Tech mogul Khosla’s Martins Beach case surfaces again

Ritu Jha-

The unending saga of ‘Martins Beach’ owned by Vinod Khosla, a Silicon Valley-based tech mogul is surfing again to where it started, demand for ‘public beach access.’

On May 13, the California State Lands Commission and California Coastal Commission lawsuit was heard in the San Mateo County Superior Court, for public beach access which has been denied by the owner for over a decade.

Khosla, the co-founder of Sun Microsystems and founder of Khosla Ventures, a venture capital firm, bought the two parcels of land adjacent to the gorgeous Martins Beach from one Rich Deeney for $37.5 million in 2008, under the names Martins Beach I, LLC and Martins Beach II, LLC.

“A motion hearing for Case No. 20-CIV-00052, California State Lands Commission, et al vs. Martins Beach 1, LLC, et al, was scheduled for 2pm yesterday, May 13, before Judge Swope. The next scheduled proceeding in the case is a motion hearing on September 9, at 2pm,” Dan Radovich, Communications Officer, San Mateo County Superior Court, told indica.

The Deeney family had the Martins Beach property for almost a century and maintained a public bathroom, a parking lot, and even a general store. There were swings, picnic tables, garbage cans and restrooms, coastal officials said. Signs advertising Martins Beach to the public were posted over the years along Highway 1 and Highway 92.

However soon after buying the property he shut the gate, hired security and posted “do not enter” signs. There is only one road that leads to the beach. On Monday, May 13 filing, the commissioners alleged in court where V. Raymond Swope, was hearing the case that: The public used Martins Beach for decades, and Khosla, as the new owners, blocked the public’s access to the road and beach, and now deny that the public has any right to use the road or the beach.

According to the court document, plaintiffs believe that the property is “subject to nonexclusive public easements based on the doctrine of implied dedication” defendants deny that the public has any right to access the property, and they believe that defendants can exclude the public in their sole discretion.

It further alleges that despite a 2017 California Court of Appeals order to Khosla to open the gate of the Martins Beach, defendants continue to limit access and [continue to] assert that the public has no right to access the beach.”

Defendants argue that the State regulatory agency function is limited to issuing permits and pursuing violations of the Coastal Act. They argue that because the Complaint here does not involve a permit or allege Coastal Act violation, the California Coastal Commission is an improper plaintiff.

The defendant also argues that the Plaintiffs [the state] commissioners represent ‘the State’ and assert rights held by the State, as a sovereign entity, as the owner of tidelands and submerged lands adjoining Martin’s Beach. That position differs from the complaint, in which the Plaintiffs alleged they are public agencies asserting rights held by the public that Martin’s Beach Road and Martin’s Beach were impliedly dedicated to the public.

When Khosla bought the beach the surfers, fishermen and picnickers paid 25 cents. The parking fee eventually rose to $10. Khosla, in legal filings, has said earlier that he “was willing to give the business a go, and continued to allow members of the public to access the property upon payment of a fee. But [he] soon faced the same problem the Deeneys had faced: The business was operating at a considerable loss, as the costs of keeping the beach, the parking lot and other facilities in operable and safe condition significantly exceeded the fees the business generated.”

A number of public interest groups have since sued Khosla. However, Khosla has said the whole Martins Beach issue is about ‘principle.’ According to the court alleged facts support the request for injunctive relief, which seeks to prevent Khosla from blocking the public’s access to the road, portions of the beach, and the tidelands. If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court.

Related posts