1 TO: City Council
FROM: Joe Hoefgen, Interim City Manager
MEETING DATE: February 6, 2024
SUBJECT: Discussion Related to Camping Regulations in Lomita
RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file the report and direct staff to follow up if there is a change in the legal framework related to camping ordinances.
BACKGROUND
At the regularly scheduled meeting of January 16, 2024, the City Council made a referral for staff to prepare a report outlining options for the potential adoption and enforcement of anti-camping regulations in the City of Lomita. To provide context, this report first provides an overview of court cases which define the limits of local government authority in this regard. This report has been prepared with input from the City Attorney and from the Lomita Sheriff’s Captain.
Overview of Pertinent Court Cases
On January 12, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review a lower court’s ruling in Johnson v. City of Grants Pass. The opinion prohibits Grants Pass, Oregon from enforcing its anti-camping ordinances against all involuntarily homeless individuals within the city. The term “involuntarily homeless” refers to the condition of being homeless when adequate shelter is unavailable.
Cal Cities partnered with the California State Association of Counties to file an amicus brief supporting the Grants Pass request that the high court review the opinion. Cal Cities also anticipates filing an amicus brief on the merits of the case now that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear it. It is anticipated that the brief will focus on the negative impacts on cities of the recent 9th Circuit decision stemming from the Martin v Boise decision. After that decision was issued, most law enforcement organizations in California, including the LASD, will not enforce most anti-camping ordinances unless a jurisdiction has open beds in a shelter where an unhoused individual can immediately be placed. For this reason, other cities have either increased their shelter capacity, or Item No. SCH 8b
CITY OF LOMITA
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
2 reached agreement to prepurchase space in neighboring jurisdictions for access to a specific number of beds.
The question before the Supreme Court is “Does the enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property constitute ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ prohibited by the Eighth Amendment?”
The Supreme Court’s decision to review the case signals that the court may finally provide clarity on how cities can use ordinances — one of many tools — to address public health and safety concerns that arise from unlawful encampments on public property.
The Supreme Court’s decision comes as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit made a ruling in another high-profile homelessness case. Last month, the court issued an opinion in Coalition on Homelessness v. City and County of San Francisco that further hamstrings cities’ efforts to implement reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on camping on public property.
In that decision, the 9th Circuit confirmed that persons who are offered, but refuse shelter are not “involuntarily homeless.” Therefore, cities can enforce ordinances to address concerns related to some encampments on public property. However, the court’s opinion is in line with prior cases that found cities have an obligation to provide shelter before they implement anti-camping ordinances.
The dissent characterized that opinion as letting stand “an injunction permitting homeless persons to sleep anywhere, anytime in public in the City of San Francisco unless adequate shelter is provided.”
The Supreme Court’s review of Johnson v. City of Grants Pass should provide clarity and guidance to cities trying to respond to public health and safety concerns related to unlawful encampments on public property. With 25 amici briefs filed — 14 originating in California — there is significant interest in the high court’s decision.
DISCUSSION
In terms of encampments on private property, the City of Lomita and the Sheriff’s Department currently work with private property owners and take corrective action to address the situation.
As referenced earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court’s review of the Grants Pass case will occur sometime in 2024 – although it has not been calendared at this point. In the intervening period, and in the absence of the Grants Pass decision being overturned, cities will continue to have an obligation to provide shelter before they can implement and enforce anti-camping ordinances on public property. In theory, some forms of time/place/manner regulations may pass muster under the current body of law in the Ninth Circuit—but where exactly that line exists is still being debated and thus may draw 3 legal challenge if implemented/enforced. The city cannot criminalize homelessness, or have an ordinance that prohibits camping in all locations in the city under current Ninth Circuit law.
In the meantime, there are a variety of regionally funded resources available to connect unsheltered people with needed services. Through efforts of city staff and the LA Sheriff’s Department in outreach to the County of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA), we make every effort to access temporary lodging (if available) for those individuals who are willing to receive assistance.
Although there are cities in the South Bay with anti-camping ordinances that have been in place for a long period of time, neither the Sheriff’s Department nor municipal police departments will generally enforce those ordinances absent shelter space being immediately available. However, depending on the individual circumstances, other types of enforcement action can be a possibility – including to address health and safety violations or to deal with other illegal activity that may be occurring at the location.
In the event of a favorable decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, city staff will be prepared to move quickly to bring forward options to the Council for an anti-camping ordinance within legally allowed parameters.
As an alternative, should the City Council desire to enact an anti-camping ordinance now, it would be necessary to direct staff to identify and fund shelter services for homeless individuals in Lomita. As this approach would require considerable ongoing expense and involve significant staff time, it is not recommended at this time.
OPTIONS
1. Receive and file this report and direct staff to follow up if there is a change in the legal framework related to camping ordinances.
2. Direct staff to (a) prepare a draft ordinance and (b) identify locations and funding for shelter services.
3. Request more information or provide other direction as desired.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with receiving and filing this report. Should the city proceed with an anti-camping ordinance now, significant costs would be incurred for shelter services required as a condition of enforcing the ordinance.
ATTACHMENTS
None.
4 Reviewed by: Approved by:
_____________________
Gary Y. Sugano Joe Hoefgen
Assistant City Manager Interim City Manager