SDMGA files an appeal to the California Coastal Commission against the City's Plan to construct a new clubhouse building, a tournament support building and associated parking renovations.
On May 10, 2006 the SDMGA filed an appeal to the California Coastal Commission against the City of San Diego's application to develop parkland at the Torrey Pines Golf Course. The development consists of the demolition of the existing two-story, 18,800 sq. ft. clubhouse and the construction of a two story 27,059 sq ft. clubhouse and two story, 11,600 sq ft tournament support building, with associated parking and landscaping improvements, on an 8.2 acre site. Location: 11480 North Torrey Pines Road, North City (University Planning Area), San Diego.
A complete text of the appeal is given below:
________________________________________________________________________
Paul J. Spiegelman
Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 22575
San Diego, CA 92192-22575
858 452 7121
State Bar No. 63705
APPEAL OF APPLICATION No 6-NOC-06-073
Local Permit # CDP 298250
(1) the name and address of the permit applicant and appellant:
Appellants are:
San Diego Municipal Golfer=s Alliance (SDMGA)
P.O. Box 22575, San Diego, CA 92192-2575,
an organization of 1268 signers of a petition opposing the project (names of petition signers is Exhibit Fact Overview-1).
John Beaver, 325 Belvedere Street, San Diego, CA 92037,
individually and on behalf of SDMGA petition signers
Joe Burwell, 320 El Viento Street, Solana Beach, CA 92075,
individually and on behalf of SDMGA petition signers;
Paul J. Spiegelman, P.O. Box 22575, San Diego, CA 92192-2575
individually and on behalf of SDMGA petition signers,
Applicants
City of San Diego, Park and Recreation Department
Attn: Kevin Oliver
1010 Second Avenue, Suite 1400 Ms 614
San Diego, CA 92101
City of San Diego, Development Services
Attn: Morris Dye
Development Services Center
1222 First Avenue, MS 301
San Diego, CA 92101-4154
Mark Woodward, Director of Golf Operations
11480 North Torrey Pines Road
San Diego, CA 92037
(2) the date of the local government action:
I am informed by the Coastal Commission by letter dated May 1, 2006 that the Commission received notice of the local action on April 28, 2006. On information and belief, a Apublic@ hearing was held on or about February 1, 2006 at which the application for a permit was approved without comment. Because appellants received no actual notice of this hearing and none was posted at the Torrey Pines Golf Course, appellants were denied the opportunity to attend this hearing and therefore do not know of our personal knowledge when the hearing was actually held or what happened at the hearing.
(3) a description of the development:
Demolition of a two-story, 18,800 s.f.. Clubhouse and construction of a two story 27,059 sq ft. clubhouse and two story, 11,600 sq ft tournament support building, with associated parking and landscaping improvements, on an 8.2 acre site. Location: 11480 North Torrey Pines Road, North City (University Planning Area), San Diego.
(4) the name of the governing body having jurisdiction over the project area:
The City of San Diego purports to have jurisdiction over the area, but this is uncertain. According to Coastal Commission staff:
The draft coastal development permit appears to cover the entire site and range of proposed amenities; however, our maps indicate most, if not all, of the Torrey Pines Golf Course, and the project site, is an area of deferred certification, where the Coastal Commission retains jurisdiction over coastal development permits. The Mitigated Negative Declaration also indicated that the coastal development permit would be processed only by the Coastal Commission. The appropriate information is being forwarded to the Commission=s mapping unit so that an official jurisdictional boundary may be determined. (Letter of March 14, 2006 from Ellen Lirley to City of San Diego, Attn: Kevin Oliver). This appeal is directed at the City=s grant of a permit in two ways: (a) to the extent that the City lacked jurisdiction to grant the permit, it should be vacated as void; (b) to the extent that the City does have jurisdiction, this appeal seeks to have the permit overturned for the grounds stated in section 7 below.
(5) the names and addresses of all persons who submitted written comments or who spoke and left his or her name at any public hearing on the project, where such information is available:
To our knowledge, no one spoke or wrote for or against the project.
(6) the names and addresses of all other persons known by the appellant to have an interest in the matter on appeal:
Century Club of San Diego Lodge at Torrey Pines
3333 Camino Del Rio South #100 11480 North Torrey Pines Road
San Diego, CA 92108 La Jolla, CA 92037
UCPG, Linda N. Colley, Chair Executive Comm.
3589 Syracuse Avenue
San Diego, CA 9212
(7) the specific grounds for appeal:
a. the permit allows the building on 38,659 square feet of open space and demolition of 18,800 of existing buildings for a net loss of 19,859 square feet of open space in violation of::
- UC Plan, p. 15 AOverriding Plan Goals I.E.2 Preservation of Open Space and Vistas@
- UC Plan, p. 30 designating Torrey Pines Golf Course as open space
- UC plan, Table 3, p.166 which requires amendments to the Local Coastal Program for Aany changes in this
table"
- Coastal Act section 30001(b), declaring that Athe permanent protection of the state=s natural and scenic
resources is paramount concern to present and future residents of the state and nation.@
b. the permit increases the amount of surface areas by enlarging the parking lot in violation of the objective of the UC Plan (p.101) to A minimize the total amount of impervious surfaces such as parking.@ The current parking lot has adequate parking on non-paved areas; the current area could be maximized by redesign without enlarging the paved areas.
c. the permit allows for construction that walls off the view to the Ocean from North Torrey Pines Road in violation of the UC Plan p. 101 and otherwise diminishes the scenic quality of the area by allowing encroachment of buildings on to previously open space and blocking views toward the Ocean. This is in violation of Coastal Act section 30001(b), declaring that Athe permanent protection of the state=s natural and scenic resources is paramount concern to present and future residents of the state and nation.@ Walling of the view to the ocean also Afails to enhance the pedestrian experience@ as required by the UC Plan , p.29.
d. The permit is part of a plan to privatize Torrey Pines Golf Course, make it a regular site for professional golf tournaments, turn into a destination resort for wealthy tourists and take it away from the residents who now use it regularly. Indeed, it appears that the City is prepared to take away the access of the resident golfers for whom the golf course was created. This violates Coastal Act section 30001.5 which declares the goals of the state are to A(c) Maximize public access to and along the coast and maximize public recreational opportunities in the coastal zone consistent with sound resources conservation principles@; Coastal Act section 30210 which guarantees Amaximum access@ to coastal area; and Coastal Act 30213 which requires that all in violation of the right of access to coastal areas and recreation in violation of Coastal Act section.
e. The fee structure planned for the Torrey Pines Golf Courses has the purpose and effect of raising prices and making wealth a criterion for access to coastal recreational facilities in violation of Coastal Act sections 30001.5 (subsection c), section 30210 and section 30213
f. The plans for the golf course complex include making it a major tournament center which would involve impacts on traffic flow in the area which are not adequately provided for in the permit as required on p. 47 of the UC Plan, The staging of numerous professional golf tournaments at the site is in contravention of Community Environmental Goal H which seeks to Alimit traffic conditions which produce congestion and air pollution@; instead, this use of the facility as a destination for thousands of players, staff, and spectators will increase congestion and produce substantial air pollution.
g. Failure to consider feasible alternatives.
i. Ignoring the unstated and improper goal of converting Torrey Pines into a destination resort for the wealthy and taking public parkland in the coastal zone away from the residents of San Diego, the stated purpose of the construction projects appears to be primarily to provide facilities for professional tournament golf. The City and the Coastal Commission are governed by CEQA, which requires under CA Pub. Res. Code ' 21080.5(d)(2)(A) that Aan activity will not be approved or adopted as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available that would substantially lessen a significant adverse effect that the activity may have on the environment@. See Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Commission (1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 123; City of Poway v. City of San Diego (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 1037, 1045-1046; CA Public Res. Code '' 21002, 21081.) In the present case, the environmental impacts include the damage to the policies of the Coastal Act and the UC Plan outlined in sections 7a through f. above which include the taking of open space for construction, increasing the amount of impervious surfaces such as parking, the blocking of scenic views, the reduction of public access to the coastal zone, and reduction and removal of public recreational opportunities in the coastal zone, the making of wealth a criterion for access to the coastal zone, and undesirable traffic impacts, including congestion and pollution. The City has failed to adequately consider alternatives which would eliminate or reduce these undesirable consequences. For example, the tournament support facilities, including locker rooms and public meeting places are routinely provided for at major professional golf tournaments in tented facilities; these tented facilities, which are removed after the one-week period during which a tournament takes place, provide a feasible alternative which greatly lessens the undesirable effects on the coastal zone by limiting them to a one-week period, with the costs properly chargeable to the tournament as opposed to the public golfer.
ii. Similarly, renovation of the existing facility, instead of demolition and replacement, has not been adequately considered. Because the public process for planning failed to detect the unanimous public opposition to the clubhouse made clear by the public hearings on the Golf Plan, the City did not give adequate consideration to a less grandiose renovation plan. For example, an asserted public benefit of the new clubhouse is a lunch room designed to provide low-cost meals for golfers; adequate consideration was not given to providing a shaded or covered outdoor lunch facility to the south of the existing clubhouse. Appellants submit that adequate alternatives exist through renovation and some less extensive expansion of the existing facility and that therefore the impacts on the coastal zone can be avoided without sacrificing any legitimate goals that the project seeks to accomplish.
h. Appellants request the opportunity to supplement this appeal with additional grounds, in part because lack of notice of the original proceedings denied us the opportunity to attend the original proceedings and in part because the project is a complex one and it is difficult to be comprehensive and complete in the limited 10 days allowed for an appeal.
(8) a statement of facts on which the appeal is based;
Overview: The construction projects are opposed by over 1250 signatories to the SDMGA petition (attached as Exhibit Fact Overview-1) and the clubhouse in particular is opposed by every member of the general public who has participated in four public meetings on the project. (For a summary of what happened at these public meetings, see our website http://www.sdmga.com/news.htm ). The public sees the proposed construction as an unwarranted intrusion on the municipal character of the golf course which denies us fiscal and physical access to the golf course recreation facilities and to the scenic views now available, but which would be blocked by the buildings constructed. The tournament support building gives a private organization with restricted membership that has its own private, non-Torrey Pines activities a permanent presence on the coastal zone with no demonstrated need to do so. The Century Club has business on the golf course for two one-week tournaments a year and has no need to be on Torrey Pines during the balance of the year; the tournament support building establishes a permanent office facility for them for their temporary Torrey needs. The costs of the building projects and are being passed on directly and indirectly to the golfing public and these added costs are denying us access to the facility because as costs go up, fewer individuals can afford to play. Part of the motivation of the City=s plans seems to be to drive seniors, in particular, off the golf course by denying them the discounted senior rate which has prevailed at City Golf Courses since they were built. This purpose flies in the face of the Coastal Act=s goal of low-cost recreational facilities.
facts concerning notice: Appellants were never given actual notice of the public hearing of this project, nor were we given constructive notice in a manner reasonably calculated to provide actual notice. The only notice posted at the Torrey Pines Golf Course is submitted as Exhibit Facts-1 and mentioned only the UCPG, gave no date and did not mention a public hearing. The City confirms the only posting on this project prior to February 1 was Exhibit Notice Facts-1. (See Exhibit Notice Facts-2, an email trail between Kevin Oliver and Paul Spiegelman establishing that Exhibit Facts-1 was the only notice ever posted at Torrey prior to the hearing.) The failure to post at Torrey Pines violates the applicants= statutory duty to provide constructive notice.
The clubhouse was among the topics of acrimonious public opposition at a Golf Advisory Committee Meeting held on two days notice from the San Diego Parks and Recreation Department on January 13, 2006. See Exhibit Notice Facts-3, article by Tod Leonard, Golfers Opine on Torrey Pines, San Diego Union Tribune, January 14, 2006; web address http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/golf/20060114‑9999‑1s14torrey.html. Appellant Beaver attended the January 13 GAC meeting, signed a speaker slip and spoke against the clubhouse. (See Exhibit Notice Facts-3, supra). Yet no actual notice of the February 1 hearing on the permit was given to Appellant Beaver or any of the other 50 members of the public who attended the January 13, 2006 hearing. They could have been given actual notice of the February 1 public hearing by a simple oral announcement at the GAC meeting. Moreover, Mr. Beaver and many of these individuals signed speaker slips which would have made it easy to provide actual notice to them after the meeting. On February 25, an article was published on the front page of the Union Tribune Sports pages, announcing that appellant Paul Spiegelman was helping form a group to oppose the projects in this permit. (See Exhibit Notice Facts-4, article by Tim Sullivan, They are Playing Around with Playing a Round, Union Tribune, February 25, 2006 web address: http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/sullivan/20060125‑9999‑1s25sullivan.html.) Yet no notice of the hearing was provided by the applicant to him of the impending hearing. On February 26, 2006, another major article appeared mentioning by name all three individual appellants and the SDMGA. See Exhibit Notice Facts-5, article by Tod Leonard, Citizens Group Forms to Fight Torrey Plans, Union Tribune, February 26, 2006, web address http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/golf/20060126‑9999‑1s26torrey.html. That article specifically mentions that Spiegelman is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, making it simple for the City to have provided him notice of the hearing scheduled for February 1. Yet no such notice was ever provided. The conclusion seems inescapable that the City was not motivated to provide actual notice of the hearing to identifiable individuals and groups who opposed their plans.
facts supporting ground 7a. The size of the project is designated in the Notice of Appeal Period dated May 1, 2006
facts supporting ground 7.b. On information and belief, the permit allows for a substantial increase in the paved parking facilities at the site.
facts supporting ground 7.c. It is clear that the construction of 38,659 square feet of two-story buildings between the coastal bluffs and North Torrey Pines Road will have a substantial negative impact on the scenic vistas available from North Torrey Pines Road, from the entrance to the golf course and from the parking lot. Because Athe Mitigated Negative Declaration did not include any visual analysis for the proposed construction@ (Letter of March 14, 2006 from Ellen Lirley to City of San Diego, Attn: Kevin Oliver), the precise nature of this impact is difficult to assess until the City complies with the Commission=s staff request to Aprovide sight-lines, story poles or computer-generated images of the two proposed main structures, so that a determination can be made if any significant changes to existing views from North Torrey Pines Road will result from the proposed project.@ (Letter of March 14, 2006 from Ellen Lirley to City of San Diego, Attn: Kevin Oliver). Appellants ask that we be allowed to supplement the facts after such time as the City has complied with this request and we have had an opportunity to review the materials submitted.
facts supporting ground 7d. It has been evident since the renovation of the South golf course in 2001 that special interests, including hotel interests and promoters of professional golf tournaments wanted to develop the site for commercial exploitation. The move to privatize Torrey Pines is being done step by step. The current construction is a major step in that process. The Tournament Support Building amounts to literal privatization of the second floor of that building which will house the year-round operations of the Century Club, a private organization with restrictive membership. The lower floor of that building includes two locker rooms of 70 lockers each whose primary purpose is to provide locker facilities for professional tournament golfers, but which will not be open to daily public golfers who are not in organized tournament play.
The general public has been unanimous in its opposition to the new clubhouse in four public meetings held on January, 2006, February 21, 2006, March 1, 2006 and March 8, 2006. As one news reporter described the scene at the February 21, 2006 Golf Advisory Council:
AOne query by Del Mar Heights resident Lola Feitelberg during the meeting's public comment portion was particularly telling:
>Who wants the clubhouse?= she said. If there were crickets in the room, you probably could have heard them. Everyone else was silent.@ See Evan McLaughlin=s Voice of San Diego article, dated February 22, 2006, Residents: Golf Fee Hike a Hazard. (Exhibit Facts 7d-1 ); web: http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=euLTJbMUKvH&b=312470&ct=1992321.
The supposed purpose of building the clubhouse is generating economic development through the promotion of major professional golf tournaments, particularly the United States Open. In the only substantive document submitted to the Mayor, who decided to build the clubhouse over unanimous public opposition, a supporter of the clubhouse with direct access to the Mayor indicated that the purposes of the construction include to Akeep [Buick Invitational PGA golf tournament@ at Torrey Pines@ and to Agenerate hundreds of millions of dollars for the City=s economy if we are able to successfully hold the 2008 U.S. Open and then get future U.S. Opens ... [and] ... the new clubhouse will be important to winning future US Opens.@ (Exhibit Facts 7d-2, email of March 24, 2006 from Tom Wornham to Julie Dubick of Mayor Sanders= office [obtained by appellants through a Public Records Act request].) Mr. Wornham=s email argues that the opposition to the clubhouse of golfers seeking to use Torrey Pines as a recreational facility should be ignored because of Athe >Macro Issue of the greater good for 1,300,000 San Diegan vs. 10,000 golfers=@ and ATorrey Pines belongs to all San Diegans, not just those who golf.@ (Exhibit Facts 7d-2, supra.)
Although the City has decided to sacrifice the coastal recreational interests of golfers on the altar of alleged economic development benefits, the public record makes it clear that the proposed construction is unnecessary to secure the economic benefits the City is allegedly seeking through the construction. The argument that the tournament support center will secure the Buick Invitational Golf Tournament for Torrey Pines has been mooted; the PGA has agreed to continue to hold the Buick Invitational through 2010. (See Exhibit Facts-7d-3, article by Tod Leonard, Buick Invitational Staying at Torrey Pines through 2010, San Diego Union Tribune, May 2, 2006, http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/golf/20060502‑9999‑lz1s2buickcla.html.)
The United State Golf Association which runs the U.S. Open had made it clear that having a clubhouse is not crucial; Mike Davis, USGA Director of Rules and Competitions has specifically stated that Ahe doesn't believe the existence of a new clubhouse at Torrey Pines will make or break consideration for future U.S. Opens on the South Course.@ (See Exhibit Facts-7d-4, article by Tod Leonard, Clubhouse no must to stage U.S. Open, Union Tribune, March 7, 2006, http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/golf/20060307‑9999‑lz1s7clubhous.html.)
facts supporting ground 7e. It is clear that the construction plans will raise prices at Torrey Pines substantially. Because resident golfers play the course regularly (twice a week or more), increased costs per round have a very substantial effect on their financial ability to play. For example, an increase of $25 per round for a golfer who plays twice a week, year round, would amount to raise in cost of over $2500. The fee structure announced by the City, in large part formulated to pay for the construction projects proposed dramatically raises fees for residents in at least four ways:
i. raising fees for residents. On the South Course, by 2011, the rates rise 53% on weekends from $45 now to 79; weekdays, the rise would be 57.5% from $40 now to $63. On the North, by 2011, the weekend resident rate would go up to $50 from $34, a 47% increase; weekdays, the rate would $40, up from $29, a 37.9% increase. Charts prepared by the City, showing the proposed fees on the South and North Course are submitted as exhibits 7-e-1 South Course (City Plan, February version, p.43), 7-e-2, South Course (City Plan, May Version, p. 42); 7-e-3, North Course (City Plan, February version, p. 40); 7e-4 North Course (May version, p.39.) [The May version is a available on the City Website at http://www.sandiego.gov/park‑and‑recreation (Click on Golf Complexes) and in a strike-out version which refers to the previous version.
ii. eliminating the senior rate for residents (even though the City=s own Abenchmark research indicates that a 30% senior discount is the customary practice in the area@(See Exhibit Fact 7e-5, May 2006 City Five Year Golf Plan, p.65, available at City Website at http://www.sandiego.gov/park‑and‑recreation/golf/index.shtml.) The elimination of the senior rate has the purpose and effect of pricing seniors off the golf courses. For example on the North Course, with the senior rate eliminated, there would be a 167 percent increase from $15 to $40. On the South (seniors who pay $25 will now pay the same $63 as non-seniors, a 152% increase.
iii. raising fees for residents by charging weekend rates on Fridays with the purpose and effect of denying access to the golf course to residents and senior residents
iv. The imposition of a $25-30 advanced reservation fee for residents to gain preferential access to the golf course grants access to those with the financial ability to pay the higher fee and denying access to those who cannot.
facts supporting ground 7f. The United States Open Golf Championship is a major, world class event which can be expected to attract over 45,000 spectators daily to the four day championship. The Buick Invitational Golf Tournament is one of the premier events on the PGA tour and attracts tens of thousands of spectators. The traffic congestion and pollution caused by such events is obvious.
facts supporting ground 7g: The facts supporting this ground are contained within the explanation of the ground itself and also in the facts supporting ground 7d are incorporated here by reference.
Appellants request that they be given the opportunity to supplement the facts supporting all grounds because in part because lack of notice of the original proceedings denied us the opportunity to attend the original proceedings and in part because the project is a complex one and it is difficult to be comprehensive and complete in the limited 10 days allowed for an appeal.
(9) a summary of the significant question raised by the appeal. This appeal raises at least three significant and substantial questions which would justify a public hearing. First, does the proposed construction cause there substantial adverse impacts on coastal zone scenic, access and recreational interests? Appellants submit that the negative impact on open spaces, scenic vistas, access to the coastal zone, coastal zone recreation on the golf courses and traffic congestion is clear and substantial. Second, are there alternatives available which would eliminate or mitigate the adverse impacts on the coastal zone? Appellants submit that there are, including relying on removable tents for facilities for the one-week golf tournaments and renovation of the existing clubhouse in lieu of demolition and replacement. Third, whether the Coastal Commission can and should consider the impact of fees required to fund new construction on the interests in low-cost recreational facilities. Appellants submit that this question is a novel one of great importance not only to the Torrey Pines golfers but to the many California residents who regularly use coastal facilities for which there is a fee charged. Thus, appellants believe that there is an overriding interest of the public policy raised by this appeal which the Coastal Commission should address. When it does address this issue, appellants contend that Commission will find that it should consider the costs imposed on users by construction projects of coastal zone recreational facilities, that the costs are substantial, and that the impact and cost and access are incompatible with the policies of the Coastal Act.
Respectfully submitted,
San Diego Municipal Golfers Alliance
John Beaver, individually and as co-founder
Joe Burwell, individually and as co-founder
Paul Spiegelman, individually and as
co-founder Appellants
Dated: May 10, 2006
by: _________________________ Paul J. Spiegelman
Attorney for Appellants