The reluctance to discuss the ECL/20 foot boundary is because Linda Cherry’s group–Save Our Beaches–has a lawsuit over the issue proceeding through state court, City Manager Greg Kisela says. Which the city will discuss at its Aug. 3 meeting (executive session).

Ahh, clarification: Craig’s referring to similar sand on unrestored areas of Eglin property–so it was done by nature, not restoration. Bagby said he’s seen it in Rosemary Beach and they’re 15 miles from any restoration projects.
Jim Wood: He dug a few holes on Linda Cherry’s property (with her consent) and the layers tend to be pretty consistent–it’s not just a black layer on top, they alternate.
And we’re adjourned. I’ll post something in a few minutes.

Says the lifeguards work very hard, but tourists, especially kids, keep going back out. The lifeguards really put themselves out.
And another speaker steps forward …(this is a lot)
Guy Tadlock, 502 Norriego. He’s carrying bags of sand. He agrees with Larry Williges: It’s been a bird sanctuary for years, and armoring the point might not be good for hatchlings (note: City staff have said in the past, if I recall properly, that it’s never been an official sanctuary).
Tadlock’s second point: Black sand (figured as much when I saw the bags). He’s done some flybys in a friend’s plane and it’s really, really obvious when you’re overhead. And he’s presenting a sample tonight (as far as I can see it’s no different from the other black sand samples that have been brought up by past speakers).
He accepts that it’s a natural mineral, but blames the beach-restoration dredging for stirring it up and bringing it to the shores. And he’s concerned that when Holiday Isle gets beach restoration, their sand will come from a lower-quality source. If it comes out bad, it can’t be removed; the most that can be done is to put it upland and cover it up. Could that be what happened in the east Destin restoration?
He’s concerned enough that he’d like them to talk to the dredge company and make sure it doesn’t happen next time. “I think we can all say that Destin’s pristine beaches are our greatest asset–they’re the goose that lays the golden eggs for Destin’s citizens.” So they need to query the dredgers, the engineers and find out what’s to be done to prevent it happening again.
Another point: He presents another bag of sand from over near Pompano Joe’s in South Walton … and he’s concerned it’s sub-par and could migrate to the Destin beaches after a storm. Will the city look into this and see if the sand can be replaced with better sand?
Craig: Can staff check with Walton County? Bagby: They have a white sand ordinance.
There’s some more discussion but I’m losing the thread as different bags of sand are picked up and referenced.

Kisela says he’ll be approaching the County Commission tomorrow for a formal discussion of the city taking ownership of Norriego Point.
Now, audience comment: Larry Williges, ex City Councilor, has two issues:
1)First, there’s erroneous information about Norriego Point. The Log has made reference to the point being zoned “recreation” when it’s actually zoned “conservation.” (I don’t think that was one of my articles, but I’ll have to check). He thinks that’s partly because it’s referred to in city literature as both a recreation area and a conservation area (his actual discussion is much more technical as to the rules). And that the city hasn’t been delivering on its responsibility to a conservation area. But it’s definitely NOT recreational.
2)Down at June Decker Park, someone was in a wheelchair on the wooden portion, tried to get down on the beach and there’s a staircase. Someone had to carry them down. “Again, this is in violation of ADA, we’re supposed to have that compliant–there’s no ramp.”
(My memory is that it wasn’t physically possible to build a ramp because the slope would have been too steep–the DEP permit required it stay waaaay up the beach–and that this was an ‘out.’ I might be wrong, though).
Williges: It’s a city park, even though the TDC paid for it. It’s the city’s responsibility to make it ADA.
Wood: I’ve been down there, isn’t there a ramp? He’d thought so.
Linda Cherry: She was hoping for a discussion of the 20 foot rule tonight. “it appears that instead you’re going to go behind closed doors and discuss what is and should be a very public policy. I would like the opportunity to be heard before or during any action you might take.” She understands executive sessions are closed, but she’d like to see public input on the key questions: Where is the 20foot measured from and what effect does the ECL have? And what constitutes customary use? “those are pretty basic questions. The city has directed the sheriff … not to enforce private property rights. I’m a little confused … it’s a pretty basic question and we, the public, are not entitled to know the answer to that?”
She asks about the 20-foot line. Shirley says that as Cherry is one of the plaintiffs in the litigation, he’d like to have the executive session before a public statement.
Bagby: We don’t want to promulgate something in the lawsuit–but he anticipates coming out with a public policy they can announce.
Kisela: “You may or may not have action after that.”
Bagby: “It’s my intent–we have a policy now, but having talked to several sheriff’s deputies I’m not sure they understand where they measure 20 feet from … they deserve, our citizens deserve, to know what the policy is. I don’t care whether it’s from the ECL, the wet sand … we ought to have a common understanding of what our policy is. Right now, I’m telling you, we do not … There are probably eight, nine, ten opinions on this dais.” (there are 10 people on the dais).
Wood: Whatever the policy is, people need to know what it is.
Dewey: Agreed! “We’re stretching the umbrella of what can be done in executive session pretty broadly … public policy is not it, litigation matters are.”
Seevers: Didn’t we tell staff to deliver a report? That would be the answer. Is it coming?
Shirley: We didn’t discuss the pending litigation and what effect that might have on the policy. I’m recommending we get past that executive session before we take action on the questions.

(By the way, the city clerk predicted a 45 minute meeting; the Channel six cameraman guessed 75 minutes. I guessed two hours, and it looks like I’m on the money).
Kisela presents a report on the DO-extension proposal. It’s somewhat complicated because it involves a state bill covering state water and environmental permits as well.
“In the last two years we’ve sunseted more development orders than we’ve issued because of the recession,” Kisela says.
Shirley: There’s a two year extension on state permits that expire between 2008 and 2012 and this also applies to local orders regarding “developments of regional impact.” Shirley recommends the city follow the same logic. (OK, not as complicated as I thought).
Bagby: “A lot of people see this and go ‘oh you’re pro-development.’ Nobody has questioned developers more sharply than I–I voted against a lot of ones on here.” But it costs a packet to get through the DO process, and we ought to be fair to them.
Moves to grant the extension. Kelly seconds.
Craig: This is just a motion to draft an ordinance, right? So there will be public hearings ahead?
Weidenhamer: This is just these specific projects, yes? I have reservations about granting extensions to people getting DOs this year–they must have known what they were getting into.
Jim Wood: Yes, it’s just the list, correct?
gallander: “the actual motion is all current final development orders.”
Wood: And we’re not approving an ordinance, just telling you to draft it.
Gallander: We’ll put a lot more detail in when it’s drafted.
And the vote: Unanimous.

He adds that his understanding is, all Baby J wants is to renegotiate the submerged land lease (as far as DEP goes).
And now the vote: 6-1 with Dewey voting no.
Next: A question asked at the last meeting was whether it would be cheaper to lease a GPS unit for the city than buy one. Kisela reports that buying is actually cheaper.
Seevers: Move to purchase for $21,000. This will help measure the beaches more accurately in terms of height, width, volume.
6-1, Dewey voting no.