With his agreement to buy the NFL’s Seattle Seahawks for $9.6 billion, Silicon Valley billionaire Vinod Khosla’s attention has drifted up the Pacific Coast. As part of the deal, first reported by Sportico, Khosla has agreed to give up his minority stake in the San Francisco 49ers.
He soon could be relinquishing something else in the Bay Area.
For nearly two decades, Khosla has been embroiled in a battle over public access to Martins Beach, a popular surfing and recreation spot in the unincorporated San Mateo County. The fight has made him a lightning rod for many locals—a reputation unlikely to be helped by his acquisition of the rival Seahawks.
In 2008, Khosla paid $32.5 million to acquire 53 acres overlooking the beach, which is located near the city of Half Moon Bay, Calif. The purchase was made through two limited liability companies, Martins Beach I and Martins Beach II, which obscured his ownership for a while.
Two years later, Khosla closed off his property to beachgoers, preventing the public from reaching the shore by the route that had been used for decades. The decision sparked protests and set off years of litigation involving community groups, beach access advocates and, eventually, the state of California.
The saga appears to be on track for some kind of resolution, with settlement talks having taken place since last year between the California Coastal Commission, California Land Commission and Khosla. The state agencies and Khosla were poised to take their fight to trial last year, before requesting a series of stays in the proceedings as they sought to work out a potential compromise. The most recent status hearing has been pushed to October; based on public information, it is unclear how far apart the sides remain.
Spokespeople for Khosla and the coastal commission both declined to comment for this story.
Khosla’s beach-based opponents have long argued that his effort to limit access violates California’s longstanding policy favoring public coastal access under the California Coastal Act. The landmark law—approaching its 50th anniversary next month—established broad environmental protections while strengthening the public right to reach the state’s beaches.
In 2013, the Surfrider Foundation sued Khosla’s LLCs, arguing that the Coastal Act required them to obtain a permit before restricting public access to the beach. The foundation ultimately prevailed in 2018 after favorable trial and appellate court rulings were left intact when the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Khosla’s appeal.
In 2020, the California Coastal and Land Commissions sued for a judicial declaration over whether the public had acquired permanent access rights to Martins Beach through an “implied dedication” established by more than a century of continuous public use. The state agencies sought a quiet title judgement and injunctive relief recognizing those public access rights. Khosla, meanwhile, has argued that the fact the property’s owners have historically charged visitors parking fees demonstrates they have entered with permission—rather than as a matter of right—thus undermining any claim of implied dedication.
Publicly, Khosla has cast himself as the victim of government overreach and an unfair public narrative. In a May 2018 post on Medium, he wrote that he felt “coerced and extorted” by both his opponents and the media coverage of the dispute, arguing that it had been unfairly framed as a fight between the public and a greedy billionaire rather than over property rights and rule of law. However, Chad Nelsen, CEO of the Surfrider Foundation, argues that California’s beach access laws and tradition are well established and should have come as no surprise to someone capable of purchasing 53 acres of prime shoreline.
“My sense is [Khosla] is a guy who does his homework, so he should have known all that before he purchased the property,” Nelsen told Sportico in a phone interview. “I think this is more about him trying to get his way than respecting the spirit and law of California.”
Nelsen, however, said he has been heartened by the ongoing settlement talks between the state and Khosla. He said the communication “bodes well” for bringing the matter to resolution in the near future.
“To the credit of California’s state agencies,” Nelsen said, “I feel, historically, they have done a very good job of trying to negotiate issues like this to find a solution that allows the property owner to get some of the things they want while balancing the public’s interest.”