Supervisors Split on 6 Contracts With Developers: 3 OKd, 3 Delayed

Developers and slow-growth activists descended on the County Hall of Administration on Wednesday, forcing an unusual split in the Board of Supervisors as it voted on six landmark agreements covering the construction of more than 38,000 homes.

The board voted 3 to 2 to postpone a decision on three development agreements that would protect plans to build about 17,000 new homes near the coast in return for nearly $130 million in private contributions for new roads. Then it narrowly passed three similar agreements covering 21,000 homes.

The three agreements that were passed cover territory in the 5th Supervisorial District represented by Supervisor Thomas F. Riley. The three that were delayed involve projects in Supervisor Gaddi H. Vasquez’s 3rd District.

“Outside observers say the board is running around like crazy people,” said Russ Burkett, a sponsor of a slow-growth initiative in the county. “You really wonder who’s in charge there.”

The supervisors’ votes came just one day after slow-growth forces startled county officials by submitting 95,000 signatures on petitions to place an initiative limiting growth on the June ballot. The registrar’s office is now checking the signatures to determine whether 66,000 of them came from registered voters; if so, the measure will qualify for the ballot.

Wednesday’s meeting on the development agreements, which have been opposed by slow-growth proponents as attempts to circumvent the initiative, appeared to be the beginning of a new era of increased influence for the supporters of the ballot measure. The change was evident in the attendance of such top Orange County development executives as William Lyon and Anthony R. Moiso.

Tom Rogers, a leader of the initiative effort, joked to the board about the overnight change in attitude.

“In every meeting I’ve ever been to, it’s been a done deal when I walked in,” he said. “This is the first case when . . . some minds might be changed.”

Moiso, president of the Santa Margarita Co., expressed disappointment after the board voted to postpone action on a development agreement with his firm but said that he believes the agreement will eventually be passed.

“I don’t think there is any cause for great alarm,” he said.

But he added that he found it disturbing that all six developers with proposed agreements before the board were not treated the same way.

“I’m just concerned (that) all of the projects weren’t delayed,” he said.

The three agreements on which action was postponed cover development in Rancho Santa Margarita, the Whiting Ranch and the Dove Canyon Planned Community.

The agreements that were approved relate to construction in Marina Hills, Bear Brand and Aliso Viejo. As part of these accords, the developers agreed to provide about $67 million in road improvements for south Orange County.

The development agreements are contracts in which the county agrees to freeze zoning and other land-use restrictions for specific developments, guaranteeing the developers that they will be able to build according to current plans. In return, the developers agree to finance new roads and public facilities worth millions of dollars.

The slow-growth activists have charged that the agreements are calculated to remove huge construction projects from the effects of their initiative, if it qualifies for the ballot and passes.

Vasquez said he sought delays in the decisions on the three agreements covering land in his district so that the county staff could explore the impact of the initiative on the agreements. It was an 11th-hour decision in direct response to the filing of the petition signatures Tuesday, he said.

Vasquez said he received an opinion from the county counsel late Tuesday that raised a question about whether the initiative might jeopardize the ability of developers to acquire loans to pay for the roads required by the agreements.

In Vasquez’s district, the agreements call for the developers to contribute to the $250-million Foothill Circulation Phasing Plan, a five-year program to provide new roads for south Orange County.

“We all know now the actual implementation of the Foothill Circulation Phasing Plan may be incompatible with provisions of the citizens’ initiative,” Vasquez said. “I want to state in certain terms and unequivocally that the Foothill Circulation Phasing Plan is, in my opinion, a blueprint for solving the transportation problems we all face.”

The initiative “may adversely impact the viability . . . of this entire plan,” he said. “It must be based on legal solid ground.”

Vasquez said the two-week delay he sought might also be used to investigate the possibility of inserting elements from the slow-growth initiative into the agreements.

One supervisor’s aide added that county officials and slow-growth leaders might use the two weeks to try, once again, to strike a compromise on a slow-growth measure that would avoid a high-stakes public battle over the proposed ballot measure.

“It might be that people, in this two-week period, sit down and try to hammer out something that everybody can live with,” the aide said. “There are members of the Board of Supervisors who think that is possible.”

Former Supervisor Bruce Nestande said Wednesday that he recently urged the supervisors individually to add the transportation and flood-control provisions of the slow-growth initiative to the development agreements.

Nestande, a vice president of Costa Mesa-based Arnel Development Co., said that addition could serve as a first step toward further talks aimed at avoiding a June 7 countywide vote on the initiative.

“I told the board this morning that Tom Rogers still wanted to avoid the necessity of a bitter, costly confrontation at the ballot box and that this opportunity, this possibility of developing a compromise, should not be passed up,” Nestande said.

Riley, however, argued that the agreements covering areas in his district should be passed because they are the result of more than a year of negotiations and that the board has already gone too far to change directions. Riley also said a delay might jeopardize the agreements.

“I have spent hundreds of hours trying to get this done, and I’m not going to be part of the slightest thing that might jeopardize it,” he said in an interview. “I just feel I’ve done what’s right.”

After the supervisors meeting, Rogers said he was very angry about the board’s passage of the three agreements, especially the Aliso Viejo development. That project, which includes 17,000 homes, was opposed at the meeting by several community representatives.

“With what happened today, I’m just flabbergasted,” Rogers said. “I didn’t realize that anybody would fly in the face of the number of signatures we filed yesterday and ignore the public in all of this. Surely they must be aware of how the public feels. I’m astounded.”

Supervisor Harriett M. Wieder was the swing vote, siding both with Vasquez when he called for postponing a decision on the agreements involving his district and with Riley when he insisted on approving the agreements linked to his.

Wieder issued a statement after the meeting saying she distinguished between the agreements because the public benefits derived from them are different.

In Vasquez’s district, all of the agreements order the developers to contribute to the Foothill Circulation Phasing Plan. In Riley’s area, the agreements call for the developers to contribute to separate road projects identified as necessary by county staff.

Wieder said the funding for the foothill road plan is more vulnerable than the projects in Riley’s district.

But others considered her decision a reflection of the board’s unspoken policy of supporting a fellow supervisor on a plan involving his or her own district.

Supervisor Roger R. Stanton joined Vasquez in voting to delay a decision on all six development agreements for further study. And Supervisor Don R. Roth voted with Riley to approve them, saying he does not believe conditions are going to change.

Last year, the board approved development agreements with Mission Viejo Co. and a Shapell Industries development called Country Village. Approval is still being sought for about 20 other development agreements.

Times urban affairs writer Jeffrey A. Perlman contributed to this story.