1. Objecting party: Ramistella Trust Applicant: WTCC Ventana Investors V, LLC Objection to Proposed Amendment to CDP 3-82-171 Amendment is material, not immaterial Case of first impression for Coastal Commission, according to CCC staff and CCC engineer Adverse impacts on coastal resources: water supply slope stability biological and visual resources

2. Today’s request: At least three commissioners’ votes to consider this a material amendment Would mean future hearing before Commission

3. Ventana Inn and Resort, Big Sur Red arrow: points to project site “Mule Ridge Site” Blue arrow: points to Mule Canyon water source

5. Ventana’s many years of wastewater and water problems since 2001 Contamination of Post Creek Raw sewage daylighted in campground at Post Creek Post Creek campground ordered closed RWQCB Cleanup and Abatement Order in 2007 – not yet satisfied Violations not reported to Coastal Commission

6. The biological productivity and the quality of coastal waters, streams... appropriate to maintain optimum populations of marine organisms and for the protection of human health shall be maintained and, where feasible, restored through, among other means, minimizing adverse effects of waste water discharges and entrainment, controlling runoff, preventing depletion of ground water supplies and substantial interference with surface water flow... Coastal Act, section 30231

7. Proposed Project: Wastewater Dispersal system Clear and grub some 53,000 square feet of Big Sur hillside Dig thousands of feet of trenches some 15 inches deep and 12 to 36 inches wide Install an underground dispersal system Release up to 15,000 gallons of treated wastewater into hillside daily... even during the rainy season.

8. Mule Canyon provides sole-source water supply: Nepenthe visitor-serving compound (two restaurants) Hawthorne compound (gallery, studio, residence) Historic Coastlands properties (30+ residential properties)

9. Parker Groundwater Report, February 2012, p. 1: The greatest unaddressed concern.. is the protection of an adjacent, sole-source of potable water [at Mule Canyon] downslope from the Ventana... treatment system dispersal project proposed for Mule Ridge. The Ventana application to the Coastal Commission discusses water resources but does not mention that Mule Canyon is the sole potable water source for a number of major neighboring facilities.... The application does not address or investigate the potential impacts of the project to Mule Canyon water. The proposed Mule Ridge project location sits uphill and upgradient from the potable water source, and with gravity as a driver the possible pathway for the wastewater to get to the source water includes subsurface fractures in the weathered bedrock observed in the borings.

10. Parker Groundwater Report, February 2012 Slope Stability Concerns The stability of slopes in the project area and surrounding region is an additional concern with the proposed project. The area is underlain by Franciscan Formation geologic materials, which are known up and down the Coast Ranges to be in a continuous state of "soil creep", or landscape in motion. It is unclear if any of these [GeoFlow] systems have yet been tried in areas of constant soil creep as described above for the Coast Ranges. The Mule Ridge site - the location of greatest concern - has more heterogeneous shallow soil materials and steeper slopes (25-40%), has mapped small landslides, slumps and erosional scarps, with an overall geomorphic shape suggesting this area is more susceptible to soil erosion and slope instability and may already have a history based on the shallow soil heterogeneity.

11. Parker Groundwater Report, February 2012 Slope Stability Concerns, cont’d The model may not predict a potential failure under these heterogeneous conditions. Considering that both the Haro, Kasunich and Associates, Inc. and Biosphere reports document the heterogeneity in the soils in the Mule Ridge site, the applicant's estimated stability of the slope comes into question. The risk here is the potential for slope failure.

12. Big Sur Coast Land Use Plan Key Policy 3.4.1 The protection and maintenance of Big Sur’s water resources is a basic prerequisite to the protection of all other natural systems. Therefore, water resources will be considered carefully in all Planning decisions and approvals. Proposed development is inconsistent with this policy because: severity of contaminated water resources of Post Creek on which Ventana relies possible impacts to the Mule Canyon water resources

13. Big Sur Coast Land Use Plan policy 3.4.2.2 “the County will require adherence to the best watershed planning principles...” Policy 3.4.2.3 also protects watersheds. The staff analysis for the proposed project does not adequately investigate the potential impacts to, or protect, the Mule Canyon watershed.

14. Biological Resources: impacted by new year-round water flow, even during dry season – change of vegetation, greener Scenic and Conservation Easement protects hillside Significant Development Project with potential for significant unintended consequences No exemptions from Coastal Act or special favors - NOAA lights in Pacific Grove Deserves complete independent review by Commission – should not be approved with limited information Request: Please vote to deem this amendment a material amendment.

15. Matter of First Impression for the Coastal Commission Precedent Setting Policy Issue Commission should get the facts and a full presentation. Comment Deadline: Ten working days from January 26, 2012 Notice = February 9, 2012, at 5 PM Hearing is set for 9 a.m. Objections still permissible for hours after hearing.