Mark Massara on Martin's Beach, Beach Access

Watch an interview with Surfrider Foundation co-counsel Mark Massara from last night on KSCO's Off The Lip Radio Show streamed on TheSurfChannel.com and learn more about the battle of private property rights vs. public beach access at Martin’s Beach. 

Video: www.thesurfchannel.com/news/20140714/martins-beach-billionaire-surfrider-foundation/

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.

 

Seawall Construction on Borrowed Time

The "emergency" revetment that is slated to be built along Martin's Beach was reprieved recently, with the California Coastal Commission and County of San Mateo granting the applicants/owners an extension on the construction deadline.

Although the permit for construction of the "emergency" revetment was issued by the County and Coastal Commission, both agencies required that:
1. the construction of the emergency revetment be completed by July 20, 2013
2. an application for a regular Coastal Development Permit for the revetment be filed by July 28, 2013
3. the emergency revetment would be removed on or before July 28, 2014 if a regular Coastal Development Permit was not issued by that time.

The property owner's attorney wrote both agencies to obtain an extension on these deadlines, arguing that the agencies' actions and conditions caused delay.  Hence, the County and Commission have changed the deadlines to:
1. the construction of the emergency revetment be completed by October 3, 2013
2. an application for a regular Coastal Development Permit for the revetment be filed by September 30, 2013
3. the removal date (July 28, 2014) remains unchanged

Thus, construction of the emergency revetment will be starting any day now.



Here's to hoping the revetment doesn't cause beach loss or serve as a foot in the door for a permanent wall to protect some future unknown development.







What can you do?

• Help us keep tabs on construction and timing.

• Join our Action Alert system so we can alert you of future opportunities to take action (such as when the Coastal Development Permits are considered by the County and Coastal Commission).

Martin's Beach to be Armored

It's official: the California Coastal Commission has granted an emergency permit to construct a 963 ft rock revetment seaward of the oceanfront road along Martin's Beach.  The County of San Mateo already issued an emergency permit for the portion of the project within their jurisdiction at the end of January 2013.

In addition to the revetment, which is to be "temporarily" erected for the protection of the road and infrastructure, the road is to be widened and the existing restrooms demolished for the creation of a fire turnaround.  There is no condition of approval requiring the removal of existing unpermitted development, such as the keycard gate or the block wall at the south end of the beach.

Surfrider sent both an after-the-fact letter to the County (upon having learned that the County had already permitted the project) and a letter to the Coastal Commission highlighting various concerns with the project, including 1) that erosion here cannot be characterized as an emergency (--it has been happening for a long time!); 2) the emergency permit allows for development beyond what is needed to respond to "emergency" erosion; 3) existing unpermitted development needs addressed before permitting additional development; 4) the terms of the permit could result in serious unmitigated impacts that haven't been studied, such as loss of sandy beach due to erosion caused by the wall, and 5) the project is not consistent with LCP and Coastal Act policies.  The other concern is that the new property owner is pursuing armoring here and now in hopes of getting his foot in the door to armor for whatever development is planned in the future.

Unfortunately, emergency permitting authority is rather sweeping and tends to err heavily on the side of allowing an existing structure to be protected rather than protection of access and preservation of the beach.  So despite all these compelling issues, we have an impending revetment that is slated to be built within the next 30 days and could stand for up to 1 year before needing any additional approvals, according to the permit conditions.  Despite the permit terms, it is quite possible that the revetment could remain standing and continue to impact the beach past its permitted life.  Just look at Ocean Beach in SF or any number of other places along the California coast.  Once armoring goes in--temporary or not--it tends to remain, sometimes even after its useful life is past.

Why all the hate on seawalls and rock revetments?  Well, while they may be handy at delaying the inevitable overtake of structures by the advancing mighty ocean, shoreline armoring fixes the back of the beach and prevents it from retreating naturally, robbing the beach of sand to replenish it as it erodes, as well as exacerbating erosion of the beach seaward of the wall due to wave reflection off the hardened structure.  Seawalls are beach killers.

The elephant in the room, of course, is that the existing structures the revetment is being permitted to protect--the cabins and infrastructure serving them--are not likely to stand long after the current land leases are up.  What good will the revetment be then?  It might be good for Mr. Khosla, who will benefit from the serendipitous existence of a revetment that could protect his future development endeavors, but certainly will not be good for anyone looking to visit the beach, which in the future may ironically include current cabin owners. 

So, what's to be done now that the revetment has been permitted?

First, the revetment has been conditionally permitted.  If the conditions of the permit issued by the Coastal Commission are not complied with, such as completing construction within 30 days or avoiding grading of intertidal areas, the permit holder is in violation of the Coastal Act.  Any violations should be reported to the California Coastal Commission.  Similarly, the County has imposed conditions in their permit and any violations of those should be reported to the County.

Secondly, the property owner must file for a regular Coastal Development Permit (CDP) from the County and the Coastal Commission by July 28, 2013 for whatever long-term armoring is intended to be in place.  If the permit isn't filed, the revetment must be removed by July 28, 2014.  Surfrider will be keeping an eye on this. 

Thirdly, in their consideration of the CDP application, the County and the Commission will also consider the full range of impacts.  It will be really important to photograph the emergency revetment's impacts on the beach while it's in place so these decision makers can inform their deliberations.   Help contribute to this effort by taking photos of the beach profile when you go to visit.