(Photo credit: taken by author)

15/9/2020

What happened:
Approximately 30 confused and concerned citizens gathered on the second floor of City Hall to discuss why Sapphire beach access's natural state was going was to be disturbed by the building of a restroom area and 8 parking spaces.

Why it matters:
Residents of the area were unaware of this recommendation to be decided in the next city council meeting on Wednesday, September 16, 2020.

Many residents stepped up to City Hall's podium to voice their concerns about why the city does not need to add more parking spots and a restroom to an already narrow road (Sunset and Gulf Blvd).

Board of Adjustment and Appeals member Carol Bolstad created a PowerPoint and presented before the Shoreline Task Force to bring awareness to the many concerns. She pointed out that there is no need for access 23 to have a bathroom when there's one at access 24, "It's going to decrease our property values."
Below is the list of concerns from the presentation.

Neighborhood concerns:
·       Increased traffic at an already busy turnaround point at the end of Gulf Blvd.
·       Increased crime
·       Increased garbage, trash, sanitary area, smell
·       Increased late-night usage – rowdy, drinking, noise in the family zone
·       Increased congestion. Narrow, short lot, so small physical area to put it
·       Only single-family zone on the island does not need it.
·       Does not benefit the neighborhood.
·       The neighborhood is not high density, so not an issue currently to justify any changes.
·       Other locations are better suited to it – farther distance to the beach
·       Visual eyesore
·       Destroys the natural habitat and native plants.
·       SPI – Eco-tourism (because it'll take up most of the lot there)
·       Decreased property values
·       This is not compatible with our current zoning

Captain Velasco, who also lives close to access 23, commented, "We're forgetting to mention emergency services, going through there on a busy weekend is going to cause a huge problem.”

Former EDC Board Member Ron Pitcock said, "There's very limited parking. Why are you doing this? We don't need the bathrooms; we don't need the traffic down there; and these are private family areas."

Another resident Dr. Gustavo Stern commented on the lack of transparency. "Most of our neighbors did not receive a notice about these meetings." He mentioned that he was there to represent his other neighbors, who are doctors and lawyers. "They were pretty upset that something so important that would ruin our neighborhood, and they (the city) did not have the courtesy to let us know."

Chairwomen Virginia Guillot commented after several complaints of residents having no idea of this project, "This committee has had it on its agenda at every meeting for the last two or three years. This is not a new topic. It's been on our agenda, and we've discussed it numerous times."

After about an hour of discussion, Board Member Stormy Wall voiced his conclusion on the topic. "I was in favor of this when I walked into this meeting, but I think it does not make sense to spend our money down there. We should find another beach access that has room that's a better option. I think our funds would be better spent there." The residents cheered and were quickly shut down by the Chairwomen, who asked the audience not to clap on 3 separate occasions.

In the Shoreline Task Force's defense, Robert Nixon told the citizens that it's still public property, "I heard 'not in my backyard,' type of thing, but it's an actual public access down there. You all moved to a public beach in Texas."

Board Member Abbie Mahan also spoke in defense of how permanent restrooms can be appreciated, giving the example of access 3 and 11, "If we can provide restrooms, those (access 3 and 11) have been maintained beautifully the last year or two. Driving by, I don't smell them. They are clean. They are used and appreciated by the people. If permanent facilities were to go there, and parking were to be implemented, perhaps you would see some of your concerns would be relieved." The residents laughed.

Still, the overlining issue continuously raised was the lack of notice from the city to its residents. A longtime resident Able Kennedy expressed, "If our neighbors would not have come to us and told us this was happening. We would not have known about it. I have not received one notice."

Nixon commented, concluding, "I'm sorry you all didn't know this was going on, but it's been pretty public for a long time. We are not obligated to notify you." Even though the citizens were notified through mail, according to the Shoreline Director, "As Rob said, we're not required to notify anyone, but we did send notices out to all the properties surrounding it on Gulf Blvd and the surrounding streets. I'm sorry if you did not receive one, but we did send them out. We actually have half of them back in our mailbox downstairs. We did use the address in the Cameron County appraisal district."

What now:
A motion passed for the ranking of importance of the 3 projects.
1.     Sea Island
2.     Lifeguard towers
3.     Sapphire beach access.
As it is not interchangeable, according to the Shoreline Director, "We can pull it or rank it 3rd, but we wouldn't be able to interchange it for another access."

KEY: City Council will be meeting TODAY (Wednesday 9/16) at 5:30 P.M. to discuss and take action. Below is the agenda item, as shown on the city's website.

5.2. Discussion and action to rank and approve submission of the City's following Coastal
Management Program (CMP) 's Cycle 26 applications and allow the Mayor to sign a letter
of support for the same: (Boburka)
-Lifeguard Observation Towers Coastal Hazard Preventative
-Sea Island Circle Beach Access Improvements
-Sapphire Circle Beach Access Improvements