Orange County Grand Jury • 2018-2019 • Agency Response
Response to: Orange County Cemetery District 09/20/19

Home at Last: Honoring Our Veterans With a Veterans Cemetery In Orange County*

Published: September 25, 2019 4 pages
View Original PDF

Findings and Recommendations 6 findings

F1
There is private and public sector significant interest in, and support for, establishing a veterans cemetery in Orange County. Response: The City agrees with this finding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
By November 30, 2019, the Irvine City Council should decide which, if any, site within its borders to pursue for a veterans cemetery. Site selection efforts should validate the cost and valuation information. (F1, F2, F4, F5, and F6.) Response: The recommendation has been implemented. On July 23, 2019 the Irvine City Council voted to designate the Golf Course site as the preferred location for the Southern California Veterans Cemetery. A copy of the City Council resolution making that designation is provided as Attachment C.
F2
Although four sites are under consideration, to date, only two veterans cemetery locations in the City of Irvine have been recognized for potential funding by the State. Response: The City partially disagrees with this finding. The finding was generally accurate as of the date of the publication of the Grand Jury Report (June 25, 2019), but it is not accurate today. The two veterans cemetery locations referenced in the finding are the Amended and Restated Development Agreement Site and the Strawberry Field/Bake Parkway Site. Through Assembly Bill 368, the California Legislature has also recognized the Golf Course Site for potential funding by the State. A copy of the current version of Assembly Bill 368 is provided as Attachment A.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
In the City of Irvine, competing political and financial interests have caused delays in veterans cemetery site selection. Response: The City partially disagrees with this finding. The City agrees that some members of the Irvine and broader Orange County community may have had political and/or financial motivations. However, the City's goal from the beginning has been to identify and make available the best site for the Veterans Cemetery. To that end, the City's commissions and the City Council conducted a comprehensive fact-based analysis of both the Golf Course Site and the ARDA Site which considered environmental remediation issues, estimated construction schedules, regulatory hurdles, and available funding sources. Through that analysis, City staff recommended and the City Council resolved "[t]hat the Golf Course Site is hereby designated as the preferred site for development of the Southern California Veterans Cemetery." The staff analysis of this issue is provided as Attachment B. The City Council's resolution is provided as Attachment C.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
By December 31, 2019, in the event that both the City of Irvine and OCCD seek to pursue a veterans cemetery, the Grand Jury recommends that a joint City of Irvine and OCCD Veterans Cemetery Selection Committee be established that includes a representative of the Board of Supervisors to determine which of the respective sites will be endorsed. (F1, F2, F4, F5, and
F4
Use of the ARDA property for a veterans cemetery will reduce potential tax income for the City of Irvine compared to other proposed sites. Response: The City of Irvine disagrees with this finding. There is good reason to believe that the Strawberry Fields/Bake Parkway Site which is currently entitled for at least 812,000 square feet of Research and Development uses has a higher commercial land value than the ARDA Site, which currently has only enough development intensity to support a single 100 room extended stay hotel. This conclusion is reinforced by the City Council's August 13, 2019 action to initiate a zone change that will (i) for the portion of the ARDA Site north of Cadence, prohibit residential and hotel development, but retain the ability to develop resident serving retail along Irvine Blvd., and (ii) for the portion of the ARDA Site south of Cadence, rezone the property to allow only uses similar to those allowed in the Orange County Great Park, while specifically prohibiting hotel and residential uses. The staff report from the August 13, 2019 City Council meeting is provided as Attachment D.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
Site development cost estimates and site valuations identified to date vary widely. Response: The City agrees with this finding. In addition to development costs and site valuations, available funding sources also vary widely. Table 1 from the staff report for the July 23, 2019 City Council meeting shows, for example, that the total estimated funding available for the Golf Course Site is $62,500,000, while the funding for the ARDA Site is only $24,500,000. That Table is reproduced immediately below, and the full report is provided as Attachment B. ARDA Golf Funding Sources State of California (FY 2019-20 Allocation) $20,000,000 $20,000,000 CalVet Cemetery Master Development Fund $4,500,000 $4,500,000 VA Grants Program $10,000,000 $0 ALA II Funding Reallocation $18,000,000 N/A FivePoint Contribution $10,000,000 N/A Total Estimated Funding $62,500,000 $24,500,000 Estimated Site Development Cost $58,998,323 $90,913,014 Estimated Funding Surplus/Gap $(66,413,014) $3,501,677
No recommendations for this finding
F6
Completion of the veterans cemetery project will required multiple sources of funding; some funding has been available in the past Response: The City agrees with this finding. A discussion of funding needs and availability is provided in the July 23, 2019 City Council meeting staff report, provided as Attachment B. RESPONSES TO RECOMMENDATIONS Per the table on of the Grand Jury Report, the City of Irvine is required to respond to Grand Jury Recommendations R1 and R3. Those responses are provided immediately below.
No recommendations for this finding

* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.