Residents living in and around Orange County’s canyons are protesting a 181-unit residential development planned for Trabuco Canyon — proposed and approved decades ago, but only getting its final consideration for approval now.
The site for the project, referred to as the Saddleback Meadows project, was originally zoned in 1980. In 1988, a tract map outlined a plan to construct 705 residential lots.
Over the next few decades, the project received legal challenges from several environmental groups that ended up reducing the scope of the development down to its current size of 181 residential lots. Settlements from that litigation reduced the total developable space in order to preserve sensitive environmental areas.
During the June 24 Orange County Board of Supervisors meetings, the board considered and approved the final tract map for the project in a 4-0 vote, with Supervisor Vicente Sarmiento abstaining from the vote.
The board will still need to consider a conditional use permit application in the future before the development is greenlit to begin.
Meanwhile, residents are voicing concerns about the project’s potential environmental impacts, especially concerns regarding wildlife, wildfires and traffic congestion.
Most public commenters pointed to the project’s environmental impact report, which was conducted in 2002.
“[The development] is proposed for construction on 222 acres of open space within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, as designated by Cal Fire,” Silverado Canyon resident Emily Mearns wrote in a comment to the board.
“Since the original Environmental Impact Report was approved over two decades ago, there have been significant changes in population, fire risk, and environmental conditions that make this project especially dangerous and inappropriate today. The El Toro/Santiago Canyon corridor has already seen over 1,200 new homes built since 2002, and the primary evacuation route remains inadequate. In the event of wildfire or other emergencies, the risk to human life due to limited evacuation access is unacceptable.”
A law firm also sent a letter to the county on behalf of the Saddleback Canyons Conservancy, a non-profit dedicated to protecting the Foothill-Trabuco area.
“The Saddleback Meadows Project cannot be approved in its current form,” reads the letter. “It conflicts with the County’s zoning code and would create significant safety and environmental impacts that have not been adequately considered. The Board should refrain from approving the final tract map for the Project and should defer any action on it until the Planning Commission has conducted adequate public and environmental review of the Use Permit application and resolved these issues.”
Nicole Walsh, county counsel, told supervisors that while the environmental study was done 23 years ago, there had been addendums added since then to ensure the project complies with current fire standards.
“There’s a fire protection plan and a fuel modification plan that was approved by OCFA that meets the current fire standards,” Walsh said at the meeting. “Even though the development was approved long ago, they have to meet current development standards. That will mean hardened homes and anything else required by OFCA.”
The most recent addendum was added in 2022.
Susan Hori, an attorney representing the developer — California Quartet — said that the original environmental review, alongside the addendums, can still stand since the project has only shrunk since the initial approval.
“The county made a determination that, in terms of the environmental impacts, all of the impacts basically continued to decrease in terms of significance, and the mitigation measures that had been identified for a 266-unit project were still appropriate for this smaller 181 project,” Hori said at the meeting. “Also, when the addendum was prepared, updated biological studies — traffic and fire — were looked at to ensure that current standards were still being met.”
Walsh also emphasized that the project has already been approved and the board was only considering a tract map.
“The project approval has already occurred, and because they had a vested tentative tract map, that approval has vested,” she said. “Some of this is that the public processes happened so long ago, and they were able to take advantage of statutory provisions that allowed for the tract map to survive.”
Sarmiento said he was going to abstain from the vote because he’s not entirely sure the public had a full opportunity to engage and share their perspectives on this issue since it began so long ago.
“I do have some reservations on the underlying development itself and the impacts that there may be to the environment, and that fact there is no affordability component to this development,” Sarmiento said at the meeting, “and the fact that the public process, again, sometimes we do as much as we possibly can, we believe we’re exhausting our ability to reach out to the public, sometimes we fall short on that.”
Supervisor Don Wagner said he was “comforted somewhat” that the public will have the opportunity to engage further in the conditional use permit considerations in the future and ultimately said the board’s hands are tied since the project has already been approved.
“Where we are, I think, is with our hands tied because the process worked itself out 20-plus years ago,” he said. “The litigation worked itself out less than 20 years ago, but it provides us limited wiggle room. There will be opportunities later to make objections, but at this point, we owe it to the rule of law to follow the process.”
Jeff Davis, a 40-year resident in Modjeska Canyon, said he supported the development and his only major concern is an increase in traffic.
“I think the supervisors made the right decision,” he said in a phone interview. “It’s privately owned land, and they want to put homes on it. It’s their right to do so.”
Supervisor Doug Chaffee expressed concern that the state could mandate a larger development if this project doesn’t move forward as proposed.
“I would note that it started at 700 units and now it’s down to 181,” he said at the June 24 meeting. “If this project is eventually rejected, state laws can change and mandate more density than what you have before you now.”
Angelina Hicks is the Voice of OC Collegiate News Service Editor. Contact her at ahicks@voiceofoc.org or on Twitter @angelinahicks13.