Supervisors Approve 18th Developer Agreement

The Board of Supervisors on Wednesday unanimously approved the last in a series of 18 development agreements that, taken together, according to Board Chairman Harriett M. Wieder, will accomplish the goals of the slow-growth initiative on the June ballot.

A short time later, one of Wieder’s opponents in her race for the 42nd Congressional District seat endorsed the initiative, repeating his accusation that Wieder’s support of development agreements is a result of developers’ contributions to her campaign.

Wieder “has received thousands of dollars in contributions from developers who want to be assured that there will always be a ‘yes’ on yet another development agreement,” said Stephen Horn, former Cal State Long Beach president who is also seeking the 42nd District seat.

Horn Called ‘Outsider’

At the Board of Supervisors meeting earlier, Wieder had referred to Horn as an “outsider” who is using the growth issue as a “political football.”

The development agreement approved Wednesday, for the Standard Pacific Development Co.’s Bear Brand Hill project in the Laguna Niguel-Dana Point area, protects for 10 years zoning and land-use plans for 255 housing units and 33,000 square feet of commercial space.

In return for the protection, which makes it easier for developers to obtain loans, Standard Pacific must help pay for $13.6 million in road improvements in the south county and make advance financial contributions for such things as a traffic signal lights, a fire station, a sheriff’s substation, a child-care program and park improvements.

The Bear Brand Hill agreement was approved on a 4-0 vote, with Supervisor Roger R. Stanton absent.

After the vote, Wieder, in an apparent effort to dispel what she has called misinformation about the development agreements approved since January, read a three-page statement that outlined what she said is the collective effect of those accords.

The agreements, the statement suggested, are crucial to two south county road plans: the $235-million Foothill Circulation Phasing Plan and the county’s 1990 Action Plan, which is designed to fill uncompleted gaps in the coastal road network.

Each of the development agreements, the statement said, requires developers to participate in one or the other of the plans and “contains a development phasing plan which ties future building permits to roadway funding/improvement milestones.”

Tying future development to road construction and improvements, Wieder said later, is the stated goal of the slow-growth initiative.

“The board’s growth management plan has demonstrated results,” her statement said. “I only hope if the initiative passes that it will produce similar results.”

Horn, at his press conference, said the development agreements are a belated “willy-nilly” attempt by the board to “get out ahead” of public sentiment and a way to circumvent the slow-growth initiative.

The issue is related to the congressional campaign, he said, because Wieder’s actions as a supervisor indicate what kind of congresswoman she would be.

Growth planning, he said, is a national issue that does not apply just to the county.

Horn said Wieder, who has been considered the front runner in the 42nd District race, must take responsibility for what he called “unbridled, irresponsible overdevelopment” in the county.

Horn’s statements were supported at the press conference by Greg Hile, a leader of Citizens for Sensible Growth and Traffic Control, the group that collected more than 96,000 petition signatures to get the slow-growth initiative on the ballot.

Hile said the group has decided not to endorse political candidates, but he personally supports Horn’s campaign.

Among other things, the initiative would require builders to pay for improvements to offset the extra demand on roads and public services that their projects cause. The measure says new roads would have to be sufficient to accommodate traffic moving at certain average speeds during commute hours.

Proponents of the initiative have said road improvements required by the county’s development agreements would not necessarily be adequate to handle the traffic generated by the development projects.