Myth - The press and among some of the Aptos activists is that the California Supreme Court weighed in on this case, affirmed the Court of Appeal ruling that the homeowners have no interest in the patio areas and the county can take down the current Court-authorized barriers without regard to the remand trial or any other actions.

Fact - The Supreme Court refused to hear the case, let the court of appeals unpublished decision stand, and the court of appeal’s reversal means a remand to the trial court for consideration of the above-referenced issues. The first hearing in the reman case is March 16 before Judge Tim Schmal.

Myth- Homeowners constructed barriers in recent years to keep the public off an established County accessway. Truth is that all the individual homeowner patios were constructed legally in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s, as was the fence at 300 Beach Drive and the masonry wall at 202 Beach Drive. The court of appeals did not take issue with the prior trial court decision, based on substantial evidence, that the structures were legally standing well before 1960. 

Fact -

The Court of Appeal in October of last year said three things:

- There was a common law dedication in 1929 by the County of an easement only; the homeowners, however, retained the “fee simple” ownership interest in the underlying 37’ of real estate

- The reversal of the Santa Cruz County Superior Court decision that the county had no ownership or any other interest in the area means that the case is now remanded back to the same Superior Court for a new trial to determine what happened after 1929 and what the effect of the county’s prior formal action in the 1950’s to abandon any interest in the 37 foot strip and the subdivider’s successor’s 1963 revocation of the prior offer of dedication means;

- The Court of Appeal justices stated they also had “no opinion” as to the protections afforded by the Coastal Act” and current County zoning code.

- Such as 10’ setbacks and “ time, place and manner” restrictions on any use by the public of the 37 foot strip, but expected the homeowners to file various actions to protect themselves from any attempt by the county to immediately take over their entire patio areas.

Myth - The county was and is entitled to “abate” the fence and wall structures as “nuisances” encroaching on an existing county Road. An easement on paper that may have been established in 1929 can be lost due to governmental failure to improve or use that paper easement in subsequent years and in any event, the county acknowledged in Court that they have no evidence of an existing road at Rio Del Mar Beach Island

Fact- All that exists along the strip of 29 small beach bungalows are concrete and brick patios and other structures legally constructed with and without permits ( note- evidence was submitted during the 2022 trial before Judge Volkmann that most of these patio area structures and hardscape predated any requirements in the Santa Cruz County zoning or building codes for permits and also predated the Coastal Act ). 

Myth - If the homeowners thought they owned or had a right to personal use of the patio areas; they should have paid property tax on this portion of their real estate.

Fact - Undisputed trial testimony and evidence submitted to the court demonstrated that the county assessor had assessed individual property owners for the space within the 37-foot strip for property tax going back to the 1950s.