Vasquez Discloses Plan to Cut Back Trabuco Proposal : Development: Supervisors may vote today on a blueprint for developing thousands of acres of pristine canyon.

In an 11th-hour attempt at compromise, Board of Supervisors Chairman Gaddi H. Vasquez on Monday proposed scaling back the scope of potential development in and around Trabuco Canyon.

After three years of debate and nearly 50 public hearings, the board is expected to vote today on a blueprint for future development of 6,500 acres of pristine, canyon-area land that would allow up to 2,700 homes in several communities.

The plan has prompted legal challenges and intense criticism from canyon residents and environmentalists, who predict that it will endanger the rustic quality of life in one of Orange County’s last largely undeveloped areas.

Heeding those protests, Vasquez last month succeeded in putting off the vote on the Foothill-Trabuco plan to allow further review. The result of that delay, he said in an interview, was a set of “major reforms,” which he presented to his fellow supervisors in a letter Monday.

Several environmental activists said that while parts of Vasquez’s new plan appeared promising--even a “godsend”--they would have to see the details at today’s meeting.

“It’s hard to wave the white flag or draw your gun before the vote,” said Bruce Conn, a director of the Rural Canyon Conservation Fund, which has helped lead the attack on development plans in the area.

Among the specific changes proposed by Vasquez Monday:

* Severely scaling back commercial development that had been planned for the area around Cook’s Corner. Instead, the area would be limited largely to residential development, with the exception of a proposed child-care center and veterinary office.

* Expanding the protection of the canyon’s famed oak trees and strengthening enforcement of those provisions.

* Making all grading operations in the canyon area subject to permit requirements and environmental review.

* Preserving a 120-acre parcel next to O’Neill Regional Park as open space. The area had been marked for development of 30 or so homes.

While Vasquez’s proposed changes would have no direct impact on the number of homes approved for development in the canyon, “it might make it more difficult to develop,” said Rich Adler, senior planner in the county’s Environmental Management Agency.

In his letter to supervisors, Vasquez said that while the existing proposal “goes a long way toward promoting a truly rural character in our remote canyon areas, I believe that this board can and should provide additional direction to protect the sensitive resources in Foothill-Trabuco and surrounding areas.”

The proposal seems likely to stir protest from some individual property owners and development interests who have argued that the canyon area can handle even more development--particularly moderate-priced homes--than the county has proposed. But Vasquez predicted that his plan will provide “a positive middle-ground on a number of issues.”

Supervisor Thomas F. Riley, who shares jurisdiction for the Foothill-Trabuco area with Vasquez, said he had not seen the new proposal Monday and could not comment on its specifics. But he said: “When you’ve got a highly emotional issue like this, you try and come up with a solution that meets the objections of most of the people concerned.”