Carving Up Canyon Country

Zoning changes that would allow more grading and denser development are being considered for Orange County’s rugged eastern edge, a rustic area on the doorstep of the Cleveland National Forest.

Home to out-of-the-way canyon dwellers, the area is also enjoyed by thousands of mountain bikers, hikers and others taking a break from suburbia each weekend.

The proposed amendment to the highly restrictive Foothill Trabuco Specific Plan would allow condominiums, apartments or tract housing to be “clustered” in some spots in exchange for setting aside other land, and would relax grading requirements to allow hilly topography to be leveled. Land could also be left “natural looking” rather than in its natural state, wording that has drawn considerable argument over whether graded slopes with colored concrete might be considered to look natural.

“There’s no place else left in Orange County to build . . . so this area is receiving a lot of attention,” said planner Dean Brown, who represents several area property owners.

Brown said “it’s the toughest land to build on anywhere” because so much earth has to be moved and stabilized to create level building sites.

The changes could affect chaparral ridges and steep canyons full of massive live oak and sycamore stands, dotted with occasional homes.

In addition, nearly 1,000 acres of the 6,500-acre area have been bought by Kim Scott, a Colorado-based housing developer, according to former owner Dave Edgar and records.

Longtime residents are fiercely protective of the area, a remnant of open space left from the development sprawl that has engulfed much of Orange County.

“This is one of Orange County’s greatest resources. You don’t just flatten it, take out the 200-year-old oaks and build stucco houses,” said Rena Smith, who lives in an 80-year-old home in Trabuco Canyon. “It’s a different mind-set out here. You can’t plunk a set of housing developments out here and not destroy the rural character.”

But would-be developers argue that wildlife “corridors” would still be protected, and that their rights as property owners are virtually nonexistent under the current zoning plan.

Developer Jim Beam, who is overseeing the purchase by the Colorado company of several properties, said if canyon residents want to stop growth, there’s an easy way to guarantee that.

“Just buy the land. They want to look at it, but they don’t want to pay for it. Hasn’t anybody ever heard of property rights?” said Beam, who said he has been trying to sell land on Santiago Canyon Road owned by the Lutheran Church for several years.

The county Planning Commission had its most recent hearing on the amendments Jan. 26, then enacted a 60-day moratorium on hearings to give newly appointed members of the local Foothill Trabuco Review Board time to catch up. The review board has voted against clustering and transfer of density rights so far, and will meet again Thursday. Once the review board and Planning Commission have made recommendations, it will be up to the Board of Supervisors to approve or deny them. Supervisors usually defer to the colleague representing the affected district, in this case 3rd District Supervisor Todd Spitzer.

“I’m hopeful that the county supervisors will see the insanity of going ahead with a major overhaul of this area,” said canyon watchdog Ray Chandos, a Trabuco dweller since 1983. “I hope he [Spitzer] will weigh public sentiment and decide it’s a loser. It’s unwise public policy, and it’s throwing tax money down the rat hole.”

But county director of planning Tom Mathews, whose staff wrote the proposed amendment, said changes were necessary. Since the Foothills Trabuco zoning plan was adopted in 1991, he said, only two single homes and one multiple-unit project have been built in the entire area. He said he had received hundreds, if not thousands, of requests from would-be developers of the area through the years.

“It’s been eight years, a lot of things have changed,” Mathews said. “The challenge is maintaining that rural character while still allowing for private property owners to enjoy some development potential on their property.”

But Chandos said the current plan allows for a maximum of 2,700 homes already, and that the region’s hilly topography and a depressed economy were what had impeded development, not zoning.

Developers agree that zoning changes would most immediately open up development on Santiago Canyon Road, the winding, scenic two-lane road that has long been considered the Maginot line between the canyons and the rest of Orange County. Scott, the Colorado-based developer, for instance, would be willing to swap 480 acres of raw, inaccessible land at the back of Trabuco Canyon for the right to build 200 homes between Santiago Canyon and Live Oak Canyon roads, said Brown. Scott could not be reached for comment.

“We’ve got sewers there, we’ve got water, and we’ve got the roads,” Brown said. “The rest of Trabuco is still on septic tanks.”

Colored Concrete Called ‘Positive Move’

In recent years, huge subdivisions such as Portola Hills have come up almost to Santiago Canyon Road on its western flank. Last year, the line was crossed when Beazer Homes started a 78-unit tract home project on the road’s east side. The project, which would not have been allowed under current zoning, had been grandfathered in because it gained approval before 1991.

Mathews said Beazer Homes’ development may be a bit extreme because there was such severe cutting and grading of the natural topography, but “that’s a step in the right direction.”

He said their efforts to replant an artificially graded slope and using colored concrete were “positive moves” indicative of what was meant by “natural appearing.”

Chandos and others are incredulous that the heavily graded project, complete with brick walls, fluttering advertisement flags and a huge artificial slope out front would be considered natural in appearance.

“I think anybody can tell the difference between natural open space and processed open space with manufactured slopes,” said Chandos.

Even developer Beam, who is also a former mayor of Orange, said Beazer Homes’ actions were too much. Scores of area residents are writing hundreds of protesting letters on lemons and mailing them to Spitzer.

“It’s a lemon of a plan, and we want him to know that,” said Sue Ellen Cox of Silverado Canyon. Silverado and Modjeska canyons are covered under a separate restrictive planning document, but residents there fear that if the Foothill Trabuco zoning changes pass, they are next.

Spitzer joked that he loves lemonade, then said, “Any way that a community wants to communicate with their elected officials is great by me.”

Spitzer said he would reserve judgment on the proposed changes until after the local review board and the Planning Commission make recommendations.

“It took millions of years to make these canyons. I’m not in any rush to make a decision overnight,” said Spitzer, who added that he did not want the process to “drag on” either.

Developer Beam said he agreed with residents that some of the changes proposed by Mathews’ planning staff were too extreme, including allowing apartments or condominiums. He suggested that developers could cluster single-family homes on smaller lots, rather than putting in apartments, condominiums or other multiunit housing.

Beam said he is “extremely hopeful” that the changes will go through.

“Sometimes what’s being asked for in zoning changes is so outrageous it’s rape of the land,” he said. “Other times it’s so minimal it’s minuscule, and these requests are minuscule. It really will result in a very nicely developed area.”

Residents disagreed.

“This is all about greed, pure and simple,” said Trabuco resident Smith. “It’s time for us to adopt a higher morality, and say that we’re dedicated to saving something extremely precious.”

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Builders’ Reach

Proposed zoning changes in an area governed by the Foothill Trabuco Specific Plan may change the look of one of Orange County’s last rural areas. For now, most of the attention is at the western end of the area, where infrastructure would support development. Beazer homes built 78 tract homes on one parcel and Colorado developer Kim Scott would like to build nearby.

How current regulations could change:

Current: Dwelling units must be single-family homes on lots averaging one acre

Proposal: Allow multiple units on quarter-acre lots

Current: No transfer of density rights allowed

Proposal: Let developers set aside some parcels in exchange for higher density on other sites

Current: Two-thirds of land must be open space

Proposal: Allow increased uses, including golf and tennis, on preserved open space

Current: The two-thirds open space must be untouched

Proposal: Allow land to be left “natural looking,” meaning work could be done as long as the result appeared natural

Current: If wildlife requirements are met, grading may cut 10 vertical feet

Proposal: Allow cutting 30 vertical feet

Sources: County Department of Planning and Development, private planner Dean Brown