Here's something you might be interested in.
Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
[email protected] — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
There goes the Oceanside beach
Rip-rap extended further out on public area
Rip rap pushed further out on Saturday
Apparently nothing will stop beachfront property owners in Oceanside from dropping in huge riprap boulders in front of their house.
Not even a stop-work order from the state coastal commission.
At about 2 pm Friday, March 5, the city of Oceanside was served with an order from the state coastal commission instructing the city to rescind its approval of the installation of new riprap in front of the seven houses from 1201 to 1213 South Pacific at the western terminus of Oceanside Boulevard. After the stop-work order was served Friday afternoon, the heavy equipment operator continued dropping new boulders and moving existing ones towards the sea with a bulldozer and giant crane. He’s been returning every day since.
Oceanside beachfront, 2013
On Saturday afternoon a man from Cantarini Tractor of Fallbrook admitted the stop work order was in fact served to the city of Oceanside the day before. “They were served at 2:30 in the afternoon and then they talked to their attorneys, and they got it rescinded.” He claimed the work was, “…legal. They got permits for everything.”
Not true, says Jim Jaffee of the Surfrider Foundation. “Throughout the years, private property owners in Oceanside have undertaken illegal construction activities to dump riprap further out onto the public beach, expanding their private beach at the cost of the public beach. While permits may seem like a bureaucratic issue, a crime is a crime by any name.”
Jaffee suggests Oceanside officials have established a wink-wink, nudge-nudge relationship with beachfront homeowners, while failing its obligation to the coastal commission in preserving the public beach.
“The tractors are rolling again today,” Jaffee said on Monday, March 8. “They are in violation of what the coastal commission has asked them not to do. They continue to move their private beach out. This is illegal. They are doing it without a permit. That’s why there is no public beach there anymore.”
Jaffee says private, beachfront property is expanding in Oceanside thanks to the coziness of city officials. “The city has willingly turned a blind eye by allowing the homeowner to maintain and expand their private beach without coastal development permits.”
Groins in Newport Beach set up in the 1960s
The coastal commission sent a letter to Oceanside in March of last year claiming that a permit is required for construction equipment to be operated within 20 feet of coastal waters, and that the city-allowed riprap installation done in 2019 was not legal. “Our understanding is that the planning and engineering departments never alerted the city attorney that the city was on notice [from the coastal commission] and that they needed to stop granting these exemptions that allows the placement of all this new riprap,” Jaffee explains.
An attempt to get a response from Oceanside city attorney John Mullen was not productive.
Realtor Chris Abad is familiar with beachfront property in Oceanside. He says 1201 South Pacific, for instance, is divided into two units, and that the largest, 1850-square feet unit would probably sell for $2 million. Abad says the new riprap would “definitely” increase the value of all the homes with new riprap, even though the increase in square footage would not officially appear on documents. “The extra area may not show up on title, but all anyone would have to do is look at it to see there is more land there.”
Meanwhile, some residents are wondering why the city of Oceanside is not being completely open with its residents regarding its plans to bring more sand to its denuded beaches. Officially called “Feasibility Study for Beach Sand Replenishment/Retention Devices,” Oceanside city staffers unveiled a power point presentation in September. It showed a number of possibilities that the city may execute in order to get more sand on the two-thirds of Oceanside’s beach area north of Tyson Street that has largely gone beachless.
The plan’s options include a $12.5-million submerged artificial reef, a 350-foot extension of the South Jetty near the harbor, or the installation of 400- to 600-foot rock groins (or short jetties) similar to those installed in Newport Beach in the 1960s.
What the city did not tell the public but did in fact tell the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) at its March 4 meeting was that the city has in mind 12 jetties between the pier and the southern boundary of the city at the Buena Vista Lagoon.
At its March 11 meeting, the Oceanside city council will consider applying for a shoreline erosion grant from the state department of boating and waterways. Plans call for that grant to be used for the groins and/or other sand retention projects. Jaffee says if the city does decide to apply for that grant, he will personally appear before that state of California department to try to block it. “The legislation under which these grants are given specifically excludes using the grants to be used for sand retention.”
Oceanside principal planner Russ Cunningham has been the point man for riprap installations as well as sand replenishment issues for the city of Oceanside. Attempts to get a response from him on these issues were not successful.
Here's something you might be interested in.
There goes the Oceanside beach
Rip-rap extended further out on public area
There goes the Oceanside beach
Rip-rap extended further out on public area
Rip rap pushed further out on Saturday
Apparently nothing will stop beachfront property owners in Oceanside from dropping in huge riprap boulders in front of their house.
Not even a stop-work order from the state coastal commission.
At about 2 pm Friday, March 5, the city of Oceanside was served with an order from the state coastal commission instructing the city to rescind its approval of the installation of new riprap in front of the seven houses from 1201 to 1213 South Pacific at the western terminus of Oceanside Boulevard. After the stop-work order was served Friday afternoon, the heavy equipment operator continued dropping new boulders and moving existing ones towards the sea with a bulldozer and giant crane. He’s been returning every day since.
Oceanside beachfront, 2013
On Saturday afternoon a man from Cantarini Tractor of Fallbrook admitted the stop work order was in fact served to the city of Oceanside the day before. “They were served at 2:30 in the afternoon and then they talked to their attorneys, and they got it rescinded.” He claimed the work was, “…legal. They got permits for everything.”
Not true, says Jim Jaffee of the Surfrider Foundation. “Throughout the years, private property owners in Oceanside have undertaken illegal construction activities to dump riprap further out onto the public beach, expanding their private beach at the cost of the public beach. While permits may seem like a bureaucratic issue, a crime is a crime by any name.”
Jaffee suggests Oceanside officials have established a wink-wink, nudge-nudge relationship with beachfront homeowners, while failing its obligation to the coastal commission in preserving the public beach.
“The tractors are rolling again today,” Jaffee said on Monday, March 8. “They are in violation of what the coastal commission has asked them not to do. They continue to move their private beach out. This is illegal. They are doing it without a permit. That’s why there is no public beach there anymore.”
Jaffee says private, beachfront property is expanding in Oceanside thanks to the coziness of city officials. “The city has willingly turned a blind eye by allowing the homeowner to maintain and expand their private beach without coastal development permits.”
Groins in Newport Beach set up in the 1960s
The coastal commission sent a letter to Oceanside in March of last year claiming that a permit is required for construction equipment to be operated within 20 feet of coastal waters, and that the city-allowed riprap installation done in 2019 was not legal. “Our understanding is that the planning and engineering departments never alerted the city attorney that the city was on notice [from the coastal commission] and that they needed to stop granting these exemptions that allows the placement of all this new riprap,” Jaffee explains.
An attempt to get a response from Oceanside city attorney John Mullen was not productive.
Realtor Chris Abad is familiar with beachfront property in Oceanside. He says 1201 South Pacific, for instance, is divided into two units, and that the largest, 1850-square feet unit would probably sell for $2 million. Abad says the new riprap would “definitely” increase the value of all the homes with new riprap, even though the increase in square footage would not officially appear on documents. “The extra area may not show up on title, but all anyone would have to do is look at it to see there is more land there.”
Meanwhile, some residents are wondering why the city of Oceanside is not being completely open with its residents regarding its plans to bring more sand to its denuded beaches. Officially called “Feasibility Study for Beach Sand Replenishment/Retention Devices,” Oceanside city staffers unveiled a power point presentation in September. It showed a number of possibilities that the city may execute in order to get more sand on the two-thirds of Oceanside’s beach area north of Tyson Street that has largely gone beachless.
The plan’s options include a $12.5-million submerged artificial reef, a 350-foot extension of the South Jetty near the harbor, or the installation of 400- to 600-foot rock groins (or short jetties) similar to those installed in Newport Beach in the 1960s.
What the city did not tell the public but did in fact tell the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) at its March 4 meeting was that the city has in mind 12 jetties between the pier and the southern boundary of the city at the Buena Vista Lagoon.
At its March 11 meeting, the Oceanside city council will consider applying for a shoreline erosion grant from the state department of boating and waterways. Plans call for that grant to be used for the groins and/or other sand retention projects. Jaffee says if the city does decide to apply for that grant, he will personally appear before that state of California department to try to block it. “The legislation under which these grants are given specifically excludes using the grants to be used for sand retention.”
Oceanside principal planner Russ Cunningham has been the point man for riprap installations as well as sand replenishment issues for the city of Oceanside. Attempts to get a response from him on these issues were not successful.
Comments
After I submitted this article I heard from Diana Lilly, the San Diego-based Coastal Program Manager for the Coastal Commission. This is what she sent to Russ Cunningham, who seems to be calling the shots for the City of Oceanside.
Hello Russ, As you know from numerous past discussions and correspondence, Commission staff disagree with the City’s position that the City’s LCP allows the importation of new rock or sand to be exempted from Coastal Development Permit requirements. We understand that the City has exempted work on the revetment located at 1200-1213 S Pacific Street which includes importation of new rock and sand replenishment, and that the work is currently underway. This is notify you that the Executive Director is invoking the Dispute Resolution for Local Permit Processing Procedures per the Section 13569 of the California Code of Regulations (see attached) to review the City’s determination that the project is exempt. Please send us a copy of the application or request for work, and a copy of the City’s exemption determination. I would also appreciate it if you would provide us with an email or contact number for the project applicant, so we can inform them that Commission staff is reviewing the City’s action. No further work should occur until the dispute is resolved. We would like to work with you to resolve this issue in a timely manner, and we will review all project material as quickly as feasible. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Diana Lilly Coastal Program Manager
Shame on you, Ken for writing such an irresponsible hit piece. You don't have a clue what is really happening here on the beaches in Oceanside. Your fake "An attempt to get a response from _was not productive" X 2 indicates you are attempting to create unnecessary drama where there is none. In short, you are trying to bullshit those of us citizens who think that you are a legit "reporter" in the know...
In fact, you posted a photo of Oceanside Blvd. beach that is NOT from March, 2019 (inciting more drama). It's from March, 2014 - SEVEN years ago. I have a dated copy of it.
I'm wondering why you seem to have a bone to pick. It's very puzzling and troubling that you are running in circles trying to prove something that is ill-informed and not well researched. You keep adding to this comment thread as if you need to prove that your falsehoods have merit. They still do not, no matter how desperately you attempt to prove something that's false...
I'm disappointed that you'd try to pit community members against each other in this way.
What a shame.
Sorry you think this was an Irresponsible hit piece whoever you are. Did you know that they talked about my article at this morning's California Coastal Commission meeting. Executive director Jack Ainsworth said he was "very disappointed" that Oceanside ignored the stop-work order. If you ever get around to not being anonymous and put your name on it, I'd like to talk to you.
You know who I am. We've met many times and I guess you didn't bother to read my name here: it's Lynn. You may think it's important, or that your article gains credibility when those you "name-drop" might refer to this hit piece, but it doesn't. That's an illusion. Of course the Coastal Commission would cite your support of their involvement...of course! So, it means nothing. All biased/slanted. The article written by The Coast News is MUCH more balanced and accurate. I'm sure you have read it thoroughly. Details and facts matter, Ken: https://thecoastnews.com/coastal-commission-questions-beachfront-repairs-in-oceanside/
Lynn who? I still have no idea who you are. Anonymous trolls simply don't have the credibility that others who "put their name on it. "The Coast News is famous for rewriting press releases and general reports what they are told to report. God bless them. That is their niche. The Coast News article would have never appeared had we not broken this. And you can be sure the UT will be following up as well. We first reported on this in December 2019 as you can see here in the comments. For this article I reached out to the city attorney and the city planner mostly responsible for this and they chose not to respond. I am glad the Coast News presented a view that you are more happy with. As I noted, the state Coastal Commission referred to my article at their Wednesday meeting. If you think everything is OK with this, and that you can pop out your beach front property, I would say good luck to you going forward.
Thanks for posting this. I am so confused as to why Mr. Jaffee and all of Surfrider Foundation are SO against the rock groins, or mini jetties as a solution? This solution works extremely well and seems minimally invasive. Just look at all the beautiful beach we have at the harbor, north of the pier, and some south of the pier! Those are because of the jetties!
Or is it that Mr. Jaffee is just against Oceanside applying for grants to get it done, because he notes that the grants are specifically not supposed to be allocated for these sorts of projects?
It seems like a no-brainer solution. I would love to hear from anyone that can educate me further on this if I am wrong. And I would be willing to pay for it, as an Oceanside resident, via a combination of sales tax, real estate tax for homes on the coast, and/or resort taxes.
Surfrider foundation opposes any and all manmade changes to coastal land which is a constant thorn in the side of humans attempts to shape the surroundings to thier liking............
Please know that there are two parts to this. One is the jetties/groins. The other is the private homeowners expanding their beach without a permit. I think the groins/jetties issue is open for discussion. I think the riprap issue is a whole different kettle of fish.
A big thumbs up for Oceanside as one of the few cities that take california coastal commission decisions to what they are worth................NOTHING.. and file them in the disregard folder. The bozos in that commission do not visit the sites they rule on and are not qualified to decide the fate of californias most coveted real estate. Salute to Oceanside for taking matters into their own hands, and to start plan B to save the harbour by extending the south jetty 250 yards and the north jetty 100 yards, which is the only solution that will achieve that result, so get on with it already!!!!!!!!!! We look forward to seeing you in court (CCC)...........
Ken is blowing smoke, and I'm not sure why he has such boner for literally manufacturing drama where there is none. His article is complete and utter nonsense. He has no clue what is really happening here in Oceanside. His claims are full of holes and misinformation. In fact, the Oceanside Blvd beach photo he posted is NOT from March, 2019. It's from March, 2014 and it can be found on Google Images. If I could, I would post it here, so people can match it up to the identically (falsely dated) matched image. He is not a trusted or trustworthy source of accurate information. Ken's attempt to pit us Oceanside citizens against each other is shameful to say the least.
This could only happen in Oceanside. No other city along the coast in SD County would defy the Coastal Commission so flagrantly. It might be worth noting that along that stretch of beach, those rockpiles all seem to be designed to keep the public away, many with No Trespassing signs. If, in fact, they are on public beaches, those homeowners have no right to post them, and no right to take away more of the diminishing beach area. Just when you think you've seen and heard it all in Oceanside, something new like this comes along. Sheesh.
...and by the way, Ken's article is complete and utter nonsense. He has no clue what is really happening here in Oceanside. His claims are full of holes and misinformation. In fact, the Oceanside Blvd beach photo he posted is NOT from March, 2019. It's from March, 2014 and it can be found on Google Images. So, Ken's attempt to pit us Oceanside citizens against each other is shameful.
The 2019 caption mistake was corrected. You're going to have to try create something else that is "shameful."
It appears to me that the other pictures were taken at low tide and the rip-rap photo was taken at high tide.
This article was brought by Laura Walsh of the Surfrider Foundation San Diego County at this morning's Coastal Commission meeting. Executive Director Jack Ainsworth said he, that he was "very disappointed" that the city of Oceanside did not follow the stop notice, that a CDP was "clearly required" and that the intent of the dispute resolution is to bring some sort of decision back to the Commission.
The video of her comments and response should be available later today at. https://cal-span.org/static/meetings-CCC.php
Folks, I see some of you complaining about Ken creating drama and apparently not being knowledgable about the issue. Do you not understand the goal of media? Always follow the money. The media's goal is to create emotion. The more emotion the more eyes and ears they get. Eyes, ears, (clicks) = adveritising revenue and the rates that advertisers will pay. It's that simple. In this case the Reader and Ken love all these comments/clicks. Adjust your exepctations as to what the media is and it's inherent conflicts of interest. And, best of luck digging around for the truth, which is a whole nother topic.......
Dear rplm. Who are you? Why are you afraid to identify yourself? Next question: what was was wrong or misleading about the article? This is in fact a juicy topic because people are expanding their private beach without a permit. Please be a stand-up man (or woman) and tell us who you are.
fair point.
Based on similar posts, I assume LynnAJ is Lynn Abate-Johnson. I have never met you. Please explain further Ms. Abate Johnson what you mean by misinformation? Looking forward to hearing from you.
Regarding the 2019 date in photo caption....The middle photo in this new article was taken from a December 2019 article. Please see for yourself...... https://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2.... That article mistakenly dated it as 2019. Obviously both older photos used in that article are from 2013. We will fix error immediately.
Those homes are really close to the water. I wouldn't want strangers hanging out that close to my home
The homes are very close to the water, and I wouldn't want strangers that close to my home either. Is that the price you pay living along the beach?
This is a well-written article, not a "hit piece." SD Reader is an alternative newspaper, and alternative newspapers usually have stylistic, opinionated articles.
As far as "blogging anonymously" we're all blogging anonymously, except the writers. People use fictitious names all the time, pretending to be authentic. Unless your CDL has been scanned, online you are who you say you are.
Curious all the people piling on here to attack the writer, The Reader, the media, the Coastal Commission, the Surfrider Foundation — anyone and everyone, that is, except the deadbeat Oceanside millionaires squatting on land they don't own and those enabling them.
Doesn't matter how much one pays for a home or where: your rights are never absolute, and end at the property line/the public right-of-way. It is no more acceptable to rip out the sidewalk in front of your home in University Heights to keep pesky pedestrians away or to build out from your backyard into Balboa Park than it is for these self-important greedheads to annex a public beach.
That this should be so obviously self-evident is why I have to suspect many of those defending them are them.
seems the obvious is overlooked when money is involved
Follow the money and you will see who owns and operates the politicians.
exactly. the dirty corrupt puppets!