Builders Back Recall Effort in Mission Viejo

Clipboard in hand, the recall worker walked up to the young mother and her children at a frozen yogurt store, unaware of the reception he was about to receive.

For when he asked the woman to sign the petition to recall Councilman Robert A. Curtis, “the kids started yelling at him, ‘Don’t throw my daddy out of office,’ ” recalled Tori Curtis. “I just said, ‘I don’t think so. I’m his wife.’ ”

That’s not the only effort to buck the tide of a recall campaign being waged against Bob Curtis, but whether the protests of his children and the efforts of other Mission Viejo residents will be enough to counter the well-financed and professionally plotted campaign will not be known until later this month.

Developers Back Recall

Backed by the powerful Mission Viejo Co. and other developers, the recall proponents have until Thursday to turn in the signatures of 7,770 residents to call a special election to determine whether the sometimes brash, always outspoken Curtis should remain on the brand-new City Council.

Two developers who have worked as subcontractors for the Mission Viejo Co.--William Lyon Co. and Kathryn Thompson Development--plus a third developer, the Baldwin Co., had put $10,000 each into the recall campaign as of June 30. And the Mission Viejo Co. has loaned the services of Lynn Wessell, a well-known and high-powered consultant, to help steer the campaign.

The full financial figures will not emerge until 21 days after the signatures are turned in. Those petitions might be delivered to the city clerk today, one city hall official said.

Curtis, a vocal critic of the Mission Viejo Co., likens the recall battle to a David-and-Goliath confrontation. And Curtis, of course, is hoping for a David-and-Goliath finish.

“This recall is like no other. It is a well-financed and most blatant power play by a large developer against a public official,” Curtis said.

The Mission Viejo Co. regards Curtis’ attacks on the company as a “diversion tactic so he doesn’t have to talk about the real issues of the recall,” said company spokeswoman Wendy Wetzel.

The leader of the citizens’ recall coalition, Helen Monroe, insists that her group is not controlled by the development company. Curtis should be recalled, said Monroe, chairwoman of the Coalition to Recall Councilman Curtis, “because we do not feel he properly represents the citizens of Mission Viejo, for all the reasons we’ve listed on the petitions.”

The charges listed hardly seem to be the sort to inspire the fierce emotions characteristic of recall campaigns. At least a couple involve Curtis’ conduct during the council election two years ago, saying that he is a “carpetbagger” who moved into the city solely to run for office, and that he mailed last-minute “hit” pieces.

He is also accused of being a divisive element on the split City Council, a man who bullies residents and staff members, embarrassing the community. Curtis has denied all those charges.

But the chief charges concern Curtis’ efforts to annex Aegean Hills, a move that was rejected by the council 3 to 2 last spring, with Curtis on the losing side. Although the area’s name connotes a cropping of virgin foothills, the property involved actually is a pie-shaped wedge of already-developed land next to the San Diego Freeway, its chief landmark being a Target store.

The recall proponents charge that Curtis represents “outside interests,” that he wants to expand the city limits solely to enlarge his power base, and that his efforts to annex Aegean Hills have wasted thousands of taxpayer dollars on consultants and in city staff time.

Company Opposed Annexation

The annexation was opposed by the Mission Viejo Co. and initially supported by the entire council--which authorized the consultants and staff work, Curtis supporters point out. However, the majority later reconsidered after a financial report indicated that incorporating the area would not bring a tax surplus to the city, as originally believed, but could wind up costing the municipality money.

Curtis and Mayor William S. Craycraft dispute that interpretation and remain in favor of the annexation. Not only would the annexation benefit the city financially, they say, but Aegean Hills stands at the main entrance to Mission Viejo, where people get their first impression of the community, and the city needs to control its traffic and appearance.

“Most people (already) think it is in Mission Viejo,” Curtis said.

Curtis believes the real issue of the recall is that he is unafraid to challenge the Mission Viejo Co., which built the planned community of 75,000.

In addition to bucking the company on the Aegean Hills issue, Curtis also has been loudly critical of the development agreement signed by the Mission Viejo Co. and the county supervisors just 13 days before Mission Viejo’s incorporation election. The agreement spells out terms for building the rest of the city. The city currently is negotiating a supplemental agreement, although Curtis charges that progress is too slow.

“I’ve been outspoken against their high-density projects and their refusal to contribute to the infrastructure. The city has been at a standstill on this. I think they’re awaiting the results of the recall, because if they can rub me out, they feel it will have a chilling effect on the others, and they’ll have a smooth sail,” he said.

The Mission Viejo Co. will not respond to Curtis’ charge that the company is masterminding the recall, said Wetzel, director of corporate affairs. “His tactic has been not to talk about the recall but to talk about us.”

Company Supports Recall

The developer’s agreement is legally valid, Wetzel said. The city wants a supplemental agreement, “and we’re saying we’ll talk, but it doesn’t affect the original developer’s agreement,” Wetzel said.

The company is supporting the recall because Curtis’ attempt to annex Aegean Hills--where the councilman used to live--”was both fiscally unsound and divisive to the community. His attempt to persist in that annexation despite the signatures of 15,000 Mission Viejo residents opposing any change in the boundaries is a clear indication to us that Curtis’ political interests are outside the city of Mission Viejo,” according to the company’s official statement.

Assemblyman Gil Ferguson (R-Newport Beach), who is co-chairing Curtis’ anti-recall campaign with Mayor Craycraft, puts a more ominous tone on the Mission Viejo Co.’s support, charging that the company is backing the recall to assure that a supportive majority is seated after next year’s City Council election.

Curtis and Craycraft were the two top vote-getters in the first council election and therefore are not up for reelection until 1992. But the other three council members--who all were members of the Mission Viejo Community Services District, which unanimously approved the now-controversial developer’s agreement--will be on the ballot next year, if they run for reelection.

“One of those three could well lose a seat, and the election of a new member could put Curtis in the majority. So they’re attempting a preemptive strike by trying to knock Curtis out,” said Ferguson, whose assembly district includes Mission Viejo.

The company spokeswoman responded that the developer did not financially support or endorse any candidates in the previous election. “Mr. Ferguson’s comments lack veracity and therefore are not worthy of serious reply,” Wetzel said.

Council Members Bristle

Ferguson’s analysis made those three council members--Christian Keena, Victoria C. Jaffe and Norman P. Murray--bristle. They all declared themselves to be independent of the Mission Viejo Co.

“That’s absurd,” Keena said. “That’s stating that three of us are in the pocket of the Mission Viejo Co. I’m certainly not. My record speaks for itself. I’ve voted against them many times. Sometimes I have voted for them. But it is not a knee-jerk vote. I look at each issue as it comes up.”

“The Mission Viejo Co. is nothing more than one of the city’s interest groups,” Jaffe said. The council is not often split 3-2; more often it is Curtis alone on the losing end of votes, she said. Curtis is using the Mission Viejo Co. and the reported 3-2 split as a “bogyman for the recall. . . . However, I understand his position. He needs a position to battle the recall.”

Curtis’ rampage against the Mission Viejo Co. is “just a ploy. He’s erecting a balloon, a smoke screen, a red herring to divert the true concerns that the City Council has,” Murray said.

“The Mission Viejo Co. is an obvious and up-front establishment in the community, but they’re not the evil empire that Curtis paints them to be. . . . I make my decisions without looking over my shoulder.” Besides, Murray added, even he doesn’t know yet whether he will run for reelection.

While full disclosure of the recall campaign’s financing is not required until three weeks after the petitions are submitted, the most recent records of major political donors on file with the county registrar of voters list donations through June 30 from a variety of sources, in addition to the three developers who gave $10,000 each.

The records show that the Lincoln Club of Orange County, a conservative Republican organization, gave $1,000, and that the Mission Viejo Co. gave $1,000 in the form of services of its consultant, Lynn Wessell, and $384.60 in the form of loaned used furniture.

Wessell, of Burbank, is considered a heavy hitter among political consultants. Last year he successfully led the No on Measure A campaign, the slow-growth initiative that would have made deep cuts in new home construction in Orange County.

The Mission Viejo Co. spokeswoman would not say how much the company has contributed since the reporting period ended June 30. “We’ll report that when the reports are due,” Wetzel said.

Asked whether the other developers contributed to the recall at the Mission Viejo Co.’s request, she said the company has discussed the issues with others but: “We’re responsible for our donations. The others are responsible for their donations.”

Firm Refuses to Comment

A spokesman for the William Lyon Co. refused to comment on why his company was supporting the recall or whether the Mission Viejo Co. had requested the donation. Spokesmen for Kathryn Thompson Development and the Baldwin Co. did not return repeated requests for interviews.

Part of the money has been used to pay students $8 an hour to circulate petitions, according to Curtis supporters. They have misled residents into signing, saying only that the petition will assure that Curtis’ name will appear on a ballot, Curtis backers said.

The recall coalition’s leader refused to confirm the circulators’ wages, but she defended the use of paid workers, saying it is common practice. She added that she has not personally heard the charges of misrepresentation and that there is “no supportive evidence.”

As for the services of consultant Wessell, Monroe said her coalition calls him periodically for “normal guidance,” asking his advice and occasionally running a strategy by him. And sometimes the coalition rejects his advice “because we feel we know this city better than he does,” she said. Wessell is not running the campaign, Monroe insisted. She devotes about 20 hours a week to the cause, “and I am not employed by the Mission Viejo Co.”

The recall campaign is being waged by concerned citizens who “watched this city flounder around during its first year, trying to expand its borders,” said Monroe, who led the cityhood drive two years ago. The city cannot afford to wait until Curtis’ term expires in 1992 because “Aegean Hills will come up again, and he is not representing the best interests of Mission Viejo.”

The official recall charges listed on the petition are hardly new.

Curtis’ detractors charge that he is a carpetbagger and represents outside interests. Although Curtis claims to be a 20-year resident, he actually was living in Aegean Hills before the City Council election filing deadline and spent the night in a sleeping bag on the floor of his father’s garage on Aug. 26 in order to claim residency, recall leader Monroe said. Curtis did not move his family into their Mission Viejo home until after he was elected, she said.

Curtis countered that he lived at his father’s house from Aug. 26, sold his Aegean Hills home and entered escrow on his current Mission Viejo house before the election.

In the final days of the campaign, according to Monroe, Curtis and Craycraft put out a last-minute “hit” piece charging that their opponents--including Keena, Jaffe and Murray--were big spenders as members of the Community Services District, disguising the truth that the district members had piled up a considerable budget surplus. Curtis and Craycraft insist that the assertions in the campaign mailer were factual.

Monroe charges that Curtis is a divisive element on the City Council and has bullied residents who have approached the City Council, discouraging public participation.

But his most grievous sin has been his single-minded pursuit of the Aegean Hills annexation, she said. Even after the council voted 3 to 2 against it, he continued to campaign for the annexation, even appearing before the local agency with jurisdictions over annexations.

During the controversy, a citizens’ group, backed by the Mission Viejo Co., collected 15,000 signatures of residents opposed to the annexation, using paid petition gatherers. Curtis said the petition circulators misled residents by telling them the petition was to oppose growth, implying the area involved was soon-to-be-developed land, not an existing neighborhood.

“That’s his story,” replied recall leader Monroe. “He doesn’t seem to think the people of Mission Viejo are very bright.”

But Curtis and his supporters say the recall proponents are dredging up old controversies. The issue of Curtis’ residency was the subject of a lawsuit--and later dropped--by a defeated City Council candidate, and the district attorney has investigated the matter and took no action, said Mayor Craycraft.

As for the expenditure of city funds on the Aegean Hills annexation, that was done at the council’s direction, and a city investigation determined there had been no improprieties, he said.

Regarding his demeanor at council meetings, Curtis said: “I like to ask questions, but I never mean to intimidate anyone, or be mean-spirited. I want a dialogue. I think the rudest thing is to sit placidly when someone is making an emotional appeal for action. There’s nothing more aggravating than to be totally ignored. I don’t think I’ve ever been rude.”

On Curtis’ side, in addition to Assemblyman Ferguson and Mayor Craycraft, are two citizens’ groups.

Sharon Cody said she has organized residents in several precincts to circulate counter-petitions, to allow people to withdraw their signatures from the recall papers if they feel they were duped.

City Clerk Ivy J. Zobel said several of the withdrawal forms have been turned in. Under the state election code, written requests to withdraw signatures from petitions are allowed, provided the requests are submitted before the signed petitions are filed.

The second group, dubbed Citizens Against Coercion by the Mission Viejo Co., or CACMV, is focusing on the developer’s agreement, and its leader, Virginia Lavan, said Curtis’ insistence upon renegotiating the agreement is the real reason for the recall.

Craycraft is the sole council member supporting Curtis during the recall campaign. The other three are not taking a public position--although they have openly expressed their dislike of his actions.

Supporters said Curtis is a minority voice that needs to be heard.

“Divisive? Is Bob Curtis being divisive because he doesn’t agree with another philosophy?” asked resident Robin Vaughn, who has known Curtis for years through Republican Party activities. “A person has a right to have his own opinion. Bob does not stand alone. He voices the opinion of many people who live out here. He’s not marching to the beat of just his own drummer.”