Rayiner asserts it is "the agency" that is forcing opening, but it is not (or had not been). The opinion at page 50 of the PDF is in the case "SURFRIDER FOUNDA

Rayiner asserts it is "the agency" that is forcing opening, but it is not (or had not been). The opinion at page 50 of the PDF is in the case "SURFRIDER FOUNDATION v. MARTINS BEACH 1, LLC et al." - It's a concerned citizen group filing suit against one of the two LLCs that purchased parts of the property, and the courts agreeing that Khosla must re-open the gate he locked. "[Surfrider has] kept it real simple,...It’s always been ‘Mr. Khosla, do you have a permit for that gate or don’t you?’” In September, after this decision, the commission began an enforcement action, which could cost Khosla over $4 million per year, and Khosla opened the gate, in addition to filing his appeals. http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/article/NE/20171004/NEWS/171009839 http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/article/NE/20171004/NEWS/17...