Up Against the Walls

Seawalls have plagued Del Mar for more than 30 years, pitting beachfront property owners against those who want to protect public land. Suits and countersuits have been filed while city councils have wrestled with where the right to protect private property ends and public beach rights begin.

This Tuesday, Del Mar voters will get a shot at settling the thorny dispute when they decide whether to adopt the citizen-sponsored Proposition D.

In short, the ballot measure would prohibit seawalls more than five feet west of a designated shoreline protection line. That would mean that the many walls that protrude 10 to 40 feet onto the public beach would have to be torn down within the next 10 years.

Property owners argue that seawalls are necessary to protect their homes during storms and that many seawalls have been there long enough to give owners perpetual rights to use the land; advocates of Proposition D say the issue is simply the public’s right to the beach.

Basically, we agree with the beach activists. Over the years, homeowners have built right on the property line, expropriating the beach to serve, in effect, as their setback. Exacerbating the issue is the arrogance of some property owners who use the area behind the seawalls for patios. However, even those areas accessible to the public are psychologically prohibitive. A walled-off area in front of someone’s living room window is not a reasonable definition of public land.

Homes on the beach have intrinsic liabilities. But who should bear the burden of protection? Five feet of beach to mitigate damage might be reasonable, but 20 or 30 feet of beach to eliminate liability is not. The Coastal Act calls for property protection to be considered, but homeowners need to accept that some damage during storms is the price for their spectacular location.

Proposition D, which was born of frustration and distrust, seems well-researched and thoughtfully worded.

Its authors used much of the language from an ordinance the city was working on and incorporated the five-foot limit required by the Coastal Commission in its successful court battle against owners of a 480-foot wall, which extends 15 feet onto the beach. Proponents hope that aligning the ordinance with Coastal Commission rules will give the city added legal protection if it is sued by unhappy property owners, an outcome that seems likely regardless of the ordinance adopted.

But while we sympathize with beach activists, the proposition is flawed by inflexibility. It prevents the city from granting any variances to the five-foot rule, which, given the patchwork of property lines and other circumstances of history, seem inevitable.

Reluctantly, we advise a vote against the proposition. But after the election, the City Council should take its lead from the proposition’s five-foot rule and quickly finish work on an ordinance that aggressively protects public beach and establishes strict requirements for variances.