Near San Simeon : Hearst Hotel Plan Stirs Controversy
The Hearst Corp., one of California’s largest property owners, is stepping up its efforts to gain approval to build at least three hotels and several other commercial projects on more than 300 acres of prime coastline property near the famed Hearst Castle in San Simeon.
The publishing conglomerate, which owns a 14-mile-long parcel along California 1 from Pico Creek south of San Simeon to the Monterey County line, has been trying to develop five different sites in the area for more than seven years. One site, on picturesque San Simeon Point, would include a 250-room hotel, restaurant and golf course.
Hearst’s plans have been stymied by opposition from many of the area’s residents and by the California Coastal Commission, an agency charged with ensuring that the public has maximum access to the ocean and coastal land.
The Coastal Commission has repeatedly said it will only approve the project if Hearst accepts an easement guaranteeing that the remaining 76,650 acres it owns will be used for agricultural purposes only.
Frustrated by its lack of progress and by what the company calls the public’s “misunderstanding” of its development proposal, Hearst has hired a local architect and planner to conduct public information sessions aimed at building community support for the project.
The planner, Victor Montgomery, has helped generate support for other development projects in the past. He hopes his efforts will also persuade the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors to recommend that the Coastal Commission drop the proposed easement when the matter comes before the board in the fall.
Hearst officials say the company doesn’t intend to develop the remaining land, but they oppose the creation of any legal instrument--such as an easement--that officially prevents the company or a future buyer from building on the property.
‘Isn’t Justified’
Officials from the Coastal Commission say they don’t mistrust Hearst, but insist that a mere promise not to build isn’t good enough--it must be in writing and entered into the legal record.
“The easement the Coastal Commission wants just isn’t justified by the size of this project,” Montgomery said.
“The Hearst Corp. wants to build on one-half of 1% of its 77,000 acres, and the commission will only let the company do it if Hearst agrees to keep the other 99.5% for agricultural use only. That’s just not fair or equitable.”
The Coastal Commission disagrees.
“This might not be equitable if we were talking about an undeveloped lot in a heavily developed area,” said David Loomis, a Coastal Commission official who has been working on the Hearst proposal for several years.
“But right now, the Hearst property is basically 77,000 acres of undeveloped rolling hills and plains. You’d be going from no development to some development--and that’s a very big step.”
If Hearst builds on the five sites, Loomis said, local residents will suffer because traffic will increase and the area’s pristine air will be adversely affected. Visitors who relish the open space and scenic views of the Pacific Ocean would also be impacted by the congestion and additional development.
Water Shortage
The Coastal Commission is also concerned about how much water the new projects would use. The area isn’t served by an aqueduct or delta; all the fresh water comes from creeks and streams that flow from the Santa Lucia Mountains.
The Central Coast is prone to water shortages, Loomis said, and the Hearst Corp. may have problems finding enough water for the three hotels, four restaurants, golf course and other tourist attractions the company wants to build.
The proposed developments might also endanger the steelhead trout, a fish that starts life out as a fresh-water rainbow trout and matures into a silver, cigar-shaped ocean-going fish. Steelhead have already disappeared in some areas, Loomis said, and many more could die if the flow of local streams and creeks is diminished.
Loomis’ concerns are being echoed by many of the people who live in and around San Simeon. In Cambria--the largest town in the area, about 10 miles south of Hearst Castle--some residents also fear Hearst’s development program would wind up lining the pockets of the corporation at the expense of the 3,500 people in town.
‘Pay for Services’
“It’s bad enough that we’d have to deal with all the traffic and air pollution the project would generate,” said Shirley Bianci, who began visiting the area in 1930 and retired there in 1979. “But we’d also have to pay for all the services the tourists and the people who work at the hotels would require--sewers, paramedics, even schools.
“Hearst would make a bunch of money, and send it off to (corporate offices in) San Francisco or New York. We’d get stuck with all the headaches.”
Such concerns helped spur the creation of Coastal Residents United, a group of local residents that opposes the Hearst plan and some other developments proposed for the area.
Although the meetings Montgomery has been conducting have allayed the fears of some local residents, they have merely cemented the opposition of others.
“A lot of the folks up here have been calling those meetings the ‘Hearst dog-and-pony shows,’ ” says Bianci. “I’ve been to two of them, and most of the people were offended.
‘We’re Not Stupid’
“We’ve got a lot of retired professionals up here--civil engineers, traffic engineers, doctors and the like--and those Hearst people talked to us like we were a bunch of third- and fourth-graders. We live in the sticks, but we’re not stupid.”
(Montgomery initially offered to provide The Times with documents detailing Hearst’s proposed developments. Later, however, he said an attorney for the corporation would not allow him to send the information unless a reporter would also attend a screening of a slide show describing the proposed projects. The Times declined, citing the constraints of an editorial deadline, and did not get to view the proposals.)
Hearst, however, has had better luck with the San Luis Obispo Board of Supervisors, the government agency that represents the people who live in Cambria, San Simeon and other nearby towns.
“Our board has agreed with Hearst that the Coastal Commission’s (proposed) easement is unfair,” said Bill Coy, the supervisor who represents San Simeon and the rest of San Luis Obispo County’s north coastal district. “The Hearst people aren’t the ‘suede-shoe’ guys we run out of here as fast as we can--they really care about the area.
“Besides, their project is more tasteful than the buildings we’ve seen in other towns around here--or in Los Angeles, for that matter.”
Planner Encouraged
Such comments from county officials encourage planner Montgomery. He will continue holding community meetings for the next three to five weeks, and believes the supervisors will recommend that the Coastal Commission’s proposed easement be scrapped later this fall.
Although such a recommendation may help Hearst’s cause, the commission could still insist that the easement be incorporated in the eventual plan for the area.
“If the Coastal Commission deletes the easement, we’ll go ahead with the first phase of the project,” Montgomery said. If the Coastal Commission insists on the provision, he said, Hearst will either accept the easement or take it to court.
The company has never wanted to file suit over the disagreement, Montgomery said, but he believes it may be more willing to do so now because of a recent Supreme Court decision that adversely affected the Coastal Commission.
Hoping for Agreement
That case, Nollan versus Coastal Commission, found that government agencies cannot impose extreme conditions on developers who want to build on their own property. If Hearst sues, the courts would have to decide whether the easement covering 76,650 acres is a fair trade-off for permission to build on the 350 acres slated for development.
Loomis at the Coastal Commission believes the proposed easement will withstand a court test, and says his agency won’t back away from the proposal merely because of the Nollan decision. However, he says, the commission is hoping it can reach an agreement with the county and the Hearst Corp. that “all of us can live with” before the dispute results in a court battle.
“Our planners and lawyers are reviewing all the studies to see if we can’t come up with a plan that will provide a level of protection for the environment and public, but still allow Hearst to go forward with its project,” Loomis said. “Obviously, it’s not going to be easy.”
