Pismo Beach man buys permission to build a seawall

August 4, 2025

By KAREN VELIE

After battling for more than two decades to protect his home on the bluffs of Pismo Beach, Gary Grossman agreed to pay $548,170 for permission from the California Coastal Commission to repair his seawall.

At a Pismo Beach City Council meeting on Tuesday, the council is scheduled to vote on a resolution to allow Grossman to pay $548,170 for mitigation to repair his seawall, according to Item 9-1 on the consent agenda. The Coastal Commission requires the city to use the funds for projects such as beach access, coastal pathways, and park improvements.

The funds are to cover losses to the long-term viability of the beach from a lack of erosion from Grossman’s property. Basically, erosion adds sand to the beach and Grossman is responsible for the loss of that sand.

After filing a lawsuit in 2002 over permits to reinforce the bluffs behid his home, Grossman built a seawall to protect his residence on Indio Drive.

Then in 2020, Grossman discovered a cave forming under the bluffs. The cave poses a risk of catastrophic collapse to his property.

In 2023, Grossman applied to the Coastal Commission for permission to repair his seawall and protect his home of more than 25 years. However, the Coastal Commission demanded a $1.3 million mitigation fee for lost sand to the beach.

While Grossman could afford the fee, he worried that others, like his 80-year-old neighbor who had lost about 15 feet of his property, would have trouble meeting the Coastal Commission’s hefty financial demands, Grossman said. For years, Grossman stood his ground.

Earlier today, Grossman explained his decision to pay the $548,170 mitigation fee, while noting he does not agree with the Coastal Commission’s methods.

Gary Grossman’s Aug. 4 email to the City Council

“I’d like to take a moment to explain the large sum of money I have provided to the city.

“The $522,000 is the product of a simple decision I made. Continue suit with the California Coastal Commission over their imposition of a $1.3 million mitigation fee (assessed with their approval for bluff protection work on my property) or provide a sum (commensurate with projected legal fees) to benefit the city of Pismo Beach instead.

“The Supreme Court, in its Nollan and Dolan decisions makes clear that a mitigation fee must be in proportion to work applied for. The fee required by the California Coastal Commission did not meet this standard.

“For perspective, the mitigation fee assessed in 2003 was $10,000 for nearly 200 feet of a full seawall. The current $1.3 million fee is for about 60 feet for additional partial bluff protection.

“While I believe my suit would prevail, I also understood it would likely cost about $500,000 for attorney and consultant fees to resolve the matter. Thus, I proposed a settlement whereas I would provide this sum to the city to benefit its local coastal parks and amenities. This settlement has been approved to both parties’ satisfaction.

“This money should not be viewed as a precedent or as a future income generator for the city. It is what it is. A choice not to waste valuable dollars on attorney’s fees and instead provide a positive benefit to the city I call home and love very much.

“I am not asking for recognition. It gives me personal satisfaction to know this money will be well spent. I hope the council will personally provide direction to staff regarding enhancements to our coastal parks and amenities as intended.

“I also hope that you will instruct staff not to consider this a precedent to collect ill-gotten gains from citizens who cannot afford to be as charitable. Nollan and Dolan are straightforward. The California Coastal Commission is not so much.

“It is therefore a moral imperative each council and mayor must decide: Is this money an act of charitable pragmatism or a city entitlement. I hope you do not consider it an entitlement.

“In conclusion, I am very pleased to know that my decision will greatly benefit our city. But I sincerely hope you and staff do not think of this as an opportunity to collude with the California Coastal Commission to encourage their disheartening tactics as a means to generate city revenue.”

Because we believe the public needs the facts, the truth, CalCoastNews has not put up a paywall because it limits readership. However, we are seeking qualification as a paper of record, which will allow us to publish public notices, but it requires 5,000 paid subscribers.

Your subscription will help us to continue investigating and reporting the news.

Support CalCoastNews, subscribe today, click here.