City of Kingston - Richardson Beach Plans

Groin! that's great!

Wow. That walkway plus the indicated bushes and trees really cut down the rigging area. I don't see there is room to lay more than a few boards down on the grass with this new plan.

The groin doesn't look too bad, but it means that all launches must be to the east. With the new plan, you may get trapped between a rock and a hard place on good SE blow.

Also, I just realized (as I posted in the other thread) that the groin may become a problem as it ages since the huge boulders they use in those things will migrate with the ice in the winter and will end up as skeg-killers in the sailing area ten years down the line.

People should go to the Richardson Beach swim tomorrow (July 22) from 6-8pm to talk with City officials about this plan:

http://k7waterfront.org/Topic/MassSwim2008

Looking at the plan again, I think there are 2 extra parking spots in the lot. So there is your extra parking, Fish. :P

But of course, this cuts into the rigging area beside the lot, and the shrubberies indicated on the plan eat up the rest of this area.

Yeah - I see what you mean - I hadn't noticed that part before. I think you make a good point about significantly less rigging space.

I think they oughta put another set of 4 or 5 on the north side of the parking lot, where some of us park on the grass once in a while, or alternatively, piss off the rich home owners there and put diagonal parking on the west side of Emily St.

Is anybody planning on attending the chit-chat at Emily Street tomorrow? I can't make it, unfortunately...

I will try to go, but can't say for sure.

It really kind of blows to go to this meeting and speak/comment on behalf of the KBA when virtually no one who actually uses that launch are providing any commentary. I suppose not surprising, given the level of participation in the club. I was hoping since our shindig a couple weeks ago, we'd have some re-injected energy! C'mon people!

Anyway, I will try to make it tonight and voice some concerns over the loss of rigging space and lack of parking. I will also comment on the request for some finer material to be placed in lee of the groin. While I personally think the groin takes away from the venue, I think overall, most people might be in favour (?) since it will make for easier launching (by blocking the waves) in W & SW winds - not so for southerlies however!

Overall, I feel like the works are a good idea. In my opinion, every extra bit of attention and improvements made there are likely to reduce the use of the facility by perverts, predators and needle-users. Or at least one can hope....

Typically on projects like these that cover up lakebed, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, or their representative, CRCA (Cataraqui Region), in this case, would be up in arms about reduction in fish habitat. Typically they accept some like-area of rehabilitation or habitat improvement in lieu. There is no mention of that - worthwhile asking tonight.

Informative public meeting tonight.

I will be drafting a letter to the City on behalf of the KBA. To all those interested, let me know. I will likely post the draft as a PDF on this site for anyone interested to review and comment.

I think it might be difficult to come up with a consensus opinion from our collective group on the issue. Because of that, I would highly encourage anyone with an opinion to write their own letter to:

Richardson Beach
c/o Kristine Hebert, Parks & Open Space Planning Coordinator,
City Hall
216 Ontario St.
Kingston, ON
K7L 2Z3

See the link here:
http://www.cityofkingston.ca/residents/recreation/parks/richardson/

Thanks for your work on this Mike, I'd be happy to review and comment on your letter, so please post.
Gill

I've sent a note to the Coordinator last night, Kristine, and my city councillor. The design by HCCL was rudimentary at best; I came away with the impression that a tape measure was not present and an actual site visit unlikely. I'm reasonably certain no one in the design process actually set foot in the water OR observed the 6" rocks and boulders that constitute the lake bed OR conducted a site survey. The historic concrete slab now buried by rock debris is not reflected in the plans. Any comments or reactions now to dimension concepts would be tragically premature. The eventual contractor, according to the specifications, has the option to site survey and discover and therefore adjust to suit long after the public process is complete.

An excerpt of my note to the City of Kingston:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Thanks for the opportunity tonight to ask questions of the process and see the plans for Richardson Beach. As a lifelong windsurfer and resident of Kingston primarily because of the access to the harbour at the foot of Emily Street I certainly appreciate the public process and the chance to participate. My comments and suggestions are below.

It is unfortunate that the building, surrounding area, and access to the lake are in such a sorry state.

In our discussion I came away with impression that the plans are at a preliminary state, and for now the focus of funds available would be to remedy swimming access only. I took away the message that the Bathhouse building and surrounding area, even though they show significant proposed changes on the plans, will not fit into the design concepts that are set to evolve in the present process to a 100% design state and resulting public tender for construction services.

Richardson Bathhouse:

I noticed at least one city councillor (Ed Smith) entering the Bathhouse tonight. Hopefully he entered the washroom facilities as well and attained the indignation so common and swift to any visitor. The facility is shameful. Perhaps observations by an elected official might elicit a response at the appropriate level enabling immediate remedies to the public washroom facilities as part of the larger process.

Surrounding Area:

I’m certain that I and numerous other local windsurfers would take a passionate and positive approach to assisting with any future landscape design. Input on lake access, sail rigging area, and parking would be prominent concerns. Kingston windsurfers have a more than twenty year history of appearing sailing on the CKWS evening news, the front page of the Whig, and the annual area vacation guide. All mostly shot at the foot of Emily Street, Richardson Beach. It would be shame if all that ‘tourism goodwill’ and free PR was lost in the shuffle of inadequate public consultation and shoreline changes that led to a degradation of this national (and at times world) class windsurfing venue and its eventual disuse.

Access to the Lake (in-water structure proposed by HCCL):

• The groin proposed has the potential to negatively affect the shape of the swell immediately to the east. This area has been historically the launch spot for windsurfers and would likely remain so in the active swimming season. While not a critical issue, one would hope it could be designed to minimize wave swell impact.

• The groin proposed has the potential to affect the outflow of the bay on the west side of the Kingston Yacht Club. This area presently struggles with a pooling affect of water borne debris, and seems likely to increase with the present design's large groin structure further reducing shoreline flow.

• HCCL's drawings and specifications show a requirement for the constructor to site survey post tender and award. The plans do not show the resident concrete slab just below the water that extends significantly on either side and out into the lake. This is the structure that ‘algae-ed up’ in the past and proved a safety hazard. HCCL is proposing laying 5mm granular on this flat slab which will surely wash away at the water line in the first and inevitable significant storm. Wash away the 5mm pebbles and you are left with the slippery concrete slab and go back to the NOT SAFE FOR SWIMMING state again. Further to this any exposed surface rough enough to not become slippery with algae becomes a host surface for zebra mussels; for your consideration. It also appears that dimensions of HCCL’s design and the relationship to the actual shoreline are not accurate. This information would be critical to obtaining beneficial input from the windsurfing community. A complete site survey should be obtained above and below the water line before the design is tendered, not after, for proper public input.

• In the non-active swimming season, the other 9 ½ months of the year, my hope is that the groin, if this design proposal is retained, could accommodate use by a launching and landing windsurfer with gear in hand. I’d be willing to offer a sketch with typical dimensions to use as an ergonomic tool if that would help. On this point most windsurfers would happily participate with an informed opinion.

My hope is that this facility can be designed to accommodate both swimmers and windsurfers."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the end I came away with the impression that the Windsurfing community can play a positive role in the City's process. With an informed, positive approach to input I'm certain the site will improve to the benefit of all.

Cheers,

Craig

Good stuff Craig - I agree with most of your points for sure. Gald you wrote in - I hope that all windsurfers who attended will write in on their own accord. I did see Kristin there, you Craig, Phil, Gary & Karen, Carol, etc.. Hopefully there will be a number of individual and also a joint KBA response.

I would hesitate to say that I am pleased with the level of public involvement, at this point in time. In the municipal setting, we are required to go to outrageous lengths and effort to engage the public and solicit input and response, and following the require Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process. This process requires that the public are notified at the project outset and at various stages as follows:

Phase 1 - Problem or Opportunity
Phase 2 - Alternative Solutions
Phase 3 - Alternative Design Concepts for Preferred Solution
Phase 4 - Environmental Study Report (ESR)
Phase 5 - Implementation

The Richardson Beach project appears to be somewhere between Phase 3 and 4. They already appear to have a near fixed solution (the groin), which they say has be approved by the MOE, after much back and forth. I cannot see the City making any concession whatsoever on the size and shape of that structure. I have no idea how and why the City would/could get to this stage without undertaking a suitable EA process.

Also, I came away with a similar opinion: The groin is a done deal, but funds for the Beach House and environs are pending available funds (and hence may never get done). Note that the message is also that City Council has been pushing for that structure to GET BUILT. I believe that the improvements to the beach house and environs are great (mostly) and they should get done FIRST.

A response back already about my note with a pleasant request to set up a meeting with the Director, Culture & Recreation and a representative group of windsurfers:

"When you are ready as a group to meet with the city on this initiative please let us know."

The KBA can decide who will attend (I volunteer). Let me know and I'll forward on the contact information.

As Mike says, hopefully, collectively and individually there will be other opinions expressed to the City. Don't let the quick turn around I received deflate other concerns and voices. I submitted comments first and foremost as an individual. I am more than happy to contribute further as a member of KBA if that is to be the direction.

Craig

Sorry, last post was wrought with mistakes. Mainly - the plan has been approved by the Cataraqui & Region Conservation Authority (CRCA), not MOE as I said above. On smaller shoreline projects such as this, the CRCA acts as a representative of the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Another noteworthy point: Is that groin not particularly dangerous to both sailors and swimmers? Can you imagine a young child, even in moderate sized waves, being tossed around while walking between 0.5-2.0tonne boulders? Can you imagine as a visiting sailor unfamiliar with that structure, pulling a jibe above the submerged portions of that and hitting the big rocks? An un-natural and partially submerged feature like that WILL have some risks to it.

Before I start writing anything, I'd like to get down the main points we need to put forth.

There are what I consider to be 5 main components to this plan:

1. Bathhouse
2. Open Space (rigging space)
3. Parking
4. Beach
5. Groin

Anything else?

Please contribute by commenting individual concerns to that list, in brief terms for now.

My personal opinion is roughly this:

1. Bathhouse - overall, plan is positive. More use, heightened presence, restoration/maintenance. In general, all good... and of course, get a good café & ice cream in that canteen already! ;)

2. Open Space - available space for rigging/laying-out gear is on the decline and with proposed plantings and pathways, it all becomes much more congested. The additional proposed 1-2 parking spaces on the south side of the existing lot also cut into the primary rigging space. Recommendation: Rigging area should be maintained at minimum, not reduced.

3. Parking - Insufficient. Need to add in additional space on north side of existing lot and daresay even on the west side of Emily St (parallel/perpendicular, whatever).

4. Beach. The beach itself is actually being completely ignored here. A single access point (the groin) is being created, but the actual "beach" along the shoreline is receiving no improvements whatsoever. What would you rather swim from? From a windsurfer's perspective, there is no improvement to access whatsoever, in fact, on pure westerlies and southerlies, it just got A LOT more difficult.

5. Groin. Where do I begin? For starters, look at Craig's list above. Other points:
- Safety. This will not be a safe feature from a number of different perspectives, for swimmers included.
- Stability. Will it last? Will it be maintained? How often will the City be willing to replace the pea gravel that gets washed off during southerlies that cause straight uprush before they give up? We know the City is not into maintenance since all that concrete step would take now is someone to scrub it off every year. If we don't see that minimal maintenance, we can expect anything at all.
- Environmental. Will this not create even a little bit more stagnation in that area and hence resulting in increased vegetation growth? Last several years, by the end of the summer, there has been considerable vegetation growth, well into the upper swimming range of the water column. Less disturbance will only encourage more growth.
- Aesthetics. At low water, it will look ugly.
- Practicality. Why build anything at all on an otherwise semi-natural shoreline? Why human's needs to change it, or 'make it better' or 'make it easier'? So its a bit challenging to get into... deal with it.

Please comment on the above, add, subtract, etc... I'll put it into sassy wording after I've got the overall position we want to outline.

I guess, personally, being against the structure as is, I also offer another obscure viewpoint. As someone intimately involved with the PFD debate with Transport Canada, I always found it odd that we were regulated by them at all, them citing that our boards could and are used for transportation purposes and thus we should fall under their jurisdiction. This design is currently being reviewed by the Department of Transport (as it is now called) for approval with respect to impact on transport in a navigable waterway. For sake of argument, that is our 'shipping lane'!

Mike:

I think I'm repeating myself here a bit, mostly to emphasize. There is only one component to the plan at present, alterations to the lake; the groin.

See article in the Whig today:

http://www.thewhig.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1125859

"Fluhrer said because the plans are still preliminary, an estimated cost has not yet been established for the entire project, but the water-entry project will cost about $30,000."

The only item for consideration, and having a budget, and moving forward to construction (with a likely delay due to MOE approvals) is the groin.

Discussing concerns about anything else just muddies the water and is wasted effort; landscaping and facilities changes are a long way off from being a reality.

Respectfully, my opinion is that the KBA should stick to forwarding eventual comments to the public process only those specifically related to the impact the groin structure will have on windsurfing at this site, and nothing else.

Cheers,

Craig

Hey Craig,

I've been communicating with Kristine Herbert for a couple of months on this now. I've put the question directly to her. If there will be another chance in the future (when funding does become available) for public comment on the planned Bathhouse, landscaping and parking layout, then sure, I agree. But if not, it makes good sense for the KBA to take this opportunity and comment on the whole plan.

Happy to have you involved in that meeting. We should, in the short term, decide who will attend, schedule it for prior to August 15 (closing date for comments) and get our act together. I don't think it makes sense for more than 3 or 4 of us to go and overwhelm them. But, we will need a collective concensus on what we will recommended or what our position is on the whole plan, and most critically of course, is the groin/beach. I reckon that is the biggest point for debate, aside from perhaps the reduced rigging space and insufficient parking. I'm confident they'll do something reasonable with the Bathhouse and probably no discussion necessary(?).

What do yous think? As a group, we should get together for a beer, see who is interested, and see what the opinions are. Does next tuesday work for anyone?

Mike

Thanks for all the input from Craig and Mike.

It was pretty clear from the folks providing info at the meeting last night that the groin was the only option that was approved by authorities to provide "safe" access to the water by swimmers, but I have doubts as to it's effectiveness, longevity or actual safety for users, and am worried about the impact on the windsurfing launch (try to get out when it's slightly off shore!) and that gybe site, and I can't imagine it looking lovely. Thank goodness they didn't approve putting in a rock wall at the east end of the beach too as proposed.

KBA asked to be kept informed about and have input into the waterfront improvement plans back in 1997 (City of Kingston and Cataraqui Region Conservatin Authority - I have a copy of the paper) when Richardson Beach was recognized in the plans as a windsurfing site. Nothing came out of that plan as far as I know, but the water entry emphasis in this recent plan seems to be all on swimming access (for those with mobility issues or small kids), without acknowledging the broader use of this beach. I am all in favour of making the beach more usable by swimmers, but I am not really in favour of the groin. I am in favour of sprucing up Richardson Bathhouse and area (will we ever see the $$ for that?), but I would hope there was enough open space for e.g. rigging, for those who need it. The previous plans showed additional parking spaces on the north side of the current lot, not the whole side but about 4 extra spaces. That would preserve the rigging area and still allow for trees.

Even though we're not as active as we used to be, I think KBA should make a collective submission on this proposal, in addition to any personal responses that may be fowarded. I'm willing to participate in any discussions/review/add comments on this.

Kristin

Thanks for your interest Kristin. Hopefully we can get a core group together and hash through the issues.

I am going to tentatively schedule a meeting (i.e. beers) at the Merchant on Thursday August 7th at 8pm. Purpose: develop the main points we want to raise with the City in a unified KBA letter re: Richardson Beach.

Lets try to keep it focused on this issue specifically and hopefully keep it to an hour. Please let me know if you are able and interested in attending. Aside from Gill, Kristin, Craig and Greg (who have all shown interest), I will forward the invite by email to Francine as well. Anyone else is of course more than welcome, but the more there are at this meeting the more difficult it will be to come to a consensus.

If you know of someone else who has some pertinent points to make, feel free to invite them to this forum - that is what it is for.