From the Monterey County Herald
Serving Monterey County and the Salinas Valley

October 29 , 2006

L E T T E R S

Editor:

Perhaps your Oct. 23 story, "Protecting an Orchid Habitat," contains an error. Did Alan Williams of the Pebble Beach Co. really say the company could destroy 77,000 of 120,000 (more than 64 percent) rare Yadon Piperia orchid plants to build luxury mansions and a new golf course because only 43,000 orchids are necessary for the plant to survive?

Here I thought Williams was just a developer; now he is also a rare plant evolutionary biologist? And able to determine the "survivability" of endangered species? I now feel safe knowing those pesky unwonted plants won't impact the "survivability" of Williams' plans for wiping out not just the orchids, but more than two dozen rare and threatened plants and animals, along with extensive wetlands and 18,000 Monterey Pine trees for yet more golf and mansions.

Williams is obviously still in pursuit of a project now long dead. Pebble Beach Co. can "modify" and "retool" its development plans into the next millennium, but until it refrains from destroying the last coastal native Monterey Pine forests and all the wildlife in them, neither the California public nor the Coastal Commission will want anything to do with it.

Mark Massara
Sierra Club

June 17 , 2006

L E T T E R S

Measure A affront

Editor:

I am profoundly angry with the supervisors and Pebble Beach Co. for withdrawing Measure A from consideration by the Coastal Commission. Their actions are an affront to taxpayers, the commission and its staff, and to all the individuals who spent many hours understanding the issues, attending hearings and making informed judgments about Measure A as a land-use plan.

Obviously the company anticipated denial by the commission and precipitated the supervisors' actions.

Although the commission staff report is 187 pages, it is a carefully constructed, well-written document with no confusion about the relationship between Measure A and Pebble Beach Co.'s development plan. Despite many requests from Concerned Residents of Pebble Beach (I am the co-chairman) and commission staff to separate Measure A and the development plans, the county refused. For the county and Pebble Beach Co. to now claim that the staff report is confusing because it intertwines the two defies common sense.

The withdrawal has cost scarce county and commission staff hours and many hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Carl E. Nielsen
Carmel

June 17 , 2006

L E T T E R S

Editor:

Having failed to rig the Coastal Commission vote with a substitute member, and realizing their plan was going down to defeat, the Pebble Beach Co. has temporarily withdrawn its request for a final hearing on its ill-conceived plan to destroy the Monterey Peninsula.

Spokesman Alan Williams tells us this move is to allow time for the company to explain the "environmental benefits" of a new golf course and removal of 17,000 or 18,000 trees. Stand by, people. A media blitz is on the way.

Phillips Wylly
Pebble Beach

June 15 , 2006

L E T T E R S

Editor:

The decision to delay the vote on the Pebble Beach development plan was not because of confusion, but rather the votes were not there for approval. It is clear where Supervisor Potter stands -- with the money people.

As this is an election year, perhaps it would be better to delay the vote until next year, which would allow more time to tell the voters the truth. Let us start calling the plan what it really is by substituting the word "development" for "preservation."

There is no demand for another golf course, etc., and the area can hardly manage traffic and congestion already. I suggest Mr. Eastwood and friends do the right thing and drop the plan altogether and leave a lasting legacy to all the good things he has done in the area.

Joseph Cicero
Pebble Beach

June 13 , 2006

L E T T E R S

Editor:

The plan to build in the Del Monte Forest should be denied for several reasons:

The construction of Spanish Bay was done under the promise that if it were allowed, the area above it, Sawmill Gulch, would remain undeveloped. Terrible precedent would be set if this were reversed; conservation easements would be meaningless.

The Coastal Commission staff report has deemed the area environmentally sensitive habitat. Measure A, which the developers are using as "proof" that the people approve of their plan, was rudely misnamed "The Del Monte Forest Plan: Preservation and Development Limitations." Everyone I know voted for it assuming it actually meant preservation; we were astonished to find out what our vote actually meant.

Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez has reached a new low by replacing an alternate commissioner at the eleventh hour with one of his own choosing.

Ximena Waissbluth
Pacific Grove

Editor:

Excessive development

The Coastal Commission staff recommends denial as Measure A will violate the Coastal Act. Concerned residents all over the county and state agree. They have written urging commissioners to vote "no" on Measure A, which would allow excessive commercial development.

The staff clearly reports the proposal would destroy the unique environment in the forest. Concerned residents of Pebble Beach and Monterey County believe the quality of life would also deteriorate. The last-minute alternatives, including relocating the equestrian center to the corporate yard, will not change the issue.

Ted R. Hunter
Pebble Beach

Editor:

I am writing to denounce the egregious act of Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez to replace David Allgood with someone with no experience with coastal protection in an effort to stack the Coastal Commission to help the Pebble Beach Co.

Beatriz Cabezon
Davis

Editor:

Over the last 30 years, we have watched the dismantling of the Del Monte Forest under various ownerships. Measure A would complete the process.

Measure A was sold as an instrument to protect the forest. TV ads featured Clint Eastwood walking among the trees, assuring viewers that the Pebble Beach Co. would protect the forest in perpetuity. In reality, it will remove vital protections. We are asking the Coastal Commission to deny certification of Measure A on grounds that its effect is a contradiction of its stated intent.

Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez's decision to appoint new alternates to the commission is an unwelcome intrusion of political pressure into a regional matter.

The forest is the signature landmark of the Peninsula, a treasured, irreplaceable resource. It must not be sacrificed to the financial gain of a commercial interest.

Janice M. O'Brien
Pebble Beach

Editor:

I voted for Measure A because it said the relocated equestrian center would be the same "size and scope" as the existing one. It appears that was never the intent, as the new site would not allow the same size and scope of horse shows that have been a historical part of the center. For more than 50 years, Pebble Beach has been an important horse show venue.

I have been riding in Del Monte Forest since the '50s, worked for S.F.B. Morse in the '60s and for Dick Collins, director of the Equestrian Center, in the '70s. I have witnessed the loss of trails, and it would be with great sorrow to witness the end of an era for the equestrian center. How is it that the new plan is not in keeping with what was voted upon in Measure A? When I read about how the measure was so overwhelmingly passed, I feel duped.

Sherri Reid
Pebble Beach

Editor:

The Pebble Beach Co. agreed in the 1980s to set aside conservation easements in exchange for rights to commercial development that included the Spanish Bay resort. It seems there was an ardent attempt to undermine the authority of the Coastal Commission by putting the project before the voters as Measure A.

The commission staff has recommended denial of the local coastal plan amendments contained in Measure A. In response, the company has proposed specific changes. But, they do not seem relevant to the decision whether to approve the "all or nothing" designations of Measure A.

Allegations regarding last-minute maneuvering of appointments further highlight the commission's responsibility to vote in accordance with the Coastal Act.

Virdette L. Brumm
Pebble Beach