The state agency "guidance" indicates as "Eligible Uses":

HEAP funds are intended to provide funding to Continuums of Care (COCs) and large cities (LCs) with populations over 330,000, so they may provide immediate emergency assistance to people experiencing homelessness. Eligible uses include, but are not limited to the following:

a. Homelessness prevention activities,
b. Criminal justice diversion programs for homeless individuals with mental health needs,
c. Establishing or expanding services meeting the needs of homeless youth or youth at risk of homelessness, and
d. Emergency aid.

The parameters of the program are intentionally broad to allow local communities to be creative and craft programs that meet the specific needs they have identified. All activities must directly benefit the target population.

[Scroll down for further.]

Applicants must conduct a local collaborative application process to determine how HEAP funds will be utilized in the CoC or LC. The submitting entity must also demonstrate coordination with stakeholders, including but not limited to, homeless service and housing providers, law enforcement, cities, and homeless advocates whose general service area falls within the CoC or LC. The CoC or LC in turn may make sub-awards to entities it determines are qualified to carry out the eligible activities and operate within areas with approved shelter crisis status.

Regarding "Collaboration," it states:

CoCs and LCs must demonstrate that a local collaborative effort has been conducted prior to application submission. A collaborative process may include, but is not limited to, a public meeting, regional homeless taskforce meeting, letters of support with signatures of endorsement, an adopted homeless plan, and an adopted budget which includes HEAP funds. Proof of a public process may include sign-in sheets, meeting minutes, agendas, and public comment logs, among other items. It is important that a wide enough range of participants are consulted as part of this process. Participants should include representatives of local homeless service provider entities, law enforcement, behavioral health, and city and county public officials.

In the Sept. 11, 2018 agendizing memo seeking Council approval to declare a "shelter emergency," Health and Human Services Dir. Kelly Calopy acknowledged that "the City and the Long Beach CoC [Continuum of Care] must demonstrate community outreach as a part of the City and Long Beach CoC's HEAP application" and stated "To this end, and through the Everyone Home Long Beach Initiative, the City has undertaken a robust collaborative approach to identifying the most effective uses for HEAP funding. This process is ongoing and includes, but is not limited to, public meetings, CoC general membership and Board meetings, Homeless Services Advisory Committee meetings, and a review of the City's adopted homeless strategic plan and budget."

Regarding "Homeless Youth," the state agency's guidance indicates:

The HEAP statute requires a minimum investment of five percent of all awards be set aside for emergency assistance for homeless youth. The HEAP team encourages and expects local CoCs and LCs to work with youth advocates and related stakeholders to consider the level of investment that makes sense for this most vulnerable segment of the target population.

Sponsor

Sponsor

As previously reported by LBREPORT.com, the Sept. 11 Council action (8-0 Gonzalez absent) authorized city staff to apply for $12 million in the HEAP grant by declaring a "shelter crisis" that could invite a number of potential impacts for the City and its residents. Council approval of the agenda item, which was placed on the "consent calendar" -- where it would receive no separate Council discussion unless a Councilmember(s) requested it, which none did -- has the following legal consequences:

• Under state law, declaring a "shelter crisis" means the City may "take such action as is necessary" if it finds "that a significant number of persons within the city "are without the ability to obtain shelter, and that the situation has resulted in a threat to the health and safety of those persons." (CA Gov't Code section 8698.2(a))

• During a "shelter crisis," the City "may allow persons unable to obtain housing to occupy designated public facilities during the duration of the state of emergency. (CA Gov't Code section 8698.2 (b))

• A "public facility" is defined as "any facility of a political subdivision including parks, schools, and vacant or underutilized facilities which are owned, operated, leased, or maintained, or any combination thereof, by the political subdivision through money derived by taxation or assessment." (CA Gov;t Code section 8698(5)(c))

• Declaring a "shelter crisis" would suspend "any state or local regulatory statute, regulation, or ordinance [including zoning] prescribing standards of housing, health, or safety...to the extent that strict compliance would in any way prevent, hinder, or delay the mitigation of the effects of the shelter crisis" and these provisions would apply only to "additional public facilities open to the homeless." (Gov't Code section 8698.1(b))

The same Gov't Code section allows the City to "enact municipal health and safety standards to be operative during the housing emergency consistent with ensuring minimal public health and safety," but to our knowledge the City of Long Beach hasn't done so at this point.

Declaring a "shelter emergency" also makes the City immune from liability "for ordinary negligence in the provision of [such] emergency housing "directly related to, and which would not occur but for, the provision of emergency housing" but not shielded from liability "for grossly negligent, reckless, or intentional conduct which causes injury." (Gov't Code section 8698.1(a))

Sponsor

A city staff agendizing memo by Health and Human Services Director Kelly Calopy, reduced these results to a single sentence: "In making such a declaration, State law enables local jurisdictions to suspend local laws and regulations to the extent that strict compliance would in any way prevent, hinder, or delay the mitigation of the effects of the shelter crisis for any City-owned, leased or maintained property."

The agendizing memo stated that the $12 million grant may be used for purposes that include unspecified "prevention, youth services, and emergency aid but not overhead or planning activities" but doesn't specify -- and no Councilmember(s) publicly asked -- what city staff considers the "most effective uses" and in what locations for spending the $12 million if City Hall obtains it.

The Councilmembers who declined to pull the item for separate discussion and voted "yes" to the collective "consent calendar" which included the item were Jeannine Pearce, Suzie Price, Daryl Supernaw, Stacy Mungo, (Vice Mayor) Dee Andrews, Roberto Uranga, Al Austin and Rex Richardson. (Lena Gonzalez was absent for the entire meeting.)

Sponsor

Sponsor

On December 5, 2017 the City Council declared a "shelter crisis" to suspend [agendizing memo text] "applicable provisions of local law, including those contained in the City's zoning ordinances and regulations" to authorize a temporary emergency [winter] homeless shelter at 5571 Orange Avenue between December 6, 2017 and March 31, 2018 (Council district 8.) That shelter was enabled by the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA), a "joint [government] powers agency between the City of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County established to oversee homeless services county-wide,") LAHSA chose U.S. VETS to operate the LB winter shelter in the former Orange Ave. library (8th district) for the 2017-2018 program year. The Dec. 5, 2017 Council vote (motion by Austin, seconded by Andrews) was 9-0.

The requirement that cities declare a "shelter crisis" to receive state homeless-aid dollars was part of SB 850, a June 2018 measure that used Sac'to's notorious "gut and amend" procedure to erase the bill's original text and insert new text to avoid Committee hearings, tied to passage of the state budget. SB 850 passed the State Senate on a 31-6-2 vote with LB-area state Senators Lara (D) and Nguyen (R) both voting "yes." On the same day, it passed the Assembly a 64-16-0 vote with O'Donnell (D) and Rendon (D) both voting "yes."

Support really independent news in Long Beach. No one in LBREPORT.com's ownership, reporting or editorial decision-making has ties to incumbent Long Beach officials, development interests, advocacy groups or other special interests; or is seeking or receiving benefits of City development-related decisions; or holds a City Hall appointive position; or has contributed sums to political campaigns for Long Beach incumbents or challengers. LBREPORT.com isn't part of an out of town corporate cluster and no one its ownership, editorial or publishing decision making has been part of the governing board of any City government body or other entity on whose policies we report. LBREPORT.com is reader and advertiser supported. You can help keep really independent news in LB similar to the way people support NPR and PBS stations. We're not non-profit so it's not tax deductible but $49.95 (less than an annual dollar a week) helps keep us online.