BATTLE FOR MARTINS BEACH

Surfrider takes Silicon Valley billionaire to court, Half Moon Bay locals take their beach back

By Andrew Lewis
Photos by Ed Grant
  • Published:March 18, 2013
  • Views:6,417
Simmering controversy over public coastal access came to a boil on Thursday when former congressman and one-time presidential candidate, Pete McCloskey, joined environmental lawyer Mark Massara and dozens of other protestors and press at the locked gate of Martins Beach, a pristine stretch of shoreline five miles south of Half Moon Bay and Mavericks. For decades, Martins Beach was a public haven for local surfers, fishermen and beachgoers -- a jewel of the California coastline.
At the center of this land dispute is Silicon Valley billionaire and Sun Microsystems co-founder, Vinod Khosla, who, in 2008, purchased the property -- which includes Martins Beach and its quaint enclave of about 30 seaside cottages -- for $37.5 million. Khosla purchased the property
under the guise of LLCs Martins Beach 1 and Martins Beach 2.

For a century prior, the family who owned the land around Martins Beach had charged a small fee to beach visitors, many of whom were surfers. But when the LLCs assumed ownership in 2008, the "welcome" sign that sat on the corner of Highway 1 and Martins Beach Road was whitewashed, a locking gate was installed at the head of the quarter-mile lane, and guards were hired to prevent trespassing.

In most coastal states, such action would be perfectly acceptable. In California, it's a violation of the law.

On Tuesday, the Surfrider Foundation -- represented by McCloskey's law firm Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, and supported by Massara, a Surfrider lawyer -- filed suit against Martins Beach LLCs 1 and 2 for violating Article 10, Section 4 of the California Constitution which states, "No individual, partnership, or corporation, claiming or possessing the frontage or tidal lands of a harbor, bay...or other navigable water in this State, shall be permitted to exclude the right of way to such water..."
"While they try to settle these legal issues, time passes and the community suffers."
Mike Wallace


Based on terms set forth by the California Coastal Act, which require "any person ... wishing to perform or undertake any development in the coastal zone" to obtain a coastal development permit, the Martins Beach LLCs closure violates Article 10, Section 4. In 2009, the Coastal Commission had notified the LLCs of this violation, explaining that their actions were constituted as "development" and thus required a coastal development permit.

The Martins Beach Road LLCs instead refuted the Commission's claim and sued. They lost, but continued to do nothing about public access.

This case is hardly unique. From Malibu to Silicon Valley, California courts of law are brimming with protracted land disputes between landowners and the public. Surprisingly -- and often directly because of the Coastal Act of 1976 -- these cases end in the public's favor, though not before years of litigation and millions of dollars have been spent on both sides.

"That's the real tragedy," said Half Moon Bay Surf Team coach Mike Wallace, who was one of the first residents to investigate the Martins Beach LLCs, as well as the man to discover the land's shrouded owner to be Khosla. "Four years ago, I watched my daughter catch her first green wave out there, and now she's a competitive NSSA surfer. And soon she's going to be off to college ... while they try to settle these legal issues, time passes and the community suffers."

Thursday's protest also revealed to Wallace, McClosky, Massara, and others present that the LLCs just may have bigger development plans for Martins Beach than the normal erosion control measures they recently filed an emergency permit for.

"There's a whole new debate that's touched off now," said Wallace. "When I went down [to Martins Beach] last there was one survey stake in the ground -- now, not only are there multiple stakes, but there are paint lines running all the way to the beach. I can't say what exactly that means, but those cottage owners' leases expire in 2021, and they don't have any recourse after that."
MORE SURF NEWS
SURFLINE HOME PAGE

Daniel Phelps 03/20/2013 09:51 AM   * PREMIUM MEMBER - Real Name

I was wondering where Martins beach went! Not that the waves are good there, they definitely suck. Not something I care a whole lot about. What about the Ranch, guys? Tough access there and the waves get perfect, someone mentioned point sur, that beachbreak always looks gnar, no trespassing there. Can someone explain how the ranch works...Martin's Beach is on beach, the ranch is 20 miles of coast.

Snail 03/20/2013 08:14 AM

I think this brings up a great point of Hollister Ranch. WTF? So if the original owners did this it would be ok but a new person can not after the act was put in place? Open the beach brah.

dickey 03/20/2013 07:29 AM

Mateo the hollister ranch was off limits private property before 1976 and since most laws arent retroactive (if pot was legal and you were in jail when it became legal you still do your time)most likely the act didnt open any existing off limits private land ,it just made it illegal to create more. Sucks for us huh? look on the bright side ,Tresspassing is such a RUSH!! especially when theres security!

tidbitsucks 03/20/2013 03:28 AM

tidbit, really? thats very lame...

Willard 03/20/2013 12:53 AM

The Ranch is still private because lawyers like Massara already have access to it through their powerful connections and would never ruffle those feathers. And as for point sur...Whitey is in charge, otherwise hop the fence and be stealth.

gogolsbrain 03/19/2013 10:09 PM

This billionaire is an exploiter, how do you think he made his money? exploiting labor somewhere, somehow. Sure he's hightech and that's cleaner than running a massive sweatshop, but none-the-lees he's an elitist 1 percenter who thinks he's better than the rest of us just because he has more printed paper- you know Iou's from the chinese governmnet, for God's sake wake up people your being bought and sold down the river and you don't seem to even care. For those brining the lawsuit... thank you.

Mik 03/19/2013 09:38 PM

Khosla needs to go to the Ritz Carlton at Salt Creek. He will learn that surf access and luxury can easily co-exist, and even complement each other. Visitors, especially from out of state, typically enjoy the experience of watching surfers. It's exciting, free entertainment. What we don't need however, is another toxic Golf Course, with pesticide runoff going straight into the ocean, nor should there be any sewage going into the ocean either. I applaud everyone involved in fighting this.

Max 03/19/2013 07:46 PM

I love to surf and the concept of beach access for all....but as a private property owner, I can side with the new owner need for preventive protection.....All he needs is some kook to "slip and fall" on his property and call his friendly, pro bono surf buddy lawyer...Mr. K and his Limited Liability Corporation is going to get sued even BIGGER TIME than this puny violation. Mr. K knows how to play the game and stall liability until he can build the next Malibu Colony....

Danny 03/19/2013 05:45 PM

So for $37.5m I can buy my own break? Maybe he rips? There's plenty of ocean for all to enjoy without the hassle of lawyers and protests.

Augie 03/19/2013 05:01 PM

Martins is this tucked away, little gem, particularly on weekends when the usual spots are zoo's. Even if you're not going to get wet, it's a nice quiet place to take the family. A great little community, and has been that way for decades. Clearly this developers intentions are to build a luxury sprawl, hotel, golf course, to compete with the Ritz Carlton which is literally 3 miles up the beach. These places aren't built for the local community, so hopefully public access can be restored soon.

Mateo 03/19/2013 02:19 PM

Can somebody let me how to get Public Access to Hollister Ranch? We either need 100% access to all of California Coast, or this current argument is invalid. Are we as surfers hypocrites?

The Jim Guy 03/19/2013 02:02 PM   * PREMIUM MEMBER - Nickname   ** EDITOR'S PICK

Being rich does not make Khosla evil. He is evil because he blocked the beach to the public. That causes tremendous pain and suffering to the local community. It is not the money that makes him bad it is how he chooses to use it.

Liz 03/19/2013 11:43 AM

Anyone wishing to comment on this issue/voice your concerns to the CA Coastal Commission can attend the April Commission hearing in Santa Barbara on April 10, 11, and 12th. There is a half an hour set aside for public comment first thing in the morning at (8 or 9)and another half hour after the lunch break on each of the three days. You can get directions to the hearing and an agenda online here http://www.coastal.ca.gov/mtgcurr.html The april agenda should be uploaded in the next 2 weeks.

andrew 03/19/2013 11:20 AM

I am not sure where the guy who says it is difficult to surf in Deal NJ has been trying to surf. It's not easy to get a wave in Deal because it's so crowded... but parking, walking to the beach and paddling out is pretty easy. I've surfed there for a long time. There are certainly no locked gates or guards.

Michele 03/19/2013 11:03 AM

"JD" and "Tidbit," you completely lost the point.

View All Comments (38)

Say Something...

Good comments foster debate. Bad ones won't be posted.

Name
Email Address (optional, will not be displayed)
Comment (limit 500 characters)
You have characters left.

Most Popular

More...