A “simple and easy solution” is not going to happen, declared Nieuwsma, and the changing nature of Lake Michigan has to be taken into account where “the beach moves, the water level rises,” he said.
“If you want to do something right,” a structure will have to be built “to withstand the test of time,” he said – something that doesn’t need “continuous and regular maintenance, and significant maintenance on a yearly basis.”
“I think we should look at the current design, see if there’s any way we could modify on the margins to take some of the costs down and just essentially rebid the design as is,” he said.
Melissa Wynne, who wasn’t part of the July 8 vote, pointed out that she was on the City Council that first established the Dog Beach. “It happened because the lake levels reached I think a 40-year low,” she said. Suddenly, “that beach appeared.”
She pointed to how lake levels at the beach have changed in the last decade. “In 2013, it [the Dog Beach] was 600-feet wide. In 2016, it was zero feet wide. The lake levels increased two feet during those three years.
“So I am not in favor of anything that’s … vulnerable to the wave action and the lake levels,” she said. “I think that would be very short-sighted given the volatility of the lake.”
Suffredin said he wanted to see as much public input as possible first. “Whatever it is [with] parking, whatever shape the ramp takes, whatever,” he said, “but it has to be something that the intended users will be satisfied with.”
Geracaris critiqued the process itself, suggesting getting some feedback earlier in the future, pointing to events held for other projects where people could brainstorm ideas for the design firm.
He expressed concern about “moving the target on you guys,” referring to staff, considering the late changes to the project.
Burns proposed going back to SmithGroup, the coastal engineering firm the city used on the shoreline project, for advice moving forward.
“Let’s not try to be engineers tonight,” he said. “We’re adding or reemphasizing existing criteria. That is to say, this is the one thing that we want to see if you could solve for us, and let them tell us what we can’t and cannot do. … I just want to make sure we’re directing staff staff to try to solve this concern we have.”
Addressing beach users who feel the ramp in the existing proposal is too long and meandering, Nieuwsma acknowledged that may be the case, “but that’s what we’re stuck with by the math of the situation and our desire to implement one design that will accommodate all foreseeable conditions,” he said.
He suggested that Kelly should have brought up her concerns a year ago. She replied that she did.
“When both these proposals [the other for a switchback ramp on the beach itself] were brought forth, we were all uncomfortable with both of these proposals, and then we were broadsided,” she said. “This simply isn’t necessary. You don’t need to run a ramp this long. You can bury a ramp if you want … in case the beach recedes, but we do not need that much grass to get people to the dog beach.”
Solution ignores people using the beach
After the vote, Mike Meyers, unofficial chair and moderator of the 1,200-member Evanston Dog Beach Facebook page, was asked about his reaction.
“I think they’re [City Council] ignoring people who are using this path to get into the beach,” he said. “They’ve already invested time, they’ve invested money. But it’s not about them. It’s not even about the money. It’s about the people who are using, who will use that access.”
Standing alongside Meyers, Jeff Boarini, a Fourth Ward resident, observed that “we know already that the design is not meeting people’s needs and not making people happy. It seems extremely foolish and wasteful to go ahead and build something that already isn’t meeting the needs of users.”
Thanks Bob, a fair and balanced article. I honestly don’t understand how the council and mayor can hear from so many users that the current plan is not what’s BEST for them. The spirt and laws of the ADA are very clear: Make access to public facilities as short, direct and inclusive as possible.
Handicapped parking is also a huge issue that was not considered in the early plans from SmithGroup, unless they believed that three spots far north of the dog beach was enough to cover Clarke Street Beach AND Evanston Dog Beach.
My sister has MS and has been in a wheelchair or scooter most of her adult life, she always wants her route to any public facility to be “as short & sweet as possible.” I’m afraid the long, meandering path that was approved on July 22 just won’t work for her—as well as all those who made similar pleas at the council meeting. Including elderly residents from the Mather who use walkers, and grace our wonderful dog beach almost every day.
It’s truly a shame that their needs are being ignored because a beautiful, yet impractical plan has been developed with little to no input from the right collection of actual users.