(You may use your browser "Find" command to search key words on this page.)

(Please wait for entire test of all ATTACHMENTS to finish loading ( 100 KB ) before clicking on a section to read. If all Sections do not appear on-screen, click "Reload" in browser menu bar and wait longer...)

COVER LETTER trom Ted Hunter and Carl Nielsen to Thom McCue	INDEX List of ten Attachments	ATTACHMENT 1 with Attachment A Analysis of Scenic Easements on the Sawmill Site	ATTACHMENT 1 with Attachment B Spanish Bay Project Condtions and Dedication of Huckleberry Hill	ATTACHMENT 1 with Attachment C Spanish Bay Project Lower Sawmill Gulch Site and Board of Supervisors' Ruling
ATTACHMENT 2 Operation of the Proposed Equestrian Center	ATTACHMENT 3 See Agreement Between Del Monte Forest Property Owners and PBCo. on Limitations on Visitor Serving Units	ATTACHMENT 4 Proposed Equestrian Center and Wetlands	ATTACHMENT 5 Monterey Pine Forest and Coast Live Oaks	ATTACHMENT 6 Water
ATTACHMENT 7 Police Services	ATTACHMENT 8 Wildland Fire Hazard	ATTACHMENT 9 Traffic and Circulation Internal Roads and Intersections	ATTACHMENT 10 Proposed Equestrian Center Air Quality	IMPACTS & QUESTIONS Proposed Equestrian Center and Questions

CONCERNED RESIDENTS OF PEBBLE BEACH and Monterey County a Non-Profit California Corporation Dedicated to Preserving the Natural Environment and Quality of Life in Del Monte Forest and Peninsula Communities March 22, 2004 Thom McCue, Senior Planner Monterey County Planning & Building Inspection Department 2620 First Avenue Marina, CA 93933  Subject:  Draft Environmental Impact Report on Pebble Beach Company's pending                Del Monte Forest Preservation & Development Plan Dear Thom: The Concerned Residents of Pebble Beach is pleased to submit this response to the Draft Environment Impact Report on the Pebble Beach Company's development plans Jones & Stokes has produced a very complex document.  It seems to be very thorough in addressing many environmental issues involved with the Pebble Beach Company's extensive development plans.  However, the DEIR is difficult to analyze because of the arrangement of the data.   The development plan is in reality ten development plans of varying complexities; however, the data is not arranged by each development plan but rather by environmental issues.  This makes it extremely difficult to analyze. The Final EIR will be the reference data upon which the Monterey County Planning Commissioners and the Board of Supervisors will rely in making their decisions on these complex development plans.  Following their usual practice they will go through the Pebble Beach Company's proposed development plans project by project.  We are concerned that this document will be so difficult to use as they go through project by project that the FEIR will not have the relevancy it should have in the decisions made by these two bodies. There are information and reference data not included in the DEIR that makes analysis difficult.  For example, the DEIR does not include a copy of each of the pending applications dated July 18, 2001 with a complete description of each project.   Resource Management Plans (Environmental, Biological, Forest, Wetlands, etc., Plans) are presented as an appendix and in summary form only and are referred to only by initials within the body of the DEIR. In the DEIR the relationship between the approved Del Monte Forest Land Use Plan and Measure "A" is not always clear.  It appears that in most cases Measure "A" criteria is used in the DEIR discussions even though Measure "A" has not been certified by the California Coastal Commission. It is not clear in the DEIR when the DMFLUP is used as the basis for discussion and when Measure "A" is. An extremely important issue is the  "Condition Compliance and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plans."  This is addressed in a separate "draft report" and was not made part of the DEIR document.  We know from passed experience that effective monitoring and enforcing of conditions and mitigation requirements are key to making any development acceptable to the residences of the Del Monte Forest.  History is not very encouraging.  The various owners of the Pebble Beach Company have not taken these requirements seriously and do only the minimum required to accomplish theirgoals.  The various monitoring and compliance plans do not contain any serious enforcement sanctions fornoncompliance.  Further, the DEIR does not recognize the obvious inability of the County to monitor and enforce these plans because of the extremely difficult financial condition of the County today and in the foreseeable future.  If plans are not realistic they are of little value.  As stated earlier, there must be strong sanctions for noncompliance and these have not been discussed in the DEIR.` The DEIR Table 3.7-1A and 1B do not clearly indicate which construction projects have priority.  There should be a phasing of the construction projects so that these projects will not place an unbearable  burden on the residents of Del Monte Forest.  To attempt to complete all of these projects within a 42 month period is unacceptable.  If all of this construction work is in progress at the same time why hasn't the DEIR addressed the significant adverse impact on the residents? Responses to specific issues are included as attachments to this letter. Sincerely,  /ss. Ted R. Hunter /ss/ Carl E. Nielsen Enclosures (Index, Attachments 1-10) Cc:       CRPB Steering Committee

[TOP OF PAGE]

INDEX   Attachment 1        Land Use &endash; Proposed New Equestrian Center &endash; Sawmill Site  Attachment A - Analysis of Scenic Easements on the Sawmill Site Attachment B - Spanish Bay Project Condtions and Dedication of Huckleberry Hill Attachment C - Spanish Bay Project Lower Sawmill Gulch Site and Board of Supervisors' Ruling Attachment 2        Land Use  - Operations of the Proposed Equestrian Center  Attachment 3        Agreement Between The Del Monte Forest Property Owners and Pebble Beach Company on the Limitation on Visitor Serving Units  Attachment 4        Biological Resources &endash; Wetlands at the Proposed Equestrian Center Attachment 5        Biological Resources  - Monterey Pine Forest and Coast Live Oaks Attachment 6        Public Services and Utilities &endash; Water  Attachment 7        Public Services and Utilities &endash; Police Services  Attachment 8        Public Services and Utilities &endash; Wildland Fire Hazard  Attachment 9        Traffic and Circulation &endash; Congress Road and Congress Road/Lopez Intersection and Internal Road Changes  Attachment 10      Air Quality &endash; Proposed Equestrian Center

[TOP OF PAGE]

ATTACHMENT 1 -- Attachment A Land Use Issues Project:  Proposed New Equestrian Center &endash; Sawmill Site We have carefully reviewed the DEIR's Land Use section for the New Equestrian Center, the Sawmill Site scenic easements entered into between the Pebble Beach Company and the County of Monterey and the California Coastal Commission, and the Board of Supervisor's January 28, 1986 hearings on the Spanish Bay Project that resulted in Lower Sawmill Site easement.  Conclusions and Questions  The DEIR Impact and Mitigation Measure LU-A2 recognize that the conflict between the project proposal and the conservation and scenic easements results in a significant impact.  However, the mitigation proposal is to amend or re-interpret these easements so that the project and the easements are  compatible and thereby reduce the significant impact to less-than-significant.  This conclusion is based upon flawed analysis.  We believe the DEIR Land Use Impact and Mitigation Measure does not deal with the following questions:   1.  The Pebble Beach Company proposes the construction of one and two story equestrian facilities totally 90,000 square feet, removal of almost 2,400 trees and grading of over 26,800 cubic yards of cut and over 41,500 cubic yards of fill. Section II of the County easement states:  " . . .  no development or use of the (lower) Sawmill Borrow which will or does materially alter the landscape or materially affect its preservation and use as open space shall be done or suffered." Section I of the Coastal Commission easement states:  "The primary purpose of this Offer is the permanent preservation of natural plant and wildlife habitat within the Huckleberry Hill Open Space.  It is the intent of this Offer that . . . . the Huckleberry Hill Open Space shall remain predominately as undeveloped forest open space in substantially its natural state." If the development is a significant impact how will changing or modifying the easements reduce this significant impact to less-than-significant? 2.  The County and Coastal Commission easements documents clearly establish revegetation, reforestation and preservation as their primary purposes.  The Board of Supervisors' hearings on January 28, 1986 further support this position. It is important to bear in mind that these easements were placed on the Sawmill Site as mitigation for the  Spanish Bay Project.  These easements were assumed to be in perpetuity and not just until the property owner decided to put the property to some other use. Why then does the DEIR analysis propose that it is appropriate to amend to the easements, and/or make findings that the proposed use is consistent with these easements and permit the development of the equestrian center? 3.    Explain, in the context of the easements' emphasis on revegetation, reforestation and preservation, why the word "recreation" should be construed to permit the Pebble Beach Company's  proposal to construct one and two story equestrian facilities totally 90,000 square feet, remove almost 2,400 trees and grade over 26,800 cubic yards of cut and over 41,500 cubic yards of fill and operate a high-intensity equestrian center with 8 to 12 horse shows per year. 4.  Impact LU-A2: The Relocated Equestrian Center may conflict with applicable County and Coastal Commission Spanish Bay Resort and Sawmill site permits and associated conservation easements.  This is a significant impact that can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level provided the county and the Coastal Commission are able to amend the relevant permit conditions and either amend the related easements or make findings that the proposed use is consistent with these easements.  Describe what the Board of Supervisors and the Coastal Commission findings would have to be in order that the proposed use is consistent with these easements? 5.    Del Monte Forest Land Use Plan Policy 92 states  ". . . previously mined areas are suitable for more intensive developments, and these areas should be permitted ihe development of needed visitor accommodations including recreational facilities. . . ".  We believe the Upper and Lower Sawmill Sites easements supersede Policy 92. Describe why Policy 92 should have relevance with respect to the Sawmill sites? 6.   The DEIR should conclude that the proposed equestrian center development represents a significant impact, as it has done, and that it can not be mitigated.  This being the case, it is incumbent upon the DEIR consultants to develop viable alternatives, including a scaled down boarding only facility to the proposed equestrian center    Text of  Impact and Mitigation Measure LU-A2 and Analysis of the Scenic Easements  on the Sawmill Site Impact LU-A2: The Relocated Equestrian Center may conflict with applicable County and Coastal Commission Spanish Bay Resort and Sawmill site permits and associated conservation easements.  This is a significant impact that can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level provided the county and the Coastal Commission are able to amend the relevant permit conditions and either amend the related easements or make findings that the proposed use is consistent with these easements. Mitigation Measure LU-A2.  Amend development conditions and easements on the Sawmill site.  The County and Coastal Commission would need to amend the conditions placed on the Sawmill site.  The County would also need to either amend the recorded easement on the lower Sawmill or make findings that the proposed use is consistent with these easements.  The Coastal Commission and the DMFF would also need to either amend the recorded easement on the lower (See Note 1) Sawmill or make findings that the proposed use is consistent with the easement for the upper Sawmill.  Without these actions the relocated Equestrian Center could not be developed as proposed. Note 1:  This should be "upper" since this refers to the Coastal Commission easement.    Analysis of the Scenic Easements  on the Sawmill Site  DEIR Statement, Page 3.1.8, Line 27:  "Development of the New Equestrian Center at this location would reverse restoration efforts and result in the removal of this land from preservation.  The proposed Equestrian Center would require the removal of substantial numbers of trees (both native and planted) and the construction of the facilities described above." DEIR Statement, Page3.1-8, Line 41:  "The permit conditions and easement language would seem to indicate that, at the time, it was contemplated that the Sawmill site be restored (See Note 2)to its natural function and protected, in general, from further development (County Sawmill Use Permit conditions 8, 9, 10, and CCC permit conditions 5 and 28, easement language).  Further, rehabilitation and dedication of the upper Sawmill site easement was required as a condition (County Permit Condition 28) of approval of the Spanish Bay Resort in order to offset the impacts of development of the fifth gate and entrance road (SFB Morse Drive). Note 2; This wording, while possibly technically correct, implies tentativeness or lack of permanency.  The County and Coastal Commission easements and related documents clearly establish revegetation, reforestation and preservation as their primary purposes.  For example: Section II of the County easement states:  "Except as set forth in Paragraph I (Section I) above no development or use of the (lower) Sawmill Borrow which will or does materially alter the landscape or materially affect its preservation and use as open space shall be done or suffered."  This statement is an unequivocal affirmation of the policy of no development on the Lower Borrow Site. In the January 28, 1986 Board of Supervisors' hearing on the Spanish Bay project, Supervisor Marc Del Piero (sponsor of the scenic easement for the Lower borrow Site) stated: The scenic easement over the borrow site and the adjacent deforested  shall: "One, permit the excavation of sand under the use permit, PC-5040; Two, permit the re-vegetation and reforestation of the area it covers; and Three, not permit further uses of the area it covers except those uses necessary to effectuate and maintain the restoration and reforestation of the area." Section I of the Coastal Commission easement states:  "The primary purpose of this Offer is the permanent preservation of natural plant and wildlife habitat within the Huckleberry Hill Open Space.  It is the intent of this Offer that, subject to and except for the development and uses permitted or reserved by Grantor in this Offer, the Huckleberry Hill Open Space shall remain predominately as undeveloped forest open space in substantially its natural state." The Upper Sawmill Site was incorporated into the Huckleberry Hill Natural Habitat Area (Huckleberry Hill Open Space) by the Coastal Commission's easement.  See Exhibit "B" of the "Offer to dedicate Conservation Easement &endash; Huckleberry Hill Open Space." Both the Monterey County and the Coastal Commission easements clearly emphasize restoration and rehabilitation of the Upper and Lower Borrow Sites. The fact that restoration and reforestation have not been as successful as they could have been is due in large measure to the lack of effort on the Pebble Beach Company, and the lack of diligent enforcement on the part of the County of Monterey and the Coastal Commission. The above statements clearly state that restoration and reforestation are the primary objectives of the easements.  To propose the development of a high intensity use equestrian center on the Upper and Lower Sawmill Sites is inconsistent with the easements.   California Coastal Commission &endash; Spanish Bay Project Condition 5 - Dedication of Huckleberry Hill Habitat Area "Prior to the Transmittal of that portion of the permit which allows excavation of natural forest habitat at Sawmill Gulch, and/or road development within the Huckleberry Hill Natural Habitat Area, the permittee shall execute and record a document, in form and content approved by the Executive Director of the Commission, irrevocably offering to dedicate to a public agency or a private association approved by the Executive Director, an easement for the protection of natural and scenic resources within the area identified below.  The terms and provisions of such offer shall be in accordance with the Del Monte Forest Land Use Plan (LUP) as certified by the California Coastal Commission on September 24, 1984, particularly Policy 13 with respect to dedication of easements and Policy 26 (i.e., the Gowen cypress-Bishop pine habitats and adjacent areas within Del Monte Forest, shown as "Terrestrial Sensitive Habitat" and "Rare Plant" on Figure 2 of the LUP).  Such scenic and conservation easement shall also encompass any additional area within Del Monte Forest shown within the "Huckleberry Hill Natural Habitat Area" on figure 5 of the certified LUP. The terms of the easement shall specifically identify the permanent preservation of existing natural habitats as the primary purpose of the dedication, and shall provide for scientific study and public visitation consistent with this purpose."           The Spanish Bay Resort Permit Condition 5 above clearly describes the intent of the easement:  Permanent preservation of existing natural habitats as the primary purpose of the dedication. It further states that the Pebble Beach Company shall make this an irrevocably offering to dedicate to a public agency or a private association . . .  an easement for the protection of natural and scenic resources within the area identified below. The DEIR does not discuss the issue critical to the concept of the proposed equestrian center: Is the development and use of a high intensity equestrian use compatible with the words "preservation" and "recreation" as used in the conditions and easements? The Pebble Beach Company proposes the construction of one and two story equestrian facilities totally 90,000 square feet, removal of almost 2,400 trees and grading of over 26,800 cubic yards of cut and over 41,500 cubic yards of fill.  This is certainly counter to the concept of preservation as espoused in the Spanish Bay conditions and scenic easements.   The new equestrian center could conduct 9 to 12 special events a year as does the existing equestrian center.  This would mean weeks of events, many hundreds of horses, and thousands of participants and spectators. These activities are blatantly inconsistent with the idea of "recreation" as described in the conditions and easements. DEIR Statement Re: Policy 92 (Page 3.1-9, Line 8) "Policy 92 in the LUP states that previously mined areas are suitable for more intensive development, and these areas should be permitted the development of needed visitor accommodations including recreational facilities, among others.  This would seem to support more intensive recreational use within the Sawmill site.  However, past County and CCC permitting actions have resulted in requirements to re-vegetate and restore the Sawmill site, and to record conservation and scenic easements in association with Monterey County (County Permit PC-5202) (County of Monterey 198a) and CCC (Permit 3-84-226) (CCC 1984 permitting for the Spanish Bay Resort.  These permit requirements expressed prior intent to enhance the natural qualities of the formerly mined area, to promote its integration and compatibility with the surrounding HHNA.  There appears to be a conflict in the intent of the prior permit requirements and the policies in the existing LUP" Policy 92 is included here for reference:. Policy 92.     Certain areas have been mined for silica and other minerals and are in need ofrehabilitation,.  These areas are the most suitable for more intensive development, as compared with other forested and undeveloped land.  Consequently, those areas should be assigned higher densities or permitted the development of needed visitor accommodations, recreational facilities, corporation yards, public works facilities, and neighborhood shopping areas.  The more intensive use of these areas will also provide the incentive to rehabilitate the previously mined areas and consequently repair the damage.)  1984 LUP The 1984 Land Use Plan and the processing of the Spanish Bay development permit took place almost concurrently.  It is clear that the Sawmill conditions and easements, by legislative and administrative action superseded Policy 92 and therefore has no bearing on the issue of the intent of the easements.  There is no conflict with Policy 92.

[TOP OF PAGE]

ATTACHMENT 1 -- Attachment B California Coastal Commission &endash; Spanish Bay Project Condition 5 - Dedication of Huckleberry Hill Habitat Area Prior to the Transmittal of that portion of the permit which allows excavation of natural forest habitat at Sawmill Gulch, and/or road development within the Huckleberry Hill Natural Habitat Area, the permittee shall execute and record a document, in form and content approved by the Executive Director of the Commission, irrevocably offering to dedicate to a public agency or a private association approved by the Executive Director, an easement for the protection of natural and scenic resources within the area identified below.  The terms and provisions of such offer shall be in accordance with the Del Monte Forest Land Use Plan (LUP) as certified by the California Coastal Commission on September 24, 1984, particularly Policy 13 with respect to dedication of easements and Policy 26 (i.e., the Gowen cypress-Bishop pine habitats and adjacent areas within Del Monte Forest, shown as "Terrestrial Sensitive Habitat" and "Rare Plant" on Figure 2 of the LUP).  Such scenic and conservation easement shall also encompass any additional area within Del Monte Forest shown within the "Huckleberry Hill Natural Habitat Area" on figure 5 of the certified LUP. The terms of the easement shall specifically identify the permanent preservation of existing natural habitats as the primary purpose of the dedication, and shall provide for scientific study and public visitation consistent with this purpose The offer shall run with the land in favor of the people of the State of California, binding successors and assigns of the applicant or landowner.  This offer of dedication shall be irrevocable for a period of 21 years, such period running from the date of recording. Easement recorded October 12, 1987.  21 years would be October 12, 2008. Offer to Dedicate Conservation Easement &endash; Huckleberry Hill Open Space Section XI.  Duration of Offer and Binding Effect. The terms, covenants, conditions, restrictions and reservations contained in this Offer constitute covenants running with the land described in Exhibit "A" and shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of Grantor and its successors and assigns in the ownership of the land described in Exhibit "A" for a period of twenty-one (21) years from the date of recording of this offer.  If this Offer is accepted by the grantee accordance with its terms within said twenty-one (21) year period, all of the terms, covenants, conditions, restriction and reservations contained in this Offer shall constitute covenants running with the land described in Exhibit "A" in perpetuity and shall burden the land and be      binding upon and inure to the benefit of Grantor and its successors and assigns in the ownership of the land described in Exhibit "A" as a conservation easement in perpetuity for the benefit of Grantee and the County. Section III.  Reservation and Exceptions. Grantor reserves from this Offer the right to conduct and engage in all of the development and uses enumerated in Paragraph II above and such other development and uses as are consistent with the primary purpose and intent of this offer. Section I.  Purpose and Intent of this Offer The primary purpose of this Offer is the permanent preservation of natural plant and wildlife habitat within the Huckleberry Hill Open Space.  It is the intent of this Offer that, subject to and except for the development and uses permitted or reserved by Grantor in this Offer, the Huckleberry Hill Open Space shall remain predominately as undeveloped forest open space in substantially its natural state.

[TOP OF PAGE]

ATTACHMENT 1 -- Attachment C County of Monterey &endash; Spanish Bay Project &endash; Lower Sawmill Gulch Site Board of Supervisors Hearing on January 28, 1986 Transcript of Hearing, Supervisor Marc Del Piero speaking: The first condition would read:  The Applicant &endash; meaning Pebble Beach Company &endash; shall restore and re-vegetate the borrow site and the adjacent deforest aree as defined by the Director of Planning.  The Applicant shall submit a restoration and re-vegetation plan within 30 days of the grant of this permit.  The restoration and re-vegetation plan shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Planning.  Said plan shall be bonded in an amount to be determined with the approval of the Director of Public Works and the Planning Director to ensure the installation and maintenance of this area by the Applicant. The second condition I would recommend, Mr. Chairman reads as follows:  The Applicant shall grant to the County of Monterey a permanent, scenic easement over the borrow site and the adjacent deforested area as defined by the Director of Planning.  This area of the scenic easement shall not include the area of the new access road that this County has required to connect to Highway 68.  The scenic easement over the borrow site and the adjacent deforested area shall: One, permit the excavation of sand under the use permit, PC-5040; Two, permit the re-vegetation and reforestation of the area it covers; Three, not permit further uses of the area it covers except those uses necessary to effectuate and maintain the restoration and reforestation of the area. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would indicate that a finding that would be appropriate to justify both of these conditions might read somewhat like this: The Board looks upon the tree cover of the Del Monte Forest as a whole.  This borrow site is the closest available to mitigate the loss of tree cover due to the construction of the conveyor and ancillary facilities to an acceptable level.  The planting of new trees cannot entirely compensate for the cutting down of mature trees, but the condition shall, over time, mitigate the cutting of mature trees to an acceptable level.  Approved by the Board of Supervisors January 28, 1986   Monterey County & Pebble Beach Company Conservation and Scenic Easement &endash; Lower Sawmill Borrow Site 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: A.   Excavation and conveyance of the sand from the Sawmill Borrow site and all construction, use, acts and activities necessary for incidental to carrying out such excavation and conveyance as permitted pursuant to the Use Permit PC-5040, as amended. B.   Restoration and re-vegetation of the Sawmill Borrow Site and all acts and activities incidental thereto as required pursuant to Use Permit PC-5040, as amended. C.   Construction, maintenance, repair and use of the new road and all construction, use, acts and activities incidental thereto as permitted and required pursuant to the Combined Development Permit PC-5202 issued by Grantee for the Spanish Bay Project. D.   Construction, maintenance, repair and use of public services utility lines and pipes, including but not limited to those for gas, electricity, telephone, water, sewer, cable television and drainage. E.   Maintenance, repair and use of existing fire roads, pedestrian and equestrian trails, and the development, maintenance, repair and use of facilities related to maintenance and use for open space, recreation and scientific study uses. II.  Effect of Restrictions and Reservations Except as set forth in Paragraph I above, no development or use  of the Sawmill Borrow Site which will or does materially alter the landscape or materially affect its preservation and use as open space shall be done or suffered.  Grantor specifically excepts and reserves the right to engage in all of the development and uses set forth in Paragraph I above and management, maintenance and repair activities incidental thereto, and reserves the right to use and occupy that land in any manner not inconsistent with the conditions and restrictions imposed herein.

[TOP OF PAGE]

ATTACHMENT 2 Operation of the Proposed Equestrian Center The DEIR analysis of the proposed equestrian center does not include a review of any of the activities proposed to be conducted on the site. There was no review related to the operation of the equestrian center during special equestrian events and the regular equestrian center.  For example, a review was not conducted relative to:  the number of events; duration of each event; whether permits should be required for each event; number of horses anticipated, number of owners, participants and spectators; types of vehicles used to transport the horses; whether these vehicles will be permitted to remain on site over night or required to be parked in some other  location; whether participants will be permitted to camp, stay in trucks, or RVs over night (It is the current practice at the existing equestrian center to permit over-night stays by equestrian participants during equestrian events); whether Title 20 regulation 20.80.040 and 050 prohibit over night stays (see Title 20 Ordinance data below); hours of operation related to special events,  including arrival and departure limitations on horse hauling, hours of operation of the primary equestrian facility.  How can the DEIR conclude that there is no significant impact from establishing an equestrian center in the Sawmill Site without a complete review of the proposed operation of the equestrian center?  Title 20 Regulations for Open Space Recreation Zoning Districts  20.06.150  Campground Definition  Campground means land or premises which are used, or intended to be used, let or rented for transient occupancy by persons traveling by automobile or otherwise, or by transient persons using tents, recreational vehicles or similar quarters  20.80.040  Principal Uses Allowed, Coastal Administrative Permit required in each case.  20.38.040 F     Primitive camping facilities (Not in DMF) 20.35.050  Conditional Uses allowed, Coastal Development Permit Required in Each Case. 20.38.050 L     Moderate intensity recreational uses including but not limited to :  tent platforms, cabins, and on-site dining facilities limited to that necessary to serve on-premise overnight guests (Not in DMF).

[TOP OF PAGE]

ATTACHMENT 3  Agreement Between the Del Monte Forest Property Owners and Pebble Beach Company on the Limitations on Visitor Serving Units    On October 10, 2000, the Del Monte Forest Property Owners (DMFPO) and the Pebble Beach Company (PBC) entered into an agreement whereby, among other things, PBC agreed to limit the number of visitor serving units to a maximum of 210 units.  In exchange for this agreement, the DMFPO agreed to endorse and support PBC's Measure "A" land use initiative that appeared on the November 7, 2000, ballot.  Copy of the text of the original agreement is attached.  The Pebble Beach Company currently proposes 91 units at Spanish Bay, 58 units at the Lodge and 11 units at the Proposed Golf Course location for a total of 160 new units.  At the time of the agreement it was assumed there would be 24 units at the Proposed Golf Course location.  By this count the Pebble Beach could now build 50 more visitor serving units.  At the hearing of the Pebble Beach Company's proposed "Del Monte Forest Preservation & Development Plan" before the Del Monte Forest Land Use Advisory Committee, Mr. Alan Williams of the Carmel Development Company , representing the Pebble Beach Company, agreed to include this agreement as a condition if the project were approved.  At the time of the execution of this agreement we did not and still do not believe this agreement is in the best interests of the residents of the Del Monte Forest.  We do not believe an agreement that would permit an additional 50 units beyond what is currently planned is reasonable.   Provisions included in Measure A include no limitation on the number of visitor serving units at Spanish Bay and The Lodge.  Further, Measure A permits an expansion of visitor serving uses adjacent to existing visitor serving areas.  This would permit further expansion of visitor serving units beyond those agreed upon in the DMFPO/PBC agreement.  It would, in our opinion, permit further development of visitor serving units  the vicinity of Spyglass Hill Golf Course and the proposed new golf course because of the proposal to build 11 golf cottages.  At the time of the development of the Inn at Spanish Bay there were many statements by the management of the Pebble Beach Company that this development represented the last of visitor serving development in the Forest. Since that time 24 units at Casa Palmero have been built and another 160 units have been proposed. Residents now believe verbal statements mean nothing.   The residents of the Del Monte Forest need assurance that there will be an effective method of limiting visitor serving development regardless of the open-ended provisions of Measure A.  In our opinion the only way this can be accomplished is by a binding agreement between the Pebble Beach Company and the County of Monterey, one that could never be modified by a successor company. We also realize that the agreement should be flexible enough to permit some modest adjustments in the total number of units at Spanish Bay and the Lodge beyond what is currently planned because of a potential need to modernize and upgrade facilities.  We are not suggesting a firm number but believe that approximately 10% of the current proposal of 160 units would permit needed flexibility. We would like to see a discussion of this concept in the Final EIR so that the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors can deliberate on this recommendation.

[TOP OF PAGE]

ATTACHMENT 4 Proposed Equestrian Center Wetlands Impact and Proposed Mitigation   (Page 3.3-28, line 17) The Del Monte forest LUP Policy No. 27 requires a setback of 100 feet form wetlands, but allows for landscape alteration within the 100-foot buffer if accomplished in conjunction with restoration and enhancement, it is demonstrated that no significant disruption of environmentally sensitive habitat will result.  Infringement into the 100-foot buffer would occur in the following locations . . . New Equestrian Center.  Permanent improvements are within 100 fee of all wetlands in the supper Sawmill area, but not ESHA Wetland S-A in the lower Sawmill area.  However, the temporary event site plan shows temporary parking and other uses within 100-feet of ESHA Wetland S-A in the lower Sawmill site. (Page 3.3-29, line 46) Impacts that are not mitigated by applicant plans and proposed dedications include:  grading within several designated wetlands ate the Proposed Gold Course site; and potential disturbance to the lower Sawmill site during temporary equestrian events.  These impacts to wetlands are consider significant. Mitigation Measure BIO-C1-1. . . . maintain 100-foot buffer for the ESHA wetland in the lower Sawmill site for all permanent and temporary activities. Mitigation Measure BIO-C1-2.  Dedicate all ESHA wetlands and their 100' buffer area to the Del Monte Forest Foundation (DMFF) or an equivalent organization.   Comments The establishment of a 100-foot buffer around the lower Sawmill wetland site will meet LUP Policy 27 requirement it ignores the reality of operating 8-10 special events during the course of a year.  The temporary  auto parking (150 spaces) and trailer parking (100 spaces) are positioned on the north and east sides of the wetlands;  the temporary stables and equestrian activity rings are on the south side.  It seems highly likely that attendees will ignore both the buffer zone and the existence of the wetlands when going to the stables and equestrian activities.  Please describe what mitigation measures will be needed to protect the buffer zone and the wetlands from human and animal intrusion (Page 3.4.13, line 37)  Impact HWQ-C3.  Horse waste at the New Equestrian Center could degrade water quality in downstream wetlands and drainages.  Impacts at the Center can be effectively reduced by implementation of the measures found in the applicant's BMP plan.  This is a significant impact that can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level  Comments Waste Management at the Lower Sawmill Site  All of the described elements for waste management at the equestrian center site relate solely to permanent portion of the equestrian center.  The equestrian center expects to host 8-12 horse shows a year with well over a thousand horses in attendance.  No significant discussion and/or analysis was presented in the DEIR dealing with the potential effects of housing horses in the near vicinity of the lower Sawmill site wetlands.  There will be sizable quantities of water used to wash down horses, possibly water used to suppress dust, etc., that could present a problem for the wetlands. Please provide an analysis of this problem and if there are adverse impacts, what are the proposed mitigation measures.

[TOP OF PAGE]

ATTACHMENT 5 Monterey Pine Forest and Coast Live Oaks Impact and Proposed Mitigation Executive Summary (pages ES-10,11, & 12) Summary of Impact and Mitigation Measures Table ES-2 and Attachment C Project Summary Page 45. The total number of trees to be removed, = 15,39 1 Monterey Pines and 1,769 Coast Live Oaks should be listed in the Executive Summary on page ES-10 along with reference to acres affected. The Mitigation Measures listed in Table ES-2 page 5 (using areas outside the Forest- Old Capitol Site) and the Resource Management Plans (RMPs) ARE NOT APPROPRIATE. The removal of 9,582 Monterey Pines and 501 Coast Live Oaks = Total of 10,083 trees just for the proposed Golf course will completely change the forest environment for the residential property in this area of the Forest. Comments Why hasn't the DEIR isolated this problem with a statement indicating that this will create a significant adverse impact that cannot be mitigated for this residential neighborhood? Why hasn't the fact that the proposed developments throughout the Forest will remove the Forest canopy and produce a potential climatic impact for the Del Monte Forest and the whole Peninsula areas been identified in the DEIR? These facts should be covered in the Final EIR. The Final EIR should also include a reference to the fact that the Monterey Pine Forest ecosystem is in an Environmental Sensitive Habitat Area (required by the Coastal Act). And that the Santa Cruz, San Mateo, and San Luis Obispo General Plans have established this designation for native Monterey Pines. In additions the Final EIR document needs to discuss the recent California Coastal Commission Staff Periodic Review of the Local Coastal Plan with recommendations on this subject and how the proposed development projects will be affected.

[TOP OF PAGE]

ATTACHMENT 6 Water Executive Summary (pages ES-16 and 17) The DEIR states "Because the project's potable water demand can be legally provided pursuant to the applicant's entitlement and because the potable water demand has been offset by the potable water saved by the Recycled Water Project, this is considered a less-than-significant direct impact." Why doesn't the DEIR address the fact that all of the required water will increase the continuing overdraft of the Carmel River and that this will create a significant adverse impact that can not be mitigated? Where is the entitled water stored? The Final EIR should also discuss the problems on the water supply for all of the development projects if the Phase I1 improvements to the CAWDIPBSCD Recycle Water Project and the proposed plan to sell entitled water do not produce the projected results. The Final EIR and the County decision makers need to include a Special Restriction Condition on the proposed new Golf Course making it clear that potable water can not be used for the new golf course? Chapters 2.0-5 and 3.4-3 on the golf course do not address the need for this Special Restriction Condition and the overdraft of the Carrnel River has not been properly discussed.

[TOP OF PAGE]

ATTACHMENT 7 Police Services   Impact and Proposed Mitigation  Impact PSU-A2.  Increased demand for police services.  The Monterey county Sheriff's Department has determined this is a significant impact that can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure PSU-A2:  The applicant and the Sheriff's Department shall develop a funding mechanism to insure that adequate funding is available for police services within the Del Monte forest.  This funding shall e sufficient to cover the cost of one additional Deputy for the Monterey County sheriff in perpetuity.  The Sheriff's Office has determined that the impact to police services can be mitigated by the applicant making funding allocations for one (1) additional Deputy in perpetuity.  This determination is made based upon the recommendation contained in the draft General Plan and the standard of one (1) patrol officer per 1,000 population.  One potential source of revenue is the transient occupancy tax.  Comments  Using the draft General Plan Guidelines for emergency responses as a basis for determining level of sheriff staffing is inappropriate in as much as the General Plan has not been adopted.  The Monterey Sheriff has never met existing service standards in Del Monte Forest. Providing adequate police services is an obligation of the County of Monterey and not the obligation of individual property owners or business owners.  While it is true that the project will probably increase the demand for police services, it also true that project will produce significant County General Fund revenue. It is totally inappropriate that the Pebble Beach Company should be obligated to develop a funding mechanism to insure that adequate funding is available for police service within the Del Monte Forest in perpetuity.  Considering the transient occupancy tax  as one potential revenue source is also poor public policy in as much as this tax is a general fund resource. Why shouldn't the mitigation of this problem be dealt with during the annual County budget deliberations because it is the obligation of the Monterey County Board of Supervisors fund police services within the unincorporated areas of the county?.

[TOP OF PAGE]

ATTACHMENT 8  Wildland Fire Hazard   Impact and Proposed Mitigation Impact PSU-c1.  Exposure of people and structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.  This is a significant impact that can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure PSU-C1-1:  Implement fire safety precautions during the declared fire season when performing maintenance on natural open space areas. The applicant shall obtain a site inspection and approval by the Fire Department during declared fire season prior to using any equipment or performing any activity that may create an increased fire hazard, such as using chippers and chainsaws, clearing brush, or other vegetation removal efforts. The applicant or party performing vegetation management shall keep adequate and working fire suppressant equipment on site at all times. Mitigation Measure PSU-C-2. Implement vegitation management plans and maintenance in high risk fire areas. The applicant would coordinate with PBCSD Fire Department to develop and implement a fire prevention and management plan for those sites adjacent to open space, or an equivalent mitigation as determined by the fire department.  Implementation of this plan may include an approved landscape planting list, and /or funding by the applicant for an ongoing vegetation management, and maintenance of vegetation management zones adjacent to wildland locations with high fire risk. Proposed PQR Residential Subdivision We believe the DEIR analysis and the related Impact and Mitigation Measure PSU-C-2 do not address adequately the issue of permitting the seven lots in PQR to be developed in an extremely dangerous high fire area.  The building envelops on these lots require maximum preservation of the pine forest further increasing the fire hazard. A great many individuals who live on the perimeter of the north side of Pescadero Canyon are concerned about what would happen if a wildfire started in the canyon and replicated the disastrous fire that occurred in another part of the Forest in the early 1980's. Please describe why it is reasonable to permit the development of seven homes in PQR.  What further mitigation measures could be developed to reduce the potential losses? Is the County of Monterey assuming a liability if it approves a sub-division in a know high fire hazard area?

[TOP OF PAGE]

ATTACHMENT 9 Traffic and Circulation Internal Road CirculationInternal Road Circulation Congress Road and Congress RoadILopez Intersection   Impact and Proposed Mitigation Proposed Roadway Improvements (page 3.7-3) Congress and Lopes Intersection. This intersection would be redesigned to eliminate the acute intersecting angle, improve sight distance, and provide left-tern channelization. This would include realigning a portion of congress Road, cutting the bank along Lopez Road, and widening a portion of Lopez Road. Congress Road from Lopez Road to Near SFB Morse Drive. This section of Congress Road would be repaved and widened, and shoulderlcurbs would be added at certain locations. The turning radii at several curves would be improved along with the drainage system. Trailhead parking improvements would also be added. Project Construction Truck Routing (page 3.7-10) Proposed routes include those specified below: Construction truck access to The Lodge at Pebble Beach would be via the Highway 1 Gate. Truck access to the Proposed Golf Course and Corporation Yard Employee Housing either use the Haul Road Gate or the SFB Morse Gate. The inn at Spanish Bay would gain its contruction truck access via the SFB Morse Gate. Internal construction truck traffic between improvement areas would generally use Congress Road, Lopez Road, andlor Forest Lake Road. The Congress Road corridor is proposed to be improved, including channelization and sight distance improvements at Lopez Road and curve alignment improvements along Congress Road. A substantial portion of the Congress Road route from Lopez to SFB Morse Drive traverses a road that is not level. In fact it contains substantial grade slopes for most of its route. This road is designated as a construction truck (see page 3.7.10). Both loaded and unloaded trucks will be driving in very low and low gears to ascend and descend and there will be a substantial use of air brakes. Residential homes abut this route. The DEIR contains no analysis of the generation of noise from trucks and other heavy vehicles using this route. We believe this noise could have a significant impact on the residential area abutting this portion of Congress Road. Please provide an analysis of the potential noise impact and what mitigation measures would be needed to reduce the impact to less-than-significant. Internal Road Changes (page 3.7-4) Spanish Bay - The proposed additions of Conference Rooms, Hotel Rooms and an Underground Garage at Spanish Bay will increase the traffic in and out of this Resort Complex. The road improvements proposed at the entrance, - 17-Mile Dr. and Congress Road, are not adequate. The impact of added tourist traffic will be very significant at times when an emergency ambulance is required for any of the residents in the 83 Townhomes in the area. The plans provide for only one single entrance from 17-Mile Drive to both the Resort Complex and the Townhomes. Visitors to the Inn will follow a new separate road once inside the main entrance, however the EIR needs to address the increased traffic problem at the single road main entrance. This can be mitigated by building a new separate entrance to the Townhomes. Why hasn't the DEIR mentioned the adverse impact for residents at the Townhomes and the problems emergency ambulance or fire truck vehicles will have at the one single main entrance? Golf Course & 11 Cottage Units - The road changes illustrated in Fig. 3.7-3 and Construction Truck Routing Fig. 3.7-4 are not adequate. When will both of these road maps be updated to clearly show where the final locations of the new extension of Stevenson Drive to Forest Lake Road will be? Will Construction Trucks use Bristol Curve for work on the proposed Golf Course? Or will Bristol Curve be removed and a new extension of Stevenson Drive be completed before trucks begin traveling in this area for work on the new Golf Course? Why don't the two road maps (Fig. 3.7-3 and Fig. 3.7-4 illustrate the same road system in this area? The required road changes, due to the Yadon's Piperia, and the required redesigned sections of the proposed golf course do to the Piperia and Wetlands need to be covered in an addendum to the DEIR. The public should be given time to respond to these changes and redesigned plans. It would be inappropriate for these changes to be incorporated in the Final EIR without public comment.

[TOP OF PAGE]

ATTACHMENT 10 Proposed Equestrian Center Air Quality Impact and Proposed Mitigation Odors Impact Air- E1 The New Equestrian Center could result in generation of objectionable odors.  This is a less-than-significant impact. The New Equestrian Center represents the one component of the Proposed Project with the potential for odor generation.  However, due to the substantial distance for the corral barns from residences not associated with the center (approximately 2000 ft), significant odor impacts would be unlikely.  Additionally, the applicant would implement a waste management plan (Questa Engineering 2003) at the New Equestrian Center that requires daily management of liquid and solid wastes, and the disposal of these wastes off site at least twice weekly.  These measures would likely reduce odors from animal wastes.  If odors associated with the New Equestrian Center were to become an issue, the applicant would be required to eliminate any offensive odors in order to comply with the MBUAPCD's nuisance rule (Rule 402).  This is a less-than-significant impact. Comments This analysis completely ignores the potential problems associated with the conduct of 8-12 horse shows a year.  In order for the shows to be held at the equestrian center temporary stables to house 200 or more horses will have to be installed at the lower Sawmill Site.  This area is very close to the residences across Congress Road. Why wasn't this impact analyzed to determine the extent of the potential problem?  If there are substantial amounts offensive odors what would be the appropriate mitigation measures?   If there is a significant problem associated with the operation of horse shows it would be inappropriate to deal with this by requiring the  applicant to eliminate any offensive odors in order to comply with the MBUAPCD's nuisance rule (Rule 402).  Rather, a specific, well defined mitigation measure should be included in the FEIR. Dust Comments As noted above there will be a potential of 8-12 horse shows a year conducted at the equestrian center.  Each show requires a number of days to conduct.  All of the horses brought to the equestrian center will be housed in temporary stables installed on the Lower Sawmill Site.  Figure 2.0-11, Temporary Event Site Plan, shows temporary grass parking with 150 spaces on the Lower Sawmill Site.  Is this the same as the use of temporary grass for the grass warm up ring, the show ring, etc.?  Shouldn't one of the conditions imposed on the operation of special events require the use of temporary grass rather than just a proposed use? Temporary trailer parking of 100 spaces is shown on Figure 2.0-11.  This appears to be an unimproved lot.  Access roads appear to be all unimproved dirt roads.  Shouldn't there be a condition requiring a strict dust control program? The DEIR does not in any way address the issue of dust generated during the periods when special events are not held.  The Lower Sawmill Site will be one large, unimproved expanse of dirt. How will dust be controlled during this period? Please provide an analysis that shows whether or not dust is a significant impact.

[TOP OF PAGE]

IMPACTS AND QUESTIONS  LAND USE SECTION 3.1 - EQUESTRIAN CENTER ITEMS Land Use Compatibility (3.1-6)  Extracts of Relevant Information from the DEIR Equestrian Center.  The Sawmill site at present is not being utilized, except informally by recreational users who access the site via existing fire roads and designated equestrian trails.  The Sawmill site was previously used for sand mining.  The immediately adjacent surrounding area is part of the Huckleberry Hill Natural Habitat Area (HHNA).  Residential areas in Pacific Grove are located north of SFB Morse Drive, but are screened from the site by forest.  Other residential areas are located northwest of the site within the Del Monte Forest, but are also screened from the site by forest. (According to the CCC scenic easement the Upper Borrow Site was incorporated into the NNHA. See Exhibit "B" of the 'Offer to Dedicate Conservation Easement &endash; Huckleberry Hill Open Space') The New Equestrian Center proposed for the Sawmill site would place a new recreational use immediately adjacent to HHNA and would increase the amount of use of recreational trails in the HHNA, which is evaluated in greater detail in Chapter 3.3, "Biological Resources".  The Sawmill site is presently designated open space forest, with a small portion designated for medium-density residential use. The County considers a new Equestrian Center a compatible use at this site in recognition of voter approval of Measure A, provided the use complies with all other applicable LUP policies and Coastal Implementation Plan (CIP) standards, as well as all relevant mitigation and permit conditions adopted by the County. It would provide a recreational transition between existing residential development and the preserved open space of the HHNA.  This would be considered a less-than-significant impact of the Proposed Project.  If the relevant portions of Measure A are not certified by the CCC, then the proposed equestrian center may not be approved in its current form. Impact LU-A2: The Relocated Equestrian Center may conflict with applicable County and Coastal Commission Spanish By Resort and Sawmill site permits and associated conservation easements.  This is a significant impact that can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level provided the county and the Coastal Commission are able to amend the relevant permit conditions and either amend the related easements or make findings that the proposed use is consistent with these easements. (No specificity as to what would be necessary to "make findings that the proposed use is consistent with these easements"). Sawmill Gulch is subject to permit conditions pursuant to permits granted by the County (1984) and the CCC (1985) for the Spanish Bay Resort, in addition to associated easements adopted pursuant to permit requirements. As a result of re-vegetation efforts, previously disturbed portions of the Sawmill site are partially covered with planted Monterey pine, Bishop pine, and Gowen cypress trees.  However, the re-vegetation has hand mixed success in restoring the site. Development of the New Equestrian Center at this location would reverse restoration efforts and result in the removal of this land from preservation.  The proposed Equestrian Center would require the removal of substantial numbers of trees (both native and planted) and the construction of the facilities described above.  Although the restoration to date has not fully replicated  the surrounding forest, there has also been no further development of this area.  Development of the Sawmill site for the new equestrian facility would result in the removal of 3 acres of native remnant forest and approximately 20 acres of restored forest.  The project will retain about 18 acres of native forest and restoration forest around the edge and within the New Equestrian Center. The total area of the Sawmill site is 45 acres.  Excluding the wetland areas and the retained forest, the area in which no restoration could be conducted with (sic within) the project is 26 acres.  The impact on the biological resources due to development and foregone restoration is discussed in Chapter 3.3, "Biological Resources". The permit conditions and easement language would seem to indicate that, at the time, it was contemplated that the Sawmill site be restored to its natural function and protected, in general, from further development (County Sawmill Use Permit conditions 8, 9, 10, and CCC permit conditions 5 and 28, easement language).  Further, rehabilitation and dedication of the upper Sawmill site easement was required as a condition (County Permit Condition 28) of approval of the Spanish Bay Resort in order to offset the impacts of development of the fifth gate and entrance road (SFB Morse Drive).  However, the language of the conservation easement seems to allow some potential for recreational use, though the specific intensity of the use is not explicitly identified in the easements. (Policy 92.       Certain areas have been mined for silica and other minerals and are in need of rehabilitation,.  These areas are the most suitable for more intensive development, as compared with other forested and undeveloped land.  Consequently, those areas should be assigned higher densities or permitted the development of needed visitor accommodations, recreational facilities, corporation yards, public works facilities, and neighborhood shopping areas.  The more intensive use of these areas will also provide the incentive to rehabilitate the previously mined areas and consequently repair the damage.)  1984 LUP Policy 92 in the LUP states that previously mined areas are suitable for more intensive development, and these areas should be permitted the development of needed visitor accommodations including recreational facilities, among others.  This would seem to support more intensive recreational use within the Sawmill site.  However, past County and CCC permitting actions have resulted in requirements to re-vegetate and restore the Sawmill site, and to record conservation and scenic easements in association with Monterey County (County Permit PC-5202) (County of Monterey 198a) and CCC (Permit 3-84-226) (CCC 1984 permitting for the Spanish Bay Resort.  These permit requirements expressed prior intent to enhance the natural qualities of the formerly mined area, to promote its integration and compatibility with the surrounding HHNA.  There appears to be a conflict in the intent of the prior permit requirements and the policies in the existing LUP. Mitigation is identified in Chapter 3.3 for the biological impacts of foregoing restoration of the entire Sawmill site.  The following mitigation would eliminate any potential conflict between the proposed use and the prior permits. Mitigation Measure LU-A2.  Amend development conditions and easements on the Sawmill site.  The county and Coastal Commission would need to amend the conditions placed on the Sawmill site.  The County would also need to either amend the recorded easement on the lower Sawmill or make findings that the proposed use is consistent with these easements.  The Coastal Commission and the DMFF would also need to either amend the recorded easement on the lower (s/b upper) Sawmill or make findings that the proposed use is consistent with the easement for the upper Sawmill.  Without these actions the relocated Equestrian Center could not be developed as proposed.   Specific Questions Concerning the Impact and Mitigation Measures 1. The Pebble Beach Company proposes the construction of one and two story equestrian facilities totally 90,000 square feet, removal of almost 2,400 trees and grading of over 26,800 cubic yards of cut and over 41,500 cubic yards of fill. Section II of the County easement states:  " . . .  no development or use of the (lower) Sawmill Borrow which will or does materially alter the landscape or materially affect its preservation and use as open space shall be done or suffered." Section I of the Coastal Commission easement states:  "The primary purpose of this Offer is the permanent preservation of natural plant and wildlife habitat within the Huckleberry Hill Open Space.  It is the intent of this Offer that . . . . the Huckleberry Hill Open Space shall remain predominately as undeveloped forest open space in substantially its natural state." If the development is a significant impact how will changing or modifying the easements reduce this significant impact to less-than-significant? 2.  The easements on the Upper and Lower Sawmill Sites clearly describe the primary purposes of the easements are revegatation, reforesting and preservation. Why then does the DEIR analysis propose that it is appropriate to amend to the easements, and/or make findings that the proposed use is consistent with these easements and permit the development of the equestrian center? 3.              Explain, in the context of the easements' emphasis on revegetation, reforestation and preservation, why the word "recreation" should be construed to permit the Pebble Beach Company's  proposal to construct one and two story equestrian facilities totally 90,000 square feet, remove almost 2,400 trees and grade over 26,800 cubic yards of cut and over 41,500 cubic yards of fill and operate a high-intensity equestrian center with 8 to 12 horse shows per year. 4.  Impact LU-A2: The Relocated Equestrian Center may conflict with applicable County and Coastal Commission Spanish By Resort and Sawmill site permits and associated conservation easements.  This is a significant impact that can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level provided the county and the Coastal Commission are able to amend the relevant permit conditions and either amend the related easements or make findings that the proposed use is consistent with these easements. Describe what the Board of Supervisors and the Coastal Commission findings would have to be in order that the proposed use is consistent with these easements? 5.  Measure "A" changed the zoning on the Upper and Lower Sawmill Sites from Open Space Forest to Open Space Recreation.  If Measure "A" is found not to be in conflict with the Coastal Act by the Coastal Commission then how do the conditions and restrictions of the easements relate to the Pebble Beach Company's proposed equestrian center development?

[TOP OF PAGE]