How Far to Sprawl? : Activists Fear Development on Private Ranches Within U.S. Forest

When Duncan McFetridge casts his gaze over the 714-acre Roberts Ranch just east of Descanso, the chairman of Save Our Forests and Ranchlands sees a pristine wetland meadow dotted with oaks--a “precious” habitat he’s willing to mortgage his house to preserve.

Developer Julie Dillon looks at the same land and envisions 128 estate homes sprinkled among the trees--”high-end” homes built on large lots off curving roads with names like Dry Wind Court and Jasmine Dew Drive.

Ranchers, rangers, developers and politicians are watching closely to see whose vision will prevail. They say what happens at the Roberts Ranch, a privately held parcel near the entrance to Cleveland National Forest, will set a precedent for the forest’s southernmost section, the 215,872-acre Descanso District.

More than 59,000 acres of private property are scattered throughout the district, many of them ranches that were homesteaded before the forest was created in the 1890s.

Developers see the parcels as islands of opportunity in a sea of federally protected land. Environmentalists say the ranchland holdings, most of which are located on the flattest and grassiest areas, are essential corridors oft-traveled by deer, mountain lions and other animals.

Several of the parcels are owned by third-generation ranchers, men and women whose families have grazed their cattle for decades on the softly rolling meadows that dot the forest like panels on a huge patchwork quilt. But as San Diego’s growth drives land values up, and as the failing economy drives beef prices down, several local ranchers are being tempted to sell.

One developer wants to build 350 custom homes on the 1,100-acre Las Bancas Ranch just east of Roberts Ranch. The owners, the Garbani family, are said to be considering a firm offer. McFetridge knows of three other ranch owners in the area who have been approached with projects ranging from RV-parks to miniature golf courses.

But the Roberts Ranch project, whose draft environmental impact report was released for public comment two weeks ago, is the furthest along. If the San Diego County Board of Supervisors approves it as part of a community plan update next summer, the project would be the first major ranch development. And as such, it has become the lightning rod for criticism.

“I’m the first,” Dillon, the outgoing president of the Building Industry Assn. of San Diego, says with a knowing nod. “That’s why I’m trying to be very understanding and do the very best job I can to become an example of how a project should be planned. I appreciate the beauty of the property and therefore have planned it with the utmost care.”

Indeed, everyone seems to agree that Dillon has been receptive to community concerns and has developed a plan that is uncommonly sensitive to the environment. As well as spacious lots--from 4 to 12 acres each--the plan includes 500 acres of dedicated open space and a commitment to preserve nearly all the trees.

The problem is not so much the development’s design, some observers say, but its location.

“Consider the greater metropolitan area of San Diego--it basically stops in Alpine. As you travel from downtown, along Interstate 8, it gets less and less dense,” said Cliff Strong, an environmental management specialist for the county Department of Planning and Land Use. “What this (development) would do is extend that greater urban limit line. To me, it would lend to urban sprawl, the Los Angelization of San Diego.”

Dillon disputes the idea that her development will push the boundary of civilization farther inland.

“If there’s a line, it’s already this far east,” she says, pointing out the denser, less “sensitive” development in Descanso Junction, just north of her project. “If it’s OK for them, why isn’t it OK for us? It’s a little elitist.”

Even if other developers do follow her lead, she says she wonders what the harm is. “Is that bad if it’s done like this?” she asked, pointing to a blueprint she has tailored to resemble a rural community, complete with an equestrian center.

McFetridge, a furniture-maker who lives in Descanso, is an amiable adversary. As battles go, his ad-hoc lobbying group’s contest with Dillon is a friendly and respectful one. But on this point, he is adamant: “Whatever happens at Roberts Ranch is going to send shock waves. We are literally talking about the death of the Cleveland National Forest.”

So McFetridge has put down his woodworking tools and picked up the telephone, calling scientists, congressmen, environmental attorneys and journalists to warn that the sacred forest could be turned “from a church into a playground.”

He has visited planning groups around the county--even those that will have no advisory oversight into the Roberts project--to build a coalition of support. His slogan: “Give the forests a chance and the rancher a choice.”

“The rancher can’t make (a living) ranching, but the only person who’s going to make him a decent offer is a developer,” said McFetridge, who is scrambling to find funds to purchase the ranch and make it part of the national forest. “We’ve got something precious. Let’s raise the money and buy it.”

Dillon says she is willing to sell. She has discussed the idea with her husband and business partner in this venture, Jim Roberts, who inherited the Roberts Ranch land. They’ve decided that if the price is right, they’d sacrifice the three years they’ve spent planning the project and turn their attention to other sites.

“I have told them that if they can raise the money and be able to pay me in a timely manner, then I’m certainly willing to sell the property, or a portion,” she said. “But we have to agree on land values and we have to have cash.”

That’s easier said than done. As recently as the 1970s, the U.S. Forest Service might have joined with the county to buy the land, just as it bought the 14-acre Kemp Ranch in Laguna Mountain Meadow, which a developer planned to fill with condominiums. But federal and local belt-tightening has made that impossible, said Steve Gallegos, the acting forest supervisor.

“The county is in red ink and all your local entities are looking at deficits,” Gallegos said, adding that he has little hope of winning more funds from the Forest Service, which historically has given the Cleveland National Forest less federal monies than other national forests.

“Quite frankly, we have trouble competing with Lake Tahoe to (get money to) buy some private parcels. When you look at it from a national perspective, we don’t rank very high.”

Kevin Knowles, a field representative with the San Francisco-based Trust for Public Land, said the Cleveland National Forest is far more fragmented than most and thus needs extra help consolidating its scattered lands.

Furthermore, he said, despite its low ranking on the federal priority list, the forest’s value to San Diego County residents should be paramount.

“The use that it receives is probably much greater than most national forests,” said Knowles, whose group arranges land swaps and purchases in order to protect open space and other lands for public enjoyment and use. “So it’s that much more important to preserve an area like the Cleveland than somewhere out in Colorado” that lures fewer visitors, he said.

McFetridge agreed.

“It’s not Yellowstone. It’s not Yosemite. But for San Diego County it’s much more important because it’s all there is,” he said.

Gallegos and his colleagues have outlined the forest’s vital resources in several memos to county supervisors and planners. They have provided lists of the endangered, threatened and sensitive wildlife species that are known to exist in the area, including the San Diego horned lizard, the mountain lion and several rare plants.

“There are a lot of plants on the endangered species list, many that require a certain type of habitat to continue,” Gallegos said. “The Roberts Ranch is vital for those species. (Development) would have a detrimental effect.”

In addition, the Forest Service is concerned about preserving the appearance of open wilderness now visible from the interstate. Gallegos said he fears Dillon’s development will ruin the view, a charge Dillon rejects--at 65 m.p.h., she says, travelers will spot her homes for a few seconds at most.

Dillon refuses to make public how much money prospective buyers would need. But she admits that the value of the land is enhanced by its location--just 40 miles from downtown San Diego, the parcels boast protected views.

“Everyone likes to have the land next to them left in permanent open space, so the protection of the forest is definitely an amenity,” Dillon said. “It’s permanent open space in your back yard.”

In order to purchase the land to preserve it, McFetridge knows, he must pay the fair market value. But that value, he notes with obvious irony, is made higher by the fact that the area is bounded on the north by the forest and on the south by the Pine Creek Wilderness Area. “It’s worth so much because it’s surrounded by a forest,” McFetridge said. “These estates would be one of a kind.”

Driven by the threat of those spacious estates, McFetridge has written dozens of letters and made hundreds of phone calls. His efforts have frequently been rewarded. In October, for example, one month before U.S. Sen. Pete Wilson was elected governor, McFetridge won his support--Wilson contacted the Senate Interior Appropriations Committee regarding the Roberts Ranch, opening the door, McFetridge hopes, for possible funding next year.

McFetridge has won other well-known allies as well. San Diego Mayor Maureen O’Connor, Assemblywoman Tricia Hunter (R-Bonita) and Rep. Jim Bates (D-San Diego) have all written letters of support. The Sierra Club, the San Diego Audubon Society and nine local planning groups have sent letters as well, all of them echoing the sentiments of the Descanso Planning Group.

“There is no one in Descanso who would not prefer to see this beautiful land preserved forever in its natural state than turned into a development, no matter how well-designed,” Chairwoman Judy Gibson wrote to Supervisor George Bailey in October. “The next few months offer what may be the final opportunity to provide a lasting scenic and recreational benefit for all the residents of the county. It is an opportunity that must not be wasted.”

But so far, there is no money to finance these hopes.

Dillon is reassuring, pointing to her blueprints as evidence that she is willing to work with the community to allay their fears.

“If they are not able to raise the money to purchase the land, it’s not like it’s going to be solid housing,” she says. If all goes well, she says, she will win approval from the Planning Commission and the county supervisors next year and could be breaking ground on the project by early 1992.

Meanwhile, McFetridge continues to lobby, approaching philanthropic groups and speaking to anyone who will listen about the irreplaceable forest.

“What I’m suggesting is that we have values here that cannot be evaluated in terms of money,” he says. “But folks, just hang on. In 30 years, we’ll be thanking God we still have this forest. . . . We’re going to raise the money. If I have to mortgage my house, I will.”