AgdaPkt 2007-10-08 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8A Page 6 U.S. House of Representatives 211 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 '58 2' Continued from Page 1... SB 2 evolved out of last year's SB 1322 (also authored by Sen. Cedillo), which the League of California Cities opposed. S8 1322 would have required have severely curtailed local agency discretionary authority over emergency shelters and large residential care facilities (seven beds or more). That bill was vetoed by the Governor, who was generally concerned about homeless issues. Accordingly, the League was successful in defeating SB 1322, but political forecasters suggested that a different course of action was needed to address SB 2. (The League's November edition of Focus on Housing - ~ww.imakenews.comffocusonho!JsinQ - will include a more detailed account of the political dynamics behind this bill). As a result, the League's Housing, Community, and Economic Development Committee formed a subcommittee on homeless issues and developed policy. Based on this policy, the League began negotiating with Sen. Cedillo and other stakeholders on language on SB 2. Impact of 58 2 SB 2 is not perfect for local government, but it is a great deal better than its predecessor. The bill would preserve discretion for local agencies to locate shelters in their communities and to adopt a set of development standards to address things like security, lighting, loitering, and other site management issues for emergency shelters only. The language related to large residential care facilities has been taken out of the bill. The measure would also allow the agency to take credit for pro-active programs already in place (like transitional and supportive housing) to reduce homelessness in the community. Another part of SB 2 authorizes up to three agencies to enter into an agreement to provide homeless services and share the credit proportionately. On the other hand, if it becomes law, SB 2 would require every local agency to have zoning in place that would allow an emergency shelter. In addition, the bill says that local agencies must approve at least one homeless shelter. Local agencies must approve a shelter that is consistent with zoning as long as there is still a need in their communities. There is some good actor language as well; local agencies that have at least one shelter within their communities and can show that there is no further need, do not have to approve further shelters. While SB 2 is a large improvement over the previous version of the bill, some cities with larger homeless populations were uncomfortable with its language. The cities of Santa Monica, Oakland, and San Jose all expressed concerns about the bill. The city of Los Angeles, on the other hand, supported the bill. Accordingly, the League was in a tough position. Sen. Cedillo had amended the bill several times at the League's suggestion to address our biggest concerns, but individual members still opposed. In the end, the League did not take a position. What's Next Currently, SB 2 is sitting on the Governor's desk. It is difficult to know what the Governor will do. On one hand, the bill got through both the Senate and the Assembly largely on party line votes and could be framed in a way that makes it look substantially similar to the bill that was vetoed last year. In addition, several "good actor" cities on this issue actually oppose the bill. On the other hand, there are significant differences between SB 2 and last year's SB 1322 and this year, the California State Association of Counties (CSAC) and the California Chapter of the 6