I have read the case filings. (-:
Actually, one of the more complicated bits is that the CCA’s public-access rules don’t apply to this land, since they only apply to land entitled by the State of California, and the current title descends from the federal patent and quitclaim issued by the California Land Commission of 1851, pursuant to the terms of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, validating the original Spanish land grant — and thus predates the State of California.
Lots of people believe the CCA applies everywhere in California, but, sadly, it doesn’t always.
(Fortunately, most coastal parcels deeded by Spanish or Mexican land grant have been subsequently sub-divided, with the resultant new titles subject to California State rules. Khosla’s parcel is a rare exception to that.)
Additionally, Khosla has a valid claim to the ‘land and tidelands,’ since that’s what the Spanish grant specified. “Tidelands” is everything between mean high tide and mean low tide, in contrast to the usual California rule that “everything below mean high tide is public.”
He doesn’t want to allow public access to his private beach, but the court says he can’t close the existing private road without a Coastal Development Permit.
This is neither the “privatizing public land” outrage it’s being spun as, nor the wonderful moral victory for public access being claimed.
But if you’re actually paying attention and not just shouting along with the rabble-rousers, it’s an illuminating exercise in the politics of California Land Use. (-:
