I feel compelled to respond to the comments by Mr. Chuck Damm of the California Coastal Commission in the April 4 edition, “Coastal offers answers.”
I am truly disappointed that a public employee would engage in such obfuscation of the truth. I was particularly appalled by Mr. Damm’s explanation of the impact of the ESHA (Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area) designations and the 10,000 square foot definition. He failed to note that virtually all of Malibu is designated as an ESHA, making most of the existing homes “non-conforming uses,” a situation, which will have to be brought into compliance when any future permit is required. He also stretched the truth in describing the square foot requirement as “total land covered.” The plan actually called for “disturbed area” not to exceed 10,000 square feet. There is a big difference when you consider slopes, corals, landscaping, fences, orchards and crops are included in the definition of “disturbed area.”
Clearly, the Coastal Commission does not want the residents of Malibu to know, or even to understand, that if their parcel is less than 40 acres, at some future date they will have to relocate their pools, tennis courts, guest houses, vineyards, corrals and patios to fit within the 10,000 square feet. This is nothing more than a bureaucratic effort to d-populate Malibu of all its buildings, horses, pets and people. If Mr. Damm does not understand that, then maybe he should re-read and review his own plan.
Ruth L. Gerson, president
Recreation and Equestrian Coalition.