Laserfiche WebLink
ORDINANCE NO. NS -2862 <br />AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY <br />OF SANTA ANA REPEALING CHAPTER 10, ARTICLE XII <br />OF THE SANTA ANA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO <br />PROXIMITY OF REGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS TO <br />CHILDREN'S FACILITIES <br />THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DOES ORDAIN AS <br />FOLLOWS: <br />Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines <br />and declares as follows: <br />A. On June 4, 2012 the City Council of the City of Santa Ana (the "City <br />Council ") adopted Ordinance No. NS -2832, amending Article XII, sections <br />10 -700 to 10 -706 to the Santa Ana Municipal Code, thereby adding <br />additional regulations which restrict the proximity of registered sex <br />offenders to children's facilities. <br />B. The California Court of Appeal decisions in People v. Godinez (2014) WL <br />99188 and People v. Nguyen (2014) 222 Cal.AppAth 1168, held that local <br />ordinances regulating and restricting access to parks and other public <br />facilities by registered sex offenders conflict with, and are preempted by, <br />California state law because of the comprehensive regulatory scheme set <br />forth in the California Penal Code (including Penal Code §§ 290 through <br />294 and Penal Code §§ 626.81, 653b, 653c, 3000.07, 3003.5, 3004, and <br />3053.8). <br />C. On April 23, 2014, the California Supreme Court denied the petition for <br />review of the Court of Appeal decisions in Godinez and Nguyen. As a <br />result, the Court of Appeal rulings are final. <br />D. Chapter 10, Article XII of the Santa Ana Municipal Code restricts sex <br />offenders from accessing certain public facilities in a manner similar to <br />those ordinances at issue in both the Godinez and Nguyen cases. <br />Because both of these ordinances were invalidated based on preemption <br />grounds, the Santa Ana restrictions are effectively preempted as well. <br />E. The City Council of Santa Ana thus hereby adopts this Ordinance to <br />conform to the California Court of Appeal decisions and to avoid litigation <br />with any person or organization seeking repeal of city ordinances which <br />are not consistent with the rulings of the Godinez and Nguyen cases. <br />Ordinance No. NS -2862 <br />Page 1 of 3 <br />