Ranch Project Will Get Public Review

Countering concerns that the community has been excluded from planning for Rancho Mission Viejo, Orange County Supervisor Tom Wilson said Wednesday he will form two public groups to review development plans.

The land-use task force and water-quality working group, each comprising business people, civic leaders and environmentalists, will independently review data and make recommendations for the largest privately owned open parcel in south Orange County, Wilson said. That contrasts with the typical development process in which public input is sought only after voluminous environmental impact documents are released.

Wilson said he is confident that such an approach “will provide a new and important level of communication as we begin this important planning process.” He announced formation of the study groups to the county Planning Commission and about 100 residents at a workshop Wednesday afternoon in Santa Ana.

That workshop was the first opportunity for residents and environmentalists to tell planning commissioners how they feel about plans for 14,000 homes and 5.1 million square feet of commercial space on the century-old, family-owned ranch. More than five dozen people spoke at the meeting.

Last month, Rancho Mission Viejo filed its development proposal, which would take 30 years to complete on the O’Neill-Moiso family ranch in the hills between San Juan Capistrano and the Cleveland National Forest. The plan, which immediately drew criticism from environmentalists, would set aside nearly two-thirds of the 22,850-acre ranch for cattle grazing, farming, recreation and wilderness preservation.

“We’re off to a flying start,” said Dan Kelly, vice president for government relations for Rancho Mission Viejo, a family-controlled company that owns the land.

Dave Bartlett, a resident of the master-planned community of Ladera Ranch in Mission Viejo on former family land, said the company’s history speaks for itself.

“Communities have been built, not subdivisions,” he said, citing recreational and open space. “Homes for families have been built, not dwelling units.”

Still, the vast majority of speakers expressed concern about how the massive development would affect water quality at nearby beaches and San Mateo Creek.

Jenna Sussex, 11, said she surfs every morning with a school club at T Street beach in San Clemente. “If you put 14,000 homes back there, it will pollute San Mateo Creek and we won’t be able to surf anymore,” she told planning commissioners.

Others said they fear that the development would harm rare species such as steelhead trout in the creek and mountain lions in the hills.

The company already has begun two complicated federal processes that allow developers to build on some sensitive habitat and fill in some waterways in exchange for permanently protecting large chunks of valuable land and streams. Those plans, aimed at balancing development and conservation, would fulfill requirements of the federal Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act.

Opponents have criticized the company for moving forward with building plans before completing environmental studies on the land, which is home to many endangered species.

Environmentalists say the company first should have allowed wildlife officials and others to figure out where the most valuable land and water habitats are, then planned development away from those areas.

“Unfortunately, we seem to be going about this important process in a manner that is completely backward and destined to fail,” said longtime environmental activist Ray Chandos. “The applicant is saying, in effect, ‘This is what we’re going to do, and we’ll cobble together [a preserve] with whatever’s left.’ ”

But Kelly said the development proposal is based on years of scientific work. The company has been working on the habitat plan for a decade and the waterways plan for three years, he said.