participated in the interview process with the City Council on February 7, 2023 and are presented to the City Council for its consideration.Both applicants have expressed interest in being considered for appointment to fill the vacancy. If the City Council chooses to make an appointment to fill the vacancy, the appointment shall be made for a term to commence from the date of appointment and expire on December 31, 2025.
Copies of applications for these advisory bodies have been provided to the Mayor and City Council and are available for review in the Office of the City Clerk.
Pursuant to the City Council's procedure for selecting commissioners, only interviews are conducted at special meetings. Appointments to these two advisory bodies are before the City Council this evening for consideration.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with filling vacancies to standing commissions and boards.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is not a project which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15378.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Making Appointments to SAB CAC CAO stamp
CONTACT
Dawn G. Abrahamson, MMC, City Clerk (707) 648-4527
[email protected]
Approved as to form:
By: for
Veronica Nebb, City Attorney
RESOLUTION NO. 23-___ N.C.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VALLEJO MAKING
APPOINTMENTS TO THE SURVEILLANCE ADVISORY BOARD AND THE
COMMISSION ON CULTURE & THE ARTS
WHEREAS, the Vallejo City Council has established various boards and commissions and such boards may be advisory, policy, appellate and/or rule making; and WHEREAS, members of these boards, committees, and commissions shall be appointed by the City Council and vacancies shall be filled for the unexpired portion of the term in the same manner as the original appointment pursuant to the Vallejo Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, section 2.26.030 of the Vallejo Municipal Code provides that the term of office of each member appointed by the City Council shall be for four years, except as otherwise provided by ordinance or resolution, and that terms of members shall be staggered so that the number of terms expiring annually shall be approximately equal; and WHEREAS, there currently exist vacancies on the boards and commissions, and WHEREAS, Chapter 2.27 of the Vallejo Municipal Code establishes a Surveillance Advisory Board that shall consist of seven members with membership consisting of one resident of Vallejo appointed by each sitting council member such member to reside within the appointing council member’s district and one resident appointed by the Mayor residing at large; and WHEREAS, due to the seating of a new Councilmember in Districts 4, a vacancy exists and the City Council reviewed applications and conducted interviews and the sitting councilmember in Districts 4 is prepared to make an appointment; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 2.32 of the Vallejo Municipal Code establishes a Commission on Culture and the Arts consisting of seven members who shall be nominated by any council member or the mayor and appointed by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, there currently exists a vacancy on the Commission on Culture and Arts; and WHEREAS, pursuant to section 2.02.350 of the Vallejo Municipal Code, the City Clerk has published notices of these vacancies, received applications of interest, and delivered to the City Council all applications submitted; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the applications submitted and has conducted interviews.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS:
The following District 4 person is appointed to the Surveillance Advisory Board by Councilmember Palmares (term to expire 1/5/27):
1. Simon Lee – term to expire 1/5/27
The following person is appointed to the Commission on Culture & the Arts – 1 vacancy (term to expire 12/31/25):
1. _______________________________ - term to expire 12/31/25 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Vallejo at a regular meeting held on March 28, 2023 with the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________________
ROBERT H. MCCONNELL, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________________________
DAWN G. ABRAHAMSON, CITY CLERK
CLERK
ACTION ITEM 9.B.
DATE: March 28, 2023
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Veronica A.F. Nebb, City Attorney
Hampton Jackson, Deputy City Attorney II
Kristoffer S. Jacob, Deputy City Attorney II
SUBJECT: RECEIVE REPORT FROM STAFF REGARDING THE POSSIBLE ENTACTMENT OF AN
ORDINANCE RELATING TO SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS FOR HOMELESS
ENCAMPMENTS FROM SCHOOLS OR DAY CARE FACILITIES AND PROVIDE
DIRECTION TO STAFF
RECOMMENDATION
Receive Report from Staff Regarding the Possible Enactment of an Ordinance Relating to Separation Requirements for Homeless Encampments from Schools or Day Care Facilities and Provide Direction to Staff.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
City Council requested staff to research the possibility of enacting an ordinance relating to separation requirements for homeless encampments from schools or day dare facilities for possible direction.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND
At the December 12, 2022 regular City Council meeting, City Council voted to add an agenda item to a future City Council meeting to discuss the possibility of an ordinance separating homeless encampments from schools and/or day care facilities. City staff have researched the issue of such an ordinance. In doing so, City staff researched the law and how cities with similar ordinances have or have not enforced their ordinances.
Specifically, Sacramento and Los Angeles have recently passed similar ordinances, even though, like Vallejo, Sacramento and Los Angeles have more unhoused individuals than shelter space. Sacramento is estimated to have 4,444 unhoused individuals, see Division of Social Work and the Center from Health Practice, Policy & Research at the California State University, Sacramento, Homelessness in Sacramento County: Results from the 2022 Point-in-Time County (July 2022), https://sacramentostepsforward.org/wpcontent/uploads/2022/06/PIT-Report-2022.pdf; and roughly 1,100 shelter spaces, see Kristin Lam, Sacramento Amends Ballot Measure that Would Ban Homeless Encampments. What Voters Should Know, CAPRadio, Aug. 10, 2022, https://www.capradio.org/articles/2022/08/10/sacramento-amends-ballot-measurethat-would-ban-homeless-encampments-what-voters-should-know.
Meanwhile, Los Angeles is estimated to have 13,391 unhoused individuals, see County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Homelessness & Housing Map (Nov. 4,
2022), https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/400d7b75f18747c4ae1ad22d662781a3; and roughly 4,734 shelter spaces, see id.
Vallejo is estimated to have 557 unhoused individuals according to the 2022 Solano County Point-in-Time Count, although staff believes this is an undercount. As of February 2, 2023, City staff estimate that there are not enough shelter beds available within the City or Solano County to house the unhoused population in the City.
Date: March 28, 2023
Subject: RECEIVE REPORT FROM STAFF REGARDING THE POSSIBLE ENTACTMENT OF AN
ORDINANCE RELATING TO SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS FOR HOMELESS
ENCAMPMENTS FROM SCHOOLS OR DAY CARE FACILITIES AND PROVIDE
DIRECTION TO STAFF
The Sacramento ordinance seeks to protect critical infrastructure and wildfire risk areas in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare. (Sacramento City Codes § 8.140.010.) Schools and childcare centers are included as critical infrastructure. (City of Sacramento, City Council Report, File ID: 2022-01833 (Oct. 18, 2022), https://sacramento.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=22&clip_id=5411&meta_id=703491 Childcare center is not defined in the ordinance. (See id.) The Sacramento ordinance prohibits camping and the leaving of personal property within twenty-five (25) feet of critical infrastructure and within twenty-five (25) feet of a vehicular or pedestrian entrance or exit of critical infrastructure. (Sacramento City Codes §
8.140.030.) The ordinance vests in the City of Sacramento the authority to summarily abate violations upon twenty-four (24) hours of prior notice or immediately without prior notice if the violation poses an imminent threat to public health or safety. (Id. at § 8.140.040(A).) Individuals who are determined to be in violation of the ordinance are punishable by civil fines, or in some instances criminal sanctions. (Id. at §§ 1.28.020;
8.140.040.) The ordinance was passed on October 18, 2022.
Among other things, the Los Angeles ordinance prohibits a person from sitting, lying, sleeping, or storing, using, maintaining, or placing personal property, in or upon any street, sidewalk, or other public property within 500 feet of a School or Day Care Center. (L.A. Mun. Code § 41.18(e).) “Day Care Center” is defined as “a child care-infant center, child care center, or child care center preschool licensed by the State of California Department of Social Services that is not located on a residential zoned property.” (L.A. Mun. Code § 105.01.) Violation of the ordinance is punishable by civil fines and criminal sanctions, or administrative citation. (L.A.
Mun. Code §§ 11.00; 41.18(f).) City Council voted to ratify the ordinance on August 9, 2022.
DISCUSSION
The Law on Homeless Encampments
As Council is aware, the leading case on addressing homeless and encampments on public property is Martin et al. v. City of Boise, 902 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2019) (”Martin”). The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held in Martin that “the Eight Amendment prohibits the imposition of criminal penalties for sitting, sleeping, or lying outside on public property for homeless individuals who cannot obtain shelter.” (Martin et al. v. City of Boise, 902 F.3d 1031, 1048 (9th Cir. 2019).) The Martin Court held that municipalities may not prosecute homeless individuals for involuntarily sitting, lying, and sleeping in public “so long as there is a greater number of homeless individuals in [a jurisdiction] than the number of available beds [in shelters][.]” (Id.) In other words, municipalities cannot enforce ordinances prohibiting public camping or lodging on public property if their jurisdiction faces inadequate shelter space for unhoused individuals within their jurisdiction. There are several court cases after Martin which make relocation of unhoused individuals even more difficult and costly.
Enforcement of an Ordinance Prohibiting Encampments in Certain Locations on Public Properties Neither Sacramento nor Los Angeles are engaging in any significant enforcement of their encampment separation ordinances. Instead, Sacramento and Los Angeles are attempting to engage in enforcement only where there are alternative shelters and resources to displaced unhoused individuals. Specifically, Sacramento has vowed to not conduct wide-scale clearings of encampments, but to identify the highest priority camps, identify the needs of the campers and look to offer services and shelter. (Janna Haynes, Board Approves Two Ordinances to Prohibit Camping, SacCounty News, August 11, 2022, https://www.saccounty.gov/news/latest-news/Pages/Board-Approves-Two-Ordinances-to-ProhibitCamping.aspx.) Los Angeles similarly does not plan to conduct sweeping clearings of encampments in response to the enactment of Section 41.18. Like Sacramento, Los Angeles plans to identify appropriate housing and other resources to affected unhoused individuals prior to any enforcement. (City of Los Angeles, Date: March 28, 2023
Subject: RECEIVE REPORT FROM STAFF REGARDING THE POSSIBLE ENTACTMENT OF AN
ORDINANCE RELATING TO SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS FOR HOMELESS
ENCAMPMENTS FROM SCHOOLS OR DAY CARE FACILITIES AND PROVIDE
DIRECTION TO STAFF
Street Engagement and Management, Attachment C (Sept. 2, 2021).) Both Sacramento and Los Angeles are appearing to try to address the legal issues associated with enforcement of their separation ordinance by delaying enforcement until they can provide alternative shelters and resources to displaced unhoused individuals in line with recent cases that have dealt with the issue of moving unhoused individuals. Multiple recent cases in various district courts in California have ordered cities to provide alternative and comparable shelter when relocating unhoused individuals. In Marin Cnty. Local of the Cal. Homeless Union v. City of Novato (“City of Novato”), unhoused plaintiffs sought to enjoin the city of Novato from enforcing Novato Municipal Codes that prohibited individuals from camping and storing personal property on critical infrastructures and regulated areas, such as “[y]outh-serving facility[ies],” as well as prohibited individuals from camping and storing personal property within fifty (50) feet from critical infrastructures and regulated areas, Novato Mun. Code § 7-11.3, without a permit issued by the city of Novato, Novato Mun. Code §§ 14-20.3, 14-20.4. The District Court in City of Novato granted a temporary restraining order, enjoining the City of Novato from enforcing Novato Municipal Code sections 7-11, 7-12, 14-20.5, and 14-20.7. (See Marin Cnty. Local of the Cal. Homeless Union v. City of Novato, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 253086 (July 15, 2021); Marin Cnty. Local of the Cal. Homeless Union v. City of Novato, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 253085 (July 27, 2021).) The court also ordered that the City of Novato may not remove individuals, unless individuals voluntarily accept placement at alternative facilities. (Marin Cnty. Local of the Cal. Homeless Union v. City of Novato, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 253085 at *2 (July 27, 2021).) The same is true in Marin Cnty. Homeless Union v. City of Sausalito, where the court enjoined the City of Sausalito from clearing a small homeless encampment and from enforcement of a city ordinance prohibiting public camping. (Sausalito/Marin Cnty. Chapter of the Cal. Homeless Union v. City of Sausalito, 522 F.Supp.3d 648, 659-60 (N.D. Cal. 2021).)
Additionally, the court in Coalition on Homelessness v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco enjoined the City and County of San Francisco from removing homeless encampments because the city and county did not have appropriate alternative shelter for the cleared homeless population. (Coalition on Homelessness v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 231388 at * 76-77 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2022.) Definition of Day-Cares
Council asked that City staff consider how to define “day-care” under the ordinance. The Los Angeles ordinance defines “day-care” facilities to mean “a child care-infant center, child care center, or child care center preschool licensed by the State of California Department of Social Services that is not located on a residential zoned property.” (L.A. Mun. Code § 105.01.) Meanwhile, Novato included youth-serving facilities defined as ““[y]outh-serving facility,” which means “child day care facilities, public or private preschool, public or private primary or secondary school, public or private collage and/or university, and public or private playgrounds” as critical infrastructures. (Novato Mun. Code § 7.11.2(i).) Sacramento does not define “daycare” or “school.” However, if the City intends to include day-care facilities, Council should consider providing a definition for the term to avoid an argument of vagueness and ambiguity.
The Adoption of a Separation Ordinance Appears to Provide no Immediate Additional Benefits But Could Assist with Future Priorities.
While a separation ordinance may at first blush appear to provide a benefit, the City does not need to enact an ordinance to prioritize the remove encampments near certain property or infrastructure. The City already has an anti-camping ordinance, which the City could, if alternate shelter is available, enforce against unhoused individuals camping on public property. (See VMC §§ 767.010-7.67.060.) The Council could by ordinance, policy or direction to staff, however, prioritize encampments located in areas such as, close to Date: March 28, 2023
Subject: RECEIVE REPORT FROM STAFF REGARDING THE POSSIBLE ENTACTMENT OF AN
ORDINANCE RELATING TO SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS FOR HOMELESS
ENCAMPMENTS FROM SCHOOLS OR DAY CARE FACILITIES AND PROVIDE
DIRECTION TO STAFF
schools, day care centers, or other high risk areas identified by the Council. Again, the City would need to confirm that alternative shelters are available to the affected unhoused individuals prior to enforcement of such an ordinance or policy.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this item.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
No impact
ATTACHMENTS
None
CONTACT
Veronica A.F. Nebb, City Attorney
[email protected]