Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence - CS #2Orozco, Norma From: Tim Johnson <tjohnson@jlkrllp.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2021 1:40 PM To: eComment Cc: Ridge, Kristine; Carvalho, Sonia R.; Funk, John; Lopez, Jorge (SAPD); Penaloza, David; Sarmiento, Vicente; Mendoza, Nelida; Bacerra, Phil; Phan, Thai; Hernandez, Johnathan Subject: Closed Session Item (5/18/21) Attachments: 388- Santa Ana Response to El Centro Abatement Warrant intervention.pdf; 75- Order directing mandatory settlement conf on 5.5.21.pdf, 76- SA & OC Settlement Conf Minutes of 5.5.21.pdf, 390- Carter ruling on emergency hearing re El Centro & 450 beds in SA.pdf, SA City Council Close Session Minutes initiating cross complaint April 2018.pdf Mayor and Council (incl City Manager Ridge and City Attornies Carvalho and Funk) ... You will be considering three related yet separate cases in Closed Session this evening- all with regards to those who are struggling with housing in our City. Overall, please move towards providing real housing solutions to those who are struggling with housing. Not because a Judge or Court tells us to, but because it is the right thing to do for those who are struggling. I also urge you to not focus on congregate living facilities (i.e. traditional emergency shelters) being used as long-term solutions but instead focus on real housing solutions that will help folks to actually rest, recover, and recuperate in order to go on the road to self-sufficiency (whatever that may look like on a personal level). Additionally, please utilize emergency shelter to operate like the Emergency Room at the hospital... triage/assess, stop the immediate crisis, evaluate the case, and move them onto the next best level of care. Just as no one should be using the ER for long term medical attention, emergency shelter should be operating on a similar capacity but in order to do that we need available next level housing options so that emergency housing does not become the landing spot like it has traditionally for far too many in our county (i.e. reference those who stayed at the Courtyard for months and years). Anyways, please consider the following with regards to the cases tonight: City of SA vs County of Orange (8:20-cv-00069-DOC) This case is where the city is suing the county- overly generalized regarding the disproportionate impact the city has endured with regards to the county's actions and/or in -actions. There was a mandatory settlement conference on this matter on May 51h after prior conferences and re -scheduling in which our Mayor was to attend along with OCBOS Chairperson Do. I urge the city to provide the residents an update on this case. We have not heard anything with regards to this case. I also remind you that although this is a closed session item, I do not believe that there is anything prohibiting providing an update to the residents while at the same time continuing to pursue legal remedies. I also urge you to review the latest LA Judge Carter ruling wherein there are arguments made that there are civil rights violations to minority areas that have been disproportionately impacted by the housing/homeless crisis through lack of due process and equal protection. Although, it may be argued that these are not city level legal arguments (i.e. a resident may be required to assert), they are still applicable to the case at hand even while the case is being appealed and reconsidered. See attached relevant case documents #75 & #78. OCCW vs OC (8:18-cv-00155-DOC) As you surely know, the City entered into a prior settlement agreement wherein the city agreed to provide 450 shelter beds in the city for those struggling with housing in our city. There are concerns that the city is not currently abiding by that settlement by not providing the necessary number of beds to those who are in need. Obviously, during COVID, there may have been some leniency as emergency shelters had to reduce the number of people in a congregant living environment which makes abiding by the settlement very difficult. But none the less, those on the streets need housing assistance along with the services that come along. I would also urge you to consider that if people are continuing to refuse the type of housing being provided that maybe we need to reconsider the type of housing that is being offered. There will be many who will choose to stay on the streets when the option is to be locked inside a warehouse while that same person may, over time and with the right relationships, accept housing and services in a motel type environment where they are more likely to rest, recover, and become more self-sufficient all while improving their physical and mental health. The City likely is in a position that it is legally not allowed to enforce its anti -camping ordinances. Now, you may argue that if someone wants a bed, that you will find a bed for them, but that is not what the settlement agreement indicates. Instead, the city agreed to provide 450 beds in addition to locating and offering an "available and appropriate placement in the City" prior to enforcement of anti -camping ordinances. In the recent Amended Civil Minutes from May 81h, Judge Carter reminds all of us that "Therefore, the City may not enforce until they have complied with the terms of the Settlement and have 450 bed spaces available." (emphasis added) There has been interpretation as to what the City's responsibility is in providing emergency shelter beds per the settlement but it certain appears that the Judge had made it clear that there must be 450 beds available prior to enforcing even if you can have a single bed found for a single person. This effectively means that currently, our city is likely unable to enforce its anti -camping ordinances which some may say is a good thing while others want the city to have that tool in their enforcement tool kit. See attached for relevant case documents #388 and #390. I believe that the council has an obligation to inform the residents that due to the current lack of availability of shelter beds that it is unable to enforce its anti -camping ordinances. There are many residents who may see an unhoused individual who is residing on public property who call the police and are expecting our anti -camping ordinances to be enforced. The city should set the expectation for these individuals so they know that our police and other service providers are doing the best they can but are unable to arrest or site due to the lack of housing available in the city as referenced by Judge Carter. By the way, it is easy for someone to read Judge Carters Amended Civil Minutes as a City victory because he did not stop the order of abatement but he makes it very clear that the abatement enforcement is not related to the OCCW Settlement as long as the City was not enforcing its anti -camping ordinances (unless it found 450 bed spaces). The two, as you know and Mr. Funk argued in his response, are unrelated to each other. In fact, Mr. Funk indicates that "exercising the abatement warrant will not involve ticketing, citing, or arresting anyone for any anti -camping or similar violations". This seems to be important for the residents to understand and know ... our city appears to be unable to enforce its anti - camping ordinances until such a time that it is in compliance with the settlement agreement including having 450 beds available. Again, although this is a closed session item, there is nothing prohibiting the council or the City Manager to providing an update as to the current status of this case as well as the city's ability to provide beds to the unhoused and an update on this case in general. Specifically, please inform the public on the number of beds currently available both inside the city as well as outside (i.e. the Fullerton replacement location for The Link) along with an update on the timing of opening of Carnegie. Further, I urge you to not focus on those that turn down the offered bed but instead find out what their need is and try your best to meet that need. There are many who will continue to decline a bed in what they may view an incarceration facility because of the lack of ability to exit/enter or live in close quarters in a noisy and sometimes dangerous environment while they will be willing to accept more suitable housing. In the private sector, if I have a product that I know would help people, but no one is buying, then I need to adjust the product, the marketing methodology, and/or the delivery of that product so that there is a demand for it. If I sit on a product that will help, neither myself or my potential customer will benefit. The same is true with helping those on the streets... we know that they need help but they are not accepting the product being offered to them so it is time to respond to that information and provide them a product that will both help them and be accepted. We need to adjust for the betterment of all parties. City of SA vs OC, Cross -Complaint (8:18-cv-00155-DOC) As you surely understand, as part of the OCCW case above, the City decided to sue the County along with all the other cities in the county. This was done by Council action in April of 2018- more than two years ago (see attached minutes). Please note that the prior council authorized staff to file a cross complaint against ALL cities in Orange County and the County of Orange. To date, I do not believe the city staff has complied with this directive... they filed a complaint against the County and certain cities but neglected to file against many of our South County neighbors. I believe at a minimum, the residents deserve to know why the city has not followed council direction by filing against all cities but instead picked a few and then subsequently resolved the dispute with those cities (rightfully done IMO). Unfortuantely, for reasons that have never been disclosed, the city decided to not serve any of the cities outside of a select few who subsequently settled. The City has never served its cross complaint upon any South County cities including Irvine, Aliso Viejo, the Lagunas, San Clemente, Dana Point, San Juan Capistrano, Lake Forest, etc ... The cities in the North are stepping up (and even taking a shelter for our city's unhoused) while the cities in the South Service Planning Area continue to ignore this social issue. I urge the council to actually serve its suit against those cities in the South SPA in order to start a discussion and to at a minimum make them respond to the suit. These cities along with the county continue to try to concentrate the county's homeless outside of their city limits at the detriment of our city, its residents and our businesses. This is not the fault of those who are unhoused and decide to move to Santa Ana but instead is the fault of those municipalities who continue to push them to other cities. I urge you to not only serve these other cities but also provide the residents of the city an update on this cross - complaint. There has to be a reason that the prior council decided not to serve this suit upon the cities in the South SPA and now is the time to provide that information to us. This cross complaint has been going on for years now, is quite often on the closed session agenda, yet there is no communication to the public as to the status of the case. The residents of the city deserve to know what is going on with the case. I know in my hear that each and every one of you care for those who are struggling with housing and results of that struggle including mental and physical health matters, drug and alcohol addiction, and many other items. Please push ahead to help those struggling with housing and also to keep the residents of Santa Ana informed on what the city is doing in this matter because what has been communicated so far is not adequate. Thank you again for your service to our community. Rosenberger c.nManeee+�eorars. Proudly part of the PWoobal family 91©® Tim Johnson, CPA Partner 0 (949)860-9892 Is (714) 743-1065 ® tjohnson@jlkrllp.com 2601 Main Street, Suite 580, Irvine, CA 92614 ® See our latest business news and insights by clicking here 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. Case E 3-cv-00155-DOC-ME Document 388 Filed 05/08/21 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:4447 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 30NIA R. CARVALHO (SBN 162700) ITY ATTORNEY fOHN M. FUNK 204605 ),SSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY ITY OF SANTA ANA ?0 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA M-29 3.0. BOX 1988 3ANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 TELEPHONE: (714) 647-5201 ,-ACSIMILE: M4) 647-6515 EMAIL: jfunkgasanta-ana.org kttoine s for Defendant and Cross -Claimant ITY OF SANTA ANA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN DIVISION GRANGE COUNTY CATHOLIC WORKER, an unincorporated association; Lisa Bell, Shawn Carroll, Melissa Fields, Larry Ford, Cameron [,alston, Kathy Schuler, Gloria 3hoemake, as individuals, Plaintiffs, V. DRANGE COUNTY et al. Defendants- Case No.: SACV 18-0155-DOC (JDE) RESPONSE BY SANTA ANA TO PLAINTIFF'S MAY 8 2021 REQUEST FOR EMEifdENCY STATUS CONFERENCE AND ORDER 1 Case 3-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 388 Filed 05/08/21 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:4448 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 With virtually no notice and either incomplete or incorrect facts, Plaintiff in .his matter has - just hours earlier today - sought an emergency status conference ind order to intervene in an unrelated abatement action by the City of Santa Ana 7n private property, pursuant to a validly issued state court warrant. The Court has irected the City to file its position on the case docket before the 3:00 p.m. hearing. First and foremost, and as the City has stressed repeatedly to Plaintiff, th( 2-ity has no intention to, and will not violate, the applicable law -nforcement of its anti -camping or similar ordinances against persons iomelessness on the subject property. No citations or arrests will be made in Ana if a shelter bed is not available. The City has always understood this. The City's use of a validly issued abatement warrant to address a land use luisance situation at 837 N. Ross Street, the property known as El Centro Cultu le Mexico, has nothing to do with making arrests or issuing citations. While f ity is under no legal obligation to house the individuals on the site, the City ;ommitted to doing exactly that, having already placed 17 people. Moreover, 1 ity has provided two on -site resource events, portable restrooms and washbasv ind has secured beds for some of those on the property. It has even provid OVID-19 testing and vaccinations. El Centro's attorney of record repeatedly advised the City that only 10 to )eople remain on the El Centro property, although she recently indicated the numl nay have grown to around 20. The City received direction from the City Council vork with El Centro to provide the remaining individuals with shelter. The Manager and her team have worked diligently to secure beds as directed. The City can and will provide that shelter in Santa Ana. The City -epeatedly asked El Centro's attorney for a list of names of the people on rroperty so that it can work with City Net to determine which shelter alternatives )est for the individuals. To date, El Centro has not provided those names. 2 Case 8 DOC-JDE Document 388 Filed 05/08/21 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:4449 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 Nine of the people on El Centro's property have indicated that they accept shelter when the City arrives to abate the site. We have reservations for thf right now but understand they prefer to remain on site until forced to leave. T others have refused shelter. Notwithstanding their refusal, City Net will continue work with them, and there are beds for them too. It cannot be stressed enough t] the City has worked in good faith with El Centro, even forbearing on enforcemf efforts while El Centro publicly declared it would assist all those on its prope. within 45 days — which it failed to do. The City pursued abatement only after a year of working with El Centro address issues of graffiti, drug sales, trash, criminal activity, encampments, and 1 substantial evidence as was presented for the abatement. It posted the yesterday, as 24 hours is the minimum notice required before abatement can occur which must be done with two weeks of issuance. Santa Ana has a duty to its residents to protect the health and safety of all members in its community. There is a nuisance in the middle of a neighbo where children pass everyday, and the City has received urgent pleas from J families and others to clean up the property. The abatement warrant provides authorization to that and was obtained in accordance with the law. The received over 179 complaints about the property and can hardly be expected to by idly. Plaintiff has attempted to conflate the City's abatement efforts with violations of the Settlement Agreement with OCCW, and in doing so, has distorted the facts. The settlement agreement is separate and apart from abatement warrant. To reiterate, exercising the abatement warrant will not inv ticketing, citing, or arresting anyone for any anti -camping or similar violations — otherwise result in a violation of the settlement agreement. There is absolutely no basis for an order finding the City in violation of settlement agreement. The City has been directed to file this position statement 3 Case £ 3-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 388 Filed 05/08/21 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #:4450 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 ess than three hours notice. Accordingly, it respectfully requests the opportunity tc supplement it and/or provide further information to the Court to assist in the -esolution of this matter. In any case, no relief of any kind should be granted until ime when the parties can more fully present the facts to the Court. CITY OF SANTA ANA Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney Dated: May 8, 2021 By: �4 I• -f.M. 4' hn M. Funk Sr. Assistant City Attorney 11 Case 8:20-cv-00069-DOC-KES Document 75 Filed 04/30/21 Page 1 of 1 Page ID #:604 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL Case No. SA CV 20-00069-DOC-KES Date: April 30, 2021 Title: CITY OF SANTA ANA V. COUNTY OF ORANGE ET AL PRESENT: THE HONORABLE DAVID O. CARTER, JUDGE Kelly Davis Not Present Courtroom Clerk Court Reporter ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF: None Present PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS) ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT: None Present ORDER RE: MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE MAY 5, 2021 The parties are hereby ORDERED to attend a mandatory settlement conference with the Court and Special Master Judge Smith on Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. The Court REQUESTS the attendance of the Mayor of Santa Ana and the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors. The mandatory settlement conference will take place at the Ronald Reagan Federal Building and United States Courthouse, 411 West 0 St., Santa Ana, CA 92701. The Clerk shall serve this minute order on the parties. MINUTES FORM 11 Initials of Deputy Clerk: kd CIVIL-GEN Case 8:20-cv-00069-DOC-KES Document 76 Filed 05/05/21 Page 1 of 1 Page ID #:605 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL Case No. SA CV 20-00069-DOC-(KESx) Date May 5, 2021 Title City of Santa Ana v. County of Orange, et al. PRESENT: HONORABLE DAVID O. CARTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Kelly Davis Courtroom Clerk Not Reported Court Reporter PROCEEDINGS: SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE (Held and Completed) Settlement Conference is held outside the presence of the court reporter. Settlement discussions were held. a ©0 Initials of Deputy kd Clerk CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 1 Case 8:18-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 390 Filed 05/08/21 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:4453 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AMENDED CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL Case No. SA CV 18-00155-DOC-JDE Date: May 8, 2021 Title: ORANGE COUNTY CATHOLIC WORKER ET AL V. ORANGE COUNTY ET AL PRESENT: THE HONORABLE DAVID O. CARTER, JUDGE Terri Steele Courtroom Clerk ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF: None Present Not Present Court Reporter ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT: None Present PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER RE EMERGENCY HEARING In September 2019, the Parties entered into a settlement agreement in which the City agreed to operate temporary shelters that would provide a total of 450 beds for its homeless population. Settlement at 6. Plaintiffs allege that the City currently "has zero of the required 450 beds available." Dkt. 386 at 2. Pursuant to Section four under "Enforcement of Anti -Camping Ordinances", the City shall "prior to enforcement of the Anti -Camping Ordinances against any homeless individual, [O&E Personnel will] locate and offer an available and appropriate placement in the City for the individual in question." See Settlement at 7. "If the individual declines the offered placement, the City may proceed with enforcement of the Anti -Camping Ordinances in its sole discretion subject to the dispute resolution process detailed herein." Id. at 2-8. According to Plaintiffs, despite not having the required bed space to shelter its homeless population, the City "now plans to clear an encampment of approximately 40 people at 3:OOPM Saturday." Dkt. 386 at 3. Case 8:18-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 390 Filed 05/08/21 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:4454 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL Date: May 8, 2021 Page 2 Plaintiff first requests an Order finding City to be in violation of the settlement. This Court does not find it appropriate to intervene in a nuisance abatement action involving private property having been decided by the Superior Court on Friday, May 7, 2021. The State Court order does not relate to the Federal Court Consent Decree. Accordingly, Plaintiff s request is DENIED. Second, Plaintiff requests the Court to suspend City action that would displace people pending 450 beds. Pursuant to Section four under "Enforcement of Anti -Camping Ordinances", the City shall "prior to enforcement of the Anti -Camping Ordinances against any homeless individual, [O&E Personnel will] locate and offer an available and appropriate placement in the City for the individual in question." See Settlement at 7. "If the individual declines the offered placement, the City may proceed with enforcement of the Anti -Camping Ordinances in its sole discretion subject to the dispute resolution process detailed herein." Id. at 2-8. Therefore, the City may not enforce until they have complied with the terms of the Settlement and have 450 bed spaces available. This instant action is not enforcement of the anti -camping ordinance, but the order of abatement from the Superior Court. The City's stated position is that it will not enforce in violation of the settlement. The City is ORDERED to file its position formally on the docket. Finally, Plaintiff requests sanctions with attorneys' fees and other actions. This request is held in abeyance pending the outcome of this dispute. The Court ENCOURAGES that the City of Santa Ana open shelter immediately for the benefit of the displaced homeless population and the citizens of Santa Ana. The Clerk shall serve this minute order on the parties. MINUTES FORM 11 CIVIL-GEN Initials of Deputy Clerk: is MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CLOSED SESSION MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA APRIL 25, 2018 CLOSED SESSION MEETING CALLED TO ORDER COUNCIL CHAMBER 22 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA 4:25 P.M. ATTENDANCE COUNCILMEMBERS Present: MIGUEL A. PULIDO, Mayor MICHELE MARTINEZ, Mayor Pro Tern (6:03 P.M.)* P. DAVID BENAVIDES VICENTE SARMIENTO (5:55 P.M.) JOSE SOLORIO JUAN VILLEGAS COUNCILMEMBERS Absent: SAL TINAJERO STAFF Present: RAUL GODINEZ, II, City Manager SONIA R. CARVALHO, City Attorney MARIA D. HUIZAR, Clerk of the Council Quorum was established thru presence of Mayor Pulido, Councilmembers Benavides, Solorio and Villegas. *TELECONFERENCE: Pursuant to Government Code Section 54953(b), Mayor Pro Tern Martinez participated in a portion of the meeting via teleconference from Andaz Watt Street Hotel, 75 Wall St., New York, NY 10005. The Agenda for said meeting was posted at said location as required by the Brown Act. PUBLIC COMMENTS - • Peter A. Katz, encouraged City Council to pursue lawsuit to allow Judge Carter to expand jurisdiction over all 34 cities; expressed the importance of all cities finding space in their respective cities and provide full Wraparound services. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 1 APRIL 25, 2018 • Abigail Aleman, cited article from the O. C. Register, regarding homeless services and the Sober Living homes that are operating illegally. • Tim Johnson, thanked City Council for vote at last month's meeting, implored Council to expand lawsuit to include all cities; and requested that Council define proportionality as expressed by Judge Carter. • Vincent Pham, attended meeting with son and encouraged council to unite all cities and fine a resolution to the homeless issue. Expressed that the City is in a state of crisis and an opportunity to make a change exists. RECESSED AT 6:01 P.M. TO ROOM 147. CLOSED SESSION ITEMS - The Brown Act permits legislative bodies to discuss certain matters without members of the public present. The City Council finds, based on advice from the City Attorney, that discussion in open session of the following matters will prejudice the position of the City in existing and anticipated litigation: 1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL --EXISTING LITIGATION pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code: a. The Orange County Catholic Worker, et al. v City of Santa Ana, United States District Court for the Central District of CA (S.D.), Case No.: 8:17 — cv-01340 2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — INITIATION OF LITIGATION pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code: One Case — Potential Action Against Multiple parties. City Council authorized staff to file a cross complaint against all cities in Orange County and the County of Orange over the impact of homelessness in the City of Santa Ana, by a 6-0 vote (Tinajero absent). CLOSED SESSION REPORT - The City Attorney reported out on Item 2 of said Closed Session Meeting. ADJOURNED - 6:33 P.M. NG- Maria D. Huizar, Clerk of the Council CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2 APRIL 25, 2018