Failed land sale plan

Big Sur official says failed land sale plan was peak Republican 'cruelty'

'Nobody's going to put housing here'

By Andrew Pridgen

As Senate Republicans wheel and deal this week over a provision that would allow for a massive public land sell-off within the Donald Trump administration’s “One Big, Beautiful Bill,” Americans from across the nation — and lawmakers from both sides of the aisle — have expressed shock and horror. 

One revered California region, however, has seemingly been preparing for a moment like this for nearly half a century.

That area is Big Sur.

For more than a generation, Big Sur — a 71-mile stretch of California coastline, both pristine and accessible to the public — has attempted to protect itself from overdevelopment, overtourism and overpopulation by enforcing the Big Sur Coast Land Use Plan, a 1986 document that limits what a landowner can do in Big Sur. 

“Really, the only saving grace for Big Sur is the land use plan,” Marcus Foster, chairperson and co-founder of the local land use watchdog group Keep Big Sur Wild, told SFGATE on Monday when asked about ramifications of any lands potentially being put up for sale by the federal government.  

Foster expressed faith in Big Sur’s land use plan, noting it could be used as a model “to educate people and show why policy has helped make Big Sur so unique” when it comes to putting restrictions on land use.

Keep Big Sur Wild maintains “all capacity has already been exhausted” when it comes to the build-out of Big Sur according to the land use plan. It allowed for a maximum of 300 units to be built. “By our count, the cap has been exceeded by at least 5 units,” Keep Big Sur Wild’s attorney, Sara A. Clark, wrote to planning commissioners and then-Supervisor Mary Adams in the fall of 2023.

The fact that the area is already built out — and how the land use plan is considered to be the document that supersedes all others when it comes to the region’s development and use — emphasizes the notion that the plan is the “gold standard” for protection from development and commercialization of the area, Foster said. 

He also pointed out that some of Big Sur’s most iconic spots were initially put on the block by Utah Sen. Mike Lee with seemingly little or no awareness of the area or the plan that governs it. Lee spearheaded the bill’s provision for a public land sale, proposing last week that 258 million acres of Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management property become eligible for a land sale of up to 3 million acres.

That proposal map included cherished Big Sur spots that fell under the jurisdiction of the forest service, like the Santa Lucia Highlands, Tassajara Hot Springs and Pfeiffer Beach. On Monday night, Lee was forced to backpedal and present a new proposal after Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough rejected that part of the bill. 

Although those lands appear to be safe after the bill’s revisions, other Big Sur areas under Bureau of Land Management control, such as parts of the Ventana Wilderness and the Bear Mountain Wilderness Study Area, appear to remain in jeopardy. In addition, there are still ambiguities about what public spaces are susceptible to being auctioned off by the government to the highest bidder.

According to a post on X on Monday night, following the removal of Forest Service lands from his proposed sell-off, Lee said he intends to “SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE the amount of BLM land in the bill. Only land WITHIN 5 MILES of population centers is eligible,” which, in theory, could still include some areas of Big Sur.