Recall Defeat Called a Slap at Developer : Mission Viejo: Observers say the vote was more an indictment of the company that built the city than an endorsement of Councilman Robert A. Curtis.

City Councilman Robert A. Curtis’ stunning victory in Tuesday’s recall election demonstrated the suspicion Orange County voters hold for developers and illustrated the ineptitude of the Mission Viejo Co.’s attack against him during the campaign, political and development observers said Wednesday.

Those same observers, however, were divided on whether Curtis’ victory--he took almost 70% of the votes cast in the recall battle--reflected widespread endorsement of his slow-growth views.

“This was a rejection of the Mission Viejo Co.,” said Martin Brower, a former Irvine Co. executive who is now editor and publisher of the Orange County Report, a monthly newsletter that covers development issues. “It was people saying that they don’t like to be told what to do by a major landowner.”

The final vote count was 8,679 votes against recalling Curtis to 3,835 in favor. Also on the ballot was Measure A, which requires that city voters review all large annexation proposals. It passed, with 10,570 votes in favor and 2,022 against.

Some observers compared the Curtis recall effort to Orange County’s Measure M, a proposal that would have increased the sales tax a half cent for highway projects. The measure failed last year despite large developer contributions to the campaign. Like the Curtis recall effort, Measure M suffered from the association with developers, Brower said.

“There does seem to be a very anti-developer feeling in this county, even if it’s not properly placed,” he said.

Still, the Mission Viejo Co., rather than maintain a low profile in the recall, contributed more than $300,000 to the effort, joining with other developers to put together a $500,000 war chest against Curtis.

Wendy Wetzel, a spokeswoman for the company, said officials there do not believe the money was wasted because it furthered debate on the issue of annexation, which the Mission Viejo Co. strongly opposes. Curtis proposed annexing Aegean Hills last year, and that proposal marked the beginning of his feud with the company.

Other local developers and politicians, however, said they believe the recall effort damaged the Mission Viejo Co.’s image in the community.

“I frankly don’t understand why they did it,” said Brian Theriot, director of investor relations for the J.M. Peters Co., a Newport Beach developer that last year contributed $3,750 to Curtis’ council and anti-recall campaigns. “They really hurt themselves.”

Irvine Mayor Larry Agran, a well-known proponent of controlled growth, agreed. “When people begin to see money of that magnitude being spent in a campaign, it sends a signal to the ordinary voter that there is an effort under way to corrupt the political process,” he said.

Even Helen Monroe, who chaired the pro-recall Alliance for Mission Viejo, acknowledged that the enormity of the Mission Viejo Co.’s involvement may have indirectly hurt the Curtis recall campaign by allowing Curtis to focus on the company’s involvement rather than on the issues behind the recall.

In an interview Wednesday, Curtis said he viewed the election as a mandate for tighter growth controls in Mission Viejo, and pledged to use his recall victory as an opportunity to reintroduce several slow-growth measures that found little council support last year.

“I intend to bring back some of my earlier proposals that were ridiculed and belittled,” Curtis said, adding that he hoped the “tremendous support we’ve received in this election would convince the rest of the council that this community supports growth controls.”

In particular, Curtis said he would again propose that the city freeze all new residential development and that it file suit in Orange County Superior Court to block an agreement between the county and the Mission Viejo Co. that governs the company build-out of the planned community.

While several developers and political observers agreed with Curtis’ contention that the election represented a major setback for the Mission Viejo Co., few agreed that the outcome represented a mandate for controlled growth.

“It’s the furthest thing from the truth to characterize this as a slow-growth vote,” Theriot said. “It was a statement against the heavy contributions of an established special-interest group.”

Buck Johns, president of the Newport Beach-based development firm The Inland Group, agreed. “I think this is an isolated, internecine dispute down there in Mission Viejo,” he said. “I don’t think that it holds any kind of a mandate for pro-growth or slow-growth.”

Slow-growth advocates were more inclined to attribute at least part of the margin of Curtis’ victory to his views on development, but they too were cautious about reading too much into the outcome of the recall effort.

Agran said he believes the margin of victory represents, to some extent, the voters’ rejection of the “excessive, rapid-growth policies of the Mission Viejo Co.” But, he added, “the more important factor is that voters expressed their disgust with major developers trying to manipulate the political process.”