Cook’s Corner Proposal Receives Blow From Court

A state appellate court Monday set back plans for an 8.5-acre commercial development at scenic Cook’s Corner in Trabuco Canyon, ruling that the county’s approval of the project was “fatally inconsistent” with previous zoning restrictions placed on the area.

The 4th District Court of Appeal upheld a 1987 Orange County Superior Court ruling that had struck down the county’s decision to rezone the area from agricultural to commercial use.

If it is not appealed, the ruling would force the Live Oak Ltd. development firm to try again to have the site rezoned or to drop its development plans for the area altogether.

Live Oak wants to put a 54,000-square-foot shopping center at Cook’s Corner. The shopping center would sit across the street from the landmark Cook’s Corner tavern, a one-time World War II mess hall that now counts bikers and yuppies alike among its clientele.

The appellate court found that the county’s rezoning of the area from agricultural to commercial use conflicted with the general plan supervisors had approved in 1980, which limited the intersection to one commercial development.

At the same time, however, the appellate court reversed the trial court and kept intact an environmental impact report that the county had prepared for the project. Superior Court Judge Tully H. Seymour had ruled that the county should have prepared a new environmental report on the project, rather than relying on a 10-year-old one.

Trabuco Canyon resident Ray Chandos, who headed the attack on the development, said of the ruling issued Monday, “I’m very gratified that the court has told the county that is has to live by its own rules.”

He added, however, that he is preparing for more battles in case the developer pursues the rezoning.

The development proposal “would create a messy traffic situation and spoil the view . . . of the scenic corridor. It would make a very unbefitting entrance to the Trabuco Canyon and the Cleveland National Forest,” Chandos said. “We don’t want to bear the environmental brunt of this development.”