HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 12a - Appoint Voting Delegates for the 2018 League of California Cities Annual Conference
DATE: August, 21 2018
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Dominic Lazzaretto, City Manager
By: Laena Shakarian, Management Aide
SUBJECT: DESIGNATE MAYOR TAY AS THE VOTING DELEGATE AND CITY
MANAGER LAZZARETTO AS THE ALTERNATE VOTING DELEGATE
FOR THE 2018 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL
CONFERENCE
Recommendation: Approve
SUMMARY
The League of California Cities (the “League”) Annual Conference is scheduled for
September 12-14 in Long Beach, California. An important part of the Conference is the
Annual Business Meeting that will take place at 12:30 p.m. on Friday, September 14.
Consistent with League bylaws, a City’s Voting Delegate and up to two Alternates must
be designated by the City Council to consider and take action on resolution s that
establish League policy. At this time, Mayor Tay is registered to attend the conference
along with City Manager Lazzaretto.
Included in this year’s policy agenda is the consideration of two resolutions. Resolution
No. 1 was introduced by the City of Beverly Hills and calls on the League to address the
increasing vulnerabilities to local municipal authority and explore the preparation of
legislation that would further strengthen local authority. On July 10, the Mayor Tay sent
a letter to the League in support of Resolution No. 1 (Attachment No. 1).
Resolution No. 2 was introduced by the City of Malibu and supports repealing existing
legislation to provide cities with the authority to decide how to regulate pesticides within
their own jurisdictions based on local concerns. The City Council may wish to share its
preference with the City’s delegation on this item. Because this is another local control
issue, it is recommended that the City Council support Resolution No. 2.
Appoint Voting Delegates for the 2018
League of California Cities Annual Conference
August 21, 2018
Page 2 of 3
Therefore, it is recommended that the City Council provide the following direction:
1. Designate Mayor Tay as the Voting Member and City Manager Lazzaretto as
the Alternate.
2. Provide direction to the Voting Member or Alternate to consider when voting
on the Conference Resolutions.
DISCUSSION
In order to vote on behalf of the City of Arcadia at the annual business meeting, the City
Council must select, by official action, a Voting Delegate and up to two Alternate Voting
Delegates, and provide evidence of such action to the Le ague by Friday, August 31,
2018. The Delegate and Alternate Delegate(s) must register at the Voting Delegate
Desk prior to the business meeting. Once the Voting Delegate and Alternate Voting
Delegate have been approved, staff will forward the required in formation to the League
(Attachment No. 2).
While it will be left to the Voting Delegate to consider the actual resolutions at the
annual business meeting, the Arcadia City Council has chosen in years past to provide
some initial thoughts and general direction to the Voting Delegate prior to the meeting to
help guide their deliberations. This year, two resolutions have been introduced for
consideration by the Annual Conference and referred to the League policy committees
(see Attachment No. 3). Resolution No. 1 focuses on strengthening local authority and
preserving the role of local democracy. Resolution No. 2 focuses on local control for the
regulation of pesticides.
Resolution No. 1: Strengthening Local Authority and Preserving the Role of Local
Democracy
The City of Beverly Hills has introduced Resolution No. 1, committing the League to
explore the preparation of a ballot measure and/or constitutional amendment that would
give the state’s voters an opportunity to further strengthen local authority and preserve
the role of local democracy. State legislation introduced in both 2017 and 2018 by the
legislature has continually threatened to erode local control. Whether this was Senate
Bill 649 (Hueso) Wireless Telecommunications Facilities or the more rec ently introduced
Senate Bill 827 (Wiener) Planning and Zoning: Transit -Rich Housing Bonus that was
defeated in Committee, the state legislature is continually introducing proposals that
undermine the ability of a local government to institute discretionary legislation that is
responsive to community needs.
Appoint Voting Delegates for the 2018
League of California Cities Annual Conference
August 21, 2018
Page 3 of 3
The proposed Resolution seeks to strengthen local control and ensure decisions on
local issues remain with each individual jurisdiction to decide based on the uniqueness
of their community and the constituents that live in each city. The passage of the
proposed Resolution recognizes that it is local government, not the state legislature,
that best understands the local community and is, therefore, best situated to regulate
and respond to local issues. On July 10, Mayor Tay sent a letter to the League in
support of Resolution No. 1 (Attachment No. 1). It would, therefore, be recommended
that the Voting Delegate vote in support of Resolution No. 1.
Resolution No. 2: Local Control for Pesticide Regulation
The City of Malibu has introduced Resolution No. 2, which supports the repeal of the
preemption clause in California Food and Agriculture Code Section 11501.1 to allow
cities across the state to regulate pesticides based on local concerns in their
communities. It is not likely that the City of Arcadia would choose to enact its own
pesticide regulations; however, local control is generally advantageous to communities
as each City can decide the appropriate level of service and protection for its citizens.
The proposed Resolution would provide cities with the authority to regulate the use of
pesticides in their own jurisdictions based on their own individual needs. It would,
therefore, be recommended that the Voting Delegate vote in support of Resolution No.
2.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct impact to the General Fund by taking a position on any of these
resolutions.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council provide the following direction:
1. Designate Mayor Tay as the Voting Member and City Manager Lazzaretto as the
Alternate.
2. Provide direction to the Voting Member or Alternate to consider when voting on
the Conference Resolutions.
Attachment No. 1 - Letter of Support for Beverly Hills Resolution
Attachment No. 2 - 2018 Annual Conference Voting Delegate/Alternate Form
Attachment No. 3 - 2018 Annual Conference Resolutions Packet
Attachment No. 1
Attachment No. 2
Annual Conference
Resolutions Packet
2018 Annual Conference Resolutions
Long Beach, California
September 12 – 14, 2018
Attachment No. 3
INFORMATION AND PROCEDURES
RESOLUTIONS CONTAINED IN THIS PACKET: The League bylaws provide that
resolutions shall be referred by the president to an appropriate policy committee for review and
recommendation. Resolutions with committee recommendations shall then be considered by the
General Resolutions Committee at the Annual Conference.
This year, two resolutions have been introduced for consideration at the Annual Conference and
referred to League policy committees.
POLICY COMMITTEES: Five policy committees will meet at the Annual Conference to consider
and take action on the resolutions referred to them. The committees are: Environmental Quality,
Governance, Transparency & Labor Relations; Housing, Community & Economic Development;
Revenue and Taxation; and Transportation, Communication & Public Works. The committees will
meet from 9:00 – 11:00 a.m. on Wednesday, September 12, at the Hyatt Regency Long Beach. The
sponsors of the resolutions have been notified of the time and location of the meeting.
GENERAL RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE: This committee will meet at 1:00 p.m. on Thursday,
September 13, at the Hyatt Long Beach, to consider the reports of the policy committees regarding
the resolutions. This committee includes one representative from each of the League’s regional
divisions, functional departments and standing policy committees, as well as other individuals
appointed by the League president. Please check in at the registration desk for room location.
ANNUAL LUNCHEON/BUSINESS MEETING/GENERAL ASSEMBLY: This meeting
will be held at 12:30 p.m. on Friday, September 14, at the Long Beach Convention Center.
PETITIONED RESOLUTIONS: For those issues that develop after the normal 60-day
deadline, a resolution may be introduced at the Annual Conference with a petition signed by
designated voting delegates of 10 percent of all member cities (48 valid signatures required) and
presented to the Voting Delegates Desk at least 24 hours prior to the time set for convening the
Annual Business Meeting of the General Assembly. This year, that deadline is 12:30 p.m.,
Thursday, September 13. Resolutions can be viewed on the League's Web site:
www.cacities.org/resolutions.
Any questions concerning the resolutions procedures may be directed to Meg Desmond at the
League office: mdesmond@cacities.org or (916) 658-8224
1
GUIDELINES FOR ANNUAL CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS
Policy development is a vital and ongoing process within the League. The principal means for
deciding policy on the important issues facing cities is through the League’s seven standing policy
committees and the board of directors. The process allows for timely consideration of issues in a
changing environment and assures city officials the opportunity to both initiate and influence policy
decisions.
Annual conference resolutions constitute an additional way to develop League policy. Resolutions
should adhere to the following criteria.
Guidelines for Annual Conference Resolutions
1. Only issues that have a direct bearing on municipal affairs should be considered or adopted
at the Annual Conference.
2. The issue is not of a purely local or regional concern.
3. The recommended policy should not simply restate existing League policy.
4. The resolution should be directed at achieving one of the following objectives:
(a) Focus public or media attention on an issue of major importance to cities.
(b) Establish a new direction for League policy by establishing general principals around
which more detailed policies may be developed by policy committees and the board of
directors.
(c) Consider important issues not adequately addressed by the policy committees and
board of directors.
(d) Amend the League bylaws (requires 2/3 vote at General Assembly).
2
LOCATION OF MEETINGS
Policy Committee Meetings
Wednesday, September 12, 9:00 – 11:00 a.m.
Hyatt Regency Long Beach
200 South Pine Avenue, Long Beach
The following committees will be meeting:
1. Environmental Quality
2. Governance, Transparency & Labor Relations
3. Housing, Community & Economic Development
4. Revenue & Taxation
5. Transportation, Communication & Public Works
General Resolutions Committee
Thursday, September 13, 1:00 p.m.
Hyatt Regency Long Beach
200 South Pine Avenue, Long Beach
Annual Business Meeting and General Assembly Luncheon
Friday, September 14, 12:30 p.m.
Long Beach Convention Center
300 East Ocean Boulevard, Long Beach
3
KEY TO ACTIONS TAKEN ON RESOLUTIONS
Resolutions have been grouped by policy committees to which they have been assigned.
Number Key Word Index Reviewing Body Action
1 2 3
1 - Policy Committee Recommendation
to General Resolutions Committee
2 - General Resolutions Committee
3 - General Assembly
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY POLICY COMMITTEE
1 2 3
2 Repeal Preemption of Regulating Pesticides
GOVERNANCE, TRANSPARENCY & LABOR RELATIONS POLICY COMMITTEE
1 2 3
1 Local Municipal Authority, Control, and Revenue
HOUSING, COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICY COMMITTEE
1 2 3
1 Local Municipal Authority, Control, and Revenue
REVENUE & TAXATION POLICY COMMITTEE
1 2 3
1 Local Municipal Authority, Control, and Revenue
TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATION & PUBLIC WORKS POLICY COMMITTEE
1 2 3
1 Local Municipal Authority, Control, and Revenue
Information pertaining to the Annual Conference Resolutions will also be posted on each
committee’s page on the League website: www.cacities.org. The entire Resolutions Packet will
be posted at: www.cacities.org/resolutions.
4
KEY TO ACTIONS TAKEN ON RESOLUTIONS (Continued)
Resolutions have been grouped by policy committees to which they have been assigned.
KEY TO REVIEWING BODIES KEY TO ACTIONS TAKEN
1. Policy Committee
A Approve
2. General Resolutions Committee
D Disapprove
3. General Assembly
N No Action
R Refer to appropriate policy committee for
study
ACTION FOOTNOTES
a Amend+
* Subject matter covered in another resolution
Aa Approve as amended+
** Existing League policy Aaa Approve with additional amendment(s)+
*** Local authority presently exists
Ra Refer as amended to appropriate policy
committee for study+
Raa Additional amendments and refer+
Da Amend (for clarity or brevity) and
Disapprove+
Na Amend (for clarity or brevity) and take No
Action+
W Withdrawn by Sponsor
Procedural Note:
The League of California Cities resolution process at the Annual Conference is guided by the League
Bylaws. A helpful explanation of this process can be found on the League’s website by clicking on this
link: Resolution Process.
5
1. RESOLUTION OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES CALLING UPON THE
LEAGUE TO RESPOND TO THE INCREASING VULNERABILITIES TO LOCAL
MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY, CONTROL AND REVENUE AND EXPLORE THE
PREPARATION OF A BALLOT MEASURE AND/OR CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT THAT WOULD FURTHER STRENGTHEN LOCAL DEMOCRACY
AND AUTHORITY
Source: City of Beverly Hills
Concurrence of five or more cities/city officials: Cities: Arcadia, Burbank, Cupertino; Duarte;
Oceanside; Ontario; Palo Alto; Redondo Beach; Santa Cruz; Sunnyvale; Torrance; West
Hollywood
Referred to: Governance, Transparency & Labor Relations; Housing, Community & Economic
Development; Revenue and Taxation; and Transportation, Communication & Public Works
Policy Committees
WHEREAS, the State of California is comprised of diverse communities that are home
to persons of differing backgrounds, needs, and aspirations; yet united by the vision that the most
accessible, responsive, effective, and transparent form of democratic government is found at the
local level and in their own communities; and
WHEREAS, subsidiarity is the principle that democratic decisions are best made at the
most local level best suited to address the needs of the People, and suggests that local
governments should be allowed to find solutions at the local level before the California
Legislature imposes uniform and overreaching measures throughout the State; and
WHEREAS, the California Constitution recognizes that local self-government is the
cornerstone of democracy by empowering cities to enact local laws and policies designed to
protect the local public health, safety and welfare of their residents and govern the municipal
affairs of charter cities; and
WHEREAS, over recent years there have been an increasing number of measures
introduced within the Legislature or proposed for the state ballot, often sponsored by powerful
interest groups and corporations, aimed at undermining the authority, control and revenue
options for local governments and their residents; and
WHEREAS, powerful interest groups and corporations are willing to spend millions in
political contributions to legislators to advance legislation, or to hire paid signature gatherers to
qualify deceptive ballot proposals attempting to overrule or silence the voices of local residents
and their democratically-elected local governments affected by their proposed policies; and
WHEREAS, powerful interest groups and corporations propose and advance such
measures because they view local democracy as an obstacle that disrupts the efficiency of
implementing corporate plans and increasing profits and therefore object when local residents—
either through their elected city councils, boards of supervisors, special district boards, or by
action of local voters—enact local ordinances and policies tailored to fit the needs of their
individual communities; and
6
WHEREAS, public polling repeatedly demonstrates that local residents and voters have
the highest levels of confidence in levels of government that are closest to the people, and thus
would be likely to strongly support a ballot measure that would further strengthen the ability of
communities to govern themselves without micromanagement from the state or having their
authority undermined by deep-pocketed and powerful interests and corporations.
RESOLVED that the League of California Cities should assess the increasing
vulnerabilities to local authority, control and revenue and explore the preparation of a ballot
measure and/or constitutional amendment that would give the state’s voters an opportunity to
further strengthen local authority and preserve the role of local democracy to best preserve their
local quality of life.
7
Background Information on Resolution No. 1
Source: City of Beverly Hills
Background:
The relationship between the state and cities functions best as a partnership where major
policy issues are approached by the state with careful consideration of the varied conditions
among the state’s 482 cities and 58 counties. There should be an appreciation of the
importance of retaining local flexibility to tailor policies to reflect the needs and
circumstances of the local community. Still, cities have had to respond to state legislation
that undermines the principle of “local control” over important issues such as land use,
housing, finance, infrastructure, elections, labor relations and other issues directly affecting
cities.
Alexis de Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America” examined the operation of the principle
of subsidiarity in the early 19th century. Subsidiarity is an organizing principle that states
matters should be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority.
Tocqueville wrote that "Decentralization has not only an administrative value, but also a
civic dimension, since it increases the opportunities for citizens to take interest in public
affairs; it makes them get accustomed to using freedom.” Tocqueville’s works were first
published in 1835 with a second volume published in 1840. The United States had a
population of just 17 million people in 1840, less than 50% of the population of California
today and yet there was value found in decentralization.
Another consideration is to examine how the European Union (“EU”) operates. There are
two prime guiding principles for the EU. The first is principle of conferral, which states
that the EU should act only within the limits of the competences conferred on it by the
treaties. The second, which is relevant to this resolution, is the principle of subsidiarity,
which states that the EU should act only where an objective cannot be sufficiently achieved
by the member states acting alone. Sacramento should operate in a similar manner and only
govern when objectives need to be achieved at a much larger level than a local government.
For years, Governor Jerry Brown himself has spoken on the principle of “subsidiarity.”
Governor Brown has asserted for numerous years that local officials should have the
flexibility to act without micromanagement from Sacramento.
Legislation introduced in both 2017 and 2018 by the state legislature has continually
threatened local control in flagrant opposition to the principle of subsidiarity. This has
included, but not been limited to, Senate Bill 649 (Hueso) Wireless Telecommunications
Facilities (“SB 649”) in 2017; AB 252 (Ridley-Thomas) Local government: taxation:
prohibition: video streaming services (“AB 252”) in 2017; and Senate Bill 827 (Wiener)
Planning and Zoning: Transit-Rich Housing Bonus (“SB 827”) in 2018.
SB 649 would have applied to all telecommunications providers and the equipment they
use, including “micro-wireless,” “small cell,” and “macro-towers,” as well as a range of
video and cable services. The bill would have allowed the use of “small cell” wireless
8
antennas and related equipment without a local discretionary permit in all zoning districts
as a use by-right, subject only to an administrative permit. Additionally, SB 649 provided a
de facto CEQA exemption for the installation of such facilities and precluded consideration
by the public for the aesthetic, nuisance, and environmental impacts of these facilities. SB
649 would have also removed the ability for cities to obtain fair and reasonable
compensation when authorizing the use of public property and rights of way from a “for
profit” company for this type of use.
SB 649 passed out of the State Assembly by a vote of 46-16-17 and out of the State Senate
by a vote of 22-10-8 despite over 300 cities and 47 counties in California providing letters
of opposition. Ultimately, Governor Brown vetoed the bill as he believed “that the interest
which localities have in managing rights of way requires a more balanced solution than the
one achieved in this bill.” It is strongly believed that the issue of wireless
telecommunications facilities is not over and it is anticipated that legislation will be
introduced on this topic in January 2019.
Another example of an incursion into local control was AB 252, which would have
prohibited any tax on the sale or use of video streaming services, including sales and use
taxes and utility user taxes. Over the last two decades, voters in 107 cities and 3 counties
have adopted measures to modernize their Utility User Tax (“UUT”) ordinances. Of these
jurisdictions, 87 cities and 1 county approved ordinances to allow a UUT on video
providers. Prior to its first Committee hearing, AB 252 received opposition letters from 37
cities, the League of California Cities, South Bay Council of Governments, California
Contract Cities Association, and nine other organizations. This bill failed in the Assembly
Revenue and Taxation Committee 8-0-2, which the author of the Committee chaired.
More recently, SB 827 would have overridden local control on housing development that
was within ½ mile of a major transit stop or ¼ mile from a high-quality bus corridor as
defined by the legislation with some limitations. On April 17, 2018, SB 827 failed in the
Senate Transportation and Housing Committee 4-6-3 but was granted reconsideration. State
legislators have indicated they will continue to introduce legislation that will override local
zoning ordinances for the development of affordable housing in conjunction with mixed
use and/or luxury condominium/apartment housing.
These are just three examples of the increasing attempts by Sacramento to supersede local
control. Presently, there are discussions occurring in Sacramento to ban cities from creating
their own municipal broadband or to prohibit local ordinances over the regulation of shared
mobility devices such as dockless electric scooters. These decisions should remain with
each individual jurisdiction to decide based on the uniqueness of their community and the
constituents that live in each city.
Often fueled by the actions of special interest groups, Sacramento is continually attempting
to overreach their authority with various incursions on local control. The desire in
Sacramento to strip communities of their ability to make decisions over issues which
should remain at the local level seems to intensify each state legislative cycle. Increasingly,
legislation is being introduced with a “one-size-fits-all” approach which is detrimental in a
9
state with over 40 million residents that have extremely diverse communities from the
desert to the sea, from the southern to the northern borders.
Loren King in the book “Cities, Subsidiarity and Federalism” states, “Decisions should be
made at the lowest feasible scale possible”. The proposed resolution directs the League of
California Cities to assess the increasing vulnerabilities to local authority, control and
revenue. It also directs the League of California Cities to explore the preparation of a ballot
measure and/or constitutional amendment which would aim to ensure that decisions are
made as close to home as possible.
Local government, when done right, is the best form of democracy precisely because it is
closest to home. A ballot measure and/or constitutional amendment would provide the
state’s voters an opportunity to further strengthen local authority and maintain the role of
local democracy to best preserve their local quality of life while still leaving the appropriate
issues at the county, regional or state legislature depending on the topic. Any ballot
measure and/or constitutional amendment should institutionalize the principle of
subsidiarity, while encouraging inclusive regional cooperation that recognizes the diversity
of California’s many individual communities. The time has come to allow the residents of
California’s voters to decide if they prefer top down governance from Sacramento or
bottom up governing from their own locally elected officials.
10
League of California Cities Staff Analysis on Resolution No. 1
Staff: Dan Carrigg, Johnnie Pina
Committees: Governance, Transparency and Labor Relations
Housing, Community & Economic Development
Revenue & Taxation
Transportation, Communication and Public Works
Summary:
This Resolution states that the League of California Cities should assess the vulnerabilities to
local authority, control and revenue and explore the preparation of a ballot measure and or
constitutional amendment that would give the state’s voters an opportunity to further strengthen
local authority and preserve the role of local democracy.
Background:
The City of Beverly Hills is sponsoring this resolution in reaction to their concerns over
measures coming from the Legislature and the initiative process attempting to roll back local
control and hinder cities from providing optimal services to their residents.
As examples, the city cites the 2017-2018 legislative cycle, the Legislature introduced bills such
as Senate Bill 649 (Hueso) Wireless Telecommunications Facilities, and AB 252 (Ridley-
Thomas) proposing to prohibit taxes on video streaming services, and more recently Senate Bill
827 (Wiener) Planning and Zoning: Transit-Rich Housing. SB 649 was vetoed by the Governor
and SB 827 died in policy committee, however if these measures had been signed into law they
would have impinged on the ability of a local government to be responsive to the needs of their
constituents.
The city maintains that “local government, when done right, is the best form of democracy
precisely because it is closest to home. A ballot measure and/or constitutional amendment would
provide the state’s voters an opportunity to further strengthen local authority and maintain the
role of local democracy to best preserve their local quality of life while still leaving the
appropriate issues at the county, regional or state legislature depending on the topic.”
Fiscal Impact:
By requesting the League to “assess” vulnerabilities and “explore” the preparation of a ballot
measure that would further protect local authority, there are no proposals to be quantified. But it
is presumed that the League would not pursue a measure that did not have positive impacts of
further protecting local authority.
For the League as an organization, however, the fiscal impact of sponsoring a ballot measure can
be very expensive. It can take several million dollars to qualify a measure via signature
gathering, and much more to fund an effective campaign and overcome organized opposition.
Comments:
1) Ballot measure advocacy is a settled aspect of California’s political process. This year’s
November ballot is an example of that, with proposals ranging from dividing California
11
into three states, restoring rent control, repealing transportation funding, to funding
housing and water bonds. Three other measures are not on the November ballot after
their sponsors spent millions gathering signatures to qualify measures, then leveraged
last-minute legislative deals in exchange for pulling them from the ballot.
2) Most major stakeholder organizations in Sacramento have realized that they cannot rely
on legislative advocacy alone to protect their interests, but must develop and maintain the
capacity to protect their interests in the ballot process as well.
3) The League has been engaged in ballot advocacy for nearly 20 years. In the early 2000’s,
city officials were angered by repeated state raids of local revenues. These concerns led
to the League –-for the first time in its then 100-year history—developing a ballot
advocacy infrastructure that included forming and fundraising for an issues political
action committee (PAC), establishing a network of regional managers, and building a
coalition with other organizations that ultimately led to the passage of Prop. 1A of 2004.
Over the years, the League’s successful campaigns include the passage of Proposition 1A
and Proposition 99 and the defeat of Propositions 90 and 98.
a. Yes on Proposition 1A (2004)
As a result of the passage of Prop 1A, local government revenues that otherwise
would have been raided by the state legislature were kept in local coffers. This
resulted in increased funding for public safety, health, libraries, parks and other
locally delivered services. Proposition 1A PASSED WITH 83.7% OF THE
VOTE.
b. No on Proposition 90 (2006)
Prop. 90 was a well-financed special interest-backed initiative that sought to
eliminate most of local governments’ land use decision making authority. Led by
the League, the opposition educated voters on how this measure’s far reaching
provisions would have cost taxpayers billions of dollars by driving up the cost of
infrastructure projects, prevented voters and state and local agencies from
enacting environmental protections, jeopardized public safety services and more.
Proposition 90 FAILED WITH 52.4% OF THE VOTERS VOTING NO.
c. No on Proposition 98 Yes on Proposition 99 (2008)
Given the hidden agendas within Prop 98, our message was not always an easy
one to communicate to the electorate. The No on 98/ Yes on 99 campaign was
able to educate voters on the important differences between both measures. As a
result, important eminent domain reforms were enacted and both land use
decision making and rent control were preserved within our communities.
Proposition 98 FAILED WITH 61.6% OF THE VOTERS VOTING NO.
Proposition 99 PASSED BY 61% OF THE VOTE.
d. Yes on Proposition 22 (2010)
As a result of the passage, local governments have been able to pay for
infrastructure investment, create local jobs and avoid devastating cuts in our
communities. Proposition 22 APPROVED BY 60.7% OF VOTERS.
12
4) While the League has been able to recently defeat several major legislative proposals
aimed and undermining local authority, and avoid a battle over the Business
Roundtable’s measure in November due to the “soda tax” deal, the threats to local
authority and revenue remain a constant concern. Other interest groups may be
emboldened by some of the recent “deals” cut by ballot proponents and seek to
implement similar strategies for the 2020 ballot. The next Governor may also have
different philosophies then Governor Jerry Brown on “subsidiarity.”
5) The League’s President opted to send this resolution to four policy committees for
several reasons: (a) the recent major threats to local control covered broad policy areas:
telecom, land use, contracting, and revenue; and (b) having this issue vetted broadly
within the League policy process will provide a better assessment of the depth of concern
for the vulnerability to local control within the membership
6) If the membership chooses to approve this measure, it is strongly advisable to retain
continued flexibility for the League to “assess” vulnerabilities and “explore” options.
Any ballot initiative consideration must be approached very carefully by the organization.
It is a difficult and very expensive endeavor that can have additional political
ramifications. For 120 years the League’s core mission has been to protect local control -
- and it has gone to the ballot successfully before to do so -- but any such effort must be
approached thoughtfully, prudently and cautiously.
Existing League Policy:
Related to this Resolution, existing policy provides:
The League of California Cities’ Mission Statement is, “To expand and protect local
control for cities through education and advocacy. To enhance the quality of life for all
Californians”
The League of California Cities’ Summary of Existing Policy and Guidelines states,
“We Believe
o Local self-governance is the cornerstone of democracy.
o Our strength lies in the unity of our diverse communities of interest.
o In the involvement of all stakeholders in establishing goals and in solving
problems.
o In conducting the business of government with openness, respect, and civility.
o The spirit of public service is what builds communities.
o Open decision-making that is of the highest ethical standards honors the public
trust.
o Cities are the economic engine of California.
o The vitality of cities is dependent upon their fiscal stability and local autonomy.
o The active participation of all city officials increases the League’s effectiveness.
o Focused advocacy and lobbying is most effective through partnerships and
collaboration.
o Well-informed city officials mean responsive, visionary leadership, and effective
and efficient
o city operations.”
Click here to view the Summary of Existing Policy and Guiding Principles 2018.
13
Support:
The following letters of concurrence were received: Steven Scharf, Cupertino City Council
Member; Michael S. Goldman, Sunnyvale City Council; Lydia Kou, Palo Alto City Council
Member; David Terrazas, Mayor of Santa Cruz; Peter Weiss, Mayor of Oceanside; Alan D.
Wapner, Mayor pro Tem of Ontario; Patrick Furey, Mayor of Torrance; Lauren Meister, West
Hollywood Council Member; Liz Reilly, Duarte Mayor Pro Tem; Bill Brand, Mayor of Redondo
Beach; Sho Tay, Mayor of Arcadia; Emily Gabel-Luddy, Mayor of Burbank.
14
2. A RESOLUTION OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES DECLARING ITS
COMMITMENT TO SUPPORT THE REPEAL OF PREEMPTION IN CALIFORNIA
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE CODE § 11501.1 THAT PREVENTS LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS FROM REGULATING PESTICIDES
Source: City of Malibu
Concurrence of five or more cities/city officials: Cities: Agoura Hills; Calabasas; Davis; Menlo
Park; Moorpark; Ojai; Oxnard; Richmond; West Hollywood
Referred to: Environmental Quality
WHEREAS, anticoagulant rodenticides are poisonous bait products that are poisoning
80 to 90% of predator wildlife in California. These poisons cause painful, internal hemorrhaging
in non-target animals, including pets, that accidentally ingest the products. Approximately
10,000 children under the age of six are accidentally poisoned by anticoagulant rodenticides each
year nationwide; and
WHEREAS, in response to these harms, the California Department of Pesticide
Regulation banned the consumer purchase and use of second-generation anticoagulant
rodenticides in July 2014. Despite collecting data for almost four years after this ban, the
Department of Fish and Wildlife found no evidence supporting a decrease in poisonings by
anticoagulant rodenticides; and
WHEREAS, the state of California currently only recognizes the harm posed by second-
generation anticoagulant rodenticides, which are prohibited in state wildlife habitat areas but are
still available for agricultural purposes and by certified applicators throughout the state of
California; and
WHEREAS, first-generation anticoagulant rodenticides are still available to the public
and used throughout California without limitation; and
WHEREAS, nonpoisonous rodent control methods, such as controlling trash, sealing
buildings, setting traps, erecting raptor poles and owl boxes, and removing rodent nesting areas
are also effective rodent control methods; and
WHEREAS, the state of California preempts cities from regulating pesticides; and
WHEREAS, many cities across California have passed resolutions restricting pesticide
use on city property and have expressed the desire to ban the use of pesticides within their
jurisdictions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the General Assembly of the League of
California Cities, assembled in Long Beach, California on September 14, 2018, to do as follows:
1. Encourage the state of California to fund and sponsor further research into the negative
impacts of anticoagulant rodenticides to determine whether the use of these products
should be further restricted or banned statewide.
15
2. Direct the League of California Cities staff to consider creating a task force with other
organizations and jointly commission a report on the unintended negative impact of
anticoagulant rodenticides;
3. Encourage cities throughout California to eliminate use of anticoagulant rodenticides as
part of their maintenance program in city-owned parks, lands, and facilities and to report
on the effectiveness of other rodent control methods used in in their maintenance
program;
4. Encourage property owners throughout California to eliminate use of anticoagulant
rodenticides on their properties;
5. Encourage cities throughout California to join in these advocacy efforts to mitigate the
unintended negative impacts of anticoagulant rodenticides;
6. Endorse a repeal of California Food and Agriculture Code § 11501.1 to end local
preemption of regulating pesticides; and
7. Call for the Governor and the Legislature to work with the League of California Cities
and other stakeholders to consider and implement this reform.
16
Background Information on Resolution
Source: City of Malibu
Background:
A. Anticoagulant rodenticides are unnecessarily destructive and dangerous
Anticoagulant rodenticides contain lethal agents that disrupt the normal blood clotting or
coagulation process causing dosed rodents to die from uncontrolled bleeding or hemorrhaging.
Deaths typically occur between four days and two weeks after rodents begin to feed on the bait.
Animals commonly targeted by anticoagulant rodenticides include rats, mice, gophers and
squirrels. Non-target predator wildlife victims, which are exposed to an 80-90% risk of
poisoning, include owls, hawks, bobcats, bears, foxes, coyotes, and mountain lions. The
endangered species at risk of poisoning include fishers, spotted owls, and San Joaquin foxes. The
use of anticoagulant rodenticides not only harms rodents, but it commonly harms pets, such as
dogs, cats, and bunnies, and other wildlife that mistakenly eat the bait through primary poisoning
or that unknowingly consume animals that have ingested the anticoagulant rodenticide through
secondary poisoning. Children also suffer poisoning by mistakenly ingesting anticoagulant
rodenticides.
California recognizes the grave harm that can be caused by anticoagulant rodenticides and has
partially restricted access to second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides by the public:
Because of documented hazards to wildlife, pets and children, the California
Department of Pesticide Regulation has restricted public access to some of these
materials in California. As of July 1, 2014, rodenticide products containing the
active ingredients brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difethialone and difenacoum are
only to be used by licensed applicators (professional exterminators).1
California has also prohibited the use of these ingredients in any “wildlife habitat area,” which is
defined as “any state park, state wildlife refuge, or state conservancy.”2
The United State Environmental Protection Agency3 and the California Department of Pesticide
Regulation4 have both documented in detail the damage to wildlife from second-generation
anticoagulant rodenticides in support of the 2014 consumer ban on the purchase and use of the
products. While first-generation anticoagulant rodenticides are less toxic, they are far more
abundant due to their continued availability to all members of public.4 The California
Department of Fish & Wildlife was tasked with collecting data on poisoning incidents to
ascertain the effectiveness of the restrictions on second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides.
After almost four years of collecting data, there was no evidence supporting a reduction in the
number of poisonings.
1 https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/living-with-wildlife/rodenticides.
2 Cal. Food and Agric. Code § 12978.7.
3 https://www.epa.gov/rodenticides/restrictions-rodenticide-products
4 https://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/registration/reevaluation/chemicals/brodifacoum_final_assess.pdf
17
Recent studies by the University of California, Los Angeles and the National Park Service on
bobcats have shown that first-generation anticoagulant rodenticide poisoning levels similar to the
second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides poisoning levels.5 A comprehensive study of 111
mountain lions in 37 California counties found first-generation anticoagulant rodenticides in the
liver tissue of 81 mountain lions (73% of those studied) across 33 of the 37 counties, and second-
generation anticoagulant rodenticides in 102 mountain lions (92% of those studied) across 35 of
the 37 counties.6 First-generation anticoagulant rodenticides were identified as contributing to
the poisoning of Griffith Park mountain lion, P-22, (who was rescued), and the deaths of
Newbury Park mountain lion, P-34, and Verdugo Hills mountain lion, P-41.
This data demonstrates the inadequacy of current legislative measures to ameliorate the
documented problem caused by both second-generation and first-generation anticoagulant
rodenticides.
B. State law preempts general law cities from regulating the use of pesticides, including
anticoagulant rodenticides
A general law city may not enact local laws that conflict with general state law.7 Local
legislation that conflicts with state law is void.8 A local law conflicts with state law if it (1)
duplicates, (2) contradicts, or (3) enters a field that has been fully occupied by state law, whether
expressly or by implication. A local law falling into any of these categories is “preempted” and is
unenforceable.
State law expressly bars local governments from regulating or prohibiting pesticide use. This bar
is codified in the California Food and Agricultural Code § 11501.1(a):
This division and Division 7 . . . are of statewide concern and occupy the whole
field of regulation regarding the registration, sale, transportation, or use of
pesticides to the exclusion of all local regulation. Except as otherwise specifically
provided in this code, no ordinance or regulation of local government, including,
but not limited to, an action by a local governmental agency or department, a county
board of supervisors, or a city council, or a local regulation adopted by the use of
an initiative measure, may prohibit or in any way attempt to regulate any matter
relating to the registration, transportation, or use of pesticides, and any of these
ordinances, laws or regulations are void and of no force or effect.
State law also authorizes the state to take action against any local entity that promulgates an
ordinance or regulation that violates § 11501.1(a).9 The statute was specifically adopted to
overrule a 30 year old court decision in People v. County of Mendocino,10 which had held that a
5 L. E. K. Serieys, et al, “Anticoagulant rodenticides in urban bobcats: exposure, risk factors and potential effects
based on a 16-year study,” Ecotoxicology (2015) 24:844–862.
6 J. Rudd, et al, “Prevalence of First-Generation and Second-Generation Rodenticide Exposure in California
Mountain Lions,” Proceeding of the 28th Vertebrate Pest Conference, February 2018.
7 Cal. Const. art. XI § 7.
8 City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health and Wellness Center, Inc. (2013) 56 Cal. 4th 729, 743.
9 Cal. Food and Agric. Code § 11501.1, subd. (b).
10 People ex rel. Deukmejian v. County of Mendocino (1984) 36 Cal. 3d 476.
18
local regulation prohibiting aerial application of phenoxy herbicides was not then preempted by
state or federal law.11
The use of pesticides is broadly regulated by state law. In the language of preemption law, the
state “occupies the field,” leaving no room for additional local law on the subject. Accordingly, a
city’s ban on the use of anticoagulant rodenticides would be unenforceable.
C. California should repeal the preemption in Cal. Food and Agric. Code § 11501.1 to
provide cities with the authority to decide how to regulate pesticides within their
own jurisdictions based on local concerns
The state of California should provide cities with the authority to regulate the use of pesticides in
their own jurisdictions based on their own individual local needs.
Recognizing that cities’ power to “make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary,
and other ordinances and regulations” is presently preempted by the general laws of the state,
cities throughout California request that the state provide cities with the authority to decide how
to deal with rodents based on their land use.
Depending on such land use, cities may decide to allow the use of nonpoisonous control
methods, non-anticoagulant rodenticides, or anticoagulant rodenticides, if necessary.
Nonpoisonous methods to control rodent pests, include sealing entrances to buildings, sanitizing
property, removing rodent habitats, such as ivy or wood piles, setting traps, and erecting raptor
poles or owl boxes. For example, a recent landmark study by Ventura County established that
installing raptor poles for hawks and owls was more effective than anticoagulant rodenticides in
reducing the damage to water control levees caused by ground squirrel burrows. Burrows
decreased by 66% with the change.12
The ultimate goal is to allow cities to address their local concerns with the input of community
members at open and public meetings. Presently, cities are unable to adequately address local
concerns; they are limited to encouraging or discouraging behavior.
D. Conclusion
The negative effects from the use of anticoagulant rodenticides across California has garnered
the interest of cities and community members to remedy the problem. By presenting this
resolution to the League of California Cities, the City of Malibu hopes to organize support and
gain interest at the state level to repeal the preemption in Cal. Food and Agric. Code § 11501.1 to
provide cities with the authority to regulate pesticides based on individual, local concerns.
11 IT Corp. v. Solano County Bd. Of Supervisors (1991) 1 Cal. 4th 81, fn. 9; Turner v. Chevron USA Inc., 2006 WL
1314013, fn. 14 (unpublished).
12 http://vcportal.ventura.org/BOS/District2/RaptorPilotStudy.pdf
19
League of California Cities Staff Analysis on Resolution No. 2
Staff: Erin Evans-Fudem
Committee: Environmental Quality
Summary:
This resolution seeks to have the state and the League study the negative impacts of
anticoagulant rodenticides and address the inability of cities to regulate the use of rodenticides
and pesticides.
Specifically related to anticoagulant rodenticides, the resolution would encourage the state to
fund research into the negative impacts and a potential restriction or ban; direct the League to
consider creating a task force to study and report on the unintended negative consequences;
encourage cities and property owners to eliminate use; and encourage cities to join advocacy
efforts. In addition, the resolution would direct the League to endorse repeal of a statute that
preempts local regulation of pesticides.
Background:
The City of Malibu is sponsoring this resolution out of concern about the effect of a certain type
of rodent control (anticoagulant rodenticides) has on other wildlife. According to the City,
anticoagulant rodenticides disrupt the blood clotting process and therefore cause rodents to die
from bleeding or hemorrhaging. This rodenticide is commonly used on rats, mice, gophers, and
squirrels. Predator animals that eat rodents can be exposed to anticoagulant rodenticides if they
consume animals that have eaten the bait. These animals include owls, hawks, bobcats, bears,
foxes, coyotes, and mountain lions. Furthermore, pets can also be exposed to anticoagulant
rodenticides if they eat the bait or consume animals that have eaten the bait.
Some cities have passed “ceremonial resolutions” locally. For example, the City of Malibu has
two ordinances in place to discontinue use of rodenticides and traps in city-owned parks, roads,
and facilities, as well as encourage businesses and property owners not to use anticoagulant
rodenticides on their property.
Fiscal Impact:
Costs to cities would include using alternative methods of rodent control and studying the
efficacy. Since the resolution encourages, but does not mandate action by cities, city costs would
be taken on voluntarily.
Fiscal impact to the League would include costs associated with the task force, scientific
research, and educating League staff and members. For the task force, the League may incur
costs associated with staffing, convening, and educating a task force to study anticoagulant
rodenticides, as well as the cost of writing a report. This could include a need for outside experts
with knowledge of pesticides and their ecological impacts. League resources would also be
utilized to support proposals to repeal the statute preempting local regulation of pesticides;
however, this cost may be absorbed with existing staff resources.
20
Comments:
Pesticides are regulated by federal and state governments. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) reserves for the federal government authority over pesticide
labeling. States can adopt stricter labeling requirements and can effectively ban sale and use of
pesticides that do not meet state health or safety standards.1 For 51 years, California has reserved
regulation of pesticides for the state only, preempting local regulation.2 This preemption has
been ratified and confirmed in subsequent court decisions and legislation. However, County
Agricultural Commissioners work to enforce the state laws. Local governments may regulate or
restrict pesticide use in their own operations, including use in municipal buildings or parks.34
Broad direction. This resolution would direct the League to take a position allowing broad local
discretion over pesticide regulation in general. Because the regulation of anticoagulant
rodenticides is largely based in science, additional or outside expertise may be need ed to ensure
full understanding of the science behind rodent control methods. The resolution itself is not
limited to allowing local governments to regulate anticoagulant rodenticides, which this
resolution otherwise targets.
Rodent control methods. There are numerous methods of controlling rodents, including lethal
traps, live traps, and poison baits. There are two generations of rodenticide poisons because after
rodents became resistant to the first generation, the second was developed. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) provides the following information below related
to the science and use of anticoagulant rodenticides:
Most of the rodenticides used today are anticoagulant compounds that interfere with
blood clotting and cause death from excessive bleeding. Deaths typically occur between
four days and two weeks after rodents begin to feed on the bait.
First-generation anticoagulants include the anticoagulants that were developed as
rodenticides before 1970. These compounds are much more toxic when feeding occurs on
several successive days rather than on one day only. Chlorpophacinone, diphacinone and
warfarin are first-generation anticoagulants that are registered to control rats and mice in
the United States.
Second-generation anticoagulants were developed beginning in the 1970s to control
rodents that are resistant to first-generation anticoagulants. Second-generation
anticoagulants also are more likely than first-generation anticoagulants to be able to kill
after a single night's feeding. These compounds kill over a similar course of time but tend
to remain in animal tissues longer than do first-generation ones. These properties mean
that second-generation products pose greater risks to nontarget species that might feed on
bait only once or that might feed upon animals that have eaten the bait. Due to these
1 California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR), A Guide to Pesticide Regulation in California: 2017
Update, pg. 9, https://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pressrls/dprguide/dprguide.pdf.
2 California Food and Agriculture Code § 11501.1 (1967).
3 CDPR, A Guide to Pesticide Regulation in California: 2017 Update, pg. 9,
https://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pressrls/dprguide/dprguide.pdf.
4 County Agricultural Commissioners work with CDPR to enforce state laws. CDPR, A Guide to Pesticide
Regulation in California: 2017 Update, pg. 13, https://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pressrls/dprguide/dprguide.pdf.
21
risks, second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides no longer are registered for use in
products geared toward consumers and are registered only for the commercial pest
control and structural pest control markets. Second-generation anticoagulants registered
in the United States include brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum, and difethialone.
Other rodenticides that currently are registered to control mice include bromethalin,
cholecalciferol and zinc phosphide. These compounds are not anticoagulants. Each is
toxic in other ways.5
Legislative attempts to ban. Several legislative measures have been introduced to ban the use of
certain anticoagulant rodenticides (AB 1687, Bloom, 2017. AB 2596, Bloom, 2016). However,
neither of these measures were heard and failed to pass key legislative deadlines.
Existing League Policy:
The League does not have policy related to pesticides or rodenticides.
Related to federal regulation, League policy states:
The League supports flexibility for state and local government to enact environmental
and other standard or mandates that are stronger than the federal standards. However, the
League reserves the right to question or oppose stronger standards on the merits. The
League also opposes legislation that prohibits state and local governments from enacting
stricter standards.
Support:
The following letters of concurrence were received: William Koehler, Mayor of Agoura Hills;
Fred Gaines, Mayor of Calabasas; Brett Lee, Mayor Pro Tem of Davis; Catherine Carlton, Menlo
Park City Council Member; Janice Parvin, Mayor of Moorpark; Suza Francina, Ojai City
Council Member; Carmen Ramirez, Oxnard City Council Member; Tom Butt, Mayor of
Richmond; Lindsey Horvath, West Hollywood City Council Member
5 U.S. EPA, Restrictions on Rodenticide Products, https://www.epa.gov/rodenticides/restrictions-rodenticide-
products
22
LETTERS OF CONCURRENCE
Resolution No. 1
Local Municipal Authority, Control and Revenue
23
24
25
26
From: Steven Scharf <scharf.steven@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2018 8:34 PM
To: Cindy Owens
Subject: Letter of Support for California League of Cities Resolution
Dear Ms. Cowens,
I was forwarded your email requesting support for a resolution in support of "the preparation
of a ballot measure and/or state constitutional amendment that would strengthen local
authority and preserve the role of local democracy at the local level as the state
legislature is continually attempting to override the local authority of cities."
Speaking only for myself, and not on behalf of the City of Cupertino or other Cupertino City
Council Members, I hereby give my support for such a measure. You may use my name as a
supporter.
Sincerely,
Steven Scharf
Cupertino City Council Member
27
cif Duqrrf,e
1600 Huntington Drive I Duarte, CA 91010 | nr.. 626.357.7ggt I nu" 626.358.0018 | o* u.u...rrduarte.com
July 10,2018 Mayor
John Fasana
General Resolutions Committee
League of California Cities
1400 K Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814
Mayor Pro Tern
Liz Reilly
Councilmernbers
Margaret E. Finlay
Samuel Kang
Tzeitel Paras-Caracci
City Manager
Darrell J. George
2018 CONT'ERENCE RESOLUTION TO RESPOND TO TIIE INCREASING
VULNERABILITIES TO LOCAL MUNICIPAL AUTrrORrTy, CONTROL,
AIID REVENUE
Dear Committee:
The City of Duarte supports the League of California Cities ("League") Annual Conference Resolution
proposed by the City of Beverly Hills calling for the League to explore the preparation of a ballot measure
that would provide the State's voters an opportunity to further strengthen local authority and preserve the
role of local democracy.
State legislation introduced in both 2017 and 2018 by the legislature has continually threatened to erode local
control. Whether this was Senate Bill 649 (Hueso) (Wireless Telecommunications Facilities) or the more
recently introduced Senate Bill827 (Wiener) (Planning and Zoning: Transit-Rich Housing Bonus) that was
defeated in Committee, legislatures are continually introducing proposals that impinge on the ability of a
local government to institute discretionary legislation that is responsive to the needs of their constituents.
More recently, a State ballot initiative was introduced that would have made increasing fees and passing
taxes more onerous on local jurisdictions due to the interest of powerful interest groups. This interest group
successfully negotiated an Assembly Bill that banned constituents in local jurisdictions from passing a soda
tax for twelve years, trumping the will of the people should they wish to support such a measure. However,
as a result of the passage of that Assembly Bill, the State ballot initiative was pulled from the November
2018 ballot.
These continual incursions into local control by the State legislature and powerful interest groups should be
prohibited in areas where it is unwarranted, and does not best serve the unique communities that make up the
State of California.
The passage of the proposed resolution by the City of Beverly Hills would provide direction to the League
to pursue a ballot measure andlor constitutional amendment that would strengthen local democracy and
authority. For these reasons, the City of Duarte strongly supports this resolution.
Sincerely,
'-ra'4<{<o
Liz Reilly
Mayor Pro Tem
cc:Vice Mayor John Mirisch, City of Beverly Hills
28
29
30
31
DocuSign Envelope ID : 48D4AEF4-48B3-442A-A3E1 -12DFA5002A14
July 11, 2018
General Resolutions Committee
League of California Cities
1400 K Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814
Ci!yof Palo Alto
Office of the Mayor and City Council
Re: EXPLORING A RESOLUTION TO RESPOND TO INCREASING VULNERABILITIES TO LOCAL
MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY
Dear Committee Members:
As one Councilmember of the City of Palo Alto, and in my individual capacity and not on behalf of the Council as a
body, or the City, I write to support the League of California Cities ("League") Annual Conference Resolution
proposed by the City of Beverly Hills . This resolution asks the League to explore the preparation of a ballot
measure and/or constitutional amendment that would provide voters an opportunity to further strengthen local
authority and preserve the role of local democracy. If the resolution passes, I encourage the League to ensure any
potential measure includes both charter and general law cities.
State legislation introduced in both 2017 and 2018 has continually threatened to erode local control. Whether this
was SB 649 (Hueso) Wireless Telecommunications Facilities or the more recently introduced SB 827 (Wiener)
Planning and Zoning: Transit-Rich Housing Bonus that was defeated in Committee, legislatures are continually
introducing proposals that impinge on the ability of a local government to institute discretionary legislation that is
responsive to the needs of their constituents.
More recently, a state ballot initiative was introduced that would have made increasing fees and passing taxes
more onerous on loca l jurisdictions due to the interest of powerful interest groups. This interest group successfully
negotiated an Assembly Bill that banned on constituents in local jurisdictions from passing a soda tax for twelve
years; trumping the will of the people should they wish to support such a measure . However, as a result the
passage of that Assembly Bill , the state ballot initiative was pulled from the November 2018 ballot.
These continual incursions into local control by state legislature, and powerful interest groups, should be
prohibited in areas where it is unwarranted and does not best serve the unique communities that make up the
state of Californ ia.
The passage of the proposed resolution by the City of Beverly Hills would provide direction to t he League to pu rsue
a ballot measure and/or constitutional amendment that would strengthen local democracy and authority. For
these reasons I support this resolution.
Sincerely,
r:--"' L!.:!!::~
Lyd ia Kou
Councilmember, City of Palo Alto
cc :
Palo Alto City Council
M ayor John M i risch, City of Beve r ly Hills
James Keene, Palo Al t o Cit y Manager
Printed with soy-based inks on 100% recycled paper processed without chlo rine.
P.O . Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.329.2477
650.328.3631 fax 32
33
34
From: Michael Goldman <miklg@yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2018 4:37 PM
To: Cindy Owens
Subject: Letter of Support for California League of Cities Resolution
Dear Ms. Cowens,
I was forwarded your email requesting support for a resolution in support of "the
preparation of a ballot measure and/or state constitutional amendment that
would strengthen local authority and preserve the role of local democracy at
the local level as the state legislature is continually attempting to override the
local authority of cities."
Speaking solely on my own behalf, I hereby give my whole-hearted support for such a
measure. The essence of democracy is the control by the people of their community. As
public servants, we elected officials serve the democratically expressed will of the
public.
Sincerely,
Michael S. Goldman
Sunnyvale City Council, Seat 7
35
36
37
38
LETTERS OF CONCURRENCE
Resolution No. 2
Repeal Preemption of Regulating Pesticides
39
40
41
42
July 13, 2018
The Honorable Rich Garbarino, President
League of California Cities
1400 K Street
Sacramento, California 95814
RE: A Resolution of the League of California Cities Declaring Its Commitment to Support the
Repeal of Preemption in California Food and Agriculture Code § 11501.1 That Prevents
Local Governments from Regulating Pesticides
Dear President Garbarino:
Anticoagulant rodenticides poison unintended targets, including predator wildlife in California
and pets that ingest the products. These poisons cause painful, internal hemorrhaging in non-
target animals. In addition, approximately 10,000 children under the age of six are accidentally
poisoned each year nationwide.
The California Department of Pesticide Regulation banned the consumer purchase and use of
second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides in July 2014. Despite collecting data for almost
four years after this ban, the Department of Fish and Wildlife found no evidence supporting a
decrease in poisonings by anticoagulant rodenticides due to this partial restriction of the supply.
Currently, State law preempts general law cities from regulating the use of pesticides, including
anticoagulant rodenticides. In my official capacity as a city councilmember I support the
proposed resolution to repeal the preemptive clause in California Food and Agriculture Code
Section 11501.1 to provide cities across the state of California with the authority to regulate
pesticides based on the local concerns in their communities. The State of California should
provide cities with the authority to regulate the use of pesticides in their own jurisdictions based
on their own individual local needs.
I concur with the submission of this resolution at the League of California Cities General
Assembly at its annual meeting in Long Beach on September 14, 2018.
Sincerely,
Brett Lee
Mayor Pro Tem
43
July 5, 2018
The Honorable Rich Garbarino, President
League of California Cities
1400 K Street
Sacramento, California 95814
RE: RESOLUTION OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES DECLARING ITS COMMITMENT TO
SUPPORT THE REPEAL OF PREEMPTION IN CALIFORNIA FOOD AND AGRICULTURE CODE §
11501.1 THAT PREVENTS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FROM REGULATING PESTICIDES
Empty
Empty
Dear President Garbarino,
Anticoagulant rodenticides are products that are poisoning 80% to 90% of predator wildlife in our
cities and throughout California. These poisons cause painful, internal hemorrhaging in non-target
animals - including pets - that ingest the products either directly or from consuming poisoned
rodents. In addition, approximately 10,000 children under the age of six are accidentally poisoned
each year nationwide.
My own mother lost a dearly loved pet dog, who was poisoned when it ate a poisoned rat!
The California Department of Pesticide Regulation banned the consumer purchase and use of
second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides in July 2014. Despite collecting data for almost four
years after this ban, the Department of Fish and Wildlife found no evidence supporting a decrease
in poisonings by anticoagulant rodenticides due to this partial restriction of the supply.
State law now preempts general law cities from regulating the use of pesticides, including
anticoagulant rodenticides. I support the proposed resolution to repeal the preemptive clause in
California Food and Agriculture Code Section 11501.1 to provide cities across the state of
California with the authority to regulate pesticides based on the local concerns in their
communities. The State of California should provide cities with the authority to regulate the use
of pesticides in their own jurisdictions based on their own individual local needs.
I concur with the submission of this resolution at the League of California Cities General
Assembly at its annual meeting in Long Beach on September 14, 2018.
Sincerely,
Catherine Carlton
Environmental Committee Vice Chair for the League of California Cities
44
CITY OF MOORPARK
JANICE S. PARVIN
Mayor
ROSEANN MIKOS, Ph.D.
Councilmember
DAVID POLLOCK
Councilmember
KEN SIMONS
Councilmember
MARK VAN DAM
Councilmember
799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California 93021
Main City Phone Number (805) 517-6200 | Fax (805) 532-2205 | moorpark@moorparkca.gov
July 12, 2018
The Honorable Rich Garbarino, President
League of California Cities
1400 K Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: RESOLUTION OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES DECLARING ITS
COMMITMENT TO SUPPORT THE REPEAL OF PREEMPTION IN CALIFORNIA
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE CODE § 11501.1 THAT PREVENTS LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS FROM REGULATING PESTICIDES
Dear President Garbarino:
The City of Moorpark supports the above referenced resolution being brought to a vote at the
upcoming League of California Cities Conference on September 14, 2018.
As a community surrounded by the beauty of the Santa Monica Mountains and its wildlife, the
City adopted a resolution in 2013 urging Moorpark residents and businesses to not use
anticoagulant rodenticides in Moorpark. In 2014, the City applauded passage of AB 2657,
which removed many second generation anticoagulant rodenticides from the state.
However, as we are all unfortunately aware, scientific research continues to find
anticoagulant rodenticides in non-target animals, including the natural predators that help
regulate rodent populations and endangered species throughout California. Accordingly, the
City has supported subsequent legislative proposals to ban all anticoagulant rodenticides
statewide, including AB 2422, which is currently stalled in the state legislature.
The City further believes that local governments should have the opportunity to regulate
pesticide usage within their jurisdictions if the communities they represent desire to do so.
Therefore, the City supports the above referenced resolution being brought to a vote.
Yours truly,
Janice Parvin
Mayor
45
Resolution of the League of California Cities re: Anticoagulant Rodenticides
Page 2
cc: City Council
City Manager
Assistant City Manager
Assistant to the City Manager
League of California Cities, Meg Desmond (mdesmond@cacities.org)
City of Malibu, Mary Linden (MLinden@malibucity.org)
46
Councilmember Suza Francina
City of Ojai
401 South Ventura Street, Ojai, CA 93023
Email: Suzaojaicitycouncil@gmail.com
Cell: 805 603 8635
July 9, 2018
The Honorable Rich Garbarino, President
League of California Cities
1400 K Street
Sacramento, California 95814
RE: A RESOLUTION OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES DECLARING ITS
COMMITMENT TO SUPPORT THE REPEAL OF PREEMPTION IN CALIFORNIA
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE CODE § 11501.1 THAT PREVENTS LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS FROM REGULATING PESTICIDES
Dear President Garbarino,
Anticoagulant rodenticides are products that are poisoning 80 to 90% of predator wildlife in
California. These poisons cause painful, internal hemorrhaging in non-target animals including
pets that ingest the products either directly or from consuming poisoned rodents. In addition,
approximately 10,000 children under the age of six are accidentally poisoned each year
nationwide.
The California Department of Pesticide Regulation banned the consumer purchase and use of
second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides in July 2014. Despite collecting data for almost
four years after this ban, the Department of Fish and Wildlife found no evidence supporting a
decrease in poisonings by anticoagulant rodenticides due to this partial restriction of the supply.
Currently, State law preempts general law cities from regulating the use of pesticides, including
anticoagulant rodenticides. In my official capacity as a city councilmember I support the
proposed resolution to repeal the preemptive clause in California Food and Agriculture Code
Section 11501.1 to provide cities across the state of California with the authority to regulate
pesticides based on the local concerns in their communities. The State of California should
provide cities with the authority to regulate the use of pesticides in their own jurisdictions based
on their own individual local needs.
I concur with the submission of this resolution at the League of California Cities General
Assembly at its annual meeting in Long Beach on September 14, 2018.
Sincerely,
Suza Francina
Councilmember, City of Ojai
47
July 12, 2018
The Honorable Rich Garbarino, President
League of California Cities
1400 K Street
Sacramento, California 95814
RE: A RESOLUTION OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES DECLARING ITS
COMMITMENT TO SUPPORT THE REPEAL OF PREEMPTION IN CALIFORNIA
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE CODE § 11501.1 THAT PREVENTS LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS FROM REGULATING PESTICIDES
Dear President Garbarino,
I write as one council member of the City of Oxnard regarding the state law that
preempts general law cities such as ours from regulating the use of pesticides. Our
city is heavily impacted with environmental burdens associated with pesticide use
as well as other industrial toxins, which affect the health of the people, wildlife and
our environment. Oxnard residents are requesting that the use of pesticides in our
public spaces be curtailed and restricted. This would include anticoagulant
rodenticides, products that are poisoning 80 to 90% of predator wildlife in
California. These poisons cause painful, internal hemorrhaging in non -target
animals including pets that ingest the products either directly or from consuming
poisoned rodents. In addition, approximately 10,000 children under the age of six
are accidentally poisoned each year nationwide.
The California Department of Pesticide Regulation banned the consumer purchase
and use of second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides in July 2014. Despite
collecting data for almost four years after this ban, the Department of Fish and
Wildlife found no evidence supporting a decrease in poisonings by anticoagulant
rodenticides due to this partial restriction of the supply.
Currently, State law preempts general law cities from regulating the use of
pesticides, including anticoagulant rodenticides. In my official capacity as a city
councilmember I support the proposed resolution to repeal the preemptive clause
in California Food and Agriculture Code Section 11501.1 to provide cities across the
state of California with the authority to regulate pesticides based on the local
concerns in their communities. The State of California should provide cities with the
authority to regulate the use of pesticides in their own jurisdictions based on their
own individual local needs.
48
Letter to President Garbarino
July 12, 2018
Page two
I concur with the submission of this resolution at the League of California Cities
General Assembly at its annual meeting in Long Beach on September 14, 2018.
Thank you very much for your attention to this.
Sincerely,
Carmen Ramirez
49
450 Civic Center Plaza, Richmond, CA 94804 | 510-620-6503 | www.RichmondCAMayor.org
Home of Rosie the Riveter WWII Home Front National Historical Park
July 6, 2018
The Honorable Rich Garbarino
President, League of California Cities
1400 K Street
Sacramento, California 95814
Re: In Support to Repeal the Preemption in California Food and Agriculture Code § 11501.1 that
Prevents Local Governments from regulating pesticides
Dear President Garbarino,
Anticoagulant rodenticides poison 80% to 90% of predator wildlife in California. These poisons cause
painful, internal hemorrhaging in non-target animals including pets that ingest the products either
directly or from consuming poisoned rodents. In addition, approximately 10,000 children under the age
of six are accidentally poisoned each year nationwide.
The California Department of Pesticide Regulation banned the consumer purchase and use of second-
generation anticoagulant rodenticides in July 2014. Currently, State law preempts general law cities
from regulating the use of pesticides, including anticoagulant rodenticides, which has minimized the
impact of the State’s ban. Despite collecting data for almost four years, the Department of Fish and
Wildlife found no evidence supporting a decrease in poisonings by anticoagulant rodenticides due to
the partial restriction of the supply.
As a member of the League of California Cities’ Environmental Quality Policy Committee, I support the
proposed resolution to repeal the preemptive clause in California Food and Agriculture Code Section
11501.1 to provide cities across the state of California with the authority to regulate pesticides based
on the local concerns in their communities. The State of California should provide cities with the
authority to regulate the use of pesticides in their own jurisdictions based on their own individual local
needs.
I concur with the submission of this resolution at the League of California Cities General Assembly at its
annual meeting in Long Beach on September 14, 2018.
Sincerely,
Mayor Tom Butt
Richmond, California
50
51