Growth Guidelines Fuel Fiery Debate in Trabuco Canyon

From the opening gavel Wednesday night, emotion boiled as Trabuco Canyon area residents debated an unprecedented plan to allow 1,700 new homes to be built in the sparsely populated hills east of Mission Viejo.

The plan, a year in the making, came under fire from environmentalists, canyon residents and landowners alike, who are competing to influence the sweeping plan that will establish growth guidelines for a 6,500-acre region in southeast Orange County extending well into the next century.

Only minutes into the meeting at the Trabuco Fire Station, landowner Sam Porter stunned a crowd of more than 200 people when he blasted the county plan for rendering “worthless” the 236 acres he owns.

At age 69, Porter said he planned to sell the land to a home builder and retire on the profits. But under the proposed county plan, Porter said, only 30 to 40 homes could be built, rather than “several hundred” under present zoning.

With his voice rising, Porter looked at several county planners at the meeting and said: “You folks are dreamers. This plan will never fly--I guarantee it. We will fight this until the last day.”

But environmentalists and canyon residents complained that the proposed blueprint does not go far enough to restrict development. Diana Glass, a canyon resident, said the plan will be “a major test of growth management in Southern California.”

Glass said the plan favors large land developers at the expense of small property owners and local residents who want to preserve the area’s rural character.

She and other residents presented the county with petitions containing 3,000 signatures asking that the county adopt a more-restrictive plan. Local residents prefer an option that would allow less than 550 new homes and no new roads to be built in the area.

County planners called the meeting to hear public testimony on their proposal for the area. Planners spent three hours at the outset of the meeting describing the plan in detail. Adoption of a plan is not scheduled until next month, when it comes before the county Planning Commission for approval. The county Board of Supervisors will make the final decision.

County planners spent nearly a

year evaluating four options for growth in the area before issuing their recommendation Friday. The development scenarios ranged from 536 to 4,833 new houses in a region that county officials have designated a “rural transition zone.” County planners have yet to establish general growth guidelines for such areas but have indicated they should serve as a buffer between highly urbanized communities and the county’s diminishing backcountry.

In this case, environmentalists and local residents fear that high-density development of Saddleback Valley will encroach on the Foothill-Trabuco area, spoiling its rural charm and threatening wildlife habitat and migration corridors in nearby Cleveland National Forest.

Much of the area’s character is drawn from thousands of oak trees which line the winding roads and shade the ridge lines and canyons. For years, most of the development in the Foothill-Trabuco area, a large wedge-shaped region stretching from Santiago Canyon Road to Trabuco Canyon Road and east to the Santa Ana Mountains, has been centered in Trabuco Canyon. About 300 homes are clustered along a few narrow roads in the canyon, which has one small school, a post office and general store.

Environmentalists and residents contend that hundreds of oak trees, many of them centuries old, would be destroyed if the county’s growth blueprint for the area is ultimately adopted by the County Board of Supervisors.

Portions of the plan, including proposals for two new churches and two shopping centers at Cook’s Corner, are now under consideration by the County Planning Commission. The commission is expected to take action in September on the Foothill-Trabuco Specific Plan, the document intended to guide growth in the area, sending it to the Board of Supervisors for final approval.

Opposition to the county’s recommendation has been especially heated over the proposed Rose Canyon Road. Residents and environmentalists fear that, once built, the road would open for development hundreds of acres of land currently inaccessible except by four-wheel-drive vehicles or on foot.

Moreover, opponents contend that the Foothill-Trabuco area is prime habitat for wildlife and birds, and construction of Rose Canyon Road would destroy some of those areas.

But county planners argue that Rose Canyon Road is essential to maintaining Live Oak Canyon Road, one of the area’s primary arterials, as a two-lane country road. Officials contend that even minimal development in the area will push traffic levels on the road beyond its capacity, requiring major improvements such as widening and the addition of turning lanes. Those changes, officials say, would mean hundreds of oak trees would be torn out, destroying much of the oak canopy that covers long stretches of the road, designated a county scenic highway.

FOOTHILL-TRABUCO DEVELOPMENT ISSUE

THE ISSUE: How much development should be permitted in the Foothill-Trabuco area, a 6,500-acre rural region of canyons and foothills in southeastern Orange County.

PLANNERS RECOMMEND:

Maximum of 1,700 new housing units. Construction of Rose Canyon Road, a two-lane road stretching from Live Oak Canyon Road to Plano Trabuco Road; two churches on Santiago Canyon Road; two shopping centers at Cook’s Corner. Scope of the four projects is undetermined. Buffer zone between development and the Cleveland National Forest.

RESIDENT GROUP RECOMMENDS:

Maximum of 536 new housing units. New development in the area should not exceed capacity of existing roads, water lines or other utilities. Construction of single-family homes only; lot sizes greater than one acre. No construction of Rose Canyon Road and have the project deleted from the county’s master highway plan.

FOCUS OF DEBATE:

The Foothill/Trabuco Specific Plan, a county document that will establish growth limits for the area. Planning commissioners have begun hearings on the plan, and are expected to vote on the entire proposal by mid-September. The Board of Supervisors will then consider it, with a vote by the five members expected in late September or early October.

Source: Orange County Environmental Management Agency