Report on SDMGA participation in Coastal Commission's Torrey Pines Construction Projects Proceedings
Paul Spiegelman, representing SDMGA, participated in the Coastal Commission's Torrey Pines Construction Projects Proceedings held in Long Beach on January 11, 2007. Paul's report of this meeting along with appropriate reference links are given below.
_______________________________________________________________________
Report on SDMGA Participation in Coastal Commission Proceedings Regarding Torrey Pines Golf Construction Projects - By Paul Spiegelman, January 11, 2007
On January 11, 2007, the Coastal Commission had a public hearing on Phase I of the Torrey Pines construction projects – the parking lot renovation. SDMGA co-founder Paul Spiegelman made an oral presentation in opposition to the parking lot improvements (SDMGA had previously filed written appeal from the City’s original grant of a permit to itself, a supplemental statement in opposition to the project as a whole, and a specific written opposition to the parking lot improvements). After our written opposition, the City agreed that it did not have jurisdiction to grant itself a permit and that permit was vacated. The City then converted the appeal into an application to the Commission for a coastal permit to renovate the parking lot and construct the clubhouse and the tournament support building. After our Supplemental Statement, the City asked that the permit application be split into Phase I – the parking lot and Phase II - the clubhouse and tournament support building. The Coastal Commission permitted the split and the staff wrote a report recommending that the Phase I parking lot improvements be approved.
At the January 11 hearing, SDMGA’s Paul Spiegelman asked for the Commission’s help emphasizing the following concerns:
(1) that the City had decided to turn Torrey Pines Municipal Golf Course into Torrey Pines Country Club
(2) that the City’s process was broken and ignored citizen concerns
(3) that the costs of the project -- $2.8 million in construction costs and $2.2 million in “soft” costs – was excessive and were being, in effect paid by increased greens fees
(4) that the Lodge at Torrey Pines was benefiting from the renovation and should bear part of the costs
(5) that the Coastal Commission should be concerned because Torrey is a unique coastal recreational facility and the Coastal act mandates that the Commission should protect such low-cost recreational facilities.
After Commission staff and at least one commissioner stated that the issue of greens fees would be addressed in Phase II of the application, the Commission voted unanimously to approve the staff report supporting the parking lot project. Chairman Kruer commented that the parking lot was in terrible condition and that he supported these kinds of improvements which made the facility more accessible to visitors. Most of the discussion of the project was about what kind of trees to plant at the border of the parking lot. The Commission insisted that anything planted be native and the consensus was that this would be Torrey Pines (not the eucalyptus called for in the UC Plan).
Given the condition of the parking lot, the splitting of the construction projects into two phases so that only parking issues were addressed, and the staff report recommending approval, SDMGA did not expect the Commission to disapprove Phase I. Indeed, if the costs were more reasonable and shared by the Lodge at Torrey Pines, SDMGA would not have opposed the parking lot improvements. Nonetheless attending the hearing was useful: SDMGA got to introduce our concerns about the effect of these projects on low-cost coastal recreation to the Commission; we got assurances that these concerns would be addressed in Phase II and we let the City know that SDMGA is continuing the fight to keep Torrey a municipal facility. Also of interest is that fact that Deputy Golf Manager Mark Marney said that the City did not intend to go forward with Phase II for several months and it might be longer than that. It sounds as if there are no plans to build the Tournament Support Building for the U.S. Open.
Marney also told us that he was at Winged Foot and saw the damage to the East Course (not the one on which the Open was played, but which was used for corporate tents, refreshment facilities, etc). Mark says that much of the damage was from the food services which were provided right on the East Course. At Torrey, this food service function will be limited to the driving range which they may put gravel over. The holes on the North impacted by the Open will be 1,2,3,4, 9, 10 and 18, but according to Mark, this damage should be limited because the driving range will handle the trucks etc. necessary for food service concessions. When I mentioned the lack of compensation for revenue interruption on the North should it need repairs he noted that the City did not get to negotiate with USGA.