SOUNDING BOARD -- Paul Freeman

Among the many mandated and public benefit requirements in the Home

Ranch development agreement recommended by Costa Mesa city staff is a

$2-million education endowment -- a required public benefit for Costa

Mesa’s high schools. A further obligation is a multimillion-dollar sales

tax guarantee. In addition, there are commitments of millions of dollars

worth of value in historic preservation, public safety improvements and

traffic improvements that more than offset the effects of the proposed

project.

Joseph Bell in his most recent column (The Bell Curve, “Take the

school money out of Home Ranch vote,” Thursday) did a disservice to your

readers by mischaracterizing the nature of the public process and

discounting the scope and scale of the required public benefits.

C.J. Segerstrom & Sons does agree, however, with his suggestion that

approval of proposed new land uses should stand on their own merits.

State law ensures as much. The council, when acting on Home Ranch, will

take independent votes on three separate issues: whether the

Environmental Impact Report is adequate to certify, whether the proposed

new land uses merit approval, whether the draft development agreement is

in the public interest.

Bell urges that Costa Mesa forgo its opportunity to require defined

and communitywide benefits from major projects such as Home Ranch. That

is for the council to decide.

The nature of a development agreement is that both the city and

developer get something otherwise not attainable: for the city, more

benefits than otherwise can be required under state law; for the

developer, a guarantee that the building parameters approved today will

not be changed except by mutual consent, in this case for 20 years. That

the political leadership of Costa Mesa would want to require financial

support for the schools reflects, in my view, their vision and

recognition of what our meetings with residential homeowner associations

and the community were all about.

The Home Ranch proposal is being examined based upon exhaustive

traffic and other environmental analyses prepared by city consultants.

The City Council in its deliberations will have the benefit not only of

these technical studies, but also of what has been remarkable public

scrutiny and input.

Should the council ultimately vote for the new Home Ranch general plan

amendment, it will do so because its members believe it will result in

better land use as compared with nearly 1 million square feet of

industrial and warehouse uses presently allowed under the city’s general

plan for Home Ranch. Should the council ultimately vote for a Home Ranch

development agreement, it will do so because it has concluded it is worth

guaranteeing specific building rights in exchange for extraordinary

public benefits.

* PAUL FREEMAN is the director of community and government relations

for C.J. Segerstrom & Sons.