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 |
|
CLICK here to download this Coastal Commission Public Hearing Notice (300KB pdf) |
|||
March 5, 2006 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 |
|
• 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