Tyler Hayden
This story was originally published by the and is reproduced here in partnership with Edhat.
By Tyler Hayden of The Independent
A smorgasbord of options for opening Hollister Ranch’s six prized beaches to the public was unveiled this week, marking the first time in the decades-long debate over access that concrete proposals are being openly discussed.
The lengthy menu is part of a 49-page Draft Conceptual Program published Thursday by the California Coastal Commission, one of four state agencies tasked with negotiating and formulating a final plan. A public Zoom workshop to review the report and solicit feedback is scheduled for 5:30 p.m. this Wednesday.
The draft program offers three main methods by which people might cut across the private ranch, a 14,000-acre working cattle operation and one of the last undeveloped sections of Southern California shoreline, to reach the public beaches below its steep coastal bluffs ― by shuttle, car, or trail, all either independently or guided.
Each option has its own distinct set of pros and cons, the report states, including environmental impacts, costs and infrastructure needs, interactions with Chumash cultural sites, and effects on the homeowners living across 135 individual parcels.
A free or low-cost shuttle service, for instance, would provide the most equitable access to the beaches, which the Coastal Commission notes more than once are a public resource to be enjoyed by all. It might also be the safest, as shuttle drivers would be familiar with the hazards of the ranch’s only road, including its sharp turns and drops and frequent obstruction by cattle. But funding could be a problem, the agency acknowledged, as even in State Parks with very high visitor numbers, user fees are generally not enough to cover costs.
Drive-in access by personal car would be the most flexible and inclusive for visitors of varying physical abilities, the Commission continued. But the necessary parking and traffic control measures would also likely represent the heaviest impacts to private property and coastal resources.
A multi-use trail system for hikers, bicyclists, and equestrians would give users an up-close and personal view of the ranch’s ruggedly beautiful terrain. Enhanced access rights from multiple owners would be required, however, and steep topography might make construction especially difficult and expensive, the Commission said.
The various proposals are sure to elicit a range of reactions from both Hollister residents and members of the public anxious to visit the virtually untouched stretch of coast. Some will say the state goes too far with its ideas. Others will say it doesn’t go far enough.
For his part, Ed De La Rosa, board chair of the Hollister Ranch Owners’ Association, called the draft report “a pretty ambitious vision” for the future of the historic property. He said he recognized, however, the difference between its more aspiring and its more feasible elements, given the constitutionally protected rights of the owners.
De La Rosa said he appreciated the state’s recognition of how “biologically and geographically special the Ranch really is,” especially taken alongside the adjacent Dangermond Preserve. “It represents a huge wildlife corridor,” he said. The report notes the presence of the federally endangered Gaviota tarplant, as well as protected animal species like the Coastal Range newt, western pond turtle, and two-striped garter snake.
De La Rosa was also encouraged by the consideration of the region’s many Chumash sites and the Coastal Commission’s clearly stated mission to introduce members of underserved communities to the wonders of nature. Most significantly, he said, the agency acknowledged how important ongoing conversations with the property owners remain. “The state, to its credit, points out a lot of logistical considerations that they need to talk to homeowners about,” he said.
Doug Kern, director of the Gaviota Coast Conservancy and a member of the draft proposal’s working group, said he was “really actually optimistic” about how the report will be received, “given all the potential for difficulty.” On every side of the debate are “different personalities and interests and significant tensions,” yet “everyone is doing their best to thread a needle here,” Kern said. “I give everyone credit for coming to the table.”
The road ahead remains long, Kern continued, with any new overland access still likely a year or two out, especially with the delays to the process that the pandemic brought. Whatever final form the plan takes, it will be “limited, managed, and not hugely expensive,” Kern assured, and nothing will be set in stone given the unforeseen challenges that come from working with Mother Nature, “who always bats last.” “We will try everything in a careful way,” he said, “see what happens, and make adjustments.”
It would be nice to have easier access to the beaches out there, but the land is privately owned. I don’t see how the coastal commission can force the owners of the land to allow people to transit their property or to give up easements for public trails. At the end of the day, it’s the owner’s choice.
Obviously not an opinion based on any knowledge of the law.
I read the plan and was hoping for something realistic. The plan is a mockery of private property rights and lofty expectations (demands). It seems like continued future litigation will be the end result.
The State can’t manage our own State Parks, how are they going to escort/manage 500 people per day into one of the most environmentally sensitive stretches of beach we have remaining in SB County?
Prop 20 voter initiative created the California Coastal Commission. A successful voter initiative can also terminate it or amend it.
Sounds like they will need to build a visitor center before the gate. Sign their consent forms that current visitors are required to sign (liability, assumption of risk, etc). Either walk, bike, or by horse to access the beach of choice. Maybe a fee for a self-driving van/truck to carry surf boards & gear.
Just hope it doesn’t turn into a Hearst (Hearse) Castle situation, with a visitor center, shuttle bus terminal, gift shop (HollySteer Ice Cream), and snack bar. Welcome, Pardner! Cowabunga!
The plans are ridiculous. I understand the courts upholding citizens’ rights to access beaches where existing easements were removed – like the guy up north who bought a property with a well-worn trail through it to the beach and then he tried to block it off. This is totally different. Requiring property owners to allow the public to transit their lands in order to get to the beach, when there has never been established access previously, is absurd. Why would we use tax payer dollars for this? We should have more coastline that the public cannot access, not less. I’ve never been to “the ranch” and I probably never will, but I’ve always liked knowing there is a largely undisturbed stretch of coastline nearby. It’s the opposite of the hideous things I have witnessed at our public beaches here. Like the people in Carpinteria who take their off leash dogs right into prohibited territory and allow them to harass the seal nursery. I spent an hour nicely asking people to please leave the area as it was illegal to be inside of it (yes, it was during the breeding season) and to please keep their dogs away from the seals and all I got was a lot of weird looks and barely any compliance whatsoever. It made me so sick I told my partner that we could never go back to that beach, I was so upset. Allowing the public to access every square inch of the coastline is NOT a net positive. And the laws or rulings that uphold forcing private property owners to let whomever through their land to get to the beach are absurd and should be overturned.
VOR, I have never heard that anyone has done this. Only paddled or boated in. Are you saying I can walk in at low tide, hang out with the Patagonias and Avatars, and then walk back 12 hrs later? I’ll be telling them the Voice of Reason said I could do it, that should really impress them.
“Many surfers launch small power boats or inflatable dinghies from nearby Gaviota State Park to reach the ranch’s breaks. Before the pier closed in 2014 due to storm damage, the hoist used to lower surfboard-laden craft into the water was sabotaged repeatedly.”
https://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-ln-hollister-ranch-20160726-snap-story.html
It’s very common Pit, for people to walk in and surf. Hangout on the beach probably not common as there are many other beaches that are much easier to access with a similar scenery and an isolated / remote feel. The public property ends at the high tide line so I wouldn’t recommend walking up the Patagonias and Avatars and knocking on their doors
So the public can just park in your driveway then @3:34 since it’s been there for years?
VOR, entitled HR bullies literally hassle people in the ocean who have boated in LEGALLY to surf. Over the years they’ve threatened violence, destroyed surfboards that have washed up, and made many threats. They have been trying to prevent people from enjoying the Ocean, which belongs to everyone for years.
5:23 – Whataboutism, as usual.
So, same as all the other good surf breaks in California.
They had an agreement to give access long ago, but decided they didn’t want to follow up. Similar to what Wendy McCaw did with her Hope Ranch property.
Given this reasoning, I say we shut down the 101 between Goleta and Gaviota to protect the many endangered species that try to live there.
They fix it and the Hollister owners go and break it again. They’ll do anything to stop the hoi polloi from accessing their private kingdom.
These stories really need to provide the background on this issue because many of these commenters don’t appear to know about previous access agreements, state laws, and court cases that have already been litigated in favor of limited public access.
I, for one, not having any rich friends or a boat I can launch through the surf, would like to see the place before I die.
If you really wanted to see it before you die you can simply walk in at low to medium tides.
Hey PitMix, it sounds like you have been reading too many editorials by the LA Times. Mother Nature took out the boat hoist and the State has refused to rebuild it.
Amtrak runs across Hollister Ranch – take a train trip and enjoy the views.
Just like The Clarke Estate,some places should not be open to the public and for the same reasons.
The State had an agreement to allow the YMCA to build a camp, which was inland and subsequently not built, in exchange the YMCA granted the State access over other peoples private property to get to the coast: the YMCA can’t grant something it doesn’t have. This is what CA Coastal Commission has spent tens of millions of dollar fighting. That could have easily covered the cost to repair the Gaviota boat hoist, which for decades provided public access to the Hollister Ranch coast and beyond.
Hollister Ranch is required by law to allow access to the beach. The current process underway is a good attempt to reconcile that fact, the public’s need and desire for beach access, the private property rights of the Hollister Ranch residents and the sensitive environmental habitat. All this ranting and raving about how the great unwashed hordes of poor folk going to destroy the place is ridiculous. Neither Refugio or El Cap have been inundated with trash or destroyed and access at Hollister ranch will be much more limited and difficult. I doubt there will ever be “hundreds” of visitors on a single day.
Don’t expect to see public access anytime soon. The Hollister Ranch HOA has a legal team working to drag this out in the courts. I’ve been there, surfed there, and it’s beautiful the way it is. I don’t see hoards of people flocking to the beaches there, but making access challenging (by boat, beach walk, etc.) keeps it preserved and adds to the allure. Not every stretch of nature needs to have a paved road with parking lots leading to it.
Rants and raves….or comments by the community to a completely unrealistic attempt to draft a plan for public access.
For facts and details about the prior YMCA agreement / offer to dedicate see pages 2 and 3. The state would have to build significant infrastructure and fund a shuttle service to a specific (dangerous) beach access trail all for a max of 50 visitors per day. The CA Coastal Commission isn’t known for backing down and they agreed to settle this matter. Is this where our tax dollars should be spent? https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2018/7/f5/f5-7-2018-report.pdf
This has been going on for far too long. The bullies at the HR HOA have deep enough pockets to defy the law which allows beach access to all Californians up to the mean high tide line. THEAAARON is right.
Both incorrect. The HOA doesn’t prevent anyone from accessing the beach up to the mean high tide line. They are preventing people from crossing over their private property to access the public beach. There is no law that requires private property owners to provide public easements over their land (except eminent domain and it’s done with just compensation).
The Hollister ranch beach access is a wildly different situation then el cap or refugio… really an apples to oranges comparison. These states suggestions of access seem rather outlandish.
VOR–no my clam was spot on true. I guess you have no experience surfing Hollister Ranch–I do.
I guess you have not surfed up and down the State of California for decades.
I have.
Sometimes when people don’t know what they’re talking about they are smart enough to be quiet and learn.
VOR–learn to read. I didn’t say isolated to, I said one of the top spots for A$$hole locations behavior.