BETWEEN THE LINES -- Byron de Arakal

Here in the Lower Duma -- my preferred moniker for the Costa Mesa

Planning Commission -- the tectonic debate that will, for the most part,

cement the destiny of this former agrarian township has been set in

motion. And don’t expect a minor temblor, one of those 2.5s you can ride

out with beer in hand from the comfort of your La-Z-Boy. It won’t be one

of those. I’m pretty sure we’re looking at a

grab-the-kids-and-head-for-the-nearest-doorway shaker. A fault rupture.

We’re liable to lose some windows and dishes, and maybe the fish tank.

It’s that big. And it’s also that necessary.

The epicenter of this impending quake is Home Ranch, the roughly 94

acres of otherwise tranquil farmland and raw dirt just north of the San

Diego Freeway. The property has, since the late 1800s, produced alfalfa

and lima beans and a rather enviable fortune for several generations of

the Segerstrom family. It’s just that in this age of Palm Pilots and

gigabytes, the dirt bordered by Harbor Boulevard, Fairview Road,

Sunflower Avenue and the San Diego Freeway no longer pencils out as a

venue for agriculture.

Which is why the Segerstroms are girding to retool the Home Ranch

property into an ambitious commercial, industrial and residential hub

anchored by one of those trendy and upscale Ikea furniture stores at the

corner of Harbor Boulevard and South Coast Drive. Also in the mix is a

15-acre industrial park behind the Los Angeles Times building, some 240

townhomes and single-family residences on 16 acres east of Susan Street,

and a commercial office campus on the nearly 46 acres of land east of the

proposed Ikea site.

Now on Monday, when the environmental-impact report for the Home Ranch

project landed on the Planning Commission dais with a teeth-loosening

thud, it became clear to me that the debate over the development -- and

more importantly its outcome -- stands to shape Costa Mesa’s future as

far as the eye can see. The economic and quality of life topography of

this town is about to be reshaped. And not so gently. That’s because the

competing forces of economy, environment and politics are all in play,

grinding against one another in a struggle for leverage.

On the one hand, we have a maturing urban city that -- near as I can

tell -- simply lacks the financial resources to keep pace with the

festering demands of urbanism. Indeed, it’s tough enough for Costa Mesa

to maintain current revenue levels year over year. In this fiscal year

alone, Sacramento has picked Costa Mesa’s pocket of more than $4.3

million, according to the city’s budget.

Knowing that, how do we achieve what then seems to be the improbable;

that is, actually boosting city revenues to finance vital services and

infrastructure improvements as our city ages and her population grows?

It’s because of that thorny question that I like what I see in the Home

Ranch project. The Ikea store alone, say the Segerstroms and some city

leaders, will likely generate between $1.7 million and $2 million in

annual sales tax revenues. It’s probable, too, that property tax revenue

will hit high-water marks given the added housing and land improvements

of the Home Ranch development.

But at what cost? That’s the question being peddled by the project’s

opponents. And it’s a good one. No amount of additional revenue, they

say, is worth green-lighting a development that steps outside the

boundaries of the city’s existing general plan. There isn’t enough money

to be had, they argue, to offset the 20,000 average daily vehicle trips

-- and the effect on air quality -- the environmental report says the

project will generate. Having given up part of my life sitting through

several signal cycles at South Coast Drive and Harbor, I understand.

So the debate will happen, as it should.

At this early stage, the two sides are sparring toe to toe over the

findings of the project’s environmental report. Home Ranch opponents

insist the project’s effect on the environment will be worse than the

report concludes. That traffic will approach near gridlock, and that the

city’s air will be choked with pollutants.

City staff and Segerstrom representatives, on the other hand, say the

report contemplates worst-case scenarios. The project’s effects, they

add, won’t be as bad as the report implies or can be solved. I’m not sure

anyone can predict with certainty which is true, which side is right.

That’s why it’s important that the folks who have the authority to

decide the issue -- the members of the Planning Commission and,

eventually, the Costa Mesa City Council -- contemplate bigger questions.

What kind of city do we want Costa Mesa to be in a generation? A

revitalized and redeveloped bedroom community, the kind that lured most

of us to this place to begin with? A thriving urban center? Both? And

whatever the answers to those little queries, can we get there with or

without Home Ranch? Which is why I’m glad I’m just a columnist and not

one of them.

* Byron de Arakal is a writer and communications consultant. He

resides in Costa Mesa. His column appears on Wednesdays. Readers can

reach him with news tips and comments via e-mail at o7

[email protected] .