Pilings Foes Aim to Reconfigure Goleta Beach Preservation Plan

Environmental Defense Center, Surfrider Foundation press Coastal Commission to consider compromise

By Sonia Fernandez, Noozhawk Staff Writer | Published on 06.14.2009

  • E-mail
  • Print this page Print
  • Post | View Comments (13)
    • Share

With more than 1 million visitors each year, Goleta Beach Park is easily one of the South Coast’s favorite attractions. Its lawn, picnic tables and barbecue pits, accessible restrooms and a restaurant attract all sorts of beachgoers from miles around.

But the beach is subject to erosion. Located at the mouth of Goleta Slough and partially man-made, wave-fueled destruction has necessitated importing massive amounts of sand to replenish the shore. The sand eventually wears away and winds up at locations to the south. In some places the sand is a welcome part of the habitat. In others, like Santa Barbara Harbor, it is unwanted and must be dredged out. Over the decades, Santa Barbara County has had rock walls installed, removed and reinstalled in various portions of the beach.

After El Niño in the early 2000s, during which storm waves ate away at the shore, putting the park in danger, the county decided more protection was required. Under emergency circumstances, the Board of Supervisors ordered that a rock wall be installed at the east end of the beach. The state Coastal Commission has since granted year-by-year extensions to the emergency permit as the county sought to develop a better solution to the beach erosion.

But the decision was slow in coming. For months the argument about what to do with the beach was split between those who wanted to protect the park and its amenities by putting in a rock wall, and those who preferred a managed retreat — to let the ocean do what it would — while relocating structures and utilities farther back.

Eventually another solution arose, a grouping of piles jutting out into the water from the existing pier that would trap the sand and eventually build up and create a barrier to prevent the sand from being so easily carried out on the tide. That permeable pile proposal eventually became the solution the county utilized as it started the Coastal Commission application process in January 2008. This permit will be the subject of the commission’s July hearing.

However, Surfrider Foundation and the Environmental Defense Center, which were once on the side of the managed-retreat plan, later came up with a compromise between the natural widening and narrowing of the shore and the hard, permanent structures meant to capture the sand or keep the waves out. They call it a reconfiguration of the beach park, which allows for what they say is a natural cycle of buildup and erosion of the shore, while moving the amenities and utility lines out of harm’s way.

“The beach has been shown now by leading experts on sand supply on the West Coast that the beach narrows and widens over time,” said the EDC’s Brain Trautwein. The plan includes extending the existing rock revetment along the middle of the park and relocating utility lines, parking and restrooms back while letting nature have its way with the shore.

“A structure that traps sand on the beach in one area prevents other beaches from getting sand,” explained Trautwein, referring to the permeable pile solution before the Coastal Commission.

Trautwein said that if the piles trap the sand, areas down the coast, such as the More Mesa bluffs and Santa Barbara beaches, could undergo their own erosion, and loss of habitat.

That’s an idea disputed by Ed de la Torre, a member of Friends of Goleta Beach, however.

“The nearshore sand will accumulate, drop by the pier and accrete along the beach,” he said at a recent presentation to the Goleta Valley Chamber of Commerce.

According to Trautwein, the county has been less than receptive to the reconfiguration proposal, which Surfrider presented to the supervisors last November. So bent is the county on processing the permit for the permeable piles, he said, that it has refused to consider the reconfiguration alternative.

“County staff just says ‘no,’” said Trautwein, who added that the projected cost of the reconfiguration project would come out to about $1 million less than the projected cost of the permeable piles project.

For Mary O’Gorman, an aide to 2nd District Supervisor Janet Wolf, in whose territory the park lies, it is at least partially a timing situation.

“Applying for a permit from the Coastal Commission is a long process,” she said. It has been 18 months since the county began the application last year — staff furloughs and state budget cuts have affected its ability to process applications, according to the county — and the hearing has already been postponed at least once.

According to O’Gorman, the only action the board took on this matter was to direct staff to file a permit application on the permeable pile project by Jan. 31, 2008.

“It was through (the Coastal Commission’s) communications that we learned that they would not grant any further extensions on the emergency permit on the rock revetment,” said Dave Ward of the county Planning & Development Department. It’s been his job to see the application for the permeable pile project’s coastal development permit through to the commission. The county’s next best option at the time was to file for the permit, he said. The Surfrider/EDC solution was not presented to the board until last fall, he said.

It’s likely, however, that the Coastal Commission will be considering the reconfiguration along with the permeable pile proposal in its upcoming July meeting, even if it isn’t part of the county’s proposal. According to Trautwein, the environmental groups forwarded their proposal to the commission, which will have to assess the environmental impact of the permeable pile project against any alternative that might present less damage to the environment.

As for the county, its next action depends on what the Coastal Commission decides at its July hearing in San Luis Obispo. According to O’Gorman, the supervisors will once again weigh in when the project — permeable pilings or not — returns to them.

— 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.

  1. No abusive, defamatory or libelous attacks. In plain English: No personal attacks.
  2. No vulgar or discriminatory language.
  3. If you do not follow these rules, don't be surprised if your comment is removed.
  4. Please use the Report Abuse button on offensive comments.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.

You must be a registered user to comment. Create a user account

Log in




Auto-login on future visits

Forgot your password?

» Tumbleweeds and Crickets on Floatopia on 06.15.09 @ 04:01 AM

Now they can’t shutup. So where was EDC on the subject of Floatopia? Awfully quiet when there are no deep pockets to pay the bills, eh Linda Krop? Shows just how much these people actually “care” about the environment. Didn’t hear anything from any of the other groups, Channelkeepers, Surfriders, Heal the Ocean et. al. about Floatopia either. These are the people you expect to be on the front lines of beach abuse when you donate to their cause….hypocrites.


» Arthur Sylvester on 06.15.09 @ 05:11 AM

The Surfrider/EDC “compromise alternative” is still “retreat,” and nowhere has managed retreat been tried and proven.  Too much is at stake to fiddle around with a managed retreat experiment at Goleta Beach, whereas the permeable piling concept does work, notably at Huntington Beach, without erosion consequences downstream.
  Relocation of facilities involves much more than just moving a few fire pits and lavatories.  Three major pipelines - gas, water, and sewage - would also have to be moved toward the mountains at a cost of at least $500,000 each. 
  Remediation of erosion problems at Goleta Beach has been discussed ad nauseam over the last five years during which time the only defense against further erosion of Goleta Beach Park has been the existing “temporary” rock revetment. 
  The permeable piling concept is a viable compromise and deserves support from the million or so people who use Goleta Beach Park every year.


» Goleta Old Timer on 06.15.09 @ 05:54 AM

I’ve lived around her for over forty five years. I remember going to Goleta Beach as a kid. It seems that much of the erosion problems started when the slough was reconfigured to go behind the beach and hook up with San Pedro/Atascadero Creeks. This was done to accommodate the Ward Memorial Drive into UCSB. I think the Goleta Slough wants to empty out right where Ward Drive crosses behind Goleta Beach. Moving all the outflow to the eastern area of the slough took all the sand and put it out in that area. It washes out ‘below’ Goleta Beach and heads south toward Hope Ranch and Santa Barbara. Allow outflow from the ‘real’ Goleta Slough (Airport area) again where Ward Drive blocks it and there will be natural sand for a Goleta Beach. Maybe Ward Drive needs to be raised onto a bridge here. Lack of sand for Goleta Beach is a man-made problem. Go back to the construction of the airport and Ward Drive. That is the origin of the sand problem.


» David Fernandez on 06.15.09 @ 06:04 AM

Bottom Line.  Managed retreat loses the beach for all future generations.  What happens when the beach continues to erode?  Then what?  Are EDC and Surfriders going to support a rear rock revetment to save what’s left?  The answer is no.


» you must not be listening, mr. bitter man on 06.15.09 @ 06:20 AM

actually, all of the groups you mention were very vocal re Floatopia and supportive of the county’s ordinance to avert another floatopia as well as being active participants in cleanup and prevention. however we don’t remember you, Mr. Bitterness. oh wait, you didn’t post your real name or organizational affilliation


» EDC compromise = 'Managed Retreat' on 06.15.09 @ 06:40 AM

Well said, Prof. Sylvester.  It is hard to believe that the Coastal Commission would fall for this thinly veiled attempt by the EDC/Surfriders to repackage ‘managed retreat,’ but then again, we are talking about the Coastal Commission.

There is just to much at risk to try an environmental experiment at Goleta Beach Park - utility lines, public parkland, aquifer water quality, tourist attractions, etc, etc…  So far, our Supes have recognized this and have shown just enough leadership to shepherd the County’s proposal.  We can only hope the Commissioners follow their lead.


» BC on 06.15.09 @ 07:08 AM

Managed retreat will eventually have waves lapping at Highway 217 and then the Airport’s runway and then Hollister Avenue. Will the airport be allowed to be reclaimed by the ocean? No, so don’t fall for managed retreat or alternative compromise.


» pierhead@HOTMIAL.COM on 06.15.09 @ 08:16 AM

It seems there is some confusion about the permeable piling system to control beachfront erosion and its effects on downstream beaches.

It is important to note that this system, as I understand it, is not the same as a hard structured groin in that it does allow the the existing sand load to pass through the Pier.

However the water is slowed down enough to prevent any new sand from being removed from the upstream beach. The bay at Goleta would be backfilled with additional sand which is expected to stay in place for some time.

Here is a link for more information:

http://www.sbparks.org/GoletaBeach/docs/CAREGBPamphletv4.pdf


» SB Res on 06.15.09 @ 09:47 AM

Who cares about Flotopia. Let the college kids have their fun.


» Who cares on 06.15.09 @ 01:49 PM

If we don’t care about Floatopia why do we care about Goleta Beach? As long as college kids can have their fun, that’s all that really matters.


» The dude on 06.15.09 @ 04:46 PM

Hey man, I just want know to if this will make the waves better. Will it make Goleta Beach better? Campus? If so, the only bummer will be how the old pier really tied the beach together, visually. The Dude abides….


» The dude on 06.15.09 @ 04:50 PM

Hey man, I just want know to if this will make the waves better. Will it make Goleta Beach better? Campus? If so, the only bummer will be how the old pier really tied the beach together, visually. The Dude abides….


» It needs to stop on 06.16.09 @ 02:09 AM

It’s doesn’t matter how much money you put into restructure of the beach, it’s all a waste. What takes years to decide to fix the events like Floatopia takes only one day to destroy even more of the beach.  Only a part of all that garbage came onshore. Imagine how much more has gone into the ocean and is at the bottom of the shoreline.  This damage is done on a weekly basis just because college students want to have a good time, please.


More Local News »

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

Santa Barbara Developer Fess Parker Dies at Age 85

The local actor was also the namesake of Fess Parker DoubleTree Resort and Fess Parker Winery

Santa Barbara’s Water Has a Rich History, a Complex Future

Despite modern science and technology, basic challenges of delivery and storage transcend eras

Montecito Bank & Trust Celebrates 35th Birthday with the Gift of Giving Back

The bank reflects on how far it has come as it awards $3,500 grants to 10 local organizations

Weather: Fair 60.0º


© Malamute Ventures LLC 2007-2010 | ISSN No. 1947-6086

Web Design & Development by PixelFive