Closing Arguments Made in the Surfrider Foundation Lawsuit to Open Martin’s Beach

Video from outside the court, after the trial

Attorneys for the Surfrider Foundation made final remarks during closing arguments of the Martin’s Beach trial today before San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Barbara J. Mallach.  It is now up to Judge Mallach to consider the evidence presented and render her decision. The Foundation expects a ruling from the court by mid-September.

“We delivered a very strong closing argument today,” says Angela Howe, Legal Director for the Surfrider Foundation.  “Surfrider brought this litigation to protect the public’s right of beach access, which is of the utmost importance for this precious spot on the San Mateo County coast and for all of California’s 1,100-mile coastline."

Mark Massara, longtime surfer and counsel for the Surfrider Foundation in this matter, was present today for the closing remarks with Eric Buescher and Joseph Cotchett of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, who also represented Surfrider in the case before Judge Mallach.

“Let’s be crystal clear: even if one were to believe the tall tales that Vinod Khosla’s lawyers told today, and assume that everything they said about how the U.S. Government and Coastal Commission cannot be trusted, it would not change the fact that Khosla still has to apply for a permit,” declares Massara.

The Surfrider Foundation, the largest non-profit organization dedicated to protecting the world’s oceans, waves and beaches, challenged that the property owner, billionaire venture capitalist Vinod Khosla, violated the California Coastal Act when he closed the only public access road to Martin's Beach by putting up a gate and posted signage to deter visitors. (Complete timeline here)

Although an affirmative decision by the court would not restore public access directly, it would require the property owner to seek a permit for the development that has occurred and begin a public process to consider the changes to the property and beach access.  A decision in favor of Surfrider might also require the property owner to pay hefty fines of up to $15,000 per day into the state Coastal Conservancy coffers,. 

“We believe the judge will make a very informed, reasonable judgment.  It is clear that Mr. Khosla refused to go to the Coastal Commission and we are asking the court to order him to do so,” added Joseph Cotchett, counsel for the Surfrider Foundation.

Meanwhile, in the state legislature, a bill is still in play that also seeks to restore public access to Martins Beach.  SB 968 (Hill – San Mateo) would direct the State Lands Commission to work to negotiate purchase of an easement or right-of-way to facilitate public access to the beach.  If no such purchase is negotiated by 2016, the Commission could opt to exercise eminent domain to acquire the easement.  The bill will be considered by the Assembly Appropriations Committee when the legislature reconvenes in August.

Post-trial press coverage can be found on our Press page here.

Trial Information - UPDATED

UPDATED AS OF 7/14/14:


What: 
Surfrider Foundation v. Martins Beach I, LLC and Martins Beach II, LLC

When:  
*Closing Arguments* - 9:30am on Wednesday, July 16

Where:
San Mateo County Superior Court, 400 County Center, Redwood City
Department 22, Courtroom 8A

Photo credit Rob Caughlan

Superior Court Judge Barbara J. Mallach presiding

If you attend, please show your support by wearing blue!  

If you opt to quietly tweet from the trial, please use #martinsbeach and feel free to mention @Surfrider and @vkhosla.  

Thanks!!

Khosla to Testify

San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Barbara Mallach has ruled that Vinod Khosla, the billionaire behind the holding companies which are designated the owners of the property adjacent to Martin's Beach, will have to testify in court for the Surfrider Foundation lawsuit. 

It is unfortunate that it took a judge compelling him to appear to finally bring him out from behind the corporate veil to talk about his actions to close off access to the beach.  However, his required appearance and answers to questioning will bring some degree of satisfaction to many who have hoped for and sought after simple dialogue with the man behind the closure.

Latest indications are that Khosla will be called to appear somewhere between 3pm and 5pm on Monday, May 12.  (See "Trial Information" below)

Coastal Act Suit Goes to Trial

Who to himself is law, no law doth need,
Offends no law, and is a king indeed
- excerpt, The Tragedy of Bussy D'Ambois


The California Coastal Act is a law that was put in place to regulate development in a manner which protects and conserves California's epic natural and scenic resources on the coast. The law addresses a broad swath of issues from protection of habitat, water quality, coastal dependent uses, and visual resources, to maximizing public access to beaches. Arguably, without this very important law on the books, California's remarkable coastline would have long ago succumbed to unbridled economic exploitation and mass privatization.

Indeed, the Coastal Act has been challenged by formidable opponents with deep pockets and weighty influence, who have sought to do these very things. One memorable tiff involved media mogul David Geffen and his Malibu home on Carbon Beach. Although Mr. Geffen had agreed to an access easement along his property as a condition of a development permit, he later sought to close off public access to the easement. In the end, Mr. Geffen lost the battle in court and opened the gate to the accessway.


The latest battle involves another mogul--this time of the tech sector--who has closed off and deterred access to Martin's Beach.  Vinod Khosla, under the guise of two holding companies, bought the land adjacent to Martin's Beach in 2008 and closed off access to the public soon after.  The billboard advertising access was painted over, beach closure signs erected, and a gate that once opened for the public was kept locked except to residents possessing keycards.

As offensive as these actions are, they are made all the worse with the realization that they were done with full knowledge that they were illegal.  The representative of the holding companies was made aware of the existing public access associated with the property prior to purchase of the property, and was also informed that closing or deterring access would be an activity that required a development permit from the County and Coastal Commission.  (We learned this through discovery on our lawsuit...see video) 

But, as powerful people are sometimes wont to do, the law was ignored and access was closed without benefit of a permit.  Doubtlessly he reckoned that the only way that he would have to answer to these actions and forced to address this closure was through an enforcement action or a lawsuit brought against him.

Mr. Khosla was approached early on by Surfrider Foundation in hopes that the closure could be discussed and an amicable resolution to restore access could be reached, but alas Mr. Khosla was not responsive to this approach.  Instead, he relied on his lawyers to respond, and the response more or less said that the court would need to decide.  So Surfrider took him to task and sued for violation of the Coastal Act.

We are now days away from trial of the suit, which will take place at the San Mateo County Superior Court, this coming week of May 5.  We firmly believe that the actions taken constitute development, which require a permit, and are hopeful that the court will agree. If so, the Coastal Commission will finally have the opportunity to properly consider and address the access closure. Of equal importance, a message to future potential violators will be sent: California's beaches are not to be closed to the public. [Even if you have lots of money.]

We encourage members of the public to come out to the trial and support our suit (- wear blue!).  Check back here on Monday for the trial schedule and room assignment.

 

Recent Attempt to Block Access Foiled!

Under the name Friends of Martin's Beach, the firm Redenbacher & Brown LLP brought a suit against Martin's Beach I and II, LLCs seeking to affirm a provision in the California Constitution which provides for public access to the coast.  That case is underway at the San Mateo County Superior Court. 

As reported yesterday by the Half Moon Bay Review, on May 14, well over a month ago, the Superior Court denied Martin's Beach I and II's request for a temporary restraining order (TRO).  The TRO sought would have temporarily prohibited public access to the beach.

So...access is still attainable at the moment, although the gate remains.  If you visit, please enjoy the quiet natural beauty, be kind to the locals, and pack your trash.

Surfrider Foundation Sues to Open Martin’s Beach to the Public

(entire original story linked here)

In the Surfrider Foundation Complaint filed yesterday, Surfrider Foundation cites the violations of the beach access protections of the California Coastal Act.  Specifically, the property owner cannot add new development or change the intensity of use of coastal land without a Coastal Development Permit.  The development here comes in the form of new gates, new signage and even the use of armed guards to deter public access.  

Throughout this enduring and multi-faceted campaign, and now with the new litigation filing, our organization is merely asking for the long-cherished right to access the beach, as is protected by the laws of the state of California. 

Photo credit: Ed Grant 

Martin's Beach 5

Four of five.  Photo Credit Rob "Birdlegs" Caughlan

Five intrepid local surfers decided to brave the "closed" beach at Martin's, with the intent of catching some waves.  They also happened to catch some flack from the cops, who issued tickets to them for trespassing on the beach.  Luckily for the surfers, and the rest of us who have sought to reestablish access to Martin's, they weren't just ordinary fence jumpers--their stated premise for crossing the property was that they were exercising their constitutional right to access the beach.  Their actions elevated what would have otherwise been a standard trespassing case to a case of significant public interest and stake.

At 9am on February 7, 2013, the defendants were arraigned on their charges at the San Mateo County courthouse.  The District Attorney asked to have their case dismissed based on "insufficient evidence".  The charges were dropped.  Spirits were raised!  All involved saw this as a major victory, at least for the time being, in that visitors seeking to exercise their constitutional right to access the beach would not be prosecuted.   

One small step for the Martin's Beach five.  One giant leap for those who've sought to regain access.

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_22544218/trespassing-charges-against-surfers-dropped