Property owners fight for picnic spot

After a six-year legal battle with the California Coastal Commission, the fate of a retired Corona del Mar couple’s beachfront picnic spot and thatched palapa lies with the Fourth District Court of Appeal.

A Santa Ana courthouse was packed with supporters of Ocean Boulevard residents George and Sharlee McNamee on Thursday as a three-judge panel heard oral arguments in the couple’s case, which has grown from a squabble over a barbecue and some picnic tables into a fight between the rights of private property owners versus the public’s access to the beach.

“I’d really lose a lot of respect for the court if they rule against them,” said Hank Reuter, 14, the McNamees’ grandson, who attended the hearing with his family, wearing his Boy Scout uniform.

“It should be up to you what you want to do with your private property,” said Hank, who added that he has attended family get-togethers at his grandparents’ private piece of beach for as far back as he can remember.

The Coastal Commission ordered the McNamees to tear down their beach oasis in 2004.

Set on a private portion of beach at the base of a cliff above Corona del Mar State Beach, the McNamees’ patch of sand includes two picnic tables; a shower and bathroom; storage lockers; a built-in barbecue; palapa and some flowering plants. The commission ruled that the amenities are not a coastal development, and that the improvements mislead beachgoers into thinking that the entire beach is private.

“The Coastal Commission wants them to essentially convert their private backyard into a nature preserve,” Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Paul Beard argued on the McNamees’ behalf Thursday. A conservative property rights group, Pacific Legal has taken up the McNamees’ case and is representing the couple in their appeal.

“This is in contempt of the McNamees’ right to the use of their backyard,” Beard said.

Attorney Jamee Jordan Patterson, who represents the Coastal Commission, argued that the McNamees’ picnic spot violated state law because it was built without the necessary permits.

The commission ordered the couple to do away with the beachfront improvements because they are not in line with the regulating body’s philosophy on preserving public access to the ocean.

“We’re not precluding the McNamees from developing their property, it’s just that the development is not consistent [with the law],” Patterson said.

The McNamees contend that the picnic spot is there for anyone to use, and that groups of Boy Scouts and junior high school students have held parties there in the past.

George McNamee estimated that about 65 of his family members and friends were at the courthouse Thursday to show support for him and his wife. He hopes the court will rule in his favor so he doesn’t have to tear out his flower beds on the spot, but is also passionate about property rights, he said.

“We’ve been there for 35 years in that exact same spot, and we take very good care of the place,” he said. “It’s used not only by us, but by a lot of people.”

The Court of Appeal has 90 days to make a ruling in the McNamees’ case.