Front Page  »  

Coastal Commission blocks seawall construction in Pismo Beach

December 31, 2021

By JOSH FRIEDMAN

The California Coastal Commission is raising objections to property owners potentially constructing private seawalls for their Pismo Beach homes, plans which have gained approval from the South County city. [New Times]

Existing plans call for building seawalls for a pair of Pismo Beach homes that are situated atop erosion-prone bluffs. Both seawalls would cover entire beach bluffs.

James Gentilcore plans to construct a 120-foot long and 40-foot high textured and colored seawall in front of his home. Pismo Beach residents Tony Hyman and John Okerblom plan to build the other seawall in front of their private property.

The Pismo Beach Planning Commission voted to approve the seawalls. Approvals the Coastal Commission appealed.

Commission staff found substantial issues with the seawalls, including that they do not conform to local coastal program (LCP) requirements. The LCP only allows shoreline reinforcement to protect structures that have existed since 1977. The Gentilcore and Hyman-Okerblom homes were completed in 2003 and 2013 respectively.

At a Dec. 17 meeting, Dan Carl, the Coastal Commission’s Central Coast director, said Gentilcore built a house in a known hazardous area, based on a 100-year evaluation of the site. Now, 20 years later, Gentilcore is telling a different story following an estimated 10 feet of erosion having occurred during that time span, Carl said.

Kevin Kahn, the Coastal Commission’s Central Coast district manager, said the proposed seawalls would affect public resources like beaches and public coastal views. The city of Pismo Beach does not have the authority to challenge the Coastal Commission’s decision on the issue, Kahn said.

“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,” according to a commission staff report.


Loading...
Related:


26 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Property owners, as well as municipalities, not being to build seawalls to protect roads, utilities and property, is why California has become a punch line of so many out of state jokes!

If you are fortunate enough to afford a beach house, you should be able to protect it!!

Decide on a acceptable design and let them be built, nobody like being a laughing stock!!!


0

Can these owners, within their property that hasnt eroded yet, drive pilings down to protect what property is left without needing to disturb the beach?


9

Where is the property line?


7

Mean high tide line


3

I mean look at the property at the time of construction. Was it not OBVIOUS this was going to happen?! The last thing I want to see is our coastline transformed by giant seawalls up and down the coast, increasing beach erosion. This is not a property rights issue, because he has no rights to that beach.


19

Fine, then the City of Pismo Beach buy him out at fair market value since they permitted this and had an adopted LCP (local coastal plan) in place at the time. Lead agencies must take responsibility for exercising their legally given police powers.


17

It’s almost certain the Coastal Commission was also involved in approving or commenting on Pismo’s LCP and any development/construction which followed.


7

How is this a taking? The property owner made the decision to build that the waves are now reclaiming.

Why should Pismo Beach taxpayers bail out this property decision? Why should the public lose it’s beach to benefit a private property? The City granted a permit. So what? On that basis, all property owning fire victims should be bailed out.

With property comes rights and responsibilities, gains and risks, and of course property taxes.

Hopefully, the home had a lot of enjoyment for many decades.

The decision makers in Pismo need to be educated in protecting public assets.

“This is a free country. You have the right to make a decision that will ruin your life.”


8

With POLICE POWERS comes responsibilities and liabilities. Burdens of local land use decisions should be borne on both the LEAD (PERMITTING) AGENCIES and project proponents/project applicants. If not, what is the purpose of design-engineering-and environmental review and building permits? Should we just toss the idea of prudent and wise land use planning and project approvals?


It will be interesting to see how the legal system interprets this.


-1

The permitted homes have been given a death sentence by the relatively new Coastal Commission. That said, as a rational consequence of this public voice over private rights, the current valuation of this “taking” should have a large impact to the lowering of property taxes for all that affront the Pacific Ocean. Yes there are consequence for everyone. There are no takings without compensation.


10

He has no property rights to building on that beach, which is what is required for building a seawall. So in that sense, this is not a taking on the part of the Coastal Commission, they are simply not allowing him to take a public resource. What nature does after that is his problem


24

The Coastal Commission can go pound sand.


12

OK, then what are the alternatives? Just wait for the building to fall down the cliff? Then what, what kind of public safety and environmental hazard will that present? Are there reasonable alternatives to mitigate this risk?


I would say that Hyman and Genticore have an emerging regulatory taking situation in their future. It wouldn’t be the first time for the CCC (ref: Nolan v. CCC , 1987).


If the homeowners followed the rules at the time of the “lead agency” (the city of Pismo Beach) which used its discretionary and police authority to allow this, gave them a building permit, did inspections of engineering and architectural documents, inspected the construction, and signed off on occupancy, then the City may be on the hook and may be purchasing a home(s) some day.


10

this is good. dude built a shite mcmansion on shoddy ground. Why should we care// destroy beaches for this? Make better decisions guy


15

Sewalls greatly increase the speed and depth of erosion on adjacent properties and also lead to the erosion and disappearance of sand on nearby public beaches, narrowing or destroying beaches. Many communities that have allowed seawalls now have to pay large amounts of money to truck sand to their beaches in order to preserve them. Bottom line is that proliferation of seawalls will end up costing taxpayers huge amounts of money, harm beaches, Harm surfing breaks, and private properties.


44
1 2