CC - Item 6B - Ordinance No. 975 Repealing Chapter 9.30 Titled Residency Restrictions for Registered Sex Offenders From Rosemead Municipal Code 1ROSEMe
S
° !4 RO °
MEAD CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
41 ,7;t17
4t-o,RA �,O
_______,/,
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: RACHEL RICHMAN, CITY ATTORNEY
DATE: SEPTEMBER 12, 2017
SUBJECT: ORDINANCE NO. 975 REPEALING CHAPTER 9.30 TITLED
RESIDENCY RESTRICTIONS FOR REGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS
FROM THE ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE
SUMMARY
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.
However, recent case law has called into question the constitutionality of sex offender residency
restrictions.
DISCUSSION
Based on the authority provided by Penal Code Section 3003.5 the City adopted an ordinance,
codified at Municipal Code section 9.30, that prohibits any registered sex offenders from
residing within 2,000 feet of a school, park, child care center, school bus stop, children's
playground, or any location that facilitates classes or group activities for children.
Recent case law has called into question the constitutionality of sex offender residency
restrictions under Penal Code Section 3003.5(c). 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 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 predator." 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. The evidence suggests that residency restrictions
ITEM NUMBER: 693
City Council Meeting
September 12,2017
Page 2 of 2
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 reoffend and less likely to receive critical rehabilitative services.
In May of 2017 the City received a letter from the Law Office of Janice M. Bellucci threatening
legal action against the City challenging the City's residency restrictions for sex offenders based
on In re Taylor and a later appellate case titled People v. Lynch which held that residency
restrictions can only be lawfully applied to sex offenders while they are on parole. In addition,
due to the constitutional questions surrounding sex offender residency restrictions and the
evidence that they are ineffective, the Sheriffs Department has not been enforcing the City's sex
offender ordinance.
After careful consideration of the growing evidence from experts in the field suggesting that such
policies could threaten public safety in our community, and of the recent court decisions that
bring into question the City's authority to enforce blanket residency restrictions, Staff
recommends that the City Council repeal its sex offender residency restrictions. In the event the
law changes were such restrictions are again permitted we would bring back an ordinance to
implement such restrictions.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council introduce for first reading, by title only, Ordinance No.
975, entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ROSEMEAD
REPEALING CHAPTER 9.30 TITLED RESIDENCY RESTRICTIONS
FOR REGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS FROM THE ROSEMEAD
MUNICIPAL CODE
FISCAL IMPACT-None
STRATEGIC PLAN IMPACT -None
PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS
This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process.
Prepared by:
Rachel Richman, City Attorney
Attachment: Ordinance No. 975
E M
S F .7O �
ce Cfifi O
CIVIC PRIDE
NI ....•IV.II"..". Orr
NCDRPpRATEo 59
Attachment
Ordinance No. 975
ORDINANCE NO. 975
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ROSEMEAD
REPEALING CHAPTER 9.30 TITLED RESIDENCY RESTRICTIONS
FOR REGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS FROM THE ROSEMEAD
MUNICIPAL CODE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findings.
A. On November 7, 2006 the voters of the State of California approved Proposition
83, the Sexual Predator Punishment and Control Act, with the intent to better protect
Californians, and children in particular, from sex offenders. Following the adoption of
Proposition 83, the City of Rosemead, like many other cities in the State of California, adopted
an ordinance that prohibits any registered sex offender from residing in certain locations within
the City.
B. 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.
C. On May 21, 2017 the City received a letter from the Law Office of Janice M.
Bellucci threatening legal action against the City challenging the City's residency restrictions for
sex offenders based on In re Taylor and a later appellate case titled People v. Lynch which held
that residency restrictions can only be lawfully applied to sex offenders while they are on parole.
D. Based on these facts, the City Council finds that this ordinance is necessary for
the preservation of the public peace, health, and safety.
SECTION 2. Repeal of Chapter 9.30. Chapter 9.30 of the Rosemead Municipal Code
is hereby repealed.
SECTION 3. Environmental Determination. The City Council exercises its
independent judgment and finds that this ordinance is exempt from environmental review. The
ordinance involves updates and revisions to existing regulations, and it can be seen with certainty
that the text amendments will have no significant negative effect on the environment, per CEQA
Guidelines, Section 15061(b)(3).
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 hereby 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. Publication. The City Clerk is directed to cause this ordinance to be
published in the manner required by law.
SECTION 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30)days from its
passage by the City Council of the City of Rosemead.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ORDAINED this 12th day of September, 2017.
Polly Low, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
Rachel Richman, City Attorney Marc Donohue, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §
CITY OF ROSEMEAD )
I, Marc Donohue, City Clerk of the City Council of the City of Rosemead, California, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 975, was introduced at a regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of Rosemead held on the 12`h day of September, 2017 and was adopted by
the City Council of the City of Rosemead at a regular meeting held the XX day of XX, 2017, by
the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Marc Donohue, City Clerk