|
Return to |
Return to |
Return to Menu of |
|
Summary of letters and communications on Measure "A" processing
|
|
STATE OF CALIFORNIA -THE
RESOURCES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS, Governor April 3, 2002 Thom McCue, Planner Subject: Notice of Preparation for Pebble
Beach Company's Proposed Development Proposal
(Monterey County Application Number PLN0l0254 and
PLN0l034I; SCH# 2002021130) - aka "Del Monte Forest
Preservation and Development Project" Dear Mr. McCue: Thank you for forwarding the above-referenced
Notice of Preparation (NOP) to our office for
review. The NOP for this project was received in
our office on March 4, 2002. Our understanding of
the proposed project, based on Table 1 of the
Initial Study, is that it consists of a Combined
Development Permit application for development as
summarized below, and an amendment to the existing
Spanish Bay Permit for relocation of the equestrian
center to the Sawmill Gulch area: We are pleased that the NOP has incorporated
many of the concerns that Coastal Commission staff
have voiced in the past regarding potential impacts
that project components may have on environmentally
sensitive habitat areas, including Monterey pine
forest, wetlands, riparian habitat and coastal dune
habitat. Additionally, we want to ensure that the
project EIR takes into account the following
comments: Finally, it is our
understanding that the County intends to use the
information gathered in the EIR process in its
submittal for an LCP amendment to incorporate the
land use/zoning designation changes provided for in
Measure A. We note that the Measure A amendment
would provide for a broader range of potential uses
(e.g., recreational) or alternative uses that the
currently proposed specific project analyzed in the
EIR. Therefore, for such cases, the County's LCP
amendment submittal will need to include adequate
information that describes any difference in impact
or magnitude of impacts than that determined for
the specific project. Also, in order to evaluate
the proposed Measure A LCP amendment, the County
submittal will need to describe and evaluate the
adequacy of the improvements that have been made,
or are proposed, with regard to traffic,
water service, and waste discharge
requirements that would make it possible to remove
the constraints overlays related to these public
infrastructure requirements. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the
NOP. With the clarifications described herein, we
expect that the DEIR document will provide a
sufficient level of detail to allow for a careful
analysis of the project for Coastal Act and LCP
policy conformance issues. We look forward to
reviewing the draft EIR and will provide additional
substantive comments at that time. If you have any questions, please do not
hesitate to call me at (83 1) 427-4893. Sincerely , /ss/ Kelly Cuffe Cc: |
|
|
STATE OF CALIFORNIA -THE
RESOURCES AGENCY - - - -ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,
Governor March 22, 2004 Subject: Draft Environmental Impact
Report titled "Pebble Beach Company's Del Monte
Forest Preservation and Development Plan" (SCH #
2002021 130) Dear Mr. McCue: Thank you for forwarding the above-referenced
Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) to our
office for review. We appreciate the information
developed and presented in the DEIR, and the level
of complexity and difficulty associated with an
evaluation of a project of this magnitude. The
Pebble Beach Company's (PBC) project is one of the
largest to be proposed in the Central Coast in
recent years, it involves significant coastal
resources, and it remains very controversial. As
you know, it is important that any Local Coastal
Program (LCP) and coastal development permit (CDP)
decisions in this matter be well-supported with
clear and comprehensive evidence and analysis, and
the CEQA process plays a critical role in this
regard. In light of this, we are concerned that some of
the fundamental coastal resource issues raised by
the PBC project are not framed correctly thus far
in the DEIR, and that this significantly
compromises the utility of the document for
purposes of LCP and coastal development permit
decision-making. In particular, we don't believe
that the DEIR accurately frames the environmentally
sensitive habitat area (ESHA) issues associated
with the project and Measure A, and has mostly
overlooked our previous comments in this regard.
Because the EIR will be used by the County and the
Commission for LCP and CDP decision making, we
believe the process is better served by the County
circulating a revised DEIR that is significantly
changed as described below. Therefore, our comments
here are brief, limited primarily to highlighting
what we believe to be the significant DEIR problems
in need of correction. For example, the DEIR
continues to rely on mitigation for impacts as
opposed to avoidance of ESHA as required by the
Coastal Act. We have also attached our previous
comments on PBC's proposal for development within
the forest and its relation to Monterey County LCP
requirements (i.e., the PBC Lot Program
(predecessor) project and Measure A) and on the
protection of the forest's Monterey pine habitat
specifically (i.e., our periodic LCP review draft
findings) that remain relevant inasmuch as they
provide background information, draft discussion of
Monterey pine forest habitat issues, and more
detail with respect to the concerns summarized in
this letter (see attached correspondence and our
excerpted LCP periodic review findings). Please
include these attachments within the CEQA record as
a portion of our input on the DEIR. Finally and more generally, we are concerned
that the DEIR does not correctly identify the
extent of ESHA within the forest and the proposed
development areas, in part because it fails to
adequately address the Coastal Act ESHA issues
raised by the potential LCP amendments (pursuant to
Measure A) upon which the project is contingent. As
we have previously communicated, inasmuch as the
PBC project is contingent on the LCP amendments of
Measure A, these amendments must be submitted to
the Commission for review and action under the
Coastal Act before the PBC project could be
affirmatively and finally acted on by the County.
Similarly, the project relies in part on CDP
amendments that have not yet been applied for by
PBC. In the interest of facilitating the public
review and the decision-making process, therefore,
we recommend that the DEIR be revised to address
the comments of this letter and the Commission's
previous comments (see attached) and be
recirculated for public review, particularly with
respect to ESHA issues, and that the County first
submit the Measure A LCP amendment request to the
Commission (and wait for a final action) before
taking any further action on the project . Process We recognize that PBC's proposed project and
Measure A are entwined. We also recognize that
PBC's project would require amendments to existing
permits, including the Commission's Spanish Bay
CDP. However, the DEIR is inadequate inasmuch as it
relies on future Commission certification of
Measure A and approval of permit amendments to
address and mitigate various LCP inconsistencies
and impacts due to the proposed project (see, for
example, discussion in DEIR Chapter 3.1).
Commission certification of Measure A and
Commission and County CDP amendments should not be
relied upon in this context,. Rather, these are
separate processes where the outcome is both
uncertain and critical to whether the proposed
project can proceed, and in what form. As such, we recommend that
the County first submit the Measure A LCP amendment
request, and wait until after the Commission has
acted on it, before further considering or acting
on the PBC project. The outcome of the LCP
amendment will weigh heavily on whether a project
is appropriate and in what form, and this broader
planning context should proceed before further
project level review. Moreover, if the County
intends to use the DEIR to satisfy some of the LCP
amendment submittal requirements (see also our
November 21, 2000 and March 30, 2001 letters
attached in this regard), then the DEIR should
include an analysis of the LCP changes proposed as
evaluated against the Coastal Act (which would be
the primary standard of review for Measure A). It
should also be modified to address the comments in
this submittal. In addition, we
recommend that PBC first pursue the required
amendments to the Spanish Bay permits (and related
easements), and wait until after the County and the
Commission have acted on them, before the County
further considers or acts on the PBC project.
Like Measure A, the decision rendered on any
such amendment applications will necessarily inform
whether portions of the proposed project are
appropriate and in what form (see also our previous
correspondence attached on these required
amendments). On this point we note that because the
County conditions of approval were incorporated
into the Commission's Spanish Bay CDP, any changes
to County conditions are also necessarily changes
to Commission conditions and thus must go through
the Commission. In addition, the DEIR should be
corrected to indicate that such amendments are
required, and not that they "may" be required. ESHA and Avoidance The DEIR continues to use the interpretation
that the LCP's Del Monte Forest Land Use Plan (LUP)
Figure 2 and Appendix A define all ESHAs within the
forest. We continue to disagree with this
methodology, and don't believe that it is the
correct interpretation of how to identify ESHA
within the forest under the certified LCP (please
see our previous comments attached in this regard).
The Del Monte Forest in general, and the proposed
development area specifically, are home to a high
number of sensitive species and/or significant
habitat resources. Much of this habitat is
interrelated understory and overstory (like the
Monterey pine-Yadon's piperia association). We do
not agree with the DEIR categorization that some of
these resources are ESHA and some not based
strictly on LUP Figure 2 and Appendix A. There are
at least nineteen species of plants in the project
area that are considered to be rare or endangered
for the purposes of CEQA, and at least seven of
these that are state and/or federally listed.
Similarly there exists habitat for at least
thirteen special-status wildlife species in the
project area, and at least four listed species have
been documented in the project area. The DEIR
clearly shows that severe impacts to these
resources would be expected with the proposed
project. We cannot agree that only that portion of
these species shown on LUP Figure 2 and Appendix A
(circa 1984) are ESHA as defined by the LCP and the
Coastal Act, and are the only habitats, therefore,
to which ESHA protections apply. To take this
approach lacks biological common sense. For
example, Yadon's piperia, a federally-listed
endangered species found almost exclusively on the
Monterey peninsula and in the Del Monte Forest, had
not yet even been discovered in 1984, and thus is
not represented in the 1984 LUP references. Yet,
listed endangered species habitat is, almost by
definition, typically considered to be ESHA by the
Commission. The fact that Federal and California
Engendered Species Act "take" authorization would
be required for species that would be displaced by
the project but that are not listed in LUP Appendix
A (like California red-legged frog) is a good
indicator that there is more ESHA present than only
that in the 1984 LUP references. We recommend that the DEIR be modified to assess
impacts to LCP and CEQA-recognized rare or
endangered species habitat, including all listed
species habitat, and all wetlands, particularly
where associations of various sensitive species
exist, as ESHA. This includes undeveloped areas of
indigenous Monterey pine forest (identified by the
California Native Plant Society as a List 13
species; see also attached letters, and attached
LCP periodic review findings on Monterey pine in
this regard). Please note that the LCP defines
"rare and/or endangered species" in the Del Monte
Forest 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" (LCP Section 20.147.020(AA)). This
LCP definition is clear, and is an appropriate
method for defining which species' habitats in the
forest are considered ESHA. In addition, the proposed project and the DEIR
rely overwhelmingly on mitigation for impacts to
ESHA (and for impacts to "non-ESHA" (per the DEIR)
sensitive habitat). In fact, the DEIR indicates
that all project impacts can be mitigated to a less
than significant level. This includes, for example,
the impact from the project of removing over 27
acres of Yadon's piperia habitat (or about 20% of
the entire Del Monte Forest population and about
12% of the known population). We do not agree with
this treatment of rare and/or endangered species
habitat impacts, including Yadon's piperia habitat
impacts. The LCP requires habitat avoidance and
buffering, not mitigation for habitat loss (again,
see attached). Non-resource dependent development
within ESHA is not allowed by the LCP, and 100-foot
ESHA buffers are required. The DEIR's impact
assessment should be modified so that it is
premised on these avoidance and buffering
principles. Furthermore, based on the Coastal Act
and applicable LCP sections, we consider each of
the following to be significant effects within the
meaning of CEQA: any non resource-dependent
development and/or use in ESHA; any
resource-dependent development and/or use in ESHA
that would result in a significant disruption of
ESHA habitat values; and any development adjacent
to ESHA that would result in impacts which would
significantly degrade ESHA. For these, and at a
minimum, we consider significant effects
attributable to non resourcedependent development
and/or use in ESHA to be unmitigatable. We
recommend that the DEIR be modified to categorize
and assess any such impacts according to this
methodology. Alternatives Based on our current understanding, it appears
that the proposed project raises serious Coastal
Act and LCP issues in light of the significant
resources that would be displaced by it (see also
our previous comments attached in this regard). We
recommend that an alternative project be evaluated
and pursued (in the DEIR and otherwise) that is
purely based on resource and constraint
identification and avoidance. In other words,
constraints should first be mapped (including,
ESHA, other resources, steep slopes, etc.),
LCP-required buffers should then be applied
(including the 100-foot ESHA buffers), and then a
project should be shaped based on the
non-constraint and non-buffer area, where ESHA
areas and buffers specifically are spared from
anything but resource-dependent development that
won't significantly disrupt the resources. In this
regard, the project may take the shape of using
existing developed areas more intensively (such as
through the use of underground parking with other
uses above, as is proposed in some parts of the
project), and concentrating impacts in existing
developed areas and where they will have the least
impact on resources. We note that such a project
would be much more consistent with the project
objectives identified in DEIR Chapter 2 than is the
proposed project. Other DEIR issues We are primarily concerned with the larger
issues described above, but have a series of
comments on individual portions of the DEIR as
follows: We hope that these comments help to frame the
LCP and CDP context for this project and future
development within the Del Monte Forest. In the
interest of facilitating the decision processes of
the County and the Commission to the maximum degree
feasible, we would welcome and invite you to engage
in more direct consultation with our planning staff
with respect to the various biological and ESHA
issues raised by the project. Although the project
will no doubt remain controversial, it is important
that the County and the Commission maximize the
extent to which we are working from a common
knowledge base, including biologic expertise,
concerning the basic facts and science underlying
the various resources at issue. We continue to be
available to the County and PBC, within the
restrictions of our limited staffing, for such
consultation. Attachments: Commission Letters dated May 19,
1999, October 28, 1999, October 23,
2000, November 21, 2000, March 30,
2001, and April 3, 2002; and
December, 2003, (Draft Periodic LCP Review
Findings for "Protection of Monterey Pine Forest
Habitat") |
|
|
|
STATE OF CALIFORNIA -THE
RESOURCES AGENCY - - - -ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,
Governor November 17, 2004 Subject: Monterey County Public Hearings on
"Pebble Beach Company's Del Monte Forest
Preservation and Development Plan" Project (PLN
010254, PLN 010341, and PLN 040160) Dear Mr. McCue: Thank you for forwarding the County Subdivision
Committee hearing notice to our office last week
regarding the above-referenced project, as well as
forwarding the County's staff report for that
hearing to our office this week. According to these
materials, the County Subdivision Committee intends
to have a hearing on the Pebble Beach Company
project on November 18, 2004, to be followed by
Planning Commission and Board of Supervisor
hearings starting in January 2005. The Subdivision
Committee is being asked to recommend (to the
Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors) that
the project, including required changes to the
County's Spanish Bay permit, be approved. We continue to strongly
advise that the project not be heard until after
there have been final Coastal Commission decisions
on the LCP (Measure A) and coastal permit (Spanish
Bay) amendments that would be required for the
project to proceed. We note that the draft CEQA documents
acknowledge these Coastal Commission review
requirements, and we further note that the County's
staff report also acknowledges these requirements.
However, the current staff recommendation then
proceeds to identify a portion of the project that
could proceed absent any further Commission action
on Measure A and Spanish Bay, and a portion of the
project that cannot. This is implemented by
suggested conditions of approval that are
structured to require evidence of Commission
certification of Measure A and approval of the
Spanish Bay coastal permit amendment (prior to
issuance of grading and building permits) for only
a segment of the project. Presumably the intent is
to allow the rest of the project to proceed without
such Commission action. In both cases, such
approval appears structured to precede submittal of
Measure A. Such an approach is problematic and we
strongly recommend that project approval not
precede required Commission approvals, and not be
segmented in this manner. It is inappropriate for project approval to be
conditioned on future Coastal Commission approvals,
and it is inappropriate for an interrelated project
of this magnitude to be segmented into a portion
that requires Measure A certification and a portion
that purportedly does not. We disagree with the
analysis that a portion of the project is
consistent with the existing LCP. Furthermore,
conditioning the project approval in whole or in
pan in this manner presupposes that the Commission
will certify the Measure A LCP amendment as
submitted, and will modify the Spanish Bay coastal
permit as proposed. As you are aware from our
previous comments, we continue to have serious
reservations about the project and the LCP
amendment, and it is unwise to presume that LCP and
permit amendments would be approved as submitted.
In short, the outcomes of a Measure A amendment to
the LCP and an associated amendment to the Spanish
Bay coastal permit are uncertain, and the specifics
of these outcomes will necessarily affect the
manner in which all aspects of the project (both
those deemed consistent and those not in the staff
report's segmentation of the project) can be found
consistent with the LCP and past permits. County
decision makers at each level need to have the
benefit of this information prior to making final
decisions on the project. Without it, their
understanding of this large and contentious
project, and their discussions on the merits of it
in relation to the LCP, will be significantly
hampered. Because of this, a final County action on
the project prior to final Commission action is not
appropriate. Given the inextricable link between the LCP
amendment and the proposed project, we understand
why the County would want to use the ongoing CEQA
review process to help develop information both for
the permit review and to support an LCP amendment
submittal. To a point, such a combination makes
sense as a way to pool scarce County resources on
common questions. However, it is now time that
these review processes be separated. To do
otherwise seems to us to be poor use of time and
resources because any series of County hearings on
the project now will be without the benefit of
knowing what the Coastal Commission will do later.
In other words, if the County' holds a series of
hearings leading to an action now (as is the
intended approach according to the notice and staff
report that we received), these hearings will not
have the benefit of critical information for making
coastal permit decisions. Any "final" decisions
made after this series of hearings will need to be
revisited at additional hearings following Coastal
Commission actions, and are thus premature. Moreover, even the existing "known" body of
information is in question, and this also indicates
that decisions on the project now would not be
prudent. Specifically, the aforementioned CEQA
documentation, and the current County staff report
analysis that incorporates and relies upon it, is
incomplete and has been compromised by an incorrect
evaluation foundation. This is particularly the
case in terms of the DEIR's identification of
environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA) and
its ESHA impact evaluation methodology (please see
our March 22, 2004 letter on the original DEIR and
our November 10, 2004 letter on the PRDEIR for
specific reasons for this). We continue to
highlight that the DEIR's evaluation has not been
sufficiently inclusive of Del Monte Forest ESHA,
and has not been clearly premised on Coastal Act
and LCP requirements That impacts to ESHA be
avoided. Likewise, and related to County staff
report references to legal lots and certificates of
compliance (whether conditional or unconditional),
we have not seen supporting documentation for
determining the number of legal lots of record that
are a part of this application (most recently
requested in our DEIR comments), and thus there
remains significant uncertainty in this regard.
Remember, too, that conditional certificates of
compliance require coastal development permits. Any
decisions on whether a certificate is conditional
or unconditional is also a question of whether a
coastal permit is required and subject to Coastal
Commission concurrence in this regard. In sum, as
we have advised since March of this year, and most
recently reiterated in our November 10, 2004 PRDEIR
comments, we continue to recommend that the DEIR be
revised and recirculated for public review and
comment. We strongly recommend that hearings (if there
arc any at all) at this time at the County level be
limited to perfecting supporting information for
the LCP amendment (including perfecting project
CEQA information), and that any such hearings
explicitly not include any decisions on the project
in advance of final Commission actions on both the
Measure A LCP amendment and the Spanish Bay coastal
permit amendment. We continue to believe that good planning and
public policy require that the review process for
the LCP amendment and the Spanish Bay coastal
permit amendment conclude and precede any coastal
permit decisions on the project itself. To do
otherwise appears to us a poor use of scarce staff
and decision-maker time and resources, would
diminish die value of the project deliberations at
each decision-making level leading to a final Board
decision, and would only serve to unnecessarily
complicate and delay an ultimate decision on the
project itself. That said, if the County decides to
proceed with the project review schedule and
recommendations noted in the hearing notice and
staff report despite our recommendation, please
note that any ultimate Board approval of the
project should be considered tentative and cannot
be forwarded to the Commission as a final action.
At a minimum, the Board would have to hold at least
one additional coastal permit hearing (preceded by
at least one hearing on the LCP in the case Measure
A is not approved by the Commission as submitted)
after Coastal Commission action to take final
action on the coastal permits and then send them to
the Coastal Commission to start the ten-day appeal
period. This needs to be made explicit in any staff
report and/or approval documents, and any approval
conditions requiring future Coastal Commission
actions should be omitted. In the case that the
County proceeds with hearings, please provide this
letter, and our DEIR and PRDEIR letters, to the
Subdivision Committee members, Planning
Commissioners, and Supervisors for those
hearings. We hope that this letter has again helped to
frame the LCP and coastal permit context for this
project. We, like the County and the Pebble Beach
Company, are anxious to come to final resolution on
the project and on the LCP. As we have said before,
the proposed project is one of the largest to be
proposed in the Central Coast in recent years, it
involves significant impacts to important coastal
resources, and it remains the subject of
considerable public debate. It would be unfortunate
if the final outcome was unnecessarily hindered and
complicated by a flawed process. We are optimistic
that this can be avoided. As always, feel free to contact me if you would
like to discuss this matter further. cc: Pebble Beach Company |
|
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION CENTRAL COAST DISTRICT OFFICE 725 FRONT STREET, SUITE 300 SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 PHONE: (831) 427-4863 FAX: (831) 427-4877 December 22, 2004 Supervisor Louis Calcagno Chair, Monterey County Board of Supervisors P.O. Box 1728 Salinas, CA 93902 Subject: Measure A and the Pebble Beach Company’s Project in the Del Monte Forest Dear Chairman Calcagno: I write to express the California Coastal Commission’s concern about the manner in which the County is processing the Pebble Beach Company’s Del Monte Forest project coastal development permit (CDP) application. We understand that this project relies on, and is intended to be measured against, the County’s Local Coastal Program (LCP) as modified by Measure A. However, the County has not yet submitted Measure A to the Coastal Commission for review under the Coastal Act, and the LCP modifications proposed by Measure A are not part of the certified LCP. It is premature for the County to take final action on the Pebble Beach Company’s CDP application until the Coastal Commission has fully reviewed Measure A for conformance with the Coastal Act. Similarly, because the Pebble Beach CDP application proposes significant development of property in conflict with the previously implemented CDP for Spanish Bay, neither the County’s nor the Commission’s review of this new project should precede Coastal Commission action on an amendment to the Spanish Bay CDP. As you know, the Coastal Commission holds the Spanish Bay CDP, not the County; therefore the Commission retains continuing jurisdiction over the permit. Finally, the legality of the County’s pending action is in question since the standard of review for the County at this time is the existing unmodified LCP. The County’s decision to move ahead with the Del Monte Forest project CDP application prior to establishing the degree to which Measure A can be incorporated into its LCP, coupled with the bypassing of Coastal Commission action on an amendment to the existing Spanish Bay CDP, will result in unnecessary and unwarranted expenditures of public funds by both of our agencies and significant confusion for the public. The Commission therefore strongly advises that the County refrain from taking any final action on the Pebble Beach Company’s CDP application until after it has submitted, and the Coastal Commission has acted on, the proposed Measure A LCP amendments, as required by law. Similarly, the County should not take final CDP action until after the Coastal Commission has acted on any Spanish Bay CDP amendment request. As our staff has advised the County on several previous occasions, the Coastal Commission strongly recommends that the County address proposed LCP amendments before conducting any further deliberations on the CDP application for the project. In summary, the proposed LCP amendment as well as the amendment to the Spanish Bay CDP need to be processed by the County and the Coastal Commission before the County takes further action on the CDP for the new Pebble Beach Company project. To discuss processing and scheduling options, please contact Deputy Director Charles Lester or Coastal Planner Dan Carl in the Commission’s Central Coast District Office. As always, the Coastal Commission would like to work cooperatively with the County to expeditiously process the County’s requests but this will be more difficult to do if the proper processing order is not followed. Acting otherwise will only lead to a needless expenditure of public funds and costly and time-consuming litigation and controversy, which is not in anyone’s interest. We look forward to working with you to resolve this situation. Sincerely, /ss/ Meg Caldwell Chair, California Coastal Commission On behalf of the California Coastal Commission cc: District 1 Supervisor Fernando Armenta District 3 Supervisor W.B. "Butch" Lindley District 4 Supervisor Edith Johnsen District 5 Supervisor Dave Potter Ann Anderson, Clerk to the Board of Supervisors Sally Reed, Monterey County Administrative Officer Scott Hennessy, Monterey County Planning Director Thom McCue, Monterey County Senior Planner Mark Stilwell, Pebble Beach Company Peter Douglas, Coastal Commission Executive Director |
• 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