The California Coastal Commission Thursday approved an agreement with Malibu homeowner Lisette Ackerberg for the construction of a public access way through her property to Carbon Beach.
The agreement comes after years of litigation surrounding the effort to open up the access way along a mile-long stretch of exclusive beach-front homes along the Malibu coast known as "Billionaires Beach." The exclusive stretch of beach is home to Oracle CEO Larry Ellison, entertainment mogul David Geffen and former Dodgers CEO Jamie McCourt.
"This image of a wall of private development along the coast in Malibu represented ground zero in terms of holding onto to access for the public. Sometimes with these small access ways there is a lot still be preserved, to fight for and to save," Coastal Commissioner Jana Zimmer said.
In November, the California Supreme Court upheld a decision by a lower court that reaffirmed a 2009 Coastal Commission order that required Ackerberg to allow public access from the Pacific Coast Highway to the beach and remove the obstacles blocking the path.
Dianne Abbitt, an attorney for Ackerberg, told Coastal Commissioners Thursday in San Diego that Ackerberg and her late husband are staunch environmentalists and that she has already started to open up the access way. Abbitt said her client agreed to open up the easement when the courts did not rule in her favor.
"We have an excellent plan to create an access way which is going to be ADA compliant," Abbitt said. "We look forward to having it completed and having the access way opened."
As part of the agreement, Ackerberg will pay the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority $35,000 a year for 10 years for the operation and maintenance of the access way.
She will also pay $350,000 to a violation remediation account managed by the MRCA and she will pay $160,000 a year to the account for each year until the access easements are open. In addition, she agreed to pay $170,000 in attorneys fees. The total fees equal more than $1.1 million.
In 2009, Access for All, a non-profit which manages and maintains several of Malibu’s public access ways, filed a lawsuit against Ackerberg to compel her to remove a series of developments that blocked the path to the beach, including a concrete slab, generator, light posts and a 9-foot-high wall, according to court documents. That easement has since been transferred to the management of the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority, which is a partner with the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy.
Abbitt said previously that Access for All settled the lawsuit under the stipulation that the non-profit would attempt to open another public access way located 500 feet from Ackerberg’s property.
The other access way is owned by the county and runs across portions of the Malibu Outrigger Condominium’s parking lot, Abbitt said.
Abbitt said Ackerberg paid the non-profit $125,000 to construct the path and another $125,000 to maintain it. However, the county access way was never opened and on July 8, 2009, the CCC filed its own separate administrative cease and desist order against Ackerberg. The court's ruling vacated the settlement agreement between Ackerberg and Access For All. That active case is expected to be dismissed on March 29.
According to the CCC, the public access point is about one third of a mile from the Zonker Harris public entry point and half a mile from the David Geffen entrance point to the coast. Geffen does not pay for the maintenance of the access way.
Both the county access way and the one on Ackerberg’s property lead to Carbon Beach.
Stay connected with Malibu Patch throughout the day on Facebook and Twitter. Subscribe to our free daily newsletter for email updates and breaking news alerts.
This attitude that beaches are private property is the same as if a private residence abutted a public park and the owners claimed the park is an extension of their "private property" because, after all, there are plenty of public parks nearby. Coastline beaches are never private property no matter how you spin it. People building near them know this very well before they build or buy but after they move in they suddenly want the beach area to be private. I agree 100% with Access For All and I'm glad they are standing their ground for all of us.
Vegetarianism is not good for the land or the human body. This country had acres upon acres of incredibly rich soil because there were millions of animals living on it. Now that most of them are wiped out, our land is suffering = the environment is suffering. We don't have as many ruminants that we once did and now you buy into this vegetarianism band wagon belief that the animals are causing environmental damage? Rice patties cause more environmental damage than raising live stock. Educate yourself and get off the hate train.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10786-cows-pigs-and-sheep-environments-greatest-threats.html http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2010/03/22/Environmental-impact-of-livestock-studied/UPI-21481269269240/ The environmental impact of meat: http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/meat/review.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production Rearing cattle produces more greenhouse gases than driving cars, UN report warns http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?newsID=20772CR1=warning#.UTpDeoZ618E This is not a subject up for personal, un-researched opinions, there are inconvenient FACTS to consider for meat eaters. No hate; just facts. I don't give a fried tofu burger what John or any other person eats. Here's the health impact from meat consumption: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/no-surprise-meat-is-bad-for-you/ http://www.jewishjournal.com/socialjusticerav/item/the_health_risks_of_meat_consumption https://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&tab=nw#q=health+effects+of+meat+consumption&hl=en&source=univ&tbm=nws&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=ZUQ6Uan4N9PdqQH3_ICADw&ved=0CFgQqAI&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.43287494,d.aWM&fp=1e0d0f50cb33d6bc&biw=1920&bih=887 http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/?articleID=2000078850&story_title=Kenya-Research-links-early-death-to-processed-meat But I'm pulling for you John! Please eat a lot more bacon - do it for me! Thanks!
I am against CAFOs more than you know and do not support them, but blaming this on meat eaters is childish and not very smart. I'm sure you are a very nice guy and your heart is in the right place, but you are misinformed it you think being a vegetarian is helping anybody including yourself. Please take a look.
Things eat other things - that's the way it works. Try laying naked in your flower garden and see how many things eat you. That's how life works. You just think it's ok to kill things that don't look like you - two eyes and walks. There are hundreds of animals killed every time a field is plowed so if you eat vegetables, corn, wheat, etc. you are contributing to thousands of deaths. Being cruel to the animals you consume is another thing all together. I agree that there are many problems with confined animal feeding operations that have environmental and humanitarian backlashes but most of your list above is not true and is propaganda from the vegetarian reich. Eating meat has nothing to do with obesity. Did you just make that up? There is nothing but good science behind eating meat and being of a healthy weight. Obesity, now a-days, is from eating too much processed food, and refined carbohydrates. The greenhouse gas theory is crazy. There are so many less animals in the US now. Remember the bison and how there were millions of them and now there are not? What about all the deer and other ruminants. Did you forget about them? Plus the studies your husband linked to are taking reading from a small area where the CAFO's are located and not the planet where we all live. Clearly they are heavier in those areas. Again, rice patties let off more greenhouse gas than cows.
Desertification may occur when the farmers know nothing about raising cattle and moving them from paddock to paddock. This is rare and in most cases the presence of cattle will increase the land's vegetation and health of the soil. Mono-croping is where I think you are getting mixed up. Thanks for the article(s). These articles that you and your husband point out are from CAFOs and not about eating responsibly raised meat. I remember reading that you guys grow a lot of your own food, which is awesome, but I hope that you guys decide to buy organic more often than I remember reading. Again, thanks for the discussion. Let's not be mean to each other. Respectfully I feel that we are both against the same kind of things but we are taking a different approach. I eat meat for my health and I feel that responsibly and humanly raised meat is the only way to go. You are avoiding eating meat because you feel it is the best way to be a good human.
I love bacon. No reason for you to wish something bad on me (even though it's not bad) I never touch tofu - I am into health and not interested in increasing my estrogen, growing boobs, losing my hair or worse - some friend you would be. Also, just because you read it does not make it FACT. You should know that - your grandmother did. There is good science and more bad science. Check out the lipid theory, the 7 countries study and how the cholesterol myth all got started. Your conventional "wisdom" is old news Buddy. Here's a short video you can watch that will at least tell you about the myth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swrKkwlnSnI Here's another that will explain how it snow-balled into conventional "wisdom." Please take the time to check it out. You can disagree with it if you want. It's entertaining too. http://bit.ly/YeykGv