Dear Mayor Robles:
Generally, I make it a practice not to respond to divisive statements or call out errors of fact made by a public official. Recently, erroneous information regarding CSU Dominguez Hills (CSUDH) and the California State University (CSU) provided by you to Random Lengths News have been so egregious, I am compelled to respond (Attachment A). Carson Residents, City Council members, and the public at large should not continue to be misled by false statements and inaccurate information. Below are the erroneous assertions you have made regarding CSUDH and the factual corrections to these assertions:
Assertion 1: CSUDH and the CSU System ignored numerous requests by the City to discuss our master plan and update
Fact: This simply is not the case. CSUDH staff initiated numerous meetings with City officials and staff with the specific objective of consulting with the City regarding the University’s master plan. There has been no instance in which CSUDH or the CSU ignored a request by the City to meet. You and other City Council members personally attended one of several introductory briefings on October 2016 regarding our master plan development, for example, and no significant issues or concerns regarding the master plan development, including development of a University Village, were raised during these meetings. Your primary recommendation at that time was to reduce on-campus parking.
In addition to meeting with City staff and officials, the University hosted several public meetings on our master plan, soliciting input from local residents and community members on development decisions. A summary of recent meetings with City staff and officials and public forums hosted by CSUDH on our master plan update is enclosed as Attachment B. My primary purpose in detailing these meetings and providing this information as an attachment is to ensure individuals copied on this letter have factual information.
Assertion 2: CSUDH initiated the environmental review process required for the University master plan despite City objections.
Fact: As previously stated and as evidenced in Attachment B, CSUDH engaged City staff and officials on multiple occasions regarding University development plans. At no point during these discussions did the City raise objections to the University initiating the EIR process was communicated by the City in a letter sent to the CSU Board of Trustees on August 10, 2017. The prior evening, in one of the meetings initiated by CSUDH, CSUDH staff met with the City manager and City staff to discuss University development plans, the EIR process and timeline, and University’s commitment to pay its fair share of potential mitigation measures. No objections to the University beginning the EIR Process were raised during this meeting and, in fact, University staff left the meeting understanding City staff supported the University’s plans.
Rather than engage with the University to provide substantive feedback, the City elected to undertake letter writing, public campaigns, and legal action designed to stop the process and disparage the reputation of the University. At no point has the City provided substantive written feedback on the content of documents or plans presented by the University.
Assertion 3: The CSUDH master plan includes a for-profit development, University Village, not for exclusively educational purposes.
Fact: The University’s master plan development, including University Village, is for exclusively educational purposes. The University has no interest in pursuing activities that do not benefit or advance its educational mission. Faculty, staff, and students will reside in many of the market rate residential units. Retails and commercial space will serve the more than 20,000 faculty, staff and students the master plan is intended to support. Leases with business park tenants will provide internships for students and other direct linkages to our academic mission.
Net revenue from the development will be used to hire additional faculty, renovate university facilities, and support CSUDH students and their success. State funding to the CSU has decline from 63 percent of our state operating fund to 49 percent. With students now paying 49 percent of educational costs compared to 31 percent in 2008/09 (other revenue made up two percent of the CSUDH state operating budget in both 2008/09 and in 2017/18). The University has an obligation to ensure our students receive an affordable, high quality education and must seek resources. This development will benefit the University and the entire community.
Assertion 4: University Village will have a dramatic impact on Carson’s traffic, existing utilities, aesthetics and quality of life in the residential communities surrounding the campus. CSUDH is trying to run roughshod over Carson, failing to address the impacts of its development on our community.
Fact: CSUDH has a vested interest in the well being of the residential communities surrounding the University. Our campus resides in Carson and we are part of the community. We have engaged Carson residents in providing input into our master plan update via public forums and have initiated meetings with Carson staff and officials to keep them informed of our master plan and EIR plans and ensure they are aware of our commitment to fulfilling our legal obligation to mitigate any significant impacts to the environment resulting from our master plan development.
Additionally, CSUDH has engaged a highly qualified and well respected consulting firm to prepare an EIR for the University master plan as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The purpose of an EIR is inform decision-makers and the public general of the environmental effects of a project, possible ways to minimize significant effects, and reasonable alternatives to the project. The University will release a draft EIR for public comment in mid-February and has informed City staff of our desire to engage City staff in reviewing potential mitigation measures to lessen or avoid significant effects on the environment and our commitment to fulfill the University’s legal obligation to pay its fair share of nay costs associated with potential mitigation measures resulting from the University master plan.
Since the draft EIR has not been released and CSUDH and the City have not discussed potential mitigation measures and CSUDH funding requirements, indicating CSUDH is trying to run roughshod over Carson, Failing to address the impacts of its development on our community is inaccurate and misleading.
What is clear, however, is that the University Village and surrounding improvements will benefit the City. During a meeting with the city Manager and other City staff on October 25, 2017, CSUDH staff shared preliminary annual revenue projects to the City of Carson from the University Village development estimated by a real estate advisory firm hired by the University. This information is enclosed as Attachment C. As the University acknowledged during the October 25 meeting, the roughly $1.9 million in annual tax revenue the City is projected to receive from the university village Development requires further validation and refinement. CSUDH staff has been in regular contact with the director of Finance for the City to refine these projections. Thus far, it appears the $1.9 million in annual tax revenue projected for the City may be understated.
Assertion 5: The Office of Planning and Research (OPR) rescinded the University’s position as lead agency for the environmental review process required for the University master plan.
Fact: In response to a petition to be designated lead agency for the environmental review process for the University master plan sent by the City of Carson to the OPR, after considering information and arguments put forward by the respective attorneys for the CSU and the city of Carson, OPR assigned lead agency status to the CSU.
The City of Carson subsequently filed a lawsuit against OPR, naming the CSU as a Real Party in Interest, challenging OPR’s determination. During a mandatory settlement meeting with OPR and the CSU, Carson offered to drop this lawsuit in exchange for OPR and the University agreeing OPR would provide an additional opportunity for CSU and the City to respond to inquiries and provide documentation supporting their respective position for led agency designation. Through their respective attorneys, on January 15, 2018, the University and the City of Carson each submitted responses to questions developed by OPR. OPR is expected to issue a new determination on lead agency designation on or about January 26, 2018.
Assertion 6: The City has been forced to go to court to protect its interests.
Fact: The University is legally obligated to engage the City during the environmental review process and to pay its fair share of costs associated with mitigation measures. A draft EIR for the University master plan has not yet been released. The City of Carson’s decision to spend City resources on attorneys in advance of the release of a draft EIR, and in light of actions by the University demonstrating good faith, is premature at best.
The University is a community asset and provides numerous services and support to the City and its program, including but not limited to ongoing faculty, student and staff involvement, and support towards the Joseph B. Jr. and Mary Anne O’ Neal Stroke center, year round community enrichment programs such as the City of Carson Women’s Conference, Cesar Chavez memorial celebrations, Martin Luther King Jr. memorial celebration, Sharefest’s Youth Development Academy, City of Carson Jazz Festival, campus host and supporter of the city of Carson Youth Swag Summit, usage of facilities for City of Carson theater and musical performances, and active members of a variety of city wide committees and commissions.
This is only a fraction of the initiatives in which the University supports the City in helping build a stronger community. In fact, our University played a key role in the city’s All-American Award given by the National Civic League as one of the our community based educational enrichment programs. In 2014, the University also was awarded President Obama’s National Award for Outstanding Community Engagement.
Assertion 7: The CSU and CSUDH ran roughshod over Carson, ignoring the concerns of City officials and failing to adequately address any impacts of what is now known as the StubHub Center on our community.
Fact: The University undertook an extensive EIR process during planning for the StubHub Center. City officials and staff were engaged in this process and provided written feedback on the draft EIR incorporated into the final EIR certified by the CSU Board of Trustees. Almost 60 mitigation measures addressing impacts of the development of the StubHub Center were implemented by the University and the StubHub Center, including street improvements, traffic light changes, noise reduction measures, residential traffic and parking restrictions and other measures.
Assertion 8: Today Carson gets absolutely no revenue from the stadium –no parking fee, no ticket tax, no city host fee, nothing, from any event, not even NFL Chargers games. Carson was bamboozled into bearing 100 percent of the inconvenience and burdens of the stadium complex, with zero percent of the financial rewards.
Fact: In addition to millions of dollars in street improvements and other mitigation measures implemented in conjunction with the EIR process for the StubHub Center, the City has received ticket tax revenue from the StubHub Center in addition to administrative fees and licenses and donations to City organizations. The StubHub Cente also has made hundreds of in-kind donations in support of the Carson community.
Additionally, a 2015 report on economic impacts commissioned by the StubHub Center shows several sectors of consumer goods spending reflected in taxable sales, increased significantly in the city of Carson between 2001 and 2012, despite the nationwide recession beginning in the fourth quarter of 2007 (Attachment D). The report notes that while not all of these increases can be directly attributed to the StubHub Center, some portion of this growth is a product of StubHub Center visitor and event attendee spending in the community before during and after events.
As you are aware, the University engaged the City during negotiations with the AEG to expand the stadium by 3,000 seats for the Chargers. The University made it clear to both AEG and the City it would not support increased seating capacity unless AEG compensated both the City and CSUDH. Due to the manner in which the City handled these negotiations, AEG informed the University they no longer wanted to pursue an increase in seating capacity for the Chargers. As such, CSUDH removed this item from consideration by the CSU Board of Trustees (BOT) in July 2017. The City continued to negotiate with AEG and two days before the July trustees meeting, you met with me in an effort to persuade me to request this item be added back to the trustee agenda. I declined, indicating to you that when city actions closed the window on the July BOT meeting it could not be reopened without delaying approval of University projects that were next in line. While the city and AEG had reached agreement on financial terms benefiting the City, no further negations had occurred between AEG and the University. The City was unconcerned about the University’s interest and expected the University to make a special request to the CSU BOT to advance the City’s interests. Absent a financial benefit to the University, I was unwilling to make this request and instead you elected to attend the trustee meeting to make this request to the trustees directly during public comment period. The trustees did not take action on this item since there was no benefit to the CSU or to CSUDH in doing so.
In a letter to you dated August 17, 2017, I informed you increased seating capacity in the stadium could be included in the University’s master plan update and EIR process. This has occurred. Current action by the City challenging the University’s master plan update and EIR process as lead agency has the potential to jeopardize the timeline for approval of the University master plan, including the increase in seating capacity of the stadium. Should this occur, this will be the second time actions taken by you and City staff resulted in missed opportunities to secure additional revenue for the City.
Let me conclude by saying I found the recent online article written by you in Random Lengths News and accompanying illustration, enclosed as Attachment A, more than a little troubling. The article uses provocative language to convey all of the above inaccurate assertions, along with several others, and defames CSUDH and the CSU. The illustration features an unclothed Black arm and hand representing CSUDH and a suited, White arm and hand representing the City of Carson. What message is this illustration intended to convey? I am not sure why such an illustration was even necessary. This was an illustration, which quite frankly, whether chosen by you or the newspaper, I found insensitive at best. Others may consider it racist.
Sincerely,
Dr. Willie J. Hagan