CLICK HERE if you are having a problem viewing the photos on a mobile device
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected a request from Silicon Valley billionaire Vinod Khosla to weigh in on the long-running battle over Martins Beach in San Mateo County, turning down a case that could have rewritten coastal access laws in California and across the United States.
Khosla, in his petition for the nation’s highest court, had argued that the California Coastal Commission violated his property rights by requiring him to obtain a permit before he could legally padlock the gates to a private road to the beach south of Half Moon Bay.
Monday, after losing his fourth legal challenge on the issue, Khosla conceded he will apply for the permit. But he vowed further lawsuits if the commission does not rule in his favor.
Advocates for opening the beach rejoiced at Monday’s latest turn in a saga that has drawn national attention and tested the limits of California’s laws that protect the public’s right to access the state’s beaches.
“The most conservative and divided Supreme Court in my lifetime confirmed that even a billionaire, who refuses to acknowledge that the law applies to him, and retains the most expensive attorneys he can find, cannot create a private beach,” said attorney Joe Cotchett of Burlingame, who represents the Surfrider Foundation, a nonprofit group that has won lower cases forcing Khosla to keep the beach open.
“Beaches are public in California, and the immensely wealthy must comply with the Coastal Act just like everyone else.”
Under state regulations, the Coastal Commission has up to 270 days to make a decision on a permit once Khosla submits a complete application.
“We are disappointed the United States Supreme Court decided not to hear this important case,” said Dori Yob Kilmer, of San Jose, an attorney for Khosla.
“We will comply with the decision of the California Court of Appeal and apply for the required permit,” she said. “If denied, we will start this process over again.”
Khosla may have success asking the Coastal Commission to allow limited access to the beach, rather than 24 hours a day, said Eric Buescher, one of the attorneys for the Surfrider Foundation. But the commission is unlikely to allow him to shut the gate permanently, because that would violate the Coastal Act’s basic intent of opening beaches to the public, he said.
“I am not aware of anybody applying for a permit to close a beach or the Coastal Commission ever granting one,” he said. “But all the time there are changes to hours, like if a park is open sunup to sundown, and the Coastal Commission says OK, even if it was open historically overnight.”
The beach has been used by families back to the 1920s. It is flanked on both sides by steep cliffs and is only accessible by boat or by a road that runs through 89 acres Khosla bought in 2008 from a local family. Khosla owns much of the sandy beach and the bluffs. But under the Coastal Act and other laws, the public owns everything on the coast from the “mean high tide line” out to the ocean, which basically is defined as all the sand that is wet from the breaking waves.
Khosla, 63, of Portola Valley, is the co-founder of Sun Microsystems and a prominent venture capitalist, with a net worth estimated at $2.3 billion by Forbes magazine. Two years after he bought the property, he locked the gates, then hired guards and posted no trespassing signs.
That decision sparked an outcry among surfers, families and other beachgoers who said it epitomized the selfishness of the hyper-rich and violated state law.
Coastal advocates have argued that Khosla was warned by San Mateo County officials, and knew the rules of the Coastal Act when he bought the property surrounding the beach. His opponents argued that if Khosla’s efforts had led to a landmark Supreme Court decision in his favor, such a ruling could have limited beach access for millions of Americans.
Khosla has portrayed himself as a victim and defender of private property rights.
In an interview with the New York Times published Aug. 30, he said he was standing firm on a matter of principle.
“If I were to ever win in the Supreme Court, I’d be depressed about it,” Khosla said. “I support the Coastal Act; I don’t want to weaken it by winning. But property rights are even more important.”
Khosla’s legal team argued unsuccessfully that by requiring him to get a permit to close the gate, the commission was essentially forcing him — in violation of the U.S. constitution — to continue to operate a business he is not interested in operating, because the previous owner of the property, the Deeney family, had often charged visitors up to $10 to drive down the private road to the beach.
“No owner of private business should be forced to obtain a permit from the government before deciding who it wants to invite onto its property,” said Yob Kilmer.
The Surfrider Foundation sued Khosla in 2013, arguing that Khosla violated California’s Coastal Act, approved by voters in 1972, when he blocked access to the beach.
A San Mateo County court agreed. Last year, the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco also ruled against Khosla, rejecting his appeal in a 3-0 decision. Khosla lost again when California’s state Supreme Court denied his request for an appeal. He took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court and hired one of the nation’s top attorneys, Paul Clement, a former clerk for the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, and the former solicitor general in the George W. Bush administration.
Khosla’s 151-page legal argument took direct aim at one of California’s landmark environmental laws, calling the case a “textbook physical invasion of private property.” It described the California Coastal Act as “Orwellian” for requiring property owners to obtain permits when they want to build homes or businesses along the California coastline or change public access levels.
Such arguments made Khosla a villain to many coastal residents, surfers, environmentalists and state political leaders.
Throughout this year, Khosla has kept the gate open most days while he has continued to fight the case. And the San Mateo County sheriff’s office says it will not arrest anyone for trespassing if they use the road to access the beach while the lawsuits are still pending.
Khosla now faces huge fines. In September 2017, the California Coastal Commission began an enforcement action against him. Under a law signed by Gov. Jerry Brown in 2014, the Coastal Commission can fine people who build without permits along the coast or who block public access to beaches up to $11,250 per day — or $4.1 million per year — up to five years.
“Martins Beach is a national treasure. As someone who has surfed there for decades, I know the value it has to the public,” said Rob Caughlan, former president of the Surfrider Foundation. “I hope that Mr. Khosla will work with the community to preserve this magical place for generations to come.”
They may just get their wish.
“To be honest, I do wish I’d never bought the property,” Khosla told the Times. “In the end, I’m going to end up selling it.”
