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 SantaAna. Use caution when opening attachmentsor 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)
OFaitHou. s i-n. gCouncit 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
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: RichardWalker <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May6, 20251:56PM
To: eComment
Subject: CommentLetterreItem23
Attachments: PLCCommentLetter #23.pdf
Attention: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsideofCityofSantaAna. Usecautionwhenopeningattachmentsorlinks.
PleaseseeattachedcommentletterreItem23. Pleaseforgiveanytyposor errors, aswehadlimitedtimeto prepareandsendthisletterto meetthedeadlinefor commentsfor tonight’sCityCouncilmeeting.
Best,
RichardWalker (he, him, his)
DirectingAttorney
HousingandHomelessnessPrevention
PublicLawCenter
601CivicCenterDriveW.
SantaAna, CA92701
714.541.1010Ext. 292
[email protected]
ThismessagecontainsinformationfromPublicLawCenterwhichmaybeconfidentialand/or privileged. If you arenotanintendedrecipient, pleaserefrainfromdisclosure, copying, distribution, or useof thisinformation. If youhavereceivedthistransmissionin error, kindlynotifythesenderandimmediatelydeletethisemailandany filesthatmaybeattached.
1 May6, 2025
VIA ElectronicMail
Officeof theCity Clerk, SantaAna
20CiviCenterPlazaM-30
SantaAna, CA 92701
[email protected]
Re: Item #23of May6, 2025,CityCouncilMeeting
DearMayorAmezcua, MayorProTemVazquez, andCouncilmembersPhan, Lopez, Bacerra, Hernandez, andPenaloza,
PublicLawCenterisanonprofitorganizationlocatedin SantaAnaprovidingfreelegalservices to low-incomeindividualsandfamiliesacrossOrangeCounty, includinghousinglawservices.
Ourclientsoftenconstitutetheindividualsandfamilieswhoresidein or qualifyfor permanent supportivehousing. Werightto expressgraveconcernsaboutthepolicyproposedin Item23for theMay6, 2025regularCityCouncilMeetingfor theCityof SantaAna. Item23proposes monthlyinspectionof permanentsupportivehousingcommunitieswithintheCityof SantaAna andthepostingof theresultsof thoseinspectionsontheCityof SantaAnaswebsite.We believeanysuchpolicieswouldviolatemultiplestateandfederallawsandthatthepolicy is not supportedor justifiedbythesingular, referencedeventin theCouncilmember-RequestedItem Report.
Violationof StatePlanningandZoningandHousingElementLaws GovernmentCodesection65008statesthata\]nyactionpursuantto thistitlebyanycity, county, cityandcounty, or otherlocalgovernmentalagencyin thisstateisnullandvoidif it deniesto anyindividualor groupof individualstheenjoymentof residence, landownership, tenancy, or anyotherlandusein thisstatebecauseof anyof thefollowingreasons(1) individualsidentifiedin Californiaantihousingdiscriminationlaws\]. (2)The methodof financingof anyresidentialdevelopmentof theindividualor groupof individuals.(3)The intendedoccupancyof anyresidentialdevelopmentby personsorfamiliesof verylow, low, moderate, or middleincome. es
enjoymentof residence
housinglawsreferencedbelow, GovernmentCodesection65008prohibitsactionsthatdeny enjoymentof residencenthebasisof themethodof financingof thehousingandonthe intendedoccupancyof thehousingbyindividualswhoarelower-income. A policyrequiring monthlyinspectionsof PermanentSupportiveHousingwoulddenyresidents residencesimplybecauseit isPermanentSupportiveHousingwhichusuallyreceivesspecial governmentorotherfinancingandwhichisintendedto beoccupiedbylowerincomeresidents.
GovernmentCodesection65583(c) statesthat \]ransitionalhousingandsupportivehousing shallbeconsideredaresidentialuseof propertyandshallbesubjectonly to thoserestrictions that applyto otherresidentialdwellingsof thesametypein thesamezone. monthlyinspectionsonPermanentSupportiveHousingwhennotimposingthesamerestrictions onsimilarmulti-familyresidencesin thesamezone, violatesStateHousingElementLaw, which prohibitssuchrestrictionsthatonlytargetPermanentSupportiveHousinganddonotapplyto all residentialdwellings.
Violationof StateandFederalFair HousingLaws
StateandFederallawprohibitsdiscriminationonthebasisof multipleprotectedcharacteristics, including, undersomeof thoselaws, discriminatingagainstindividualswithdisabilitiesand Veteransanddiscriminatingonthebasisof race/ethnicityandsourceof income, to onlynamea few. Discriminationcanoccurbyexplicitlytargetingsuchpopulationsor byhavingadisparate impactonthosepopulations. In someinstances, PermanentSupportiveHousingisdesigned specificallyto targetsomeof thesepopulations, suchasVeterans, andit is often disproportionatelypopulatedbymembersof theseprotectedclasses, especiallyindividualswith disabilitiesandindividualswhoconstituteracialandethnicminorities. Furthermore, themere factthatmostallindividualswhoresidein PermanentSupportiveHousingarethebeneficiaries of someformof governmentassistanceutilizedto developandfundthePermanentSupportive Housing, potentiallyimplicatesCaliforniasprohibitionagainstdiscriminationon thebasisof sourceof income. AnypolicytargetingPermanentSupportiveHousingfor monthlyinspections wouldpotentiallyhaveadisparateimpactonprotectedclassesandviolateStateandFederalfair housinglaws.
Violationof Landlord/TenantRights
Residentsof PermanentSupportiveHousinghavetenantrightssimilarto thoseof tenantsin any othertypeof rentalunit. (Seefor exampleHealth & SafetyCodesection50490, defining PermanentHousingasastructureor setof structureswithsubsidizedor unsubsidizedrental housingunitssubjectto applicablelandlord-tenantlaw, with nolimit onlengthof stayandno requirementto participatein supportiveservicesasaconditionof accessto or continued occupancyin thehousing. Permanenthousingincludespermanentsupportivehousing. emphasisadded).)
Landlord/tenantlawlimitsthelandlord section
1954. Noneof thesixjustificationsidentifiedin CivilCodesection1954contemplatesenteringa tenanted in Item 23. Assuch, theproposedmonthly
inspectionswouldviolateCivil Codesection1954andthetenants In additionto theprotectionsof CivilCodesection1954, tenantsalsohavearightto quiet enjoymentof theirrentalunitsundercommonlawandCaliforniastatute. Theproposedmonthly inspectionswouldinterferewith tenants
5157
PotentialViolationsof FederalandStateConstitutionalProtections Finally, weareconcernedthatanypolicyrequiringinspectionsbyor onbehalfof agovernment entityfor theintentof identifyingcriminalactivityviolatestheStateandFederalconstitutional protectionsagainstunreasonablesearchesandseizures. Not onlyissuchaviolationof individualsconstitutionalrightsalarming, butsuchaviolationcouldresultin theexclusionof evidencewhichwouldchallengelaw abilityto keepthecommunitysafeand wouldunderminethesupposedintentof thepolicy. Thesingleincidentcitedin the Councilmember-RequestedItemReportindicatesthatawarrantwasobtainedby policeofficers pursuantto theirongoinginvestigation, whichseemsto indicatetheproperandconstitutional formof conductingsuchasearchwasfollowedandsuchproceduresshouldcontinueto be followedto protecttheconstitutionalrightsof SantaAnaresidents. In addition, singlingout PermanentSupportiveHousingresidentsfor inspectionsraisesobviousdueprocess, equal protection, andprivacyconcerns, whichmayfurtherviolatetheconstitutionalandstatutory rightsof theresidents.
In additionto thelegalconcernsraisedabove, PLCbelievesdraftinganordinanceatthistimeis premature, unsupportedbyevidenceandlikelycounter-productive.
Therequestassertsthattherewasasinglesearchwarrantfor saleof narcoticsexecutedbySanta Policeofficersin February2025atoneapartmentin onepermanentsupportivehousing community. Fromthere, withoutanysupport theRequestconcludes PermanentSupportiveHousingandthat monthly
inspectionsareasolution. Thisisnotevidenced-basedpolicydevelopmentandis potentially discriminatoryin itsintent.
Wenotethatthatthesuccessof PermanentSupportiveHousinghingesuponcreatingastable livingenvironment, anenvironmentwhichmonthlyinspectionsdeprivingresidentsof their privacymayendanger. Furthermore, individualsin needof PermanentSupportiveHousingmay bewaryof acceptingthishousingandserviceoption, if theywill besubjectto monthly inspectionswhichnotonlyviolatetheirprivacy, butpotentiallyhavenegativeimpactson disabilitiestheymayhave. WeencouragetheCityCouncilto voteagainstItem23.
Sincerely,
RichardWalker
DirectingAttorney
HousingandHomelessnessPrevention
PublicLawCenter
601CivicCenterDriveWest
SantaAna, CA 92701-4002
714) 541-1010ext. 292
[email protected]
5157