BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair
2013-2014 Regular Session
SB 968 (Hill)
As Amended April 9, 2014
Hearing Date: April 22, 2014
Fiscal: Yes
Urgency: No
TH
SUBJECT
Public Lands: Martin's Beach Property: Access Route
DESCRIPTION
This bill would direct the State Lands Commission to enter into
negotiations with the owner of the property known as Martin's
Beach to acquire a right-of-way or easement for the creation of
a public access route. If the Commission is unable to reach an
agreement to acquire a right-of-way or easement by January 1,
2016, this bill would direct the Commission to acquire such a
right-of-way or easement by eminent domain.
BACKGROUND
Situated approximately 10 miles south of Half Moon Bay in
unincorporated San Mateo County is a 200-acre crescent-shaped
beach known popularly as Martin's Beach. Prior to the sale of
two upland parcels in 2008, the beach was accessible via a road
that connected to the Cabrillo Highway and traversed across
private land. According to residents, Martin's beach "was once
a destination for families, surfers and beach lovers." (Rosato,
Half Moon Bay Beach Battle: California Lawmaker Wants to Reopen
Martin's Beach (Feb. 11, 2014) NBC Bay Area - KNTV
(as of April 6, 2014).)
The prior owners of the upland parcels reportedly "built a store
and began charging visitors for access and parking" beginning in
the 1950s, and "[t]he fee to visit the beach was $5 at the time
of the sale [in 2008]." (Fimrite, Surfers Lose Fight to Access
Half Moon Bay Beach (Oct. 25, 2013) San Francisco Chronicle
(more)
SB 968 (Hill)
Page 2 of ?
(as of April 6, 2014).)
Following the sale of the upland parcels, "the new owner erected
a barricade on Martin's Beach Road intended to prevent the
public from getting to the small neck of sand, nestled between
rocky shoulders on either side." (Newman, Mysterious Owner of
San Mateo County Beach Paradise is Asked to Let the Outside
World In (October 29, 2012) Santa Cruz Sentinel
(as of April 6, 2014).) A
gate with a sign that says "Beach Closed, Keep Out" now blocks
the road that once allowed access to the beach, and the only
remaining route of public access to Martin's Beach is via the
ocean. (Fimrite, Surfers Lose Fight to Access Half Moon Bay
Beach (Oct. 25, 2013) San Francisco Chronicle
(as of April 6, 2014).)
Following the closure of Martin's Beach Road, a group called the
Friends of Martin's Beach sued the new landowner to re-establish
public access via the road. (See Friends of Martin's Beach v.
Martins Beach 1, LLC, Civ-517634, San Mateo County Superior
Court.) The Surfrider Foundation brought a second lawsuit
challenging the new owner's compliance with various provisions
of the California Coastal Act. (See Surfrider Foundation v.
Martins Beach LLC, et al., Civ-520336, San Mateo County Superior
Court.) Both lawsuits are currently pending in the Superior
Court for the County of San Mateo.
This bill would direct the State Lands Commission to consult and
enter into any necessary negotiations with the new owner of the
two upland Martin's Beach parcels to acquire a right-of-way or
easement for the creation of a public access route to Martin's
Beach. If the Commission is unable to reach an agreement to
acquire a right-of-way or easement by January 1, 2016, this bill
would direct it to acquire the right-of-way or easement through
an exercise of eminent domain.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law, the California Constitution, provides that no
individual, partnership, or corporation, claiming or possessing
the frontage or tidal lands of a harbor, bay, inlet, estuary, or
other navigable water in this state, shall be permitted to
exclude the right of way to such water whenever it is required
for any public purpose, nor to destroy or obstruct the free
SB 968 (Hill)
Page 3 of ?
navigation of such water; and the Legislature shall enact such
laws as will give the most liberal construction to this
provision, so that access to the navigable waters of this state
shall be always attainable for the people thereof. (Cal.
Const., art. X, Sec. 4.)
Existing law finds and declares that the basic goals of the
state for the coastal zone are, among other things, to maximize
public access to and along the coast and maximize public
recreational opportunities in the coastal zone consistent with
sound resource conservation principles and constitutionally
protected rights of private property owners. (Pub. Res. Code
Sec. 30001.5(c).)
Existing law provides that no lands owned by the state which
front upon or are near to any lake, navigable stream or other
body of navigable water, convenient access to which is not
provided by public road or roads, or otherwise, shall ever be
sold, leased or rented, without reserving to the people of the
state an easement across the lands for convenient access to such
waters. (Pub. Res. Code Sec. 6210.4.)
Existing law provides that the State Lands Commission may, in
the name of the state, acquire by purchase, lease, gift,
exchange, or, if all negotiations fail, by condemnation, a
right-of-way or easement across privately owned land or other
land that it deems necessary to provide access to public land,
including school land, tide or submerged lands, and lands
subject to the public trust for commerce, navigation, and
fisheries, to which there is no access available. (Pub. Res.
Code Sec. 6210.9.)
Existing federal law provides that "private property [shall not]
be taken for public use, without just compensation." (U.S.
Const. Amend. V.)
Existing state law provides that private property "may be taken
or damaged for public use only when just compensation,
ascertained by a jury unless waived, has first been paid to, or
into court for, the owner." (Cal. Const. art. I, Sec. 19(a).)
Existing state law defines "just compensation" as a property's
fair market value "as determined by any method of valuation that
is just and equitable." (Code Civ. Proc. Secs.
1263.310-1263.320.)
This bill would direct the State Lands Commission to consult,
SB 968 (Hill)
Page 4 of ?
and enter into any necessary negotiations, with the owners of
the property known as Martin's Beach, consisting of two parcels
of land, APN: 066-330-230 and APN: 066-330-240, in the
unincorporated area of the County of San Mateo, to acquire a
right-of-way or easement for the creation of a public access
route to and along the shoreline, including the sandy beach, at
Martin's Beach at the South Cabrillo Highway.
This bill would provide that if the Commission is unable to
reach an agreement to acquire a right-of-way or easement by
January 1, 2016, it shall acquire by eminent domain a
right-of-way or easement for the creation of a public access
route to and along the shoreline, including the sandy beach, at
Martin's Beach at the South Cabrillo Highway in accordance with
the procedures set forth under the Eminent Domain Law.
This bill would also direct the Commission to enter into
consultation and negotiation with local stakeholders, including,
but not limited to, local and regional government and
governmental entities, to address the ongoing management and
operation of any property acquired pursuant to this bill.
COMMENT
1.Stated Need for the Bill
The author writes:
SB 968 was introduced to try and provide a pathway for
compromise so the public can once again access Martin's Beach.
The only road leading to the beach has been closed since
2008, and it might remain shut into the future as various
legal battles play out in the courts. There are cliffs at
both ends of Martin's Beach making it impossible to access
from neighboring beaches. Otherwise you have to access the
beach from the ocean. Local residents and Californians have
been deprived of this natural treasure for long enough.
This bill requires the State Lands Commission to enter into
negotiations with the landowner to reopen [a route] for public
access. If a settlement can't be reached by January 1, 2016,
then the legislation would direct the State Lands Commission
to acquire [a route] for public access using their eminent
domain authority. This bill does not grant any new authority
to the State Lands Commission - they already have the ability
to condemn a right-of-way or easement across privately owned
SB 968 (Hill)
Page 5 of ?
land that it deems necessary to provide access to public land.
The California Coastal Act envisioned this delicate balancing
act between maximizing public access to the coast while
protecting the rights of private property owners. This bill
tries to bring the landowner to the table to reach a
compromise since they have been unresponsive to other efforts.
I hope a compromise can be reached because no one wants to
use eminent domain; however, I believe this is an appropriate
use consistent with our constitution and with the State Lands
Commission's existing eminent domain authority under Public
Resources Code Section 6210.9. All Californians deserve equal
access to the beach.
2.Public Access to Coastal Resources
The right of public access to California's rivers, beaches, and
waterways is enshrined in Article X, Section 4, of the
California Constitution. Section 4 declares that "no
individual, partnership, or corporation, claiming or possessing
the frontage or tidal lands of a harbor, bay, inlet, estuary, or
other navigable water in this state, shall be permitted to
exclude the right of way to such water whenever it is required
for any public purpose, nor to destroy or obstruct the free
navigation of such water." Emphasizing that access to public
waterways is a matter of fundamental public importance, the
Constitution further states that "the Legislature shall enact
such laws as will give the most liberal construction to this
provision, so that access to the navigable waters of this state
shall be always attainable for the people thereof." (Cal.
Const., art. X, Sec. 4.) More specifically directed at the
State's coastal resources - including beaches - the California
Coastal Act of 1976 "finds and declares that the basic goals of
the state for the coastal zone are . . . to maximize public
access to and along the coast and maximize public recreational
opportunities in the coastal zone consistent with sound resource
conservation principles and constitutionally protected rights of
private property owners." (Pub. Res. Code Sec. 30001.5(c).)
This bill furthers these constitutional and statutory declared
public policy goals of providing public access to the state's
waterways and coastal areas by directing the State Lands
Commission to secure a public access route to Martin's Beach,
first through negotiation, and if negotiation fails, then
through an exercise of eminent domain. Without an overland
route of public access, this particular beach would be cut off
SB 968 (Hill)
Page 6 of ?
from public enjoyment since it is bounded both on the north and
the south by impassable sea cliffs. Additionally, this bill
recognizes that acquisition of a public access route may impair
the constitutionally protected property rights of upland
landowners, and protects those property rights by first
directing the Commission to enter into negotiations with
affected landowners. Only if those negotiations fail is the
Commission to proceed with an eminent domain action. In so
doing, the bill ensures that any landowners impacted by the
acquisition of this public access route are guaranteed to
receive no less than the fair market value of any property
rights taken by eminent domain.
3.Eminent Domain
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that a
person's private property may be taken for a "public use" if the
owner is given "just compensation." When a public entity takes
private property under this provision, the public entity is
exercising its power of eminent domain. California's Eminent
Domain Law (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1230.010, et seq.) specifies
how public entities are to exercise the power of eminent domain.
In sum, it states that the owner of property to be acquired by
eminent domain is entitled to just compensation, that
compensation shall be awarded for any property interest taken,
and that the measure of that compensation is the fair market
value of the property interest taken.
The Eminent Domain Law requires public entities to go through a
specific set of procedures when exercising the power of eminent
domain. Prior to filing an eminent domain action in court, a
public entity seeking to acquire property by eminent domain must
generally adopt a "resolution of necessity" and, before adopting
that resolution, must give each person whose property is to be
acquired by eminent domain a reasonable opportunity to appear
before it and to be heard. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1245.235.)
Under existing law, affected property owners have a forum to
dispute three requirements that must exist for a property to be
acquired by eminent domain: (1) that public interest and
necessity require the project; (2) that the project is planned
or located in a manner that will be most compatible with the
greatest public good and the least private injury; and (3) that
the property sought to be acquired is necessary for the project.
(Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1245.230.) A public entity must also,
before adopting that resolution, establish an amount that it
believes to be just compensation for the property and make an
SB 968 (Hill)
Page 7 of ?
offer to the owners to acquire the property for that amount.
That offer, which cannot be less than the public entity's
appraisal of the fair market value of the property, generally
provides owners who are willing to sell with the opportunity to
do so at an early point in the process. (Gov. Code Sec.
7267.2.)
This bill would not alter the existing process for acquiring
property via eminent domain. Rather, the bill specifies that if
negotiations with affected landowners do not result in an
agreement to acquire a public access right-of-way or easement by
January 1, 2016, the State Lands Commission shall commence
eminent domain proceedings in accordance with the procedures set
forth in the Eminent Domain Law. This requirement to engage in
good faith negotiations prior to initiating a condemnation
action is consistent with the policy of having public entities
"make every reasonable effort to acquire . . . real property by
negotiation." (Gov. Code Sec. 7267.1(a).) As the Legislature
articulated in its "Guidelines for public entities," engaging in
pre-condemnation negotiations with affected property owners
helps to "avoid litigation and relieve congestion in the courts,
to assure consistent treatment for owners in the public
programs, and to promote public confidence in public land
acquisition practices." (Gov. Code Sec. 7267.)
4.Implied Dedication of Public Access Route
Staff notes that recent amendments to this bill restrict the
property interest to be acquired by the State Lands Commission
to a right-of-way or easement for the creation of a public
access route to and along Martin's Beach. This restriction
aligns the property interest to be acquired with the articulated
need for the property, which is to provide for an overland
public access route to the beach.
Furthermore, the public may already have an existing
right-of-way or easement for access to Martin's Beach through
operation of an implied dedication of land for public access.
The California Supreme Court has held that "a common law
dedication of property to the public can be proved either by
showing acquiescence of the owner in use of the land under
circumstances that negate the idea that the use is under a
license or by establishing open and continuous use by the public
for the prescriptive period." (Gion v. Santa Cruz (Cal. 1970) 2
Cal.3d 29, 38 [superseded by statute].) Where "the public has
used . . . land for a period of more than five years with full
SB 968 (Hill)
Page 8 of ?
knowledge of the owner, without asking or receiving permission
to do so and without objection being made by anyone," then
dedication by adverse use or "implied dedication" to public use
may be said to have occurred. (Id.)
In response to the Gion decision, the Legislature enacted Civil
Code Section 1009 to prevent the Gion rule from being used to
establish common law implied dedications for public access in
certain cases, such as for establishing a right to access
coastal property lying more than 1,000 yards inland of the mean
high tide line of the Pacific Ocean after 1972. (See Civ. Code
Sec. 1009(e).) Staff notes that whether or not the public
currently enjoys an existing right-of-way or easement for access
to Martin's Beach by operation of implied dedication is the
subject of pending litigation.
5.Pending Litigation
In the past, this Committee has raised concerns about bills that
interfere with pending litigation. Any such interference could
result in a direct financial windfall to a private party,
prevent a court from deciding an action based upon the laws in
place at the time the cause of action accrued, or create a
situation where the legislative branch is used to circumvent the
discretion and independence of the judicial branch. This bill,
however, does not raise the concerns normally associated with
measures that could impact pending litigation. First, this bill
would not alter or amend any law at issue in the two lawsuits
currently pending against the new owner of the two parcels
upland of Martin's Beach. Neither case involves an exercise of
eminent domain authority or challenges the State Land
Commission's power to acquire a right-of-way or easement for
public use. Second, this bill is not retroactive and would not
compromise the independence of the judicial branch nor
circumvent its discretion to expound and interpret California
law. By its terms, the bill pertains only to future actions by
the State Lands Commission; it does not attempt to attach "new
legal consequences to events completed before its enactment."
Landgraf v. USI Film Products (1994), 511 U.S. 244, 269-70
(internal citations omitted). Nor does the bill attempt to
decide an issue or dispute pending before a court or interfere
with a court's ability to control its docket.
Support : Black Surfers Collective; California Coastal
Commission; California Coastal Protection Network; Coastside
SB 968 (Hill)
Page 9 of ?
Beach Coalition; Committee for Green Foothills; Environmental
Action Committee of West Marin; Ocean Conservancy; Save the
Waves Coalition; Sierra Club California Coastal Committee;
Surfrider Foundation; WildCoast
Opposition : None Known
HISTORY
Source : Author
Related Pending Legislation : None Known
Prior Legislation :
AB 3691 (Doyle, Ch. 1954, Stats. 1955) authorized the State
Lands Commission to acquire through purchase, lease, gift,
exchange, or condemnation, rights-of-way and easements across
privately owned land or other land that the Commission deems
necessary to provide access to public land that is offered for
sale.
AB 1715 (Goggin, Ch. 1205, Stats. 1975) authorized the State
Lands Commission to acquire through purchase, lease, gift,
exchange, or condemnation, rights-of-way and easements across
privately owned land or other land that the Commission deems
necessary to provide access to public land, including school
land, tide or submerged lands, and lands subject to the public
trust for commerce, navigation, and fisheries, to which there is
no access available.
Prior Vote : Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water
(Ayes 7, Noes 2)
**************