Homeowner fought Coastal Commission over seawall fee. Now Pismo Beach gets $500K
A Pismo Beach homeowner gave the city more than $500,000 as part of the approval process of fixing his coastal home’s seawall — after he was initially told he’d have to pay the California Coastal Commission more than double that for the same work.
Since he purchased his home on Indio Drive more than two decades ago, Pismo Beach homeowner and Coastal Community Builders president Gary Grossman has been looking for a way to armor his stretch of bluff-top coast to prevent erosion from destroying the lot that his home sits on.
The seawall, constructed in 2003, has kept his backyard from being swallowed by the Pacific Ocean, but hasn’t been without issue, Grossman said. In 2020, he discovered a cave forming under the bluffs as a result of seawater intrusion from unarmored parts of the coastline immediately adjacent to his property, which put the bluff at risk of collapse.
The California Coastal Commission accepted Grossman’s application to fix his seawall in February 2023, but added a $1.3 million mitigation fee to account for the environmental damage wrought by the armoring, which includes loss of natural sand beaches at the base of the bluffs.
Grossman took issue with the $1.3 million fee and sued the Coastal Commission, arguing that the way the fee was calculated based on his property value, the value of adjacent properties and the amount of sand to be mitigated placed an unnecessary burden on him.
He said in the 1987 Supreme Court case Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, the court sided with a homeowner who faced a similar issue regarding a coastal home, finding that the Commission must show that there is an “essential nexus” between a state interest and the conditions of a permit being issued — in this case, the amount of sand mitigation fees compared to the actual mitigation work being done.
The Coastal Commission ultimately settled with Grossman, allowing him to start his seawall repairs, while agreeing to allow Grossman to pay $548,170 to the city of Pismo Beach instead.
“I’m a believer in the Coastal Commission and a believer in what they should do in protecting our environment and protecting the ocean resources, but I’m not a believer in weird government overreach — that trips me out,” Grossman told The Tribune. “ I felt that if I was going to have to spend money one way or the other, I’d rather it be put to good use.”
Why did it take two decades to get a seawall approved?
Grossman said because his home predates the passage of the Coastal Act of 1976, it is exempt from the Coastal Act’s restriction on repair and maintenance of the home, including seawalls.
When Grossman was approved to build a seawall in 2003 — after another bout of litigation with the Coastal Commission — one of the conditions of approval was that any repair work on the seawall would be required to be done by amending the seawall’s original approval, he said.
Grossman said at some point, the Coastal Commission decided that repairs would need to be done using an application to the Commission, which takes longer and requires a hearing.
“You want to build something, you put an application to the city,” Grossman said. “You want to have an event, you go down to the city and say, ‘I’m filing an application for an event,’ and they give you a thing — the government doesn’t say, ‘I’m deciding to make an application for you.’”
When Grossman learned that his property would need repairs to resolve his bluff’s structural issues, that meant wading through the bureaucracy of the Coastal Commission’s application system — all while his home was subjected to more and more risk as erosion worsened, he said.
“Let’s say your bluff is eroding,” Grossman said. “Time is not on your side — the more they delay you, the more work you have to do.”
Grossman said in his latest struggle to get repairs approved, he’s spent millions of dollars in attorney’s fees, consultations and actual bluff repair work, which concluded earlier this year.
“If the Coastal Commission can’t flat-out deny you a seawall, which they can’t, they will make it so difficult and so costly that it’s prohibitive,” Grossman said.
City Council accepts funds, criticizes Coastal Commission
Though the Pismo Beach City Council ultimately voted 4-0 with Mayor Ed Waage absent to accept the coastal mitigation fees at its Tuesday meeting, some members of the Council expressed regret about the way homeowners like Grossman must fight for their property’s rights.
City Council member Scott Newton said the Coastal Commission asks too much of homeowners by charging high mitigation fees and showed some hesitancy to accept the fees Grossman contributed to the city.
“I don’t want the public to think that we accept this money like we’re playing a part in this because I feel like on its face, we have blood on our hands by taking this money,” Newton said. “I want the public to realize that that’s not our action. But the reality is, if we don’t take these funds, there’s two things could happen: The Coastal Commission can take the money themselves or give it to another entity, or they could deny the permit because he never did pay for his impacts. So they put us in a position that’s almost impossible.”
Funds that cities such as Pismo Beach receive from coastal mitigation fees for coastal armoring are earmarked for enhancing coastal access, according to the staff report. City staff will prepare a report on projects eligible for the funding once it has been received, the staff report said.
Councilmember Stacy Inman shared Newton’s concerns about the Coastal Commission’s influence over coastal property, and said she appreciated Grossman’s lawsuit against the Coastal Commission.
“I am very, very concerned about the people, the common person, that cannot spend $500,000 or $1 million going to court to fight the Coastal Commission to save their land, their property and their house,” Inman said.
Newton added a condition of approval to the resolution accepting the mitigation fees that asked the city’s staff to look into any coastal civil associations that the city can work with to “flex our power together” and gain more local control over how coastal homeowners can protect their properties.
“As long as the Coastal Commission battles these people one at a time, they’re effective, because you cannot outspend the state Attorney General, and so they’re breaking one party at a time,” Newton said. “What happens if you don’t have the money to pay?”
In a statement, Coastal Commission assistant chief counsel Alex Helperin said mitigation fees are a necessary component of maintaining coastal access for everyone.
“The commission’s job is to protect the coast for everyone’s enjoyment, and sea walls drown beaches,” said Helperin. “Mitigation fees are a common tool to offset project impacts.”
“As we learn more about the effects of sea level rise, the importance of mitigation has come into sharper focus,” Halperin continued. “In this case, the funds will support local projects that will enhance local resiliency.”
This story was originally published August 7, 2025 at 5:00 AM.
