Segerstrom Towers OKd on 4-1 Vote by Costa Mesa Council

A controversial C. J. Segerstrom & Sons project in Costa Mesa was finally given the go-ahead early Tuesday morning on a 4-1 City Council vote amid charges that the mayor is under investigation for allegedly failing to disclose a $4,600 campaign contribution from the developers.

In sharp contrast to a year ago, when the developers presented their first plan for One South Coast Place to the council, many supporters packed the council chambers to praise the project and urge its passage.

The original proposal for one 32-story office tower, potentially the tallest building in Orange County, had been changed to a proposal for two buildings, one 20 stories high and the other 12 stories. The total floor space would be the same.

Mayor Accused

Councilman Dave Wheeler, who cast the only dissenting vote, accused Mayor Donn Hall of being under investigation by the Fair Political Practices Committee for allegedly failing to disclose a $4,600 campaign contribution from the Segerstroms.

At the council meeting, Hall refused to respond to the charges, which were filed in March by Jim Aynes of Mesa Action, a slow-growth organization. Aynes said he filed a complaint against Hall with the district attorney’s office. “I sent copies to the attorney general and the FPPC,” he said.

Hall said: “I went through this with the FPPC in 1984 when they investigated me, but nothing happened. I won’t respond now. Let the FPPC get through with their investigation and then I will respond.”

In 1984, the FPPC investigated the mayor and former Councilman Eric Johnson for allegedly failing to disclose that they had accepted Segerstrom money. “This issue was not only cleared up, but there was never any doubt about it when it first came up in 1984,” Johnson said.

As approved, the two office buildings would be constructed on a 16-acre area bounded by the San Diego Freeway, Fairview Road, South Coast Drive and Harbor Boulevard. A circular pavilion with an art gallery, retail shops and an athletic club will connect the two office buildings. Nearby will be a child-care center. Segerstrom officials said the project could be completed in about two years.

The development would be located on a 98-acre parcel of land and would represent the first development of the land.

Opposition to Continue

Opponents of the proposed office complex said they plan a referendum or an initiative.

Aynes produced a stack of flyers he said were from residents opposed to the office complex, which would be built in what is now a lima bean field. “We think an initiative or a referendum or several initiatives may be in order,” Aynes told the council at the meeting.

However, in a telephone interview later, Aynes said he was not sure how such a measure could be legally retroactive in order to apply to Tuesday’s council vote on the Segerstrom project.

When the public hearing began at 9 p.m. Monday, an overflow crowd of about 300 filled City Council chambers, but as the hours passed, the crowd dwindled down to about 60 hardy individuals. Before the 5 a.m. council vote, Anton Segerstrom said the company had made an effort to reach out to the community by explaining the project at public forums.

‘Done a Lot of Work’

“We’ve done a lot of work. We tried to look at certain criticisms, identified them and gone back to the community,” he said. Many of Monday night’s supporters were “genuine” in their enthusiasm for the project, he said.

Most of the opponents at the meeting objected to the added traffic the project’s expected 2,713 employees will bring. But Councilman Peter Buffa said all of the traffic problems will be taken care of a “hundredfold” by the developer and proposed freeway improvements.

Councilwoman Mary Hornbuckle admitted that the traffic problems still bothered her, “but the facts of life are that you have to give something in order to get something.”

Wheeler, in dissenting, said the developer’s plans to finance street-widening and traffic signals would do little to ease traffic congestion. The developer’s transportation improvements are one of the “biggest failings” of the plan, Wheeler said. “I don’t care how many lanes there are leading onto the freeway. Once you get to the freeways, they are not moving.”

Opponent’s Position

Aynes, referring to his charges against Mayor Hall, said: “They (the FPPC) indicated it had passed their preliminary evaluation and accepted it for investigation. We felt that Donn Hall should not be voting on Segerstrom’s skyscraper when he was under investigation.”

Deputy Dist. Atty. Andrew R. Gale said: “We referred the matter to the FPPC and they indicated an interest in pursuing it. So to avoid any duplication of effort, we simply turned it over to them.”

According to FPPC spokeswoman Sandra Michiaku, “the matter is under review,” which, she explained, is the step before determining if an investigation is warranted.

City Atty. Tom Wood said Costa Mesa’s “standard conflict-of-interest code” has no requirement prohibiting a council member from voting on a matter affecting a campaign contributor. “Sources of income exclude campaign contributions, so I don’t see where there was any need for disqualification from a vote at last night’s meeting,” he said Tuesday.

Councilman Wheeler admitted that the city code does not preclude voting on matters that benefit campaign contributors. It only forces disqualification in cases where council member’s businesses, investments or real estate interests are affected by a decision.

“That’s stupid,” he said. “Bribes can come in the form of campaign contributions, too.”