Anonymous
By an edhat reader
On two trips recently to Haskell’s the Bacara has put out recliners with hotel towels and moved the public tables into the background. They improved the area with a cleanup and new grass, too. The beach house vendor is open now.
We called the concierge, who said the recliners were for hotel guests only. This may not actually be hotel policy, someone should ask the general manager on the record, but it’s a violation of standing policy, and I assume , of the coastal permit.
Does anyone have more information?
Bacara owns it. It is not a State or County park and not public lands. You have correctly stated that the Bacara granted an easement to the beach. This gives us prescriptive rights to the beach where as we can go there with or without their permission. It does not allow us to wander on or use their property. The sign is pretty clear… ” Coastal Access “. I’d suggest not pushing the issue .
One could believe easily that that wood stake fencing is there to demarcate the Bacara side from the public side of the land. OP: Ask the Coastal Commission, please, and report back. It wouldn’t surprise me if the hotel thought it was “okay” to make this not-so-subtle land grab.
Tagdes – No one is asking to “wander” on their property. It’s about allowing the public to use the grass area, has they have in the past. If the picnic tables are still there, I see no problem. But, if they all of a sudden ban the public from using that grass area altogether, there is an issue. I don’t think they can unilaterally revoke a public easement after the public has been using the grass area for years. THAT is a prescriptive easement – use by the public for a period of time. If that is established, they can’t just up and terminate it.
The Indy had a 2008 story about moving the public access somewhere else to allow the hotel to build additional units in that area. Maybe this is the first step in that process?
I would go ahead and use the chairs “someone left on public property”… Perhaps enjoy a BBQ directly behind the chairs that someone left….
Are you absolutely sure of your assumption that this is in “violation of standing policy […] of the coastal permit”? Checking one’s own assumptions ought to precede sending someone else out for a “gotcha” confrontation with the hotel GM… IMHO.
Does the Bacara own that section of the beach area? Do they have an easement there? I know the Bacara granted an easement to the public for the parking lot and trail to the beach, but who owns the actual park area there?
Here’s another pro-public use point. The following quote suggests that the public is allowed to (and intended to) use the grassy area: “This wide easy-graded path leads to a small park-like area with grass and picnic tables just above the beach.” ….. https://www.californiabeaches.com/beach/haskells-beach/ —– It’s pretty clear that the grassy area is intended to be for public use. That being so, to revoke/terminate the easement (whether by grant or by prescription), could possibly be unlawful. Hopefully, the picnic tables are still there and they haven’t completely moved the public out.
You don’t really understand what “prescriptive rights” are in this case. The usage needs to be without the owners permission. If the owner allowed this use in addition to the actual easement then that additional use can be rescinded by the owner.
@ 1:40 – I shared that quote to show that a website for CA beaches has been telling people that there is a grassy area (the one in the photo and which is the subject of this post) available for the public to use. THAT is the point. The public appears to consider this area available and has been using it. If it was not granted in the original easement, then this suggests the public has used and is using this grassy area in a way that then suggests a prescriptive use.
Seems like an easy way for the Bacara to lose some expensive chaise lounge chairs to me. I’m sure a bored teenager can think of some fun things to do with them. Or do they have a security guard assigned 24/7 to guard them?
Haskell’s used to be an amazing local spot. I went there for years and years. The Bacara has ruined it. Rich hoity toity tourists. The very LAST thing this area needs more of.
an interesting point brought up by the original poster. “They improved the area with a cleanup and new grass, too”. So that being said, all the public use over the years NO ONE has ever “improved” it…… except for them ( bacara ) and now you want to make a stink about land that isnt yours, that someone else improved. Sounds like they are spending their own resources and money to improve an area, that so far….. no one else has stepped up to do. that includes the multitude of angry people saying that beach is “theirs”. yet no one ever does anything to “clean up or improve it” just complain when someone else wants to use it.
PSTARSR- no one has “improved” it because it does not belong to them! Just because Bacara seeded the lawn a bit doesn’t mean we can’t be upset if we lose access to an are we’ve had access to for years.
Tagdes: “Go ahead and use the chairs that someone left on public property…”????? So if you leave your bicycle on public property I can go ahead and use it? What a childish response. Better to get clarification as to what is going on and resolve it like adults.
RHS ….so even though you’re reading comprehension is zero you have already 2 additional supporters that think …….COASTWATCH spells Tagdes. Sorry to inform you but that was not me incorrectly suggesting encroachment and illegal use of Bacara property.
Side note – how does the Bacara have a “Santa Barbara” address? “8301 Hollister Ave, Santa Barbara, CA 93117” is within the City of Goleta. I suppose I understand the marketing behind it, but how do you legally falsify the city name?
From the California Coastal Commission…………Coastal Access
“Haskell’s Beach”
“Amenities”
Parking
Disabled Access
Path to beach
Restrooms
Sandy beach
This is what is included in the easement to the public.
Not included ….Camping , grassy area with picnic table or chaise lounges.
There is nothing in prescriptive rights that states that there was a grassy area with picnic tables over all these years. I’d guess that Bacara put them there for the snack bar users and it is clear document that that these are not include in the public easement. Maybe y’all can beat the 10 already down votes for the only factual comment posted here.
I didn’t forget the commas. I posted in a column for clarity but Ed jammed it all together.
Tagdes – a couple things: 1. Please provide a cite for your comment. 2. You don’t really understand what “prescriptive rights” are in this case. Prescriptive easements/right of ways are created by usage, not by granting of rights. Since the public has been using this grassy area for years for picnics, BBQs, birthday parties, etc., then the public may have a “prescriptive” right of way or easement to use this grassy area, regardless of what Bacara granted in the original easement for the parking lot/trail to the beach.
TAGDES–my apology for the mistaken attribution. But really, my reading comprehension is better than zero and I do know the difference between “you’re” and “your”.
There you go, you’re absolutely correct in your observation and some have their priorities straight and they’re on top blatant errors as I just made.
PSTARSR – You’ve completely missed the point here. No one is complaining that the Bacara’s guests might be also using the grassy area that the public has been using for years. On the contrary, the concern is that the Bacara is trying to push the public out of this space. Plus, as someone else mentioned – who else would “improve” the land other than the owner? It’s not up to the public to go around improving property. What a ridiculous argument.
BUS: Tourism is a fundamental economic part of the community you have chosen to call home. “Rich people” have left and extraordinary philanthropic legacy in this area you have chosen to call home. Why not choose Oxnard or Ventura if you resent having to rub shoulders with the ” rich hoity-toity”. Add some gratitude to your attitude.