COMMUNITY COMMENTARY -- Eleanor Egan

Although Joseph N. Bell’s column is normally distinguished by wit and

wisdom, his column Thursday on the Home Ranch project was far below his

usual quality (“Some more food for thought on the Home Ranch project”).

Bell conceded he had nothing to work from but his biases and minimal

background, and could contemplate only “extremities.” Why, then, one

wonders, write a column that is the product of admitted ignorance,

especially a column about a very complex topic? Bell gave proof with the

main thrust of his column: “that residents go into such a fight at a

considerable disadvantage.” Bell compared the developer to the New York

Yankees and a group of residents opposing the project to the Toledo Mud

Hens.

Those whom Bell likens to the “Toledo Mud Hens” are the Costa Mesa

Citizens for Responsible Growth. Their leaders are, in reality, some of

the most sophisticated, resourceful, smartest and best-organized

political activists in our city and probably any city of comparable size

in California. I know most of them personally. They are my friends and

fellow citizens, and I have great respect for them.

Among them are Sandra Genis, a former mayor of Costa Mesa whose

occupation is consulting on land-use planning, a fact that Bell must

know, being a friend of Genis. Another leader is a former city

councilman. Two other leaders ran the successful election campaign of

Karen Robinson last November for the Costa Mesa City Council. The core

group, under various names, has successfully opposed a series of projects

previously proposed for the Home Ranch site since the 1980s. If Bell

thinks this group of talented and aggressive people are in the same class

as the Mud Hens, then he’d believe George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald

Rumsfeld and Colin Powell if they said, “Aw shucks, we’re just country

boys.”

That brings me to my other point: the project opponents actually had

an advantage, in that it is hard for us as planning commissioners to look

our neighbors in the eye and vote for a project that they have worked

very hard to defeat. I’m not complaining; when one takes on a public

trust, the public good must take precedence over personal relationships.

Nevertheless, it would have been much more comfortable to vote the way

the resident group urged us to.

Bell is right about one thing: It’s a lot of work and very

time-consuming to go deep below the surface of the developer’s

presentation and truly understand what the options are and the

consequences of each. The vast majority of citizens can’t be expected to

do that. But that’s what Costa Mesa has a Planning Commission for, with a

highly competent staff to provide detailed information and answer our

questions. We commissioners didn’t hear just from the developer and

project supporters; we spent hours listening to the project’s opponents,

in public and in private, and reading their correspondence and analysis.

I took their arguments very seriously, and I am confident my fellow

commissioners did too.

We commissioners formed our opinions partly on the basis of reading a

huge amount of material prepared by the city’s staff and consultants. I

needed a wheeled, carry-on suitcase to get the project documents to the

final meeting. We met individually with the city staff and quizzed them.

We held a series of public hearings, listening to the opinions and

concerns of the citizens, and we suggested things the developer might be

asked or required to do to address some of those concerns.

We visited and revisited the project site and the vicinity. We studied

the housing demand associated with the various alternatives and weighed

the delicate balance between jobs and housing. We pondered traffic

impacts, air quality, water runoff, energy conservation, aesthetics,

noise and a host of other issues associated with the proposed project and

alternatives.

The Home Ranch is a very large site, strategically located adjacent to

an interstate freeway and major arterial streets. It is at a key entrance

to Costa Mesa. The planning of this site is important to everyone: the

landowner-developer, the project’s opponents, and the residents,

businesses and property owners throughout the city. We were determined to

make the right decision. The only reason the proposed project won the

support of the Planning Commission is that we concluded it was the best

option for the site.

A proposal as large and complex as the Home Ranch project cannot be

understood nor fairly judged in just one hearing, even if it lasts many

hours.

One cannot casually drop in and accurately assess the social and

political dynamic among the participants. I understand that one of the

limitations of journalism is the need to learn quickly, rather than in

depth, about something that is happening.

But this time, Bell missed by a mile. His suggestion that our decision

was skewed by a polished presentation or by how people were dressed is

ample evidence that the one instance in Bell’s column where he knew what

he was talking about was his evaluation of his own lack of information to

discuss the matter.

* ELEANOR M. EGAN is a Costa Mesa resident and is one of five Costa

Mesa planning commissioners.