PCSR INFO 6-14-2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

46 Planning June 2005 But unacceptable is how many environ- mental groups characterize it. What most people seem to agree upon, however, is that _~~ road's future will be decided in the courts. w:,;ether legal action would simply knock the ICC off its fast track or derail it completely remains to be seen. Karen Finucan Clarkson Clarkson is a writer in Bethesda, Maryland. "The dramatic nature of this agreement is exceeded only by the vision for the state's future and the value for the people it will provide." The head of a local conservation aganization called it "the best conservation eal in the country over the last 100 years." Yet enthusiasm is far from unanimous for the Hearst Ranch agreement, which transferred control of 13 miles of privately owned Califor- nia coastline to the state and imposed develop- ment restrictions on 82,000 acres ofland over- looking the Pacific Ocean. Some of the toughest criticism comes from those working hardest to limit development along the California coast. "We were very disappointed that the deal was made because we thought it was a raw deal for the public," Peter Douglas, executive director of the California Coastal Commission, told re- porters after escrow closed on February 18. In coming months, as new fences and gates block access to beachfront property long en- joyed informally (and illegally) by the public, even supporters of the deal may find that they didn't get as much out of the agreement as they thought they would. "The community at large is going to be rather rudely awakened," says Susan Jordan, the director of the California Coastal Protec- tion Network. .ot the first Hearst plan The conservation deal, which took six years to negotiate, involves the largest privately owned working cattle ranch (128 square miles) on NEWS AND DEPARTMENTS the 1,1 DO-mile California coast. Purchased in 1865 by the father of newspaper publisher William Randolph Hearst, the ranch sits mid- way between Los Angeles and San Francisco and is home to Hearst's unfinished dream home, now known as Hearst Castle. The Hearst Corporation has put forward plans to build on the land several times, all of them denied. Most recently, the company sought permission to build a luxury golf resort on the property, but that proposal was re- jected by the Coastal Commission in 1998. The commission wields tremendous power in California. Established by voter initiative in 1972, it plans and regulates the use ofland and water in the coastal zone. Development activities-broadly defined to include con- struction of buildings, divisions of land, and activities that change the intensity ofland use or public access to coastal waters-generally require a commission permit. Too high a price Given the commission's rejection of all other development proposals on the property, crit- ics of the recent deal believe the state paid too much to "protect" beachfront land that was already being protected from development. Under the agreement, the state agreed to give Hearst Corporation $80 million in cash and $15 million in tax credits for the land and the easements, which will be held by the American Land Conservancy and the Califor- nia Rangeland Trust. Hearst retained the right to build a 1 DO-room hotel, 27 houses, and 15 employee housing units. The state appraised the property at $230 million, which critics suggest was too high, given the low development potential of most ~ ., -. , 1 of the land. Critics also said the deal does too little to guarantee public access to the prop- erty under easement, and actually decreases public access to a pair of scenic beachfront locations that will remain in Hearst hands. The public will be allowed to visit those par- cels, but a quota system will be established and visitors will be locked out at night. "We felt they should have held out for a better deal," says Jordan, a former member of the Santa Barbara County Planning Commis- sion. "What the state of California accomplished here is what the Hearst Corporation never would have been able to accomplish on its own." John Krist Krist is a senior reporter fat the Ventura County Star and a contributing editor for California Planning & Development Report. ernments to hold a re eren um on new com- prehensive land-use plans and amendments to existing plans. The problem, the court said, was that the proposed amendment violated Florida law governing the wording of ballot measures.