Martin's Beach is closed, maybe forever

Must the new owner of Martin's Beach land (2008) provide public coastal access through the private road on that property?  The following is 1 year old background information. Updated events follow in the links below. 

Half Moon Bay Review, 9/29/10.  "Martin’s Beach, a small, privately owned cove and residential community about a half-mile south of Half Moon Bay, has been fenced off to the general public for more than a year. That closure has generated a groundswell of complaints from surfers and beachgoers who used to freely visit the protected stretch of shoreline. Now San Mateo County officials say they’ve had enough, and they’re preparing to compel the owners to re-open the beach. Steve Monowitz, interim planning director for the county, said he expects to begin a concerted effort with the California Coastal Commission in the coming weeks to step up enforcement on the owners of Martin’s Beach.“Martin’s Beach has violated their coastal permit requirements by closing off public access to the beach,” Monowitz said. “What we’re seeking is to simply re-establish the public access opportunities that have historically been available there.”

Martin’s Beach has remained a mystery to the greater Coastside public since an anonymous person or group purchased the property through a limited-liability corporation in 2008. Before the property changed hands it was owned by the Deeney family, which had farmed hay on coastal property since the 1930s. Starting around the same time, the Deeney family began leasing the beachfront end of their property and charging visitors a small amount to drive through their property to enjoy the beach. A convenience store and restaurant were built at the site to cater to tourists. The secluded beach also grew to encompass a small community of about 20 leased homes.  But before the sale of the property, the beach community had begun to fall into disrepair. Fishing and clamming had once been a primary draw for tourists, but the offshore catch was reportedly depleted. The swells at the beach, once deemed among the best on the Coastside, in recent years began to disappoint surfers, who flocked to other spots. The restaurant and shop closed down, and the Deeney family began charging a $10 fee for visitors to access the beach. 

But that situation changed when the property was sold for an unknown sum to the unidentified buyer in 2008. The new owner sporadically opened the beach to the paying public, but more and more frequently it was closed to everyone except residents in the leased homes. Many people speculated that the owner had long-term plans to develop the beach as some type of private compound. Some residents at Martin’s Beach feel certain that they would be kicked out when their leases expire in 2021. “We have speculation from all sides about who owns Martin’s Beach. Is it a Google executive or some venture capitalist?” said David Pasternak, who has lived at the beach for more than 30 years. “There’s always been uncertainty here.” Closing a stretch of coastline that was once accessible has irked many beachgoers, who began complaining last year to government officials and organizing to re-open the beach. A Facebook group, “Save Martin’s Beach,” was started last year and drew more than 100 friends to sign up. Following the outcry, the Surfrider Foundation began investigating the issue and prodding local authorities to act. “It’s a well-beloved beach on the Coastside, and we don’t like to see this access lost,” said Sarah Damron, Surfrider regional manager. “A legal remedy would be our last resort … we’d like to talk with whoever owns it and work out an agreement.”

The county has already wrestled with legal representatives of the Martin’s Beach owner last year over the issue of coastal access. Starting in February 2009, county officials ordered the beach owner to apply for a Coastal Development Permit for changing signs along Highway 1 and for planting trees on the property. The property owner never filed for the permit. Months later, county officials were surprised to learn that the owner was instead filing a lawsuit against them and the Coastal Commission for forcing the property to be open to the public.  One county attorney described the lawsuit as a “preemptive strike,” possibly intended to settle the issue of beach access in civil court rather than the Coastal Commission. But the court never issued a ruling, instead dismissing the case last year because the owners never tried to make their case through the government channels before filing a lawsuit.  Since then, Monowitz said, the county has still not received any applications for a development. Now, he said, the county is preparing to force the owner to address the coastal access issue. That could lead to another lawsuit in the future, but Monowitz said he hopes the matter can be resolved without engaging attorneys. “Obviously, they’ve been uncooperative so far, but that doesn’t mean they will be if we can get them back to the table,” he said. “I keep some degree of hope that they’ll work with us to re-establish access.”

Recent updates:  San Mateo Times/Julia Scott, 8/30/11, and Surfplse, 8/20/11.

Posted by Kathy Meeh