Tustin vs. the SOCCCD: "a significantly different project"

For many years now, the district—i.e., Chancellor Raghu Mathur—has pursued a grand plan for ATEP, the proposed technological education/business complex to be built upon 68 acres of the former Marine helicopter station in Tustin.

They do this alone. As you know, the Chancellor, with the support of the board of trustees, has pursued development of ATEP without consulting faculty, despite the key role that faculty must ultimately have (by law) in developing programs and courses for the campus. In fact, the whole ATEP project has proceeded pretty much behind closed doors, hidden from the public. Nobody really knows what’s going on.

We’ve long heard rumors that tensions persist between the City of Tustin and the district, which is easy to imagine, given the Chancellor's notorious penchant for deviousness and connivery. If the rumors are true, that can’t be good, for the district must satisfy the city before it can proceed with big plans for the property. The deadline for "satisfaction" is rapidly approaching.

* * * *

Last Thursday, Dissent the Blog observed that a “notice of public” hearing for November 3 had been posted. The meeting (of the board) concerns the “Long Range” plans for ATEP. It appears that the board will be meeting to decide whether to approve or disapprove of this plan.

At the district’s website, one finds a link to the announcement of the special Nov. 3 meeting. Further, one finds a link to documents concerning the ATEP “long range academic plan,” or LRP. The latter, in turn, provides various pdf documents concerning the LRP.

Tustin’s July 23 (08) letter:

I recommend perusing these documents. I skimmed through the lengthiest of them, where I found a letter from the City Manager of Tustin, William A. Huston, to Chancellor Raghu Mathur, dated July 23, 2008.

In it, Huston writes:

Dear Dr. Mathur:

Thank you for the opportunity provided to the City of Tustin to review and comment on the Preliminary Draft Long Range Academic and Long Range Facilities Plans for the Advanced Technology Education Campus dated June 26, 2008…. City operating departments have been briefed on the documents, reviewed the documents and provided specific technical review comments…. In addition, we received and reviewed the District’s updated schedule provided by your counsel…. However, …given the lateness of receipt of the drafts from the District, City staff has not yet been able to agendize and receive specific direction and concurrence on any of our comments from the City Council.
…
Section 4.3.1 of the Conveyance Agreement requires SOCCCD to consult with the City in preparation of the Long Range Academic and Long Range Facilities Plans, share the preliminary plans with the city for review and comment prior their release to the public, and also requires SOCCCD to give consideration to all comments received from the City on such plans. Unlike the Short Range Plan, where SOCCCD did not positively respond to specific corrections and issues raised by the City and moved forward on adoption of the Short Range Plan despite remaining city issues and concerns, the City would strongly encourage the District to address the issues that have been raised by the City on the Draft Long Range Academic and Long Range Facilities Plans prior to any Board action on the Long Range Academic and Long Range Facilities Plans.

…[F]ailure to address issues raised in this letter may result in potential future conflicts and delays in the ability of the City to make conforming determinations and be in a position to take positive action ….

Tustin’s August 8 letter:

Two weeks later (August 8), Huston writes again:

Dear Dr. Mathur:

Thank you for providing the City of Tustin with an opportunity to review the Initial Study for the ATEP Long Range Academic and Facility Plans (LRP). As a “responsible agency” on ATEP, the SOCCCD has a legal obligation under the California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA] to consult with the City and obtain the City’s recommendations on the scope of environmental review for ATEP. To date, this consultation has not occurred even though the City must approve various components of the LRP….

The City received the Initial Study on July 17, 2008 with a request [for] comments [to]…be provided by August 4, 2008. The City requested from the SOCCCD an extension…until August 8 to permit the City Council’s review of the comment letter…. We believe our request for more time was reasonable, but we have not received a response from the district….

…[T]he City believes that the District is improperly tiering off of the Final Joint Program EIS/EIR for the Disposal and Reuse of the former MCAS Tustin…because ATEP is a significantly different project than the one that was contemplated for the site in the FEIS/EIR. On July 23, 2008, I sent you a letter identifying numerous significant issues and corrections relating to LRP, which is incorporated herein for reference…. Until the issues discussed in the June 23, 2008 letter are resolved, the City strongly advises the District’s Board of Directors [sic] not make any CEQA obligation and consult with the City on the scope of environmental review of ATEP.

In addition, the city has identified numerous flaws in the Initial Study’s analysis, data and findings for the reasons set forth in the attached documents….

The City again urges the district to consult with the City on its CEQA determination and the requirements of the applicable regulatory documents affecting build-out of this site….

The DISTRICT later responded, somewhat testily. See p. 352 of the large pdf document, where one finds an elaborate response to each of the City’s points. (See at end of this post for a sample.)

Tustin’s Sept. 24 letter:

In a letter dated September 24, 2008, Tustin’s Assistant City Manager, Christine Shingleton, writes Vice Chancellor Gary Poertner (see p. 460):

The City appreciated the opportunity to meet with representatives from the District on September 17, 2008 and September 24, 2008 to discuss the status of the ATEP project. As requested by the City Manager, I think it is important that the City clarify a number of issues as a result of discussions held at these meetings.

At the Sept. 17 meeting, City staff were informed that the District intended to bring forward on October 27, 2008 the Long Range Plan as well as a proposed Addendum…for final approval of its Board of Trustees. The District indicated that it would not provide responses to original City comments on the ATEP Long Range Academic and Facilities Plan dated August 5…and on the Initial Study for the ATEP Long Range Academic and Facilities Plan dated August 8, 2008 until October 16, 2008. City staff voiced concern… [--Is it] the District’s intent to move forward with the City in a cooperative spirit to resolve issues….
…
Given the non-substantive review of major issues to development of the ATEP campus at our meetings on September 17 and September 24, the city would request that the District cooperate in allowing adequate time for City review of any redrafted ATEP Long Range Plan or environmental document.

I haven’t had time to explore the entire pdf document. Who knows what else is in there. But this much is clear: things have not been going smoothly in the district’s dealings with the City of Tustin.

From the district’s response to city comments:

19. ATEP planning process, Page 18, paragraph 2. It is stated that the vision for ATEP was formulated with input received from government. Unfortunately, as these comments indicate much of the input previously provided by the City to the District has been rejected or ignored.

SOCCCD’s Response:

This paragraph in the LRP describes the recent visioning session, surveying and discussions with community, business and civic leaders to help shape the ATEP Campus. The District serves many communities in addition to the City of Tustin, such as Lake Forest [et al.]…The input of all of these communities are important to the District. The city of Tustin was one of several government entities invited to attend and provide input; however, whether representatives of the City attended and provided meaningful input that was integrated into the vision and goals for the ATEP Campus is unknown since the outreach meetings and stakeholder discussions occurred in 2005-2006 and the originators of the ideas presented at these meetings were not recorded.

Since these meetings, the City has also been thoroughly involved for the last several years while the District has been planning the ATEP Campus. The City’s specific involvement has been well documented in letters from the District and District’s Counsel to the City and City’s Special Counsel. Furthermore, all City comments on the SRP, LRP and ATEP Campus have been fully considered and responded to, and incorporated where appropriate, pursuant to the Conveyance Agreement.

The District has consulted with the City regarding the CEQA documentation and the LRP were discussed at the following ATEP meetings between the District and City staff:

[The district next bullets dates and times of meetings starting in December of 2002 through late September, 2008]....