Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-05-14 - AGENDA REPORTS - CONSIDERATION OF AN URGENCY ORD REPEALING CHAPTER (2)Agenda Item: 3 DATE: May 14, 2019 SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN URGENCY ORDINANCE REPEALING CHAPTER 11.74 OF THE SANTA CLARITA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SEX OFFENDER RESIDENCY RESTRICTIONS DEPARTMENT: City Manager's Office PRESENTER: Joseph Montes RECOMMENDED ACTION City Council introduce and adopt as an urgency ordinance via a 4/5 vote of the City Council entitled, "AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING CHAPTER 11.74 OF THE SANTA CLARITA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SEX OFFENDER RESIDENCY RESTRICTIONS." BACKGROUND In November 2006, Proposition 82 ("Jessica's Law") was passed by the voters. Jessica's Law amended Penal Code Section 3003.5 to prohibit more than one registered sex offender on parole from residing in any single family dwelling (unless legally related by blood, marriage, or adoption) and to prohibit registered sex offenders from residing within 2,000 feet of a public or private school or park where children regularly gather. Additionally, it authorized municipal jurisdictions to enact ordinances that further restrict the residency of any registered sex offender. Based on the authority provided by Penal Code Section 3003.5, the City of Santa Clarita (City) adopted an ordinance, codified at Municipal Code Chapter 11.74, which prohibits any registered sex offenders from residing within 2,000 feet of a school, park, library, or child care center. The City's ordinance also restricted sex offenders from living with each other in the same residence, or unit of a multi -unit building. Recent case law has found sex offender residency restrictions under Penal Code Section 3003.5(c) to be unconstitutional. In March 2015, the California Supreme Court decided In Re Taylor ((2015) 60 Ca1.4th 1019). In that case, the Court held the California Department of Page 1 Corrections and Rehabilitation's (CDCR) enforcement of the residency restrictions in Penal Code Section 3003.5 against sex offender parolees in San Diego County was unconstitutional. The Court found the residency restrictions, as applied and enforced in San Diego County, "hampered efforts to monitor, supervise, and rehabilitate such parolees in the interests of public safety, and as such, bears no rational relationship to advancing the state's legitimate goal of protecting children from sexual predators." This conclusion was based in part on studies and reports released after the passage of Jessica's Law indicating that such residency restrictions have not improved public safety. According to one such report issued by the California Sex Offender Management Board, the evidence suggests that residency restrictions have the unintended consequences of increasing homelessness among registered sex offenders, thereby actually threatening public safety. Convicted sex offenders who are homeless are not only more difficult to supervise than those who have established residences, they are also more likely to re -offend and less likely to receive critical rehabilitative services. In March 2019, the City was served with a lawsuit from the Law Office of Janice M. Bellucci challenging the City's residency restrictions for sex offenders based on the same issues raised in the California Supreme Court case. Ms. Bellucci has sued numerous cities throughout California, seeking to repeal local ordinances limiting residency. The California Department of Corrections supervises sex offenders during the parole period after release from prison. Based upon case law, the California Department of Corrections is no longer enforcing the residency restriction limitations of Jessica's Law during the parole period for registered sex offenders. The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department is no longer enforcing the residency restrictions of Jessica's Law or Los Angeles County's local residency restriction ordinance based upon case law. In light of the California Supreme Court's determination that restrictions similar to the City's ordinance are unconstitutional, the pending lawsuit, and the fact that the residency restrictions are not being enforced by either the California Department of Corrections or the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, staff recommends that the City Council repeal its sex offender residency restrictions. In the event the law changes, such that residency restrictions are again permitted, the City Council can consider implementing those in the future. ALTERNATIVE ACTION Other action as determined by City Council. FISCAL IMPACT None by this action. ATTACHMENTS Ordinance Repealing Sex Offender Residency Restrictions Page 2 ORDINANCE NO. 19 - AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING CHAPTER 11.74 OF THE SANTA CLARITA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SEX OFFENDER RESIDENCY RESTRICTIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Clarita does hereby find, determine, and declare that: 1. On November 7, 2006, the voters of the State of California approved Proposition 83, the Sexual Predator Punishment and Control Act, commonly referred to as "Jessica's Law," so as to better protect Californians, and, in particular, the children of this State from sex offenders. 2. Proposition 83, specifically prohibits sex offenders from residing within certain distances of parks and schools. Proposition 83, as codified in part in subsection (c) of California Penal Code Section 3003.5, also authorized municipal jurisdictions to enact local ordinances that further restrict the residency of any registered sex offender. 3. The City of Santa Clarita (City) adopted an ordinance that prohibits any registered sex offender from residing within a certain distance of parks, libraries, schools, and child care facilities. The City's ordinance also restricted sex offenders from living with each other in the same residence, or unit of a multi -unit building. 4. Studies conducted after the adoption of Proposition 83 indicate that the Proposition has not improved the protection of persons from registered sex offenders, and case law has called into question the constitutionality of enforcing Proposition 83. In its September 2011 Report entitled "Homelessness Among California's Sex Offenders," the California Sex Offender Management Board concluded that there is no evidence that residency restrictions prevent or deter sex crimes against children. In fact, the Board has found evidence that residency restrictions actually have the unintended effect of increasing the likelihood of re -offense because the restrictions push the offenders into homelessness, and stable housing has been shown to be a key factor in reducing recidivism. Based on these facts, the California Supreme Court in In Re Taylor found Proposition 83 to violate the U.S. Constitution as applied in San Diego County. Specifically, the distance restrictions in Jessica's law as applied effectively eliminated any realistic housing opportunities for sex offenders. 5. The California Department of Corrections, based upon the In Re Taylor case is no longer enforcing the residency restriction limitations of Jessica's Law during the parole period for registered sex offenders. 6. The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department is not enforcing the Jessica's law residency restrictions based upon In Re Taylor, as well as pending litigation in the County of Los Angeles. 7. On March 7, 2019, the City was served with a civil action by a John Doe challenging the distance restrictions, density restrictions, and concentration restrictions for sex offenders in the City's ordinance based on recent case law, including In Re Taylor which held that the residency restrictions in Jessica's Law unreasonably prohibit housing for sex offenders In order to comply with this recent case law, the City Council now wishes to repeal Chapter 11.74 of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code. 8. This ordinance is required as an urgency ordinance based upon the pending litigation. SECTION 2. Chapter 11.74 of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code is hereby repealed in its entirety. SECTION 3. Environmental Findings. The City Council exercises its independent judgment and finds that this ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, section 15061(b)(3) because the activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment, and it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that this ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment. SECTION 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision will not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 5. Effective Date. Consistent with Government Code section 36937, this ordinance will take effect and be in force immediately from and after the date of its passage if adopted by at least a four-fifths vote of the City Council. SECTION 6. Publication. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be published as required by law. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of 2019. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK DATE: STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, Mary Cusick, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance 19- was introduced and adopted as an urgency measure pursuant to the terms of California Government Code Section 36937(b) at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 'h day of 2019, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCIL,MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL,MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL,MEMBERS: AND I FURTHER CERTIFY that the foregoing is the original of Ordinance No. 19 - and was published in The Signal newspaper in accordance with State Law (G.C. 40806). CITY CLERK