December 4, 2023


Good Living

Court rules 4 climbing trails on breathtaking Marin County land are off-restrictions to community

A tract of embattled scenic land with breathtaking San Francisco sights in Marin County will not be accessible to the general public right after a state appeals courtroom ruling this 7 days.

The four hiking trails on the undeveloped 110-acre Martha Enterprise tract in Tiburon have been at the heart of a combat between the house owners and a plaintiffs’ group, Trust (Tiburon/Belvedere Citizens United to Assist the Trails).

The determination, introduced this 7 days by the 1st District Court of Enchantment in San Francisco, arrives just after the group sued in 2017 as the house owners ready to sell the house for progress, studies the Marin Unbiased Journal.

The disputed trails are the Ridge Trail, the Spanish Path, and northern and southern trails that link them at Easton Position, Marin County.

The land on the southeastern suggestion of the Tiburon Peninsula is an unparalleled swath of meadows, indigenous vegetation and lush forests stretching across a ridgeline soaring 590 toes higher than sea amount and featuring panoramic views of the Golden Gate Bridge and San Francisco skyline.

Amid the battle, the land is at present is listed for $95 million by Sotheby’s, and can be observed in their advertising online video below:

The team primarily based their arguments on a landmark 1970 California Supreme Court ruling in which the court docket held that a road leading through non-public house to the coastline had been implicitly dedicated to community use simply because it experienced been applied as these types of for much more than 5 yrs without the need of substantial objection from the landowner. Two many years later on, the condition Legislature handed a legislation restricting these general public claims on private land to coastal assets.

TRUST’s modern fit did not argue that the entire assets was dedicated to the general public, just the trails. The group offered aerial pictures and presented 28 witnesses who testified that they utilized the trails overtly and frequently with out objection through the time in question.

The San Francisco court said that it usually takes a higher normal of evidence to “get absent a party’s land in favor of a general public commitment,” and concluded that TRUST’s proof did not fulfill that substantial normal.

The court docket said that, “When the predominant consumers are neighbors, the landowner might have simply tolerated their use as a neighborly accommodation.”