The Long View for Land Use

A period of rapid development in Orange County finds another year drawing to a close, and with it, lots of development plans on the boards in areas near sensitive coastal and habitat-rich parts of the county. The UC Irvine Annual Survey, released earlier in the fall, found residents in a cranky mood over growth and development, high housing costs and traffic congestion. Many wonder what if any land is being saved.

There is still a lot of developable land, and what has happened in the plans of two key landowners shows the range of challenges for the future. Most notable has been the huge land gift in several areas of the county, and removal of housing plans in sensitive areas east of Orange, announced recently by the Irvine Co. The breathtaking scope of the holiday season land gift, and the renunciation of development opportunities that has accompanied it, has raised the bar for large landowners not just locally but everywhere on balancing growth with wildlife habitat and open space preservation. But the challenge of making conservation planning work still remains a work in progress for another large landowner, Rancho Mission Viejo Co., which also has been in the news this fall.

Some time ago, former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt remarked that the set-aside of land under the city of Irvine’s open space agreement, with its northern and southern reserves, was a model to be contrasted with sprawl seen elsewhere in the Los Angeles Basin. But recently we have found that Irvine Co. Chairman Donald L. Bren was just warming up to leave a legacy of wild land for future generations.

The Irvine Co.’s decision to set aside more than 11,000 additional acres has left more than half of the ranch to be undeveloped. The company still has big projects underway or planned, especially near the closed El Toro Marine base, that surely will contribute to some residents’ concerns. But the set-aside lays down an open-space standard. The company’s partnership with the Nature Conservancy is a creative approach to land management. Rancho Mission Viejo likely will face additional pressure to do something like that.

Supervisor Tom Wilson’s commitment to forming public groups to review development plans in Rancho Mission Viejo is a good one, ensuring a formal process of independent review before the county signs off. But the ranch isn’t as far along in planning for habitat preservation as the Irvine Co. Rancho Mission Viejo still needs to establish community confidence that the open space that remains in its plans to build 14,000 homes will not be just the leftovers. Open space has to be quality habitat that is reviewed independently and preferably includes credible third parties in its management and preservation.

The Irvine Co. went so far this month as to cap at 2,500 homes its plans for the hills east of Orange. It thereby would be giving up development rights for as many as 10,400 homes on 6,500 acres near the Eastern toll road. There are questions about details and the tax revenue for the city with the elimination of a commercial center. But this clearly means that the area surrounding Irvine Lake is facing far less impact from growth.

In a similar curtailment of development rights, the company resolved the future of canyon areas near Laguna Beach. A 173-acre parcel in Laguna Canyon was part of an area previously battled over. The resolution of that land’s future through this gift shows what having a shared vision can accomplish. The company has also linked Fremont Canyon, which is full of native plants and animals and is an important wildlife corridor, with other canyons.

In an area in which it matters to think regionally, the Irvine Co. has been positioned to do so. But there is no guarantee that any developer or large landholder will think automatically of how parts of land work together, or create a broad canvas that balances interests with an eye to future generations.

With a public increasingly concerned about sprawl, all developers and large landholders should take notice that the long view always is preferable to the short one.