San Diego Union-Tribune (Sunday)
CALIFORNIA CONSIDERS ALLOWING HOUSING PROJECT ON SAN DIEGO ECOLOGICAL RESERVE
Normally, sitting on the California Wildlife Conservation Board is a feel-good job, mostly consisting of unanimously approving millions in state dollars to protect natural habitats, from mountain meadows in Lassen County to lagoons in Newport Beach.
That’s why it was so jarring when the seven-member board was asked a few months ago to allow the construction of an opulent housing development on 219 acres of ecologically prized San Diego County land — pristine coastal sage scrub that’s home to the federally endangered Quino checkerspot butterfly.
In exchange, the developer, GDCI Proctor Valley L.P., would trade the state roughly 339 acres of nearby undeveloped land and
place another 191 acres under a conservation easement.
Stunned board members, still digging through hundreds of pages of technical and legal documents, listened as their traditional allies, independent biologists and conservation groups, blasted the proposal as “illegal.”
Adding to the tension, Chuck Bonham — the board’s chairman and head of the agency it oversees, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife — had personally orchestrated the deal with the developer and San Diego County officials. He went so far as to recuse himself from voting on the issue.
The Wildlife Conservation Board on Tuesday now faces what is arguably the most contentious decision of its more than 70-year history.
The vote will not only steer the fate of the county’s ecologically sensitive area of Proctor Valley, located east of Chula Vista and south of Jamul. It could set a major precedent for what’s acceptable when it comes to overturning restrictions on the state’s most protected lands.
“We do have our controversies, but nothing as big as this,” said John Donnelly, the board’s executive director and 30-year veteran of the Department of Fish and Wildlife.
More than 50 land trusts and conservation groups from around the state have come out against the deal, arguing that it would set a dangerous precedent and undermine California’s credibility when it comes to protecting sensitive habitats and species.
“To put suburban sprawl on ecological land is unheard of,” said Dan Silver, chief executive of the Endangered Habitats League. “Nothing vaguely like this has ever happened.”
At the same time, proponents of the land swap — most notably longtime San Diego County Supervisor Greg Cox — have said the deal will provide much needed housing while benefiting the environment in the long run. He and others have argued the exchange would consolidate in Proctor Valley what would otherwise be a dispersed and therefore more ecologically damaging development.
At the meeting, which was held in August via video conference, Cox slammed environmental groups, calling them “disingenuous.” He praised top state wildlife officials for embracing a collaborative approach.
“I want to certainly thank the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and certainly Director Chuck Bonham for sitting down with us in a cooperative vein, a give and take with the developer,” he said.
A number of other elected officials have sent letters of support for the exchange, including congressmen Scott Peters and Juan
Vargas, as well as state Sen. Ben Hueso.
Embattled butterfly
Once one of the most common butterflies in Southern California, the Quino checkerspot’s population has plummeted by 95 percent as humans and invasive plants have wiped out its habitat. Southeast San Diego, from Proctor Valley to the Otay Mountains, is one of its last strongholds on the globe.
The endangered species requires patchy scrublands with open terrain where it can bask and mate in the sun. They perch and feed on vegetation that pops through thin, rocky soil, such as Plantago erecta or dwarf plantain.
“The caterpillar feeds on this plant in open sunny spaces among the shrubs, and the warm conditions help it accelerate its growth and development,” explained Ken Osborne, entomologist and one of the world’s leading experts on the Quino checkerspot butterfly.
He said the insect will lay its eggs on the plant, so the larvae can feed right after they hatch. Then, in the late spring, when the plants dry up, they crawl under rocks and bushes and go into a suspended state. The insects can remain there for several years before emerging as butterflies in the early spring.
Environmental groups have opposed the land swap because they say GDCI’S property is overrun with nonnative grasses that crowd out the butterfly’s habitat.
“The stuff they want to trade up is really poor,” Osborne said. “It’s not going to support the Qunio checkerspot butterfly and give you the same kind of bang for your buck in terms of the ecology and conservation.”
Furthermore, Osborne said, degrading the habitat in Proctor Valley could have ripple effects for the endangered species throughout the entire region.
“What you’re doing is an experiment, sanctioned by Fish and Wildlife, to see whether this will break the camel’s back,” he said.
The swap
Plans to develop Proctor Valley stretch back at least to the early 1990s. It was part of the 23,000-acre Otay Ranch master plan in Chula
Vista and nearby lands in the unincorporated county. The result has been a dense mix of rentals, townhomes, condos and single-family homes, largely viewed as a success.
However, things started to get complicated in 2014 when GDCI Proctor Valley — a limited partnership including real estate giant Genstar and the San Diegobased Jackson Pendo Development Company — purchased 1,100 acres in the valley for $37 million.
From the beginning GDCI has eyed the 219 acres of habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterf ly, which the state purchased in 2003 to expand the Rancho Jamul Ecological Reserve. The developers’ property almost completely encircles the endangered insect’s home.
“The idea of the exchange has actually been around for quite some time,” Elizabeth Jackson, president of Jackson Pendo, recently told the Union-tribune. “It was discussed in 2014 with U.S. Fish and Wildlife and CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). And, actually, a version of this land exchange was studied in the project’s environmental impact report as one of the alternatives.”
The land swap never materialized. Instead, GDCI pushed forward with plans for what would eventually be called Adara at Otay Ranch, a roughly 1,200-home community with commercial storefronts, an elementary school and a new fire station. But the proposed development was not contiguous, involving construction on several unconnected parcels.
The Department of Fish and Wildlife started criticizing the project. Most notably, staff said that the developer was planning to put homes on about 185 acres of land that had long been designated as preserve under a conservation plan approved by the county and overseen by the state.
The two parties fought over the issue for years, with the potential for litigation looming.
Then in March 2019 the county, on behalf of GDCI, reached out directly to the department’s top brass, asking for a meeting to resolve the dispute.
Director Bonham agreed to meet in Sacramento, and in June he signed a disputeresolution agreement with the developer and the county, which legally bound the wildlife department to pursue the land swap.
Bonham did not respond to a request for comment.
Biological value
Trading away ecological reserve lands on this scale has never been done before in California. Small parcels are sometimes swapped to help private landowners address water damage and other issues. In one case, a deal was struck for the construction of a nature center.
Under state law, such a trade can only be approved if the lands being acquired by the state are of “greater biological value as wildlife habitat” than the lands being given away.
At the time the resolution was signed, the wildlife department had not conducted an independent environmental review of the lands in question. Rather, officials relied on a private analysis furnished by GDCI.
However, with the agreement inked, the agency was now bound to bring the swap forward for approval or open itself up to litigation from the developer and the county.
By August, the wildlife department released its own independent assessment the parcels, finding the state’s property “currently possess higher biological value in terms of habitat and sensitive species” than what it would receive.
However, the department also found the Adara at Otay Ranch project, as initially designed, would result in worse environmental impacts for Proctor Valley than the more consolidated approach resulting from the land exchange. Specifically, the department found the initial, more sprawling design would cut off wildlife corridors and compromise the butterfly habitat by its mere proximity.
Donnelly, executive director of the Wildlife Conservation Board, said the swap makes sense, especially since if the Adara development goes forward without it, the butterfly habitat would be in danger regardless.
“If the project goes forward the way it’s approved now, it would basically isolate over 130 acres,” he said. “That footprint would be surrounded by development on three sides with the fourth side having a road.
“The exchange would greatly improve the northsouth connections, plus the east-west connections in this general vicinity,” he added. “This is probably the smartest action we could take at this time.”
Fifty-seven environmental groups and land trusts — from the Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife and Center for Biological Diversity to The Nature Conservancy, Save the Redwoods League and California Council of Land Trusts — have written letters in opposition to the swap.
A letter from the land trusts carried more than two dozen signatories and stated: “Never before has the state approved a large conversion of conservation lands to enable a development project that would damage the very habitat that the state had sought to protect when it acquired those lands, such as is now proposed.”
If the Wildlife Conservation Board rejects the land exchange, it’s not clear whether the developers’ initial project would come to fruition. The project is currently being challenged in court by environmental groups on grounds related to wildfire and climate change. However, nixing the land deal would leave room for all parties to negotiate another compromise agreement over the project.
joshua.smith@sduniontribune.com