Debate Begins Over ‘the Lost Wilderness’

A standing-room-only crowd missed the last episode of “Seinfeld” on Thursday night to attend the first in a series of public discussions on the future of the county’s last large chunk of privately owned, undeveloped land.

“What we have here is extremely precious and rare,” said Kathleen Stockwell, who described herself as a nature photographer from Mission Viejo. “We need to preserve it scientifically.”

Bill Tippets, representing the state Department of Fish and Game at the meeting that drew about 250 people to San Clemente High School, said he believed the gathering was a step in that direction. “I really think that the process can work,” he said. “This is the beginning of public input.”

Hanging in the balance is the fate of a 131,000-acre portion of south Orange County referred to by conservationists as “the lost wilderness.” Over the next several months, government regulators, scientists, environmentalists and developers are expected to hammer out a plan for the land that will preserve some of it as natural habitat while allowing the rest to be developed.

The outcome is important to environmentalists because, among other things, the area is home to the nation’s largest population of a threatened songbird, the coastal California gnatcatcher, as well as a number of other endangered plants and animals.

Research biologist Pete Bloom has described the area as “critical to the future environment of Orange County.”

On Thursday night, public views were mixed as planners representing a variety of agencies answered questions about five design options now being considered.

“This is a con game,” said Leeona Klippstein, conservation program director for an environmental group called the Spirit of the Sage Council. “It doesn’t preserve the species--it’s a large-scale massive development plan.”

Klippstein said her group will file a lawsuit challenging any proposal to change the area.

Bill Corcoran of the Sierra Club, on the other hand, expressed optimism. “This is an opportunity to demonstrate that this operation can result in a successful plan,” he said. Although he had some questions about how development would be done, Corcoran said he backs the concept. “We are supportive of protecting habitat,” he said. “If it can’t work here, it can’t work anywhere.”

Federal, state, county and private planners say they hope to have a proposal finalized by late summer, followed by a series of public hearings and final approval late next year.

Jim Bartel, representing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said he was pleased with Thursday night’s session.

“It’s chief accomplishment was an airing of what the public is concerned about,” he said afterward. Overall, he said, the major concern seems to be conservation. “I didn’t hear a single person speak up for the need for more housing.”

Times staff writer Deborah Schoch contributed to this report.