PUBLIC COMMENTS ON PEBBLE BEACH COMPANY'S |
|
Return to |
Return to |
Return to |
|
These statements were delivered at the Board of Supervisors Public Hearing on March 15, 2005
|
Carol McCarthy Comment: I come before you today to register my concern about today’s meeting. The Coastal Commission has repeatedly warned the County against approving Pebble Beach’s plan for developing the Del Monte Forest before State approval of Measure A. Yet you are going ahead with the Plan approval hearings, knowing the inconsistencies with the Local Coastal Program and Spanish Bay Development permit will be challenged. As a Board, proceeding with these hearings is a bad precedent and opens the County to costly litigation which it well can’t afford. I have serious issue about numerous aspects of the Plan, such as cutting down pristine forest for a driving range at Spanish Bay and the impacts to traffic on the Holman Highway, but my deepest concern is the Pebble Beach Company developers wanting to move the scenic conservation easements at the Sawmill site. These easements were deeded in perpetuity by the Board of Supervisors and Coastal Commission as conditions of the Spanish Bay sand mining permit. Moving these easements is controversial enough but, even worse, the developers propose to move the easements to Pescadero Canyon, a site that has already been dedicated as a conservation zone by Pebble Beach several times. How many times can a developer take credit for dedicating the same piece of land before it becomes meaningless? What makes this shell game so disturbing is that the original intent of the easements was to ensure the Sawmill area would be reforested and forever be maintained as a contiguous part of the surrounding forest, which includes the environmentally sensitive Morse Botanical Preserve, Huckleberry Hill, and Gowen Cypress area (which includes the Pygmy Forest). Preserving large, contiguous areas is recognized as the preferred method of forest maintenance. The more a forest is broken up with development, the less chance for its survival. Unfortunately, Pebble Beach reluctantly made only minimal attempts at reforestation of the Sawmill area and, over the past year, has been removing prime cypress trees from there for its golf courses A high-intensity use Equestrian Center and large parking lots built on the Sawmill site will reap a negative impact on the fragile forest and wetlands. Special events will bring thousands of people and their horses, who will inevitably explore the natural area, causing severe impacts to the surrounding forest and its trails, as well as the already congested Holman Highway. Mitigations for these impacts in the Draft Environmental Impact Report are questionable and in many cases unenforceable. Particularly vulnerable, the Pygmy Forest is right across the trail from the upper area of the proposed Equestrian Center. Pygmy trees are actually Gowen cypresses with a uniquely stunted growth pattern. Only a few places in the world that have the unique acidic, high-clay soil that supports a Pygmy Forest. The US Environmental Protection Agency substantiates in the Federal Register the effects of development on standard and pygmy-sized Gowen cypresses in the Sawmill area. The report is entitled “Notice of Availability of a Draft Recovery Plan for Five Plants from Monterey County, CA, for Review and Commentary,” dated May 13,2002 (Volume 67, Number 92). The report states the following: REF: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-SPECIES/2002/May/Day-13/e11802.htm In closing, I respectfully ask you to not go ahead with the Plan approval process at the County level, until the Coastal Commission’s request for Measure A review and certification is satisfied. If you do go ahead with the approval process today, I respectfully ask you to Thank you. |
Gillian Taylor, Conservation Co-Chair March 14, 2005 The Ventana Chapter Sierra Club has submitted extensive comments on the Pebble Beach project and its environmental documents, including submittals by attorney Frank Angel and Hillary Green. The Final EIR has not addressed our concerns, nor have the final proposed mitigations. The areas of inadequate EIR review and analysis include: impacts to the Monterey Pine Forest, especially in the areas of the proposed golf course (MNOUV) and the proposed driving ranch in Spanish Bay (Area C); endangered plants (Yadon’s Piperia), threatened species (California Red-Legged Frog), and all ESHA, including wetlands, dunes and Maritime Chaparral. These deficiencies also encompass the Measure A certification process, incompatibilities with local coastal plans, area plans and the Coastal Act, impacts of golf course chemical applications, impacts to the water supply and its public trust resources, and abolishment of existing conservation easements which would allow development within the Huckelberry Hill Natural Habitat Area, severely weakening or destroying that ecosystem. The Draft and Final EIRs have not taken seriously public and agency input (like that of the Sierra Club and the California Coastal Commission.) The documents have not analyzed that input nor has the project been changed to address it. Rather, the FEIR and the proposed Mitigation Plan simply lay a veneer of irrelevant, unenforceable and experimental “mitigations” over the project desired by the applicant. The February Coastal Commission letter made clear their concerns about these same issues. In addition, they highlighted the fact that much of the supposed existing development entitlements claimed by the Pebble Beach Corporation do not appear to exist. In short, the developer wants the public to compare their project’s impacts with an even bigger build-out entitlement that does not legally exist. Naturally, such a comparison will make the proposed development look better than it is. Finally, we would like to remind the Board of what has occurred with Measure A and this project. A few years ago the Pebble Beach Corporation had a problem. They did not have legal entitlements to all the development they desired. And intensive development beyond the existing numerous golf courses and mansions could be rejected due to severe environmental impacts. Also, such intensive development would conflict with existing local coastal plans and the Coastal Act. And, importantly, the public would likely oppose such over-development in sensitive coastal areas. The solution for Pebble Beach was Measure A, which could allow an anti-environmental developmental to proceed under the guise of drastically reducing likely development (this was a very clever tactic.) A great deal of money was spent during the campaign to lead the public to believe that Measure A would be better than the alternative (the exaggerated development rights) and that it would “Save the Forest.” This was clearly not true. But during the campaign the public was assured that all their environmental questions and concerns would be taken care of when the project had environmental review and the California Coastal Commission considered it. They could feel good about voting “Yes” because the agencies in charge of protecting our coast and threatened species would do their job and keep the developers in line. Yet now, after the approval of the initiative, we have seen Pebble Beach Corporation fighting tooth and nail to keep the Coastal Commission from reviewing Measure A when it is required to, in spite of repeated requests and warnings from the Commission. This shows a pattern of deception and disregard for the public’s interests. We urge the Board not to approve the project as proposed and to move Measure A to the Coastal Commission for its required and overdue review. Thank you, GT/RD |
March 15,2005 Members of the Board: My name is Janice O'Brien. I have been a resident of the Del Monte Forest for over 32 years. I oppose the Pebble Beach Company's plan on the grounds of its inconsistency with the present Local Coastal Plan and with the Coastal Act protection policies in general as documented in former testimony and written submittals to the Board. However, I would like to speak to a point that has not been raised in relation to Measure A. Measure A was specifically promoted as a vehicle to insure the preservation of the Del Monte Forest in perpetuity. As such it was supported by a majority of the voters. This development plan is being acted upon today relies on zoning amendments contained in Measure A which permit the radical destruction of forest habitat and the elimination of the last remaining contiguous stands of native Monterey Pine forest. There is no reference to this destruction in Measure A and it is clearly in violation of the stated intent of the Initiative. You do not preserve a forest by cutting it down. Was Measure A deliberately designed to confuse the voting public? As elected representatives, you have the responsibility to insure the voters are given the full protection of the planning process. It is imperative that you cooperate with the Coastal Commission and postpone any further deliberation of this plan until Measure A has been certified by the Coastal Commission. Janice M. O'Brien |
| STATEMENT TO: MONTEREY COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: MONTEREY BAY CHAPTER, CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY RE: PEBBLE B EACH PROJECT DREIR Our chapter has been in existence nearly 40 years. It was established in large part because of concerns expressed b Dr. Ledyard Stebbns, internationally known botanist, bout the need to protect t the unique biological resources of Del Monte Forest. We have repeatedly testified before the county that the Local Coastal Plan approved in the early 80s is out-of-date and needs to be revised to reflect current scientific knowledge about the Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHAs), which were only partially identified at the time the plan was approved. Both the Coastal Act and the LCP require plans to be consistent with ESHA determined at the time of environmental review for a project. The Draft REvised EIR recognizes the loss of sensitive habitat, but attempts to mitigate it with in two ways: 1) Preservation of habitat-- on-site habitat protection is commendable, but of-site habitat is not comparable. The Old Capitol Site and the Aquajito contain important examples of more inland Monterey Pine Forest, but they do not support the long list of sensitive plants and animals found in Del Monte Forest. 2) Restoration by transplanting and propagation, which in the case of rare, threatened, or endangered plants are considered experimental and do not offer the certainty necessary to justify the immense amount of eradication required by this plan. At your meeting two weeks ago Mr. Lombardo stated that the Yadon's rein-orchid was listed as endangered when there were 2000 plants known, but now there are over 200,000, implying that it did not merit further protection. to help Mr. Lombardo understand population dynamics of rare species, a prominent local biologist suggested the following analogy: suppose you have a goldfish bowl with a lot of greenery it it. When you count the fish, sometimes you get a high number, sometimes a low number, depending on conditions (in this case, how many are hiding); but the fish population stays roughly the same as long as their habitat is the same. However, when you start scooping water from the bowl, the habitat decreases; and so, ultimately, do the fish. Del Monte Forest is a little like a big goldfish bowl for the rein-orchid--and a lot of the habitat has already been lost. Aside from this forest, where most of the orchids live, and the greater Monterey Peninsula, the orchid does not exist anywhere else in the world, so far as we know. The Monterey Herald this morning suggested that if the Coastal Commission does not approve this plan, it is declaring war on Monterey County. That is nonsense. We are fortunate to live in a country where we have laws and courts to protect us from the "tyranny of the majority." The majority, in the case of Measure A, approved a flawed document, and for that reason we continue to oppose this project in its present form. |
|
From: MONTEREY PINE FOREST WATCH To: Chairman Louis Calcagno and the Monterey County Board of Supervisors Re: Pebble Beach Company's Del Monte Forest Development Project EIR Monterey Pine Forest Watch has been advocating constructively for the appreciation and conservation of the native Monterey Pine Forest of Monterey since 1992. Our native Monterey Pine Forest is an internationally important treasure, one of the rarest forest ecosystems in the world and a genetic heritage site for a multi-billion dollar forest products industry worldwide. It is listed as endangered by all the important international entities who monitor the world's resources. This forest is also the source of much of the Monterey Peninsula's renown beauty, which attracts tourists and revenue from the world over. In the entire world there are only five small native populations of this forest--3 on the coast of California and two small stands on Mexican Islands off Baja. One of these is near extinction. Human development has destroyed over half the range of this forest in the two hundred years of European colonization. There are only 13,000 acres left of this forest type in total . . . By comparison 80,000 acres of coast redwood forest are in permanent preservation! Just 200 years ago the Peninsula was blanketed with a rich Monterey Pine Forest ecosystem! There were grizzly bears, eagles, condors, and other wildlife in abundance. What remains in Del Monte Forest, fragmented by housing and golf courses though it is, still constitutes a rare treasure of diversity, beauty, history and critical wildlife habitat that is Monterey County's to safeguard. While we applaud Pebble Beach Company's promise to set aside important conservation areas and we recognize the economic realities of the day, we contend that this project would be too destructive of what remains of this incredible forest. We take strong exception to the contention in this Draft Environmental Impact Report that there is no ecological difference between Del Monte Forest and the other stands in the Monterey Area. It is very different indeed, indicated by the fact the majority of rare and endangered species associated with Monterey Pine Forest exist in Del Monte Forest. It is particularly crucial to preserve all areas that are adjacent to the 400 acres Huckleberry Hill Natural Habitat Area and to Pescadero Canyon. We have developed a series of alternatives which would offer greater protection for what remains of Del Monte Forest while still providing the applicant with its project objectives. We have provided them to all members of the Board, along with our specific concerns as to the inadequacies in this EIR. We strongly urge that you do not certify this Draft EIR as final at this time, but rather that it be amended and recirculated to address issues that we and others have raised and that were not addressed in the PRDEIR. |
Comments made at the Board of Supervisors' March 15, 2005 public hearing Good afternoon. I am Ted Hunter, a resident-property owner in Pebble Beach for over 20 years. I have served as past president of the Del Monte Forest Property Owners and currently volunteer on the Del Monte Forest Land Use Advisory Committee. I am speaking here today to give you my personal views only. I have attended all of the County's Public Hearings covering the Pebble Beach Company's proposed developments. I have listened to the very limited discussions on these proposed major construction projects and heard members of the Subdivision Committee and Planning Commissioners vote in favor of these major commercial development plans for Del Monte Forest. I expect you Supervisors will ignore the many written requests to modify these development plans and will also vote YES. The County voters were misled on the purpose of Measure "A" and most Pebble Beach residents don't understand the major adverse impact the expansion of commercial operations in the Forest will have on our residential community. As a taxpayer, I would like to let you know that I am disappointed and disgusted with what is happening to the beautiful area my wife and I moved to over 20 years ago. The greedy developers seem to have no trouble in getting your approval for massive developments in all areas of the County. The quality of life for all of us in this county is being destroyed. Is it the County's urgent need for new revenue that requires a "yes" vote on all developments The Pebble Beach Company's proposed projects and the projects you have been approving for other developers in the county are all excessive. Aren't you concerned about the inadequate infrastructure, the increasing traffic gridlock, lack of water, and impact on the overall environment in this County? Before you vote today, please give serious consideration to asking the developer to reduce the size of these excessive projects which impact the future quality of life in this County. Thank you, Ted Hunter |
• HOME
PAGE • LINKS • PEBBLE
BEACH DEVELOPMENT • MONTEREY
COUNTY • COASTAL
COMMISSION •
• ACTION
ON MEASURE "A" • LAND
USE PLANS • PUBLIC
HEARINGS • SCENIC
EASEMENTS • WATER
ISSUES •
• EDITORIALS • NEWS
ARTICLES
• NEWS
FOR RESIDENTS • ABOUT
CONCERNED RESIDENTS
• TOP
OF PAGE