SLO County family wants to move a popular ocean-view trail — here’s why a court said no

A push to move a popular stretch of trail overlooking Avila Beach has once again been struck down.

The California Second District Court of Appeal issued a ruling Aug. 25 upholding a previous California Coastal Commission decision to deny applicant Rob McCarthy a permit to relocate a stretch of the Ontario Ridge Trail, which winds up his property overlooking Avila Beach.

The network of trails on Ontario Ridge offers sweeping views of the Pacific Ocean and a path to Pirate’s Cove, making it a popular destination for local hikers for both its beauty and its difficulty. Hikers access the network via a steep trail on McCarthy’s property.

In 2013, the Coastal Commission denied McCarthy’s application to build a home on the same parcel. He then erected fences and signs on the property before being told to remove them by a Coastal Commission cease-and-desist order.

Then in 2015, McCarthy applied for a county permit to move the portion of the trail to an adjacent parcel to the west and to fence off the steep trail. The San Luis Obispo County Planning Commission approved his application in 2017, but an appeal pushed it to the Coastal Commission, which denied the project in 2021.

An appeal of the appeal — which claimed the County of San Luis Obispo had ultimate authority over such a decision, rather than the Coastal Commission — was unsuccessful. On Friday, the Appellate Court issued a ruling affirming the Coastal Commission’s authority.

“The Commission enforces the Coastal Act,” the court wrote. “Its authority overrides the County.”

When reached for comment Thursday, Alicia Bartley, an attorney representing McCarthy, said they were disappointed by the judge’s ruling.

“We are very disappointed in the Court of Appeal’s decision in the case and believe that it is yet another example of the California courts expanding the authority of the Coastal Commission far beyond what the Legislature intended,” Bartley said. “Because the opinion reflects an inherent misunderstanding of the issues, we are petitioning the Court of Appeal for a rehearing and will seek review by the California Supreme Court if rehearing is denied.”

Property owner battles California Coastal Commission over permits

The relocation plan was the latest in a series of controversial proposals for the 37-acre parcel.

In 2013, the Coastal Commission denied McCarthy’s application to build a home on the same parcel.

He then erected fences and signs on the property, blocking hiking trails that had been used by the public since the 1960s — causing a public outcry.

McCarthy at the time said the fences were needed to protect public safety and lower his liability in the event of a hiking accident on the property.

He was ordered to remove the fences because they blocked the county’s existing easement, but he came back in 2015 with an application to relocate the popular trail instead.

McCarthy told The Tribune at the time that he considered the existing trail unsafe because it goes straight down a hill from Ontario Ridge to Cave Landing Road at a 45-degree angle.

The new trail would be much safer, well-designed and about half as steep, he said.

McCarthy’s lawyer also later told the Coastal Commission the family was just wanting to find a way to build a home on a piece of property they own.

Though several commissioners commiserated with the McCarthys’ plight, the commission ultimately voted unanimously to not allow a permit for the project, saying that the current plan would move the trail onto a separate property, something not covered by its easement, and would also potentially endanger numerous archaeological and environmental resources.

According to the court’s ruling, the McCarthys then petitioned for a writ of administrative mandate to order the commission to grant the coastal development permit.

The court denied that petition “because the McCarthys have no legal right to move the easement to another parcel,” read the ruling.

“Underlying the McCarthys’ appeal is the unstated premise that the Commission is obligated to grant them a permit that exceeds their property rights,” the court wrote. “To state the premise is to refute it. The McCarthys have no right to move the easement from their parcel or to interfere with the public use of the trail on their land.”

Hikers protest plan to relocate popular Pirate’s Cove trail

Hikers widely protested the relocation plan, saying moving the trail to the other side of the hill removed the sweeping panoramic views and the added exertion of a steep path.

Tarren Collins, who has long championed against relocating the trail and originally appealed the San Luis Obispo County decision to the California Coastal Commission, said on Friday that the ruling “is a win for good government, the public’s property rights and the rule of law.”

“This trail has been heavily used by members of the public for over 50 years,” Collins said in a statement to The Tribune. “In spite of Rob and Judy McCarthy’s illegal attempts to fence off the trail, it continues to be popular today.”

She added that though she was grateful for the decision, she was also disappointed at the amount of local taxpayer money spent during the permitting process and the ensuing lengthy legal battles.

“This win for the public has come at a huge cost to the public purse, compliments of the McCarthys,” Collins said. “I hope in the future, the County will stand up for the public’s rights in these situations, instead of assisting politically well-connected developers in their attempts to undermine coastal access. The burden of protecting our access should not fall on members of the public. “

Ontario Ridge Trail appeal ruling, Aug. 25, 2023 by Kaytlyn Leslie on Scribd