Return to HOME PAGE

Return to
PEBBLE BEACH COMPANY DEVELOPMENT

Return to Menu of
MONTEREY COUNTY

11-30-06 • Issue comes full circle Carl Nielsen • Splendid Irony Anne Holliday

From the Monterey County Herald
Serving Monterey County and the Salinas Valley
http://www.montereyherald.com

My head is dizzy with the spin.

Five years ago, Concerned Residents of Pebble Beach and the Coastal Commission staff told the county that Measure A should be processed first and then, depending upon the commission's decision, the Pebble Beach Co.'s development plan could be processed.

The county administrative officer, county counsel, Planning Department and Pebble Beach Co. all said no, Measure A and the development plan will be processed concurrently. In June 2006, the Coastal Commission was ready to reject Measure A when the county supervisors, in a last-minute move, withdrew it from the commission agenda.

Now, according to planner Carl Holm, "We want the Coastal Commission to consider Measure A before the project." Pebble Beach Co. representative Alan Williams said the commission staff had "made it a chicken and egg problem. If we withdraw the original approval of the plan and send Measure A by itself, then the Coastal Commission has to deal with Measure A."

After five years and hundreds of thousands of dollars needlessly spent by the county, company and Coastal Commission, we are back to square one. It is clear the county yielded to Pebble Beach Co.'s wishes instead of objectively dealing with the issues. Shameful.

Carl Nielsen
Carmel

There is a splendid irony in the impending request by the Pebble Beach Co. for the Board of Supervisors to withdraw the company's latest development plan from the Coastal Commission. The reason? Confusion with Measure A!

Throughout this long and torturous process, thoughtful opponents of this plan have argued that the coupling of the approval of Measure A and the plan was improper and would lead to confusion. We were ignored.

On Tuesday next, the Pebble Beach Co.'s representative will be before the board to seek withdrawal of the development plan on the grounds of "confusion of the issue." This might be cause for satisfaction but unfortunately it merely highlights the reality of our elected supervisors' continuing pattern of habitual and shameless subordination to the political directives of a petulant and arrogant private company with delusions of entitlement.

Ann Holliday
Carmel