Location
The policies protecting land used in Big Sur are some of the most restrictive local-use standards in California, and are widely regarded as one of the most restrictive development protections anywhere. The program protects viewsheds from the highway and many vantage points, and severely restricts the density of development. About 60% of the coastal region is owned by governmental or private agencies which do not allow any development. The majority of the interior region is part of the Los Padres National Forest, Ventana Wilderness, Silver Peak Wilderness or Fort Hunter Liggett. The area is protected by the Big Sur Local Coastal Plan, which preserves it as "open space, a small residential community, and agricultural ranching." Its intention is "preserving the environment and visual access to it, the policies of the local coastal plan are to minimize, or limit, all destination activities."
The unincorporated region encompassing Big Sur does not have specific boundaries, but is generally considered to include the segment of California State Route 1 between Malpaso Creek near Carmel Highlands in the north and San Carpóforo Creek near San Simeon in the south, as well as the entire Santa Lucia range between these creeks. The interior region is mostly uninhabited, while the coast remains relatively isolated and sparsely populated, with between 1,800 and 2,000 year-round residents and relatively few visitor accommodations scattered among four small settlements.
Early protections
Monterey County gained national attention for its early conservation efforts. The Monterey County Planning Commission passed a zoning ordinance in 1931, seven years before the road was completed, that banned billboards along the highway. A gas station owner on the highway south of Monterey went to court over the ordinance in 1936. Monterey County Superior Court Judge Maurice Dooling ruled for the county in 1941. Another ordinance enjoining specific kinds of off-premises signs was passed in 1955. It was challenged by the National Advertising Co. in a case that eventually went before the California Supreme Court. It affirmed in 1962 the county's right to ban billboards and other signs and advertising along Highway 1. The case secured to local government the right to use its police power for aesthetic purposes.
Master plan
The first master plan for the Big Sur coast was written beginning in 1959 and completed in 1962. Monterey county involved local residents and consultants to develop the master plan. The Monterey County Coast Master Plan was recognized as an innovative and far reaching plan and was supported by the coast residents. Nationally recognized architect and part-time local resident Nathaniel A. Owings helped write the plan.
Big Sur Local Coastal Plan
When voters passed Proposition 20, the California Coastal Conservation Initiative in 1972, it established the California Coastal Commission.Who We Are Coastal.ca.gov. 2011. Retrieved 26-12-2017. At the same time, Congress passed the Coastal Zone Management Act which the California Coastal Commission was put in charge of administering. To implement terms of the California proposition, the county began working on a comprehensive plan and in 1977 they appointed a small group of local Big Sur residents to the Big Sur Citizens' Advisory Committee. The committee sought to develop a plan that would conserve scenic views and the unparalleled beauty of the area. Committee members met with Big Sur residents, county administrators, and California Coastal Commission staff to write a new land use plan. The planning effort included several months of public hearings and discussion, including considerable input from the residents of Big Sur. The county solicited input with virtually every agency with an important role on the coast. The years-long debate bitterly divided the 1,400 residents of Big Sur.
The resulting Big Sur Local Coastal Plan (LCP) provides detailed policy guidance that attempts to balance the development needs of the land and home owners and the local community while protecting local resources. The local land use plan was initially approved by the Monterey County Board of Supervisors in 1981, but was rejected by the California Coastal Commission, which wanted closer obedience to the Coastal Act priorities. They approved the amended plan on April 10, 1986.
When the policy was finalized, Monterey County Supervisor Karin Strasser Kauffman said, "What this means is that when you look around you 100 years from now, Big Sur will be essentially unchanged from the way it looks today."
Key policies
The plan bans all development west of Highway 1 with the exception of the Big Sur Valley. It also restricts any development that can be seen from the highway and key vantage points including beaches, parks, campgrounds, and major trails, with a few exceptions. The plan states the following goals:
The restrictions also protect views from the Old Coast Road.
Restrictions
The provision of the Big Sur Local Coastal Plan that generated the most controversy set density requirements for future building. In areas west of Highway 1, any subdivision of an existing parcels must be at least . For parcels east of Highway 1, the plan limited parcel size based on slope. Most land is limited to a minimum subdivision of , although parcels with minimal slope may be subdivided to . Based on these rules, a coastal commission staff person calculated that only about 12 new parcels could be subdivided within the entire Big Sur coastal planning area.
The plan bans large hotels, condominium projects, and similar major developments. It allows construction of about 300 more visitor's rooms, but only in clusters of 30 or fewer units in four rural communities — Big Sur Valley, Lucia, Pacific Valley, and Gorda.
For dwellings, the limit in tourist areas is one living unit per acre. West of Highway 1, density is limited to one unit per , and east of the highway to one unit per . In established communities like Palo Colorado Canyon and the Big Sur Valley, only one living unit per is permitted. South of Big Sur Valley, the limit is set to one unit per , and in the far south of the region, only one unit per is allowed.
The plan states that region is to be preserved as "open space, a small residential community, and agricultural ranching." The plan was approved in 1981 and is one of the most restrictive local use programs in the state, and is widely regarded as one of the most restrictive documents of its kind anywhere.
Opposition to restrictions
John Harlan, a fourth-generation Big Sur resident whose family owns large amounts of land in the region, criticized the plan when it was under consideration. He said "flatlanders who live 90 miles from where I sit" were trying to control the area's future, including the plan's prohibition on new construction in the viewshed defined by the plan. This includes views from beaches, turnouts, beaches, Highway 1, and several specific locations:
Soberanes Point Garrapata Beach Abalone Cove Vista Point Bixby Creek turnout Hurricane Point overlook Upper Sycamore Canyon Road (from Highway I to Pais Road) Pfeiffer Beach/Cooper Beach Specific views from Old Coast Road
Harlan said, "Big Sur is going to either become a playground for the very wealthy or it will eventually be federalized because the plan won't work."
Some opponents have criticized the actions of conservation groups like the Big Sur Land Trust as having "turned the buyout of Big Sur into a business, making millions of dollars buying private land and selling it to government agencies." Based on figures developed by Monterey County in 2004, at that time 84% or within the Big Sur Planning Area was restricted from development. Only might be built on, but some of that property is owned by land trusts that also prohibit development.
During development of the land use plan, the Coast Property Owners Association stated that the mandates of the Coastal Act have led to increased costs for planning and permits. They believe the land is becoming so expensive that only wealthy individuals can afford to buy property. They objected to proposed view shed restrictions they believe are threatening Big Sur's alternative reputation and social fabric, leading to a community of millionaires, a few remaining long-term residents, and single residents working in the local hospitality industry who are forced to live in barracks or similar kinds of employee housing.
Mike Caplin, a representative of the Coastal Property Owners Association, said that some coastal residents are concerned about the steady growth of public lands. "When I look out over Big Sur now, I don't just see beauty ... I see my community being dismantled, one parcel at a time."
Transfer of development rights
To motivate landowners to give up development rights in preferred areas like those near the ocean, the plan includes a controversial element that allows landowners who lose the right to build on one property west of Highway 1 to trade it for the right to develop two other sites where building is permitted. To take advantage of the transfer of development rights ordinance, the owner must dedicate a permanent, irrevocable scenic easement to the county that prohibits residential and commercial use of their property. To encourage adoption of the land use policy, the county offered landowners a two-for-one transfer ratio. Planners recognize that a view of the ocean is worth twice an inland view. For each buildable parcel given up by an owner, they receive the right to transfer their credit to two locations, as long as the usage meets the land use policy restrictions such as density.
The California State Coastal Conservancy bought two parcels of the Victorine Ranch near Point Lobos, totaling in the 1980s along with land at Kasler Point west of Highway 1. Their goal was to demonstrate the effectiveness of Monterey County's transfer of development credit program, which was implemented as part of the 1986 Big Sur Coast Land Use Plan. But after giving up the right to build a home on Kasler Point, the Conservancy was unable to convert the resulting two development credits on Victorine Ranch. The property has three buildable lots. The Conservancy had the land appraised at $6 million. They attempted to auction the development credits and the land in 2013. They sold two transfer development credits for $50,000 and $75,000, but failed to receive bids meeting the minimum asking price for the land.
, only eight impacted parcels have been leveraged into 16 transfer rights, totaling less than 20 acres, and nine of those have been used since the program was implemented in 1988. The voters also provided a bond that allocates $25 million toward the purchase of properties impacted by the viewshed limitations. Some property owners would rather sell their property or development rights, because using the transfer program requires them to demonstrate that they have buildable lots and also negotiate for purchase of these rights with a receiving site owner.
Increased real estate costs and housing issues
Due to development restrictions and the limited number of parcels available for development, real estate and rental prices are high. , the median price of property is $1,813,846, more than three times the state's median price, and more than six times the national price. The average price is $3,942,371, more than 10 times the national average price of $390,400. The average home sold is and has 2.39 bedrooms. The median lot size is , or just over . About one-quarter of the land along the coast is privately owned. The remainder is part of the federal or state park systems or owned by other agencies, while the interior is largely part of the Los Padres National Forest, Ventana Wilderness, Silver Peak Wilderness, and Fort Hunter Liggett.
Non-resident ownership