north campus fracas

     To get the full picture of how North Campus (IVC) came about—and why that particular site (in the middle of Irvine) was chosen for it—one should read the entirety of our series:

Wacky origins: SOCCCD

     In doing so, one will come to understand the central importance of the city of Tustin in the formation of the district—a story that goes back at least to the early 60s.

     But the essence of the story (sans full context) can be found in these series parts, which concern the late 1970s:

• The origins of our college district, Part 8: the twisty, unpredictable, curious and dubious episodes that led to the choice of the “north campus” site (part A) [Click on link]

• The origins of our college district, Part 8b: twisty, unpredictable, curious and dubious, Part B [Click on link]

• The origins of our college district, Part 8c: twisty, unpredictable, curious and dubious, Part C [end] [Click on link]

     THE UPSHOT: At one point, long-suffering Tustinites seemed to have secured what they had long sought: a decision, by the district board, to build the Saddleback NORTH CAMPUS in the city of Tustin (where the Tustin Marketplace now sits, more or less; on Myford). The decision had to overcome a curious switcheroo on the part of the Irvine Co. (which somehow regretted offering the "Myford" site).

     Then the Faculty union (Faculty Association) got involved and backed a slate of new trustee candidates; they prevailed, and, stunningly, the new board voided the district decision, switching to the site on Jeffrey and Irvine Center Drive, miles to the south (of Tustin). Boy were those Tustinites pissed!

     No doubt, these developments help explain why the district's negotiations, more than twenty years later, with Tustin re the Marine helicopter station property (ATEP) were so difficult.

     All very curious.

     I've reproduced the relevant parts—Part 8, Part 8b, and Part 8c—below:

[PART 8:]

 

     IN THIS POST: noting board disquietude, early in 1975, Norrisa Brandt of the Saddleback board of trustees calls for a discussion of the very idea of a community college—and of the longterm goals of the district. 

     Ten months later (January, 1976), new trustee Frank Greinke of Tustin senses board disunity concerning THE BIG ISSUE—namely, the district's second and northern campus. To get things moving, he proposes establishing a citizens advisory committee with two community members chosen by each trustee—a procedure guaranteeing strong representation for the City of Tustin. 

     The bumptuous Mr. Greinke approaches the Tustin City Council, asking them for a resolution “supporting the concept of a Tustin area campus of Saddleback College.” They provide it. Meanwhile, conservative trustee, Bob Bartholomew, carps brutishly about the faculty's proposed campus calendar, claiming that it reflects selfish faculty interests. Here and elsewhere, the board is divided between a conservative faction (Bartholomew, Berry, and perhaps Greinke) and a more progressive faction (Taylor, Brandt, Marshall). 

     In May, conservative trustee Donna Berry, seeking to reduce district costs, leads a successful effort to eliminate the "6 unit rule," a rule allowing Tustinites (and other Saddleback district residents) to transfer to other districts' colleges (e.g., Santa Ana College) without securing permission paperwork. The upshot is fewer transfers, lower "tuition" costs for Saddleback.
     Natch, Tustinite trustees (Greinke, Backus), aware of their constituencies' desire to attend Orange Coast and Santa Ana Colleges, fail to support Berry's cost-cutting move.

     Trustees confront a likely financial shortfall of about $3 million caused by new legislation. They pursue cost-cutting and new revenue more vigorously. They consider charging costs to students who take non-credit craft courses and the like. Discussion of this option brings out philosophical differences between trustees concerning the nature of "college." 

     In mid-May, the Citizens Advisory Committee provides its report concerning pursuit of a second, northern campus. It urges the board to buy land (for a 2nd campus) immediately. It highlights longterm complaints especially among Tustinites about the distance to Saddleback college.

     The college produces a document concerning "priorities," but some trustees carp that it does not sufficiently emphasize vocational and technical (even agricultural) instruction. Trustees feel pressure to increase taxes for maintenance, repair, construction, and (mostly uncompensated) growth while attempting to honor conservative anti-tax desiderata. Meanwhile, Saddleback faculty move to strengthen their union. Sparks fly.
     Philosophical differences again arise when Superintendent Lombardi reveals a document describing the kind of college the district is attempting to create. Lombardi's collegiate assumptions clash with local notions.

Greinke

     Pursuit of a second campus continues. By September (1976), three sites are under discussion: on Myford, east of the Santa Ana Freeway; on Culver, west of the freeway; and on Jeffrey @ the Santa Ana Freeway. The board is very divided, and worries about costs and taxes resurface. Greinke, of Tustin, insists that the Myford site (@ today's Tustin Marketplace) is ideal. Tustinites commence clamoring for the Myford site, feeling entitled to a campus in or near Tustin. On a 5-1 vote, Berry dissenting, the board chooses the Myford site. While Tustin celebrates, trustee Bartholomew carps about the immorality of Day Care Centers.
     In November, Bartholomew resigns and moves to Carpinteria. The board is down to six members.

     In January, the Irvine Co. upsets the applecart by attempting to withdraw its offer of the Myford site, recommending, instead, a new site at Jeffrey and Irvine Center Drive in Irvine. Its motives seem obscure. Meanwhile, the Tustin City Council behaves oddly with regard to the annexation and zoning of a 425 acre parcel owned by the Irvine Co—and including the Myford site.
     With the Irvine Co.'s withdrawal of Myford, SHIT HITS FAN. HORNSWOGGLERY SUSPECTED. —RB

February 1977

     Note: some of the early trustees were very big on "vocational education" and the like, while trustees more familiar with higher education often found themselves protecting the liberal arts. Some trustees seemed hostile to faculty right from the start, as if instructors were children, requiring manipulation—or stallions, requiring "breaking." The "business man's" perspective often prevailed on the early boards—a perspective that clashed with faculty and their collegiate ways. Others—such as Ms. Brandt—seemed to be pro-faculty. She seemed fairly progressive, despite being a Republican (her bio is very interesting; she ran for Secretary of State in 1978; thereafter, she abandoned politics for teaching).
     Often, it appears that the Superintendent or Chancellor, such as Mr. Lombardi, was like a marriage counselor, attempting to keep things moving along and civil. I suspect that Lombardi held his tongue a great deal of the time. There seemed to be a fair amount of loose cannoneering on these early boards—as when Mr. Greinke visited the Tustin City Council (see below). Some trustees, such as Donna Berry, seemed to be (despite her right-wing politics) very dedicated to the community's college and its development. She had volunteered in various capacities from the first days of the College. I get the sense that she was very sincere and passionate about being a trustee. Eventually, she got fed up and moved to Northern California to make wine.

     It's easy to like these people. —RB

WHAT ARE JUNIOR COLLEGES FOR?

     • Some members of the Saddleback board feel it would be useful to hold a “discussion” about the college’s “goals” and about what a junior college should be. It is scheduled for April 7 (1975). The notion came from trustee Norissa Brandt, but soon-to-be-seated trustee Frank Greinke agrees that such a discussion would be valuable.
     (“Saddleback JC Goals Slated for Discussion,” Tustin News, 3-27-75)

JULY 1975:

     • Saddleback’s “certificated and classified” personnel receive a 12.1% pay raise.
     Bob Bartholomew, board president, voted against the raise, but Backus, Brandt, Jim Marshall, and Larry Taylor approved.
     (“12.1% Salary Hike Okayed by Saddleback,” Tustin News, 7-17-75)

"Saddleback College, North Campus" orange pick; 1979

JANUARY 1976:

THE NORTH CAMPUS AGENDA

     • “Stating he was concerned about the polarization on the Saddleback Community College District board on what approach should be taken on a second campus in the northern end of the district, [new] Tustin Trustee Frank Greinke proposed an advisory committee to study the issue.”
     “Greinke suggested that each trustee nominate two members of the community from their various districts to study the matter.”
     “Greinke proposed a 60 day time limit after which the committee would report its findings back to the board.”
     “The board generally agreed with the concept….”
     (“Greinke Proposes Advisory Group on 2nd, Campus,” Tustin News, 1-29-76)

FEBRUARY 1976:

PROMOTING A TUSTIN-AREA CAMPUS

Mr. Greinke, c. 1991: lies
about where he lives

     • “Asking for support for a second campus, Saddleback College Trustee, Frank Greinke, told the Tustin City Council, Monday, that he has told his wife and children to lie about where they live in order to attend Orange Coast College in another junior college district. … Greinke, like many Tustin residents, feels that the district forces them to swear to false information simply because the distance between Saddleback and Tustin is so great. Santa Ana College, Orange Coast College, in Costa Mesa, and Golden West College in Huntington Beach are all closer in time and distance to Tustin than Saddleback College, which is about 20 miles away.”
     “The Tustin businessman … asked the council for a resolution supporting the concept of a Tustin area campus of Saddleback College.” They did so.
     (“Greinke Seeks Council Support for 2nd Campus,” Tustin News, 2-5-76)
     (Re the fate of the illustrious, if bumptious, Mr. Greinke, see Register Obit, 4-23-05.)

LET'S GET THIS SHOW ON THE ROAD:
THE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE

     • “A resolution to form a citizen advisory committee on the issue of a second campus in the northern end of the Saddleback College District was approved 4-1 by the board Monday night.” The committee, with two members from each trustee area, is to produce a report by April 12.
     Trustee Larry Taylor voted against the resolution. Taylor thought it was too early to be talking about a second campus. Greinke and Marshall were absent.
     (“Saddleback Sets Advisory Board on 2nd Campus,” Tustin News, 2-12-76)

POINTY-HEADED INTELLECTUALS

     • There were some fireworks at the meeting when instructors presented a proposed 160 day calendar. Trustee Bob Bartholomew pushed back, proclaiming that he would not be a “rubber stamp.” Bartholomew and Donna Berry voted against the calendar. Backus, Taylor, and Brandt supported it. Lacking the necessary four votes for action, the matter was reagendized.
     Bartholomew opined that the calendar reflected faculty interests. “It’s for the sole benefit of the teachers,” he declared.
     A discussion emerged concerning the lack of interest in inservice training among faculty. The faculty union president explained that, too often, inservice involves being lectured at for hours. The inservice of the proposed calendar was different. It’s part of a three-year pilot project. 
     Mr. Bartholomew declared that “the average student does not like to take a month off in the middle of the year … He wants to get out earlier” in order to pursue jobs.
     Faculty then explained why Bartholomew’s suggestion would be problematic, as did the dean of students.
     Ms. Berry stated that “we get so caught up in change for change sake…. It does not always mean that it is good.”
     Mr. Taylor pleaded with the trustees that they listen to faculty and administration. “Let’s evaluate it and see how it works,” he said.
     ("Bartholomew 'No Rubber Stamp on Saddleback Calendar Issue,'" Tustin News, 2-12-76)

APRIL 1976:

     • In April, the advisory committee on the second campus was given an extension to May 10 [to provide their] … report. Back in February, the deadline for the report had been set for April 12.
     (“Saddleback JC Seeks Additional State Funds,” Tustin News, 4-1-76)

     • A week later, trustee Norrisa Brandt “was unanimously elected president of the Saddleback Community College District board….”
     “Elected vice president was Frank Greinke of Tustin in a split vote. He was opposed by Larry Taylor who had been nominated by Pat Backus. Taylor in turn was nominated for clerk by Greinke and was elected.”
     (“Norrisa Brandt Elected Saddleback Board Head,” Tustin News, 4-8-76)

MAKING STUDENT TRANSFERS DIFFICULT

     • Trustees vote (5-2) to abolish the “six unit rule which allows Saddleback … students to take up to six units at other community colleges without getting an inter-district attendance agreement….” El Toro’s Donna Berry presented the motion. Greinke of Tustin and Brandt of Irvine opposed it.
     (“Saddleback JC Board Abolishes Six Unit Rule,” Tustin News, 4-8-76)

     (Permitting Saddleback district students, such as Tustin students, to attend Coast and Rancho Santiago colleges cost the Saddleback district expensive "tuition." From a financial perspective, allowing these students to "transfer" in this way was a hard-to-justify expense, incurred owing to steady complaints mostly from Tustin about the distance to Saddleback College. —RB)

MAY 1976:

          THE UNINTENDED ASSAULT ON FAST-GROWING COLLEGES

     • In May, the board learns that, if Senate Bill 2790 passes, it would do away with SB 6, “special legislation which aided young and growing community colleges financially….” Says trustee Batholomew, “It [i.e., 2790] penalizes a district that is growing.”
     “Taylor called Sacramento’s handling of school financing a 'conglomerate mess.'”
     (“Saddleback Faces $3 Million Loss,” Tustin News, 5-6-76)

THE ROLE OF "ADULT EDUCATION" AT THE COLLEGE

     • Also in May, in view of the district’s shaky finances, the board agreed to charge a fee “for recreational type courses,” as do other local college districts.
     “Another item that arose was offering adult education classes.” Concerning that idea, Bartholomew worried about competition with the high schools, who already teach adult, non-credit courses. Donna Berry was concerned how few non-credit courses are offered in our district compared with others. Ms. Brandt, board president, declared that “we are not in the adult education business.”
     (“JC Board Considers Course Fee,” Tustin News, 5-6-76)

Norrisa Brandt (1922-1989). Ran for GOP nomination for candidate, Cal Secretary of State, 1978

RANKING AMONG TEACHERS

    • Also in May, the Academic Senate (i.e., faculty) proposed a faculty ranking system. Accordingly, “faculty members who have not yet earned tenure or who teach on less than a full-time basis be [‘]instructors[’] and those faculty members who have achieved tenure receive the rank of [‘]professor.[’]” Backus objected, offering an alternative that raised rank from instructor to assistant professor to associate professor to professor in four-year stages. Marshall worried that such a scheme would be unattractive to “highly qualified” teachers. Instructors feared that a complex ranking system would divide the faculty. Trustee Taylor said that “I hate to see it [based] ...  entirely on years of service. I’d like to see some way of obtaining professorship [through achievement].” The matter was tabled. It was agreed, however, that any scheme selected by the board would be presented to the academic senate for approval first.
     (“JC Academic Rank Proposal Under Study,” Tustin News, 5-13-76)

THE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT:
BUY! LAND! NOW!

Plus: CARPING TUSTINISTAS

     • Also in May, the Select Citizen’s Advisory Committee (concerning a 2nd district campus) offered its conclusions to the board. According to the report, the district “should buy land now in a central location of the northern area and initiate a satellite program as soon as it is financially feasible….”
     One finding of the Committee was that “many residents of the district feel that they are not receiving an equitable share of the district’s educational services because of the lack of nearby facilities; there exists at present a need for educational facilities near the northern communities; projections indicate substantial growth in population.” [These “northern communities” are, of course, Tustin and Irvine.] Also: “the availability of desirable college sites in the northern area is limited and property prices are rising steadily….”
     The “final recommendation was that the board initiate a public information program to advise the citizens of the district about its plans for expansion and its effort to avoid increasing costs.”
     (“Buy Northern Site Group Tells Board,” Tustin News, 5-13-76)

WE DON'T TEACH NO STINKIN' MACRAMÉ

     • Later in May, it is revealed that the “Saddleback Community College District is proposing a $19,385,000 budget for 1976-77, which would take $1.09 tax rate to operate it, a jump of 19 cents over last year….”
     Roy Barletta told the board that Assembly Bill “2790 … if passed could mean Saddleback would face at least a $3 million loss in revenue.”
     Barletta is a member of an alliance who is “attempting to amend the bill….”
     “The bill, as proposed, said Barletta, hurts community colleges who have experienced over 5 per cent growth in the past year. Although Saddleback’s growth was estimated at 16 per cent, it in fact jumped 42 per cent….”
     “Although Saddleback enrollment jumped 42 per cent, it did not receive any state support funds for anything over 5 per cent growth, Barletta explained.”
     “To recover this is the reason for setting a tax rate of $1.09 Barletta told the board.”
     “He added that the reasoning behind AB 2790 is that Sacramento is charging that too many recreational courses such as macramé, bridge, etc. are being offered at community colleges to gain false growth. Barletta noted last week that Saddleback offers only 3 per cent of its total curriculum for such non-credit courses. He added, ‘I do not think they intended to curb real growth and ours has been [real, not fake].’”
     (“19 Cent Tax Hike Proposed for SJC,” Tustin News, 5-20-76)

WHAT ABOUT VOCATIONAL PROGRAMS?

(WHAT? NO AGRICULTURE?)

Norrisa Brandt, 1942

     • On May 20th, “Proposed Instructional, program, and physical plant priorities were presented to the Saddleback … board Monday night by the administration.”
     The priorities include: “Increase instructional service level; improve ratio in favor of full time faculty to part-time; establish on-campus occupational programs by conversion of the lower campus; strengthen off-campus programs with more day time courses; complete weekend, evening and one day colleges; charge fee for community service non-credit courses; and create interdisciplinary studies program.”
     “Physical plant priorities … were presented to the board with cost estimates to get started totaling $5 million….”
     “A majority of the board including … Bartholomew, …Berry, … Greinke and …Brandt …leaned toward vocational-technical programs as a top priority.”
     “Bartholomew said he was concerned by seeing in the budget over $2 million going to sports and recreation while only $327,000 was allocated to vocational education.”
     “Mrs. Berry also voiced concern for a heavier agriculture program….”
     Some priorities seemed “optimistic” about funding sources.
     “It’s more than optimistic,” said Taylor, “It’s a misstatement. We are probably going to have to go to a bond issue for support.”
     “Backus urged that research be done on what the [college] really needs ‘so we aren’t talking in generalities and have some statistics for establishing courses.’”
     (“Saddleback Board Studies Priorities,” Tustin News, 5-20-76)

BOB, GET WITH THE F-ING PROGRAM!

Frank Greinke, 1974

     • Recently, a citizens’ committee recommended purchase of “a 100 acre site for the northern campus.” The issue now is how to fund that, and that was the topic of discussion Monday night.
     “The committee recommended the board continue its pay-as-you-go program…” [Avoid financing.]
     “Norrisa Brandt, board president, asked why the committee was not enthusiastic about bonds as a means of funding. The committee’s Harry Wandling answered, “We were much opposed to bonds. A bond issue is very hard to pass, it is difficult to get the correct information to the public and the cost is so much more, at least twice as much after paying interest over 30 years.”
     “Robert Price of South Laguna Hills [said] that with the Sterns tax, state monies could be made available for Saddleback to do all the things laid out in its master plan and keep the property tax the same.”
     Trustees “Bartholomew and Taylor said they … saw a conflict in the committee’s recommendation to purchase a northern site and start a satellite campus as soon as possible and that development of the Saddleback College campus be of central priority in the district for the next several years. ‘How are you going to resolve these together?’ asked Bartholomew….”
     “Price replied that the committee felt a second campus and continuing to build the present campus was feasible by rearranging priorities. He noted that 37 cents in Stern tax had been fixed for capital outlay programs over the next year and that $440,000 had been set aside for 1977-78 to purchase a site.”
     Bartholomew remained uncomfortable with the proposal. 
     Trustee Greinke defended the plan. “Mrs. Brandt agreed with Greinke, telling Bartholomew, ‘You are going way out' and adding ‘We will never get anything with that thinking.’”
     (“Funding New Campus Concerns JC Board,” Tustin News, 5-27-76)

THE UNION MAKES ITS MOVE

THE BOARD SAYS "NO"

FACULTY GET PISSED

     • “Saddleback College’s CTA (California Teachers Association) Chapter filed their request May 10 for recognition as the exclusive bargaining agent for their faculty. Theirs is the first of Orange County’s four community college districts to do so.”
     (“Saddleback JC CTA 1st to Seek OC Recognition,” Tustin News, 5-27-76)

Robert Lombardi

     • “A request by the Saddleback College Faculty Assn. to be sole collective bargaining unit representing all teachers was unanimously denied by the Saddleback Community College District board, Monday night. However, in an amendment, the board did leave some room for the matter to be referred back to negotiations with their representative Roy Barletta, business manager, and the Faculty Assn. and for the request to be brought back to the board at a later date.”
     “The consensus of the board was expressed by Trustee Pat Backus who said, ‘You guys are not going to push me into something I do not understand.’” 
     Evidently, Barletta had said that “one teacher group should not represent both full time and part-time teachers because authorities … ‘Doubt the appropriateness of the unit … there is not a community of interests among the contract regular and the temporary part time faculty.’” [That sounds right.]
     Angry faculty leaders labeled Barletta’s position “outrageous” and “ludicrous.”
     Reading a letter, the faculty union president said: “I urge the board to reverse its position, to grant us the recognition we are entitled to by law. It is inconceivable to me that the board wishes to adopt a repressive and warring posture after the improved relations of recent years have brought us so far….”
     “A list of 259 teachers who stated they wanted the Faculty Assn. to represent them was presented to the board. Saddleback has 125 full time faculty meaning the remainder of the 259 total are all part time employees.”
     Incoming Faculty Assn. president, Paul Brennan, said: “If the board ultimately denies this request, it is going to force us into the arms of CTA.” He stated he felt it was better to have Saddleback’s own local group be the collective bargaining agent for its teachers rather than an outside union group.”
     The issue might come back to the board next month.
     (“Saddleback Faculty Assn. Bid Denied,” Tustin News, 5-27-76)

RELEASED TIME? THAT'S A THING

(IT IS?)

Jim Marshall, 1953
Ran Wayland Baptist College

JUNE 1976:
     • “Saddleback Community College District trustees Monday night approved the Academic Senate’s request for released time for [union] officers [and administrative roles?], but again tabled until September the faculty’s request for academic rank. Both votes were 4-3.
     “Norrisa Brandt, board president, noted that this released time has been traditional, adding ‘This is all part of the educational system....’”
     Backus did not vote in favor of the reassigned time, saying he didn’t “know for sure exactly where we stand on this.”
     Taylor, Marshall, Berry and Brandt voted in favor. Bartholomew, Greinke, and Backus voted against.
     (“JC Academic Senate Officers Get Time Off,” Tustin News, 6-17-76)

UH-OH, DANGEROUS FUMES!

ok, but NO BLANK CHECK FOR YOU!

JULY 1976:

     • “A faulty fume exhaust and air intake system in the Saddleback Community College science-math building has been releasing gasses from experiments back into the building over the past year and at least four times in the past two weeks, the Saddleback … board was told Monday night.”
     The board approved hiring engineers to prepare a study and recommendations.
     Still other studies were ordered. Expenses were beginning to add up.
     “Trustees … Greinke and … Bartholomew opposed the action. Greinke said he was ‘opposed to the blank check.’” 
     For now, as a safety measure, no experiments will be permitted in the building.
     “…Backus [said]: ‘We could be subject to a law suit. I don’t want to see someone falling over from the gas.’”
     “Estimate given for correcting the problem was $35,000 to $85,000. The facility was a $4 million building designed by architects, Ramberg and Lowrey who have since gone bankrupt….”
     (“Exhaust Circulating Gases in Building,” Tustin News, 7-1-76)

WHAT A COMPLETED COLLEGE SHOULD LOOK LIKE

—REALLY? LIKE THAT?

     • “In a discussion of what a completed Saddleback College campus should be, Trustee Bob Bartholomew, who requested such discussion, told the board Monday night, “I’m disappointed that the vocational-technical facility is 10 years away and that the track and pool are scheduled for this year.”
     “[Superintendent] Lombardi’s idea of a completed campus was presented as what he personally would want to see in a particular time frame. … He noted that the board had the prerogative of choosing priorities….”
     Bartholomew wanted to wait on the pool and track and focus on educational facilities first.
    Brandt opined that she’d prefer for the classroom building to be built first.
     Lombardi noted that State support for that building awaited the “correct number of students per square feet available according to the state formula.” “My pitch for the track is that it is a teaching facility and also a community facility.”
     Lombardi also noted that vocational-technical instruction can proceed, using current facilities. What he scheduled for 10 years from now is the “permanent building.”
     Taylor supported the plan. “I don’t see any reason to oppose any of these things we have a need for,” he said.
     Greinke said Lombardi’s list was “excellent with a few exceptions,” which he did not identify.
     The board took no action.
     Lombardi’s 1976-80 list included: Library-classroom complex, science-math-engineering building, PE Gym complex, tennis and handball courts, music-drama-arts complex (all completed or under construction).
     (“Completed Campus Priorities Discussed,” Tustin News, 7-1-76)

SEPTEMBER 1976:

COAST CONTEMNED

THOSE BEACH BLANKET BASTARDS!

     • “A request from Coast Community College District that Saddleback Community College District reconsider requiring an interdistrict permit for all students angered several Saddleback trustees Monday night.”

GOP stalwart, Donna Berry
Dedicated to the college from
the start

     You’ll recall that, back in April, Saddleback trustees, led by Donna Berry (but opposed by Tustin’s Greinke and Irvine’s Brandt) abolished the “six unit rule which allows Saddleback … students to take up to six units at other community colleges without getting an inter-district attendance agreement….” Now, student must secure agreements to transfer. The availability of instruction at other districts has long been an issue among Tustinites (and presumably, Irvineites), owing to the great distance between Tustin/Irvine and the Saddleback campus. But granting easy transfers entailed a high price tag for Saddleback. Requiring the securing of attendance agreements slowed things down a bit, lowering cost for the South County district.
     Berry and Taylor were especially miffed at Coast’s request (to go back to no-paperwork transfers for South County students). 
     “If they want our 3872 students that bad, perhaps they should just accept them without cost to us,” said Mrs. Berry.
     “Taylor added, ‘For the past three years, we have paid $360 per student seat tax and built their buildings for them with that money.’ He noted that Orange Coast has an agreement with Santa Ana College in which each does not pay seat tax for their students to attend each others schools. ‘They do not give the same permission to us and we have paid for it dearly over the years. I agree with Donna, if they want them [Saddleback students), just accept them.’”
     Greinke chimed in with similar sentiments.
     (“OCC Request Anger Board at Saddleback,” Tustin News, 9-2-76)

LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION

(A FOOL AND HIS MONEY)

     • “A public hearing on the northern area campus has been set for Sept. 27 in Irvine by the Saddleback … board Monday night.”
     What remains to be decided is the location of the new campus.
     Trustee Donna Berry recommended soliciting citizens’ ideas about the location to catch easily unforeseen difficulties. Trustee Norrisa Brandt suggested that the meeting be held in either Tustin or Irvine, the communities most affected.
     Three sites are now under discussion: “Myford, east of the Santa Ana Freeway; Culver, west of the freeway; and Jeffrey at the Santa Ana Freeway.” [The site eventually chosen—on Jeffrey and Irvine Center Drive—does not seem to be mentioned here.] 
     “Although the site issue was up for consideration Monday night and the board had the appraisers’ reports and a preliminary EIR, most of the trustees felt there were too many questions unanswered [to choose among these sites].”
     Trustee Taylor focused on uncertainty about cost. “I don’t buy something until I figure out how I’m going to pay for it.”
     Trustee Greinke said, “I think we should take full benefit of the use of the Planning Departments of Tustin and Irvine.” But the latter organizations had not weighed in on these properties.
     At present, Greinke favors the Myford site; Bartholomew, Marshall, and Brandt favor the Culver site. Berry and Backus have not indicated their preference. Taylor seeks a site near the Tustin helicopter station. All other sites are owned by the Irvine Co.
     Greinke found the Myford location, adjacent to Tustin but in Irvine, to be ideal. “William Blurock, district architect, said he was ‘miffed’ that the Tustin and Irvine planning departments didn’t know what Greinke was talking about. He said ‘Planning reports have been placed in their hands.’”
     “After some more discussion and confusion on what the board was ready to do, it finally decided to set the public hearing for Sept. 27 in Irvine and that night to vote on a preference based on the information they have and seek answers to questions on that specific property. The selection of a preference does not necessarily mean that site will be the final one.”
     (“Saddleback Slates Hearing,” Tustin News, 9-16-76)

     • According to the Tustin News, “Enrollment officially climbed to a new record at Saddleback College last Friday (Sept. 10), when the registration total reached 11,983.”
     (“Saddleback JC Reaches Record High Enrollment,” 9-16-76)

DUDES, WHERE'S OUR COLLEGE?

     • On September 21st, Tustin Mayor Richard B. Edgar writes to Saddleback Superintendent Robert A. Lombardi: “The City Council and residents of the Tustin community have a vital interest in the most important decision your honorable board will make in selecting the site of the north-westerly campus….
     “We endorse site No I, located at Bryan and Myford….” 
     Among the reasons offered: “The consistent position of the City Council, advisory committee, and area residents that the College site should be located at the nearest feasible location to the City of Tustin.”
     “In the long range perspective, site No. I is recommended as best reflecting the desires of this community.”
     (Published in the Tustin News, 9-30-76)

GIVE TUSTIN THE BALL, aka "GET ON WITH IT"

Also: TWENTY ACRES, NO MULE?

Robert Lombardi

     • According to the Tustin News (“Saddleback Board Picks Site As Public Speaks,” 9-30-76), “After hearing the views of Irvine and Tustin residents on a second site for a northern Saddleback College campus, the Saddleback Community College District board Monday night approved in a 5-1 vote the selection of 20 acres at the Bryan and Myford site, east of the Santa Ana Freeway.” (That’s roughly the location of what became “Tustin Marketplace,” off of Jamboree.) Of the three sites proposed, this one is closest to the City of Tustin.
     Trustee Donna Berry was the sole trustee to vote against the selection, citing the original EIR, which judged the Myford site worst for the development of a campus.
     The author of the EIR said he agreed with trustee Greinke that his report contained “qualifiers” and that “changes in the last year since the report was made have made the site more favorable….”
     Many who spoke favored the Myford site. Some Irvine residents were strongly opposed to the Culver site, owing to the foreseeable impact on traffic and parking. Superintendent Lombardi noted that the district was being discouraged from selecting the Jeffrey/Trabuco site, owing to proximity to the Marine base flight pattern. The Mayor of Irvine cited projected population growth in the area and the traffic that would produce as a point against the Culver site. 
     A letter from Tustin’s mayor stated that “the city favored the Myford and Bryan site.” 
     “Al Potenza of Tustin stated that … ‘Our most precious commodity is time.’ He said that having to travel over 20 miles to Saddleback was one waste of time and told the board ‘to get on with it’ and pick the Bryan and Myford site.”
     “Trustee Norrisa Brandt, board president, asked Bill Jay, dean of instruction, what kind of classes were planned when the satellite campus opened in the fall of 1977.”
     “Jay said that on opening day, the satellite campus could offer all the general education requirements for transfer to a four year college or university as well as for an AA degree. He said that the campus would probably include 20 to 25 classrooms including one or two science labs, a business lab and an art room. He continued that 40 various majors could be offered and a limited science program with beginning courses in all six science courses.”
     “Mary Boswell, who … lives in Irvine, said she was against the Jeffrey site because she lives near it and for three weeks last year the jet noise was so bad ‘we could not hear ourselves.’”
     On the other hand, “Lisa Secoli of Irvine urged the board to consider more than 20 acres. “I think 20 acres would be too small for a full scale college. I think you should acquire enough land for a full scale second campus at today’s prices.” 
     Others voiced similar concerns.

     “Trustee Bob Bartholomew moved that the board select Myford and Bryan as the future site and was seconded by Trustee Frank Greinke.” Mrs. Berry repeated her EIR objections, but Architect Blurock “said that the problems could be overcome.” He acknowledged, however, that utilities would be “more expensive” at Myford compared to the other sites. On the other hand, at Myford, the land was cheaper. 
     The “Vote was 5-1 with Mrs. Berry voting against. Trustee Larry Taylor was absent. 
     The board then approved 6-0 buying 20 acres instead of the full 100….” 
     Trustees seemed to agree that the district could not afford the 100 acres—unless they turned to a bond issue.
     “The board then adopted a Resolution of Initial Notice of intention to adopt of Resolution of Public Necessity in regards to the property with a hearing set for Oct. 25.”
     (“Bryan-Myford Chosen For Second Campus Site,” Tustin News, 9-30-76)

TUSTIN CELEBRATES ITS "TWO BIRDS IN THE BUSH"

     • The Tustin News, which, it seems, was first to propose a “northern” (relative to South County) junior college campus years ago, congratulated the Saddleback board for voting approval of the Myford site. “Tustin trustees Bob Bartholomew and Frank Greinke have studied all the sites involved prior to the selection and we agree with their final decision which most of their fellow board members supported.”
     They looked forward to a Fall 1977 opening.
     (“Saddleback Site for New North Campus,” 9-30-76)

OCTOBER 1976:

THE IMMORALITY OF "CHILD CARE"!

     • “Saddleback Community College District board of trustees Monday night approved architect’s drawings for the Child Care Center and authorized the staff to accept bids for renovation of ‘J’ Building for that purpose. The board also authorized the operation of the Child Care Center for the spring of 1977.”
     “Vote was 4-1 with Trustee Frank Greinke voting against and Bob Bartholomew not voting.”
     “Greinke said, ‘I think the responsibility of caring for children belongs in the home and not in a college.’”
     “Bartholomew, who had said nothing during the vote, told the News, ‘I didn’t abstain. I just didn’t vote. I’ve been against this thing from the beginning.’”
     “Several women and young mothers, who favored the child care center filled the room to hear the vote. Voting in favor were Trustees Jim Marshall, Larry Taylor, Norrisa Brandt, board president, and Pat Backus.
     (“Plans Get Approval,” Tustin News, 10-14-76)

     • According to the Tustin News, “Saddleback Community College District board … will hold a special meeting … Monday, Oct. 18….”
     “Among actions to be taken will be the second reading for acquisition of the 20 acres at Bryan and Myford for the second campus site….”
     (“Saddleback JC Board Slates Special Meeting,” Tustin News, 10-14-76)

OCTOBER 28:

DOTTING I's AND CROSSING T's

     • According to the Tustin News, “The Saddleback … board … in a 6-0 vote last week adopted a resolution of Public Necessity to initiate the first step of condemnation of 20 acres at Bryan and Myford for its second campus.”
     “The step is a legal procedure to get the land out of the agricultural preserve to avoid penalties that the Irvine Co. would have incurred and passed on to the buyer.”
     (“First Step in Getting New JC Site Taken,” 10-28-76)

NOVEMBER 1976:

BARTHOLOMEW MAKES FOR FREAKIN' CARPINTERIA

     • “Trustee Bob Bartholomew of Tustin Monday night announced his resignation from the Saddleback Community College District board as of Dec. 15.”
     He explained that “he had relocated his nursery business from Tustin to Carpinteria [south of Santa Barbara] and would soon be moving.”
     He presented a “statement” to the board, which said, in part, “I will remain an interested party with particular concern for the development of the satellite campus in the Irvine-Tustin area.”
     Bartholomew had originally won election “to fill Hans Vogel’s unexpired term” in March 1974.
     (“Bartholomew Resigns from JC Board,” 11-25-76)

DECEMBER 1976:

     • “[F]our [persons] have either filed or taken out papers for the Saddleback Community College District board, according to the Orange County registrar of voters.”
     “Two have filed for the Saddleback board. They are Eugene E. McKnight of San Juan Capistrano, a retired community college instructor and administrator; and Alan H. Greenwood, 2032 Salt Air Dr., in North Tustin, a dentist.
     “Those who have taken out papers, but have not filed for the Saddleback board are incumbent, Pat Backus of Dana Point and Carl Whitcher, 33761 Malaga Dr., Dana Point, an ROTC instructor.”
     (“Candidates for Boards File Papers,” Tustin News, 12-23-76)

     • On December 30, the Tustin News reports that, “only two more [candidates] have filed for the Saddleback Community College District board, according to the Orange County Registrar of Voters. Deadline for filing is … Dec. 30.”
     “Saddleback trustee area seats open are Area 4 (San Clemente-Dana Hills presently served by Pat Backus); Area 5 (Laguna Hills, presented served by Jim Marshal) and Area 2 (Tustin) – served by Bob Bartholomew until Dec. 15 when he resigned.)”
     “Only one person has filed for Saddleback College Trustee Area 2 in Tustin. He is Alan H. Greenwood, 2032 Salt Air Dr., a dentist.
     “Filing for Trustee area 4 was Eugene E. McKnight of San Juan Capistrano…. Incumbent Pat Backus of Dana Point has taken out papers for Trustee Area 4 but has not returned them as has Carl Whitcher….”
     “Two candidates have filed for Trustee Area 5. They are Robert Price …, Laguna Hills, a community administrator [?]; and incumbent Jim Marshall of Laguna Hills.”
     (“Candidates File Papers,” Tustin News, 12-30-76)

Donna Berry

JANUARY 1977:

THE IRVINE CO's FISHY SWITCHEROO?

     • The LA Times reports that “Saddleback Community College District trustees have scheduled a special meeting Monday to consider a proposal by the Irvine Company to change the location for the district’s proposed northern campus.”
     “In September, trustees approved the selection of a 20-acre site at the southern quadrant of Bryan Avenue and Myford Road, which is owned by the Irvine Company.”
     “This week, company representative Gordon Getchel told trustees that acquisition of that site “may not be in the best interest of the Saddleback Community College District, the Irvine Company and the community as a whole.”
     “He told trustees the site is surrounded by agricultural lands in full production and the campus would be subjected to the odor of organic fertilizers, large numbers of flies and noise from farm equipment.”
     “Getchel asked the board to consider a 20-acre site at the southeast corner of Jeffrey Road and Irvine Center Drive [where the campus is eventually built], which is also owned by the company. He said that site is more suitable for college development.
     “Trustees expressed displeasure that the Irvine Company had not raised its objections to the site in September but agreed to hear a report from Getchel on costs of purchasing and developing the alternative site at the special Monday meeting.”
     (“Saddleback Trustees Set Meeting on Campus Site,” 1-13-77)

     Note: the Irvine Co., along with the firm Donahue Schriber, built and developed the Tustin Marketplace, which first opened in 1988 (first phase); the Irvine Co. also owns Fashion Island and Irvine Spectrum. 
     The Bryan/Myford site is today part of the Market Place, including parking, a Chevron Station, Dick's Sporting Goods, and various other retailers. And, of course, the Market Place is in the parcel annexed by Tustin in 1976-7—RB

WTF

     • BUT WAIT A MINUTE. Simultaneous with the “North Campus Site” discussion was a debate, in the City of Tustin, concerning the proposal to “annex” a block of land that happened to include the proposed Bryan-Myford “north” campus site (aka site #1). It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to wonder if the Irvine Co. had found that the road to maximal profit was a plan that prevented the “north campus” from using up some of this land, land that promised to host many expensive residential dwellings.
     Let me know what you think. —RB

Annexation map

WHY DOES EVERYTHING HAVE TO BE DECIDED NOW? 

aka CORPORATE HORNSWOGGLERY

     • Meanwhile, the Tustin News reports that “The Tustin Planning Commission approved the pre-zoning of the proposed Irvine-Myford annexation Monday night after hearing protests from residents and a Tustin Unified School District official.” [See graphic/map]
     “The planning commissioners were holding a public hearing on the requested pre-zoning for 425 acres of agricultural lands owned by the Irvine Co. The [Tustin] City Council wants to annex this land into the city. They have reached agreement with the Irvine Co. over this action and were requesting the planning commission to endorse the pre-zoning of the area.”
     “Whether the land will be allowed to be annexed into the city or not will be decided on Jan 26 at a meeting of the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO).”
     “The pre-zoning was needed in order to bring the area under the guidelines of the Tustin General Plan.”

Norrisa Brandt

     “The 425 acres are all presently farm land. They must remain so until Jan 1, 1985. Under the provisions of state law the acreage is an agricultural reserve and cannot be used for any other purpose as long as it remains so. It ceases to be a reserve in 1985.”
     “The city planning staff had suggested that the land be pre-zoned from agricultural to planned community….”
     “This proposal was met by opposition on two fronts. The commission received protests and requests for delay by both homeowners bordering the land to be annexed, and a Tustin Unified School District official (TUSD).”
     [Guess who?]
     “Hans Vogel, director of administrative services for TUSD, spoke on behalf of the district when he said that he did not “think the planning commission should act on this until the Tustin Unified School District has a chance to study it in depth.”
     “Vogel claimed that the district had not been notified of the commission’s hearing until last Friday…. Another bone of contention, said Vogel was the fact that the district was not even consulted on the computation of school enrollment figures should the area be developed residentially.”
     “Vogel claimed that the potential enrollment figures computed in the EIR were incorrect. The EIR, he said, showed a potential for 1400 students, and the need for two new elementary schools. The developer would be required to provide 10 acres for schools.”
     “Vogel claimed that the figures should read 1700 homes … with 1200 elementary students, 340 intermediate students, and 680 high school students. This would result in the need for two elementary schools, ½ intermediate school, and 1/3 of a high school. He said that just 1 elementary school requires 10 acres, so he was giving notice to the developer that 20 acres would be needed for the school sites. … He said that the existing high schools were already 50 per cent overcrowded.”
     “Vogel asked that the decision be delayed.”
     The homeowners also asked for a delay.
     “‘Why are we talking about annexation and all these plans, if the proposed development won’t be for all these years?’ Nancy Williams asked the planning commission. ‘My main question is, why does everything have to be decided right now?’”
     Another homeowner asked “why, if the land wasn’t available for development until 1985, Tustin was in such a hurry to annex it now.”
     “[Planning Commission Chairman Robert] Hill asked Community Development Director … Fleagle if there was a definite need for the commission to rule on the pre-zoning that night. Fleagle said that the delay would be critical. The council wished to act on the pre-zoning before the LAFCO meeting of Jan. 26….”
     “[The homeowners] were concerned over what type of development would be done on the land. Fleagle had said that there was nothing certain planned. ... [They] worried that the city was offering the land as a package deal to the land owners. Fleagle had disclosed that the owner, the Irvine Co., had been guaranteed of the density allowed. [Homeowners] thought that it sounded as though the developer would be given a free hand in whatever he wanted to develop as long as it met the four unit density.”
     “All three of the homeowners voiced their fear that the area would be developed commercially, at the expense of their property….” [In fact, the parcel ultimately contained “Tustin Marketplace” on Jamboree.]
     “[Commissioner Bill] Robbins suggested that their “best chance is if this is in the City of Tustin….”
     “The commission, after hearing all the arguments pro and con, voted 4-0 … to approve the pre-zoning and send the matter to the city council for another hearing next week. Fleagle suggested to Vogel and the homeowners that their protests could be heard at the council level.”
     ("Irvine-Myford Pre-zone Approved Over Protests," Tustin News, 1-13-77)

...TO BE CONTINUED...

IVC nowadays

Looking over Mission Viejo from Laguna Hills, c. 1978

[PART 8b]

Frank Greinke

     IN THIS POST: back in September, 1976, the Saddleback board chose the Irvine Co.'s Myford-Bryan site, on Tustin's border, for the district's 2nd campus.
     Now, in January, the Irvine Co. does a sudden and mysterious SWITCHEROO: "Why doncha build the new campus over here on Jeffrey and Irvine Center Drive, smack dab in the middle of Irvine, instead?" They're obviously desperate to retain the Myford site (for reasons unexpressed and obfuscated); they sweeten the Jeffrey deal bigtime. PLUS, they start a hard sell, warning about the stink of manure and the lack of roads over at the Myford bean fields.
     Trustee Marshall of Laguna Hills dies after a long illness. The board is down to five members!
     The Tustin News naturally turns up the heat against the Irvine Co. Meanwhile, the Tustin City Council acts like agents of developers (namely, um, the Irvine Co.), not citizens. To trustee Berry, the Irvine Co.'s switcheroo is mighty hinky. Bloviating trustee Frank Greinke openly accuses the Irvine Co. of boondogglin'. Tempers flare and Greinke calls Bartholomew(?) a "Judas," to which trustee Norrisa Brandt strongly objects, whereupon Greinke tells her to just "shut up."
     Brandt notes that "We have Irvine Co. in a bind," and urges the board to take the boffo deal they're offering for Jeffrey. Meanwhile, the March election is drawing near, and Saddleback faculty are backing candidates who prefer the Irvine/Jeffrey site, while Tustinites keep carpin' about the board's alleged "promise" to put a college in the Tustin area (e.g., @ Myford). Trustee Brandt urges the board to wait on the site selection till after the election, when the board will have seven members again. 
     Superintendent Lombardi just wants to flip a goddam coin and move on. Tustinites keep up their infernal yammerin' for the Myford site. Greinke thunders indecorously about "hogwash" and "suede shoes." Citizen Ursula Kennedy challenges the Tustin City Council to come clean about these weird land shenanigans with the Irvine Co., but, natch, to no avail. Finally, less than a week before the election, and despite the board's abject skeleton-crew-itude,  Greinke, Backus, and Berry (a majority of the five) vote in favor of the Myford site, and Tustin celebrates.

     The board thus defies the Irvine Co.—and, maybe, common sense, too.
     But then a new board emerges from the March 8 election. "The new board," says trustee Donna Berry, "is certainly not going to presume to come on and change the site!" 
     Plus the Saddleback faculty are gripin' about pay & bennies. The board is unmoved!
     NOW WHAT? —RB

JANUARY 1977

     • Bill Moses of Tustin News calls the Irvine Co’s switcheroo—offering to sell the "Myford/Bryan" site, then belatedly trying to nix the deal and sell instead the "Irvine Center Drive/Jeffrey" site—a “bad idea” that “lacks merit.” 
     Why? Because the new site “adds miles Tustin students of the college would have to travel and also adds traffic congestion to the already busy thoroughfare of Jeffrey Road.”
     Moses notes that the Irvine Co. is for sale, and so “it doesn’t really matter to Irvine Co. officials” which site is chosen. The district’s original choice of the Myford site was “free of commercial centers” and a wise choice. 
     He hopes the district trustees will agree.
     (“Tustin-Irvine College Campus Move Bad Idea,” Tustin News, 1-13-77)

     Note: in 1977, the Irvine Co. was sold to a group of investors, including Donald Bren, who already owned a piece, and Joan Irvine Smith of the Irvine family. The group had outbid Mobil Corp. The sale was made possible by a "dirty trick": Bren put out ads suggesting that Mobil was focusing on real estate when the nation was in an oil crisis. Shouldn't they be drilling for oil instead? —Nonsense, of course. 
     Bren made his big move in 1983, buying more shares; afterwards he essentially owned the Irvine Co. One of the company's big projects in the 80s: the Tustin Marketplace, located between Bryan, Myford, and Jamboree.

DISAPPOINTED IN THE IRVINE CO.

     • Gordon Getchel of the Irvine Co. said “that the cost of bringing utilities into the Bryan-Myford site plus the cost of the land could eventually cost more than [the Irvine Co’s] proposed [Jeffrey] site in an area which is more developed.” Identifying the actual costs await completion of a “sewer and water feasibility study.”
     Further, argues Getchel, difficulties arise owing to the “fact that the [Myford] site was surrounded by agricultural land,” with its “narrow roads, odor or organic fertilizer, abundance of flies, slow noisy, farm machinery on surrounding roads and the site being a considerable distance from any service.”
     Gosh, one wonders why they offered that pig in the first place.
     Getchel said that “the Irvine Co. would pay for an independent appraisal on the Jeffrey-Irvine Center Drive site.”
     Gretchel acknowledged that the company “had found that use of the Bryan-Myford site by the college district would not be in the company’s best interest and that was why they were offering another site.”
     Saddleback board president Norrisa Brandt expressed shock. “We have been at this for over a year. I’m very disappointed.”

     Trustee Donna Berry remarked that she had herself expressed similar concerns about the Myford site at a public hearing months ago. But the “Irvine Co. people present had not said a thing … regarding these concerns. … Why at this late date … is the Irvine Co. saying they want us to change[?] … I don’t buy it. I don’t like your scare tactics…. I resent it and I think you are doing the taxpayer a poor service.” This new [Jeffrey] site was not among “the three the board had narrowed it down to for [the] public hearing.” 
     Getchel responded: “The company’s feeling at the time was that we should not step in. … Since that time we have found that it is not a good site from the company’s point of view.”
     Said Trustee Greinke: “Do you have any idea of how much money you have cost us? … I have been extremely discouraged in the dereliction of duty by the Irvine Co. in what you have been doing in your planning. I’m tired of being pushed around by Cadillac and Mobil. It’s time for us to move. … I’m disappointed in the Irvine Co. … I don’t like to see these last minute actions, because it makes us both succeptible [sic] to stupid acts.”
     Trustee Brandt asked if another Environmental Impact Report would be necessary for the new site. Yes, it would be. The EIR for the Myford site had cost $25,000.
     Trustee Backus asked what would happen to the “time line” if the district purchased this new site. “We are going to be very pressed to be able to open the doors a year from tonight,” said Superintendent Lombardi.
     The board was hoping to purchase 20 acres, hoping to buy more land in the future. And so Greinke remarked, “We should not be going into an area that is extremely high priced and in the open market. Let’s look at the long term …I don’t think you are correct that we can freeze this property [Myford] tonight.”
     Lombardi responded, “We have spent a considerable amount of dollars with our experts and have a pretty good ideas of what [Myford] will cost. It is not an inexpensive piece of property to develop, but it does not seem excessive when compared to the other sites.”
     Trustee Berry asked Getchel about costs at the Jeffrey site. “The developmental cost would be negligible. … We are hoping to put together a package which will be in the best interest of the district financially to select the site.”
     (“Second Campus Site Switch Draws Saddleback Board Ire,” Tustin News, 1-13-77)

Within the 1977 "annex": observe the proximity of "The Market Place"
(1988) to Site 1 (Bryan/Myford) (1977)

GAMES PLAYED

     • A week later, the Tustin News reports that “A second hearing is scheduled for next Monday night to which Board Chairman Norissa [sic] Brandt urged Tustin area folks to attend.”
     Last week, the Irvine Co’s Gordon Getchel and Richard Reese (VP) “followed the board into secret session to give a private presentation” of the company’s new offer, now designated “Site No. 2.” 
     “This set the stage for a board quiz of Reese and Mel Rupp, Irvine City Planner. Trustees asked questions from trenchant to tedious in gaining information about both sites.”
     The “Thrust of the firm’s letter was an offer to sell the 100-acre piece over a five-year period, price $45,00 an acre, with 6 ½ per cent per annum on the balance payable on a pro rata or five year basis, whichever is soonest. …If the board allowed Irvine Co. to farm the unused (75 or less) acres during the note’s period, the firm would waive the interest payments on the proportionate value of property farmed.” 
     “Reese and cohorts maintained the college would save time and money because Site No. 2 contains major utilities; the fixed price would keep inflation from running land total cost upward. The firm likes the second site best, obviously, because it would benefit Irvine Co. development.”
     Greinke asked, “Why are you trying to Boondoggle Tustin?” He referred to [his and others’] efforts two years ago to remove Tustin from the Saddleback district, owing to the great distance between Tustin and Saddleback College. Greinke “pointed out the board now is trying to give Tustin-Irvine a campus closer in miles.” [The Myford site is maximal relative to proximity among proposed sites.]
     “We went over this campus last year and after all this time you come forward with a letter that is insulting to the board and the taxpayers … We picked Site No. 1 (Bryan-Myford) in the county area where it is close to Tustin and Irvine, ideal for both. Your site No. 2 is in Irvine City and not adjacent to both.” 
     Greinke dismissed Reese’s malarkey about “flies from manure” and traffic.
     Reese acknowledged that he had bumbled with the late reaction to Site 1. “He also admitted Site No. 2 was one beneficial to the firm’s interests and the reason the letter offed various purchasing methods.”
     “Greinke noted that ‘the games played on us escalated Site No. 1 price from $21,500 per acre in September to $30,000 each in December.’ He asked, ‘Will Irvine Co. guarantee there’ll be no commercial center at Bryan-Myford?’”
     “Chairman Brandt urged Tustin area folk to show up next Monday night for the second hearing on proposed Tustin-Irvine site.” Someone again mentioned the jet noise problem for Site 2. An Irvine resident explained that Site 2 “is surrounded by populous dubdivisions and shopping centers, that such a college location would multiply an already major traffic problem.”
     “Finally, Reese toward the end of the hearing, advised the Irvine Co. had no commercial center plans for Bryan-Myford other than the Residential Village concepts already in use….”
     (“Second Hearing on Campus Site,” Tustin News, 1-20-77)

WILL THE BOARD MAJORITY PLAY FAIR WITH TUSTIN THIS TIME?

Bill Moses (1915-1996)

     • In an editorial, Tustin News’s Bill Moses noted that “Tustin taxpayers, voters and students have had 18 miles or so to travel to the beautiful 200-acre Saddleback College campus. The new Site No. 1 on Bryan [Myford] is like next door, only a mile or so. But Site No. 2 is 3 ½ miles farther east….”
     He asks, “Will the board majority play fair with Tustin this time? Will we have a close campus?”
     (“Tustinites Urged to Attend Jan. 24 Meeting,” Tustin News, 1-20-77)

CITY COUNCIL, AGENTS OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT

     • Meanwhile, the City of Tustin moves forward with plans to annex 425 acres of Irvine Co. land—a parcel that contains Site #1.
     “The [City] council voted to introduce a measure that would pre-zone the land, despite hearing from several neighboring homeowners who opposed the move.”
     At a public hearing, “The Council implied that the reason the Irvine Co. is willing to be annexed into the city is because they desire the city to provide those public improvements in preparation for future development of the property.”

     “The alternatives before the council are to allow the development of either traditional or ‘planned community’ residential development in the area. The pre-zoning calls for a density limit of 4 dwelling units per gross acre, but opponents were quick to point out t hat it did not restrict to how those “average” 4 units per acre were to be dispersed throughout the area.”
     “[Nancy] Williams … asked, what 4 dwelling units per acre really meant. [Mayor Richard] Edgar said that it could mean anything.”
     “Williams said that she was worried over what type of safeguards there would be to keep her from looking out her kitchen window one morning at a car wash?”
     “Edgar said ‘I’ll make a personal commitment that it won’t happen.’”
     “[Various] homeowners … tended to view the Tustin councilmen as being the agents of commercial development at the expense of maintaining a residential life style.”
     “The council voted 5-0 to affirm the findings of the Planning Commission and introduced for consideration the measure for pre-zoning….”
     (“First Steps to Annex Irvine-Myford Taken,” Tustin News, 1-20-77)

Breaking ground on the site of Tustin Lanes, 1977

IRVINE CO. TRYING TO GET THE COLLEGE OUT OF THE WAY?

     • On the 23rd, the Register reports that “Frustrated Saddleback … trustees will meet Monday night to reconsider the location of a planned Tustin-Irvine area campus, an issue they thought they had settled four months ago.”
     “Anticipating a large crowd from the northern half of the district, which the new campus would serve, trustees have moved the … meeting to a large lecture hall….”
     “For 10 years, north district residents, especially those in Tustin, have been lobbying for a campus in their area. They argued the one in Mission Viejo was too far away to serve them adequately.”
     “In a surprise move earlier this month, Irvine Co. representative Gordon Getchel made an 11th-hour appeal for a site change.”
     “Facing a September 1977 deadline, trustees gave the company one week to come up with an alternate proposal.”
     “It was presented at a special trustee meeting last week…. …[Irvine Co. representatives] faced almost three hours of sometimes hostile questions from trustees and members of the audience.”
     “[The company’s Richard] Reese said the company was at fault in not objecting earlier but said the firm’s planners had just uncovered data indicating that Myford Road is not a good site for a college” what with manure and flies and traffic.
     “ ‘These comments, made tonight, with regard to site one (Myford) are not new. They have been heard before, over and over and we felt they could be overcome,’ trustee Donna Berry told Reese. ‘I don’t want the people here tonight to think we are hearing these things for the first time.’ ”
     “Trustee Greinke said that as recently as Jan. 7, three days before the objections were raised, Irvine Company spokesmen had said [a Myford] college would not harm its farm operations.”
     “Greinke and Ms. Berry pressed Reese for a better explanation for the company’s sudden change of position, asking if the company had future plans for a commercial development on the Myford site and wants the college out of the way.”

     “Reese said that the company plans ‘to build homes there, not a commercial complex.’”
     As you know, today, that parcel is largely a “commercial complex,” not a residential area. It is Tustin Marketplace, owned by the Irvine Co.
     “The Myford site is near what is expected to be the eventual Tustin-Irvine border and thus could serve both communities,” said Greinke. 
     Today (2017), the southeastern border of the Myford parcel is the border between Irvine and Tustin. (See Jamboree on map.) The “Jeffrey/Irvine Center” site is 3 miles away from Tustin. And this, of course, is where the northern campus is eventually built.
     “Greinke said district taxpayers are paying $1.3 million this year to other community college districts, as tuition for district students from Tustin and other northern areas of the district who go to Coast and other county community colleges.”
     “By opening a satellite college facility in the Tustin-Irvine area, Saddleback trustees hoped to attract some of those students back and cut the $1.3 million loss by as much as half, Greinke said.”
     “Why are you trying to boondoggle the community of Tustin, which has waited 10 years for a college?” asked an angry Greinke.
     “…[A]n Irvine proposal to give the trustees a lucrative deal on the Irvine Center Drive site failed to satisfy trustees.”
     “Under the proposal Reese presented last week the company would sell the district the initial 20-acre site at $45,000-per-acre with a complicated five-year option to buy the surrounding 80 acres at a fixed $45,000-per-acre.”
     “Meanwhile, the Irvine Co. would deed the entire 100 acres to the district and continue to farm it tax free. A 6 ½ per cent annual interest rate would be charged to the district on the balance due on the 80-acres if the company does not farm the land.”
     “ ‘We are trying to provide the board with an incentive to consider the second site at this late date,’ Reese said….”
     “ ‘I don’t like the statement that the board has purchased 100 acres,’ trustee Lawrence Taylor added. ‘I won’t vote for anything that might commit future boards to having to purchase this land. I think it can be handled in another way.’
     (“Campus Locale Decision Due,” Register, 1-23-77)

FEBRUARY 1977:

EITHER SITE WILL DO!

     • Early in February, fearing another deadlock, the Tustin City Council writes to the Saddleback trustees “endorsing either of the proposed sites.”
     “Saddleback selected a 20 acre site at Myford-Bryan in September. However, the Irvine Co. as of Jan. 7 told the board it wants to keep that site and has offered 20 acres at Jeffrey and Irvine Center Drive.”
     (“Either Campus Site Will Do Says Council,” Tustin News, 2-3-77)

     • Saddleback trustees have scheduled a special board meeting for Monday at 7:30 p.m. A public meeting follows at 8:00 p.m.
     (“New Campus Local To Be Considered,” Register, 2-6-77)

“SHUT UP,” HE TOLD HER

     • The Tustin News reports the Monday meeting:

     “In a board meeting with the sparks flying and bickering among board members, Saddleback … trustees again deadlocked Monday night voting 3-2 for the Bryan-Myford northern campus site. Four votes are needed for a motion to pass. Trustee Jim Marshall was absent because of illness [he’s deathly ill]. The seventh seat … [is] vacant….”
     “Voting for the Bryan-Myford site … were Frank Greinke, Pat Backus, and Donna Berry. Voting against were Norrisa Brandt and Larry Taylor, who favor the site at Jeffrey and Irvine Center Drive (site 2).”
     “The board had selected the Bryan-Myford site back in September after a year in studying 10 different sites [not including Jeffrey/ICD]. However, the Irvine Co. on Jan 7 told the board that they had found that it would not be in the company’s best interest to sell that site…..”
     They’ve offered site 2.
     “Within the last week, the Irvine Co. has made three additional offers on Site 2 including 20 aces at $30,000 and additional acres at $60,000; 20 acres at $35,000 and additional acres at $55,000; and 20 acres at $40000 and additional acres at $50,000.”
     “The sparks began to fly when Trustee Frank Greinke arrived … two hours late and made statements referring to the timing of Irvine Co. changing the site only three weeks after Tustin Trustee Bob Bartholomew had resigned and also similarities between Judas selling out for 30 pieces of silver. When he was interrupted by Board Chairman Norrisa Brandt, who objected to such statements, he demanded that he be able to say his piece and told Mrs. Brandt to “Shut up.” 
     Later, trustee Backus stated that the trustees had “gotten off the track.” He told Brandt that she was a “lousy chairman” to let Greinke say what he said. Greinke later apologized for his remark.
     “Trustee Donna Berry said, ‘Greinke is just trying to bring something out into the open that has been continuous. The timing was strange indeed.’”
     Greinke then explained that he was sick of the politics. The board should focus on what’s best for the district. He explains that he ran for the board “because I wanted to make this district more responsive” to the interests of Tustinites. 
     “Why must we change because Irvine City and the Irvine Co. want to spin us off. I think it is important that the district represent the balance of the county and not just the south of the county,” said Greinke.
     Trustee Brandt suggested that purchase of the Jeffrey site “would be more economical in the long run….” There was much talk of projected values.
     “Backus said he still favored site 1 [Myford]. ‘I like the accessibility of it,’ he said. ‘I feel if we do not choose that site we are making a mistake.’ ”
     Ms. Brandt noted that “the main reason that the Jeffrey-Irvine Center Drive site was not picked was because of the price. ‘I felt it to be too expensive. The facts have changed. We have a chance to purchase better site at a better price. We have Irvine Co. in a bind.’ She noted, too, that the greatest growth in the area is expected to be in the El Toro-Irvine areas.

     “Mrs. Berry said she felt the board should stay with 20 acres. ‘The board has never agreed on more than 20 acres.’ ”
     “Paul Brennan, instructor at Saddleback College, said, ‘Twenty acres is fine for a start, but I don’t see how 20 acres can serve that area, three, four years from now. You will need 10 acres for parking. I don’t see how you can escape expansion later and still meet the needs of the district.’ ”
     “Mary Ann Gaido, councilwoman from Irvine, said the Irvine Council had unanimously voted their support for site 2….”
     “Robert Greene … [of Tustin] favored site 2. ‘It all boils down to a difference of 3 ½ miles,’ said Greene. ‘That is a minor problem. It’s quibbling. You should get a northern campus site at the lower price as soon as possible. Take the facts you have and make a decision. You are not going to make everybody happy no matter what you do.’ ”
     (“Another Deadlock on Second Campus,” Tustin News, 2-10-77)

MARSHALL DIES

1908-1977

     • Trustee James Marshall of Laguna Hills dies on Feb. 9th “following a lengthy illness.”
     “ ‘He was dedicated to spreading knowledge and love to the Indians in Brazil, the college students in Texas, and the community and Saddleback College in Orange County,’ said Norissa P. Brandt, President of the Board of Trustees.”
     “He was one of the greatest friends the college ever had, and we’ll never be able to replace him,” said Trustee Frank Greinke.
     “Prior to joining the Saddleback board in January, 1973, he served as a member of the college’s Citizen’s Advisory Committee.” (“JC Trustee Jim Marshall, Age 69, Dies,” Tustin News, 2-17-77)

     • The Saddleback district holds a 10th Anniversary Celebration on February 14th. “A guest list of up to 2,000 names is being prepared for the reception….” (See photo.)
     (“10th Anniversary Celebration Set at Saddleback JC,” Tustin News, 2-10-77)

DON’T LET THE IRVINE CO. GET AWAY WITH IT AGAIN

     • On the 17th, Bill Moses (Tustin News) notes that the News “editorially proposed the new [South County] district” years before it was actually created, a point that Governor Reagan made.
     “And we are now seeing more new facilities, even to where a new campus is in the works. The question is whether it will accommodate Tustin school district more conveniently as promised by trustees or whether it will be diffused into the Irvine Co.’s newest plans for their commercial development in Jeffrey and Irvine Center Drive?”
     “And isn’t it interesting Site No. 2 [Jeffrey] was not pushed by the firm until it had begun negotiations with Santa Ana College (Rancho Santiago District) over a 150 acre or so parcel for their new campus in the Newport-Chapman area? We have heard rumbles Irvine Co. wants to spin off Tustin Unified School District in to the new SAC plan and then shunt Irvine Unified School District to Orange Coast College.”
     “This could be a ploy as Irvine Co. historically has been very sympatico with the Newport Harbor area and has shunted many ‘goodies’ into that zone, including Fashion Island, Newport Center development. The latter area Irvine Co. officials pressured Tustin Union High and San Joaquin School Districts (now dissolved) into “de-annexing” to Newport. That was on grounds those districts could not handle the new residential growth. We now know they put Newport Center and Fashion Island there, costing our school district millions in revenue loss.”
     “What we don’t know is will Saddleback College trustees be gulled by the latest Site No. 2 move the Irvine Co. is offering?”
     “It’s easy to say, it’s only 3 ½ miles farther from Tustin.”
     “Let’s realize Tustin folk have driven 18 miles to the first campus for 10 years. We are 25 per cent of the assessed valuation.”
     “Fair is fair. Trustees of Saddleback should stick by their guns, select Site No. 1 at Bryan and Myford. It’s a fine location for Tustin and Irvine City students.”
     (“Will Trustees Permit Tustin a Campus Site?” Tustin News, 2-17-77)

GREINKE: WE ONLY NEED THREE VOTES

     • In a February 17 Tustin News article, Trustee Greinke is reported as suggesting “that it would be possible for a motion [such as one selecting one of the two proposed sites for the district’s second campus] to pass with only three members since there were now only five board members remaining.”
     “Taylor replied that in all his experience as a board member he never heard of such a possibility….”
     “Greinke said he was anxious to see the board iron out their differences and come to a decision as soon as possible. Mrs. Berry agreed stating she would like the present board to make the decision since they are the ones who have been studying the site selection for over a year.”
     (“Second Campus on Saddleback Agenda Again,” Tustin News, 2-17-77)

Newport Ave., Tustin

SHOULDN'T WE WAIT TILL AFTER THE ELECTION?

     • On the 21st, the LA Times takes notice of the hot “2nd campus” issue at the south county JC district. According to the Times, “The impasse over selecting a site for the second campus of the Saddleback … District is turning the March 8 trustee election into an emotional, and increasingly bitter, race.”
     “The Saddleback campaign appears to be the most hotly contested among the 29 school districts and four community college districts which are holding elections for vacancies on their governing boards….”
     “In southern Orange County, one candidate described the Saddleback … District race as ‘a real battle,’ while another said ‘it’s a mess’ as a result of the furore over the second campus site.”
     “The controversy developed only recently when the Irvine Co. abruptly decided it did not want to sell the district a site trustees had agree to buy on Irvine-owned land at Myford Road and Bryan Ave.”
     “The board has deadlocked over the two sites, with trustees adamantly favoring one site over the other. The impasse is further confused by a shrunken board of five members. One trustee recently died and another moved away and resigned.”
     “Earlier this month, the board voted 3 to 2 to buy the original Myford property despite Irvine Co. objections. That wasn’t enough votes to carry the matter….”
     “Now that the board is down to five trustees, those favoring the Myford site think they can clinch it at the Feb. 28 scheduled meeting—a week before the election.”
     “But Trustee Lawrence W. Taylor, an incumbent who strongly favors the alternate site, cites State Education Code rules requiring a two-thirds vote (or four out of the current five) to approve land acquisition….”
     “This week, the Saddleback College faculty and staff began circulating flyers urging the election of three candidates favoring the alternate site—Alan H. Greenwood, Eugene C. McNight and Robert L Price. The flyers are signed by the school’s Faculty Assn. president.”
     Incumbent Patrick J. Backus “favors the Myford site because it is closer to the Tustin portion of the college district.”
     “He pointed out that the board originally voted 6 to 1 last September to purchase the Myford site, and that he still believes it’s the best one.”
     “But trustee Taylor, on the other hand, maintained that it will close [sic] the district $500,000 more immediately and from $2 million to $6 million additionally over the long run if it decides to reject the Irvine Co. financial inducements for the second site and insist on buying the original Myford location.”
     “I just don’t believe in spending taxpayer dollars foolishly,” he said.
     “Taylor said he is exploring legal options of preventing board action before the election through a court injunction or other means.” 
     “(The Orange County Counsel’s Office is preparing a written opinion….)”
     “Board President Norrisa P. Brandt, who favors the alternate site, said ‘it would be inopportune’ for the board to make a decision before the election, no matter what the county counsel says. If the new, full-sized board, could make the decision, ‘it would be more representative of the school district,’ she said.”
     “A candidate for one of the board vacancies, Robert Price, administrator of Leisure World Laguna Hills, said ‘It really does make a whale of a difference who gets elected,’ because of the site selection issue.”
     “Price, who supports the Jeffrey site, said the campaign ‘has become an extremely emotional and political issue.’ At the last board meeting, he said, ‘trustees were telling one another to shut up, accusing one another of making insinuations, and some were rude to people in the audience.’ He said it was an ‘ugly scene.’ ”
     “The person in the middle is the district’s superintendent-president, Dr. Robert A. Lombardi. He doesn’t think it matters which site is chosen.”
     “ ‘From my point of view, both pieces of property are perfectly satisfactory to build a college on. Educationally, we don’t know of any great advantage of one site over another,’ he said.”
     (“Campus Site Debate Marks Trustee Race,” LA Times, 2-21-77)

     • On the 24th, Tustin News presents statements by candidates for the board positions.
     Williams Watts, a school principle, is a candidate for Tustin Tustee area 2. He has indicated that he supports choosing the Bryan-Myford site for the district’s second campus.
     (“William Watts A Candidate for JC Board,” Tustin News, 2-24-77)

     • Eugene C. “Gene” McKnight, a “retired college consultant,” is a candidate for Trustee Area 4 (San Clemente-San Juan Capistrano-Dana Point). He’s served on the “Citizens Advisory Board” since 1973.
     (“Eugene McKnight A Candidate for JC Board,” Tustin News, 2-24-77)

     • Clifton Rowland Brooks, a medical doctor, is a candidate for the Tustin Trustee Area 2. He has “concerns about the funding of the different programs” and embraces a “conservative attitude.”
     “ ‘I hear concern about the possible whims of the Irvine Company and their effect on a ‘several-months-long, costly study’ of the location of the northern campus.”
     “ ‘I am concerned with high prices and the high cost of deferring or delaying decisions.’”
     “Brooks served in World War II, Korea and Vietnam on three tours with combat support missions. He retired in 1975 from the USAF Reserve as a flight surgeon after 22 years of active reserve service.”
     (“Dr. Clifton Brooks in Saddleback JC School Board Race,” Tustin News, 2-24-77)

MARCH 1977

I'M NOT CONTROLLED BY SPECIAL INTERESTS

     • In early March, incumbent Pat Backus puts out a statement concerning his candidacy:
     “ ‘I have no commitments to the power bloc of the teacher’s union or any other special interest group.’ ”
     “ ‘My view is that government, including education districts, should be more frugal and should look for ways to be more efficient. As a trustee, I will continue to scrutinize all spending by the college district, and certainly this will mean tighter budgets in the future.’ ”
     “A charter member of the Saddleback Community Colelge District board, Backus, 44, is a resident of Dana Point….”
     (“Pat Backus in Re-election Bid for Board,” Tustin News, 3-3-77)

Backus, an advocate of choosing the Myford/Bryan site, lost despite being an incumbent.

"I’M ASKING YOU TO KEEP YOUR PROMISE"

     • The March 3 issue of the Tustin News reports that “The Bryan-Myford site was chosen once again Monday night for the northern campus by the Saddleback … board in a 3-2 vote. Superintendent Robert Lombardi was directed to take immediate steps necessary to purchase the site.”
     “Voting for the site were Franke Greinke, Donna Berry, and Pat Backus. Voting against were Larry Taylor and Norrisa Brandt, board chairman. Both favor the alternative site offered by the Irvine Co. at Jeffrey and Irvine Center Drive.”
     “Taylor, who believes four votes are needed for a motion to pass on the seven member board, said he will seek a court injunction through his lawyers privately.”
     “…County counsel has ruled that three members now represent a majority vote. However, county counsel added that four votes were needed to condemn property which the board must do with the Bryan-Myford site since it is in the agricultural preserve. According to Greinke, the board already voted to condemn the site back in September….”
     At Monday’s meeting, many came to speak, including Dick Boranian of the Tustin Unified School District Board, which urges selection of the Bryan-Myford site.
     Said Boranian: “The last 10 years the Tustin community has given tremendous support to the … District in anticipation of a promise made that in the future there would be a campus in the Tustin area.* Tustin has waited and waited. Finally it was decided that we would have a second community college campus and it would be within the sphere of influence of Tustin.”
     “I know the initial investment is great for the Bryan-Myford site, but I feel it is the only site. The initial cost is not important, it is the attitude of the people who will supporting it. … I’m asking you to keep your promise.”
     “Jim Bass, assistant superintendent of Tustin Unified School District referred to the possibility of the Rancho Santiago … District purchasing land at Newport and Chapman right outside of Tustin. He suggested that if this happens and Saddleback does not choose the closer campus at Myford that a petition to secede from the Saddleback district could be a definite possibility.”
     The Saddleback faculty union president urged waiting on a vote since, with Jim Marshall’s passing, “the people of Leisure World are not represented.”
     One speaker reminded the board that it already voted for the Myford site back in September.
     Some Irvine homeowners urged the board not to select the Jeffrey site.
     After these remarks from the public, trustees presented their positions.
     Trustee Backus stated that “He still favored the Bryan-Myford site and the 20 acre only concept.” 
     “In answer to Boranian’s statement of 10 years of support from Tustin, Taylor said that the 1971 bond election which specifically mentioned a 100 acre campus at Jeffrey and the Santa Ana Freeway failed in every single precinct in Tustin.” Taylor seeks to “defer this decision until after the election.”
     “Mrs. Brandt stated that the Jeffrey site would save the taxpayers money. She said she was also very concerned about the narrow roads. ‘We’ve spent two years talking. Let’s do some smart planning for the future,’ she said.”
     “Greinke called Mrs. Brandt’s arguments about the roads ... scare tactics, calling it ‘hogwash’ and adding, ‘I don’t buy it.’ … Greinke said he was also critical of the ‘suede shoe’ operation of the Irvine Co. trying to remove Saddleback from the Bryan-Myford site.”
     “Greinke agreed that the Jeffrey site was a good buy, but that it would mean a lessening of identify [sic] with the Tustin community and make it more attractive for Tustin [youth] to want to go to the new Rancho Santiago site.”
     “Mrs. Berry said she had many of the concerns about the Bryan-Myford site back in September that came up when the Irvine Co. offered the new site. She said that no one listened to her concerns then stating that it could be worked out without any problem.”
     “Mrs. Berry then moved to direct the superintendent to advise the Irvine Co. that the district intends to pursue its earlier decision to purchase the 20-acre site at Myford and Bryan….”
     (“Bryan-Myford Site Chosen for Campus,” Tustin News, 3-3-77)

     *I have encountered several references to this “promise” by the board to build a campus in the “Tustin area.” Assuming there really was some kind of promise, the question, of course, is what was meant by the Tustin area? One might suppose that a campus that is only three miles from the Tustin border is indeed “in the Tustin area,” especially when viewed in relation to the entirety of South County. I'll try to track down the so-called promise and its wording(s). —RB

FACULTY UNION SEEKS TO "RUN" THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES

      • Mr. Moses at the Tustin News explains that he’s “been concerned with the teacher union activity this time at the college … and [we] have decided to endorse Pat Bachus, veteran Suddleback trustee and Dr. Clifton Brooks, Tustinite who seeks to succeed Bob Bartholomew on the board….”
     “On Backus, we feel his continual support for Tustin satellite campus Site No. 1 at Bryan and Myford has earned our votes. Tustinite Dr. Brooks, a man of conservative convictions, and wide outreach, has studied Sites 1 and 2, discovered the people of Irvine City are not so sold on the second site as their trustee, Mrs. Brandt, might think….”
     “It’s important to know that Backus and Brooks are independent of the Teachers Union which is vigorously supporting some of their opponents. This is in concert with the teachers union recent attempts to run the school boards by choosing their trustees. We don’t believe in this activity…. We hope you agree. Remember to vote next Tuesday….”
     (“Backus and Brooks Our Choice for Saddleback,” Tustin News, 3-3-77)

      • In the Tustin News, James Marshall’s widow, Ruth, urges voters to vote for Robert Price to replace her husband on the board.
     (“Mrs. Marshall Urges Voting for Price,” Tustin News, 3-3-77)

MRS. KENNEDY'S CURIOUS CHALLENGE TO THE CITY COUNCIL

      • According to the Tustin News, Tustin resident Ursula Kennedy addressed the Tustin City Council Feb. 22, “Asking that it reaffirm its original support for the Bryan-Myford site.”
     “Kennedy challenged the council to share with the public any information that they might have as to why the Bryan-Myford site should be abandoned.”
     “The Council sent a letter indicating its support of either of two alternative [sic], whichever is more economical for the location of the new campus following the annexation of more than 400 acres of Irvine Company owned farm land to the city Jan. 26.”
     “The Irvine Company has … been attempting to persuade the Saddleback … trustees to accept an alternate site farther south into the City of Irvine….”
     “The council did not respond to Mrs. Kennedy’s challenge or request….”
     (“Support Urged for Bryan-Myford Saddleback Site,” Tustin News, 3-3-77)

A union-backed winner: supported selection of the 
Jeffrey/Irvine Center Drive site.

     • According to the Tustin News, “Several Saddleback … District board members objected to a letter sent out by the Saddleback … Faculty Assn., endorsing candidates, Dr. Alan Greenwood, Eugene McKnight and Robert Price…”
     The problem is that the letter is written on Saddleback College stationary “on which board members[’] names are printed.”
     “Paul Brennan, president of the Faculty Assn., took the responsibility for sending out … letters” disavowing Donna Berry and other trustees’ endorsements of those candidates." He apologized.
     (“Political Use of Stationary Objected To By Board,” Tustin News, 3-3-77)

ELECTION UPSET! BACKUS IS OUT, WATTS IS IN

     • The LA Times reports that “Several incumbent school board members lost their seats in Orange County elections Tuesday, including a charter trustee of the Saddleback Community College District.”
     Mr. Backus.
     “ ‘I thought sure I was going to win; I really did,’ said Patrick J. Backus, a trustee of the … district since its formation in 1967. He lost to Eugene C. McKnight, a 70-year-old retired college professor.”
     “An issue in the campaign that could have affected the outcome, Backus said, was the selection of a site for a proposed second college campus for the district.”
     “Backus was a strong advocate of a 20-acre site close to the Tustin portion of the district while his opponent, McKnight, campaigned in favor of an alternate site about three miles away in Irvine.”
     “Another upset in the same college race was the election of William Watts … to the board seat vacated last year by conservative trustee Robert Batholomew. The odds-on favorite had been dentist Alan H. Greenwood, who was endorsed by the Saddleback College faculty union.”
     “Watts said he was surprised at his victory. ‘I didn’t think there was much opportunity for me to win,’ he said. ‘At the time I filed, I just thought it was important to have more than one person running.’ ”
     “He said he spent only $5 for the entire campaign….”
     “ ‘I’m not a political person at all,’ he said. ‘This is a new game for me.’ ”
     (“Saddleback Trustee Unseated by Voters,” LA Times, 3-10-77)

LA Times, 3-10-77
Union endorsed candidates Price and McKnight win
Union endorsed Greenwood loses to Watts.
Watts favored the Myford-Bryan site.
McKnight favored the Jeffrey site.

THE NEW BOARD WOULDN'T DARE CHANGE OUR SITE SELECTION

     • The Tustin News reports that “The Saddleback … District board spit 2-2 to execute an agreement for sale and purchase of the Bryan-Myford site including escrow instructions.”

     “Voting for were Trustees Frank Greinke and Donna Berry. Voting against were Larry Taylor and Norrisa Brandt…. Pat Backus … was absent.”
     “…Mrs. Berry stated she was upset with those, who because of ‘sour grapes’ had been ‘playing a stalling game.’ ”
     “Both Taylor and Mrs. Brandt have favored the site at Jeffrey and Irvine Center Drive since the Irvine Co. offered it at a special price in January….”
     “In answer to Mrs. Berry’s comments, Taylor stated, ‘We are here to make a decision on what is best for the college.’ He added that when the board originally made its decision in September that it had stated that if changes occurred that the board would have no qualms in selecting another site.”
     “ ‘The conditions as they existed are different,’ said Taylor. ‘It’s going to cost a million and a half more to bring in utilities….’ ”
     “Greinke stated that conditions would always be changing adding, ‘The more we wait we are going to deny the people in the northern area a chance to go to a college in their area.’ He added that if the full board was planning to reverse its vote, it should go back to the community. He said he would support the Jeffrey site if the people did.”
     “At this Mrs. Berry became concerned stating, ‘We simply turned down escrow instructions. A firm vote has been taken on the site. The new board, I hope, is certainly not going to presume to come on and change the site.’ ” 
     “She added that she would like to see a legal opinion…. Roy Barletta, business manager, said such an opinion had been sought before and it was decided that matters could be brought up again.
     “Mrs. Berry threatened to bring up every matter for consideration that she disagreed with if the site issue was brought up for vote again.”
     (“Saddleback Board Splits on Escrow Instructions,” Tustin News, 3-31-77)

The "new" (i.e., post March 8, 1977) Saddleback board of trustees

THE CRANKY MR. GREINKE

     • According to the Tustin News, “The Saddleback College Academic calendar for 1977-78 was approved by the board … March 14 with only Trustee Frank Greinke voting against.”
     “ ‘Why do we have to close the campus down for a month?’ he asked.”
     “Norrisa Brandt, board chairman, said she understood the time would be used for short courses.”
     “George Gilbert, director of maintenance, told Greinke, that many maintenance repairs could only be done when classes are not in session…”
     “Greinke replied that that was the first positive statement he had heard regarding the subject.”
     (“JC Academic Calendar Approved,” Tustin News, 3-31-77)

APRIL 1977

A FLOOD PLAIN?

     • The Tustin News reports:
     “With the City of Tustin’s annexation of over 400 acres of Irvine Ranch land [between Bryan, the 5, Jamboree, and Myford] warm, city officials’ smiles are already beginning to fade.
     The acreage, the last large undeveloped area within Tustin’s sphere of influence, is being included in the County of Orange’s updated listing of “areas subject to flooding.”
     That implied that the land was suitable only for “agricultural, recreational or open space uses.” (Remember, site 1 [Myford/Bryan] is in the middle of this 400 acre parcel.)
     “Both the City of Tustin and the Irvine Company are planning on developing the property into a planned community within the next seven years.”
     Community Development Director R. Kenneth Fleagle “recommended to the city planners that they request the mayor to send a letter objecting to the inclusion of the Tustin property in the flood plain listing.”
     Evidently, the “flood plain” designation “could impose some liabilities for future development….” 
“The commission agreed with Fleagle that the designation was not appropriate.”
     (“Irvine-Myford Annex Called “Flood Plain,” Tustin News, 4-14-77)

THE BLANKET SAYS IT ALL

     • “Charter Saddleback College Trustee Patrick J. Backus was honored by his [recently ousted] fellow board members … when they adopted a resolution citing his achievements….”
     “ ‘Pat has done an outstanding job as a board member,’ [said] Donna C. Berry. ‘Because of his support of our athletic program, we are presenting him with one of our award blankets….’”
     (“JC Board Honors Pat Backus,” Tustin News, 4-14-77)

MAKIN' THE BIG BUCKS, HOPIN' FOR MORE

     • “Saddleback College teachers are still without a 1976-77; salary agreement….”
     “The Saddleback College Faculty Assn. … has made no proposals, but has reacted negatively to proposals by the board.”
     “The average Saddleback faculty contract salary for 1976-77 is $22,445 with gross earnings by faculty averaging at $27,272….”
     (“JC Faculty Earnings Average $27,00 a Year,” Tustin News, 4-14-77)

Tustin News, 7-12-79

[PART 8c]

 

     IN THIS POST: with the March 8, 1977, election, charter trustee Pat Backus, who supported the grumbling Tustinites, suffers a major upset; he's OUT and newbies Watts, McKnight, and Price are IN. What emerges is a "new board majority" of Brandt-Taylor-McKnight-Price, two of whom were backed by the faculty union, which seeks to be the sole legal rep of faculty on contract issues, which are going badly.
     Amazingly, this crew immediately REOPENS the supposedly settled subject of site selection for the district's second campus. Tustinites have a cow. The board minority seethes. WTFs all around.
     But the Irvine Co. won't sell the Jeffrey property unless it is first "condemned," thereby relieving the company (and the district) of a big tax payout. Does the new board majority have the five votes necessary for the condemnation move? Seemingly not. (Uh-oh.) 
     Meanwhile, trustee Greinke thinks Child Care Centers are immoral and, over in Irvine, lots of residents are pulling a NIMBY, college-wise, and some begin to suspect dastardly Irvine Co. "tricks." Former trustee Bartholomew weighs in on the crazy site selection issue, bellowing that he expects the district soon to rename itself the "Irvine Company Community College District."

     In May, the Irvine Co. decides to allow Saddleback to purchase the Jeffrey property without condemnation procedures, and so the sale goes forward, ending the matter once and for all. Upshot: the Board Majority has bulldozed the minority and Tustinites are now permanently pissed people. 
     With that, the negotiations logjam concerning the faculty contract is suddenly cleared and faculty get a nice raise and impressive benefits. Greinke calls the contract "excessive." The conservatives seethe.
     What does it all mean? —RB

WHAT?!

APRIL 1977

THE NEW BOARD UNDOES THE "MYFORD" SITE DECISION

     • The LA Times reports:
     “Despite protests from more than 50 residents here, Saddleback College trustees voted 4-3 this week to locate a campus in [Irvine] rather than in unincorporated county territory [essentially in Tustin].”
     “The vote reversed the trustees’ previous decision to start a small campus on 20-acres of Irvine Ranch land at Myford Road and Bryan Avenue, which is in county territory between Irvine and Tustin.”

     “The site trustees selected this week [on Jeffrey] is … owned by the Irvine Co.”
     “Although trustees have been debating location of a Tustin-Irvine area campus for over a year, they have been unable to make a final selection and stick to it.”
     “In September and again in February, they discussed several sites and voted for the Myford-Bryan site.”
     “However, three new trustees were elected in the March 8 election and subsequently requested that the issue be brought up again.”
     “It is possible that the board will have to condemn the land at the Jeffrey site—thus making it available for public use—and if a condemnation vote is taken at least one additional trustee will have to favor the new site to make up the two-thirds majority needed to carry a condemnation vote.”
     “If [Irvine Co.] officials agree to the deal without condemnation, only four votes would be necessary to approve the deal.”
     Price, McKnight, Brandt, and Taylor voted to switch to the Jeffrey/ICD site in Irvine. Greinke, Berry and Watts voted no (i.e., in favor of the earlier selection: the Myford/Bryan site next to Tustin).
     Many local residents complained about the board switcheroo because, they said, starting a college at the Jeffrey/ICD site would not be compatible with their neighborhood; it would cause parking and traffic issues.
     “Further protests are expected at the May 9 condemnation hearing—if it occurs.”
     Originally, the new “satellite” campus was to open in September. “But with the delays due to the continuing controversy, college officials have pushed that date back to September 1978.”
     (“Saddleback College Trustees Vote To Change Campus Site,” LA Times, 4-28-77)

     • In his editorial, Bill Moses explains that things are looking bad for the Saddleback board’s selection of the Myford/Bryan site for its second campus:
     “With the new board’s election, the teachers’ union majority is now apparently going to rescind the former board’s choice of Bryan-Myford 20 acres as the northern campus. This is by 4-3 vote.”
     “We hope the new trustees will think carefully before they put the Tustin and Irvine residents on the rack of the teachers’ union dictates in the choice of Jeffrey-Irvine Center Dr. site.” 
     (“Wait and See if Tustin-Irvine Campus Site Lost,” Tustin News, 4-28-77)

IRVINE CO. WANTS TO AVOID PAYING TAXES

      • “Reconsideration of the Jeffrey-Irvine Center Drive site as the best site for a northern satellite campus was approved 4-3 by the Saddleback Community College District board of trustees Monday night in spite of protests of over 60 Irvine residents attending.”
     New trustee McKnight made the motion.
     Greinke, Berry, and new trustee, Bill Watts voted against the motion. The four others—McKnight, Taylor, Brandt, and Price—voted for it.
     Next step: a hearing for the owner, the Irvine Co. Next, a resolution condemning the property.
     “Some board members asked if the negotiations could be conducted without condeming [sic] the property. Roy Barletta, business manager, replied, ‘The Irvine Co. will not sell unless under threat of condemnation.’”
     If the property is “under threat of condemnation,” then “the Irvine Co. would not have to pay taxes on the land. Neither would the school district.”
     Local residents complained about increased traffic and parking issues. The parking issue was easily addressed (enough parking would be provided on campus).
     Mel Roop of the Irvine City Planning staff “noted that plans were underway to have Jeffrey widened to six lanes and Irvine Center Drive to four lanes.”
     “Roop also stated that the Irvine City Council unanimously endorsed the Jeffrey-Irvine Center Drive [site] for the Saddleback campus site.”
     Nick Alles of the Meadows Homeowners Assn. board spoke.
     “Alles … referred to letters from the city and the Irvine Co. favorable to the Bryan-Myford site up to Dec. 10, 1976. ‘The people were not aware of the tricks that would be sprung upon them. At a meeting Jan. 6, without consultation of city residents, the council voted unanimously to support the change….’ ”
     “A resident of The Ranch said that in a survey, the homeowners group found that 85 to 90 per cent of the residents did not want the college at the Jeffrey site.”
     Other homeowners associations seemed to favor the Jeffrey site.
     Greinke explained the financial advantages of choosing the Jeffrey site. Residents’ taxes would be lower with the Jeffrey site, he said.
     “According to Dr. Ed Hart, assistant superintendent at Saddleback, present plans are to have a satellite campus in the northern area operatin by September 1978 with approximately 2000 full and part-time students, a full-time faculty of 25-30, within 30 to 40,000 gross square ft. of space.”
     (“Saddleback 2nd Site to be Reconsidered,” Tustin News, 4-28-77)

MAY 1977

      • “Twenty-nine new full-time teaching positions were approved March 28 by the Saddleback College Board of Trustees….”
     (“Saddleback Adds 29 Full-Time Teachers,” Tustin News, 5-5-77)

      • “The unknown of whether or not the Irvine Company will sell land at Jeffrey and Irvine Center Drive without a resolution to condemn the land is the reason the public hearing on the northern campus at that site is being postponed until May 23 the Saddleback … board was told Monday night.”
     “This was the reply by Superintendent … Lombardi to Trustee Donna Berry’s question, ‘What are we waiting for? What information don’t we have?’ ”
     “The vote to postpone the public hearing on the site to May 23 was approved by the board 6-1 with Trustee Frank Greinke voting against.”
     “If a resolution to condemn … is necessary, a 2/3 vote or five votes is needed by the board.”
Does the majority (of 4) have the five votes?
     Greinke wondered if the board were prepared should it be forced to go back to Site #1 (the Myford/Bryan site).
     “ ‘My concern is that we do not burn our bridges that we built before behind us,’ said Greinke.”
     “ ‘Maybe we should start building a new bridge,’ replied Trustee Norrisa Brandt.”
     (“Hearing Postponed on 2nd Site,” Tustin News, 5-12-77)

      • “Contract for the Child Care Center at Saddleback College was awarded to the low bidder….”
     “Vote was 5-2 with Trustees Frank Greinke and Donny Berry voting against.”
     “Greinke said he felt child care is the responsibility of the parents adding ‘I think this is a misuse of community college funds. I think the children belong at home, not at college.’ ”
     (“Board Awards JC Child Care Center Contract,” Tustin News, 5-12-77)

The new "board majority," 1977

      • “Dear Bill [Moses],”
     “…I have been keeping abreast of what was transpiring through your paper…. After all, there were two excellent members (Frank Greinke and Donna Berry), to keep common-sense thinking and reasoning before the rest of the board….”
     “It is now obvious that I was mistaken. About the only thing that the ‘fuzzybrained’ members, which form the majority of the board—have not done is to rename the district [ ] the ‘Irvine Company Community College District,’ since it is quite apparent that they feel said Company owns the district….”
     Sincerely,
     Bob Bartholomew [former trustee]
     (Letters to the Editor, Tustin News, 5-19-77)

      • The LA Times reports:
     “The Saddleback Community College District has decided to purchase property at Jeffrey Road and Irvine Center Drive in the City of Irvine for its planned second campus.”
     “Trustees of the college district voted Monday night to accept an offer from the Irvine Co. to purchase 20 acres at the site for $45,000 an acre, or a total purchase price of $900,000.”
     “The property currently is appraised at $75.000 an acre, and is conservatively expected to be valued at $120,000 an acre within five years.”
     “The board … decision apparently ends a long-standing controversy over where the district intends to locate its second campus. Last September, the board had decided to buy a site at Myford Road and Bryan Ave in unincorporated territory near Tustin. The Irvine Co., however, subsequently decided that the Myford site was beneficial to its agricultural interests….”
     It was a 4-3 vote with Greinke, Watts, and Berry “casting negative ballots.”
     (“Saddleback College District to Buy Jeffrey Road Site,” LA Times, 5-25-77)

      • “With the Irvine Co. removing the last obstacle, The [sic] Saddleback Community College District board of trustees Monday night by majority 4-3 vote approved purchase of 20 acres … at Jeffrey and Irvine Center Drive.”
      “…Last Tuesday the Irvine Co. board of directors voted to allow Saddleback to purchase the site without condemnation procedures. Only a majority vote is needed in that case. Voting against purchase were” Greinke, Watts, and Berry. Taylor, Brandt, Price, and McKnight voted in favor.
      “…The News has received reports that The Ranch [a homeowners association] has hired a lawyer to look into suing the Irvine Co. over the site issue.”
     (“New Site Purchase Approved by Board,” Tustin News, 5-26-77)

      • “A three year contract increasing faculty salary 29.5 per cent, including automatic step increases, was approved 5-2 Monday night by the Saddleback … board…. Trustees Frank Greinke and Donna Berry voted against the increase.”
     “Greinke stated he thought the salary hike was excessive[:] ‘I think that is excessive … in that we gave 12/5 per cent last year. That destroys the integrity of the cost of living increase. We are giving twice as much to the rich than to the poor. We are going to separate the faculty that much more.’ ” [The latter is a reference to part-timer pay, which is considerably below full-timer pay.]
     “…Mrs. Berry [said], ‘I want to point out to Saddleback College employees that we are all very well covered. We have one of the finest fringe benefit packages in the area. I think that sometimes is taken for granted.’ ”
     “Commenting on the agreement, [Superintendent] Lombardi stated, ‘Both the district and the faculty enjoyed major gains in the negotiations. The district made a necessary change in the summer school pay formula [reducing the rate for full-timers, bring it closer to that of part-timers], and the faculty gained the long-term contract it was seeking. There is a good feeling of compromise on both sides.’ ”
     Added Lombardi: “the district recognizes that these figures to [sic] not reflect the current cost of living increase but they do reflect a substantial commitment to maintain competitive salaries….”
     (“JC Faculty Receives 3 Year 29.5% Pay Hike,” Tustin News, 5-26-77)

So, what does it all mean?

     It does seem clear that the deal for the Jeffrey/ICD property was a good one, better than the Myford deal. Brandt was probably right when she suggested that the district had the Irvine Co over a barrel—if, that is, it was willing to ignore the clamor from Tustin for selection of the Myford site.

*

     What was up with the Irvine Co.? The company behaved as though something had come up—around December of 1976—that suddenly made continued ownership of the Myford property highly attractive. 
     It sure wasn’t the price of soy beans.
     It seems clear that, despite the Irvine Co.’s public protests to the contrary, in keeping the Myford property, it was pursuing profit in the form of the development of commercial (not residential or agricultural) enterprises (i.e., leased properties). And, in fact, about ten years later, the Irvine Co. did create the (Tustin) Market Place exactly where the satellite campus would have stood; and that venture has been very profitable, as I understand it. 
     Yes, where Saddleback’s second campus might have stood now stands lots of Market Place parking—plus Dick’s Sporting Goods.

*

     Is it true that the board had promised Tustinites to put a college in the City of Tustin? Was the Great Switcheroo of April, 1977, a depraved act, the breaking of a promise to the long-suffering and earnest Tustin community?
     I need to look into the details, but the language that is usually used to refer to that promise is that the district planned to build a campus “in the Tustin area.” Now, obviously, there is a perspective, a genuine one, from which the Jeffrey campus IS in the Tustin area, if not in Tustin; it certainly is so relative to South County. 
     But maybe the promise was more specific, more Tustinian. I’ll try to find out.
     There’s evidence that, under more normal circumstances (i.e., absent the switcheroos), the Tustin crowd would have been satisfied learning that the northern campus would be built just a few miles south in beauteous Irvine. After all, the Tustin City Council at one point communicated a happiness with either site—Myford or Jeffrey. I suspect that things went badly, Tustinwise, because of those infernal switcheroos. The Myford site was first chosen, then unchosen, then chosen again, only to be unchosen for good. No wonder they’re pissed. They’re still pissed. (Remember how the endless negotiations between the City of Tustin and the district regarding the Tustin [ATEP] site went so badly for years? No doubt, our district’s miserable history with that city had something to do with it.)

*

     In 1977, it was already clear that there would be more growth in the Irvine/El Toro area than in Tustin, and that conviction has been born out. In terms of population changes since 1977, the selection of the Jeffrey site (as compared to the Myford site) seems fortunate (to me, for what that’s worth, but what do I know about such things?).

*

     Having been through the horrors of the 1996 trustee election—and the stunning continued creepitude and misconduct of the union Old Guard for years thereafter—I naturally wonder if the 1977 faculty union and (some of) the board majority made an explicit bargain: a quid pro quo. 
     That’s what happened in 1996: the Board Majority that emerged, thanks to the Faculty Association’s sleazy efforts (appealing to homophobia, turning a blind eye to Holocaust denial, etc.), from that election, soon granted precisely the kinds of salary increases (etc.) that the union leadership had sought. And the Board Four was thereafter assured easy reelection (which indeed occurred, not only for Williams, Frogue, and Fortune [Lorch resigned, with designs on the district HR job, which she ultimately secured via lawsuit/settlement], but for newcomers Wagner and Padberg, both archconservatives, in 1998, and then the Prince of Freakin’ Darkness, Tom Fuentes, in 2000).
     Of course, it’s one thing for a union to support candidates who hold values similar to their own (which might have happened in 1977), and it’s quite another thing to pursue an explicit quid pro quo concerning salary hikes and the like. 
     What went on in the election of early 1977?
     I just don’t know.
     I will simply observe that things were going badly for the union in its contract negotiations prior to the election of 1977; and they went very well thereafter.
     Golly. —RB 

JUNE 1977

     • “Funeral mass was celebrated June 7 for the wife of Saddleback College Superintendent Robert Lombardi, Marilyn Lombardi, 41, who passed away June 4 after a lengthy illness….”
     (“Saddleback JC Superintendent’s Wife Passes,” Tustin News, 6-9-77)