|
Return to HOME PAGE |
Return to |
Return to Menu of |
Return to Menu of COASTAL COMMISSION |
Opposition to Pebble Beach Co.'s Measure "A" Initiative that changes the
|
|||||||||||
March, 2006 - Mark Massara, Director, Sierra Club's Coastal Programs presented the Commissioners with a summary of problems associated with Pebble Beach Co.'s Measure "A" Initiative that, if approved by the Commissioners, would change Policies and Zoning in the Monterey County Local Coastal Program/Del Monte Forest/Land Use Plan CLICK here to read his five page document, "Measure A - Facts You Should Know" (on this website). |
Carl E. Nielsen
24755 Summit Field Road Carmel, CA 93923 P.O. Box 223358 Carmel, CA 93922-3358 Telephone: (831) 626-6711 Fax: (831) 626-6721 June 7, 2006 Meg Caldwell, Coastal Commission Chair Dear Commissioner Caldwell:
Dear Chair Caldwell: In Mr. Lombardo’s letter of May 15, 2006, pages 2 and 3, he discusses at some length the definition of recreation contained in the Upper and Lower Sawmill Gulch scenic and conservation easements approved as a condition for the development of Spanish Bay Resort in the mid-1980’s. His purpose is to attempt to expand the definition of “recreation” beyond what one would reasonably infer by reading the easements. Unfortunately, Mr. Lombardo resorted to some creative editing in an attempt to prove his point. For example, Mr. Lombardo has edited item F of the Lower Sawmill Gulch easement agreement as follows:
The scenic and conservation easement entered into by the Pebble Beach Company and the County of Monterey as a condition of the Spanish Bay development permit states in Section I - Restrictions on Use: Grantor covenants and agrees that no development or use of the Sawmill Borrow Site shall take place except the following-described development and uses: ( italics indicates words omitted by Mr. Lombardo)
Mr. Lombardo has clearly edited Item F to imply that recreational purpose is the principal or significant allowed use in the Lower Sawmill site. Item F clearly includes open space and scientific study as well as recreational uses. When the term “recreational uses” is viewed in the context of the scenic easement its intent can only be low intensity uses; a fully developed, high intensity equestrian center would never be compatible with the easement’s intent. Mr. Lombard has also taken this approach in his interpretation of the Upper Sawmill Gulch easement instituted by the Coastal Commission in 1987. Mr. Lombardo goes on to state: “Each of these scenic easements thus allows recreational uses and facilities in a portion of the former Sawmill Quarry areas. While I recognize the staff has consistently taken the position that an equestrian center exceeds the scope of those allowed recreational activities, it cannot be denied that some level of recreational activity facility is allowed under the existing easements.” I take great exception to Mr. Lombardo’s attempt to create an impression that the scenic easements allow an expansive interpretation of the word “recreation”. This is his justification for the proposed Measure A zoning of “Open Space Recreation”. The existing “Open Space Forest” zoning on the Sawmill sites and the related scenic and conservation easements mutually support the concept of low intensity recreational uses, i.e., horse riding and hiking trails., etc. I believe strongly that these easements, placed on the Sawmill sites as conditions for the approval of the Spanish Bay development, were conditioned with the words “preserved in perpetuity” for a purpose. Simply stated, the Sawmill sites should stay as the County of Monterey, Coastal Commission and Pebble Beach Company agreed upon in binding contractual obligations they all willingly signed. Mr. Lombardo is trying to undermine strength and purpose of these easements. Please vote to uphold these easements and the “Open Space Forest” zoning on these two sites and find Measure A inconsistent with the Coastal Act. Sincerely, Carl E. Nielsen cc: Coastal Commissioners |
June 7, 2006 Khatchik Achadjian
Dear Mr. Achadjian, Congratulations on becoming one of the twelve California Coastal Commissioners. Your predecessor, Dr. Dan Seacord, has received several letters from us expressing our strong opposition to the subject proposed Major Amendment No. 1-05 to the Monterey County Local Coastal Program/Del Monte Forest LUP. Please carefully consider the enclosed material and the recent June 2nd Coastal Commission Staff Report/Recommendation before you vote at the June 14th public hearing in Santa Rosa.
enclosures |
June 4, 2006 To: Members of the California Coastal Commission: Members of the Commission: There is an inherent contradiction in Measure A. It was sold to the public as a legal instrument that would ensure the protection of the Del Monte Forest in perpetuity. Television ads feature Clint Eastwood walking through the forest, assuring his viewers that the Pebble Beach Company was dedicated to the protection of the forest resource in perpetuity. In actuality, Measure A represents a zoning amendment which will permit the abrogation of existing coastal protection polities contained in the current Local Coastal Plan. This is noting more than a cynical ploy to deceive the public and to facilitate the virtual destruction of what's left of the forest. If the certification of this Initiative ensures an effect contrary to its stated intent, it cannot be deemed legally adequate and must be denied. Respectfully, |
June 2, 2006 Dear Commissioner,
Please consider all of the important comments made by concerned residents at the last pblic hearing when you take action at the June 14th public hearing in Santa Rosa. Copies of some of those comments are enclosed. We urge you to vote against the subject LCP Amendment and Pebble Beach Co.'s proposed major expansion of commercial operations in the Del Monte Forest.
enclosures |
March 5, 2005 Charles Lester, Deputy District Director California Coastal Commission Subject: Pebble Beach Company’s Measure “A” Initiative and Proposed Removal of Dear Mr. Lester, A copy of the enclosed letter concerning the destruction of the existing Equestrian Center and As you know, our organization is opposed to the proposed excessive expansion of commercial In your recommendations to the Commissioners please consider the following guide line:
Thank you and your staff for keeping us informed on the Commission’s action on the proposed major changes in the Del Monte Forest Land Use Plan/LCP zoning and policies as described in the Measure “A” Initiative. Sincerely, /ss/ Carl E. Nielsen /ss/ Ted R. Hunter |
March 2, 2006 California Coastal Commission Dear Commissioners: Subject: Monterey County Local Coastal Program Major Amendment The Concerned Residents of Pebble Beach and Monterey County are pleased to submit comments on Measure A for your consideration. We recognize the Coastal Commission staff has produced a preliminary report and further review is necessary. This being the case we support their position that there be no Commission action at this hearing. One significant Measure A issue involves rezoning major tracts of land to “Open Space Recreation” for golf purposes. Another is the Sawmill Gulch area zoning change from “Open Space Forest” to “Open Space Recreation” and the resulting conflicts with the Spanish Bay development conditions imposed on this site by both the County of Monterey and the California Coastal Commission. Finally, imbedded in Measure A is Appendix A, a 25 year old listing of specific species as endangered and making this list the governing ESHA definition. We believe that all of these Measure A-imposed changes are inconsistent with the California Coastal Act. Rezoning of Area MNOUV for an 18-hole golf course and Area C for a golf driving range is inconsistent with the Coastal Act provisions defining Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA). It has always been our understanding that both these areas are ESHA because of the large, nearly intact stands of Monterey pines, the presence of wetlands, and the prevalence of endangered and rare plants and animals. The staff report clearly supports this position. This being the case, the “Open Space Recreation” zoning which allows for golf courses and related golf activities would be inconsistent with the Coastal Act. When the County of Monterey and the Coastal Commission approved the Spanish Bay development in the mid-80’s the County imposed scenic and conservation easements on the Lower Sawmill Gulch site and the Commission imposed scenic and conservation easements on the Upper Sawmill Gulch site. The zoning was changed to “Open Space Forest” and the Upper Sawmill Gulch site was incorporated into the Huckleberry Hill Natural Habitat Area. These actions were intended to be in perpetuity. Measure A has changed the zoning to “Open Space Recreation” which would allow an equestrian center. Construction of major equestrian-related facilities would be permitted. This would allow a substantial number of equestrian events, related vehicular traffic, and equestrian and special event parking. These uses are totally inconsistent with the easements and the Coastal Act since Huckleberry Hill Natural Habitat Area is clearly ESHA. Finally, the inclusion of Appendix A, List of Environmentally Sensitive Habitat, in Measure A as the governing list is inconsistent with Coastal Act provisions. Title 20, Coastal Implementation Plan for Monterey County, in Section 20.147.020(AA) defines rare and endangered species as “those identified as rare, endangered and/or threatened by the State Department of Fish and Game, United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Native Plant Society and/or pursuant to the 1973 convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna.” This definition is consistent with the Coastal Act definition. This also means that the content of the list is not static but changes as species are added or dropped. Measure A’s Appendix A is static and therefore inconsistent with both the Monterey County Coastal Implementation Plan and the Coastal Act. We feel there are a great many Measure A issues that need further exploration before you make your final decision. We strongly recommend that you defer action on Measure A at the March 9th meeting and wait until the staff has completed its in-depth review. Sincerely, /ss/ Carl E. Nielsen /ss/ Ted R. Hunter |
March 4, 2006
Dear Mr. Lester, From the very young to the very old, the Collins Polo Field and Pebble Beach Equestrian Center is enjoyed by the entire community, as well as visitors. Since before 1929 the people of our community have been using the "Commons on the Green" for all kinds of recreational pleasures, among them, polo, riding, horse shows, rugby matches, dog training, and practice golfing. The location of the equestrian center enables horseback riding to the beach and back in a relative sort period of time. Organized trail rides are enjoyed by visitors and local residents. If the equestrian center is replaced by a golf course, there is not another location in the forest that can provide this service. Losing this community center to another golf course would mean that the entire community would be without their center of unity in order for only the few very rich to play golf. Golfers don't allow others to even walk on their turf. There are already seven golf courses in Pebble Beach. There is only one public community green. This common area allows people to enjoy diverse activities. The enclosed photos were taken on several different days to show some of the daily activities on the polo field and equestrian center. Please think long and hard about what is best for this community. The replacement of a community center with yet another golf course seems inappropriate. Please don't give our only commons area to golfers who already have seven golf courses to choose from right now. Sincerely, Mr. and Mrs. J. Tagg |
Mr. Charles Lester, Deputy Director, California Coastal Commission
To: Concerned Residents of Pebble Beach and Monterey County February 2, 2006 Re: Historic Equestrian Center in Pebble Beach I recently heard about the relocation plans of the PBEC. I really wish that this wasn't being done This center is one of the most important parts of Equestrian Sports on the West Coast. It has such a long and rich history. Moving it will change that. I learned to ride at PBEC in the 70s when Mr. Collins ran the place. I am very fond of my memories there. If the Equestrian Center is moved, I hope it would be at least be built very well and offer the same things that the existing facility does. It should be state of the art, to reflect the clients and people it attracts. I think that it would be almost impossible to replace the PBEC as it is now to be honest, with the history, adjacent Polo Field, etc. It is already well suited for the use there. Why don't they just renovate the old stable? Build a new barn in the place of the old ones? That seems to make more sense to me than relocating it. Pebble Beach already has many wonderful golf courses. They have only one Equestrian Center, with a very long and rich history. Bing Crosby's grand kids, and kids rode here. Clint Eastwood's daughter rode here. Paul Anka's kids rode here, and I am sure I am missing some in that list. It is a wonderful site for PBEC... why move it? It is such a part of the community. I just don't think that it should be moved. I am an a landscape architect. I grew up in the Monterey area. I work in planning and development, but I don't want to see this valuable part of history removed. I think that developing this site would be a real shame and a great loss to many in California and many others across the U.S. who love this place. It is a historic landmark for the entire Equestrian community. To relocate it would erase this. I have contacted others in the Equestrian world about this project. We all feel the same. We don't want to see this center relocated! Sincerely, Kindra Ericksen-Ochoa |
To: Mr. Charles Lester Re: CLEAR CUTTING 1200 Pines and 15 Oaks to make space for 200+ cars on Congress Road. August 21, 2005 As the owner of property at 1024 Majella Road in Pebble Beach and as an environmentally concerned citizen, I protest the construction of the golf Driving Range and, even more so--of a PARKING LOT along Congress Road. In Pebble Beach.The name of this project ("Spanish Bay Driving Range") is deceiving -- a substantial part of this project is creation of a large-capacity (204 spaces!) parking lot there. Maybe the authors of the project thought that Driving Range sounds more environmentally conscious? Construction of the parking lot part should be environmentally separate project--it deserves a separate hearing due to the fact that this project was piggybacked as part of a driving range project and this way effectively CONCEALED from sufficient public scrutiny. Can a parking lot be placed further away from the ocean in the area where clear cutting of the trees will not be required? The name of this project is really CLEAR CUTTING 1200 Pines and 15 Oaks to make space for 200+ cars. It is bizarre that in the 21st century someone wants to eliminate 1200 Monterey Pines and 15 Heritage Oak trees to make spaces for a driving range--lest a parking lot--in one of the most beautiful places in the world. /ss/ |
Aug. 18, 2005 Charles Lester, Deputy District Director Dear Mr. Lester: I am writing to protest the Monterey County Board of Supervisors' action of March, 2005 to approve the Pebble Beach application to amend the approved Use Permit PC-5040) and Use Permit (PC-5405). This action would release this property [Sawmill Gulch area for a new Equestrian Center] from its present restoration and conservation easement. As you recall, this easement was a condition for the permit for the Spanish Bay project, which is currently still in operation and still requiring of such mitigation.In addition, the County continues to refer to Appendix A of the 1984 LCP as defining environmentally sensitive habitat although this has been repeatedly repudiated by the Coastal Commission staff as non-applicable.This action was taken without public notification and outside of the ordinary planning process which is contrary to CEQA requirements. I urge the Coastal Commission to reject this erratic decision making procedure.Finally, the preservation of the Del Monte Forest was ostensibly the basis for Measure A. Since the proposed development proposes to destroy what's left of the Forest, it should be found inconsistent and rejected. Respsectfully, |
Tim Mason 5th July, 2005 RE: Pebble Beach Company Development Plan and Measure A Dear Sirs: I write you this note--one of many notes written by other concerned persons--in regard to the frightening plan captioned above, which would allow for a development of an Equestrian Center in the Sawmill Gulch Area. The city of Pacific Grove lacks the infrastructure to support this illegal project; "illegal" because it runs in breach of written agreements made previously by the Pebble Beach Company establishing an "in perpetuity easement" which prohibits development in this area. Many thousands of trees would be removed, and countless varieties of native shrubs. The Del Monte Park area of nearby Pacific Grove would be transformed from a quiet and domestic residential area into a noisy and booming commercial district adjacent to what might be regarded as a circus-like fairgrounds.We sincerely urge you to consider the real validity of signed agreements regarding the existing easements, and to deny the Pebble Beach Company's request for development of this area. We are aware of the nature and power of the subterranean influences being brought to bear on behalf of this development. Powerful persons and investors (who live in quiet residential areas) are attempting to push through this illicit project. We sincerely hope that you are able to judge the facts objectively and withstand these left-handed pressures by refusing the Pebble Beach Company the right to develop this negative project.Sincerely, /ss/ Tim Mason |
To: Charles Lester From: Karyl Hall, Ed.D. Re: Measure “A” Initiative and applications This memo is in response to the Pebble Beach Company’s plan for major construction projects in Del Monte Forest. We live adjacent to Pescadero Canyon. The Eastern portion of the 17 Mile Drive is across the canyon from our house. We moved back to the tranquility and beauty of this area in 1990. The traffic has increased on the 17 Mile Drive each year until now we cannot even step onto our patio and talk due to the load noises from buses, trucks and speeding cars along the road. The back-up of traffic along Highway 68 is horrendous. I’m beginning to think that I’ve moved to another San Jose, where the big money always wins, and we’re all paying the consequences. Please stop the developers! This area is too precious to be run by the profiteers. We simply cannot accommodate any more cars on the road and destruction of our beautiful habitat. Thank you for your continued protection of our coast. August 18, 2005 |
March 9, 2006 Good afternoon, Commissioners, My name is Beatrice Tagg and I am a resident of Pebble Beach. I'm not a very good public speaker nor a very good photographer, but since I have occasion to go to the Equestrian Center, I've started There is, however, only one public community greens. This common area allows many people to enjoy diverse activities. I have had many occasions to pass the polo field, and often I notice the activities there. One resident of PB told me that she stops off at the equestrian center whenever she feels stressed, because the quiet sounds and pastoral smells of the horses and of the people enjoying them, makes her feel good. These photos were taken on several days to show the different activities going on. Please think long and hard about what is best for the public. The replacement of a community center with yet another golf course seems inappropriate. Please don't give our only commons area to golfers who already have 7 golf courses to choose from right now. The question is how can you replace the community green which is something like Central Park in New York. The answer is, you can't, because it is irreplaceable. Mrs. Beatrice Tagg |
March 9, 2006 Members of the Commission: There is an inherent contradiction in Measure A. It was sold to the public as a legal instrument that would ensure the protection of the DMF in perpetuity. Television ads feature Clint Eastwood walking through the forest assuring his viewers that the PBC was dedicated to the protection of the forest resource in perpetuity. In actuality, Measure A represents a zoning amendment which will permit the abrogation of existing coastal protection polities contained in the current Local Coastal Plan. This is noting more than a cynical ploy to deceive the public and to facilitate the virtual destruction of what's left of the forest. If certification of this Initiative ensures an effect contrary to its stated intent, it must be denied. Janice M O'Brien |
Carl E. Nielsen
24755 Summit Field Road, Carmel, CA 93923 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 223358, Carmel, CA 93922-3358 Telephone: (831) 626-6711 Fax: (831) 626-6721 E-mail: carlos@redshift.com March 9, 2006 California Coastal Commission Dear Commissioners My name is Carl Nielsen.. I am speaking on behalf of the Concerned Residents of Pebble Beach. Measure A’s rezoning of the Upper and Lower Sawmill Gulch sites from Open Space Forest to Open Space Recreation is inconsistent with the Coastal Act and with the agreements made between the Commission, Monterey County and Pebble Beach Company in the mid-80s. A finding of inconsistency with the Coastal Act would uphold the reasonable actions of the Coastal Commissioners 20 years ago. When the County of Monterey and the Coastal Commission approved the Spanish Bay development in the mid-80’s the County imposed a scenic and conservation easement on the Lower site and the Commission imposed a conservation easement on the Upper site. The zoning on both sites was changed to “Open Space Forest” and the Upper site was incorporated into the Huckleberry Hill Natural Habitat Area. Both the current and previous owners of the Pebble Beach Company proposed conversion of the Sawmill Gulch site to an equestrian center despite Section 11 of the Commission easement which states . .
Measure A has changed the zoning on the Upper and Lower sites to “Open Space Recreation” which would allow an equestrian center . This high intensity use in the Upper site is totally inconsistent with the terms and conditions of the Commission’s easements since Huckleberry Hill Natural Habitat Area is clearly an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area. Similarly, this use on the Lower site is also inconsistent with the provisions of the County’s easement. Finally, these two easements are very important commitments made to the residents of Del Monte Forest and the City of Pacific Grove. These residents have every right to expect these easements to remain in effect in perpetuity. After all, they were promised this in 1985. These easements should not be changed simply because they stand in the way of a developer’s plans. The easement issue is just one piece in a set of very complex issues. I urge you to defer Commission action on Measure A until the staff has completed its review. Thank You, |
Ted R. Hunter
Concerned Residents of Pebble Beach and Monterey County P.O. Box 1229 Pebble Beach, CA 93953 March 9, 2006 Honorable Coastal Commission Chair Caldwell Subject: Pebble Beach Company’s Measure “A” Initiative - Major Zoning and Policy changes in Land Use Plan/Local Coastal Plan for Del Monte Forest Dear Chair Caldwell and Commissioners, I am Ted Hunter representing the Concerned Residents of Pebble Beach & Monterey County. I have given your staff copies of this page, (hold up page), listing Arguments Against Measure “A” as printed in the County’s Nov. 2000 Sample Ballot. Unfortunately the voters were taken with Clint’s TV commercials and didn’t read their sample ballot. I am a former President of the Del Monte Forest Property Owners organization and would like you Commissioners and everyone here this evening to know that I have worked with the Pebble Beach Company over the years and found their representatives to be very cooperative. The Company has a good record in the County. However, I am here today to emphasize the concerns many residents in the Forest and all over the County have about the drastic changes the Pebble Beach Company’s Measure “A” Initiative would make in ZONING and POLICIES in the Del Monte Forest Land Use Plan, if it is certified by your Commission. Please follow the recommendation of your Staff. Do not make a decision today on this Initiative. Measure “A” is being promoted as a Forest Preservation Plan. Yes, it includes some additional open space zoning. However, the expansion of commercial visitor-serving zoning to allow excessive commercial development projects is never mentioned. As you have heard today, this Measure, if certified would:
These are our major concerns. Your Staff report covers many other issues including the fact that this developer’s Initiative conflicts with the California Coastal Act. |
California Coastal Commission Meeting, Monterey, CA [March 9, 2006] Good day. I’m Carol McCarthy from Del Monte Park in Pacific Grove and have enjoyed hiking the trails in the Del Monte Forest for decades. It is my hope that the Coastal Commission will consider today the dire environmental consequences Measure A presents to the Del Monte Forest and surrounding areas. Sawmill Site Easements Pebble Beach promised these easement areas would be reforested and permanently protected as a part of the surrounding environmentally-sensitive habitats, the SFB Botanical Preserve, Gowen Cypress, and Pygmy Forest areas. Unfortunately, Pebble Beach made insufficient, token attempts at reforestation. Despite that, the forest there has managed to gradually repopulate on its own. The zoning of these easements presently permits low-intensity recreational use. Measure A would change all that. A high-intensity, 24/7-use Equestrian Center, with huge parking lot, arenas, buildings, etc. crowded onto the Sawmill site would certainly have significant negative impacts on the fragile, surrounding wetlands and forest areas, no matter what spin the Pebble Beach developers put on the project. Special equestrian events throughout the year would bring thousands of people and their horses, who will explore the area, causing severe impacts to the forest and its trails. Particularly vulnerable, a stand of the rare Pygmy Forest is right across the trail from the upper area of the proposed Equestrian Center. It looks like some Pygmy trees may be growing in the imprint of the Equestrian Center. There would be increased traffic in the local neighborhood and the already-congested Holman Highway. The Lower Gulch would be turned into a treeless parking lot for whatever "special events” Pebble Beach Company has in mind. Over 3,000 trees would be destroyed at the Sawmill site alone and the wetlands there will surely suffer. Mitigations for the recognized significant impacts in the EIR are questionable and in some cases unenforceable. The Equestrian Center development would break up a major conservation zone in the surviving Del Monte Forest. As the Coastal Commission has said, preserving large, contiguous areas is recognized as the preferred method of forest maintenance. The more a forest is broken up with development, the less chance for its survival. Of interest, A 2002 report from the US Fish and Wildlife Service, entitled “A Draft Recovery Plan for Five Plants from Monterey County, CA.”(Volume 67, Number 92). talks about protection of habitat… H. Recovery Strategy, page 39
Please consider this in your decision of the fate of the easements. Spanish Bay Driving Range Closing
Thank you. Carol McCarthy |
Dear Commissioners, My name is Barbara Livingston. I was a 3 term Carmel City Council member and I am a long term resident of the Monterey Peninsula. My friends and I always think of you and your staff as our last line of defense for matters pertaining to the preservation of our coastal environment, and we thank you for all your hard work. To help you deliberate this issue, please consider the results of a survey by the Public Policy Institute of California. Nearly 1/2 of those polled said that the Coastal Commission is not strict enough in limiting coastal development. Only 10% said that you are too strict. A majority favored limiting coastal development even if it meant less available housing on the coast. Bottom line: Even in a state as diverse as California, there's common ground. It's on the coast! (From Monterey Herald editorial, Feb. 24, 2006.) So when you deliberate on this agenda item in Santa Rosa in June, please think positively. Think ES! for the reservation of the Pebble Beach forest and then vote to deny the chopping down of 17,000 trees in order to build yet another golf course for the privileged few. This item has nothing to do with the pines on Jacks Peak or at the Old Capitol site. The habitats of those forests differ and those locations can not be considered as mitigation for the loss of 17,000 trees within Del Monte Forest. So remember. Think positively. Vote YES! to preserve the trees in the forest and deny the building of yet another golf course. Thank you very much. |
PAULINE ALLEN DESIGNS March 10, 2006 Comments at Coast Commission Hearing on pebble Beach Company's Measure A Thank you Chairperson Caldwell & Commissioners for the opportunity to speak. My name is Pauline Allen and as a longtime resident of the Peninsula I believe it is our responsibility to leave a legacy to our children and grandchildren so future generations may share in this unique gift tat Mother Nature brings to us. Just as our jewel of Pt. Lobos was protected from the chain saw and bulldozers - we should do the same for the Monterey Pine forest. When will we have enough golf courses? The next owners of Pebble Beach Company will also want to squeeze even tighter to extract the last ounce of gold. Mother Nature doesn't have corporate lawyers to defend her. She requires: Let Her be in Her glory! As Carmel's poet Robinson Jeffers wrote 'Fire and the axe are devils!' The Peninsula and ESHA (the environmentally sensitive habitat area) need to be protected by the Coastal Commission. Thank you. |
Harvey E. Billig, III, M.D. March 8, 2006 Re: Pebble Beach Project, Measure A - Item Th8b To: Honorable Coastal Commissioners and Staff: I would like to tank the Commission and Staff for the strong support you have given to the protection of or coastal environment on the Monterey Peninsula. Your forceful adherence to the goals and intent of the Coastal Act is one of the most important defenses we have against the endless onslaught of those who would sacrifice our irreplaceable natural resources for the short-term real estate and resort development plans of Pebble Beach company. In 1982,the Coastal Commission agreed to permit the development of Spanish Bay based on an agreement with Pebble Beach Company that this would be the last golf course. The forests in two major areas were to be protected by easements. In 2000 via a very clever political maneuver, Pebble Beach company ran a county-wide initiative, Measure A. It was promoted by promises of environmental protection, especially of the forest, and with slick advertising to sell the proposed plan. Little did many know of all the details. The promotion was very misleading. I urge you to enforce your 1982 agreement and the Coastal Act and to protect this fragile and undeveloped forest area. Sincerely, H. E. Billig, III, M.D. |
Marcy 8, 2006 To: California Coastal Commission and Staf Thank you for the very detailed and thorough staff report on this item. The staff has done an outstanding job for the Commission and the public in evaluating this issue. I am very pleased to be here before you today, but I am outraged that the County of Monterey and the Pebble Beach Company have been able to delay this meeting and your review of the plan for 5 years. The staff report on page 21 even references the fact that the proposed plan and the necessary LCP amendments were still incomplete at the time the Staff report was prepared. It clearly appears that the County is favoring the development interest of the Pebble Beach Company over the best overall interest of the public and the environment. The County unilaterally lacks the authority to approve this project and issue coastal development permits for the proposed plan if they are inconsistent with the County's LCP. I strongly urge you to reject the County's high-handed and illegal approach as well as Measure A. The Herald reported on March 29, 1985 that the Spanish Bay Development would be the last hotel and golf course in Pebble Beach and the Del Monte Forest. This reported understanding delineating the parameters of development in the Del Monte Forest is what we all have understood and have been depending on for 20 years to protect vital coastal resources. This understanding must stand or a dangerous precedent will be set. Measure A deceived the public because while under the guise of protecting the forest, wetlands and critical species, it in fact would also destroy 17,000 irreplaceable Monterey pines. Measure A was sold as an environmentally sensitive plan. It would never have passed had the public known the truth. Thank you so much for your public service and being here today to listen to our concerns. Sincerely, Melanie C. Billig |
Mrs. W. V. Graham Matthews March 9, 2006 Madam Chair, Commissioners: My name is Mary Ann Matthews, Conservation Chair for the Monterey Bay Chapter of CNPS. You have received a letter from our president, Brian LeNeve, pointing out some of the worst inconsistencies between the Coastal Act, the DMP LCP and Measure A. Rather than recite those points here, I would like to give you a very brief assessment of this issue from the standpoint of someone who has lived here for over 50 years and has been involved in coastal conservation most of that time. Having been appointed by the Governor to the Regional Coastal Commission in 1980 I have more understanding than most of the challenges you face. You will probably hear from some members of our society who have connections with PB and support the project. That is their right, of course, but it's important for you to know that for several years our State CNPS studied the decline of Monterey pines from habitat loss and fragmentation, disease, especially pitch canker, invasive species, etc. and developed a policy "recommending that there should be no further removal of healthy non-hazardous native Monterey pines except for minimal removal on existing lots of record and to meet fire safety requirements." The policy urged a regional conservation plan to identify critical areas that support the greatest genetic diversity. If that had been done we might have a much better idea of where development could be sited with the least damage . But alas, it didn't happen, and so we are faced with the loss of arguably some of the rarest types of pines in the golf course and driving range areas. My own connection with the PB Co, then DMF Co. goes back to my first job after I moved here, working on the 1956 Crosby Golf Tournament, which I enjoyed and continued for the next 20 years. So I have nothing but the warmest memories of my association with the company--I just want it to do what is right and legal. The company promised as part of the Spanish Bay conditions to restore the part of the Huckleberry Hill natural area that was degraded by mining, yet after planting the trees they didn't water them and most of them died. They also were supposed to eliminate invasive weeds, which you may have seen are overrunning Sawmill Gulch. Now they want to be rewarded for their negligence by being allowed to plant a huge equestrian development right in the midst of this priceless area. And evens to lift two scenic easements intended to assure the long-term recovery of the natural habitat. Most of us in this area worked in 1968 and 1969 for passage of coastal protection legislation, carried by our own Republican senator Don Grunsky, and when that failed, collected signatures for Prop. 20 on an initiative that overwhelmingly passed to create the first Coastal Commission. (I entreat you to compare that initiative, a grassroots volunteer effort compared to Measure A which was brought by a million-dollar campaign of glossy, deceptive mailings urging voters to 'help Clint save the forest.' You are our last hope to bring some sanity and fairness to the process. Please help find a middle ground that will protect what famous botanist, G. Ledyard Stebbins called "a priceless heritage"and went on to say that "all who live here are its stewards. Those who own large parts of it, the principle of noblesse oblige applies with particular force." Thank you. |
Monterey Bay Chapter P.O. Box 221303 California Coastal Commission RE: March 9 Meeting: Measure A: Item 8b Dear Commissioners: The Monterey bay Chapter of CNPS appreciates the opportunity to express our specific concerns about the habitat impacts that would occur under Measure A, the developer-sponsored and -financed initiative which eliminated public and local government input into zoning changes in order to expedite a major construction project in Pebble Beach. Our chapter has been working to protect the sensitive habitats of Del MOnte Forest for the past 35 years, since it was formed in 1966-678. We testified all through the development of the Local Coastal Plan, pointing out the inconsistencies between the Coastal Act policies and the land use plan. We also commented consistently on the shortcomings of projects such as Spanish Bay. We have been very critical of the habitat impacts of the various expansion proposals put forth by PBC in the past 15 years. 1. ESHA: A key issue is the failure of Measure A to recognize the extent of the Environmentally Sensitive Habitat in the Del Monte Forest, as defined by the Coastal Act, and to work within the policies protecting this habitat. The original Local Coastal Plan for the forest did not accurately identify this habitat. However, the Coastal Act does not sanction use of an out-of-date plan when more up-to-date information is available. 2. New Stables: The construction of new stables complex in the Huckleberry Hill Natural Habitat Area depends on the removal of two scenic easements accepted by Pebble Beach Co. as part of the mitigation in Sawmill gulch as well as wetlands in both the upper and lower quarries. Restoration efforts were abandoned and the area is now overrun with invasive weeds. It is unconscionable that the proponents now want to develop this area on the basis that it is degraded when their violation of a permit condition allowed this to happen. 3. New Golf Course: This project is highly destructive of sensitive habitat, both Monterey pine and endangered plants, particularly the Federally-listed Yadon's piperia. A compromise proposal for a nine-hole addition to 'spyglass that would avoid the most sensitive areas and permit retention of the existing stables has been put forth by a credible group of local residents including golf experts, but has been ignored by Pebble Beach Co. 4. Area 8C: This area has been identified as high priority for preservation because it contains wetlands and one of the few remaining areas of native pine forest on middle-aged dunes, according to the Jones & Stokes Report. The current proposal for a driving range, golf academy, parking area, and related structures is considerably more destructive to the pine forest, wetlands and endangered species than the housing proposed in the old plan. 5. Residential Development: We are deeply concerned about the lots in PQR and F3, which will impact a particularly sensitive forest stand and preservation area. The mitigation for loss of the pine forest from these and other projects are inadequate. The areas proposed to be set aside are not all comparable to those that will be lost. 6. Endangered Species: Thousands of endangered plants and animals will be destroyed by this plan, but the proposed mitigation, to transplant and grow them elsewhere, is not science-based. By avoiding the most sensitive areas, we believe the impacts could be reduced to less than significant. Thank you for consideration of these comments. Sincerely yours, Brian LaNeve, President
|
| To Coastal Commission: I have asked this nice young lady to read my statement to you as I was unable to attend today. My name is Susan Goldbeck, I am a Pacific Grove City Councilmember but I am addressing to you today as a concerned, long- time resident. I believe that the Pebble Beach Development Plan is all wrong for this area It will quite simply do damage that can never be undone. Perhaps most troubling to me is the way this all went down. When the developers of this project knew they would never get it passed under existing land use regulations, the rich and famous owners of Pebble Beach Company got themselves a brilliant, diabolical plan. They simply went out and bought themselves a passel of new land use regulations through the initiative process tailor made just for this developement. They titled it Measure A and the folks who pitched it for them had the audacity to give it the moniker, "Clint Eastwood's the Save the Del Monte Forest initiative." This is quite a claim since the project involves the removal of seventeen thousand Del Monte Forest trees. Voters were taken in and there was little money opposing the big guns and big money promoting this initiative. The Coastal Commission's staff apparently has not been taken in. Their recent report has done a good job in pointing out the extreme destruction to this environmentally sensitive area that will occur if this development gets the go-ahead. You, as Coastal Commissioners, are the gatekeepers of these types of sensitive areas up and down our magnificent coast. I am confident that Hollywood star power will not blind you to your duty here. |
• HOME
PAGE • LINKS • PEBBLE
BEACH DEVELOPMENT • MONTEREY
COUNTY • COASTAL
COMMISSION •
• ACTION
ON MEASURE "A" • LAND
USE PLANS • PUBLIC
HEARINGS • SCENIC
EASEMENTS • WATER
ISSUES •
• EDITORIALS • NEWS
ARTICLES
• NEWS
FOR RESIDENTS • ABOUT
CONCERNED RESIDENTS
• TOP
OF PAGE