Geffen sues to prohibit beach access near home
By Peijean Tsai
Aug. 11, 2002 9:00 p.m.
Debate over opening up access alongside the Malibu property of
entertainment mogul David Geffen, the namesake of UCLA’s
School of Medicine, has turned into a lawsuit.
In July, the city of Malibu and David Geffen ““ who donated
$200 million to the school in May and is a co-founder of
entertainment company DreamWorks SKG ““ filed 14 complaints
against Access for All, a nonprofit organization trying to increase
access to Carbon Beach by Geffen’s residence. Geffen and the
city are also suing a number of public agencies including the
California Coastal Commission and the California Coastal
Conservancy.
Those who are working to open the passageway, however, are firm
about their argument for public access to some of
California’s most pristine beaches.
“Homeowners have every right to security, but they know
(the beach) is public property. They imagine it’s their
backyard, but it simply isn’t,” said Steve Hoye,
executive director and founder of Access for All.
State law dictates that areas of the beach up to the high tide
line belong to the public ““ but areas above the line are
sometimes privatized.
Beach homeowners typically apply for development permits and, in
exchange, offer “easements” that can be turned into
public access-ways to the beach by nonprofit or public entities.
Easements expire after 21 years, after which the homeowner has full
claim to his property.
In January, Access for All first attempted to open up
Geffen’s easement to the public to create a 9-foot vertical
passageway from Pacific Coast Highway to the beach.
Despite the permit regulations, some are saying the easement
process violates private property rights.
“As far as we’re concerned, it’s private
property,” said Stanley Roden, Geffen’s attorney,
adding that opening the easement would unlawfully take away private
property.
Not only are Geffen’s private property rights being
violated, but Access for All’s choice to open up
Geffen’s easement is also completely inappropriate because of
its location, said Andy Spahn, a spokesman for Geffen.
“It makes no sense from any rational public policy
standpoint to have it at this point so that people can run across a
six-lane freeway to get to the beach,” said Spahn.
Out of the many easement proposals in Malibu, Geffen’s was
chosen merely to get media attention, said Christi Hogin, an
attorney representing the city of Malibu.
Still, some believe that Geffen’s easement provides unique
access to the beach and is therefore important to open up.
Vertical easements like the one alongside Geffen’s
residence are especially rare because they provide direct and quick
access to the coast, said Sarah Christie, the legislative
coordinator of the California Coastal Commission, which issues
development permits.
“Once you are on the beach, you are good to go, but
it’s actually getting to the beach in the first place that is
the problem in Malibu,” said Christie.
Currently there are approximately only 130 vertical offers to
dedicate out of the 1,300 total easements statewide.
Supporters of opening up the easement stress there are still not
enough entrances allowing access.
The Malibu coast stretches 27 miles, but there are many
stretches running 3-4 miles where the public cannot access the
beach, including the area where Geffen’s residence lies.
Though some argue that some areas in Malibu should be opened up
and others not, Hoye believes that the entire coast should be
accessible to the public.
“We want to open up every beach so that the elderly,
disabled and children won’t have to walk miles to get from
one beach to another,” said Hoye.
But public enjoyment is not the only thing at stake. The coast
is a chief tourist attraction and so must be accessible for the
good of state and local economies, said Dick Wayman, spokesman for
the California Coastal Conservancy, the non-regulatory sister
agency of the Coastal Commission.
Though arguments on both sides are strong, there might be hope
for compromise between the public and private interests.
If a responsible organization were to work out operation hours
and proper maintenance of the passageways, public access could be
allowed without disrupting homeowners, Christie said.
“A proper management plan would be the answer, not to shut
down public access completely,” Christie said.
A Supreme Court case in 1987 raised similar issues about private
residence and city control over public access. While the case ruled
in favor of the homeowner, Geffen’s permit is not subject to
the decision because it was issued in 1983, before the case.
