Martins Beach access: Supreme Court declines to hear challenge of California Coastal Act

Public access to nearly every beach on the California coast will remain secure as the U.S. Supreme Court announced Monday, Oct. 1,  it would not hear a challenge to the state Coastal Act. The 1976 law ensures that property owners cannot privatize beaches by preventing public entry.

The lawsuit focused on Martins Beach, a remote beach between San Francisco and Santa Cruz accessible only by traversing land owned by Silicon Valley billionaire Vinod Khosla. State courts had ruled that Khosla must leave the private access road open to the public — as the previous landowner did — unless he can get a state permit to lock the entry gate.

Rather than pursue a Coastal Act permit, Khosla petitioned the Supreme Court in February to take up the matter, claiming the requirement constituted an unconstitutional taking of his land. Beach access advocates worried that a high-court ruling in Khosla’s favor would result in repercussions extending far beyond Martins Beach and affect beach access in numerous locations along California’s coast.

“Today’s Supreme Court decision … illustrates the strength and importance of beach access rights in California law, including the California Coastal Act,” said Angela Howe, legal director of the Surfrider Foundation. “This win helps to secure beach access for all people, as is enshrined in our laws.”

Lawyers for Khosla did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Coastal access disputes are not uncommon, with recent high-profile cases involving media mogul David Geffen’s Malibu home and the gated Strand at Headlands subdivision in Dana Point. In both cases, barriers to public access were forced to be removed.

While such access is popular, Khosla’s case argued that it’s a taking of private land without compensation.

“Public access to coastal areas is wonderful,” said Brian Hodges, an attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation who filed a brief in support of Khosla, after the case was filed. “But we can’t just throw away private property rights because people like access. That’s like saying, ‘I really like that Ferrari, so it should be for everybody.’ … In any other process, if the government wanted a public road through private property, they’d have to pay.”

Family beach business

The Martins Beach 89-acre oceanfront property was owned for about 100 years by the Deeney family, which operated a small business there for surfers, fishermen and other beachgoers. The Deeneys built and maintained public bathrooms, a parking lot and a convenience store with a deli, charging an entry fee that was initially 25 cents and had risen to $10 by the time they sold the site to Khosla in 2008 for $32 million. They also built cottages, many of which have ongoing leases which are being honored by Khosla.

The Deeneys were no longer making a profit off the business when they sold the property, according to Khosla’s lawsuit. Khosla tried continuing the operation but experienced “a considerable loss.” Public access was closed in 2009 without a permit, despite the California Coastal Commission determination that the closure constituted development and so required a Coastal Act permit.

Then came the Surfrider Foundation’s successful lawsuit and the threat of fines from the state Coastal Commission. Today, there are reports that the gate is occasionally open but is usually locked, according to Massara, who drives past the site regularly.

The state Supreme Court declined to hear Khosla’s appeal, so he petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court. The suit argued that closing a gate doesn’t qualify as development and even if it does, requiring public access is an unconstitutional taking of his land.

Property-rights focus

The U.S. Supreme Court takes up less than 1 percent of the cases it receives. But environmentalists and property-rights activists alike were keeping close watch on the Martins Beach petition because the high court had already agreed to hear two other cases this term in which private property rights are pitted against environmental regulation and public interest.

The court will consider how much federal regulators can limit private development to protect endangered species’ habitat and will consider a Pennsylvania public-access case to determine at what point in the administrative process a landowner can seek judicial relief.

Four Supreme Court justices must agree to here a case before it can go forward and earlier decisions to hear the two other cases signaled to some that the court had a particular interest in property-rights issues this term.

“I’m not very comfortable with this court,” said California Coastal Protection Network’s Susan Jordan before it was announced that the court would not take up Martins Beach case. “I am concerned.”

It wouldn’t have been the first time the high court ruled against a key provision of the state Coastal Act.

In 1987, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff in the landmark case of Nollan vs. California Coastal Commission. As a condition for a permit allowing a Ventura County coastal landowner to replace a 500-square-foot bungalow with a 2,500-square-foot house, the commission required the owner to grant a public easement allowing access along the front of the lot.

The court ruled 5-4 that the commission had overstepped its bounds, with Justice Antonin Scalia writing that the requirement was “an out-and-out plan of extortion.”

In arguing that he shouldn’t need a permit at all, Khosla hired some big guns to represent him — particularly attorney Paul Clement, who is well known to the court and who some thought would increase the odds of the case being heard. Clement was solicitor general under President George W. Bush and is among attorneys to most frequently argue before the Supreme Court.

“The court would never take this case on its merit,” said veteran environmental attorney Mark Massara, who’s worked with the Surfrider Foundation on the case, after the case was filed. “They would only take it because of their relationship with Paul Clement.”

Public good

Property-rights lawyer Hodges noted that government has long paid for land acquired for public benefit, with the Constitution and other laws ensuring landowners are paid fairly.

“(Martins Beach access) is the same as when you pay for the ground that is condemned for a new railway station,” Hodges said before the Supreme Court announced it would not consider the case.

But advocates of the Coastal Act, passed in 1976 with provisions to ensure the public had unfettered access to the state’s beaches, argue that the coast is a natural resource that should be available to everyone. They say that beaches that previously have had public access — including Martins Beach — should not now cost taxpayers to continue that access.

“You wouldn’t have a coastline that looks like ours without the Coastal Act,” said the California Coastal Protection Network’s Jordan. “People come here because of access to the coast. It’s not just for residents — it’s for tourists, marine resources, fishing, many things. It’s a huge economic engine.”

“I can’t think of anything that defines California more than its coast.”

This story will be updated with additional detail and reaction.