit study could cost roughly $30,000 and cautioned that the odds of securing such permits appeared low.
Several council members expressed practical concerns about erosion and long-term maintenance. One member said the area “has some erosion there” and that recent storms reinforced worries about placing permanent infrastructure on that part of the island. Another asked if the permit costs or a bulkhead construction estimate had been developed; staff replied that construction estimates had not been developed because the city first needed council direction to pursue permitting.
A resident proponent described a community-built model that combines volunteering and private fundraising, saying the approach can reduce capital cost and encourage local design input. The proponent said he could provide up to $800,000 toward the project land or effort and pointed to examples from other coastal communities, but councilmembers noted neighborhood feedback had been mixed.
Given regulatory, engineering and budget uncertainties, the administration said it would not spend additional staff time or municipal resources advancing the project unless at least three council members signaled a desire to place the item on a future agenda. Council members debated whether three or four signatures were required under local rules and did not reach a final procedural change.
No formal vote or funding commitment was made; members asked staff to return with more detailed cost estimates, erosion and geotechnical analysis, and clearer neighborhood engagement results should they want to pursue the idea further.
