Schipske Gets
Permission from City Attorney to Disclose Closed Session on Schroeder Army Hall
After Councilmember Patrick O’Donnell Releases Inaccurate Description of What
Took Place
Long Beach, CA – October 4, 2012 -- 5th District
Councilwoman Gerrie Schipske today issued the following statement concerning
discussions and action which took place in closed session concerning the
transfer of military property (Schroeder Army Hall) to the City of Long Beach
for use as a police substation. Schipske notes that she conferred with City
Attorney Robert Shannon and was told she is free to disclose the action the
City Council took:
“I am saddened by Councilman O’Donnell’s inaccurate and
inflammatory comments about what occurred in closed session. The motion that he
voted against included moving the homeless facility to be operated by MHA away
from homes in Artcraft Manor which is in the 5th District. Staff had
offered that site because of Council concerns that another site be found for
MHA and council by a vote of 8-1 (with O’Donnell voting against) directed staff
that placing MHA on the southeast corner of Schroeder Hall up against the wall
that separates the property from the homes would not be compatible with the
neighborhood.
Why O’Donnell chose to distort what took place in closed
session is anyone’s guess. But it is clear he issued the press statement to
distract from the fact he was the only councilmember who apparently didn’t mind
putting MHA on the Schroeder Hall site right beside the neighborhood. He also
voted against directing City management to develop restrictions for use of any
site by MHA and for directing the City Manager to continue working with MHA to
find an alternative site.
In order to be open and transparent to the public about what
really occurred, I would like to detail what the order in which discussions
occurred in closed session yesterday when the City Council met to discuss the
status of the US Army and US HUD’s transfer of military property at Schroeder
Army Hall located at Willow Street and Grand Avenue.
City management briefed us on the fact that the federal
agencies want the City to move forward to take the property. In order to do so,
the Council had to indicate on which site the homeless services provider
(Mental Health America) would be located. Federal law requires the City of Long
Beach to accommodate a homeless services provider in order for the City to
receive Schroeder Army Hall.
In a prior City Council closed session, the Council
unanimously directed the City Manager to meet with MHA to discuss the offer of
cash in lieu of property so that MHA could go to another location other than on
or near the site of Schroeder Army Hall.
The City Manager reported to the Council that he had met and
talked with MHA and that there was an expressed interest in cash in lieu of
property, provided that the City could ensure that if MHA bought another
property they would be allowed to locate there. There was discussion about a
potential piece of property which could be purchased by MHA and the City
Manager was requested to continue talking with MHA about moving from the Schroeder
Army Hall area.
At no time did anyone present in the closed session state
that “negotiations had been brought to a halt” or that MHA “has changed their
minds about protecting our community.” In fact, the City Manager continues to talk
with MHA about alternative sites (actually talking with MHA yesterday prior to
O’Donnell’s news release) and the City Council actually engaged in lengthy
discussion during closed session about how the neighborhood would be protected
including stating that the MHA site should not be located near homes.
Management then presented to the City Council two locations
for MHA: 1) behind the Long Beach Public Health Department which provides a
buffer from the neighborhood or 2) on the southeast section of Schroeder Army
Hall up against the wall directly adjacent to homes.
As the first Councilmember to speak on this issue in the
closed session, I strongly expressed my disagreement with any location that is
directly behind residences and then stated that I was concerned it had not been
made clear with the US Army, US HUD or MHA that a list of restrictions would be
placed on any location MHA would occupy and that fact needed to be discussed
prior to any EIR or lease.
A discussion continued with several Council members
participating, including O’Donnell and me, that those restrictions would
include that all clients would have to be transported via van and not public
transportation and that the facility would operate from 8 am until 4pm. City
staff was directed that these restrictions need to be discussed with MHA prior
to the approval of an EIR. Staff indicated that they understood and that any
restriction proposed would have to be agreed by MHA and would be included in
the EIR for public comment.
Staff also iterated that in order for Schroeder Army Hall to
be reused as an eastside police substation and MHA to operate a homeless
treatment center, that there would be extensive community meetings on all
issues concerning the properties and that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
would need to be approved.
Council continued to ask how legally the City could enforce
any restrictions so that should an alternative site not be found, MHA would
make certain that their operations did not impact the neighborhood. The City
Attorney’s staff responded that MHA would have to abide by the terms of the
lease and the City could enforce the lease.
The vote taken by the City Council – which O’Donnell voted
against included: (1) Authorize the initiation of the EIR ; (2) direct staff to
continue to identify other potential alternate sites, and (3) direct staff to
prepare an initial list of operating restrictions applicable to the MHA
facility, no matter the ultimate location.
After the vote, the City Manager again contacted MHA about
seeking an alternative site. I am hopeful that O’Donnell’s inaccurate and
inflammatory comments will not derail the progress that has been made in
working with MHA to find a more suitable location and our efforts to protect the neighborhood.”
Addendum: Mr. O’Donnell
states that the proposed MHA facility will be on “City land near the Stearns
Park area” -- this is very misleading. The proposed location on Burnett is 1.4
miles from the nearest point of Stearns Park and is sheltered by an industrial
area.
Feel free to compare what happened with what O'Donnell told the press:
O’Donnell Statement on Schroeder Hall:
Service Provider Backs Out of Efforts to Protect Neighborhood
Protracted Battle to Move Homeless Center May Be Over
Behind-the-scenes
efforts, which may have moved a mentally ill homeless facility away
from eastside neighborhoods, have been halted due to a service
provider’s unwillingness to move forward.
For
the last several years, the Long Beach City Council has been debating a
proposal to open a treatment center for the mentally ill homeless
adjacent to eastside neighborhoods. Councilmember Patrick O'Donnell has
been a strong opponent of the project, believing that placing it near a
residential neighborhood was "not a good fit," in his words. The
proposal resulted from the City's planned acquisition of the nearby
Schroeder Hall Army Facility and a correlating requirement that the City
provide a homeless accommodation as an in-lieu payment for the Army
property. The Council voted, with O’Donnell dissenting, to move forward
with the process of siting a facility on City land near the Stearns
Park area. Behind the scenes discussions had taken place in which the
service provider, Mental Health America (MHA) would receive cash in lieu
of the property. The City Council has been apprised that the
discussions have been brought to a halt by the service provider,
effectively ending efforts to place the facility elsewhere.
In response to MHA’s recent actions, O’Donnell has released the following statement:
"The
proposed location is not fair to the nearby residents and not fair to
the homeless. We all have a duty to help our fellow man, but this
proposal was not thought out from the start. I am very disappointed
that efforts to move this facility away from people’s homes has not been
successful. The service provider has changed their minds about
protecting our community.”
