Coastal Commission Denies Permeable Pile Pier

easy solution backcharge the California Coastal Commission any loss of profit or loss of business due to them not allowing the the beach to be saved.

the other possible problem with this is, if SB loses the beach the highway connecting to UCSB and the airport is next. then maybe old town goleta, if we look at the maps of the past, not saving the beach now could cost billions with in 10 or so years.

Jrock, are you kidding?? Who do you work for and where are you getting these outrageous claims about losing the airport??

This is a HUGE victory for coastal advocates!!

Guess what? The beach is SUPPOSED to erode. That's how beaches work. If you try to manage this beach, then you will adversely affect beaches down the coast causing even MORE erosion problems elsewhere. If you leave it alone, there will be plenty of sand everywhere because you are allowing natural erosion to occur. In concert with a healthy watershed you have plenty of sediment to keep the beaches nice and sandy, protecting inland areas as much as they can be. You propose a temporary solution that is disastrous in the long-run.

So, JrockSB, you think that business profit or loss should be the determing factor in all this? Fine. Let the Beachside pay for all remediation and secondary effects. Fits with your perspective, right?

"with lower costs and fewer impacts on the beach and its guests"

Not even the advocates for "reconfiguration"/"managed retreat" claim that it has fewer impacts on the beach or park guests.

"Mark Massara, who represented the Sierra Club in the matter"

Mark Massara is the Director of Sierra Club Coastal Programs but I do not believe he represents the Sierra Club in this matter. The Santa Barbara group of the Sierra Club took a neutral position.

"the other possible problem with this is, if SB loses the beach the highway connecting to UCSB and the airport is next. then maybe old town goleta"

There's no basis for such a wild claim, and the proposed pilings wouldn't be adequate if there were.

As has been explained to me, each beach is locally created by local streams that carry mountain soil to the ocean. Thus, the beach here does not influence the beach in San Diego. The sand comes to the beach by streams, goes along the shore like a river, south, and then eventually finds a canyon under the ocean to dump into, a sandfall like a waterfall. The cycle starts with the next litoral cell. No, beaches are not necessarily supposed to erode. However, if dams block the rush of spring water and the soil it carries and picks up from previous rains, then the local beach will erode since no replenishing sand comes along. I claim no expertise, just as was explained to me.

This is like stopping the wind, rain, sun, moon, night and day...nature changes the shape of things...accept it and move on...nothing lasts forever...the Beachside as well as the Boathouse shouldn't be on the sand anyway. They are toxic to the beach, the county should close them down and raze them, healthier and more cost effective long term.

When are folks going to get a clue that restoring nature is more important than lawns for beer-bellied locals and sweaty tourists?

A worthless old pier with aging layabouts wasting time is not worth defending in comparison to the beauty of the slough and its birds.

Kudos to EDC and the Coastal Commission. It's time for the over priced restaurant, silly playground, and useless lawn manage their retreat into the ocean!

The Coastal Commission did the right thing. The Coastal Act requires 'beaches' be protected, not parking lots, playgrounds, a lawn or a private commercial business. Those man made amenities can ALL simply be moved back a bit. A beach backed by a hard structure cannot move back, it simply disappears.

It remains to be seen whether SB Co. can pull their head out of sea rise denial and move back. The real story here is the $3 million taxpayer dollars SB spent on private lobbyists (Who is the Chambers Group from Irvine and Susan McCabe Associates and why are they being paid millions for lobbying the Coastal Commission?!?) and engineers (Moffett & Nichols, notorious seawall advocates) on secret contracts not approved by the Board of Supervisors? Heads should roll. SB Co. executives need to be held accountable. The public should be protected against these wildly stupid ideas and expenditures.

First off let me compliment Ben Preston on some seriously good reporting and background. Very informative article. Next question I have is how could the CCC staff have supported approving this project which is in clear violation of not only CEQA ( California Environmental Quality Act) but the Coastal Act. Third, why is Santa Barbara County spending thousands and thousands of dollars on this losing battle. Surfrider and the EDC have come up with a perfect alternative that both preserves the majority of the park AND offers the best hope of preserving the beach itself. The park, after all, is called Goleta BEACH Park. If the sandy beach is lost the park's value will be greatly diminished. We all need to tell the county to back off of it's stubborn position and work constructively with EDC, Surfrider and the rest of the community to come up with an affordable plan that protects the park and the sandy beach. The fear mongering notion that unless Moffat and Nichols expensive and untested boondoggle is approved the whole park and the restaurant will be washed away is total nonsense and not supported by scientific facts.

I have not seen any references to Ventura's Seaward Beach, which long ago installed a series of 'permeable' piers, which seems to have saved the beach there, now there is so much sand there that the sand is constantly trying to reclaim the streets and homes there. How would that solution work on the SB County Beach?

Nothing built near the seashore can be permanent. It'll either be washed into the ocean or be left high and dry, sooner or later, Goleta Beach or Bacara Resort or New Orleans.

Wingnut -

This "aging layabout" has donated nearly 1900 hours of volunteer service to Goleta Pier since 2006 ... I consider it time well spent and not wasted at all. The Pier community is a wonderful mix of interesting and delightful people, many of whom have been visiting the Pier for decades.

I'm sure you would agree - please take the time to visit when the Center is open (Thurs - Sun, 11am-4pm.) Grab one of the outside stools and let's talk.

Looking forward to meeting you (and anyone else who is interested).

Boyd Grant
Pier Host - Goleta Pier Angler Center
http://www.pierhead.freeservers.com/

Ok I have been coming to Goleta beach since my father could put me in a bike seat for kids. Sadly erosion and changing weather and sea patterns are part of nature. If the beach goes away it goes away. In all honestly Goleta beach really needs a ton of work.
As for the wonderful people that hang out come on a bunch of homeless people that hang and drink all day or a few college kids that come and go every 4 years. Not a huge lose to me.

Personally with the economic times we are in I can think of many more important things that we could spend taxes dollars on. Let nature take it's course take the building out and clean it up so that no harm will be done to the environment and let it be. People could still use the beach till it's either gone or comes back as nature dictates.

Anyone remember the volleyball courts on the sand? Seems like ages ago.

I've always wondered if Goleta beach was doomed given that the creek outlet is east (down-shore) of the main beach?

I am glad to see the Commission has chosen the natural process.
We need to move development away from the coast.
In Pleasure Point, they decided to save the road while acknowledging that the surf will be lost to higher sea levels.
Every sea wall needs to be mitigated with both lateral and vertical access.
In many areas, it is very hard to get to the coast and they are building sea walls that will lead to the loss of our beaches.
They could at least require a path down to the beach when they let owners build seawall.
The Seawalls could have elevated sandy walkways with access to the sea.
A group of owners might need to band together to remove a house every few blocks for a park and access.
This would help open the wall of wealth that keeps us from the coastal land that we own as Californians.
In many areas, planed retreat is the norm.
There could be a moratorium on remodels and eventually buildings on the coast could be recycled and the coast opened to the citizens again.
I hope the Coastal Commission will continue in this direction.