Frustrated Board Spikes Trabuco Project

After grappling for hours with one of the most highly charged political decisions since the bankruptcy, county supervisors on Tuesday vetoed a controversial Trabuco Canyon housing development at a tense meeting that opened with one supervisor staging an unexpected walkout.

The audience at the crowded meeting gasped as Supervisor Jim Silva, who had wound up in the position of taking campaign funds from both the pro- and anti-development factions, unexpectedly announced that he would not vote or sit through the hearing.

“The actions of others have put me in a corner,” Silva told the stunned audience. “No matter how I might vote, my decision will be deemed unacceptable. The reality is that whatever I do, some will consider it a conflict of interest.”

“While I have personally done nothing wrong,” Silva continued, “I have decided to excuse myself from the vote. I take this action in order to eliminate any perception of conflict.”

Silva got caught in the middle of a nasty campaign between the developer and the opponents of Saddleback Meadows, a project to erect 318 expensive houses on a tranquil wooded parcel between a Roman Catholic abbey and the Ramakrishna Monastery, both of which are fighting the proposed development.

Earlier this year, the Los Angeles developer, Aradi Ltd., paid a $14,000 fine for illegally laundering $5,000 in campaign contributions to Silva. Then, last week, The Times disclosed that a lobbyist hired by the abbey had encouraged project opponents to send Silva $200 checks accompanied by notes encouraging the supervisor to vote against the project.

The abbey’s lobbyist was also among the organizers of an appreciation dinner for Silva, a fund-raising affair that was scheduled to be held on the same day that the supervisors had called for a formal vote on the development project.

The audience at the board meeting was largely packed with opponents of Saddleback Meadows--including dozens of students from St. Michael’s Abbey.

Because the other supervisors were known to be divided 2 to 2 over the project and Silva had the deciding vote, his departure took some of the edge off what promised to be an even stormier session.

In recent months, both sides hired private detectives to dig up dirt on their opponents. Some of it was thrown at Supervisor William G. Steiner, who had spoken out for the project. A complaint was filed with the district attorney alleging that Steiner’s vote had been tainted by his acceptance of $5,500 in promotional fees from a restaurant in which the developer’s lobbyist is a small investor.

The district attorney’s office sent two of its investigators to inquire about the payments to Steiner and then--after the press began asking questions--shut down its inquiry, saying it had found nothing to investigate.

The matter brought before the board Tuesday was an appeal by the development firm that it be granted a zoning change that would permit it to build 318 houses on the Trabuco Canyon property. In July, the Orange County Planning Commission declined to approve the change.

For more than three hours, the four remaining supervisors listened almost exclusively to opponents argue against the development.

They were warned of the potential for “catastrophe,” because the land is prone to landslides and severe subsidence. They were told that 8.7 million cubic yards of earth would have to be moved, clogging area streets and roads for more than a year with 580,000 trips by double-trailer trucks.

They heard about the possibility of endangered species, about noise, congestion and creeping urbanization in an area that a county planning committee has already decided should remain essentially rural in appearance and nature.

“There are some parcels of land on this earth that say, ‘Leave me alone,’ ” said Kenneth King, a civil engineer hired by the Ramakrishna Monastery. “This is one of them.”

The lone speaker in favor of the project was Pike Oliver, a Newport Beach lobbyist who represents the developer. For 10 minutes, Oliver recounted the history of the property, emphasizing the existing “entitlements” to develop it, such as an approved tract map with 705 sites for mobile homes. He also drew attention to the owner’s investment in water and sewer rights, and the payment of property taxes.

Because of earlier board actions, “development rights run with the property,” Oliver said, hinting that such might be the basis for a lawsuit against the county.

Citing the possibility of litigation, Supervisor Don Saltarelli, in whose district the project lies, said a compromise between the two sides was desirable.

But he couldn’t muster the votes. First, the board voted 2 to 2 to delay a decision for 45 days, which would put the matter off until Supervisor Marian Bergeson, a known opponent, leaves the board early next month to become Gov. Pete Wilson’s chief education advisor. Then, the board voted 2 to 2 on Saltarelli’s motion to approve 265 homes on the site.

At that point, Chairman Roger R. Stanton reminded the board that unless the board did something, the developer would retain the right to develop 705 mobile home sites.

Recounting how a divided board had narrowly approved the mobile home sites in the 1980s, Stanton said, “We’re dealing with the sins of the past and I think we have to rectify those. I don’t think there ought to be any units here.”

Nevertheless, Stanton urged the board to accept a compromise, agreed to by the various groups of opponents, allowing the construction of 100 houses. That, too, deadlocked at 2 to 2.

The board then met briefly in executive session, citing threats of litigation by the developer.

When they emerged, they voted 4 to 0 against the developer’s request, and Stanton asked the county’s planning staff to advise the board by Nov. 5 how the county could erase the tract map allowing the 705 mobile home sites, and return the property to acreage.

Palo Alto attorney William Ross, the attorney who represents Aradi, said he needed to study the board’s action before reacting to it, but that a lawsuit was possible.

“I think the applicant pursued a development path that the county said it should pursue,” Ross said.

After the meeting, Steiner said he decided to vote against the development because, “the clear message today is that the county is not really interested in compromise of any sort with regard to Saddleback Meadows. So there is no point of giving false hope to anyone.”