CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
SPECIAL MEETING WORKSHOP
CITY COUNCIL/FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AGENDA
January 25, 2022 – 8:30 AM
Paul A. Biane Library
Second Story Exhibit Space
12505 Cultural Center Dr.
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739
A. CALL TO ORDER
Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call: Mayor Michael
Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy
Council Members Hutchison, Scott and Spagnolo
B. PUBLIC COMMMUNICATIONS
This is the time and place for the general public to address the City Council on any item listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the City Council from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The City Council may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Mayor, depending upon the number of individuals desiring to speak.
C. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
C1. Annual City Council Review and Development of New Goals, Team Building Workshop and Related Legislative Matters. (FIRE/CITY COUNCIL)
D. ADJOURNMENT
CERTIFICATION
I, Linda A. Troyan, MMC, City Clerk Services Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify under penalty of perjury that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on at least twentyfour (24) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at City Hall: 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California; Paul A. Biane Library:
12505 Cultural Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA, 91739; and on the City's website.
LINDA A. TROYAN, MMC
CITY CLERK SERVICES DIRECTOR
If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's office at (909) 4772700. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired.
CITY COUNCIL VISION STATEMENT
“Our Vision is to build on our success as a world class community, to create an equitable, sustainable, and vibrant city, rich in opportunity for all to thrive.”
DATE:January 25, 2022
TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council
President and Members of the Boards of Directors
FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager
INITIATED BY: John Gillison, City Manager
SUBJECT: Annual City Council Review and Development of New Goals, Team Building Workshop and Related Legislative Matters. (FIRE/CITY COUNCIL) RECOMMENDATION:
Review and discuss City Council 2021 and 2022 goals, legislative matters and engage in team building.
BACKGROUND:
Every year, for over 2 decades, the Rancho Cucamonga City Council has met one or more times a year for teambuilding. During prior meetings the City Council has developed a Vision, Mission and Core Values and related norms and expectations. The City Council also previously completed the Core Strengths, Strengths Deployment Inventory and reviewed the implications of the team dynamics and group and individual strengths and communication styles. Finally, each year the City Council receives an update on the prior calendar year goals and drafts new goals for the ensuing calendar year.
ANALYSIS:
This year's teambuilding will take place on January 25, 2022 at the 2nd Story of the Biane Library.
COVID 19 protocols will be adhered to for the meeting to ensure the safety of all participants. As in past years, the meeting will be facilitated. This year's discussion will cover:
- Review of SDI Team communication strengths and weaknesses - Discussion of prior City Council Team Building Agreements - Discussion of City and District interests
- Discussion of team and individual dynamics
- Review of 2021 Goals and Updates
- Discussion of 2022 Goals
- Discussion of 2022 legislative matters
Attached to this report is some information on the Brand-Huang Housing Initiative which will be discussed under 2022 legislative matters. There are no other written materials; a PowerPoint will be utilized during the teambuilding session to guide and focus the discussion.
1 1
0 5
FISCAL IMPACT:
N/A
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED:
This workshop supports the Council's core values of intentionally embracing and anticipating the future, and continuous improvement.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 – Housing Initiative – Analysis
Attachment 2 – Housing Initiative – Ballot measure text Attachment 3 – Housing Initiative – FAQ
Attachment 4 – Housing Initiative - Endorsers
STRUMWASSER & WOOCHER LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
MICHAEL J. STRUMWASSER 10940 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 2000 TELEPHONE: (310) 576-1233 BRYCE A. GEE LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90024 FACSIMILE: (310) 319-0156 BEVERLY GROSSMAN PALMER WWW.STRUMWOOCH.COM
DALE K. LARSON
CAROLINE C. CHIAPPETTI FREDRIC D. WOOCHER
JULIA G. MICHEL † ANDREA SHERIDAN ORDIN
SALVADOR E. PÉREZ SENIOR COUNSEL
† Also admitted to practice in Washington
Nove
mber 3, 2021
Our
Neighborhood Voices
Brand-Huang-Mendoza Tripartisan Land Use Initiative Committee Re
: Interpretation of Initiative 21-0016A1
De
ar Mr. Brand, Mr. Heath, Ms. Huang, Ms. Mendoza, and Mr. Richards:
Thi
s firm writes at your request to provide our analysis of the scope of Initiative 21- 0016A1 (“the Initiative”). Specifically, you have asked us to examine whether, as presently drafted, the Initiative could reasonably be interpreted to allow local governments to avoid compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), or other anti-discrimination measures in state law.
It
is our opinion that, under widely applicable rules of statutory construction, that the Initiative would not be interpreted to allow local governments to pre-empt the above listed state laws. We arrive at this answer by consulting the Initiative’s plain language, and confirm this interpretation through the application of principles of statutory interpretation, as set forth in detail below.
Fac
tual Background
The
Initiative is a proposed amendment to the California Constitution. The Initiative adds Section 4.5 to the California Constitution, providing that county charters, general plans, specific plans, ordinances, and regulations that regulate the zoning, development or use of land in unincorporated areas of counties are deemed a county affair, and therefore shall prevail over a conflicting state statute. Similarly, the Initiative adds Section 5.5 to the Constitution, applying the same principal of local primacy to the provisions in city charters, general plans, specific plans, ordinances or regulations that establish land use policies or regulate zoning or development standards within California cities. The Initiative also provides that, for non-charter counties or cities, the general plan, specific plan, ordinance or regulation of such city prevails over conflicting general laws.
Th
e Initiative specifically establishes that certain local provisions address statewide concerns if the local provision conflicts with state law regarding the California Coastal Act, the siting of a power generating facility (under specified circumstances), or the development or ATTACHMENT 1
Our Neighborhood Voices
November 3, 2021
construction of a water, communication or transportation infrastructure project for which the Legislature has made a declaration of a statewide concern.
In the uncodified introduction to the Initiative, the measure sets forth the intent of people in adopting the measure. These declarations include an explanation of the measure’s purpose:
“The purpose of this measure is to ensure that all decision regarding local land use controls, including zoning law and regulations, are made by the affected communities in accordance with applicable law, including but not limited to CEQA (Public Resources Code §§ 2100 et seq.), the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Government Code §§ 12900-12996), prohibitions against discrimination (Government Code § 65008), and affirmatively furthering fair housing (Government Code § 899.50).”
The declarations also express concern regarding “[n]umerous state laws that target communities for elimination of zoning standards . . . that eliminate or erode local control over local development and circumvent [CEQA], creating the potential for harmful environmental impacts to occur.”
According to the information provided to us, questions have been raised by others regarding the scope of the local control provided for in the Initiative. Some have questioned whether the Initiative would allow local governments to enact local laws that conflict with or supersede CEQA, FEHA, or other state anti-discrimination laws.
Legal Analysis
The Initiative is a constitutional amendment. In construing the meaning of a constitutional amendment, the courts are instructed to apply the same principles that they apply to the construction of statutes. (Professional Engineers in California Government v. Kempton (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1016, 1037.) The court’s “fundamental task . . . is to determine the Legislature’s intent so as to effectuate the law’s purpose.” (Fluor Corp. v. Superior Court (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1175, 1198.) Courts look first at the language of an initiative, but the language “must also be construed in the context of the statute as a whole and the [initiative's] overall ... scheme.” (People v. Rizo (2000) 22 Cal.4th 681, 685.) “Absent ambiguity, [the court] presume[s] that the voters intend the meaning apparent on the face of an initiative measure and the court may not add to the statute or rewrite it to conform to an assumed intent that is not apparent in its language.” (Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531, 543.) Where there is ambiguity in the language of the measure, “[b]allot summaries and arguments may be considered when determining the voters’ intent and understanding of a ballot measure.” (Legislature v. Deukmejian (1983) 34 Cal.3d 658, 673, fn. 14.)
Courts considering the interpretation of a constitutional amendment generally begin their analysis with the codified provisions of the initiative measure. The codified provisions of the Initiative utilize similar language for counties, charter cities, and general law cities to describe the scope of the laws in which local laws will prevail over conflicting state laws: “a general plan,
Our Neighborhood Voices
November 3, 2021
specific plan, ordinance or regulation . . . that regulates the zoning, development, or use of land,” is deemed to prevail over a conflicting state law. In considering whether such provisions would allow a locality to enact a law that conflicted with the requirements of CEQA or FEHA, a court would have to consider whether those statutes “regulate the zoning, development or use of land.” CEQA is a statute that aims to “develop and maintain a high-quality environment” and to “require governmental agencies at all levels to develop standards and procedures necessary to protect environmental quality.” (Pub. Resources Code, §21001.) CEQA does not directly regulate the use or development of land. A hypothetical local law that stated a specific type of development project was exempt from CEQA review would not be regulating the use or development of land, but would be regulating the process by which a development application is considered. FEHA likewise does not directly regulate the use of land, but establishes a civil right to seek, obtain, and hold housing without discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, gender or other protected classifications. A hypothetical local law that permitted discrimination in housing would not directly regulate the use of land. The language of the Initiative does not support an interpretation that allows local governments to create their own exemptions to CEQA or FEHA.
This conclusion is only bolstered by turning to the statutory scheme as a whole, including the Initiative’s declarations and statement of purpose. Uncodified statements of intent may be used to aid in the interpretation of constitutional provisions. (People v. Allen (1999) 21 Cal.4th 846, 860–861.) The Initiative plainly declares that all decisions regarding local land use should be made “in accordance with applicable law” and specifically lists “CEQA . . . the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, . . . prohibitions against discrimination, . . . and affirmatively furthering fair housing. . . .” The Initiative also identifies as a specific problem the state laws that have allowed development to “circumvent [CEQA], creating the potential for harmful environmental impacts to occur.” These provisions make clear that the Initiative is not intended to allow local government to evade CEQA, but to require them to comply with it in the approval of land use and development projects by eliminating state exemptions from CEQA that have been included in “[n]umerous state laws that target communities for elimination of zoning standards.” To conclude that an Initiative that states as part of its declaration of purpose that local land use decisions should be made in accordance with CEQA and FEHA, actually intends for local governments to be able to pass ordinances that conflict with those statutes would conflict with the fundamental principle of statutory construction: to effectuate the intent of the legislative body that enacted the measure. The California Supreme Court has employed this approach to interpreting constitutional initiative amendments. In Professional Engineers in California Government v. Kempton (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1016, for instance, the Court noted that while an initiative amendment did not repeal certain statutes, the express statements in the measure’s statement of purpose established without a doubt that the electorate intended to repeal those statutes by enacting the initiative. (Id. at p. 1038.)
The structure of the Initiative’s codified provisions includes exemptions, and some may argue that the absence of CEQA or FEHA from these exemptions indicates an intent to include them in the scope of state laws that local ordinances can preempt. However, the listed exemptions all pertain to specific types of land use or development activities. CEQA and FEHA are not land use or development activities. The absence of CEQA or FEHA from the list of
Our Neighborhood Voices
November 3, 2021
exemptions is consistent with the types of activities that are exempted, and does not reflect an inconsistency in the measure or an intent to permit local governments to enact laws that directly conflict with CEQA or FEHA.
CONCLUSION
Under the generally applicable rules of statutory construction, it is our opinion that the Initiative would not permit local ordinance or regulations to conflict with CEQA’s requirements or with antidiscrimination provisions in FEHA or other state laws.
Respectfully,
Beverly Grossman Palmer
S
TRUMWASSER & WOOCHER LLP
November 1, 2021
Initiative 21-0016 (Amdt. 1)
The Attorney General of California has prepared the following title and summary of the chief purpose and points of the proposed measure:
PROVIDES THAT LOCAL LAND-USE AND ZONING LAWS OVERRIDE
CONFLICTING STATE LAWS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Provides that city and county land-use and zoning laws (including local housing laws) override all conflicting state laws, except in certain circumstances related to three areas of statewide concern: (1) the California Coastal Act of 1976; (2) siting of power plants; or (3) development of water, communication, or transportation infrastructure projects. Prevents state legislature and local legislative bodies from passing laws invalidating voter-approved local land-use or zoning initiatives. Prohibits state from changing, granting, or denying funding to local governments based on their implementation of this measure. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Fiscal effects of the measure depend on future decisions by the cities and counties and therefore are unknown. (21-0016A1.)
ATTACHMENT 2
58277666.v2
SECTION 1. The people of the State of California find and declare all of the following:
(a) The circumstances and environmental impacts of local land use decisions vary greatly across the state from locality to locality.
(b) The infrastructure required to maintain appropriate levels of public services, including police and fire services, parklands and public open spaces, transportation, water supply, schools, and sewers varies greatly across the state from locality to locality. (c) Land use decisions made by local officials must balance development with public facilities and services while addressing the economic, environmental, and social needs of the particular communities served by those local officials. (d) Thus, it is in the best interests of the state and local communities for these complex decisions to be made at the local level to ensure that the specific, unique characteristics, constraints, and needs of those communities are properly analyzed and addressed. (e) Gentrification of housing adjacent to public transportation will reduce or eliminate the availability of low or very low income housing near public transit, resulting in the loss of access by low or very low income persons to public transit, declines in public transit ridership, and increases in vehicle miles travelled.
(f) The State Legislature cannot properly assess the impacts upon each community of sweeping centralized and rigid state land use rules and zoning regulations that apply across the state without regard to community impacts and, as a result, statewide land use and zoning will do great harm to local communities with differing circumstances and concerns. (g) Community development should not be controlled by state planners, but by local governments that know and can address the needs of, and the impacts upon, local communities.
Local initiatives approved by voters pertaining to land use and zoning restrictions should not be nullified or superseded by the actions of any local or state legislative body. (h) Numerous state laws that target communities for elimination of zoning standards have been enacted, and continue to be proposed, that eliminate or erode local control over local development and circumvent the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), creating the potential for harmful environmental impacts to occur.
(i) The purpose of this measure is to ensure that all decisions regarding local land use controls, including zoning law and regulations, are made by the affected communities in accordance with applicable law, including but not limited to CEQA (Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq.), the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Government Code §§ 12900 – 12996), prohibitions against discrimination (Government Code § 65008), and affirmatively furthering fair housing (Government Code § 8899.50). This constitutional amendment would continue to provide for state control in the coastal zone, the siting of a power plant that can generate more than 50 megawatts of electricity, or the development or construction of water, communication or transportation infrastructure projects which the Legislature declares are matters of statewide concern and are in the best interests of the state. For purposes of this measure, it is the intent that a transportation infrastructure project shall not include a transit-oriented development project that is residential, commercial, or mixed-use.
58277666.v2
SECTION 2. Section 4.5 is added to Article XI of the California Constitution, to read:
SEC. 4.5. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), in the event of a conflict with a state statute, a county charter provision, general plan, specific plan, ordinance or a regulation adopted pursuant to a county charter, that regulates the zoning, development or use of land within the boundaries of an unincorporated area of the county shall be deemed a county affair within the meaning of Section 4 and shall prevail over a conflicting state statute. No voter approved local initiative that regulates the zoning, development or use of land within the boundaries of any county shall be overturned or otherwise nullified by any legislative body. (b) A county charter provision, general plan, specific plan, ordinance or a regulation adopted and applicable to an unincorporated area within a county, may be determined only by a court of competent jurisdiction, in accordance with Section 4, to address either a matter of statewide concern or a county affair if that provision, ordinance, or regulation conflicts with a state statute with regard to only the following:
(1) The California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code), or a successor statute. (2) The siting of a power generating facility capable of generating more than 50 megawatts of electricity and the California Public Utilities Commission has determined that a need exists at that location that is a matter of statewide concern. (3) The development or construction of a water, communication or transportation infrastructure project for which the Legislature has declared in statute the reasons why the project addresses a matter of statewide concern and is in the best interests of the state. For purposes of this paragraph, a transportation infrastructure project does not include a transit-oriented development project, whether residential, commercial, or mixed-use.
(c) No modification to appropriations for state funded programs shall occur, and no state grant applications or funding shall be denied as a result of the application of this section. No benefit or preference in state appropriations or grants shall be given to an entity that opts not to utilize the provisions of this section.
(d) The provisions of this section are severable. If any provision of this section or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.
SECTION 3. Section 5.5 is added to Article XI of the California Constitution, to read:
SEC. 5.5. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), in the event of a conflict with a state statute, a city charter provision, general plan, specific plan, ordinance or a regulation adopted pursuant to a city charter, that establishes land use policies or regulates zoning or development standards within the boundaries of the city shall be deemed a municipal affair within the meaning of Section 5 and shall prevail over a conflicting state statute. No voter approved local initiative that regulates the zoning, development or use of land within the boundaries of any city shall be overturned or otherwise nullified by any legislative body. (b) A city charter provision, general plan, specific plan, ordinance or a regulation adopted pursuant to a city charter, may be determined only by a court of competent jurisdiction, in accordance with Section 5, to address either a matter of statewide con cern or a municipal affair
58277666.v2
if that provision, ordinance, or regulation conflicts with a state statute with regard to only the following:
(1) The California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code), or a successor statute. (2) The siting of a power generating facility capable of generating more than 50 megawatts of electricity and the California Public Utilities Commission has determined that a need exists at that location that is a matter of statewide concern. (3) The development or construction of a water, communication or transportation infrastructure project for which the Legislature has declared in statute the reasons why the project addresses a matter of statewide concern and is in the best interests of the state. For purposes of this paragraph, a transportation infrastructure project does not include a transit-oriented development project, whether residential, commercial, or mixed-use.
(c) No modification to appropriations for state funded programs shall occur, and no state grant applications or funding shall be denied as a result of the application of this section. No benefit or preference in state appropriations or grants shall be given to an entity that opts not to utilize the provisions of this section.
(d) The provisions of this section are severable. If any provision of this section or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.
SECTION 4. Section 7 of Article XI of the California Constitution is amended to read:
SEC. 7. (a) A county or city may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not that are not, except as provided in subdivision (b), in conflict with general laws. A county or city may not supersede or otherwise interfere with any voter approved local initiative pertaining to land use or zoning restrictions. (b) A county or city general plan, specific plan, ordinance or regulation that regulates the zoning, development or use of land within the boundaries of the county or city shall prevail over conflicting general laws, except for only the following:
(A) A coastal land use plan, ordinance or regulation that conflicts with the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code), or a successor statute.
(B) An ordinance or regulation that addresses the siting of a power generating facility capable of generating more than 50 megawatts of electricity and the California Public Utilities Commission has determined that a need exists at that location that is a matter of statewide concern.
(C) An ordinance or regulation that addresses the development or construction of a water, communication or transportation infrastructure project for which the Legislature has declared in statute the reasons why the project addresses a matter of statewide concern and is in the best interests of the state. For purposes of this subparagraph, a transportation infrastructure project does not include a transit- oriented development project, whether residential, commercial, or mixed-use.
58277666.v2
(c) No modification to appropriations for state funded programs shall occur, and no state grant applications or funding shall be denied as a result of the application of this section. No benefit or preference in state appropriations or grants shall be given to an entity that opts not to utilize the provisions of this section.
(d) The provisions of this subdivision are severable. If any provision of this subdivision or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.
Join Us! www.OurNeighborhoodVoices.com
Our Neighborhood Voices
Frequently Asked Questions
What does this initiative do?
The “Our Neighborhood Voices” Initiative restores the authority of your local representatives to decide what gets built in your community, on your street and right next door to where you live.
Why should you support this initiative?
Recent state laws let developers tear down the house right next door to you and build a multi-unit, multi-story building and you have no say in the matter. Under these new laws, developers are not required to conduct any environmental review, provide onsite parking, or build affordable housing. These laws give a blank check to developers that lets them do whatever they want to in our neighborhoods without any local input. The Our Neighborhood Voices Initiative is the strongest weapon we have to fight back against these draconian state laws, because it restores our ability to speak out and impact what is happening in our own communities.
If you believe that we should have a voice in our own neighborhoods – join us! Visit www.OurNeighborhoodVoices.com and volunteer today!
Why do we need this initiative?
Amending the state constitution with an initiative to put local communities in charge of land use and zoning laws will send a clear and powerful message that the recent state housing laws that damage our community without providing any affordable housing do not solve our problem – in fact, they are making our affordable housing crisis even worse.
We can’t afford to let developers make billions without paying anything to offset the impact of all this new housing on our communities – sticking all of us with the bill by overstressing our local infrastructure. We can’t afford more gentrification and economic displacement in working class neighborhoods and communities of color.
We can’t afford more traffic gridlock and less parking, since these state housing laws have no funding for roads or transit, and no parking requirements.
Ad Paid for by Brand-Huang-Mendoza Tripartisan Land Use Initiative, committee major funding from Reyla Graber
AIDS Healthcare Foundation
ATTACHMENT 3
Who is backing ONV?
Our Neighborhood Voices has received significant donations from individuals and organizations, including the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. The initiative is supported by a statewide grassroots coalition of Californians that includes Democrats, Republicans, Independents and voters from every part of the political spectrum.
There are five initiative proponents, three of whom are local elected officials, one is an affordable housing advocate, and one is a former city planning commissioner.
Our Neighborhood Voices is building a statewide coalition of community advocates, elected officials, and Californians from all walks of life who agree that it is time to restore our voice on local community decisions.
Don’t we just need to build more housing?
We need to build more housing that is affordable for middle and lower income Californians as an urgent priority. Simply allowing developers to build more housing in a market that is already dominated by investors and lots of expensive, vacant housing units will only produce more expensive housing that very few Californians can afford. That is exactly what is already happening under the current state housing laws that seek to increase housing density in single family communities without requiring anything to be affordable.
What laws will be impacted by the initiative?
The initiative enables any state law that directly impacts land use planning and zoning to be overridden by a local law, including density bonus, Housing Element requirements, Housing Accountability Act approval requirements, and certain aspects of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). State land use planning laws that address legitimate statewide interests such as coastal protection and large infrastructure projects will continue to supersede any conflicting local laws.
What about the environment and housing equity?
The initiative was written to ensure full compliance with all state environmental laws and all fair housing and anti-discrimination laws. The initiative does not conflict with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and in fact it helps local agencies ensure that new development gets sufficient environmental review and protections.
Single family neighborhoods are not inherently discriminatory, and many people of color own and rent homes in these neighborhoods that represent the main means of building wealth for them. Now that BIPOC single family neighborhoods exist, Our Neighborhood Voices finds it ironic and disturbing that there is an effort to undermine and devalue the importance of single family homes. For more details about how the initiative interacts with these laws, please read our land use attorneys’ expert legal opinion, available at www.OurNeighborhoodVoices.com.
Frequently Asked Questions
How will the initiative become law?
We have until late April 2022 to obtain 1 million valid signatures from California registered voters to qualify the initiative for the November 8, 2022 ballot. Once we have qualified for the ballot, we need to educate enough Californians to vote for the initiative to restore our collective voice on these important local land use policy decisions.
You can help restore your neighborhood voice by joining us at www.OurNeighborhoodVoices.com
How can I help?
Our Neighborhood Voices is a grassroots effort that will require lots of money and volunteers to succeed. Any donation, large or small, will help, and you can make it online right now at www.OurNeighborhoodVoices.com/donate. Please make sure to volunteer to collect signatures, endorse the campaign, and spread the word about Our Neighborhood Voices to your friends, relatives and neighbors! If you sign up to receive petitions on the “Action Kit” section of our website you will receive online training and supplies before going out to collect signatures.
Where can I find more information?
Please visit www.OurNeighborhoodVoices.com for more details, and you can also email at [email protected] if you have a detailed question or concern.
How will the initiative affect the relationship between state and local government?
The initiative will help restore a balance of power between our state and local government by putting communities back in charge of local land use decisions, and encouraging our state legislators to remain focused on matters that are truly of statewide concern, like working with local communities to implement real solutions to California’s affordable housing crisis.
Frequently Asked Questions
Join Us! www.OurNeighborhoodVoices.com
Communities
Anaheim
Beverly Hills
Cupertino
Corona
El Segundo
Fullerton
Gilroy
Hawthorne
Hermosa Beach
Manhattan Beach
Mission Viejo
Monte Sereno
Newport Beach
Oceanside
Ontario
Lomita
Murrieta
Palos Verdes Estates
Rancho Palos Verdes
Rancho Santa Margarita
Redondo Beach
Rolling Hills Estates
San Dimas
ATTACHMENT 4
San Marcos
San Marino
Saratoga
Torrance
Yorba Linda
Yucaipa
Southern California Association of Governments
California Contract Cities Association
South Bay Council of Governments
Our Neighborhood Voices is proud to have
support from all across California:
Community Leaders
Eric Alegria – Mayor, City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Lon Allan – Former Mayor, City of Monte Sereno
Ed Alves – Mayor, City of Escalon
Holly Andreatta – Vice Mayor, City of Lincoln
Sylvia Ballin – Mayor, City of San Fernando
Arianna Barrios – Councilmember, City of Orange
Justin Beaver – Councilmember, City of Yucaipa
Marie Blankley – Mayor, City of Gilroy
Jonathan Bowers – Councilmember, City of Compton
Gary Boyer – Councilmember, City of Glendora
Drew Boyles – Mayor, City of El Segundo
Bill Brand – Mayor, City of Redondo Beach
Joy Brenner – Councilmember, City of Newport Beach
Phil Brock – Councilmember, City of Santa Monica
Desley Brooks – Former Council Member, City of Oakland
Karla Brown – Mayor, City of Pleasanton
Wendy Bucknum – Mayor Pro Tem, City of Mission Viejo
Mark Burton – Former Mayor/Councilmember, City of Manhattan Beach Susan Candell – Mayor, City of Lafayette
Ramona Caudillo – Mayor, City of Lindsay
Jeff Cooper – Former Mayor, City of Culver City
George Chen – Councilmember, City of Torrance
Denise Diaz – Councilmember, City of South Gate
Bea Dieringer – Mayor, City of Rolling Hills
Christian Dinco – Councilmember, City of Eastvale
John Ebiner – Councilmember, City of San Dimas
Frank Egger – Former Mayor, City of Farifax
Anita Enander – Mayor, City of Los Altos
Laura Ferguson – Councilmember, City of San Clemente
Jon Froomin – Councilmember, City of Foster City
Mike Frost – Councilmember, City of Dana Point
Jim Gazeley – Councilmember, City of Lomita
Lance Giroux – Councilmember, City of El Segundo
Julian Gold – Councilmember, City of Beverly Hills
Eniko Gold – Councilmember, City of Hidden Hills
Mike Griffiths – Councilmember, City of Torrance
Kevin Haroff – Mayor, City of Larkspur
Lesa Heebner – Mayor, City of Solana Beach
Sue Higgins – Mayor, City of Oakley
Susan Hollingsworth-Adams – Councilmember, City of Rohnert Park Peggy Huang – Mayor, City of Yorba Linda
Mike Judge – Councilmember, City of Simi Valley
Fred Keeley – Ret. CA State Assemblymember, Santa Cruz County Supervisor & Treasurer
Michael Kemps – Mayor, City of Palos Verdes Estates
Linda Koelling – Former Mayor, City of Foster City
Paul Koretz – Councilmember, City of Los Angeles
Lydia Kou – Councilmember, City of Palo Alto
Linda Krupa – Councilmember, City of Hemet
Rishi Kumar – Councilmember, City of Saratoga
Lynette Lee Eng – Councilmember, City of Los Altos
Todd Loewenstein – Councilmember, City of Redondo Beach Patty Lopez – Retired California State Assemblymember
Mike Losey – Councilmember, City of Fortuna
Jessica Martinez – Councilmember, City of Whittier
Patricia Matthews – Mayor Pro Tem, City of Lemoore
Aurelio Mattucci – Councilmember, City of Torrance
Jovita Mendoza – Councilmember, City of Brentwood
John Mirisch – Former Mayor and Current Councilmember, City of Beverly Hills Leah Mirsch – Councilmember, City of Rolling Hills
Chip Monaco – Councilmember, City of Orange
Carme Montano – Vice Mayor, City of Milpitas
Carol Moore – Mayor Pro Tem, City of Laguna Woods
Thomas Moore – Councilmember, City of Seal Beach
Dawn Murdock – Councilmember, City of Palos Verdes Estates Frank Navarro – Mayor, City of Colton
Nils Nehrenheim – Councilmember, City of Redondo Beach
Kim Nichols – Mayor Pro Tem, City of Orange
Vince Palomar – Mayor Pro Tem, City of Kingsburg
Ariel Pe – City Council, City of Lakewood
Aaron Peskin – Supervisor, City of San Francisco
Erica Pezold – Mayor, City of Laguna Hills
Bob Pinzler – Former Councilmember, City of Redondo Beach Randy Pope – Vice Mayor, City of Oakley
Traci Reilly – Former Councilmember, City of Lafayette
Angie Reyes English – Councilmember, City of Hawthorne
Dennis Richards – Former Planning Commissioner, City of San Francisco Deborah Robinson – Mayor, City of Rialto
Christopher Rodriguez – Councilmember, City of Oceanside Todd Rogers – Councilmember, City of Lakewood
Michael Routh – Former Councilmember, City of Capitola
Esther Sanchez – Mayor, City of Oceanside
Steve Sanchez – Councilmember, City of La Quinta
Tim Schaefer – Councilmember, City of Citrus Heights
Ann Schneider – Mayor, City of Millbrae
Cindy Segawa – Mayor ProTem, City of Lomita
Stuart Siegel – Mayor, City of Hidden Hills
Marty Simonoff – Councilmember, City of Brea
Ray Singleton – Councilmember, City of Coalinga
Wes Speake – Vice Mayor, City of Corona
Rene Spring – Councilmember, City of Morgan Hill
Sharon Springer – Councilmember, City of Burbank
Pam Stafford – Rohnert Park Councilmember,
Isaac Suchil – Mayor Pro Tem, City of Colton
Daniel Tabor – Former Mayor and Councilmember, City of Inglewood Julie Testa – Vice Mayor, City of Pleasanton
Rowena Turner – City Council, Monte Sereno
Steve Tye – Councilmember, City of Diamond Bar
William Uphoff – Councilmember, City of Lomita
Olivia Valentine – Mayor Pro Tem, City of Hawthorne
Artemio Villegas – Councilmember, City of Madera
Acquanetta Warren – Mayor, City of Fontana
Alicia Weintraub – Councilmember, City of Calabasas
George Weiss – Councilmember, City of Laguna Beach
Peter Weiss – Councilmember, City of Oceanside
Herb Wesson – Former CA Assembly Speaker & Council President, City of Los Angeles
Anissa Williams – Councilmember, City of Oakley
Felicia Williams – Councilmember, City of Pasadena
Jeff Wood – Councilmember, City of Lakewood
Carla Woodworth – Former Councilmember, City of Berkeley Frank Zerunyan – Mayor, City of Rolling Hills Estates
David Zito – Councilmember, City of Solana Beach
Evelyn Zneimer – Councilmember, City of South Pasadena
Alex Zukas – Board Member, El Cerrito Community Council (San Diego)