Directed Development

Beneath the surface of Orange County politics and planning, one big question has run all through the 1990s: How much growth is too much?

Today the region finds itself populated with residents and businesses who were only a glimmer in the eyes of politicians and developers when crucial land-use decisions were made in earlier decades. Many of the new arrivals are here to stake their claim in the future of Southern California long after the original development agreements were concluded.

Many are openly questioning the development planned around them and are determined to have a say in what kind of community Orange County will be in the 21st century. Many also may need to recognize that it is their presence that has created some of the pressures for new development and infrastructure they see around them.

The slow-growth movement of the late 1980s failed in some of its specific aims, but it left a legacy of concern that found expression early in this decade with battles over species preservation and open space.

In one promising interlude in a passionate debate, a compromise in 1993 backed by the Wilson and Clinton administrations allowed development in specified areas while at the same time it set aside large areas to ensure the preservation of rare plants and species.

However, one of the central facts of life of suburban sprawl is that once land is lost, it becomes irretrievable, whether that land is lost by accident, negligence or otherwise. The strains of the current boom in housing are putting the truce to the test right now.

Recently, a decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service raised concern that an agreed-to limit on the destruction of gnatcatcher habitat in San Clemente had been exceeded.

Federal officials are now on the spot to explain whether their agencies can make agreements stick. At stake is the very credibility of the process. To avoid a return to the era of environmental confrontation, limits must be strictly enforced by those who oversee them.

There are pressures evident elsewhere.

In San Juan Capistrano, the city has been contemplating a moratorium on development. The debate is emblematic of local concern about vanishing control over a municipality’s destiny. It is a reminder to other communities of the need to revisit and update growth plans.

In Seal Beach, the state Coastal Commission staff changed its stance on the Hellman Ranch project, saying it made a mistake in recommending the destruction of wetlands for a golf-course community even if they would be re-created on other land. This controversial decision, scheduled to be reconsidered by the full commission, reflects the need to balance growth with coastal preservation.

In South County, the toll road agency is embroiled in a debate over the $644-million Foothill South toll road.

The agency recently voted to earmark funds for preliminary road designs through a pristine wilderness area, en route to connecting Oso Parkway near Mission Viejo with Interstate 5 in northern San Diego County. The route to be studied would slice San Onofre State Beach in half and cut through an area said to contain a high concentration of endangered species.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency both have questioned whether the road is needed. Before proceeding with the road, the agency should be able to justify its traffic projections and take care of environmentally sensitive land.

The challenge for the county will be whether it can manage growth in a way that is respectful of the environment and that gives a say to those who want to protect the land. Growth is necessary, but it must be guided in a way that allows Orange County to continue to be a special place to live and work.