WEATHER »
<b>WOULD PALMS PROTECT?</b>  One idea floated by Friends of Goleta Beach to protect the park is Canary Island date palms along the beach-lawn interface, as shown in the rendering above.

Courtesy Photo

WOULD PALMS PROTECT? One idea floated by Friends of Goleta Beach to protect the park is Canary Island date palms along the beach-lawn interface, as shown in the rendering above.


Which Way for Goleta Beach?

Save Sand? Protect Lawn? Inside the Debate Over Future of County’s Most Popular Park


Thursday, July 18, 2013
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Share Article

Everyone says they love Goleta Beach, where more than 1.5 million folks of all ages flock annually to enjoy the mix of sandy shoreline and grassy lawn. But when it comes to protecting Santa Barbara County’s most popular park from storm damage and predicted sea-level rise in the decades to come ​— ​a decision once again looming for the county powers-that-be, as a study on the latest proposal known as “Goleta Beach 2.0” was released last month ​— ​there are two distinct ways of showing that affection.

Protect Park (and Save Sand)

One side of the lovefest wants to do everything possible to protect the easy access and unique park-meets-beach experience offered by the more than 600 parking spaces and four acres of lawn, where barbecues, picnic tables, playgrounds, horseshoe pits, and restrooms abound. This group, led most vocally by the Friends of Goleta Beach organization, believes that the park’s current stretch of rock revetments — some put in legally in the 1960s, some illegally in the 1980s, and the rest installed with a now-expired emergency permit in 2002 — are essentially doing their job.

The California Coastal Commission is demanding those rocks be removed, based on the prevailing environmental credo that “hard” shoreline structures do more harm than good. But the Friends don’t see the rocks causing much permanent damage to this or any downshore beaches. To them, hard is not bad, so long as it protects their favorite place to play. They’re open to solutions that stop any currently developed piece from slipping away, including continuing the ongoing sand replenishment program that moves dredged soil from Goleta Slough to the beach; a return of the protective offshore kelp forest that was wiped away years ago; and even the planting of Canary Island date palm trees, similar to those that have seemingly stabilized Refugio State Beach since the 1930s. The group bought a dozen of those palms a few years ago, but their installation was thwarted by the county.

“What we’re concerned about is the destruction of the park,” said Friends’ founder Ed de la Torre, a multi-generation Goleta resident who started working on this issue in 2002 and sees lots of wasted time and money in the ongoing discussions. “The sand will always be there. There’s no scientific evidence that there’s any environmental damage being caused by these rocks.” [CORRECTION: Nancy Graham of Graham Chevrolet founded Friends of Goleta Beach.]

This position was hammered home this past Tuesday night at the Goleta City Council hearing, where 11 of 12 public speakers advocated for protection the park at all costs. By night’s end, the council voted to send letters to the county decision-makers, stressing how important protecting all the existing park was to the people who visit, live, and work in Goleta.

By Paul Wellman

FRIENDS FOUNDER: Lifelong park user Ed de la Torre sees lots of money and time being wasted in the ongoing hubbub over Goleta Beach. Like many in the community, he can’t comprehend why “managed retreat” makes sense when it seems that the current rocks are working.

Save Sand (and Protect Park)

The other Goleta Beach lovers are advocating for a more natural process known — with considerable marketing problems — as “managed retreat.” This group, led by the Surfrider Foundation and its hired guns at the Environmental Defense Center (EDC), is against any “hard” structures, wants the current unpermitted rocks removed as soon as possible, and favors letting the beach expand its breadth, even at the potential expense of some parking and lawn areas.

They understand that the rocks have not been exposed in recent years, but believe that, when big storms do eventually come, the uncovered revetments will present a variety of dangers: kids could fall on them, despite the bright orange fences and warning signs that mark those temporary cliffs; the wildlife that lives between the sea and the sand could have their habitats wiped out and die; and, most critically in their eyes, the beach itself, as well as down-shore beaches, may disappear as waves erode away the sands from the hard rocks behind.

“There’s lots of places in Santa Barbara where you can look at the ocean from the top of a cliff,” said Everett Lipman, a UCSB physics professor and member of Surfrider who’s been following this issue since he came to town in 2004. “We think Goleta Beach should be a place where you can run down to the beach and build sand castles.”

Based on a visit during the Fourth of July, which revealed more people using the sand than the lawn and plenty of open parking spots, Lipman believes that Surfrider’s stance does not conflict with the majority of Goleta Beach Park users, explaining that he really wants the same thing as the Friends group. “We all want a nice big lawn with barbecue pits and a big sandy beach,” said Lipman, who regularly takes his son to Goleta Beach. “We just have very different ideas on the best way to accomplish that.”

By Paul Wellman

WHEN STORMS SURGE: Surfrider and the Environmental Defense Center believe hard structures do more harm than good to the beach ​— ​such as the erosion seen here during the storms of January 2005 ​— ​and would like to see the rocks removed as soon as possible.

What’s Proposed, and Why?

In 2009, after the Coastal Commission threatened to fine the County of Santa Barbara for the unpermitted rock revetments, the county put forth an idea to create a “permeable groin” off Goleta Pier. Despite its staff’s recommendation to approve, the commissioners voted 9-1 against the idea, swayed in no small part by the lobbying efforts of Surfrider and the EDC, which delivered more than 550 signatures in favor of a more natural solution. The commission told the county to return with a plan that avoided hard structures and explored managed retreat.

Almost exactly four years later, the county released its environmental study of the managed retreat plan this past June. If approved, it would take out the 1,250 feet of unpermitted rocks; remove 107 parking spaces, with 40 more likely to be lost, but with plans to add parking elsewhere; relocate massive utility lines and adjacent bike path closer toward Highway 217; and demolish and potentially move the westernmost restroom. That would leave more than two acres of lawn, 11 picnic areas, two group picnic areas, and another restroom building threatened. “About 60 percent of the lawn area would be susceptible to storm damage,” confirmed county planner Alex Tuttle. “The project, at this point, doesn’t propose whether we would reestablish those areas once they are damaged or destroyed.”

Tuttle explained, however, that the study actually identifies “Alternative 3” as the environmentally preferable option. In exchange for better protecting the western end, that alternative would remove the easternmost parking lot, past the Beachside Café, and turn that into habitat for the snowy plover. It would also include installation of a massive “geotextile” revetment structure to protect the west end of the park, but it would not require any work to begin until a future storm revealed the existing rocks. While the latter notion may have some park protection advocates pleased, the idea of intentionally attracting the plover — a rare bird species whose presence tends to shut down beaches along other parts of the coast — has many folks scratching their heads, and the anti-hard-structure crowd is just as befuddled about the newly proposed revetments.

Back to Square One

Though some of their ideas were incorporated into the study’s “Alternative 2” ​— ​an experimental exploration scheme that would test the date palms, underground vinyl walls, sand-trapping beach pipes, and a wave-disrupting machine ​— ​the Friends of Goleta Beach aren’t exactly satisfied with the current study. The same can be said for Surfrider and the EDC, which are in the midst of crafting their own alternative. And if the City of Goleta’s hearing on Tuesday night ​— ​where the majority of public speakers, not to mention councilmembers Michael Bennett and Jim Farr, expressed visceral anger over losing any portion of the existing Goleta Beach Park while criticizing the environmental community’s grip on the county and Coastal Commission ​— ​is any indication, there’s still opposition to anything and everything on the table.

Altogether, lasting decisions about the future of Goleta Beach seem about as far away as ever before, even as county staff prepares to accept public comments on this study during a hearing next week. But nature isn’t waiting, and finding a meaningful and more widely acceptable solution might be as simple as better strategizing how “managed retreat” doesn’t have to mean “total loss” for Goleta Beach. “Let’s lose the hate for the term,” pleaded Goleta Councilmember Ed Easton, “and say, ‘How are we going to manage this threatened resource?’”

Maybe then Goleta could get back to the mutual love.

4•1•1

The County of Santa Barbara Planning Department is accepting public comments on the Goleta Beach plan during a special hearing on Tuesday, July 23, 5 p.m., in the Goleta Union School District Board Meeting Room, 401 North Fairview Avenue. See sbcountyplanning.org.

Comments

Independent Discussion Guidelines

Restoring the kelp beds, which were mostly damaged by untreated sewage, is the best long term solution for minimizing shoreline damage.

passagerider (anonymous profile)
July 18, 2013 at 2:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Managed retreat equals loss of beach, turf and parking. Period. No matter how the EDC want's to spin it. That is exactly what it does. What ever happened to the core mission of the Coastal Commission to protect beach access for the public. Some of the rocks there predate the existence of the Coastal Commission and comments saying the removal of the rocks are for safety reasons are out of it. Zero. I repeat Zero claims have been made to the County related to any injuries suffered due directly to the rocks in over 20 years.

Snowy Plover Habitat? Ok, there are restrictions how close you could get to those birds, so now you have more area removed from public use.

EDC/Surfriders doesn't care about pubic access. They do the song and dance, but if they did, they would side with the vast majority of the actual community that want the beach preserved as it. It was their direct lobbying to the Coastal Commission that shot down the permeable pier. I attended that hearing in San Luis Obispo. My kids played on the lawn growing up in the 70's. The lawn almost always has seniors, families and a group of disabled that come weekly. 2 acres of lawn is almost a loss of half of what is there now.

Most of those folks supporting loss of the park didn't grow up here. They are transplants with no knowledge of how important this Park is/was for generations of SB/Goleta folks. EDC will not commit to a "line in the sand" where erosion will be stopped at all cost. Conveniently, they always forget to mention that this beach is artificial in nature and natural erosion would lead to permanent loss in many areas all the way back to the highway, where the state would do their own rock revetment to keep the highway from washing out. One of their own consultants, once said that "well, the state could always build a raised highway so as to not interfere with the natural erosion process" during community meetings in 2008. I was there as was Mr. DeLa Torre. Who can confirm this statement.

As for public comment, folks, the board majority will do what the EDC tells them to do.

BeachFan (anonymous profile)
July 18, 2013 at 9 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Goleta Beach is a park with hard land because in the early 20th Century it was a garbage dump/landfill.

This is what happens in Goleta when no one bothers to run for city council and people like Jim Farr just slide in with no competition and accountability.

John_Adams (anonymous profile)
July 18, 2013 at 9:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

And, also ignored by the BOS/EDC/Surfriders. No one knows what is buried under that far parking lot. It was an old semi-dumping ground for military equipment when the Army Corp created the park. To date, not a single bore sample (that I'm aware of) has been taken to identify what might be under there.

BeachFan (anonymous profile)
July 18, 2013 at 10:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

i like kelp!

StockiestCastle (anonymous profile)
July 18, 2013 at 11:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I love it that Goleta City councilmembers care so deeply about Goleta Beach. Maybe they should annex it so they can have full control of any improvements, and the financial responsibility to pay for them as well.

discoboy (anonymous profile)
July 18, 2013 at 11:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Goleta Beach Park is a wonderful place. It offers its 1.5M annual visitors a place to recreate, enjoy the beach, fish from the pier or onshore, surf, kayak and ride stand-up paddle boards and personal watercraft, launch a vessel from the park's hoist or via the park's dirt parking lot and beach ramp, have a picnic or share a meal at a local restaurant with million dollar views at an affordable price.

The beach park was was built on a sand spit and at the outfall of a creek and lagoon. With a channelized creek aiming its winter storm energy at the park on one end and an exposed unprotected coastline scouring its shores -- if left alone the park will disappear in time.

So the question for our community (residents, beach park users, business owners, county staff, consultants and elected officials) is how do we protect the park and its popular amenities to the fullest extent possible. The easy approach is to load our collective emotionally charged bows with arrows and fire away at the other side -- aiming to blame those in favor of total park protection or those who seek another option for their dumb ideas. I suggest we all try another approach.

As a good faith effort in protecting Goleta Beach Park for future generations, I'd ask everyone to take a look at project Alternative 2 – Temporary Revetment Retention and Pilot Coastal Protection
Projects with Beach Nourishment. As a former member of the working group for the Surfer's Point Managed Retreat Project in Ventura, a community that works together for a common goal has the potential to do great things. Yes, I know. Goleta Beach Park is no Surfer's Point. But there are many similarities -- a popular beach, free parking, easy access and very limited funds to make it better.

In addition, I would encourage everyone to request SB County staff and officials to broaden their Goleta Beach Park 2.0 Draft EIR to include the installation of an experimental beach cobble/sand dune stabilization project, mitigation options for replacing lost park facilities including parking spaces and beach boat launching access and parking and a requirement that the entire project include the upgrading of the park for ADA accessibility. After all, the park does belong to all county residents and members of our disabled community deserve the right to use the beach too.

R Rojas
Goleta, CA

RRojasSr (anonymous profile)
July 18, 2013 at 11:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

County won't give up park to City. They make too much money from the restaurant. Plus you gotta love the talk about relocating parking. Where? The surround areas are owned by the San District and over 1/4 to 1/2 mile away from the beach. Talks of a shuttle are stupid since it's also not cost effective and no lots exist (county lots) that can be used anywhere near this area.

BeachFan (anonymous profile)
July 18, 2013 at 11:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Passagerider: Kelp beds were knocked out by storms. They were growing on worm tubes and other debris, not permanent rocks. So unless an artificial reef is put out there, you won't get any kelp growing back.

laxer (anonymous profile)
July 18, 2013 at 12:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It's going to be underwater soon.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
July 18, 2013 at 1:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Independent readers may find it helpful and informative to review a half-hour television interview with Brian Trautwein of the Environmental Defense Center.discussing the county proposal "Goleta Beach 2,0."

The interview includes film of Goleta Beach and a thorough explanation of the features of this proposal as well as the nature of previous attempts to deal with the erosion of this beach.

http://sb-justbetweenus.com/Post/bria...

William Smithers

bilwil (anonymous profile)
July 18, 2013 at 1:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr. Trautwein isn't exactuly neutral in his perception or the way he presents facts related to Goleta Beach. He sings the enviros for hire EDC song. You will note that nowhere in any public record have they ever stated that saving the beach is their priority. On previous occasions, they have been asked directly "Would you support hard protective measures if erosion continue at an accelerated rate leading to total loss of supposedly "safe" areas?" They have never committed to this. Logically, this means they don't care if we lose the beach as long as they get what they want. Doubt me? Mr. Alley and Mr. Trautwein comment regularly, let's see if they go on record for the EDC that they will support a hard protection measure if erosion goes beyond their estimates. My bet....doublespeak.

BeachFan (anonymous profile)
July 18, 2013 at 1:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The County would love to give Goleta Beach to the City of Goleta; they tried when the City was incorporating but the City wasn't able to take on the fiscal responsibility. The amount of money the Beachside (when was the last time they changed their menu?) pays in rent to the County pales in comparison to the amount of money that is spent on staff and maintenance.

discoboy (anonymous profile)
July 18, 2013 at 2:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The data the county presents is clearly bogus. 1.5 million visitors per year works out to 4109 visitors every day of the year for 365 days. In the winter there are many days when almost no one goes there so the other half of the year it would have to be 8000 visitors/day. 666 visitors each hour non stop for 12 straight hours.I don't think so. What other data that they present is bogus I wonder. Very hard to get the facts here where emotions run so high. I think we should keep in mind that both sides of the debate love that park; the issue is which should take priority the beach or the lawn. it is a value judgement not a moral judgement. No one here has any evil intent.

Noletaman (anonymous profile)
July 18, 2013 at 7:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I thought that visitor figure seemed incredibly high as well. How and who are they counting? Do repeats counts? That said, I think the beach takes priority, it's gonna take the lawn anyways soon enough.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
July 18, 2013 at 7:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

When most people think of the beach they think of sand and not lawn anyways. It must cost a lot to maintain.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
July 18, 2013 at 7:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This is a very complex issue, and most of us who are not marine geologists specializing in the morphology of intertidal environments, have no idea what we are talking about. One of the things that is clouding this discussion right now is that we have record amounts of sand on all the beaches of the south coast of Santa Barbara County due to numerous factors, but mostly the mild winters that we had for the last few years that failed to bring sand scouring storms to our coast. On the other hand, not a lot of sand got washed down the creeks either. Like I said, it's complex. I have seen the results of hard protection in a lot of places and those results are not pretty when the storms come. The first thing that happens is that the sand disappears during the storm season. The next thing that happens is that the hard protection gets battered and hammered and has to be improved and maintained and elevated, all at great expense. Finally, in order to protect the assets on the shore side you end up with a huge wall, which cuts off access to the beach, unless stairs or ramps are installed, another big expense. In my limited experience of living next to the ocean (on more than one continent) during the lion's share of six decades, the best solution would be a deep series of dunes. They seem to be the most hardy barrier to erosion. That said, I don't have a solution for Goleta Beach. Like I said before, it's a complex problem.

Eckermann (anonymous profile)
July 18, 2013 at 7:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dunes would be fun.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
July 18, 2013 at 8:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Who exactly has the priority to protect the lawn?!?!

If you want a lawn, go to a park, this is the beach.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
July 19, 2013 at 7:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The whole experience is having a lawn there as well. As you do at Ledbetter. The restaurant is soon renegotiation their long tern lease. They were given a sweetheart deal by Director Pajos for 25 years at a really low percentage (half of what the County gets from the restaurant at Arroyo Burro). Even so, over $1 million plus. 1 1/2 rangers assigned there. Salary with benefits is about $180,000 for the maintenance of the park. Trash, about $30,000 annually. Equipment and fuel, say $40,000. Say $250K in misc. repairs, another $100,000 because I'm a nice guy. So the County clears about $400,000 annually from this park. Check your facts discoboy. Go on to the County website and look for yourself.

The attendance is based on a typical day of turnaround of vehicles and users on average of every 3 hours. A full traffic study was done as part of the EIR using this formula, which is how they are done. How many traffic engineers are here commenting on something they don't know anything about????

You folks continue to amaze me how you keep missing the point and big picture. We are looking at losing turf AND BEACH and PARKING. Erosion will take away they entire far end of the park. There won't be more beach, there will be less. Geez. No protection equals permanent loss. Can I make it any more simple? BTW. Dunes cost money. You have to import in the sand at a cost of six figures regularly. And remind me please what the County budget looks like??? Oh yeah, upside down.

BeachFan (anonymous profile)
July 19, 2013 at 8:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Cool! I mean WARM! We got climate warming deniers here in these postings. Goletans, you are getting whom you voted for.

But, yes, if this is so important to the city, then ANNEX IT, b*#@tches!

John_Adams (anonymous profile)
July 19, 2013 at 11:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

As I'm sure most people figured out, Goleta Beach would formerly have been called Goleta Estuary because that's what is is, or was. In fact there was an island that was bulldozed to make way for what is now the airport, Mescaltitlan Island.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
July 19, 2013 at noon (Suggest removal)

I agree BeachFan that without hard protection we will not be able to save every square inch of parking lot and turf that was constructed on what is essentially a shifting sand spit at the mouth of an estuary. But the hard protection comes with its own effects and ongoing costs. Over time and the relentless scouring of the current down the coast, hard protection gets battered and undermined and ultimately loses its structural integrity and so has to be regularly maintained at great expense. Then there is backwash action that removes the sand and leaves a pebble and cobblestone beach, if it leaves a beach at all. Some beaches adjacent to hard protections become permanently submerged year round. I am not advocating for one solution over another. I just think that whatever solution is chosen it should be the one the provides the most naturally stable (as stable as intertidal zones get), lowest long term cost, lowest maintenance, and greatest access to the beach and ocean. It is a "beach" park after all.

Eckermann (anonymous profile)
July 19, 2013 at 1:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Using the word snowy plover and Goleta beach in the same sentence is about the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Read between the lines people, alternative 3 appears to be enviro-blackmale: you give us the east end for the snowy plover, and we will let you have your way with the west end. This is ridiculous because that slough outlet meanders all over the place depending on the month and year. In fact were it not for the rocks on the west end, that parking lot would be gone. How will a bird nest be safe? Also, once one of those birds gets a nest in and one of our Enviro friends spots it, it is game on. That beach will be facing closures constantly. Have a look at Surf Beach or Coal Oil Point. Granted, the Plover needs a pad, but unfortunately our Enviro protectors have chosen some of the most heavily used, people pressure beaches in the county as their own personal aviaries. Unbelievable in light of all the private, much quieter areas this could be done at that run under the guise as private beaches, or at least where there is a lot less access so the birds won't be disturbed.

As a G beach user for decades, I have noted that the slough appears to be shutting down at times on the east end, while the ocean encroaches on the west end. This leads me to believe that the ocean will eventually break thru and start to fill in the south west corner of the airport, and take out the highway leading into all uber important UCSB. Then G beach will be an island. Wikipedia Goleta for some interesting background info. under history.

I have a feeling this area has always been in flux since it sits in a tidal estuary. What's done is done there now which seems to be the crown jewel of local beach parks. Unless people are prepared to donate it to a nature conservancy (i.e. Ocean Meadows), have access removed ala Plover, or see it wash away, I think we better leave it as it is. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. In the future there won't be less people using it, only more. Reducing capacity at this point sounds pretty nutty especially as it gets harder and harder to get to other beaches.

bimboteskie (anonymous profile)
July 19, 2013 at 1:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I was born and raised here, and have great memories of learning how to play volleyball on the old nets that used to be at Goleta Beach.

According to some posting here, that means my opinion counts more than others. That seems lame, but so be it.

I would reiterate what Eckermann has been patiently pointing out. Revetments and beach armoring, especially the kind that start far from the tideline, are at best short term solutions and do more harm than good in the long run. They only seem like they're working in part because we haven't had any big storm waves in awhile.

EastBeach (anonymous profile)
July 21, 2013 at 3:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey East Beach and others pro-EDC views. Can someone post some hard evidence that the Goleta Beach reventment has caused downcoast damage in the last 40 years? 50 years? How about the creation of the beach in the first place where none use to exist??? Anybody????? Yeah, that's what I thought.

BeachFan (anonymous profile)
July 22, 2013 at 9:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You might want to consult an oceanology before making a fool fo yourself, it's basic science.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
July 22, 2013 at 10:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Again Ken......all I'm asking for is show me the facts and documentation that the revetment at GB has caused down coast damage going back 50 years? Or is it something you can't do? It's yes or no. No more complicated than that.

BeachFan (anonymous profile)
July 22, 2013 at 11:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Goleta beach has been messed with since modern times. Now all the sudden people are going to go for managed retreat because it is the hip thing to do and the is pressure from Enviro's? So wouldn't this mean that the pier itself is impeding the sand flow and therefore would be the next thing on the managed retreat chopping block?

Hmmm...now from what I know about oceanology, it is sudden and abrupt changes in coastal geometry that cause long shore current sand to get stuck. We have major wave storm events every few years, and like most other beaches it takes time for them to comeback and heal. If a huge storm takes out the west end parking lot, and cuts into it, it is going to take years of long shore current to fill it and as it heals it will cut back on the flow of sand heading down to the other beaches in Santa Barbara. Seems to me you have a nice smooth line with the rocks there that will both reduce damage and the healing time for the beach from major storm events.

bimboteskie (anonymous profile)
July 22, 2013 at noon (Suggest removal)

And of course 19th century candidate Hotchkiss plays it safe.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
July 22, 2013 at 1:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh and does this mean we would be removing all of the giant boulders up at the top of Campus Point so that natural retreat could occur at UCSB too, or is this policy only for the people of Goleta?

bimboteskie (anonymous profile)
July 22, 2013 at 3:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

We could just buold a dam across the cove, we could create two beaches that way, one on the ocean, one on the lake. That's outside the box climate change prep. Your's, for free.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
July 22, 2013 at 3:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I must have some Mulholland in me so watch out.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
July 22, 2013 at 3:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@bimboteskie- I agree with you! Leave it be.

SBLOKE (anonymous profile)
July 24, 2013 at 4:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Vaud and the Villains

This 19 piece 1930s New Orleans orchestra and cabaret will ... Read More