Spitzer Disputed on Wildlife Zone

* Maintaining a corridor so that wildlife can move through the Saddleback Meadows development project in Trabuco Canyon is vital to their survival.

The Jan. 10 letter of Supervisor Todd Spitzer on this subject presents very incomplete information.

According to Spitzer, “That corridor is now protected under the approved plan.” While this was the opinion of consultants hired by the developer and the county, it was hardly the opinion of state and federal wildlife agencies.

In their letter to the county of Oct. 28, 1998, the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service state, “We believe that the development ‘bubbles’ . . . essentially eliminate the corridor. . . . As currently proposed, the . . . development footprint would severely constrain wildlife movement and is not acceptable.”

Selective presentation of the facts does not well serve public debate. Let us also hope that Spitzer will make better decisions in the future regarding Orange County’s dwindling wildlife heritage.

DAN SILVER

Coordinator,

Endangered Habitats League

Los Angeles

* In 1996, candidate Todd Spitzer met with a large group of Trabuco Canyon residents gathered at Trabuco School.

We informed him that our community’s main issue was the county’s consistent efforts to undermine the Foothill-Trabuco Specific Plan (FTSP), particularly with reference to the Saddleback Meadows project.

Spitzer initially explained that, as a Republican, he respects the rights of property owners to develop their land. We expressed agreement with this generality, but reminded him that existing canyon residents have rights, too, and that we expect our elected representatives to support our local planning and zoning laws, which are more restrictive than those found elsewhere in unincorporated Orange County.

Candidate Spitzer looked us in the eye and promised to uphold the FTSP.

With specific reference to the mobile homes that the county approved for this property in 1979, the FTSP states: “Any development proposal which deviates from [the mobile home project] shall . . . be consistent with all of the provisions of the Specific Plan.”

[The project is] clearly infeasible and illegal due to instability and conflicts with the federal Endangered Species Act. The current landowner, Supervisor Spitzer and other county representatives continue to treat the dreaded mobile home park like a viable entity, endlessly repeating the mantra, ‘Anything would be better than that!”

It’s a specious argument, and intelligent canyon folk will continue to demand compliance with our planning and zoning laws until justice is served.

ROBB HAMILTON

Trabuco Canyon

* Supervisor Todd Spitzer’s Jan. 10 letter on the Saddleback Meadows project is unfortunately short on facts.

Contrary to his portrayal of himself as mediator, he created an unfair framework for negotiation. The penalty to the landowners for not consummating a sale of 178 acres to St. Michael’s Abbey, while retaining development rights to the remaining 44, was a 299-unit project approval--courtesy of Supervisor Spitzer.

He also failed to mention that he didn’t press the owners to commit to limiting grading to the 44-acre development site. Hence, the abbey never knew what it would get for its $3.7 million.

And his assertion that approval of the 299 units “eliminates the undesirable 705-unit mobile home project” is a red herring and he knows it. The developer could have built this project but didn’t because it was infeasible.

Finally, his remark that “the [wildlife] corridor is now protected under the approved plan” directly contradicts the firm position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game stating that it is not.

Spitzer says “the real property owner has . . . a right to develop the property.” But his election-year promises to Trabuco Canyon residents implied that this development approval, and the Goren and Live Oak Plaza projects that came before it, would meet planning and zoning codes, especially the Foothill Trabuco Specific Plan.

They haven’t. All three are being, or have been, litigated by residents and groups because of Spitzer’s failure to carry out his commitment. The courts have already told him that he was wrong on Goren. Why isn’t he getting the message?

PETE DeSIMONE

Manager

Starr Ranch Sanctuary

Trabuco Canyon

* It has become quite clear that this population is split raggedly down the middle, with one-half intent on rescuing the natural beauty and serenity of Orange County, and the other half determined to exploit it to the nth degree.

ART STANLOW

Costa Mesa