A conflict between the California Coastal Commission and Pismo Beach could mean that having a beachfront property is more trouble than it’s worth for some homeowners.
The state agency appealed the Pismo Beach Planning Commission’s approval of coastal development permits that allowed seawalls to be built in front of two separate private residential homes.
“The applicant at that time accepted and internalized the risk of developing a house in a known hazardous area based on a 100-year evaluation at the time, which was also relied upon by the city. Now, 20 years later, the applicant is telling a different story after an estimated 10 feet of erosion in the time frame,” said Dan Carl, the Central Coast district director of the Coastal Commission, at a Dec. 17 meeting.
Carl is referring to applicant James Gentilcore, who received Pismo Beach authorization to build a 120-foot-long and 40-foot-high textured and colored seawall in front of his residence. Pismo Beach residents Tony Hyman and John Okerblom would construct the other seawall in front of their private property. Both barricades would cover entire beach bluffs, which are erosion-prone rounded cliffs that overlook water bodies.
“The seawalls’ construction is funded privately by the property owners, but their impacts affect public resources such as beaches and public coastal views. So there is a public cost to their construction,” Kevin Kahn, the Coastal Commission’s Central Coast district manager, told New Times.
Coastal Commission staff found “substantial issues” with the seawalls, and the appeal transferred the developmental permits from city jurisdiction to the state.
The main objection is that seawalls don’t conform to local coastal program (LCP) requirements. LCPs are planning tools used by local governments in partnership with the Coastal Commission to guide development in coastal zones. While the Gentilcore and Hyman-Okerblom residences came into existence in 2003 and 2013, respectively, the LCP only allows shoreline reinforcement to protect structures that have been around since Jan. 1, 1977.
“Not only is the residence not an ‘existing principal structure’ as the commission understands that term, but the residence was also approved on the basis that it was adequately set back to be safe for at least 100 years, as required by the LCP, without the need for armoring,” the Coastal Commission staff report stated.
Kahn told New Times that Pismo Beach doesn’t have the authority to challenge the Coastal Commission’s decision. They will reach out to both sets of applicants after the holiday season regarding the next steps for their applications. The Coastal Commission will hold a de novo hearing next year to discuss the merits of the development permits. This means that the commission will assess the matter without reference to any legal conclusion Pismo Beach made when it greenlit the permits.
“The project raises issues of regional and statewide significance, given that climate change and sea level rise-related effects (such as coastal erosion) impact the entire coastline, and the issue of how to address them has become a top regulatory and policy priority for the state of California,” the staff report said. ∆
This article appears in Year in Review 2021.
INTERESTING NO PROBLEM BUILDING HOTELS ON THE SANDS OF PISMO BEACH BUT A SEA WALL IS A EYE SORE!!!
The Coastal Commission is happy to see resident’s homes slide off the cliff
– which, by the way, will block use of the beach and
requre taxpayer funds to remove
since the homeowner will be lucky not to be driven into bankrupcy.
Good job, guys. Preserve the beach access regardless of who end up homeless.
The placement of permanent barriers (seawalls) during times of an advancing mean high tide line, when the bluff would otherwise erode and expand the beach, is a loss to the public. The Coastal Commission and staff have done a commendable job of navigating the land management risks posed by sea level rise through conditional permitting. This seawall had CCC’s conditional approval and will have a compliance review after 20 years: https://www.spl.usace.army.mil/Portals/17/…
So I’m old enough to remember Prop. 20 which created the Coastal Commission. The argument was that development was happening on the coast so fast that we needed a pause. With that pause the State would be able to identify important properties and purchase them before they were developed. Sounded reasonable. I voted for it. Those arguments are a far cry from the abuse of property rights the Commission now represents. Do away with it entirely.
I also remember the Prop that gave us the Coastal Commission.
That Prop provided for the Commission to exist for a limited time. The voters passed the Prop which provided for a commission to review coastal issues and make recommendations to preserve the coastline.
One recommendation must have been to make the commission permanent since the Legislature did exactly that and coastal communities have been under the Coastal Commissions thumb ever since. No matter that voters wanted a time limited study of the coast line.
Property owners continue to be prevented from protecting their property from the sea because “the people” own the sand up to high tide marks.
Protection of private property comes right after the individual right to life. An individual cannot live if their property cannot be controlled by the owner.
Simple – Life. Liberty and Property are the fundamental Rights of Mankind.
Protect private property and you protect the individual Right to Life.