HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1993 0616 CC REG ITEM 08LAGENDA REPORT
CITY OF MOORPARK
ITEM
491a •
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: Mary K. Lindley, Assistant to the City Manager'(\4 \
DATE: June 11, 1993 (CC meeting of June 16)
SUBJECT: Consider Opposition to Assembly Bill 2244,
Discriminatory Housing Practices
Background
Last year the Legislature passed SB 1234, which retained legitimate
local land use authority over a variety of congregate care uses,
whether they were licensed by the state or not. The Federal
Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD) has now issued a
letter stateing that some of the provisions of AB 1234 are not in
compliance with the Federal Fair Housing Act Amendments. Assembly
Member Polanco has introduced AB 2244 in an effort to meet HUD's
requirements.
The concern with AB 2244 is that it goes beyond what HUD has
requested. In addition, the bill has the strong support of the
State Department of Fair Housing, which is urging the Governor's
approval, despite its dramatic impact to local land use practices.
AB 2244 would expand California law beyond federal law stating that
an undefined "group of persons" with disabilities shall be a family
residential use regardless of whether these persons are living
independently or are part of a medical care facility. This
disabled grouping includes drug addicts and alcoholics. The result
is that AB 2244 allows congregate living of these individuals,
without condition, in any residential neighborhood.
AB 2244 also expands California law beyond federal law by inserting
a new formulation of the "strict scrutiny" standard to all land use
regulation. It may be inappropriate for state law to prescribe a
standard in matters of judicial interpretation which should be
based on the nature of the land use condition applied and the use
to which it is applied. Under the proposed standard, litigants
need only demonstrate that some condition, other that the one
Consider Opposition to AB 2244
June 11, 1993
Page 2
applied by the city, would have accomplished the city's purpose
with a less discriminatory effect. Under existing law, city land
use regulations are upheld, so long as their is a rational basis
for their inclusion in a permit or other approval. AB 2244 leaves
cities open to charges by individuals, congregate care facilities
and half -way houses that believe they have been discriminated
against because their facility contains conditions which differ
from the traditional residences.
The League of California Cities is urging cities to express
opposition to AB 2244 as currently written. The League will
continue to work this the bill's author to address the concern
expressed in this staff report while complying with federal law.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council direct the Mayor to send a letter
expressing the City opposition to AB 2244, as currently written, to
Assembly Members Takasugi, Boland, and Polanco (the bill's author).