CORRESPONDENCE - CS-1 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Orozco, Norma From: Tim Johnson < Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 12:47 PM To: Pulido, Miguel; Iglesias, Cecilia; Villegas, Juan; Solorio, Jose; Sarmiento, Vicente; Penaloza, David; Ridge, Kristine; eComment; Funk, John Subject: CC Mtg- Closed Session Item #1 Attachments: SA City Council Close Session Minutes initiating cross complaint April 2018.pdf; 158- Santa Ana Cross Complaint suing other OC Cities dtd 4.26.18.pdf; 232- SA ANA Orange Tustin Stip to extend response date to SA Suit dtd 5.17.18.pdf This correspondence is with regards to closed session item #1 on tonight's city council meeting as it relates to the lawsuit(s) before Judge Carter's court (case 8:18-cv-00155 in the Central District of the US District Court). As a reminder, the Santa Ana City Council on April 25, 2018 during Closed Session voted unanimously (6-0, 1 absent) to file a cross complaint against all cities in Orange County and the County of Orange over the impact of homelessness in our city of Santa Ana. This filing of this document happened with the court on April 26, 2018 and is document #158 in the above referenced case. It appears that summons were prepared although I am uncertain as to exactly which cities were served. However, I can determine that the County of Orange, City of Anaheim, City of Orange, City of Tustin were served on May 1, 2018 according to document #232 filed with the court on May 17, 2018 with a stipulation to extend the response date for those defendants. My assumption is that the other defendants, the remaining cities in Orange County, were never served with the cities suit. It has been over a year since the City Council approved the filing of a suit against the other cities in the county. However, those cities that were served have settled before Judge Carter. The majority of the remaining cities in Orange County, especially south county cities, have not made significant progress in providing emergency shelter and services to their homeless populations thereby continuing to bring their homeless to our city of Santa Ana. Please find attached the minutes from the April 25, 2018 closed session meeting, the filing in court of the initial cross -complaint against all cities, and the stipulation indicating that service was provided to just a limited number of plaintiffs. If I am missing something as it relates to these cases, please educate me ... obviously, our own city attorney and assistant city attorney will much more well versed on the filings than I am. I have a specific experience as it relates to a homeless individual in Irvine. I met a homeless Irvine resident one Sunday at Church. He wanted help going to a shelter but preferred to stay in Irvine. Having a little experience in this area, i knew to call the county's 211 hotline. They wanted him to go to Santa Ana to receive shelter at the Armory or try The Courtyard. I received the same experience when i spoke to Irvine PD and the OC Healthcare. The county and the city of Irvine is still referring their homeless folks to our city for services and housing. This is not acceptable in my opinion and assume you would agree. Those who are experiencing homelessness should be able to find services in their own local community and the City of Santa Ana should not be expected to carry the burden for other communities' lack of action in this area. The County should especially not be facilitating this either. I implore you to follow through with the April 25, 2018 closed session vote to expand the Catholic Worker lawsuit to the voted upon defendants... the other cities of Orange County. If it is not appropriate to do so, then a report should be made to inform the public of an alternative direction. However, without such new direction from Council, it appears that the case should be served upon the remaining defendants. It is very possible that there is a well intentioned and thought out strategic reason for not serving the other defendant cities... possibly