ROSEMARY ICARDO PAID A PREMIUM PRICE in 1992 for her Pierpont beach house with sweeping views. These days, because of a 32-foot, 1,000-ton wall of sand in front of the house, she said, "I have to stand on a chair on the second floor of my house to see the ocean."
Normally you wouldn't find too many people unwilling to claim beachfront property, but Pierpont homeowners and the City of Ventura are busy playing hot potato with a 40-foot wide strip of sand that runs about a mile all the way down the beach in front of homes. The problem with this strip of beach is the buildup of sand dunes -- big ones -- that block views, cover access stairwells and break sand walls. Residents claim it is a hazard and the city owns it and should pay to clear it.
Children, said Icardo, slide down her sand dune and could hurt themselves if they hit adjacent concrete. "The encroachment of sand causing hazardous conditions imposed on public access and private property is the issue, not the view," she said.
City engineer Rick Raives concedes that the city maintained the strip at one time as a street easement between the beach -- which the state owns -- and the houses. Sand was cleared along this path until the Coastal Commission put an end to it in 1999. But the path has been covered over and it has been allowed to return to its natural state. The city, which no longer can maintain the area, argues that the responsibility now falls on the homeowners.
The city does, however, maintain the lanes and the stairwells leading to the beach and clears sand from drains, Raives said.
Enter the Coastal Commission and the state, which crafted a Sand Management Plan to allow residents to move the sand and at the same time restore the beach to a natural environment with plantings and dunes which will abate the buildup.
BUT THAT DOESN'T SIT TOO WELL with homeowners, either. "They have stated that if any sand is moved, it must be moved at the full expense of the homeowners AND we have to pay for future plants to be grown and nurtured. Do you know of anywhere else where the city bills the residents next to a park for maintenance?" Icardo asked. She also worries the plan will create too many areas off limits to beachgoers.
It would also not restore views. Raives explained that the new Coastal Commission plan is a "proven technology" designed to stop sand buildup on houses, lanes and stairwells and restore an environmentally sensitive area. "We are never going to be able to flatten that 40-foot area again." And even if they did, Raives said, the sand would just come back.
Moreover, he said, the new Sand Management Plan would in no way cut off public access to the beach, only discourage folks from trampling through the areas where new plantings would be established.
Icardo calls the Sand Management Plan "enormously flawed" and noted the area was not previously designated an environmentally sensitive zone when the houses were first built.
The city, state and Coastal Commission will conduct a workshop for Pierpont residents on March 4 to hear their concerns. If the biologists involved with the plan feel changes should be made, Raives said, they could be. But everyone involved thinks the plan will be approved as is sometime in April. If that happens, Pierpont residents will likely file an injunction to stop it, Icardo said.
But the question remains -- who pays to stabilize the beach? Faced with more than $1 million in budget cuts this fiscal year and $4 million the next, it's a safe bet the city doesn't want to foot the bill. Neither does the state. The courts will likely be the ultimate arbiters. "Somebody has to compromise here," Icardo said.
And there you have it, the only stretch of beach in Southern California that nobody wants.
What do you think? Post a comment below.
Wow- interesting issue. I don't know how this is going to shake out in the end, but I'll bet there aren't too many folks who feel sorry for the beachfront residents. When you move to the beach, there are issues you should expect you will have to deal with over time- like encroaching sand, water, erosion, annoying pelicans, big waves battering your windows, fog, salt and dampness that rusts things, and of course, the annoying public right outside your door. Kind of like those who choose to live in forested, wooded and high-fire areas, then expect the taxpayers to protect them from the inevitable fires. Sorry. I don't buy it. Maybe the beaches should just be reverted to public use for all, and no homes should be built there. Sand is sand, nature is nature, you can't always control or "fix" it, nor should be to save someone's view. Maybe in this case, we should leave nature alone.
The government [local and state] should be responsible for maintaining this beach. If the sand dunes cause damage to the foundations of homes due to "deferred maintenance" then the home owners have a case. But moving sand JUST to reclaim their views of the ocean is selfish and petty. As long as your house isnt in danger of collapsing from the weight of natural beach evolution, be happy you even have [or had] a view. Crying over your lost view is about as selfish as the hysterical mid-towners who try to stop 3-story development for the same reason--views. Density of people is key to a retail business's survival. Stifling redevelopment in mid-town Ventura will forever saddle that neighborhood with underperforming retailers and thus keep everyone's quality of life right where it is--lame shopping and nowhere to walk and window shop. Likewise, demanding your view of the ocean from your ground floor does nothing for the 98% of the rest of the residents who have only a view of your dumpster AND nowhere cool to shop because you also fight "infill" development. Get over it. Maintain the beaches, but not simply for the preservation of your dang ocean views people.
Oh come on now! Be fair! We all buy our homes because of the ammenities that are included, and a view is one reason people pay extra for theirs. If there is a reasonable way to protect people's property, why not? We all face encroachment issues, be it noise, diminished views, messy neighbors or parking issues.
I agree. If you buy your house specifically for the ocean view you are entitled to certain expectations. But if you can afford a million dollar house, why can't you afford to move the sand yourself? I know one homeowner already has.
Interestingly, Rick Raives has stated publicly that 11 beachfront properties presently need relief from the sand coming off of City property. This didn't happen when the City maintained their portion of the beach. Also, I fell on the stairs on Kingston LN from the sand coming off City property. I have complained to Vicki Musgrove, Public Works Manager, several times over the last two weeks that there are quite a number of stairs leading up to the beach that are covered in sand. They are an accident waiting to happen and a real liability to the City. The City has done nada.
I can't believe these people, whining about a little sand! What did you think would happen when you bought property on the beach - duh!!!
I live at the end of a lane on Pierpont Beach. I like the dunes in front of my home. They offer privacy and protection. I can appreciate that there are safety issues to consider. Law suits are not the answer. The homeowners should try to work with the City to mitigate the safety concerns surrounding sand build up. Communication, collaboration and a little trust on both sides would go a long way to solving this problem. The beach belongs to everyone. We must all work together to protect and preserve it.
I would gladly move the sand...and pay for the removal if ONLY the city would permit us to return the sand to where it came from...closer to the water. There are MANY areas on Pierpont Beach that have suffered sand erosion that could desperately use the sand which has mounded up to our retaining wall causing a hazard for any beachgoers or any children playing in the area. One false move and they would take a 5 foot drop onto our patio. However, the city will not allow up to simply move the sand ... they are requiring that we build dunes (currently no dunes are in front of our home) and maintain the dunes. I am not in the landscape business...nor do I wish to start now. The dunes that currently exist harbor unwanted behavior from many who visit. I walk the beach dunes on a Monday morning and find ambers (from unseen bon fires), empty beer bottles, broken glass, garbage, condoms and much more! Anyone who questions the activity that takes place in the dunes should walk them after a nice weekend! Additionally, the creation of more dunes will invite more trouble and diminish our beach usage and access by about 50%. All of us who live in the area or like to enjoy a day at the beach will be negatively affected by the creation of more dunes. Finally, what would the liability be for homeowners who build and maintain dunes on city property? I am certainly not going to be responsible for any accident that occurs in the dunes on city property. But as it stands now, that responsibility would fall on the homeowner! I am happy to claim the 40 feet in front of our home. I am happy to pay for and move the sand back to where it came from. I would even do this periodically as sand comes back. But to have the city mandate construction of new dunes on their property, funded entirely by the homeowners is preposterous
We have tried for years to work with the City and State. Prior to purchase (1991), I went to the City Manager and ask "Who is responsible for beach sand past private property lines?" He said: "You have nothing to worry about. The City has to keep Shore Drive clear." I then purchased my home. Routine clearing by the City occured from 1992-1999. Then it stopped. Currently, we have been meeting with City and State representatives since Jan. 2006 about encroaching sand. "Move encroaching, hazadous sand from public access and private property and relocate/recycle it" was the request, NOT remove sand hills. We ask July 3, 2007 during a "beach walk" with California Coastal Commission, State Parks and City of Ventura representatives for an inter-organizational task force on this issue with follow up request to Mayor Morehouse in August. No contact was made prior to being given the City/State Sand Management Plan January 2008. Communication needs to go at least two ways.
Our little 1-story home was almost destroyed by sand build-up 8 years ago and we paid to remove the sand. But we don't want to plant & irrigate & monitor the dunes, and we DON'T want to keep people off them as the City has ordered. Our neighbors walk, read, sunbathe and play on the dunes and I don't think I should have to chase them off this newly 'sensitive' area. The City should maintain the beach for cleanliness, safety, useability, and it should prevent destruction of property. The beach is for EVERYONE. That is what taxes are for.
It's unfortunate that this situation between the Beachfront Homeowners Group and The City has gone this far without a reasonable solution. It is clear that the Dunes protect the houses from incoming sand and surf, and they are part of the natural beauty of this beach. Rather than hire expensive attorneys to file injunctions and lawsuits, it would be much more effective for the Pierpont Residents and Ventura Citizens to utilize resourses to collaborate with The City--and visa versa-- to solve the problem. This solution would include the development and maintenance of reasonable dunes that protect the homes, add to the natural beauty of the beach, protect the existing environment (legless lizard), allow for safe public access, and still maintain some views from the homes on the beach the lanes. This would be a WIN WIN situation for all. Who would pay for it? Probably everyone.
We have tried to work with the city...without "expensive attorneys" but the city completely shut us out! We were left no other options.
Anonymous: I agree with what needs to be done and why, but when you suggest that everyone should pay, I hope you were thinking that the public should only pay for the part that provides safe public access.
The natural dunes protect these beachfront homes, and I think it is reasonable that the city helps the homeowners take some reasonable steps so that the dunes do not overrun the homes. I don't think citizens, however, have any obligation to help maintain any views. Here, FEES are in order. Highly prized areas to live also usually come with a higher price tag for both the home and its maintenance. Should citizens be subsidizing these homeowners' choice? If a hillside home needs to landscape their home so that heavy rains don't flood their home, should the city pay? I think the city's, the state should help, obligation ends at the property line.
Is the criticism that dunes were not designated as environmentally hazardous in 1992 meant to suggest that the state and city officials made up that designation so they could eliminate taxpayers funding the maintainance of beachfront homeowners' views?
If so, bravo. I think it is both. Dunes are environmentally sensitive. Protecting dune plant like helps stabilize them, which in the long run, in my view, is good for our beaches and coastal wildlife.
The city itself has admitted that funding for beach maintenance is being cut..so much so that they cant even keep the stairs at the end of the lanes cleared from sand so, most definitely, the decission to stop maintaining the beaches did have some financial advantages. They were not maintaining the beaches prior to 1992 in order to preserve homeowners views but rather to keep the beaches clean and properly maintained for all visitors. Keeping the sand "groomed" is not so much an issue of views as it is safety! The city should be concerned about access, safety and clean beaches...that is why many visitors come to Ventura!
Note to bloggers: The Star's comments system malfunctioned yet again today and I have gone back in and replaced from backup comments that were posted yesterday. If I have missed any, please re-post.
2-17-08
The leaders of the city Ventura have been tap dancing around the beach maintenance responsibility issue for over 40 years. The city took respnsibility when they issued a voter approved bond to install underground utilties and beach access staircases.
Now the problem is finally coming to a head. In spite of all the smoke screens, the city could solve the problem by spending a $100,000 or less a year by moving the damn sand out a few hundred feet. Now it will cost the tax payers millions of dollars for legal fees in a case the city can't win. Any doubts - just check case law for the beach cities up and down Californias' 1000 mile coast line.
William J. Stuart
William (and others):
Do you think the ownership issue will be resolved with the pending court case involving the property owner who moved the sand himself and then sued to recover the costs for repairing his damaged wall?
Marie:
Constitutionally, the essential public policy function of courts is to referee questions of equity under the law, not substitute procedural judgment for the failure of policy wisdom.
In my opinion the problem here is not a question of equity, its a question of lack of imagination by the City Council. Ventura is a beach city. City brochure after city brochure, not to mention Chamber of Commerce and/or Economic Development brochures, promote the good life in the coastal community of Ventura. Beaches are as much a valuable natural and economic resource as are harbors, docks and retail establishments built on those beaches.
Sound, sustainable, and successful management of this vital resource requires a multi-agency, multi-discipline approach, involving a transparent partnership between local homeowners, the City, the State, Resource Agencies, local and regional economic development organizations, and the public. This is simply not happening in Ventura.
When it does, then all affected stakeholders will have the opportunity to be at the table and insure that their concerns are fairly, openly, and dispositively resolved. If City Manager Rick Cole, and the City Council are truly committed to being a "Green City," then they will lead the effort to broker such a solution, not run from it and point fingers at the local beach homeowners.
By the way, I do live in Ventura, but I am not a beachfront homeowner. Nonetheless, after watching their long years of struggles before the City and the Coastal Commission, I certainly "feel their pain."
NostraDEMUS
2-18-07
Marie and Others,
It doesn't matter who owned the beach in the past
or who owns the beach now. What matters is who has easement rights now. Clearly the city has used the beach for over seven years, ask any member of the public, which means they have a prescriptive easement if nothing else. I am not a beachfront home owner, however if I were I would ask the city to produce my grant deed to the beach. Of course there is none, ( more smoke screening).
The real issue is , who has the responsibility of beach maintenance. Again look at case law on coastal cities in California - try Laguna Beach vs Squatters rights 1959.
William J. Stuart
Beachfront Homeowners: The hillsides has poison oak. There are times during the year that parents have to be especially careful when children hike up the trails at our hillside parks. How is that different from parents taking responsibility when there is more debris or if children climb sand dunes? Shouldn't children be wearing proper shoes? We benefit from having a river on two sides of our fair city. Debris is going to be carried downstream through these waterways. I imagine as Matilija Dam is dismantled and the natural river habitats are restored, there might be more debris.
All beaches are not the same. Ours do not have the same features as Malibu.
While the beaches should not be full of trash, which I have seen too much of, the natural debris should not be a problem.
If it is the trash the beachfront owners are complaining about, the state should be subsidizing that.
Finally, what should be cut from the city budget so that the city can accommodate this?
Can beachfront homeowners use small bobcat loaders within their property lines to remove the sand, taking it away in a truck?
No. The Coastal Commission has not approved use of mechanized equipment for fear of damaging sensitive flora and fauna.