A Coastal Blooper

The California Coastal Commission erred when it voted recently to approve construction of a 480-acre luxury resort and campground complex on the undeveloped San Mateo County coast south of San Francisco and north of Santa Cruz. In doing so, the commission overruled valid objections of its staff and incorrectly interpreted provisions of the county’s local coastal plan.

There is nothing wrong with the resort complex itself. While a portion of it is decidedly upscale, with rooms going for an expected $240 to $310 a night, the campground and a rustic lodge and cabins will make it possible for the less affluent to enjoy the coastal environment at reasonable cost. But the staff had made a credible argument that the scale of the project far exceeded guidelines for coastal development established by the 1976 state law and incorporated in the county plan. The staff argued that the density of the project should be reduced by about half.

The evolution of the 4,088-acre Cascade Ranch property over the past decade is complicated, but the general result has been good for the state of California. About 2,900 acres were turned into state park and another 644 acres were bought by the state Coastal Conservancy to be preserved as farmland. The purchases averted the development of a luxury home tract on ranch property, but part of the deal with San Mateo County was that the remaining 480 acres be developed into a resort complex to create jobs and generate tax revenues. In the process, Gov. George Deukmejian vetoed a bill that provided for state purchase of the ranch.

Local environmental activists promoted the idea of a campground and rustic lodge for the 480 acres in keeping with the rural setting and the concept of coastal access for lower-income Californians. But developers said such a project would not pay for itself and the health and fitness resort was added. One local opponent called the plan “decadent, shallow, narcissistic” and not in keeping with the region. The Coastal Commission staff did not object to the concept itself, only to its scale.

The staff now is meeting with county officials to clarify and simplify the calculation of allowable density of any further coastal developments. The commission itself should make it clear that the density calculations used in the Cascade Ranch case do not represent a precedent for any other project. Otherwise, both the letter and spirit of a critical state law could be dangerously undermined.