San Luis Obispo Co. LCP Findings Sec. 2

Protecting agriculture is a fundamental policy of the Coastal Act. In particular, the Act sets a high standard for the conversion of any agricultural lands to other uses. For example, Section 30241 requires the maintenance of the maximum amount of prime agricultural land, to assure the protection of agricultural economies.

Section 30241 also requires the minimization of conflict between general agricultural and urban land uses through five requirements:

Coastal Act Section 30241.5 identifies specific findings that must be made in order to address the agricultural "viability" of prime lands around the periphery of urban areas subject to conversion requests. These findings include an assessment of gross revenues from agricultural products grown in the area and an analysis of operational expenses associated with such production. Subsection (b) specifically requires that such economic feasibility studies be submitted with any LCP or LCP amendment request.

Finally, Section 30242 establishes a general standard for the conversion of agricultural lands:

As discussed later in this finding, section 30242 is the most important policy for evaluating the NCAP Update, because most of the agricultural land in the North Coast planning area is non-prime grazing lands.

Except for the urbanized areas of Cambria and San Simeon Acres, and the extremely low intensity development found in Old San Simeon, the North Coast planning area is dominated by agricultural land uses. Over 96 thousand acres (93.6%) of the North Coast area is currently designated or used as agricultural land. This includes the Hearst Ranch north of San Simeon Acres and extensive grazing lands south of the Hearst Ranch all the way to Villa Creek, interrupted only by Cambria. As Table 6 illustrates, a recent survey shows that nearly all of agricultural land of the North Coast is used as rangeland.UseParcelsEstimated Acres% of Total Acres

Use	Parcels	Estimated Acres	% of Total Acres
Grazing	14	242	0.26
Rangeland	329	90,379	99.0
Tree Fruits	-	146	0.16
Vegetables	7	384	0.42
Specialty/Hobby	3	50	0.05
Misc./Non-Ag.	22	198	0.22
Hay-Grain	-	-	-
Total	375	91,399	100

The major agricultural land holding in the North County is the Hearst Ranch. The ranch encompasses over 77,000 acres in total in San Luis Obispo County, of which 48,732 acres are within the coastal zone of the North Coast planning area. Topographically, the ranch includes 16 miles of rocky shoreline punctuated with sandy beaches and coves. The immediate nearshore area is typical coastal benchland separated from the sea by low to steep bluffs. East of Highway One are gently rolling hills that become progressively steeper and more rugged as they approach the ridgeline of the coastal mountain range some 6-7 miles from the sea.

Due to an extensive and well established grazing operation, vegetation on the coastal plain and moderately rolling hills is limited to grasses and scatterings of coastal scrub and Coast Live Oak trees. The rugged, steep uplands are heavily wooded with a mixture of indigeneous Big Cone Spruce, Oak, Madrone and Bay Laurel. A number of creeks find their way down from the mountains and support the riparian vegetation and fauna typically associated with central coast creek systems. The ranch also encompasses a substantial portion of the southernmost stand of native Monterey Pine and several endangered plant species (see Water Supply and ESHA Findings for more detail).

Land use on the coastal zone portion of the Hearst Ranch includes a small commercial/residential development at Old San Simeon, a large cow/calf operation (+2210 animal units per year; horses; +1800 calves born and raised annually), a private landing field, living quarters for ranch workers, and 23 residences. There is also a small amount of irrigated agricultural production in the bottomland at Arroyo de la Cruz, currently planted in snow peas. As for soils, the ranch does contain some prime soils (Class I and II) in the narrow zones along the larger creeks, and on some coastal and inland flats. Class III lands are more extensive; particularly in the coastal zone on the marine terraces. The remainder of the ranch consists of lands with classification IV to VII, suitable for grazing.

Finally, as observed elsewhere in this report, the Hearst Ranch occupies a significant portion of the California coastline. It contains a variety of coastal resources, including plant communities found in few other places. Although it offers substantial scenic vistas in its own right, taken in conjunction with Big Sur, the aesthetic values of the ranch also contribute to the longest scenic drive along the coast between San Francisco to the Mexican border.

The general area between Villa Creek at the southern end of the North Coast planning area and Hearst Ranch is mostly grazing land. The coastal zone in this area includes most of the west slope of the Santa Lucia Range. Topographic features include narrow marine terraces, coastal valleys and steep rolling slopes. Other than the Cambria area and the upper slopes of the Santa Lucia Range, most of this area is grassland. Crops grown in the area are primarily used as feed on associated ranges. As observed in the Coastal Plan Policies document, land devoted to crops is limited to four valleys: Villa Creek, Green Valley, Santa Rosa Creek, and San Simeon Creek, for a total of 1000 acres. These valley lowlands are mostly designated Class II if irrigated; Class III without. In terms of rangelands, this area contains some of the best dryland in the county, with annual livestock carrying capacities of one animal unit per seven acres.

Finally, as observed in the NCAP update, most of the agricultural land south of the Hearst Ranch is in agricultural preserves and subject to land conservation contracts. Agricultural Preserves and Conservation Contracts are developed pursuant to the Williamson Act. Under the County's Williamson Act program, once a landowner establishes a preserve over their agricultural land, he or she may enter into a contract with the County that restricts the use of the land to agricultural uses for a minimum of ten years, in exchange for a dramatic reduction in property tax assessments. A detailed survey of North Coast parcels in 1992 revealed that one third or 175 parcels were in agricultural preserves. At the time, this represented approximately 25,800 acres. The Coastal Plan Policy document states that forty thousand acres of the area is in agricultural preserves. Thus, much of the land designated for agriculture outside of the Hearst Ranch is under a Williamson Act contract. Average property size is 740 acres within a range of 100 to 3000 acres.

Non-agricultural development on the Hearst Ranch has been a controversial issue since the early 1960s. Prior to the Coastal Act, a proposal was made to develop 20,000 homes on the Hearst Ranch that would have housed approximately 60,000 people. This proposal remained a real possibility until 1975, when the County of San Luis Obispo voted to rescind the so-called "Piedras Blancas plan". After the passage of the Coastal Act in 1976, attention turned to the designation of recreational lands in and around San Simeon Point.

The next significant action occurred after the passage of the Coastal Act. The Land Use Plan portion of the San Luis Obispo County LCP was initially submitted for Commission review in 1982. At that time the Plan provided for the designation of five Commercial/Visitor Serving sites on the Hearst Ranch (900 hotel units, two golf courses, and a variety of commercial uses). During the Plan hearings at both the County and Coastal Commission levels, there was substantial local opposition to the level of non-agricultural development proposed on the Hearst Ranch. The Commission determined that a reduced amount of Commercial/Visitor Serving Uses could be accommodated on the ranch, but only if such non-agricultural development was adequately mitigated by an agricultural/open space easement over the remainder of the ranch lands in the coastal zone. The easement, which was included in the original certified NCAP in 1983 as a development standard for the Hearst Ranch, required the following:

This easement standard provided for the dedication of Agricultural and Open Space Easements over all ranch land designated for agricultural use at the time of development of the visitor serving facilities at the "Staging Area" located on the east side of Highway 1 near the State Park entrance facilities. The purpose of the easement was to protect agriculture and habitat values on the Hearst Ranch outside of the four areas designated for visitor serving uses in the LCP. The easement requirement would have applied to the roughly 50,000 acres of the Hearst Ranch within the coastal zone. More important, the standard was developed and adopted by the Commission as an essential adjunct to the designation of more than 300 acres of viable ranch land for visitor serving uses (650 hotel units, commercial uses, employee units, golf course and equestrian center).

However, both the County and representatives for the Hearst Corporation opposed the easement requirement and the 1983 Commission approval of the LUP with modifications was not accepted.

The San Luis Obispo County LUP was resubmitted in 1984. Again controversy surrounded the issue of development on the Hearst Ranch and the easement requirement. Once again the Commission approved the LUP with a reduced level of Commercial/Visitor Serving development if modified to include the easement requirement. This time, the County accepted the Commission's approval as modified but indicated that an amendment to delete the Agricultural/Open Space Easement would be sought at a later date.

An amendment requesting deletion of the Easement requirement was submitted by the County in late 1984. In February of 1985, the Commission again found that the easement requirement was necessary to mitigate the impacts of the Commercial/Visitor Serving uses on identified Coastal Resources. The Amendment request was denied. The Commission directed staff to continue discussions with the County in order to determine whether a mutually acceptable alternative method of protecting coastal resources on the ranch could be found.

Another request to delete the easement provision was submitted later in 1985. In November of 1985, the Commission found that the easement was required, but that it could be phased as the individual nodes of non-agricultural development were built-out. The easement language was thus modified to reflect the Commission's decision. The Hearst Corporation Representatives indicated the suggested modification was unacceptable. The County declined to accept the modifying language with the effect that the original policy language providing for the entire easement at the time of development of the first project at the Staging Area remained.

Finally, in 1987, the Planning staff at San Luis Obispo County offered alternatives to the Board of Supervisors including the use of Agriculture Preserve contracts and a combination of agriculture/open space easements adjacent to proposed development nodes plus Agriculture Preserve contracts. County staff recommended the combination easement/ag contract alternative. A single hearing was held on this item at the Board of Supervisors meeting of December 15, 1987. A review of the complete transcript of the hearing, indicates that the controversy continued. Several members of the public spoke both in favor and against deletion of the easement requirement. Representatives of the Hearst Corporation argued against both the existing easement requirement and the alternative proposed by staff. Hearst contended that the easement was excessive, not required and would likely expose the County to lawsuits as a result of the recent Nollan decision concerning the question of appropriate land use exactions and nexus. The Board voted 4-1 to delete the easement.

The deleted easement came before the Commission in LCP major amendment #2-88. Commission staff again recommended that the easement requirement be retained, but also that it be reduced in size to make it more consistent with County standards in the certified LCP. These standards require that when any non-agricultural uses are proposed for agricultural lands, that agricultural and open space easements be granted for all remaining agricultural lands shown on site plans and that non-agricultural development be limited to 2% of the entire site (see Policy 3; CZLUO 23.04.050). Using a similar logic, staff recommended that the easement cover only 15,000 acres of the ranch, which was proportional to the 300 acres of non-agricultural development being allowed. The Commission ultimately went against the staff recommendation and voted 7-5 to delete the easement, on the grounds that the remainder of agricultural lands on the Hearst Ranch would be adequately protected by existing LCP policies concerning the conversion of agrcultural lands. This finding, though, did not address or make a finding concerning the initial conversion agricultural lands to non-agricultural use but merely considered the protection of agriculture beyond the Hearst resort conversion (see below for more detail)

With the deletion of the agricultural easement standard, potential non-agricultural development on the remainder of the Hearst Ranch is governed by two standards in the NCAP and the more general agricultural conversion policies and ordinances of the LCP. The existing NCAP requires that any land divisions of the Hearst Ranch agricultural lands must result in parcels that constitute individually viable agricultural units. In the alternative, agricultural land divisions may be acceptable if they improve the viability of adjacent holdings (see 7-12 of NCAP update).

The general agricultural policies and ordinances of the LCP also govern proposed land divisions and non-agricultural uses. Policy 1, for example, requires the maintenance of prime agricultural lands, similar to section 30241 of the Coastal Act. It also requires that other agricultural lands be maintained as such unless this is not feasible; or unless conversions would preserve prime agricultural land or concentrate urban development within or contiguous to existing urban areas that have adequate public services.

Coastal Plan Policy 2 governs the division of agricultural land. In effect, land divisions for prime soils are prohibited unless certain findings of continued agricultural viability are made. Divisions of non-prime lands are prohibited "unless it can be demonstrated that existing or potential agricultural productivity of any resulting parcel determined to be feasible for agriculture would not be diminished." This policy is implemented as a standard, not through a specific ordinance. As such, the Coastal Plan Policy document notes that Policy 2 may lead to "substantially larger minimum parcel size for non-prime lands than identified in the Coastal Zone Land Use Ordinance."

Policy 3 sets forth specific standards for allowable supplemental non-agricultural uses. The most important part of this policy, is the requirement that non-agricultural development may not exceed 2% of the gross area of the parcel(s) at issue; and that an agricultural/open space easement must be placed over the remaining 98% lands. Other Agricultural policies govern the siting of structures, the urban-rural boundary, lot consolidation, water supplies, agricultural practices, and other miscellaneous agricultural requirements (Policies 4 through 12).

Finally, certain Coastal Zone Land Use Ordinances regulate agricultural lands as well. Minimum parcel sizes for land divisions are regulated by ordinance 23.04.024, which defines two separate methods for determining parcel size. One method is based on the existing use of a parcel. For example, land used for grazing has a minimum parcel size 320 acres, as opposed to 20 acres for irrigated row crops, nurseries, orchards, and vineyards. The other method for determining minimum parcel size uses land capability based on the Soil Conservation Service classification system. For example, Class I lands have an allowable minimum of 20 acres, whereas Class VII-VIII have a minimum of 320 acres. Proposed minimum parcel sizes must meet both tests to be approved. Ordinance 23.04.050 governs supplemental non-agricultural uses to implement Policy 3. Finally, ordinance 23.04.432 prohibits the extension of services beyond the urban services line, to minimize conflicts between agricultural and urban land uses.

The County has made several limited changes to NCAP agricultural policies that affect the Hearst Ranch agricultural lands. The County has added a provision that requires an "Ag-viabililty report" to be submitted with any applications for land divisions and lot line adjustments to the Agriculture and Rural Lands categories (7-8). In addition, standards have been added that (1) require parcel configuration to maintain and enhance agricultural viability; and (2) require findings to be made that resulting parcels will maintain and enhance agriculture and that potential non-agricultural uses will not have an adverse impact on surrounding agricultural uses (7-9).

The County has also updated the specific Agriculture category standards (7-12). First, the standards are revised to apply to all agricultural lands, not simply the Hearst Ranch. Second, the County has exempted land divisions necessary for public works or services from the agricultural criteria. Finally, the County has repeated the requirement for an Ag-viability report that evaluates the effects of proposed land divisions.

The Coastal Act establishes a clear mandate for the preservation of agricultural lands, including non-prime soil lands suitable for grazing and other non-crop agricultural activities. Except for lands where agricultural viability is already "severely limited" by conflicts with existing urban uses (e.g. "in-holdings" and on the urban periphery), the standard for conversion of agricultural lands under Sections 30241 and 30242 is extremely high. The conversion of prime agricultural lands is effectively prohibited; the conversion of all other agricultural lands is prohibited unless it is shown that: "continued or renewed agricultural use is not feasible, or . . . [that] such conversion would preserve prime agricultural land or concentrate development consistent with section 30250."

As discussed in the Development findings, a limited amount of visitor-serving development (100 units) is allowable within the existing development node at Old San Simeon under the visitor-serving exception of Section 30250(c). However, any development beyond this limited envelope would require the conversion of de facto agricultural lands currently used or available for grazing. Each of the other proposed areas for visitor-serving development -- the Staging Area, the lands around Old San Simeon, the proposed golf course lands, as well as the site for the proposed Pine Forest facility -- either are or have been used for cattle grazing recently. A recent evaluation of agricultural viability on the Hearst Ranch, as well as recent staff visits to the vicinity, have documented cattle grazing uses on Phase One, Three, and Four lands. A 1988 review of Agricultural uses on the Ranch documented the following uses in the areas proposed for non-agricultural visitor-serving development:

In this comprehensive planning update of the NCAP, the Commission is obliged to consider anew whether the non-agricultural development proposed by the Hearst Corporation and incorporated into the updated NCAP is consistent with Coastal Act Section 30242. Indeed, such an analysis is particularly warranted considering the history of proposed non-agricultural uses on the Ranch and the agricultural easement standard originally adopted by the Commission. Technically speaking, a finding that agriculture (namely grazing) was not feasible on the Hearst Ranch has never been made. As discussed briefly above, the original conversion of 300 acres or more of the Hearst Ranch to non-agricultural lands was allowed only because the Commission consolidated and limited the scale of non-agricultural development, and, because of the guarantee provided by the agricultural easement that no further non-agricultural development would occur on the ranch. The easment requirement effectively retired the remaining non-agricultural development potential on the Ranch. The Commission, therefore, was able to find that on balance, the Hearst resort proposal was consistent with sections 30241 and 30242.

However, because the agricultural easement standard is no longer part of the NCAP, the question of the conversion of agricultural lands on the Ranch must be revisited. In particular, when the Commission approved the deletion of the easement requirement in 1988, the question of the initial conversion of the agricultural lands required for the Hearst Corporation's non-agricultural visitor-serving uses was not reevaluated. Rather, the adopted findings focused on the remaining agricultural grazing lands and whether existing County policies were sufficient to protect these lands from future non-agricultural development. This oversight in the 1988 amendment to the NCAP effectively leaves a policy gap that must be considered in this comprehensive update of the NCAP. As discussed in more detail below, the lack of a finding on the initial conversion of agricultural land on the Hearst Ranch leaves a significant inconsistency with Coastal Act section 30242, and effectively gives the Hearst Ranch agricultural lands special treatment relative to other agricultural lands in the North Coast. Overall, sound public policy requires a comprehensive reevaluation of the proposed conversion of agricultural lands on the Hearst Ranch.

As mentioned, under section 30242, non-agricultural development beyond Old San Simeon is allowable only if continued or renewed agricultural uses on the lands at issue is no longer feasible; or if conversion of such lands would preserve prime land or concentrate development consistent with Coastal Act Section 30250.

Concerning the first test, there would appear to be little doubt that the Hearst Ranch is a viable cattle operation. Approximately 1,300 cow-calve pairs and 125 bulls are grazed year round on the ranch, along with 1,500 to 2,000 stocker calves for six or seven months. In addition, despite the current recreational designations over a small portion of the Hearst Ranch, the fact remains that most, if not all of the Ranch is still in de facto agricultural use. Although non-agricultural uses of some type on the Ranch have been contemplated for over thirty years, such development has yet to take place. In the meantime, and certainly since the certification of the original LCP, the viability of the agricultural uses on the ranch has increased. A 1988 study of the agricultural capabilities of the Ranch found that the cattle operation had expanded by 20% from 1977. Most recently, the Sage Associate consultants for the Hearst Corporation have substantiated the strong feasibility of the grazing operation on the Ranch:

Although the consultant analysis uses this finding of feasibility to suggest that the non-agricultural uses proposed for the Hearst Resort would not negatively impact the grazing uses of the Ranch, such analysis is not consistent with the approach mandated by the Coastal Act. Taken at face value, this analysis supports a finding that continued agricultural use on the Hearst Ranch is quite feasible; as it must be to be able to sustain the magnitude of visitor-serving development currently contemplated in the NCAP.

Indeed, except for the lands immediately in and around Old San Simeon, all of the proposed development sites for the Hearst Resort are currently used for grazing. They are also comprised of the same basic topography and soils types that support cattle grazing. As with most of the marine terraces on the Ranch, a large portion of the land designated for non-agricultural use is made up of Concepcion Loams, which are considered to be "well-suited for rangeland" by the 1984 Soil Conservation Service Survey. The proximity of the coastal terrace lands to an ocean climate also contributes to the high suitability of these lands for grazing. These lands receive more moisture and remain green for longer periods relative to lands higher up on the Ranch. The twenty-eight acres of grazing land proposed for conversion at the Staging Area are rated as "high suitability" for grazing by the Sage Associates. Similarly, fifty-six acres of Phase III lands, and nine acres of Phase IV are highly suitable for grazing. And these are only the highest quality acres of grazing lands. Soil maps also establish that all of the Staging Area and the Pine Forest, as well as a substantial portion of the lands around Old San Simeon, are Concepcion Loams. These lands are also designated as Local Potential Farmland on the California Department of Conservation Important Farmlands Map of San Luis Obispo County. Overall, using a carrying capacity of 7 acres per animal unit, which is typical for the Hearst Ranch and North Coast grazing rangelands, the updated NCAP conversion of grazing lands would result in the loss of some 46 animal units per year (326 proposed acres for conversion).

Finally, it might also be pointed out that the EIR for NCAP update also makes a finding that the additional agricultural land proposed for conversion to non-agricultural uses would have an "insignificant" impact on agricultural lands. This is because such conversions amount to less than 10% of a conversion of existing grazing lands. Again, besides the fact that this is not the standard of the Coastal Act, which asks for a showing that agriculture is not feasible prior to any conversion, this observation further substantiates the fact that continued agricultural use on the Hearst Ranch is feasible, precisely because the impact of such a larger conversion would be "insignificant."

Overall, it is clear that the conversion of grazing lands by the proposed visitor-serving development is not allowable under the first test of Section 30242. The Ranch is a viable, in fact, an increasingly viable agricultural operation.

Conversion of the Hearst grazing lands to non-agricultural lands is also not permissible under the second test of section 30242. The proposed Resort development would not preserve prime agricultural lands. This leaves the last test of 30242 as the only basis for allowing the conversion of agricultural lands. Under this test, conversion may be allowed if it would "concentrate development consistent with section 30250." The purpose of such an exception, of course, is to provide a more permanent protection of contiguous and uninterrupted agricultural lands by concentrating potential non-agricultural development at discrete, well-defined development nodes in the coastal zone. The exception thus goes hand-in-hand with the Coastal Act goals of establishing buffers and minimizing conflicts between agricultural and urban uses.

Although the updated NCAP has strengthened the agricultural policies relevant to the Hearst Ranch (see discussion above), these policies do little to concentrate development potential at a discrete node such as Old San Simeon. To be sure, under the normal operation of the County's LCP and the NCAP, considerable non-agricultural development potential would remain on the Hearst Ranch, above and beyond the 650 visitor-serving units allowed in the current NCAP.

First, an agricultural zoning designation in San Luis Obispo County does not necessarily mean that uses are limited to what are traditionally considered to be agricultural uses. Under Table O of the County's Framework for Planning, a slew of "non-agricultural" supplemental uses is allowed in Agricultural zones, including restaurants, single family homes, Bed and Breakfasts, and multiple industrial type uses. Table O also allows "Rural Recreation and Camping," which includes not only low intensity uses but also dude and guest ranches and health resorts. It is conceivable, then, that additional non-agricultural development could be proposed on existing or future legal lots of record on the Hearst Ranch, ranging from Pico Creek to San Carpoforo.

Second, under the County's Coastal Plan Policy 2, non-prime agricultural lands may be divided if "it can be demonstrated that the existing or potential agricultural productivity of any resulting parcel determined to be feasible for agriculture would not be diminished." This policy is supplemented by the new North Coast Area Plan standard that Agricultural land divisions must either result in parcels that constitute individually viable units; or they must improve the viability of adjacent holdings (7-12). A new standard for land divisions also requires that prior to approval of an agricultural land division, a finding must be made that the "resulting parcel configuration and ownership pattern, together with the use of easements, maintains and potentially enhances agricultural viability" (7-9). Although these policies would appear to provide some protection against non-agricultural development on the remainder of the Hearst Ranch, it is by no means clear how they would be implemented. Once land is divided, even if it maintains agricultural uses in the short run, the legal landscape for future parcel development is irrevocably changed.

Third, Table O and the LCP policies must also be read in conjunction with the ordinances of the LCP that govern the minimum parcel sizes for Agricultural lands. As mentioned earlier, CZLUO Section 23.04.024 essentially establishes a 320 acre minimum parcel size for grazing lands and lower classification soils, although smaller sizes are allowable for more intensive irrigated agriculture on higher soil types. For example, irrigated row crops on Class I and II soils, such as those found just north of Arroyo de la Cruz, would qualify for 20 and 40 acre minimum parcel sizes respectively. In short, under this ordinance, it is conceivable that upwards of 150 parcels could be created on the Hearst Ranch (48,000 approximate acres in the coastal zone divided by 320 acre parcel minimum). Uses on these parcels would most likely be limited to residential development, particularly given the need to show that agricultural development is not viable in order to get a supplemental, non-residential use (Coastal Plan Policy 4 allows single-family dwellings and accessory buildings necessary to agricultural uses.) Still, because the LCP effectively allows two residences on agricultural lands -- one primary residence and one residential unit associated with farm support, there is a hypothetical development potential of some 300 residential units on the Ranch.

It is also unclear at this time exactly how many legal parcels of record already exist on the ranch. Staff has not been able to establish conclusively at this time the number of actual or potential legal lots of record. The County has used the figure of 114 parcels on the Ranch for their buildout analyses, although many of these appear to be arbitrary 640 acre sections established by the assessor for tax purposes. The County's Combining Designation Maps, on the other hand, suggest that there are only six actual parcels, including very large portions of the original Rancho Piedra Blanca. Nor has the Hearst Corporation been able to supply the Commission with a conclusive answer to this question. Without more detailed legal research, it difficult to know if many more legal parcels exist that might allow non-agricultural development.

As a whole, application of the updated NCAP and LCP could conceivably result in substantial new development beyond the visitor-serving development anticipated around San Simeon Point. Considerable uncertainty exists concerning the existing legal parcelization of the Ranch, the application of the Agricultural land division policies, and the allowable uses on Agricultural lands. And while it may appear that the existing policies provide strong protection against future non-agricultural development on the Hearst Ranch, there is no permanent guarantee of protection against such an occurrence. Again, this is why the Commission originally put an agricultural easement over the remainder of the Ranch -- to allow concentration of development at a single location and to retire other, future development potential.

To be sure, however remote the conversion of the Hearst Ranch to non-agricultural uses may seem to some, the legal, economic, and physical landscape of the Ranch will change dramatically with the introduction of non-agricultural uses at Old San Simeon, even as further limited by these findings. Once in place, non-agricultural development will exert pressure on the surrounding lands to convert to non-agricultural uses, as is typically the case for agricultural lands that are encroached upon by urban uses. Conflicts between urban and agricultural uses inevitably follow. Land values increase, and the rural non-intense character of agriculture is quickly overtaken by the more intense urban uses. For example, with the additional visitor traffic to the new Hearst Resort development, the strip of Highway One between San Simeon Acres and the Hearst Castle Visitor Center may be increasingly attractive to non-agricultural developers. If the visitor-serving uses turn out to be profitable, the market value of the land adjacent to those uses may increase. Expansion of the visitor-serving uses (or different related facilities such as filling stations and snack bars) will then become more economically feasible.

The introduction of non-agricultural uses in an agricultural zone also initiates new conflicts between incompatible uses that often set in motion a domino effect of conversion of surrounding agricultural lands. The Coastal Act acknowledges this possibility by allowing for the conversion of agricultural lands much more easily in and around existing urban uses than would be the case in an undeveloped rural area. In short, the decision to allow non-agricultural uses at all is the most important land use decision.

Moreover, even without the introduction of new visitor-serving development on the Hearst Ranch, the North Coast area has been experiencing increased growth and pressures for development outside of existing developed areas. This includes efforts to convert agricultural lands in and around Cambria; as well as increased subdivision and intensification of rural lands on the periphery of Cambria. For example, in 1992, a massive proposal for a subdivision on CT Ranch was proposed that would have converted 258 acres of agricultural land to residential uses.

Overall, it is clear that the specter of non-agricultural development on the remainder of the Hearst Ranch is real, notwithstanding the County's existing LCP and the proposed changes to the NCAP. Just as when the Coastal Act was first adopted, the problem of sprawl and the conversion of rural agricultural lands continues to a problem for communities and land management agencies. As with most urban-agricultural interfaces in the United States, growth pressures are constantly encouraging the conversion of agricultural lands, given the disparity of land use values. Moreover, even if future land divisions maintained agricultural uses on the North Coast, the special rural agricultural character of the very large single Hearst Ranch holding, unchanged for at least 130 years, would be dramatically changed by such events. One hundred and fifty ranchettes, or numerous dude ranches and health resorts, would bring a significant change to the rural north coast of San Luis Obispo County, to say nothing of the resource impacts entailed with such a development trend.

In short, the existing NCAP and LCP do not provide a permanent or more lasting guarantee that the agricultural character of the Hearst Ranch will be preserved. This goes against the legislature's call for "permanent" protection of significant coastal resources stated in the Coastal Act Section 30001(b). More important, the NCAP allowance of visitor-serving development beyond Old San Simeon is inconsistent with Section 30242 because it does not guarantee the concentration of development consistent with Section 30250(c). Too much development potential remains under the updated NCAP.

Apart from its failure to concentrate development, the updated NCAP also does not address the Coastal Act requirements to mitigate for, and buffer the impacts of new non-agricultural development. The Coastal Act is clear that nonagricultural development must be "compatible with continued agricultural use on surrounding lands" (Section 30242). Section 30241(e) requires that nonagricultural development "not impair agricultural viability, either through increased assessment costs or degraded air and water quality." The Coastal Act is also clear that buffers should be used between urban and agricultural uses, apart from any mitigation concerns, as a way to minimize conflicts between these uses (Section 30241). The existing LCP and NCAP provide no effective assurance that adequate buffers will be in place for the eventual non-agricultural development at Old San Simeon. Without such buffers, nonagricultural development would continue to threaten the continuing viability of the grazing operation on Hearst Ranch.

The visitor-serving development at Old San Simeon is also only appropriate as a conversion of agricultural lands if it will not have any adverse effects, either individually or cumulatively, on other coastal resources (Section 30250). As discussed elsewhere in this report, such impacts include additional traffic on Highway 1, which is currently overcommitted in this portion of San Luis Obispo County, potential adverse impacts on environmentally sensitive habitat areas, especially water and riparian zones, and the introduction of moderately intensive non-agricultural development into the rural viewshed.

Currently, there is no policy in the NCAP that takes into account the need to mitigate the impacts of non-agricultural development at San Simeon not only on surrounding agriculture, but other important coastal resources as well. And while there are existing standards for agricultural development in the updated NCAP, these do not provide for a method of mitigating the impacts of the Commercial Visitor Serving development but rather, are oriented towards providing criteria for future land divisions on the agricultural portions of the Hearst Ranch. In short, the updated NCAP is also inconsistent, with the buffer, mitigation, and general resource protection requirements of the Coastal Act.

As proposed, the updated NCAP is inconsistent with the Coastal Act Agricultural protection policies. In previous actions concerning the Hearst Resort development scenarios, the Commission has resolved such inconsistencies by requiring that an agricultural easement be placed over the remaining agricultural lands in the coastal zone to concentrate development potential, protect against the further conversion of agricultural lands, and to provide appropriate mitigation and buffering of non-agricultural development. The Commission has adopted similar policies for the Santa Barbara, San Mateo, Santa Cruz, and Marin County LCPs. The San Mateo easement policy was legally challenged (Clayton v. Coastal Commission, County of San Mateo) shortly after the LCP was certified but was upheld.

The reintroduction of an easement policy for the remainder of the Hearst Ranch would be an effective way to concentrate development at Old San Simeon, and thus bring the NCAP into conformance with Section 30242. However, a much simpler method for concentrating development at Old San Simeon, that would also avoid the need for an expansive easement requirement, is to add a standard to the NCAP that limits the allowable uses on the Hearst agricultural lands to only those that are actually agricultural, and that do not allow for additional residential development along the rural north coast. As detailed in Modification 94, this would preclude such uses as dude ranches and health clubs, as well as non-agricultural commercial and industrial development.

Changing the allowable uses on the remainder of the Hearst Ranch also has the added advantage of focusing the determination of the appropriate intensity of development at Old San Simeon under the Coastal Act, precisely because it is a mechanism of effectively moving the hypothetical development potential on the Ranch to a single location. As previously discussed, one potential development scenario for the Hearst Ranch is that the Ranch could be divided into 150 viable parcels of 320 acres each. For the purposes of calculation only, up to 300 residential units, including farm labor residential housing, could be allowed on these parcels. If these uses were no longer allowed by the NCAP, in exchange for concentrating them at Old San Simeon, the NCAP would be consistent with section 30242.

However, 150 of the potential units would, under the County's LCP, necessarily be associated with agricultural uses. Thus, to not preclude effective management of the grazing capabilities of the Hearst Ranch, particularly given economic uncertainty in the agricultural sector, it would be prudent to leave some potential auxiliary farm housing on the Ranch. Currently, there at at least 23 residences on the ranch, many of which serve the 48,000 acres of Hearst Ranch in the coastal zone. Allowing an additional 25 units would appear to be more than an adequate buffer for long term future agricultural uses on the Ranch. Indeed, as discussed below, a more accurate estimate of the number of viable agricultural parcels in the coastal zone, is probably more on the order of 26. Leaving a potential 25 residential farming units on the Ranch also would mean that 275 units are appropriately moved to the Old San Simeon site.

Allowing the concentration of 275 units at Old San Simeon through a use limitation on the remainder of the Ranch also makes sense in the context of 5^th amendment Takings jurisprudence. As already discussed, there is no question that the Hearst Ranch is a viable grazing operation. In short, the Ranch as currently developed is an economically-viable use. Still, as just discussed, there may be some potential for additional development through the future subdivision of the Ranch. However, moving 275 units to Old San Simeon would effectively acknowledge any development potential, however remote, that might exist on the Ranch. Indeed, 275 units is most likely much too high, particularly given the fact that any future subdivisions must result in parcels that are economically viable under the County's policies. Thus, in the original certification of the County's LCP, the Commission considered a minimum parcel size of 640 acres as appropriate on the Hearst grazing lands. But even this size parcel must be considered conservative for an area such as Hearst Ranch. Another viability analysis conducted by the Commission found that the appropriate parcel size to maintain grazing viability on the Hearst Ranch was more on the order of 1800 acres. This would result in only 54 residential units, assuming the allowable two units on each parcel. Without further detailed viability and parcelization analysis, it is difficult to pin down the allowable development potential of the Ranch. Overall, though, the suggested modifications would not interfere with the existing economic use of the Ranch. If the NCAP is modified to limit the allowable uses on the remainder of the Hearst Ranch to only agricultural uses, including a maximum 25 units of farm housing, as a way of effectively concentrating 275 units of potential development, the NCAP would be consistent with Coastal Act Section 30242 protection against the conversion of agricultural lands. As discussed in the Development Findings, these units must also be located with the specified development envelope at Old San Simeon to be consistent with the other resource protection policies of the Coastal Act. In addition, because zoning and land use designations may be changed by future decisionmakers and to provide permanent protection of agricultural land for the duration of non-ag uses at Old San Simeon, it is important to have at least a minimum permanent buffer protection around the Old San Simeon non-agricultural development envelope. Therefore, Modification 97 requires that a 1000 foot agricultural easement be placed around the immediate development envelope. Finally, to physically buffer the proposed visitor-serving development with the immediately surrounding agricultural uses, all development within the development envelope should be set back at least 100 feet unless no conflict would result (see Modification 97).

Finally, is important to recognize that the limitation of uses on the Hearst Ranch is not inconsistent with the treatment that other Agricultural lands in the North Coast would receive under the NCAP. First, as a general matter, the LCP strikes the same balance against agricultural conversions as does the Coastal Act. A finding that agriculture is not feasible must be made to allow non-agricultural development. Assuming that such finding has been made, the LCP would then limit non-agricultural uses to a range of low intensity visitor-serving and commercial uses, on the rationale that such uses would be supplemental to the primary agricultural use. The intent of the LCP is maintain agricultural lands by allowing a limited number of supportive non-agricultural uses. Notably, intensive developments such as hotels and motels, are not allowed under Table O of the LCP. The final piece of the LCP policy is the requirement that any proposal for supplemental non-agricultural uses must provide for the protection of the remaining agricultural lands, through an agricultural or open space easement. In no case may non-agricultural development exceed 2% of the gross acreage of the subject parcel(s). (see Policies 1, 3; CZLUO 23.04.050). This mitigation mechanism is an essential feature of the agricultural protection policies of the LCP.

As described earlier, a similar rationale was applied on a property-wide scale to the Hearst Resorts proposal in the Commission's original LUP findings. When the Land Use Plan portion of the County's LCP was approved in 1984, the Commission agreed that a some visitor serving facilities could be located on the ranch if the remainder of the coastal zone portion of the site was retained in agricultural use through the use of an agricultural easement, similar to the County policy and ordinance described above. Overall, the most important feature of the original easement policy of the NCAP was that it allowed the Commission to effectively treat the Hearst Ranch non-agricultural development in similar fashion as non-agricultural development under the newly-approved LCP. In essence, the Hearst Ranch easement was the precursor to the existing LCP easement policy for non-agricultural development on agricultural lands. Unfortunately, the adopted findings of the 1988 approval of the easement deletion failed to consider the inconsistency that such deletion would create with the larger LCP. Moreover, Hearst Ranch land has already been designated for a supplemental Non-Agricultural use and thus the typical County process for non-agricultural development does not apply. In short, since the deletion of the easement requirement, the non-agricultural development on the Hearst Ranch is effectively given special treatment under the current LCP, as well as the modified NCAP. Moreover, focusing the limitation of use policy on the Hearst Ranch is appropriate because it is the Hearst Corporation that is requesting the introduction of non-agricultural uses into viable grazing lands. Were other property owners to do the same thing, they would be subject not only to the easement policy of the County, but also would have to make a showing of non-viability, a finding that has never been made for the Hearst Ranch.

The County has proposed numerous miscellaneous conversions of Agricultural lands throughout the planning area. In addition, the CCSD has submitted a request that certain lands currently being used for the District’s water supply facility, as well as disposal for effluent from the District’s treatment plant, be redesignated from agriculture to public facility. More detail on these changes, and a discussion of their consistency with the Coastal Act, particularly section 30242, is provided in the next section. Except for the Rhodes redesignation, the following proposed changes are indicated on Map 1 of the NCAP -- North Coast - Rural, Land Use Categories.

Because of its significance to the visual resources of the rural North County, this proposed redesignation is discussed in the Visual Resource Findings.

Due to a mapping error, a small portion of the State Parks 37 acre site for the Hearst Castle Staging Area was zoned Agricultural instead of Recreation. This redesignation from Agriculture to Recreation would bring the planning designation into conformance with the existing use of the State Parks Parking and Staging Area for Hearst Castle. No change in land use would occur. As such, this redesignation is consistent with sections 30241 and 30242.

No agricultural feasibility findings have been made by the County for this redesignation. The County's Agricultural Capability Evaluation show the site to be Class I irrigated soils and Class III non-irrigated. The evaluation concludes that "the soils, climate, and topography are good to excellent for agricultural uses." (V. 6, 5-14). However, the County also found and staff site visits confirm that the existing two acres zoned agricultural has already been converted de facto to a gravel truck parking facility; and that it would be difficult to convert the lands back to agriculture. Additionally, two acres is below a viable parcel size for agricultural use. As such, the redesignation would be recognizing a non-conforming use. The number of uses allowed are, however, too great and would allow the inappropriate extension of existing uses which could result in impacts of adjacent agricultural lands. Suggested Modification 76 therefore limits the uses to avoid impacts that would be inconsistent with Coastal Act agriculture protection policies.

This redesignation from Agriculture to Recreation would bring the planning designation into conformance with the existing non-conforming use of the P.G.&E. substation. No change in land use would occur. As such, this redesignation is consistent with sections 30241 and 30242.

No agricultural feasibility findings have been made by the County for this redesignation. The soils for this site are Class II irrigated and Class III nonirrigated. It is currently used for cattle grazing as part of a larger 150 acre parcel. Although the County found that this proposal would not result in a significant loss of agricultural land, no finding that agricultural use is no longer feasible has been made. Nor would this conversion preserve prime lands or concentrate development consistent with section 30250. Therefore this redesignation is inconsistent with the Coastal Act section 30242 and must be denied. (Modification 137 Map Changes)

No agricultural feasibility findings have been made by the County for these redesignations. No agriculture evaluation of the Ranch has been made. These conversions do not fall under any of the exceptions to the Coastal Act prohibition on conversion of Agricultural lands. As such, these conversions are inconsistent with section 30242. It should be noted that the further conversion of agricultural lands for an expanded golf course (not currently before the Commission but anticipated by the Hearst Corporation) will need to be evaluated under section 30242. Barring a finding that agricultural use is not feasible, such conversion would also be inconsistent with the Coastal Act. (Modification 137 Map Changes)

This site is four acres of a larger 495 acre parcel. These four acres were cut off from the rest of the parcel when Highway One was relocated in the early 1960’s. The site is vacant, and is located on West Lodge Hill near the southern edge of Cambria. The site is gently sloping and covered with grasses. The proposal would change the land use designation on only one of the four acres nearest the intersection of Highway One, Ardath Drive, and Green Street. The proposal also includes moving the Urban Services Line, which currently abuts the site, to encompass the one acre proposed to be redesignated.

The County is proposing changing the land use designation on only one of the four acres in order to preserve views, neighborhood character and scale, and to not add excessive traffic. The County has proposed standards which would limit the commercial use to neighborhood-serving grocery store, caretakers quarters, and residential accessory uses (NCAP 7-77). The standard also provides for multi-family dwellings at a maximum of 15 units per acre. It is unclear why this intense residential use would also be allowed, especially when another standard limits use to a neighborhood grocery store, and when traffic impacts are a concern.

The County did not perform an agriculture viability study. The site does not contain prime agricultural soils and but does contain non-prime agricultural land suitable for lower intensity agricultural uses. This conversion would not preserve prime lands and agricultural use has not been shown to be infeasible. The proposal also would not concentrate development but rather, would expand the Urban Services line to allow for more intensive commercial development. These features alone make this conversion inconsistent with Coastal Act sections 30242 and 30250. More important, the proposal would bring additional land and uses within the Urban Services Line, potentially requiring provision of services, such as water, which currently are in short supply. Therefore, the proposal is inconsistent with Coastal Act sections 30250 and must be denied (see Modification 137, Map Changes).

This proposal is to redesignate 104 acres used by the CCSD for its primary water supply facility from Agriculture to Public Facility. Approximately 32 acres of the site are used for existing infrastructure, including percolation ponds, a resevoir, spray fields and miscellaneous support uses. Another 32 acres is riparian stream habitat or archeological sites. The CCSD is also proposing to site a desalination facility here (1.3 acres, See Development Findings). In the Commission's conditions for this desal facility, the Commission required the CCSD to request the County to redesignate the desal site to Public Facility.

Much of this site is already in public facility use. Redesignation of this portion of this site would be consistent with section 30242 of the Coastal Act. However, no findings have been made to justify the conversion of the relatively undeveloped, presumably viable agricultural land on the east half of the site. Although there are some existing water production wells here, most of this half remains undeveloped. It is not clear why this portion of the site should also be redesignated and thus such a redesignation would be inconsistent with section 30242. The County denied the entire CCSD's request. However, redesignation of the westerly portion of the site would be consistent with the Coastal Act. Therefore, the NCAP should be modified to allow this redesigation (see Modification 137, Map Changes).

As discussed in the Development findings, water supply is a serious issue for the entire North Coast Area. Given its priority status under the Coastal Act, agriculture demands for water must take precedence over all but environmentally sensitive habitat needs. Therefore, to bring the NCAP into conformance with the Coastal Act, the NCAP should be modified to assure that no agricultural uses are compromised by the use of existing water supplies for non-agricultural development (see detailed discussion in Water Supply Findings).

Coastal Act Section 30107.5 defines environmentally sensitive areas as any area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem, and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments. Within environmentally sensitive habitat areas (EHSAs), Coastal Act Section 30240(a) requires protection against any significant disruption of habitat values. Only uses dependent on those resources shall be allowed within ESHAs. All areas meeting the definition of ESHA must be protected from significant disruption. Section 30240(b) requires the buffering of ESHAs, to prevent impacts that would significantly degrade these areas.

Under Coastal Act Section 30231, the biological productivity of coastal streams must be protected and, where feasible, restored; riparian corridors and habitats must be protected; depletion of groundwater must be prevented; substantial interference with surface water flows must be avoided, and alteration of natural streams minimized; and runoff needs to be controlled, all to protect water quality. Additionally, Coastal Act Section 30233 limits development in wetlands to a few particular categories where there is no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative, and where feasible mitigation measures have been provided to minimize adverse environmental effects.

Finally, Section 30230 protects marine resources, and requires special protection for areas and species of special significance; Section 30231 also calls for minimizing the adverse effects of waste water discharges.

A rich variety of environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHA’s) are found in the North Coast Planning Area. This section provides a detailed overview of each of these.

There are at least seven streams in the North Coast Planning Area that support steelhead trout (steelhead): San Carpoforo Creek, Arroyo de la Cruz, Pico Creek, Little Pico Creek, San Simeon Creek, Santa Rosa Creek and Villa Creek. The California Department of Fish and Game’s 1996 "Steelhead Restoration and Management Plan for California" lists Arroyo de la Cruz, San Simeon and Santa Rosa Creeks as very important steelhead habitats. The steelhead is an "anadromous" fish, meaning that part of the steelhead’s life cycle is dependent on these freshwater streams, and part is spent at sea before returning to their spawning grounds. The steelhead has been recently designated as a "Threatened" species in streams of the central California Coast (1997). Because of their role as Threatened species habitat, maintaining the quality of the North Coast streams as steelhead habitat assumes even greater importance.

The amount of stream flow needed to support this species can be determined through a standardized protocol for biologic assessment termed the Instream Flow Study Methodology (ISFSM). The ISFSM collectively considers the spawning habitat, typically clean, well-washed gravels high in the watershed; rearing habitat, which requires the protection of the stream’s riparian corridor and coastal lagoon; and migratory route, including consideration of factors such as the presence of physical barriers or reaches of unshaded waters which may be too warm for this cool-water fish species.

Stream flows in the San Luis Obispo North County area are subject to extreme year-to year fluctuations, with streams typically swinging from several years of drought-pattern flows to flood flows another year, and back again. Accordingly, biological assessments need to span at least five years. This period also coincides with the life cycle of the steelhead; the adult fish return to their home stream at variable annual intervals, perhaps after 3-5 years at sea.

Steelhead are not the only species that benefit from the North Coast’s abundance of small but generally healthy streams. Both the red-legged frog, which has also been listed recently under the Federal Endangered Species Act, and the western pond turtle, are found on many North Coast streams. Native frog species tend to be quite sensitive to polluted water, so the persistence of these large frogs in nearly every stream on the North Coast is a good sign. Elsewhere in the State, this species has, in general, suffered a major population crash over the past few decades. Predation by the even larger, more aggressive, non-native bullfrog is a major problem. So is habitat loss due to stream alteration. For example, the Carmel River was once prime year-round red-legged frog habitat. Unfortunately, it no longer serves this function and is too often dry, due to dams, diversions, and overdrafting. A similar result could occur on such North Coast watersheds as Arroyo de la Cruz, where future diversions are expected to supply resort development on the Hearst Ranch.

The primary type of stillwater wetland on the San Luis Obispo County North Coast, is coastal lagoon. Nearly every one of the North Coast’s many streams forms at least a seasonal lagoon, when dimishing stream flows in late Spring combine with the annual buildup of the beach berm to create a barrier across the mouth of the stream. Here, both the juvenile steelhead and the Tidewater goby (a small fish, on the Federal Endangered list) find suitable summer habitat.

Significant lagoons typically form at San Carpoforo Creek, Arroyo de la Cruz, San Simeon Creek, Pico Creek, Santa Rosa Creek, and -- just beyond the Planning Area boundary -- Villa Creek. Problems arise when the beach berm is artifically and prematurely breached. This usually comes about because development has encroached too closely on the wetland, and flooding becomes an issue. When juvenile steelhead are flushed to sea before they are ready (usually after the November rains, when the lagoons breach naturally), their survival is imperiled. The best solution is to insure adequate setbacks from the lagoon wetlands, through vigorous application of development standards. Fortunately, artifical lagoon breaching is not at the present time a common occurrence on the San Luis Obispo North Coast.

Much of the San Luis Obispo County North County Planning Area is bounded by the California Sea Otter Refuge, which extends southwards to the mouth of Santa Rosa Creek; and by the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS), which extends southwards to a point in Cambria just to the south of the Sea Otter Refuge (thereby encompassing all of the Sea Otter Refuge).

It is not generally appreciated that the southern end of the Big Sur Coast biome falls within San Luis Obispo County rather than Monterey County. North of San Carpoforo Creek within San Luis Obispo County, the shoreline is characterized by the extraordinarily steep cliffs and narrow kelp beds typical of the Big Sur Coast. Because it is favored by mother sea otters with pups, the area around the mouth of Salmon Creek, immediately north of the San Luis Obispo County line, was designated by the State Water Resources Control Board as an Area of Special Biological Significance (ASBS). Point-source discharges are prohibited within the ASBS, which is cut off at the County line.

South of the San Carpoforo - Ragged Pt. area, the continental shelf becomes wider and more gently sloping. Consequently, the kelp beds are much wider, because the critical controlling factor in the seaward margin of the kelp beds is the depth to which sunlight penetrates. The kelp beds play a key role in the life cycle of many species, although they are best known as the primary habitat of the California sea otter, as a principal food source for abalone, and as nursery areas for many rockfish species. Kelp beds are commercially harvested as well, yielding industrial and pharmaceutical products as well as fodder for commercial abalone aquaculture.

From San Carpoforo Creek to Cambria, the shoreline is a long series of alternating beach and rocky environments. The rocky sections support one of the richest and most extensive tidepool habitat areas in the state. South of Cambria is the Harmony Coast, steeper and rockier, with much suitable substrate for kelp holdfasts. In the heydey of commercial abalone diving this was one of the most favored harvesting areas in California - and helps explain why the Sea Otter Refuge was halted at Santa Rosa Creek. Today, commercial abalone aquaculture has supplanted the depleted wild abalone stocks. Bordering the southern extremity of the North Coast planning area is The Abalone Farm, Inc. Their Harmony Coast location was selected, in part, because of the area’s high water quality and absence of potential sources of future water pollution.

Besides sea otters, a substantial number of other marine mammals can be seen along the San Luis Obispo County North Coast. Several dolphin species regularly make their appearance just offshore. Large whales include the blue whale, humpback, and sperm whales, althrough the grey whale on its annual inshore migration is by far the most commonly seen.

All year long, harbor seals, sometimes with pups, can be spotted along the rocky shoreline of the Hearst Ranch. Sea lions frequent the same area. But the most remarkable recent trend since the LCP was certified, is the establishment of breeding colonies of elephant seals near Piedras Blancas Point -- within easy view of passing motorists on Highway One.

Active coastal dunes are found at Piedras Blancas, as well as between San Simeon Point and Arroyo Laguna. Here, adapted native vegetation serves to stabilize these transient landforms. On more ancient dune surfaces, enough stability has developed to support woody species like oaks and sage, as well as enough grass to interest the occasional beef animal. An example of this type of landform extends north from San Simeon Point but, like the more recent active dunes, the stabilizing vegetation is vulnerable to disturbance.

In San Luis Obispo County’s North Coast Planning Area, a planted grove of Monterey pine graces the highly scenic tip of San Simeon Point. Native stands of this disjunct maritime pine species are found nearby, generally on the second-level marine terrace landform. Scattered groves range from Pico Creek at the southern edge of the Hearst Ranch, to near Cambria Air Force Station, at the north end of the Harmony Coast. The center of the stand is partly urbanized, but outstanding forest habitat is found immediately beyond the present urban/rural edge.

The Monterey pine forest at Cambria needs to be understood as a complete and dynamic habitat--understory and overstory, animals and interactions. At issue is preservation of habitat, not just trees. A frequent forest companion of the Monterey pine is the coast live oak. Both trees are vulnerable to deadly fungal infections: the live oak from oak root fungus, a frequent result of urban-style irrigation; the Monterey pine, from the notorious pine pitch canker.

San Luis Obispo County has been touted as a Spring wildflower paradise. Many rare species are found here -- according to the California Department of Fish and Game, 24 listed plant species occur in the County.

One area in particular is a notable rare plant environment: Arroyo de la Cruz. This eleven square mile basin, behind Hearst Castle, empties into a substantial coastal lagoon north of Piedras Blancas. The entire watershed lies within the Hearst Ranch. Arroyo de la Cruz supports more than 520 species of plants, more than anywhere else in San Luis Obispo County. Five of these species grow nowhere else in the world: Arroyo de la Cruz mariposa lily, dwarf goldenstar, Hearst’s manzinita, Hearst’s ceonothus, and maritime ceonothus (Source: California’s Wild Gardens, 1997).

Two particularly interesting species are the California condor and the Monarch butterfly. The endangered condor is just now being reintroduced after near-extinction and a captive breeding program. In contrast, the Monarch Butterfly, in its annual migration, can number in the tens of thousands at a single overwintering site.

In San Luis Obispo County, the Monarch tends to favor the non-native eucalyptus tree as a favorite -- although historically, they were recorded mainly in Monterey pines and along streams, in sycamores. Despite its numbers, the Monarch is still vulnerable because it congregates only on one or a few "butterfly trees" in a grove. And, in Pacific Grove, it was discovered that even small amounts of chimney smoke from nearby development resulted in abandonment of overwintering sites.

The Hearst Ranch Resorts Plan, in the North Coast Area Plan, is predicated on Arroyo de la Cruz as the primary future water source. However, as discussed in the Development Findings, the anticipated levels of development at the Hearst Resorts will very likely deplete surface and groundwater flows needed for in-stream wildlife and riparian vegetation. Substantial data, cited in the "Development" finding above, demonstrate that this is problematical. For example, the proposed Hearst Resort developments currently contemplated by the LCP would require an estimated 700 acre-feet of water per year (AFY). However, the North Coast Area Plan Update EIR identified the hydrological safe yield to be only 430 AFY. It would appear that there is not enough water for the allowable level of development, let alone steelhead, red-legged frogs or riparian forest. Such a depletion would be clearly inconsistent with Coastal Act Sections 30240, 30230, and 30231.

Arroyo de la Cruz has been the subject of several specific studies regarding stream habitat. The most recent study released by the California Department of Fish and Game found that water diversions were already "impacting habitat quality and quantity." The report concludes:

It should be noted that the possiblity still exists to divert water during high-flow periods; once biologic safe yield levels are established, this would suggest that stream flow or subflow could be tapped without disrupting the habitat of resident fish and wildlife. The Hearst Ranch under this scenario would have a variety of options for off-stream water storage. Two obvious choices which could be investigated include injection/extraction wells in gravel aquifers; and, construction of a surface storage reservoir in one of the Ranch’s many swales or arroyos.

Similar mismatches between projected water demand, and estimated stream capacity, exist on certain other streams in the area, as well. Of particular concern is the depletion of Santa Rosa Creek and San Simeon Creek for existing developed water supply systems. Of course, the idea of off-stream peak flow storage, as well as wastewater recycling/recharge, and better water conservation, would appear to be feasible alternatives for restoring these stream habitats.

It is essential that the LCP’s policies (including NCAP policies) not allow harm to in-stream and riparian habitats. This will require that development potential be adjusted to a point that water use will not exceed dependable water supply; that reliable data on the needs of natural systems be ascertained before development is approved; and that any water diversions be adjusted accordingly. And, where coastal streams are already overcommitted, that restoration, reclamation and conservation measures be encouraged.

The Arroyo de la Cruz water monitoring program referred to in the North Coast Area Plan (under Hearst Ranch Resorts Plan) is not, according to expert sources, adequate to reliably determine sufficient water flows for instream uses (including anadromous fish). Further, only a single year is required for the biological analysis, which if performed during an atypical high flow year would yield faulty results. Also, the analysis is allowed to be conducted concurrently with construction. This means that resort development would already be underway before it could be determined whether or not the water source is sufficient for the resort development and the instream biological resources. This is not a good idea. And, it is inconsistent with the Coastal Act requirement that new development must not significantly disrupt environmentally sensitive habitat areas.

However, these critical deficiencies can be remedied by clarifying and modifying the review requirements for each phase of the Hearst Ranch resorts development. Specifically, the existing water monitoring program can be appropriately modified, and the ISFSM methodology can be specified; a five-year data profile can be required, to account for the year-to-year stream variability; and the biological analysis can be specified as preceding (not concurrent with) permitting and construction. These measures can be reinforced with a prohibition on damming, diverting or overdrafting the stream in any way that would significantly disrupt the steelhead run, red-legged frog habitat, or riparian corridor. If so modified, these review requirements will be consistent with the Coastal Act Sections 30230, 30231 and 30240. (See Modifications 67, 72, 83-87.)

Non-point source pollution (meaning it doesn’t come out of a pipe) is a concern on the North Coast of San Luis Obispo County. Careless grading in watersheds is causing downstream sedimentation of creeks, with subsequent impacts on aquatic wildlife and water supply (slows recharge rates). This problem is of particular concern with repect to the red-legged frog, another recently-classified Threatened species, and the Western pond turtle, a candidate species now being investigated.

Intensively manipulated turf areas such as sporting fields and golf courses, are another concern. A typical golf course covers 100-200 acres of landscape, including fairways, tees and greens. Non-point source runoff results from fertilizer-laden irrigation water, which without careful attention can also carry excess herbicides, rodenticides, insecticides, etc.

The proposed LCP Update proposes policies which would improve protection of some coastal streams from grading impacts. However, these policies have a serious failing in that they apply the SRA policies only to "blue line" streams shown on U.S Geological Survey quadrangles. Appeal experience, as with the Eady Motel project in Cambria, demonstrates that unmapped streams also have valuable riparian habitat. Therefore, this category of ESHA is not adequately protected by the LCP -- and the Update, as submitted, does not correct this rigid map-dependent approach. Therefore, the LCP (including the NCAP Update) does not conform with the Coastal Act requirements cited above.

The LCP specifically identifies only one proposed new golf course -- on the Hearst Ranch, along the shoreline northwards from San Simeon Point. The 18-hole golf course would be in close proximity not only to environmentally sensitive tidepools and other marine features, but would also require irrigation in some proximity to the dwarfed native oak groves on the crest of the ancient dune landform. Accordingly an added concern would be the oaks’ susceptability to oak root fungus.

The Update’s proposed policies would mitigate these impacts, in part, by calling for adherence to an integrated golf course management regime derived in consultation with the Audubon Society (an Audubon representative stated that they were not consulted nor had they given their endorsement, regarding this particular course). However, deletion of the Hearst Resort golf course altogether, as proposed by the Suggested Modifications, would avoid rather than merely mitigate the potential impacts. Accordingly, as modified to delete the golf course, to prescribe a 100 ft. vegetated "filter strip" buffer for other (presumably smaller) sports fields throughout the planning area, and to strengthen criteria for grading in coastal watersheds, the NCAP would be appropriately updated consistent with Coastal Act Sections 30240, 30230 and 30231.

Discharges from many sources harm the marine environment. As the 1989 Exxon Valdez accident so graphically illustrated, and numerous smaller incidents have confirmed, catastrophic oil spills remain a primary threat to the well-being of the coastal marine environment. Another serious concern is the cumulative effect of many smaller impacts to the marine environment. These would encompass both water quality impacts (including inflows from surface drainages) and the direct impacts of human activities within the marine environment.

Examples of existing and potential inflow impacts in the North Coast planning area include: (a) polluted runoff (resulting from careless grading, fires, overgrazing, failing septic systems, poor containment of silty soils on construction sites, increased urban-style landscapes); (b) wastewater discharges (generally, treated wastewater from the CCSD plant but potentially untreated in event of a pumping system failure or catastrophic break in the SSCSD or CCSD bluff-edge sewage transmission lines); and (c) brine discharges from desalinization plants (a plant has been approved for the CCSD but has not yet been installed).

Also during the past ten years, proposals to empty agricultural wastewater (carrying elevated levels of selenium, cadmium and other heavy metals) in the general vicinity of the Monterey-San Luis Obispo County line have been reported in the press. The purpose of such a pipeline project would be for remediation of toxic and/or mutagenic levels of contaminants that have accumulated in agricultural runoff in the San Joaquin Valley, especially around the now-infamous Kesterson National Wildlife Refuge.

In addition to the impacts of the on-shore components of such a pipeline, the resultant discharges would pose a serious threat to the resources of the MBNMS, and would also raise concerns with respect to the continued viability of abalone aquaculture at The Abalone Farm.

The LCP was certified before current insights regarding the impacts of contaminated inflows. Our thinking has evolved considerably from the time when the ocean was seen as a means to dilute and dispose of land-generated pollution. Old assumptions regarding wastewater treatment plant outfalls no longer apply. New concerns have arisen, including reclamation/remediation schemes for distant valleys, and brine discharges from newly-available seawater desalination plants. The LCP, in its present (and updated) configuration, has not kept pace, and therefore is not adequate with respect to the Coastal Act’s marine resource protection policies.

The attached suggested modifications would provide for synchronization with the regulations of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS), by prohibiting most new discharges that would directly or indirectly enter the Sanctuary. In addition, grading activities during the wet season would be subject to stormwater pollution prevention plan standards, even where the site is not large enough to trigger the requirement to obtain such approval from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Also, new paved parking lots would be required to install and maintain grease/sediment traps. If modified accordingly, the North Coast marine environment will be better protected from the cumulative effects of polluted runoff and marine discharges; such modifications are an appropriate and necessary means to protect the waters of the MBNMS, and will provide for conformance with Coastal Act Sections 30240, 30231, and 30240.

Around the turn of the century, the Northern elephant seal (NES) had been hunted to the brink of extinction. Since receiving protection, their numbers have multiplied. A remarkable recent trend is the rapid colonization of the beaches around Piedras Blancas, which the seals occupy on a seasonal basis. It is here that each year the females select a spot to call home. Next, the arrival of the massive bull elephant seals heralds a period of fierce, sometimes bloody rivalry in the breeding colonies. After the pups are born and weaned, the seals migrate northward to begin another yearly cycle.

New radio telemetry data from the ATOC Marine Mammals Study reveals that the animals migrate essentially in a straight line from the Gulf of Alaska; and, in foraging for food, dive to rather extreme ocean depths, well beyond other seals and even most whales. Yet, despite their amazing capabilities and multiplying numbers, the NES is still considered vulnerable. A primary reason for this is that because of the species’ near-extinction, their genetic variability (and therefore the species’ capacity to respond to disease, pollution and other stressors) has theoretically become extremely limited. Land use planning issues which could affect survival of the NES include water quality, especially impacts on food sources; harassment by ill-informed visitors, and competition for beach space where human recreational use is already established; and even highway location (evidence points to at least one automobile-NES collision already).

At the same time, the immediate visibility of these large animals, in substantial numbers and at close range, offers an extraordinary opportunity to stimulate public interest and awareness of the marine environment.

Pursuant to a coastal development permit granted to Caltrans for a realignment of Highway 1 in the vicinity of Piedras Blancas (CDP A-3-SLO-95-070), an interim NES management program has already been initiated. The interim management program includes docents, public informational displays, etc., and has already resulted in a substantial number of visitor contacts. Over the Thanksgiving 1997 weekend, 13 docents were on duty, with over 1300 visitor contacts. In addition, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game will jointly provide enforcement patrols. The goal will be to reduce intentional and unintentional harassment of the NES on their chosen beaches, while also protecting the visitor from injury.

Several problems are evident, however. The docents who are doing the monitoring and visitor contact work have no support facilities, nor is there any particular authorization for such facilities in the LCP. The existing Piedras Blancas Lighthouse Reservation is well-situated for observing the elephant seal beaches, but the site is presently occupied by a National Biological Survey research activity and is not equipped to handle visitors. At present, visitors are not being allowed on the blufftop trail which connects Caltrans’ "Vista Point 4" to the abandoned lighthouse. A key problem is that a long-range strategy and management program for the NES is lacking.

The present NCAP was drafted before the NES began to occupy the Piedras Blancas beaches as major breeding colonies. As a result, these shoreline areas are not mapped as ESHA’s, nor are there policies which provide development standards. Accordingly, the LCP is out of date. Further, the amendment as submitted does not address this issue either. Therefore, the environmentally sensitive breeding habitat of the NES is not adequately protected from significant disruption, and the LCP is not in conformance with the Coastal Act requirements.

To provide for conformance with the applicable Coastal Act requirements, the LCP should recognize the value of the elephant seal "invasion" as a gateway public educational opportunity for the MBNMS; plan for appropriate human vs. seal management, to minimize dangers and conflicts; encourage designation of adjacent waters as an area of Special Biological Significance (ASBS), to prohibit any new outfalls; and preclude any loss of habitat, for example, from rock revetments being placed upon seal beaches. Specific policies are needed to support a permanent management program; authorize seal and visitor management measures, including seasonal diversion of public access from the beach to the blufftop; designate a primary observation facility at Piedras Blancas Pt., and identify the needed improvements as allowable uses; prohibit encroachment of development onto beach habitats, especially where alternatives such as highway realignment are available; and to specify that the policies are applicable to all NES breeding habitat, not just the previously mapped Sensitive Resource Areas (SRA’s).

If the NCAP amendment is modified to incorporate these needed policies, and the SRA habitat maps are updated, the LCP will adequately protect environmentally breeding habitat for the NES. Accordingly, with respect to the NES these modifications will bring the NCAP into conformance with Coastal Act Sections 30230 (marine resources) and 30240 (ESHA’s).

Along the Pacific Coast, isolated groves of several different pine species (Monterey pine, Bishop pine, Santa Rosa Island pine, Torrey pine) provide some of the most interesting and scenic landscapes in the coastal zone. These isolated, or endemic occurrences, are termed maritime closed-cone forests. The closed-cone characteristic is typical for fire-influenced forest habitats. On a very hot day (rare in these foggy locales) or in response to fire, the cones open and release their seed. Following a light ground fire, a virtual carpet of seedlings can be found beneath the old tree, after winter rains.

Monterey pine is the type of maritime closed-cone forest found in the San Luis Obispo North County Planning Area. Within its native range, Monterey pine (Pinus radiata) is found in just four places: a small stand near Pt. Ano Nuevo at the southern edge of San Mateo County; the main stand, mantling the Monterey Peninsula; the Cambria stand, parts of which are the least disrupted of the remaining groves; and Guadalupe and Cedros Islands, a remote and little-known pine forest habitat off the Pacific coast of Mexico. The Guadalupe Island grove’s survival is uncertain, with fuelwood collecting, overgrazing by goats and severe soil erosion as primary threats. The U.S. groves, in contrast, are threatened primarily by habitat conversion (golf course development, urbanization), soil erosion (road grading, recreational overuse), and invasive exotic plants (genista or "broom", pampas grass, acacia, eucalyptus, etc.). Commercial logging was an issue in the past, but today is largely confined to small salvage operations.

Fire exclusion may be another factor in the closed-cone forest. On the Monterey Peninsula, reproduction is most vigorous in recently burned areas, but in the areas that receive the greatest fire-suppression efforts (i.e., the areas that have been been divided and developed with residential estates) pine reproduction is weak or, in the best-manicured yards, altogether absent.

Adding to the list of concerns for Monterey Pine are two new threats: (1) genetic contamination by well-meaning but indiscriminate planting of hybridized nursery stock, nonetheless sold as "native Monterey pine"; and, 2) the pine pitch canker epidemic. According to the California Department of Forestry (CDF), pine pitch canker is a recently introduced, rapidly spreading fungal disease; Monterey and Bishop pines are especially susceptible. CDF believes that the fungal spores are unintentionally carried over long distances by conveyance of contaminated materials. Bark beetles contibute to the decline of infected trees, and typically kill the more severely infected. All three of California’s native stands of Monterey pines have now become infected; the status of the island stands in Mexico is unknown. Pitch canker was confirmed on the Monterey Peninsula in April 1992, then at the Ano Nuevo stand in December 1992, followed by the Cambrian stand in November 1994. As of March 1994, 25% of the trees in the northwest section of Carmel’s urban forest were infected; now, the symptoms can be seen throughout this square-mile City. CDF characterizes the threat to all native Monterey pine stands in California as "severe".

At Cambria, trees with gross (obvious) symptoms of infection are not evenly distributed. In 1997 the greatest number of symptomatic trees (i.e. with symptoms typically displayed by, but not in every case necessarily caused by, pitch canker) were observed by Commission staff in the most urbanized parts of the town, where the stresses on the trees presumably are the greatest and where the most human activities implicated in the spread of the disease are concentrated. Outside the Cambria Urban Service Line (USL), fewer symptomatic treees have been observed (East/West Ranch, Cambria Cemetery, C.T. Ranch, Scott Rock area). The least-symptomatic of the observed areas, and presumably least disturbed part of this increasingly sensitive habitat, is the Monterey pine grove located within the Hearst Ranch, on the north side of Pico Creek just outside of San Simeon Acres. Here, observation of the grove from the public road revealed only one dead tree, causes unknown.

CDF, the USDA-Forest Service, and Forest Genetics Institute have now expressed concern that not only other maritime pines, but also other native pines in the Coast Range, Cascade Range, and the Sierra Nevada may become diseased. The fungus has been confirmed on a Bishop pine in Mendocino County. While redwoods have shown resistance in greenhouse tests, Torrey pine (from San Diego County), Ponderosa pine and even Douglas fir alarmingly demonstrated susceptibility in these tests.

No cure for infected trees is currently available. Thousands of trees are aleady dead. Nonetheless, it is important to limit the spread of the fungus until an effective means to deal with it is discovered, and disease-resistant stock can be made available. A small percentage of Monterey pine appears immune to the disease. Until the nature of this immunity is understood, it is critical that the maximum genetic diversity within the native stands of Monterey pine be protected. CDF concludes:

(Sources: The Cambria Forest, Taylor Coffman, Coastal Heritage Press, 1995; CDF Tree Notes #20, July 1995; California Forestry Note #110, CDF, Nov. 1995; Pitch Canker Action Plan, Appendix D to SLO County North Coast Area Plan public hearing document, Dec. 1996; Pine Pitch Canker Task Force Position Paper, California Forest Pest Council, Jan. 23, 1997; RFP for "Developing Programs for Handling...Infected Pine Material within the Coastal Pitch Canker Zone...", CDF, Dec. 1997.)

The San Luis Obispo County LCP recognizes the natural stands of Monterey pine forest around Cambria and San Simeon Acres as environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHA’s). Outside the urbanized area of Cambria, these groves are appropriately mapped as Sensitive Resource Areas (Terrestial Habitat), although natural meadows and clearings which are part of this overall habitat area are not shown within the SRA boundaries. Since the LCP was first certified in the mid-1980’s, we have gained an improved understanding of the Monterey pine forest as an ecosystem. At the same time, increased pressure for incremental urbanization and the new threat of pitch canker disease have become serious concerns. Therefore, especially in light of the pine pitch canker threat, minimizing the loss of native Monterey pine habitat to other causes (urbanization, recreational overuse, invasive exotic plant species) has become a much more important consideration in land use planning.

San Luis Obispo County has responded to the challenge in several important ways. These measures include a substantial number of proposed additions and changes to the LCP, all included in the North Coast Update amendment. Specifically, these changes include: a call to create a "Forest Management Plan", backed by a Forest Management District to provide for long term management of the forest; integration of the erosion control program (which is supported by a fee of $400 per new unit); a proposed new Open Space District, "to begin purchasing many of the small and substandard lots in Cambria"; updating and expanding the existing Lodge Hill TDC (Transfer of Development Credit) program; and, a new Monterey Pine Forest Habitat Combining Designation for the already-subdivided portions of Cambria, which provides a detailed set of standards for development siting, building site protection, and native vegetation removal.

A proposed forest mitigation bank, funded by impact fees, would help to implement these strategies. These LCP changes represent a robust response to the Pine Pitch Canker Task Force’s recommendation, to "Incorporate what is known about pitch canker into landscape, resource management and conservation plans" (Pitch Canker Action Plan, Nov. 1995).

In the Rural Lands and Agricultural land use designations outside of Cambria, the same development standards would apply within Monterey pine habitats. And, on Rural Lands near Cambria, specific density limitations (one dwelling unit per parcel), clustering, public view protection, slope protection (no structures on slopes over 20%), tree removal and tree replacement (4:1 for each removed tree) criteria are provided. As originally submitted (Dec. 1996), aproximately two-thirds of the Rural Lands on the north side of Cambria (i.e., north of Santa Rosa Creek) would have a 160 acre minimum parcel size. And, the 250 unit "Pine Resort" on Agricultural lands within the Hearst ranch, north of Pico Creek, immediately adjacent to the native pine grove, was deleted.

However, the revised (June 1997) North Coast Update amendment presently before the Commission, contains a number of important deficiencies with respect to protecting native Monterey pine forest habitat from significant disruption. First, the "Pine Resort" site is reinstated in the Hearst Resorts Plan, with mere "encouragement" to consolidate at a more suitable location. Secondly, the minimum parcel size for the roughly 1,000 acres of Rural Lands north of Cambria is reduced from 160 acres back to a (mostly) 20 acre minimum, with one approximately 200 acre area of 35 and 55-80 acre minimums. Upon comparison to the 160 acre minimum, this will mean not only more residential clearing, but also dismemberment of the habitat through multiple access roads and driveway grading, a less distinct urban-rural boundary, and a much reduced opportunity for management measures such as prescribed burning. Both the proposed Pine Resort development and the residential development of the forest buffer around Cambria will predictably result in increased opportunity for human conveyance of fungal spores, increased soil erosion from disturbed areas, and other significant disruptions resulting from greatly intensified human activity, and are therefore inconsistent with the requirements of Coastal Act Sections 30240.

Within the Cambria urban reserve area, the main deficiencies are: the proposal to establish a "forest preserve" on the East/West Ranch is far too vague; and, the Monterey Pine Habitat Combining Designation needs clarification to specify that the measures for retention of native vegetation are mandatory, that any Monterey pines which are planted be from disease-free local Cambria stock only, and that invasive exotic species be avoided in landscaping.

However, Coastal Act conformance can be achieved by correcting the deficiencies noted above. The necessary suggested modifications delete the "Pine Resort" complex; specify a uniform 160 acre minimum parcel size for the north-of-Cambria pine forest, with a site coverage limitation of 69,696 sq. ft. (1% of 160 acres) and a requirement to record permanent protection measures for the undeveloped balance of each parcel (to insure long-run protection of the habitat and a stable urban-rural boundary); add similar specific permanent protection measures for the retained native pine forest on East/West Ranch, along with a Forest Management Plan requirement; and provide for adjustments to the Cambria urban area Monterey pine habitat Combining Designation, to assure that development impacts are minimized. Therefore, if modified as suggested, the LCP will conform to Coastal Act Section 30240 with respect to protecting the native pine forest habitat.

The California condor was near extinction when the remaining individuals were captured for a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) captive breeding program. Previously, the USFWS had identified the Big Sur Coast along with the adjoining grazing lands in San Luis Obispo County, as part of the Critical Habitat for the condor.

In the days of Early California, condors were a common sight in San Luis Obispo County. Because large animal carcasses are their sole food source, the condors’ fortunes were tied to the abundance of grazing herbivores such as deer and Tule elk. Thus, it appears that when the native herbivores were replaced by cattle, condors initially made a successful transition. However, by the 1970’s the California condor had been declared an endangered species. Causes of the condor’s decline included illegal shooting, egg collecting, consumption of poisoned carcasses, etc. Now, no wild condor has flown over the San Luis Obispo County North County area for a number of years.

As of the end of 1997, this will change. Captive-bred condors were released on Dec. 12, 1997, at the Ventana Wilderness Sanctuary, a few miles north of the San Luis Obispo County line. Because these large soaring birds will forage up to 150 miles from their cliff-face nesting sites in the course of a day, all San Luis Obispo County North Coast rangelands can expect to see wild condors once again. But, the longterm survival of the species is still tied, in part, to the fate of their food source. For the long run, condors will therefore need a maximum amount of grazing land to remain in production.

Thus, an additional concern that must now be added to the list of threats is the conversion of rangeland. This happens not only when grasslands are converted to developed urban uses, but also when cattle and fire are excluded. Both cattle grazing and occasional light fires will suppress invasion by woody species ("brush"). For example, when cattle were removed from Andrew Molera State Park in 1973, and not replaced with the native Tule elk, the dominant grasslands were gradually displaced by brush. This resulted in greater fuel loading, with several hot fires ensuing. The lesson is this: by suppressing brush, cattle reduce fuel loading, which in turn prevents too-hot fires that sear soil and reduce range productivity. A high level of range productivity would favor condor survival. Conversely, conversion of rangelands to other uses, or abandonment because of lack of economic viability, would amount to a "disruption" of condor habitat.

For the condor, maintaining sufficient food sources will be a key to survival. The LCP’s minimum parcel sizes (20 acres in the Rural Lands category, 320 acres [for grazing land] in Agriculture) are not by themselves sufficient to assure the continued presence of the herds -- which, through mortality, assure a food source for condors. And, while the North County rangelands constitute Critical Habitat as defined by the Endangered Species Act, the condors’ (extremely) far-ranging habitat requirements illustrate several other truths: a) the well-being of an endangered species is not necessarily incompatible with human economic use of the landscape; b) if the condors’ feeding habitat is considered an ESHA, the disruption of such habitat would have to be a substantial acreage in order for the disruption, in terms of Coastal Act Section 30240.a, to be a "significant disruption"; and, c) the County can not rely on the LCP’s SRA (Sensitive Resource Area) maps alone for determining where the ESHA policies will be applied.

Therefore, the LCP should recognize continued cattle ranching’s value to condor recovery, by maintaining the characteristic oak/pine savanna grassland landscapes. Of these rangelands, by far the most significant is the approx. 77,000 acre Hearst Ranch. To the extent that the LCP and the amendment fail to protect the Hearst Ranch and other rangelands from conversion, habitat for grassland-dependent species will be disrupted. Accordingly, as identified in the Agriculture chapter of these Findings, modifications are needed to insure that the maximum area of grazing lands will be retained. Adoption of these modifications will minimize the risk of disruption of rangelands which play a habitat role for the condor, and with respect to these habitats, will bring the LCP into conformance with Coastal Act Section 30240. At this time in the reintroduction process, there does not appear to be a need for LCP amendments specific to the condor; this could change, however, if (for example) a nesting site is established on the cliffs north of Ragged Pt.

Many other plant and animal species make their home on the San Luis Obispo County North Coast. Some of these are listed as endangered, rare or threatened. Several of these, such as the California brown pelican and American peregrine falcon, do not present direct development or land use issues. However, for other species, land use policies will be pivotal in determining the survival or extinction of the sensitive plant or animal population.

In the LUP’s "Background Report" text preceding this definition, the list of sensitive habitat areas also includes "unique plant habitats...; rocky points; intertidal areas; and kelp beds." More specificity is provided by an accompanying table, which lists the following sensitive habitat features located in the North County Planning Area:

In the "Wetlands" subsection, additional wetlands are identified: San Carpoforo Creek Lagoon, Arroyo de la Cruz Lagoon, Santa Rosa Creek Lagoon, and Pico Creek Lagoon. In the "Terrestrial Environments" subsection, "unique plant habitats" are identified as endemic plant species, endangered plant species, and "representative natural plant communities." Near-shore reefs are added by the "Marine Habitats" subsection.

However, there are additional, specific categories of ESHA which are found in the North County Planting Area, but are not identified as such. For example, the North Coast Update amendment as originally submitted recognized the value of the eucalyptus grove at San Simeon as potential Monarch butterfly habitat (the Monarchs utilize particular trees, or clusters of trees, often the introduced eucalyptus, as mass over wintering sites, hence the term "butterfly trees"). However, the current language of the amendment makes no mention of this particular habitat phenomenon.

North of the planted pine, cypress and eucalyptus groves at San Simeon Pt., and westerly of the San Simeon Fault, an ancient dune landform, with a characteristic sandy surface, rises betwen Highway 1 and the shoreline. This sandy surface is subject to intense wind, but is protected from wind erosion, in part, by native plant cover including lupines, Dudleya, and dwarfed Coast live oaks (with a distinct leaf morphology). Whether the live oak groves are dwarfed because they represent a genetically distinct population or variety, or because of unfavorable growing conditions, is an unanswered question. But, there can be no doubt that the oaks and the surrounding native plant groundcover, by stabilizing the ancient dune surface, play a special ecosystem role and therefore constitute an "environmentally sensitive area" within the meaning of Coastal Act Section 30107.5. The proposed LCP amendment would prohibit development and golf course use within the oak grove, but does not specifically recognize the oaks nor surrounding groundcover as an ESHA.

Beyond these specific shortcomings, some administrative and programmatic problems are evident:

The LCP fails to conform with Coastal Act requirements because the rigidly map-based structure of LCP ESHA policies results in non-protection of habitats and species not recognized, or not mapped, at the time of LCP certification (a gross deficiency). Certain special role habitats -- including native vegetation surrounding the coast oak groves north of San Simeon Pt., the active dunes south of Arroyo Laguna, and Monarch butterfly trees -- are not identified as ESHA’s. Habitat protection standards are needed to respond to needs of newly-listed or newly-discovered species (steelhead, red-legged frog, etc.), but there is no mandatory requirement in the LCP to do a biological assessment, or to apply appropriate mitigation measures. Further, the LCP provides no specific standards for those projects which of necessity are allowed within ESHA’s, such as Highway 1 improvements. Recent experience in other parts of the coastal zone, such as the environmentally sensitive pygmy cypress forest in Mendocino County and the Del Monte Dunes in Monterey, reveals that antiquated residential subdivisions within ESHA’s sometimes leave no choice under the Constitution’s 5th Amendment takings clause. For such cases, specific development standards are needed to assure that the County will be able to properly apply the Coastal Act’s habitat protection policies in the Consitutional context.

These deficiencies can be corrected through incorporation of modifications which require biological assessment for any project which may adversely impact an ESHA, whether or not presently mapped as an SRA in the LCP; provide general standards for protection of ESHA’s, wherever found; identify the special role habitats found in the North County Planning Area; and specify development and mitigation standards for those categories of projects which are allowed in an ESHA because they can’t feasibly be located elsewhere. Therefore, if modified accordingly, the NCAP, in these respects, will conform to Coastal Act Section 30240.

The Staging Area:	Seasonal Holding Field for Cattle Being Shipped
Between Old San Simeon and Highway One:	Small Pasture for 6 cows and calves
San Simeon Point and Proposed Golf Course:	Used for 120 cows and calves
Pine Forest Resort Envelope:	Part of larger cow and calf pasture