SDMGA thanks the Coastal Commissioners for their willingness to consider concerns about the Torrey Pines projects but challenges City's misleading statement on project approval by the City's Golf Advisory Council (GAC)
San Diego City Agent, Kevin Oliver, asserted in a rebuttal at the Coastal Commission meeting in Long Beach on January 11 that “Mr. Spiegelman is mistaken when he says that the Golf Advisory Council disapproved the clubhouse, they actually approved it.” Mr. Oliver’s assertion is incorrect. The city's Golf Advisory Council rejected the plan,
8-3, after the nearly 4½-hour meeting in Kearny Mesa. The majority of the advisory council members said they couldn't support spending $13 million on a clubhouse when other improvements were needed at the golf courses.
The full text of SDMGA's letter to the Coastal Commission regarding this issue is given below.
_______________________________________________________________________
From: Paul Spiegelman
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 4:23 PM
To: Ellen Lirley – Coastal CommissionCc: Kevin Oliver – San Diego Park and Recreation Department; Linda Colley - UCPD;
John Beaver; Joe Burwell
Subject: Torrey Pines Projects
Dear Ms. Lirley,
Please convey SDMGA’s thanks to the Commissioners for their willingness to consider our concerns about the Torrey Pines projects. Although we had hoped the Commission would weigh the impact of the whole project on low-cost recreation before approving the Phase I parking lot, we were gratified with the commitment to consider this impact if and when a Phase II application is made. We ask that the staff keep us advised of any subsequent applications by the City. One question SDMGA had is whether the filings we made in conjunction with the original appeal and the Phase I application are a part of the file for Phase II or whether we need to resubmit our arguments after the City actually files the Phase II permit?
One matter which arose during the hearing last Thursday was of concern. Kevin Oliver asserted in a rebuttal that “Mr. Spiegelman is mistaken when he says that the Golf Advisory Council disapproved the clubhouse, they actually approved it.” (Or words to that effect). Mr. Oliver’s assertion is incorrect. Mr. Oliver was referring to a 2005 Golf Advisory Council (GAC) decision that approved the concept of the clubhouse. Although this is true, what he neglected to acknowledge was that subsequently the GAC rejected the clubhouse when it found out its financial impact on low-cost recreation at the Torrey Pines Golf Course. As GAC Chair Randy Gustafson put it, “GAC supported the concept of the plan until council members learned how it was going to be funded.” See Adriane Tillman, Golf Plan won’t fly, lands in bunker. La Jolla Village News, February 23, 2006,[1] As Ms. Tillman reported, the GAC rejected the City’s Five-Year Plan primarily because of the clubhouse: “The council primarily objected to the proposed clubhouse for Torrey Pines, which is widely unpopular among residents and is suspected to be linked to an increase in greens fees.” Ibid. The San Diego Union reported on the Golf Advisory Council’s February 21, 2006 meeting as follows:
The city's Golf Advisory Council rejected the plan, 8-3, after the nearly 4½-hour meeting in Kearny Mesa. The majority of the advisory council members said they couldn't support spending $13 million on a clubhouse when other improvements were needed at the golf courses.
Craig Gustafson, Advisory panel rejects plan for city's golf courses, San Diego Union Tribune, February 22, 2006.”[2]
Thus, in the context it was made, Mr. Oliver’s statement was highly misleading. While we do not believe this misrepresentation directly affected the Commission’s decision, we think it is important to set the record straight for two reasons. First, if the City presents Phase II to the Commission, they should be aware of the actual facts – the Clubhouse project is “widely unpopular with local residents,” and the Golf Advisory Council rejected the clubhouse projects because of their cost and impact on greens fees. Second, the misleading information presented by Mr. Oliver casts serious doubts on the City’s credibility. Mr. Oliver either knew or should have known that his statement was highly misleading. As developed on pages 11 to 14 of our Supplemental Statement in Opposition to Torrey Pines Projects, the City has continuously engaged in a pattern of deceptive statements designed to mislead the public and decision-makers about the true nature of its plans. Mr. Oliver’s statement fits into this continuing pattern of deception. We urge the Commission and the staff to be highly skeptical of any statements the City makes.
By copy of this email to Kevin Oliver, we are asking that he clarify his misleading comment and acknowledge that the GAC and the UCPG Executive Board have rejected the Clubhouse projects and that the projects have been overwhelmingly opposed by the golfing community. Such an acknowledgement could help correct the misimpressions created by his statements to the Commission and might be a first step to rehabilitating the City’s credibility on these issues. The City has made a decision to generate the revenue to pay for the construction projects through sharply increased greens fees which will price many City residents, seniors and county residents off of Torrey Pines and alter its character as an affordable municipal golf course. If it can square these actions with the Coastal Act’s policy in favor of maintaining low cost coastal recreational facilities, it should do so. But it should not engage in a “disinformation” campaign and attempt to mislead the Commission about the actual facts.
Respectfully yours,
Paul J. Spiegelman
Attorney for SDMGA
Endnotes:
[1] http://www.sdnews.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2006/02/23/43fe31ac42c56
[2] http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/golf/20060222-9999-7s22torrey.html