CC SR 20180619 08 - Meeting Motion ADU fund CCRANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 06/19/2018
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Regular Business
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action to review and provide clarification or direction of the
action of the prior-City Council, taken at the November 8, 2017, City Council meeting, on
the subject of State-mandated housing legislation.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Review prior City Council action and provide clarification or direction for further
action, if any.
FISCAL IMPACT: $500,000
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: William W. Wynder, City Attorney
REVIEWED BY: Gabriella Yap, Deputy City Manager
APPROVED BY: Doug Willmore, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Minutes (excerpt) from November 8, 2017 (page A-1)
B. Agenda report of November, 8, 2017 (page B-1)
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
At its meeting on November 8, 2017, the prior-City Council received a report prepared by
the City Attorney’s Office (Attachment B) regarding possible responses to recent State-
imposed standards and legislation, including such issues as:
• Accessory dwelling units
• 2017 housing legislation, including Senate Bill No. 35 and others
• Small-cell wireless facilities (mainly SB 649, which was vetoed by Governor
Brown)
• Criminal justice reforms, including AB 109 (“realignment”), Proposition 47 and
Proposition 57
The then-City Council’s deliberations resulted in the following motion, as reflected in the
Minutes of the City Council meeting in question (Attachment A):
1
Councilman Misetich moved, seconded by Mayor Campbell, to (1) set aside
a $500,000 fund to defend the City's local zoning authority. The Council will
have discretion of how the funds will be utilized; (2) form a coalition initially
of peninsula cities and expanding by allowing other cities to join the
coalition; and (3) research into becoming a Charter city to protect local
zoning and local control.
The motion was adopted on a 3 “ayes” to 2 “nays” vote, with then-Councilmember
Brooks and then-Councilmember Duhovic voting “nay.”
With respect to the first part of the motion, a $500,000 “fund” for this purpose has not
been included in the FY18-19 budget. Staff is seeking direction as to whether the
current-City Council desires that this amount be included in the up-coming budget.
With respect to the second part of the motion, one of the possible courses of action
proposed by the then-City Attorney was to consider organizing a coalition of cities to
advocate with the legislature for enhanced local control over housing issues. This would
require, first, some significant outreach to determine how many other cities would be
interested in taking part in such an effort.
If it is determined that organizing such a coalition makes sense, then additional efforts
will need to be taken to organize and administer the same. The coalition would likely
work in conjunction with the League of California Cities, but be focus exclusively on
issues of local zoning and land-use control(s). This effort is likely to take a substantial
amount of time and effort on behalf of the City Attorney and/or Staff. The funding of
such an effort has not been estimated and also has not been included in the FY18-19
budget. Staff is also seeking direction as to whether the current-City Council desires
Staff to create a budget category and amount for such an effort.
It might also be possible to propose a League of Cities Annual Conference Resolution
on the topic of local zoning control for the League’s consideration at its upcoming Long
Beach conference in September. The purpose of such a resolution, if adopted, would be
to ensure the League’s commitment to enhanced local zoning and land-use control(s)
as a legislative priority for all of California’s cities.
With respect to the third part of the motion, the City has begun the process of reviewing
a draft charter proposed by a citizen’s committee. If approved by the City Council for the
November 2018 or November 2019 ballot, for presentation to the voters, a charter may
afford the City some additional legal authority in the exercise of its zoning land-use
powers. However, it is unclear whether, and to what extent, a City charter can (or will)
afford protection to the City, especially in light of the growing State encroachment on
local control in response to the State’s housing crisis. In any event, the City charter
addresses a broader range of issues, and that process is ongoing and independent of
local zoning issues.
2
CONCLUSION:
Accordingly, Staff and the Office of the City Attorney are requesting that the City Council
provide such direction, if any, as you deem appropriate regarding further implementation
of the prior actions of the prior-City Council. In the event the current-City Council is
interested in doing so, Staff and the Office of the City Attorney would appreciate City
Council suggestions as to which steps they wish the City to take before reporting back to
the City Council and seeking further direction.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternative actions are available for the City Council’s consideration:
1. Reach out to the League of California Cities and take a more active role in
lobbying for local zoning control
2. Direct Staff to prepare an Annual Conference Resolution as described
above for the League’s consideration at its upcoming conference in Long
Beach in September 2018.
3. Receive and file this report and take no action on the item.
4. Direct Staff to take such other action related to this item as the City Council
deems appropriate consistent with the requirements of law.
3
The motion passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Brooks, Dyda, Misetich, Duhovic and Mayor Campbell
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Per the re-order of the agenda, Mayor Campbell moved to Item #5.
5. Consideration and possible action relating to state imposed standards for
accessory dwelling units and newly enacted housing legislation.
City Clerk Colborn reported that there were two requests to speak
Elena Gerli, Assistant City Attorney, presented a staff report. Additionally, Councilman
Misetich relayed information received at a recent South Bay Cities Council of
Governments meeting regarding the efforts being made by the State of California to
potentially eliminate R1 Residential Zoning.
Discussion ensued among Council Members and Staff.
Carolynn Petru, spoke in support of forming or joining a coalition and efforts towards the
City becoming a Charter city and suggested the process be at a grass-roots level.
Tracy Burns, concurred with Ms. Petru's comments.
Councilman Misetich moved, seconded by Mayor Campbell, to (1) set aside a
1,000,000 fund to defend the City's local zoning authority. The Council will have
discretion of how the funds will be utilized; (2) form a coalition initially of peninsula cities
and expanding by allowing other cities to join the coalition; and (3) research into
becoming a Charter city to protect local zoning and local control.
Councilmember Dyda offered a friendly amendment to reserve $500,000 instead of the
proposed $1,000,000.
The maker and seconder of the motion accepted the friendly amendment to the motion.
Councilwoman Brooks moved a substitute motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern
Duhovic to bring forward to the incoming Council the concept of forming a Charter city
citizen advisory committee.
The substitute motion failed on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Brooks and Duhovic
NOES: Dyda, Misetich, and Mayor Campbell
ABSENT: None
City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting
November 8, 2017
Page 9 of 12
A-1
Mayor Campbell called for a roll call vote on the original amended motion, which is
reiterated as the following: Councilman Misetich moved, seconded by Mayor Campbell,
to (1) set aside a $500,000 fund to defend the City's local zoning authority. The Council
will have discretion of how the funds will be utilized; (2) form a coalition initially of
peninsula cities and expanding by allowing other cities to join the coalition; and (3)
research into becoming a Charter city to protect local zoning and local control.
The motion passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Dyda, Misetich, and Mayor Campbell
NOES: Brooks and Duhovic
ABSENT: None
Per the re-order of the agenda, Mayor Campbell moved to Item #3.
3. Consideration and possible action to appoint one member to the Emergency
Preparedness Committee (EPC).
City Clerk Colborn announced that ballots were distributed earlier in the evening to
appoint one member to the EPC.
Larry Maizlish, with interviews and an appointment to the Committee recently
conducted, Mr. Maizlish suggested appointing the person that received the second
highest votes.
After one round of balloting, Michael de los Reyes was appointed.
4. Consideration and possible action to adopt the City's Emissions Reduction
Action Plan (ERAP) to improve the City's sustainability by reducing
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions.
City Clerk Colborn reported that late correspondence was received and distributed prior
to the meeting and that there were no requests to speak.
Octavio Silva, Associate Planner, presented a staff report and PowerPoint presentation.
Discussion ensued among Council Members and Staff.
Mayor Pro Tem Duhovic moved, seconded by Councilman Dyda, to defer the item back
to Staff with changes and bring back for Council's consideration at the December 19,
2017, meeting.
The motion passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Brooks, Dyda, Misetich, Duhovic and Mayor Campbell
City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting
November 8, 2017
Page 10 of 12
A-2
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 11/08/2017
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Regular Business
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action relating to state imposed standards for accessory
dwelling units and newly enacted housing legislation.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Provide direction regarding weather City should join Take Back Our Community
Coalition.
(2) Provide direction regarding forming or joining coalition to lobby state for greater
local control of housing projects.
FISCAL IMPACT: Legal costs are too speculative to realistically estimate at this time.
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: Elena Q. Gerli, Assistant City Attorney
REVIEWED BY: Gabriella Yap, Deputy City Manager
APPROVED BY: Doug Willmore, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Documents from “Taking Back Our Community” Coalition (page A-1)
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
In recent years, the State of California has increasingly encroached on cities’ ability to
govern their own affairs. The State’s encroachment on local government’s ability to
manage its own affairs is an important issue for the City Council, and the City Council
feels that it is time for the City to take some action to limit this trend. Some of these
changes have affected the criminal justice system in AB 109 and Propositions 47 and
57, which have led to early release of prisoners and threaten public safety. But other
community values are threatened. Two recent examples are new State legislation and
regulatory requirements regarding accessory dwelling units and small cell wireless
facilities.
In the midst of a large number of applications to the City for wireless antenna sites,
Senate Bill 649, would have made the placement of small cell wireless facilities in the
public right-of-way ministerial. However, this was vetoed by the Governor following
massive local opposition by cities and through the League of California Cities. Though
vetoed, the threat will not go away. The State has also adopted laws that impose
B-1
accessory dwelling units development standards on cities, and just this year the
Governor has signed a spate of housing bills, some of which affect cities’ ability to
govern their own affairs. Accordingly, the City Council may wish to consider creating or
joining a coalition(s) of local government agencies with common goals. An example of
an existing coalition is the “Taking Back Our Communities” coalition, spearheaded by
the City of Monrovia, which is concerned about the unintended consequences of the
criminal justice realignment, and has formed a coalition and is inviting other cities to
join.
The City Council may wish to allocate resources to this effort, and including litigation if
needed. Several recent examples of state overreach which threaten the community
character of Rancho Palos Verdes are discussed below.
A. Accessory Dwelling Units
In 2016 certain amendments to Section 65852.2. of the Government Code were
enacted, which rename “Second Housing Units” as “Accessory Dwelling Units” (ADUs),
and required cities to update their development codes to conform to State guidelines.
Effective January 1, 2017, the statute invalidated local development codes related to
ADUs not in conformance with these provisions. Changes from the City’s current zoning
are summarized in the chart below:
City of RPV State Gov't Code
Minimum setbacks of 20' front, 5' side and
15' rear setbacks.
Reduced 5' rear yard setbacks if ADU
constructed over an existing garage.
Served by sanitary sewer Private sewage disposal may be allowed
with approval of Local Health Officer.
1 enclosed parking space required Minimum 1 parking space can be "tandem
on existing driveway", which means
unenclosed on existing driveway.
Over certain SF, any second story,
inclusion of balconies 80SF or larger, and
height over 16' requires discretionary
review.
Ministerial (over-the-counter) approval
within 120 days of application submittal.
Coastal Development Permit required for
most improvements seaward of the 1st
public road, some requiring public
hearings.
No public hearings for CDP
The new law’s intent is to support infill and affordable housing development.” The
statute intends to “ease and streamline” current statewide regulations, encourage the
building of ADUs, and create more housing options. The statute also “improve[s] and
B-2
incentivize[s] the creation of ADUs as ways to create more rental property and incomes
for families to stay in their current homes.” However, these standards make no
concessions for the particular character of local communities. Of particular interest to
the City, for example, is that parking and setback requirements for accessory dwelling
units are significantly less restrictive than what the City has in its development code
now, and a recently passed bill reduces those requirements even further as of
January 1, 2018. The City will be required to permit conversion of covered garage
space into habitable units, thus increasing density in single family zones and reducing
parking.
B. New Housing Bills
The Legislature passed, and the Governor signed into law, a number of new housing
bills, all focused on making approval of housing developments easier and more
streamlined and pushing local governments to meet their regional housing needs. Here
we briefly summarize the ones that our office believes will be the most onerous to
Rancho Palos Verdes.
1. Assembly Bill 35. This bill curtails local authority with respect to housing
projects that meet certain criteria and for infill developments in localities that have
not met their regional housing needs assessments, and creates a streamlined
process to approve these, including limiting cities’ ability to include parking
standards on these developments.
2. SB 167/AB 678. This bill requires, when a city wants to deny or decrease the
density of a housing development, which meets all applicable development and
zoning criteria, to provide written findings to be based on “a preponderance of
evidence.” The bill provides standing to sue to the applicant, to anyone who is
eligible to reside in the housing project, or a housing organization to enforce
these provisions. A court may require a city to comply with the statute, and if the
court finds that the city acted in bad faith, may order the city to approve the
development. The statute also imposes mandatory fines ($10,000 per housing
unit) on cities that fail to comply with a judge’s order within 60 days, and allows
enhanced fines if a city acts in bad faith.
3. SB 166. This bill mandates that cities and counties implement a rolling
requirement for adequate sites and rezoning requirement by income level, rather
than total units. Continuous rezonings are an extremely onerous requirement for
cities and counties.
Specifically, the bill requires a city to make specified written findings if the city
allows development of any parcel with fewer units by income category than
identified in the housing element for that parcel. Where the approval of a
development project results in fewer units by income category than identified in
the housing element for that parcel and the remaining sites in the housing
element are not adequate to accommodate the jurisdiction’s share of the regional
B-3
housing need by income level, the bill requires the jurisdiction within 180 days to
identify and make available additional adequate sites.
4. AB 1515. This bill prohibits a local agency from disapproving, or conditioning
approval in a manner that renders infeasible, a housing development project very
low-, low-, or moderate-income households or an emergency shelter unless the
local agency makes specified findings. Under the act, the local agency may
disapprove or condition approval of a housing development project or emergency
shelter if, among other reasons, the housing development project or emergency
shelter is inconsistent with both the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and general
plan land use designation, as provided.
This bill requires housing projects to be deemed consistent, compliant, and in
conformity with an applicable plan if there is substantial evidence that would
allow a reasonable person to conclude that the housing development project or
emergency shelter is consistent, compliant, or in conformity.
5. AB 1397. This bill creates state-mandated local program, and restricts the
use by right of sites that have been zoned to permit specified minimum density
and development standards for low-income housing, and requires these sites to
have sufficient utilities available or accessible.
C. Small cell wireless facilities
This bill, SB 649, was adopted by the California Assembly and the Senate, but thanks to
a strong push by many local governments and the League of California Cities, the
Governor vetoed the bill.
The bill would have imposed ministerial approval by local agencies of applications for
small cells “located in a public right-of-way in any zone or in any zone that includes a
commercial or industrial use.” The bill would also have restricted the amount of rent
local agencies could charge telecommunication companies for placing small cells on
city property, although it would have allowed cities to charge reasonable permit fees
and obtain full cost recovery. Given that there are strong lobbying interests behind
expanding wireless capability, this is not likely to be the last we have seen of a bill
reducing city powers to approve cell towers.
D. Criminal Justice: Monrovia Coalition
Attached are materials received from the City of Monrovia concerning a coalition being
formed called the “Taking Back Our Community,” focused on the need for changes to
the criminal justice system due to the impacts of AB 109 and Propositions 47 and 57
that are leading to increased local crime. The cities of Monrovia, Arcadia, and Glendora
initially conceptualized forming a Coalition of local communities to combat state
mandated policies which control issues of local concern. Monrovia now acts as the “lead
agency” of the Coalition in organizing events, creating meeting agendas, hiring outside
contractors for public education, marketing and public relations, and for overseeing a
social media campaign and Coalition website. The Monrovia City Manager’s Office staff
B-4
dedicate between 10 and 30 hours a week toward Coalition activities. Depending on
how the Coalition grows, the City may hire full-time staff dedicated to addressing
Coalition matters.
The Coalition formed three months ago and has since grown to over 30 cities, with 50
additional cities in the process of joining or showing interest in joining in the coming
months. The Coalition will likely meet once a month, with larger organizational meetings
every three months. This month, the Coalition is will meet for the first time to formulate a
governance structure and outreach plan.
At the City Council meeting on September 5, 2017, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s
Department made a presentation on the impacts of these measures, which are briefly
summarized as follows. The state’s population is growing but the state is not building
new prisons which results in jail overcrowding; and through litigation, the courts have
become involved. There are something like 125,000 beds in the state system and
85,000 in counties and cities, and 20,000 in County of Los Angeles. The state has
pushed significant portion of their population down into the local level resulting in less
space available at the local level. In LA County now, if you get convicted of anything
involving less than a 120 day sentence, you are immediately released—and on longer
sentences you only serve portion of your time. Additionally, convictions do not
aggregate—a new one is treated the same as the first one. A chart shows that someone
with 60 convictions for burglary will be treated the same as if they had one conviction.
The result is that there are thousands of convicts walking the street in Los Angeles who
should be in prison and many are committing repeat crimes. The recidivism rate is 60%.
The State, which has saved money by these policies, has not put anything into
programs to reform behaviors, and the early releases don’t give incentives or
opportunities to participate in programs. Another chart shows that while crime is
declining nationwide, in California the trend is increasing—which is ascribed to the
impact of these laws.
E. City Council Action
Attached for the City Council’s information is a packet of information regarding the
Monrovia coalition: it requires a financial commitment of $1,500 per year for as long a
city is a member of the Coalition. Those funds are primarily used for a public relations
firm to craft an initial outreach, including a website, informational materials and videos,
and social media. Benefits of such a coalition include sharing of resources and ideas,
lower costs in the event of litigation, and more clout with the State government. So far,
at least 19 entities have joined the coalition. As a single, general law city, the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes may not have a great deal of clout with the state but may have
more as a part of a coalition of cities that share a common goal.
Similarly, the City may wish to work with other cities to develop a political strategy with
future housing legislation. At this time it is unclear how many other agencies would be
interested in joining such an effort to roll back some of the housing development
standard requirements, but a public relations effort here may be fruitful. It should be
B-5
noted that the City is a general law city, and therefore control over its affairs can be
curtailed to a greater extent that it could if it were a charter city, as discussed below.
As mentioned, the City may end up in litigation over these issues. Even if the City takes
no overt action against the State, unless it complies with the State’s requirements, it is
likely to be challenged and have to defend its actions in court. The City Council may
wish to set aside a fund of up to $1 million dollars to take action to restore local control.
This may involve legal challenges over the state regulations on secondary dwelling
units. The Council could also initiate litigation, but may also be subject to litigation in
these matters, and the fund would cover these costs as well.
The City Attorney has analyzed various legal theories to challenge these state actions.
There are a number of potential theories but as a general law city whose powers come
from the state, the courts generally strictly construe the powers of a city, so any litigation
option is difficult.
Of course, it must be mentioned that the State is faced with significant shortages of
affordable housing and the state legislature has been consistently mandating new
restriction on local land use authority. The State may react to challenges to these
programs by utilizing other mechanisms to threaten non-cooperative cities, including by
manipulating state funding and other mechanisms.
F. Charter City
The City has previously considered adopting a charter but ultimately did not go forward.
In light of the continuing threat to local control, this should be reconsidered. The City’s
position would be much stronger as a charter city. Charter cities have control over all
matters that are municipal affairs whereas the State retains control over charter cities
for matters of statewide concern. The City Council could consider exploring the adoption
of a city charter to increase its likelihood of success in these matters, but also to have a
greater degree of control over its affairs overall.
We looked at whether the City would have the ability to ignore the new requirements if it
were a charter city. Charter cities enjoy greater constitutional freedom than general law
cities to govern their “municipal affairs,” even if a conflict with State law may exist. (See
Article XI, section 5 of the California Constitution.) There is no exact definition of the
term “municipal affair” other than those areas expressly stated in section 5. Whether a
subject area is a municipal affair (over which a charter city has sovereignty) or one of
“statewide concern” (over which the Legislature has authority) is an issue for the courts
that depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Land use and zoning
decisions however, have been consistently classified as a municipal affair and charter
cities are exempt from various provisions of the Planning and Zoning Law unless the
city’s charter indicates otherwise. (See e.g. Gov. Code §§ 65803, 65860(d); City of
Irvine v. Irvine Citizens Against Overdevelopment (1994) 25 Cal. App. 4th 868, 874.)
B-6
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternative actions are available
for the City Council’s consideration:
1. Join the Monrovia Coalition and seek to broaden the issues being pursued
by the Coalition.
2. Set aside significant funds for these efforts including for litigation.
3. Instruct the City Attorney to initiate litigation.
4. Seek additional cities to join in litigation or political efforts.
5. Explore reinitiating a Charter adoption process asking the City Attorney to
bring back a report.
B-7
September 13, 2017
Hello!
Thank you for your interest in joining an important new statewide coalition called Taking Back Our Community.
Taking Back Our Community is a growing coalition of California cities coming together to establish a unified message
to advocate for common sense changes to California’s criminal justice system to help address the public safety
impacts resulting from Assembly Bill 109, Proposition 47, and Proposition 57. This coalition aims to engage and
educate our constituents on the reasons why crime is increasing and build public support for legislative changes at
the State level.
Similar to many jurisdictions in the San Gabriel Valley, the cities of Arcadia, Glendora, and Monrovia have all been
experiencing significant increases in crime during the past few years. As we worked to develop a response to the
public safety issues at hand, we came to the conclusion that unless State legislative changes are made, we are
facing an uphill climb when it comes to reducing crime levels – no matter how many more police officers we hire.
Given the scale and scope of the public safety challenges we face in California, we felt it was important to invite all
cities and other stakeholders across California to join our efforts.
Included on this USB drive is a flyer with more information on reasons to join the Taking Back Our Community
Coalition (see “Join the Coalition Flyer”). There are two ways a city may join the Taking Back Our Community
coalition, depending on whether or not City Council authorization is required.
To assist you in your review of the program, we have prepared the following template documents for your
consideration:
1. Sign the Taking Back Our Community Coalition Agreement (see “City Manager Authorization – TBOC
Agreement”); or
2. Ask your City Council to adopt a formal resolution authorizing your City to join the coalition. A sample
staff report and related attachment is included for your reference and use (see “Sample Staff Report –
TBOC” and “Sample Staff Report - Exhibit A - TBOC Resolution”).
Cities wishing to join the coalition will be mailed an invoice for $1,500 / year to further the coalition’s objectives.
These membership dues will be used to coordinate the development of an overall public education and outreach
campaign.
Currently, the majority of the funds will be used to fund our initial outreach efforts through a public relations firm to
create the following:
An infographic video that provides an overview of the public safety issues impacting communities and
directs individuals to the www.TakingBackOurCommunityCA.com website that will have Calls to Action
to contact your State representatives
B-8
Multiple in-depth videos interviewing individuals and businesses impacted by the adverse effects
related to this legislation
A stand-alone coalition website for residents and businesses to learn about these issues to ensure
consistent, fact-based messaging across agencies
A coalition logo
Setting up social media accounts on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, and organizing campaign posts
to raise awareness
Additionally, the funds will be used for outreach materials to assist at future conferences and related events.
The Taking Back Our Community Coalition is quickly growing to include many cities in our region, as the response to
the initiative has been overwhelming and positive. To date, we have 19 agencies that have agreed to join the
coalition, including:
1. Alhambra
2. Arcadia
3. Claremont
4. Covina
5. Duarte
6. Glendora
7. Irwindale
8. La Cañada Flintridge
9. La Verne
10. Monrovia
11. Monterey Park
12. Pasadena
13. San Marino
14. Sierra Madre
15. West Covina
16. Whittier
17. San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments
18. California Police Chiefs
19. Association of Deputy District Attorneys
You can learn more about this coalition by visiting www.TakingBackOurCommunityCA.com. If you have any
questions, please feel free to let us know directly, or you can contact Brittany Mello, Senior Management Analyst, at
bmello@ci.monrovia.ca.us or (626) 932-5571.
We hope that you will be interested in participating in this important venture, and appreciate your time and
consideration!
Best regards,
Chris Jeffers Dominic Lazzaretto Oliver Chi
City Manager City Manager City Manager
City of Glendora City of Arcadia City of Monrovia
cjeffers@ci.glendora.ca.us domlazz@arcadiaca.gov ochi@ci.monrovia.ca.us
(626) 914-8201 (626) 574-5401 (626) 932-5585
B-9
TAKING BACK OUR COMMUNITY COALITIONbe part of the solution and join the
Contact the City of Monrovia at (626) 932-5571 or email bmello@ci.monrovia.ca.us for more information on how to join.
HOW TO JOIN
$1,500 per year
MEMBERSHIP DUES
ASSEMBLY BILL 109 PROPOSITION 47 PROPOSITION 57
STATE CHANGES AFFECTING OUR COMMUNITY INCLUDES:
COALITION MEMBERS
TAKING BACK OURCOMMUNITY
Taking Back Our Community is a coalition of local governments dedicated to public education and community advocacy surrounding the unintended adverse public safety impacts of recent changes to California’s criminal law.
COALITION OBJECTIVES
• Official Taking Back Our Community branding with your agency’s logo• Infographic video summarizing the issue and impactful stories told by the community• In-depth legislative tracking • Customizable outreach material including:
REASONS TO JOIN
• Comprehensive Fact Sheet • Sample letter to State legislators • Informational brochure
• To raise public awareness of why crime is increasing in our state. • To provide a consistent message surrounding the facts and impacts of AB 109, Prop 47, and Prop 57.• To advocate for State legislative changes to improve law enforcement’s ability to respond to crime.
Find out more at www.TakingBackOurCommunityCA.com
B-10
TAKING BACK OUR COMMUNITY COALITION
This Taking Back Our Community Coalition (hereinafter, the “Coalition”) is entered
into by and among municipalities and agencies within the State of California
(“Members”) for the purpose of establishing a unified message to advocate for
common sense changes to California’s criminal justice system that address the
public safety impacts resulting from Assembly Bill 109, Proposition 47, and
Proposition 57.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Coalition members agree that recent State legislative changes –
namely Assembly Bill 109, Proposition 47, and Proposition 57 – made some changes to
California’s criminal justice system that were needed and necessary; and
WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 109, Proposition 47, and Proposition 57, have had
negative public safety impacts that have affected cities, counties, and other public safety
organizations throughout California; and
WHEREAS, through a collaborative effort, the Coalition seeks to advocate for
common sense legislative solutions that will enhance the criminal justice system in
California more equitably.
NOW, THEFORE, the Taking Back Our Community Coalition Members agree as
follows:
1. The City of Monrovia shall act as the lead agency with respect to the administration
of the Coalition, and shall act as treasurer for the Coalition, responsible for the collection
of fees from Coalition members and the payment of costs incurred on behalf of the
Coalition; and
2. In order to achieve the objectives of the Coalition, each Member agrees to pay one
thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500.00) on an annual basis to the lead agency as long
as the Member wishes to remain in the Coalition.
3. Each Member shall designate one or more representatives to be an active
participant in Coalition meetings, and facilitate the exchange and dissemination of
information to further the Coalition’s objectives.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, the City of _______________ does hereby join the Taking
Back Our Community Coalition as of ___________________, 2017, as authorized by the
signer below.
CITY OF XXXXXXXX
Approved by:
Name, City Manager
B-11
TITLE: Request to Join the Taking Back Our Community Coalition to Support Public Safety
Related Legislative Advocacy Efforts
OBJECTIVE: To approve an agreement with the City of Monrovia to join the Taking Back Our
Community Coalition.
BACKGROUND: Taken together, Assembly Bill 109, Proposition 47, and Proposition 57 have
reshaped how we approach public safety issues in the State of California. While the identified
measures have certainly resulted in measurable and positive impacts to California’s criminal
justice system, the cumulative effect of these legislative actions have also had significant
adverse effects resulting in public safety challenges. Most notably, municipalities across
California are reporting increases in property and violent crime that law enforcement believe to
be related to the legislative changes that have been enacted over the past several years.
In September 2017, the City of Whittier brought forth a key resolution asking the League of
California Cities to initiate and facilitate further discussion between the Governor, the State
Legislature, and other key public safety stakeholders regarding the recent legislative changes
that have been made to California’s criminal justice system.
During the past few weeks, staff has been engaged in discussions with the City of Monrovia
regarding the development of the Taking Back Our Community Coalition. Taking Back Our
Community is a new coalition of California cities advocating for the State to engage in further
discussions to identify solutions for addressing the unintended consequences of changes
made to California’s criminal justice system through the enactment of Assembly Bill 109,
Proposition 47, and Proposition 57. The Coalition is led by the Cities of Arcadia, Glendora,
and Monrovia, with Monrovia acting as the lead administrative agency.
ANALYSIS: The formation of the Taking Back Our Community Coalition represents positive
steps to mitigate the emerging public safety issues related to changes to California’s overall
criminal justice system.
The Taking Back Our Community Coalition is quickly growing to include many cities in our
region looking to be part of a positive solution. All members of the Coalition will be required to
pay the City of Monrovia $1,500 / year, and the funds raised will be used to coordinate the
development of an overall public education and outreach campaign.
Taking Back Our Community Coalition Objectives:
• To raise public awareness of why crime is increasing in our state
• To provide a consistent message surrounding the facts and impacts of Assembly Bill
109, Proposition 47, and Proposition 57
• To advocate for State legislative changes to improve law enforcement's ability to
respond to crime
Benefits of Becoming a Coalition Member:
• Official Taking Back Our Community branding will include the City’s logo
• Infographic video summarizing the issue along with impactful video stories told by
community members impacted by crime increasing
• In-depth legislative tracking and analysis related to proposed State legislation
• Access to customizable outreach material to share with community members, including:
B-12
o Informational Brochure
o Comprehensive Fact Sheet on AB 109, Prop 47, and Prop 57
o Sample Letter to State Lawmakers
• Opportunity to regularly meet with regional members and guest speakers to further the
Coalition’s objectives
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: There are no environmental impacts associated with this action.
FISCAL IMPACT: Membership dues for the Taking Back Our Community Coalition is $1,500 /
year for each year that the City wishes to remain in the Coalition. Funding for this initiative is
available in the City’s Fiscal Year 2017/18 Budget.
OPTIONS: The following options have been developed for City Council’s consideration:
1. Approve the agreement with the City of Monrovia to join the Taking Back Our
Community Coalition (Exhibit A).
2. Do not approve the agreement and provide staff with additional direction.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council select Option 1, thereby
approving the agreement with the City of Monrovia (Exhibit A) and joining the Taking Back Our
Community Coalition.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED: If the City Council concurs, the appropriate action would be
a motion to approve the attached agreement with the City of Monrovia, and authorize the City
Manager or his/her designee to execute all necessary documents.
B-13
TAKING BACK OUR COMMUNITY COALITION
This Taking Back Our Community Coalition (hereinafter, the “Coalition”) is entered
into by and among municipalities and agencies within the State of California
(“Members”) for the purpose of establishing a unified message to advocate for
common sense changes to California’s criminal justice system that address the
public safety impacts resulting from Assembly Bill 109, Proposition 47, and
Proposition 57.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Coalition members agree that recent State legislative changes –
namely Assembly Bill 109, Proposition 47, and Proposition 57 – made some changes to
California’s criminal justice system that were needed and necessary; and
WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 109, Proposition 47, and Proposition 57, have had
negative public safety impacts that have affected cities, counties, and other public safety
organizations throughout California; and
WHEREAS, through a collaborative effort, the Coalition seeks to advocate for
common sense legislative solutions that will enhance the criminal justice system in
California more equitably.
NOW, THEFORE, the Taking Back Our Community Coalition Members agree as
follows:
1. The City of Monrovia shall act as the lead agency with respect to the administration
of the Coalition, and shall act as treasurer for the Coalition, responsible for the collection
of fees from Coalition members and the payment of costs incurred on behalf of the
Coalition; and
2. In order to achieve the objectives of the Coalition, each Member agrees to pay one
thousand fife hundred dollars ($1,500.00) on an annual basis to the lead agency as long
as the Member wishes to remain in the Coalition.
3. Each Member shall designate one or more representatives to be an active
participant in Coalition meetings, and facilitate the exchange and dissemination of
information to further the Coalition’s objectives.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, the City of _______________ does hereby join the Taking
Back Our Community Coalition as of ___________________, 2017, as authorized by the
signer below.
B-14
BY:
Name, Mayor
City of XXXXXXX
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Name, City Clerk
City of XXXXXXX
Name, City Attorney
City of XXXXXXX
B-15
B-16
B-17
B-18