O.C.’s Dilemma: More Housing or Open Space

Your Aug. 5 editorial “Growth No Longer a Given” misses the point. Growth is a given.

Orange County’s population will continue to grow because our internal birth rate is responsible for more than three-quarters of our population growth. In this context, the development plans of Rancho Mission Viejo are hardly “colossal”; they are, in fact, not even adequate to meet our future housing needs.

We can either plan for growth and enjoy the benefits, or ignore it and reap the consequences. The O’Neill family of Rancho Mission Viejo prefers to plan, as evidenced by balanced and environmentally sensitive communities of Rancho Santa Margarita and Ladera.

In planning these communities, endangered species habitat along Tijeras Creek and in the Rancho Mission Viejo Conservancy and Upper Chiquita Canyon was preserved.

Additional habitat will be saved with the new plans. The plans for the remainder of the Rancho Mission Viejo land holdings should be judged based on the O’Neill family’s long history of good planning and conservation. In this light, the plans will be good for Orange County.

Laer Pearce

Vice president, public affairs

Building Industry Assn.

of Southern California

*

Congratulations to The Times for your thoughtful editorial advocating the inclusion of environmentalists and the public in the planning process for the pristine, 25,000-acre open space owned by the Rancho Mission Viejo Co.

The rapid urbanization of the Aliso and San Juan creek watersheds has resulted in the contamination of these two creeks by runoff and the resultant pollution of the sea.

I’m not aware of a single development in Southern California watersheds that has not polluted the creeks draining them.

Without extensive public and scientific oversight in the land use planning of this new development, the same pollution will occur in the San Mateo watershed. The preservation of clean water, wildlife corridors and habitat are a public responsibility even on private land.

With the public, environmental and scientific communities participating to plan the land use in this pristine area, the landowner can be confident that he has done his very best as a responsible steward.

David Perlman

Laguna Beach

*

It is a relief that other alternatives are being considered rather than the proposed Foothill South toll road that many of us oppose both logistically and environmentally. If we don’t take a stand against the developers, they will develop every acre in the county.

In fact, we are down to the last large open space already. Developers outspent us 40 to 1 to defeat the slow-growth initiative in 1988, and we can only imagine how the quality of life would have been for us in O.C. if it had passed.

We can look to San Luis Obispo County to see an example where a slow-growth initiative was successful (growth is limited to 3%) and admire the pristine beauty and vast open spaces.

We all have a stake in the proposed development of the last great open space in Orange County, an area home to several rare plant and animal species and unpolluted San Mateo Creek.

Brenda Bolanos

Irvine

*

I’ve been following your recent coverage about the future of Rancho Mission Viejo. I say “hats off” to the O’Neill-Moiso family for sticking it out so long--especially when ranching and citrus farming are no longer lucrative ventures.

This family has contributed 9,000 acres of open space and is looking at another 14,000 acres in open-space dedications. It’s a fair trade-off. Let’s give the O’Neills credit where credit is due.

The O’Neills have done the right thing for 120 years, and there’s every reason to believe that the conscience of this family will continue to responsibly guide them.

Nancy V. Jackson

Tustin