Recall Target to Seek New Developer Fee

Mission Viejo City Councilman Robert A. Curtis, already engaged in a furious struggle with the powerful Mission Viejo Co. and other county developers, is preparing to lob another grenade today with a plan that would raise developer fees to pay for new classrooms.

Arguing that area schools need to be protected against crowding, Curtis plans to propose a fee on area home construction that would help pay for temporary school facilities but could cost developers millions of dollars. He said growth in and around the city makes the move critical, but opponents, weary of Curtis’ anti-developer bent, accused him of cynically advancing his latest initiative to distract attention from a recall effort against him.

“I knew that I would be aggravating powerful companies by taking the positions that I have on growth and infrastructure, but I intend to keep on doing it,” Curtis said. “These issues need to be addressed, and I think the city has a responsibility to lend a helping hand to school districts.”

The proposal and political fallout from it are sure to widen an already-bitter City Council rift that has pitted Curtis against three of his colleagues, with Mayor William S. Craycraft hovering unsteadily in the middle, most often backing Curtis but trying to maintain relations with the other council members as well.

“Mr. Curtis has his own personal agenda, and he does not consult with his colleagues on these matters,” said Councilman Norman P. Murray. “It’s contributed to a lot of acrimony.”

Curtis’ proposal, which he plans to share with his council colleagues for the first time during tonight’s council session, would require developers to pay $1.50 per square foot of new home construction in areas where schools are crowded. Under Curtis’ plan, the city would collect that money, then forward it to the affected school district.

Even before the proposal makes its way to the council agenda, some of Curtis’ colleagues are criticizing it and its author, whose political future is clouded by the likelihood that he will have to face a recall election early next year. Recall supporters, who have received aid from the Mission Viejo Co., gathered 12,001 signatures to force that vote; the signatures are being verified.

Assuming that at least 7,770 of the signatures are determined to be valid, the council would vote sometime in the next several weeks to schedule a recall election.

Some council members called Curtis’ proposal simply a move to distract public attention. “I’d be less than honest with you if I didn’t tell you that I think this is political grandstanding,” Councilman Christian W. Keena said. “Mr. Curtis is fighting for his political life. This is exactly the problem I have with Mr. Curtis: He takes things to the press before he ever talks to his colleagues.”

Murray echoed Keena’s criticism.

“This is a shocker to me,” Murray said. “I can’t see the foundation of it.”

To some, the plan looks more like a shot at the developers who are helping to pay for the bid to recall Curtis than it looks like serious policy-making. But Curtis has consistently supported restrictions on developers, even before the recall campaign, and insisted that his proposal is consistent with his political profile.

Moreover, Curtis accused colleagues of rejecting the issue out of hand simply because he is the one proposing it.

“I fully expected them to react like that,” he said. “I’m the target of recall because I’ve been sensitive to the impact of development. . . . I fully anticipated that they wouldn’t address the merits of this idea but instead would attack the messenger.”

The merits of the proposal are also under debate. After meeting with Curtis last week, Capistrano Unified School District Supt. Jerome R. Thornsley all but dismissed the need for the new developer fee, saying: “The district is not in crisis. . . . Everybody is being housed. We’re meeting all the needs of the kids.”

Board members for the Saddleback Valley Unified School District were less quick to spurn Curtis’ proposal. Supt. Peter A. Hartman said he at least appreciates the councilman’s interest.

Craycraft, while noting that many parents have expressed concerns about crowding, said he would refrain from taking a position until the city attorney looks at the proposal to determine whether the city is empowered to levy taxes and then share them with the local school boards.

Sitting quietly in the middle of the latest debate is the Mission Viejo Co., which would have a large stake in new developer fees if they were levied by the city. But at the company, officials are waiting to see whether the proposal fades away without a fight.

“If they decide to put it on the agenda, we’ll be happy to discuss it,” said Wendy Wetzel, a spokeswoman for the company. “Until then, we’re not going to have any comment.”