June 7, 2006

Meg Caldwell, Coastal Commission Chair
Stanford Law School
559 Nathan Abbott Way
Owen House Room 6
Stanford, CA 94305-8610

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:

That scenic easement allows “use for recreational purposes and construction,
maintenance and repair, and use of facilities related to . . . recreational uses . . . “

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)

F. Use for open space and recreational purposes and scientific study and the construction, maintenance, repair and use of facilities related to maintenance and use for open space, recreational and scientific study uses.

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
      Dr. Charles Lester
      Rick Hyman
      Dan Carl