As the coordinator for Surfrider’s Oceano Vehicle Free Beach (OVFB) campaign I was interested in Mr. Donegan’s New Times opinion piece (“Sharing the Dunes is caring,” Feb. 12). His analysis of the social class and political dimensions of rival beach users (beach pedestrians vs. motor vehicles) is interesting sociologically. However, what struck me most was what was missing from his analysis. First would be the lack of any critical analysis of the largely bogus economic impact studies of off-roading tourists. Second would be the absence of any mention of the more than four decades of historic environmental and economic injustice suffered by the community of Oceano.
The original plan in 1982, when the State Vehicle Recreation Area (SVRA) was established, was that an Oceano vehicle-free beach could possibly co-exist with the SVRA. Pier Avenue was designated as a temporary entrance to a temporary beach route. The Coastal Commission’s coastal development permit required that, within three years of the local coastal plan being established, California State Parks would complete an alternative entrance study. This initial study was completed in 1991 and asserted that Grand and Pier avenues were the preferred entrances compared to other alternatives. An additional study completed in 2006 concluded the same thing. Despite these studies, the Coastal Commission has never designated them as permanent, and they continue operating as “temporary entrances.”
As a consequence, Oceano has never been able to develop as a California beach town like Avila, Pismo, Cambria, Morro Bay, or Cayucos. Oceano has the lowest median household income of any coastal community, and its economy is depressed relative to other coastal communities. Oceano became a “sacrifice zone” for access to the SVRA. It was defined as a beach for vehicles, not persons. The Coastal Commission staff has referred to Oceano as “the poster child of environmental injustice on the California coast.”
Surfrider’s OVFB campaign is not suggesting specific solutions to the problem at this time. Instead, we are asking the relevant government agencies to put their heads together and come up with a fix. Our petition reads simply:
“We propose that the California Coastal Commission, the SLO County Board of Supervisors, the California State Parks, and the state Legislature come together and create a plan for a vehicle-free beach for Oceano by December 2030. These four entities bear a burden of responsibility to find a solution for the problem they created. Over 44 years ago Pier and Grand avenues were designated as temporary access routes for vehicles to the beach and State Vehicle Recreation Area. Oceano requires a vehicle-free beach to correct the environmental and economic injustice it has suffered for more than four decades. We propose a 2.2-mile VFB starting 3/10th of a mile north of Pier Avenue and ending 1.9 miles south of Pier Avenue at Pole 4, boundary of the Oceano Dunes Preserve.”
This option would still allow vehicles to access Grover Beach via grand Avenue and the SVRA from a new southern entrance. The SVRA and OVFB could co-exist.
Mr. Donegan and others justify the continued practice of vehicles on Oceano Beach with reference to all the tourist money they generate. The numbers are inflated by flawed economic impact studies. For example, a 2007 study concluded the SVRA generated a total of $70 million from spending by users. The 2017 study raised that to $158 million. The 2019 study by Visit SLO CAL estimated $500 million. Unfortunately, a great many people believe these numbers to be accurate. Critical analyses of these studies by professional experts have rendered them to be largely irrelevant. These totals simply serve a propaganda function for the public and private SVRA lobby.
These reports assert that all the money generated by out-of-county tourists to the Five Cities area are attributed to the ODSVRA. For example, a family of four who stayed in a Shell Beach hotel for three nights, ate three meals a day, and visited the Pismo butterfly grove or walked out on the pier—all of their expenditures count as generated from the SVRA.
Oceano has the lowest median household income of any coastal community, and its economy is depressed relative to other coastal communities. Oceano became a ‘sacrifice zone’ for access to the SVRA.
The Oceano Dunes Stewardship report’s executive summary opens with: “The Oceano Dunes SVRA is the second most visited destination in San Luis Obispo County with 3.4 million annual visitors in 2019.” This is an average of 9,315 persons every day—all in the SVRA! It is another example of manipulating data to create an exaggerated impression of the SVRA’s “positive impact.” This 3.4 million number is an estimate of every visitor to every state park, county park, and beach in the South County.
In 2024, out-of-county tourists spent an estimated $2.4 billion in the entire county and $1.35 billion of that in South County beach towns. According to the above report, “More specifically, total spending by visitors originating from outside San Luis Obispo County, who only visited Oceano Dunes as part of their trip, represented $50.5 million.” These would primarily be the off-roading tourists. As an unincorporated community, the county takes all of Oceano’s property, tourist, and sale taxes.
A large flaw in this scenario is that every study assumes if off-roading tourists no longer come to South County, then the hotel rooms, campgrounds, and restaurants they sometimes use would remain empty. But they would be filled by a “new” type of beach tourist who wants a vehicle-free beach and dunes. Obviously, this change would be most relevant to Oceano.
For example, what would happen to Pismo if the beach reopened to motor vehicles like it was in 1974? With vehicles off the beach, Pismo shifted toward a “classic beach town” model that encouraged foot traffic, family recreation, sunbathing, beach walking, clamming, swimming, surfing, and other beach activities that aren’t compatible with motor vehicles. Being vehicle free played a major role in its economic revitalization. Pismo stopped being what Oceano continues to be.
None of these surveys asked the question, “If there were no longer vehicles on the beach in Oceano, would that increase or decrease your likelihood of visiting?” Since the majority of individuals and families prefer going to beaches without vehicles, motorcycles, quads, and dune buggies zipping around, we would expect a very large proportion to respond that it would increase their likelihood of visiting—as happened to Pismo Beach. This is a clear example of what economists call opportunity costs. How much money are we losing by doing this instead of that? How much tourism money is a community losing by having motor vehicles on its beach compared to having none? Ask Pismo Beach.
The point of an OVFB is not massive economic growth, but rather on overall increase in the quality of life economically, socially, and recreationally and increased community esteem. The economic revitalization of Oceano will never happen as long as it is a sacrifice zone for the SVRA. A vehicle-free Oceano Beach can coexist with an SVRA. It takes political will, cooperative will, and recognition that everyone can win some by compromising some. Oceano has been compromised for more than four decades. We want a 2.2-mile vehicle-free beach for our community.
Please go to slo.surfrider.org to learn more and sign the petition. ∆
Charles Varni the coordinator for Surfrider’s Oceano Vehicle Free Beach campaign. Send a response for publication to letters@newtimesslo.com.
This article appears in Weddings 2026.
Shut up.
Sincerely, Oceano
I want to emphasize that Surfrider is not recommending that either Grover Beach or the SVRA be closed to vehicles. Our ask is for a 2.2 mile stretch of beach including Oceano campground on the North to the Oceano Dunes Preserve on the South. At this point we are asking the Coastal Commission, County Supervisors, and State Parks to begin discussions on how to create a vehicle free beach in Oceano and have an answer by 2030.
Charles Varni works pretty dang hard to alienate himself from his Oceano neighbors. “Let’s have Grover Beach annex Oceano. Oh yeah, forgot to ask Oceano about that…” “Let’s get cars off the beach cuz I keep crushing clams with my subie.” This guy says the economic documents are false, but what does he know that we don’t? I’m guessing he don’t know squat…but isn’t he a big-shot Jimmy Paulding campaign manager? That should tell you somethin..
Most of Oceano is relatively removed from the Pier Avenue entrance to the beach, and not directly impacted by vehicle use of the dunes, so I am having a hard time seeing just how off road use of the beach is preventing the economic development of Oceano, or committing “environmental injustice”. Little or none of the beach front property in Oceano is available, either being already occupied by the current residences, or being part of the State Park which is probably not willing to sell off the land for commercial development. The California Coastal Commission would not be enthusiastic about development in the marshy area adjacent to the residences and the airport. Closing the beach to vehicles will not bring the town any closer to the sand.
Development like the plan presented a couple of years back in a paper by Cal Poly students, involving the scraping of the town and replacing it with a utopian community, don’t seem very serious. I sort of doubt that the people of Oceano who would lose their homes to this student-driven scheme, and who would have to find housing elsewhere, would be very supportive.
And, would a ban on vehicles truly draw more beach users? Being able to drive down the beach to find a spot to set up your own picnic would seem to make it more attractive to most people than being forced to leave their car in a parking lot, and find a spot close enough that you could drag your cooler and beach umbrella to it. And, of course, those who are particularly bothered by the presence of vehicles on the sand already have the vehicle-free majority of the beach available. Who are these projected “new users” which would supposedly be attracted? Would they really exceed the numbers of the current users who would be excluded?
It’s disappointing to see Surfrider withdraw from the Dunes Alliance’s support of the Coastal Commission’s March 2021 Amendments to CDP 4-82-300 to improve management and operation of the ODSVRA/PSB, which included a five-year transition phasing out OHV uses over 3 years. Ensuring that the management and operation of the entire Guadalupe-Nipomo Dunes Complex are based on a safe, environmentally and economically just, responsible, and sustainable public access program that respects neighboring communities, citizens, laborers, visitors, and cultural heritage, and complies with the California Coastal Act – part of the Dunes Alliance mission statement – is much more than just a vehicle-free beach for Oceano.