Hearst Ranch Conservation Now
Viewpoint and Response

Viewpoint

We support implementation of the Hearst Ranch Conservation Project as negotiated between Hearst, the American Land Conservancy, the California Rangeland Trust and the State of California. We believe this project is the most important conservation effort in the state, if not the nation.

The provisions of this transaction will protect an astounding array of natural, scenic, and agricultural resources and will provide irrevocable public access to 18 miles of pristine coastline. The legal provisions of this project meet and exceed current standards of land conservation practice and clearly protect the public interest. The transaction documents
are available at the California Resources Agency website, www.resources.ca.gov.

The project represents an outstanding value, with a transaction price of approximately 41% of appraised value. The state-commissioned appraisal has been independently reviewed and appears to represent a conservative estimate of value (see Resources Agency website).

The Hearst Ranch Conservation Project has widespread, enthusiastic support within San Luis Obispo County and throughout the state. The high level of support is exhibited by,

• Personal endorsements by elected officials: Congressman Bill Thomas, State Sen. Bruce McPherson, Assemblyman Abel Maldonado, SLO County Supervisors Bianchi, Pinard, Achadjian, Ovitt, and Ryan, Former Supervisors Coy, Blakely, SLO Mayor Dave Romero, Paso Robles Mayor Frank Mecham, and others;

• Unanimous votes to approve Caltrans funding for the project by the SLO Council of Governments and the California Transportation Commission;

• The overwhelming approval shown at the state-sponsored informational meeting held July 15 in Cayucos. (Written comments from that meeting were compiled by the State Coastal Conservancy and are available at http://www.hearstranchconservation.org/quotes.html);

• Endorsement of the project conservation framework by hundreds of individuals and dozens of public and private organizations, including a unanimous endorsement by the SLO Chamber of Commerce Board. The complete list is available at www.hearstranchconservation.org.
  

Protection of the Hearst Ranch must be accomplished NOW. This project presents a unique opportunity of timing and value that we must not lose. We urge you to support this effort.

---

Response to Comments

Along with the overwhelming public support voiced for the Hearst Ranch Conservation Project, various objections have been raised repeatedly by a few strident opponents. These complaints have not abated with the recent release of project documents. We are concerned that these objections and attempts to delay public hearings threaten the project’s success. If the already-extended option agreement between Hearst and the American Land Conservancy expires, the project faces an uncertain future at best, and could likely be terminated.

After review of the transaction documents, we believe that most expressed criticisms are based either on misleading interpretations, an incomplete understanding of the transaction details, or a basic misunderstanding of conservation transactions between land trusts and willing land owners. In the table below, we summarize the most common objections and our response to each.

Specific transaction document references (e.g., Independent Appraisal Review (Tab 2)) relate to document links on the California Resources Agency web page, www.resources.ca.gov/hearst_ranch_docs_toc.html/.

---

General Comments

---

West Side Comments

Objection	Response	Reference(s)
Public access to the shoreline will diminished by the deal.	• Absolutely not. Current access across Hearst land is tolerated subject to Civil Code Sec. 813, and can be revoked at any time, without notice and without cause. The deal provides irrevocable public access on Hearst retained land and tolerated access will continue. The balance of over 13 miles of coastline goes into public ownership. • See detailed analysis of west side public access, Attachment 2.	State Parks Public Access Easement (Tab 4C) This document, Attachment 2., West Side Access Comparison
Access parameters and management plan are not finalized – access could be reduced.	• Highly unlikely. WCB staff approval is based on the minimums listed in the public access easement. State agency staff will need to approve the final access parameters prior to close and won’t tolerate reduction.	State Parks Public Access Easement (Tab 4C, Exhibit D)
Guests at Old San Simeon Village (OSSV) Inn will get priority on limited access to San Simeon Point.	• Highly unlikely. No provision for such priority is made in the access parameters. • Hearst could allow anyone to access their property outside the access parameters, as long as resources are not impaired.	State Parks Public Access Easement (Tab 4C, Exhibit D)
Impacts of OSSV Inn are unacceptable. Could Hearst put private cabanas on the sandy beach at San Simeon Cove?	• The deal does not guarantee the construction of the OSSV Inn. • All development at OSSV will be subject to normal permit approval process by SLO County and the Coastal Commission, where all impacts will be addressed. • It’s virtually certain that the Coastal Commission would require a public access easement on the sandy beach as a condition of development – no structures would be allowed except to facilitate public access.
Coastal Trail on Hearst retained land is unacceptably close to the highway.	• A book published by Coastwalk shows the Coastal Trail on nearly the same alignment (pages 100 and 104 are included here as Attachment 3). • In addition, relative to the Coastwalk trail guide, more of San Simeon Point will be available to hikers via 2 miles of spur trails.	State Parks Public Access Easement (Tab 4C, Exhibits D1A-C) Hiking the California Coastal Trail, Vol. 2, by Bob Lorentzen and Richard Nichols, 2000 This document, Attachment 3, Coastal Trail Maps

East Side Comments

Objection	Response	Reference(s)
There is no publicly available inventory of resources to be protected.	Yes, there is an extensive listing in the public documents.	Resources Information Summary (Tab 5A)
Conservation values have not been adequately defined or disclosed.	East side values are extensively listed.	East Side Conservation Easement (Tab 3C, pg 3-6)
The Baseline Inventory is not public. There’s no State oversight to confirm the condition of the land.	• The Wildlife Conservation Board will review and approve the Baseline Inventory before funding the project. • Baseline Inventories are not public documents, because they contain confidential material about private property. They are a tool used by land trusts to fulfill their responsibilities for easement enforcement.	WCB Grant Agreement (Tab 3B, pg 1) This document, Attachment 1, Conservation Easement Comparison
The management plan is not complete, it is not public, and Hearst gets to write it. Where is the State oversight?	• The East Side Conservation Easement by itself provides protection for the resources to be conserved.• Many, if not most, conservation easements do not have required management plans (see Attachment 1). • The management plan addresses how resources are to be protected, not what is to be protected. Hearst should be allowed to manage their land in a reasonable way as long as they achieve the requirements of the easement. • The Wildlife Conservation Board will review and comment on the management plan (and any amendments) before the California Rangeland Trust approves it.	East Side Conservation Easement (Tab 3C) This document, Attachment 1, Conservation Easement Comparison WCB Grant Agreement (Tab 3B, pg 4)
Easement monitoring lacks state oversight. A State agency should hold or co-hold the easement.	• Wildlife Conservation Board (WCB) will review monitoring reports on the easement. • WCB requires the easement holder to conduct audits of the monitoring process. • It would be a bad precedent for the State to have direct monitoring or enforcement powers. Private non-profit land trusts have long worked with private land owners to do easement monitoring and enforcement. Private land owners would be unlikely to accept State regulatory agencies as holders of their easements and land conservation opportunities would be lost. • State funded voluntary easements don’t require direct state involvement.	WCB Grant Agreement (Tab 3B, pg 3 and 4)           This document, Attachment 1, Conservation Easement Comparison
No public access is provided on the east side.	• Public access would conflict with operations on the working cattle ranch. • Public access has not been required in other publicly funded easements on working landscapes.	This document, Attachment 1, Conservation Easement Comparison
Owner home sites are not clustered and they have unacceptable impacts.	• It’s a big stretch to suggest that the proposed allowable home sites are not grouped in clusters. • The proposed sites conceptually meet the standards of a SLO County proposed ag cluster ordinance. • All home sites must meet easement requirements to avoid impairment of conservation values.	East Side Conservation Easement (Tab 3C, Exhibits D-1A and H) SLO County Dept of Planning and Building
Employee housing impacts are too great.	• Employee housing units must be sited according to strict easement requirements. • This housing is a necessary part of ranch facilities. The alternative would be to house employees in remote, expensive urban areas and incur traffic and other impacts. • Employee housing units cannot be separately conveyed or used by non- employees. • The easement allows up to 15 employee housing units. Current regulations would allow 1 unit per 320 acres, or a total of 250.	East Side Conservation Easement (Tab 3C, pg 16)
Hearst gets the money without retiring any parcels.	• Hearst cannot build new homes or convey parcels until the terms of the easement are met. • There will never be more than 27 new owner homes and there will never be more than 27 owner homesite parcels conveyed. As these homes are permitted, certificate parcels will be retired.	East Side Conservation Easement (Tab 3C, pg 9 and Exhibit H)
Hearst can sell the new owner homes to anyone.	This does not matter – the conservation easement will still be in force, including the provisions for common management of the easement area.	East Side Conservation Easement (Tab 3C, pg 29)
Hearst can transfer water off the property.	Such transfers are subject to specific terms and conditions, including protection of conservation values and require specific permission of the easement holder and notice to WCB.	East Side Conservation Easement (Tab 3C, pg 18) WCB Grant Agreement (Tab 3B)
Too much ag intensification is allowed. It will degrade resources.	• Ag intensification is allowed on less than 4% of the Ranch. These ag uses are subject to protection of conservation values, including water supplies. • Orchards and vineyards will be located outside the Highway 1 viewshed and are restricted to less than 1% of the Ranch. • The owner of productive ag land should be allowed flexibility in their ag operations.	East Side Conservation Easement (Tab 3C, pg 15)
The California Rangeland Trust (CRT) is not capable of enforcing the easement against the Hearst Corp.	• The CRT is an established land trust that follows the standards and practices of the Land Trust Alliance and is easement holder for many successful state funded easements. • CRT will receive an endowment for monitoring and enforcement of the easement. • The Wildlife Conservation Board (WCB) will require CRT to prove it has sufficient funds to execute its responsibilities. WCB can require assignment of the easement to another entity if CRT fails to perform adequately.	WCB Grant Agreement (Tab 3B)

 

---