## Facts

- Martins Beach is a coastal cove in San Mateo County with no practical lateral access; the only practical route is Martins Beach Road from Highway 1.
- For decades before defendants’ purchase, the public accessed the beach via Martins Beach Road and parked near the shore, generally by paying a fee.
- In 2008, Martins Beach 1, LLC and Martins Beach 2, LLC bought the beach, adjacent land, and the access road.
- After purchase, defendants closed public access by locking a gate across the road, posting and changing signs and billboard messaging, and hiring security guards to deter entry.
- Defendants took these steps without obtaining a coastal development permit.
- Surfrider Foundation filed a citizen enforcement action alleging defendants’ conduct was unpermitted “development” under the California Coastal Act.
- After a bench trial, the trial court declared the closure-related actions “development,” enjoined defendants to restore access to the pre-purchase level, and awarded attorney’s fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5.

## Issues

1. Whether locking the only access road, altering signage, and using security to exclude the public constitutes “development” requiring a coastal development permit under Public Resources Code section 30106.
2. Whether defendants’ state and federal takings challenge to the permit requirement was ripe absent an application for a coastal development permit.
3. Whether the injunction restoring public access to the pre-purchase level constituted a per se taking or otherwise effected a compensable taking.
4. Whether the attorney’s fee award under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 was proper.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the judgment and injunction in full.
- The court held defendants’ access closure measures constituted “development” under the Coastal Act and required a coastal development permit.
- The court held defendants’ takings challenge to the Act’s permitting requirement was not ripe because defendants had not sought a permit decision.
- The court held the injunction restoring access to the pre-purchase level was not a per se taking.
- The court affirmed the attorney’s fee award to Surfrider under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5.

## Legal Principles

- “Development” under the Coastal Act includes “any change in the intensity of use of land” and “any change in the intensity of use of water, or of access thereto.” (Pub. Res. Code § 30106.)
- Closing or materially restricting long-standing public access to coastal resources can constitute “development” even when the physical changes are limited to gates, signs, and enforcement measures.
- A regulatory takings claim challenging a land-use permitting requirement is generally unripe without a final, definitive agency decision; failure to apply for a permit typically prevents adjudication of an as-applied takings theory.
- An injunction restoring pre-violation conditions to enforce compliance with a preexisting permitting scheme is not, by itself, a per se physical taking when it functions to maintain the status quo pending lawful permitting.
- Attorney’s fees may be awarded under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 where private enforcement vindicates an important public right, confers a significant public benefit, and private enforcement is necessary and financially burdensome.

## Conclusion

The court held that defendants’ closure of the only practical public access route to Martins Beach materially changed coastal access and therefore required a coastal development permit; because defendants never sought a permit, their takings challenge was unripe, and the trial court’s restoration injunction and private-attorney-general fee award were properly affirmed.


Surfrider Found. v. Martins Beach 1, LLC, 14 Cal. App. 5th 238 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017)