County Planning Commission Endorses Growth Control Plan

Seven weeks after the defeat of the county slow-growth initiative, the Orange County Planning Commission on Tuesday endorsed a sweeping plan with some of the same controls.

The Board of Supervisors, which already supports the plan, is scheduled to vote on it Aug. 3.

The growth management plan approved Tuesday borrows heavily from elements of the defeated measure and a Foothill Area Traffic Improvement Program in the south county that requires developers to contribute to the cost of road improvements and other public facilities before they complete new housing projects.

The plan requires that traffic flow meet specific levels of service before major development projects are completed.

The growth management plan was drafted by a citizens advisory panel appointed by county supervisors in March, after 96,000 registered voters signed petitions to qualify the Citizens’ Sensible Growth and Traffic Control Initiative for the June 7 ballot.

The plan, a broad statement of policy on how development will proceed in unincorporated areas, had been slightly revised at the request of planning commissioners and some developers.

The citizens committee, headed by former Supervisor Bruce Nestande, dropped a provision calling for the county to establish design guidelines for development projects.

Developers had objected, saying such guidelines are inappropriate for a growth management plan. The committee also substituted the word “protection” for the word “preservation” in a policy aimed at retaining natural resources.

Despite developers’ objections, the plan still contains provisions calling for “buffer zones” to keep developments physically separated and for “rural transition zones” that would separate new development from such large natural areas as Cleveland National Forest.

The wording was clarified as a compromise, said Michael M. Ruane, manager of environmental and special projects for the county Environmental Management Agency.

“The committee decided that design guidelines are more a land-use issue and that they can be dealt with in other documents,” said Ruane, who is the county’s liaison to the committee. “They felt that the buffer zones and the rural transition areas did belong” in the document.

No Serious Opposition

Ruane said there has been no serious opposition to the growth management plan, which was hammered out over four months by the 11-member advisory committee. The panel is made up of slow-growth activists, representatives of the Building Industry Assn. and representatives of various business and homeowner groups.

Representatives of individual development firms, including the Irvine Co. and the Santa Margarita Co., last week praised the advisory committee and told the Planning Commission that they were generally pleased with the results of the committee’s work.

The committee was charged with recommending a backup growth management plan in case the slow-growth measure failed at the polls or in the courts.

If county supervisors approve the plan, the advisory committee will probably continue meeting to monitor compliance, Ruane said.