I can't tell what the Constitution says about which path the public must use to access a beach.
Is it the case that the State or municipalities failed to secure or purchase property to build a path, and now want a single citizen to pay for this path?
Public access to Martins Beach, and to all land seaward of the mean high tide line in California, is guaranteed in the state’s constitution and mandated within the Coastal Act of 1976."
It’s not as if this was an after-the-fact decision, the public access path existed when he bought the property, as did the existing law and state constitution. His responsibility as a property owner there is to maintain that public access.
That isn't really a choice. You can either going along with what the employee says, or a) appeal their decision b) change the law, or c) abide the consequences. They also presumably have records.
As for why this path, California has a prescriptive right of access--if people have customarily accessed the beach through this path (for 5 years, I think), then they are permitted to continue doing so. The California Constitution also doesn't just make the beaches public, but explicitly provides for public access to them:
No individual, partnership, or corporation claiming or
possessing the frontage or tidal lands
of a harbor, bay, inlet, estuary, or other navigable
water in this state shall be permitted to
exclude the right of way to such water whenever it is
required for any public purpose and
the Legislature shall enact such law as will give the
most liberal construction to this
provision so that access to the navigable waters of
this state shall always be attainable for
the people thereof.Is the issue then that there is a discrepancy between property rights and access rights that needs the CA Supreme Court to resolve?
The Denny's (previous owners) used to CHARGE for access to the beach, presumably supporting the case that access through this path is not a right.
Source: "Joan Gallo, a former San Jose city attorney who represents the land owner, agreed that the courts should weigh in. The Deeneys had run a private business, she said, allowing invitees of their choosing onto the property, and that hadn't changed.
"It seems to us that it's an important issue to be litigated," Gallo said. "I have a strong belief that the Constitution doesn't require you to give up property rights or conduct a business you don't want to conduct."
Mark Massara — a surfer and attorney who is working with McClosky and the law firm Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy on the case — said he believed the constitutional arguments have merit. But since that approach could drag on for years (think Geffen), his team opted for "a very narrow strike to the heart of this thing."
Khosla doesn't have to run a business - he doesn't have to let people park there, and he doesn't have to provide lifeguard services or security. He just has to let people access the beach. Read what I posted elsewhere, 100 years of beach access via this route creates a proscriptive easement which has legal weight.