Bid to Double Trabuco Area Project Denied

The Orange County Planning Commission on Tuesday narrowly rejected a developer’s request to more than double the number of new houses already approved for construction in a remote Trabuco Canyon area.

The commissioners voted 3 to 2 against letting the William Lyon Co. increase the number of homes planned for its Robinson Ranch development from the presently authorized 882 to 1,850 on its 822-acre property adjacent to the Cleveland National Forest.

A final decision on the company’s request will be made by the Board of Supervisors, which is scheduled to hear the matter on May 28. The commission postponed until September its third and final hearing on two other projects in the canyon country of eastern Orange County. Both have strong opposition from area residents.

One proposal is Portola Hills, the development of the former Glenn Ranch, where the Baldwin Co. wants to build 3,556 units on 1,000 acres rather than the currently approved 1,481 homes.

The second is Santiago Ranch, where developer Jack Mullan has asked to increase the number of authorized units from 162 to 500 on 120 acres. Both Portola Hills and Santiago Ranch are west of the intersection of Live Oak Canyon Road and El Toro Road.

Developers have contended that allowing more units in the Trabuco Canyon area would reduce the costs of the houses, making them easier to sell and easier for first-time home buyers to afford.

However, residents have complained that roads will be overwhelmed by new development, and they contend that new schools, water treatment plants and sewage facilities should be in place before permission is given to increase densities.

Tuesday’s five-hour hearing at the Santa Ana Civic Center also produced objections that Trabuco Canyon’s rural flavor would be destroyed.

“You’re looking at a short-term perspective right now,” Carol Kerr, a Costa Mesa resident, told the commissioners. “But what does this mean 10 years, 20 years, 50 years from now . . ? We should not see more density in a tranquil area.”

A representative of the Audubon Society, which has a wildlife preserve next to the Robinson Ranch property, said there could be a compromise in the number of units allowed but expressed concern about the impact of the development on what he said was the county’s last mating pair of golden eagles, now nesting in the preserve.

Meanwhile, representatives of the Rural County Residents Assn., the Robinson Ranch Homeowners’ Assn., the Saddleback Area Coordinating Council and the Coto de Caza Community Assn. also opposed allowing construction of the number of units sought by the Lyon Co.

Rejection Recommended

The proposal would have increased the density from just over one dwelling unit per acre to 2.25 dwelling units per acre. The county’s Environmental Management Agency staff recommended rejection of the company’s request, citing concern over traffic, water supply, schools and waste-water treatment facilities.

Bill Soto, representing the Lyon Co., said that allowing 1,850 units “certainly isn’t going to produce a threat to the (Cleveland National) forest.” And he said it would pay for needed improvements of benefit to all residents.

Soto said that the company would take “scarred land . . . and revegetate it,” restoring 50 acres that have been devastated in past years by motorcyclists racing through the countryside.

He also cited as a major public benefit the “provision of attainable housing” to people unable to afford estate-sized homes.

HUD Took Title

A previous developer took an option to develop the Robinson Ranch property in 1977. But after years of rejected plans, high interest rates and frustration, the U.S. Housing and Urban Development Department took title to the property in 1984 so the developer could avoid foreclosure.

The Lyon company bought the property last year, and planning commissioners said Tuesday they hope it can be developed--but not at the increased density.

Commissioners Alvin Coen, H.G. Osborne and Thomas Moody--respective appointees of Supervisors Harriett Wieder, Bruce Nestande and Thomas F. Riley--voted against the company’s request. Commissioners Earl Wooden and C. Douglas Leavenworth, appointees of Supervisors Roger Stanton and Ralph B. Clark, voted in favor of the company.