CC SR 20210803 H - Gascon Response Letter
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 08/03/2021
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Consent Calendar
AGENDA TITLE:
Consideration and possible action to authorize the Mayor to sign a letter in response to
District Attorney George Gascón’s July 21, 2021 letter.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Authorize the Mayor to sign a response letter to District Attorney George Gascón
regarding the impact of his Special Directives on public safety.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: William Wynder, City Attorney
REVIEWED BY: same as above
APPROVED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Draft City letter in Response to DA Gascón’s July 21 letter (page A-1)
B. DA Gascón’s response to the City’s concerns regarding Special Directives
(dated July 21, 2021) (page B-1)
C. City’s concerns regarding Special Directive Policies impacting public safety
(dated June 10, 2021) (page C-1)
D. Resolution No. 2021-33 (page D-1)
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
On June 1, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2021-22 affirming the City’s
support of victims’ rights in response to Los Angeles County District Attorney (DA) George
Gascón’s Special Directives and authorized the Mayor to sign a letter to DA Gascón
expressing the City’s concerns with the impact of the directives on public safety (see
Attachment C).
At its June 1 meeting, the City Council also provided direction to Staff to bring back a
discussion on a vote of no confidence in DA Gascón if the DA’s Office did not timely
1
CITYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
respond to the letter. On June 20, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2021 -
33, declaring a vote of “no confidence” in DA Gascón (see Attachment D).
On June 21, 2021, the day after the City Council adopted a resolution of “no confidence,”
the City received a response from DA Gascón addressing the City’s concerns (see
Attachment B). The City Attorney’s Office has prepared a response to this letter, for the
City Council’s consideration (see Attachment A). What follows is a summary of DA
Gascón’s letter and the arguments made in the draft response letter:
Special Directive 20-06 (Elimination of Bail):
DA Gascón: DA Gascón cites the People v. Humphrey case as the origins
of his pretrial release directive.
City Response: The draft letter rebuts the argument that the Humphrey case
can be used to expand the elimination of bail and further details crimes that
would not have to post bail under Special Directive 20 -06, such as
solicitation to commit murder and felony assault, posing a significant danger
to public safety.
Special Directive 20-07 (Dismissal of Certain Misdemeanor Charges)
DA Gascón: DA Gascón says that misdemeanor cases account for 70% of
all cases, consuming resources that could be used for prevention and
prosecution of violent offenses and cites a study that shows people who
were arrested but not prosecuted for low level non-violent misdemeanors
were less likely to commit another crime than those who were prosecuted.
City Response: The draft letter rebuts the analysis of the case cited by DA
Gascón and expresses the City’s concern of the prospect that serial
misdemeanants will never be prosecuted for their chronic violations under
this Directive.
Special Directive 20-08; 20-08.2 (Elimination of Sentence
Enhancements)
DA Gascón: DA Gascón cites studies that show excessive sentences can
drive re-offense and future victimization, driving a carceral system that
syphons billions into jails and prisons and away from communities.
City Response: The draft letter examines the current method of determining
probation-eligible offenses and that the Special Directive would require
prosecutors to offer a plea bargain that results in the defendant going on
probation rather than serving time in custody. The letter cites data f rom the
U.S. Department of Justice that shows the number of crimes committed
dropped dramatically during the years that California enacted and enforced
tough sentencing for habitual felons.
The City is strongly supportive of policies that protect public safety, particularly through
the provision of mental health and social services, but these Special Directives undermine
2
the ability for crime deterrence and prevention, considering that many proposed pre-filing
diversion programs are either unfunded or have yet to be created. The letter urges DA
Gascón to reevaluate the directives in light of the concerns raised in the letter and the
unintended adverse impacts the same are having on public safety in Los Angeles County.
Staff recommends the City Council consider authorizing the Mayor to sign the attached
letter in response to DA Gascón’s letter dated July 21, 2021 , to express the City’s
concerns regarding the Special Directives’ potential detrim ental impacts on public safety
and to continue the dialogue with the District Attorney’s Office.
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternative actions are available for
the City Council’s consideration:
1. Identify revised language to add to the letter.
2. Do not authorize the Mayor to sign the letter.
3. Take other action, as deemed appropriate.
3
August 3, 2021 Via Email
Honorable George Gascón
Los Angeles County District Attorney
Hall of Justice
211 West Temple Street
Los Angeles CA 90012
SUBJECT: Concerns Regarding Special Directive Policies Impacting Public Safety
Honorable District Attorney:
The City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes acknowledges receipt of your July
21, 2021 letter. Unfortunately, your letter arrived after the community urged the Council
to adopt its resolution of “no confidence” at the City Council meeting of July 20, 2021. The
City does appreciate your thoughtful comments.
Like you, the City Council acknowledges that reforms within the criminal justice system
are warranted. Propositions 47 and 57, for example, enjoyed support among the
electorate. California has saved millions of dollars by reducing the number of people
needlessly imprisoned. Reinvesting those savings into communities by incentivizing
prevention and treatment, and creating educational and economic opportunities, will help
make our communities safer.
However, criminal justice reforms that go to an extreme will, in our view, actually serve to
undermine public safety.1 It is out of our concern for public safety that, for the reasons
that will follow, we must respectfully disagree with your directives which we view as
“extreme.” For example, the Humphrey decision, to which your letter makes reference,
1 In an “op. ed.” piece, dated June 21, 2021, entitled “It’s Time for Californians to Recognize that Prop.
47 Criminal Justice Reform Failed,” the Times of San Diego observed that “San Diego County [is]
inundated with property crime . . . . But even if the crime victim has a video of the thief stealing a
package off a porch or a bicycle from the driveway, not much will be done to apprehend the perpetrator
due to . . . restrictions imposed by Proposition 47. This proposition, approved by voters in 2014, makes
it almost impossible to incarcerate shoplifters and thieves. Proposition 47 it is a failed experiment in
criminal justice reform that needs to be changed so we can put a stop to property crime. . . . The intent
of the law is admirable, but the unintended consequences are a public safety disaster for San Diego
residents and store owners.”
A-1
CITY OF
l::.RIC ALEGRIA, MAYOR
DAVID[) 8RADI FY. MAYOR r1RO TFM
JOI IN Cl~Ull<SI li\NI<. COUNCIL ME:M13E:I,
l<.EN DYDA C OU NCILMEMBER
8N/H1\l,1\ ~rl,l<i\l,O. C OU NCIi Ml'Ml-lrl<
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
District Attorney Gascón
August 3, 2021
Page 2
does require that a court review three criteria in making a bail determination.2 But, our
Supreme Court certainly does not go as far as your Special Directive 20-06.
Your “extreme” special directive, on the other hand, com mands that your staff “shall not
request cash bail for any misdemeanor, non-serious felony, or nonviolent felony
offense.”3 We are advised that the maximum discretion your directive authorizes is for
your prosecutors to request that a court impose the “least restrictive means” which you
describe as anything from “no conditions” to electronic monitoring or home detention. For
the community of Rancho Palos Verdes, this policy strays far beyond the requirements of
the California Supreme Court and represents a significant danger to public safety.4
We are equally troubled by your “extreme” Special Directive 20 -07, which declines to
prosecute certain misdemeanor charges, including trespassing, disturbing the peace,
criminal threats, drug and paraphernalia possession, under the influence of controlled
substance, public intoxication, and resisting arrest. The study to which you cite, and upon
2 The Humphrey opinion sets forth a three-part framework to assist courts in making a bail
determination:
Non-Financial Conditions. Provided “the record reflects the risk of flight or a risk to public or victim
safety, the court should consider whether nonfinancial conditions of release may reasonably protect
the public and the victim or reasonably assure the arrestee’s presence at trial.”
Money Bail the Defendant Can Reasonably Afford to Pay. “If the court concludes that money bail
is reasonably necessary, then the court must consider the individual arrestee’s ability to pay, along
with the seriousness of the charged offense and the arrestee’s criminal record, and—unless there is
a valid basis for detention—set bail at a level that the arrestee can reasonably afford.”
Pretrial Detention Order. “[I]f the court concludes that public or victim safety, or the arrestee’s
appearance in court, cannot be reasonably assured if the arrestee is released, it may detain the
arrestee only if it first finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that no nonfinancial condition of release
can reasonably protect those interests.”
3 We are advised that the following is a non-exhaustive list of crimes that are considered neither
serious nor violent which thus qualify for zero cash bail under your policy: Solicitation to commit
murder; Felony assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury in violation of Penal
Code §Section 245(4)(a); False imprisonment to prevent arrest such that it increases the risk of harm
to the victim in violation of Penal Code § 210.5; Felony domestic violence resulting in a traumatic
condition in violation of Penal Code § 273.5; Felony use of force or threats against a witness or victim
of a crime in violation of Penal Code § 140; Felony resisting a peace officer and causing serious injury
in violation of Penal Code § 148.10; A felony hate crime with present ability to commit violent injury,
or which does cause injury pursuant to Penal Code § 422.7; Felony elder or dependent adult abuse
likely to cause great bodily harm or death in violation of Penal Code § 368(b)(1); Molestation of a child
aged 15 and older in violation of Penal Code § 288(c); Sexual penetration of a mentally disabled or
developmentally disabled victim, a drugged victim, or an unconscious victim in violation of Penal Code
§ 289(b), (d) or (e); Sodomy of a mentally disabled or developmentally disabled victim, a drugged
victim, or an unconscious victim in violation of Penal Code § 286(f), (g), or (i); Oral copulation of a
mentally disabled or developmentally disabled victim, a drugged victim, or an unconscious victim in
(of Penal Code § 287f), (g), or (i); Human trafficking of a minor for commercial sex acts in violation of
Penal Code § 236.1(c)(1).
4 Moreover, as you acknowledge, the voters of California rejected Proposition 25 which would have
eliminated cash bail.
A-2
District Attorney Gascón
August 3, 2021
Page 3
which you seem to rely for your directive, hardly offers a conclusive endorsement of this
directive.
In the words of the authors of that study, the very most than can be said of their analysis
is that “(o)ur findings imply that not prosecuting marginal nonviolent misdemeanor
defendants substantially reduces their sub-sequent criminal justice contact. . . .”
(Emphasis added.) Particularly concerning to the City Council is the prospect that, under
your directive, many serial misdemeanants will never be prosecuted for their chronic
violations. We urge you to consider that such individuals can wreak havoc on a community
and make our residents feel unsafe in their own homes and neighborhoods.
Most “extreme,” in our view, is your Special Directive 20-08 and 20-08.2. This directive
provides that “[i]f the charged offense is probation-eligible, probation shall be the
presumptive offer absent extraordinary circumstances warranting a state prison
commitment.” (Emphasis added.) Unfortunately, our research indicates that nearly every
crime is probation eligible, up to and including murder. Carjacking is probation eligible.
Kidnapping is probation eligible.5
What typically results in an alleged crime being ineligible for probation is the addition of
a sentencing enhancements; the use of a deadly weapon or infliction of great bodily injury
for example. Since the filing of all but a handful of sentencing enhancements is prohibited
under your directive, we are concerned that this means that nearly every crime remains
probation eligible. Moreover, your directive does not define what constitutes an
“extraordinary circumstance” that would justify a deviation from your directive. As we
understand your policy, your prosecutors are required to offer a plea bargain that results
in the defendant going home on probation rather than serving time in custody.
We have also reviewed the additional study to which your letter makes reference. For our
part, we would urge you to carefully consider the peer-reviewed study prepared by the
Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, entitled “Sentence Length and Recidivism: A Review
of the Research” which we view as reaching a contrary conclusion. We are advised that
data available from the U.S. Department of Justice demonstrates that the number of
crimes committed during the years that California enacted and enforced tough sentencing
for habitual felons, crime rates dropped dramatically. Comparing crimes reported in 1992
with 2011, there were 932,996 (45%) fewer of the seven major crimes, 190,681 (55%)
fewer violent crimes, and 2,129 (54%) fewer murders.
5 This “extreme” directive, in our view, only facilitates recidivism among offenders. As you know,
California has among the highest rates of recidivism in the nation. According to a 2012 report by the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, more than 65% of those released from
California’s prison system return within three years. Seventy-three percent of the recidivist committed
a new crime or violated parole within the first year. These numbers have not changed significantly
over the years. A probation-presumptive directive will, in our judgment, only embolden lawlessness
rather than protect our community.
A-3
District Attorney Gascón
August 3, 2021
Page 4
As a consequence, the City feels an obligation to support the actions taken by your
Deputy District Attorneys’ Association in successfully challenging some of your directives
before the Los Angeles County Superior Court. We have directed the City Attorney’s
office to closely monitor the appeal of this case (Los Angeles County Superior Court Case
No. 20STCP04250, Second Appellate District Case No. B310845). Notwithstanding, the
City appreciates that you have agreed to abide by the decision of the lower court. Please
understand that our support for this lawsuit is not intended as an afront to you personally
or professionally, but rather as a respectful way to oppose what we believe are “extreme”
directives that are contrary to the best interests of justice.
Finally, the City is strongly supportive of those pol icies that protect public safety,
particularly through the provision of mental health and social services; respectfully, your
directives undermine crime deterrence and prevention, considering that many proposed
pre-filing diversion programs are either unfunded or have yet to be created. We urge you
to reevaluate your directives in light of the concerns raised in this letter and the unintended
adverse impacts the same are having on public safety on Los Angeles County residents.
Sincerely,
Eric Alegria
Mayor, City of Rancho Palos Verdes
cc: L.A. County Board of Supervisors
Jeff Kiernan, League of California Cities
Marcel Rodarte, California Contract Cities Association
Jackie Bacharach, South Bay Cities Council of Governments
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council and City Manager
Captain James Powers, Lomita Station, L.A. County Sheriff’s Department
Association of Deputy District Attorneys
A-4
GEORGE GASCÓN
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
HALL OF JUSTICE
211 WEST TEMPLE STREET LOS ANGELES, CA 90012 (213) 974-3500
July 21, 2021
The Honorable Eric Alegria
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275
Re: Concerns Regarding Special Directive Policies Impacting Public Safety
Dear Mayor Alegria,
Thank you for contacting me on behalf of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to share concerns
related to my office’s policies. I lead a community-first administration and we are committed to
doing everything we can to clarify misconceptions that have arisen surrounding my Special
Directives. To address your concerns, I have included some brief responses below.
As your elected District Attorney, I am committed to enhancing public safety. I am looking
forward to partnering with the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to ensure that the concerns of your
constituents are answered, and that my office remains as transparent and accessible as possible.
Cash Bail (Special Directive 20-06):
As you may remember, the “zero bail” policy was implemented for certain non-violent, non-
serious misdemeanors and felony arrests in response to COVID-19 health concerns under the
prior administration. That policy remains in place. When I assumed office, I issued an additional
pretrial release directive, the origins of which stem from a recent court case (People v.
Humphrey). The court case was first decided in 2018 and greatly influenced my directive. A few
months into my administration, Humphrey was affirmed by highest court in our state: the
California Supreme Court. Consequently, LADA’s cash bail policy now mirrors the “law of the
land” for California as a whole, as determined by the Court.
In both the Humphrey decision and my pre-trial policy, however, there are exceptions. A person
can be remanded based on (1) their threat of danger to the community and (2) the risk of flight.
Misdemeanor Cases (Special Directive 20-07):
Misdemeanors account for approximately 70% of all cases filed every year by our office. They
consume vast resources that could be used on the prevention and prosecution of violent offenses.
Prosecuting non-violent, non-serious misdemeanors are not a proper expenditure of our
resources. In addition, prosecuting first-time non-violent misdemeanors actually increases the
B-1
The Honorable Eric Alegria
July 21, 2021
Page two
likelihood of re-offense. However, a recent study shows people who were arrested but not
prosecuted for low level non-violent misdemeanors (such as those in Special Directive 20-07:
trespassing, disturbing the peace, drug and paraphernalia possession, under the influence of
controlled substance, public intoxication, and resisting arrest), were 58% less likely to commit
another crime in the following two years, than those who were prosecuted for that same minor
crime. Non-prosecution also reduced the rate at which nonviolent misdemeanor defendants were
charged with subsequent violent offenses within two years by 64%, relative to comparably
prosecuted defendants.
Agencies equipped with the social-service tools necessary to address the underlying causes of
offenses such as unlicensed driving, sex work, drug possession, drinking in public, and
trespassing, are best positioned to prevent recidivism and will thus be empowered to provide
help to those in need. There is no public safety benefit to prosecution over services, for first
offenders of these non-violent crimes. Rather, pursuing such cases actually deters our ability to
focus on the crimes that harm our communities the most.
That being said, the Directive also instructs offenders who do pose an identifiable safety risk or
engage in specific repeat offenses to be prosecuted accordingly (page 2 of Special Directive 20-
07).
If such cases are not being pursued accordingly in Rancho Palos Verdes, please advise your local
law enforcement to track the names and dates of the arrest for the declined offenses in order to
document a repetitive behavior that needs our attention.
Sentencing Enhancements (Special Directive 20-08; 20-08.2):
Sentencing enhancements are driving mass incarceration in California. Enhancements have
never been shown to enhance safety, but excessive sentences have been shown to drive re-
offense and future victimization. The purpose of my office is to not only seek justice for existing
victims of crime, but to prevent future victims.
Enhancements are also the primary driver of a carceral system that needlessly syphons billions
into jails and prisons, and away from our communities and the investments victims of crime want
us to make. Enhancements are also three times more likely to be applied to defendants who are
African American or mentally ill. We cannot continue to pursue approaches that criminalize and
harm our communities, while providing no public safety benefit to them.
This office does, however, continue to seek sentencing as provided by law. Most felony offenses
have a sentencing triad. For example, an individual convicted of violating Penal Code section
211 (Robbery) can be sentenced to either 2, 3, or up to 5 years, or 4, 5, or up to 6 years in state
prison. Depending on the facts of the case, the office has the discretion to pursue any of the
above. Enhancements have served as simply extra time added on these base sentences. They can
add years or often decades on top of already lengthy prison sentences, which research has shown
B-2
The Honorable Eric Alegria
July 21, 2021
Page three
does not provide a public safety benefit. The underlying charges have their own punishment
scheme.
Punishment must be in the community’s best interest, proportional, and it must serve a
rehabilitative or restorative purpose. Sentencing enhancements do not provide any public safety
benefit, and therefore are no longer pursued by this office, excluding those that victimize our
most vulnerable (Special Directive 20-08.2). However, even in the those instances I am
committed to working with state legislators to pursue crime-specific bills to more effectively
target the root causes of these violations--an approach that has been shown to be effective, where
enhancements have actually failed.
In the United States, Prosecutors have nearly absolute discretion regarding whether or not to
bring criminal charges and what charges to bring. This is not unique to Los Angeles or
California. It is in line with standard legal procedure and within my office’s purview to decide
which charges to bring and when. Prosecutorial decisions are not subject to judicial review or
reversal except in extremely narrow circumstances.
I do not take this responsibility lightly. One of the many reasons I sought this office was to
improve the health and safety of our communities--for my family, and yours. Public safety is
paramount to the work of the District Attorney's office, and to my life's work. As a former police
chief, assistant police chief, and District Attorney in three major cities, I've been able to reduce
violent crime in every position I have held. Reducing violent crime throughout Los Angeles
County continues to be my priority goal. My office is taking proactive steps and using innovative
approaches towards this effort, in tandem with the work to unwind ineffective, outdated,
expensive, and racist approaches that have been proven to only counteract this goal.
I hope this response addresses your concerns. I remain deeply committed to public safety, and to
our communities. I look forward to working with you in the future.
In partnership,
GEORGE GASCÓN
District Attorney
cc: L.A. County Board of Supervisors
Jeff Kiernan, League of California Cities
Marcel Rodarte, California Contract Cities Association
Jackie Bacharach, South Bay Cities Council of Governments
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council and City Manager
Captain James Powers, Lomita Station, L.A. County Sheriff’s Department
Association of Deputy District Attorneys
B-3
Eric Alegria, Mayor
David D. Bradley, Mayor Pro Tem
John Cruikshank, Councilmember
Ken Dyda, Councilmember
Barbara Ferraro, Councilmember
June 10, 2021 Via Email
The Honorable George Gascón
Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office
211 West Temple Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90012
SUBJECT: Concerns Regarding Special Directive Policies Impacting Public
Safety
Dear District Attorney Gascón:
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is concerned that your Special Directive policies are
negatively impacting public safety. The District Attorney’s Office has a legal and ethical
responsibility to execute laws enacted by voters and the Legislature, to prevent and
prosecute crime, and protect the general public. Your unilaterally-issued Special
Directives undermine the legislative and ballot process and risk the safety of the general
public.
One of the major concerns in our community is that criminals believe they can commit
certain crimes with impunity under your Special Directives. When deterrence is
undermined, people and businesses are threatened, and their ability to operate and live
within a secure environment is compromised. Moreover, it hinders our public safety
programs with local law enforcement. We ask that you consider the impact of your
policies on the fate of residents, workers, and businesses.
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes values and places the highest priority on public
safety, with an emphasis on deterring crime and crime prevention. The issuance of
numerous Special Directives and two subsequent amendments raised a red flag as
these directives pose a serious threat to the well-being and safety of the residents of
Los Angeles County and the residents of the Palos Verdes Peninsula. These directives
included the following:
• Special Directive 20-06 eliminates cash bail for any misdemeanor, non-serious
felony, or non-violent felony offense.
• Special Directive 20-07 declines or dismisses several misdemeanor charges,
including trespassing, disturbing the peace, criminal threats, drug and
C-1
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
District Attorney Gascón
Page 2
paraphernalia possession, under the influence of controlled substance, public
intoxication, and resisting arrest.
• Special Directive 20-08 eliminates several sentence enhancements, including the
Three Strikes Law, gang enhancements, and violations of bail.
The Special Directives listed undermine the legislative and ballot initiative process and
risk the safety of the general public. It is of the utmost importance for us that policies
which aim to restructure or amend prosecutorial directives are consistent with state law
and issued with reasonable intent and priority to enhance public safety to protect the
general public and victims’ rights. It is imperative the District Attorney’s Office uphold its
duties and responsibilities to appropriately prosecute criminals, based on the evidence
presented and consistent with state law.
We are supportive of policies that protect public safety through mental health and social
services, but these Special Directives instead undermine the ability for crime deterrence
and prevention.
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes demands that the Los Angeles County District
Attorney’s Office uphold the laws of the state, whether they were established by the
state Legislature or the voters, and demands no Special Directives be issued which
contradict these laws.
Sincerely,
Eric Alegria
Mayor
cc: L.A. County Board of Supervisors
Jeff Kiernan, League of California Cities
Marcel Rodarte, California Contract Cities Association
Jacki Bacharach, South Bay Cities Council of Governments
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council and City Manager
Captain James Powers, Lomita Station, L.A. County Sheriff’s Department
Association of Deputy District Attorneys
C-2
D-1
I
I
I
RESOLUTION NO. 2021-33
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING A
VOTE OF "NO CONFIDENCE" IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY GEORGE GASCON
WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes values and places the highest priority
on public safety; and
WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes prioritizes the enhancement of public
safety and the protection of the general public and victims' rights; and
WHEREAS, Los Angeles County District Attorney George· Gascon has, since his
election, issued a series of "Special Directives" in December 2020, including Special
Directives 20-06, 20-07, and 20-08 that are of concern when it comes to public safety and
rising crime rates; and
WHEREAS, Special Directive 20-06 eliminates cash bail for any misdemeanor,
non-serious felony, or non-violent felony offense; and
WHEREAS, Special Directive 20-07 declines or dismisses several misdemeanor
charges, including trespassing, disturbing the peace, criminal threats, drug and
paraphernalia possession, under the influence of a controlled substance, public
intoxication, and resisting arrest; and
WHEREAS, Special Directive 20-08 eliminates several sentence enhancements,
including the Three Strikes Law, gang .enhancements, and violations of bail; and
WHEREAS, some of the Special Directives issued by Los Angeles County District
Attorney George Gascon contradict state laws that were enacted through the state
legislature as well as the legislative ballot initiative process to prevent and prosecute
crime and protect the general public; and
WHEREAS the Special Directives listed in this resolution undermine the legislative
and ballot initiative process and risk the safety of the general public; and
WHEREAS, policies that aim to restructure or amend prosecutorial directives need
to be consistent with state law and issued with reasonable intent and priority to enhance
public safety and ~rotect the general public and victims' rights.
Resolution No. 2021-33
Page 1 of 2
D-2
NOW BE IT, THEREFORE, RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has, in public
meeting, taken and passed a vote of "no confidence" in Los Angeles County District
Attorney George Gascon.
Section 2: The City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes directs staff to
transmit this resolution to Mr. Gascon and to such other applicable and interested offices
and organizations as staff deems appropriate.
Section 3: The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THE 20TH DAY OF JULY 2021.
ATTEST:
State of Cal:fornia )
County of Los Angeles ) ss
City of Rancho Palos Verdes )
I, Teresa Takaoka, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the
above Resolution No. 2021-33 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said
City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on July 20, 2021.
~L, 1ty Clerk
Resolution No. 2021-33
Page 2 of 2
I
I
I