Preserving the Pastoral : Neighbors Oppose Affordable Housing Plan for Saddleback Meadows

Fearing drugs and crime, some residents here have organized to block the proposed development of affordable housing on a scenic 240-acre site off El Toro Road.

Neighbors want the lush, hilly land surrounding a monastery to be left alone and the rural ambience of their neighborhood to remain untouched.

In a huge point of contention, the residents believe Los Angeles-based developer Aradi Inc. plans to build a park for 708 mobile homes that would be marketed to lower-income people.

Resident Patti Kacsir, who opposes development, said: “There’s nothing wrong with poor people. But there is something wrong with people who put things in their bodies and steal things from others to do it. A low-income area is a prime location for a drug house. You don’t have a low-income, high-density development on the edge of a family park.”

However, the developer, who bought the property out of bankruptcy last June, flatly denies that it intends to build a mobile home park. Officials said they are considering applying to the county for approval to erect a 708-unit affordable housing complex for senior citizens.

“Let me make (it) very clear: We have never told anyone there would be mobile homes on that site. There will be no mobile homes,” said Paul Sevey, vice president of development at Aradi. “We have had some conversations with the county staff (about) doing an age-restricted planned community.”

But local residents said they would not want a seniors housing project either, saying it would be too much development on the property.

The area in dispute is known as Saddleback Meadows. It surrounds most of St. Michael’s Abbey, a 35-year-old monastery that operates a boarding school for boys.

With the mobile home development they are convinced is coming, alarmed residents, most of whom spent about $250,000 for their homes, contend that police services, schools and roadways will be overburdened by the influx of new people and that their property values will nose-dive.

Angela Zarzki is also concerned that extensive grading for development will ruin her home’s panoramic view, for which she paid an extra $30,000.

“We just like it out here, and so far, we don’t have much crime. We’d like to see it remain open space,” she said.

The clergy is not any happier about the situation.

A lot of new people would make living in the abbey “like living in a fishbowl,” said the Rev. Vincent Gilmore of St. Michael’s.

The project would be incompatible with quiet meditation and prayer--among the primary activities at the monastery, said Gilmore. “You’re going to have an overgrowth of people who are not going to respect our way of life,” he said.

Despite the developer’s claim to the contrary, residents said they firmly believe that a mobile home park is coming.

Elizabeth Wallace, who leads the residents group Portola Hills Opposition, said she has a November, 1993, map made by Aradi’s Irvine-based engineering firm, Hunsaker & Associates, that shows plans for mobile homes. “I’m not sure who’s telling the truth in this whole matter,” she said.

A representative of the engineering firm refused to comment.

*

Zoning for the area allows a maximum 708-unit mobile home subdivision or manufactured housing, according to the county’s director of planning, Tom Mathews.

County supervisors approved a land-use plan for the canyon in 1990 which states that development has to preserve the rural atmosphere. Also, federal requirements that protect the gnatcatcher, an endangered songbird that may live in Saddleback Meadows, may affect development.

However, back in 1980, an application by a previous developer to build a mobile home park at Saddleback Meadows was approved by the county. Since then, the property has changed hands several times, but the approval for a mobile home project is still in effect.

“Now when you look at this project, in my estimation, it’s a horse of a different color,” said county Supervisor Gaddi H. Vasquez, whose district includes the area. “A project that may have been considered reasonable at the time in this day and age has some problems. I have very, very grave concerns about this project. This is not a project that I would support were it . . . under consideration by me at this time.”

The approval predates his term, and his staff is researching legal ways to fight the project.

The developer said it is studying the possibility of building there based on discussions with county officials and in the next four weeks should know if it is feasible.

Getting over such hurdles as the gnatcatcher problem and winning a grading permit could be difficult, if not impossible, according to Gilmore.

“We want (the developer) to play by the rules, and we feel that if they do . . . they would run into a dead end,” he said.

Vasquez will meet with residents at 7 p.m. April 26 at Portola 1 Recreational Center to discuss the controversy over the proposed development.