People often use the term "priceless" to describe possessions that are too valuable to lose. But markets are pretty good at putting a price on "priceless" assets, and that process is under way at Rancho Guejito, the glittering environmental jewel of Southern California that is tucked into a hidden valley of North San Diego County.
If you have never heard of Rancho Guejito, don't feel bad -- few people have ever seen it. The property is big: 36 square miles, or about 21,000 acres, that sprawls in a vast rectangle from behind the Wild Animal Park, near Escondido, northeast to the 4,221-foot peak of Pine Mountain, near the La Jolla Indian Reservation.
Rancho Guejito is the last intact Mexican land grant in California. To stand in the hush of its grasslands is to revisit San Diego's Old West. Along with a token herd of cattle, it is home to golden eagles, mountain lions, deer and pristine stands of Engleman oak trees, along with archaeologically and historically important sites. Eastern industrialist Benjamin Coates bought the property for $10 million in 1974, after the state failed to buy it for a park. He spent 30 years enjoying his property and fighting off environmentalists, airport planners, dump developers and others. But Coates died in 2004. His heirs and partners have been busy since.
Their hand was forced by the county government's General Plan 2020, an unfinished blueprint for growth that could sharply reduce development prospects for the rancho -- and thus the property's market value. So Guejito's owners hired Jim Whalen, a top-tier development consultant who sits on an advisory board to GP2020. Neighbors soon spotted surveyors, prompting the owners' spokesman, Temecula attorney Henry Rupp, to deny that any development was planned. But last week another shoe dropped. The rancho's owners asked Escondido city officials to explore its annexation. This would place the property beyond the reach of county planners.
Rupp will find open arms on Escondido's City Council. Rancho Guejito would double the city's land mass. And Rupp is peddling a vision of a medical research campus to a council that is desperate for high-paying jobs. Of course, annexation is monstrously difficult. And environmentalists are girding for battle. More broadly, Escondido might approve thousands of new homes, miles from roads, power and water supplies. This kind of leap-frog development strains infrastructure and runs afoul of state laws that mandate infill near existing cities. Still, any steps toward development increase Guejito's value -- well into tens of millions of dollars, based on recent deals for the Hearst and Ahmanson ranches.
By far, San Diego County's 3 million people would gain the most from preserving the land. Between state park bonds and environmental funds in the TransNet tax, we have the money. The public should have this jewel, and Coates' heirs can get a fair price.
San Diego Union Tribune January 16, 2007
* * * * *
Report on Rancho Guejito land management misleading
North County Times Sunday, February 3, 2008
By: KIT WILSON
East of Escondido, north of Ramona, and south of Valley Center lies a largely unrecognized territory that may hold the key to North County's future. It is known as the Guejito.
A holdover from the days of the Mexican dons and missions, the Guejito, at more than 21,000 acres, remains as the last of its kind. It contains an intact Mexican Land Grant much as it was when it was created in 1845 before the county's population census reached 800 and just before the Battle of San Pasqual set California on course to a new future. The Guejito was purchased in 1974 for $10 million or $465/acre by Benjamin Coates and remained essentially unchanged until his demise. Left in its own time-forgotten world, the Guejito has come to be known in recent years as "The Jewel of San Diego Conservation." Such a label is a remarkable honor considering that San Diego County is home to more endangered species than any county in the United States, a world biodiversity hotspot, and the focus of many conservation efforts.
Now the inheritors of the ranch are seeking to change all that. They are working to turn the rancho into an Escondido-sized development project situated in the middle of San Diego County. Their tactics include a false and misleading report (Jan. 14, "Report: Cattle, clearing saved huge historical spread") written by Henry Rupp, the attorney for the ranch's owners. The report attempts to take advantage of North County residents' justifiable fear of wildfire to literally clear th e way for development.
The stage is set for this in the report by misreporting the damage done to the Guejito during recent firestorms. According to the story, while large portions of San Diego County were being evacuated from the path of an unstoppable firestorm last fall, some cattle and a firebreak saved the historical Rancho Guejito from burning.
Using the best state fire perimeter data available and county land records, I did a little analysis to see if this remarkable story was true.
First, I had to correct the size of the ranch from the reported 24,000 acres to around 21,500. In the 2003 fires about 59 percent of the Guejito burned, not the 80 percent cited in the report. The report purports that firebreaks created by cattle saved the Guejito from suffering another massive burn in the 2007 firestorm.
The fact is that about 52 percent of the Guejito burned in 2007. That's a little better but hardly anything to boast about. Altogether, 93 percent of the Guejito burned in the 2003 and 2007 firestorms. I think a lot of people in Rancho Bernardo whose homes were razed by the fire might have had more than 7 percent of their property left unburned, but I doubt they found much satisfaction in that.
Based on this supposed fire success, the report moves on to degrade our public preserves as death traps for native flora and fauna because they are left in a natural state and not cleared of troublesome native vegetation like the Guejito owners are doing.
The native habitat they are attacking as a public service is often misunderstood and dismissed as overgrown brush, but it is actually coastal sage and chaparral. We have a remarkable natural diversity in San Diego, from oceans and lagoons to oak woodlands and grasslands to pine forests and deserts, but chaparral is the backbone that holds them all together. It is more than "brush-choked hillsides," as the North County Times reporter describes them. It is the very essence o f natural San Diego.
The report states that "dozens of miles of wildlife crossing fence" were built. These fences force cattle to graze and trample areas of coastal sage and chaparral until it is wiped out in order to increase pasture for cattle. Rupp says that he is creating sanctuaries when he is actually engaging in the wholesale destruction of our natural environment for profit.
Mr. Rupp then makes an outlandish statement about the costs involved in ranching and being "good neighbors." As an indicator of ranching costs, he says: "They spend up to $25,000 an acre each year to maintain the ranch." Well, $25,000 x 21,500 acres = $537.5 million in expenses. To allow for areas that are cheaper to maintain and still get an idea of the truth in his statement, I will set the total expenses at only $10 million or $465 an acre and allow a generous 15 acres per head of cattle. That would still be almost $7,000 per head per year. That is some expensive beef!
What could be the motivation for such misrepresentation of the fires and facts? Is Rupp using the fear of wildfire as an excuse to destroy the habitat and conservation value of the Guejito in order to increase its potential development value?
When a developer proposes a development he must meet many very difficult and expensive requirements. One of these requirements comes in the form of an environmental impact report.
If the development will destroy native habitat the developer must compensate for that by preserving similar habitat elsewhere through a biological mitigation process. Fair or not, laws protect our natural environment. Agricultural development is also covered under these regulations. Habitat loss, clearing permits or mitigation may be required both inside and outside habitat conservation planning areas.
The county uses guidelines to determine what level of permit or mitigation will be needed for agricultural clearing permits, and environmental impacts are t he key determining factor according to the Farm Bureau. When cattle graze, a certain amount of habitat loss is to be expected and may be considered incidental to ranching. When dozens of miles of fence are used to isolate areas of chaparral and special chaparral-eating cattle are brought in to clear the area, can this be considered an unavoidable loss incidental to cattle ranching?
The expansion of existing agricultural operations onto any area that was not previously in agricultural use is specifically not exempt from habitat loss permits (Sec 87.202). Yet when I checked, the county could not find any record of reviewing the need for clearing permits on the Guejito. This oversight will allow the Guejito owners to convert prime habitat into disturbed non-native vegetation more suitable for building and with a greatly reduced need for expensive biological mitigation.
If the North County adopts the extensive clearing of chaparral as a fire-control measure we will be fac ed with a denuded and urbanized landscape throughout North County and possibly a new city named Guejito. The original story in the North County Times suggested such clearing as a way to stop recurring wildfires.
However, the fact that more than 80,000 acres that burned in 2003 fires burned again in 2007 makes me question just how effective brush clearing and prescribed burns are. In fact, 17 percent of the Guejito burned twice in only four years. Invasive plant species and weeds that spring up after clearing grow very rapidly, providing more than enough fuel to carry a fire.
Livestock, overgrazing and cleared land are primary ways that such invasives spread across the landscape. Advocating these destructive practices as a way to reduce fire risk and improve native habitat is disingenuous at best. Current studies show that extensive clearing beyond current standards does little to further protect homes. We need to focus on fire-safe houses, following through with exist ing clearing regulations and strategies that work, not knee-jerk reactions and exaggeration that mislead us.
Kit Wilson is an environmental land and geographic information systems consultant. He lives in Escondido.
Hank Rupp
Natural History Lost for Short Term Gain
"There's isn't enough money in the state treasury to buy Rancho Guejito," scoffed the owner's representative, Temecula attorney Hank Rupp in response to questions about selling the property to create a nature preserve. "The government's obligation is to the public," he said. "Our obligation is to the property."
Is this really the way owners Nancy Coates, Theodate Coates, and Jim Nicholson feel about the potential of creating a wonderful legacy for future generations by preserving the priceless, backcountry wildlands of Rancho Guejito? "We're trying to keep it in a pristine state," Nancy Coates said in 2006. Apparently something has changed. The owners are now trading "pristine" for concrete. Plans are being made to develop Rancho Guejito, a 21,000 acre parcel of priceless chaparral and Englemann oak woodland that has irreplaceable historical, ecological, and recreational value.
How does one balance the benefit and fleeting nature of a private bank account engorged with the profits of yet another development with the permanent promise of allowing families to enjoy the secrets of nature forever? Which individuals, values, and behaviors do parents and teachers hold up as America's best? How does one want to be remembered? Important questions to ponder when the opportunity arises for someone to leave the world a better place.
Nancy Coates
Development plans for Guejito in the works North County Times Jan 19, 2007
By: QUINN EASTMAN - Staff Writer
VALLEY CENTER ---- Representatives of the historical Rancho Guejito are preparing to send a development application to the county, possibly as early as April, according to a timeline submitted to county planners.
The vast 22,000-acre property east of Escondido ---- the last undivided Mexican land grant in California ---- was once proposed as a state park and is now used to raise cattle.
The ranch is owned by the Rodney Co., a New York-based real estate firm whose owner, Philadelphia shipping magnate Benjamin Coates, died last year at 86. Earlier this year, land-use consultant Jim Whalen of J. Whalen Associates in San Diego submitted a multiyear schedule for environmental studies and a map of potential development areas on 7,300 acres of the ranch, county records show.
Any move toward large-scale development of the property will face protest, environmental advocates say. A recent report from the Conservation Biology Institute, an environmental think tank in Encinitas, calls Rancho Guejito "the conservation jewel of San Diego County" with miles of pristine forest and grassland and extensive archaeological resources.
"This is a national park-quality landscape," said David Hogan at the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental legal group.
He described the report as a call to arms among local environmentalists. "Now, it's just a matter of time until people organize around preserving it," he said.
No details
The development proposals do not include concrete information such as the number, sizes or types of buildings that could be proposed for Rancho Guejito. How much building could be allowed remains undecided, county planners said last week.
Whalen referred questions about the property to Henry Rupp, a Murrieta lawyer who represents the Rodney Co. Rupp said last week that the studies do not indicate impending development, but rather the company's interest in studying the ranch's habitat.
"We have successfully protected that property for decades," he said. "We're simply gathering information on its biodiversity, as part of our stewardship."
Conservation jewel
Rancho Guejito's 22,000 acres stretch from the San Pasqual Valley north almost to the La Jolla Indian Reservation. It is bounded on the east by the Cleveland National Forest and on the west by Valley Center.
Cattle graze on the southern, flatter part of the property at an elevation of about 1,500 feet, while a rugged forested area at the north end contains a 4,221-foot peak, Pine Mountain.
Mostly grassland and chaparral, Rancho Guejito has 15 percent of the county's increasingly rare Engelmann oak woodland, the largest remaining block, according to the Conservation Biology Institute report. Studies in the early 1990s found that 16 species of raptors, such as golden eagles, make their home on the ranch, the reports states.
The ranch also shelters over 80 prehistoric American Indian sites, including ceremonial art, pottery, hearths, figurines and human remains, the report says.
County records show only one recent survey in 2004 for an endangered species, the Stephen's kangaroo rat. In addition to the confirmed presence of thousands of kangaroo rats, habitat models outlined in the report also suggest the presence of the endangered arroyo toad and the least Bell's vireo.
The report was compiled from publicly available data without the cooperation of the property owners, said its principal author, Jerre Stallcup, who helped design a conservation plan for San Diego County in the 1990s.
"We wanted to get the facts out there so that decision-makers can see how valuable it is," she said.
Ranch was almost a park
In 1974, the state parks division recommended acquiring Rancho Guejito as a park and nature reserve, but the purchase was vetoed by incoming Gov. Jerry Brown.
Originally, Rancho Guejito, then 13,299 acres, was given in 1845 by Mexican governor Pio Pico to rancher Jose Maria Orozco, Valley Center historian Petei McHenry said.
Charles Powell, a Los Angeles engineer, bought the ranch in 1939 and raised cattle there until his death in 1959.
Benjamin Coates purchased the ranch from Powell's estate in 1974 for $10 million ---- after the sale to the California parks department fell through ---- and placed the property in the name of the Rodney Co. in 1988.
Coates died on Dec. 7, 2004, in Haverford, Pa., according to an obituary in the Princeton Alumni Weekly. He served as a naval intelligence officer during World War II and ventured into the oil tanker business after the war. He is survived by his wife, two children and two grandchildren, according to the obituary.
The current ownership of the Rodney Co. is not clear. It is registered in the Netherlands Antilles, according to the London-based firm International Company Profile.
Conservation plans constrain building
Although the timeline submitted to the county in May projects a development application for Rancho Guejito in April 2006 and Board of Supervisors approval in 2011, that schedule could be delayed.
Two ongoing planning processes will largely determine when and how Rancho Guejito could be developed. The first, the county's updated General Plan 2020, scheduled for completion in 2007, will determine its zoning.
The ranch is now zoned agricultural, with one home allowed per 40 acres, said Ivan Holler, the county's deputy director of planning and land use.
Keeping with the county's "smart growth" policy of restricting backcountry building, county planning officials in 2003 recommended zoning it at one home per 160 acres. An alternative map proposed by the county Board of Supervisors in 2005 keeps it at one home per 40 acres.
Rupp said last week that the county's proposals to "downzone" the ranch reduce the value of the Rodney Co.'s property as borrowing collateral, even if no building is planned.
"It's not a just reward for our stewardship," he said.
Where building could occur is regulated under the county's Multiple Species Conservation Program, a bargain between developers and environmentalists seeking to preserve valuable habitat in some areas in return for streamlined building permits elsewhere. A draft of the North County part of the plan is scheduled for release in mid-2006.
County planners have been using the rule of thumb that high-quality habitat such as Rancho Guejito should be 75 percent preserved, said Tom Oberbauer, the conservation program's director.
According to county planners, consultant Whalen has been wrangling with them over how the Guejito property will fit into the conservation program.
Whalen earlier wanted to draw boundaries outlining precisely where development could occur, but state and federal wildlife agencies asked for more environmental studies of the land, Oberbauer said.
More recently, Whalen proposed that Rancho Guejito be removed from the North County conservation plan, and a separate plan created just for the ranch property, Oberbauer said.
"We haven't figured out what that would mean yet," he said.
Not for sale
Environmental advocates say that the Guejito property is prone to fire and not easily accessible by road, and thus inappropriate for development. The property lies east of the San Diego County Water Authority's service limit, so any future homes would rely on wells unless a pipeline is built.
"The infrastructure costs would be so huge," said Dan Silver, of the Endangered Habitats League. "The public good is not to build luxury houses that taxpayers would have to subsidize."
Silver suggested that the county could acquire the land with some of the money that is expected to be raised from a countywide TransNet half-cent sales tax.
Rancho Guejito is several times larger than any San Diego County property recently pursued by leading conservation organizations, even with the help of state grants.
Rupp said that the Rodney Co. is not interested in selling, and suggested that Rancho Guejito's acquisition by the government as a park might result in more environmental impact than if it remains a working ranch.
"The government's obligation is to the public," he said. "Our obligation is to the property."
