060616-4

SANTA ROSA — THE FERVOR surrounding Measure A ran high at the California Coastal Commission meeting here Wednesday.

Citing confusion over the ballot measure approved by voters in November 2000, Monterey County supervisors voted Tuesday to withdraw it from Wednesday’s coastal commission agenda.

But that didn’t stop a dozen people, including several Peninsula residents, from attending the meeting and praising the coastal commission staff for its recommendation of denial of the measure, which seeks to amend Del Monte Forest’s Local Coastal Plan to eliminate hundreds of potential homesites in favor of a new golf course, equestrian center, hotel rooms and employee housing.

“The so-called withdrawal looks a lot like a dirty political trick designed to allow the Pebble Beach Company to shop for an accommodating commission,” said Mark Massara, a Sierra Club lawyer who lobbies the coastal commission full-time to stop development projects.

Commissioners would have approved or nixed the 2000 ballot measure, OK’d by Monterey County voters by a 2-1 margin, had the item not been pulled from the meeting’s agenda.

The Pebble Beach Co. contends its development plan allowed under Measure A — officially dubbed “The Del Monte Forest Plan: Forest Preservation and Development Limitations” — would provide long-term protection for the most vital parts of the native Monterey pine forest by limiting future development to levels far fewer than envisioned by the coastal commission in the 1980s.

The P.B. Co’s project calls for a new golf course, driving range, equestrian center, 160 hotel rooms, underground parking at the Lodge and Spanish Bay, 60 new employee residences, 36 residential lots, and road and infrastructure upgrades, including major improvements to the Highway 68-Highway 1 intersection and the main Pebble Beach gate.

Zoning approved by the coastal commission in 1984 could have permitted almost 900 home sites on P.B. Co’s land (or a golf course and some 600 to 700 home sites).

The lesser zoning approved by voters in November 2000 was also OK’d by the Del Monte Forest homeowner’s association and, on a unanimous vote, by Monterey County supervisors.

Peter Douglas, the coastal commission’s executive director who has led the charge to see Measure A turned back by the commission, said Wednesday he and his staff were “very disappointed” with the county’s withdrawal.

“We have spent literally thousands of hours in preparation of the staff report with our biologists and others who have provided input to the staff recommendation of this matter,” Douglas said. “Plus, the withdrawal is costly for the commission and the public.” Douglas estimated the cost in staff time at $10,000 to $12,000.

Although the county has the right to resubmit the measure to the coastal commission, there is no time limit on when the item must be resubmitted, said Ralph Faust, former lead counsel with the commission.

“It may come back in a month, it may come back in a year,” Faust said. “There is no way to tell.”

Ted Hunter, a 22-year resident of Pebble Beach and a representative of a group called Concerned Residents of Pebble Beach, reiterated Douglas’ comments.

“It’s been a total loss in terms of waste of money,” Hunter said. “This is one example of the board of supervisors making decisions at the expense of the taxpayers.”

The coastal commission staff report, released June 2, contends the P.B. Co. development will harm areas home to Monterey pines, the federally endangered Yadon’s piperia and the federally threatened California red-legged frog.

But a June 12 letter received by the commission from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the agency responsible for protection of the frog and the piperia, contradicts these contentions. Diane Noda, field supervisor for the service, stated in the letter, “it is our conclusion that the actions proposed by the Pebble Beach Company are compatible with the long-term conservation and recovery of the California red-legged frog and Yadon’s piperia, and that any negative impacts to these species would be fully mitigated.”

An effort to have the Monterey pine declared an endangered species was abandoned in 2001 after numerous scientists said the tree was in no danger of extinction.

One expert, UC Berkeley forestry & genetics professor William Libby, said, “The species is in no conceivable imminent danger of either rarity or extinction.” And the coastal commission has never taken the position that any project in Del Monte Forest should be rejected because of impacts on the Monterey pine, including Poppy Hills Golf Course and several residential subdivisions.

But with respect to Measure A and the P.B. Co.’s plans, the coastal commission staff has long recommended the Monterey pine’s native ranges be declared “environmentally sensitive habitat” — a designation that, under the Coastal Act, would essentially eliminate any development potential. The staff’s position, however, has never been adopted by the commission itself.

The Pebble Beach Co. says the trees are not rare. Furthermore, its native stands must be managed to prevent the encroachment of exotic species, according to the company, and its development plans would provide funding for long-term protection of Monterey pine forests.
Bruce Cowan, a former Sierra Club member who resigned because of his objections to the Sierra Club’s tactics in opposing Measure A, has said there are millions of Monterey pines in the state and many more planted throughout the world.

If Measure A is allowed to go into effect, the Pebble Beach Co. would place more than 900 acres (including about 500 within Del Monte Forest) of pine forest and other land under conservation easements as protected natural open space. In addition, the company would eliminate hundreds of potential home lots.

“A golf course preserves more trees and habitat and generates fewer ongoing demands than houses,” Rick Verbanec, president of the Del Monte Forest property owners group said last week.

About 50 people attended the Santa Rosa meeting Wednesday, in contrast to the hundreds who showed up at the March 9 coastal commission hearing in Monterey when Measure A was last discussed.

About 10 Sierra Club supporters spoke against the development. No Pebble Beach Co. representatives or other supporters of Measure A attended the meeting.

In an effort to reduce the environmental impacts of Measure A, the Pebble Beach Co. last month offered to move the proposed equestrian center from the Sawmill Gulch area, which was dedicated as a conservation easement when the Inn at Spanish Bay was constructed in the late 1980s.

After the staff report criticized the plan for allowing an equestrian center in the Sawmill Gulch conservation easement, the P.B. Co. proposed moving the equestrian center to the company’s corporation yard. The move would reduce the number of trees to be cut and eliminate any concerns a conservation easement would be amended or removed.

But the concessions didn’t impress the coastal commission’s staff which has long opposed the P.B. Co’s plans.

“We have made it clear that we consider the Monterey pine forest ESHA,” Douglas told commissioners. “And we did write a letter before Measure A was put to a vote of the people expressing our concerns. But for whatever reason, the company decided to proceed. It wasn’t like we didn’t notify them of the concerns.”

Although the staff report noted there were some positives to the company’s plan, it concluded its detriments outweighed its benefits. Despite Monterey County supervisors’ concerns about confusion over Measure A, Massara recommended commissioners show no mercy in deciding on the measure when it’s brought back to the table.

“The Pebble Beach Company says its withdrawal is to confirm the difference between the zoning amendment and the project itself. There is no such distinction,” he said. “We urge you not to engage in such discussions and to rely on your well documented, well reasoned staff report.”

While the coastal commission’s staff made no apologies to the Pebble Beach Co., Douglas did make one to commissioner and Monterey County 5th District Supervisor Dave Potter.

Last week, Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez appointed alternate commissioners, a move characterized by the Sierra Club as a last-ditch effort to get the P.B. ballot measure approved. Among those to be appointed included Seaside Mayor Ralph Rubio as an alternate for Potter.

Following the appointments, Douglas incorrectly told news reporters commissioner Dave Potter, who is also a Monterey County 5th District supervisor, approved Rubio as an alternate, an error he admitted Wednesday.

“I did indicate to the press erroneously that commissioner Potter had appointed an alternate to serve when he was not here, and that was wrong,” he said.