Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout16 MCKINNEY ACT MCAS 08-01-94AGENDA NO. 16 8-1-94 Inter-Com/ DATE: AUGUST 1, 1994 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT THE MCKINNEY ACT STRATEGY AS IT APPLIES TO MCAS TUSTIN PURPOSE/RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council concur with current McKinney Act compliance strategy and/or provide any additional direction on this matter. FISCAL IMPACT Costs associated with preparation McKinney Act are covered by the funds. of this report and work on the general fund and federal grant BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION 1. McKinney Act Requirements The Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act of 1987 requires the Defense Department and other federal agencies to give homeless assistance uses top priority consideration over other uses for transfer of surplus federally owned buildings or land which are determined to be suitable and available and which are not needed by another federal agency. In addition to non-profit homeless assistance organizations, housing authorities, states and other public agehcies may apply for the surplus property to provide assistance to homeless persons. Surplus property may be leased to homeless providers by the federal government, or fee ownership may be transferred at below-market cost or at no cost. The property may be used by homeless providers for emergency shelters, transitional housing (18 to 24 month occupancy by the same household), meal services (food distribution), health care and other related support services. McKinney Act applicants must satisfy federal Department of Health and Human Services (H/qS) criteria for standards of operation and financial ability to operate and maintain any property transferred. For example, an applicant must describe the proposed program, prove ability to furnish and operate the program, have adequate Base Closure Task Force The McKinney Act Screening Process as it Applies to MCAS, Tustin August 1, 1994 Page 2 insurance, document need for the program, document their experience in operating similar programs, and document their financial ability to carry out the program. Similar to federal, state and local screening interests, McKinney interests are approved at the discretion of the acting head of the military branch involved. Due to its humanitarian intent and very real potential for significantly negative political implications if ' opposed, the McKinney Act presents a particularly complex Planning issue to communities involved with base reuse planning. .while not originally intended to apply to closing military bases, the McKinney Act provisions have been viewed by many as a critical element in the success of any reuse planning effort. McKinney Act interests in base property are given significant priority by the disposing military branch. In past base closure cases around the country, continued community refusal to incorporate an adequate provision for the homeless has resulted in the federal government's rejection of the community's reuse plan. The most successful reuse efforts have been those that have incorporated a fair-share approach to the provision of homeless needs and which have worked cooperatively toward agreement and mutual cooperation with interested homeless providers. 2. McKinne¥ Act Screeninq Proces~ The 1994 Base Closure Community Assistance Act (Pryor Amendment) expedites the screening process for identification of interested providers to the homeless who may have interest in property at closing military bases. The Department of Defense has issued interim rules to implement the Pryor Amendment until final rules are established in September 1994. The expedited screening process is intended to provide communities with early information on potential property transfers to homeless providers so that reuse plans can accommodate these needs. The process followed by the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps to comply with the McKinney Act, as it applies to MCAS, Tustin is: The Department of Navy must screen (advertise) all base closure property to determine whether another federal department/agency or military branch wishes to use a portion of a closing installation. For Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin, this was to be originally completed prior to June, 1, 1994. Base Closure Task Force The McKinney Act Screening Process as it Applies to MCAS, Tustin August 1, 1994 Page 3 e Also prior to June 1, 1994, the Department of Navy must hold a workshop for homeless providers to describe the property which will become available under the McKinney Act and to acquaint them with the process through which they may apply for the property. After the federal screening process for surplus properties is complete, the Department of Navy will notify the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The notification will also describe which property is eligible for transfer (no asbestos, not in a floodway, etc.). HUD will determine what property is suitable for use to assist the homeless, notify the Marine Corps of its determination, and publish a notice of availability of such properties in the Federal Register within 60 days. Homeless providers have 60 days after the notice to express interest in properties to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Homeless providers then have 90 days after written expression of interest to make a formal application to HHS. HHS has 25 days after receiving formal applications for review and final recommendation. HHS recommendations for transfer are submitted to the Secretary of the Navy to assign the property to HHS for conveyance through deed transfer or lease to the applicant. The Secretary of Navy has discretionary authority over all requests for transfer regarding closing Marine and Navy bases and will consider the community's Reuse Plan and consult with the local Reuse Authority prior to taking a formal action. Again, however, the McKinney Act provides that in disposing of property, priority will be qiven to uses which assist the homeless unless a competing public benefit discount request for the property is meritorious and compelling as to outweigh the needs of the homeless. To date, the Department of Navy has not utilized the meritorious and compelling option, apparently due to a concern regarding the potential for litigation. · Immediately following McKinney screening, the local Reuse Authority can indicate an interest in the transfer of Base Closure Task Force The McKinney Act Screening Process as it Applies to MCAS, Tustin August 1, 1994 Page 4 portions of the base which have not been requested by either federal agencies or the homeless. If a Reuse Plan is adopted within one year of the Authority's interest, additional McKinney screenings may not occur. The Authority is not obligated to formally acquire the property at any time. Although not a formally recognized step in base disposal, military practice is to require the Reuse Authority and qualified homeless providers to continue negotiations until accommodation for the homeless is accomplished within the Reuse Plan. In the recent past, communities that have continued to refuse to accommodate the homeless within their Reuse Plan have eventually faced formal rejection of that Reuse Plan and approval by the military department of all qualified homeless applications, including in at least one case, the transfer of the entire base to the homeless. 3. Initial Community Objectives There are really only two choices in responding to the requirements of the McKinney Act. The Community can ignore federal law and the advice of federal agencies while preparing a Reuse Plan understanding that the plan would then be rejected. Alternately we can ensure that a balance is achieved between the requirements of the McKinney Act and the need to achieve an economically viable and community supported Reuse Plan. Early resolution of McKinney Act issues, will accelerate the goal of adoption of a Reuse Plan that will put the site to productive uses, create employment and economic development opportunities and meet the requirements of Federal law. From the beginning, as a federally recognized nationwide model for base reuse planning, Tustin has taken seriously its obligation to address the needs of the homeless as part of a planning for reuse for MCAS, Tustin. An overall objective, however, has been to provide a "balanced" housing strategy which addresses a continuum of housing needs and services including the needs of the homeless and the needs of our entire community including needs for permanent affordable long term and for sale housing and market rate units. The success of a residential community is keyed to the concepts of assimilation and anonymity where segments of the community are generally not distinguishable from others. Communities that emphasize and market only affordable housing can be stigmatized and in extreme cases not succeed such as many of the public housing project developments of the 1960's. Base Closure Task Force The McKinney Act Screening Process as it Applies to MCAS, Tustin August 1, 1994 Page 5 while the needs of the homeless must be addressed, no one will be served if McKinney Act interests render redevelopment at MCAS, Tustin financially infeasible, destroys the integrity of the reuse of the balance of base property at MCAS, Tustin or precludes the economic recovery of those portions of the community surrounding the base. The successful transition of MCAS, Tustin will depend on a balanced response to competing demands for public use of property at MCAS, Tustin, including accommodation of the needs of the homeless. Reinforcing our overall objectives, the Project Committee staff sent several written inquiries to interested homeless service providers about their initial interest in property at MCAS, Tustin early in the reuse planning process and well over twelve months ago. The City of Tustin also sponsored tours at MCAS, Tustin and a training session for interested homeless providers in 1993 before McKinney Act outreach seminars were even planned by the Department of the Navy. Project Committee staff have also presented numerous reports to the Base Closure Task Force informing them and the public of the requirements of the McKinney Act. The community's broad objectives were supported by the Base Closure Task Force at their last meeting on March 31, 1994. Community participation has also reinforced the Base Closure Task Force's belief that community education needs to be a key economic foundation of any Reuse Plan. On March 31, 1994 the Base Closure Task Force supported the Educational Learning Village proposed within the village area of MCAS, Tustin by an Educational Coalition representing several community college and local school districts (Irvine Valley, Saddleback, Santiago, Orange County Department of Education, Santa Aha Unified School District). The Educational Coalition's goal is to provide learning and job training opportunities to the community with the "goal to promote economical development through instructional programs for education and training of the community for entry and advancement in the workforce". The Educational Coalition's intent is also to respond to broad regional needs of those white collar, blue collar and disadvantaged residents who are unemployed or underemployed in the County. Their proposal will support reengineering of the work force in the County as we know it. The Educational Coalition has also voiced a commitment to assisting the community in developing education and job training to meet McKinney Act requirements. Base Closure Task Force The McKinney Act Screening Process as it Applies to MCAS, Tustin August 1, 1994 Page 6 4. Backqround of Discussions with Homeless Providers The Orange County Homeless Services Coalition (OCHSC) operating under the umbrella of the Orange County Homeless Issues Task Force has been created by homeless agencies interested in applying for or merely supporting the acquisition of property at MCAS, Tustin under the McKinney Act process. The group's operating Protocol Agreement prevents individual organizations from negotiating individually with the City, County or Base Closure Task Force. The group has indicated that there is a regional homeless need for housing and services to approximately 12,000 - 15,000 persons. In December 1993, discussions began between the cities of Tustin and Irvine and OCHSC to reach a mutually acceptable housing strategy for accommodating homeless needs into the reuse planning effort. Since that time, the.cities of Tustin and Irvine have communicated to the group our desire to see a balanced approach to transitioning MCAS, Tustin to private use. The City of Tustin and Irvine staff have taken a position that it is in the best interest of the total community to provide diversity and multiple uses for MCAS, Tustin. At a meeting on March 3, 1993, OCHSC unanimously supported a proposed approach for development of a comprehensive housing strategy for existing housing at MCAS, Tustin which would also deal with the needs of the homeless. This motion included their agreement that two of the newest barracks on the base could be shown on the Preliminary Land Use Plan to contain a minimum of 190 units for an emergency homeless shelter or transitional housing environment for single households. It was also agreed that additional family housing units to be identified for transitional housing would be dealt with in the Specific Plan/Reuse Plan itself and further discussed with OCHSC. The Specific Plan treatment of transitional housing was to ensure that such units could be dispersed in existing neighborhoods and not concentrated consistent with Tustin and Irvine General Plan policies and recent policy positions taken by HUD. The potential reuse of a warehouse area in a proposed industrial area on the base for food distribution was also discussed. At that time, the service providers also agreed to defer perfecting their independent McKinney Act applications in favor of working cooperatively with the City of Tustin and Irvine in developing a proposed comprehensive and mutually supportive housing strategy. Despite their early commitments to reach mutual agreement with both communities, OCHSC has recently identified a number of buildings Base Closure Task Force The McKinney Act Screening Process as it Applies to MCAS, Tustin August 1, 1994 Page 7 and housing units which they have indicated must be accommodated in total disregard to whether the Reuse Plan is economically feasible or whether their proposal could be supported by each community. The Coalition has indicated an interest in approximately 460-760 family units, at least 7-8 barrack buildings, multiple buildings throughout the Village and main portions of the MCAS, Tustin facility including the administrative building, mess hall, child care facilities and other support facilities. A list of facilities that the members of OCHSC have indicated interest in is included as Attachment A. With regard to property within the village area of MCAS, Tustin, members of the OCHSC have communicated that they must be given sole ownership of any facilities to be used for the homeless in the Village. The OCHSC have also been contacting and recruiting additional service providers in the process and began excluding Project Committee staff from a number of meetings which made it very difficult to proceed with negotiations. The OCHSC also advised their members to prepare their McKinney Act applications and threatened that providers would submit McKinney applications independent of community support or any accommodation of the homeless made in the Specific Plan/Reuse Plan. Staff and the Educational Coalition stressed to the OCHSC that Educational Coalition ownership of facilities within the proposed Learning village was imperative for the Village to operate as an educational campus atmosphere, to market it to prospective students and to ensure the adequate resources were available for master planning of campus grounds, facilities, circulation, etc. Without ownership and a minimum of 100 acres of land and facilities in the Village, the Educational Coalition proposal for the Learning Village will be infeasible. The Educational Coalition has also emphasized that they would provide homeless support services (training and educational opportunities) which they believe will transcend that which the Homeless Services Coalition can expect to provide and support adequately on their own without the presence of the Learning village. After months of negotiations, City of Tustin informed OCHSC that the City needed to temporarily delay any further discussions with OCHSC and step away from the negotiating table in order to study and respond to specific requests for property made by members of OCHSC and to provide both Tustin and Irvine City Council's and the Base Closure Task Force with an opportunity to provide direction on any proposed McKinney Act compliance strategy. City Manager Huston Base Closure Task Force The McKinney Act Screening Process as it Applies to MCAS, Tustin August 1, 1994 Page 8 and Mayor Saltarelli communicated this position to OCHSC in letters dated June 8th and June 22nd (Attachment A). 5. HUD's Community PartnershiD Strate~, HUD has adopted a "Community Partnership Strategy,, which favors the integration of households with diverse income levels throughout any given community. Consistent with this new strategy, HUD has recently participated in the "Metro Denver Homeless Initiative,' to assist in providing a regional solution to McKinney Act issues at the Lowry Air Force Base. HUD's involvement in this initiative consists of a $5 million grant to help establish 220 housing units for the homeless in the greater Denver metropolitan area. In exchange for this commitment of funds, as well as funding from the state, the City of Denver and from the sale of base housing, homeless providers have agreed to limit on-base homeless housing. This strategy would be consistent with Tustin's existing Housing Element policy ("promote the dispersion and integration of low and very iow income families throughout the community as opposed to within any particular geographic area or neighborhood. Staff will continue to monitor efforts at Lowry Air Force Base for possible consideration at MCAS, Tustin. 6. Preliminary Fair Share ADproach In discussions with OCHSC on the existing 1,537 existing housing units on the Base, Project Committee staff including representatives from the City of Irvine have attempted to develop the parameters for a comprehensive balanced housing strategy that would provide a balanced mix of housing types within existing housing areas on the Base. Using income limits established by the Federal and State government, four types of family housing levels that needed to be accommodated in development of a comprehensive housing strategy on the Base were identified as follows: Very Low Income households earning less than 50% of HUD/County median income. Included within this category would be transitional housing. Low Income households earning between 50-80% of HUD/County median income. Moderate households earning between 80-120% of HUD/County median income. Base Closure Task Force The McKinney Act Screening Process as it Applies to MCAS, Tustin August 1, 1994 Page 9 · Unrestricted Market Rate The following are current median income levels for a family of four in the County for the very low, low and moderate income households: Very Low Income $39,900 Low Income $47,040 Moderate Income $70,560 These HUD figures vary depending upon household size and are adjusted annually to reflect the change in median income over time. To provide a balanced mix of housing types, it has been staff's position that no more than 25% of all existing dwelling units should be dedicated within the very low and low income levels with the remaining 75% of existing housing units to be reserved for moderate income households and market rate housing. In addition, within the very low income household category, it has also been desired that the maximum number of units to be identified as "transitional units" not exceed 25% of the number of units that would be identified for low and very low income households. Generally, occupants of transitionary housing units would have income less than 30% of the County median income and pay rent. Based on the above methodology, it was estimated that the total existing family housing units on the base could be distributed as shown in Table 1. In addition, distribution of affordable units should not be concentrated in any one neighborhood on the base but distributed as potentially shown in Attachment B. TABLE 1 HOUSING DISTRIBUTION GOALS Number of Units Very Low and Low Income Housing Transitional Housing Units 384 (94)* Moderate income and market rate housing 1153 Total Housing Units 1537 *Part of very low and low income category Base Closure Task Force The McKinney Act Screening Process as it Applies to MCAS, Tustin August 1, 1994 Page 10 7. Current McKinne¥ Act Compliance Strateq~ The following is a summary of the current strategy :hat staff would recommend that the City Council allow us to pursue in negotiations with the homeless providers. Resume meetings with OCHSC in order to maintain an open line of communication. o Support utilizing existing Tustin General Plan Housing Element policies and standards as a basis for determining the number, income categories and distribution of McKinney Act and non- McKinney Act affordable units, and market rate units. In particular, support continued use of the preliminary fair share methodology and approach discussed in Section 6 above. o Support HUD's "Community Partnership Strategy" to foster the integration of households with diverse income levels throughout any given community (a portion of the units should be for market rate households). 4 o Support a joint McKinney Act application with the homeless provider group(s) and the cities, if feasible. Also, attempt to get agreement on delaying McKinney Act transfers until units can be upgraded to an appearance level consistent with the surrounding community. Support the acquisition or transfer of "non-McKinney Act" existing units at little or discounted value within the City of Tustin, and an RFP process which would transfer said units to private or non-profit developers. In addition, attempt to get developer participation in rehabilitation of McKinney Act units prior to their transfer. Every effort should be made to ensure ownership tenure on moderate and market rate .housing units. 6 o Support the rehabilitation of dwelling units consistent with Irvine and Tustin building codes, landscape and park land requirements, etc. Support amendment to the Stewart B. McKinney Act the needs of the homeless with the community's economically viable reuse plans. to balance needs for Base Closure Task Force The McKinney Act Screening Process as it Applies to MCAS, Tustin AUgUSt 1, 1994 Page 11 8. Explore financing mechanisms to assist with housing and infrastructure rehabilitation. Christine A. Shingl~to~// Assistant City Manage~/ ATTACHMENT A Office of the Cily Manager J U i~ 1 0 co~u~ O~-O~~t June 8, 1994 Mr. Scott Mather, Facilitator Orange County Homeless Services Coalition for the Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station Tus~in 180 South Cypress Orange, California 92666 City of Tustin 300 Centennial ~A/ay Tuslin. CA 92680 (714) 573-3010 FAX (714) 832-C825 Dear Mr. Mather: Your June 3, 1994 letter to Mayor Saltarelli has been received and will be responded to in detail in a separate letter. While Mayor Saltarelli will be addressing the issue you have raised, I believe your letter also requires an immediate response. Your assertion that the Re-use Task Force staff unilaterally terminated negotiations with the Homeless Coalition totally misrepresents the facts. We believe the City and Coalition were close to an agreement but then suddenly, the City was presented with the Coalition's "bottom line" which differed greatly from what had been previously discussed. You were told by Dana -Ogdon of the Tustin city staff that in light of the Coalition's new >roposal (and quite frankly, its take it or leave it approach), it would De necessary for the City to reassess its position. The City has not terminated negotiations as you claim. It should be obvious that when the Coalition adopted a new stance, the City had no choice but to reconsider its position. We have been and continue to be willing to work with the Coalition in dealing with McKinney Act issues. As you know, the City has been very proactive in dealing with the McKinney Act. The City understands the requirements of the McKiney Act as well as its obligation to develop a reuse plan that is feasible, acceptable to the community and fulfills the 1991 mandates of the Base Closure and Realignment CommiSsion and Congress. I would suggest that before you send letters to f~deral officials and others complaining about the City's alleged treatment of the Coalition, that you first attempt tc resolve issues without implied threats and ~e more sensitive to the City's goals. As I indicated, you %.;ill be receiving a detailed response from Mayor Saltarelli. Sin9erely, -- -- City Manager Supervisor Tom Riley Ernie Schneider Mike Ruane Chris Shingleton Office of the City Council une 28, 1994 r. Scott Mather, Facilitator range County Homeless Services Dalition for the Reuse of ~rine Corps Air Station, Tustin ~0 South Cypress range, California 92666 CORRESPONDENCE DATED JTFNE 3, 1994 aar Mr. Mather, was extremely disappointed' with the misinformation )ntained in your letter of June 3, 1994. As Mayor and ~airman of the Base Closure Task Force, I have provided :oject Committee staff with direction and have received ~gular updates on the negotiations between staff and the )meless Sez-vices Coalition. As indicated in City ~nager William Huston's letter to you dated June 8th, )ur claim that staff unilaterally terminated ~gotiations with the Orange County Homeless Services >alition (OCHSC) is frankly false and I believe a gross sunderstanding on your part. I, therefore, believe it >uld be useful to clear up any misunderstandings. City of Tustin 300 Cemennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 (714) 573-3010 FAX (714) 832-0825 Thomas R, Sallarelli Mayor Jim Ports Mayor Pro Tern Mike Doyle Jetiery M. Thomas Councilmembe f Tracy A. Wortey Councilmember rst of all, it is my understanding that Mr. Dana Ogdon ,ecifically informed you and Mr. Tim Shaw of the City's _tent to temporarily step away from the negotiating ~ble in order to study and respond to specific requests r property made by members of the Homeless Services alition. Mr. Ogdon specifically emphasized to you both d to all other participating entities in the gctiations (County of Orange, Educational.Coalition and ty of lrvine), of our intent to reccn~'ene discussions ce an understanding cf ouY own position could be termined. om the beginning, as a federally recognized nationwide del for base reuse planning, Tustin has taken seriously s obligation to accommodate the needs of the ~omeless part of a planning for reuse for MCAS, Tustin. Our erall objective has been to provide a balanced strategy ich addresses the needs of the homeless and our entire mmunity including needs for permanent affordable using and market rate housing. ile many other communities around the nation have ~ressed the McKinney Act issues with denial and Mr. Scott Mather Re: Correspondence June 28, 1994 Page 2 Dated June 3, 1994 rejection, Project Committee staff have endeavored to develop a cooperative and proactive accommodation of homeless interests in developing a reuse plan for MCAS, Tustin. I strongly believe that the needs of t~e homeless must be addressed. However, it is my belief that no one will be served if McKinney Act interests render redevelopment at MCAS, Tustin financially infeasible, destroys the integrity of the reuse of the balance of base property at MOAS, Tustin or precludes the economic recovery of those portions of the community surrounding the base. The successful transition of MCAS, Tustin will depend on a balanced response to competing demands for public use of property at MCAS, Tustin, including accommodation of the needs of the homeless. Demonstrating our up-front desire to outreach to agencies representing the needs of the homeless and also reinforcing our overall objectives, the Project Committee staff sent several written inquiries to interested homeless service providers about their initial interest in property at MOAS, Tustin early in the reuse planning process and well over twelve months ago. The City of Tustin also proactively sponsored tours at MCAS, Tustin and a training session for interested homeless providers in 1993 before McKinney Act outreach seminars were even planned by the Department of the Navy. Project Committee staff have also presented numerous reports to the Base Closure Task Force informing them and the public of the importance of McKinney accommodation. The Base Closure Task Force's recent recommendation on certain state and local public benefit conveyances was also conditioned upon those entities agreeing to provide for cooperative collaborations with community based organizations. It is my understanding that until only recently,. Tustin ~roject Committee staff had met with representatives of the OCHSC on a weekly basis, many times on their scheduled days off, in an attempt to reach a timely agreement. I was informed that project staff also participated in several sessions, led by a neutral moderator, to identify common goals and mutual constraints of the OCBSC and the City. The ultimate pul-pose of these and mapy subsequent meetings was so that all involved in the negotiation process would actively strive to support the need to adopt an economical].y viable Reuse plan for MCA$, Tustin which provided for homeless accommodatioD and which could be supported by the TustiD community, homeless providers and the Base Closure Task Force. Throughout these meetings, Project Committee staff have been instructed to reinforce the city of Tustin's belief that community education needed to be a key economic foundation of any Reuse Plan. You have also been informed that we support the Educational Learning Village proposed within the Village area of MCAS, Tustin by the Educational Coalition representing several community college >{r. Szstt Mather Re: /srrespondence Dated June £{, i994 Page 3 June 3, 1994 and lecal school districts as well as the City's operation of ~xisting child development facilities. ?he E~ucational Coalition's goal is to provide learning and job craining opportunities to the community with the "goal to promote ~conomical development through instructional programs for education ~nd training of the community for entry and advancement in the ,,orkfcrce". As I view it, the Educational Coalition are solution nakers with an intent to respond to broad regional needs of those ~hite collar, blue collar and disadvantaged residents who are ~nempioyed or underemployed in the County. Their solution is one 2hat the community supports and which will support reengineering of ~he work force in the County as we know it. The Educational ~oali~ion has also voiced a commitment to assisting the community ~nd O~qSC in developing education and job training to support the ~eeds of the homeless and to meet McKinney Act requirements. The ~ity has also communicated to the coalition that a program was ~eing. developed to address access to child development facilities o? those in need. As Mayor of the City of Tustin and Chairman of ~he Task Force, I see the Educational Coalition and City of Tustin .s kerr providers that must be included in the Reuse Plan. The ~earnzng Village proposal is a tremendous opportunity that needs to ,e included in any strategy developed for responding to the needs f the homeless and the McKinney Act. ' was informed that at a meeting on March 3, 1993, the OCHSC nanimously supported, by motion, a proposed approach for evelcpment of a comprehensive housing strategy for existing ousin~ at MCAS, Tustin which would also deal with the needs of the omeless. This motion included agreement that two of the newest arracks on the base would be shownn on the Preliminary Land Use lan to contain a minimum of 190 units for an emergency hpmeless helter or transitional housing environment for single households. t was also agreed that additional family housing units to be ~entified for transitional housing would be dealt with in 'the pecific Plan/Reuse Plan itself and further discussed with OCHSC. ~e $~ecif~c Plan treatment of transitlo~al housing was to ensure nat such unJts cculd be dispersed in existing neighborhoods and p5 concentrated consistent with '£ustin and Irvine General Plan oi~cies and recent policy position ~akem by the Federal Department f Horsing and Urban Development. The service providers also ~reed to defer perfecting their independent McKinney Act ~plications in favor of working cooperatively with the City of ]s%in and Irvine in developing a proposed comprehensive and ~tuai[y supportive housing strategy. is my understanding that the premise of initial discussions was identify mutual issues, benefits and constraints and to work >genker toward a common goal of developing a strategy that all ~rtiee could agree on. Unfortunately, the OCMSC has recently {ken ~ negotiating position and pursued a number of independent Mr. Scott Mather Re: Correspondence Dated June June 28, 1994 Page 4 3, 1994 actions which has abandoned this goal in favor of a plan unilaterally prepared by the OCHSC and which brings to question the motives of OCHSC and whether they have been negotiating in good faith. OCHSC has recently identified a number of buildings and housing units which they have indicated must be accommodated by the community in total disregard to whether the Reuse Plan is economically feasible or whether their proposal could be supported by the community. The Coalition has indicated an interest in approximately 460-760 family units, at least 7-8 barrack buildings, multiple buildings throughout the Village and main portions of the MCAS, Tustin facility including the administrative building, mess hall, child care facilities and other support facilities. A list of facilities that the members of the Coalition were interested in is included as Attachment A to this letter. ' with regard to property within the village area of MCAS, Tustin, you have also communicated that members of the OCHSC must be given sole ownership of any facilities to be used for the homeless. The OC~SC have also been contacting and recruiting additional service providers in the process and have excluded Project Committee staff from a number of meetings which has made it virtually impossible to proceed with good faith negotiations. The OCHSC has also advised their members to prepare their McKinney Act applications and have threatened that providers would submit McKinney applications independent of community support or any accommodation of the homeless made in the Specific Plan/Reuse Plan. I believe that such actions ignore many of the community's economic constraints and other issues expressed to you by Project Committee staff and will in the long run significantly damage the credibility of your group. I believe your June 3rd statement that a solutioh'to differences between the Educational Coalition and OCHSC was close and that direct negotiations with Project Committee staff on the housing srrate~f was progressing toward agreement is a ccnsiderable overstatement. I am informed that Project Commit£.~e staff and the Educational Coalition have stressed to the OCHSC that Educaticnal Coalition ownership of facilities within the proposed Learning Village was imperative for the Village to operate as an educational campus atmosphere, to market it to prospective students and to ensure the adequate resources were available for master planning of campus grounds, facilities, circulation, etc. Without ownership and a minimum of 100 acres of land and facilities in the Village, the Educational Coalition proposal for the Learning Village will be infeasible. The Educational Coalition has emphasized that they would provide homeless support services (training and educational opportunities) which I believe will far transcend that which the Homeless Services Coalition can expect to provide and support [4r. Scott Mather Re: Correspondence Dated June 28, 1994 Page 5 June 3, 1994 adequately on their own without the presence of the Learning Village. It is my understanding that in negotiating with OCHSC on a Comprehensive Housing Strategy Project Committee staff had only indicated possible support for approximately 387 existing housing units being reserved as income restricted units (within the very iow and iow income housing price range). Consistent with Irvine and Tustin General Plan policy, staff had indicated that they could not support all 387 units being resez-ved for transitional housing units but that perhaps 93 units could be reserved as transitional housing units or 25% of those units to be income restricted. Project Committee staff have also communicated that the transitional housing units must be dispersed throughout existing housing neighborhood areas at MCAS, Tustin so as not to be significantly concentrated in any one area. As noted above, OCHSC has indicated interest in between 460-760 transitional housing units. The OCHSC has also indicated that they are no longer interested in the 190 units of barracks that the City has already shown on the preliminary Land Use Plan and agreed to commit to emergency shelter facilities or transitional housing for singles. OCHSC is apparently interested in other alternate barracks closer to the mess hall. Your recent position deviates significantly from earlier decisions voted on and approved by your group to work toward reaching a mutual agreement with the community and call in question our ability to negotiate in good faith with you. Your current proposals also will have a significant impact on our ability to plan a financially feasible plan and one that can be supported by the community. In particular, your proposals will render the Educational Coalition's proposal for the Learning village economically inviable and ignore the community's Stated desire to facilitate the creation of an Educational village by a coalition of colleges and schools. If the Learning Village opportunities are not made available to the ccmmunity, it will also not be a resource for the homeless. Frankly, the potential loss of this opportunity will benefit no one. City of Tustin, County, City of Irvine and Educational Coalition participants have only temporarily stepped back from the negotiating table in order to review your demands and to attempt to work toward the development of our own "bottom line" which, when completed, could be brought back to the negotiating table for discussion with the OCHSC. The OCHSC's actions necessitated that the project team independently develop a position. We would anticipate completing our analysis of your recenn proposals shortly at which time meetings can resume. I strongly believe that a failure to reach agreement and consensus on an approach to accommodation of the homeless at MCAS, Tustin and Mr. Scott Mather Re: Correspondence Dated June June 28, 1994 Page 6 3, 1994 provision of an Educational Learning Village will negatively impact our ability to adopt a community supported Specific Plan/Reuse Plan for MCAS, Tustin and your ability to secure property and facilities at MCAS, Tustin and necessary financial resources in the future under the McKinney Act. with this in mind,. I hope that you will reexamine your position in this matter and possible opportunities for reaching consensus. In the meantime, I want no reinforce the fact that the Tustin community continues to be committed to working with the Coalition on McKinney Act issues and look forward to resuming negotiations. However, I would strongly sucgest that prior to resuming negotiations that a limited group ~epresenting selected leadership of the Homeless Services Coalition, cities of Tustin and Irvine and Educational Coalition sit down and review rules for any future negotiations. The City will look forward to hearing from you on scheduling of such a meeting. Christine Shingleton will be the contact on negotiations and can be reached at (714) 573-3107. Sincerely, Thomas R. Saltarelli Mayor TRS:DO:CAS: kd: kbc\MCAS\mather. [tr CC: Members of Base Closure Task Force Members of Homeless Services Coalition Congressman Robert Dornan Congressman Christoper Cox Senator Feinstein Senator Boxer Captain Dave Larscn, DOD, Office of George Schlossberg Tom Riley, County Supervisor Mike Ruane, Director cf EMA Michael Ward, Mayor of Irvine Eccn. Adjustment. ATi'ACN~ENT A \pril 15, 1994 i~SC Want List Jpdated April 22. 1994 )CIS - 20-35 units fUrea 6 and/or 11 Community Center in Area 11 tlTF - Child Development Center/Parking Lot: Bldg. 547 ~alvation Army - 20-25 Barrack utnits 2-2 BR 8-plexes Tustin Villas - ;.rea 11 10-3 BR 3-4BR single detached homes Area 11 6-3 BR apartments (3 duplexes?) - Area 11 ~uman Options - 20-40 2 to 3 BR units - Area 12 or Mar~in Court - Area 10 {SA - Building 553 or 554 / Bachelor Enlisted Quarters or 245/246 With Orange County Harvest - one of Building 71 20 units: 8-3 BR. 12-2 BR in Ir~ine - Marble Mtn. Zatholic - Zharities Building 10568 - 4-plex Building 4 classrooms Building 26 Building 199 ~lliance for the - ~entally Ill ~OMES - NCO Club - Buildings 35 and 35 A (Thrift store,) Building 71 A or 47 -warehouse (admin) 10-15 units in Area 11 - North side Veterans - Open barracks ~ssoc. Building 5 St. Vincent - Buildings 250, 558, 190, 184 de Paul 20 units Area 6 LSS - Shelter for - the Romeless 30 units of 2 to 3 BR 200-400 units - Area 11 SBC Ce~. Homeless -1'~-20 u~its (2-, 3- or 4 Ccalition 25 ,un. its Mental Health Association 25-unit barracks (50 people) Activity ' center - kitchen, officers club rec (exchange or OC Rescue Mission - Barrack 5 75 - 125 units CDC Warehouse. Admin Pat Moore - Bldg. 553, 554 (Long term sober living fac.) Foundation Ora.ug¢ Country Momclcss Services Coalition for the Reuse of Mar[nc Corps A/r Station TustLn 1~0 SoutI~ C-~press/Ornnge, California 9266¢ June 3, 1594 Fmyor Thomas Saltarelli City of Tust±n City Tustin, California Delivered via FAX Dear F~ycr Saltare!li: The recent unilateral decision of the Tustin MCAS Re-Use Task Force staff terminating negotiations between the ~omeless Coalition ~nd any other party involved in base planning threatens to create an adveraarial relationship that could impede the base closure process. I am ~iting on behalf of the twenty-six organizational members of the ~omeless Coaliti6n who comprise Orange County's experienced providers of services to the homeless to call this arbitrary action to your attention in your position as Chair/a m~mher of the Re-Use Board and to request you intervene to restore the negotiating process. Negotiations over serious and complicated issues are never easy, but the members of the Coalition believe that substantial positive progress had been made in the course of meetings with the Educational Coalition JPA. A ~olution to differences'Over the location and assignment of facilities for supportive services' was both possible and close. Direct negotiations with th6 s%afi of the cities of irvine and transitional housing units to be :nade available Lo thc homelcsn in the residential areas of the base. · ~11 of this has been brought to a standstill by the action of the Re-Use Task Force staff. Coaliuion members will be submitting individual and Joint applications under the aegis of the ¥~Kinney Act for homeless facilities at Tustin ~CkS. The Coalition recognizes the uniqueness of the asset that is Tustin MC3~S and prefer~ to work in concert ~'ith the Re-Use Board. Your asslstanc~ in r~sclndlng the action of the staff and restarting negotiations is required if this is to be possiblo. Thank you for your consideration. Please feel ~ree to contact me at 714/547-5566 or FAX 714/771-2748. Very truly yours, Facilitator CC. Henry Cisneros, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Donna Shalala, Secretary, of Health and Human Services Thomas Riley, Board of Supervisors, Orange County F. ichaet Ward, Mayor City, of Ir¥ine .~ndrew Cuomo, Assistant Secreta~-y, HUD ATTACHMENT B