Avalanche of Debate Delays Trabuco Canyon Growth Plan

TRABUCO CANYON —  The debate over development in and around Trabuco Canyon gained momentum and urgency during the summer months as the plan sped toward a fall hearing before the Orange County Board of Supervisors.

The five-member board was expected, once and for all, to separate fact from emotion and decide how much new building was acceptable on the ridges and oak-studded canyons northeast of Mission Viejo, an area considered by many a county treasure because of its bucolic look, a throwback to a simpler, more neighborly era.

But environmentalists, canyon residents and even some developers say that the planning process for the 6,500-acre unincorporated swath known as Foothill-Trabuco has bogged down, the apparent casualty of unrealistic expectations and a thicket of special interests competing for control of the county’s vanishing backcountry.

Scores of owners of small and medium lots--those with 10 acres or less--contend that proposed restrictions on hillside development, aimed at protecting views and valuable watershed, are unfair and make it impossible to subdivide their land. In some cases, property owners say they bought canyon land 30 or 40 years ago in hopes of one day using it to finance their retirement or their children’s education.

On the opposite side, area environmentalists would like to see even tighter restrictions on development in an area roughly the shape of a half-moon that stretches from Silverado Canyon Road, north of Cook’s Corner, to Rancho Santa Margarita on the south and the Cleveland National Forest on the east.

“The county clearly underestimated the amount of contention over this plan as well as the technical complexity of the issues,” offered conservationist Ray Chandos, a Trabuco Canyon homeowner and chairman of an 11-member advisory panel of canyon residents and major landholders. The panel has spent two years reviewing development options for the area.

The growth debate in Foothill-Trabuco has been as intense as any in recent memory, due largely to many residents’ deep “emotional attachment” to the area’s chaparral-covered canyons and hillsides, said Mike Ruane, the county’s planning director. In the past, county planners drafted similar plans to regulate development in former unincorporated islands such as Dana Point and South Laguna. But Ruane said the scope of those earlier efforts was smaller, and preceded a heightened public sentiment for slower, more controlled growth in Orange County.

“This marks the biggest and largest unincorporated area we’ve attempted to design a specific plan for,” Ruane said. “The issues are intense, and often personal. We are talking about hillside grading, the oak trees, and in many ways, life style. The environmental issues here are as great as anywhere in the county.”

Complicating matters for Ruane is the departure of the county’s chief planner on the project, Lynn Dosherry, who has taken a planning job with the city of San Juan Capistrano.

When the supervisors decided two years ago to revise zoning and development regulations for the area, Dosherry was given the task of coming up with a plan. Even critics of the plan have given Dosherry high marks for her diplomacy and accessibility. And though Ruane said the Foothill-Trabuco planning process will not be hurt by Dosherry’s exit, he acknowledged, “It will be a tremendous loss.”

A vote by county supervisors on a package of guidelines that range from a limit on dwelling units to new roads and neighborhood shopping centers was expected last month. Now it may be next spring, at the earliest, before supervisors tackle the matter.

In the meantime, the county Planning Commission, in an effort to sort out and clarify the plan’s complex components, has scheduled hearings almost weekly through January on the issue. But the meetings are being held at the county seat in Santa Ana, angering some canyon activists and property owners who say they are unable to attend the weekday sessions because of work conflicts or distance from Trabuco Canyon.

Moving the debate to Santa Ana has only reinforced pro-development suspicions among some canyon dwellers about county government and “those who rule it,” as one longtime resident put it.

Diana Glass, a canyon activist who helped rally residents last spring against large-scale development in the area, said developers have regained “the edge in influencing” the process.

“Now that it has gone back to the planning commission, the developer-lobbyists are the only ones who can afford to sit and monitor those meetings,” she said. “A lot of us are very uncomfortable.”

County Planning Commissioner Stephen Nordeck said residents’ fears that they are “being shortchanged or sold out” are unfounded. “The goal is to keep the area as rural as possible within reasonable bounds,” he said. “Yes, the process has been delayed, but in order to come up with an acceptable plan more time was needed.”

For example, Nordeck said, the planning staff’s plan arbitrarily prohibits building on hillsides with slopes of 45 degrees or greater. Yet Nordeck says there are ways that homes and roads can be built on steep slopes without destroying views or causing environmental damage.

“It’s done in many areas of Northern California--Marin County, Sonoma and Santa Rosa. But this county has never really taken a technical look at it in terms of Foothill-Trabuco,” said Nordeck, a Trabuco Canyon restaurant owner who represents the area on the Planning Commission. “Basically, the approach to development in south Orange County has been cut and fill: Cut down the mountains and fill the arroyos and build a row of houses. That is not acceptable in Trabuco Canyon.”

The proposal that emerged for Foothill-Trabuco in August--after nearly two years of meetings and study sessions--included plans for 1,700 new homes in the area. It also originally called for a new two-lane road that planners proudly noted would leave untouched much of Live Oak Canyon Road, an oak-lined scenic highway that residents fear would be ruined under some development options. Planners viewed the plan as a compromise between developers and environmentalists, but both sides immediately riddled the proposal with objections.

Environmentalists want fewer than 1,000 new homes, and they oppose construction of Rose Canyon Road, the single most controversial element of the county’s proposal.

The recommendation of county planners is actually a significant reduction over current planning guidelines that would allow about 2,450 homes to built in the area. Still, environmentalists say, even 1,700 new homes would ruin the area--best known for thousands of oak that shade the canyons and slopes and line the winding rural roads. They say the added homes would mean destruction of many of the oaks, and would bring unprecedented traffic and congestion.

In a major victory for environmentalists and local residents after hours of hearings and debate, the county Planning Commission in September recommended scuttling Rose Canyon Road, a three-mile-long, crescent-shaped street that would link Live Oak and Trabuco Canyon roads. Instead, the commission favored a local network of roads that would attract less through traffic and would not open new areas to as much development.

But that recommendation is advisory. County supervisors will make the final decision on the fate of the road as well as the rest of the plan. And Supervisor Gaddi H. Vasquez, whose 3rd District includes Trabuco Canyon, has declined to flatly oppose Rose Canyon Road. Vasquez did say he has “significant concerns” about it, but declined to elaborate. “There will be a time and place for my comments,” he said, adding that he is “monitoring” the Foothill-Trabuco debate.

Vasquez, however, said he strongly supports leaving intact Live Oak Canyon Road, with its breathtaking canopy of oak trees. County planners have said that without Rose Canyon Road, Live Oak would have to be widened to accommodate the added traffic that would come with 1,700 new homes in the area. Such widening would mean destruction for many of the oak trees that now line the road and link branches overhead.

Most property owners, large and small, say they share concerns about protecting the area’s character. Even the biggest landholders in Foothill-Trabuco say high-density, traditional tract housing found in nearby Rancho Santa Margarita or Portola Hills would be an eyesore in the Trabuco Canyon area. But just what type of housing and how many units are appropriate remain points for debate. Some have suggested that a dwelling unit cap should be directly linked to approval of a local road system.

“We don’t envision any kind of ordinary housing. It’s going to be rural, it’s going to be different,” said Sam Couch, vice president of Costain Homes, which owns 445 acres adjacent to Trabuco Canyon, and originally had proposed building more than 400 homes. “This area is like living along the coast. People move here for the view, the sense of open space and the chance to be next to a national forest. Why would any builder want to destroy that? . . . At the same time, we do want the opportunity to develop our land.”

Jerry Trotter contends that he has been denied that chance.

High atop Rose Canyon, on a windblown ridge with a million-dollar view of Saddleback Valley to the south and the Cleveland National Forest to the east, Trotter is finishing a house he fears he can’t afford. The computer consultant bought his 4 1/2-acre spread near Trabuco Canyon two years ago, planning to split the lot and sell half to start a retirement fund and finance construction of the 2,700-square-foot home. Trotter said he even received assurances from county planners on the acceptability of the lot split before he bought the parcel.

But until a growth plan is adopted for Foothill-Trabuco, the county has placed a moratorium on lot splits. And under the current proposal, Trotter claims he wouldn’t be able to subdivide his property because of new restrictions due to the steep slopes on part of his land.

County planner Ruane said people such as Trotter and others who own six acres or less will be allowed to split their properties into two-acre parcels, provided they meet the slope criteria.

But Trotter remains skeptical.

“It’s a big runaround,” said Trotter, who estimates that his mortgage payments will run about $3,000 a month, instead of $750, unless he is able to sell half his land to pay down his construction debt. “What’s most disappointing is the feeling that the system has failed. Months and months of rhetoric, and still no decision (on the plan).

“We have become the victims and it stinks. . . . “

NEXT STEP

The county Planning Commission has scheduled hearings through January, 1990, on a sweeping plan to regulate growth in a sparsely populated area near Trabuco Canyon. Under the new timetable, the commission’s recommendations on the controversial proposal to set limits on new homes and roads will go to the five-member Board of Supervisors for final approval sometime in February.

DUTIES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION The five-member county Planning Commission holds public hearings and makes decisions on land- use permits, variance permits, site plans and discretionary plans in unincorporated areas of Orange County. It also recommends actions to the Board of Supervisors on zoning, specific, coastal and general plans. Its permit and planning decisions can be appealed to the Board of Supervisors. One commissioner represents each supervisorial district.

THE COMMISSIONERS: Earl Wooden

1st District

Santa Ana

A representative for the Painters and Drywall Finishers Union, he was appointed 15 years ago by then-Supervisor Robert Battin and has served longer than any other member. Wooden said creating “balanced communities” is one of the biggest challenges facing the commission. These balanced communities would provide housing that is affordable to most income levels. Cities, he said, must assume some responsibility to provide housing for those people who work at the assembly plants that significantly increase the tax base of the communityy. He said it is not practical for people to work in a city and then be forced to drive hours on the freeways because they can’t afford to live there.

C. Douglas Leavenworth

4th District

Anaheim

A retired aerospace engineer for Northrop Corp., he was appointed to the Planning Commission in July, 1982, by then-Supervisor Ralph Clark. He describes himself as a “middle of the roader” who “tries to go in the direction of common sense.” He said he is not anti-development and would call himself an environmentalist even though some may challenge that characterization. He sees his task as to try to preserve the good things in the county while responding to growth demands, and says affordable housing is one of the most pressing issues facing the commission and the county. Traffic also is a major problem. The high cost of housing causes “clogged freeways” because people who work here can not afford to live here, he said.

Thomas Moody

5th District

Laguna Niguel

A Costa Mesa high school teacher, he teaches in the evenings at Saddleback College in Mission Viejo. Moody was appointed by Supervisor Thomas. F. Riley in 1984 after representing the Laguna Niguel Community Council, a volunteer group, before the Board of Supervisors on land use planning issues. Moody said the commission must try to balance and protect the beauty and uniqueness of the county, while preserving the rights of property owners.

Stephen Nordeck

3rd District

Trabuco Canyon

Owner of the Trabuco Oaks Steak House in Trabuco Canyon, Nordeck was appointed in February, 1989, by Supervisor Gaddi H. Vasquez. A former mayor of Manhattan Beach in Los Angeles County, Nordeck moved to Coto de Caza five years ago. Before going into the restaurant business, Nordeck worked in the marketing department at Rockwell International Corp. He said the commission, in a “cleanup process,” must watch over land being developed under so-called super development agreeements previously signed by builders and the county. “There are some good things about development agreements and some bad things,” he said.

Roger Slates

2nd District

Huntington Beach

Appointed in May, 1989, by Supervisor Harriett M. Wieder, Slates is a real estate broker and a member of the board of directors of the Huntington National Bank. He served on the commission from 1972-75 as a representative of then-Supervisor David L. Baker and has served on the Huntington Beach city planning commission from 1968-1972, 1975-1978 and 1988-89. He is an alternate member of the California Coastal Commission and was a former member of the county Airport Commission from 1967-1972. Slates said he was particularly proud of his work on developing the county’s general plan when he was on the county Planning Commission between 1972-75.