HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-05-14 - ORDINANCES - URGENCY ORD REPEALING CHAPTER 11.74 OF THE SC MUNI (2)ORDINANCE NO. 19-1
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.
1
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 "A: Santa CZa X� 1!�1,;�.icipal Cade.
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.
1
2
1
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 14'hday of May 2019.
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK Q
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 No. 19-1 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 14th day of May 2019, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Miranda, Smyth, Weste, Kellar, McLean
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
AND I FURTHER CERTIFY that the foregoing is the original of Ordinance No. 19-1
and was published in The Signal newspaper in accordance with State Law (G.C. 40806).
3
U�
CITY CLERK