A Pismo Beach official recently publicly admitted to the California Coastal Commission that the city’s approval process of a contentious coastal development permit was less than ideal.
“I think we can all agree that the process for this particular project wasn’t great,” Matt Downing, the community development director, told the commission at the Dec. 16 meeting. “We did receive advice from our coastal planner at the time, prior to action by the city, saying we made a mistake.”
Pismo Beach approved an amendment of its local coastal plan (LCP) earlier this year to correct a change made in 2011. That year, the City Council approved construction restrictions pertaining to setbacks in the St. Andrews neighborhood, which includes Naomi Avenue. Now, efforts are underway to demolish an existing structure on that street and replace it with a single-family home triple in size. The new property is owned by the Mittry Family Trust. Its trustee, Richard Mittry, is the stepfather of Pismo Beach City Councilmember Scott Newton.
Previous New Times reporting found that Newton recused himself from official discussions about the project, and he claimed that he had no control over the trust.
The proposed modern home did not fit the standards of the old LCP. The City Council concurrently updated the LCP and approved a permit to build the new house—a move that angered some residents who thought it set an unfair precedent for other cities. They also claimed that it tarnished the traditional characteristic of the beach neighborhood.
Former Pismo Beach City Councilman Erik Howell and local attorney Tarren Collins questioned Newton’s involvement in getting the rules changed and appealed the city’s permit approval. At the Dec. 16 meeting, the Coastal Commission shot down the appeal in a 5-1 motion after finding no substantial issues with the project.
But the city’s permit approval procedure also raised commission eyebrows.
“It is true that the project took a circuitous route through the city’s process, and it is true that it was initially improperly approved by the City Council since it relied on an LCP amendment being approved by the commission that modified certain development standards in the neighborhood,” Sarah MacGregor, the coastal program analyst, said at the meeting.
In a letter dated April 15, four days before the Pismo Beach City Council meeting where the both the development permit and the LCP amendment were approved, Coastal Program Analyst Katie Butler discouraged the city from doing just that.
“We would like to retract our support for that approach, and instead clarify that the LCP amendment should be processed first (independent of a project-specific CDP [permit]), and then if/when the amendment is certified by the Coastal Commission, only then should the CDP be considered by the city,” the letter read.
In spite of these findings, MacGregor announced at the meeting that the project didn’t raise the types of coastal resource concerns that would suggest there is a substantial issue. With the motion, the Coastal Commission declined to take jurisdiction over the project.
Howell told New Times that local governing bodies must issue permits based on the LCP as it’s written, and not “how the developer wishes they were written.” Both he and Collins alleged corruption at play.
“It’s disappointing that even though both city staff and coastal staff admitted that the legal process was not properly followed, the commission decided to overlook the obvious flaws in the process and found that our appeal raised no substantial issue,” Collins said. “If this wasn’t a City Council member’s project, this would never have gotten this far.” Δ
This article appears in Dec 22, 2022 – Jan 1, 2023.
