New Mission Viejo Co. Project OKd in Spite of Apparent Broken Rule

Three months after the Board of Supervisors approved a resolution that its author said meant “no new roads, no new development” in part of south Orange County, there was renewed confusion Tuesday over what the resolution really means.

The latest source of confusion was the Orange County Planning Commission’s 3-2 vote Tuesday to allow a development in Mission Viejo, even though it would not put new roads in the area before building begins.

Planning Commissioner H. G. Osborne said there was “considerable controversy as to (the) meaning” of the Dec. 17 resolution authored by Bruce Nestande, who resigned his supervisorial post a month later.

However, Planning Commissioner C. Douglas Leavenworth said the meaning was clear--that new developments were barred unless there were “special mitigating circumstances.” He said such circumstances existed for the Mission Viejo Co. proposal to build single-family residences for senior citizens and retirees, and he joined Osborne and Commissioner Earl Wooden in the majority vote.

But Commissioner Thomas Moody voted no, saying, “I don’t think any of us totally understand what the resolution means.”

Moody was joined by Commissioner Alvin Coen, who said, “I think we should go back to the board and say, ‘What do you people mean?’ ”

The December resolution, which the board passed unanimously, referred to what is known as the “foothill area” in Nestande’s southern and eastern 3rd District.

The resolution appeared to delay new developments until the supervisors complete a study analyzing and proposing financing methods for new roads in the area. The study excludes proposed freeways, which are already being funded.

At the time, county officials said the resolution’s effect was to stop new development in the area until roads are built to solve worsening traffic problems. In his resignation speech, Nestande said it meant “no new roads, no new development.”

But the resolution only said the county’s subdivision committee was “directed to consider” the board action and was “requested” to bar new development in the absence of “special mitigating circumstances.”

The subdivision committee, composed of four top officials of the county Environmental Management Agency and officials of the county Fire Department, Health Care Agency and administrative office, has also indicated confusion over the resolution’s meaning.

But so far the committee has indicated that a “special mitigating circumstance” exists if the proposed development does not increase traffic in specifically defined situations by 1%.

The committee used that measurement to approve the Mission Viejo Co.’s tentative tract map for the development, meaning the developer could start grading the property and readying it for construction.

The Saddleback Area Coordinating Council Inc., a coalition of homeowners’ organizations that acts as an advisory group to the supervisors, said it would appeal the decision to the board, contending that approving a dozen developments would overwhelm roads in the area, even if each individually contributed less than 1% additional traffic.

Although the subdivision committee’s actions were intended to be interim measures until the financing plan is developed, Ron Greek of the Saddleback Area Coordinating Council said the commissioners were “taking the teeth out” of Nestande’s resolution.