Temecula City Council Repeals Residency Restrictions

The Temecula City Council, in a vote of 4 to 1, approved the repeal of the city’s residency restrictions during its regularly scheduled meeting on April 11.  The repeal is to take effect immediately and no further City Council is required. 

According to a city staff report, the city’s decision to repeal was based upon a March 2015 decision by the California Supreme Court which determined that blanket residency restrictions applied to all registrants, regardless of offense or the amount of time passed since the conviction, violated the Constitution. 

The City Council’s action followed a lawsuit filed in federal district court on March 3 challenging the city’s residency restrictions which prohibited all registrants from living within 2,000 feet of schools, parks or day care centers.  As a result of the restrictions, registrants were banned from living in “virtually all” parts of the city.  

A total of 21 lawsuits have been filed challenging residency restrictions in 21 different cities.  Of that total, most cities have repealed or significantly revised their residency restrictions.

Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  19. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The vote was 5-0, not 4-1. During discussion, the board members were very constrained, using the word “reluctantly” quite a bit.

Here is the video of the board meeting segment repealing the ordinance. Please comment away on the board members’ ignorance.


Note the video only shows the sex offender repeal part.

Congrats to Janice, Chance, and team!

It is at the 49:40 mark in the video. The guy introduced it as a matter of urgency that they repeal the ordinance ( urgency is code for this could negatively impact our salaries.) then of course they all wanted it on the record that they reluctantly voted to repeal it. The intonation in their voices lacked any real sense of concern or distress for the “safety of the community” though, because their paychecks are the first and foremost thing on their minds. A bunch of milquetoasts.

Congratulations Janice.

I live in a city with residency restrictions. I am not directly affected because they apply to those convicted after 2006. It makes it virtually impossible to find housing with restrictions that not only cover the usual places: parks, playgrounds, etc. It makes it illegal for a 290 registrant to live within 2000 linear feet from another 290 registrant. Just ridiculous. http://www.qcode.us/codes/deserthotsprings