The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMichael Garcia and Stacy Garcia, property owners, 5770 Research Drive - 2019-04-01 (2) PULLED Pie 6 M �� TINGjti OoNs'hERATo Y 7 _ City of Huntington Beach 44COn:yceCP��4� y UNTV File #: 19-394 MEETING DATE: 4/1/2019 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members SUBMITTED BY: Fred A. Wilson, City Manager PREPARED BY: Kellee Fritzal, Deputy Director of Economic Development Subject: Approve and authorize execution of a Three-Year Lease Agreement for 5770 Research Drive and adopt Resolution No. 2019-22 pursuant to SB 850 (Chapter 48, Statutes of 2018 and Government Code Section 8698.2) for the Development and Operation of a 50-Bed Navigation Center Statement of Issue: Homelessness in Huntington Beach has created numerous issues regarding the health, safety and welfare of the City. Numerous lawsuits have been filed against the County of Orange and other cities for the lack of emergency shelters that can house individuals and families that are homeless, including: Anaheim, Orange, Costa Mesa, Irvine, Aliso Viejo, Dana Point, San Juan Capistrano, and San Clemente. A majority of the lawsuits were consolidated and assigned to the United States District Court in Santa Ana. In order to provide emergency beds to Huntington Beach's homeless population and protect the City's right to enforce its laws, City Council action is requested to enter into a three-year Lease Agreement for the development of a 50-bed secular Navigation Center to shelter the homeless, and allow the City to enforce its anti-camping ordinances pursuant to Federal and State law. Financial Impact: The proposed action would authorize a three-year Commercial Lease Agreement, with two one-year options, in an annual amount of$104,000. The combined three year lease would be approximately $330,720. Staff is requesting an appropriation to increase in the FY 2018/19 Revised Budget in the Residual Receipts Fund, Office of Business Development, (23380101). Sufficient funds are available in the Residual Receipts Fund balance to accommodate this increase to the budget. Additional costs associated with operations of the facility will be brought to the City Council at a future meeting. Recommended Action: A) Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into the Three-Year Commercial Lease Agreement for 5770 Research Drive, Huntington Beach, CA; and, B) Authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related to the Lease to further the action; and, City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 4 Printed on 3/27/2019 powerelJ3 'Legistar'^^ File #: 19-394 MEETING DATE: 4/1/2019 C) Adopt Resolution 2019-22, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Pursuant to SB 850 (Chapter 48, Statutes of 2018 and Government Code Section 8698.2);" and, D) Increase appropriations in the FY 2018/19 Revised Budget for the Office of Business Development by $104,000 for the annual lease costs of the Navigation Center. Alternative Action(s): Do not approve the lease or declaration of shelter crisis and direct staff as necessary. Analysis: City Staff has been in discussions with the owner of a building located at 5770 Research Drive, located in the northwest area of the City south of McFadden Avenue, west of Springdale Street regarding operation of a homeless shelter. The building site is an approximately half-acre property within the Industrial (IL) zoning district, which is the City's designated "SB 2 Zone." SB 2 or Senate Bill 2 was enacted in 2008 and required cities and counties to identify a land use zone where emergency shelters are permitted with no conditional use permit or discretionary action. As such, in 2009, the City Council adopted amendments to the City's zoning ordinance to allow by right emergency or transitional and supportive housing in Industrial Zones including the development of emergency shelters. The proposed location will be leased by the City for the establishment of a 50- bed Navigation Center to house homeless. The creation of the Navigation Center will provide immediately available secular beds for individuals that are homeless while also providing for the increased enforcement of the City's Municipal Codes against camping in public places. Homelessness in Orange County In January 2017, a Point-in-Time Count and Survey of the homeless was conducted in which 119 persons were identified as unsheltered in the City of Huntington Beach. Of those, 73 were male and 46 were female. Since the last Point-in-Time Count, the number of unsheltered individuals in the County and in the City of Huntington Beach have likely increased. The County of Orange will soon be releasing the new Point-in-Time Count figures for each City and it is likely the City's figure for homeless individuals will increase from the 2017 numbers. Compounding the health, safety and welfare issues created by homelessness are the legal challenges to enforcing ordinances prohibiting sleeping in outdoor areas, such as parks and public plazas. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Martin et al v City of Boise held that enforcing a City ordinance that prohibits sleeping in public places violates an individual's Constitutional prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment if there are no housing alternatives available (other than sleeping in the public) within that same jurisdiction. In other words, the Courts have determined that cities cannot criminally punish individuals for sleeping outdoors if they have no alternative shelter. As a result, unless sleeping facilities are available in the City at the time of encounter, enforcement of the City's anti-camping or other ordinances constraining sleeping on public property would likely result in dismissal of any charges. Last year, Federal lawsuits were filed when the County of Orange and City of Anaheim relocated several hundred homeless individuals from the flood control channel in Anaheim. A majority of those lawsuits were consolidated and assigned to Federal District Court Judge David Carter in Santa Ana. The City of Huntington Beach has not been sued as part of those lawsuits, at this time. However, the City of Huntington Beach Page 2 of 4 Printed on 3/27/2019 powereli3r Legistar" File #: 19-394 MEETING DATE: 4/1/2019 Federal District Court has requested that all Orange County cities appear at court on Tuesday, April 2, 2019 (see Attachment) to report how it plans to comply with the basic tenets of Martin vs. Boise. As a result of the litigation, nearby cities including Santa Ana, Tustin, Orange, Costa Mesa, Placentia, Buena Park, and Anaheim are building new and expanded shelters for homeless individuals and families. Importantly, the Court has indicated that by creating these facilities to house the homeless, cities can enforce their prohibitions on camping in public areas. In addition, cities that are committed to creating homeless facilities will have the opportunity to enter into approved Federal Settlement Agreements allowing them to enforce ordinances against sleeping and camping in public places. Pursuant to these settlement agreements, the cities of Santa Ana and Anaheim have begun enforcement of their camping and related ordinances. There is an urgent health, safety, and welfare need to establish an emergency homeless facility with beds available for homeless families and individuals within Huntington Beach. Taking action as soon as possible will ensure there are adequate secular sleeping alternatives available (to those willing to accept them) and will help the City of Huntington Beach ensure that public areas like parks, beaches, the Civic Center, libraries, Pier Plaza and City sidewalks remain safe, attractive and well-maintained for the public at large. If the migration of homeless populations from one or more cities to Huntington Beach continues while the City has not yet established immediately available beds for placement, the City will lack the ability to enforce its anti-camping ordinance, and the City's unsheltered population is likely to grow as a result. Next Steps City Staff has visited eight (8) shelters operated by various non-profits. The Staff has also met with the County of Orange, Anaheim, and Santa Ana regarding best practices and lessons learned. If this lease is approved, the City will be sending out a Request for Proposals for the tenant improvements at the site, and for a highly qualified Shelter Operator with 24/7 on-site security to ensure a safe and effective Shelter. It is recommended that the City enter into a three (3) year commercial lease with two one-year options for 5770 Research Drive. The building is located in the SB 2 Zone for the establishment of a Navigation Center. To provide for shelter to the homeless as well as avoid litigation regarding homelessness in Orange County, the creation of the Navigation Center will provide for the enhanced enforcement of City Municipal Codes and safer public spaces for homeless and residents. Next steps include the City entering into contracts for Tenant Improvements at the site, on-site Security Services and a Shelter Operator. Any required increases in funding will be requested at that time. Environmental Status: Not applicable Strategic Plan Goal: Enhance and modernize public safety service delivery Enhance and maintain high quality City services City of Huntington Beach Page 3 of 4 Printed on 3/27/2019 powereaq LegtstarTM File #: 19-394 MEETING DATE: 4/1/2019 Attachment(s): 1. Lease Agreement with Michael Garcia and Stacy Garcia Property Owners for 5770 Research Drive 2. Resolution 2019-22, "A Resolution of the city Council of the City of Huntington Beach declaring a shelter crisis pursuant to SB 850 (Chapter 48, Statutes of 2018 and Government Code Section 8698.2) 3. Notice of Status Conference April 2, 2019 with Honorable Judge David Carter 4. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Decision in Martin et al v City of Boise (9th Cir. 9/4/18) _ F.4th Case No. 15-35845 City of Huntington Beach Page 4 of 4 Printed on 3/27/2019 poweret41lj LegistarT' ATTACHMENT #1 I11r STANDARD INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL MULTI-TENANT LEASE - GROSS AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATION 1. Basic Provisions("Basic Provisions"). 1.1 Parties:This Lease("Lease"),d dated� ed for reference/f purposes only t -4�L /' is made by and Wren . M1Gj1A4-\.et- ©. C1 AIzCIA and tst -i WikS 1146 ��( ') kuNi. K141C) .,4 ("Lessor") and . ("Lessee"),(collectively the"Parties",or individually a"Party"). • 1.2(a) Premises: That certain portion of the Project(as defined below),including all improvements therein or to be provided by Lessor under the terms of his Lease,commonly known by the street address of.£" l C) R ,r( Y►IVY ,located in the City of ' k ,County of State of �'a V y110) I ,with zip code q ,as outllide on xhibit attached hereto("Premises") and generally described as(describe briefly the nature of the Premises): r (61e) S ►,4)' cArv�ri 1 Ct p e(rb - t✓ 7o ua re � wtfh — i fin•txc U V AG of t,5, non re-the.. � �-�1 �P�r SV�o � Ph. In addition to Le s rights to use and occupy the Premises as hereinafter specified,Lessee shall have non-exclusive rights to the Common Areas(as defined in Paragraph 2.7 below)as hereinafter specified,but shall not have any rights to the roof,exterior walls or utility raceways of the building containing the Premises("Building") or to any other buildings in the Project. The Premises,the Building,the Common Areas,the land upon which they are located, along with all other buildings and improvements thereon,are herein collectively referred to as the"Project." (See also Paragraph 2.) 1.2(b) Parking: I l unreserved vehicle parking spaces("Unreserved Parking Spaces");and reserved vehicle parking spaces("Reserved Parking Spaces"). (See also Paragraph 2.6.) 1.3 Term: 3 years and months("Original Term")commencing . Arig.I L. 2- 7/f.i1 el ("Commencement Date")and ending . PVPR1L 1 / 2024- ("Expiration Date"). (See also Paragraph 3.) 1.4 Early Possession: ("Early Possession Date") (See also Paragraphs 3.2 and 3.3.) 1.5 Base Rent: $ S7140,-- per month("Base Rent"),payable on the 21° day of each month A commencing / yii`.4.r1,40 LO` .(See also Paragraph 4.) �r ❑ If this box is checked,there are provisions in this Lease for the Base Rent to be adjusted. 1.6 Lessee's Share of Common Area Operating Expenses: percent( %)("Lessee's Share"). 1.7 Base Rent and Other Monies Paid Upon Execution: „��,� (a) Base Rent:$ $ t-f for the period _4rs ' r Pt-ic ref► (b) Common Area Operating Expenses: $ for the period (c) Security Deposit:$ `5' b,' ("Security Deposit"). (See also Paragraph 5.) (d) Other:$ for (e) Total Due Upon Execution of this Lea e:$ 1.8 Agreed Use: . (See also aragra 6.) 1.9 Insuring Party. Lessor is the"Insuring Party". (See Is Paragraph 8.) 1.10 Real Estate Brokers: (See also Paragraph 15.) (a) Representation: The following real estate brokers (the "Brokers") and brokerage relationships exist in this transaction (check applicable boxes): ❑ represents Lessor exclusively("Lessor's Broker"); ❑ represents Lessee exclusively("Lessee's Broker");or ❑ represents both Lessor and Lessee("Dual Agency"). (b)Payment to Brokers: Upon execution and delivery of this Lease by both Parties,Lessor shall ay to the Brokers the brokerage fee agreed to in a separate written agreement(or if there is no such agreement,the sum of A /1 or %of the total Base Rent for the brokerage services rendered by the Brokers). `II 1.11 Guarantor. The obligations of the Lessee under this Lease are to be guaranteed by ("Guarantor"). (See also Paragraph 37.) 1.12 Addenda and Exhibits. Attached hereto is an Addendum or Addenda consisting of Paragraphs through and Exhibits through ,all of which constitute a part of this Lease. 2. Premises. 2.1 Letting. Lessor hereby leases to Lessee,and Lessee hereby leases from Lessor,the Premises,for the term,at the rental,and upon all of the terms,covenants and conditions set forth in this Lease. Unless otherwise provided herein,any statement of size set forth in this Lease,or that may have been used in calculating Rent,is an approximation which the Parties agree is reasonable and any payments based thereon are not subject to revision whether or not the actual size is more or less. 2.2 Condition. Lessor shall deliver that portion of the Premises contained within the Building("Unit")to Lessee broom clean and free of debris on the Commencement Date or the Early Possession Date, whichever first occurs("Start Date"), and, so long as the required service contracts described in Paragraph 7.1(b)below are obtained by Lessee and in effect within thirty days following the Start Date,warrants that the existing electrical, plumbing,fire sprinkler,lighting,heating,ventilating and air conditioning systems("HVAC"),loading doors,if any,and all other such elements in the Unit, other than those constructed by Lessee,shall be in good operating condition on said date and that the structural elements of the roof,bearing walls and foundation of the Unit shall be free of material defects. If a non-compliance with such warranty exists as of the Start Date,or if one of such systems or elements should malfunction or fail within the appropriate warranty period,Lessor shall,as Lessor's sole obligation with respect to such matter,except as otherwise provided in this Lease, promptly after receipt of written notice from Lessee setting forth with specificity the nature and extent of such non-compliance,malfunction or failure,rectify same at Lessor's expense. The warranty periods shall be as follows:(i)6 months as to the HVAC systems, and (ii)30 days as to the remaining systems and other elements of the Unit. If Lessee does not give Lessor the required notice within the appropriate Initials Initials Page 1 of 12 ©1998-American Industrial Real Estate Association FORM MTG-2-11198E 142 - ---.,.. ,•....,„r„o„w, nauuncuon or ranure shall be the obligation of Lessee at Lessee's sole cost and expense(except for the repairs to the fire sprinkler systems,roof,foundations,and/or bearing walls-see Paragraph 7). 2.3 Compliance, Lessor warrants that the improvements on the Premises and the Common Areas comply with the building codes that were in effect at the time that each such improvement or portion thereof,was constructed,and also with all applicable laws,covenants or restrictions of record, regulations,and ordinances in effect on the Start Date("Applicable Requirements"). Said warranty does not apply to the use to which Lessee will put the Premises or to any Alterations or Utility Installations(as defined in Paragraph 7.3(a).)made or to be made by Lessee. NOTE:Lessee is responsible for determining whether or not the zoning Is appropriate for Lessee's Intended use,and acknowledges that past uses of the Premises may no longer be allowed, If the Premises do not comply with said warranty, Lessor shall, except as otherwise provided, promptly after receipt of written notice from Lessee setting forth with specificity the nature and extent of such non-compliance,rectify the same at Lessor's expense, If Lessee does not give Lessor written notice of a non-compliance with this warranty within 6 months following the Start Date,correction of that non-compliance shall be the obligation of Lessee at Lessee's sole cost and expense. If the Applicable Requirements are hereafter changed so as to require during the term of this Lease the construction of an addition to or an alteration of the Unit, Premises and/or Building,the remedlation of any Hazardous Substance,or the reinforcement or other physical modification of the Unit,Premises and/or Building("Capital Expenditure"),Lessor and Lessee shall allocate the cost of such work as follows: (a) Subject to Paragraph 2.3(c)below, if such Capital Expenditures are required as a result of the specific and unique use of the Premises by Lessee as compared with uses by tenants in general, Lessee shall be fully responsible for the cost thereof,provided,however, that if such Capital Expenditure is required during the last 2 years of this Lease and the cost thereof exceeds 6 months'Base Rent,Lessee may instead terminate this Lease unless Lessor notifies Lessee, in writing,within 10 days after receipt of Lessee's termination notice that Lessor has elected to pay the difference between the actual cost thereof and the amount equal to 6 months'Base Rent. If Lessee elects termination,Lessee shall immediately cease the use of the Premises which requires such Capital Expenditure and deliver to Lessor written notice specifying a termination date at least 90 days thereafter. Such termination date shall, however, in no event be earlier than the last day that Lessee could legally utilize the Premises without commencing such Capital Expenditure. (b) If such Capital Expenditure is not the result of the specific and unique use of the Premises by Lessee(such as,governmentally mandated seismic modifications), then Lessor and Lessee shall allocate the obligation to pay for the portion of such costs reasonably attributable to the Premises pursuant to the formula set out in Paragraph 7.1(d);provided,however,that if such Capital Expenditure is required during the last 2 years of this Lease or if Lessor reasonably determines that it is not economically feasible to pay its share thereof,Lessor shall have the option to terminate this Lease upon 90 days prior written notice to Lessee unless Lessee notifies Lessor,in writing,within 10 days after receipt of Lessor's termination notice that Lessee will pay for such Capital Expenditure,If Lessor does not elect to terminate,and fails to tender Its share of any such Capital Expenditure,Lessee may advance such funds and deduct same,with.Interest,from Rent until Lessor's share.of such costs.•have.been fully paid.,,lf Lessee is unable to finance Lessor's share, or if the balance of the Rent due and payable for the remainder of this Lease is not sufficient to fully reimburse Lessee on an offset basis,Lessee shall have the right to terminate this Lease upon 30 days written notice to Lessor. (c)Notwithstanding the above,the provisions concerning Capital Expenditures are intended to apply only to non-voluntary,unexpected, and new Applicable Requirements, if the Capital Expenditures are instead triggered by Lessee as a result of an actual or proposed change in use,change in intensity of use,or modification to the Premises then,and in that event,Lessee shall be fully responsible for the cost thereof,and Lessee shall not have any right to terminate this Lease, • 2.4 Acknowledgements. Lessee acknowledges that: (a)it has been advised by Lessor and/or Brokers to satisfy itself with respect to the condition of the Premises(including but not limited to the electrical,HVAC and fire sprinkler systems,security,environmental aspects,and compliance with Applicable Requirements and the Americans with Disabilities Act),and their suitability for Lessee's Intended use,(b)Lessee has made such Investigation as it deems necessary with reference to such matters and assumes all responsibility therefor as the same relate to its occupancy of the Premises,and(c)neither Lessor,Lessor's agents,nor Brokers have made any oral or written representations or warranties with respect to said matters other than as set forth in this Lease. In addition,Lessor acknowledges that:(i)Brokers have made no representations,promises or warranties concerning Lessee's ability to honor the Lease or suitability to occupy the Premises,and(ti)it is Lessor's sole responsibility to investigate the financial capability and/or suitability of all proposed tenants, - 2.5 Lessee as Prior Owner/Occupant. The warranties made by Lessor in Paragraph 2 shall be of no force or effect if immediately prior to the Start Date Lessee was the owner or occupant of the Premises. In such event,Lessee shall be responsible for any necessary corrective work. 2.6 Vehicle Parking. Lessee shall be entitled to use the number of Unreserved Parking Spaces and Reserved Parking Spaces specified in Paragraph 1.2(b)on those portions of the Common Areas designated from time to time by Lessor for parking. Lessee shall not use more parking spaces than said number. Said parking spaces shall be used.for parking by vehicles no larger than full-size passenger automobiles or pick-up trucks, herein called "Permitted Size Vehicles." Lessor may regulate the loading and unloading of vehicles by adopting Rules and Regulations as provided in Paragraph 2.9. No vehicles other than Permitted Size Vehicles may be parked in the Common Area without the prior written permission of Lessor. (a) Lessee shall not permit or allow any vehicles that belong to or are controlled by Lessee or Lessee's employees,suppliers, shippers, customers,contractors or invitees to be loaded,unloaded,or parked in areas other than those designated by Lessor for such activities. (b) Lessee shall not service or store any vehicles in the Common Areas. (c) If Lessee permits or allows any of the prohibited activities described in this Paragraph 2.6,then Lessor shall have the right,without notice,in addition to such other rights and remedies that it may have,to remove or tow away the vehicle involved and charge the cost to Lessee,which cost shall be immediately payable upon demand by Lessor. 2.7 Common Areas-Definition. The term"Common Areas"is defined as all areas and facilities outside the Premises and within the exterior boundary line of the Project and interior utility raceways and installations within the Unit that are provided and designated by the Lessor from time to time for the general non-exclusive use of Lessor, Lessee and other tenants of the Project and their respective employees,suppliers,shippers,customers, contractors and invitees,including parking areas,loading and unloading areas,trash areas,roadways,walkways,driveways and landscaped areas, 2.8 Common Areas - Lessee's Rights. Lessor grants to Lessee, for the benefit of Lessee and its employees, suppliers, shippers, contractors,customers and invitees,during the term of this Lease,the non-exclusive right to use,in common with others entitled to such use,the Common Areas as they exist from time to time,subject to any rights,powers,and privileges reserved by Lessor under the terms hereof or under the terms of any rules and regulations or restrictions governing the use of the Project. Under no circumstances shall the right herein granted to use the Common Areas be deemed to include the right to store any property,temporarily or permanently,in the Common Areas. Any such storage shall be permitted only by the prior written consent of Lessor or Lessor's designated agent,which consent may be revoked at any time. In the event that any unauthorized storage shall occur,then Lessor shall have the right,without notice, in addition to such other rights and remedies that it may have,to remove the property and charge the cost to Lessee,which cost shall be immediately payable upon demand by Lessor, 2.9 Common Areas-Rules and Regulations. Lessor or such other person(s)as Lessor may appoint shall have the exclusive control and management of the Common Areas and shall have the right,from time to time,to establish,modify,amend and enforce reasonable rules and regulations ("Rules and Regulations")for the management,safety,care,and cleanliness of the grounds,the parking and unloading of vehicles and the preservation of good order,as well as for the convenience of other occupants or tenants of the Building and the Project and their invitees. Lessee agrees to abide by and conform to all such Rules and Regulations,and to cause its employees,suppliers,shippers,customers,contractors and invitees to so abide and conform. Lessor shall not be responsible to Lessee for the non-compliance with said Rules and Regulations by other tenants of the Project. 2,10 Common Areas-Changes. Lessor shall have the right,in Lessor's sole discretion,from time to time: cluding on, entrances,parking spa es kparkinggareas,es totloa he din and unloadingCommon Areas, nareas,ingrless,eg ess,iddi direction of traffic,landscaped,changes in the location, ize areas,,shape and number of walkways and utilitydraceways, (b) To close temporarily any of the Common Areas for maintenance purposes so long as reasonable access to the Premises remains available; (c) To designate other land outside the boundaries of the Project to be a part of the Common Areas; (d) To add additional buildings and improvements to the Common Areas; (e) To use the Common Areas while engaged in making additional improvements,repairs or alterations to the Project,or any portion thereof; and (f) To do and perform such other acts and make such other changes in,to or with respect to the Common Areas and Project as Lessor may, in the exercise of sound business judgment,deem to be appropriate. 3. Term, 3.1 Term. The Commencement Date,Expiration Date and Original Term of this Lease are as specified in Paragraph 1.3. 3,2 Early Possession, If Lessee totally or partially occupies the Premises prior to the Commencement Date,the obligation to pay Base Rent shall be abated for the period of such early possession. All other terms of this Lease(including but not limited to the obligations to pay Lessee's Share of Common Area Operating Expenses,Real Property Taxes and insurance premiums and to maintain the Premises)shall,however,be in effect during such period. Any such early possession shall not affect the Expiration Date. 3.3 Delay In Possession. Lessor agrees to use its best commercially reasonable efforts to deliver possession of the Premises to Lessee by the Commencement Date, If,despite said efforts,Lessor is unable to deliver possession as agreed,Lessor shall not be subject to any liability therefor,nor shall such failure affect the validity of this Lease. Lessee shall not, however, be obligated to pay Rent or perform its other obligations until it receives Initials Page 2 of 12 Initials ©1998-American Industrial Real Estate Association FORM MTG-2-11/98E 143 possession is not delivered within 60 days after the Commencement Date,Lessee may,at Its option,by notice in writing within 10 days after the end of such 60 day period,cancel this Lease,in which event the Partles shall be discharged from all obligations hereunder. If suet written notice is not received by Lessor within said 10 day period,Lessee's right to cancel shall terminate. Except as otherwise provided,if possession is no tendered to Lessee by the Start Date and Lessee does not terminate this Lease,as aforesaid,any period of rent abatement that Lessee would otherwise have enjoyed shall run from the date of delivery of possession and continue for a period equal to what Lessee would otherwise have enjoyed under the terms hereof,but minus any days of delay caused by the acts or omissions of Lessee. If possession of the Premises is not delivered within 4 months after the Commencement Date,this Lease shall terminate unless other agreements are reached between Lessor and Lessee,in writing. 3.4 Lessee Compliance. Lessor shall not be required to tender possession of the Premises to Lessee until Lessee complies with its obligation to provide evidence of insurance(Paragraph 8.5). Pending delivery of such evidence, Lessee shall be required to perform all of its obligations under this Lease from and after the Start Date,including the payment of Rent,notwithstanding Lessor's election to withhold possession pending receipt 01 such evidence of insurance. Further,if Lessee is required to perform any other conditions prior to or concurrent with the Start Date,the Start Date shall occur but Lessor may elect to withhold possession until such conditions are satisfied. 4. Rent. 4.1. Rent Defined. All monetary obligations of Lessee to Lessor under the terms of this Lease(except for the Security Deposit)are deemed to be rent("Rent"). 4.2 Common Area Operating Expenses. Lessee shall pay to Lessor during the term hereof,in addition to the Base Rent,Lessee's Share (as specified in Paragraph 1.6.) of all Common Area Operating Expenses,as hereinafter defined,during each calendar year of the term of this Lease,in accordance with the following provisions: (a) "Common Area Operating Expenses" are defined,for purposes of this Lease,as all costs incurred by Lessor relating to the ownership and operation of the Project,including,but not limited to,the following: (i) The operation,repair and maintenance,in neat,clean,good order and condition,but not the replacement(see subparagraph (e)),of the following; (aa) The Common Areas and Common Area improvements,including parking areas,loading and unloading areas,trash areas, roadways, parkways, walkways, driveways, landscaped areas, bumpers, irrigation systems, Common Area lighting facilities, fences and gates, elevators,roofs,and roof drainage systems. (bb) Exterior signs and any tenant directories. (cc) Any fire sprinkler systems. I () The cost of water, gas, electricity and telephone to service the Common Areas and any utilities not separately metered. (iii) Trash disposal,pest control services,property management,security services,and the costs of any environmental inspections. (iv) Reserves set aside for maintenance and repair of Common Areas. (v) Any increase above the Base Real Property Taxes(as defined in Paragraph 10). (vi) Any"Insurance Cost Increase"(as defined in Paragraph 8). (vii) Any deductible portion of an insured loss concerning the Building or the Common Areas. (viii) The cost of any Capital Expenditure to the Building or the Project not covered under the provisions of Paragraph 2.3 provided;however,that Lessor shall allocate the cost of any such Capital Expenditure over a 12 year period and Lessee shall not be required to pay more than Lessee's Share of 1/144th of the cost of such Capital Expenditure in any given month. (ix) Any other services to be provided by Lessor that are stated elsewhere in this Lease to be a Common Area Operating Expense. (b) Any Common Area Operating Expenses and Real Property Taxes that are specifically attributable to the Unit,the Building or to any other building in the Project or to the operation,repair and maintenance thereof,shall be allocated entirely to such Unit,Building,or other building. However,any Common Area Operating Expenses and Real Property Taxes that are not specifically attributable to the Building or to any other building or to the operation, repair and maintenance thereof,shall be equitably allocated by Lessor to all buildings in the Project. (c) The inclusion of the improvements,facilities and services set forth in Subparagraph 4.2(a)shall not be deemed to impose an obligation upon Lessor to either have said improvements or facilities or to provide those services unless the Project already has the same,Lessor already provides the services,or Lessor has agreed elsewhere in this Lease to provide the same or some of them. (d) Lessee's Share of Common Area Operating Expenses shall be payable by Lessee within 10 days after a reasonably detailed statement of actual expenses is presented to Lessee. At Lessor's option,however,an amount may be estimated by Lessor from time to time of Lessee's Share of annual Common Area Operating Expenses and the same shell be payable monthly or quarterly,as Lessor shall designate,during each 12 month period of the Lease term, on the same day as the Base Rent is due hereunder. Lessor shall deliver to Lessee within 60 days after the expiration of each calendar year a reasonably detailed statement showing Lessee's Share of the actual Common Area Operating Expenses incurred during the preceding year. If Lessee's payments under this Paragraph 4.2(d)during the preceding year exceed Lessee's Share as indicated on such statement,Lessor shall credit the amount of such over-payment against Lessee's Share of Common Area Operating Expenses next becoming due. If Lessee's payments under this Paragraph 4.2(d) during the preceding year were less than Lessee's Share as indicated on such statement,Lessee shall pay to Lessor the amount of the deficiency within 10 days after delivery by Lessor to Lessee of the statement. (e) When a capital,component such as the roof,foundations,exterior walls or a Common Area capital improvement,such as the parking lot paving, elevators, fences, etc. requires replacement, rather than repair or maintenance, Lessor shall, at Lessor's expense, be responsible for such replacement. Such expenses and/or costs are not Common Area Operating Expenses. 4.3 Payment. Lessee shall cause payment of Rent to be received by Lessor in lawful money of the United States,without offset or deduction (except as specifically permitted in this Lease),on or before the day on which it is due. Rent for any period during the term hereof which is for less than one full calendar month shall be prorated based upon the actual number of days of said month. Payment of Rent shall be made to Lessor at its address stated herein or to such other persons or place as Lessor may from time to time designate In writing. Acceptance of a payment which is less than the amount then due shall not be a waiver of Lessor's rights to the balance of such Rent,regardless of Lessor's endorsement of any check so stating. In the event that any check,draft,or other instrument of payment given by Lessee to Lessor Is dishonored for any reason,Lessee agrees to pay to Lessor the sum of$25. 5 Security Deposit. Lessee shall deposit with Lessor upon execution hereof the Security Deposit as security for Lessee's faithful performance of its obligations under this Lease. If Lessee fails to pay Rent,or otherwise Defaults under this Lease,Lessor may use,apply or retain all or any portion of said Security Deposit for the payment of any amount due Lessor or to reimburse or compensate Lessor for any liability,expense,loss or damage which Lessor may suffer or incur by reason thereof. If Lessor uses or applies all or any portion of the Security Deposit,Lessee shall within 10 days after written request therefor deposit monies with Lessor sufficient to restore said Security Deposit to the full amount required by this Lease. If the Base Rent increases during the term of this Lease,Lessee shall, upon written request from Lessor,deposit additional monies with Lessor so that the total amount of the Security Deposit shall at all times bear the same proportion to the increased Base Rent as the initial Security Deposit bore to the initial Base Rent. Should the Agreed Use be amended to accommodate a material change in the business of Lessee or to accommodate a sublessee or assignee,Lessor shall have the right to increase the Security Deposit to the extent necessary,in Lessor's reasonable judgment,to account for any increased wear and tear that the Premises may suffer as a result thereof. If a change in control of Lessee occurs during this Lease and following such change the financial condition of Lessee is, in Lessor's reasonable judgment,significantly reduced,Lessee shall deposit such additional monies with Lessor as shall be sufficient to cause the Security Deposit to be at a commercially reasonable level based on such Change in financial condition. Lessor shall not be required to keep the Security Deposit separate from its • general accounts. Within 14 days after the expiration or termination of this Lease,if Lessor elects to apply the Security Deposit only to unpaid Rent,and otherwise within 30 days after the Premises have been vacated pursuant to Paragraph 7.4(c)below,Lessor shall return that portion of the Security Deposit not used or applied by Lessor. No part of the Security Deposit shall be considered to be held in trust,to bear interest or to be prepayment for any monies to be paid by Lessee under this Lease. 6. Use. 6.1 Use. Lessee shall use and occupy the Premises only for the Agreed Use,or any other legal use which is reasonably comparable thereto, and for no other purpose. Lessee shall not use or permit the use of the Premises in a manner that is unlawful,creates damage,waste or a nuisance,or that disturbs occupants of or causes damage to neighboring premises or properties. Lessor shall not unreasonably withhold or delay its consent to any written request for a modification of the Agreed Use, so long as the same will not impair the structural integrity of the improvements on the Premises or the mechanical or electrical systems therein,and/or is not significantly more burdensome to the Premises. If Lessor elects to withhold consent, Lessor shall within 7 days after such request give written notification of same,which notice shall include an explanation of Lessor's objections to the change in the Agreed Use. 6.2 Hazardous Substances. (a) ease shl men any product, substance,or waste whose presence,use,ms nu actu e,disposal,transportation,orarelease,either by itself or in combination zardous Substance" as used in this Lwith otherlmaterrials expected to Initials Page 3 of 12 Initials ©1998-American Industrial Real Estate Association FORM MTG-2-141/98E ••-�. .c,r purenuariy injunous to the public health,safety or welfare,the environment or the Premises,(ii)regulated or monitored by an: governmental authority,or(iii)a basis for potential liability of Lessor to any governmental agency or third party under any applicable statute or common lax theory. Hazardous Substances shall include, but not be limited to, hydrocarbons, petroleum, gasoline, and/or crude oil or any products, by-products o fractions thereof. Lessee shall not engage In any activity in or on the Premises which constitutes a Reportable Use of Hazardous Substances without the Lessee's expense)with all Applicable installation or or useen ofcany above ort of sor and timely below ground cstorage tankiance ,(ii)the generation, possession, storage, Use, transportation, rrnts. ldi disposal ofll mean a (i)thE Substance that requires a permit from,or with respect to which a report,notice,registration or business plan is required to be filed with,any governments authority,and/or(iii)the presence at the Premises of a Hazardous Substance with respect to which any Applicable Requirements requires that a notice be given to persons entering or occupying the Premises or neighboring properties. Notwithstanding the foregoing,Lessee may use any ordinary and customary materials reasonably required to be used in the normal course of the Agreed Use,so long as such use is in compliance with all Applicable Requirements,is not a Reportable Use,and does not expose the Premises or neighboring property to any meaningful risk of contamination or damage or expose Lessor to any liability therefor. In addition,Lessor may condition its consent to any Reportable Use upon receiving such additional assurances as Lessor reasonably deems necessary to protect itself,the public,the Premises and/or the environment against damage,contamination,injury and/or liability,including,but not limited to, the installation(and removal on or before Lease expiration or termination)of protective modifications(such as concrete encasements)and/or increasing the Security Deposit. (b) Duty to Inform Lessor. If Lessee knows,or has reasonable cause to believe,that a Hazardous Substance has come to be located in,on,under or about the Premises,other than as previously consented to by Lessor, Lessee shall immediately give written notice of such fact to Lessor, and provide Lessor with a copy of any report, notice, claim or other documentation which it has concerning the presence of such Hazardous Substance. (c) Lessee Remedlatton. Lessee shall not cause or permit any Hazardous Substance to be spilled or released in,on,under,or about the Premises(including through the plumbing or sanitary sewer system)and shall promptly,at Lessee's expense,take all investigatory and/or remedial action reasonably recommended,whether or not formally ordered or required,for the cleanup of any contamination of, and for the maintenance,security and/or monitoring of the Premises or neighboring properties, that was caused or materially contributed to by Lessee, or pertaining to or involving any Hazardous Substance brought onto the Premises during the term of this Lease,by or for Lessee,or any third party. (d) Lessee Indemnification. Lessee shall indemnify,defend and hold Lessor,its agents,employees,lenders and ground lessor, if any,harmless from and against any and all loss of rents and/or damages,liabilities,judgments,claims,expenses,penalties,and attorneys'and consultants' fees arising out of or involving any Hazardous'Substance brought onto the Premises by;or for Lessee,•or any third,party(provided,however;that Lessee shall have no liability under this Lease with respect to underground migration of any Hazardous Substance under the Premises from areas outside of the Project). Lessee's obligations shall Include,but not be limited to,the effects of any contamination or injury to person;property or the environment created or suffered by Lessee,and the cost of investigation,removal,remediation,restoration and/or abatement,and shall survive the expiration or termination of this Lease. No termination,cancellation or release agreement entered into by Lessor and Lessee shall release Lessee from its obligations under this Lease with respect to Hazardous Substances,unless specifically so agreed by Lessor in writing at the time of such agreement. (e) Lessor Indemnification. Lessor and its successors and assigns shall indemnify, defend, reimburse and hold Lessee, its employees and lenders, harmless from and against any and all environmental damages, including the cost of remediation, which existed as a result of Hazardous Substances on the Premises prior to the Start Date or which are caused by the gross negligence or willful misconduct of Lessor,its agents or employees. Lessor's obligations,as and when required by the Applicable Requirements,shall include,but not be limited to,the cost of investigation,removal, remediation,restoration and/or abatement,and shall survive the expiration or termination of this Lease. (f) Investigations and Remediatlons. Lessor shall retain the responsibility and pay for any investigations or remediation measures required by governmental entities having jurisdiction with respect to the existence of Hazardous Substances on the Premises prior to the Start Date,unless such remediation measure is required as a result of Lessee's use(including"Alterations",as defined in paragraph 7.3(a)below)of the Premises, in which event Lessee shall be responsible for such payment. Lessee shall cooperate fully in any such activities at the request of Lessor,including allowing Lessor and Lessor's agents to have reasonable access to the Premises at reasonable times in order tq carry out Lessor's investigative and rerriedial responsibilities. ) Lease,unless Lessee is legallye esponsib eithereforOption.(in whichlcase Lessee shalla Hazardousbmake the stance in estigation andragraph remediation thereof required by the9.1(e)) occurs during theAppof this licable Requirements and this Lease shall continue in full force and effect,but subject to Lessor's rights under Paragraph 6.2(d)and Paragraph 13),Lessor may,at Lessor's option,either(i)investigate and remediate such Hazardous Substance Condition,if required,as soon as reasonably possible at Lessor's expense,in which event this Lease shall continue in full force and effect,or(ii)if the estimated cost to remediate such condition exceeds 12 times the then monthly Base Rent or$100,000, whichever is greater, give written notice to Lessee, within 30 days after receipt by Lessor of knowledge of the occurrence of such Hazardous Substance Condition,of Lessor's desire to terminate this Lease as of the date 60 days following the date of such notice. In the event Lessor elects to give a termination notice,Lessee may,within 10 days thereafter,give written notice to Lessor of Lessee's commitment to pay the amount by which the cost of the remediation of such Hazardous Substance Condition exceeds an amount equal to 12 times the then monthly Base Rent or$100,000, whichever is greater. Lessee shall provide Lessor with said funds or satisfactory assurance thereof within 30 days following such commitment. In such event,this Lease shall continue in full force and effect,and Lessor shall proceed to make such remediation as soon as reasonably possible after the required funds are available, If Lessee does not give such notice and provide the required funds or assurance thereof within the time provided, this Lease shall terminate as of the date specified in Lessor's notice'of termination. 6.3 Lessee's Compliance with Applicable Requirements. Except as otherwise provided in this Lease, Lessee shall, at Lessee's sole expense, fully, diligently and in a timely manner, materially comply with all Applicable Requirements, the requirements of any applicable fire insurance underwriter or rating bureau,and the recommendations of Lessor's engineers and/or consultants which relate in any manner to the Premises,without regard to whether said requirements are now in effect or become effective after the Start Date. Lessee shall,within 10 days after receipt of Lessor's written request, provide Lessor with copies of all permits and other documents, and other information evidencing Lessee's compliance with any Applicable Requirements specified by Lessor,and shall immediately upon receipt,notify Lessor in writing(with copies of any documents Involved)of any threatened or actual claim, notice,citation,warning,complaint or report pertaining to or involving the failure of Lessee or the Premises to comply with any Applicable Requirements. 6.4 Inspection;Compliance. Lessor and Lessor's"Lender"(as defined in Paragraph 30)and consultants shall have the right to enter into Premises at any time,in the case of an emergency,and otherwise at reasonable times,for the purpose of inspecting the condition of the Premises and for verifying compliance by Lessee with this Lease. The cost of any such inspections shall be paid by Lessor,unless a violation of Applicable Requirements,or a contamination is found to exist or be imminent, or the inspection is requested or ordered by a governmental authority. In such case, Lessee shall upon request reimburse Lessor for the cost of such inspection,so long as such inspection is reasonably related to the violation or contamination. 7. Maintenance;Repairs;Utility Installations;Trade Fixtures and Alterations. 7.1 Lessee's Obligations. (a) In General. Subject to the provisions of Paragraph 2.2(Condition), 2.3(Compliance),6.3(Lessee's Compliance with Applicable Requirements),7.2(Lessor's Obligations),9(Damage or Destruction),and 14(Condemnation),Lessee shall,at Lessee's sole expense,keep the Premises, Utility Installations(intended for Lessee's exclusive use, no matter where located),and Alterations in good order, condition and repair(whether or not the portion of the Premises requiring repairs,or the means of repairing the same,are reasonably or readily accessible to Lessee,and whether or not the need for such repairs occurs as a result of Lessee's use,any prior use,the elements or the age of such portion of the Premises), including,but not limited to, all equipment or facilities,such as plumbing,HVAC equipment,electrical,lighting facilities,boilers,pressure vessels,fixtures,interior walls,interior surfaces of exterior walls,ceilings,floors,windows,doors,plate glass,and skylights but excluding any items which are the responsibility of Lessor pursuant to Paragraph 7.2. Lessee,in keeping the Premises in good order,,condition and repair,shall exercise and perform good maintenance practices,specifically including the procurement and maintenance of the service contracts required by Paragraph 7.1(b)below,Lessee's obligations shall include restorations,replacements or renewals when necessary to keep the Premises and all improvements thereon or a part thereof in good order,condition and state of repair. (b)Service Contracts. Lessee shall,at Lessee's sole expense,procure and maintain contracts,with copies to Lessor,in customary form and substance for,and with contractors specializing and experienced in the maintenance of the following equipment and improvements,if any,if and when installed on the Premises: (i)HVAC equipment,(ii)boiler and pressure vessels,(iii)clarifiers,and(iv)any other equipment,if reasonably required by Lessor. However,Lessor reserves the right,upon notice to Lessee,to procure and maintain any or all of such service contracts,and if Lessor so elects, Lessee shall reimburse Lessor,upon demand,for the cost thereof. (c)Failure to Perform. If Lessee fails to perform Lessee's obligations under this Paragraph 7.1,Lessor may enter upon the Premises after 10 days'prior written notice to Lessee(except in the case of an emergency,in which case no notice shall be required), perform such obligations on Lessee's behalf,and put the Premises in good order,condition and repair,and Lessee shall promptly reimburse Lessor for the cost thereof. (d)Replacement. Subject to Lessee's indemnification of Lessor as set forth In Paragraph 8.7 below,and without relieving Lessee of liability resulting from Lessee's failure to exercise and perform good maintenance practices,if an item described in Paragraph 7.1(b)cannot be repaired other than at a cost which is in excess of 50%of the cost of replacing such item,then such item shall be replaced by Lessor,and the cost thereof shall be prorated between the Parties and Lessee shall only be obligated to pay,each month during the remainder of the term of this Lease,on the date on which Base Rent is due,an amount equal to the product of multiplying the cost of such replacement by a fraction,the numerator of which is one,and the denominator of which is Initials Initials Page 4 of 12 ©1998-American Industrial Real Estate Association FORM MTG-2rag/98E .-,-,,.. .�.eul u,vie cost per month). Lessee shall pay interest on the unamortized balance at a rate that is commercially reasonable in the judgment of Lessor's accountants. Lessee may,however,prepay its obligation at any time. 7.2 Lessor's Obligations. Subject to the provisions of Paragraphs 2.2 (Condition), 2.3 (Compliance), 4.2 (Common Area Operating Expenses),6(Use),7.1(Lessee's Obligations),9(Damage or Destruction)and 14(Condemnation),Lessor,subject to reimbursement pursuant to Paragraph 4.2, shall keep in good order, condition and repair the foundations, exterior walls,structural condition of interior bearing walls,exterior roof,fire sprinkler system,Common Area fire alarm and/or smoke detection systems,fire hydrants,parking lots,walkways,parkways,driveways, landscaping,fences,signs and utility systems serving the Common Areas and all parts thereof,as well as providing the services for which there is a Common Area Operating Expense pursuant to Paragraph 4.2. Lessor shall not be obligated to paint the exterior or interior surfaces of exterior walls nor shall Lessor be obligated to maintain, repair or replace windows,doors or plate glass of the Premises. Lessee expressly waives the benefit of any statute now or hereafter in effect to the extent it is inconsistent with the terms of this Lease. 7.3 Utility Installations;Trade Fixtures;Alterations. (a)Definitions. The term"Utility Installations"refers to all floor and window coverings, air lines, power panels,electrical distribution, security and fire protection systems,communication systems, lighting fixtures,HVAC equipment,plumbing, and fencing in or on the Premises. The term "Trade Fixtures" shall mean Lessee's machinery and equipment that can be removed without doing material damage to the Premises. The term "Alterations"shall mean any modification of the Improvements,other than Utility Installations or Trade Fixtures,whether by addition or deletion. "Lessee Owned Alterations and/or Utility Installations"are defined as Alterations and/or Utility Installations made by Lessee that are not yet owned by Lessor pursuant to Paragraph 7.4(a). (b)Consent. Lessee shall not make any Alterations or Utility Installations to the Premises without Lessor's prior written consent. Lessee may,however,make non-structural Utility Installations to the interior of the Premises(excluding the roof)without such consent but upon notice to Lessor,as long as they are not visible from the outside,do not involve puncturing,relocating or removing the roof or any existing walls,and the cumulative cost thereof during this Lease as extended does not exceed a sum equal to 3 month's Base Rent in the aggregate or a sum equal to one month's Base Rent in any one year. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Lessee shall not make or permit any roof penetrations and/or install anything on the roof without the prior written approval of Lessor. Lessor may,as a precondition to granting such approval,require Lessee to utilize a contractor chosen and/or approved by Lessor. Any Alterations or Utility Installations that Lessee shall desire to make and which require the consent of the Lessor shall be presented to Lessor in written form with detailed plans. Consent shall be deemed conditioned upon Lessee's: (i)acquiring all applicable governmental permits,(ii)furnishing Lessor with copies of both the permits and the plans and specifications prior to commencement of the work,and(iii)compliance with all conditions of said permits and other Applicable Requirements In a prompt and expeditious manner.-Any Alterations or Utility Installations shall be-performed in a workmanlike manner with good and sufficient materials. Lessee shall promptly upon completion fumish Lcssor'with as-built plans and specifications. For work Which dosts an amount in excess of one month's Base Rent,Lessor may ciFAltion Its consent upon Lessee providing a lien and completion bond in an amount equal to 150%of the estimated cost of such Alteration or Utility Installation and/or upon Lessee's posting an additional Security Deposit with Lessor. (c)Indemnification. Lessee shall pay,when due,all claims for labor or materials furnished or alleged to have been furnished to or for Lessee at or for use on the Premises,which claims are or may be secured by any mechanic's or materialmen's lien against the Premises or any interest therein. Lessee shall give Lessor not less than 10 days notice prior to the commencement of any work in,on or about the Premises,and Lessor shall have the right to post notices of non-responsibility. If Lessee shall contest the validity of any such lien,claim or demand,then Lessee shall,at its sole expense defend and protect itself,Lessor and the Premises against the same and shall pay and satisfy any such adverse judgment that may be rendered thereon before the enforcement thereof. If Lessor shall require,Lessee shall furnish a surety bond in an amount equal to 150%of the amount of such contested lien, claim or demand,indemnifying Lessor against liability for the same. If Lessor elects to participate in any such action,Lessee shall pay Lessor's attorneys' fees and costs. 7.4 Ownership;Removal;Surrender;and Restoration. (a) Ownership. Subject to Lessor's right to require removal or elect ownership as hereinafter provided, all Alterations and Utility Installations made by Lessee shall be the property of Lessee,but considered a part of the Premises. Lessor may,at any time,elect in writing to be the owner of all or any specified part of the Lessee Owned Alterations and Utility Installations. Unless otherwise instructed per paragraph 7.4(b)hereof,all Lessee Owned Alterations and Utility Installations shall,at the expiration or termination of this Lease,become the property of Lessor and be surrendered by Lessee with the Premises. (b)Removal, By delivery to Lessee of written notice from Lessor not earlier than 90 and not later than 30 days prior to the end of the term of this Lease,Lessor may require that any or all Lessee Owned Alterations or Utility Installations be removed by the expiration or termination of this Lease. Lessor may require the removal at any time of all or any part of any Lessee Owned Alterations or Utility Installations made without the required consent. (c)Surrender;Restoration. Lessee shall surrender the Premises by the Expiration Date or any earlier termination date,with all of the improvements,parts and surfaces thereof broom clean and free of debris,and in good operating order,condition and state of repair,ordinary wear and tear excepted. "Ordinary wear and tear" shall not include any damage or deterioration that would have been prevented by good maintenance practice. Notwithstanding the foregoing,if this Lease is for 12 months or less,then Lessee shall surrender the Premises In the same condition as delivered to Lessee on the Start Date with NO allowance for ordinary wear and tear. Lessee shall repair any damage occasioned by the installation,maintenance or removal of Trade Fixtures,Lessee owned Alterations and/or Utility Installations,furnishings,and equipment as well as the removal of any storage tank installed by or for Lessee. Lessee shall also completely remove from the Premises any and all Hazardous Substances brought onto the Premises by or for Lessee,or any third party(except Hazardous Substances which were deposited via underground migration from areas outside of the Project)even if such removal would require Lessee to perform or pay for work that exceeds statutory requirements. Trade Fixtures shall remain the property of Lessee and shall be removed by Lessee. The failure by Lessee to timely vacate the Premises pursuant to this Paragraph 7.4(c)without the express written consent of Lessor shall constitute a holdover under the provisions of Paragraph 26 below. 8. Insurance;Indemnity. 8.1 Payment of Premium Increases. (a) As used herein,the term"Insurance Cost Increase"is defined as any increase in the actual cost of the insurance applicable to the Building and/or the Project and required to be carried by Lessor,pursuant to Paragraphs 8.2(b),8.3(a)and 8.3(b),("Required Insurance"),over and above the Base Premium,as hereinafter defined,calculated on an annual basis. Insurance Cost Increase shall include,but not be limited to,requirements of the holder of a mortgage or deed of trust covering the Premises,Building and/or Project,increased valuation of the Premises,Building and/or Project,and/or a general premium rate increase. The term Insurance Cost Increase shall not, however, include any premium increases resulting from the nature of the occupancy of any other tenant of the Building. If the parties insert a dollar amount in Paragraph 1.9,such amount shall be considered the"Base Premium." The Base Premium shall be the annual premium applicable to the 12 month period immediately preceding the Start Date. If,however,the Project was not insured for the entirety of such 12 month period, then the Base Premium shall be the lowest annual premium reasonably obtainable for the Required Insurance as of the Start Date,assuming the most nominal use possible of the Building. In no event,however,shall Lessee be responsible for any portion of the premium cost attributable to liability insurance coverage in excess of$2,000,000 procured under Paragraph 8.2(b). prior to,or extending beyond,the shallsee pay to Paragraph 4.2.term of this shall be prorated to coincide with the corresponding rpond ng Start Date or Expiration Dateicy periods commencing 8.2 Liability Insurance. (a)Carried by Lessee. Lessee shall obtain and keep in force a Commercial General Liability policy of insurance protecting Lessee and Lessor as an additional insured against claims for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage based upon or arising out of the ownership, use, occupancy or maintenance of the Premises and all areas appurtenant thereto. Such insurance shall be on an occurrence basis providing single limit coverage in an amount not less than$1,000,000 per occurrence with an annual aggregate of not less than$2,000,000,an"Additional Insured-Managers or Lessors of Premises Endorsement"and contain the"Amendment of the Pollution Exclusion Endorsement"for damage caused by heat,smoke or fumes from a hostile fire. The policy shall not contain any intra-insured exclusions as between insured persons or organizations,but shall include coverage for liability assumed under this Lease as an"Insured contract"for the performance of Lessee's indemnity obligations under this Lease. The limits of said insurance shall not,however,limit the liability of Lessee nor relieve Lessee of any obligation hereunder. All insurance carried by Lessee shall be primary to and not contributory with any similar insurance carried by Lessor,whose insurance shall be considered excess insurance only. (b)Carried by Lessor. Lessor shall maintain liability insurance as described in Paragraph 8.2(a),in addition to,and not in lieu of,the insurance required to be maintained by Lessee. Lessee shall not be named as an additional insured therein. 8.3 Property Insurance-Building,Improvements and Rental Value. (a)Building and Improvements. Lessor shall obtain and keep in force a policy or policies of insurance in the name of Lessor,with loss payable to Lessor,any ground-lessor,and to any Lender insuring loss or damage to the Premises. The amount of such insurance shall be equal to the full replacement cost of the Premises, as the same shall exist from time to time, or the amount required by any Lender, but in no event more than the commercially reasonable and available insurable value thereof. Lessee Owned Alterations and Utility Installations,Trade Fixtures,and Lessee's personal property shall be insured by Lessee under Paragraph 8.4. If the coverage is available and commercially appropriate, such policy or policies shall insure against all risks of direct physical loss or damage(except the perils of flood and/or earthquake unless required by a Lender),including coverage for debris removal and the enforcement of any Applicable Requirements requiring the upgrading, demolition, reconstruction or replacement of any portion of the Initials Page 5 of 12 Initials ©1998-American Industrial Real Estate Association FORM MTG-21-11/98E o.iiie result or a covered loss. Said policy or policies shall also contain an agreed valuation provision In lieu of any coinsurance clause,waiver of subrogation,and Inflation guard protection causing an increase in the annual property insurance coverage amount by a factor of not less than the adjusted US.Department Of Labor Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers for the city nearest to where the Premises are located, If such insurance coverage has a deductible clause,the deductible amount shall not exceed$1,000 per occurrence. (b)Rental Value. Lessor shall also obtain and keep in force a policy or policies in the name of Lessor with loss payable to Lessor and any Lender,insuring the loss of the full Rent for one year with an extended period of indemnity for an additional 180 days("Rental Value insurance"). Said insurance shall contain an agreed valuation provision in lieu of any coinsurance clause,and the amount of coverage shall be adjusted annually to reflect the projected Rent otherwise payable by Lessee,for the next 12 month period. (c) A acent Common Areas or othe buildings the Premises.P Project if said inc ease is caused by Lessee's acts,omissions,use or ccupancy of the Premise Building and for the (d)Lessee's Improvements, Since Lessor is the Insuring Party,Lessor shall not be required to insure Lessee Owned Alterations and Utility Installations unless the item in question has become the property of Lessor under the terms of this Lease. 8.4 Lessee's Property;Business Interruption Insurance. (a)Property Damage. Lessee shall obtain and maintain insurance coverage on all of Lessee's personal property,Trade Fixtures,and Lessee Owned Alterations and Utility Installations. Such insurance shall be full replacement cost coverage with a deductible of not to exceed$1,000 per occurrence. The proceeds from any such insurance shall be used by Lessee for the replacement of personal property,Trade Fixtures and Lessee Owned Alterations and Utility Installations. Lessee shall provide Lessor with written evidence that such Insurance Is in force. (b)Business Interruption. Lessee shall obtain and maintain loss of income and extra expense insurance in amounts as will reimburse Lessee for direct or indirect loss of earnings attributable to at perils commonly insured against by prudent lessees in the business of Lessee or attributable to prevention of access to the Premises as a result of such perils. (c) No Representation of Adequate Coverage. Lessor makes no representation that the limits or forms of coverage of insurance specified herein are adequate to cover Lessee's property,business operations or obligations under this Lease. 8.5 Insurance Policies. Insurance required herein shall be by companies duly licensed or admitted to transact business in the state where the Premises are located,and maintaining during the policy term a"General Policyholders Rating"of at least B+,V,as set forth in the most current issue of "Best's Insurance Guide",or such other rating as may be required by a Lender. Lessee shall not do or permit to be done anything which invalidates the required insurance policies. Lessee shall,prior to the Start Date,deliver to Lessor certified copies of policies of such insurance or certificates evidencing the existence and amounts of the required insurance. No such policy shall be'cancetable or subject to-modification except after 30 days prior written notice to Lessor. Lessee shall,at least 30 days prior to the expiration of such policies,furnish Lessor with evidence of renewals or"insurance binders"evidencing renewal thereof,or Lessor may order such insurance and charge the cost'thereof to Lessee,'whlch amount shall be payable by Lessee to Lessor upon demand. Such policies shall be for a term of at least one year,or the length of the remaining term of this Lease,whichever is less. If either Party shall fail to procure and maintain the insurance required to be carried by it,the other Party may,but shall not be required to,procure and maintain the same. 8.6 Waiver of Subrogation. Without affecting any other rights or remedies,Lessee and Lessor each hereby release and relieve the other, and waive their entire right to recover damages against the other,for loss of or damage to its property arising out of or incident to the perils required to be insured against herein, The effect of such releases and waivers is not limited by the amount of insurance carried or required,or by any deductibles applicable hereto. The Parties agree to have their respective property damage insurance carriers waive any right to subrogation that such companies may have against Lessor or Lessee,as the case may be,so long as the insurance is not invalidated thereby. 8.7 Indemnity. Except for Lessor's gross negligence or willful misconduct,Lessee shall indemnify,protect,defend and hold harmless the Premises,Lessor and its agents,Lessor's master or ground lessor,partners and Lenders,from and against any and all claims,loss of rents and/or damages, liens,judgments, penalties, attorneys' and consultants'fees, expenses and/or liabilities arising out of, involving, or in connection with, the use and/or occupancy of the Premises by Lessee. If any action or proceeding is brought against Lessor by reason of any of the foregoing matters,Lessee shall upon notice defend the same at Lessee's expense by counsel reasonably satisfactory to Lessor and Lessor shall cooperate with Lessee in such defense. Lessor need not have first paid any such claim in order to be defended or indemnified. 8.8 Exemption of Lessor from Liability. Lessor shall not be liable for injury or damage to the person or goods,wares,merchandise or other property of Lessee,Lessee's employees,contractors,invitees,customers,or any other person in or about the Premises,whether such damage or injury is caused by or results from fire,steam,electricity,gas,water or rain,or from the breakage, leakage,obstruction or other defects of pipes,fire sprinklers, wires,appliances,plumbing,HVAC or lighting fixtures,or from any other cause,whether the said injury or damage results from conditions arising upon the Premises or upon other portions of the Building,or from other sources or places. Lessor shall not be liable for any damages arising from any act or neglect of any other tenant of Lessor nor from the failure of Lessor to enforce the provisions of any other lease in the Project.Notwithstanding Lessor's negligence or breach of this Lease,Lessor shall under no circumstances be liable for injury to Lessee's business or for any loss of Income or profit therefrom. 9. Damage or Destruction. 9.1 Definitions. (a)"Premises Partial Damage"shall mean damage or destruction to the improvements on the Premises,other than Lessee Owned Alterations and Utility Installations,which can reasonably be repaired in 3 months or less from the date of the damage or destruction,and the cost thereof does not exceed a sum equal to 6 month's Base Rent. Lessor shall notify Lessee in writing within 30 days from the date of the damage or destruction as to whether or not the damage is Partial or Total. (b)"Premises.Total Destruction"shall mean damage or destruction to the improvements on the Premises,other than Lessee Owned Alterations and Utility Installations and Trade Fixtures,which cannot reasonably be repaired in 3 months or less from the date of the damage or destruction and/or the cost thereof exceeds a sum equal to 6 month's Base Rent. Lessor shall notify Lessee in writing within 30 days from the date of the damage or destruction as to whether or not the damage is Partial or Total. (c)"Insured Loss"shall mean damage or destruction to Improvements on the Premises,other than Lessee Owned Alterations and Utility Installations and Trade Fixtures,which was caused by an event required to be covered by the insurance described in Paragraph 8.3(a),irrespective of any deductible amounts or coverage limits involved. (d)"Replacement Cost"shall mean the cost to repair or rebuild the improvements owned by Lessor at the time of the occurrence to their condition existing immediately prior thereto,Including demolition,debris removal and upgrading required by the operation of Applicable Requirements,and without deduction for depreciation. (e) "Hazardous Substance Condition" shall mean the occurrence or discovery of a condition involving the presence of, or a contamination by,a Hazardous Substance as defined in Paragraph 6.2(a),in,on,or under the Premises. 9.2 Partial Damage-Insured Loss. If a Premises Partial Damage that is an Insured Loss occurs,then Lessor shall,at Lessor's expense, repair such damage(but not Lessee's Trade Fixtures or Lessee Owned Alterations and Utility Installations)as soon as reasonably possible and this Lease shall continue in full force and effect;provided,however,that Lessee shall,at Lessor's election,make the repair of any damage or destruction the total cost to repair of which is$5,000 or less,and,in such event,Lessor shall make any applicable Insurance proceeds available to Lessee on a reasonable basis for that purpose. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the required insurance was not in force or the insurance proceeds are not sufficient to effect such repair,the Insuring Party shall promptly contribute the shortage in proceeds as and when required to complete said repairs. In the event,however,such shortage was due to the fact that,by reason of the unique nature of the improvements,full replacement cost insurance coverage was not commercially reasonable and available,Lessor shall have no obligation to pay for the shortage in insurance proceeds or to fully restore the unique aspects of the Premises unless Lessee provides Lessor with the funds to cover same,or adequate assurance thereof,within 10 days following receipt of written notice of such shortage and request therefor. If Lessor receives said funds or adequate'assurance thereof within said 10 day period,the party responsible for making the repairs shall complete them as soon as reasonably possible and this Lease shall remain in full force and effect. If such funds or assurance are not received, Lessor may nevertheless elect by written notice to Lessee within 10 days thereafter to: (i)make such restoration and repair as is commercially reasonable with Lessor paying any shortage in proceeds,in which case this Lease shall remain in full force and effect,or(ii)have this Lease terminate 30 days thereafter. Lessee shall not be entitled to reimbursement of any funds contributed by Lessee to repair any such damage or destruction, Premises Partial Damage due to flood or earthquake shall be subject to Paragraph 9.3,notwithstanding that there may be some insurance coverage,but the net proceeds of any such insurance shall be made available for the repairs if made by either Party. 9.3 Partial Damage-Uninsured Loss. If a Premises Partial Damage that is not an Insured Loss occurs,unless caused by a negligent or willful act of Lessee(in which event Lessee shall make the repairs at Lessee's expense),Lessor may either: (i)repair such damage as soon as reasonably possible at Lessor's expense,in which event this Lease shall continue in full force and effect,or(1i)terminate this Lease by giving written notice to Lessee within 30 days after receipt by Lessor of knowledge of the occurrence of such damage. Such termination shall be effective 60 days following the date of such notice. In the event Lessor elects to terminate this Lease,Lessee shall have the right within 10 days after receipt of the termination notice to give written notice to Lessor of Lessee's commitment to pay for the repair of such damage without reimbursement from Lessor. Lessee shall provide Lessor with said funds or satisfactory assurance thereof within 30 days after making such commitment, In such event this Lease shall continue in full force and effect,and Lessor shall proceed to make such repairs as soon as reasonably possible after the required funds are available. If Lessee does not make the required commitment,this Lease shall terminate as of the date specified in the termination notice. 9.4 Total Destruction. Notwithstanding any other provision hereof,if a Premises Total Destruction occurs,this Lease shall terminate 60 Initials Page 6 of 12 Initials ©1998-American Industrial Real Estate Association FORM MTG•2rV/98E ••.sue v,vuouuuiwn was causea oy the gross negligence or willful misconduct of Lessee,Lessor shall have the right to recover Lessor's damages from Lessee,except as provided in Paragraph 8.6. 9.5 Damage Near End of Term. If at any time during the last 6 Months Of this Lease there is damage for which the cost to repair exceeds one month's Base Rent,whether or not an Insured Loss,Lessor may terminate this Lease effective 60 days following the date of occurrence of such damage by giving a written termination notice to Lessee within 30 days after the date of occurrence of such damage. Notwithstanding the foregoing,if Lessee at that time has an exercisable option to extend this Lease or to purchase the Premises,then Lessee may preserve this Lease by,(a)exercising such option and(b) providing Lessor with any shortage in insurance proceeds(or adequate assurance thereof)needed to make the repairs on or before the earlier of(I)the date which is 10 days after Lessee's receipt of Lessor's written notice purporting to terminate this Lease,or(ii)the day prior to the date upon which such option expires. If Lessee duly exercises such option during such period and provides Lessor with funds(or adequate assurance thereof)to cover any shortage in insurance proceeds,Lessor shall,at Lessor's commercially reasonable expense,repair such damage as soon as reasonably possible and this Lease shall continue in full force and effect, If Lessee fails to exercise such option and provide such funds or assurance during such period,then this Lease shall terminate on the date specified in the termination notice and Lessee's option shall be extinguished. 9.6 Abatement of Rent;Lessee's Remedies. (a)Abatement. In the event of Premises Partial Damage or Premises Total Destruction or a Hazardous Substance Condition for which Lessee is not responsible under this Lease,the Rent payable by Lessee for the period required for the repair,remediation or restoration of such damage shall be abated in proportion to the degree to which Lessee's use of the Premises is impaired, but not to exceed the proceeds received from the Rental Value insurance. All other obligations of Lessee hereunder shall be performed by Lessee,and Lessor shall have no liability for any such damage,destruction, remediation,repair or restoration except as provided herein. (b)Remedies. If Lessor shall be obligated to repair or restore the Premises and does not commence,in a substantial and meaningful way, such repair or restoration within 90 days after such obligation shall accrue, Lessee may, at any time prior to the commencement of such repair or restoration,give written notice to Lessor and to any Lenders of which Lessee has actual notice,of Lessee's election to terminate this Lease on a date not less than 60 days following the giving of such notice. If Lessee gives such notice and such repair or restoration is not commenced within 30 days thereafter,this Lease shall terminate as of the date specified in said notice. If the repair or restoration is commenced within such 30 days,this Lease shall continue in full force and effect. "Commence"shall mean eitherthe unconditional authorization of the preparation of the required plans,or the beginning of the actual work on the Premises,whichever first occurs. 9.7 Termination; Advance Payments. Upon termination of this Lease pursuant to Paragraph 6.2(g) or Paragraph 9, an equitable adjustment shall be made concerning advance Base Rent and any other advance payments made by Lessee to Lessor. Lessor shall,in addition,return to Lessee so much of Lessee's Security Deposit as has not been,or is not then required to be,used by Lessor. 9.8 Waive Statutes. Lessor and Lessee agree that the terms of this Lease shall govern the effect of any damage.to or destruction of the Premises with respect to the termination of this Lease and hereby waive the provisions of any present or future statute to the extent inconsistent herewith. 10. Real Property Taxes. 10.1 Definitions. (a)"Real Property Taxes." As used herein,the term"Real Property Taxes"shall include any form of assessment;real estate,general, special, ordinary or extraordinary, or rental levy or tax(other than inheritance, personal income or estate taxes); improvement bond; and/or license fee imposed upon or levied against any legal or equitable interest of Lessor in the Project,Lessor's right to other income therefrom,and/or Lessor's business of leasing,by any authority having the direct or Indirect power to tax and where the funds are generated with reference to the Project address and where the proceeds so generated are to be applied by the city,county or other local taxing authority of a jurisdiction within which the Project is located. The term"Real Property Taxes"shall also include any tax,fee,levy,assessment or charge,or any increase therein,imposed by reason of events occurring during the term of this Lease,including"Base Real Poperty Taxes." As used herein,but not limited to,a change in the ownership of the Project or any portion thereof or a change in the improvements thereon. he term ase Real Property Taxes"shall roerty Taxes, which are assessed(b) against the Premises,Building,Project or Common tAreas inthe calendar year during which the bLease is executed. IIne the amount of Real ealculating-Real Property Taxes for any calendar year,the Real Property Taxes for any real estate tax year shall be included in the calculation of Real Property Taxes for such calendar year based upon the number of days which such calendar year and tax year have in common. 10.2 Payment of Taxes. Lessor shall pay the Real Property Taxes applicable to the Project,and except as otherwise provided in Paragraph 10.3, any increases in such amounts over the Base Real Property Taxes shall be included in the calculation of Common Area Operating Expenses in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 4.2. 10.3 Additional Improvements. Common Area Operating Expenses shall not include Real Property Taxes specified in the tax assessor's records and work sheets as being caused by additional improvements placed upon the Project by other lessees or by Lessor for the exclusive enjoyment of such other lessees. Notwithstanding Paragraph 10.2 hereof, Lessee shall, however, pay to Lessor at the time Common Area Operating Expenses are payable under Paragraph 4.2, the entirety of any increase in Real Property Taxes if assessed solely by reason of Alterations, Trade Fixtures or Utility Installations placed upon the Premises by Lessee or at Lessee's request. 10.4 Joint Assessment. If the Building is not separately assessed, Real Property Taxes allocated to the Building shall be an equitable proportion of the Real Property Taxes for all of the land and improvements included within the tax parcel assessed,such proportion to be determined by Lessor from the respective valuations assigned in the assessor's work sheets or such other information as may be reasonably available. Lessor's reasonable determination thereof,in good faith,shall be conclusive. 10.5 Personal Property Taxes. Lessee shall pay prior to delinquency all taxes assessed against and levied upon Lessee Owned Alterations and Utility Installations,Trade Fixtures,furnishings,equipment and all personal property of Lessee contained in the Premises. When possible,Lessee shall cause its Lessee Owned Alterations and Utility Installations,Trade Fixtures,furnishings,equipment and all other personal property to be assessed and billed separately from the real property of Lessor. If any of Lessee's said property shall be assessed with Lessor's real property,Lessee shall pay Lessor the taxes attributable to Lessee's property within 10 days after receipt of a written statement setting forth the taxes applicable to Lessee's property. 11. Utilities. Lessee shall pay for all water,gas,heat,light,power,telephone,trash disposal and other utilities and services supplied to the Premises, together with any taxes thereon. Notwithstanding the provisions of Paragraph 4.2,if at any time in Lessor's sole judgment,Lessor determines that Lessee is using a disproportionate amount of water, electricity or other commonly metered utilities,or that Lessee Is generating such a large volume of trash as to require an increase in the size of the dumpster and/or an Increase in the number of times per month that the dumpster is emptied,then Lessor may increase Lessee's Base Rent by an amount equal to such increased costs, 12. Assignment and Subletting. 12.1 Lessor's Consent Required. (a)Lessee shall not voluntarily or by operation of law assign,transfer,mortgage or encumber(collectively,"assign or assignment")or sublet all or any part of Lessee's interest in this Lease or in the Premises without Lessor's prior written consent. (b)A change in the control of Lessee shall constitute an assignment requiring consent. The transfer,on a cumulative basis,of 25%or more of the voting control of Lessee shall constitute a change in control for this purpose. (c)The involvement of Lessee or its assets in any transaction,or series of transactions(by way of merger,sale,acquisition,financing, transfer,leveraged buy-out or otherwise),whether or not a formal assignment or hypothecation of this Lease or Lessee's assets occurs,which results or will result in a reduction of the Net Worth of Lessee by an amount greater than 25%of such Net Worth as it was represented at the time of the execution of this Lease or at the time of the most recent assignment to which Lessor has consented, or as it exists immediately prior to said transaction or transactions constituting such reduction,whichever was or is greater,shall be considered an assignment of this Lease to which Lessor may withhold its consent. "Net Worth of Lessee"shall mean the net worth of Lessee(excluding any guarantors)established under generally accepted accounting principles. (d)An assignment or subletting without consent shall,at Lessor's option,be a Default curable after notice per Paragraph 13.1(c),or a noncurable Breach without the necessity of any notice and grace period. If Lessor elects to treat such unapproved assignment or subletting as a noncurable Breach,Lessor may either:(i)terminate this Lease,or(ii)upon 30 days written notice,increase the monthly Base Rent to 110%of the Base Rent then in effect. Further,in the event of such Breach and rental adjustment,(i)the purchase price of any option to purchase the Premises held by Lessee shall be subject to similar adjustment to 110%of the price previously in effect,and(li)all fixed and non-fixed rental adjustments scheduled during the remainder of the Lease term shall be increased to 110%of the scheduled adjusted rent. (e)Lessee's remedy for any breach of Paragraph 12.1 by Lessor shall be limited to compensatory damages and/or injunctive relief. 12.2 Terms and Conditions Applicable to Assignment and Subletting. (a)Regardless of Lessor's consent,any assignment or subletting shall not: (i)be effective without the express written assumption by such assignee or sublessee of the obligations of Lessee under this Lease,(ii)release Lessee of any obligations hereunder,or(iii)alter the primary liability of Lessee for the payment of Rent or for the performance of any other obligations to be performed by Lessee. (b)Lessor may accept Rent or performance of Lessee's obligations from any person other than Lessee pending approval or disapproval of an assignment. Neither a delay in the approval or disapproval of such assignment nor the acceptance of Rent or performance shall constitute a waiver or estoppel of Lessor's right to exercise its remedies for Lessee's Default or Breach, Initials Page 7 of 12 Initials ©1998-American Industrial Real Estate Association FORM MTG-2-11/98E 148 a��y err or subletting shall not constitute a consent to any subsequent assignment or subletting. (d) In the event of any Default or Breach by Lessee, Lessor may proceed directly against Lessee, any Guarantors or anyone else _ responsible for the performance of Lessee's obligations under this Lease,including any assignee or sublessee,without first exhausting Lessor's remedie: against any other person or entity responsible therefore to Lessor,or any security held by Lessor. (e) Each request for consent to an assignment or subletting shall be in writing, accompanied by information relevant to Lessor's determination as to the financial and operational responsibility and appropriateness of the proposed assignee or sublessee, including but not limited to tht intended use and/or required modification of the Premises,if any,together with a fee of$1,000 or 10%of the current monthly Base Rent applicable to the portion of the Premises which is the subject of the proposed assignment or sublease,whichever is greater,as consideration for Lessor's considering anc processing said request. Lessee agrees to provide Lessor with such other or additional information and/or documentation as may be reasonably requested. (f)Any assignee of,or sublessee under,this Lease shall,by reason of accepting such assignment or entering Into such sublease,be deemed to have assumed and agreed to conform and comply with each and every term, covenant, condition and obligation herein to be observed or performed by Lessee during the term of said assignment or sublease,other than such obligations as are contrary to or inconsistent with provisions of an assignment or sublease to which Lessor has specifically consented to in writing. 12.3 Additional Terms and Conditions Applicable to Subletting. The following terms and conditions shall apply to any subletting by Lessee of all or any part of the Premises and shall be deemed included In all subleases under this Lease whether or not expressly incorporated therein: (a)Lessee hereby assigns and transfers to Lessor all of Lessee's interest in all Rent payable on any sublease,and Lessor may collect such Rent and apply same toward Lessee's obligations under this Lease;provided,however,that until a Breach shall occur in the performance of Lessee's obligations,Lessee may collect said Rent. Lessor shall not,by reason of the foregoing or any assignment of such sublease,nor by reason of the collection of Rent,be deemed liable to the sublessee for any failure of Lessee to perform and comply with any of Lessee's obligations to such sublessee. Lessee hereby irrevocably authorizes and directs any such sublessee, upon receipt of a written notice from Lessor stating that a Breach exists in the performance of Lessee's obligations under this Lease,to pay to Lessor all Rent due and to become due under the sublease. Sublessee shall rely upon any such notice from Lessor and shall pay all Rents to Lessor without any obligation or right to inquire as to whether such Breach exists,notwithstanding any claim from Lessee to the contrary. (b)In the event of a Breach by Lessee, Lessor may,at its option, require sublessee to attorn to Lessor, in which event Lessor shall undertake the obligations of the sublessor under such sublease from the time of the exercise of said option to the expiration of such sublease;provided, however,Lessor shall not be liable for any prepaid rents or security deposit paid by such sublessee to such sublessor or for any prior Defaults or Breaches of such sublessor. (c)Any matter requiring the consent of the sublessor under a sublease shall also require the consent of Lessor. (d)No sublessee shall further assign or sublet all or any part of the Premises without Lessor's prior written consent, (e)Lessor shall deliver a copy of any notice of Default or Breach by Lessee to the sublessee,who shall have the right to cure the Default of Lessee within the grace period,if any,specified in such notice. The sublessee shall have a right of reimbursement and offset from and against Lessee for any such Defaults cured by the sublessee. 13. Default;Breach;Remedies. 13.1 Default;Breach. A"Default"is defined as a failure by the Lessee to comply with or perform any of the terms,covenants,conditions or Rules and Regulations under this Lease. A"Breach"is defined as the occurrence of one or more of the following Defaults,and the failure of Lessee to cure such Default within any applicable grace period: (a) The abandonment of the Premises, or the vacating of the Premises without providing a commercially reasonable level of security, or where the coverage of the property insurance described in Paragraph 8.3 is jeopardized as a result thereof, or without providing reasonable assurances to minimize potential vandalism. (b) The failure of Lessee to make any payment of Rent or any Security Deposit required to be made by Lessee hereunder,whether to Lessor or to a third party, when due, to provide reasonable evidence of insurance or surety bond, or,to fulfill any obligation under this Lease Which endangers or threatens life or property,where such failure continues for a period of 3 business days following written notice to Lessee. (c) The failure by Lessee to provide(i)reasonable written evidence of compliance with Applicable Requirements,(ii)the service contracts,(iii)the rescission of an unauthorized assignment or subletting,(iv)an Estoppel Certificate,(v)a requested subordination,(vi)evidence concerning any guaranty and/or Guarantor,(vii)any document requested under Paragraph 41 (easements),or(viii)any other documentation or information which Lessor may reasonably require of Lessee under the terms of this Lease,where any such failure continues for a period of 10 days following written notice to Lessee. (d) A Default by Lessee as to the terms,covenants,conditions or provisions of this Lease,or of the rules adopted under Paragraph 2.9 hereof,other than those described in subparagraphs 13.1(a),(b)or(c),above,where such Default continues for a period of 30 days after written notice; provided,however,that if the nature of Lessee's Default is such that more than 30 days are reasonably required for its cure,then it shall not be deemed to be a Breach if Lessee commences such cure within said 30 day period and thereafter diligently prosecutes such cure to completion. (e) The occurrence of any of the following events: (i)the makino of any general arrangement or assignment for the benefit of creditors;(ii)becoming a"debtor"as defined in 11 U.S.C.§101 or any successor statute thereto(unless,in the case of a petition filed against Lessee,the same is dismissed within 60 days); (iii)the appointment of a trustee or receiver to take possession of substantially all of Lessee's assets located at the Premises or of Lessee's interest in this Lease,where possession is not restored to Lessee within 30 days;or(iv)the attachment,execution or other judicial seizure of substantially all of Lessee's assets located at the Premises or of Lessee's interest in this Lease,where such seizure is not discharged within 30 days;provided,however,in the event that any provision of this subparagraph(e)is contrary to any applicable law,such provision shall be of no force or effect,and not affect the validity of the remaining provisions. (f) The discovery that any financial statement of Lessee or of any Guarantor given to Lessor was materially false. (9) If the performance of Lessee's obligations under this Lease is guaranteed: (i)the death of a Guarantor,(ii)the termination of a Guarantor's liability with respect to this Lease other than in accordance with the terms of such guaranty,(iii)a Guarantor's becoming insolvent or the subject of a bankruptcy filing,(iv)a Guarantor's refusal to honor the guaranty,or(v)a Guarantor's breach of its guaranty obligation on an anticipatory basis,and Lessee's failure,within 60 days following written notice of any such event,to provide written alternative assurance or security,which,when coupled with the then existing resources of Lessee,equals or exceeds the combined financial resources of Lessee and the Guarantors that existed at the time of execution of this Lease. 13.2 Remedies. If Lessee fails to perform any of its affirmative duties or obligations,within 10 days after written notice(or in case of an emergency, without notice), Lessor may, at its option, perform such duty or obligation on Lessee's behalf, including but not limited to the obtaining of reasonably required bonds,insurance policies,or governmental licenses,permits or approvals. The costs and expenses of any such performance by Lessor shall be due and payable by Lessee upon receipt of invoice therefor. If any check given to Lessor by Lessee shall not be honored by the bank upon which it is drawn,Lessor,at its option,may require all future payments to be made by Lessee to be by cashier's check. In the event of a Breach,Lessor may,with or without further notice or demand,and without limiting Lessor in the exercise of any right or remedy which Lessor may have by reason of such Breach: (a)Terminate Lessee's right to possession of the Premises by any lawful means,in which case this Lease shall terminate and Lessee shall immediately surrender possession to Lessor. In such event Lessor shall be entitled to recover from Lessee: (i)the unpaid Rent which had been earned at the time of termination;(ii)the worth at the time of award of the amount by which the unpaid rent which would have been earned after termination until the time of award exceeds the amount of such rental loss that the Lessee proves could have been reasonably avoided;(iii)the worth at the time of award of the amount by which the unpaid rent for the balance of the term after the time of award exceeds the amount of such rental loss that the Lessee proves could be reasonably avoided;and(iv)any other amount necessary to compensate Lessor for all the detriment proximately caused by the Lessee's failure to perform its obligations under this Lease or which in the ordinary course of things would be likely to result therefrom,including but not limited to the cost of recovering possession of the Premises,expenses of reletting,including necessary renovation and alteration of the Premises,reasonable attorneys'fees,and that portion of any leasing commission paid by Lessor in connection with this Lease applicable to the unexpired term of this Lease. The worth at the time of award of the amount referred to in provision(iii)of the immediately preceding sentence shall be computed by discounting such amount at the discount rate of the Federal Reserve Bank of the District within which the Premises are located at the time of award plus one percent. Efforts by Lessor to mitigate damages caused by Lessee's Breach of this Lease shall not waive Lessor's right to recover damages under Paragraph 12. If termination of this Lease is obtained through the provisional remedy of unlawful detainer,Lessor shall have the right to recover in such proceeding any unpaid Rent and damages as are recoverable therein, or Lessor may reserve the right to recover all or any part thereof in a separate suit. If a notice and grace period required under Paragraph 13.1 was not previously given,a notice to pay rent or quit,or to perform or quit given to Lessee under the unlawful detainer statute shall also constitute the notice required by Paragraph 13.1. In such case,the applicable grace period required by Paragraph 13.1 and the unlawful detainer statute shall run concurrently,and the failure of Lessee to cure the Default within the greater of the two such grace periods shall constitute both an unlawful detainer and a Breach of this Lease entitling Lessor to the remedies provided for in this Lease and/or by said statute. (b)Continue the Lease and Lessee's right to possession and recover the Rent as it becomes due,in which event Lessee may sublet or assign,subject only to reasonable limitations. Acts of maintenance,efforts to relet,and/or the appointment of a receiver to protect the Lessor's interests, shall not constitute a termination of the Lessee's right to possession, (c)Pursue any other remedy now or hereafter available under the laws or judicial decisions of the state wherein the Premises are located. The expiration or termination of this Lease and/or the termination of Lessee's right to possession shall not relieve Lessee from liability under any indemnity Initials Page 8 of 12 Initials ©1998-American Industrial Real Estate Association FORM MTG-2-11/98E 149 the term hereof by reason of Lesee's occupancy the 13.3 Inducement Recapture. Any agreement for free or abated rrentror other charges,or for the giving orfpaying byiLessor to or for Lessee of any cash or other bonus, inducement or consideration for Lessee's entering into this Lease, all of which concessions are hereinafter referred to a: "Inducement Provisions",shall be deemed conditioned upon Lessee's full and faithful performance of all of the terms, covenants and conditions of this Lease. Upon Breach of this Lease by Lessee,any such Inducement Provision shall automatically be deemed deleted from this Lease and of no further form or effect,and any rent,other charge,bonus,inducement or consideration theretofore abated,given or paid by Lessor under such an Inducement Provisior shall be.immediately due and payable by Lessee to Lessor,notwithstanding any subsequent cure of said Breach by Lessee. The acceptance by Lessor o rent or the cure of the Breach which initiated the operation of this paragraph shall not be deemed a waiver by Lessor of the provisions of this paragraph unless specifically so stated in writing by Lessor at the time of such acceptance. 13.4 Late Charges. Lessee hereby acknowledges that late payment by Lessee of Rent will cause Lessor to incur costs not contemplated by this Lease,the exact amount of which will be extremely difficult to ascertain. Such costs include,but are not limited to,processing and accounting charges, and late charges which may be imposed upon Lessor by any Lender. Accordingly, if any Rent shall not be received by Lessor within 5 days after such amount shall be due,then,without any requirement for notice to Lessee,Lessee shall pay to Lessor a one-time late charge equal to 10%of each such overdue amount or$100,whichever is greater. The parties hereby agree that such late charge represents a fair and reasonable estimate of the costs Lessor will incur by reason of such late payment. Acceptance of such late charge by Lessor shall in no event constitute a waiver of Lessee's Default or Breach with respect to such overdue amount, nor prevent the exercise of any of the other rights and remedies granted hereunder. In the event that a late charge is payable hereunder,whether or not collected,for 3 consecutive installments of Base Rent,then notwithstanding any provision of this Lease to the contrary, Base Rent shall,at Lessor's option,become due and payable quarterly in advance. 13.5 Interest. Any monetary payment due Lessor hereunder,other than late charges, not received by Lessor,when due as to scheduled payments(such as Base Rent)or within 30 days following the date on which it was due for non-scheduled payment,shall bear Interest from the date when due,as to scheduled payments,or the 31st day after It was due as to non-scheduled payments.The interest("Interest")charged shall be equal to the prime rate reported in the Wall Street Journal as published closest prior to the date when due plus 4%,but shall not exceed the maximum rate allowed by law. Interest is payable in addition to the potential late charge provided for,in Paragraph 13.4. 13,6 Breach by Lessor. (a)Notice of Breach. Lessor shall not be deemed in breach of this Lease unless Lessor fails within a reasonable time to perform an obligation required to be performed by Lessor. For purposes of this Paragraph,a reasonable time shall in no event be less than 30 days after receipt by Lessor,and any Lender whose name and address shall have been furnished Lessee in writing for such purpose,of written notice specifying wherein such obligation of Lessor has not been performed;provided, however,that If the nature of Lessor's obligation is such that more than 30 days are reasonably required for its performance,then Lessor shall not be in breach if performance is commenced within such 30 day period and thereafter diligently pursued to completion, (b)Performance by Lessee on Behalf of Lessor. In the event that neither Lessor nor Lender cures said breach within 30 days after receipt of said notice,or if having commenced said cure they do not diligently pursue it to completion,then Lessee may elect to cure said breach at Lessee's expense and offset from Rent an amount equal to the greater of one month's Base Rent or the Security Deposit,and to pay an excess of such expense under protest,reserving Lessee's right to reimbursement from Lessor. Lessee shall document the cost of said cure and supply said documentation to Lessor. 14. Condemnation. If the Premises or any portion thereof are taken under the power of eminent domain or sold under the threat of the exercise of said power(collectively"Condemnation"),this Lease shall terminate as to the part taken as of the date the condemning authority takes title or possession, whichever first occurs. If more than 10%of the floor area of the Unit,or more than 25%of Lessee's Reserved Parking Spaces,is taken by Condemnation, Lessee may,at Lessee's option,to be exercised in writing within 10 days after Lessor shall have given Lessee written notice of such taking(or in the absence of such notice,within 10 days after the condemning authority shall have taken possession)terminate this Lease as of the date the condemning authority takes such possession. If Lessee does not terminate this Lease in accordance with the foregoing,this Lease shall remain in full force and effect as to the portion of the Premises remaining, except that the Base Rent shall be reduced in proportion to the reduction in utility of the Premises caused by-such Condemnation. Condemnation awards and/or payments shall be the property of Lessor,whether such award shall be made as compensation for diminution in value of the leasehold,the value of the part taken,or for severance damages;provided,however,that Lessee shall be entitled to any compensation for Lessee's relocation expenses,loss of business goodwill and/or Trade Fixtures,without regard to whether or not this Lease is terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Paragraph. All Alterations and Utility Installations made to the Premises by Lessee,for purposes of Condemnation only,shall be considered the property of the Lessee and Lessee shall be entitled to any and all compensation which is payable therefor. In the event that this Lease is not terminated by reason of the Condemnation,Lessor shall repair any damage to the Premises caused by such Condemnation. 15. Brokerage Fees. 15.1 Additional Commission. In addition to the payments owed pursuant to Paragraph 1.10 above, and unless Lessor and the Brokers otherwise agree in writing,Lessor agrees that: (a)if Lessee exercises any Option,(b)if Lessee acquires from Lessor any rights to the Premises or other premises owned by Lessor and located within the Project,(c)if Lessee remains in possession of the Premises,with the consent of Lessor,after the expiration of this Lease,or(d)if Base Rent is increased,whether by agreement or operation of an escalation clause herein,then, Lessor shall pay Brokers a fee in accordance with the schedule of the Brokers in effect at the time of the execution of this Lease. 15.2 Assumption of Obligations. Any buyer or transferee of Lessor's interest in this Lease shall be deemed to have assumed Lessor's obligation hereunder. Brokers shall be third party beneficiaries of the provisions of Paragraphs 1.10, 15,22 and 31. If Lessor fails to pay to Brokers any amounts due as and for brokerage fees pertaining to this Lease when due,then such amounts shall accrue Interest. In addition,if Lessor fails to pay any amounts to Lessee's Broker when due,Lessee's Broker may send written notice to Lessor and Lessee of such failure and if Lessor fails to pay such amounts within 10 days after said notice,Lessee shall pay said monies to its Broker and offset such amounts against Rent. In addition, Lessee's Broker shall be deemed to be a third party beneficiary of any commission agreement entered into by and/or between Lessor and Lessor's Broker for the limited purpose of collecting any brokerage fee owed. 15.3 Representations and Indemnities of Broker Relationships, Lessee and Lessor each represent and warrant to the other that it has had no dealings with any person,firm,broker or finder(other than the Brokers,if any)in connection with this Lease,and that no one other than said named Brokers is entitled to any commission or finder's fee in connection herewith. Lessee and Lessor do each hereby agree to indemnify,protect,defend and hold the other harmless from and against liability for compensation or charges which may be claimed by any such unnamed broker,finder or other similar party by reason of any dealings or actions of the indemnifying Party,including any costs,expenses,attorneys'fees reasonably incurred with respect thereto. 16. Estoppel Certificates. (a)Each Party(as"Responding Party")shall within 10 days after written notice from the other Party(the"Requesting Party")execute, acknowledge and deliver to the Requesting Party a statement in writing in form similar to the then most current"Estoppel Certificate"form published by the American Industrial Real Estate Association, plus such additional information, confirmation and/or statements as may be reasonably requested by the Requesting Party. (b)If the Responding Party shall fail to execute or deliver the Estoppel Certificate within such 10 day period,the Requesting Party may execute an Estoppel Certificate stating that:(i)the Lease is in full force and effect without modification except as may be represented by the Requesting Party,(ii)there are no uncured defaults in the Requesting Party's performance,and(iii)if Lessor is the Requesting Party,not more than one month's rent has been paid in advance. Prospective purchasers and encumbrancers may rely upon the Requesting Party's Estoppel Certificate, and the Responding Party shall be estopped from denying the truth of the facts contained in said Certificate, (c) If Lessor desires to finance, refinance, or sell the Premises, or any part thereof, Lessee and all Guarantors shall deliver to any potential lender or purchaser designated by Lessor such financial statements as may be reasonably required by such lender or purchaser,including but not limited to Lessee's financial statements for the past 3 years. All such financial statements shall be received by Lessor and such lender or purchaser in confidence and shall be used only for the purposes herein set forth. 17. Definition of Lessor. The term"Lessor"as used herein shall mean the owner or owners at the time in question of the fee title to the Premises, or,if this is a sublease,of the Lessee's interest in the prior lease. In the event of a transfer of Lessor's title or interest in the Premises or this Lease,Lessor shall deliver to the transferee or assignee(in cash or by credit)any unused Security Deposit held by Lessor. Except as provided in Paragraph 15,upon such transfer or assignment and delivery of the Security Deposit,as aforesaid,the prior Lessor shall be relieved of all liability with respect to the obligations and/or covenants under this Lease thereafter to be performed by the Lessor. Subject to the foregoing, the obligations and/or covenants in this Lease to be performed by the Lessor shall be binding only upon the Lessor as hereinabove defined. Notwithstanding the above, and subject to the provisions of Paragraph 20 below;the original Lessor under this Lease,and all subsequent holders of the Lessor's interest in this Lease shall remain liable and responsible with regard to the potential duties and liabilities of Lessor pertaining to Hazardous Substances as outlined in Paragraph 6.2 above. 18. Severability, The invalidity of any provision of this Lease,as determined by a court of competent jurisdiction,shall in no way affect the validity of any other provision hereof. Initials Page 9 of 12 Initials ©1998-American Industrial Real Estate Association FORM MTG•2-5101/98E 19. Days. Unless otherwise specifically indicated to the contrary,the word"days"as used in this Lease shall mean and refer to calendar days. 20. Limitation on Liability. Subject to the provisions of Paragraph 17 above,the obligations of Lessor under this Lease shall not constitute personal obligations of Lessor,the individual partners of Lessor or its or their individual partners, directors, officers or shareholders,and Lessee shall look to the Premises,and to no other assets of Lessor,for the satisfaction of any liability of Lessor with respect to this Lease,and shall not seek recourse against the individual partners of Lessor,or its or their individual partners,directors,officers or shareholders,or any of their personal assets for such satisfaction. 21. Time of Essence. Time is of the essence with respect to the performance of all obligations to be performed or observed by the Parties under this Lease. 22. No Prior or Other Agreements; Broker Disclaimer. This Lease contains all agreements between the Parties with respect to any matter mentioned herein,and no other prior or contemporaneous agreement or understanding shall be effective.- Lessor and Lessee each represents and warrants to the Brokers that it has made,and is relying solely upon,its own investigation as to the nature,quality,character and financial responsibility of the other Party to this Lease and as to the use,nature,quality and character of the Premises. Brokers have no responsibility with respect thereto or with respect to any default or breach hereof by either Party, The liability(Including court costs and attorneys'fees),of any Broker with respect to negotiation,execution,delivery or performance by either Lessor or Lessee under this Lease or any amendment or modification hereto shall be limited to an amount up to the fee received by such Broker pursuant to this Lease;provided,however,that the foregoing limitation on each Broker's liability shall not be applicable to any gross negligence or willful misconduct of such Broker, 23. Notices. 23.1 Notice Requirements. All notices required or permitted by this Lease or applicable law shall be in writing and may be delivered in person (by hand or by courier) or may be sent by regular, certified or registered mail or U.S. Postal Service Express Mail, with postage prepaid, or by facsimile transmission, and shall be deemed sufficiently given if served in a manner specified in this Paragraph 23. The addresses noted adjacent to a Party's signature on this Lease shall be that Party's address for delivery or mailing of notices. Either Party may by written notice to the other specify a different address for notice,except that upon Lessee's taking possession of the Premises,the Premises shall constitute Lessee's address for notice. A copy of all notices to Lessor shall be concurrently transmitted to such party or parties at such addresses as Lessor may from time to time hereafter designate in writing. 23.2 Date of Notice. Any notice sent by registered or certified mail,return receipt requested,shall be deemed given on the date of delivery shown on the receipt card,or if no delivery date is shown,the postmark thereon. If sent by regular mail the notice shall be deemed given 48 hours after the same is addressed as required herein and mailed with postage prepaid. Notices delivered by United States Express Mail or overnight courier that guarantee next day delivery shall be deemed given 24 hours after delivery of the same to the Postal Service or courier. Notices transmitted by facsimile transmission or similar means shall be deemed delivered upon telephone confirmation of receipt(confirmation report from fax machine is sufficient),provided a copy is also delivered via delivery or mail. If notice is received on a Saturday,Sunday or legal holiday,it shall be deemed received on the next business day. 24. Waivers. No waiver by Lessor of the Default or Breach of any term,covenant or condition hereof by Lessee,shall be deemed a waiver of any other term, covenant or condition hereof, or of any subsequent Default or Breach by Lessee of the same or of any other term, covenant or condition hereof. Lessor's consent to,or approval of,any act shall not be deemed to render unnecessary the obtaining of Lessor's consent to,or approval of,any subsequent or similar act by Lessee, or be construed as the basis of an estoppel to enforce the provision or provisions of this Lease requiring such consent. The acceptance of Rent by Lessor shall not be a waiver of any Default or Breach by Lessee. Any payment by Lessee may be accepted by Lessor on account of monies or damages due Lessor, notwithstanding any qualifying statements or conditions made by Lessee in connection therewith,which such statements and/or conditions shall be of no force or effect whatsoever unless specifically agreed to in writing by Lessor a)or before the time of deposit of such payment. 25. Disclosures Regarding The Nature of a Real Estate Agency Relationship. (a) When entering into a discussion with a real estate agent regarding a real estate transaction,a Lessor or Lessee should from the outset understand what type of agency relationship or representation it has with the agent or agents in the transaction. Lessor and Lessee acknowledge being advised by the Brokers in this transaction,as follows: (i) Lessor's Agent. A Lessor's agent under a listing agreement with the Lessor acts as the agent for the Lessor only. A Lessor's agent or subagent has the following affirmative obligations: To the Lessor: A fiduciary duty of utmost care,integrity,honesty,and loyalty in dealings with the Lessor. To the Lessee and the Lessor: a.Diligent exercise of reasonable skills and care in performance of the agent's duties. b.A duty of honest and fair dealing and good faith. c.A duty to disclose all facts known to the agent materially affecting the value or desirability of the property that are not known to,or within the diligent attention and observation of,the Parties. An agent is not obligated to reveal to either Party any confidential information obtained from the other Party which does not involve the affirmative duties set forth above. (ii) Lessee's Agent. An gent can agree act as agent,even if by agreement the agent may receive compensation to agent compensation forservices endered,either in full nor inlpart from n these lthe tlLessor.ons, eAn agent acti agent is notnge Lessor's only for a Lessee has the following affirmative obligations. To the Lessee: A fiduciary duty of utmost care,integrity,honesty,and loyalty in dealings with the Lessee. To the Lessee and the Lessor: a.Diligent exercise of reasonable skills and care in performance of the agent's duties. b.A duty of honest and fair dealing and good faith. c.A duty to disclose all facts known to the agent materially affecting the value or desirability of the property that are not known to,or within the diligent attention and observation of,the Parties. An agent is not obligated to reveal to either Party any confidential information obtained from the other Party which does not involve the affirmative duties set forth above. (iii) Agent Representing Both Lessor and Lessee. A real estate agent,either acting directly or through one or more associate licenses,can legally be the agent of both the Lessor and the Lessee in a transaction,but only with the knowledge and consent of both the Lessor and the Lessee.in a dual agency situation,the agent has the following affirmative obligations to both the Lessor and the Lessee:a.A fiduciary duty of utmost care, integrity,honesty and loyalty in the dealings with either Lessor or the Lessee. b.Other duties to the Lessor and the Lessee as stated above in subparagraphs (i)or(ii).In representing both Lessor and Lessee,the agent may not without the express permission of the respective Party,disclose to the other Party that the Lessor will accept rent in an amount less than that indicated in the listing or that the Lessee is willing to pay a higher rent than that offered.The above duties of the agent in a real estate transaction do not relieve a Lessor or Lessee from the responsibility to protect their own interests. Lessor and Lessee should carefully read all agreements to assure that they adequately express their understanding of the transaction, A real estate agent is a person qualified to advise about real estate. If legal or tax advice is desired,consult a competent professional. (b) Brokers have no responsibility with respect to any default or breach hereof by either Party. The liability(including court costs and attorneys'fees),of any Broker with respect to any breach of duty,error or omission relating to this Lease shall not exceed the fee received by such Broker pursuant to this Lease;provided,however,that the foregoing limitation on each Broker's liability shall not be applicable to any gross negligence or willful misconduct of such Broker. (c) Buyer and Seller agree to identify to Brokers as"Confidential"any communication or information given Brokers that is considered by such Party to be confidential. 26. No Right To Holdover. Lessee has no right to retain possession of the Premises or any part thereof beyond the expiration or termination of this Lease. In the event that Lessee holds over,then the Base Rent shall be increased to 150%of the Base Rent applicable immediately preceding the expiration or termination. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as consent by Lessor to any holding over by Lessee. 27. Cumulative Remedies. No remedy or election hereunder shall be deemed exclusive but shall,wherever possible, be cumulative with all other remedies at law or in equity. 28. Covenants and Conditions; Construction of Agreement. All provisions of this Lease to be observed or performed by Lessee are both covenants and conditions. In construing this Lease,all headings and titles are for the convenience of the Parties only and shall not be considered a part of this Lease. Whenever required by the context,the singular shall include the plural and vice versa. This Lease shall not be construed as if prepared by one of the Parties,but rather according to its fair meaning as a whole,as if both Parties had prepared it. 29. Binding Effect;Choice of Law. This Lease shall be binding upon the parties,their personal representatives,successors and assigns and be governed by the laws of the State in which the Premises are located. Any litigation between the Parties hereto concerning this Lease shall be initiated in the county in which the Premises are located. 30. Subordination;Attornment;Non-Disturbance. 30.1 Subordination. This Lease and any Option granted hereby shall be subject and subordinate to any ground lease,mortgage,deed of Initials . Page 10 of 12 Initials ©1998-American industrial Real Estate Association FORM MTG-2-11/98E __ • Device"),now or hereafter pced upon the to any and all advances made oecun ses, on the security thereof,and to all renewals,modifications,and extensions thereof. Lessee grrees that the holderrseof lany such Security Devices(in this • Lease together referred to as"Lender")shall have no liability or obligation to perform any of the obligations of Lessor under this Lease. Any Lender may elect to have this Lease and/or any Option granted hereby superior to the lien of Its Security Device by giving written notice thereof to Lessee,whereupon this Lease and such Options shall be deemed prior to such Security Device,notwithstanding the relative dates of the documentation or recordation thereof. 30.2 Attornment. Subject to the non-disturbance provisions of Paragraph 30.3,Lessee agrees to attorn to a Lender or any other party who acquires ownership of the Premises by reason of a foreclosure of a Security Device,and that in the event of such foreclosure,such new owner shall not: (a) be liable for any act or omission of any prior lessor or with respect to events occurring prior to acquisition of ownership; (b)be subject to any offsets or defenses which Lessee might have against any prior lessor, (c)be bound by prepayment of more than one month's rent,or(d)be liable for the return of any security deposit paid to any prior lessor. 30,3 Non-Disturbance. With respect to Security Devices entered into by Lessor after the execution of this Lease,Lessee's subordination of this Lease shall be subject to receiving a commercially reasonable non-disturbance agreement(a"Non-Disturbance Agreement")from the Lender which Non-Disturbance Agreement provides that Lessee's possession of the Premises,and this Lease,including any options to extend the term hereof,will not be disturbed so long as Lessee is not in Breach hereof and attorns to the record owner of the Premises. Further,within 60 days after the execution of this Lease,Lessor shall use its commercially reasonable efforts to obtain a Non-Disturbance Agreement from the holder of any pre-existing Security Device which is secured by the Premises. In the event that Lessor is unable to provide the Non-Disturbance Agreement within said 60 days,then Lessee may,at Lessee's option,directly contact Lender and attempt to negotiate for the execution and delivery of a Non-Disturbance Agreement. 30.4 Self-Executing. The agreements contained in this Paragraph 30 shall be effective without the execution of any further documents; provided,however,that,upon written request from Lessor or a Lender in connection with a sale,financing or refinancing of the Premises,Lessee and Lessor shall execute such further writings as may be reasonably required to separately document any subordination,attornment and/or Non-Disturbance Agreement provided for herein. 31. Attorneys'Fees. If any Party or Broker brings an action or proceeding involving the Premises whether founded in tort,contract or equity,or to declare rights hereunder, the Prevailing Party (as hereafter defined) in any such proceeding, action, or appeal thereon, shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys'fees. Such fees may be awarded in the same suit or recovered In a separate suit,whether or not such action or proceeding is pursued to decision or judgment. The term,"Prevailing Party"shall include,without limitation,a Party or Broker who substantially obtains or defeats the relief sought,as the case may be,whether by compromise,settlement,judgment,or the abandonment by the other Party or Broker of its claim or defense, The attorneys'fees award shall not be computed in accordance with any court fee schedule,but shall be such as to fully reimburse all attorneys'fees reasonably incurred. In addition, Lessor shall be entitled to attorneys'fees,costs and expenses incurred in the preparation and service of notices of Default and consultations in connection therewith,whether or not a legal action is subsequently commenced in connection with such Default or resulting Breach($200 is a reasonable minimum per occurrence for such services and consultation). 32. Lessor's Access;Showing Premises;Repairs. Lessor and Lessor's agents shall have the right to enter the Premises at any time,in the case of an emergency,and otherwise at reasonable times for the purpose of showing the same to prospective purchasers, lenders, or tenants, and making such alterations, repairs, improvements or additions to the Premises as Lessor may deem necessary. All such activities shall be without abatement of rent or liability to Lessee. Lessor may at any time place on the Premises any ordinary"For Sale"signs and Lessor may during the last 6 months of the term hereof place on the Premises any ordinary"For Lease"signs. Lessee may at any time place on the Premises any ordinary"For Sublease"sign. 33. Auctions. Lessee shall not conduct, nor permit to be conducted,any auction upon the Premises without Lessor's prior written consent. Lessor shall not be obligated to exercise any standard of reasonableness in determining whether to permit an auction. 34. Signs. Except for ordinary"For Sublease"signs which may be placed only on the Premises, Lessee shall not place any sign upon the Project without Lessor's prior written consent.All signs must comply with all Applicable Requirements. 35. Termination; Merger. Unless specifically stated otherwise in writing by Lessor,the voluntary or other surrender of this Lease by Lessee,the mutual termination or cancellation hereof,or a termination hereof by Lessor for Breach by Lessee,shall automatically terminate any sublease or lesser estate in the Premises;provided,however,that Lessor may elect to continue any one or all existing subtenancies. Lessor's failure within 10 days following any such event to elect to the contrary by written notice to the holder of any such lesser interest,shall constitute Lessor's election to have such event constitute the termination of such interest. 36. Consents. Except as otherwise provided herein,wherever in this Lease the consent of a Party is required to an act by or for the other Party,such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. Lessor's actual reasonable costs and expenses(including but not limited to architects',attorneys', engineers'and other consultants'fees)incurred in the consideration of,or response to,a request by Lessee for any Lessor consent,including but not limited to consents to an assignment, a subletting or the presence or use of a Hazardous Substance, shall be paid by Lessee upon receipt of an invoice and supporting documentation therefor. Lessor's consent to any act,assignment or subletting shall not constitute an acknowledgment that no Default or Breach by Lessee of this Lease exists,nor shall such consent be deemed a waiver of any then existing Default or Breach,except as may be otherwise specifically stated in writing by Lessor at the time of such consent. The failure to specify herein any particular condition to Lessor's consent shall not preclude the imposition by Lessor at the time of consent of such further or other conditions as are then reasonable with reference to the particular matter for which consent is being given. In the event that either Party disagrees with any determination made by the other hereunder and reasonably requests the reasons for such determination,the determining party shall furnish its reasons in writing and in reasonable detail within 10 business days following such request. 37. Guarantor. 37.1 Execution. The ors,if any, each execute a guaranty n the form most Estate Association,and each such Guarantor tshall have the asame obligations as Lessee runder this Leaserecently published by the American Industrial Real 37.2 Default. It shall constitute a Default of the Lessee if any Guarantor fails or refuses, upon request to provide: (a)evidence of the execution of the guaranty,including the authority of the party signing on Guarantor's behalf to obligate Guarantor,and in the case of a corporate Guarantor,a certified copy of a resolution of its board of directors authorizing the making of such guaranty,(b)current financial statements,(c)an Estoppel Certificate,or (d)written confirmation that the guaranty is still in effect. 38. Quiet Possession. Subject to payment by Lessee of the Rent and performance of all of the covenants,conditions and provisions on Lessee's part to be observed and performed under this Lease,Lessee shall have quiet possession and quiet enjoyment of the Premises during the term hereof. 39. . Options. If Lessee is granted an option,as defined below,then the following provisions shall apply. 39.1 Definition. "Option"shall mean: (a)the right to extend the term of or renew this Lease or to extend or renew any lease that Lessee has on other property of Lessor;(b)the right of first refusal or first offer to lease either the Premises or other property of Lessor;(c)the right to purchase or the right of first refusal to purchase the Premises or other property of Lessor. 39.2 Options Personal To Original Lessee. Any Option granted to Lessee in this Lease is personal to the original Lessee,and cannot be assigned or exercised by anyone other than said original Lessee and only while the original Lessee is in full possession of the Premises and,if requested by Lessor,with Lessee certifying that Lessee has no intention of thereafter assigning or subletting. 39.3 Multiple Options. In the event that Lessee has any multiple Options to extend or renew this Lease,a later Option cannot be exercised unless the prior Options have been validly exercised. 39.4 Effect of Default on Options. (a)Lessee shall have no right to exercise an Option: (i)during the period commencing with the giving of any notice of Default and continuing until said Default is cured,(ii)during the period of time any Rent is unpaid(without regard to whether notice thereof is given Lessee),(iii)during the time Lessee is in Breach of this Lease,or(iv)in the event that Lessee has been given 3 or more notices of separate Default,whether or not the Defaults are cured,during the 12 month period immediately preceding the exercise of the Option. (b)The period of time within which an Option may be exercised shall not be extended or enlarged by reason of Lessees inability to exercise an Option because of the provisions of Paragraph 39.4(a). (c)An Option shall terminate and be of no further force or effect,notwithstanding Lessee's due and timely exercise of the Option,if,after such exercise and prior to the commencement of the extended term,(i)Lessee fails to pay Rent for a period of 30 days after such Rent becomes due(without any necessity of Lessor to give notice thereof),(ii)Lessor gives to Lessee 3 or more notices of separate Default during any 12 month period,whether or not the Defaults are cured,or(iii)if Lessee commits a Breach of this Lease. 40. Security Measures. Lessee hereby acknowledges that the Rent payable to Lessor hereunder does not include the cost of guard service or other Initials Page 11 of 12 Initials 0)1998-American Industrial Real Estate Association FORM MTG-2-11/98E 152 security measures, and that Lessor shall have no obligation whatsoever to provide same. Lessee assumes all responsibility for the protection of the Premises,Lessee,its agents and invitees and their property from the acts of third parties. 41. Reservations. Lessor reserves the right:(i)to grant,without the consent or joinder of Lessee,such easements,rights and dedications that Lessor deems necessary, (ii)to cause the recordation of parcel maps and restrictions, and (iii)to create and/or install new utility raceways, so long as such easements,rights,dedications,maps,restrictions,and utility raceways do not unreasonably interfere with the use of the Premises by Lessee. Lessee agrees to sign any documents reasonably requested by Lessor to effectuate such rights. 42. Performance Under Protest. If at any time a dispute shall arise as to any amount or sum of money to be paid by one Party to the other under the provisions hereof,the Party against whom the obligation to pay the money is asserted shall have the right to make payment"under protest"and such payment shall not be regarded as a voluntary payment and there shall survive the right on the part of said Party to institute suit for recovery of such sum. If it shall be adjudged that there was no legal obligation on the part of said Party to pay such sum or any part thereof,said Party shall be entitled to recover such sum or so much thereof as it was not legally required to pay. 43. Authority. If either Party hereto is a corporation,trust,limited liability company, partnership,or similar entity,each individual executing this Lease on behalf of such entity represents and warrants that he or she is duly authorized to execute and deliver this Lease on its behalf.Each party shall,within 30 days after request,deliver to the other party satisfactory evidence of such authority. 44. Conflict. Any conflict between the printed provisions of this Lease and the typewritten or handwritten provisions shall be controlled by the typewritten or handwritten provisions. 45. Offer. Preparation of this Lease by either party or their agent and submission of same to the other Party shall not be deemed an offer to lease to the other Party. This Lease is not intended to be binding until executed and delivered by all Parties hereto. 46, Amendments. This Lease may be modified only in writing,signed by the Parties in interest at the time of the modification. As long as they do not materially change Lessee's obligations hereunder,Lessee agrees to make such reasonable non-monetary modifications to this Lease as may be reasonably required by a Lender in connection with the obtaining of normal financing or refinancing of the Premises. 47. Multiple Parties. If more than one person or entity is named herein as either Lessor or Lessee,such multiple Parties shall have joint and several responsibility to comply with the terms of this Lease. 48. Waiver of Jury Trial. The Parties hereby waive their respective rights to trial by jury in any action or proceeding involving the Property or arising out of this Agreement. 49. Mediation and Arbitration of Disputes. An Addendum requiring the Mediation and/or the Arbitration of all disputes between the Parties and/or Brokers arising out of this Lease ❑ is❑ is not attached to this Lease. LESSOR AND LESSEE HAVE CAREFULLY READ AND REVIEWED THIS LEASE AND EACH TERM AND PROVISION CONTAINED HEREIN,AND BY THE EXECUTION OF THIS LEASE SHOW THEIR INFORMED AND VOLUNTARY CONSENT THERETO. THE PARTIES HEREBY AGREE THAT,AT THE TIME THIS LEASE IS EXECUTED,THE TERMS OF THIS LEASE ARE COMMERCIALLY REASONABLE AND EFFECTUATE THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF LESSOR AND LESSEE WITH RESPECT TO THE PREMISES. ATTENTION: NO REPRESENTATION OR RECOMMENDATION IS MADE BY THE AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATION OR BY ANY BROKER AS TO THE LEGAL SUFFICIENCY,LEGAL EFFECT,OR TAX CONSEQUENCES OF THIS LEASE OR THE TRANSACTION TO WHICH IT RELATES. THE PARTIES ARE URGED TO: 1. SEEK ADVICE OF COUNSEL AS TO THE LEGAL AND TAX CONSEQUENCES OF THIS LEASE. 2. RETAIN APPROPRIATE CONSULTANTS TO REVIEW AND INVESTIGATE THE CONDITION OF THE PREMISES. SAID INVESTIGATION SHOULD INCLUDE BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO:THE POSSIBLE PRESENCE OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES,THE ZONING OF THE PREMISES,THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY, THE CONDITION OF THE ROOF AND OPERATING SYSTEMS, COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT AND THE SUITABILITY OF THE PREMISES FOR LESSEE'S INTENDED USE. WAR IN : iF TIE P!':EMISES ARE LOCATED.IV A STATE OTHER THAN _ LIFUMVIA,CES;TAIH`/FRC`NIS.ONS OF THE LEASE MAY NEED TO BE REVISED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE STATE IN WHICH THE PREMISES ARE LOCATED. The parties hereto have executed this Lease at the place and on the dates specified above their respective signatures. Executed at: kVA 9,1/1 Executed at: on: 9' on: By LESSOR: I By LESSEE: By: / `AIC PC Q (7f� )Y -' Na: 1 Name Printed: Name Printed: Title: Title: By: By: Name Printed: ) L. f`�, Name Printed: Title: - -!"J ! Title: Address: Address: Telephone:( ) Telephone:( ) Facsimile:( ) Facsimile:( ) Federal ID No. Federal ID No. These forms are often modified to meet changing requirements of law and needs of the Industry.Always write or call to make sure you are utilizing the most current form:American Industrial Real Estate Association,700 South Flower Street,Suite 600,Los Angeles,CA 90017. (213) 687-8777. (c)Copyright 1998 By American Industrial Real Estate Association. All rights reserved. No part of these works may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing. Initials Initials Page 12 of 12 ©1998-American Industrial Real Estate Association FORM MTG-2-11198E 153 Addendum to Standard Industrial/Commercial Multi-Tenant Lease-Gross dated April 2,2019 This addendum shall be added to and be a part of the lease dated April 2,2019 between Michael 0 Garcia and Stacy L.Garcia AND City of Huntington Beach. Page 1 of 1 1.)This is a three year lease with two(2)additional years of options. • Year 1:$8,740.00 per month • Year 2:$9,180.00 per month • Year 3:$9,640.00 per month • Optional Year 4:$10,120.00 per month • Optional Year 5:$10,630.00 per month 2.) Lessee shall pay for all water to the building. 3.) Lessee to pay for their trash service. 4.) Rent payments shall be made out to Michael Garcia and shall be delivered to: 27211 Sage Brush Trail Valley Center,CA 92082 Michael 0 Garcia date City of Huntington Beach date Lessor Lesee Stacy L.Garcia date Lessor 154 ATTACHMENT #2 RESOLUTION NO. 2019-22 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PURSUANT TO SB 850 (CHAPTER 48, STATUTES OF 2018 AND GOVERNMENT CODE §8.698.2) The.City Council of the City of Huntington Beach finds: WHEREAS, California's Governor Newsome, his predecessor, and the members of the California Legislature have recognized the urgent and immediate need for funding at the local level to combat homelessness; WHEREAS, The Governor and Legislature have provided funding to local governments under the Homeless Emergency Aid Program as part of SB 850 and the 2018-2019 Budget Act (Chapter 48, Statutes of 2018); WHEREAS,the Governor and Legislature require jurisdictions seeking an allocation through the Homeless Emergency Aid Program to declare a Shelter Crisis pursuant to Government Code §8698.2; WHEREAS,the City of Huntington Beach has developed a homelessness plan and undertaken multiple efforts at the local level to combat homelessness; WHEREAS,the City of Huntington Beach finds that approximately 119 persons within the City of Huntington Beach are homeless and living without shelter; WHEREAS,the City of Huntington Beach finds that the number of homeless in Huntington Beach is significant, and these persons are without the ability to obtain shelter; WHEREAS, the City of Huntington Beach finds that the health and safety of the City including unsheltered persons in the City is threatened by a lack of shelter; WHEREAS, the City of Huntington Beach affirms the City's commitment to combatting homelessness and creating or augmenting a continuum of shelter and service options for those living without shelter in our communities; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach that a shelter crisis pursuant to Government Code §8698.2 exists in the City of Huntington Beach and authorizes the City's participation in the Homeless Emergency Aid Program. Resolution No. 2019-22 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 2019. Mayor REVIEWED AND APPROVED: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Manager City Attorney INI ATED AND APPROVED: Deputy Director of on Development 199876/19-7466 2 ATTACHMENT #3 Case 8:18-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 294 Filed 03/05/19 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:3126 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES —GENERAL Case No. SA CV 18-00155-DOC (JDEx) Date: March 5, 2019 Case No. SA CV 18-00220-DOC (KESx) Case No. SA CV 19-00388-DOC (KESx) Title: ORANGE COUNTY CATHOLIC WORKER ET AL. V. ORANGE COUNTY ET AL. DAVID RAMIREZ ET AL V. THE COUNTY OF ORANGE HOUSING IS A HUMAN RIGHT ORANGE COUNTY ET AL V. THE COUNTY OF ORANGE ET AL PRESENT: THE HONORABLE DAVID O. CARTER, JUDGE Deborah Lewman Not Present Courtroom Clerk Court Reporter ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANT: None Present None Present PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE FOR APRIL 2, 2019 The Court SETS a Status Conference on April 2, 2019, at 8:30 a.m. regarding the above-captioned cases. The Court ORDERS the parties in Housing is a Human Right Orange County et al v. The County of Orange et al, No. SA-CV-19-00388-DOC-KESx, to appear, and respectfully REQUESTS the Mayor, City Manager, and Police Chief of the Defendant city of Irvine, and the Mayor, City Manager, and Sheriff of the respective Defendant cities of Aliso Viejo, Dana Point, San Juan Capistrano, and San Clemente to appear. The Court also ORDERS the parties in Orange County Catholic Worker et al v. Orange County et al, No. SA-CV-18-00155-DOC-JDEx to appear, regarding an update on the status of the settlements and enforcement actions, and respectfully REQUESTS 157 Case 8:18-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 294 Filed 03/05/19 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:3127 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Case No. SA CV 18-0155-DOC(JDEx) Date:March 5,2019 Case No. SA CV 18-01220-DOC(KESx) Page 2 Case No. SA CV 19-00388-DOC(KESx) the Mayor, City Manager, and Police Chief of the settling cities of Anaheim, Costa Mesa, Tustin, Orange, and the North SPA cities of Fullerton, Placentia, Buena Park, Brea, Cypress, La Habra, La Palma, Los Alamitos, Stanton, Villa Park, and Yorba Linda. The Court respectfully REQUESTS the appearance of the following individuals: CalOptima Chief Executive Officer Michael Schrader and each member of the CalOptima Board of Directors: Paul Yost, Nikan Khatibi, Ria Berger, Ron DiLuigi, Andrew Do, Alexander Nguyen, Lee Penrose, Richard Sanchez, J. Scott Schoeffel, Michelle Steel, and Doug Chaffee. The Court also respectfully REQUESTS the appearance of Chairwoman Lisa Bartlett of the Orange County Board of Supervisors, Orange County Sheriff Donald Barnes, and Orange County Health Care Agency Public Health Officer Dr. Eric Handler. Because these issues implicate all thirty-four cities in Orange County, the City Manager, the Mayor, and the Police Chief of each city in Orange County is invited to attend the hearing, and is respectfully requested to provide an update about any emergency and transitional shelter sites within each City and Health Care Service Planning Area. The Clerk shall serve this minute order on the parties. cc: Aliso Viejo City Manager city-manager(a�cityofalisoviejo.com David Doyle Anaheim City Manager CityManager anaheim.net Chris Zapata Brea City Manager billga@ci.brea.ca.us Bill Gallardo Buena Park City Manager jvanderpool@buenapark.cotn James Vanderpool Costa Mesa Assistant City Manager tamara.letourneau@costalnesaca.aov Tammy Letourneau 158 Case 8:18-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 294 Filed 03/05/19 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:3128 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Case No. SA CV 18-0155-DOC(JDEx) Date: March 5,2019 Case No. SA CV 18-01220-DOC(KESx) Page 3 Case No. SA CV 19-00388-DOC(KESx) Cypress City Manager adm a�cypressca.org Peter Grant Dana Point City Manager jlittler@danapoint.org Mark Denny Fountain City Manager maggiele(&,fountainvalley.org Valley Rob Houston Fullerton City Manager citymanager@cityoffullerton.cam Ken Domer Garden Grove City Manager sstiles@ci.garden-grove.ca.us Scott Stiles Huntington City Manager Johanna.Dombogsurfcity-hb.org Beach Fred Wilson Irvine City Manager cmna,cityofirvine.org John Russo La Habra City Manager rferrier(&lahabraca.gov Jim Sadro La Palma City Manager administrationga,cityoflapalma.org Laurie Murray Laguna Beach City Manager lhall@lagunabeachcity.net John Pietig Laguna Hills City Manager csands(crlagunahillsCA.gov Donald White Laguna Niguel City Manager KRidge(a�cityoflagunaniguel.org Kristine Ridge 159 Case 8:18-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 294 Filed 03/05/19 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:3129 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Case No. SA CV 18-0155-DOC(JDEx) Date:March 5,2019 Case No. SA CV 18-01220-DOC(KESx) Page 4 Case No. SA CV 19-00388-DOC(KESx) Laguna Woods City Manager cityhall@cityoflagunawoods.org Christopher Macon Lake Forest City Manager Ilacasellaga,lakeforestca.gov Debra Rose Los Alamitos City Manager cwilson@cityoflosalamitos.org Bret Plumlee Mission Viejo City Manager citymanager@cityofinissionviejo.org Dennis Wilberg Newport Beach City Manager glueung@newportbeachca.gov Grace Leung Orange City Manager cminfo(&cityoforange.org Rick Otto Placentia City Administrator darrula(a,placentia.org Damien Arrula Rancho Santa City Manager jcervantez@a,cityofism.org Margarita Jennifer Cervantez San Clemente City Manager CityManager(a,San-Clelnente.org James Makshanoff San Juan City Manager bsiegel@sanjuancapistrano.org Capistrano Ben Siegel Santa Ana City Manager pio(&,santa-ana.org Raul Godinez II Seal Beach City Manager jingram@sealbeachca.gov Jill Ingram Stanton City Manager rhall@ci.stanton.ca.us Robert W. Hall 160 Case 8:18-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 294 Filed 03/05/19 Page 5 of 5 Page ID #:3130 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Case No. SA CV 18-0155-DOC(JDEx) Date:March 5,2019 Case No. SA CV 18-01220-DOC(KESx) Page 5 Case No. SA CV 19-00388-DOC(KESx) Tustin City Manager citymanager@tustinca.org Matthew S. West Villa Park City Manager sfranks@villapark.org Steve Franks Westminster City Manager emanfrowestminster-ca.gov Eddie Manfro Yorba Linda City Manager slamp@yorba-linda.org Mark Pulone MINUTES FORM 11 CIVIL-GEN Initials of Deputy Clerk: djl 161 ATTACHMENT #4 Attachment C FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROBERT MARTIN;LAWRENCE LEE No. 15-35845 SMITH;ROBERT ANDERSON;JANET F.BELL; PAMELA S.HAWKES; and D.C. No. BASIL E.HUMPHREY, 1:09-cv-00540- Plaintiffs-Appellants, REB v. OPINION CITY OF BOISE, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho Ronald E. Bush, Chief Magistrate Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted July 13, 2017 Portland, Oregon Filed September 4, 2018 Before: Marsha S. Berzon, Paul J. Watford, and John B. Owens, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Berzon; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge Owens 162 560 2 MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE SUMMARY* Civil Rights The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's summary judgment in an action brought by six current or formerly homeless City of Boise residents who alleged that their citations under the City's Camping and Disorderly Conduct Ordinances violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Plaintiffs sought damages for the alleged violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Two plaintiffs also sought prospective declaratory and injunctive relief precluding future enforcement of the ordinances. In 2014, after this litigation began, the ordinances were amended to prohibit their enforcement against any homeless person on public property on any night when no shelter had an available overnight space. The panel first held that two plaintiffs had standing to pursue prospective relief because they demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact as to whether they faced a credible risk of prosecution on a night when they had been denied access to the City's shelters. The panel noted that although the 2014 amendment precluded the City from enforcing the ordinances when shelters were full, individuals could still be turned away for reasons other than shelter capacity,such as for exceeding the shelter's stay limits, or for *This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. 163 561 MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE 3 failing to take part in a shelter's mandatory religious programs. The panel held that although the doctrine set forth in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.477 (1994)and its progeny precluded most but not all — of the plaintiffs' requests for retrospective relief, the doctrine had no application to plaintiffs' request for an injunction enjoining prospective enforcement of the ordinances. Turning to the merits, the panel held that the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment precluded the enforcement of a statute prohibiting sleeping outside against homeless individuals with no access to alternative shelter. The panel held that, as long as there is no option of sleeping indoors,the government cannot criminalize indigent, homeless people for sleeping outdoors, on public property,on the false premise they had a choice in the matter. Concurring in part and dissenting in part, Judge Owens disagreed with the majority's opinion that Heck v. Humphrey did not bar plaintiffs' claim for declaratory and injunctive relief. Judge Owens stated that a declaration that the city ordinances are unconstitutional and an injunction against their future enforcement would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of plaintiffs' prior convictions. Judge Owens otherwise joined the majority in full. 164 562 4 MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE COUNSEL Michael E. Bern (argued) and Kimberly Leefatt, Latham & Watkins LLP,Washington,D.C.;Howard A.Belodoff,Idaho Legal Aid Services Inc., Boise, Idaho; Eric Tars, National Law Center on Homelessness &Poverty, Washington,D.C.; Plaintiffs-Appellants. Brady J. Hall (argued), Michael W. Moore, and Steven R. Kraft, Moore Elia Kraft& Hall LLP, Boise, Idaho; Scott B. Muir, Deputy City Attorney; Robert B. Luce, City Attorney; City Attorney's Office, Boise, Idaho; for Defendant- Appellee. OPINION BERZON, Circuit Judge: "The law,in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread." Anatole France, The Red Lily We consider whether the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment bars a city from prosecuting people criminally for sleeping outside on public property when those people have no home or other shelter to go to. We conclude that it does. The plaintiffs-appellants are six current or former residents of the City of Boise ("the City"),who are homeless or have recently been homeless. Each plaintiff alleges that, 165 563 MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE 5 between 2007 and 2009, he or she was cited by Boise police for violating one or both of two city ordinances. The first, Boise City Code § 9-10-02 (the "Camping Ordinance"), makes it a misdemeanor to use"any of the streets, sidewalks, parks, or public places as a camping place at any time." The Camping Ordinance defines"camping"as "the use of public property as a temporary or permanent place of dwelling, lodging,or residence." Id. The second,Boise City Code § 6- 01-05 (the "Disorderly Conduct Ordinance"), bans "[o]ccupying, lodging, or sleeping in any building, structure, or public place, whether public or private . . . without the permission of the owner or person entitled to possession or in control thereof." All plaintiffs seek retrospective relief for their previous citations under the ordinances. Two of the plaintiffs, Robert Anderson and Robert Martin, allege that they expect to be cited under the ordinances again in the future and seek declaratory and injunctive relief against future prosecution. In Jones v. City of Los Angeles,444 F.3d 1118, 1138(9th Cir. 2006), vacated,505 F.3d 1006(9th Cir. 2007),a panel of this court concluded that"so long as there is a greater number of homeless individuals in Los Angeles than the number of available beds [in shelters]" for the homeless, Los Angeles could not enforce a similar ordinance against homeless individuals "for involuntarily sitting, lying, and sleeping in public." Jones is not binding on us, as there was an underlying settlement between the parties and our opinion was vacated as a result. We agree with Jones's reasoning and central conclusion, however, and so hold that an ordinance violates the Eighth Amendment insofar as it imposes criminal sanctions against homeless individuals for sleeping outdoors, on public property,when no alternative shelter is available to 166 564 6 MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE them. Two of the plaintiffs,we further hold,may be entitled to retrospective and prospective relief for violation of that Eighth Amendment right. I. Background The district court granted summary judgment to the City on all claims. We therefore review the record in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs. Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861, 1866 (2014). Boise has a significant and increasing homeless population. According to the Point-in-Time Count ("PIT Count") conducted by the Idaho Housing and Finance Association, there were 753 homeless individuals in Ada County the county of which Boise is the seat in January 2014, 46 of whom were "unsheltered," or living in places unsuited to human habitation such as parks or sidewalks. In 2016, the last year for which data is available, there were 867 homeless individuals counted in Ada County, 125 of whom were unsheltered.' The PIT Count likely underestimates the number of homeless individuals in Ada `The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD")requires local homeless assistance and prevention networks to conduct an annual count of homeless individuals on one night each January, known as the PIT Count, as a condition of receiving federal funds. State, local, and federal governmental entities,as well as private service providers,rely on the PIT Count as a"critical source of data"on homelessness in the United States. The parties acknowledge that the PIT Count is not always precise. The City's Director of Community Partnerships,Diana Lachiondo,testified that the PIT Count is"not always the. .,best resource for numbers,"but also stated that"the point-in-time count is our best snapshot" for counting the number of homeless individuals in a particular region,and that she"cannot give. . . any other number with any kind of confidence." 167 565 MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE 7 County. It is "widely recognized that a one-night point in time count will undercount the homeless population," as many homeless individuals may have access to temporary housing on a given night, and as weather conditions may affect the number of available volunteers and the number of homeless people staying at shelters or accessing services on the night of the count. There are currently three homeless shelters in the City of Boise offering emergency shelter services,all run by private, nonprofit organizations. As far as the record reveals, these three shelters are the only shelters in Ada County. One shelter — "Sanctuary" is operated by Interfaith Sanctuary Housing Services,Inc. The shelter is open to men, women, and children of all faiths, and does not impose any religious requirements on its residents. Sanctuary has 96 beds reserved for individual men and women, with several additional beds reserved for families. The shelter uses floor mats when it reaches capacity with beds. Because of its limited capacity, Sanctuary frequently has to turn away homeless people seeking shelter. In 2010, Sanctuary reached full capacity in the men's area "at least half of every month,"and the women's area reached capacity "almost every night of the week." In 2014, the shelter reported that it was full for men, women, or both on 38% of nights. Sanctuary provides beds first to people who spent the previous night at Sanctuary. At 9:00 pm each night, it allots any remaining beds to those who added their names to the shelter's waiting list. The other two shelters in Boise are both operated by the Boise Rescue Mission ("BRM"), a Christian nonprofit 168 566 8 MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE organization. One of those shelters,the River of Life Rescue Mission ("River of Life"), is open exclusively to men; the other, the City Light Home for Women and Children ("City Light"), shelters women and children only. BRM's facilities provide two primary"programs"for the homeless,the Emergency Services Program and the New Life Discipleship Program.' The Emergency Services Program provides temporary shelter, food, and clothing to anyone in need. Christian religious services are offered to those seeking shelter through the Emergency Services Program. The shelters display messages and iconography on the walls, and the intake form for emergency shelter guests includes a religious message.' Homeless individuals may check in to either BRM facility between 4:00 and 5:30 pm. Those who arrive at BRM facilities between 5:30 and 8:00 pm may be denied shelter, depending on the reason for their late arrival; generally, anyone arriving after 8:00 pm is denied shelter. Except in winter, male guests in the Emergency Services Program may stay at River of Life for up to 17 consecutive nights; women and children in the Emergency Services Program may stay at City Light for up to 30 consecutive a The record suggests that BRM provides some limited additional non-emergency shelter programming which, like the Discipleship Program,has overtly religious components. The intake form states in relevant part that"We are a Gospel Rescue Mission. Gospel means 'Good News,' and the Good News is that Jesus saves us from sin past,present, and future. We would like to share the Good News with you. Have you heard of Jesus? . . . Would you like to know more about him?" 169 567 MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE 9 nights. After the time limit is reached,homeless individuals who do not join the Discipleship Program may not return to a BRM shelter for at least 30 days.' Participants in the Emergency Services Program must return to the shelter every night during the applicable 17-day or 30-day period; if a resident fails to check in to a BRM shelter each night, that resident is prohibited from staying overnight at that shelter for 30 days. BRM's rules on the length of a person's stay in the Emergency Services Program are suspended during the winter. The Discipleship Program is an "intensive, Christ-based residential recovery program" of which "[r]eligious study is the very essence." The record does not indicate any limit to how long a member of the Discipleship Program may stay at a BRM shelter. The River of Life shelter contains 148 beds for emergency use, along with 40 floor mats for overflow; 78 additional beds serve those in non-emergency shelter programs such as the Discipleship Program. The City Light shelter has 110 beds for emergency services, as well as 40 floor mats to handle overflow and 38 beds for women in non-emergency shelter programs. All told, Boise's three homeless shelters contain 354 beds and 92 overflow mats for homeless individuals. A. The Plaintiffs Plaintiffs Robert Martin,Robert Anderson,Lawrence Lee Smith, Basil E. Humphrey, Pamela S. Hawkes, and Janet F. The parties dispute the extent to which BRM actually enforces the 17-and 30-day limits. 170 568 10 MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE Bell are all homeless individuals who have lived in or around Boise since at least 2007. Between 2007 and 2009, each plaintiff was convicted at least once of violating the Camping Ordinance,the Disorderly Conduct Ordinance,or both. With one exception,all plaintiffs were sentenced to time served for all convictions; on two occasions, Hawkes was sentenced to one additional day in jail. During the same period, Hawkes was cited, but not convicted, under the Camping Ordinance, and Martin was cited,but not convicted,under the Disorderly Conduct Ordinance. Plaintiff Robert Anderson currently lives in Boise; he is homeless and has often relied on Boise's shelters for housing. In the summer of 2007, Anderson stayed at River of Life as part of the Emergency Services Program until he reached the shelter's 17-day limit for male guests. Anderson testified that during his 2007 stay at River of Life, he was required to attend chapel services before he was permitted to eat dinner. At the conclusion of his 17-day stay, Anderson declined to enter the Discipleship Program because of his religious beliefs. As Anderson was barred by the shelter's policies from returning to River of Life for 30 days, he slept outside for the next several weeks. On September 1,2007,Anderson was cited under the Camping Ordinance. He pled guilty to violating the Camping Ordinance and paid a$25 fine;he did not appeal his conviction. Plaintiff Robert Martin is a former resident of Boise who currently lives in Post Falls,Idaho. Martin returns frequently to Boise to visit his minor son. In March of 2009,Martin was cited under the Camping Ordinance for sleeping outside; he was cited again in 2012 under the same ordinance. 171 569 MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE 11 B. Procedural History The plaintiffs filed this action in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho in October of 2009. All plaintiffs alleged that their previous citations under the Camping Ordinance and the Disorderly Conduct Ordinance violated the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment, and sought damages for those alleged violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Cf. Jones, 444 F.3d at 1138. Anderson and Martin also sought prospective declaratory and injunctive relief precluding future enforcement of the ordinances under the same statute and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202. After this litigation began, the Boise Police Department promulgated a new "Special Order," effective as of January 1, 2010, that prohibited enforcement of either the Camping Ordinance or the Disorderly Conduct Ordinance against any homeless person on public property on any night when no shelter had "an available overnight space." City police implemented the Special Order through a two-step procedure known as the "Shelter Protocol." Under the Shelter Protocol,if any shelter in Boise reaches capacity on a given night,that shelter will so notify the police at roughly 11:00 pm. Each shelter has discretion to determine whether it is full, and Boise police have no other mechanism or criteria for gauging whether a shelter is full. Since the Shelter Protocol was adopted, Sanctuary has reported that it was full on almost 40% of nights. Although BRM agreed to the Shelter Protocol, its internal policy is never to turn any person away because of a lack of space, and neither BRM shelter has ever reported that it was full. 172 570 12 MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE If all shelters are full on the same night, police are to refrain from enforcing either ordinance. Presumably because the BRM shelters have not reported full, Boise police continue to issue citations regularly under both ordinances. In July 2011,the district court granted summary judgment to the City. It held that the plaintiffs' claims for retrospective relief were barred under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and that their claims for prospective relief were mooted by the Special Order and the Shelter Protocol. Bell v. City of Boise, 834 F. Supp. 2d 1103 (D. Idaho 2011). On appeal, we reversed and remanded. Bell v. City of Boise, 709 F.3d 890, 901 (9th Cir. 2013). We held that the district court erred in dismissing the plaintiffs' claims under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Id. at 897. In so holding, we expressly declined to consider whether the favorable-termination requirement from Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), applied to the plaintiffs' claims for retrospective relief. Instead,we left the issue for the district court on remand. Bell, 709 F.3d at 897 n.11. Bell further held that the plaintiffs' claims for prospective relief were not moot. The City had not met its "heavy burden" of demonstrating that the challenged conduct enforcement of the two ordinances against homeless individuals with no access to shelter "could not reasonably be expected to recur." Id. at 898,901 (quoting Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189(2000)). We emphasized that the Special Order was a statement of administrative policy and so could be amended or reversed at any time by the Boise Chief of Police. Id. at 899-900. 173 571 MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE 13 Finally, Bell rejected the City's argument that the plaintiffs lacked standing to seek prospective relief because they were no longer homeless. Id. at 901 & n.12. We noted that, on summary judgment,the plaintiffs"need not establish that they in fact have standing,but only that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to the standing elements." Id. (citation omitted). On remand, the district court again granted summary judgment to the City on the plaintiffs' § 1983 claims. The court observed that Heck requires a § 1983 plaintiff seeking damages for "harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid"to demonstrate that "the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal . . . or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus." 512 U.S. at 486-87. According to the district court, "a judgment finding the Ordinances unconstitutional . . . necessarily would imply the invalidity of Plaintiffs' [previous] convictions under those ordinances," and the plaintiffs therefore were required to demonstrate that their convictions or sentences had already been invalidated. As none of the plaintiffs had raised an Eighth Amendment challenge as a defense to criminal prosecution,nor had any plaintiff successfully appealed their conviction, the district court held that all of the plaintiffs' claims for retrospective relief were barred by Heck. The district court also rejected as barred by Heck the plaintiffs' claim for prospective injunctive relief under § 1983, reasoning that "a ruling in favor of Plaintiffs on even a prospective§ 1983 claim would demonstrate the invalidity of any confinement stemming from those convictions." 174 572 14 MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE Finally,the district court determined that, although Heck did not bar relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act,Martin and Anderson now lack standing to pursue such relief. The linchpin of this holding was that the Camping Ordinance and the Disorderly Conduct Ordinance were both amended in 2014 to codify the Special Order's mandate that "[1]aw enforcement officers shall not enforce [the ordinances]when the individual is on public property and there is no available overnight shelter." Boise City Code §§ 6-01-05, 9-10-02. Because the ordinances, as amended, permitted camping or sleeping in a public place when no shelter space was available,the court held that there was no"credible threat"of future prosecution. "If the Ordinances are not to be enforced when the shelters are full, those Ordinances do not inflict a constitutional injury upon these particular plaintiffs . . . ." The court emphasized that the record "suggests there is no known citation of a homeless individual under the Ordinances for camping or sleeping on public property on any night or morning when he or she was unable to secure shelter due to a lack of shelter capacity" and that "there has not been a single night when all three shelters in Boise called in to report they were simultaneously full for men, women or families." This appeal followed. 175 573 MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE 15 II. Discussion A. Standing We first consider whether any of the plaintiffs has standing to pursue prospective relief.' We conclude that there are sufficient opposing facts in the record to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Martin and Anderson face a credible threat of prosecution under one or both ordinances in the future at a time when they are unable to stay at any Boise homeless shelter.' "To establish Article III standing, an injury must be concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; fairly traceable to the challenged action; and redressable by a favorable ruling." Clapper v. Amnesty Intl USA, 133 S. Ct. 1138, 1147 (2013)(citation omitted). "Although imminence is concededly a somewhat elastic concept, it cannot be stretched beyond its purpose, which is to ensure that the alleged injury is not too speculative for Article III purposes — that the injury is certainly impending." Id. (citation omitted). A plaintiff need not, however, await an arrest or prosecution to have standing to challenge the constitutionality of a criminal statute. "When the plaintiff has alleged an Standing to pursue retrospective relief is not in doubt. The only threshold question affecting the availability of a claim for retrospective relief a question we address in the next section—is whether such relief is barred by the doctrine established in Heck. 6 Although the SAC is somewhat ambiguous regarding which of the plaintiffs seeks prospective relief,counsel for the plaintiffs made clear at oral argument that only two of the plaintiffs,Martin and Anderson, seek such relief, and the district court considered the standing question with respect to Martin and Anderson only. 176 574 16 MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE intention to engage in a course of conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest,but proscribed by a statute, and there exists a credible threat of prosecution thereunder, he should not be required to await and undergo a criminal prosecution as the sole means of seeking relief." Babbitt v. United Farm Workers Nat'l Union,442 U.S. 289,298(1979) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). To defeat a motion for summary judgment premised on an alleged lack of standing,plaintiffs "need not establish that they in fact have standing,but only that there is a genuine question of material fact as to the standing elements." Cent. Delta Water Agency v. United States, 306 F.3d 938, 947 (9th Cir. 2002). In dismissing Martin and Anderson's claims for declaratory relief for lack of standing, the district court emphasized that Boise's ordinances, as amended in 2014, preclude the City from issuing a citation when there is no available space at a shelter, and there is consequently no risk that either Martin or Anderson will be cited under such circumstances in the future. Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, we cannot agree. Although the 2014 amendments preclude the City from enforcing the ordinances when there is no room available at any shelter, the record demonstrates that the City is wholly reliant on the shelters to self-report when they are full. It is undisputed that Sanctuary is full as to men on a substantial percentage of nights, perhaps as high as 50%. The City nevertheless emphasizes that since the adoption of the Shelter Protocol in 2010, the BRM facilities, River of Life and City Light, have never reported that they are full, and BRM states that it will never turn people away due to lack space. 177 575 MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE 17 The plaintiffs have pointed to substantial evidence in the record, however, indicating that whether or not the BRM facilities are ever full or turn homeless individuals away for lack of space, they do refuse to shelter homeless people who exhaust the number of days allotted by the facilities. Specifically, the plaintiffs allege, and the City does not dispute, that it is BRM's policy to limit men to 17 consecutive days in the Emergency Services Program, after which they cannot return to River of Life for 30 days; City Light has a similar 30-day limit for women and children. Anderson testified that BRM has enforced this policy against him in the past, forcing him to sleep outdoors. The plaintiffs have adduced further evidence indicating that River of Life permits individuals to remain at the shelter after 17 days in the Emergency Services Program only on the condition that they become part of the New Life Discipleship program, which has a mandatory religious focus. For example, there is evidence that participants in the New Life Program are not allowed to spend days at Corpus Christi, a local Catholic program, "because it's . . . a different sect." There are also facts in dispute concerning whether the Emergency Services Program itself has a religious component. Although the City argues strenuously that the Emergency Services Program is secular, Anderson testified to the contrary; he stated that he was once required to attend chapel before being permitted to eat dinner at the River of Life shelter. Both Martin and Anderson have objected to the overall religious atmosphere of the River of Life shelter, including the Christian messaging on the shelter's intake foiini and the Christian iconography on the shelter walls. A city cannot,via the threat of prosecution,coerce an individual to attend religion-based treatment programs consistently with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Inouye v. 178 576 18 MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE Kemna, 504 F.3d 705, 712-13 (9th Cir. 2007). Yet at the conclusion of a 17-day stay at River of Life, or a 30-day stay at City Light, an individual may be forced to choose between sleeping outside on nights when Sanctuary is full(and risking arrest under the ordinances), or enrolling in BRM programming that is antithetical to his or her religious beliefs. The 17-day and 30-day limits are not the only BRM policies which functionally limit access to BRM facilities even when space is nominally available. River of Life also turns individuals away if they voluntarily leave the shelter before the 17-day limit and then attempt to return within 30 days. An individual who voluntarily leaves a BRM facility for any reason—perhaps because temporary shelter is available at Sanctuary, or with friends or family, or in a hotel cannot immediately return to the shelter if circumstances change. Moreover,BRM's facilities may deny shelter to any individual who arrives after 5:30 pm, and generally will deny shelter to anyone arriving after 8:00 pm. Sanctuary, however, does not assign beds to persons on its waiting list until 9:00 pm. Thus, by the time a homeless individual on the Sanctuary waiting list discovers that the shelter has no room available, it may be too late to seek shelter at either BRM facility. So, even if we credit the City's evidence that BRM's facilities have never been "full," and that the City has never cited any person under the ordinances who could not obtain shelter "due to a lack of shelter capacity," there remains a genuine issue of material fact as to whether homeless individuals in Boise run a credible risk of being issued a citation on a night when Sanctuary is full and they have been denied entry to a BRM facility for reasons other than shelter capacity. If so, then as a practical matter, no shelter is 179 577 MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE 19 available. We note that despite the Shelter Protocol and the amendments to both ordinances,the City continues regularly to issue citations for violating both ordinances; during the first three months of 2015, the Boise Police Depaitnient issued over 175 such citations. The City argues that Martin faces little risk ofprosecution under either ordinance because he has not lived in Boise since 2013. Martin states, however, that he is still homeless and still visits Boise several times a year to visit his minor son, and that he has continued to seek shelter at Sanctuary and River of Life. Although Martin may no longer spend enough time in Boise to risk running afoul of BRM's 17-day limit,he testified that he has unsuccessfully sought shelter at River of Life after being placed on Sanctuary's waiting list, only to discover later in the evening that Sanctuary had no available beds. Should Martin return to Boise to visit his son, there is a reasonable possibility that he might again seek shelter at Sanctuary, only to discover (after BRM has closed for the night)that Sanctuary has no space for him. Anderson,for his part, continues to live in Boise and states that he remains homeless. We conclude that both Martin and Anderson have demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether they face a credible risk of prosecution under the ordinances in the future on a night when they have been denied access to Boise's homeless shelters; both plaintiffs therefore have standing to seek prospective relief. B. Heck v. Humphrey We turn next to the impact of Heck v. Humphrey and its progeny on this case. With regard to retrospective relief, the 180 578 20 MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE plaintiffs maintain that Heck should not bar their claims because, with one exception, all of the plaintiffs were sentenced to time served.' It would therefore have been impossible for the plaintiffs to obtain federal habeas relief,as any petition for a writ of habeas corpus must be filed while the petitioner is "in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court." See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7, 17-18 (1998). With regard to prospective relief, the plaintiffs emphasize that they seek only equitable protection against future enforcement of an allegedly unconstitutional statute, and not to invalidate any prior conviction under the same statute. We hold that although the Heck line of cases precludes most but not all — of the plaintiffs' requests for retrospective relief, that doctrine has no application to the plaintiffs' request for an injunction enjoining prospective enforcement of the ordinances. 1. The Heck Doctrine A long line of Supreme Court case law, beginning with Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973), holds that a prisoner in state custody cannot use a § 1983 action to challenge the fact or duration of his or her confinement, but must instead seek federal habeas corpus relief or analogous state relief. Id. at 477, 500. Preiser considered whether a prison inmate could bring a § 1983 action seeking an injunction to remedy an unconstitutional deprivation of good- time conduct credits. Observing that habeas corpus is the traditional instrument to obtain release from unlawful ' Plaintiff Pamela Hawkes was convicted of violating the Camping Ordinance or Disorderly Conduct Ordinance on twelve occasions; although she was usually sentenced to time served, she was twice sentenced to one additional day in jail. 181 579 MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE 21 confinement, Preiser recognized an implicit exception from § 1983's broad scope for actions that lie "within the core of habeas corpus" specifically, challenges to the "fact or duration" of confinement. Id. at 487, 500. The Supreme Court subsequently held, however, that although Preiser barred inmates from obtaining an injunction to restore good- time credits via a § 1983 action, Preiser did not "preclude a litigant with standing from obtaining by way of ancillary relief an otherwise proper injunction enjoining the prospective enforcement of invalid prison regulations." Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 555 (1974) (emphasis added). Heck addressed a § 1983 action brought by an inmate seeking compensatory and punitive damages. The inmate alleged that state and county officials had engaged in unlawful investigations and knowing destruction of exculpatory evidence. Heck, 512 U.S. at 479. The Court in Heck analogized a § 1983 action of this type, which called into question the validity of an underlying conviction, to a cause of action for malicious prosecution, id. at 483-84, and went on to hold that, as with a malicious prosecution claim, a plaintiff in such an action must demonstrate a favorable termination of the criminal proceedings before seeking tort relief, id. at 486-87. "[T]o recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus." Id. 182 580 22 MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE Edwards v.Balisok,520 U.S.641 (1997)extended Heck's holding to claims for declaratory relief. Id. at 648. The plaintiff in Edwards alleged that he had been deprived of earned good-time credits without due process of law,because the decisionmaker in disciplinary proceedings had concealed exculpatory evidence. Because the plaintiff's claim for declaratory relief was"based on allegations of deceit and bias on the part of the decisionmaker that necessarily imply the invalidity of the punishment imposed,"Edwards held, it was "not cognizable under§ 1983." Id. Edwards went on to hold, however,that a requested injunction requiring prison officials to date-stamp witness statements was not Heck-barred, reasoning that a "prayer for such prospective relief will not `necessarily imply' the invalidity of a previous loss of good- time credits, and so may properly be brought under § 1983." Id. (emphasis added). Most recently, Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (2005), stated that Heck bars § 1983 suits even when the relief sought is prospective injunctive or declaratory relief, "if success in that action would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration." Id. at 81-82 (emphasis omitted). But Wilkinson held that the plaintiffs in that case could seek a prospective injunction compelling the state to comply with constitutional requirements in parole proceedings in the future. The Court observed that the prisoners' claims for future relief, "if successful, will not necessarily imply the invalidity of confinement or shorten its duration." Id. at 82. The Supreme Court did not, in these cases or any other, conclusively determine whether Heck's favorable-termination requirement applies to convicts who have no practical opportunity to challenge their conviction or sentence via a 183 581 MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE 23 petition for habeas corpus. See Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749,752&n.2(2004). But in Spencer,five Justices suggested that Heck may not apply in such circumstances. Spencer, 523 U.S. at 3. The petitioner in Spencer had filed a federal habeas petition seeking to invalidate an order revoking his parole. While the habeas petition was pending, the petitioner's term of imprisonment expired, and his habeas petition was consequently dismissed as moot. Justice Souter wrote a concurring opinion in which three other Justices joined, addressing the petitioner's argument that if his habeas petition were mooted by his release,any§ 1983 action would be barred under Heck,yet he would no longer have access to a federal habeas forum to challenge the validity of his parole revocation. Id. at 18-19 (Souter, J., concurring). Justice Souter stated that in his view"Heck has no such effect,"and that "a former prisoner, no longer 'in custody,' may bring a § 1983 action establishing the unconstitutionality of a conviction or confinement without being bound to satisfy a favorable-termination requirement that it would be impossible as a matter of law for him to satisfy." Id. at 21. Justice Stevens,dissenting,stated that he would have held the habeas petition in Spencer not moot,but agreed that"[gliven the Court's holding that petitioner does not have a remedy under the habeas statute, it is perfectly clear . . . that he may bring an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983." Id. at 25 n.8 (Stevens, J., dissenting). Relying on the concurring and dissenting opinions in Spencer,we have held that the"unavailability of a remedy in habeas corpus because of mootness" permitted a plaintiff released from custody to maintain a § 1983 action for damages,"even though success in that action would imply the 184 582 24 MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE invalidity of the disciplinary proceeding that caused revocation of his good-time credits." Nonnette v. Small, 316 F.3d 872, 876 (9th Cir. 2002). But we have limited Nonnette in recent years. Most notably, we held in Lyall v. City of Los Angeles, 807 F.3d 1178 (9th Cir. 2015),that even where a plaintiff had no practical opportunity to pursue federal habeas relief while detained because of the short duration of his confinement, Heck bars a § 1983 action that would imply the invalidity of a prior conviction if the plaintiff could have sought invalidation of the underlying conviction via direct appeal or state post-conviction relief,but did not do so. Id. at 1192 &n.12. 2. Retrospective Relief Here, the majority of the plaintiffs' claims for retrospective relief are governed squarely by Lyall. It is undisputed that all the plaintiffs not only failed to challenge their convictions on direct appeal but expressly waived the right to do so as a condition of their guilty pleas. The plaintiffs have made no showing that any of their convictions were invalidated via state post-conviction relief. We therefore hold that all but two of the plaintiffs' claims for damages are foreclosed under Lyall. Two of the plaintiffs,however,Robert Martin and Pamela Hawkes, also received citations under the ordinances that were dismissed before the state obtained a conviction. Hawkes was cited for violating the Camping Ordinance on July 8, 2007; that violation was dismissed on August 28, 2007. Martin was cited for violating the Disorderly Conduct Ordinance on April 24, 2009; those charges were dismissed on September 9, 2009. With respect to these two incidents, the district court erred in finding that the plaintiffs' Eighth 185 583 MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE 25 Amendment challenge was barred by Heck. Where there is no "conviction or sentence" that may be undermined by a grant of relief to the plaintiffs, the Heck doctrine has no application. 512 U.S. at 486-87; see also Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393 (2007). Relying on Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 664 (1977), the City argues that the Eighth Amendment, and the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause in particular,have no application where there has been no conviction. The City's reliance on Ingraham is misplaced. As the Supreme Court observed in Ingraham, the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause not only limits the types of punishment that may be imposed and prohibits the imposition of punishment grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime, but also "imposes substantive limits on what can be made criminal and punished as such." Id. at 667. "This [latter] protection governs the criminal law process as a whole, not only the imposition of punishment postconviction." Jones, 444 F.3d at 1128. Ingraham concerned only whether "impositions outside the criminal process" in that case, the paddling of schoolchildren "constituted cruel and unusual punishment." 430 U.S. at 667. Ingraham did not hold that a plaintiff challenging the state's power to criminalize a particular status or conduct in the first instance, as the plaintiffs in this case do, must first be convicted. If conviction were a prerequisite for such a challenge,"the state could in effect punish individuals in the preconviction stages of the criminal law enforcement process for being or doing things that under the [Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause] cannot be subject to the criminal process." Jones, 444 F.3d at 1129. For those rare Eighth Amendment 186 584 26 MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE challenges concerning the state's very power to criminalize particular behavior or status, then, a plaintiff need demonstrate only the initiation of the criminal process against him,not a conviction. 3. Prospective Relief The district court also erred in concluding that the plaintiffs' requests for prospective injunctive relief were barred by Heck. The district court relied entirely on language in Wilkinson stating that "a state prisoner's § 1983 action is barred (absent prior invalidation) . . . no matter the relief sought (damages or equitable relief) . . . if success in that action would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration." Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 81-82. The district court concluded from this language in Wilkinson that a person convicted under an allegedly unconstitutional statute may never challenge the validity or application of that statute after the initial criminal proceeding is complete, even when the relief sought is prospective only and independent of the prior conviction. The logical extension of the district court's interpretation is that an individual who does not successfully invalidate a first conviction under an unconstitutional statute will have no opportunity to challenge that statute prospectively so as to avoid arrest and conviction for violating that same statute in the future. Neither Wilkinson nor any other case in the Heck line supports such a result. Rather, Wolff, Edwards, and Wilkinson compel the opposite conclusion. Wolff held that although Preiser barred a § 1983 action seeking restoration of good-time credits absent a successful challenge in federal habeas proceedings, Preiser did not 187 585 MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE 27 "preclude a litigant with standing from obtaining by way of ancillary relief an otherwise proper injunction enjoining the prospective enforcement of invalid . . . regulations." Wolff, 418 U.S. at 555. Although Wolff was decided before Heck, the Court subsequently made clear that Heck effected no change in the law in this regard, observing in Edwards that "[o]rdinarily, a prayer for . . . prospective [injunctive] relief will not `necessarily imply' the invalidity of a previous loss of good-time credits, and so may properly be brought under § 1983." Edwards, 520 U.S. at 648 (emphasis added). Importantly, the Court held in Edwards that although the plaintiff could not,consistently with Heck,seek a declaratory judgment stating that the procedures employed by state officials that deprived him of good-time credits were unconstitutional, he could seek an injunction barring such allegedly unconstitutional procedures in the future. Id. Finally, the Court noted in Wilkinson that the Heck line of cases "has focused on the need to ensure that state prisoners use only habeas corpus(or similar state)remedies when they seek to invalidate the duration of their confinement," Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 81 (emphasis added), alluding to an existing confinement, not one yet to come. The Heck doctrine, in other words, serves to ensure the finality and validity of previous convictions, not to insulate future prosecutions from challenge. In context,it is clear that Wilkinson's holding that the Heck doctrine bars a § 1983 action "no matter the relief sought (damages or equitable relief) . . . if success in that action would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration" applies to equitable relief concerning an existing confinement, not to suits seeking to preclude an unconstitutional confinement in the future, arising from incidents occurring after any prior conviction and stemming 188 586 28 MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE from a possible later prosecution and conviction. Id.at 81-82 (emphasis added). As Wilkinson held, "claims for future relief (which, if successful, will not necessarily imply the invalidity of confinement or shorten its duration)"are distant from the"core"of habeas corpus with which the Heck line of cases is concerned, and are not precluded by the Heck doctrine. Id. at 82. In sum, we hold that the majority of the plaintiffs' claims for retrospective relief are barred by Heck, but both Martin and Hawkes stated claims for damages to which Heck has no application. We further hold that Heck has no application to the plaintiffs' requests for prospective injunctive relief. C. The Eighth Amendment At last, we turn to the merits does the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment preclude the enforcement of a statute prohibiting sleeping outside against homeless individuals with no access to alternative shelter? We hold that it does, for essentially the same reasons articulated in the now-vacated Jones opinion. The Eighth Amendment states: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." U.S. Const., amend. VIII. The Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause "circumscribes the criminal process in three ways." Ingraham, 430 U.S. at 667. First, it limits the type of punishment the government may impose; second, it proscribes punishment "grossly disproportionate" to the severity of the crime; and third, it places substantive limits on what the government may criminalize. Id. It is the third limitation that is pertinent here. 189 587 MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE 29 "Even one day in prison would be a cruel and unusual punishment for the `crime' of having a common cold." Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660, 667 (1962). Cases construing substantive limits as to what the government may criminalize are rare, however, and for good reason the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause's third limitation is "one to be applied sparingly.." Ingraham, 430 U.S. at 667. Robinson, the seminal case in this branch of Eighth Amendment jurisprudence, held a California statute that "ma[de]the `status' of narcotic addiction a criminal offense" invalid under the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause. 370 U.S. at 666. The California law at issue in Robinson was "not one which punishe[d] a person for the use of narcotics, for their purchase, sale or possession, or for antisocial or disorderly behavior resulting from their administration"; it punished addiction itself. Id. Recognizing narcotics addiction as an illness or disease "apparently an illness which may be contracted innocently or involuntarily" and observing that a"law which made a criminal offense of. . . a disease would doubtless be universally thought to be an infliction of cruel and unusual punishment," Robinson held the challenged statute a violation of the Eighth Amendment. Id. at 666-67. As Jones observed,Robinson did not explain at length the principles underpinning its holding. See Jones, 444 F.3d at 1133. In Powell v. Texas,392 U.S. 514(1968),however,the Court elaborated on the principle first articulated in Robinson. Powell concerned the constitutionality of a Texas law making public drunkenness a criminal offense. Justice Marshall, writing for a plurality of the Court, distinguished the Texas statute from the law at issue in Robinson on the 190 588 30 MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE ground that the Texas statute made criminal not alcoholism but conduct — appearing in public while intoxicated. "[A]ppellant was convicted,not for being a chronic alcoholic, but for being in public while drunk on a particular occasion. The State of Texas thus has not sought to punish a mere status, as California did in Robinson; nor has it attempted to regulate appellant's behavior in the privacy of his own home." Id. at 532 (plurality opinion). The Powell plurality opinion went on to interpret Robinson as precluding only the criminalization of"status," not of "involuntary" conduct. "The entire thrust of Robinson's interpretation of the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause is that criminal penalties may be inflicted only if the accused has committed some act, has engaged in some behavior,which society has an interest in preventing,or perhaps in historical common law terms,has committed some actus reus. It thus does not deal with the question of whether certain conduct cannot constitutionally be punished because it is, in some sense, `involuntary' . . . ." Id. at 533. Four Justices dissented from the Court's holding in Powell;Justice White concurred in the result alone. Notably, Justice White noted that many chronic alcoholics are also homeless, and that for those individuals, public drunkenness may be unavoidable as a practical matter. "For all practical purposes the public streets may be home for these unfortunates, not because their disease compels them to be there,but because,drunk or sober,they have no place else to go and no place else to be when they are drinking. . . . For some of these alcoholics I would think a showing could be made that resisting drunkenness is impossible and that avoiding public places when intoxicated is also impossible. As applied to them this statute is in effect a law which bans 191 589 MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE 31 a single act for which they may not be convicted under the Eighth Amendment—the act of getting drunk." Id. at 551 (White, J., concurring in the judgment). The four dissenting Justices adopted a position consistent with that taken by Justice White: that under Robinson, "criminal penalties may not be inflicted upon a person for being in a condition he is powerless to change," and that the defendant, "once intoxicated, . . . could not prevent himself from appearing in public places." Id. at 567 (Fortas, J., dissenting). Thus, five Justices gleaned from Robinson the principle that"that the Eighth Amendment prohibits the state from punishing an involuntary act or condition if it is the unavoidable consequence of one's status or being." Jones, 444 F.3d at 1135; see also United States v. Roberston, 875 F.3d 1281, 1291 (9th Cir. 2017). This principle compels the conclusion that the Eighth Amendment prohibits the imposition of criminal penalties for sitting, sleeping, or lying outside on public property for homeless individuals who cannot obtain shelter. As Jones reasoned, "[w]hether sitting, lying, and sleeping are defined as acts or conditions, they are universal and unavoidable consequences of being human." Jones, 444 F.3d at 1136. Moreover, any "conduct at issue here is involuntary and inseparable from status they are one and the same, given that human beings are biologically compelled to rest,whether by sitting,lying,or sleeping." Id. As a result,just as the state may not criminalize the state of being "homeless in public places," the state may not "criminalize conduct that is an unavoidable consequence of being homeless namely sitting, lying, or sleeping on the streets." Id. at 1137. 192 590 32 MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE Our holding is a narrow one. Like the Jones panel, "we in no way dictate to the City that it must provide sufficient shelter for the homeless, or allow anyone who wishes to sit, lie, or sleep on the streets . . . at any time and at any place." Id. at 1138. We hold only that"so long as there is a greater number of homeless individuals in [a jurisdiction] than the number of available beds [in shelters]," the jurisdiction cannot prosecute homeless individuals for "involuntarily sitting, lying, and sleeping in public." Id. That is, as long as there is no option of sleeping indoors,the government cannot criminalize indigent,homeless people for sleeping outdoors, on public property, on the false premise they had a choice in the matter.' We are not alone in reaching this conclusion. As one court has observed,"resisting the need to eat, sleep or engage in other life-sustaining activities is impossible. Avoiding public places when engaging in this otherwise innocent conduct is also impossible. . . . As long as the homeless plaintiffs do not have a single place where they can lawfully be,the challenged ordinances,as applied to them, effectively s Naturally, our holding does not cover individuals who do have access to adequate temporary shelter, whether because they have the means to pay for it or because it is realistically available to them for free, but who choose not to use it. Nor do we suggest that a jurisdiction with insufficient shelter can never criminalize the act of sleeping outside. Even where shelter is unavailable, an ordinance prohibiting sitting, lying, or sleeping outside at particular times or in particular locations might well be constitutionally permissible. See Jones,444 F.3d at 1123. So,too,might an ordinance barring the obstruction of public rights of way or the erection of certain structures. Whether some other ordinance is consistent with the Eighth Amendment will depend,as here,on whether it punishes a person for lacking the means to live out the "universal and unavoidable consequences of being human"in the way the ordinance prescribes. Id. at 1136. 193 591 MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE 33 punish them for something for which they may not be convicted under the [E]ighth [A]mendment sleeping, eating and other innocent conduct." Pottinger v. City of Miami, 810 F. Supp. 1551, 1565 (S.D. Fla. 1992); see also Johnson v. City of Dallas, 860 F. Supp. 344, 350 (N.D. Tex. 1994)(holding that a"sleeping in public ordinance as applied against the homeless is unconstitutional"), rev'd on other grounds, 61 F.3d 442 (5th Cir. 1995).9 Here, the two ordinances criminalize the simple act of sleeping outside on public property, whether bare or with a blanket or other basic bedding. The Disorderly Conduct Ordinance,on its face,criminalizes"[o]ccupying,lodging,or sleeping in any building,structure or place,whether public or private" without permission. Boise City Code § 6-01-05. Its scope is just as sweeping as the Los Angeles ordinance at issue in.Jones,which mandated that"[n]o person shall sit,lie or sleep in or upon any street, sidewalk or other public way." 444 F.3d at 1123. The Camping Ordinance criminalizes using "any of the streets, sidewalks, parks or public places as a camping place 9 In Joel v. City of Orlando,232 F.3d 1353, 1362(11th Cir. 2000), the Eleventh Circuit upheld an anti-camping ordinance similar to Boise's against an Eighth Amendment challenge. In Joel,however,the defendants presented unrefuted evidence that the homeless shelters in the City of Orlando had never reached capacity and that the plaintiffs had always enjoyed access to shelter space. Id. Those unrefuted facts were critical to the court's holding. Id. As discussed below,the plaintiffs here have demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether they have been denied access to shelter in the past or expect to be so denied in the future. Joel therefore does not provide persuasive guidance for this case. 194 592 34 MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE at any time." Boise City Code § 9-10-02. The ordinance defines "camping"broadly: The term"camp"or"camping"shall mean the use of public property as a temporary or permanent place of dwelling, lodging, or residence, or as a living accommodation at anytime between sunset and sunrise, or as a sojourn. Indicia of camping may include, but are not limited to, storage of personal belongings, using tents or other temporary structures for sleeping or storage of personal belongings, carrying on cooking activities or making any fire in an unauthorized area, or any of these activities in combination with one another or in combination with either sleeping or making preparations to sleep (including the laying down of bedding for the purpose of sleeping). Id. It appears from the record that the Camping Ordinance is frequently enforced against homeless individuals with some elementary bedding, whether or not any of the other listed indicia of"camping" the erection of temporary structures, the activity of cooking or making fire, or the storage of personal property—are present. For example,a Boise police officer testified that he cited plaintiff Pamela Hawkes under the Camping Ordinance for sleeping outside "wrapped in a blanket with her sandals off and next to her," for sleeping in a public restroom "with blankets,"and for sleeping in a park "on a blanket, wrapped in blankets on the ground." The Camping Ordinance therefore can be, and allegedly is, enforced against homeless individuals who take even the most rudimentary precautions to protect themselves from the 195 593 MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE 35 elements. We conclude that a municipality cannot criminalize such behavior consistently with the Eighth Amendment when no sleeping space is practically available in any shelter. III. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons,we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court as to the plaintiffs'requests for retrospective relief, except as such claims relate to Hawkes's July 2007 citation under the Camping Ordinance and Martin's April 2009 citation under the Disorderly Conduct Ordinance. We REVERSE and REMAND with respect to the plaintiffs' requests for prospective relief, both declaratory and injunctive,and to the plaintiffs'claims for retrospective relief insofar as they relate to Hawkes' July 2007 citation or Martin's April 2009 citation." 10 Costs shall be awarded to the plaintiffs. 196 594 36 MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE OWENS, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part: I agree with the majority that the doctrine of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), bars the plaintiffs' 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims for damages that are based on convictions that have not been challenged on direct appeal or invalidated in state post-conviction relief. See Lyall v. City of Los Angeles, 807 F.3d 1178, 1192 n.12 (9th Cir. 2015). I also agree that Heck and its progeny have no application where there is no "conviction or sentence" that would be undermined by granting a plaintiff's request for relief under § 1983. Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87;see also Wallace v.Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393 (2007). I therefore concur in the majority's conclusion that Heck does not bar plaintiffs Robert Martin and Pamela Hawkes from seeking retrospective relief for the two instances in which they received citations,but not convictions. I also concur in the majority's Eighth Amendment analysis as to those two claims for retrospective relief. Where I part ways with the majority is in my understanding of Heck's application to the plaintiffs' claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. In Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (2005), the Supreme Court explained where the Heck doctrine stands today: [A] state prisoner's § 1983 action is barred (absent prior invalidation)—no matter the relief sought(damages or equitable relief),no matter the target of the prisoner's suit (state conduct leading to conviction or internal prison proceedings)—if success in that action 197 595 MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE 37 would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration. Id. at 81-82. Here,the majority acknowledges this language in Wilkinson, but concludes that Heck's bar on any type of relief that "would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement" does not preclude the prospective claims at issue. The majority reasons that the purpose of Heck is "to ensure the finality and validity of previous convictions,not to insulate future prosecutions from challenge," and so concludes that the plaintiffs'prospective claims may proceed. I respectfully disagree. A declaration that the city ordinances are unconstitutional and an injunction against their future enforcement necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of the plaintiffs'prior convictions. Indeed, any time an individual challenges the constitutionality of a substantive criminal statute under which he has been convicted, he asks for a judgment that would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of his conviction. And though neither the Supreme Court nor this court has squarely addressed Heck's application to § 1983 claims challenging the constitutionality of a substantive criminal statute, I believe Edwards v.Balisok,520 U.S.641 (1997),makes clear that Heck prohibits such challenges. In Edwards, the Supreme Court explained that although our court had recognized that Heck barred § 1983 claims challenging the validity of a prisoner's confinement"as a substantive matter," it improperly distinguished as not Heck-barred all claims alleging only procedural violations. 520 U.S. at 645. In holding that Heck also barred those procedural claims that would necessarily imply the invalidity of a conviction, the Court did not question our conclusion that claims challenging a conviction "as a substantive matter" are barred by Heck. 198 596 38 MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE Id.; see also Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 82 (holding that the plaintiffs' claims could proceed because the relief requested would only "render invalid the state procedures" and "a favorable judgment [would] not `necessarily imply the invalidity of[their] conviction[s] or sentences]'" (emphasis added) (quoting Heck, 512 U.S. at 487)). Edwards thus leads me to conclude that an individual who was convicted under a criminal statute, but who did not challenge the constitutionality of the statute at the time of his conviction through direct appeal or post-conviction relief, cannot do so in the first instance by seeking declaratory or injunctive relief under § 1983. See Abusaid v. Hillsborough Cty. Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs,405 F.3d 1298, 1316 n.9(11th Cir. 2005) (assuming that a §1983 claim challenging "the constitutionality of the ordinance under which [the petitioner was convicted]" would be Heck-barred). I therefore would hold that Heck bars the plaintiffs' claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. We are not the first court to struggle applying Heck to "real life examples," nor will we be the last. See, e.g., Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 21 (1998) (Ginsburg, J., concurring)(alterations and internal quotation marks omitted) (explaining that her thoughts on Heck had changed since she joined the majority opinion in that case). If the slate were blank, I would agree that the majority's holding as to prospective relief makes good sense. But because I read Heck and its progeny differently, I dissent as to that section of the majority's opinion. I otherwise join the majority in full. 199 597 J A NAVIGATION CENTER ICI - --- 14---- - , ,,-,, , - , - , -. -,, ,,. „,,„, A. -''- - .,- - ' ---- ' . - - - ', '..- 5770 Research Drive, Huntington Beach 1 S . . 1 ' 9 A Research IL - ' . c :i y ' , �.y y r r t r a 71.: M t Specifics • 50 Bed Emergency Shelter • No "walk ins" or "walk outs." Clients must be screened and go through an approval process prior to being accepted to the Center • Clients will only be driven to the site and/or away from the site. No loitering on or near the site • Site will be enclosed with an eight-foot fence • City to hire security for 24/7 coverage on-site • Enhanced Huntington Beach Police Department service • Length of stay — 90 days • No clients with open felony warrants or registered offenders Potential Partnerships • City will issue a Request For Proposals for a highly qualified Shelter Operator • Operator will need to provide shuttle services and case management Community Outreach • Community Open Houses will be scheduled for residents and businesses • For further information regarding the proposed Navigation Center and other City information regarding homelessness visit: www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/homelessness For further information please contact (714) 536-5582 `/ - /-, .O/ ' r ,/3 (/9 -2 9'4-) `NI I+' rotis Contact: Julie Toledo, City of Huntington Beach, PIO 714/536-5577 or 714/296-7728 Julie.toledo@surfcitv-hb.org Z Mach 29,2019 ��9`'•.:r:sue. -•r+` 1� `CFCUUNTY \0,11 Media Alert Huntington Beach to Create 50-Bed Navigation Center Item goes before City Council on Monday,April 1 Why: A Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Martin et al v City of Boise, held that enforcing a City ordinance that prohibits sleeping in public places is illegal if there are no housing alternatives available (other than sleeping in public)within that same jurisdiction. Federal lawsuits were filed last year against the County of Orange and nine other cities for the lack of emergency shelter beds for homeless individuals. A majority of those lawsuits were consolidated and assigned to the Federal District Court in Santa Ana. Who: While our City has not been sued at this time,the City has been requested to appear in court on Tuesday, April 2,2019 to report how it plans to comply with the basic tenets of Martin v. Boise. This April 2nd hearing is what caused the urgency in identifying a proposed shelter site and requesting an expedited City Council action. Opening a 50-bed Navigation Center will allow the City to focus on enforcement of the City's trespassing and anti-encampment ordinances and avoid a costly lawsuit. These laws will be an important tool in reducing homeless encampments and ensuring the safety and well-being of residents, business owners and visitors. It will also help keep our parks, beaches and open spaces safe and clean. What: The proposed Center will provide beds for up to 50 men, women and couples. There will be an approval process for potential clients including: no"walk ins"or"walking out," no registered sex offenders(290's)or open felony warrants,and length of stay up to 90 days,which could be extended if the homeless client is in process for housing. Clients living at the Navigation Center can stay on-site during the day and obtain needed services such as health care, counseling, job training and more. The clients will be driven to and from the site. There will be no homeless clients walking around the area. Where: While over 26 locations were vetted,the City is in the process of securing a lease agreement in the industrial zone of the City at 5770 Research Drive. When: The City plans to open the Navigation Center by Fall 2019. Steps that need to be taken include:City Council approval of the lease (April 1 meeting), tenant improvements, selecting a qualified homeless shelter operator, finalizing operating costs and funding, and developing a time frame for opening. The City plans to host a series of community Open Houses to address community concerns. For further information regarding the City's response to homelessness visit our website at: www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/homelessness ### /i�!��N............ION ti N ( AI Cr, 'Q Navigation Center Proposal �i4. VNIleirskq OpU 0" BACKGROUND > The homeless population has significantly increased nationwide. To deal with this growing epidemic, the U.S. Federal Court has communicated to every Orange County City that it must do its fair share. Ten other Orange County juristictions have been sued for lack of shelter beds. A lawsuit against Huntington Beach is imminent. > The proposed Navigation Center will provide emergency shelter beds allowing Officers to enforce the City's anti-camping ordinances while providing services to those in need such as veterans, the elderly and disabled. > The City may enter into a three-year lease in an industrial area to minimize the impact on nearby residents, businesses, and/or schools. Security is of the utmost concern. The City will pay for 24/7 on- site security services. SAFETY IS OUR NUMBER ONE PRIORITY > Since January 2016, the Huntington Beach Police Department has assigned two full-time Homeless Liaison Police Officers to assist with homelessness issues within the City. The entire Department deals with the challenges related to homelessness every day and is poised to respond. > In addition, the City has a Homeless Liaison Coordinator and four Homeless Case Managers that currently coordinate County, City,and non-profit services and housing resources for the homeless. The Office of Business Development is committed to serving property and business owners by assisting the police officers and coordinating with business owners. • With the availability of these beds, our police officers will be able to quickly enforce laws and move homeless people they encounter to this emergency shelter. This will also result in cleaner and safer parks, beaches and open spaces. > Our efforts are already producing results. The City's Homeless Task Force has helped more than 240 people in getting off the street. 69 of those have reconnected with family. Case managers and police officers helped on over 1,200 occasions with housing referrals, mental health referrals,bus passes,DMV forms,gas cards,food, mail boxes, and family reunifications. HISTORICAL HOMELESS RESPONSE > The City of Huntington Beach has been a long-standing advocate for finding creative solutions to those experiencing homelessness, while at the same time appropriately conducting enforcement efforts to ensure the safety and well-being of residents, business owners and visitors. For example, the City of Huntington Beach has helped the homeless starting with the City's Youth Shelter in Central Park. Since 1994, nearly 1,300 kids have graduated from the program. PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND OUTREACH EFFORTS > Community Open Houses will be held to provide more information and respond to citizens' concerns. For more information on the City's efforts regarding homelessness, please visit our Homeless Services website at www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/homelessness. Estanislau, Robin From: Farrell, Lori Ann Sent: Monday, April 01, 2019 12:27 PM To: Estanislau, Robin; Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Important Huntington Beach City Council Meeting! Lori Ann Farrell Harrison Assistant City Manager City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street,4th Floor Huntington Beach,CA 92648 (714)536-5236 Phone (714)536-5233 Fax loriann.farrell@surfcity-hb.org From: Homeless United Huntington Beach <homelessunitedhb@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 01, 2019 12:02 AM Subject: Fwd: Important Huntington Beach City Council Meeting! A bit of good news - support for the 50 bed Navigation Center from the League of Women Voters. See you Monday, 6:00 pm at HB City Council! Begin forwarded message: League Alert View this email in your browser LWV League of Women Voters of Orange Coast SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Da* `I• II Agenda Item No.; /3 1 3 1) Dear Coast Members in Huntington Beach, We want you to know that during Monday evening's (April 1) City Council Meeting, the Council will be considering whether to move forward with a proposed shelter for folks in Huntington Beach experiencing homelessness. The League of Women Voters of Orange Coast has written a letter to the council in favor of establishing the shelter (attached). • Here is a link to an article in the LA Times about the meeting: https://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/news/tn-dpt-me-hb-homeless-shelter- 20190328-story.html • The city's fact sheet on the proposal here: LINK • Here is a link to the city's announcement of the proposal: https://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/announcements/announcement.cfm?id=1299 • Here is a link to the city's basic information about homelessness: https://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/services/homeless-solutions/ • Here is a link to the council agenda -the shelter is item 13 .N6.,,,,,::, ,; u: :; �Gur..ie istar.comNiew.ashx?M=A&ID=679552&GUID=A6049BFE- A585-4013-B927-E8062362580E • Letter from Coast League to the Huntington Beach City Council: LINK If you support having the shelter: • We hope that you will attend the meeting and speak in favor of it- there are sure to be opponents and the city needs to know that there are folks who support having a shelter. • If you cannot attend, we hope that you will email the council. See here for contact information: https://www.huntingtonbeachca.qov/government/elected officials/city council/ • If you speak, it is OK to say that you are a League member and know that the League has also written the council in support of the proposed shelter. If you do not support the shelter, you are, of course, also free to express your opposition, but please remember that League members may not oppose a League position while identifying themselves as League members - the League speaks with one voice. 2 In League, Becky Newman, President, League of Women Voters of Orange Coast President@LWVOrangeCoast.org Click for our Facebook page: League of Women Voters of Orange Coast Click for our Website: League of Women Voters of Orange Coast! For Coast League Members: be sure to check out the "Members Only" section of our website. You can find both a video and written instructions for logging in by clicking HERE. To unsubscribe from these emails click and write unsubscribe in the subject line: Communicationse Iwvorangecoast.org Copyright©2019 League of Women Voters - Orange Coast, All rights reserved. You are receiving this email because you opted in at a League of Women Voters - Orange Coast event. 3 Our mailing address is: League of Women Voters -Orange Coast P. O. Box 1065 Huntington Beach, CA 92647-1065 Add us to your address book w & mailchimp This email was sent to patdoodmanavahoo.com why did I get this? unsubscribe from this list update subscription preferences League of Women Voters-Orange Coast- P.O. Box 1065- Huntington Beach, CA 92647-1065 - USA mailchimp Resources: Build Futures Find a Resource, https://www.buildfutures.org/resources/ United Way, Cost of Homelessness in Orange County, , hups://www.unitedtoendhomelessness.org City of Huntington Beach- Homeless Solutions, https://www.huntingtonba.aov/services/homeless-solutions/ County of Orange,Addressing Homelessness in Orange County,http://homeless.egovoc.com/ il HOMELESS UNITED HUNTINGTON BEACH HomelessUnitedHB@,gmail.com 4 Work Order: #149902 Opened:01/2019 Closed: 3" y\ aye ` \ �': ...�.�\`��Q ...... __.._.._........ By Elizabeth Blake Agenda & Public Hearing Comments Email bethdelmar@socal.rr.c om SUB TYPE Phone 562-619-6272 City Council Meeting Device STREET ADDRESS Media Submitted None ® i 1 � COMMENTS&ADDITIONAL NOTES Good morning-I am a resident of Huntington Beach who lives about 1 mile from the proposed homeless shelter.I have several concerns regarding the plan.First,why was there no resident input regarding the shelter location and operations?It appears that a deal was made with the property owner prior to any information being released to the public.Second,I have concerns about the shelter being so close to several schools-backing up to Marina High School,and very close to Circle View Elementary and Village View Elementary.This does not seem like a wise idea.Third,I have many questions regarding operation of the shelter.How will people get to the shelter?Do they walk there?What would be the hours of operation?Where would people from the shelter go during the day?Would they simply disperse to Marina Park or Circle View park or the surrounding businesses?What other services would be provided to people utilizing the shelter?How many people would be expected to use the shelter on a nightly basis?Would operations be the same in summer and winter?It would be very helpful to have full disclosure of information regarding the shelter so that residents can form informed opinions regarding the project.For now,it seems that the location so close to several schools is not a good option.I understand that the issue is scheduled to be discussed at a city council meeting this evening.However,I am a working mother and I have class on Monday evenings. Another option to disseminate the information is helpful.Thank you. • Notes Added By staff:04/01/2019 12:08 PM Robin Estanislau F' SUPPLEMENTALJ Your comments will be included in the record for Agenda Item No.13 on the 4/1/2019 City Council agenda. COMMUNICATION Share with Citizen:YES Meeting ®ate: II* Status Changed:04/01/2019 11:39 AM Johanna Dombo Agenda Item No.. /3 / -3r'i Work Order#149902 status has changed from new to assigned. Share with Citizen:NO Issue Type/Subtype Changed:04/01/2019 11:39 AM Johanna Dombo Workorder#149902 Issue type changed from City Council to Agenda&Public Hearing Comments and subtype City Council Meeting. Share with Citizen:NO Esparza, Patty From: MyHB <reply@mycivicapps.com> Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 8:24 AM To: Estanislau, Robin; Esparza, Patty Subject: ©MyHB-#149377 City Council [03148] MyHB Issue Type/Subtype Changed -#149377 Workorder#149377 Issue type changed from City Council to Agenda&Public Hearing Comments and subtype City Council Meeting. Status Change issue type Work Order #149377 Issue Type City Council Subtype All Council Members Staff Member(s) Robin Estanislau,Patty Esparza Notes I urge all city council members to OPPOSE the homeless shelter near Marina High School and Marina Park.As a long time resident of this city,this idea is ridiculous! Thank you for your time. Chuck Burns View the Report Reporter Name Chuck Burns Email SUPPLEMENTAL dad2st@aol.com COMMUNICATION Phone Meeting Date: 714-369-7384 Report Submitted A item Ho.; i(� MAR 29, 2019-2:04 AM Please do not change subject line when responding. 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 11:43 AM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: Homeless Shelter AGENDA COMMENT From: dad2st@aol.com <dad2st@aol.com> Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 11:42 AM To:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Homeless Shelter I urge all city council members to OPPOSE the homeless shelter near Marina High School and Marina Park. As a long time resident of this city, this idea is ridiculous! Do any of you on the city council think that I think if this shelter was only a half mile from your homes you would approve it? Distance from my home for over 25 years. OPPOSITION! Thank you for your time Chuck Burns 714 369-7384 SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: _ / _ 61 Agenda Item No.; /3 (/9- ,390 1 Work Order: #149722 03/31/2019 Closed: This issue is assigned Est. Resolution Date:Not Yet Set By : Lisbeth Burns Agenda & Public Hearing Comments Email chazatbat@aol.com Phone . SUB TYPE Device City Council Meeting STREET ADDRESS Media Submitted None ❑x COMMENTS&ADDITIONAL NOTES Navigation Center After finding out about this proposal at the last minute like many others,I find it not only perplexing but very disturbing.As a long time resident of this city I have lived across the street from Marina Park and Marina High School.There are far better areas within the city limits that are not close to schools,parks and residential neighborhoods.I respectfully urge and plead with all of you to vote NO and find a better site to provide safety and security for our children and residents.Thank you,Lisbeth Burns Notes Added By staff:04/01/2019 11:22 AM Robin Estanislau Your comments will be included in the record for Agenda Item No.13 on the 4/1/19 City Council agenda. Share with Citizen:YES Issue Type/Subtype Changed:04/01/2019 8:47 AM Johanna Dombo Workorder#149722 Issue type changed from City Council to Agenda&Public Hearing Comments and subtype City Council Meeting. • Share with Citizen:NO SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Status Changed:04/01/2019 8:47 AM Johanna Dombo �{.� / MOON • 9 Work Order#149722 status has changed from new to assigned. Agenda Item No.; 13( /'1-;301�1 Share with Citizen:NO • Work Order: #149749 03/31/2019 Closed: By Jeff/Judy Burrows Agenda & Public Hearing Comments Email pinkpaddlerjudy@gmail .com SUB TYPE Phone 714-785-0804 City Council Meeting Device STREET ADDRESS Media Submitted None 1 Li COMMENTS&ADD ETIONAL NOTES Hello.We wanted to weigh in with our opposition to the proposed 50 bed homeless shelter behind Marina High School.Being so close to a public school is inappropriate,especially in light of more appropriate locations that are not near schools and residences.Thank you for your consideration.Jeff and Judy Burrows 6111 Anacapa Dr HB 92647 Notes Added By staff:04/01/2019 11:23 AM Robin Estanislau Your comments will be included in the record for Agenda Item No.13 on the 4/1/19 City Council agenda. Share with Citizen:YES Status Changed:04/01/2019 8:47 AM Johanna Dombo Work Order#149749 status has changed from new to assigned. Share with Citizen:NO • Issue Type/Subtype Changed:04/01/2019 8:47 AM Johanna Dombo SUPPLEMENTAL • Workorder#149749 Issue type changed from City Council to Agenda&Public Hearing Comments and COMMUNICATION �N subtype City Council Meeting. Magna !1H 1� VVl/ Share with Citizen:NLL7�-""n Date- -• • /� " Agenda Item No /3 (11— 3/A1) Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna SUPPLEMENTAL Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2019 4:21 PM To: Agenda Comment COMMUNICATION Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL - j Subject: FW: Recent LA Times Article Meeting Date. AGENDA COMMENT /3 K/9 -3 9>Z Agenda Item No.; From: Marina High Ed Foundation <marina.hs.ed.foundation@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, March 28, 2019 4:20 PM To:Jessie Marion <jmarion@hbuhsd.edu> Cc:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Recent LA Times Article I know that this has been an issue for the past few years. What irritates me is the Mayor's statement that these discussions have been held behind closed doors. It appears as though this was done so they could limit the amount of opposition from residents in the nearby area. As a long time HB resident, I feel like the Marina side of town always feels like the "wrong side of the tracks". Scott Sent from my iPhone On Mar 28, 2019, at 3:31 PM, Jessie Marion<jmarion@hbuhsd.edu> wrote: Good Viking Foundation, I wanted to make you aware of some information we received this afternoon about the city's plan to place a 50 bed homeless shelter on 5770 Research Drive next to Marina High School. Here is an article about the decision: https://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/news/tn-dpt-me-hb- homeless-shelter-20190328-story.html As principal, I have some concerns about this decision, but I also thought it was important to reach out to our parent leadership groups for feedback. Please feel free to send me any thoughts, questions, or concerns as this will help drive my conversations with our Huntington Beach City Council members over the next few days. If you would like to contact them directly, you can email the group at city.council@surfcity- hb.org You can find their individual contact information using this link: https://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/government/staff-directory/staff-department.cfm Thank you for all that you do to support Marina High School. Jessie On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 1:02 PM Viking Foundation<marina.hs.ed.foundation@,gmail.com> wrote: i Hey gang, thanks again for all the effort over the last month contacting possible vendors. I have created a list of the verbal commitments so far. Like to have a minimum of 10 vendors, and we are just there. Lets focus on trying to lock down some more by next Friday the 29th. That will give us some insurance if anyone gets cold feet and backs out (It has happened in the past). For the ones on this list, we will need to follow up on the items needed for participation. 1) The commitment form (needs to be filled out and returned, and 2) Insurance certificate. The requirements are listed on the commitment form. The HBUHSD needs to be named as a "Certificate Holder". I have attached our insurance cert and you can see this in the lower left hand section. Thanks! c/ Scott Capifoni,President ' Viking Foundation Tax ID#:33-0599840 Phone:949-351-2727 or Email:marina.hs.ed.foundation(a)gmai1.corn ww w.marinaviking.foundation Jessie N. Marion, Ed.D. Principal Marina High School 15871 Springdale Street Huntington Beach, CA 92649 714-893-6571 LIVE.BREATHE. VIKINGS. 2 Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2019 4:15 PM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: Homeless shelter AGENDA COMMENT Johanna Dombo Executive Assistant Office of the City Manager, City of Huntington Beach 714.536.5575 Johanna.dombo@surfcity-hb.org Original Message From: Kathy Carson<dreyfuss22@msn.com> Sent:Thursday, March 28, 2019 4:14 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Homeless shelter To Whom it May Concern, Is placing a homeless shelter smack dab in the middle of 3 schools(Marina High School, Clegg Elementary, and Stacey Middle School)the best idea the city of Huntington Beach and Westminster can come up with. I understand there is a problem with the homeless and the police departments inability to enforce laws because there is nowhere else for the homeless to go. However, I do not believe the proposed location is a good solution to the problem. Kathy Carson Westminster resident for 43 years Sent from my iPhone SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Ming Date: `- ._2 _,..9,0/ Agenda Item No.; 1 '3 : ,/ i Esparza, Patty From: MyHB <reply@mycivicapps.com> Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 8:26 AM To: Estanislau, Robin; Esparza, Patty Subject: ©MyHB-#149297 City Council [03136] MyHB Issue Type/Subtype Changed -#149297 Workorder#149297 Issue type changed from City Council to Agenda&Public Hearing Comments and subtype City Council Meeting. Status Change issue type Work Order #149297 Issue Type City Council Subtype All Council Members Staff Member(s) Robin Estanislau,Patty Esparza Notes Is it true that you as a council are considering starting a homeless shelter in the industrial area behind Marina High School? If so don't you care about the safety and well being of teenagers? Image View the Report Reporter Name Nathan Drown Email SUPPLEMENTAL cstcnr7492@gmail.com COMMUNICATION Phone / 714-916-6367 Ong Date: — — 79 Report Submitted Agenda Item No.; 1 ) MAR 28, 2019 .;2:55 PM / .1 Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 8:28 AM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: Proposed Site of Homeless Shelter AGENDA COMMENT From: Duane Dishno<ddishno@socal.rr.com> Sent:Thursday, March 28, 2019 7:40 PM To:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Fwd: Proposed Site of Homeless Shelter SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: Agenda Item No.; / (/9 -39 ,V) Forwarded Message Subject:Proposed Site of Homeless Shelter Date:Thu, 28 Mar 2019 19:15:08 -0700 From:Duane Dishno <ddishno@socal.rr.com> To:"erik.peterson(ct�surfcity-hb.org; lyn.semeta@surfcity-hb.org; patrick.brenden@surfcity-hb.org; kim.carr@surfcity-hb.org; barbara.delgleize(a,surfcity-hb.org;jill.hardy(a,surfcity-hb.org; mike.posey"@surfcity-hb.org CC:Clint Harwick<charwick@hbuhsd.edu> Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council: This afternoon I tried to reach those of you for whom I have a work or personal telephone number. However, in order to reach those members for whom I do not have personal contact information, I am reaching out to the entire Council in this email message. On behalf of the Governing Board of the Huntington Beach Union High School District, I wish to convey two serious concerns regarding the proposal to establish a 50-bed homeless shelter on Research Drive adjacent to Marina High School and which the Council is scheduled to consider at its meeting on Monday evening. 1. It is difficult to understand why the District received no notification concerning the proposal until this morning (Thursday), in light of an agendized Council discussion and vote that is scheduled two business days later. Our Board of Trustees and District Administration have endeavored to work closely and cooperatively with the City whenever an issue affects both entities. To a large degree we serve the same constituency and it seems only proper and appropriate that we consult and work jointly in such matters to protect the interests of those we represent. We were very surprised by the late notification and lack of communication. In a conversation with a representative of the proposed facility, a Trustee was informed today "the lease was signed, sealed, and delivered a week ago." To our eyes, it appears this may be a "done deal" especially in light of the media report today. i 2. The safety of our students' is our primary concern. We are aware that when homeless individuals enter the Marina High School campus our staff is required to escort them off the grounds. Sometimes they have been found loitering near the girls restrooms. I fear that if the Shelter is established as proposed, in the mornings, those individuals who were housed there during the night will leave the facility traveling down Graham Street or Springdale Street. Such a route will bring them directly in front of, or in back of, Marina High School, as well as the park by the tennis courts. While not insensitive to the City's dilemma in needing to secure a shelter location in order to enforce its anti- camping ordinance, the safety of our children and youth must be your primary concern. I urge you to cast a "No" vote on any proposal to locate a homeless shelter adjacent to a school in our community. Yours truly, Duane Dishno, Ed.D. President, Huntington Beach Union High School District Board of Trustees 2 Work Order: #149701 03/30/2019 Closed: • By Lisa DeLuccio- Kavalesky Agenda & Public Hearing Comments Email lukiesma27@gmail.com SUB TYPE Phone City Council Meeting Device . STREET ADDRESS Media Submitted None 9 ❑x COMMENTS&ADDITIONAL NOTES I have a child at Marina HS and one in a few years.I do not want a homeless shelter by my children's school.santa ana is bad enough,drug addicts and alcoholics wandering and raping others.Do not allow this to happen.I will remove my child from Marina Notes Added By staff:04/01/2019 11:21 AM Robin Estanislau Your comments will be included in the record for Agenda Item No.13 on the 4/1/19 City Council agenda. Share with Citizen:YES Issue Type/Subtype Changed:04/01/2019 8:48 AM Johanna Dombo Workorder#149701 Issue type changed from City Council to Agenda&Public Hearing Comments and subtype City Council Meeting. Share with Citizen:NO Status Changed:04/01/2019 8:48 AM Johanna Dombo SUPPLEMENTAL Work Order#149701 status has changed from new to assigned. COMMUNICATION Share with Citizen:NO Meng Date: {' 1' 11 Agenda Item No.:, 13( 11-r✓'1 L0 Work Order: #149759 03/31/2019 Closed: By Lisa DeLuccio- Kavalesky Agenda & Public Hearing Comments Email lmd1028@yahoo.com SUB f Phone : 714-781-9551 City Council Meeting Device . STREET ADDRESS Media Submitted None ❑x j • COMMENTS TS&ADD[TEONAL NOTES My step daughter goes to Marina and it just so happens her Mother is homeless in santa aria. She is afraid her Mom will be transfered to this location.We see what it looks like.In Santa LAna.we do not want this here,nor near our homes or school. Notes Added By staff:04/01/2019 11:23 AM Robin Estanislau Your comments will be included in the record for Agenda Item No.13 on the 4/1/19 City Council agenda. Share with Citizen:YES Issue Type/Subtype Changed:04/01/2019 8:46 AM Johanna Dombo Workorder#149759 Issue type changed from City Council to Agenda&Public Hearing Comments and subtype City Council Meeting. Share with Citizen:NO Status Changed:04/01/2019 8:46 AM Johanna Dombo SUPPLEMENTAL CO Work Order#149759 status has changed from new to assigned. MMUNICA• ION Share with Citizen:NO Agenda item No.; /3( / 1-3'L1) Work Order: #149884 04 anie,2019 Closed: ,', l 1 ... ;., _- .'' .. .. €^lit' a 11'4 By : Lukas DeLuccio Agenda &. Public Hearing Comments Email Lmd1028@icloud.com Phone SUB TYPE Device City Council Meeting STREET ADDRESS Media Submitted None 3i COMMENTS&ADD.[TIONAL NOTES We do not want a homeless shelter near our schools or homes.My step siblings go to Marina, their Mother is homeless in santa ana.My sister is afraid her Mom will be transfered there and be at Marina daily waiting for her.She's said she won't go to school if this happens.please do not let this happen. Notes Added By staff:04/01/2019 11:27 AM Robin Estanislau Your comments will be included in the record for Agenda Item No.13 on the 4/1/19 City Council agenda. Share with Citizen:YES Status Changed:04/01/2019 8:41 AM Johanna Dombo "' Work Order#149884 status has changed from new to assigned. Share with Citizen:NO • Issue Type/Subtype Changed:04/01/2019 8:41 AM Johanna Dombo SUPPLEMENTAL Workorder#149884 Issue type changed from City Council to Agenda&Public Hearing Comments and COMMUNICATION subtype City Council Meeting. �� y l Share with Citizeili'R9"{{ng Date: Agenda Item No.:, 13 (J y, 3'4/ Work Order: #149558 0329,2019 Closed: This issuo is assigned Est. Resolution Date: Nat'et Set By Pamela Diecidue Agenda & Public Hearing Comments Email pameladiecidue@gmail. corn SUBTYPE. Phone . City Council Meeting Device STREET ADDRESS Media Submitted None L1 COMMENTS&ADDITIONAL NOTES A homeless Shelter Near Marina High School and a little league fields is ridiculous!We need to protect our kids!Please vote no on this! Status Changed:04/01/2019 8:52 AM Johanna Dombo Work Order#149558 status has changed from new to assigned. Share with Citizen:NO Issue Type/Subtype Changed:04/01/2019 8:52 AM Johanna Dombo Workorder#149558 Issue type changed from City Council to Agenda&Public Hearing Comments and subtype City Council Meeting. Share with Citizen:NO • SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: y I' (1 Agenda Item No.; 13 ( 1 7-3 1) Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 10:01 AM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: 4/1/19 Agenda Item 13 "Navigation Center" AGENDA COMMENT From: elizabeth@EXECUTIVESOUNDPROS.COM <elizabeth@EXECUTIVESOUNDPROS.COM> Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 9:38 AM To:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject:4/1/19 Agenda Item 13 "Navigation Center" City Council Members and Mayor Peterson I urge you to please reconsider the placement of the 50 Bed Navigation Center that is proposed on Research Drive sharing a common wall with Marina High School. If our council really wants to help our homeless community, we would be placing the Navigation Center closer to resources needed by homeless individuals, i.e. medical and transportation facilities. I understand no one wants this in their neighborhood, but I feel more research needs to be conducted on location that best provides services need and to select a building on Research Drive is/was a rush decision. Sincerely, Elizabeth Esparza SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: — / — Agenda Item No.; //3 (.;y —3917/ • Esparza, Patty From: MyHB <reply@mycivicapps.com> Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 8:25 AM To: Estanislau, Robin; Esparza, Patty Subject: ©MyHB-#149368 City Council [03146] MyHB Issue Type/Subtype Changed -#149368 Workorder#149368 Issue type changed from City Council to Agenda& Public Hearing Comments and subtype City Council Meeting. Status Change issue type Work Order #149368 Issue Type City Council Subtype All Council Members Staff Member(s) Robin Estanislau,Patty Esparza Notes I just learned that you are scheduled to vote Monday on the Huntington Beach 50 bed homeless shelter in close proximity to Marina High School and several residential areas. I urge you to take into consideration that a homeless shelter placed next to a school is an extremely poor idea. Many homeless shelters are prone to violence particularly towards women and can house people with mental illnesses. It would be irresponsible to place this shelter so close to our children at MHS.We all remember the fatal shooting across the street from MHS in September of 2017. I do not disagree with the need for homeless shelters nor do I discount the good they do. I just think there is better judgement needed on where to place it.Thank you. View the Report Reporter Name Eric Fernald SUPPLEMENTAL Email COMMUNICATION eric.fernald2@gmail.com Phone el" Report Submitted MAR 28, 2019-10:16 PM A Please do not change subject line when responding. 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 10:01 AM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: Not in my neighborhood AGENDA COMMENT Original Message From: Erika <klamy2011@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 9:48 AM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Not in my neighborhood I oppose the proposed 50 bed shelter near Scats and Marina High School! I want people to feel safe in our neighborhood! I want to feel safe in my neighborhood when I run at SAM. I want my child to be safe when she waits for the school bus. I want Marina High students to be safe and not have to deal with trash, urine smell, and needles on the sidewalks as they walk home from school. Yours truly, Erika Franco 310-756-3916 (registered voter and concern HB citizen) Sent from my iPhone SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: - - % — r2O/`� Agenda Item No 3 (/cy -3 /I 1 Esparza, Patty From: MyHB <reply@mycivicapps.com> Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 8:24 AM To: Estanislau, Robin; Esparza, Patty Subject: ©MyHB-#149401 City Council [03155] MyHB Issue Type/Subtype Changed -#149401 Workorder#149401 Issue type changed from City Council to Agenda& Public Hearing Comments and subtype City Council Meeting. Status Change issue type Work Order #149401 Issue Type City Council Subtype All Council Members Staff Member(s) Robin Estanislau,Patty Esparza Notes Extreme concerns regarding homeless shelter near Marina High School View the Report Reporter Name Sandy Hallworth Email SUPPLEMENTAL sanmhall@yahoo.com COMMUNICATION Phone Meeting Date: 27` /7—,/ 714-894-8389 Agenda Item No.• %�K 9/ —3 Report Submitted 9 � MAR 29, 2019-7:21 AM Please do not change subject line when responding. 1 Work Order: #149909 Opened: 2019 Closed: PA3,3 � ttgg ..qq By Lori Heade Agenda & Public Hearing Comments Email coptercare@gmail.com Phone . SUBTYPE Device . City Council Meeting STREET ADDRESS Media Submitted None COMMENTS&ADDITI€:}NAL NOTES In favor of a homeless shelter but not that location!We are small business owners across the street from proposed site.It needs to be by the PD not backing up to a hs!No notifications was given to us as business owners and I find that disturbing Erik.I have lived here my whole life and little care is given to us on the north side.If this were in the richer area of HB you know very well the residents wouldn't stand for it!Why should we?Tired of being treated like the step-child when all the care and concern is given to the wealthy!Gotta be careful come Election Day! Notes Added By staff:04/01/2019 12:10 PM Robin Estanislau Your comments will be included in the record for Agenda Item No.13 on the 4/1/2019 City Council agenda. Share with Citizen:YES Status Changed:04/01/2019 11:37 AM Johanna Dombo • Work Order#149909 status has changed from new to assigned. B y� Share with Citizen:NO SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Issue Type/Subtype Changed:04/01/2019 11:37 AM Johanna Dombo Meetkig Date: y / , /7 Workorder#149909 Issue type changed from City Council to Agenda&Public Hearing Comments and Agenda Item No.; /3(!! /1_ 13/y) subtype City Council Meeting. Share with Citizen:NO Work Order: #149761 03/31/2019 Closed: on r f "4 tl ' By : Mark Kavalesky Agenda Sz. Public Hearing Comments Email kavalesky@gmail.com Phone 619-634-5014 SUB FI PE Device City Council Meeting STREET ADDRESS Media Submitted None COMMENTS&ADDITIONAL.NOTES I have a friend that is homeless and in a shelter in Santa Ana.I do have some contact with him and he has mental issues and a dining problem.Her tells me of all the drug and alcohol problems that still persist in the facilities in Santa Ana.I have driven around Santa Ana around the facilities and there are constantly people laying in benches,cutbs and sidewalks,too many people loitering in parking lots and in front of businesses.I have eaten at some day food restaurants there and me and my kids were started at by many unkept people,couldn't use the bathroom because of people using them to take a bath and panhandled in and out of the restaurant.I don't live in Huntington Beach but my daughter goes to Marina High School and I don't want these same conditions right around the high school,the businesses and those that live around the Marina High School area. Notes Added By staff:04/01/2019 11:24 AM Robin Estanislau Your comments will be included in the record for Agenda Item No.13 on the 4/1/19 City Council agenda. Share with Citizen:YES • Status Changed:04/01/2019 8:46 AM Johanna Dombo Work Order#149761 status has changed from new to assigned. SUPPLEMENTAL Share with Citizen:NO COMMUNICATION Issue Type/Subtype Changed:04/01/2019 8:46 AM Johanna Dombo Meeting Dete:. L' i' /4 Agenda herb MN /31 /',-3yq) Workorder#149761 Issue type changed from City Council to Agenda&Public Hearing Comments and subtype City Council Meeting. Share with Citizen:NO Work Order: #149847 04 Opened: Closed: By Jake Lou Agenda & Public Hearing Comments Email jakelou1953@gmail.co SUB-Di'PE, Phone . City Council Meeting Device . STREET ADDRESS Media Submitted None COMMENTS&ADDITIONAL.NOTES Proposed Navigation Center I find it outrageous that all of us homeowners as well as parents of children in nearby schools were not given advance notice of this proposal.Most if not all of us,including personnel at Marina High School found out about it by reading the article in the Daily Pilot on March 28 2019!I challenge all council members to HONESTLY tell me they would feel comfortable living within a mile of this homeless shelter,there children attending Marina High School,or the property value of their home not decreasing.There are many other vacant buildings and areas in the city not close to schools,parks and residential neighborhoods if you all feel the need for a homeless shelter or navigation center.I URGE and PLEAD with all of you to VOTE NO on this proposal.Sincerely,Jake Lou Robinwood Neighborhood Notes Added By staff:04/01/2019 11:26 AM Robin Estanislau Your comments will be included in the record for Agenda Item No.13 on the 4/1/19 City Council agenda. Share with Citizen:YES Status Changed:04/01/2019 8:43 AM • Johanna Dombo • Work Order#149847 status has changed from new to assigned. SUPPLEMENTALShare with Citizen:NO COMMUNICATION Issue Type/Subtype Changed:04/01/2019 8:43 AM Johanna Dombo meeting pate: (� /. .J Agenda ice ray /3 I'-3'7q Workorder#149847 Issue type changed from City Council to Agenda&Public Hearing Comments and subtype City Council Meeting. Share with Citizen:NO Work Order: #149881 Opened: 2019 Closed: • This issila is assigned Est. Resolution Date:NotYet Set By : Daniel Timmerman Agenda & Public Hearing Comments Email uatravelboy@aol.com Phone 714-791-0111 SUBTYPE Device . City Council Meeting STREET ADDRESS Media Submitted None COMMENTS&ADDITIONAL NOTES I understand that a City Council meeting is taking place today(April 1)to discuss and vote on the possibility of placing a 50 bed homeless shelter near or adjacent to Marina High School in Huntington Beach.I as a parent,with a daughter who attends Marina High School,I wanted to express the following concerns:1).Have other locations for a homeless shelter that are not near a school been considered?2).Regardless of where the homeless shelter may be located, has a vetting process to screen homeless entrants for a criminal background been discussed?If any individual trying to access the shelter is found to be a registered sex offender,hopefully Megans law will apply and the public informed.3).Will the homeless shelter be staffed with security or police regularly patrolling the area in and around the shelter area(again regardless of where it is located)?It should be noted that there is also Pre-School on the Marina High School property,creating further concerns from parents with small children.The homeless issue is a growing and significant concern in all of Orange County.We have seen them all over. I readily agree that it is high time the issue of where to house them be addressed.However,I strongly urge the Huntington Beach City Council to seriously and carefully consider where the homeless shelter should be located.Additionally,there needs to be a screening or vetting process for a criminal background and sex offenses.The concerns of a citizen and parent such as myself needs to be considered in this decision.As mentioned,I agree that we do need some type of housing facility for our growing homeless population in Orange County.I do not, however,feel it a very good idea to put one near a school/pre-school with some 2,500 children attending.The public safety and security of not only our children,but neighboring residents and businesses need to be considered.I appreciate your consideration and taking the time to read my concerns. SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Notes Added By staff:04/01/2019 11:26 AM Robin Estanislau Your comments will be included in the record for Agenda Item No.13 on the 4/1/19 City Council agenda.-"-n9 Date- - /6/, Agenda Item No. /3/ /F 3qq Share with Citizen:YES Status Changed:04/01/2019 8:43 AM Johanna Dombo Work Order#149881 status has changed from new to assigned. Share with Citizen:NO Issue Type/Subtype Changed:04/01/2019 8:43 AM Johanna Dombo Workorder#149881 Issue type changed from City Council to Agenda&Public Hearing Comments and subtype City Council Meeting. Share with Citizen:NO Work Order: #149808 03/31/2019 Closed: 050,7 44 r� a3 A. ;_ ; Via' Dina Walton Agenda & Public Hearing Comments Email walotti@verizon.net Phone 714-362-5720 SUB,TYPE Device City Council Meeting STREET ADDRESS Media Submitted None COMMENTS&ADDITIONAL NOTES 03/30/19 Dear Elected Members of the Huntington Beach City Council,I have been a resident of Huntington Beach for close to 40 years and have been a home owner and employee in this City for 22 years.I would like to express my earnest disapproval of your current plan to erect a homeless shelter at 5770 Research Ln.I have researched the topic and I am fully aware that the City has been placed in a difficult position by Judge Carter.I also realize that without a temporary shelter we cannot enforce current camping laws and violations within our City.With these things in mind,I do believe complying with the Judge's unreasonable demand is not an option.However,I would like to share my concerns.Although this seems like it was a done deal long before it was ever made public to the citizens,business owner and tax payers;I feel the need to share and ask that you reconsider and vote NO on this proposal.1.The homeless shelter or(Navigation Center)is feet away from Marina high school.Additionally,it is a short walk from Scats Gymnastics,Huntington Inline ice-skating rink and Grace Lutheran School. These are all areas where children congregate.It is highly inappropriate,dangerous and irresponsible to place a shelter in such close proximity to children.2.My home is less than 1 mile from the proposed shelter.My husband and I bought our home in 1996 and have worked hard to pay our mortgage and live in a well maintained and lovely neighborhood.Through layoffs and unemployment in the last 22 years,we have always strived to keep our home, knowing full well that any financial sacrifice we made to keep it would pay off in the end.Not only has our home been a safe haven for raising our children,it has been an investment for our retirement and inheritance for our children.It is highly inappropriate to penalize the hard- working,tax paying residents of Huntington Beach by placing a shelter in such close proximity to our homes,where we'd run the risk of rising crime,decreased home values and unsafe S�� g� �N l /® A neighborhoods.3.Although it is said that security will be a high priority at the shelter,you llr� /� N L only need to do a quick google search and you will find numerous violent crimes being COMMUNICATION committed inside and nearby to homeless shelters throughout the country.Our fine Officers of the HBPD work hard.The fact is though,resources are low,and they are already spread thin. • ,� This includes our homeless outreach task force.These facts cause our overworked and Date: /- /• /4 understaffed Officers to usually only be able to have a reactive response after a crime has occurred.This alone poses a risk to children and citizens.I recently had a conversation with Agenda Kern No4 /3(l't—3/4#) my disabled mother that lives with me.I emphasized the need to keep all windows and doors locked and not open them for anyone if the shelter is approved at 5770 Research Ln.Although crime in our neighborhood has increased in recent years with the drug epidemic and halfway houses,I believe the addition of the shelter will only exacerbate the problem.4.Many homeless are mentally ill and/or addicted.The typical homeless person is not the ones that were just one paycheck away from being on the streets.Those people usually will find the resources to figure things out and get back on their feet.The real homeless in our area are those that are incapable of making sound decisions,those that choose the lifestyle due to an unwillingness or desire not to work,and those that have burned bridges and exhausted resources as a result of their vice and unwillingness or inability to change.These people are the thousands that were living in the OC river bed where there were hundreds of stolen bikes and property along with needles and drugs all over when it was cleaned up.These are the same people that will be here doing drugs and stealing the property of hard-working citizens to support their habits.There are many other reasons why this shelter is not a good idea for our City but like I said,I realize the demand by Judge Carter is beyond the City's control. Therefore,a shelter of some type is inevitable.I encourage you to please say NO to this proposal.It simply doesn't make sense to place our children at risk,nor to devalue neighborhoods where hard-working tax-payers have invested their lives.There are several other locations that can be considered in order to comply with Judge Carter's demands.The alternatives are NOT AS CLOSE to schools and homes within the City.Please look at the alternatives and don't make this decision in haste because of the April 2nd update approaching.I ask you to represent the people that elected you!Look out for their best interest and stand strong even when it's difficult.Sincerely,Dina Walton 6032 Welde Cir. [ Huntington Beach,CA 92647 cell:714-362-5720 Notes Added By staff:04/01/2019 11:25 AM Robin Estanislau Your comments will be included in the record for Agenda Item No.13 on the 4/1/19 City Council agenda. Share with Citizen:YES Work Order: #149662 Opened: 2019 Closed: W This issue is assigned �t.Est.. By Susan Wilkinson Agenda & Public Hearing Comments Email : Sue.Wilkinson2@gmail. com SUB TYPE Phone . City Council Meeting Device . STREET ADDR 7v Media Submitted None ❑x g3 COMMENTS Sr ADDITIONAL NOTES I urge you to postpone approving approving the lease for the homeless shelter.I do support homeless shelters but feel the nearby residence need more time to discuss the issues this will bring to their neighborhood.and all the details on how the shelter will be operated and to whom it will serve.I just learned of the agenda item to sign a lease for the homeless shelter on Research drive.I live in the housing track just east of the location Will the homeless be bused in or will they be wondering down our residential streets and schools grounds to get to the shelter?What will happen when they leave the facility?Where will the homeless come from.All over the county the state or just Huntington Beach?I like to suggest that the burden be shared throughout the city.The North has had to endure the brunt of the over development which has increased traffic.Multiple shelters should be open throughout the city or several areas should be set aside where buses can pick up the homeless including the South-East area near Brookhurst,service center on Gothard and especially Downtown HB,Warner/Sunset Beach and the Huntington Harbor.The transportation area would be a good place to pick up and drop off but should not be the only place..Pm also concerned that the shelter will be adjacent to Marina High and urge the City to consider other locations and allow the residence to weigh in. Notes Added By staff:04/01/2019 11:20 AM Robin Estanislau Your comments will be included in the record for Agenda Item No.13 on the 4/1/19 City Council agenda. SUPPLEMENTAL Share with Citizen:YES COMMUNICATION Status Changed:04/01/2019 8:48 AM Johanna Dombomeeting Date, /. f. f Work Order#149662 status has changed from new to assigned. / Agenda item No.; l3(/'— 3' i, Share with Citizen:NO Issue Type/Subtype Changed:04/01/2019 8:48 AM Johanna Dombo Workorder#149662 Issue type changed from City Council to Agenda&Public Hearing Comments and subtype City Council Meeting. Share with Citizen:NO Work Order: #149500 03 29,2d019 Closed: By : Ann Hough Agenda & Public Hearing Comments Email mikeannh@verizon.net Phone 714-357-8195 SUB TYPE Device City Council Meeting STREET ADDRESS Media Submitted None • COMMENTS&ADDITIONAL NOTES To just dump a homeless shelter in ANY neighborhood without taking into account the affect on the taxpaying residents is grossly negligent on the part of the city.I am going to present the attached at the meeting on Monday.One big question:what happens when the police find camping homeless?Are they arrested or are the transported to the shelter,thereby dumping a citywide problem into one neighborhood? Status Changed:04/01/2019 8:54 AM Johanna Dombo Work Order#149500 status has changed from new to assigned. Share with Citizen:NO Issue Type/Subtype Changed:04/01/2019 8:54 AM Johanna Dombo Workorder#149500 Issue type changed from City Council to Agenda&Public Hearing Comments and B" subtype City Council Meeting. • Share with Citizen:NO SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Ong Date: 'y /. lc/ Agenda Item No.; /3//'. 3497) Work Order: #149610 03/30/2019 Closed: By Dan Jamieson Agenda & Public Hearing Comments Email danjamieson4@hotmail .com SUB TYPE Phone . City Council Meeting Device STREET ADDRESS Media Submitted None COMMENTS&ADDITIONAL NOTES Re Agenda Item 13,homeless shelter As residents in north Huntington Beach,we support the City's efforts to open a homeless shelter.Although there are many issues with shelters,and concerns about effects on neighborhoods,any site the City chooses will encounter opposition. The shelter will allow our police officers to get homeless off the streets and provide them temporary housing and services.We urge the City to move forward with the shelter,and ensure it is operated as outlined by City staff.Sincerely,Dan Jamieson Roxanne McMillen Notes Added By staff:04/01/2019 11:18 AM Robin Estanislau Your comments will be included in the record for Agenda Item No.13 on the 4/1/19 City Council agenda. Share with Citizen:YES SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meethg Date: L• /• f9 Agenda Item No.; /3 ( 11°7—3 7I I) Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2019 3:17 PM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: No Homeless Shelter Near Marina and other schools AGENDA COMMENT From: Kevin Fairman <kfairman@hbuhsd.edu> Sent:Thursday, March 28, 2019 3:09 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: No Homeless Shelter Near Marina and other schools City Council, To say this is a bad idea is an understatement.As a 42 year resident of Huntington Beach, I am t00% against this and everyone I have talked to about this agrees with me. PLEASE VOTE NO! Kevin Fairman Assistant Principal Marina High School (714)893-6571 Ext.4408 CADA President 2017-2018 VIKINGS Culture-Rigorous Curriculum-Climate-Engagement-Instructional Strategies-Technology Working daily to develop a positive culture and climate inside and outside the walls of a classroom for all students SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: 4 ___/ a/7 Agenda Item No.; /3 (>9 3>�` 1 Work Order: #149437 03/29/2019 Closed: This issue is referred Est. Resolution Date: Not Yet Set By Frank Householder Agenda & Public Hearing Comments Email . dogs@socal.rr.com Phone 714-846-6948 SUB TYPE Device . City Council Meeting STREET ADDRESS Media Submitted None COMMENTS&ADDITIONAL NOTES Homeless Shelter-Please fight against all socialist state agenda's of homeless shelters and over crowded low income buildings that have negative outcomes of traffic,crime,health& education in Huntington Beach.We are losing our great city. Notes Added By staff:04/01/2019 12:39 PM Robin Estanislau Your comments will be included in the record for Agenda Item No.13 on the 4/1/2019 City Council agenda. Share with Citizen:YES Assigned Support Worker:04/01/2019 11:50 AM Kim De Coke Workorder#149437 has been assigned to Patty Esparza Share with Citizen:NO Status Changed:04/01/2019 11:50 AM Kim De Coite SUPPLEMENTAL Work Order#149437 status has changed from new to referred. COMMUNICATION Share with Citizen:NO Meshing Date: q' /• /(/ Agenda Item No.; 13(/ 41) Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 1:32 PM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: Proposed Homeless Shelter Concern AGENDA COMMENT From: Brenna Jimenez-Orr<bjimenez-orr@hbuhsd.edu> Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 1:21 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Proposed Homeless Shelter Concern Dear Huntington Beach City Council, I was recently informed of the city's plan to place a 50 bed homeless shelter on 5770 Research Drive next to Marina High School. As an administrator of this school it my charge to ensure the safety of our students and our community. I love the idea of a homeless shelter in the city of Huntington Beach, but respectfully request that you seek out a different site for this shelter that is not in such close proximity to our school or any others. I greatly appreciate your consideration in this matter and thank you for all that you do for our city and our students. With smiles, Brenna Jimenez-Orr Assistant Principal, Guidance VIK I NG',$, Marina High School 15871 Springdale Street Huntington Beach,CA 92649 (714)893-6571 SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: — / --,71,4/7 9Y)Agenda Item No.; / —� Estanislau, Robin From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, April 01, 2019 2:54 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Support of April 1, 2019 Agenda Item# 13, City 50 Bed Navigation Center From: Deb Lelchuk<deblelchuk@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 01, 2019 2:42 PM To: Peterson, Erik<Erik.Peterson@surfcity-hb.org> Cc: Fikes, Cathy<CFikes@surfcity-hb.org> Subject:Support of April 1, 2019 Agenda Item #13, City 50 Bed Navigation Center Dear Mayor Peterson, I have been a property owner in Huntington Beach since August of 2017 and a resident of Orange County for most of my nearly 60 years of life. I want to express my support for this project in the City of Huntington Beach. I hope this is the a step toward solving the homelessness issues in our community. As a concerned citizen and member of Temple Beth David in Westminster, I have made an effort to educate myself about the issue of homelessness in my community. "If there is a poor person among you, you shall not harden your heart...rather, you must open your hand and lend them sufficient for their need, whatever it may be."Deuteronomy 15:7-10 As I'm sure you know, Housing First is the answer to addressing homelessness. This transitional center will allow those individuals and families suffering from homelessness to have a roof over their heads while they take the time they need to secure affordable housing. The property is surrounded by fencing as is the neighboring high school campus and the city is certainly able to maintain security through HBPD and 24/7 on-site security. I'd like to thank you and the Council for taking action on this complicated issue important to the safety and well being of our community. Sincerely, Deborah Lelchuk 16802 Coral Cay Lane SUPPLEMENTAL Huntington Beach, CA 92649 COMMUNICATION Among Date: 'f / Agenda Item No.; /, / 9 3 9,7 1 Estanislau, Robin From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, April 01, 2019 2:39 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Homeless Navigation Center Site Original Message From: kara Lomon<superstars84@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, April 01, 2019 2:13 PM To: Peterson, Erik<Erik.Peterson@surfcity-hb.org> Cc: Fikes, Cathy<CFikes@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Homeless Navigation Center Site Mayor Peterson, I respectfully question the City Councils proposed site for the homeless navigation center. I am fully 100%against putting the facility adjacent to a High School and park primarily used for little league baseball. Please for the sake of our children's safety relocate the facility to a location away from Schools! We will not stand for this. Kara Lomon Sent from my iPhone SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: L/' Agenda Item No., /3( /"-34 -1) 1 Estanislau, Robin From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, April 01, 2019 2:39 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Homeless Center Research Dr Huntington Beach From: marilyn <marilyn_love@msn.com> Sent: Monday,April 01, 2019 2:34 PM To: Hardy,Jill <Jill.Hardy@surfcity-hb.org> Cc: Fikes, Cathy<CFikes@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Homeless Center Research Dr Huntington Beach Dear Councilperson Hardy, This project is a good beginning solution for the homeless problem in Huntington Beach. My understanding this will allow the HBPD to enforce some of the laws that are on the books for regulating loitering, camping beyond curfew and generally having a negative impact on our community. It will assist people who can benefit with help to regain a positive place in our community and take care of themselves. As for credibility, have lived in Huntington Beach for 20 years, live within walking distance of the area, family business down the street, (when there is a fire/police emergency,they are there "like yesterday", awesome departments.)A family member attends Marina, who will remain anonymous, ( and thinks you are a good teacher, but this is not said to influence your vote ) To conclude this is a good beginning to help take care of a major problem and I urge you to vole yes. Thank you, Marilyn love Sent from Mail for Windows 10 SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: Li' /' /p/ Agenda Item No.:, /3(/ 211 wry) 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2019 3:25 PM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: Proposed Homeless Shelter AGENDA COMMENT From:Jessie Marion <jmarion@hbuhsd.edu> Sent:Thursday, March 28, 2019 3:21 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Proposed Homeless Shelter Dear Huntington Beach City Council, This afternoon I was informed of the city's plan to place a 50 bed homeless shelter on 5770 Research Drive next to Marina High School. As you know, the safety of our students and our community is a top priority. We respectfully request that you seek out a different site for this shelter that is not in such close proximity to our school or any others. I have contacted each of you individually and am looking forward to speaking with you about this issue. So many of you are connected to Marina High School in such positive ways, and we have always appreciated your support. Thank you for all of the work that you do for the city of Huntington Beach. Thank You, Jessie Marion SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Jessie N. Marion, Ed.D. Meeting Date: —/ ;, )/ Principal Marina High School 15871 Springdale Street Agenda Item No.; /3 /9 39V/ Huntington Beach, CA 92649 714-893-6571 LIVE.BREATHE. VIKINGS. 1 Work Order: #150253 0402,2019 Closed: s • i a igned By Larry McNeely Agenda & Public Hearing Comments Email lmwater@yahoo.com Phone 714-375-1007 SUB TYPE Device . City Council Meeting STREET ADDRESS Media Submitted None COMMENTS&ADDITIONAL NOTES First I want to thank all that pulled item 19-394 and abandoned the site adjacent to Marina HS. I would ask the city council to have more transparency and announce issues with more time to ask questions and gather more information.There were many who spoke about their support because of the children that would be served,I did not read anywhere were children would be served miss-information?Now I would like to ask a question,so OK we build this center at a cost of a half million a year.We send the police to enforce our anti camping laws.Will the police arrest these people No they can be cited with a notice to appear,if they are under the influence they can be arrested and held for a few hours until they sober up.Can we jail them for simple drug possession or alcohol abuse NO Prop 47 took that away.When and if this person shows up to court will he be thrown in jail removed from the streets NO.The judge can only cite and fine for a misdemeanor infraction and back on our streets.This will be a half million effort only to have a revolving door at the courthouse.Catch and Release and Back on our Streets.Seems like a waste of taxpayer money to me? Notes Added By staff:04/02/2019 3:59 PM Robin Estanislau Your comments have been received,will be shared with the Huntington Beach City Council,and will be included as part of the official record on this item. Share with Citizen:YES Status Changed:04/02/2019 3:17 PM Johanna Dombo Work Order#150253 status has changed from new to assigned. Share with Citizen:NO Issue Type/Subtype Changed:04/02/2019 3:17 PM Johanna Dombo Workorder#150253 Issue type changed from City Council to Agenda&Public Hearing Comments and subtype City Council Meeting. Share with Citizen:NO Estanislau, Robin From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, April 01, 2019 2:40 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Proposed Homeless Shelter on Research Dr. From:JEFF LUNG<JDLUNG@msn.com> Sent: Monday, April 01, 2019 2:09 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Proposed Homeless Shelter on Research Dr. Dear Mayor Peterson & Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Thank you for your service to the city and efforts to address the issue of homelessness in our community. While a location is necessary, for safety reasons, Research Dr. is not ideal secondary to the fixed position of Marina High School. Traditionally, these two groups decision-making skills are a "work-in-progess" and to place them in such proximity may result in unwanted outcomes. I suggest there are suitable locations nearer food, transportation and work sources for the population in search of these opportunities. Your time and energy to reach a solution with this is truly appreciated. Sincerely, Elizabeth C. Parris (714) 840-9976 SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Weft Date: Agenda Item No.; /3(11— LJ) 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 1:32 PM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: Homeless Shelter AGENDA COMMENT From: Delany Heyne<delany76@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 1:31 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Homeless Shelter Good afternoon Council Members, I am writing to express my concern with your proposed homeless shelter location, which will share a common wall with Marina High School. Although, I do not have a student attending Marina, at this time, I have one who would be starting in 2022. I am sure you are aware this shelter will have many unintended consequences on the children you have been tasked with protecting. Not only will Marina High School students be put at risk, all of the local sports teams who use the field will also be negatively impacted. I am not saying that all homeless individuals pose a risk to the children, but is it really worth the risk? Many individuals in the homeless population suffer from various types of mental illness. Without proper treatment this leaves them very unpredictable. Also,there is the element of drugs, alcohol, public health concerns, and increased criminal behavior. In July of 2017, there were nearly 7,000 registered sex offenders who were reported to be homeless. Can you imagine how much that number has increased since then? I understand you all have a difficult job between satisfying state mandates and keeping the citizens of Huntington Beach safe. I am begging you all to think first about protecting these children. None of you can possibly think that a homeless shelter directly connected to a high school is a good idea. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Calif-Seeks-Solutions- Homeless-Sex-Offender-Rate-437395123.html%3 famp=y Thank you for your time. I look forward to hearing from you. SUPPLEMENTAL Delany Pratt COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: - 1 -(76/% 1 Agenda Item No.; f ✓ - 3� i�� Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 10:01 AM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: Homeless shelter concern AGENDA COMMENT From: amber raemer<araemer@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 9:50 AM To:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Homeless shelter concern Hi City Council, I am a current resident of HB. I have lived here for 40 years. I have two children that the homeless shelter location will impact. I am very concerned that the homeless shelter will be near Marina HS, Grace Lutheran preschool, Elementary School and Middle school along with Huntington West Little League. This is very concerning! This location will potentially be impacting children in preschool all the way through HS. Please reconsider this proposal and find a location away from our children!! Thanks! Amber HB resident Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: ` —/ -, / ✓ Agenda Item No.; ` J` -�� i Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2019 5:06 PM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: Homeless Shelter in Proximity to Marina AGENDA COMMENT From: Cory Rasmussen (MHS)<csrasmussen@hbuhsd.edu> Sent:Thursday, March 28, 2019 4:52 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Homeless Shelter in Proximity to Marina To the members of City Council (Erik Peterson, Lyn Semeta, Patrick Brenden, Kim Carr, Barbara Delgleize, Jill Hardy, and Mikey Posey) I am a teacher at Marina High School who was recently told of a decision to build a 50-bed homeless shelter in direct proximity to our school campus.As a teacher who greatly cares for the wellbeing of our students, I feel this is not a good solution and puts our students in direct danger, especially since the public park near the proposed homeless shelter is directly adjacent to our campus with no barrier or protection. While I understand the pressure to build affordable housing and shelters because of the California lawsuit against Huntington Beach, I also understand that there has to be other, more viable options to consider that give needed beds to the homeless without jeopardizing the safety of our community's children. According to a recent study, entitled "Effect of EmergencyWinter Homeless Shelters on Property Crime," the researches concluded that they"found strong evidence that the presence of a shelter is associated with an increase in property and mischief crime,with a decreasing effect with increasing distance from the shelter" (Faraji 7). These types of shelters often bring in mentally unstable adults,who have drug and alcoholic addictions. Your decision to build the shelter so close to Marina puts our students right in the pathway of avoidable hazards and "mischief crime." Let it be on record that you have been made aware of the possible dangers involved with this decision. If anything should happen to our students,you will be directly responsible. Please find another location. This is not a good decision for any party involved. A concerned teacher, SUPPLEMENTAL Mr. Cory Rasmussen COMMUNICATION Marina High School �_/ � � English Department Date: c/o 2021 Advisor / Agenda Item Nb.; /3 ( 9 9'/) Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 9:38 AM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: I see my vote counts AGENDA COMMENT Original Message From: Kevin Reynolds<kev25442@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 9:37 AM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: I see my vote counts I'm lees than enthused with the direction my city council is taking on issues important to me Homeless shelter- absolutely not More high density house-No no no Sent from my iPhone KJR SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: —/ Agenda Item No.;, • (▪ 79 39L` i Work Order: #149597 03/30/2019 Closed: ' -5: By Deryl Robinson Agenda & Public Hearing Comments Email . derylrobinson@outlook. corn SUB TY Pill, Phone 949-637-2607 City Council Meeting Device . STREET ADDRESS Media Submitted None L COMMENTS&ADDITIONAL NOTES Homeless shelter-I am writing to let you know that I support your proposal for a homeless shelter on Research Dr.It's needed and required,so just do it. , Notes Added By staff:04/01/2019 11:15 AM Robin Estanislau Your comments will be included in the record for Agenda Item No.13 on the 4/1/19 City Council agenda. Share with Citizen:YES El Status Changed:04/01/2019 8:49 AM Johanna Dombo Work Order#149597 status has changed from new to assigned. Share with Citizen:NO Issue Type/Subtype Changed:04/01/2019 8:49 AM Johanna Dombo Workorder#149597 Issue type changed from City Council to Agenda&Public Hearing Comments and SUPPLEMENTAL subtype City Council Meeting. COMMUNICATION Share with Citizen:NO Meeting Date: 14" /• 141 Agenda Item No.; 13 [l"-331) Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2019 11:39 AM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: Homeless shelter AGENDA COMMENT Johanna Dombo Executive Assistant Office of the City Manager, City of Huntington beack 71+.536.5575 Johanna.domboPsurfcity-hb.org From:Vince<hbsip@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, March 28, 2019 10:27 AM To:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Homeless shelter Dear Council Members, I question the location of the proposed homeless shelter near McFadden and Springdale. I do not think putting a homeless shelter that close to Marina High School is a good idea. Student safety should be a top consideration. Vince Sipkovich SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: - cAo/ Agenda Item No.; 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 8:15 AM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: Homeless Shelter AGENDA COMMENT From: Natasha Souders<nsouders@hbuhsd.edu> Sent:Thursday, March 28, 2019 9:13 PM To:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Homeless Shelter Dear City Council, My name is Natasha Souders and I am a teacher at Marina High School. I also live in Huntington Beach and have lived here almost my entire life. I'm writing to express my concern over the proposed homeless shelter at 5770 Research Drive. This is extremely close to our high school campus, and I'm worried it would cause problems. Maybe you can put the shelter a few blocks further at the spot where they are reconstructing Boeing's parking lot. Thanks, Natasha Souders Natasha Souders Mild/Moderate Teacher Marina High School 15871 Springdale St. (714) 893-6571 Ext. 4150 SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: '- —/ —;A U% Agenda Item No.; /3 (/q 1 Work Order: #149576 Opened: 03/29/2019 Closed: - •- •••-•- w s u By : Diana Sullivan Agenda & Public Hearing Comments Email : Dianaisanurse@yahoo.c om SUB Phone : 714-894-2576 City Council Meeting Device : • STREET ADDRESS Media Submitted None • • • COMMENTS&ADDITIONAL NOTES Homeless Shelter near Marina HS is a bad idea.Let's do what one group is doing with homeless Vets.Take the homeless out to Yucca Valley,train them for a skill&give them inexpensive housing.There's plenty of room out there.I waited 20 years before I could afford a house in HB,why should they squat here for free? Status Changed:04/01/2019 8:52 AM Johanna Dombo Work Order#149576 status has changed from new to assigned. Share with Citizen:NO Issue Type/Subtype Changed:04/01/2019 8:52 AM Johanna Dombo Workorder#149576 Issue type changed from City Council to Agenda&Public Hearing Comments and 1 subtype City Council Meeting. • Share with Citizen:NO SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: 116 i• /41 Agenda Iten No.; /3(Iq-*3qL1) Esparza, Patty From: MyHB <reply@mycivicapps.com> Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 8:25 AM To: Estanislau, Robin; Esparza, Patty Subject: ©MyHB-#149375 City Council [03147] MyHB Issue Type/Subtype Changed -#149375 Workorder#149375 Issue type changed from City Council to Agenda&Public Hearing Comments and subtype City Council Meeting. Status Change issue type Work Order #149375 Issue Type SUPPLEMENTAL City Council COMMUNICATION Subtype Meeting Date: --/ --1/9 All Council Members �^ Staff Member(s) Agenda Item No.; /'. /kir Robin Estanislau,Patty Esparza Notes Homeless shelter proposed near Marina Hgh School. I live in HB but work in Santa Ana Civic Center.We had a homeless encampment next to our building and it was a nightmare.There is the Courtyard Shelter just a few blocks away and we are still having problems with the homeless. No shelter should be near residential areas or schools because it brings crime, property damage and drugs. Keep our neighborhoods and schools safe and do not allow this shelter in this area. View the Report Reporter Name Diane Whitaker Email dmwhitaker114@gmail.com Phone Report Submitted MAR 28, 2019-11:57 PM Please do not change subject line when responding. 1 Work Order: #149551 03 z9/2019 Closed: By : Sheryl Winget Agenda & Public Hearing Comments Email . sherylann_58@hotmail. coin SUB TYPE Phone 714-335-8513 City Council Meeting Device . STREET AD R7S Media Submitted None COMMENTS&ADDITIONAL NOTES Proposed Homeless Shelter Near Marina High School--No homeless shelters should be located close to any school.That seems to be a no-brainer decision but I guess not. Status Changed:04/01/2019 8:53 AM Johanna Dombo Work Order#149551 status has changed from new to assigned. Share with Citizen:NO Issue Type/Subtype Changed:04/01/2019 8:53 AM Johanna Dombo Workorder#149551 Issue type changed from City Council to Agenda&Public Hearing Comments and subtype City Council Meeting. Share with Citizen:NO SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: 41A /9 Agenda Item No.; /3(1 GJ•34/7) Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 11:16 AM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: 50 Bed Homeless Shelter on 5750 Research Dr AGENDA COMMENT Original Message From: Shannon Young<brad2shannon@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 11:04 AM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: 50 Bed Homeless Shelter on 5750 Research Dr What are you thinking putting that with in a 3 mile radius of a school & park? It will attract crime & mischief which usually follows people of the homeless. So what's next?? We don't have Head Start programming& low income housing in the zip code of 92647 to accommodate these people trying to make it on their feet. Please go back to the federal judge&Sacramento to re-route these shelter accommodations in cities that have programs in place. The Tax/Income ratio in 92647 is to high &to expensive for the average income family as it is. We don't have enough resources to be able to handle what's going to happen (a massive amount of homeless migration moving in). Sent from my iPhone SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: 7/- Agenda Item No.. i� ( i Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Monday, April 01, 2019 4:23 PM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: Homeless Shelter Concern AGENDA COMMENT From: Cynthia Alt<CynthiaAlt@msn.com> Sent: Monday, April 01, 2019 4:15 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Homeless Shelter Concern I am writing to request the council to vote no on the proposed Navigation Center to be housed on Research Dr. in north Huntington Beach. This site is literally backing onto the Marina High School property and is less than 2 blocks from elementary and junior high school sites. As a concerned parent, I am not sure that things have been fully reviewed and at the least communicated to the community at large. Here are my concerns: 1. You indicated in the release that the individuals would be vetted. a. Who will do the vetting? b. What aspects are being looked at for the vetting c. How long will the vetting take and where will the person wait while being vetted d. What will happen if the person does not pass the vetting? 2. With the site so close to schools, what will happen if there is an issue concerning an individual who is a registered sex offender or on Megan's Law reporting? Which concern out weighs the other? 3. Since the city is selecting the site, who is held accountable when something happens either by or to an individual participating in the program? 4. The Navigation Center report talks about 46% success rate with transitioning people from homelessness to homes, what about the 54%, what happens to them? These are but a few of my concerns. Please reconsider this action. Find a spot not so close to schools. Perhaps on Bolsa Chica -the old HB Fitness Center? Thank you Cynthia Alt SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: Agenda item No.; 13( 11-3*-i) 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Monday, April 01, 2019 7:59 AM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: Homeless shelter AGENDA COMMENT From: Bobbi Ashurst<bobbiashurst@rocketmail.com> Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2019 3:36 PM To:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Homeless shelter To all concerned, The current proposal for a 50 bed homeless shelter in the industrial area should be approved. The location is not too close to either residential nor to the schools. I can't think of a more appropriate location hat would serve the current need yet be out of the way enough to satisfy the NIMBYs. These types of locations are also well suited for dispensaries Bobbi Ashurst ph - 714-969-6400 fx - 714-969-0549 cell- 714-287-7302 bobbiashurst(a.rocketmail.com SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Data:_ L 1, of Agenda Item No.; 13( 16)- 3,114) 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Monday, April 01, 2019 7:50 AM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: Homeless schelter AGENDA COMMENT From: Bruce Blachford <brucOblachfOrd@gmail.com> Sent: Monday,April 01, 2019 6:27 AM To:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Homeless schelter I thing this is a great idea to help the homeless and allow our police to enforce existing laws to get people off of sleeping on the streets. Process Improvement Solutions Bruce Blachford 562-256-6213 SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: Agenda Item No.; 13 1 1- 344) 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 3:40 PM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: 50-Bed Homeless Shelter AGENDA COMMENT From: Charlene Boske<cboske@triconah.com> Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 3:35 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: 50-Bed Homeless Shelter Good afternoon, It has been brought to my attention the counsel is set to vote on a 50-bed Homeless Shelter proposed for Huntington Beach near McFadden/Springdale. I've been a resident of Huntington Beach for over 16 years. Both of my children currently attend Marina High School and I highly object to this location being so close to where mine and other children attend school. With the majority of homelessness being mentally ill or substance abusers, I don't feel this is a safe environment for children.There's room for theft, drug paraphernalia,violence, etc. I can't understand how the city of Huntington Beach would think this is an appropriate solution to what is being demanded of the city of Huntington Beach. I'm sure with how large of a geographical area Huntington Beach is,you can certainly find another location that is safe to its residents, children, neighborhoods, parks, and community. Thank you kindly for your time and attention to my concerns and request to not allowing this shelter in our neighborhood. Warm regards, Charlene Charlene Boske, PHR, CEBS Sr. Compensation Benefits Analyst Tricon American Homes O: 714-689-6169 SUPPLEMENTAL C: 714-916-8057 COMMUNICATION F: 714-689-6196 triconamericanhomes.com Meeting Date: Facebook I Goo ile Agenda Item No.; I3( 3u1 ) -- PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL This transmission may contain privileged, proprietary or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are instructed not to review this transmission. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender that you received this message and delete this transmission from your system. i Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd, an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS)for business. Providing a safer and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security, archiving and compliance. To find out more Click Here. 2 Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2019 7:54 AM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: 50 bed navigation center AGENDA COMMENT Original Message From: Roger<rmcocn@aol.com> Sent: Monday,April 01, 2019 5:50 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: 50 bed navigation center Thank you mayor and city council for being a part of this deception. City development department chose location just far enough away to avoid legal notification of residences in the area. The property is not in an area zoned for housing people. Housing may be an issue for a small portion of the problem. Most people are on the streets by choice, a large percentage are addicted which would make them ineligible for stay at the Navigation center. Those habitually homeless are highly unlikely to use your navigation center and cannot be forced to use it.There has been no comprehensive plan to alleviate the problem,the powers that be created by not directing enforcement of laws on the books. Enforcement works,two years ago Garden Grove directed police task force to the area of Beach blvd and the 22 freeway.This enforcement gave the people on the streets a choice, the left the area. Into Westminster who now had a growing problem, addressed it with greater enforcement and to HB they came,Surf City Safe space. No enforcement, now public camping, Filth on streets, beaches, parks and private property. Your answer is 50 beds in an industrial area to sleep at night and then back to the city streets, parks and private property. Where will you put the next 50 beds?And the 50 after that?With no affect on the drug addicts, street campers etc. Police need support to arrest,jail a start on addiction reform, and if not, at least a deterrent. Hb will lock you up Thank you Resident for over 50 years Roger Cowan. Sent from my iPhone SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: l• 1' / Agenda Item No.; i304/- 3q4) 1 Work Order: #149556 03/29/2019 Closed: This issue is assigned Est. Resolution Date: Not By Pamela Diecidue Agenda & Public Hearing Comments Email pameladiecidue@gmail. corn SUB TYPE Phone 714-514-2836 City Council Meeting Device STREET ADDRESS Media Submitted None COMMENTS&ADDITIONAL NOTES Homeless Shelter Near Marina High School Notes Added By staff:04/02/2019 4:05 PM Robin Estanislau Your comments have been received,will be shared with the Huntington Beach City Council,and will be included as part of the official record on this item. Share with Citizen:YES Status Changed:04/01/2019 11:40 AM Johanna Dombo Work Order#149556 status has changed from new to assigned. Share with Citizen:NO Issue Type/Subtype Changed:04/01/2019 11:40 AM Johanna Dombo Workorder#149556 Issue type changed from City Council to Agenda&Public Hearing Comments and SUPPLEMENTAL subtype City Council Meeting. COMMUNICATION Share with Citizen:NO �1 Meeting Date: 7• /•/mil Agenda Item No.; /31/-(-8qq) Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Monday, April 01, 2019 7:59 AM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: Proposed homeless shelter. AGENDA COMMENT From:Tarala Diehl<tarala07@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, March 30, 2019 11:23 AM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Proposed homeless shelter. To whom it may concern; It has been brought to my attention,that the city of Huntington Beach is proposing a 50 bed homeless shelter near Marina High School. First off, it's the most asinine idea to house 50 homeless people near a high school and sports fields where children congregate. As resident of Huntington Beach this shelter would basically be across the street from my residence. The homeless activity around our neighborhood is already bad enough. Its unacceptable to have mentally unstable homeless screaming obscenities as they roam the streets. With the cost of living in Huntington Beach I expect a little more. Please help keep Huntington safe, Thank you for your time. Tarala Diehl 6001 Vane Circle 92647 SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: 7' i• i q Agenda Item No.; 1 c3( I'1' 3;y) 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Monday, April 01, 2019 7:57 AM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: Homeless shelter AGENDA COMMENT From:Ann Marie Frazier<banannie82@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, March 31, 2019 3:21 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Homeless shelter I'm writing because I oppose the proposed location of the homeless shelter. It should not be anywhere near any of the schools in Huntington beach. Thank you. Best, Ann Marie Frazier SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: "�/• /.J, Agenda Item No.; 13(/el- 34/46 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2019 7:47 AM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: Hon. Erik Peterson, Mayor, City Council, City Manager and Staff AGENDA COMMENT From: David P Garofalo<hbnewsl@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2019 8:42 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Cc: Wilson, Fred <Fred.Wilson@surfcity-hb.org>; Handy, Robert<Robert.Handy@hbpd.org>; Luna-Reynosa, Ursula <ursula.luna-reynosa@surfcity-hb.org>; Fritzal, Kellee <KFritzal@surfcity-hb.org>; Fikes, Cathy<CFikes@surfcity- hb.org>; Gates, Michael <Michael.Gates@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Hon. Erik Peterson, Mayor, City Council, City Manager and Staff SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION The Hon. Erik Peterson, Mayor City of Huntington Beach MeetingL 1 and Honorable City Council Members I CC: Fred Wilson, City Manager (Rem I�_3 `r Rob Handy, Police Chief Agenda -/`-7 Ursula Luna Reynosa -Planning Director Kellee Fritzal, Economic Development Re: A different time, but a similar dilemma: Today its a Navigational Center, yesterday it was Massage Parlors Dear Mayor, City Council, City Manager and Staff: This is my 50th year in this city. I love this place and try every day to do my part to make it a little better, safer place to live, work and place. Twenty years ago, our City Council was confronted with the dilemma of where to locate massage parlors in our community. At that time GPS was an emerging tool. We seized the technology and mapped the city with concentric circles around every school and church creating a safe buffer leaving those areas where that type of business could be allowed with the least amount of community resistance. Understanding that today, Sober Living Houses, Navigation Centers, etc. are not subject to the restraints that were in place then. However, common sense tells us that we need to drastically reduce the negative community arguments, roadblocks to establishing a Navigation Center. In others words develop the Best Case scenario with the fewest objections and objection-ers... It is a place to start once you establish the ideal location by defining where you do not want one. Also, after watching the last council meeting I just simply goggled Proposals for Navigation Centers, California Cities. I was amazes at how many RFP's are in place seeking professional help, outlining considerable detail in the massive considerations involved with a facility like a Navigation Center. This sort of attention to detail would certainly help with residents, could help relations with 3rd party (legal) influences. I do not really know if any of this helps. Just another idea based on a sincere desire to help brainstorm our future. With all do respect for your team, the challenge and the mitigating circumstances that prevail... Dave Garofalo 1 Publisher:The Local News Community Newspapers 29th Year Serving HB,FV Westminster,Seal&Sunset Beaches 630 Main Street-Huntington Beach,Ca 92648 (714)914.9797/HBNewsl@aol.com/www.HBLocalNews.com 2 Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Monday, April 01, 2019 2:54 PM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: Homeless behind Marina HS AGENDA COMMENT From: Beatrix Goetz<bgoetz@hbuhsd.edu> Sent: Monday,April 01, 2019 2:43 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org>;Jessie Marion <jmarion@hbuhsd.edu> Subject: Homeless behind Marina HS Hello, For over 13 years, I have worked at Marina High School. In the past, we have had homeless building shelter behind the baseball diamonds. Just recently the gazebo at Robinwood Park, which is located directly behind Marina High School, caught on fire as the homeless were using that as their home. For me a homeless man came into the front door "just to sit". Enough is enough. This shelter will be located opposite to the Special Education classrooms, athletic fields and Adult Education Preschool. Too close for comfort. This is a NO VOTE for a homeless shelter being opened so close to a school. Beatrix Goetz Marina High School Receptionist C.S.E.A.Site Representative "See something,say something" United States Army Veteran (714)-893-6571 410a VIKINGS SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meek Date: Li'I' /6/ Agenda Item No.; 13l M— 3°l14) 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 3:43 PM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: New homeless shelter AGENDA COMMENT Original Message From: Stephanie <greenmd2@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 3:41 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: New homeless shelter Hello, My name is Stephanie Green and I have been living in HB about 20 years. I am SO happy to hear that we will get a homeless shelter so people without homes can have a place to sleep at night. My only concern is that the planned location is right next to several schools!! This is not the ideal place for a homeless shelter. Please choose another location without such a close proximity to schools. A more industrial area (such as along Gothard Street if that is possible) would be much more appropriate. We need to protect our children. Thank you for your consideration of this. Stephanie Green 562 505-4676 Sent from my iPhone SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION meeting Date:_ • I. 1 47 Agenda Item No.; 13 LL - 3'14) Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 3:06 PM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: NO SHELTER AT 5770 RESEARCH AGENDA COMMENT From:Taylor Haug<taylorhaug@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 2:21 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: NO SHELTER AT 5770 RESEARCH Put your community, homeowners, renters, students, and surrounding businesses, all whom pay taxes to our city, over vagrants. Thank you, Taylor Haug SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Dom: 41' I' al AgendaItem 13 1 Esparza, Pafty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2019 7:53 AM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy, CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: Homeless Shelter AGENDA COMMENT Original Message From: Monica Hines<tmckm5@verizon.net> Sent: Monday, April 01, 2019 6:01 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Homeless Shelter Dear City Council, I am asking you to please reconsider your plans of building a homeless shelter near Marina High School. The shelter should not be near a school where hundreds of students walk to daily. Even if there is "security" the potential risk to the students' safety is not worth the "potential rewards" of a shelter. I graduated from Marina High School and I currently have a daughter who attends there, I love the school! It makes me heartbroken to hear people say they will not send their children to Marina if the shelter is built. At a time of declining enrollment, we cannot afford to lose students to nearby districts. In addition, I am a homeowner near the potential shelter sight and I do not want to see my property values drop because of the risks of having a shelter close by. I understand that we have a homeless problem, but please don't make our children have to pay for it! Sincerely, Monica Hines Sent from my iPad SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date i' Agenda itemNo; 13( !/- 3q4) 1 Work Order: #149438 03/29/2019 Closed: 1 hr, i-'u(• lo.v. Est. Resolution Date: Not Yet Set By Signe Howes Agenda & Public Hearing Comments Email dogs@socal.rr.com Phone 714-846-6948 SUB TYPE Device . City Council Meeting STREET ADDRESS Media Submitted None COMMENTS&ADDITIONAL NOTES - We oppose homeless shelter Notes Added By staff:04/02/2019 4:06 PM Robin Estanislau Your comments have been received,will be shared with the Huntington Beach City Council,and will be included as part of the official record on this item. Share with Citizen:YES Issue Type/Subtype Changed:04/01/2019 11:48 AM Kim De Coite Workorder#149438 Issue type changed from Agenda&Public Hearing Comments to Agenda&Public Hearing Comments and subtype City Council Meeting. Share with Citizen:NO SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: � I• Agenda Item No.; /3(M—34L1) Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Monday, April 01, 2019 3:33 PM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: Proposed shelter location AGENDA COMMENT Original Message From:Jody Inchausti<jody@coastmotorwerk.com> Sent: Monday, April 01, 2019 3:15 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Proposed shelter location To whom it may concern, I am a Huntington Beach resident, homeowner and business owner, and I am writing to request for the City of Huntington Beach find another location for a homeless shelter, one preferably not in close proximity to a high school, a library and a park where little league is regularly played. Please take these factors into consideration and find a better place to house these unfortunates. Thank you for your consideration. Jody Inchausti Sent from my iPhone SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: Agenda Item No., /3 3*y, i Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 3:07 PM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: Homeless Shelter/Marina High School AGENDA COMMENT From: Lori Koch <lorikoch789@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 2:11 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Homeless Shelter/Marina High School Dear Huntington Beach City Council Members - I was disappointed to learn that the City of Huntington Beach was considering putting a homeless shelter next to Marina High School where my children attend. I have lived in the area a long time and can see with my own eyes that the number of homeless people in the area has drastically increased. Why? How do we solve it? These are big questions that are not going to get solved overnight. Solve the issue we must, but it can not be at the expense of our children's safety. I am asking you to find another location for the homeless shelter. I will be at the meeting on Monday if you would like to discuss further. Sincerely yours, Lori Koch 714-423-3751 lorikoch789@gmail.com SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: q• I• i' Agenda Item No.; l3 ( 11-3/16 i Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Monday, April 01, 2019 3:36 PM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: Oppose Location of Homeless Shelter: 5770 Research Drive, HB AGENDA COMMENT From: Kruse (US), Susan L<susan.l.kruse@boeing.com> Sent: Monday, April 01, 2019 3:34 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Oppose Location of Homeless Shelter: 5770 Research Drive, HB Dear City Counsel, I realize that shelter for the homeless in our area is of importance and I commend our leaders for addressing the issue. I do NOT support the proposed location at 5770 Research Drive, Huntington Beach. I am adamantly opposed to the suggested location for a Homeless Shelter at 5770 Research Dr, Huntington Beach. The Homeless Shelter at that location will be steps away from Marina High School,the little league fields, soccer fields and playground areas where children are present most of every day. As you are aware, issues connected to Homeless Shelters include but are not limited to illegal drug and alcohol use/abuse and related incidences in too close proximity to children. Is the city willing to take on that massive liability when something tragic happens to any of the children located within the radius of the homeless shelter? Certainly there is a better location that is NOT steps away from schools and play areas. Please reconsider. Regards, Susan Kruse Email: Susan.l.kruseCa)boeinq.com SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: y' H I Agenda ItemNo4 13( -3qy) 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Monday, April 01, 2019 9:53 AM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: Written Correspondence from OVSD -Agenda Item 19-394 (Development and Operation of a 50-Bed Navigation Center) Attachments: City Ltr 4-1-19.pdf AGENDA COMMENT From: Cindi Lee <CLee@ovsd.org> Sent: Monday, April 01, 2019 9:49 AM To:johanna.dumbo@surfcity-hb.org; CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org>; Cathy.Fikes@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Carol Hansen <chansen@ovsd.org>; Michael Conroy<mconroy@ovsd.org>; susan@whittakerplanningservices.com; 'John Briscoe (john@crestwave.org)'<john@crestwave.org>; 'Gina Clayton-Tarvin' <Mrsclaytontarvin@gmail.com> Subject: Written Correspondence from OVSD-Agenda Item 19-394 (Development and Operation of a 50-Bed Navigation Center) Good morning, Please see the attached communication from the Ocean View School District regarding Agenda Item 13 (Development and Operation of a 50-Bed Navigation Center) on the City Council's agenda for the April 1, 2019, Council meeting. Please distribute the communication to all Council members prior to consideration of this item tonight. Thank you. Cindi Lee, Executive .Assistant Office of the Superintendent OCEAN VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT 17200 Pinehurst Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92647 (714) 847-2551, ext. 1309 clee@ovsd.org SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Dato: • i• /c, Agenda teern No.; /3( i'" 3 I /) Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, April 01, 2019 2:54 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Support of April 1, 2019 Agenda Item# 13, City 50 Bed Navigation Center From: Deb Lelchuk<deblelchuk@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 01, 2019 2:42 PM To: Peterson, Erik<Erik.Peterson@surfcity-hb.org> Cc: Fikes, Cathy<CFikes@surfcity-hb.org> Subject:Support of April 1, 2019 Agenda Item#13, City 50 Bed Navigation Center Dear Mayor Peterson, I have been a property owner in Huntington Beach since August of 2017 and a resident of Orange County for most of my nearly 60 years of life. I want to express my support for this project in the City of Huntington Beach. I hope this is the a step toward solving the homelessness issues in our community. As a concerned citizen and member of Temple Beth David in Westminster, I have made an effort to educate myself about the issue of homelessness in my community. "If there is a poor person among you, you shall not harden your heart...rather, you must open your hand and lend them sufficient for their need, whatever it may be."Deuteronomy 15:7-10 As I'm sure you know, Housing First is the answer to addressing homelessness. This transitional center will allow those individuals and families suffering from homelessness to have a roof over their heads while they take the time they need to secure affordable housing. The property is surrounded by fencing as is the neighboring high school campus and the city is certainly able to maintain security through HBPD and 24/7 on-site security. I'd like to thank you and the Council for taking action on this complicated issue important to the safety and well being of our community. Sincerely, Deborah Lelchuk 16802 Coral Cay Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92649 SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: • /' Agenda Item No.; /3 f/i— 3gl1) Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Monday, April 01, 2019 8:23 AM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: Homeless shelter AGENDA COMMENT Original Message From: kara Lomon <superstars84@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, April 01, 2019 8:17 AM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Homeless shelter Why would you place a homeless shelter literally adjacent to a little league baseball park and a school? My children were going to be attending Marina HS next year; I am one of the several irate North Huntington Beach residents. Find a location away from a school! We do need to address the homeless and especially drug related issues in this city. But for the sake of our kids, please be mindful of the location. SUPPLEMENTAL COM UUNICATION Meeting Date: 41+ / /a/ Agenda Item No.; /3( 1`'I—31 y) 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Monday, April 01, 2019 2:32 PM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: Proposed Homeless Shelter on Research Dr. AGENDA COMMENT From:JEFF LUNG<JDLUNG@msn.com> Sent: Monday, April 01, 2019 2:09 PM To:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Proposed Homeless Shelter on Research Dr. Dear Mayor Peterson & Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Thank you for your service to the city and efforts to address the issue of homelessness in our community. While a location is necessary, for safety reasons, Research Dr. is not ideal secondary to the fixed position of Marina High School. Traditionally, these two groups decision-making skills are a "work-in-progess" and to place them in such proximity may result in unwanted outcomes. I suggest there are suitable locations nearer food, transportation and work sources for the population in search of these opportunities. Your time and energy to reach a solution with this is truly appreciated. Sincerely, Elizabeth C. Parris (714) 840-9976 SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: I J. 11 Agenda Item No.; 13 (141"3'14) Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Monday, April 01, 2019 7:59 AM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: NO HOMELESS SHELTER BY MY HOMEII?II AGENDA COMMENT From: Brandi Manion<blmanion@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, March 30, 2019 5:45 PM To:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: NO HOMELESS SHELTER BY MY HOMEI I I I I Dear City Council, This homeless shelter in HB is ludicrous! We are hard-working people who live in the tract of homes less than a mile away from this proposed site. With property taxes, we pay about $4000/month to live here. I'm aghast at the idea of homeless people living for free right next door, not to mention that it's dangerous! Crime will soar and my property value will plummet. We have two sons that attend Marina High School (which would TOUCH property lines with this shelter). They would no longer be allowed or encouraged to walk/bike to school. We also own a business in the industrials on Producer Lane. This shelter is a triple threat for us! They've already ruined the local beaches and shopping centers for us; they will NOT ruin my home or impede my safety. WE HAVE PLAYED BY THE RULES TO LIVE HERE. EVERYONE SHOULD! ! ! ! VOTE THIS DOWN IMMEDIATELY! SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: �• �' Agenda Item No.; l3 ( f)-34y) 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Monday, April 01, 2019 7:56 AM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: Shopoff Development AGENDA COMMENT Original Message From: Carrie and Steve <stevencarrie@verizon.net> Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2019 6:38 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Shopoff Development Dear Members of the City Council, As a fifty year resident of Huntington Beach, I strongly oppose a lodge being built adjacent to protected wetland marshes. In addition, having a lodge and housing built adjacent to a toxic dump, is opening a window for future litigation against the city.The proposed development will increase traffic, congestion, and parking issues. Please read the EIR and I urge you to vote no to rezone this property for a lodge and/or high density housing. Sincerely, Carrie Martin 9171 Haiti Drive 714-330-4634 Sent from my iPhone SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION meetingDate: Ll• f• / ; Agenda Item No.; /3` 141-3' 4) i Work Order: #149984 Opened: 2019 Closed: issue is assign-es. 1 , By Michael Agenda & Public Hearing Comments Email . Phone . SUB TYPE Device City Council Meeting STREET ADDRESS Media Submitted None COMMENTS&ADDITIONAL NOTES Do not vote to put a homeless shelter in our neighborhood. Notes Added By staff:04/02/2019 3:52 PM Robin Estanislau Your comments have been received,will be shared with the Huntington Beach City Council,and will be included as part of the official record on this item. Share with Citizen:YES Status Changed:04/02/2019 3:16 PM Johanna Dombo Work Order#149984 status has changed from new to assigned. Share with Citizen:NO Issue Type/Subtype Changed:04/02/2019 3:16 PM Johanna Dombo Workorder#149984 Issue type changed from City Council to Agenda&Public Hearing Comments and SUPPLEMENTAL subtype City Council Meeting. COMMUNICATION Share with Citizen:NO Meeting Date: 11- /• /9 Agenda Item No.; /3 (/1 3: q) Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2019 7:53 AM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: 50-Bed Homeless Shelter at 5770 Research Drive AGENDA COMMENT From: Robert Nibbe<robnibbe@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday,April 01, 2019 8:36 PM To:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: 50-Bed Homeless Shelter at 5770 Research Drive Dear Council: Please do not put 50 residential bed at 5770 Research Drive. This is an zoned for Industrial. Bringing Homeless to this area as well as to the Marina High School is a big mistake. Robert Nibbe Contronic Devices Inc. SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION o Dale: /•/9 Agenda Item No.; /3 ` I at— 34L) i Work Order: #150038 Opened: 2019 Closed: • This issue is assigned By Dave Peters Agenda & Public Hearing Comments Email dave@scatsgymnastics. corn SUB TYPE Phone 714-895-2909 City Council Meeting Device STREET ADDRESS Media Submitted None LI COMMENTS&ADDITIONAL NOTES Proposed Homeless Shelter&Proximity to Children's Programs//Hello,for your consideration and review I've attached an annotated map showing the proposed homeless shelter and its distances from 9 different children's programs,including our own,SCATS Gymnastics.(Please note that Outbreak Soccer is adjacent to The Rinks,accounting for the ninth).This is a 1 mile radius.I will bring paper copies to this evening's city council meeting as well.Thank you for your time and attention,Dave Peters Chief Executive I SCATS Gymnastics Celebrating 55 Years"Skills for Sport,Lessons for Life"714.895.2909 Notes Added By staff:04/02/2019 3:58 PM Robin Estanislau Your comments have been received,will be shared with the Huntington Beach City Council,and will be included as part of the official record on this item. Share with Citizen:YES Status Changed:04/02/2019 3:15 PM Johanna Dombo Work Order#150038 status has changed from new to assigned. Share with Citizen:YES SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Issue Type/Subtype Changed:04/02/2019 3:15 PM Johanna Dombo Meeting Date: Workorder#150038 Issue type changed from City Council to Agenda&Public Hearing Comments and Y- /• / Agenda Item No.; /3( /"i 3 L/) subtype City Council Meeting. Share with Citizen:NO Work Order: #150013 Opened: 2019 Closed: By Mary Jean Piersma Agenda & Public Hearing Comments Email jmpiersma@verizon.net Phone . SUB TYPE Device . City Council Meeting STREET ADDRESS Media Submitted None COMMENTS&ADDITIONAL NOTES Hello to all City Council members,How are you?I was writing in regards to the homeless facility that is being considered adjacent to Marina High.My concerns as well as many of the people in northern Huntington Beach is that this facility is too close to the school and represents a possibility of homeless transients being in the vicinity of the High school.It's very true that the homeless situation is getting worse in our city and something needs to be done to help these poor people,but I would like to suggest that the facility maybe moved to a more central location such as the inside of this industrial area away from the school,maybe towards the old Boeing facility or even to the industrial area between Slater and Talbert on Gothard. This area is an industrial area and it's far removed from residences and Oceanview schools. Also there are several areas along Beach Blvd that can serve as a facility.Right now there's a vacant local before McDonals street on beach,next to the Veterinarian hospital that is vacant. Beach Blvd is an easy place to locate this center since it's easily accessible and also doesn't have many residential areas immediately around it's perimeter.I know this is a bit late for the meeting tonight which I had planned to attend but no longer can.I hope this matter tonight is given more consideration and not just approved for the sake of meeting the dead line from the court order.Thank you for your attention.Mary Jean Piersma Notes Added By staff:04/02/2019 3:57 PM Robin Estanislau Your comments have been received,will be shared with the Huntington Beach City Council,and will be y ®®�p included as part of the official record on this item. SUPPLEMENTAL 1® P1 Share with Citizen:YES COMMUNICATION meeti1 Status Changed:04/02/2019 3:15 PM Johanna Dombo " Date: �• / Agenda Item► o.:, /3( /1— 3/1) Work Order#150013 status has changed from new to assigned. Share with Citizen:YES Issue Type/Subtype Changed:04/02/2019 3:15 PM Johanna Dombo Workorder#150013 Issue type changed from City Council to Agenda&Public Hearing Comments and subtype City Council Meeting. Share with Citizen:NO Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Monday, April 01, 2019 7:56 AM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: Concerning the homeless shelter by Marina High School AGENDA COMMENT From: berreprincess@aol.com <berreprincess@aol.com> Sent:Sunday, March 31, 2019 5:44 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject:Concerning the homeless shelter by Marina High School To all City Council Members: While I understand why this is needed, I have to say this is not a good spot at all. This should NOT be put near a school site of any kind. Its already an issue with the homeless in that park by Marina High School. I have a husband that works at the school. He has to be there every morning early. There are already times that some of the staff working maintenance and custodial jobs are having to get homeless people off the school grounds. As well as clean up the homeless peoples bodily waste that they leave behind, the trash, drug paraphernalia, etc. They have to worry for not just their safety doing this but for the safety of students that parents drop off earlier then should be. You are putting at risk the safety of my husband, the school staff, the students, little league families, businesses in the area, and residents nearby. If or when something happens, because of this location being used to house homeless, who will be held responsible for it? By the way, you can call it a navigation center but reality is it is a homeless shelter. These have been in place in other cities that stick them in locations they shouldn't be and from what I have seen its not helping to much in those places. San Francisco has been using this term for them and from what I have read very few end up placed in homes in the time frame it claims they will...if at all. As it is we have a homeless task force saying only 10% of homeless want help. So while if this shelter is in place you can make the ones not wanting help move some place else, tell me where they go?Another part of town? The next city over? How is this helping the problem?Who is paying for all this in the end?All of us tax paying citizens do. Ho soon before all of us Huntington Beach residents have you all in City Council telling us you want to raise taxes on us and take funds from one area to another to fund this homeless shelter? It seems to happen in other places as well this way. Who can honestly say that the area around this proposed shelter site will not end up with more drug addicted and mentally ill homeless hanging around the area because they can't get in the shelter?We have already seen a fire set problems there by them. We have seen issues with drugged out homeless in the city where they have either physically harmed residents or tried to (mostly recently the bar where 2 were stabbed). So can anyone part of City Council honestly tell all of us residents that are families are safe with this there? Can you honestly say my husband is safe at work? I don't think you can. You all better hope that something does NOT go work if you settle on this site because it will come back to each and every one of you that approves this. Sincerely, Anna Plewa SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: y I. PI Agenda Item No.; 13 ( 1 1- 3141) 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Monday, April 01, 2019 7:57 AM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: Proposed Homeless Shelter AGENDA COMMENT From: Michael Rauterkus<mrauterkus@hbuhsd.edu> Sent:Sunday, March 31, 2019 3:25 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Proposed Homeless Shelter Hello City Council Members, Thank you for your time in reading and considering this email. I ask you to very carefully reconsider the location that you have chosen for the new 50 bed Huntington Beach Homeless Shelter at 5770 Research Drive. I am sure that you have explored this extensively and are aware that the back of that property shares a fence with Marina High School. In particular, it shares a wall with our Endeavours and Pathways programs. These students are already struggling with developmental and emotional disorders and I doubt that this shelter will provide opportunities for positive interactions. Research shows that the vast majority of single homeless individuals suffer from mental disorders and substance abuse, and single homeless individuals make up 76% of the homeless population(Cochran, 2007). These individuals would be transported from around Huntington Beach(and potentially more of Orange County) and placed adjacent to one of your distinguished schools (list of CA Distinguished Schools). Marina High School's campus is not fenced in and closed off. This would increase the likelihood of an individual leaving the shelter and wandering onto the campus. Will this increase the drug traffic closer to our school? How many parents will choose not to send their students to this school? How many lockdowns will happen per year? Just this school year, we were locked down after a homeless individual lit Marina Park on fire (LA Times). Please consider finding a location for these individuals that is not directly adjacent to a school where we are trying to educate and inspire our students to be sober and productive members of society. Thank you for your time, Michael Rauterkus Cochran, Tom. 2007. A Status Report on Hunger and Homelessness in America's Cities: A 23-City Survey. Retrieved 3/28/2019 http://www.ncdsv.org/images/USCM Hunger-homelessness-Survey-in-America's- Cities 12%202007.pdf Michael Rauterkus Marina High School - Science Accelerated Biology/Anatomy and Physiology mrauterkus@hbuhsd.edu SUPPLEMENTAL (714) 893-6571 x4256 COMMUNICATION Adopt-A-Classroom Homepage Office hours: M-F 7:30-8:00 AM Tues & Thurs during lunch Meeting Date: i' Free Tutoring resource Agenda item No.; I3( l°I— 3gy) Work Order: #150005 Opened: 2019 Closed: This issue is assigned By I urge all council members to vote yes in Agenda & Public Hearing Comments favor of the much needed proposed SUB TYPE shelter.Phyllis Ross City Council Meeting Email phyllisr1213@gmail.co m STREET ADDRESS Phone 714-963-3928 Device . LI Media Submitted None COMMENTS&ADDITIONAL NOTES Agenda item for city shelter at council meeting on April 1,2019. Notes Added By staff:04/02/2019 3:56 PM Robin Estanislau Your comments have been received,will be shared with the Huntington Beach City Council,and will be included as part of the official record on this item. Share with Citizen:YES Status Changed:04/02/2019 3:16 PM Johanna Dombo Work Order#150005 status has changed from new to assigned. Share with Citizen:YES Issue Type/Subtype Changed:04/02/2019 3:16 PM Johanna Dombo Workorder#150005 Issue type changed from City Council to Agenda&Public Hearing Comments and SUPPLEMENTAL subtype City Council Meeting. COMMUNICATION Share with Citizen D . Agenda Item No.. I /4 1-,3/L/) Esparza, Patty From: agendacomment@surfcity-hb.org Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2019 7:10 PM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: Public Comments on Council Agenda Items AGENDA COMMENT Subject Homelessness & Proposed Shelter Name Elizabeth San Filippo Email elizabethsanfilippo@fuller.edu Comments As a long term resident of Huntington Beach, I am concerned about people who are homeless in our community and support the development of a shelter. I support the proposed transitional shelter. I would like to see permanent housing for people who have chronic homelessness. Providing shelter won't attract homeless people, they already live here. Many of them are veterans and deserve better. Thank you for your consideration. SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: 4. I. 1 Agenda Item No.; l3 III- 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 3:25 PM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: 50 Bed Navigation Center AGENDA COMMENT From:Gina Scott<hbgina66@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 3:17 PM To:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Fwd: 50 Bed Navigation Center PLEASE SEE CORRECTION FROM Graham to Gothard St. Forwarded message From: Gina Scott <hbgina66@gmail.com> Date: Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 2:35 PM Subject: 50 Bed Navigation Center To: <city.councleAsurfcity-hb.org> Dear City Council Members and mayor Peterson. Please reconsider locating the 50 bed Navigation Center on Research Drive. This location shares a common wall with Marina High School as well this location is surrounded by other schools and child recreational businesses. ( A lot of kid's walk home from school ) (Marina High School, Grace Lutheran School, Circle View, Scats Gymnastics Center, The Hockey Rink and not to mention all the city parks that are used for sports.) If our council really wants to help the homeless then why not find a location that is closer to the resources the homeless individuals need. I understand this is a touchy matter regarding a location. But I do feel this location next to so many child facilities will not provide them the services they need and may put of children in harm's way Please consider doing more research on a location that will better provide services needed to those in question. Research Drive is and was a very rushed choice. ( Why not Gothard no schools or child recreation centers. ) SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Sincerely a very concerned home owner and parent, Gina Scott Meeting Date: 1 Agenda item No.; 131/' —39q) Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Monday, April 01, 2019 5:05 PM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: Shelter next to Marina High School AGENDA COMMENT From: smalley.m09<smalley.m09@gmail.com> Sent: Monday,April 01, 2019 4:37 PM To:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject:Shelter next to Marina High School Hello all, I want to voice my disapproval of the proposed location for the homeless shelter in HB. Next to a high school is not an appropriate location. I am a voting property owner in HB and would like the city council to come up with a better location than the one currently being considered. Thank you, Matt Smalley SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION �(• /• /`� r ram: NO.; /301°I- 3q44) 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Monday, April 01, 2019 5:05 PM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: AGAINST HOMELESS SHELTER NEAR SCHOOL AGENDA COMMENT From:Valerie Tonkovich <val.loveandpeace@gmail.com> Sent: Monday,April 01, 2019 5:03 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject:AGAINST HOMELESS SHELTER NEAR SCHOOL Dear Council Members, Please accept this email as an official notice against putting a homeless shelter just a brick wall away from Mariana High School. There are also other middle schools in the near area. "The rights of about a hundred homeless people who may, or may not be, repeat offenders, ex-cons, addicts, or just plain mentally ill vs. the rights of several hundred school children, to be reasonably protected from harm. I don't see any big decision here, but apparently some people do." E.S.VERDAD Although I am sympathetic to the homeless, please find a location away from our children. We must protect them first. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, SUPPLEMENTAL Valerie Tonkovich COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: Li' • lq i s No.; /3 l /1-3/q) 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Monday, April 01, 2019 1:59 PM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: Proposed Homeless Shelter Importance: High AGENDA COMMENT From: Rachel Truman<RTruman@citainsurance.com> Sent: Monday,April 01, 2019 1:21 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Proposed Homeless Shelter Importance: High As a lifelong resident of Huntington Beach, I'm appalled at the City Council's choice to place a 50 bed homeless shelter directly behind a high school. I feel that this is a calculated choice to attempt to bring the homeless population away from the downtown area.This industrial area is small and nowhere near the size of the space in Irvine or Santa Ana which have homeless facilities in Industrial areas. There are probably over 2000 students at Marina High School. Not only do you put their safety at risk,you will absolutely see fall out from this and kids trying to go to other HBUHSD schools. Further disrupting Marina's progress. If you don't see that this will be a problem,then open your eyes and be prepared to take responsibility for the outcome. This shows a lack of planning. Why wasn't this contemplated before allowing all of the high density housing projects commence? I have been searching out homeless shelters in Orange County and I don't see any sharing common walls with any schools. Please rethink this decision and make the best choice for the kids who will be taking care of all of us when they are older... assuming they can still afford to live in HB. Rachel Truman Program Leader CITA Insurance Services, A division of Brown & Brown Program Insurance Services, Inc. Phone: (714) 939-7316 Cell: (714)928-2133 CA License 0050992 NOTE: You cannot bind, alter or cancel coverage without speaking to an authorized representative of Brown& Brown Program Insurance Services, Inc. You cannot assume that coverage is bound without confirmation from an authorized representative of Brown& Brown Program Insurance Services, Inc. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message contains information from Brown& Brown Program Insurance Services, Inc., and may be privileged and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify me immediately by telephone or by electronic mail. This message originated from www.citainsurance.com SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Date:Meeting 41' i' 1 Agenda Item No:13 z Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Monday, April 01, 2019 3:33 PM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: Homeless shelter AGENDA COMMENT From: Lisa <lisa@vealz.com> Sent: Monday,April 01, 2019 3:24 PM To:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Homeless shelter To whom it may concern, I am writing to you urging you to reconsider the proposed 50 Person homeless shelter right behind Marine Highschool. I understand our city is in need of doing something about this terrible homeless problem but endangering our children is not the answer. This shelter should be at least a mile from any school! It only takes one incident with one child for this whole idea to turn into a major disaster and lawsuit. This is honestly such a terrible idea and I am not sure who in good conscience thinks this is ok. It's bad enough being a parent of children in schools these days with terrible things happening around the country in schools. This decision is like a slap in the face to all of your residents and students who attend or will attend Marine. Not to mention the 1,000's of kids that use those fields for Huntington West Little League, Friday Night Lights football, Surf city basketball and countless other groups using those fields at Marine. Please make the right decision tonight. Feel free to contact me with any questions ! Thank you- Lisa Veal 562-881-4581 Get Outlook for iOS SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meedng Date: y� I• Agenda Item No.; 13 ( I°I- 3414.1 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Monday, April 01, 2019 12:40 PM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: Navigation Center-5770 Research Drive AGENDA COMMENT From: Brian Waldbaum <brianwaldbaum@gmail.com> Sent: Monday,April 01, 2019 12:04 PM To:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Cc: Mikki Waldbaum <mikki225@gmail.com>; Phil Gibson <phil@tmtlabs.com>; Kristin Burgett<kris@tmtlabs.com> Subject: Navigation Center-5770 Research Drive Dear City Council Members, I wish to express my specific concerns regarding the legality of the proposed Navigation Center so that they may be addressed at today's City Council Meeting. The proposed "Navigation Center" is inaccurately described on the Navigation Center Fact Sheet as a 50-bed "Emergency Shelter". Emergency shelters typically house people who are homeless or otherwise displaced due to an actual emergency, not those who are chronically homeless. An Emergency Shelter, as it is called on the Fact Sheet, is a land use reserved for Public and Semipublic zoned property as established in Huntington Beach Zoning Code Section 204.8, Subsection C.4: "Emergency Shelters. Establishments offering food and shelter programs for "homeless"people and others in need. This classification does not include facilities licensed for residential care, as defined by the State of California, which provide supervision of daily activities." According to the Fact Sheet,the proposed Navigation Center will be enclosed by an 8-foot fence and will have 24/7 security hired by the City. Clearly this constitutes"supervision of daily activities". What is also listed on the Fact Sheet is "enhanced Huntington Beach Police Department service"—which is a clear indication of the inherent risk of operating a Homeless Shelter(not an Emergency Shelter)in such close proximity to schools, small businesses and residential neighborhoods. I am concerned that the "Navigation Center" will actually fall into the category of General Residential Care and/or General Residential Alcohol Recovery as defined in Section 204.8, Subsections C5 and C6.There is a clear distinction between these types of shelters and a true Emergency Shelter.These types of residential shelters provide 24-hour care, supervision, protection,treatment and assistance for people in need, including those who pose a threat to themselves and to others due to mental illness and drug and alcohol addiction. The City must acknowledge that the needs of our homeless population are not simply housing, food and clothing.The underlying issues of mental health and addiction must be addressed in a setting where there is access to medical care, protection by enforcement, and in some cases legal representation. The proposed location on Research Drive is a very poor choice due to its long distance from any hospitals, mental health care offices and the Huntington Beach Police Department. Furthermore it poses the risk of violence,theft and disruption of daily life to the surrounding businesses, neighborhoods and schools.The fact that the City Council would consider allowing a Homeless Shelter directly next door to Marina High School is beyond comprehension. 1 The property at 5770 Research Drive is zoned "Commercial" and is not intended for this type of use under normal circumstances. Per Section 211.04 of the Huntington Beach Zoning Code, Emergency Shelters may only operate on a Commercial zoned property if a Conditional Use Permit is granted by the Zoning Administrator.The City Council should first ensure that the proposed activities fall clearly within the definition of an "Emergency Shelter" and not into the category of"General Residential Care" or"General Residential Alcohol Recovery".This must happen before the Zoning Administrator grants a Conditional Use Permit and before the City Council authorizes the Three Year Lease Agreement for this property. If logic prevails, a more appropriate location will be selected... specifically one that is zoned Public or Semipublic, does not share a fence with a school, and is in close proximity to emergency healthcare and mental health services. Respectfully, Brian Waldbaum 5902 Nugget Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92647 (714) 951-1729 SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeling Data: �/ /• /�J Agenda!tern No.; 13 (11- 3 4/H1) 2 Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Monday, April 01, 2019 7:58 AM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: Homeless Shelter at 5770 Research Drive AGENDA COMMENT From: Donnie White<donniejw@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, March 31, 2019 7:55 AM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Homeless Shelter at 5770 Research Drive City Council, I understand the complex situation, but please consider a different location. We bought a house here a year ago within a half a mile feeling this area would be great for our two kids, near an elementary school, little league fields, SCATs gymnasts and Marina High School. Why is such a location the front runner for a homeless shelter? Please, please reconsider. Certainly there's a better location away from such vital locations for HB's kids. Thank you Don SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: �• • / Agenda item No.; !3( 1'1—3' 1) 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Monday, April 01, 2019 1:59 PM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: homeless shelter AGENDA COMMENT Original Message From: mone4601@twc.com <mone4601@twc.com> Sent: Monday, April 01, 2019 1:30 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: homeless shelter To Whom It May Concern: I am a Marina HS parent. Please change the location. I understand no one wants them, but this shelter is too close to a school. Are not there some zoning restrictions around schools? How about those places in Midway City? What happened there? It is my understanding that the city knows major problems and horrible things will happen, since there will be 24 hour security... What will the security guards do? What if there is a call off? I am just sick. Thanks. SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: 4/. i. /', Agenda Item No.; I3( 11-341-0 1 Work Order: #149904 04/01/2019 ned: Closed: By Debta Meyling Agenda & Public Hearing Comments Email debbiedeboss@aol.com Phone 714-394-8466 SUB TYPE Device . City Council Meeting STREET ADDRESS Media Submitted None COMMENTS&ADDITIONAL NOTES Homeless shelter.I am not insensitive to the needs of some.In fact I am the guardian to an at risk teen whom I do not receive any assistance for and I cover her health insurance and other monetary needs.With that said,I do not agree with enabling the homeless at tax payers expense.This is best handled by non profit organizations.Secondly,rather than throw money at this problem,I recommend issuing permits to private HOAs for existing neighborhoods for public/private ventures of public spaces including parks,sidewalks,greenbelts and other public spaces in the HOA area.This will create a public/PRIVATE venture and allow law enforcement to enforce no camping regulations in those now private venture areas. Notes Added By staff:04/01/2019 12:09 PM Robin Estanislau Your comments will be included in the record for Agenda Item No.13 on the 4/1/2019 City Council agenda. Share with Citizen:YES Status Changed:04/01/2019 11:38 AM Johanna Dombo Work Order#149904 status has changed from new to assigned. SUPPLEMENTAL Share with Citizen:NO COMMUNICATION Issue Type/Subtype Changed:04/01/2019 11:38 AM Johanna Dombo meeting Date: 1• 1.11 Agenda Item NO.;_ .J3t/9- 3'4) Workorder#149904 Issue type changed from City Council to Agenda Sr Public Hearing Comments and subtype City Council Meeting. Share with Citizen:NO I