TO:
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
THROUGH:
Talyn Mirzakhanian, Acting City Manager
FROM:
George Gabriel, Assistant to the City Manager
Patricia Matson, Management Analyst
SUBJECT:Title
Consideration of a Resolution in Support of Statewide Ballot Measure Proposition 36, Which Proposes to Allow Felony Charges and Increases Sentences for Certain Drug and Theft Crimes (Acting City Manager Mirzakhanian).
(Estimated Time: 15 Mins.)
CONSIDER ADOPTING RESOLUTION NO. 24-0103
Body
_________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council discuss and consider adopting Resolution No. 24-0103, expressing support of Statewide Ballot Measure Proposition 36, which proposes to allow felony charges and increases sentences for certain drug and theft crimes.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
There are no fiscal implications associated with the recommended action.
BACKGROUND:
From time to time, the City Council takes positions and expresses support on pending ballot measures that may affect the City of Manhattan Beach, prior to upcoming elections.
The 2024 Legislative Platform sets forth the City’s legislative objectives for the calendar year and provides guidance for legislative action the City may consider. Since the inception of the Platform, the Legislative Ad Hoc Subcommittee, comprised of Mayor Pro Tem Howorth and Councilmember Lesser, has met and discussed multiple legislative items that may be impactful to the City of Manhattan Beach.
Within the Platform’s legislative objectives, efforts that ensure public safety are prioritized. As such, the subcommittee may discuss and consider a position on associated legislation. At a recent meeting, the subcommittee discussed Statewide Ballot Measure Proposition 36 and requested that staff provide the City Council with a report, so that the City Council may consider taking a position on Proposition 36.
DISCUSSION:
Proposition 36, which qualified for the November 5, 2024, General Election, is a citizen-led initiative titled the “Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and Theft Reduction Act.” Briefly, Proposition 36, if successful, would modify components of Proposition 47, an initiative measure that passed in 2014 and reclassified specific offenses, such as shoplifting items worth $950 or less and drug possession, from felonies to misdemeanors. Proposition 36 proposes to reclassify some of these misdemeanors as felonies and increases sentences for certain drug and theft crimes.
Summary of Proposition 36
The following information is summarized from the November 5, 2024, General Election Official Voter Information Guide published by the Secretary of State. The analysis of Proposition 36 is completed by the California Legislative Analyst’s Office and attached to this report. Additionally, the full text of the proposed law is attached for reference.
Proposed Law
Proposition 36 introduces several changes to the penalties for theft and drug crimes. These changes are summarized below.
1. It increases punishment for some theft and drug crimes in three ways:
• Turns some misdemeanors into felonies: Certain thefts (i.e. thefts under $950) become felonies for individuals with two or more theft convictions for certain theft crimes. The sentence would be up to three years in county jail or State prison.
• Lengthens some felony sentences: For example, felony sentences for theft or damage of property can be lengthened by up to three years if three or more people committed the crime together.
• Requires some felonies to be served in prison: For example, sentences for selling certain drugs can be lengthened based on the amount sold. These sentences are served in county jail or State prison depending on the person’s criminal history. However, the proposed law generally requires that these sentences be served in prison.
2. Creates new court process for some drug possession crimes:
• Treatment-mandated felonies: Allows people who possess illegal drugs to be charged with a “treatment-mandated felony,” instead of a misdemeanor in some cases. This applies to people who possess certain drugs and have two or more past convictions for some drug crimes. These people would generally get mental health or drug treatment. Successful completion of treatment leads to dismissal of charges; however, failure can result in up to three years in State prison.
3. Requires warning of possible murder charges for selling or providing drugs:
• Potential for murder charges: Courts must warn those convicted of selling or providing certain drugs that they could be charged with murder if they sell or provide illegal drugs that kill someone.
Fiscal Effects
Proposition 36 would impact State and local government finances in several ways.
1. Increases State criminal justice costs:
• Increase in State prison population: More people would serve sentences in State prisons instead of county jails, and some sentences would be longer, potentially raising the prison population by a few thousand.
• Increase in State court workload: Felony cases and treatment-mandated felonies would increase the workload for State courts.
Cost estimate: Overall, State criminal justice costs could rise by several tens of millions to low hundreds of millions of dollars annually, which is less than one-half of 1 percent of the State’s General Fund budget.
2. Increases local criminal justice costs:
• Net increase in county jail and community supervision population: While some individuals would be moved to State prisons, others would spend more time in county jails or under community supervision, likely increasing the county population by a few thousand.
• Increase in local court-related workload: Since felonies usually take more time to resolve than misdemeanors, there would be additional demands on local prosecutors, public defenders, and probation or behavioral health departments.
Cost estimate: Local criminal justice costs could increase by tens of millions of dollars annually.
3. Reduces amount State must spend of certain services:
• Impact on Proposition 47 savings: Proposition 47 created a process for the use of State savings from its punishment reductions. These savings had to be spent on mental health and drug treatment, school truancy and dropout prevention, and victim services. Proposition 36 would decrease these savings. The reduction would likely be in the low tens of millions of dollars annually.
4. Other fiscal impacts:
• Potential savings: If increased punishments or mandated treatments lead to reduced crime, some costs might be avoided, but the extent of these effects is uncertain.
On July 17, 2024, the League of California Cities issued a press release expressing support for Proposition 36. The press release stated, “The district attorney-sponsored ballot measure would create a deterrent for repeat retail theft offenders and redirect some towards treatment rather than incarceration.”
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The City Council's consideration of a resolution of support of Proposition 36 is not a “project” as defined under Section 15378 of the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines because it does not have a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Therefore, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the activity is not subject to CEQA, and no environmental review is necessary.
LEGAL REVIEW:
The City Attorney has reviewed this report and determined that no additional legal analysis is necessary.
ATTACHMENT/ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution No. 24-0103
2. Proposition 36 - Analysis by the CA Legislative Analyst’s Office
3. Proposition 36 - Full Text of Proposed Law