1 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2026 9:56 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Hajar St. Claire; [email protected]
Subject: Agenda Item 12.B – Public Comment Opposing Approval of PHA Plan Without Addressing CoC Civil Rights and Accessibility Impacts
EXTERNAL
This comment is submitted in response to the City’s written reply regarding the administration of the Continuum of Care (CoC) program as presented in the FY 2026–2027 PHA Annual Plan.
The City’s response does not resolve the core concerns raised. Rather, it confirms key structural issues and underscores material deficiencies in analysis, implementation, and oversight that remain unaddressed in the Plan.
A substantial proportion of participants in the CoC program appear to be individuals with disabilities, as reflected in program design, eligibility criteria, and publicly reported program characteristics.
A federal civil rights complaint concerning the administration of the CoC program and its associated impacts has been submitted to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for review. ⸻
The City’s response confirms that meaningful mobility within the CoC program is not available as a participant-controlled feature but only through limited, discretionary administrative exceptions.
As a result, participants remain constrained to a narrow geographic area for extended periods, in some cases for decades.
Relocation beyond that limited range is conditioned on exiting the program and accepting a different form of assistance.
These conditions are structural and produce foreseeable impacts on program participants, particularly individuals with disabilities.
The Plan does not analyze or address these combined effects. ⸻
1. Non-portability: federal framework vs. local implementation The City attributes CoC non-portability to federal program design, stating that portability “cannot be altered locally.”
Item 12-B
April 14, 2026
Item 12-B
April 14, 2026
2 However, the City’s response confirms that:
• CoC participants may relocate outside Santa Monica in certain circumstances; • Case-by-case exceptions are granted, including for safety and domestic violence; • Administrative flexibility is exercised (e.g., virtual inspections, relocations within a limited geographic range).
These statements demonstrate that mobility within the CoC program is not strictly fixed, but rather mediated through local administrative discretion within the federal framework.
The issue raised in the original comment was not the existence of federal constraints, but the absence of:
• any analysis of how those constraints are implemented at the local level; • any structured mitigation strategy addressing their foreseeable effects.
The Plan continues to omit such analysis.
This internal inconsistency—between asserted federal rigidity and acknowledged local flexibility— confirms that implementation choices within the federal framework, not solely federal constraints, shape participant mobility outcomes.
The City’s response further confirms that any mobility available within the CoC program depends on administrative feasibility as determined by the City, rather than on any stable or participant-controlled portability right.
Even within federal constraints, local implementation choices determine how those constraints operate in practice and how their effects are experienced by participants. ⸻
2. Structural immobility and long-term program confinement The City’s response does not address the practical outcomes of the current implementation.
Many CoC participants remain within the same jurisdiction for extended periods of time.
During a presentation at the February 2026 Housing Commission meeting, Housing Authority staff acknowledged that some CoC participants have resided in Santa Monica since as early as 1995.
This is a material factual point.
It demonstrates that:
• CoC participation, as administered locally, can result in decades-long geographic immobility; Item 12-B
April 14, 2026
Item 12-B
April 14, 2026
3 • Participants are effectively constrained to a limited geographic area and lack access to ordinary, participant-directed portability beyond that range;
• The program, in practice, can function as a long-term confinement structure rather than a transitional support system.
The Annual Plan does not acknowledge or analyze these outcomes.
In the absence of meaningful mobility pathways, these conditions create foreseeable and prolonged restrictions that limit meaningful access to housing choice and geographic mobility.
Because a substantial portion of participants appear to be individuals with disabilities, these conditions have predictable and disproportionate impacts on their ability to access medical care, safety, and support networks.
⸻
3. Forced program conversion as a condition of mobility The City confirms that:
• Participants seeking relocation beyond the limited local range must transition into the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program.
This confirms that:
• Mobility is not available within the CoC program as a direct feature; • Relocation is conditioned on exiting the program entirely.
This is not a neutral administrative pathway.
It requires participants to:
• relinquish CoC-specific conditions and supports;
• undergo program conversion;
• accept a different program structure and administrative framework.
The Plan does not evaluate the programmatic or civil rights implications of conditioning mobility on surrendering participation in the CoC program.
In addition, conversion may expose participants to materially different rent burdens and housingretention risks not present under the CoC framework. ⸻
4. Absence of analysis = planning deficiency
Item 12-B
April 14, 2026
Item 12-B
April 14, 2026
4 The City’s response describes program mechanics but does not address the central issue raised.
The Plan contains no analysis of the combined effects of:
• limited and discretionary mobility;
• forced program conversion;
• absence of long-term exit pathways;
• long-duration participation, including decades-long cases.
This omission is not neutral.
Where outcomes are foreseeable, documented, and acknowledged in practice, the absence of analysis constitutes a material planning deficiency.
These conditions are structural in nature and not isolated outcomes.
The combined effects of restricted mobility, forced program conversion, and long-term confinement create foreseeable disparate impacts on individuals with disabilities, which are neither analyzed nor addressed in the Plan.
⸻
5. Lack of long-term stability pathways
The City confirms that no homeownership option exists for voucher-based programs.
This does not resolve the concern.
Instead, it confirms that:
• CoC participants lack any structured pathway to long-term housing stability; • Participants are unable to transition out of assistance without losing support.
In a system where mobility is restricted and exit pathways are absent, participants remain in prolonged dependence on rental assistance within a fixed geographic area.
The Plan does not analyze this structural condition or its long-term implications.
In combination with restricted mobility, the absence of any pathway to ownership or independent housing transition reinforces long-term program confinement and limits meaningful exit from assistance. ⸻
6. Local responsibility for implementation effects
Item 12-B
April 14, 2026
Item 12-B
April 14, 2026
5 Even where program parameters originate at the federal level, the City remains responsible for:
• how those parameters are implemented;
• how their effects are mitigated;
• whether their impacts are analyzed within the planning process.
The existence of limited exceptions and discretionary practices confirms that local implementation choices materially shape participant outcomes.
However, the Plan does not examine or formalize those choices.
This includes responsibility for ensuring that program administration does not produce unexamined or unmitigated disparate impacts on protected classes, including individuals with disabilities, and that participants have meaningful access to housing opportunities on a nondiscriminatory basis. ⸻
7. Requested consideration
To address the identified deficiencies, the Plan should:
• Analyze the real-world effects of CoC mobility limitations, including long-term residency patterns; • Examine the implications of requiring program conversion as a condition of relocation; • Address the absence of long-term stability pathways, including homeownership or functionally equivalent alternatives;
• Evaluate the cumulative impact of these factors on participants with disabilities; • Assess potential disparate impacts and identify mitigation strategies consistent with federal civil rights obligations;
• Identify and formalize mitigation measures within the Administrative Plan. ⸻
8. Closing statement
The issue is not the existence of federal program constraints.
The issue is that the Plan fails to analyze how those constraints—combined with local implementation choices—produce foreseeable, long-term outcomes for participants.
Those outcomes include restricted mobility, lack of exit pathways, and prolonged confinement within a single jurisdiction.
Item 12-B
April 14, 2026
Item 12-B
April 14, 2026
6 Approval of the Plan without addressing these conditions would formalize known and foreseeable impacts on program participants without analysis or mitigation, with disproportionate effects on individuals with disabilities.
Sent from Proton Mail for iOS.
Item 12-B
April 14, 2026
Item 12-B
April 14, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2026 4:08 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Hajar St. Claire; [email protected] Subject: Item 12B – Opposition to PHA Plan (RAB Deficiency / CoC)
EXTERNAL
NOTICE OF SYSTEMIC NON-COMPLIANCE, CIVIL RIGHTS EXPOSURE, AND CERTIFICATION RISK – PHA
PLAN (RAB DEFICIENCY)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This submission is provided both as written public comment on the PHA Plan and as formal notice of systemic compliance deficiencies with potential civil rights implications.
The current framework does not demonstrate the existence of a functioning Resident Advisory Board (RAB) capable of engaging in ongoing, structured, two-way consultation during plan development as required under 24 CFR §903.13. Instead, the record reflects reliance on general public comment mechanisms, which are not interchangeable with the RAB consultation requirement.
The administrative record further reflects a failure to distinguish between general public comment and RAB consultation, rendering it impossible to verify that the required consultation process has occurred.
This structural design results in disenfranchisement through structural design, whereby program participants are formally included but functionally excluded from meaningful participation in decisions governing the program that serves them.
The Housing Authority’s own record acknowledges a program scale of approximately 1,700+ voucher households and reflects barriers to communication and participation.
A substantial portion of program participants are persons with disabilities. The absence of a functioning consultation framework creates barriers to participation and may result in denial of meaningful access to participation in a federally funded program, raising concerns under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The absence of a functioning consultation framework does not merely limit input; it effectively denies program participants a meaningful opportunity to participate in the administration of a federally funded housing program and may impair participants’ ability to effectively access and benefit from protections tied to plan development.
Importantly, federal PHA Plan certification requires an affirmative representation that required consultation processes have been completed. Where such processes cannot be verified in the Item 12-B
April 14, 2026
Item 12-B
April 14, 2026
2 administrative record, certification raises substantial concerns regarding the accuracy of representations made to the federal government.
Certification of the PHA Plan under these conditions may therefore expose the Housing Authority, and the officials responsible for such certification, to federal review, oversight, and potential enforcement risk.
---
1. OBJECTION TO CERTIFICATION
This submission formally objects to the approval and certification of the PHA Plan in its current form.
The current administrative record does not demonstrate that the Housing Authority has satisfied mandatory federal consultation requirements under 24 CFR §903.13.
Certification under these conditions presents a material risk that required procedural steps have not been completed and that the record does not support a finding of compliance. ---
2. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK – DISTINCT AND NON-INTERCHANGEABLE REQUIREMENTS Federal regulations impose two separate and non-interchangeable requirements:
(1) Consultation with a Resident Advisory Board (RAB) during plan development under 24 CFR §903.13 (2) Public notice and opportunity for public comment under 24 CFR §903.17 These requirements serve distinct regulatory functions.
Consultation requires engagement with a defined advisory body. Public comment is a separate, generalaccess mechanism.
Public comment does not substitute for RAB consultation. The requirements operate cumulatively.
Even assuming a degree of administrative discretion in the structure of a Resident Advisory Board, the absence of any verifiable consultation process or administrative record demonstrating such consultation falls below the minimum threshold required to establish compliance. ---
3. MEANINGFUL CONSULTATION – FUNCTIONAL AND CIVIL RIGHTS REQUIREMENT Meaningful consultation requires the existence of a functioning advisory body capable of ongoing, structured, two-way engagement with the Housing Authority.
Such consultation requires:
Item 12-B
April 14, 2026
Item 12-B
April 14, 2026
3 - an identifiable advisory body
- a structured, peer-based mechanism for collective representation - ongoing two-way communication
- accessible pathways for participant engagement
- a process through which participant input is considered and incorporated The absence of a functional RAB is not merely a procedural gap, but reflects a failure to implement a required structural safeguard intended to ensure participant input in program governance.
Where a substantial portion of program participants are persons with disabilities, the absence of such a structure creates barriers to participation and may constitute a denial of meaningful access to participation in a federally funded program.
---
4. OBSERVED STRUCTURAL DEFICIENCY
The current implementation relies on general public input mechanisms while lacking any verifiable structure for RAB consultation.
The administrative record reflects commingling of public comment and RAB input, with comments labeled collectively without any identifiable distinction.
There is no identifiable, documented RAB-specific consultation process.
The current record does not allow for independent verification of compliance with federal consultation requirements.
As a result:
- it is not possible to determine whether any RAB consultation occurred - no separate advisory body can be identified
- no record demonstrates compliance with 24 CFR §903.13 In practical effect, the RAB does not function as a distinct advisory body.
These deficiencies are structural in nature and not attributable to isolated error, but to the absence of an implemented participation framework.
The current structure reflects formal compliance in appearance without substantive implementation. ---
Item 12-B
April 14, 2026
Item 12-B
April 14, 2026
4 5. ABSENCE OF A DELIBERATIVE PROCESS
A functioning advisory body requires a deliberative process.
Such a process includes:
- structured opportunities for discussion
- development of collective positions
- ongoing two-way engagement with decision-makers
- an administrative record reflecting that engagement
No such deliberative structure is identifiable.
For example, during a February 2026 Housing Commission meeting at which the draft PHA Plan was presented, a written public comment was submitted and received. Neither staff nor the Commission addressed or acknowledged that comment, nor was any discussion or inquiry made in response.
This illustrates a breakdown in the feedback loop necessary for meaningful participation. ---
6. COMPARATIVE GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE – SELECTIVE EXCLUSION Within the City of Santa Monica, multiple boards and commissions operate as structured deliberative bodies.
These bodies:
- meet regularly
- engage in structured discussion
- produce recommendations
- maintain records of deliberation
By contrast, voucher program participants are not provided with any comparable structure.
This disparity reflects selective exclusion from governance mechanisms available to other stakeholders. ---
7. PROGRAM SCALE, DISABILITY IMPACT, AND BARRIERS TO PARTICIPATION The Housing Authority’s voucher program serves approximately 1,700+ participants.
Item 12-B
April 14, 2026
Item 12-B
April 14, 2026
5 A substantial portion of this population consists of persons with disabilities.
The current structure creates barriers to participation, including:
- reliance on passive, one-directional communication channels - lack of structured engagement opportunities
- limited accessibility of communication pathways
- lack of non-digital participation alternatives
- reliance on outreach methods acknowledged as incomplete or infeasible These conditions may disproportionately affect persons with disabilities and limit meaningful access to participation.
---
8. LACK OF ACCESSIBLE PATHWAYS TO REPRESENTATION
Program participants are not provided with accessible and functional pathways to engage with a tenant representative on the Housing Authority Board.
Written communications identify the representative by name but do not provide direct contact information or accessible methods of communication.
Participants—particularly seniors and individuals with disabilities—may not have reliable access to email or online resources, yet no non-digital or alternative communication pathways are provided, further limiting accessibility and meaningful participation.
This further limits meaningful participation and access to representation. ---
9. HISTORICAL PATTERN OF AWARENESS WITHOUT IMPLEMENTATION Concerns regarding the absence of a functioning RAB have been raised since at least 2019.
On September 13, 2022, during a Housing Authority Board study session, a robust discussion took place regarding resident participation structures. The Housing Authority Board requested that staff return "as soon as possible" with guidelines for a proposed Client Advisory Board and extended model.
Subsequently, on February 27, 2024, the Housing Authority Board considered the introduction of a Client Advisory Board; however, the item was continued with direction for further review, and no advisory structure has since been implemented.
Subsequent PHA Plans do not reflect any structural changes addressing resident participation.
Item 12-B
April 14, 2026
Item 12-B
April 14, 2026
6 This pattern reflects not only a lack of implementation, but a sustained failure to operationalize a recognized program requirement despite repeated formal consideration.
The record reflects a pattern of consideration without implementation. ---
10. FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT REQUIRED PROGRAM ELEMENT
The absence of a functioning RAB reflects a failure to implement a required program component under federal regulations.
A Resident Advisory Board is a required element of the PHA Plan development framework.
The absence of a functional advisory body therefore constitutes a structural compliance deficiency.
This absence is not merely a procedural omission, but a failure to implement a required structural safeguard within a federally funded program framework.
---
11. OPERATIONAL SUPPORT AND FEASIBILITY
Federal program frameworks permit the allocation of administrative resources to support participant engagement and consultation processes.
A functioning RAB requires minimal operational support.
The absence of such support in the Housing Authority’s current structure further limits the ability of any advisory structure to function in practice.
---
12. FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS CONTEXT
A federal civil rights complaint has been submitted concerning program administration, including barriers to participation and access to decision-making processes.
The structural deficiencies identified herein overlap with those concerns.
The absence of a functioning consultation framework in a program serving a substantial population of persons with disabilities raises issues of access, participation, and potential disparate impact under federal civil rights law.
The resulting structure may also impair participants’ ability to effectively access and benefit from program protections tied to plan development.
---
Item 12-B
April 14, 2026
Item 12-B
April 14, 2026
7 13. CERTIFICATION RISK, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND FEDERAL OVERSIGHT IMPLICATIONS In light of the deficiencies described above, certification of the PHA Plan raises substantial concerns.
The current administrative record does not demonstrate that required consultation has occurred.
These deficiencies are apparent on the face of the administrative record.
Federal certification constitutes an affirmative representation that required conditions have been satisfied. Where the underlying record does not support such representation, certification may trigger federal review, oversight, or enforcement action.
The absence of a functional RAB raises concerns regarding program integrity and the reliability of compliance representations made in connection with federal funding.
Where certification is made in the absence of verifiable compliance, the risk extends beyond procedural deficiency to potential misrepresentation in connection with federal funding.
These conditions present systemic risk within a federally funded program framework.
Certification relies on representations made by responsible officials. Where the record does not support such representations, questions of accountability may arise.
Item 12-B
April 14, 2026
Item 12-B
April 14, 2026