PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BOMBSHELL!
- Cynthia McDonald
- 6 days ago
- 6 min read
But Mousie, thou art no thy-lane,
In proving foresight may be vain:
The best laid schemes o’ Mice an’ Men
Gang aft agley,
An’ lea’e us nought but grief an’ pain,
For promis’d joy!
From “To a Mouse” by Robert Burns
Translation: But little mouse, you’re not alone,
In proving foresight may be vain:
The best laid plans of mice and men
Go oft awry,
And leave us only grief and pain,
For promised joy!
A PLANNING PROCESS IN DISARRAY
If grief and pain were on display Monday night, it was by the City’s Planning Department, which was forced to reveal—publicly—that a major landowner had effectively blown up the City’s housing plans. The episode made clear that the City does not have its house in order, much like the mouse in Burns’s poem whose home is turned over by the plow.
The Planning Commission was tasked with forwarding a revised Zoning Code to the City Council so the City could plan for enough housing to meet its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), plus a buffer sufficient to convince the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) that Costa Mesa is serious about producing housing.
Despite years of work, the revised Zoning Code was rushed and deeply flawed. Commissioner Jon Zich aptly described it as a “half‑baked plan” and a “rough draft”—and that may have been generous. Staff repeatedly acknowledged during the meeting that the document would require substantial cleanup later. But that concern was quickly overshadowed by a far larger problem: the document may require major revisions before it can even be considered by the City Council, especially in light of the 💣bombshell💣 revealed Monday night—CJ Segerstrom & Sons wants its properties removed from the Housing Element Update.
The City had assumed that approximately 5,300 housing units would be built on Segerstrom-owned properties. Given Costa Mesa’s RHNA allocation of 11,760 units (17,042 with the HCD-required buffer), removing those sites leaves the City woefully short—both of its RHNA obligation and of what HCD expects to see. Of those 5,300 units, roughly 1,250 were designated as low-income housing.
While this revelation stunned those watching the meeting, it was not a surprise to Staff. Staff has known since before the holidays that Segerstrom had asked the City to take all actions necessary for “the removal of the [Segerstrom] properties from the Housing Element.” That language comes directly from a letter sent by Segerstrom’s attorneys on January 30. The request was reiterated in a second letter dated February 7, which stated: “This letter serves as the adamant objection by [Segerstrom] to the adoption in its current form of the proposed Zoning Code Amendment…”
Neither letter was provided to the public before the meeting. As a result, observers were left guessing what Commissioner Rob Dickson meant when he referenced correspondence from Segerstrom, as well as letters from the Sakioka Company and The Ohio House, a sober living home operator. None of this correspondence was disclosed in the Agenda Report or in Staff’s presentation, but were posted on the City’s website the following day after I requested copies. I’ve included the
Segerstrom and Sakioka correspondence here:
WHAT WENT WRONG?
So why did Segerstrom abruptly go sideways on the City’s housing plan?
Based on comments from Segerstrom’s representative, relations were smooth until recently. In 2022, then‑planning director Jennifer Le reportedly assured Segerstrom that residential development on its Housing Element sites would be optional. That assurance became untenable after a significant legal development.
About four years ago, the lawsuit New Commune DTLA LLC et al. v. City of Redondo Beach et al. was filed in Superior Court and recently ended up reshaping Housing Element law. Redondo Beach attempted to rely on an “overlay” zoning strategy—planning for housing without requiring it to be built. If that sounds familiar, it should: Costa Mesa is using the same approach.
Redondo Beach initially prevailed in Superior Court, but the decision was overturned on appeal. The California Supreme Court declined to hear the case, leaving the appellate ruling intact and forcing Redondo to revise its Housing Element. The appellate court held that an overlay cannot satisfy Housing Element requirements when the underlying zoning allows non-residential development. The court further ruled that sites must specify minimum residential density and that, for mixed-use projects, at least 50% of the floor area must be residential.
South Coast Plaza is one of the Segerstrom sites listed in Costa Mesa’s Housing Element. Segerstrom’s attorneys now argue that the company was told it would have “the option to pursue residential uses if, when, and to the extent consistent with [Segerstrom]’s planning.” It is now clear that residential uses are not part of that planning.
Yet when Commissioner Rob Dickson pressed Staff on the Segerstrom letters, Advance Planning Manager Anna McGill stated that Staff was meeting with property owners who were questioning whether they want their sites included in the Housing Element, in order to find a “path forward.” A path forward? Segerstrom has been explicit: they want the City to put it in reverse.
Dickson also asked what notice other property owners had received regarding the implications of the New Commune decision. McGill responded that the City is meeting with developers to discuss how the ruling affects their properties.
At the same time, McGill said she is speaking with landowners who want their properties added to the Housing Element and to the Measure K map. Adding sites to the Housing Element would require a General Plan Amendment. Adding sites to the Measure K rezoning, however, would be a City Council action and—according to McGill—would not require a General Plan Amendment or CEQA review if consistent with the existing Environmental Impact Report. Housing Element projects approved “by right” also no longer require CEQA review.
What was not discussed by Planning Staff or the Commissioners was the fact that any General Plan Amendment that exceeds the thresholds of Measure Y would need to go to a vote of the citizens. Further, adding a property to the Measure K map would require a vote.
Senior Planner Michelle Halligan stated that two notices were sent to property owners, one in December and one in January. Those notices surprised the members of the Costa Mesa Women’s Club, whose property is slated for 23 units (six low‑income), as they were unaware of the Club’s inclusion and are uninterested in redevelopment.
AN INELEGANT OUTCOME
Despite these issues, the Planning Commission voted 6‑1 to forward the Zoning Code amendments to the City Council. Chair Jeff Harlan moved approval of the Staff recommendation with two modifications:
1. Amend the Zoning Code to exempt Segerstrom properties in the same manner as the Fairview Development Center (FDC), using the existing exception language in Section 13.83.58(b)(3).
2. Direct Staff to conduct a consistency review of the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan in response to comments from George Sakioka and to work with him on changes related to trip budgets, unit density, shade and shadow studies, and height limits.
Harlan described the zoning changes as “inelegant,” a sentiment echoed by Commissioner Dickson, who seconded the motion. Dickson further recommended that if any property owner requests removal from the Housing Element, the City should act quickly to accommodate that request.
McGill noted that four additional property owners have already contacted Staff seeking either removal from or inclusion in the Housing Element, and the City is honoring those requests. How many units will be lost or gained as a result remains unknown.
WHAT COMES NEXT?
If more property owners follow Segerstrom’s lead, what happens to Housing Element certification—already delayed to the point of costing the City state funding? Will Costa Mesa be forced to make more revisions to its Housing Element, as Redondo Beach must, further delaying certification?
If HCD requires the City to replace lost sites, will additional units be piled onto FDC while its Environmental Impact Report is still underway? Would the City Council need to approve such changes? At a minimum, the public deserves transparency about what is being considered.
The approved rezoning heads to the City Council on March 17. McGill indicated that any HCD‑required revisions would be made before that meeting. A draft of the FDC Specific Plan is expected next month.
Comments