Systemic Failure to Address Disability Access and ADA Compliance

10/28/2025 San José City Council Meeting: Agenda Item 3.3 Coordination of Homelessness Activities Audit

Dear Mayor and City Council Members:

The Homelessness Coordination Audit omits any substantive analysis of disability, despite federal and state law requiring that disability access be integrated into every City program and enforcement action. This absence is not minor — it is systemic.

Disabled people make up a significant portion of San José’s unhoused population, yet the audit treats disability as irrelevant. There is no evaluation of ADA compliance, no discussion of reasonable accommodation or modification processes, and no review of whether staff or contractors are trained to implement them. Without this lens, the audit fails to identify one of the most consequential barriers in the City’s homelessness response: the exclusion of disabled residents from equal access to City programs.

Under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and California Government Code §§ 11135–11139.8, all public entities — including the City of San José — must ensure that their programs, services, and enforcement actions are accessible to people with disabilities. These laws require both reasonable accommodations for individuals and reasonable modifications of policies and practices when those policies create barriers. Section 504 also applies to any program receiving federal funding, including nonprofit contractors operating City-funded housing and outreach programs. The State’s civil rights protections mirror and expand federal standards, making disability access a binding legal requirement at every level of government. Compliance cannot be optional or dependent on available resources; it is a matter of civil rights.

The City repeatedly uses “reasonable accommodation” without recognizing that accommodations address individual needs — such as adjusting communication methods or deadlines — while reasonable modifications require changing a policy that itself creates barriers, like altering abatement protocols to prevent displacement or separation from mobility devices.

The City’s practices during encampment abatements and OLIVE enforcement show confusion between the two. Requests for accommodation are denied at rates that defy both logic and law. There is no process for policy modification when a standard practice — like towing a lived-in vehicle that serves as a mobility aid or personal shelter — creates an access barrier.

I speak to this not just as a disability advocate and consultant, but as someone who has lived through it. Years ago, when I was unhoused, the system was already dehumanizing and fragmented. Today, it is far worse. The City’s procedures have become more punitive, less flexible, and even harder to navigate for disabled residents. I know what it means to lose stability and still be expected to comply with systems never built for us, and I cannot imagine navigating today’s even more punitive conditions.

The audit’s silence on disability access is itself a procedural failure. A credible audit should have examined whether the City’s abatement and enforcement programs are ADA-compliant, whether outreach staff and contractors receive training on disability rights, and whether disability data are integrated into the City’s Homeless Management Information System. It should have reviewed how accommodations are documented and how denials are justified. The omission of these measures is a procedural failure that hides inequities rather than exposing them.

An audit of “coordination” that fails to analyze disability access is incomplete. The City cannot coordinate a lawful or equitable response to homelessness while disregarding the very population most likely to be harmed by its enforcement actions.

I urge the Council to require that future audits include disability access metrics — tracking accommodation and modification requests, evaluating compliance with ADA Title II standards, and ensuring that disabled residents are involved in policy design and review. The City Auditor, City Manager, and Office of Racial and Social Equity should collaborate with the Disability Affairs Officer to establish these standards and publicly report progress.

In addition, the City must conduct a dedicated ADA audit of all housing-related programs, including interim shelter, safe-parking, and affordable-housing developments. Accessibility in housing is a civil-rights obligation, not a design preference. The City’s housing portfolio — including sites managed by nonprofit operators — should be reviewed for physical access, communication access, and administrative accessibility in application and intake processes. Disabled residents are routinely excluded not because of eligibility, but because the system itself is inaccessible. A comprehensive ADA audit would establish a baseline for compliance and identify where policy or design modifications are required.

To support the City’s compliance and ensure accountability, I have attached Recommended Disability Audit Measures (Attachment A). These measures translate federal and state civil rights requirements into practical, auditable standards for the City’s homelessness and housing programs. They are not exhaustive, but they provide a clear starting point for integrating disability access into future audits and enforcement reviews.

I urge the Council to reject a simple “acceptance” of this audit and direct staff to incorporate a disability-access review into all homelessness-related audits and enforcement protocols, in partnership with the Disability Affairs Officer and qualified ADA experts.

Disability access is not a side issue; it is a civil-rights requirement.

Sincerely, Michele Mashburn Resident of District 4, formerly of District 3 95134

Recommended Disability Audit Measures

(Supporting Materials — Item 3.3: Coordination of Homelessness Activities Audit)

To meet federal and state civil rights obligations under ADA Title II, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and California Government Code §11135, the following measures translate those requirements into specific, auditable standards the City can implement immediately.

These measures are not exhaustive. They are intended to establish a baseline and spark a more comprehensive, co-created review process with disabled residents and ADA experts.

1. Governance and Policy Compliance

• Review City and departmental policies for compliance with ADA Title II, Section 504, and California Government Code §11135.
• Evaluate whether policies clearly distinguish between individual accommodations and systemic policy modifications.
• Confirm that the Disability Affairs Officer is included in all audit planning, review, and follow-up processes.

2. Training and Implementation

• Assess whether staff, contractors, and outreach partners receive recurring ADA and disability-access training.
• Verify that performance standards for contracted providers include accessibility and compliance benchmarks.

3. Data and Accountability

• Publicly report all accommodation and modification requests, approvals, and denials.
• Evaluate how disability data (ERCS, HMIS, etc.) inform outreach, enforcement, and housing prioritization.
• Track accessibility complaints and resolutions across departments.

4. Program, Enforcement, and Housing Review

• Examine encampment abatement, OLIVE enforcement, and outreach procedures for access barriers.
• Conduct a comprehensive ADA audit of all City-managed or City-funded housing programs — including interim shelters, safe-parking, and affordable housing — to evaluate compliance with physical, communication, and procedural access requirements.
• Review storage, notice, and retrieval processes for personal belongings to ensure accessibility.

5. Participation and Equity

• Engage disabled residents, especially those with lived experience of homelessness, in audit design and policy evaluation.
• Create a disability-specific advisory subcommittee within existing homelessness- governance structures to review findings and recommend corrective actions.

Purpose: Embedding these measures will ensure future audits meet the legal requirements and the City’s stated racial and social equity goals (as stated in the Disability Inclusion Equity Pledge). Disability access is not a peripheral concern — it is the foundation of a lawful and equitable public response.