By Peter Fimrite
The billionaire owner of a beach near Half Moon Bay who provoked a bitter dispute when he cut off access to the sandy haven must let the public back in, a San Mateo County judge ruled Wednesday.
The written ruling issued by Superior Court Judge Barbara Mallach means venture capitalist Vinod Khosla must reopen the gate to popular Martins Beach, a crescent-shaped inlet 5 miles south of Half Moon Bay.
“It’s a fabulous victory for the people of California because now their coast is safe,” said Joe Cotchett, lead attorney for the Surfrider Foundation, which filed the lawsuit. “Those people who wanted to roll back the California Coastal Act must now live by the law, and money cannot change that. Mr. Khosla, in the words of President Reagan: Tear down that wall or, in this case, fence.”
Khosla, who could not be reached for comment Wednesday afternoon, paid $32.5 million in 2008 for the property, which includes 45 leased cabins along the coastal cliffs. He closed the only public access gate in September 2010, citing the high cost of maintenance and liability insurance. The nonprofit Surfrider Foundation sued last year, arguing that the sandy shoreline had been open to all comers since at least 1918 and belonged to the public.
Mallach essentially ruled that Khosla’s failure to obtain a coastal development permit before blocking access to Martins Beach was illegal.
The beach battle has focused national attention on California laws that are supposed to guarantee public access to coastal areas. The 1972 California Coastal Zone Conservation Initiative, which created the 12-member California Coastal Commission, and the California Coastal Act, passed in 1976, prohibit homes or developments from blocking access to beaches. They essentially make the entire coast, including all beach property below the mean high tide line, public property.
Mallach agreed with Surfrider that closing the gate amounted to “a change in intensity of use,” That change, she said, could be considered development under the law. As a result, she said in her ruling, Khosla must apply for a coastal development permit if he wants to close the gate or make other changes to the property. The judge could have fined Khosla $15,000 a day for every day the gates were shut, but she waived all fines.
Private prior to 1972
The founder of Khosla Ventures and co-founder of Sun Microsystems Inc. characterized the lawsuit as a dishonest attempt to wrest control of his property. He said the Deeney family, which set up the first cabin in 1918, had always charged people to access the beach, a clear indication that it was a private beach prior to 1972. His lawyers argued that the coastal act does not circumvent pre-existing private property rights.
Despite all this, Khosla said, the 53-acre property remained open for almost three years until San Mateo County, the California Coastal Commission and the Surfrider Foundation made what he termed unreasonable demands that made it too expensive for him to continue allowing the public to use the beach.
“The activists desiring unfettered access to Martins Beach have misrepresented the issues and facts, and have made reasonable solutions less likely,” Khosla wrote in an opinion piece for The Chronicle last month. “Should a government agency force property owners to run businesses at a loss? Records and testimony submitted in court demonstrate there were fewer than five cars on an average day visiting the beach and demand for access to the beach had been declining for more than a decade.”
Earlier ruling
Khosla’s position was strengthened last year when San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Gerald Buchwald ruled that the beach was subject to the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ended the Mexican-American War and required the United States to recognize Mexican land grants. The ruling said, in essence, that the beach had been in private hands long before laws were passed requiring public access to the coast.
Buchwald’s decision, which is being appealed, did not outlaw public access to the beach, but left the ocean as the only way for the public to get there.
Angela Howe, the legal director for Surfrider, said Wednesday’s decision restores the rights of all Californians to visit the shoreline and makes crystal clear what the law of the land is today.
“It’s a very strong ruling,” Howe said. “We think it ultimately strengthens California’s beach access laws by defining what development is in the Coastal Act. The judge clearly ruled that any change in intensity of use can be considered development and thereby needs a coastal development permit issued by the Coastal Commission.”
The written ruling issued by Superior Court Judge Barbara Mallach means venture capitalist Vinod Khosla must reopen the gate to popular Martins Beach, a crescent-shaped inlet 5 miles south of Half Moon Bay.
“It’s a fabulous victory for the people of California because now their coast is safe,” said Joe Cotchett, lead attorney for the Surfrider Foundation, which filed the lawsuit. “Those people who wanted to roll back the California Coastal Act must now live by the law, and money cannot change that. Mr. Khosla, in the words of President Reagan: Tear down that wall or, in this case, fence.”
Khosla, who could not be reached for comment Wednesday afternoon, paid $32.5 million in 2008 for the property, which includes 45 leased cabins along the coastal cliffs. He closed the only public access gate in September 2010, citing the high cost of maintenance and liability insurance. The nonprofit Surfrider Foundation sued last year, arguing that the sandy shoreline had been open to all comers since at least 1918 and belonged to the public.
Mallach essentially ruled that Khosla’s failure to obtain a coastal development permit before blocking access to Martins Beach was illegal.
The beach battle has focused national attention on California laws that are supposed to guarantee public access to coastal areas. The 1972 California Coastal Zone Conservation Initiative, which created the 12-member California Coastal Commission, and the California Coastal Act, passed in 1976, prohibit homes or developments from blocking access to beaches. They essentially make the entire coast, including all beach property below the mean high tide line, public property.
Mallach agreed with Surfrider that closing the gate amounted to “a change in intensity of use,” That change, she said, could be considered development under the law. As a result, she said in her ruling, Khosla must apply for a coastal development permit if he wants to close the gate or make other changes to the property. The judge could have fined Khosla $15,000 a day for every day the gates were shut, but she waived all fines.
Private prior to 1972
The founder of Khosla Ventures and co-founder of Sun Microsystems Inc. characterized the lawsuit as a dishonest attempt to wrest control of his property. He said the Deeney family, which set up the first cabin in 1918, had always charged people to access the beach, a clear indication that it was a private beach prior to 1972. His lawyers argued that the coastal act does not circumvent pre-existing private property rights.
Despite all this, Khosla said, the 53-acre property remained open for almost three years until San Mateo County, the California Coastal Commission and the Surfrider Foundation made what he termed unreasonable demands that made it too expensive for him to continue allowing the public to use the beach.
“The activists desiring unfettered access to Martins Beach have misrepresented the issues and facts, and have made reasonable solutions less likely,” Khosla wrote in an opinion piece for The Chronicle last month. “Should a government agency force property owners to run businesses at a loss? Records and testimony submitted in court demonstrate there were fewer than five cars on an average day visiting the beach and demand for access to the beach had been declining for more than a decade.”
Earlier ruling
Khosla’s position was strengthened last year when San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Gerald Buchwald ruled that the beach was subject to the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ended the Mexican-American War and required the United States to recognize Mexican land grants. The ruling said, in essence, that the beach had been in private hands long before laws were passed requiring public access to the coast.
Buchwald’s decision, which is being appealed, did not outlaw public access to the beach, but left the ocean as the only way for the public to get there.
Angela Howe, the legal director for Surfrider, said Wednesday’s decision restores the rights of all Californians to visit the shoreline and makes crystal clear what the law of the land is today.
“It’s a very strong ruling,” Howe said. “We think it ultimately strengthens California’s beach access laws by defining what development is in the Coastal Act. The judge clearly ruled that any change in intensity of use can be considered development and thereby needs a coastal development permit issued by the Coastal Commission.”
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.