|
|
Concerned Residents of Pebble Beach
Ventana Chapter, Sierra Club
LandWatch Monterey County
July 24, 2000
The Honorable Louis Calcagno, Chair
Monterey County Board of Supervisors
County Courthouse
240 Church Street
Salinas, CA 93901
RE: Proposed Initiative Ordinance Amending the
Del Monte Forest Land Use Plan July 25, 2000,
Agenda Item S-5 [9:35 a.m.]
Dear Chairperson Calcagno and Members of the
Board:
Given that sufficient signatures have been
gathered by the Pebble Beach Company to qualify its
initiative proposal for the ballot, the Board of
Supervisors now has two choices&emdash;either
directly to adopt the Pebble Beach Company's
proposed ordinance, or to let the people vote on
it.
Our organizations strongly urge both of the
following:
- First, that the Board of Supervisors place
the initiative ordinance circulated by the
Pebble Beach Company on the ballot, so that the
people of Monterey County have an opportunity to
vote on the very significant land use policy
changes that the Pebble Beach Company initiative
proposes.
- Second, that the Board utilize its general
powers and the provisions of Section 9111 of the
Elections Code to have a full report prepared on
the proposed ordinance, as outlined in this
letter, and that the Board hold at least one
public hearing to consider the report, prior to
the election at which the initiative will be
considered. This is the only way that the Board
of Supervisors can ensure that the public
receives an unbiased and objective analysis of
exactly what the proposed Pebble Beach Company
initiative would do.
As you know, the Pebble Beach Company filed an
application to make changes to the land use
policies governing the future development of their
property, and this application has been pending in
the County's system for some time. The planning
process allows the public, the Planning Commission,
and the Board an opportunity to scrutinize each and
every proposed change&emdash;and ultimately gives
the Board of Supervisors plenary authority to shape
a plan that the Board determines best achieves the
public interest.
Having filed that application previously, the
Pebble Beach Company has now determined to
"shortcut" the lengthy planning process, and is
asking the public, through the initiative process,
to approve the land use policies that the Pebble
Beach Company desires.
The decision on the initiative will be an "all
or none" vote. There will be no opportunity for
the public, or the Board of Supervisors, as the
elected representatives of the public, to shape a
plan that best achieves the public interest. There
will be no opportunity to enact the "good parts" of
the initiative and to eliminate the "bad parts," if
such there are. Again, the initiative process
provides a single "up or down" vote on the entire
package&emdash;a package conceived and proposed by
the Pebble Beach Company itself, with no public
input.
In view of the legal position in which the Board
of Supervisors and the public has been placed, our
organizations believe that it is critically
important that the public have the right ultimately
to make the choice on whether the package proposed
by the Pebble Beach Company is deserving of
approval. If the Board were to enact the ordinance
directly, as it legally could, no prior analysis
would have taken place, and the public's right to
know what the likely effect of the ordinance would
be, in advance of its adoption, would be
sacrificed. We reiterate that the Board should
place the initiative on the ballot for a public
vote.
We further urge the Board to use its general
powers, and the specific authority granted to it by
Section 9111 of the Elections Code, to ensure that
the public can actually know the effect of the
proposed initiative ordinance, before voting on
whether or not to enact it. Section 9111 of the
Elections Code provides as follows:
"9111. (a) During the circulation of the petition
or before taking either action described in
subdivisions (a) and (b) of Section 9116, or
Section 9118, the board of supervisors may refer
the proposed initiative measure to any county
agency or agencies for a report on any or all of
the following:
(1) Its fiscal impact.
(2) Its effect on the internal consistency of
the county's general and specific plans
including the housing element, the consistency
between planning and zoning, the limitations on
county actions under Section 65008 of the
Government Code, and Chapters 4.2 (commencing
with Section 65913) and 4.3 (commencing with
Section 65915) of Division 1 of Title 7 of the
Government Code.
(3) Any other matters the board of
supervisors request to be in the report.
(b) The report shall be presented to the board
of supervisors within the time prescribed by the
board of supervisors but no later than 30 days
after the county elections official certifies to
the board of supervisors the sufficiency of the
petition."
We believe, in addition to Elections Code
Section 9111, that the Board has the general
authority to order a report on the likely effect of
the proposed initiative measure.
Besides ordering a report on the fiscal impact
of the proposed initiative, and its effect on the
internal consistency of the county's general and
specific plans, we believe that the Board should
obtain a report from the County Administrative
Officer, the Planning Director, and the County
Counsel on all of the following questions and
concerns about the meaning and effect of the
initiative text. All of these questions raise
significant questions about the effects of the
initiative, if enacted:
- The initiative states in Section 3c that one
of its main purposes is to "encourage future
visitor serving development adjacent to existing
uses…[emphasis added]." This is a
new policy. Can that language, in connection
with the other provisions of the initiative, be
used to justify new hotel and commercial
development beyond what is allowed under current
law?
- The initiative enacts a new Figure 5, which
is the basic "land use plan" that governs future
development at Pebble Beach. The current Figure
5 is completely superseded. In its current
format, the Local Coastal Program contains a
number of smaller, area maps, that give a "close
up" on land uses. The new Figure 5 is adopted
in place of these smaller maps, all of which are
repealed. This is a fundamental change from the
current situation. Because of the scale of the
new Figure 5, it is difficult to tell exactly
what has changed&emdash;and this is compounded
by the fact that the current "close up" maps are
repealed. What are the specific land use
changes, throughout the entirety of Pebble
Beach, that would be effected by the
initiative?
- Section 4(g) of the initiative eliminates an
existing "Table A," which contains explicit
numerical limits on future development in the
various sub-areas. What is the effect of
eliminating these specific limits on future
development?
- Section 4(h) permits employee housing in
Area B. If the initiative is enacted, will
there be any limit to employee housing in this
area?
- Section 4(j) of the initiative contains the
following, very open-ended statement, as an
addition to the current plan: "New recreational
and visitor-serving uses may be located in
appropriately zoned areas." Will this language
have the effect of allowing more visitor-serving
and commercial uses than would be allowed under
the current plan?
- Section 4(j) of the initiative also combines
into a single category preserved forest,
shoreline, and recreational open
space&emdash;apparently permitting golf courses
to be constructed in "open space" areas in a way
that the current land use plan would not allow.
What will be the actual effects of this new way
of defining open space, throughout the entirety
of the Pebble Beach property?
- Section 4(u) of the initiative eliminates
current language providing a numerical limit to
visitor serving facilities at the Lodge. If the
initiative is enacted, is there any limit on
future commercial development at the Lodge?
- Section 4(w) of the initiative states,
"parking will be provided in a portion of area C
to accommodate visitor-serving facilities in
Spanish Bay." Is there any limit on the amount
of area C that can be converted to parking under
this policy? Does any map delimit the area that
can be used for parking?
- Section 4(y) of the initiative allows
employee housing in planning area Spanish Bay B,
"at the permitted density." If the initiative
is enacted, what amount of employee housing can
actually be constructed under this proposed
change to current law?
- Section 4(aa) of the initiative eliminates
the "resource constraint" overlays contained in
the current plan, and thus makes a determination
that problems with water, wastewater, and
traffic and circulation do not merit special
treatment at this time. Will the proposed
change in current law allow development in
advance of necessary traffic and circulation
improvements&emdash;either to meet current
traffic and circulation problems, or future
traffic and circulation problems that can be
anticipated if the development allowed by the
revised policies is actually constructed?
- Section 4(aa) of the initiative says that
"…new development must either bear the
incremental costs of necessary improvements to
Highway 68 and Highway 1 required as a result of
traffic generated by the development, or pay
into a fund that will be administered by the
County for the incremental costs of the
necessary improvements." Does this mean that
the County can allow development to proceed in
advance of the actual construction of necessary
improvements? Is this a change from the current
situation? Under this language, could the
Pebble Beach Company insist that it has a right
simply to pay money into a fund, rather than
constructing needed traffic improvements in
advance of the development that will cause new
traffic demands?
- Section 5(a) of the initiative contains the
definitions of the various land use categories
applicable within the Del Monte Forest Area.
The Recreational Open Space category permits
golf course, the Beach and Tennis Club, and the
equestrian center, as well as pro shops, cart
shops, parking areas and barns. Are there any
limits to such "open space" uses in areas
designated in the initiative for recreational
open space?
- By deleting the existing equestrian center
and allowing the construction of a new
equestrian center in the Sawmill Borrow site,
the initiative appears to override two existing
conservation easements, with extensive wetlands
impacts and potential impacts on traffic and the
S.F.B. Morse Preserve. What effect would the
initiative have on the existing conservation
easements, one of which was a required
mitigation for damage caused by the Spanish Bay
project?
We hope you agree with us that these questions
are worthy of an answer. If the normal planning
process were available, all of these questions
would receive answers before the Board decided
whether or not to adopt the plan proposed by the
Pebble Beach Company.
In order to give the public the right to make an
informed choice on the proposed initiative, we ask
the Board to utilize the provisions of Elections
Code Section 9111, and its general powers, to get
answers to these questions, and to obtain the
information mentioned in Elections Code Section
9111. Once such a report has been prepared, we
then ask the Board to hold at least one public
hearing on the report, so that the public can
understand the actual effects of the initiative
that the Pebble Beach Company has proposed.
Thank you for your positive action on our two
requests.
Very truly yours,
Ted Hunter and Carl Nielsen
Concerned Residents of Pebble Beach
Gillian Taylor, Chapter Chair
Ventana Chapter, Sierra Club
Gary A. Patton, Executive Director
LandWatch Monterey County
|
