The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCorrespondence - Item 23 Zuniga, Diana From: Fair Housing Council of Orange County <info@fairhousingoc.org> Sent: Monday, May 05, 2025 2:38 PM To: eComment Subject: Comment Item 23 - May 6, 2025 Council Meeting Attachments: Comment Item 23 - May 6, 2025 Council Meeting.pdf Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links. Please find attached a public comment letter for distribution to members of the City Council. Thank you Fair Housing Council of Orange County 2021 E. 4th Street, Ste. 122 Santa Ana, California 92705-3912 i Serving Orange County Since 1965 r) OFait Hou.s i-n.g Councit of C Fostering Diversity In Housing May 5, 2025 Office of the City Clerk VIA EMAIL ONLY City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza M-30 Santa Ana, CA 92701 RE: Public Comment— Agenda Item 23 — City Council Meeting 5/6/2025 Dear Members of the City Council: Our agency writes to express concern regarding the Council considering giving direction to City staff to draft an ordinance for Council consideration that would apparently require monthly City inspections of housing units in Santa Ana's Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) communities. We find the possibility of such an ordinance troubling for a number of reasons. The first of these is that such inspection activity mandated by a local ordinance would be in conflict with California Civil Code Section 1954, which limits a landlord's right to enter a tenant's dwelling. That code enumerates very specific allowable reasons to enter and does not authorize a landlord to enter for the purpose of conducting a general inspection. Additionally, for context, the California legislature has spoken regarding what they believe to be the supremacy of tenants' rights under §1954. Pursuant to California Civil Code Section 1953, having any provision of a lease or rental agreement of a dwelling by which a tenant is required to agree to modify or waive any right under §1954 shall be void as contrary to public policy. The next reason of concern would be in the context of a possible violation of California fair housing law as set down in Government Code Section 12955, part of the Fair Employment and Housing Act. The basis of a claim of such a violation would be that such a proposed ordinance would subject tenants of PSH communities to differential treatment on the basis of their "source of income". Since an amendment to §12955 at subdivision (p), effective January 1, 2020, source of income is been broadly defined to include payments "to a housing owner or landlord on behalf of a tenant, including federal, state, or local public assistance, and federal, state, or local housing 2021 E.4th Street,Suite 122,Santa Ana,CA 92705-3912 714.569.0823/Fax:714.835.0281 www.tairhousirogoc.oM Public Comment—Agenda Item 23 — City Council Meeting 5/6/2025 Page 2 subsidies . . ." Clearly, if residents of PSH communities are singled out by an ordinance it implies they are being treated differently based on their source of income. In addition to the possible differential treatment of PSH community residents, such an ordinance might also be considered to be venturing into the realm of so-called "crime free housing" ordinances. Such ordinances have been repeatedly challenged by the U.S. Department of Justice on the basis that they have a disparate impact or discriminatory effect on the basis of minority or disability status. By their very programmatic definition, PSH communities are those in which every assisted unit includes at least one individual who is a person with disability. California law, at Government Code Section 12955.8, specifically addresses policies or practices that have a discriminatory effect. In addition to the statutory concerns mentioned above, another reason of concern relates to the residents of PSH communities having the right to the `quiet enjoyment' of their housing. It is well established that every rental agreement has an implied covenant of quiet enjoyment, and that a landlord has a duty to uphold a tenant's quiet enjoyment, when it is within their power to do so. The implication of the proposed ordinance is that the low-income, disabled residents of PSH communities are somehow less deserving of realizing their right to quiet enjoyment of their housing. Furthermore, there are existing, well established mechanisms and remedies available to all housing providers to address the concern about illegal drug activity that appears to have motivated the request for the Council to consider directing the drafting of such an ordinance. Utilization of those mechanisms and remedies is as available to, and no more onerous for the owners of PSH communities as for any other housing provider. In light of the foregoing, our agency urges the City Council to refrain from directing the drafting of an ordinance that would require monthly City inspections of housing units in Santa Ana's Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) communities. Thank you for your consideration of our comment on this matter. Sincerely, - Denise Y. Cato President / CEO 2021 E.4th Street,Suite 122,Santa Ana,CA 92705-3912 714.569.0823/Fax:714.835.0281 www.tairhousirogoc.oM Alcala, Abigail From:Richard Walker <rwalker@publiclawcenter.org> Sent:Tuesday, May 6, 2025 1:56 PM To:eComment Subject:Comment Letter re Item 23 Attachments:PLC Comment Letter #23.pdf Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links. Please see attached comment letter re Item 23. Please forgive any typos or errors, as we had limited time to prepare and send this letter to meet the deadline for comments for tonight’s City Council meeting. Best, Richard Walker (he, him, his) Directing Attorney Housing and Homelessness Prevention Public Law Center 601 Civic Center Drive W. Santa Ana, CA 92701 714.541.1010 Ext. 292 rwalker@publiclawcenter.org This message contains information from Public Law Center which may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not an intended recipient, please refrain from disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of this information. If you have received this transmission in error, kindly notify the sender and immediately delete this email and any files that may be attached. 1 May 6, 2025 VIA Electronic Mail Office of the City Clerk, Santa Ana 20 Civi Center Plaza M-30 Santa Ana, CA 92701 eComment@santa-ana.org Re: Item #23 of May 6, 2025,City Council Meeting Dear MayorAmezcua, Mayor Pro TemVazquez, and Councilmembers Phan, Lopez, Bacerra, Hernandez, and Penaloza, Public Law Center is a nonprofit organization located in Santa Ana providing free legal services to low-income individuals and families across Orange County, including housing law services. Our clients often constitutethe individualsand familieswho reside in or qualify for permanent supportive housing. We right to express grave concerns about the policy proposed in Item 23 for the May 6, 2025 regularCity Council Meeting for the City of Santa Ana. Item 23 proposes monthly inspection of permanent supportive housing communities within the City of Santa Ana and the posting of the results of those inspections on the City of Santa Anas website.We believe any such policies would violate multiple state and federal laws and that the policy is not supported or justified by the singular, referenced event in the Councilmember-Requested Item Report. Violation of State Planning and Zoningand Housing Element Laws Government Code section 65008 states that a\]ny action pursuant to this title by any city, county, city and county, or other local governmental agency in this state is null and void if it denies to any individual or group of individuals the enjoyment of residence, landownership, tenancy, or any other land use in this state because of any of the following reasons(1) \[individuals identified in California anti housing discriminationlaws\]. (2)The method of financing of any residential development of the individual or group of individuals.(3)The intended occupancy of any residential development by personsor families of very low, low, moderate, or middle income.es enjoyment of residence housing laws referenced below, Government Code section 65008 prohibits actions that deny enjoyment of residencen the basis of the method of financing of the housing and on the intended occupancy of the housing by individuals whoare lower-income. A policy requiring monthly inspections of Permanent Supportive Housing would deny residents residencesimply because it is Permanent Supportive Housing which usually receivesspecial governmentor other financing and whichis intended to be occupied by lower income residents. Government Code section 65583(c) states that \]ransitional housing and supportive housing shall be considered a residential use of property and shall be subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone. monthly inspections on Permanent Supportive Housing when not imposing the same restrictions on similar multi-family residences in the same zone, violates State Housing Element Law, which prohibits such restrictions that only target Permanent Supportive Housing and do not apply to all residential dwellings. Violation of State and Federal Fair Housing Laws State and Federal law prohibits discrimination on the basis of multiple protected characteristics, including, under some of those laws, discriminating against individuals with disabilities and Veterans and discriminating on the basis of race/ethnicity and source of income, to only name a few. Discrimination can occur by explicitly targeting such populations or by having a disparate impact on those populations. In some instances, Permanent Supportive Housing is designed specifically to target some of these populations, such as Veterans, and it is often disproportionately populated by members of these protected classes, especially individuals with disabilities and individuals who constitute racial and ethnic minorities. Furthermore, the mere fact that most all individuals who reside in Permanent Supportive Housing are the beneficiaries of some form of government assistance utilized to develop and fund the Permanent Supportive Housing, potentially implicates Californias prohibition against discrimination on the basis of source of income. Any policy targeting Permanent Supportive Housing for monthly inspections would potentially have a disparate impact on protected classes and violate State and Federal fair housing laws. Violation of Landlord/Tenant Rights Residents of Permanent Supportive Housing have tenant rights similar to those of tenants in any other type of rental unit. (See for example Health & Safety Code section 50490, defining Permanent Housing as a structure or set of structures with subsidized or unsubsidized rental housing units subject to applicable landlord-tenant law, with no limit on length of stay and no requirement to participate in supportive services as a condition of access to or continued occupancy in the housing. Permanent housing includes permanent supportive housing. (emphasis added).) Landlord/tenant law limits the landlord section 1954. None of the six justifications identified in Civil Code section 1954 contemplates entering a tenanted in Item 23. As such, the proposed monthly inspections would violate Civil Code section 1954 and the tenants In addition to the protections of Civil Code section 1954, tenants also have a right to quiet enjoyment of their rental units under common law and California statute. The proposed monthly inspections would interfere with tenants ---5157 Potential Violations of Federal and State Constitutional Protections Finally, we are concerned that any policy requiring inspections by or on behalf of a government entity for the intent of identifying criminal activity violates the State and Federal constitutional protections against unreasonablesearches and seizures. Not only is such a violation of individualsconstitutionalrights alarming, but such a violation could result in the exclusion of evidence which would challenge law ability to keep the community safe and would undermine the supposed intent of the policy. The single incident cited in the Councilmember-Requested Item Report indicates that a warrant was obtained by police officers pursuant to their ongoing investigation, which seems to indicate the proper and constitutional form of conducting such a search was followed and such procedures should continue to be followed to protect the constitutional rights of Santa Ana residents. In addition, singling out Permanent Supportive Housing residents for inspections raises obvious due process, equal protection, and privacy concerns, which may further violate the constitutional and statutory rights of the residents. In addition to the legal concerns raised above, PLC believes drafting an ordinance at this time is premature, unsupported by evidence and likely counter-productive. The request asserts that there was a single search warrant for sale of narcotics executed by Santa Police officers in February 2025 at one apartment in one permanent supportive housing community. From there, without any support the Request concludes Permanent Supportive Housing and that monthly inspections are a solution. This is not evidenced-based policy development and is potentially discriminatory in its intent. We note that that the success of Permanent Supportive Housing hinges upon creating a stable living environment, an environment which monthly inspections depriving residents of their privacy may endanger. Furthermore, individuals in need of Permanent Supportive Housing may be wary of accepting this housing and service option, if they will be subject to monthly inspections which not only violate their privacy, but potentially have negative impacts on disabilities they may have. We encourage the City Council to vote against Item 23. Sincerely, Richard Walker Directing Attorney Housing and Homelessness Prevention Public Law Center 601 Civic Center Drive West Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 (714) 541-1010 ext. 292 rwalker@publiclawcenter.org ---5157