Beachfront dispute goes to Court of Appeal

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 loose a lot of respect for the court if they rule against them,” said Hank Reuter, 14, the McNamee’s 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,” Hank said, 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 McNamee 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 McNamee’s 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 McNamee’s behalf on Thursday. A conservative property rights group, Pacific Legal has taken up the McNamee’s case and is representing the couple in their appeal.

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

Attorney Jamee Jordan Patterson, who represents the Coastal Commission, argued that the McNamees’ picnic spot was found to be in violation of 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. Beachgoers may conclude that the stretch of beach in front of the McNamee’s home is private because of the couple’s picnic spot, the commission maintains.

“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 there were about 65 of his family members and friends at the courthouse on 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 McNamee’s case.