HomeMy WebLinkAboutCORRESPONDANCE - 85BSalas, Diana
From:
David <David@GeniusClick.com>
Sent:
Monday, January 20, 2020 5:16 PM
To:
eComment; Pulido, Miguel; Sarmiento, Vicente; Penaloza, David; Solorio, Jose; Iglesias,
Cecilia
Subject:
RE: Please Discuss Sec. 10-89 Tomorrow
Mr. Mayor and Councilpeople,
We've had an encampment over at 16`h and Williams for many months. Dispatch tells me they've never heard of the
law, and that I must call back at tam. I am certain this is not how City Council intended for Ordinance No. NS-2976 to
work. I've included Vicente Sarmiento in this email to hopefully get his feedback. The law was passed to solve exactly
this problem, so I can't understand why I'm getting pushback from dispatch.
Please clarify to SAPD dispatch that you intend for residents to report longstanding oversized vehicles at the residents'
convenience. Please inform dispatch that you intend to enforce this law without respect to whether or not the oversized
vehicles are inhabited. Please make it a policy that citations are to be issued as a matter of course.
Thanks,
David
From: David
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2019 3:26 PM
To: eComment@santa-ana.ora; mpulido@santa-ana.ore; vsarmiento@santa-ana.ore; dpenaloza@santa-ana.ore;
JSolorio@santa-ana.ore; Iglesias, Cecilia
Subject: Please Discuss Sec, 10-89 Tomorrow
Mr. Mayor and Councilpeople,
My wife and I own a small condominium in the Cabrillo Park neighborhood of northeast Santa Ana. We bought it in
2007, stayed current on our mortgage payments through the financial crisis, and finally we have some equity. We are
very fortunate. We are also concerned.
For well over the past decade, we've fought to keep our neighborhood free of occupied RVs. We understand that these
many of these folks are just trying to get by, but they are monopolizing parking spaces in residential neighborhoods. In
the past, we've used Sec. 10-89 to ask police to make them leave our neighborhood so residents can park their cars.
Now the police have begun pushing back and saying that they are free to camp in our neighborhoods as long as they
move every 72 hours. That is not what the law says.
I understand that 10-89 is flawed and difficult to enforce. However, I also know it's been the law since 1952. Why would
we stop enforcing it in the middle of a massive homelessness crisis? Who made this decision? We need clarity and
accountability on this decision so we can decide whom to support and whom to oppose in 2020. 1 sincerely hope that
the person behind the decision to stop enforcing 10-89 lives in Santa Ana in an ungated community.
For the time being, please enforce county law Sec. 6-4-606. 1 don't think that is an unreasonable request. Please let me
know if I'm mistaken. We love Santa Ana, and we don't want to sell our home and move to South County.
Sincerely,
David Brockmeier & Lucila Gonzalez
1470 Cabrillo Park Drive
Unit A
Santa Ana, CA 92701
(714)360-7269
Salas, Diana
From: Jay Kubik <jaykubik714@me.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 1:41 PM
To: eComment; Pulido, Miguel; Sarmiento, Vicente; Penaloza, David; Solorio, Jose; Iglesias,
Cecilia; Bacerra, Phil
Subject: Homeless/RV Encampment Cabrillo Park HOA area Please Discuss Sec. 10-89
Dear City Counsel,
With all due respect for your hard efforts, the Santa Ana PD is not enforcing ordinance No NS-2976. This
ordinance makes it illegal to park over sized vehicles on city streets between 2 AM and 6 AM. With all due
respect we are getting run around from the police department and their dispatch. We have been told we have to
call during these hours to report it to not even being aware of the ordinance. What can we do to problem solve
for this? We love our neighborhood and do not want to see it deteriorate to make shift homeless
encampment. There is no need to have this take place with the services the city and the county are now
providing. Please discuss at meeting and feel free to reach out to me with additional information.
Best Regards,
Jerry Kubik - 1480 Cabrillo Park Dr #E
President/Cabrillo Park Townhomes HOA
Salas, Diana
From: Tim Johnson <tjohnson@jlkrllp.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 11:53 AM
To: eComment
Cc: Solorio, Jose; Iglesias, Cecilia; Villegas, Juan; Sarmiento, Vicente; Bacerra, Phil; Pulido,
Miguel; Penaloza, David; Ridge, Kristine; Flores, Rosa
Subject: Agenda Item 85B- PD Homeless Enforcement
Attachments: 340- SA Settlement Agreement dtd 9.23.19.pdf
Mayor, Council, and City Manager ... On tonight's agenda item 85B, I urge you to thoughtfully and compassionately
explore this item to its fullest. As you know, issues surrounding homelessness are likely one of the most important
issues for a lot of Santa Ana residents and business owners. I would suggest that as part of tonight's discussion that the
Chief of Police provide an overview of what the SAPD's current enforcement efforts are and what the consequences of
such enforcement truly is. Part of what the city needs to do a better job of is to communicate information so that the
community can set expectations in line with reality and also to suggest areas of improvement. We first need to know
what the current state of affairs is with regards to enforcement of anti -camping, panhandling, and other laws.
For example, is SAPID able to enforce its anti -camping ordinances with regards to someone who does not qualify for
services at The Link? As you know, for someone to qualify for housing at The Link they need to have ties to Santa Ana,
so someone who just arrives and indicates that they are not from SA, may not qualify for services at The Link. What
about during days and hours that The Armory is not available such as 11am or during a "dark day" for The
Armory. Essentially, please have the City Manager and the Chief communicate the current status of enforcement so that
you, the public and the city staff can appropriately direct the PD.
I also urge you to suggest that whatever enforcement procedures are taken on with regards to the homeless community
to involve social services in this process and lead with a desire to help those who are experiencing homelessness. Often
the need is much more than just housing such as mental health services and substance abuse addiction services. We
need to coordinate and lead first with an offer to help. This may mean that the first contact is with a trained social
service worker and possibly not PD. As you know, often this population may respond better with a social services
worker as opposed to law enforcement.
Section 4 of the settlement in federal court with the Catholic Worker case provides a framework for leading first with
contact from Outreach and Engagement (county 0&E, CityNet, homeless liaisons, etc...), which will require county and
other coordination- please find such settlement attached. Section 4 as referred to above starts on page 10 of the
attached adobe file. The county has previously indicated that anytime that SAPD needs their assistance with 0&E, that
they will be available- it is time to hold them accountable to this.
Please also focus on placement for services as well as repeated enforcement instead "one off' enforcement actions. I
believe that consistently offering of services and enforcement actions is the better way to go instead of having one day a
month/week or whatever for PD and O&E to go out and perform outreach and enforcement.
would also suggest that those in violation of anti -camping ordinances be provided their rights with regards to the
recent Martin vs Boise decision in terms of whether a city that does not provide shelter services may be a better location
if they determine it is in their own best interests to possibly reside in another city that does not provide shelter
services. Representatives from the county have previously indicated that they expect that after Santa Ana begins
enforcing their anti -camping ordinances that the homeless will begin to move to other cities that are unable to enforce
anti -camping ordinances such as most South County cities. However, the homeless population needs to be informed of
this.
Again, I urge that you lead with compassion and an attitude to help those who are having housing issues. The best
possible result is that someone accepts the help that is needed and offered.
Thank you for your time in thoughtfully considering this item tonight and your continued service to our community.
Best,
Tim Johnson
Rosenberger
CsnutM R4t+x �rtenmwrttr
Proudly part of they Wolobal family
Tim Johnson, CPA
Partner
Is (949) 860-9892
ID (714) 743-1065
0 tjohnson@jlkrllp.com
2601 Main Street, Suite 580, Irvine, CA 92614
This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is
protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message. Any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this
message, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. JLK Rosenberger is a California Limited Liability Partnership
and a member firm of PKF International Limited, a family of legally independent member firms and does not accept any responsibility
or liability for the actions or inactions on the part of any other individual member or correspondent firm or firms.
8:18-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 340 Filed 09/23/19 Page 1 of 20 Page ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BROOKE WEITZMAN SBN 301037
WILLIAM WISE SBN 109468
ELDER LAW AND DISABILITY RIGHTS CENTER
1535 E 17t" Street
Santa Ana, California 92705
t. 714-617-5353
e. bweitzman@eldreenter.org
e. bwise@eldreenter.org
CAROL A. SOBEL SBN 84483
MONIQUE ALARCON SBN 311650
LAW OFFICE OF CAROL SOBEL
725 Arizona Avenue, Suite 300
Santa Monica, California 90401
t. 310-393-3055
e. carolsobellaw@gmail.com
e. Monique.alarcon8@gmail.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
PAUL L. HOFFMAN SBN 71244
CATHERINE SWEETSER SBN 2711.42
SCHONBRUN, SEPLOW, HARRIS &
& HOFFMAN
11543 W. Olympic Blvd.
Los Angeles, California 90064
t. 310-396-0731
e. hoffpaul@aol.com
e. csweetser@sshhlaw.com
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SOUTHERN DIVISION
ORANGE COUNTY CATHOLIC
WORKER,
Plaintiffs,
V.
ORANGE COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 8:18-cv-00155 DOC (JDE)
NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT WITH
THE CROSS -DEFENDANT CITY OF
SANTA ANA AND EXHIBIT A:
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
Plaintiff Orange County Catholic Worker ("OCCW") files this Notice
Settlement with the Cross -Defendant City of SANTA ANA. A copy of
Settlement Agreement signed by all parties is attached at Exhibit A.
i
8:18-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 340 Filed 09/23/19 Page 2 of 20 Page ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The Settlement is made between the parties and submitted subject to 1) Col
approval of the terms; 2) final ratification by the Santa Ana City Council within
days of the Court's signing of the Proposed Order; 3) the condition in the Settlem(
Agreement concerning the prior MOU with the defendant County; and 4) entry
dismissal with prejudice as to Defendant Santa Ana only, with the Court retaini
jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement Agreement for the period of time and pursu:
to the conditions specified in the Agreement.
Dated: Sept. 23, 2019 ELDER LAW & DISABILITY RIGHTS CENTER
LAW OFFICE OF CAROL A. SOBEL
SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS & HOFFMAN
/s/ Carol A. Sobel
By: CAROL A. SOBEL
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
2
Case 8:18-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 340 Filed 09/23/19 Page 3 of 20 Page ID #:3752
EXHIBIT A
Case
Document 340 Filed 09/23/19 Page 4 of 20 Page ID #:3753
1.
2
3
4
5
6
i
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16.
17
.18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2.7
28
(SB.N 162700)
M720
V. 92702
Attorneys for. Defendant and Cross -Claimant
CITY OF SANTA ANA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTHERN DIWION
ORANGE COUNTY CATHOLIC
W6 ER, an unincorporated
association;. Lisa: Bell, Shawn Carroll,
Melissa Fields,. Larry Ford, Cameron
Ralston, Kathy Schuler, Glonia.
Shoomake,as individuals,
Plaintiffs,
V.
ORANGE COUNTY, the City of
Anaheim, the City- of Costa Mesa, the
City of Orange, et al.
Defendants,
i
Case. Nq,:,.SACV. 1870155,DOC (JDE).
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BY
AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF
SANTA ANA AND THE ORANGE
COUNTY CATHOLIC WORKER
I Case
DE Document 340 Filed 09/23/19 Page 5 of 20 Page ID #:3754
2.
3
4
n.
7
City ity of Santa -Ana,
Cross-claii0ant,
County of Orange,, City of Aliso Viejo,
City of Anaheim, City Of Brea, City of
Buena Park, City of Costa Mesa,, City of
Cypress, City of Dana Point, City of
Fountain Valley, City of Fullerton,. City oi
Garden Cirove, City of Huntington Beach,
City Of Irvine, City of La Habra. City of
La Palma, City of Laguna Beach, City of
Laguna Hilts; City of LagunaNiguel, .Cit)
of Laguna Woods, City of Lake Forest,
City of Los
. Alamitos, City of Mission
Viejo,. City Of.Newport Beach, City of
Orange, City of Placentia,, City of.Rancho
-Santa Margarita, City of San Clemente.,
City. of San Juan Capistrano, City of Seal
Beach,. City of Stanton, City of Tustin,
City of Villa PaAr City.of Westminster
and.. City of Yotba Linda,
19 Cross -Defendants.
20
.21
22 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
23 This Settlement Agreement ("Agreement") is entered infoby and between
24 Defendant and Cross -Claimant City of Santa Ana. ("City"),. and Plaintiff Orange
25 County Catholic Worker ("OCCW") an unincorporatedacting by d
association n an
26 througtx its designated representatives.
27 The: parties to this Agreerneut are referred to herein individually as a'.Pqrty"
29 and. cq1tectivcly as the "Parties.."
2
Case 8:
Document 340 Filed 09/23/19 Page 6 of 20 Page ID #:3755
.2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1s
19
20
2j
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RECITALS
A. WHEREAS, on. January 29., 2018, OCCW and certain individual
plaintiffs filed.an action, entitled.Ortinge G'ounty Catholic Woeker et al. v: Change
County et al.,. United. States District Court, Central District of California, Case No.
8.:18-cv-00.155: DO.0 KES. ("OC Catholic Worker Action"), against the County of
Orange. ("County"); the City. of Anaheim, the City of Costa. Mesa, and the City of
Orange.
B. WHEREAS, on March 17, 2018; the:.City of Santa Ana intervened in
the OC Catholic Worker. Action as a defendant.
C. WHEREAS, on April 26, 2018, the City of Santa Ana filed. a cross
complaint in the Otr. Catholic Worker Action against the County and all other cities
in the County, alleging violations of the (.1) .Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual
pugishment); (2) Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection); and (3) Fourteenth
Amendment (due process) ("Cross-Complaitt"). The Cross -Complaint was served
an the .County., the City of Anaheim, the. City of Orange, -and the City of Tustin.
The Cross -Complaint remains upserved on all other crd'ss-.defendants.
D. WHEREAS, on July 26, 2018, OCCW filed aTirst Amended
Complaint. ("OCCW FAC"), which, among other changes, pleaded a potential class
action against the County. At -the time of execution of this.Agteement; the. OCCW
FAC is the operative complaint in the OC Catholic Worker Action.
E. WHEREAS, .an November 13, 2018., OCCW filed a Supplemental
Complaint adding the.City ofTustin as a defendant.
F. WHEREAS, on June 28, 2019, OCCW filed a Supplemental
Complaint: adding the cities of Brea, Buena Park, Cypress, Fullerton, La Habra, La
Palma, Los Alairritos; Placentia, Stanton, Villa Park; and Yorba Linda as
defendants ("North SPA Cities").
G. WHEREAS, the OCCW` FAC as well as the Supplemental
Complaints, alleges that OCCW is an unincorporated association dedicated to the
Case
DE Document 340 Filed 09/23/19 Page 7 of 20 Page ID #:3756
1 service and care. of the poor in Orange County, and that the individual O.CCW
2 .plaintiffs are homeless individuals residing: is Orange .County.. The UCCW'FAC
3 alleges; inter alia, that.defendants,, and each of them, have violated the OCCW
4 plaintiffs' rights by enforcing various laws against.them, including trespass,
5 loitering, and/or anti -camping ordinances; at tirnes when, according to the OCCW
6 plaintiffs, there were no. immediately accessible and appropriate beds available to
7 them in Orange County. The City of Santa Ana .disputes the factual allegations and
8 .legal. contcntions rnade.by QCC.W in the OCCW FAC.
9 H. WHEREAS, the. OCCW FAC includes the following causes of action
10 agai`nst the City of Santa Ana as, well as other defendants: (1) violation of the
11 .Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and Article VII,
12 section l7`of the California Constitution for.alleged"orael and unusual
13 .punisbmetif (2) violation. ofthe.First. and Fourth Amendments to the U.S.
14 Constitution; (3) violation of the right to due process of law under the Fourteenth
15 Amendment to the U.S.:Constitution; (4) violation of `California Civil Code section
16 52,1.; (5) violation of California Government Code section 815.6; and (6) violation
17 of California Government Code section. 11135'. Defendant City :of Santa Ana.
1.8. .disputeseach and every claim for relief in the OCCW` FAC in its entirety.and
19 .disputes OCCW'.s underlying. legal contentions and tbeoiies.
2Q I. WHEREAS, the Cities of Anaheim, Costa Mesa., Orange, ;and Tustin
21. have: each entered into separate settlement agreements with OCCW all of which
22 have been. approvedby the. Court.
23 J. WHEREAS:, the North,SPA Cities havecollectively-entered into.a.
24 .settletnent.4groetnent With OCCW that has been approved by the Court.
25 K. WHEREAS, the City of.Santa Ana has voluntarily dismissed all those
26. parties io the Cross- Complaint that were served such that the County remains the
27 :sole cross -defendant that has. been served with the Cross -Complaint.
28
4
Case 8:0_cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 340 Filed 09/23/19 Page 8 of 20 Page ID #:3757
L. WHEREAS, without admitting. any wrongdoing, liability, or legal
2 violations on the part of the City of Santa. Ana, without conceding the validity of
3 any of the OCC W's .legal theories or claims,: andfor the sole purpose of
4 preemptively; economically, and .efficiently resolving the OC Catholic Worker
5 Action as to the City of Santa Ana, the Parties now desire to enter into this.
6 Agreement on the teams: set forth.herein.
7 TERMS
8, NOW, THEREFORE, for full .and valuable consideration, the sufficiency. of
9 which is hereby acknowledged, andhased upon the foregoing Recitals, .and the
10. terms, conditions,, covenants, and agreements, herein,. the Parties agree as follows:
1.1 I. Order re Continuing, Jurisdiction and Effective:Date
12 Following the full execution, of this. Agreement byall Parties, the Parties
13 shall fIe with the Courtin the OC Catholic. Worker Action proposed orders
14 'regarding settlementand. continuing jurisdiction and incorporating.the terms of this
1.5 Agreement. Except for the obligations of the City in Section. 3., the obligations of
16. the Parties in the remaining sections of this Agreement, 'and the releases contained
17 herein, :shall become effective: and operative otr'the date(s) on which the respeetive
18 order is fully executed and entered.by the Court (°`Effective Date"), and shall be
19 contingent upon ,the Court's signing and entry of the respective order: The
20 obligations of the City in Section 3 shall,become effective and operative only upon
21 the Court'.s approval of a separate settlement agreement between the City and
'22 County as to the City's Cross -Complaint, including but not limited to the:subjects
23 of:a replacement site for the'County-operated shelter known as the "The
24 Courtyard" and the parties' obligations under a related Memorandum of
.25 Understanding currently in effect between. them. This .Agreement shall be, in effect
26 for three (3) years following the. Effective Date and then shall terminate.
27
28
M
Case 84-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 340 Filed 09/23/19 Page 9 of 20 Page ID #:3758
1 2. Incorporation of Recitals
2 The representations in the above-section.ofthis Agreement, entitled
3 "Recitals," are hereby incorporated into and made a material part of the. terms and
4 .representations of this Agreement,.
5 3. Construction and Operation of'Shelters.
5 3,1 At the..time of this Agreement, the City operates -a temporary,
7 low -barrier shelter in the City with a capacity of 200 beds„known as "The Link."
8 3.2 The City shall fund, obtain .futxding for, and/or coordinate. third-
9 party funding for, the aonstruction and operation.ofan additional low -barrier
10 homeless shelter at a different location .within the boundat7es of the City, with
11 capacity'of 200 beds, expandable to 250 beds ("Additional Shelter"). The City
12 shall have complete discretion.in determining which Additional Shelter to fund.. and
13 which shelter project may be feasible;. subject to any limitations set forth herein,
14 The City's funding commitment for the. Additional Shelter.shall be for three (3)
15 years,, beginning on the Efifectiye Date.
16. 3.3 There will be an overlap period of time; during which The tank
17 and the Additional Shelter will operate concurrently .such. that the total number of
18 beds .during this time will beup to 450. Any remaining number of beds that may
19 be necessary to satisfy the City's obligations under .S'ection 3. of this Agreement
20 shall be addressed in the context of.a separate settlement agreement between the
21 City and. County as to. the.. City's Cross -Complaint.
22 3,4 The City sha11 roquire that the Link and the Additional Shelter
23 be operated on:a non-religious:basis, but not exclude religiousorganizations f om
24 operating, and in full compliance with all applicable state and federal
25 antidisenminat"ioll laws, including but. not limited to, California Government Code.
26 section 11I35 and the. Americans with Disabilities Act,.42 U.S.C.. section:12101 et
27 seq.
28
8:18-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 340 Filed 09/23/19 Page 10 of 20 Page ID
#:3759
1 3.5 Although the above-referencedi shelters are not. the exclusive
2 means by which the .City may satisfy its obligation to meet the needs of homeless
3 individuals in the City; OC.CW Plaintiffs acknowledge and agree that tbe: creation.
4 and operation of The. Link and the Additional. Shelter, or a number of placements
5: equal to The Link and. the Additional Sheltcr,.shall. satisfy the City':s obligations.
6. under Section 3 of the Agreement, as wellas any other -requirement by the Court
7 .pertaining to: the number of available beds for the unsheltered individuals in the
8. City.
9 4. Enforcement. of. Anti -Camping Ordinances
10 4.1 The City shall .establish the. following policies and procedures
1.1 relating: to the enforcement of Santa Ana Municipal Code. sections 10-400 to :10-
12: 403, and 10-550-551("Anti-Camping Ordinances"), curfews.`.including park Hours,
13 or.any comparable provisions of state law, or'aiiy law concerning, "loiterifrg"
14 against. homeless individuals within its jurisdictions. This: stall apply to the City
15 and its agents 'including but.not limited to private security:
16 4..1.1 Absent exigeilt circumstances, any enforcement of the
17 Anti=Camping.Ordinances against a homeless individual (including any of the
1.8 Individual OCCW Plaintiffs). wilHtist be preceded by. contacts from outreach and
19 engagement personnel to determine an available and appropriate placement for the
20 .individual in question, per the.procedures outlined herein.. For purposes of this
21 ,Agreement,. "outreach.and engagement.personnel" may include County Outreach
22 and Engagement Personnel, representatives from. CityNet, City employees, the
23 'homeless liaison„ police officers., and any other organizations with which the City
24 has contracted for such outreach and engagement services;(collectively, "O&E
25 Personnel") who are trained. in engaging in appropriate clinical assessments of
26 individuals with disabilities to. determine an appropriate placement:
27 4.1.2 In implementation of Section 4.1.1, prior to enforcement
.2$ ofthe Anti -Camping Ordinances: against any homeless individual, O&E Personnel
7
Cas��8:18-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 340 Filed 09/23/19 Page 11 of 20 Page ID
#:3760
I. will locate and offer an available and appropriate placement in the City for the
2 individuaLin question.
3 4.1..3 If the individual declines: the offered placement, the City
4 may proceed with enforcement of the Anti -Camping Ordinances in its sole
5 .discretion subject to the dispute resolution process detailed herein,
6 4.:1..4 .If the alleged violation arises from an individual's.
7 presence in a paik outside, of the established .operational hours of the park, and if
8 there is noappropriate and. immediately -available placement for that person, the
9 City will advise the individual that they.must leavethe park and trove to any
10.. public area outside of the park, if the person does hot leave the park. after
11 receiving this warning, .the City.may issue a citation to the individual.
12 4.1:5 The requirements of this Section 4.1 shall only apply
13 until the earlier of: (a) the date on which the case of Martin v.. City of Boise, 962
14 RM 1031 (9th Cii. 201`8) ("Martin v: Boise") is no, longer;applicablelaw within
15 the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit or (b) the date on which the. Court finds .that:
16 there are sufficient appropriate' and immediately available placements for the
17 unsheltered homeless population in the City,
18 4.2 Nothing in this Agreement constitutes. -an admission by the. City
19 that its current policies and procedures for enforcement of the Anti -.Camping
20 Ordinances.:are,either: (a) different: from those set forth above or (b) in any way.
2.1 legally inadequate, or a concession by the OCM Plaintiffs that they .are legally
22 adequate.
23 4.3 Nothing in this:A,greemcht constitutes a promise,
24 representation, or warranty, on the part of the City, that. any number of beds will he
25 available to any particular persons) at anytime: The lack of availabilityof.ad
26 appropriate and immediately aceessible:bed for any person or persons at.anytime,
27 including:any of the individual OCCW plaintiffs, may impact the ability of the
28 City too punish a purported violation of die „Anti -Camping Ordinances,
3
8:18-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 340 Filed 09/23/19 Page 12 of 20 Page ID
#:3761
4A. Absent exigent eircutnstances, .the City shall.noi cite or arrest
2 any homeless individual for violation of the law based on an alleged obstruction of
3 public property unless that individual, either individually or .in conjunction with his
4 or her property, actually obstructs free passage of any person or vehicle on: any.
5 public highway, alley, sidewalk, or crosswalk and. declines.to -move the object(s)
5 creating obstruction from the public right of way after being requested to do. so, or
7 actually obstructs with access to..a public highway, alley, sidewalk, or crosswalk
$ for sanitation; cleaning, or routine maintenance or repair purposes and declines. to
.9 cease the obstruction after being requested to do :so.
to 4,5 Nothing in this Agreement shall impact the authority of the City
1.1 to enforce any laW not based on an individual's uWheltered status against; a person
12 believed to: be homeless, including issuing and arresting. the person for an alleged
13 violation of law.
14 5. Dispute -Resolution Process
15 The Court shall retain jurisdiction over the OC Catholic Worker Action for a
16 period of three. years from the Effective Date: for the purposes of (a) overseeing. the
17 implementation of this Agreement, and (b) implementing and presiding over the a
18 dispute -resolution process (tbe ".Disputc-.Resolution Process") to be established by
19 the Court.and to which .Plaintiffs and the City hereby consent and agree:
20 5.1 Except as expressly identified in this Agreement, or as may be
21 modified by the Court or the Parties,, with the Court's .consent,. during the three-year
22.
period.of the Court's continued jurlsdicticn,.this Dispute Resolution Process shall
:23
apply to adjudicate any and all disputes between, on the one hand, the.City, and, on
24
the other hand, any homeless individual or individuals Wlio potisem, at the time of
25
requesting the Dispute Resolution .Process,. to be. bound .by the Dispute -Resolution
26.
27
Process. and the provisions:of this Agreement applicable to the OCCW Plaintiffs
2.� (Including but not limited to the 'individual OCCW plaintiffs), relating to (a) the
implementation of this Agreement, and/or (b) the. enforcement of the above-
9
18-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 340 Filed 09/23/19 Page 13 of 20 Page ID
#:3762
.1 identified Municipal Code seotionst or other laws applied against, any homeless
2 person arising.out of thatindividual's homeless status, including but not limited to
3 disputes,regarding1he availabilityor adequacy of any shelter or shelter services
4 offered to the individual pursuant to Section 4..1 of this Agreement and expressly
5 excluding violations of lave relating'to conduct not arising from the individual's
6 liorireless status (examples include but are not. limited to passessi¢n of`illegal
7 substances or weapons, trespass on private property,.acts of violence, public
8
intoxication, etc.) (collectively, the "Disputes," and individually, a "Dispute",)-
9
10 5.2 In the event of any Dispute arising .during the pendency of the
CouWs retained jurisdiction, the parties to. that Dispute will first attempt.to meet, aric
11
12
confer informally with the, other side Wan effort to resolve it. In the case of a
13 Dispute raised by one or more homeless individuals against the City,. or.a Dispute
14 rained by thee City against one of more homeless individuals, including any such.
15 persons who are known to: be,, or the City is advised are, represented by counsel of
16 record in the OC: Catholic Worker Action,, this attempt will.at least involve,(4) a
17 written communication: from the:party initiating the Dispute to the other side's
19. counset describing in detail the'Dispate and the..requested,remedy, and providing,
19 any available evidence in relation thereto, and (b).a discussion, either in. person or
20 via telephone,.seeking.to resolve the Dispute. In the event the Cityxeceives a.
21 complaint from a homeless individual,: City employees, as well as the employees of
22 any City'shelter facility,. shall give any affected individual notice of the Caurt's.
2.3 D.ispute-Resolution Process and the contact information for applicable legal service;
24 organizations; including. the law center associated with Plaintiffs' counsel, together
.25 with a:statcment that. such entitiesrnay be availableto assist them.
26
5.3 If the parties `to. a Dispute are unable to resolve it within. two (2)
27
court days -after it is:first raised informally by one of the..parties to the Dispute, any
28.
party to the Dispute may request a bearing.with the Court under the standards and
10
8:18-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 340 Filed 09/23/19 Page 14 of 20 Page ID
#:3763
1 processes to be set by the Court, and'the Court will have jurisdiction to resolve that
2 Dispute, if the Dispute -involves an emergency situation'that presents a threat to the
3 immediate health and safety of.an individual,the parties may.seek expedited review
4 by he Court.
5 5.4 The .fact that, a, person has initiated the Dispute -Resolution
6 Process. shall not impact the City right to. enforce any law against that person,.
including issuing. citations to the person;, concurrently with the Dispute -Resolution
8
Process. However, the City agrees that no custodial arrest will be made for a
9
violation.of the anti -camping, loitering, .aAd' ixnilar laws arising front, an
10
individual.'s status as homeless prior to the exhaustion of the Dispute -Resolution.
11
1 .Process with the Court pursuant to Section 5.3 of this Agreement. in circumstances
13 mvolying. citation;'.the Court may issue an order .directing the. City to stay'the filing
14 of formal charges against the homeless individual. until the Dispute -Resolution
Dispute-Resolution
Process has been completed for that.Dispute. The City -agrees not to contest such a
16 request for a brief stay of the filing ofcbarges. Once the Dispute -Resolution
17 Process has coheludod regarding -an issue, the City will:not be required to await
18 07h4ustion of the Dispute -Resolution Process regarding the same issue and the same'
19 individual prior to a custodial arrest where the.iudividual does not comply with a
20 warning or leave once a citation has.been.issued, provided' he:City complies with
21 1 the Cou&s determination of that same issue. for that same.indiv i.dual. For purposes
�2 of the. Section 5.4, "same issue" refers to. an issue determined by the Court in. the
23 Dispute -Resolution Process where the individual's objections, including. any claim
24 of alleged disability,, physical limitations and the offered platement.are substantially
25 similar for purposes of deteMlining whether. the individual's disability or other
26 objection is being reasonably accommodated.
27 5..5 In. resolving any Dispute, the Court may enforce any rights
28
available to a party under this Agreement, subject to. sufficient notice, opportunity. to
I1
DE Document 340 Filed 09/23/19 Page 15 of 20 Page ID
#:3764
8.
9
10
I.1
12
i3
14
15
f6
17
18
19
:20
21
22
23
24
25
26.
27
29.
be heard, briefing, evidence, and other due process, The Court shall not be
empowered to award damages or any other monetary relief to: any party as a. result
of any Dispute submitted to this process. Nothing in this Agreement limits the
ability of any Plaintiff to :seek damages in other proceedings not subject to this
Agreement.
5.6.. Should either party disagree with.the Court's determination
resultingfrom the Dispute -Resolution Process, nothing in this Agreement shall
preclude either party from commencing; litigation concerning the subject:of said
Dispute; and pursuing any remedies available at law; providedthat in advance of
initiating such action, the parties shall first engage in.an in-personrneet-and-confer
to occur within seven (1) calendar days of a request from the other.party.
6. Release and Cbvouant Not to Sue
6.1 In -consideration for the terms of this Agreement, OCCW
Plaintiffs, and each of them, and any other individual claiming rights under this
Agreement. (the "OCCW Releasing Parties"), hereby release and forever discharge
the City of Santa Ana, as well as its present and former employees, agents;.
managers, officers;, directors, councilmembers, insurance companies, attorneys,
departments; aid divisions or affiliated entities, whether previously or hereafter
in.anymann.er (the "City Released. Parties"), from and against any and, all
claims,demands,. causes of action, obligations, damages, attomey':s fees, .costs, and
liabilities, arising'from or.relating to the events detailed in the lawsuit of any nature
whatsoever, whether or not now known, suspected, or claimed,. which:the OCCW
Releasing Parties,. and%r any of them, have, or ever may claim to have, :as against
the City Released Parties, or any of them, Whether directly or indirectly, relating to,
or arising out of the: (a) OC Catholic Worker ActioA, (b.) any claims raised in, or
that could been raised in; the OC Catholic Worker Action; (c) the availability of
homeless shelters; shelter beds, and/or other homeless accommodations in the City
of -Santa. Ana; (d) the City's alleged obligation to provide or find such
1.2
Cas� 8:18-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 340 Filed 09/23/19 Page 16 of 20 Page ID
#:3765
1 -accommodations arid/or (6) the City's alleged inability to enforce any of the:Anti-
2 Camping Ordinances.and any law that the OC- CCW Releasing Parties claim
3 criminalizes a person's .homeless status, against. any person because: of his or. her
4 homeless status (collectively;. the "OCCW Released Claims").
5 6.2 The. releases set forth in Section 6.1 arexeleases of all claims,
6 demands, causes of action, obligations, damages; and liabilities, of any nature
7 Whatsoever;. and are intended.to encompass all known and unknown, foreseen and
8 unforeseen, claims that are possessed by the OCCW Releasing,.Parfies and within
9 the scope of the QCC.W Released Claims based solely and only on the events
10 giving rise to the. OC Catholic Worker. Action. To effectuate the intent of the
11 Parties, the OCCW Releasing. Parties .expressly agree to waive anal relinquish. all.
12 rights and benefits they may have under California. Civil Code Section 1542, which
13 1 reads as. follows;
14 A general release does not extend to claims .that the..creditor or
15 releasing party does not know :or suspect to'exist in his or her favor at
16 the time of executing the releasa and that; if known by him or her,:
17 would have materially affected big or her.settlenment'With the .debtor'or
18, released party.
19 6.3 The OCCW Releasing Parties warrant that they have made no
20: assignment, and will make no assignment, of any claim, chose in action, right of
21 action,. orany right, of any kiind whatsoever, within the .scope of the OCCW
22 Released Claims, and that no other person or entity of any kind had or has any
23 interest in -any. of the demands, obligations, actions; causes of action, debts,
24 liab..ilities,,:nights, contracts, damages, attorney's fees, costs, expenses; losses, or
25 clahns. within the scope of the OCCW .Released. Claims.
26 7. Dismissal.of the OC Catholic Worker Action
27 Upon entry of the Court's Order re Continuing Jurisdiction -and Settlement,
28 the OCCW Plaintiffs, as to the City, will take all necessary actions arid.file all
13
8:18-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 340 Filed 09/23/19 Page 17 of 20 Page ID
#:3766
documents to effectuated smissal of the OC Catholic Worker Action
2 with prejudice.
3 8. Settlement Pavmetits and Attorney's Fees
4 All Parties to this Agreement shall bear their own costs, expenses,_and
5 attorney's fees in relation to or arising out of: (a) the OC Catholic Worker Action;
6 (b) the resolution,.negotiation, and settlement of the OC Catholic Worker Action,.
7 includin,g_the negotiation of this Agreement; and (c).the implementation of. this
8 Agreement.
9 4. Non-A;dmisslon: ofhiablUiv
l.0 By entering into: this Agreement; the :City does not admit any liability, and
11 explicitly denies :any liability or wrongdoing of any kind arising: out of or relating
12 to any of the claims alleged in the OC Catholic Worker Action. Nothing herein
13 constitutes an admission by the City as to any interpretation of laws; or as to the
14 merits,. validity, or accuracy of any of the claims .or legal contentions made in the
15 OC. Catholic Worker Action. The City has entered into this Agreement solely to
16 avoid the time, expense, and risk of continued. litigation. The Parties agree that an
17 express condition of this settlement is that there has been no .finding ofliability on.
18 the merits,and that this settlement and any document related to this settlement,
19 including this Agreement and any related orders, arid the negotiations leading up to
20. this. settlement, shall be inadmissible in evidence and shall not be used for any
21 purpose in this or any other: proceeding, except in an action or proceeding to
22 approve, interpret; or enforce this Agreement.
23 tO, Knowing and Voluntary
24 This .Agreement .is an important legal document that has been voluntarily
25 and knowingly executed by the Parties. The. Parties, and each of them, specifically
26represent that, prior to signing this Agreement: (a) they have each been provided a
27 reasonable period of titre within. which to consider whether to accept this
28 Agreement; (b) they have each carefully read and fully understand all.of the
14
18-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 340 Filed 09/23/19 Page 18 of 20 Page ID
#:3767
1 provisions. ofthis Agreement; and (c) they are. voluntarily, knowingly, and without
2 coercion entering into this Agreement based upon their oven judgment. The
3 O.CCW Plaintiffs. and City further specifically represent that, prior to signing this
4 Agreemett, they have conferred with counsel of their choice to the extent desired
5 concerning the legal effect of this Agreement,. and that the legal effect of this
6 Agreement has been adequately explained to them.
7 11 11.: Entire Agreewtitt,
8 This Agreementconstitutes the. entire agreement by and between the OCCW
9 Releasing Parties and the. City Released Parties regarding the matters discussed
10 Herein, and supersedes any and all other agreements, understandings, negotiations,
11. or discussions, either oral or in writing, express or implied, between the OCCW
12 releasing Parties and the City Released Parties relating to, the subject matter
1,3 hereof: The QCCW Releasing Parties and the City.Released. Parties each
14 acknowledge that no representations, inducements,:promises, agreements, or
15 warranties, oral:or otherwise, .have been made by them., or anyone acting on their
16 1 behalf, which are not embodied in this Agreement, that they have not executed this
17 11 Agreement in reliance on any such representatign, inducement, promise,
18 11 agreement; or Warranty, and that no representation, inducement, promise,
19 agreement, or warrahty not contained in this: A'greetnent, including but not limited
20 to., any. purported supplements., modifications, waivers, or terminations of this
21 Agreement, shall be valid or Binding, unless executed in writing by all ofthe
22. Parties to this Agreement. Any alteration, change., or modification of or this
23 Agreement shall be made by written instrument executed by each Party -in order to.
24 11 become effective.
25II 1.2. Warranty.o£.Authority
26 II Each individual or entity that executes this Agreement represents and
warran
ts, nts, in his,.her ar its personal capacity, that .he, she, or it is duly authorized
M
15
Document 340 Filed 09/23/19 Page 19 of 20 Page ID
#:3768
empowered to enter into this Agreement on behalf of the party it purports to
2 l represent:.
3 11. Couniorparis
4 1 This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts; each of which
S shall be considered an original but all of which shall constitute one agreement.
6. 11 14. No Waiver .of Terms of Agreement
7 The failure to insist upon compliance with any term, .covenant, or condition
8 contained in this Agreement shall notbQ deemed a waiver .of that term, covenant;
9 or condition, nor shall any waiver or. relinquishment of any right or power
10 contained in this Agreement at any one time or mote times be deemed a waiver or.
11 relinquishment of anyright.or power at other time or times.
12 15: Modification ofAgreement
13 The enforcement terms of this Agi ee.went may be, vacated or modified,., at the
14 request of any Party hereto; if. (a) the holding of Martin v. Boise is reversed or
15 modified, or is otherwise no l.onger.good law; (b) the Court determines, that the
1:6- number of available and appropriate shelter placements in the: City warrants
17 termination or modification of the Agreement; or(c) upon `petition by the City, the
IS Court determines that other terms of the Agreement have been met..
19
2Q IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Settlement Agreement is hereby entered. into
21 and executed by the parties hereto on the dates set forth. below.
22
23:
24 OC CATHOLIC WORKER
25 n
26 Dated 2U19 By:.
27 FUR
29
3:18-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 340 Filed 09/23/19 Page 20 of 20 Page ID
#:3769
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Carol A. S el
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
APPROVED AS TO FORM
fi((A
Brooke Weitzman
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Dated: /f`� 1, 2019
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Jo Funk
A sistant City Attorney
ATTEST
Daisy Gomez
Clerk of the Council
CITY OF SANTA ANA
By:f,r
istine Ridge
City Manager
17
Salas, Diana
From: Tim Johnson <tjohnson@jlkrllp.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 11:53 AM
To: eComment
Cc: Solorio, Jose; Iglesias, Cecilia; Villegas, Juan; Sarmiento, Vicente; Bacerra, Phil; Pulido,
Miguel; Penaloza, David; Ridge, Kristine; Flores, Rosa
Subject: Agenda Item 85B- PD Homeless Enforcement
Attachments: 340- SA Settlement Agreement dtd 9.23.19.pdf
Mayor, Council, and City Manager ... On tonight's agenda item 85B, I urge you to thoughtfully and compassionately
explore this item to its fullest. As you know, issues surrounding homelessness are likely one of the most important
issues for a lot of Santa Ana residents and business owners. I would suggest that as part of tonight's discussion that the
Chief of Police provide an overview of what the SAPD's current enforcement efforts are and what the consequences of
such enforcement truly is. Part of what the city needs to do a better job of is to communicate information so that the
community can set expectations in line with reality and also to suggest areas of improvement. We first need to know
what the current state of affairs is with regards to enforcement of anti -camping, panhandling, and other laws.
For example, is SAPD able to enforce its anti -camping ordinances with regards to someone who does not qualify for
services at The Link? As you know, for someone to qualify for housing at The Link they need to have ties to Santa Ana,
so someone who just arrives and indicates that they are not from SA, may not qualify for services at The Link. What
about during days and hours that The Armory is not available such as 11am or during a "dark day" for The
Armory. Essentially, please have the City Manager and the Chief communicate the current status of enforcement so that
you, the public and the city staff can appropriately direct the PD.
I also urge you to suggest that whatever enforcement procedures are taken on with regards to the homeless community
to involve social services in this process and lead with a desire to help those who are experiencing homelessness. Often
the need is much more than just housing such as mental health services and substance abuse addiction services. We
need to coordinate and lead first with an offer to help. This may mean that the first contact is with a trained social
service worker and possibly not PD. As you know, often this population may respond better with a social services
worker as opposed to law enforcement.
Section 4 of the settlement in federal court with the Catholic Worker case provides a framework for leading first with
contact from Outreach and Engagement (county O&E, CityNet, homeless liaisons, etc...), which will require county and
other coordination- please find such settlement attached. Section 4 as referred to above starts on page 10 of the
attached adobe file. The county has previously indicated that anytime that SAPID needs their assistance with O&E, that
they will be available- it is time to hold them accountable to this.
Please also focus on placement for services as well as repeated enforcement instead "one off' enforcement actions. I
believe that consistently offering of services and enforcement actions is the better way to go instead of having one day a
month/week or whatever for PD and 0&E to go out and perform outreach and enforcement.
I would also suggest that those in violation of anti -camping ordinances be provided their rights with regards to the
recent Martin vs Boise decision in terms of whether a city that does not provide shelter services may be a better location
if they determine it is in their own best interests to possibly reside in another city that does not provide shelter
services. Representatives from the county have previously indicated that they expect that after Santa Ana begins
enforcing their anti -camping ordinances that the homeless will begin to move to other cities that are unable to enforce
anti -camping ordinances such as most South County cities. However, the homeless population needs to be informed of
this.
Orozco, Norma
From: timrush@bhhscaprops.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 3:20 PM
To: eComment
Subject: City Council Agenda 01/21/20 RE Police Use of Form 602, and Anti camping bans
Mayor & Council;
Anything we can do restrict the free flow of homeless, hobo's, vagrants and miscreants in our city ought to be employed
with all haste. Our city has gone from being "The Golden City" to "The Gotham Dumps" and we need to turn the tide
back. We should not be the dumping ground for the rest of the county.
With regard to anti pan handling, anti camping etc. Purchase some vans and cart these folks to Irvine and any other
South County city who refuses to do their equitable share in handling this burden.
Sincerely,
Tim Rush
Past President Wilshire Square