Hearst Offers New Plan for Resort
Hearst Corp., seeking to resurrect a long-stalled plan to build a resort along an unspoiled stretch of the Central Coast, has made an offer it calls a compromise but some environmental activists see as a potential trap.
Under the proposal, Hearst would sell its right to develop 83,000 acres--most of its vast coastal land holdings--if it receives permission to build the resort on 257 coastal acres near the famed Hearst Castle at San Simeon.
“This is a wonderful opportunity” to preserve tens of thousands of acres of open space, said corporation executive Stephen Hearst. “We’re talking about a great move for the environment.”
Critics, however, are not sure whether the offer is the deal of the century or a polite form of environmental extortion. They note that when the project last came before the state Coastal Commission, it was rejected as too big and too intrusive for the rolling, pristine landscape that has been called “the last frontier from encroaching urbanization from the north and south.”
“A rose is a rose,” said Susan Jordan, a board member for the League for Coastal Protection. “If the project was inconsistent with the Coastal Act in 1998, it is still inconsistent.”
The critics also note that Hearst Corp. has recently filed building permit applications that could open the way for development of thousands of the acres in question. The applications, which could substantially increase the value of the development rights Hearst is offering to sell, are seen by some as a threat to start building if the current offer is rejected.
At the heart of the dispute is a proposed 650-room hotel, a sea-front golf course and an equestrian center the company has been trying to build on a point in San Simeon.
Stephen Hearst, vice president and general manager of the Sunical land division of the Hearst empire, said talks are already underway with several conservation groups to buy the development rights. The groups include the Nature Conservancy, the Conservation Fund and the Trust for Public Land, he said.
The deal would guarantee that more than 99% of the Hearst holdings in and around San Simeon would remain undeveloped “in perpetuity,” Hearst said. He also said for the first time that Hearst Corp. is willing to compromise on the size and placement of the resort in an effort to minimize its impact on the coastline, and on the views of tourists traveling along California 1, a national scenic highway.
“We have a plan on the books,” he said of the original, rejected proposal. “But that doesn’t mean Hearst is not willing to be flexible.”
One reason that some environmentalists are skeptical is the likely cost of the development rights. Hearst refused to say how much money the corporation will demand, but the spectacular oceanfront property is likely to be very expensive.
“My guess is, Hearst is looking for hundreds of millions of dollars,” said Kat McConnell, a local environmental activist.
Filing the building applications could make the land more expensive, according to the company’s critics. Stephen Hearst, however, played down the implications, calling the applications “a separate component that allows the property owner to preserve the value of its land.”
If the sale of development rights goes “the way we think it will,” the building applications will be void, he said, adding that he wants to find compromise and exercise a flexibility that was noticeably absent from discussions in years past. “There was not a great degree of flexibility from either side in earlier discussions,” he said.
Part of the change is Hearst himself, who came to the corporation two years ago after 24 years working for the company’s newspapers in San Francisco and Los Angeles.
“I’ve put a lot of work into this to do what I believe is a high-quality approach,” he said.
He also insisted that he cares deeply about preserving the coastal heritage that his family has long treasured. With its roots in 19th century gold, silver and copper mines, the Hearst fortune today is largely invested in one of the nation’s largest media companies: Hearst Corp. San Simeon has been for decades the most public part of the family’s public image.
Even though the castle built by William Randolph Hearst now belongs to the state of California, family members are free to use the surrounding ranch and many of its buildings. The ranch is one of the largest single properties along California’s 1,100-mile coastline.
When it turned down the Hearst resort application in 1998, the Coastal Commission argued that the development would open the door to commercial exploitation, not only of Hearst’s property, but of a 30-mile stretch of coast.
At the time, the commission recommended scaling down the hotel from 650 rooms to 375, eliminating an oceanfront golf course and concentrating all the building in one place: near the base of San Simeon Point.
“Based on what we’ve heard, the Coastal Commission [has said that] if we offer a conservation solution, the plan wouldn’t be received with dismay and hostility,” Hearst said.
The company’s new proposal comes while the Coastal Commission is pushing San Luis Obispo County to do a better job of protecting its coast, particularly in the San Simeon area.
In recent years, according to a staff report prepared for next week’s meeting in San Luis Obispo, “important public viewsheds have been degraded” and development has blossomed.
The county’s population has increased 20% since 1988 as people from the north and south have moved in. Over the same period, the population on the rural North Coast doubled.
County officials said they were “frustrated” with the report’s tone. “They did not recognize the hard work the Board of Supervisors has put into protecting and enhancing coastal resources,” said County Administrative Officer David Edge.
In particular, the commission’s staff is urging the county to disallow any development visible from California 1. “This is an important stretch of the coast from the state’s standpoint,” said Sara Wan, chairwoman of the commission.
Such a policy would have a severe impact on anything Hearst wants to do. “I don’t know if it would preclude all of the development,” Wan said. “It would preclude most.”
What isn’t clear is what will happen if negotiations break down again and Hearst moves forward on its development applications. “A big, big question” is whether the state’s tough protections for coastal views would trump Hearst’s development plans, said Jordan. That uncertainty worries her and other environmentalists.
What is clear is that permit applications along other parts of the coast have been used as a weapon to increase the price of sensitive lands that the government wants to buy for public preservation. Land speculators have purchased valuable coastal ranches and then filed applications to threaten development unless the state pays them several times what they paid for the property, said Rep. Sam Farr (D-Carmel), who represents Big Sur.
That is a form of “environmental terrorism,” he said, citing one ranch purchased for $10 million that the new owner threatened to develop unless he was paid $25 million.
The Hearst applications are not an example of that sort of land churning, but they could drive up the cost of what is likely to already be hugely expensive.
Legally, a landowner can obtain a permit simply by proving that at some time in history there was a building lot on a particular property. Thus, a 19th century well site can become a 22nd century housing development, critics say. Such permit applications are not subject to the public scrutiny that other building plans receive.
“This is something the state really needs to take a good long look at,” Wan said.
