Move to close Martins Beach seems to draw justices’ doubts
A state appeals court seemed skeptical Thursday of arguments that the billionaire owner of picturesque Martins Beach in San Mateo County had the right to lock its gates and cut off access that members of the public had held for many decades.
Appealing a judge’s order that requires owner Vinod Khosla to seek a permit from the California Coastal Commission to keep the gates closed, attorney Erin Murphy told the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco that Khosla has a “fundamental right to exclude the public from private property” without state interference.
But Justice Terence Bruiniers told Murphy that her argument “might be a little more persuasive” if the beach hadn’t had a long history of public access before Khosla closed it in 2010.
Another member of the three-judge panel, Justice Henry Needham, said the “plain language” of state law appears to define any change of public access to coastal land as “development,” requiring a Coastal Commission permit.
Murphy disputed that merely closing the
gates meant that Khosla had developed the land, but said any state action “allowing the public to invade your private property” would be a type of confiscation — a “taking,” in legal terms — that requires compensation under U.S. Supreme Court property-rights rulings. The case may be headed for the nation’s high court if California courts uphold the commission’s authority.
Khosla, co-founder of Sun Microsystems, bought nearly 90 acres of coastal property from its longtime owners for $32.5 million in 2008 and shut the public access gate in September 2010, citing the cost of maintenance and liability insurance. The previous owners had admitted the public for at least 70 years.
A San Mateo County judge ruled in 2014, in a suit by the Surfrider Foundation, that Khosla’s actions had amounted to development, requiring a state permit. Khosla has kept the gates closed, despite the judge’s injunction, and has said he would provide beach access across a portion of his land if the state paid him $30 million.
If Khosla loses his appeal and seeks a permit, the Coastal Commission could decide to pay him for the use of his land, though that amount would be much less than $30 million. But in a separate case, a group called Friends of Martins Beach is scheduled to go to trial in October on its claim that the former owners of Martins Beach had effectively granted the public a right of access that Khosla could not revoke. If that claim succeeds, Khosla would not be compensated.
Eric Buescher, a lawyer for the Surfrider Foundation, told the court that Khosla should have realized, before he bought the property, that the state’s official land-use plans guaranteed a public right of entry.
The California Coastal Plan “refers to Martins Beach as a place where public access exists,” Buescher said. And by law, he said, the shoreline is “public trust land” that cannot be entirely closed off.
Deputy Attorney General Joel Jacobs, representing the Coastal Commission, told the court that even if Khosla has a fundamental right to own and maintain his property, he is not immune from state authority.
“Even a fundamental right can be regulated,” Jacobs said, noting that the fundamental right of free speech is subject to “time, place and manner” restrictions. “The Coastal Act says you may exercise those rights subject to the requirement that you obtain a permit.”
A ruling is due within 90 days.