Ruling May Delay Orange County Development

An Orange County judge handed a victory Wednesday to environmentalists and two religious groups battling to protect a portion of a wildlife corridor from development.

Orange County Superior Court Judge Robert E. Thomas ruled there were procedural flaws in the county’s 1998 approval of the Saddleback Meadows development. Unless overturned on appeal, his ruling could mean years of delay for the controversial proposal to build 299 homes on 222 acres that adjoin wildlife reserves in Trabuco Canyon.

“This is a victory for all of Orange County,” said David J. Hesseltine, an attorney representing the Vedanta Society of Southern California, a Hindu organization that operates the Ramakrishna monastery near the site. The group was one of several that sued the county and the developer.

The ruling is only the latest skirmish in a 22-year battle to develop the land, which is nestled in a bucolic area filled with oak groves, ponds and canyons.

The most recent legal battle centered on what, exactly, a tie vote means.

In February 1998, the Vedanta Society appealed the Planning Commission’s certification of the developer’s environmental impact report to the county supervisors. Supervisor Jim Silva abstained from voting on the project because its developer had been fined $14,000 by the county for laundering contributions to his campaign. Silva was never charged with any wrongdoing.

The remaining four supervisors split in a 2-2 vote, which the county interpreted as denying the appeal, and the project went forward.

Opponents, however, filed a lawsuit, contending a tie vote amounts to no action, rather than a denial. The county argued that its interpretation of a tie vote is part of a long-standing policy, and that such policies are common throughout California.

On Wednesday, the judge agreed with project opponents, ruling the environmental report had not been properly certified and must be considered again.

“The judge is in error and [was] misled,” said Robert K. Break, an attorney representing the county. He said the ruling will not drastically affect the project, and the county will appeal the decision.

Environmentalists, however, say the victory allows the board to revisit several important issues that were overlooked when the board approved zoning changes and other key project decisions in December 1998.

“This procedural error now allows the county to go back and do a better job on biological, community character and religious institution issues,” said Dan Silver, coordinator of the Endangered Habitats League, another plaintiff. Other groups that sued include Sea and Sage Audubon Society, Rural Canyons Conservation Fund and St. Michael’s Abbey, a Roman Catholic order located near the site.

Environmentalists contend the development would strangle a critical pathway used by gnatcatchers, mule deer, bobcats and many other creatures to travel between Whiting Ranch Wilderness Park and O’Neill Regional Park. “It’s the Holy Grail of wildlife corridors,” said Edmond Connor, another attorney for the Vedanta Society.

Silver said the wildlife corridor is the only link between the central and southern region’s Natural Communities Conservation Plan areas. Under the conservation plan program, developers set aside large reserves of land and, in exchange, are free to build on smaller chunks of land that contain protected species.

Wednesday’s court decision, he said, “allows the county an opportunity--a second chance--to get it right.”

Construction of such a large development would involve grading of more than 9 million cubic yards, which Connor said would endanger the area’s stability.

“It’s one big unstable mass of dirt,” he said.