Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Correspondence - Closed Session #3E
Orozco, Norma From: Tim Johnson <tjohnson@jlkrllp.com> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 4:16 PM To: Hernandez, Johnathan; Sarmiento, Vicente; Penaloza, David; Mendoza, Nelida; Lopez, Jessie; Bacerra, Phil; Phan, Thai; eComment Cc: Ridge, Kristine; Carvalho, Sonia R.; Funk, John Subject: Closed Session Item 3E Attachments: 158- Santa Ana Cross Complaint suing other OC Cities dtd 4.26.18.pdf, 246- SA ANA Orange Tustin Stip to extend response date to SA Suit dtd 7..... pdf; 232- SA ANA Orange Tustin Stip to extend response date to SA Suit dtd 5..... pdf; 4.25.18 SA Closed Session Minutes (incl Item 2A- Cross Complaint).pdf Council (cc City Manager Ridge and City Attorneys Carvalho and Funk) ... On Tuesday you will be discussing in closed session item 3E (cross complaint- Case No. SA CV 18-0155-DOC (KESx)). This item is where the City has a cross -complaint against the County with regards to the Catholic Worker Case. The purpose of this email is to: 1. Provide information to council members who may not have been around in April of 2018 when this case was initiated by the council (6-0, 1 absent). 2. Encourage the City to provide an update to the residents regarding the status of this case. 3. Encourage the City to actually abide by the closed session vote from April of 2018 where it was approved to sue the county and all the cities of the county (note only a select handful of cities were served and late dismissed while virtually all South County cities were never served). 4. Encourage the City to request that the County respond to the lawsuit. Background The timeline for these matters is as follows: • April 25, 2018: During Closed Session, city council 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. See attached minutes from this meeting. • April 26, 2018: The filing actually happened in federal court. See attached document #158. • May 1, 2018: The County of Orange and the cities of Tustin, Anaheim, and Orange were served the lawsuit (no other cities including those in South County have been served). See attached document #232 indicating the service date of May 1, 2018. • May 17, 2018: The cities of Santa Ana, Tustin, Anaheim, Orange and the County of Orange agree to a response date of July 23, 2018 for the defendants to respond to the Santa Ana cross -complaint. See attached document #232. • July 11, 2018: The cities of Santa Ana, Tustin, Anaheim, Orange and the County of Orange agree to delay the response date indefinitely until such a time that the court issues an order that a responsive pleading must be filed. See attached document #246. • Nov 2018: Tustin, Anaheim, and Orange are dismissed. Documents excluded for brevity. As I have suggested in the past, I believe that the council is not staying true to what it voted on in April of 2018 when it chose, after public discussion, to sue the other cities in Orange County, and the county itself, over the impact of homelessness in our community of Santa Ana. Despite voting to proceed with litigation, the city decided only to serve 3 cities (Orange, Tustin, Anaheim) and the county. Subsequently, the cities have been released due to prior settlements in the Catholic Worker case and only the county remains as a defendant because other cities were not served. By not serving the other cities, I believe that the city is allowing South County cities to continue to do what they have been doing which is to continue to disproportionately impact our city with quality of life issues as well as fiscal obligations. It has been 40+ months since the city council voted to proceed with litigation yet no service of the suit on any South County city has occurred. Further, there has not been a public update that I can remember on this case. The public should have confidence that when our council says something should happen, that it does happen. Now, there may be a perfectly good reason for this lengthy delay. However, at least provide an update to the residents so we know that this has not been forgotten. Request for Action I ask that the city provide an update to the public on this item. There were multiple residents who spoke in favor of this item almost 3'/: years ago- which for a closed session item, as you know, is not all that common. There are those on this council who were not even in public office at that time. Further, our own city legend, Peter Katz, spoke on this item encouraging action- he is just one voice, but one that always seemed to be relatively in touch with the community. The public deserves to hear an update. The newly elected councilmembers also deserve to hear residents voices on this item if there has been a change of direction by the council. Below is a picture of the applicable section of the minutes from that vote btw for your reference (in the attached also): 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: El. The OraniAe County Catholic Worker, at 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). It is time for the council to follow through on its vote to sue or to have a public discussion in an open forum on its decision not to proceed. Part of filing a cross complaint it to actually serve the cities of Orange County which simply has not happened outside of the three cities who settled out of the litigation and quite honestly were likely the least of the concerned parties. If it has been determined to not follow through on a prior vote by the city council, this should, even if not legally required, be done at the direction of the council through an agendized item allowing the public to comment on such item. Further, a vote should be had and announcement of such vote and action. If this agenda item is a vote to change the prior council direction, I urge you to reconsider, vote no, and/or provide the public an opportunity to know what you will be discussing so that appropriate public input may be given. Additionally, we need the County to actually respond to the cross complaint. With the indefinite response timeline from July 2018, it is unfair to the residents to have to wait that long just to get a response from the lawsuit. Part of filing a cross complaint is following through with the litigation process. Allowing a delay of over 3 years for responding to the cross complaint is beyond a natural progression of this case it feels from a resident's perspective. Further, it is time to actually serve the South County cities with the lawsuit. It was voted by the council in April of 2018, after public comments on this item, to initiate this litigation against the county and all other cities. it was not limited to the county, Anaheim, Tustin, and Orange. Without the city serving these cities, there is effectively no lawsuit against these cities. The time to serve the suit and request response is well past time, but it can be rectified by the city abiding by the closed session vote from April 25, 2018. know that each of you care for our city. I urge you to take action on this item per the above. I also further request that you work on creating true housing for our Santa Ana residents utilizing a Housing First approach. Work towards setting up our housing for homeless folks to operate more like an emergency room where shelter is just a quick day or two stop in progressing up through the housing spectrum. Thank you for considering this and representing the residents in each of your wards and the city as a whole. Blessing to all, Tim Johnson Ward 3 Resident Rosenberger c.�Awncee+k�enrs. Proudly part of the Paaobal family 91©® Tim Johnson, CPA Partner 10 (949)860-9892 (714) 743-1065 tjohnson@jlkrllp.com 2601 Main Street, Suite 580, Irvine, CA 92614 0 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 155-DOC-JDE Document 158 Filed 04/26/18 Page 1 of 27 Page ID #:2479 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SANDRA M. SCHWARZMANN (_SBN 188793) SENIOR ASSISTANT CITY ATTCO�RNEY 20 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA M-29 P.O. BOX 1988 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 TELEPHONE: 714 647-5201 FACSIMILE: 714) 647-6515 EMAIL: sschwarzmann@santa-ana.org EMAIL: jfunk@santa-ana.org Attorneys for Defendant and Cross -Claimant CITY OF SANTA ANA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN DIVISION ORANGE COUNTY CATHOLIC WORKER, an unincorporated association; Lisa Bell, Shawn Carroll, Melissa Fields, Larry Ford, Cameron Ralston, Kathy Schuler, Gloria Shoemake, as individuals; Plaintiffs, V. ORANGE COUNTY, the City of Anaheim, the City of Costa Mesa, the City of Orange, and the City of Santa Ana, Defendants. Case No.: SA CV 18-0155-DOC (JDE) CROSS -COMPLAINT BY CITY O SANTA ANA FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS (42 U.S.C. § 1983) 1. Eighth Amendment (Cruel & Unusual Punishment) 2. Fourteenth Amendment (Equal Protection) 3. Fourteenth Amendment (Due Process) Case 155-DOC-JDE Document 158 Filed 04/26/18 Page 2 of 27 Page ID #:2480 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 City of Santa Ana, Cross -Claimant, M 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 of Garden Grove, City of Huntington Beach, City of Irvine, City of La Habra, City of La Palma, City of Laguna Beach, City of Laguna Hills, City of Laguna Niguel, City 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 Park, City of Westminster and City of Yorba Linda, Cross -Defendants. For itself, and on behalf of its residents, Defendant and Cross -Claimant, City of Santa Ana, a charter city and municipal corporation organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of California, alleges the following: INTRODUCTION 1. Across Orange County, a social crisis has unfolded whereby the number of individuals experiencing homelessness has skyrocketed to unprecedented levels. In January 2017, the Orange County Continuum of Care Case C-JDE Document 158 Filed 04/26/18 Page 3 of 27 Page ID #:2481 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 Point -in -Time Count and Survey found there were 4,792 homeless individuals in Orange County, more than half of whom were unsheltered. 2. Many of these individuals struggle to meet the basic necessities of life, including food, shelter, and health care. They often combat mental illness, substance abuse issues, physical disabilities, or any combination of these afflictions. A significant number are single women and veterans. 3. Social, mental health, and other services provided to homeless individuals by the County of Orange and entities contracting with the County, along with their funding levels, are woefully inadequate to address the instant and ongoing crisis of homelessness. 4. The Orange County Board of Supervisors has publicly admitted that it has failed to spend tens of millions of dollars available for homeless housing and services for the homeless population in the County. 5. The number of homeless individuals living in Orange County rose almost 8% from 2013 to 2017. (See, Exhibit "A".) Nowhere in the County was there and is there, a greater concentration of homeless individuals than in the City of Santa Ana. 6. Ultimately, Santa Ana seeks by this Cross -complaint, a fair and equitable distribution of responsibilities for homeless services among the County and all Orange County cities, as well as reimbursement and sustained funding by the County for Santa Ana's decades long efforts to relieve homelessness in Orange County. The recent actions of the County and Cross -Defendant cities show that such a result is not likely to be voluntarily achieved. THE PARTIES 7. Defendant and Cross -Claimant City of Santa Ana is and at all relevant times has been a charter city and municipal corporation organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of California. Case 155-DOC-JDE Document 158 Filed 04/26/18 Page 4 of 27 Page ID #:2482 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 8. Cross -Defendant County of Orange is and at all relevant times has been a political and geographical subdivision of the State of California having its principal offices in the City of Santa Ana. 9. Cross -Defendant City of Aliso Viejo is and at all relevant times has been a general law city operating under the general laws of the State of California. 10. Cross -Defendant City of Anaheim is and at all relevant times has been a charter city and municipal corporation organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of California. 11. Cross -Defendant City of Brea is and at all relevant times has been a general law city operating under the general laws of the State of California. 12. Cross -Defendant City of Buena Park is and at all relevant times has been a charter city and municipal corporation organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of California. 13. Cross -Defendant City of Costa Mesa is and at all relevant times has been a general law city operating under the general laws of the State of California. 14. Cross -Defendant City of Cypress is and at all relevant times has been a charter city and municipal corporation organized and existing under the and laws of the State of California. 15. Cross -Defendant City of Dana Point is and at all relevant times has been a general law city operating under the general laws of the State of California. 16. Cross -Defendant City of Fountain Valley is and at all relevant times has been a general law city operating under the general laws of the State of California. 17. Cross -Defendant City of Fullerton is and at all relevant times has been a general law city operating under the general laws of the State of California. 18. Cross -Defendant City of Garden Grove is and at all relevant times has been a general law city operating under the general laws of the State of California. Case 155-DOC-JDE Document 158 Filed 04/26/18 Page 5 of 27 Page ID #:2483 1 2 3 4 5 N1 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 19. Cross -Defendant City of Huntington Beach is and at all relevant times has been a charter city and municipal corporation organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of California. 20. Cross -Defendant City of Irvine is and at all relevant times has been a charter city and municipal corporation organized and existing under the and laws of the State of California. 21. Cross -Defendant City of La Habra is and at all relevant times has been a general law city operating under the general laws of the State of California. 22. Cross -Defendant City of La Palma is and at all relevant times has been a general law city operating under the general laws of the State of California. 23. Cross -Defendant City of Laguna Beach is and at all relevant times has been a general law city operating under the general laws of the State of California. 24. Cross -Defendant City of Laguna Hills is and at all relevant times has been a general law city operating under the general laws of the State of California. 25. Cross -Defendant City of Laguna Niguel is and at all relevant times has been a general law city operating under the general laws of the State of California. 26. Cross -Defendant City of Laguna Woods is and at all relevant times has been a general law city operating under the general laws of the State of California. 27. Cross -Defendant City of Lake Forest is and at all relevant times has been a general law city operating under the general laws of the State of California. 28. Cross -Defendant City of Los Alamitos is and at all relevant times has been a charter city and municipal corporation organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of California. 29. Cross -Defendant City of Mission Viejo is and at all relevant times has been a general law city operating under the general laws of the State of California. 30. Cross -Defendant City of Newport Beach is and at all relevant times has been a charter city and municipal corporation organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of California. Case C-JDE Document 158 Filed 04/26/18 Page 6 of 27 Page ID #:2484 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 31. Cross -Defendant City of Orange is and at all relevant times has been a general law city operating under the general laws of the State of California. 32. Cross -Defendant City of Placentia is and at all relevant times has been a charter city and municipal corporation organized and existing under the I Constitution and laws of the State of California. 33. Cross -Defendant City of Rancho Santa Margarita is and at all relevant times has been a general law city operating under the general laws of the State of California. 34. Cross -Defendant City of San Clemente is and at all relevant times has been a general law city operating under the general laws of the State of California. 35. Cross -Defendant City of San Juan Capistrano is and at all relevant times has been a general law city operating under the general laws of the State of California. 36. Cross -Defendant City of Seal Beach is and at all relevant times has been a charter city and municipal corporation organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of California. 37. Cross -Defendant City of Stanton is and at all relevant times has been a charter city and municipal corporation organized and existing under the and laws of the State of California. 38. Cross -Defendant City of Tustin is and at all relevant times has been a general law city operating under the general laws of the State of California. 39. Cross -Defendant City of Villa Park is and at all relevant times has been a general law city operating under the general laws of the State of California. 40. Cross -Defendant City of Westminster is and at all relevant times has been a general law city operating under the general laws of the State of California. 41. Cross -Defendant City of Yorba Linda is and at all relevant times has been a general law city operating under the general laws of the State of California. Case 8: 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 28 155-DOC-JDE Document 158 Filed 04/26/18 Page 7 of 27 Page ID #:2485 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 42. The Court has jurisdiction over this action because the claims alleged herein arise out of the transactions and occurrences that are the subject matter of the original action. 43. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. section 1391(b) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in Ithis district. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS BACKGROUND 44. The City of Santa Ana has a population of approximately 341,000 and covers 27 square miles. It is ethnically diverse and boasts an ethnic make-up as follows: 78% Hispanic, 10% Asian, 9% White, and other ethnicities in smaller percentages. The average median income in Santa Ana is approximately $54,500, as compared to the median income in Orange County of $75,400. Santa Ana has the highest Hispanic population in the County and is one of the lowest income cities in the County. (See, Exhibit "B" & "C".) 45. For decades, Santa Ana has borne the largest and most inequitable burden of addressing and relieving homelessness in Orange County, whether by providing necessary, related services on its own or by hosting the provision of such services by the County and third parties within its borders. HOMELESS STATISTICS 46. In 2017, there were a total of 2,584 unsheltered homeless individuals and an additional 2,208 sheltered individuals, for a total 4,792 homeless individuals in Orange County. (See, Exhibit "A".) On March 30, 2018, Andrew Do, the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, reported at a Special Meeting of the City Council of the City of Santa Ana that in 2017, Santa Ana alone had 466 unsheltered homeless individuals, which was the highest number in the County. In comparison, Santa Ana had 100 more such individuals than Anaheim. Of the cities identified by Case 155-DOC-JDE Document 158 Filed 04/26/18 Page 8 of 27 Page ID #:2486 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Supervisor Do, Buena Park had the tenth highest number of unsheltered homeless individuals in the County with a reported count of 70, or 15% of Santa Ana's total. 47. On March 31, 2018, a point -in -time count in Santa Ana revealed there is at least 1,030 unsheltered individuals within city borders, 81% of whom are chronically homeless (for one year or more). Combined with sheltered homeless, the number of homeless individuals in Santa Ana rises to 1,617. Santa Ana's 2018 count total is more than double the 2017 Count as reported by Supervisor Do. Santa Ana's Count established that 52% of the individuals counted came from outside Santa Ana and identified 32 Santa Ana public schools located within 1,000 feet of a homeless encampment. 48. Santa Ana is home to a low -barrier emergency shelter, a winter shelter, a home for homeless women and children, and a women's shelter. In total, Santa Ana has over 700 shelter beds or approximately 70% of the shelter beds across Orange County. IMPACTS ON SANTA ANA 49. The impact of homeless related issues on Santa Ana has been staggering. In 2017, Santa Ana estimates it spent approximately $15 million providing fire and police, security and other necessary services to address homeless related issues in and around the Civic Center and Santa Ana. 50. Santa Ana estimates it will be compelled to spend over $17 million in 2018 to address homeless issues at the expense of core services to Santa Ana residents. This figure represents approximately 7% of Santa Ana's general fund that pays for police and fire among other services. 51. Santa Ana's physical resources have been overwhelmed. Just until very recently, over 200 homeless individuals lived in the Civic Center in tents and other makeshift shelters. This encampment necessitated the leasing of temporary bathroom facilities and created issues regarding the storage of personal property left unattended in and around the Civic Center. The circumstances gave rise to the Case 8: 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 28 155-DOC-JDE Document 158 Filed 04/26/18 Page 9 of 27 Page ID #:2487 near -constant law enforcement presence in the Civic Center. Santa Ana police provided homeless outreach services and faced quality of life issues, a suicide attempt, physical assaults, petty crimes, and investigating a homicide, among a variety of other issues. City personnel also undertook extraordinary health and safety measures, including the collection of abandoned, used, uncapped hypodermic needles, disposal of human waste left in public areas, increased maintenance services to confront excessive trash, and the implementation of weekly power washing to minimize Hepatitis A and other health concerns — all at Santa Ana's expense. 52. Homeless individuals are intentionally or unintentionally abandoned within Santa Ana by various means. Some are transported for services to Santa Ana and left without a plan for return transportation to the city of origin. Other homeless individuals are brought to Santa Ana for shelter and essentially remain in Santa Ana if that housing solution ends. For others, it is believed they are simply transported to Santa Ana by neighboring agencies and ultimately abandoned. Regardless of the intent as to how or why homeless individuals are brought to Santa Ana, the impact is severe and burdens its residents. 53. Despite the wealth and considerable size of Orange County, the only low barrier emergency shelter is found in Santa Ana. In fact, the County placed the sole emergency shelter known as "The Courtyard" in Santa Ana and within proximity of sensitive land uses such as nearby residences, several schools, and two public libraries. The Courtyard provides shelter for upwards of 400 individuals on a nightly basis irrespective of weather. The dramatic need for shelter is exemplified by individuals camped on the sidewalk across the street from The Courtyard when it closes its doors to individuals because of overcrowding. The living conditions themselves in The Courtyard have come under severe criticism due to overcrowding, exposure to the elements, and the lack of privacy for women. :18-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 158 Filed 04/26/18 Page 10 of 27 Page ID #:2488 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 54. Santa Ana has made multiple efforts to engage other Orange County cities in developing solutions for addressing homelessness, but with little success. In October 2016, Santa Ana reached out to the County's 33 other cities to hold a meeting to discuss potential solutions. When the group finally met eight months later on June 29, 2017, only 12 other Orange County cities sent representatives. PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL LITIGATION 55. On January 29, 2018, Plaintiffs in these proceedings filed the underlying civil rights action to halt the County's eviction of hundreds of homeless individuals living in or near the Santa Ana Riverbed. 56. On or about February 4, 2018, the Court stayed the County's efforts and later lifted that stay only after requiring the County to provide 30-day motel vouchers for individuals relocated from the Riverbed and concurrent assessments of those individuals to determine future shelter options and services. 57. Over 700 persons were relocated from the Riverbed, including single women and veterans. Later, approximately 200 individuals from the Santa Ana '.ivic Center were relocated. 58. As the motel stays for individuals were ending, the County faced significant challenges in providing adequate services and shelter beds. The Court aas convened numerous hearings to resolve issues raised by Plaintiffs in this process. However, there are continued and consistent new issues arising with .ndividuals who were removed from the Riverbed and placed in shelters or services )utside of Santa Ana or in Santa Ana, who are now living on the streets of Santa kna. 59. The Court has repeatedly implored the County and all Orange County ;ities to identify both short- and long-term solutions to the homeless crisis, ncluding at the very least the placement of low -barrier emergency -type shelters. 60. The underlying litigation in these proceedings raised hopes of global )articipation by the County and its cities in addressing homelessness, a solution :18-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 158 Filed 04/26/18 Page 11 of 27 Page ID #:2489 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 long sought by Santa Ana. However, those hopes were dealt a fatal blow once the County, backed away from a plan to establish low barrier homeless shelters in three cities. THE COUNTY'S ABORTED PLAN 61. On March 17, 2018, federal district court Judge David O. Carter held a status conference in the Santa Ana City Council Chambers. He invited the mayors and city managers for all 34 cities in Orange County to attend. Judge Carter specifically stated that homeless issues should be addressed by Orange County, a place that was home to five of the twenty wealthiest cities in the entire nation. He noted that Santa Ana was overburdened compared to other cities in the County with not only the sheer number of homeless individuals, but also with the number of services located in Santa Ana. By the end of the Status Conference, Supervisor Do announced his laudable commitment to addressing homeless issues within the County. 62. To this end, on March 19, 2018, the Orange County Board of Supervisors voted to add up to 400 new emergency shelter beds on county -owned properties in the cities of Irvine, Huntington Beach, and Laguna Niguel. This plan would have located 200 homeless people in Irvine, then 100 in Huntington Beach and 100 in Laguna Niguel, if needed. The County also voted to spend about $70.5 million in unspent Mental Health Services Act funds for housing and services for homeless people with mental illnesses. 63. Within one day of the County's approval, all three cities vigorously )pposed this plan and threatened to sue the County. The Huntington Beach and Laguna Niguel city councils voted to sue the County. Irvine filed a lawsuit on March 26, 2018 against the County. These actions were taken despite the fact that -alifornia law requires each city to zone for homeless shelters. 64. By March 27, 2018, the Board of Supervisors formally rescinded its rpproval of the three -shelter plan. :18-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 158 Filed 04/26/18 Page 12 of 27 Page ID #:2490 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 65. On April 19, 2018, the South Orange County Mayors proposed Silverado Elementary School, a rural county owned property, as a potential site for a homeless shelter. 66. On April 24, 2018, the Board of Supervisors voted to reject the Silverado Elementary School site proposal. As of the filing of this Cross -Complaint, no Orange County city has provided a location for an emergency shelter. A WAY FORWARD 67. Santa Ana seeks meaningful progress toward an equitable distribution of homeless services, whether it be through resources or shelter throughout the County. Cross -Defendants must work collaboratively to resolve the current homeless crisis and to avert another. The communal goal must be a sustainable, long-term plan that is both city -specific and regional in nature. There must be a basic willingness to seriously consider, or at least not oppose, the provision of low barrier shelters and permanent supportive housing by Cross -Defendants as well as the provision of social services by city representatives or third parties, all in a dignified and humane manner. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of Eighth Amendment (42 U.S.C. § 1983) (Against All Cross -Defendants) 68. Defendant and Cross -Complainant City of Santa Ana incorporates by reference and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 67 as if fully set forth herein. 69. Cross -Defendant cities have either opposed, refused, or rejected the siting of homeless shelters and services in their jurisdictions. Santa Ana has the densest concentration of homeless individuals in the County. Despite state requirements for each city to provide housing for homeless individuals, Cross - Defendant cities have made insubstantial progress or failed to do so entirely. :18-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 158 Filed 04/26/18 Page 13 of 27 Page ID #:2491 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 70. Cross -Defendant County has established homeless services almost exclusively in Santa Ana, thereby further contributing to the dense concentration homeless individuals therein. 71. Cross -Defendant County has failed to spend in excess of $200 million it has available for the provision of services to mitigate homelessness in Orange County. It has also failed to account for the interest earned on these monies. 72. As a direct and proximate result of Cross -Defendants' acts and omissions, Santa Ana has been compelled to spend millions of dollars from its general fund budget to address a myriad of health and safety concerns attributable to Santa Ana's homeless population, including until just recently the over 200 unsheltered individuals living in the Santa Ana Civic Center. Santa Ana residents have faced: homeless encampments, the possibility of a Hepatitis A outbreak, the threat of or actual physical and verbal assault, exposure to public defecation and public urination, carelessly discarded, uncapped, used hypodermic needles, and excessive trash in the Civic Center and around Santa Ana. 73. Santa Ana would otherwise have spent these funds on the provision of core services to its residents but has been forced to divert such funds to provide homeless -related services, resulting in a deprivation of critical services that could potentially positively affect the quality of life of its residents. 74. The foregoing acts and omissions of Cross -Defendants have caused this deprivation of core services and quality of life by necessitating the expenditure of Santa Ana funds on services related to homelessness. Residents of Santa Ana are entitled to these services and by this deprivation, they have been subjected to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. W 1U W :18-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 158 Filed 04/26/18 Page 14 of 27 Page ID #:2492 l 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 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of Fourteenth Amendment: Equal Protection (42 U.S.C. §1983) (Against All Cross -Defendants) 75. Defendant and Cross -Complainant City of Santa Ana incorporates by reference and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 74 as if fully set forth herein. 76. The population of Santa Ana is approximately 341,000, 78% of which is Hispanic. No other city in Orange County has a higher Hispanic population. 77. Santa Ana's median household income is also near the lowest of all cities in Orange County. 78. These ethnicity and income demographics are well-known to Cross - Defendants. 79. On account of these demographics, Cross -Defendants have either established, encouraged, or been content with the provision of homeless shelters and services almost exclusively within the borders of Santa Ana instead of their own jurisdictions. 80. This practice has continued unabated for years. Santa Ana hosts the only true low barrier emergency shelter in Orange County and by far the highest measure of social and other services targeted at homeless individuals. 81. Based on Cross -Defendants' acts and omissions, Santa Ana and its residents have suffered a denial of the equal protection of the laws, as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of Fourteenth Amendment: Due Process (42 U.S.C. §1983) (Against All Cross -Defendants) 82. Defendant and Cross -Complainant City of Santa Ana incorporates by reference and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 81 as if fully set forth herein. 83. Santa Ana has a significant liberty interest in administering an efficient ind effective government for the benefit of its citizens. I:18-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 158 Filed 04/26/18 Page 15 of 27 Page ID #:2493 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 84. This interest has been severely compromised by Santa Ana's need to devote substantial monetary and human resources to managing and relieving the acute homelessness crisis within its borders. The diversion of such resources has been to the detriment of Santa Ana residents. 85. This crisis has been precipitated and exacerbated by the foregoing actions and omissions of Cross -Defendants, thereby depriving Santa Ana of its liberty interest without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and detrimentally affecting its residents. 1// 1// 1// I:18-cv-00155-D0C-JDE Document 158 Filed 04/26/18 Page 16 of 27 Page ID #:2494 1 2 3 4 I f 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ►M PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Defendant and Cross -Claimant City of Santa Ana prays for the following: 1. As against Cross -Defendant County, monetary damages according to proof as reimbursement for the costs spent on homeless resources and necessary related services; 2. As against Cross -Defendant County, monetary damages according to proof for funding the continued provision of homeless resources and necessary related services; 3. As against all Cross -Defendants, declaratory judgment that Cross - Defendants and each of them have denied Santa Ana's rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments as alleged herein; 4. As against all Cross -Defendants, an order requiring Cross -Defendants and each of them to establish city -specific and regional solutions to homeless issues or comply with state law as required; 5. As against all Cross -Defendants, reasonable attorney's fees; 6. As against all Cross -Defendants, costs of suit; and 7. Such further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Dated: Aprif2Xf, 2018 By: CITY OF SANTA ANA Case 8:18-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 158 Filed 04/26/18 Page 17 of 27 Page ID #:2495 EXHIBIT "A" VRA )AIN7 UU N 1 MINT 9[r Orange County's Point in Time (PIT) count occured on January 28th, 2017. The PIT count is a biennial tally of people without a home on a particular night. We count because we want to understand homelessness in our community in order toe nd it. This PIT count provides vita I information that guides and shapes the way we approach and solve homelessness in Orange County. This information is provided to the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and informs the amount and type of resources Orange County receives to help end homelessness. UNSHELTERED 2,584 SERVICE PLANNING AREA MAP Orange County is divided into three Service Planning Areas (SPAs)that efficiently direct resources as individuals experiencing homelessness SHELTERED enter the Coordinated Entry System. EMERGENCY SHELTER 1,248 I TRANSITIONAL SHELTER EZi1M CONTINUUM OF CARE A Continuum of Care (CoC) is an integrated system of care that guides homeless individuals & families through a comprehensive array of services and housing designed to prevent and end homelessness. The County of Orange is the lead for Orange County's CoC, which funds 14 nonprofits across the OC CoC. SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS 2013 2015 2017 Unsheltered Homeless People 1,678 2,201 2,594 Sheltered Homeless People 2,573 2,251 2,208 Emergency Shelter 1,145 925 1,248 Transitional Shelter 1,428 1,326 960 Total PIT Count It 4,251 4,452 4,792 Change Year to Year +4.73%(201) +7.6%(340) In conjunction with 2-1-1 Orange County, the OC Commission to End Homelessness convened an ad hoc committee to provide guidance on the 2017 PIT count project. The ad hoc committee's direction included a public places count W with sampling methodology. This methodology was - also used for the 2013 and 2015 PIT counts. During the 2017 PIT count, 86 additional maps were counted and surveyed for a total of 270 maps in comparison to 184 maps in the 2015 PIT count. Reductions in "v= transitional shelter beds is reflective of national HUD funding priorities. Increase in emergency shelter beds is a result of The Courtyard, a County investment. Reallocation of resources to permanent housing are not reflected in the count results. NORTH 936 CENTRAL 1362 SOUTH 286 HOMELESSNESS Ali utwid COVM i 2017 Point-m-rime count- AIII10 •] NNA\' • ;1so 4M TOTAL: 2,584 357 UNSHELTERED nge County is the third largest county in California, and sixth largest in the nation with a population of more than -e million people. Despite our affluent reputation, we have residents who have needs you might not expect. Like many rides across the nation, we have people experiencing homelessness. The County of Orange is working diligently to ride funding and resources for this vulnerable population. Here is a look at what we've done in the last year. The Board of Supervisors has committed more than $23.5 MILLION to providing multiple shelter options that meet a variety of needs. 400 BEDS HECOURTYARDr (Santa Ana Civic Center) KRAEMER CENTER (North Anaheim) Counts first year-round emergency shelter and muid-service comer with on -site programs. 100 beds In phase one opening Spring 2017, 100 additional beds in phase two anticipated In late 2018. DEC— pDR ON�y ARMORIES (Santa Ana and Fullerton) Day service center and low barrier, low Ovemight cold -weather emergency shelter threshold safe sleep shelter. providing 400 beds from December to April. PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING $8 MILLION AVAILABLE The Board approved issuance of the 2016 Permanent Supportive Housing Notice of Funding Availibility to provide up In $8 million for the acquisition, new construction and acquisition/ rehabilitation of Permanent supportive housing for Orange Counts extremely low-income households that are homeless. RESTAURANT MEALS PROGRAM E $250K PER YEAR The Board approved the Restaurant Meals Program that will enable CalFresh recipients who are homeless, disabled and/or elderly to purchase meals from participating restaurants with their CalFresh benefits. It is intended to increase food a.. for those who do not have a place to store or wok food, may not be able to prepare food or lack access w a grocery store. WHOLE PERSON CARE INITIATIVE The Whole Person Care Initiative will target services to those that are experiencing homelessness and are high utilizers of emergency rooms. $23.5 MILLION $9.6 MILLION PHASE ONE PHASE TWO NOVEMBER 21116-DECEMBER 2020 TBD - DECEMBER 2020 Housing Navigators � Beds Support Service tl■11 A■ Coordinators CRISIS STABILIZATION UNITS • $23.9 MILLION In funding from the County has increased the number of beds People available for In a psychiatric crisis, allowing Individuals to receive immediate psychiatric care as opposed to going to the emergency mom. Planning CONTINUUM OF CARE The County is the lead for Orange County's Continuum of Care, which provides $22.3 MILLION in funding to nonprofits to provide permanent housing options )rapid rehousing or Permanent supportive housing) to Individuals and families in our community. Provides funding for increased and strategic coordination of resources targeting the mostvulnemble populations. Permanent Housing EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS GRANTS $1.1 MILLION The Board approves local nonprofits to recelvest rte grant funding to provide emergency shelter and rapid rehousing services to Individuals and families in the community. • /y V /y STATE COUNTY NONPROFIT INDIVIDUAL Case 8:18-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 158 Filed 04/26/18 Page 20 of 27 Page ID #:2498 EXHIBIT "B" 4/26/2018 Case 8:18-cv-00155-DOCR3®Lnd M i6t1nT5Runp�iWo(WMM2tg- &'Llllabf 27 Page ID #:2499 ° sum total percentage point deviation of place from �0 Orange County # rank of place out of 40 by % anon -Hispanic 2excluding black and Asian Hispanics Hispanic o White o Hispanic o Black o Asian o Mixed o Other Hispanic' Population by P►ace#22 Percentage of the total population. Scope: population of Orange County, selected places in Orange County, and entities that contain Orange County https://statisticalatias.com/county/California/Orange-County/Race-and-Ethnicity 13/43 4/26/2018 Case 8:18-0v-00155-DOCR3f9pdgutM17LcrwrVauntFifiL@NloOjlftg&/118--�P12"lbf 27 Page ID 0% 20% 40% 60% Cou1#:2fp00 Santa Ana 257k 1 La Habra 36.6k 2 Anaheim 52 2% 177k 3 Stanton 47.6 /o 18.2k 4 Los Angeles 44.2° 5.72M Tustin 39.20% 30.Ok 5 San Juan Capistrano 8.30/. 13.5k 6 Buena Park 8.2% 31.1k 7 Orange 38.1% 52.61k 8 California 17.4% 14.1M Placentia 36.9% 18.9k 9 Garden Grove 6.6% 63.2k 10 Costa Mesa 3 .9% 38.7k 11 Fullerton 3 .2% 46.81k 12 Orange 3 .6% 1.03M Pacific 30. % 15.5M Midway City 28. % 2,677 13 West 28. % 20.8M Brea 26.7 0 10.6k 14 Lake Forest 23.0% 18.0k 15 Westminster 22.5% 20.4k 16 Los Alamitos 21.4% 2,470 17 Rancho Santa Mara; 18.7% 9,036 18 Huntington Bch 18.6% 35.9k 19 Laguna Hills 18.5% 5,638 20 Cypress 18.0% 8,719 21 San Clemente 7.4% 11.11k 22 United States 16.2% 50.5M La Palma 1 .9% 2,493 23 Yorba Linda 1 .7% 10.2k 24 Aliso Viejo 1 .6% 7,627 25 Fountain Vly 1 .6% 8,702 26 Mission Viejo 1 .5% 14.7k 27 Ladera Ranch 1 .4% 3,669 28 Las Flores 1 .3% 1,007 29 Dana Point 1 .7% 4,937 30 Laguna Niguel 1 .1% 8,971 31 Seal Beach 1 .1% 3,422 32 North Tustin 11. % 3,061 33 Rossmoor 10. % 1,175 34 Villa Park 9.6 0 565 35 Irvine 9.5 o 21.1k 36 Coto de Caza 9.1C, 0 1,357 37 Newport Beach 8.30 7,146 38 Laguna Beach 7.40/ 1,690 39 Laguna Woods 4.6% 755 40 https://statisticalatias.com/county/California/Orange-County/Race-and-Ethnicity 14143 Case 8:18-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 158 Filed 04/26/18 Page 23 of 27 Page ID #:2501 EXHIBIT "C" 4/26/2018 Case 8:18-cv-00155-DOC hoIC)UMfhfE"nl6OOer'iledf@WZC6fi0)-€dgL�R'4aef 27 Page ID #:2502 Household Income by Place in Orange County There are 40 places in Orange County. This section compares all 40 of those to each other, Orange County, and other entities that contain or substantially overlap with Orange County. Median Household Income by Place#20 Scope: households in Orange County, selected places in Orange County, and entities that contain Orange County https://statisticalatias.com/county/California/Orange-County/Household-Income 13/44 4/26/2018 Case 8:18-cv-00155-DOCkgoeoIcDoculiwW9.eaunfyiwcO*m lta- e312foc)f 27 Page ID $Ok $50k $100k $150k %, #:2§03 Coto de Caza Villa Park Las Flores Ladera Ranch North Tustin Yorba Linda Rossmoor Newport Beach Rancho Santa Mar... Laguna Niguel Aliso Viejo Mission Viejo Laguna Beach Lake Forest Laguna Hills Irvine San Clemente La Palma Los Alamitos Huntington Bch Fountain Vly Dana Point Brea Orange Cypress Placentia San Juan Capistrano Orange Tustin Fullerton Buena Park Costa Mesa La Habra California Los Angeles Pacific Garden Grove Anaheim West Santa Ana United States Westminster Seal Beach Stanton Midway City Laguna Woods +117% +106% +70.1% +64.5% +62.6% +48.8% +44.3% +41.0% +38.0% +32.3% +31.8% +27.6% +25.1 % +24.1% +20.3% +20.1 % +19.4% +13.7% +9.62% +7.91% +7.22% +6.25% +4.91 % +4.53% +3.90% +3.73% +0.24% 0% -2.95% -10.7% -12.0% -12.7% -18.2% -19.0% -20.1 % -20.3% -20.9% -21.6% -24.2% -29.3% -29.7% -30.2% -32.1 % -36.5% -40.0% -51.4% 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 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 hops://statisticalatlas.com/county/California/Orange-County/Household-Income 14/44 4/26/2018 Case 8:18-cv-00155-DOC+ib EoIcIDoouqYkEM4ni6WunPrjWco*'M6 ig-3itagiea12&of 27 Page ID #:2504 eau percentage above or below median household income of Orange County # rank of place out of 40 by median household income Six -Figure Incomes by Place#21 Percentage of households with incomes above $100k. Scope: households in Orange County, selected places in Orange County, and entities that contain Orange County < $25k $25-50k $50-100k $100-200k $200k+ https:/Istatisticalatlas.com/county/California/Orange-County/Household-Income 15/44 4/26/2018 Case 8:18-Cv-00155-DOCI-JDL;holgppcuTt,p6MngeaunFyy,ilZfdc@*MO1tg-�!qeo12Faof 27 Page ID 50% 0% 50% CoA.2505 Villa Park Coto de Caza Ladera Ranch North Tustin Las Flores Yorba Linda Newport Beach Rancho Santa Mar... Rossmoor Laguna Niguel Aliso Viejo Mission Viejo Laguna Beach Lake Forest Irvine Laguna Hills San Clemente La Palma Dana Point Huntington Bch Los Alamitos Fountain Vly Brea San Juan Capistrano Cypress Placentia Orange Orange Tustin Fullerton Costa Mesa California Buena Park Los Angeles Seal Beach Pacific La Habra Anaheim West Garden Grove Westminster United States Santa Ana Stanton Midway City Laguna Woods 1,415 1 3,428 2 4,757 3 5,512 4 1,260 5 12.5k 6 20.3k 7 8,712 8 2,048 9 12.2k 10 9,228 11 16.Ok 12 5,271 13 12.7k 14 36.9k 15 4,703 16 10.9k 17 2,076 18 5,890 19 30.1 k 20 1,623 21 7,356 22 5,509 23 4,429 24 6,092 25 6,091 26 16.2k 27 368k 8,529 28 14.Ok 29 12.6k 30 3.63M 6,578 31 1.21 M 3,511 32 4.80M 4,782 33 25.4k 34 6.49M 11.5k 35 6,721 36 26.OM 14.4k 37 2,091 38 483 39 1,267 40 https://statisticalatlas.com/county/California/Orange-County/Household-Income 16/44 Case E 3-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 246 Filed 07/11/18 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:2694 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 WAYNE W. WINTHERS, CITY ATTY. 4134659 wwmthers cit oforange.org ZYAN E. L , ASSIST. CITY ATTY. 4286564 rlumm cityyoforange.org 2ITY O O1zANGE 300 East Chapman Avenue Attorneys for Defendant and Cross -Defendant 2ITY OF ORANGE 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 3alston, Kathy Schuler, Gloria 5hoemake, as individuals; Plaintiffs, V. GRANGE COUNTY, the City of Anaheim, the City of Costa Mesa, the 2-ity of Orange, and the City of Santa Ana, Defendants. Case No.: SACV 18-00155-DOC-JDE Hon. David O. Carter STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO CROSS COMPLAINT FILED BY CITY OF SANTA ANA Cross Complaint served: May 1, 2018 Current response due: July 23, 2018 Indefinite per Court Order 1 Case 1-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 246 Filed 07/11/18 Page 2 of 6 Page ID #:2695 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 2-ity of Santa Ana, Cross -Claimant, V. �ounty of Orange, City of Aliso Viejo, 2-ity of Anaheim, City of Brea, City of 3uena Park, City of Costa Mesa, City of _ypress, City of Dana Point, City of ountain Valley, City of Fullerton, City of 3arden Grove, City of Huntington Beach, 2-ity of Irvine, City of La Habra, City of ,a Palma, City of Laguna Beach, City of ,aguna Hills, City of Laguna Niguel, City >f Laguna Woods, City of Lake Forest, 2-ity of Los Alamitos, City of Mission Jiejo, City of Newport Beach, City of )range, City of Placentia, City of Rancho Santa Margarita, City of San Clemente, 2-ity of San Juan Capistrano, City of Seal 3each, City of Stanton, City of Tustin, 2-ity of Villa Park, City of Westminster ind City of Yorba Linda, Cross -Defendants. WHEREAS, Defendant and Cross -Claimant City of Santa Ana (`City") filed Cross Complaint within the above -captioned action on April 26, 2018; WHEREAS, the City served its Summons and Cross Complaint on Cross - defendants County of Orange, City of Anaheim, City of Orange, and City of Tustin "Cross -Defendants") on May 1, 2018, WHEREAS, the Court has previously granted Cross -Defendants a 60-day ;xtension to respond to City's Cross -Complaint to July 23, 2018, and 2 Case 8: � P-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 246 Filed 07/11/18 Page 3 of 6 Page ID #:269E 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to an open-ended extension to file a responsive pleading to follow the Court's open-ended extension for filing responsive pleadings to the underlying complaint and the Court tentatively stated its agreement at our last court appearance. NOW, THEREFORE, by and through their respective counsel, the parties hereby stipulate and agree, subject to approval by the Court, that Cross -Defendants' time to file a responsive pleading be extended indefinitely, until the court issues an order that responsive pleadings must be filed. IT IS SO STIPULATED. Dated: July jL, 2018 Dated: July , 2018 Dated: July , 2018 CITY OF SANTA ANA By: w. hn M.Funk Assistant City Attorney 1 : I DC�7Z�77:��) 110160 Hill .a Z�J It Kevin N. Royer Attorneys for County of Orange CITY OF ANAHEIM LOU C Gregg M. Audet Deputy City Attorney Case E 3-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 246 Filed 07/11/18 Page 4 of 6 Page ID #:2697 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 WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to an open-ended extension to file a -esponsive pleading to follow the Court's open-ended extension for filing responsive )leadings to the underlying complaint and the Court tentatively stated its agreement it our last court appearance. NOW, THEREFORE, by and through their respective counsel, the parties iereby stipulate and agree, subject to approval by the Court, that Cross -Defendants' ime to file a responsive pleading be extended indefinitely, until the court issues an >rder that responsive pleadings must be filed. IT IS SO STIPULATED. dated: July , 2018 dated: July , 2018 dated: July , 2018 CITY OF SANTA ANA IC John M.Funk Assistant City Attorney THEODORA ORINGHER PC By: Kevin N. Royer Attorneys for County of Orange CITY OF ANAHEIM IC Gregg M. Audet Deputy City Attorney 3 Case 8:1 DOC-JDE Document 246 Filed 07/11/18 Page 5 of 6 Page ID #:2698 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 W11 WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to an open-ended extension to file a responsive pleading to follow the Court's open-ended extension for filing responsiv pleadings to the underlying complaint and the Court tentatively stated its agreement at our last court appearance. NOW, THEREFORE, by and through their respective counsel, the parties hereby stipulate and agree, subject to approval by the Court, that Cross -Defendants' time to file a responsive pleading be extended indefinitely, until the court issues an order that responsive pleadings must be filed. IT IS SO STIPULATED. CITY OF SANTA ANA Dated: July , 2018 By: John M.Funk Assistant City Attorney THEODORA ORINGHER PC Dated: July 2018 By: Kevin N. Royer Attorneys for County of Orange CITY OF ANAHEIM Dated: July 11 , 2018 By: "4 ` ^ -- Gregg M. Audet Deputy City Attorney 3 Case 8:R8-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 246 Filed 07/11/18 Page 6 of 6 Page ID #:2699 1 2 3 Dated: July !/ , 2018 4 5 6 7 8 Dated: July _tL_., 2018 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CITY OF ORANGE By: ; �// ne W. Winthers City Attorney WOODRUFF, SPRADLIN & SMART By:_ La Z4 �) David E. Kendig eQ Attorneys for City of Tustin E Case 8:: E-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 232 Filed 05/17/18 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:2651 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 SANDRA M. SCHWARZMANN (SBN 188793) SENIOR ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY JOHN M. FUNK (204605) ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF SANTA ANA 20 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA M-29 P.O. BOX 1988 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 TELEPHONE: 714 647-5201 FACSIMILE: 714 647-6515 EMAIL: sschwarzmann@santa-ana.org EMAIL: jfunk@santa-ana.org Attorneys for Defendant and Cross -Claimant CITY OF SANTA ANA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN DIVISION ORANGE COUNTY CATHOLIC WORKER, an unincorporated association; Lisa Bell, Shawn Carroll, Melissa Fields, Larry Ford, Cameron Ralston, Kathy Schuler, Gloria Shoemake, as individuals; Plaintiffs, ►�I ORANGE COUNTY, the City of Anaheim, the City of Costa Mesa, the City of Orange, and the City of Santa Ana, Defendants. 1 Case No.: SACV 18-00155-DOC-JDE Hon. David O. Carter STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIMI TO RESPOND TO CROSS COMPLAINT FILED BY CITY OF SANTA ANA Cross Complaint served: May 1, 2018 Current response due: May 22, 2018 New response date: July 23, 2018 Case 8:10-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 232 Filed 05/17/18 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:2652 1 I City of Santa Ana, 2 Cross -Claimant, 3 V. 4 5 County of Orange, City of Aliso Viejo, 6 City of Anaheim, City of Brea, City of 7 Buena Park, City of Costa Mesa, City of Cypress, City of Dana Point, City of 8 Fountain Valley, City of Fullerton, City of 9 Garden Grove, City of Huntington Beach, 10 City of Irvine, City of La Habra, City of La Palma, City of Laguna Beach, City of 11 Laguna Hills, City of Laguna Niguel, City 12 of Laguna Woods, City of Lake Forest, City of Los Alamitos, City of Mission 13 Viejo, City of Newport Beach, City of 14 Orange, City of Placentia, City of Rancho 15 Santa Margarita, City of San Clemente, City of San Juan Capistrano, City of Seal 16 Beach, City of Stanton, City of Tustin, 17 City of Villa Park, City of Westminster and City of Yorba Linda, 18 19 Cross -Defendants. 21 22 WHEREAS, Defendant and Cross -Claimant City of Santa Ana ("City") filed 23 a Cross Complaint within the above -captioned action on April 26, 2018; 24 WHEREAS, the City served its Summons and Cross Complaint on Cross- 25 Defendants County of Orange, City of Anaheim, City of Orange, and City of Tustin 26 ("Cross -Defendants") on May 1, 2018; 27 WHEREAS, Cross -Defendants are required to file their answer and/or 28 respond to City's Cross Complaint by May 22, 2018, or twenty-one days following service of the Summons and Cross Complaint; and 2 Case 8:18-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 232 Filed 05/17/18 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:2653 1 2 3 4 5 6 7i 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to a sixty-day extension in light of the importance of the issues to be raised. NOW, THEREFORE, by and through their respective counsel, the parties hereby stipulate and agree, subject to approval by the Court, that Cross -Defendants' answer and/or response to the City's Cross Complaint shall be due on July 23, 2018. IT IS SO STIPULATED. CITY OF SANTA ANA Dated: May L- , 2018 By: 7&, hn M. Funk Assistant City Attorney THEODORA ORINGHER PC Dated: May , 2018 By: Kevin N. Royer Attorneys for County of Orange CITY OF ANAHEIM Dated: May / 7 , 2018 By: Gregg M. Audet Deputy City Attorney CITY OF ORANGE Dated: May i , 2018 By:4��� Wa a W. Winthers City Attorney 3 Case 8:18-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 232 Filed 05/17/18 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:2654 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 WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to a sixty-day extension in light of the importance of the issues to be raised. NOW, THEREFORE, by and through their respective counsel, the parties hereby stipulate and agree, subject to approval by the Court, that Cross -Defendants' answer and/or response to the City's Cross Complaint shall be due on July 23, 2018. IT IS SO STIPULATED. CITY OF SANTA ANA Dated: May , 2018 By: John M.Funk Assistant City Attorney THEODORA ORINGHER PC Dated: May 17 , 2018 By: ,Oet Kevin N. Royer Attorneys for County of Orange CITY OF ANAHEIM Dated: May , 2018 By: Gregg M. Audet Deputy City Attorney CITY OF ORANGE Dated: May �7 , 2018 By:Z,7 Wa e W. Winthers City Attorney 3 Case 8:1 $-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 232 Filed 05/17/18 Page 5 of 5 Page ID #:2655 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 Dated: May 17, 2018 WOODRUFF, SPRADLIN & SMART i By: A IA-S David E. Ken0ig Attorneys for City of Tustin n 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