- Home
- News Grid
- Local News
- Green Hawk
- Politics
- School Zone
- Youth Camps
- Nonprofits
- Missing Pets
- Multimedia
- Arts
- Movies
- Outdoors
- Sports
- News Releases
- Columnists
- Blogs
- Opinions
- Classifieds
- Advertise
- Donate
- Partners
Goleta Council Backs Pilings Plan to Slow Beach Park Erosion
The Goleta City Council on Tuesday unanimously voted to send a letter to the California Coastal Commission in favor of the permeable piling solution proposed to slow erosion at Goleta Beach.
Originally part of the Goleta Slough, Goleta Beach Park receives more than 1 million visitors each year. As a partially man-made environment, the park has been subject to the forces that created the slough. This leads to severe erosion, as currents pick up sand and deposit it south to places such as the Santa Barbara Harbor, which spends $1.5 million a year to dredge up the same sand.
In the past decade, groups have clashed over what exactly to do with the beach. El Nino storms took out both sand and the underwater kelp in the nearby waters that protected the shore. Environmentalists called for a managed retreat, which would allow the waves to take back the shore, while moving utilities and other infrastructure back, away from the water. Those interested in saving the beach — including the county and the owners and patrons of the restaurant inside the park — advocate more permanent solutions, such as the rock wall the county installed as an emergency measure.
One solution will be the subject of a California Coastal Commission in hearing early July, and would entail installing a semipermeable series of pilings at the eastern end of the Goleta Pier to trap the sand and create a barrier from the flow of sand. The project includes the removal of the rock wall.
One project skeptic told the council that the pilings may not be enough, and that the rock wall should stay. Dr. Dan Secord, once a member of the commission, tried to drum up support for his idea.
“I’m trying to get the commissioners to understand that the notion of leaving those rocks in there to protect that beach has value,” he said.
The council balked at the idea of explicitly mentioning the rock wall in its letter of support, but voted 5-0 to support the permeable pilings. Even though Goleta Beach Park is not within the city’s jurisdiction, it is a top destination for local residents.
“It’s the only park we’ve got for access to the beach,” said Councilman Michael Bennett.
— Noozhawk staff writer Sonia Fernandez can be reached at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).
Comments
Noozhawk's comments are moderated, but by posting here you accept your responsibility to follow our rules.
- No abusive, defamatory or libelous attacks. In plain English: No personal attacks.
- No vulgar or discriminatory language.
- If you do not follow these rules, don't be surprised if your comment is removed.
- Please use the Report Abuse button on offensive comments.
- Share what you know, ask about what you don't. Give us your eyewitness accounts, observations, background and history. Tell us what else you want to know about the story.
- Stay on the topic, PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK, and forgive people their spelling errors.
Noozhawk's intent is not to limit the discussion of our stories but to elevate it. Thank you for your respectful participation. Click here for our complete Terms of Use.
Comments are moderated, and will not appear until they've been approved.
» on 06.04.09 @ 04:34 AM
What a disappointment. The County dumps illegal rocks and spends hundreds of thousands of dollars on bogus environmental analysis for 15 years, pleading with the Coastal Commission not to file violations of the Coastal Act, only to embrace and unstudied, bogus ‘pilings’ plan invented by….. Tada: the contracting engineering firm doing the analysis! Get it? Moffet and Nichols decided that in these tough times an extra $10 mil. in their pocket would work as a fine bailout. Who cares what happens to the beach! And the County fell for it. And then the County staffers went and spent $100,000 on private lobbyists to chat up Coastal Commissioners like…. DAN SECORD? What is Dan Secord doing lobbying the Goleta City Council for more illegal coastal development? Isn’t that a direct conflict of interest regarding his being on the Coastal Commission (as an alternate who never misses a meeting) and supposed fiduciary duty to protect the coast? Poor Goleta Beach—it is doomed. Think on the bight side though: At least you’ll have a lawn, a parking lot and and underwater restaurant….
» on 06.04.09 @ 01:54 PM
From the CCC’s website:
“The mission of the Coastal Commission is to:
Protect, conserve, restore, and enhance environmental and human-based resources of the California coast and ocean for environmentally sustainable and prudent use by current and future generations.”
While certain lobbying groups would prefer to have Goleta Beach Park turned into an ongoing experiment in the unproven theory of “managed retreat”, it’s clear that the “permeable pile” proposal to protect the park is the option that best fulfills the CC’s mission: Protect the park, restore the beach, and enhance the human-based resources for use by current and future generations. Can it be any more straightforward?
It is time for the CC to finally make a decision to allow the COunty to take legal, prudent, and environmentally sustainable action to protect the park for the 1.5 million people who use it every year. Enough of the silly, costly, and wasteful delays! In the meantime, we have seen the effects of ‘managed retreat over the last decade while study after study has been done and the debate has raged on: the beach and the park are washing away - retreating nicely as the theory would predict…
» on 06.04.09 @ 07:43 PM
Why isn’t the City of Santa Barbara involved with any of this? What does Goleta Beach protect? SB city land and the airport! Think about it, the beach keeps eroding down, wont it eventually go away, and the ocean retakes the slough? Wasn’t it originally a harbor anyways? I remember reading stories about whaling ships coming into the harbor. Then it was filled in to make the airport. Sound like nature is wanting to take it back.
Kind of funny. Goleta doesnt want Target in the SB city land of the airport, but they want to protest the beach which will protect SB city land.
» on 06.05.09 @ 04:37 AM
wow now I am really confused.
» on 06.05.09 @ 06:36 AM
Sonia Fernandez should no better but apparently she files her articles in haste. A few months ago her article about the court ruling on LAFCO failed to even mention the name of one of the plaintiffs, Surfrider Foundation Santa Barbara Chapter. Now she is repeating the often heard nonsense that “Those interested in saving the beach — including the county and the owners and patrons of the restaurant inside the park — advocate more permanent solutions, such as the rock wall the county installed as an emergency measure”. Those folks are NOT interested in saving. the rock revetment, the pilings the groin, all of these proposals will destroy or seriously erode the beach. They may or may not save some of the lawn. Surfrider, EDC and others are interested in a more sophisticated approach that will save both the BEACH and most of the rest of the park.
More Local News »
Phil Wyatt Builds High-Tech Company with Low-Key Approach
Wyatt Technology's founder and CEO serves as a steady guide for his staff in pinpointing a niche in laser-based instruments
Santa Barbara Airbus Picks Up and Moves to New Location
The company will have more legroom at its new home on Technology Way in Goleta
Residents Get Look at Master Plan for Santa Barbara
An open house kicks off a public-comment period designed to help shape the future of the city
Ninth Circuit Court to Rehear Goleta Rent-Control Case
The appeal on 'regulatory taking' could determine the constitutionality of the city's ordinance
Bob Wilcher: Guaranteed Weight Loss
Eat 500 fewer calories and exercise for one hour each day and enjoy the results
Weather: Fair 57.0º
Search Noozhawk »
