Segerstrom Building Project

Based on news articles about C.J. Segerstrom and Sons’ determination to carry on with One South Coast Place in Costa Mesa despite widespread citizen opposition and the issuance of an injunction to stop the project by Orange County Superior Court, it seems that Segerstrom and city officials have a faulty recollection of the past as well as a poor understanding of the court’s ruling and of state law.

Officials of both the Segerstrom company and the city have repeatedly said that the court found no fault with the project, merely with the city’s processing of it. However, the judge clearly indicated that the existing zoning for the site provided only for retail uses, not for office development of the type proposed.

It is claimed by Segerstrom officials that the city merely had improper zoning. Under this line of reasoning, if you are stopped from building a toxic waste dump on your residential lot, there’s nothing wrong with your dump; it’s the city’s fault for having the wrong zoning. Better still, if you get pulled over for speeding, just explain to the officer that the city had the wrong speed limit posted.

City and Segerstrom officials have indicated that the project can proceed as is upon completion of the necessary paper trail. However, an environmental impact report is not merely a handful of paper to be thrown at a project the way rice is thrown at a wedding after everyone has said, “I do.”

State-mandated environmental documents are intended to provide comprehensive information about a project’s impacts and alternative actions to reduce those impacts. This information is essential in making intelligent decisions about a project. The decision makers are required by law to take this information into account. Thus, the environmental document is actually supposed to have an effect on the governing body’s decision.

The impact report for One South Coast Place was declared invalid on several counts, indicating that there are a number of substantial gaps in the information provided. However, some members of the Costa Mesa City Council have indicated that the project will go ahead as soon as they throw more paper at it, regardless of what that paper may say.

Unfortunately, it appears that not only has the council failed to consider the implications of its actions to the extent mandated by state law but some members of that body also have no intention of ever doing so. Their decisions have already been made. In Costa Mesa, the citizenry has reason to be “apprehensive.”

SANDRA L. GENIS

Costa Mesa