HomeMy WebLinkAbout15 LEGISLATIVE REPORTS 05-01-07Agenda Item 15
AGENDA REPORT Reviewed:
City Manager
Finance Direc N/A
MEETING DATE: MAY 1, 2007
T0: UVILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
FROM: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
SUBJECT: LEGISLATIVE REPORTS
SUMMARY:
The following legislative items will be discussed by the City Council.
• AB411:Group Homes, and
• SB 964: Brown Act modifications
Legislative reports will be provided before the City Council meeting.
RECOMMENDATION:
Pleasure of the City Council.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
~~~
Maria R. Huizar
Chief Deputy City Clerk
Agenda Item 15
~,.-- ., ~
Reviewed:
~~ ~ ~ ~;' _ City Manager
~ ~ ~~f~~
Finance Director NIA
MEETING DATE: MAY 1, 2007
T0: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: LETTER OF SUPPORT FORASSEMBLY BILL411
SUMMARY
Attached is a draft letter of support for Assembly Bill 411. Assembly Bill 411 would
authorize a city or county to submit to the Director of the Department of Social Services
(DSS) additional information regarding the siting of a proposed residential care facility
designed for six or fewer residents.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council send a letter of support forAssembly Bill 411.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There are no fiscal impacts associated with this action.
Scott Reekstin Elizabeth A. Binsack
Senior Planner Community Development Director
Attachments: A. Draft Letter of Support
B. Assembly Bill 411
S:1CddICCREPORT1Assembly Bill 411.doc
ATTACHMENT A
Draft Letter of Support
May 2, 2007
The Honorable Mark Leno
Chair, Committee on Appropriations
State Capitol Building, Room 2114
Sacramento, CA 95814
SUBJECT: AB 411 ~EMMERSON) RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES:
OVERCONCENTRATION -LETTER OF SUPPORT
DearAssembly Member Leno:
On behalf of the City of Tustin, I wish to express our support for Assembly
Bi11411.
Assembly Bill 411 authorizes a city or county to submit to the Director of
the Department of Social Services (DSS) additional information regarding
the siting of a proposed facility designed for six or fewer residents. The
information may include, but is not limited to, a listing of other state
licensed facilities residential facilities, unlicensed. residential facilities, or
other land uses located in the immediate vicinity of the proposed site. The
bill requires the Director to review and consider the information to
determine whether the adjacent uses are compatible with the proposed
facility. If the Director determines that the proposed location is not
appropriate, he or she may suggest that the applicant consider alternative
siting locations.
When DSS approves new licensed facilities, there is no mechanism by
which a local agency may provide information on any existing conditions
that may exist in the neighborhood. Existing unlicensed facilities, such as
sober living homes, and facilities licensed by other state agencies may
already create an overconcentation condition in a neighborhood.
Locating such a facility in a typical residential neighborhood may have
beneficial effects on the clients of the facility; however, these benefits are
reduced when many facilities locate on the same street and create, in
essence, an institutional environment.
• The Honorable Mark Leno
May 2, 2007
Page 2
Overconcentration conditions also create an excessive burden for neighborhood
residents due to additional traffic, noise, or other impacts that are not typically found in a
traditional single-family neighborhood. Poorly managed or unlicensed facilities can
create public safety concerns.
Assembly Bill 411 simply provides an opportunity for the Director of DSS to have more
information regarding the conditions that exist at a proposed location, thereby improving
siting decisions.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me or Elizabeth
Binsack, Community Development Director, at (714} 573-3031.
Sincerely,
Lou Bone
Mayor
cc: Assembly Member DeVore
Assembly Member Duvall
Assembly Member Solorio
Assembly Member Spitzer
Assembly Member Van Tran
Assembly Member Walters
S:1CddISCOTTILEGISLATIAB 411 Residential Care Position Letter.doc
ATTACHMENT B
Assembly Bill 411
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 10, 2007
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE-200]-OS REGULAR SESSION
ASSEMBLY BILL
No. 411
Introduced by Assembly Member Emmerson
(Principal coauthor: Assembly Member Garcia)
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Benoit, Cook, DeVore, Horton, Huff,
Karnette, Sharon Runner, and Spitzer)
(`~t~~e~tt~ Coauthors: Senators Cogdill, Dutton, and
Harman)
February 16, 2007
An act to amend Section 1520.5 of the Health and Safety Code,
relating to residential facilities.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 411, as amended, Emmerson. Residential care facilities:
overconcentration.
Existing law, the California Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly
Act, provides for the licensure and regulation of residential care facilities
for the elderly by the State Department of Social Services.
Existing law permits a city and county to request denial of a residential
care facility license on the basis of overconcentration of residential care
facilities.
This bill would permit a city or county to submit to the Director of
Social Services additional-~eu~err~t+~ ~-~ ~~'' ~~ ~~ ~' ~-~ ~~ information
regarding the siting of a proposed residential care facility designed for
6 or fewer residents.
The bill would authorize the director, after review of the information
submitted by a city or county, to suggest that the applicant consider
alternative siting locations.
98
AB 411
-2-
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
1 SECTION 1. Section 1520.5 of the Health and Safety Code is
2 amended to read:
4
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
1520.5. (a) The Legislature hereby declares it to be the policy
of the state to prevent overconcentration ofresidential care facilities
that impair the integrity of residential neighborhoods. Therefore,
the director shall deny an application for a new residential care
facility license if the director determines that the location is in a
proximity to an existing residential care facility that would result
in overconcentration.
(b) As used in this section, "overconcentration" means that if a
new license is issued, there will be residential care facilities which
are separated by a distance of 300 feet or less, as measured from
any point upon the outside walls of the structures housing those
facilities. Based on special local needs and conditions, the director
may approve a separation distance of less than 300 feet with the
approval of the city or county in which the proposed facility will
be located.
(c) At least 45 days prior to approving any application for a new
residential care facility, the director, or county licensing agency,
shall notify, in writing, the city or county planning authority in
which the facility will be located, of the proposed location of the
facility.
(d) (1) Any city or county may request denial of the license
applied for on the basis of overconcentration of residential care
facilities.
(2) A city or county may submit to the director additional
a~~~~-~~-~~~~~~-~ ~-~a ~T~~''~-~~~ information regarding the siting of a
proposed facility designed for six or fewer residents. The
~'~~•~-~~-~*~*~~-~ information may include, but is not limited to, a
listing of other state-licensed residential facilities, unlicensed
residential facilities, or other land uses located in the immediate
vicinity of the proposed site.
(3} The director shall review and consider any information
submitted by the city or county pursuant to paragraph (2). The
director shall make available to the applicant any information
98
-3- AB 411
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
submitted by a city or county pursuant to paragraph (2) so that the
applicant may respond to the concerns raised.
(4) After review of the information submitted by a city or
county, the director may suggest that the applicant consider
alternative siting locations. Nothing in this subdivision shall be
interpreted to alter the rules and regulations governing the standards
applied in approving or denying a license.
(5) This subdivision shall not be interpreted to authorize or
require the director to take an action that would violate the federal
Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 3601 et.
seq.).
(e) Nothing in this section authorizes the director, on the basis
of overconcentration, to refuse to grant a license upon a change
of ownership of an existing residential care facility where there is
no change in the location of the facility.
(fl Foster family homes and residential care facilities for the
elderly shall not be considered in determining overconcentration
of residential care facilities, and license applications for those
facilities shall not be denied upon the basis of overconcentration.
(g) Any transitional shelter care facility, as defined in paragraph
(11) of subdivision (a) of Section 1502, shall not be considered in
determining overconcentration of residential care facilities, and
license applications for those facilities shall not be denied upon
the basis of overconcentration.
0
98
Agenda Item 15
Reviewed:
City Manager
Finance Director NIA
MEETING DATE: MAY 1, 2007
T0: HONORABLE MAYORAND MEMBERS OFTHE CITYCOUNCIL
FROM: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: LEGISLATIVE REPORT: OPPOSITION TO SB964 ~ROMERO~
SUMMARY:
Mayor Lou Bone requested that this item be placed on the agenda for consideration by
the City Council.
RECOMMENDATION:
Send a letterof opposition for SB964.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
Attachment: Bill Text
Draft Letter of Opposition
Page 2
BILL NUMBER: SB 964 AMENDED
BILL TEXT
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 9, 2007
AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 29, 2007
INTRODUCED BY Senator Romero
FEBRUARY 23, 2007
An act to amend ° ° ^ *~ ; ^„ s~4 ° G' . '' ~'^ ~' ~ 4 °~~
Section 54952.2 of, and to add Section 54963.1 to, the
Government Code, relating to local agencies.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 964, as amended, Romero. Local agencies.
The Ralph M. Brown Act requires that all meetings of a legislative
body. of a local agency be open and public and all persons be
permitted to attend unless a closed session is authorized. The act
prohibits any use of direct communication, personal intermediaries,
or technological devices that is employed by a majority of the
members of the legislative body to develop a collective concurrence
as to action to be taken on an item, with an exception for an
authorized teleconference.
This bill would prohibit any use of technological devices to
conduct a meeting of a legislative body among members who are in
different locations. It also would prohibit any use of substantive
serial communications by members of a legislative body of a local
agency, or by any officer, employee, consultant, or designee of the
members of the legislative body or of the local agency, to conduct
deliberations, as defined, by a majority of the members of that
legislative body.
The California Public Records Act requires state and local
agencies to make their records available for public inspection and to
make copies available upon request and payment of a fee unless they
are exempt from disclosure. The Ralph M. Brown Act provides that,
notwithstanding any other provision of law, agendas of public
meetings and any other writings, when distributed to all, or a
majority of all, of the members of a legislative body of a local
agency by any person in connection with a matter subject to
discussion or consideration at a public meeting of the body; are
disclosable public records under the California Public Records Act
unless exempt from disclosure under that act. The Ralph M. Brown Act
requires that these writings be made available for public inspection
at the meeting if prepared by the local agency or a member of its
legislative body, or after the meeting if prepared by some other
person.
This bill would provide that, notwithstanding any other provision
o f 1 aw ,~~~~ ~~-T-~ ~-e-T, ,~-~~ e~4--e --~ , , „J ~.++y 1'
T "}~ 1~ 1 41 /Y "1 Y1 T f M ~ ~ ° Y' ~1 ~ °~~ 7 Y1 f'1 Y'1 ° /"1
~~---~ --l -r - - -
i ~
Page 3
.,
i
' when the members of a
legislative body of a local agency are authorized to access a writing
of the body or of the agency as permitted by law in the
administration of their duties, the local agency shall not
discriminate between or among any of those members as to which
writing or portion thereof i s made available or when i t i s made
available, and shall not charge any of those members a fee to inspect
or obtain a copy of that writing
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no.
State-mandated local program: no.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 54952.2 of the Government Code is amended to
read:
54952.2. (a) As used in this chapter, "meeting" includes any
congregation of a majority of the members of a legislative body at
the same time and place to hear, discuss, or deliberate upon any item
that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative
body or the local agency to which it pertains.
(b) (1)Except as authorized pursuant to Section 54953, any use of
technological devices to conduct a meeting of a legislative body
among members who are in different locations is prohibited.
(2) Any use of substantive serial communications by members of a
legislative body of a local agency, or by any officer, employee,
consultant, or designee of the members of the legislative body or of
the local agency, to conduct deliberations by a majority of the
members of that legislative body is prohibited. For, this purpose,
deliberations include, but are not limited to, both of the following:
(A) Any communication that advances or clarifies a member's
understanding of an issue, facilitates an agreement or compromise
among members on an issue, or advances the ultimate resolution of an
issue.
(B) Any communication of information that is not otherwise part of
the agenda packet for a publicly noticed meeting of the legislative
body if that information relates to an item on an agenda for a
meeting of the legislative body, or is likely to be placed upon an
agenda of a meeting in the near future. Deliberations do not include
communication of information that relates solely to the time and
place of meetings, travel arrangements, delivery of meeting
materials, or similar procedural matters.
(c) Nothing in this section shall impose the requirements of this
chapter upon any of the following:
(1) Individual contacts or conversations between a member of a
legislative body and any other person that do not violate subdivision
(b) ,
(2 ) The attendance of a majority of the members of a legislative
body at a conference or similar gathering open to the public that
involves a discussion of issues of general interest to the public or
to public agencies of the type represented by the legislative body,
Page 4
provided that a majority of the members do not discuss among
themselves, other than as part of the scheduled program, business of
a specified nature that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of
the local agency. Nothing in this paragraph is intended to allow
members of the public free admission to a conference or similar
gathering at which the organizers have required other participants or
registrants to pay fees or charges as a condition of attendance.
(3) The attendance of a majority of the members of a legislative
body at an open and publicized meeting organized to address a topic
of local community concern by a person or organization other than the
local agency, provided that a majority of the members do not discuss
among themselves, other than as part of the scheduled program,
business of a specific nature that is within the subject matter
jurisdiction of the legislative body of the local agency.
(4) The attendance of a majority of the members of a legislative
body at an open and noticed meeting of another body of the local
agency, or at an open and noticed meeting of a legislative body of
another local agency, provided that a majority of the members do not
discuss among themselves, other than as part of the scheduled
meeting, business of a specific nature that is within the subject
matter jurisdiction of the legislative body of the local agency.
(5) The attendance of a majority of the members of a legislative
body at a purely social or ceremonial occasion, provided that a
majority of the members do not discuss among, themselves business of a
specific nature that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of
the legislative body of the local agency.
(6) The attendance of a majority of the members of a legislative
body at an open and noticed meeting of a standing committee of that
body, provided that the members of the legislative body who are not
members of the standing committee attend only as observers.
'~IIr . ~ 1'Vil""'J'4 ~C''1 ~ G ~~~ r'+r,troYr~mor~~ r'+~.~o
i~-a~~f~eC~~-6--i~~ ~yl
. .
r r
L i ../ VLJ~.I i i i V i V N a i V V V i i/ / V ~ i V V• V. V. V V V . i V i ~/ V~ , K~ i K V+ 1 V L V \A V i K i
~'~~~ L-~~~=e~~~$~a~:C~p~eE~--~~x~l~e~rt-~~~-enc.
i~V Viii 1 ~1 A /Y~^1 ~"AY A Y~T~ ~.r lid
~ ~ ~.~ {}~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ 77yy~~ ^^ r~-r-r~_ rr~ rrn- r-r _r-~r ~ ~ ~ ~ r~
lT~7TTC'[~i?~~~ ~rlV"T~Y /1r11 r ~ ~1 Y.•. 1 r rr f~~°- /1 Y ~ ~ ~ /Y n 7 ~ ~ /1 Y
J_ _ .1 _,_, ___~_~~~ -~,---TTY r---- ---
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
T T _ ~ /"~ C ~ rr 1 7~~---~''TIQ'~.ZTC : ~~r ~ ~ Yi i ~ e n ~ rZQ-r~~1T~~' ~"*~
Page 5
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 ~A~tv'-~^~~ r"}-n-vr rt ^~~-r °rrtt i ronl
r-- --rl -- ----1 ------- --z------- --
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 / 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1
'~jZ'"{'/'~L ~~ ~TT~TT,1T7Tm~~ ^~ ~ l /'1 ~t ~ '1 /1Y1 .
11 ~- ~` 1 1
~r-'Ir-} ~'~'ni_r__, ~~i-e ~ ~ ~- ~ ri 1- n. ~ t~ ~L.~21Z
~- - ----J
1 1 1
1
~SLZ7~1 ~~ ~ e ~- ~ ~ ~ ~ m om~ o r n ~ ~~~~G~1~1 ~^ ~- 1 1
1 ~tz~~ i ~ ~-~t~,_rp.r~i~• t °1• r~ ni ~-tit~t1- ~-~me/ ~tt~- ~rit~ DTrert4-
~~i-~~£~~~~£~ y It, 111 J ~.f~~iJ ~ . ~1Z~~
Ct L'r . ~ .-~~~~-'J'Z'~G 'Z ~ '1 ; r. ~, .a n7 o n7 ~ r. ~ l~ o
r~~~rtmort ~ r~n~ a ~ n ro ~t ~ .
/ '
1 1
r ~~~~ ^ t.t ~ ~ ~ m o r n ~~^ ~ o J i n n ~t ~- i t r_ ~ ~~ ~ ^ ~~r,
t~TTr-r-rrr ~r-~r 7~rro-r :Trt~Te~--r-vt, rl~r~~7T~~i'77T~1'l~
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
~r~-~~~~~ 1 1 ~- ~~~ ~~ n ~ ~
~~~~lt~ _ z ~~ _ ~~$~~£te£~~~ t1~~1r 1~1~-$~ ~rr~zz-rvc~r
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
_ ~~L~~~'~TxC~~~'~L-C7-~ I~jL n 1- n r ~ ~n ~- ~ ~ L 1~.
n'~r-rr- 1 1 ~ ~ ` " "L'
~ 1- n t.rr ~ ~ ,t r nr~_
-- --- -•------J~-
~ ~. ~L L i17. 1T~i. r-r-~ „Tr -er-pprr"_ i rt ~ i n nrrr°_-r_~-i-~~~~ t~ r :_ ~ ~~rr_„_r~_--~~
~-r~$~~gg}~f-~C ~f~-6-~5-~
SEC. 2. Section 54963.1 is added to the
Government Code to read:
54963.1. (a) Notwithstanding Section 6252.5 or any other
provision of law, when the members of a 1 egi sla ti ve body of a 1 ocal
agency are authorized to access a wri Ling of the body or of the
agency as permitted by law in the administration of their duties, the
local agency shall not discriminate between or among any of those
members as to which writing or portion thereof is made available or
when it is made available, and shall not charge any of those members
a fee to inspect or obtain a copy of that writing.
(b) For purposes of this section, a wri Ling is defined pursuant to
subdivision (g) of Section 6252 .
April 26, 2007
The Honorable Gloria Romero
State Capitol Building, Room 313
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: SB 964 (Romero) Local Agencies
NOTICE OF OPPOSITION
Dear Senator Romero:
I am writing on behalf of the City Tustin to inform you that we oppose SB 964 in its
current form, and urge a "No" vote.
SB 964 is broadly worded to prohibit any agency staff communications with a majority of
the governing body that "advances or clarifies a member's understanding of an issue."
The broad sweep of this bill would limit the ability of a City Manager, staff person, or
consultant to communicate with the City Council outside an open and public meeting
except on the most mundane procedural matters.
The broad sweep of this bill would prohibit essential every day communications to the
local legislative body such as:
^ Summary reports of the upcoming week's events and other items of interest from
the agency's executive;
^ Memorandum from agency staff to the legislative staff unless the communication
is part of an agenda packet and relates to an item on an agenda;
^ Attorney-client privileged legal communications from the agency's legal counsel;
^ Informational briefings between agency staff and individual legislative body
members (recently found to be lawful under Wolfe v. City of Fremont);
^ Any materials in support of a closed session that would not otherwise be included
in the agenda packet;
^ Draft reports prepared by agency employees or consultants
The provisions in SB 964 would complicate the ability of a local governing body to
properly communicate and function on behalf of its' citizens. Until the bill is significantly
amended, the City of Tustin opposes SB 964, and urges a "No" vote.
Sincerely,
Lou B one
Mayor
c: Senator Dick Ackerman
Assemblyman Chuck DeVore
Assemblyman Todd Spitzer
Brian Weinberger, Consultant, Senate Local Government Committee
Anthony Thomas, Legislative Representative, League of California Cities
2aa7-a4-~a
~.eague ~ppases ~~ g64 4Ramera}
The League of California Cities is opposing SB 964, a bill authored by Sen. Gloria Romero (D-Los Angeles). Abroad-sweeping
measure, if signed into law, SB 964 would significantly limit the ability of city officials to communicate with city councils outside an open
and public meeting.
This bill presents a myriad of problems for local government. Specifically, the bill is broadly worded to prohibit agency staff
communications with a majority of the governing body that "advances or clarifies a member's understanding of an issue."
The League views the sweep of this bill as prohibiting the following common agency communications:
^ Summary reports of the upcoming week's events and other items of interest from the agency's executive to the legislative body
(which are typically public records)
^ Memorandum from agency staff to the legislative staff unless the communication is part of an agenda packet and relates to an
item on an agenda
'~ Attorney-client privileged legal communications from the agency's legal counsel
^ Informational briefings between agency staff and individual legislative body members (recently found to be lawful under Wolfe
v. City of Fremont)
"' Any materials in support of a closed session that would not otherwise be included in the agenda packet. Therefore, all closed
session materials would have to be presented to the legislative body in closed session, or included in the agenda packet that is
a public record.
"' Draft reports prepared by agency employees or consultants
The League will continue to oppose legislation that claims to enhance open and public meetings that in practice, unnecessarily
complicates the ability of a local governing body to properly communicate and function on behalf of their citizens.
Recent Activity
SB 964 was heard and withdrawn from the Senate Local Government Committee. After some committee members expressed
significant concerns, the committee deferred voting on it. Sen. Christine Kehoe was very strategic in her questions on SB 964 and
made it clear that she feels that the League' s concerns need to be addressed.
The bill is in the Senate Judiciary Committee, and will likely be heard the week of May 6. If SB 964 passes, it will then be heard again
in the Senate Local Government Committee.
The League and other opponents of the bill will be working with the author and the sponsor in the coming week to discuss
amendments that address our concerns.
last updated :4/2612007