Quick Take
The highly publicized battle over an 800-foot stretch of concrete behind a row of homes in Rio Del Mar has been settled, for now.
The solid path that lines a row of beachside homes along a state beach in Aptos is a public walkway, not a private patio, according to a ruling from a state appeals court last week.
For now, the ruling settles a highly publicized spat between a Rio Del Mar homeowners association and the state and county government over an 800-foot stretch of concrete that divides more than two dozen luxury beachfront homes from the sand of Seacliff State Beach. That walkway, which the homeowners claimed as their own patio space, had become a battleground for the fight against privatizing beach access.
Over the yearslong tug-of-war, the HOA has erected fences and barricades to block public access, and the county has knocked them down. Now, the state’s second-highest court has determined that the walkway belongs to the public.
The ruling from the Sixth District Court of Appeals reverses a February 2024 judgment from Santa Cruz County Superior Court that said the walkway was indeed a contiguous set of private patios, and that residents of the Rio Del Mar Beach Island Homeowners Association could block public access.
Justices Allison Danner, Charles Wilson and Daniel Bromberg acknowledged the magnitude of the decision, but stopped short of ordering any action to be taken, such as demolition of the existing fences around the walkway.
“We recognize the significant impact of our decision on the homeowners, who have invested substantial resources into” the walkway, the decision read. “We express no opinion as to any further proceedings in this matter that may occur to alleviate that impact.”
The decision appeared to turn on a critical piece of evidence brought by the county, as well as some bureaucratic oversight that benefited the local government.
The lower court’s ruling focused in part on the fact that, in 1928, Peninsula Properties Company, the original developer of the land, offered to give the strip of land that is now the walkway to the county, but the county government rejected it. The homeowners association used this fact to show that the public had never owned the land. However, the county brought evidence that proved the local government had accepted the land dedication the following year, in 1929, as recorded in an arcane public file known as “Volume 160 of the county’s general index of recorded documents.”
Then, in 1953, records show that the county board of supervisors relinquished its interest in the property when the lawmakers voted to approve the road commissioner’s recommendation that the county abandon the walkway.
However, county records show that “although the board of supervisors ordered that the recommendation be referred to the district attorney, there was no further action or recording of a resolution vacating the public easement” on the walkway, according to the appellate court ruling. Thus, the county never officially surrendered its stake in the property.
The homeowners association is unsure whether it will appeal. John Erskine, the HOA’s attorney with California-based firm Nossaman LLP, did not respond to Lookout’s request for comment, but told the Santa Cruz Sentinel last week that his side was mulling over what to do next. To challenge the ruling would mean taking the issue to the California Supreme Court. However, whether the state’s highest court would accept the case is uncertain.
County counsel Melissa Shaw did not return Lookout’s request for comment. Spokesperson Jason Hoppin said the county will wait and see whether the HOA appeals before considering any further action, such as once again tearing down the walkway’s barricades.
Have something to say? Lookout welcomes letters to the editor, within our policies, from readers. Guidelines here.