Rural Paradise or a Prize for Builders?

* The March 7 article, “Carving Up Canyon Country,” was excellent.

It brought to the fore the urgency in rethinking growth control measures in light of the county’s draconian approach to development in sensitive areas such as the 6,000-acre Foothill Trabuco Specific Plan area.

Lobbyist Jim Beam’s quote seems to assert that the property he is attempting to “sell” has no zoning. False. The property does have zoning approved in 1991 when the Foothill Trabuco Specific Plan was passed. At that time, every acre within the plan area was given a density cap. Landowners did not protest the 1991 zoning. No lawsuits were filed. Most properties were actually increased in zoning. Likewise, Colorado investor Kim Scott purchased land with zoning. Now, he too wants more.

More, more, more. That’s the name of the game, making Rena Smith’s observation that this is about greed all the more accurate.

There is an obvious complicity evidenced between county planning department head Tom Mathews and the development community. Neutrality is rarely experienced by the public, and justifications border on the bizarre.

Consider the absurd comments of Mathews that planting of graded slopes and use of colored concrete were “positive moves” toward the meaning of “natural appearing.”

Planting graded slopes is needed to prevent erosion. If the use of colored concrete somehow makes 2:1 graded slopes appear natural, then we are more unintelligent than blind.

The Board of Supervisors that passed the Specific Plan in 1991 could never be labeled strongly pro-environment. Each member was generally considered to be pro-development.

This issue is not about property rights. We all agree property owners have a right to develop. The question is how, and how much.

The Specific Plan, which took five years, 91 meetings and almost $2 million to create, sets forth answers to these questions to assure that the canyons aren’t flattened, that their very limited infrastructure isn’t further overburdened, and that wildlife populations at the Cleveland National Forest’s edge remain viable.

The real question is when is enough, enough? As their attitudes indicate, developers and county planners believe there is never enough and view the environment as a cash cow. Where we see green hills, they see green bucks.

SHERRY LEE MEDDICK

Silverado

* Thanks for highlighting the intense pressure our canyons are coming under in your March 7 editorial and in the story, “Carving Up Canyon Country.”

Our predecessors in these canyons purposefully made the SilMod and Foothill Trabuco Specific Plans the most restrictive in the country to preserve these precious rural resources for everyone.

Even then developers used the same strategy that they do now: Buy the land, then send in their well-connected consultants to get malleable planners and supervisors to ease up on density and grading rules. It appears that they have a willing ally in County Planning Director Tom Mathews, who thinks that brown concrete spillways are natural looking.

“Wildlife corridors” can join “natural looking” as more “positive moves” in Mr. Mathews’ dictionary of developer doublespeak. These are euphemisms for flattening our foothills and replacing the waves of chaparral with asphalt, concrete and pink stucco vistas.

Politician-turned-developer consultant Jim Beam had a simple solution for those who don’t like all the development: “Just buy the land.”

We may be bumpkins, but we know how restrictive land use is in these areas, and we accept it. That’s why we wouldn’t buy land like this. It won’t pencil out. Colorado land developer Kim Scott, who bought so much of it, should have done his homework. But don’t destroy our natural resources because he didn’t. Nobody owes him--or any developer--a profit.

Finally, your editorial brought up the subject of getting growth control onto the ballot. Last time that was discussed, it resulted in county supervisors cutting “developer agreements” that disenfranchised voters before they could vote.

We need a champion for the underdog, a supervisor with the gumption to say no to changing our local zoning laws. Is Supervisor Todd Spitzer listening?

JIM SILL

Modjeska Canyon

* Re “Carving Up Canyon Country,” March 7:

Someone once wrote: “There are no factories turning out land. Once trees are leveled and fields are paved, they are lost forever.”

HELEN SHANBROM

Santa Ana

* By and large, canyon residents find our dirt roads and eclectic housing far more appealing than the undifferentiated sprawl that characterizes the rest of Orange County.

In keeping with our values, our elected representatives enacted zoning regulations stricter than those applying to the rest of the county, but well in line with those applying to other attractive areas, like Santa Barbara County.

The Colorado developer purchasing massive tracts of land in our community has started complaining about our zoning restrictions even before the deal is done. The question is, why is anyone listening?

Jim Beam, highly motivated backer of “minuscule” zoning changes on behalf of the Colorado developer, defines “property rights” as the community buying out those land owners wanting to exceed zoning limits in order to increase their profits.

It is apparently society’s right to provide public services to sprawling new developments generating less in taxes than these services cost.

Any person wondering why we are considering zoning revisions that would erode our standard of living while raising our taxes should bear in mind that perpetual, massive development justifies many a job at the Department of Planning and Development Services.

It also increases the power and prestige of top planning officials in their social and political circles. I challenge any official at the county of Orange to refute these conclusions, or to convince me that I will benefit from the proposed changes.

ROBB HAMILTON

Trabuco Canyon