Beach owner wins property dispute

A gate had gone up in 2010 and restrictive signs were erected to deter beachgoers going through the property to access the beach, which used to have public access.

Surfers and other supporters of open access have claimed that it is nearly impossible to reach the spot known for its swells that break over underwater reefs without going through the path from the road.

In the past year, protesters have gone past the gate and walked onto the beach to surf and access the coast as part of demands for open access to the public.

In 2012, a group of five surfers were arrested for trespassing on the property.

The first lawsuit was filed in October 2012 against Martin’s Beach 1 and 2, LLC, by the group known as “Friends of Martin’s Beach.” That group argued that beachgoers have the right to cross private property to access the beach.

The group of three surfers was represented by Santa Cruz-based attorney Gary Redenbacher, who said he was going to appeal the judge’s decision.

“Anyone who wants to go to the beach in California with their family should care about this,” Redenbacher said.

A separate lawsuit was filed in March by the Burlingame-based Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy law firm on behalf of the Surfrider Foundation.

That suit claims the owners failed to obtain a coastal development permit for the new gates and restrictive signs that prevent the pubic from accessing Martin’s Beach Road, which is a violation of the California Coastal Act.

That case is expected to go to trial next spring.

Court records from the Friends of Martin’s Beach suit name venture capitalist Vinod Khosla as the presumed primary owner of the property.

Jeff Essner, an attorney from the San Jose-based law firm Hopkins & Carley, said in a statement that the judge found that there is no precedent that gives the public access to the property.

“The property owner strives to be a constructive member of the community, but it is difficult to have this conversation without the legal clarification on property rights,” the statement said. “We are pleased with this ruling and thankful for this clarification.”