Surfers sue over blocked beach access Company tries to keep people off of cherished coastal crescent

Mike Wallace of El Granada ignores signs blocking public access to the private road to Martin's Beach. Mike Wallace of El Granada ignores signs blocking public access to the private road to Martin's Beach. Photo: Michael Short, Special To The Chronicle Photo: Michael Short, Special To The Chronicle Image 1 of / 25 Caption Close Surfers sue over blocked beach access 1 / 25 Back to Gallery

For a century, Martin's Beach has been a fishing and surf-lovers haven along the San Mateo County coast.

Fishermen, tourists, sunbathers and families always paid a small fee to visit the 200-acre crescent-shaped beach, with a distinctive pyramid-shaped rock and what surfers say are sweet waves.

The historically good vibe was ruined, however, when the landowner blocked the only road, provoking an ugly battle that could turn the picturesque enclave into a test case for public coastal access in California.

A group of surfers known as the Surfrider Foundation filed a lawsuit Tuesday accusing the owners of Martin's Beach of violating what they say is the public's "historic rights to public beach access."

They claim the landowner, Martin's Beach LLC, painted over billboards advertising the beach to the public, erected locked gates in front of Martin's Beach Road, hired armed guards to keep people out and did it all without permits, in violation of the California Coastal Act.

"The heart of our case is that the law under the Coastal Act requires you to get a permit if you do anything to change the use or change the intensity of use at a coastal area or beach," said Mark Massara, the lawyer for the Surfrider Foundation, who is working with former Rep. Pete McCloskey and the law firm of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, on the case. "What we're dealing with at Martin's is a century of public access only recently interrupted by these development activities."

Land is sold

The lawsuit is the latest blow in a long-running battle that is as complicated as it is turbulent. It started in 2008, when the limited liability company paid $37.5 million for the 53-acre beach, which includes 45 leased cabins along the coastal cliffs, about 6 miles south of Half Moon Bay.

The money man behind the deal has not been revealed, but the plaintiffs have said, and several sources close to the deal have acknowledged, that it is Vinod Khosla, a 57-year-old billionaire venture capitalist who co-founded Sun Microsystems and is famous for his backing of bold, eco-friendly projects. Khosla could not be reached for comment.

Prior to the sale, the beach had been owned for more than 100 years by the Deeney family, which set up the first cabin in 1918 and continued building through the 1950s. The Deeneys also built a store and began charging visitors for access and parking.

Martin's Beach was popular among clammers and fishermen and a popular destination for family outings. Many of the cabins are under long-term leases that expire in 2021, according to the lawsuit.

Closing the beach

The fee to visit the beach was $5 at the time of the sale, but the new owner did away with that and instead put up the gate with a sign that said, "BEACH CLOSED, KEEPOUT."

Locals were outraged and county officials ordered the gate reopened on grounds that the owner had not obtained a permit to block access. Lawsuits have been flying back and forth ever since.

Although residents of the cabins have been allowed in, five surfers were recently cited for trespassing by sheriff's deputies after they defied the order. The case was later dismissed for lack of evidence, and surfers continue to use the beach. The district attorney's office has said it would not charge future visitors for trespassing unless they break other laws.

"The beach is public. There is no dispute about that. The access is what we are talking about," said Joan Gallo, attorney for Martin's Beach LLC, the defendant named in the suit. "That is a private road. People were allowed through in the past as paying guests. They had no rights. Under the Constitution there is no right of public access."

Gallo said the owner believes he has the right to set his own terms, especially when one considers the potential liability and the exorbitant cost of providing restrooms and maintaining the road and parking facilities.

It isn't the first fight over public access to a beach. Similar battles have raged at Sea Ranch in Sonoma County, Shelter Cove in Humboldt County, Hollister Ranch in Santa Barbara County and Malibu in Southern California.

In 2008, a man sued over being kicked off the gated Stinson Beach enclave known as Seadrift two years earlier and won a judgment allowing him to sunbathe all he wanted.

It is a particularly important issue in the Bay Area, where some of the great fights to preserve public access have been waged. The Golden Gate National Recreation Area was established as a result of one of those confrontations.

The 1972 California Coastal Zone Conservation Initiative made the entire coast, including all beach property below the mean high tide line, public property. The law also prohibited homes or developments from blocking public access to beaches and created the California Coastal Commission to enforce these mandates.

The problem is that Martin's Beach, Seadrift, Sea Ranch and several other gated beachside communities in California preceded the initiative. That meant the restrictions in effect at the time that blocked the masses were still permitted.

Coastal zone violations?

San Mateo County and the California Coastal Commission are investigating alleged violations of the coastal zone at Martin's Beach, including charges that the owner built culverts and did work on a sea wall without permits.

"There is no question that the public has recreated at this beach for many, many years and is upset that they can no longer do that," said Nancy Cave, the coastal commission's supervisor of enforcement for Northern California. "This is not a private beach. The question is whether people can get to the beach."

Meanwhile, the owner refuses to budge despite the threat of fines, litigation and dozens of letters, including a demand for public access from Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto.

"We welcome the lawsuit," Gallo said. "All we've wanted from the very beginning was an opportunity to have a court decide the rights and obligations of the parties."