WHEN I LAST HEARD from my friends in the Pierpont community, they were up to their necks in sand dunes and bureaucratic red tape. The situation really hasn't changed much except that they are now buoyed by the results of a recent non-binding arbitration decision. But the rhetoric is still being piled on higher than the sand dunes.

As I've reported in past entries, residents have been stymied in their efforts to get both city and Coastal Commission permission to move sand away from their homes which is now damaging their properties.

Homeowner Ron Wilson is the only one who has been issued a permit to move the sand away after encroaching dunes shattered a glass retaining wall outside his oceanfront home. He recently won an arbitration decision in his quest to recover damages from the city for $37,000. However, Kate Neiswender, an environmental lawyer working on the case, said the city has decided to go ahead and pursue a trial date.

In other legal action, last spring a judge denied a preliminary injunction sought by the homeowners against the city to force the speedy removal of the sand piled up against their homes. That case is also yet to be resolved.

"The city was instructed by the judge not to let this fall into a bureaucratic black hole," Neiswender said. Yet that's exactly what has happened, she added. "The city is so unmotivated to help the people of Pierpont, it defies belief," she said.

The City Council has been doing what it can to move things along, said Mayor Christy Weir. She spoke with Assemblyman Pedro Nava, who was once on the Coastal Commission. Weir asked for advice on what the city can do to appease this state entity which has maintained all along the Pierpont area is a sensitive environmental habitat for rare plants, nesting birds, globose dune beetles and legless lizards. Using mechanized equipment to move the sand is out, the commission has said, and they have the final say.

BUT NEISWENDER MAINTAINS it's now the city holding things up, as they are the ones who issue the permits to move the sand. She pointed to a July 25 meeting between representatives of the Coastal Commission, State Parks and the city on behalf of Dan Scully, a resident whose situation is the most urgent. "The agreement was we could move the first three feet of sand away by hand. We are allowed to move it as many times as we want.

"Of course we are required to sift through all the sand like little kids, looking for legless lizards and globose dune beetles."

City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the residents' first attempts at applying for permits did not fulfill the Coastal Commission's many requests as spelled out in a detailed letter. "The first applications that came in ignored that letter and, in all candor and honesty, were worse than the back of a napkin in terms of literally sketching out what would happen," he said.

Five residents, including Scully, resubmitted their applications weeks ago for hand clearing of the sand, Neiswender said, following the July meeting with the Coastal Commission. A biologist was hired to look through the sand first. There are no nesting birds or rare plants, she said. Nobody knows about the beetles or lizards.

Calonne acknowledged the resubmission. "We agreed to issue him (Scully) an administrative permit. He has done his biological report. He will get permitted after the administrative hearing, which is being pre-reviewed by Coastal Commission staff so we're sure they won't appeal. The rest of the folks finally submitted biological reports about three weeks ago and are being queued up to get through the administrative hearings as fast as possible," he said.

If this has been as exhausting to read as it was for me to write, just think of how these residents are feeling about now.

All this to move a little sand.

Pierpont homeowners have lost their court battle to force the speedy removal of mountains of sand piled up against their homes.

An injunction and a complaint was filed in March against the City of Ventura and State Parks on behalf of the beachfront homeowners who have sustained damage. In a ruling issued on Friday, Judge Henry Walsh wrote, "The plaintiffs have not exhausted their available administrative remedies with the defendants in securing permits to themselves abate the sand problem."

"The court denied the preliminary injunction and essentially told the property owners to apply for coastal permits to do the work themselves," said City Attorney Ariel Calonne.

"All I can say is that we're all disappointed that the urgency of moving the sand before September was denied by the judge," said Pierpont beachfront homeowner Rosemary Icardo.

Icardo's home is impacted by tons of sand which she is unable to move without a permit from the City of Ventura with approval by the Coastal Commission. The city, working with the state and Coastal Commission, recently presented Pierpont residents with a Sand Management Plan which has since generated controversy. It allows residents to move the sand, but stipulates they must also restore the beach to a natural environment with roped-off plantings and dunes which will abate the buildup. This work is to be done on public property and must be done between Sept. 15 and May 15 "to avoid impacting visitors, grunion and potential nesting birds."

The ruling came too late for Icardo and other impacted property owners who will now likely have to wait until September to move the sand. An engineer hired to look at her property concluded the wall connected to the foundation of her home is "showing evidence of great stress. It will fail. The failure will be catastrophic and it could be soon," she said.

The decision did not settle the issue of who is financially responsible to pay to move the sand -- residents, the city or the state -- as it did not rule on the merits of the case. Who actually owns the property that the dunes sit on is still in dispute. This 40-foot wide strip of sand that runs about a mile all the way down the beach in front of the homes is likely the only beachfront property in Southern California that nobody will claim.

The City Council on April 14 directed staff to seek a short-term solution to the sand issues and a shared-funding arrangement with residents to pay for a long-term solution. Those proposals will be brought back at a future meeting.

THOSE UNEXPECTED bills for $99 probably came as a shock to the 1,252 Ventura homeowners who were recently charged by the city for weed-abatement inspections on their hillside properties.

They've been given a reprieve for now. After listening to feedback from residents, Mayor Christy Weir has asked the council to waive the fee for this year until it can be given a proper hearing.

"The proposal for a weed abatement fee wasn't given the opportunity for public input. We need to bring it back to the council and the public, explain it, debate the issue and take a look at the trade-offs," she said. "The choice is, should every taxpayer in Ventura pay the city's costs for a state-mandated weed abatement program through their sales and property taxes or should this cost fall on just the immediately affected property owners?"

The weed-abatement inspection program, which costs more than $120,000 a year to administer, has been a success, Ventura Fire Chief Mike Lavery said. "We credit vegetation management on these properties with aiding our efforts to successfully fight the School Canyon fire in 2005. The 100-foot clearance created a safe, defensible space for firefighters and no homes were lost."

RECOVERING COSTS FOR FIGHTING wildfires statewide has been a goal for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, too. He wants to levy an annual fee of 1.25 percent on all property insurance premiums in the state to generate $125 million a year for fire protection equipment and services. State Legislative Analyst Elizabeth Hill proposed another plan. She believes the costs should be levied only on the residences located in the 31 million acres where the state has the main firefighting responsibility.

Living near the ocean has its own set of problems. Pierpont beachfront residents are currently fighting the city in court over who bears the responsibility for clearing the large accumulation of sand from in front of their homes and implementing a state-authored sand management plan. They believe the city -- and thus other taxpayers -- should pay. The cash-strapped city has asked the homeowners to help bear the burden.

And so it goes.

In a state where homes are often built on the fringes of wilderness areas and near the unpredictable forces of ocean waves and sand, who should bear the expense of preventative measures designed to help protect these residents from the elements?

What do you think?

Note: The "preview" function in the comments system is not working. Please just hit the "post" button.

THE SPIRIT OF COOPERATION has taken over in the ongoing sand war between Pierpont homeowners and the city. Monday night's City Council meeting held little of the rancor of earlier sessions.

The Council voted 5-1 to proceed with several key steps that should help to partially satisfy Pierpont homeowners who have been unable, because of complicated state regulations, to clear large dunes which are causing damage to houses and impeding beach access through the stairs on the lanes. See previous entry.

The council's actions direct staff to seek a short-term solution to the sand issues and a shared-funding arrangement with residents to pay for a long-term solution. There remains the possibility that Transient Occupancy Taxes collected on beach rentals could be used to help defray costs. The city also voiced a commitment to keeping the access stairs free of sand, but the level of service remains to be determined.

The long arm of the California Coastal Commission was ever-present through the discussion. The commission, established as part of the 1976 Coastal Act, is the ultimate arbiter of what goes on at the state-owned beach. Any plan to clear dunes could affect sensitive beach habitat and comes under its purview.

CITY ENGINEER Rick Raives offered a faint glimmer of hope to residents that the state-authored Sand Management Plan which they find so distasteful could substantially change. "It's really in no person's best interests to fight a losing battle with the Coastal Commission, but we're willing to see if they'll consider any revisions."

He added that the injunction filed by Pierpont residents against the city and state has put a bit of a pall on negotiations. The outcome of this suit should determine ownership of the narrow strip of land that runs in front of the beachfront houses and as well as who ultimately pays to maintain the area. News on that front should come by April 30.

Looming budget cuts and other pressing needs in the city will also have an effect on what is done for Pierpont. "There isn't enough money and time to fix all these problems," City Manager Rick Cole said.

Councilmember Carl Morehouse, always refreshingly candid, expressed the wish of many that equipment could be brought out to plow the sand away once and for all. But we need to work with the Coastal Commission, he said. "Rather than doing shock and awe, we should have a diplomatic approach."

Note: The preview function in the comments system has not been working properly since we upgraded versions this week. While that is being fixed, please just hit "post" and your comments will be posted. If you forget and hit preview first, you can hit the "back" button to go back to your comment to post.

An injunction and a complaint will be filed tomorrow (3-13-08) against the City of Ventura on behalf of the beachfront homeowners who have sustained damage from the mountains of sand piled up against their homes, according to Rosemary Icardo, one of the homeowners involved in the suit.

Icardo said the homeowners need immediate relief and can't wait for the controversial Sand Management Plan from the Coastal Commission to be implemented this fall. The plan stipulates work must be done between Sept. 15 and May 15 "to avoid impacting visitors, grunion and potential nesting birds." The Planning Commission isn't set to approve the Coastal Permit for the work to begin until May 6, leaving residents no choice but to wait to move sand.

"We need to move forward and September doesn't satisfy us," Icardo said. "I personally see this as a motivator for the city to come to the table with the Pierpont community and negotiate," she added.

Pierpont activist Murray Robertson told me he was hoping to see sand removal issues worked out so legal action wouldn't be necessary.

"That's your taxpayer dollars being wasted. Stupid, stupid, stupid."

A short update for those who have asked:

Pierpont homeowners didn't get all the answers they were looking for at Monday night's City Council meeting, but residents and city staff did have the opportunity to provide input on the Coastal Commission's controversial Sand Management Plan and who is responsible for paying to implement it.

City Attorney Ariel Calonne weighed in on who owns the strip of land near the beachfront homes where large, problematic sand dunes are forming: "My job is to advise the city: do you have a duty to remove the sand from along the walls on Shore Drive? My advice is no."

Calonne explained that the city has easement rights only to the area for maintaining public utilities buried underneath. "We don't own the land."

City Engineer Rick Raives told residents that major changes to the plan requiring stabilization of the dune area were not likely to be forthcoming from the Coastal Commission, which is the ultimate arbiter of what's done there. The commission halted the use of heavy equipment on the state-owned beach in 1999. "Most people are looking for us to go back to the way we were so we could have the full recreational beach, and the Coastal Commission over and over has stated that they protect dunes that look worse than these do," Raives said.

Six residences in Newport beach, for instance, were recently fined $45,000 each for leveling a small naturalized dune area, which is protected under the Coastal Act.

A parade of Pierpont residents posed questions to the Council. In order to answer questions more fully, the Council tabled the discussion for a later meeting, possibly in April. It does appear hopeful, however, that the city will be maintaining the lanes and stairs more carefully in the future.

Council members were sympathetic to the many complaints over the Sand Plan, but stressed their hands were tied by the Coastal Commission, which was established in 1976 as part of the Coastal Act to balance the needs of private property owners and the environment.

"There are powerful agencies in this state that have a mandate and a passion that may not be shared by people in this room," City Manager Rick Cole told the crowd.

The Planning Commission is set to weigh in on the Coastal Permit Approval on May 6.

It's time for some contemplation by all. I had a blogger email an interesting suggestion to me tonight: Have the city turn Shore Dr. back into an unpaved road and let the trash trucks and emergency vehicles use it on the beach. Then the city could continue to maintain it and the Coastal Commission would most likely have to approve it. Also this would make a natural buffer between the Pierpont Community and the dunes.

What do you think?

A GIANT WAVE of negative public sentiment hit the Pierpont Sand Management Plan during a contentious public hearing tonight at City Hall.

The overflow beach crowd argued against the proposal in front of the plan's two biologist authors and representatives from the city, state, and the Coastal Commission, which all have jurisdiction over the plan.

"I think it's abhorrent," said Pierpont resident Dan Scully, bitterly complaining about the city's request that the beachfront owners pay to move the giant sand dunes which are encroaching on their houses. "How can you legally make any property owner clean up somebody else's property?"

One speaker called the plan "junk" and still others took issue with the science of the plan itself which calls for the creation and management of a natural dune environment with plantings which will abate the buildup of sand against the houses.

A geologist speaking at the forum claimed there was no guarantee the plan would work and many, such as Pierpont resident Rosemary Icardo, complained about the difficulties involved with maintaining the new dune plantings and roping them off from the public, thus eliminating an estimated 41 percent of the beach from public access.

"We didn't ask to be gardeners on state lands," Icardo said.

NEITHER THE STATE, the residents nor the city claim ownership of the 40-foot-wide section of the sand which runs the length of the beach and abuts the beachfront houses and nobody wants to foot the bill for the new proposal. However, several residents seemed amenable to working something out if a plan could be crafted to their liking.

Beleaguered Coastal Commission ecologist Jonna Engle, a co-author of the plan, defended the science involved. "We think this is the most biologically sound way to manage the sand on the beach," she said.

Coastal Commission District Manager Steve Hudson explained to Pierpont residents that the area does qualify as a environmentally sensitive habitat, although it has not been officially ruled as such. Because of these findings, anything done with the sand will need to conform to certain commission guidelines, which would not involve bulldozing it flat, as one spirited resident called for amid much cheering from the crowd.

Whatever work is done would require a permit and the Coastal Commission has the final say on how the work is performed. The Sand Management Plan was an attempt by the city to organize a "group" permit so each individual resident would not have to go it alone, city officials said.

But the plan is a work in progress, the plan's authors said, and still could change. Armed with research, lawyers and plenty of organizational skills, the Pierpont crowd is not likely to go away quietly until they are satisfied.

Look for another wave to hit when the City Council looks at the issues Monday night.

What do you think? Enter a comment below.

MY NEW FRIEND Murray Robertson out in Pierpont Beach is a persistent guy. I like his style. In order to get the city to come out and clean up what he and residents believe are dangerous conditions at the end of the beach lanes in Pierpont he has been sending photos to city staff and council members. I have posted some of his before and after photos above.

Murray emailed me on Wednesday to tell me that at long last city workers had come to clear the clogged drains and remove sand from the stairs before an upcoming storm.

But, alas, his elation only lasted 24 hours. "I am sure that it took the dune less than a day to collapse back onto the stairs," he told me.

The giant dunes which are plaguing residents are the subject of a battle between residents and three bureaucracies: the city, the state and the Coastal Commission. (see "Sand plan" entry below) Residents will get a chance to air their grievances at a March 4 meeting to go over a new Sand Management Plan. The City Council will study the issue on March 10.

You wouldn't think moving a few sand dunes would have turned into such a terrific battle, but that's exactly what it has become with fingers pointing in all directions and lawyers filing briefs.

But my money's on Murray to get this mess straightened out. Next time I fight City Hall, I hope he's on my side.

Please post a comment below.

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.