Joseph Loggia, Mayor
Stuart E. Siegel, Mayor Pro Tem
Laura McCorkindale, Council Member
Eniko Gold, Council Member
Larry G. Weber, Council Member
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Amber Servin, City Manager
DATE: September 16, 2026
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A STANDING DESIGNATION OF THE CITY'S VOTING
REPRESENTATIVE AND ALTERNATE(S) FOR CALIFORNIA CONTRACT CITIES
ASSOCIATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETINGS
BACKGROUND
The City of Hidden Hills is a member city of the California Contract Cities Association (CCCA). CCCA's Board of Directors meets periodically throughout the year and brings recurring business before the membership, including the annual city membership dues rates and annual CCCA budget. CCCA has notified member cities that a quorum is needed at its September 16, 2026 Board of Directors meeting so that the Board can act on the 2026 to 2027 city membership dues rates and the 2026 to 2027 CCCA budget.
The City has not previously designated a standing voting representative or alternate(s) to represent Hidden Hills and cast the City's vote at CCCA Board of Directors meetings. Rather than bring a separate item to the City Council each time CCCA business requires action by member cities, staff recommends the Council designate a standing voting representative and up to two alternates for all present and future CCCA Board of Directors meetings, so the City is consistently represented, including at the September 16, 2026 meeting.
A copy of CCCA's meeting notice for the September 16, 2026 Board of Directors meeting, including the proposed 2026 to 2027 dues schedule and proposed budget, is included as Attachment 1.
DISCUSSION
Staff recommends the City Council designate one voting representative and up to two alternates from among the Mayor, Council Members, or City Manager to represent the City at all CCCA Board of Directors meetings and other CCCA matters requiring a vote of the membership. Only the designated representative, or an alternate acting in the representative's absence, would cast the City's vote. The designation would remain in effect until amended or rescinded by future Council action, so the City would not need to bring a new item forward for each individual CCCA meeting.
This standing designation would ensure Hidden Hills has a designated representative in place for the September 16, 2026 meeting, at which the CCCA Board is scheduled to act on the 2026 to 2027 dues rates and budget, as well as for future CCCA Board meetings. Staff recommends the Council also direct the ITEM 3.A
Consideration of a Standing Designation of the City's Voting Representative and Alternate(s) for California Contract Cities Association Board of Directors Meetings
page 2
representative to generally support the recommendations of the CCCA Executive Board on routine association business, unless the Council provides specific direction otherwise on a particular matter.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with designating a voting representative and alternate(s) for CCCA Board of Directors meetings. Any costs associated with attendance at CCCA meetings are anticipated to be accommodated within the City's adopted FY 2026-27 budget for conferences and training.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council: (1) designate a standing voting representative and up to two alternates to represent the City at all California Contract Cities Association Board of Directors meetings and other CCCA matters requiring a vote of the membership, effective until amended or rescinded by future Council action; and (2) direct staff to notify CCCA of the City's designation.
If the City Council concurs, an appropriate motion would be:
“I move that the City Council designate [Council Member/Mayor Name] as the City's voting representative and [Council Member/Mayor Name] as alternate for all California Contract Cities Association Board of Directors meetings and votes, effective until amended or rescinded by the City Council, and direct staff to notify CCCA of this designation.”
ATTACHMENTS:
1. CCCA September 2026 Board of Directors Meeting Notice ATTACHMENT 1
Joseph Loggia, Mayor
Stuart E. Siegel, Mayor Pro Tem
Laura McCorkindale, Council Member
Eniko Gold, Council Member
Larry G. Weber, Council Member
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Amber Servin, Assistant City Manager/ Acting City Manager DATE: September 16, 2026
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A POLICY FOR DESIGNATING VOTING DELEGATES AND
PROVIDING CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION ON MATTERS SUBJECT TO A VOTE OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES (CAL CITIES), INCLUDING THE 2026 ANNUAL CONFERENCE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND THE 2026 GENERAL RESOLUTION
BACKGROUND
The League of California Cities (Cal Cities) is the statewide association through which California's cities engage collectively on issues of shared concern. Cal Cities bylaws provide that member cities cast a vote on organizational business, including general resolutions and other matters, primarily through the General Assembly held each year during the Annual Conference, and on occasion through petitioned resolutions or other business conducted apart from the conference. Cal Cities bylaws require that a city's voting delegate and any alternate(s) be designated by action of the City Council before the City may cast a vote on any such matter.
For the 2026 Annual Conference and Expo, which Cal Cities will hold at the Anaheim Convention Center from September 23 through 25, 2026, Cal Cities recommended that cities designate their voting delegate and alternate(s) by September 1, 2026, though Cal Cities has indicated it will continue to accept designations through the Annual Conference. Because the City Council's next regularly scheduled meeting following that recommended date is September 14, 2026, staff is bringing this item forward at the earliest opportunity so that the City's designation can be submitted in advance of the General Assembly.
In addition to selecting a voting delegate, the City of Murrieta has submitted a General Resolution for the General Assembly to consider on the final day of the conference. Cal Cities distributed the 2026 Resolution packet on August 10, 2026, so member cities could review the proposed resolution and direct their voting delegate on how to cast the City's vote.
DISCUSSION
Because the need to designate a voting delegate and provide direction on the City's vote can arise more than once a year, including at each Annual Conference and, on occasion, through petitioned resolutions or other Cal Cities business, staff recommends the City Council adopt a standing practice for handling these matters going forward. Consistent with Cal Cities bylaws, for each Cal Cities matter requiring a City vote, ITEM 3.B
Cal Cities Voting Delegate Policy and Direction on the 2026 General Resolution page 2
staff recommends the City Council designate one voting delegate and up to two alternates from among the Mayor, Council Members, or City Manager to represent the City. Only the designated voting delegate, or an alternate acting in the delegate's absence, may cast the City's vote. Once designated for a particular matter, staff will submit the City's selection to Cal Cities and complete any registration needed for the delegate and alternate(s).
Applying this practice to the matter currently before Cal Cities, staff requests that the City Council review the 2026 General Resolution submitted by the City of Murrieta (Attachment 2) and provide direction to the City's voting delegate on how the City's vote should be cast at the General Assembly. Cal Cities has also identified several priority legislative matters relevant to the City heading into the close of the legislative session, including a Governor's Office proposal to limit utility liability for utility-caused wildfires in ways Cal Cities believes would restrict public agencies' ability to recover losses, ballot measure positions supporting Proposition 1 and opposing Proposition 43, and two priority bills, SB 1013 (Cervantes), regarding automated license plate readers, and AB 1383 (McKinnor), regarding public safety retirement benefits, on which Cal Cities has taken an oppose or oppose-unless-amended position. Staff is monitoring these items and will bring back separately any that require Council action.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with adopting a standing practice for designating voting delegates, or with designating a delegate or providing direction on the General Resolution. Any costs associated with conference registration and attendance for a designated delegate and alternate(s) are anticipated to be accommodated within the City's adopted budget for conferences and training in the applicable fiscal year.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council: (1) adopt a standing practice under which the City Council will designate a voting delegate and up to two alternates, and provide direction on the City's position, for each matter that comes before Cal Cities requiring a City vote; (2) designate a voting delegate and up to two alternates to represent the City at the 2026 Cal Cities Annual Conference General Assembly and direct staff to submit the designation to Cal Cities; and (3) provide direction to the voting delegate on the City's position regarding the 2026 General Resolution submitted by the City of Murrieta.
If the City Council concurs, an appropriate motion would be:
“I move that the City Council adopt a standing practice of designating a voting delegate and up to two alternates, and providing direction on the City's position, for each matter that comes before the League of California Cities requiring a City vote; designate [Council Member/Mayor Name] as the City's voting delegate and [Council Member/Mayor Name] as alternate for the 2026 Cal Cities Annual Conference General Assembly; direct staff to submit this designation to the League of California Cities; and direct the voting delegate to cast a vote on the City's behalf at the 2026 Cal Cities Annual Conference consistent with the Council's direction.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Cal Cities Update for August 18, 2026 (League of California Cities, Los Angeles County Division) Cal Cities Voting Delegate Policy and Direction on the 2026 General Resolution page 3
2. 2026 Cal Cities General Resolution Packet
Cal Cities Update for AUG 18
From: Jeff Kiernan, League of California Cities
([email protected])
Date: August 18, 2026
Subject: Cal Cities Update for AUG 18
Good Afternoon Mayors, Council Members, & City Managers, I prepared this update for an upcoming meeting and wanted to share it with you too. Details below on a lot of last-minute legislative issues (wildfire liability, goat herding, and pension reform rollback) and the 2026 Resolution each city’s delegate will consider at the Annual Conference.
Please reach out if you have questions about this or other topics your city is working on.
Jeff
Annual Conference Update
This year, Cal Cities 2026 Annual Conference will take place at the Anaheim Convention Center from September 23–25, 2026. The preliminary conference schedule and registration information are available on the Cal Cities Annual Conference website.
For the first time since 2024, delegates from each member city will have a general assembly resolution, submitted by the City of Murrieta, to consider on the final day of the conference. The 2026 Resolution packet was distributed on August 10 so that cities may consider the resolution and provide direction to their voting delegate.
Cal Cities bylaws require council action for a city to select their voting delegate and any alternates. It is recommended that cities take this action by September 1, but Cal Cities will continue to accept voting delegate submissions until the annual conference.
Join the Los Angeles County Division for a lunch on Wednesday during the Annual Conference on September 23 from 11:30 AM–1 PM with California State Treasurer Fiona Ma as the featured speaker. Advance registration is recommended as in-person registration may be limited due to space.
Gov. Newsom Proposing Major Changes to
Wildfire Liability
With days left before the end of the legislative session, Governor Newsom is proposing major changes that would shift wildfire liability away from California’s privately owned electric utilities. Although details of the proposal have not been shared, the Governor’s Office ATTACHMENT 1
has briefed Cal Cities verbally and is proposing limits on what utilities would be required to pay to public agencies when there is a utilitycaused wildfire.
While there are some worthwhile parts to the proposal, Cal Cities is urging legislators to reject any reforms that limit a public agency’s ability to recuperate losses from a utility from being included in any wildfire package this session. Specifically, Cal Cities objects to these reforms:
Limiting damage claims of public property or public infrastructure to the depreciated value of the asset that the utility would need to pay. This means utilities would not have to pay for the full replacement costs of essential water, sewer, fire stations, schools, parks, and libraries that are damaged from the utility-caused fire.
Eliminating emergency response and mutual aid as recoverable costs from the utility.
Eliminating property tax loss revenue as a recoverable cost from the utility. This proposal would lead to public agencies being stranded without any tax base after a major fire in the region, jeopardizing essential services.
Cal Cities is asking cities or individuals to sign on to a letter in opposition to these changes to wildfire liability and to call or text their legislators.
Ballot Measure Advocacy
The Cal Cities Board of Directors reached the required two-thirds vote threshold to recommend positions on two ballot measures: support for Proposition 1 and opposition to Proposition 43.
The Board voted to support Prop. 1, an $11.25 billion affordable housing bond that supports key state housing programs. If approved by voters, it could jumpstart the construction of 135,000 housing units. It also allocates funding for housing preservation and ownership.
Prop. 43 raises the threshold for approval for citizen-initiated special taxes from a simple majority to two-thirds, starting on January 1, 2027. Legislators agreed to place the measure on the ballot after the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association pulled a property transfer tax initiative. The Board voted to oppose Prop. 43.
Legislative Advocacy
Cal Cities has positions on hundreds of bills. The bills below have been identified as top priority bills for the remainder of the legislative session:
SB 1013 (Cervantes) — Automatic License Plate Readers. This measure would prohibit a local agency from using ALPR unless it is tied to a HOT list and only allows data retention of this information for 30 days. Cal Cities Position: Oppose Unless Amended
AB 1383 (McKinnor) — Public employees’ retirement benefits:
safety members. This measure would make several significant changes to public employees’ retirement benefits, which would ultimately lead to increased pension liability for state and local agencies. These changes include reducing the retirement age for public safety employees and raising the pensionable compensation cap for PEPRA employees. Cal Cities Position: Oppose
Cal Cities Seeking a Legislative Solution
to Save Brush Clearing Goats
Cal Cities has signed on to a coalition letter that seeks to maintain wage parity for sheep and goat herders in California in light of a regulatory rule expiration that has pushed minimum annual wages for goat herders upwards of $240,000. Without immediate action by the legislature, keeping goats in California would no longer be financially viable, leaving communities without these wildfire fuel reduction resources as part of the arsenal against wildfires.
Additional Upcoming Cal Cities Events
September 2, 10:00 AM — Webinar: Statewide Local Streets and Bridges Needs Assessment
September 23–25 — 2026 Annual Conference (Anaheim
Convention Center)
September 23, 11:30 AM–1:00 PM — Los Angeles County
Division Annual Conference Luncheon with Featured Speaker CA Treasurer Fiona Ma (Hilton Anaheim)
Jeffrey Kiernan (he/him) Regional Public Affairs Manager Los Angeles County Division League of California Cities Cell: 310-630-7505 [email protected] | www.calcities.org
Note: Hyperlinks in the original email have been omitted from this PDF version. Refer to the original email for source links. 2025-2026
CAL CITIES OFFICERS
President
Gabe Quinto
Mayor
El Cerrito
First Vice President
Teresa Acosta
Council Member
Carlsbad
Second Vice President
David Cohen
Council Member
San Jose
Immediate Past President
Lynne B. Kennedy
Mayor Pro Tem,
Rancho Cucamonga
Executive Director
and CEO
Carolyn M. Coleman
1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org August 10, 2026
TO: Cal Cities Members
RE: Cal Cities 2026 Resolution Packet
Sixty days before the Cal Cities Annual Conference and Expo, Cal Cities members may submit resolutions on issues of importance to cities. This year, Cal Cities received one resolution by the July 25 deadline.
The attached packet contains the proposed resolution, background information, supporting letters from cities and city officials, and an analysis of the resolution by Cal Cities. The packet includes detailed information on the resolution process and the next steps for the resolution.
We encourage each city council to consider the resolution and determine a position so your voting delegate can represent your city’s position on the resolution.
Voting Delegates: City councils must appoint a voting delegate to vote during the General Assembly. Each city may also appoint up to two alternate delegates. If your city has not already done so, please appoint your voting delegate by Tuesday, Sept. 1, 2026. The voting delegate packet contains more information.
The 2026 General Assembly will be held Friday, Sept. 25, at 8:30 a.m. in the Anaheim Convention Center during the Annual Conference and Expo.
For questions about resolutions, voting delegates, or the General Assembly, please contact Zach Seals.
ATTACHMENT 2
2026
Resolution
Packet
2026 Resolution Packet
Information on 2026 Resolutions Process
Consideration by Policy Committee (pre-conference)
Per the Cal Cities bylaws, Cal Cities President Gabe Quinto has referred the submitted resolution to the Housing, Community, and Economic Development Committee. The committee will meet on Thursday, Sept. 17, at 10 a.m. via Zoom to review the resolution and make a recommendation that will be sent to the Resolutions Committee. A public comment period will be held during the meeting. Register for the meeting here.
A list of recommendations the policy committee may make during its meeting is on page two of this packet.
Consideration by Resolutions Committee (during conference) On Thursday, Sept. 24, at 1:00 p.m. the Resolutions Committee will meet to review the resolution and the recommendation of the policy committee.
The Resolutions Committee consist of one representative from each of Cal Cities caucuses, departments, divisions, and policy committees, as well as up to ten additional appointments made by the Cal Cities President. A public comment period will be held during the meeting. Refer to the onsite conference program for the location.
A list of recommendations the Resolutions Committee may make during its meeting is on page two of this packet.
Consideration by the General Assembly (during conference) The General Assembly will convene on Friday, Sept. 25, at 8:30 a.m. to consider any resolutions the Resolutions Committee has forwarded. To vote during the General Assembly, voting delegates must have checked in at the voting delegate booth.
Conference attendees will receive materials for the General Assembly on the evening of Thursday, Sept. 24. For more information on voting and discussion procedures during the General Assembly, see page three of this packet.
Petitioned Resolutions (during conference)
The petitioned resolution is an alternate method to introduce policy proposals during the annual conference. To initiate a petitioned resolution, voting delegates from 10% of member cities must sign the petition. The resolution and signatures are due at least 24 hours before the beginning of the General Assembly. Voting delegates who have checked in at the voting delegate booth can receive more information on petitioned resolutions at the booth onsite. 1 2026 Resolution Packet
Policy Committee and Resolutions Committee Actions
The submitted resolution will be heard by the policy committee to which it was assigned, and the Resolutions Committee. The table below shows what recommendations these bodies may make on the resolution.
Policy Committee Actions Resolutions Committee Actions
Approve Approve
Disapprove* Disapprove*
No Action No Action
Amend and approve Amend and approve
Refer to appropriate policy committee
for further study*
Approve as amended
Refer as amended to appropriate
policy committee for further study*
Refer to appropriate policy committee
for further study*
Refer as amended to appropriate
policy committee for further study*
Approve with additional
amendment(s)
Additional amendments and refer to
appropriate policy committee for
further study*
*If a resolution is disapproved or referred for further study by all policy committees to which it is assigned and the Resolutions Committee, it will not proceed to the General Assembly. 2 2026 Resolution Packet
General Assembly Voting and Discussion Procedures
Discussion Procedures:
Discussion procedures during the General Assembly are guided by two calendars:
the Consent Calendar and the Regular Calendar. As seen below, resolutions are calendared by the recommendations they receive from policy committees and the Resolutions Committee.
For General Resolutions:
Policy Committee
Recommendation
Resolutions Committee
Recommendation Calendar
Approve Approve Consent Calendar
Approve Disapprove or refer Regular Calendar
Disapprove or refer Approve Regular Calendar
Disapprove or refer Disapprove or refer Does not proceed to General Assembly
For Petitioned Resolutions:
Policy Committee
Recommendation Resolutions Committee Action Calendar
N/A
Approve Regular Calendar
Disapprove or Refer Regular Calendar
Disqualified Does not proceed to General
Assembly
Items on the Consent Calendar will be presented as one motion during the General Assembly from the Resolutions Committee chair. Unless an item on the Consent Calendar is set aside by the majority of the General Assembly, a vote will be taken on the whole calendar. If an item is set aside, it will be opened for discussion, followed by a vote.
Items on the Regular Calendar will be presented individually by the Resolutions Committee chair. After a recommendation is presented by the Resolutions Committee chair, the resolution will be opened for discussion by the General Assembly. A vote will take place following discussion.
Voting Procedures:
Per Cal Cities Bylaws Article XII, Sec. 2, all votes will be conducted by voice vote first. If the presiding official cannot determine the outcome, a vote will be taken by an alternative method, typically a raise of voting cards by voting delegates. A roll call vote may be called for by delegates of ten percent or more of the General Assembly.
3 2026 Resolution Packet
2026 Resolution
1. Resolution No. 1 submitted by City of Murrieta
• Letters of concurrence submitted by:
i. City of Banning;
ii. City of Calimesa;
iii. City of Canyon Lake;
iv. City of Moreno Valley;
v. City of Norco;
vi. City of Torrance;
vii. Crystal Ruiz, Mayor, City of San Jacinto;
viii. Jessica Alexander, Mayor, City of Temecula
• Referred to Housing, Community, and Economic Development Committee
• Policy Committee Recommendation:
• Resolutions Committee Recommendation:
4 2026 Resolution Packet
Resolution No. 1
Submitted by City of Murietta
5 2026 Resolution Packet
1. A RESOLUTION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES
CALLING FOR A WORKING GROUP TO CONSIDER A STATE CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT OR OTHER FORM OF INITIATIVE TO ENSURE FINAL LOCAL AUTHORITY OVER
HOUSING AND LAND USE DECISIONS
Source: City of Murrieta
Concurrence of five or more cities/city officials
Cities/city officials: City of Banning; City of Calimesa; City of Canyon Lake; City of Moreno Valley; City of Norco; City of Torrance; Crystal Ruiz, Mayor, City of San Jacinto; Jessica Alexander, Mayor, City of Temecula
Referred to: Housing, Community, and Economic Development Policy Committee WHEREAS, California cities have historically been responsible for adopting general plans and zoning regulations, reviewing housing development proposals, and providing or coordinating the streets, water, wastewater, public safety, parks, transportation, and other infrastructure and services necessary to support responsible, environmentally sound, and well-planned residential growth; and
WHEREAS, the League of California Cities is dedicated to protecting and expanding local control for municipalities across the state to ensure their orderly growth and development; and
WHEREAS, the League of California Cities recognizes that local zoning is a primary function of cities and an essential component of home rule, and that a city’s general plan should guide its land use planning and strategic decision-making free from pre-emption by the state; and
WHEREAS, increasingly prescriptive statewide housing mandates and development approval requirements can override locally adopted plans, zoning standards, and public review procedures without adequately accounting for differences that exist in each unique jurisdiction in infrastructure capacity, water availability, wildfire and evacuation risks, environmental constraints, fiscal impacts, public service needs, and community priorities; and
WHEREAS, California’s housing goals can be more effectively advanced through state funding, streamlined environmental requirements, and voluntary partnerships that support housing production while preserving the authority of locally elected officials to determine how and where housing is best planned and approved; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities, assembled during the Annual Conference in Anaheim, California, on September 25, 2026, that the League of California Cities support the development and advancement of a state constitutional amendment or other legislative, policy, or ballotbased strategies that restore and strengthen local authority over housing and land use matters within municipal boundaries, including general plans, housing elements, zoning, density, design and development standards, project siting, and the approval or denial of housing development applications; and
6 2026 Resolution Packet
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that any constitutional amendment or alternative strategy should preserve the State’s authority to establish broad statewide housing goals and enforce constitutional and civil rights, fair housing requirements, building and life-safety standards, and generally applicable environmental protections, while protecting cities from state actions that compel, through funding conditions or state law, the approval of housing developments that are inconsistent with locally adopted requirements; override local zoning or density standards; or invalidate locally adopted housing or land use decisions when a city has planned in good faith to accommodate its regional housing needs allocation and maintains adequate capacity for housing at all income levels; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the League of California Cities consider establishing a statewide working group or other appropriate committee(s) to evaluate and develop a proposed constitutional amendment or other legislative, policy, or ballot-based strategies to restore and strengthen local authority over housing and land use matters including but limited to: conducting appropriate legal, fiscal, and policy analyses; engaging cities and other stakeholders; and building a statewide coalition of proponent supporters in preparation for; the November 2030 General Election, or within another reasonable time frame as determined by the working group.
7 2026 Resolution Packet
Resolution No. 1: Background
Information
8 2026 Resolution Packet
Background Information for Resolution
Source: City of Murrieta
Background:
California cities are responsible for planning residential growth, adopting general plans and zoning regulations, reviewing development proposals, and providing or coordinating the infrastructure and public services necessary to support new housing. Since 2010, the State has enacted more than 500 housing-related laws that have increasingly shifted housing and land use authority away from local governments. These laws have expanded by-right development, limited locally adopted standards and review processes, and established enforcement mechanisms, including the builder’s remedy, that may override local plans and zoning. Although these measures are frequently presented as solutions to housing affordability, many increase development capacity or restrict local review without delivering the meaningful production of housing needed to address the housing crisis.
At the same time, the State has continued to prioritize increased development capacity without adequately accounting for the infrastructure, public services, economic realities, and safety measures necessary to support housing growth.
State mandates often fail to reflect local conditions, including roadway and utility capacity, water availability, wildfire exposure, environmental limitations, fiscal impacts, and the availability of essential services. Cities are consequently required to accommodate additional housing while receiving no funding or assistance to address the resulting infrastructure and service demands.
Local elected officials are directly accountable to the residents who experience the effects of development decisions and are responsible for balancing housing production with infrastructure capacity, public safety, environmental protection, fiscal sustainability, and community needs. Cities of all types in California have been grappling with this dynamic, ranging from urban to rural, coastal to inland, small to large, northern to southern, voicing concerns to legislative representatives with minimal responsiveness. This is an issue of statewide concern that needs the strength and diversity of the League of California Cities to pursue a long-term solution.
The proposed resolution directs the League of California Cities to establish a statewide working group to evaluate a constitutional amendment or other legislative, policy, or ballot-based strategies to restore and strengthen local authority over housing and land use decisions. The working group would be tasked with developing a more balanced framework that preserves the State’s role in establishing broad housing goals and enforcing constitutional, civil rights, fair housing, building, life-safety, and environmental requirements, while restoring meaningful local authority to allow cities to determine how statewide housing 9 2026 Resolution Packet
objectives should be implemented in a manner that reflects local conditions and community priorities while continuing to support responsible housing production.
As the primary statewide organization representing California cities, the League is uniquely positioned to lead this effort. Its established policy, legal, legislative, communications, and advocacy networks enable it to convene municipalities, evaluate potential strategies, conduct legal and fiscal analyses, build consensus, engage stakeholders, and coordinate with statewide decision-makers. League leadership would help ensure that any recommendation reflects the collective interests of California municipalities and would provide the credibility, organizational capacity, and statewide reach necessary to advance a viable strategy.
10 2026 Resolution Packet
Resolution No. 1: Letters of
Concurrence
11 12
13 July 23, 2026
President Gabe Quinto
League of California Cities
1400 K Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814
Subject: Support for a Resolution Establishing a Working Group to Evaluate a State Constitutional Amendment or Other Initiative to Restore Local Housing and Land Use Authority Dear President Quinto,
The City of Murrieta is sponsoring a resolution for consideration by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities to establish a statewide working group to evaluate a constitutional amendment or other legislative, policy, or ballot-based strategies to restore and strengthen local authority over housing and land use decisions.
The proposed resolution, together with the required background materials, will be submitted to Cal Cities for consideration at the 2026 Annual Conference in Orange County on September 24 and
25. The resolution would direct the League to convene a working group to evaluate potential approaches for addressing the increasingly broad and prescriptive state mandates affecting local housing, zoning, development standards, and project approval authority.
On behalf of the City of Canyon Lake, this letter confirms our support for the City of Murrieta’s submission of the proposed resolution and its consideration by the League of California Cities General Assembly at the 2026 Annual Conference.
Sincerely,
Arron Brown
City Manager
City of Canyon Lake
14 July 23, 2026
President Gabe Quinto
League of California Cities
1400 K Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814
Subject: Support for a Resolution Establishing a Working Group to Evaluate a State Constitutional Amendment or Other Initiative to Restore Local Housing and Land Use Authority Dear President Quinto,
The City of Murrieta is sponsoring a resolution for consideration by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities to establish a statewide working group to evaluate a constitutional amendment or other legislative, policy, or ballot-based strategies to restore and strengthen local authority over housing and land use decisions.
The proposed resolution, together with the required background materials, will be submitted to Cal Cities for consideration at the 2026 Annual Conference in Orange County on September 24 and 25. The resolution would direct the League to convene a working group to evaluate potential approaches to address increasingly broad and prescriptive state mandates affecting local housing, zoning, development standards, and project approval authority.
On behalf of the City of Moreno Valley, this letter confirms our support for the City of Murrieta’s submission of the proposed resolution and its consideration by the League of California Cities General Assembly at the 2026 Annual Conference.
Sincerely,
Brian Mohan
City Manager
City of Moreno Valley
15 July 22, 2026
President Gabe Quinto
League of California Cities
1400 K Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814
Subject: Support for a Resolution Establishing a Working Group to Evaluate a State Constitutional Amendment or Other Initiative to Restore Local Housing and Land Use Authority
Dear President Quinto,
The City of Murrieta is sponsoring a resolution for consideration by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities to establish a statewide working group to evaluate a constitutional amendment or other legislative, policy, or ballot-based strategies to restore and strengthen local authority over housing and land use decisions.
The proposed resolution, together with the required background materials, will be submitted to Cal Cities for consideration at the 2026 Annual Conference in Orange County on September 24 and 25. The resolution would direct the League to convene a working group to evaluate potential approaches for addressing the increasingly broad and prescriptive state mandates affecting local housing, zoning, development standards, and project approval authority.
On behalf of the City of the Norco, this letter confirms our support for the City of Murrieta’s submission of the proposed resolution and its consideration by the League of California Cities General Assembly at the 2026 Annual Conference.
Sincerely,
Kevin Bash
City Council Member
(951) 768-8981
16 17
18 19
20 July 23, 2026
Mr. Gabe Quinto, President
League of California Cities
1400 K Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814
Subject: Support for the City of Murrieta's Resolution Establishing a Working Group to Evaluate a State Constitutional Amendment or Other Initiative to Restore Local Housing and Land Use Authority Dear President Quinto:
I am writing in my individual capacity as Mayor of the City of Temecula to express my strong support for the City of Murrieta's proposed resolution for consideration by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities at the 2026 Annual Conference.
The proposed resolution presents an important opportunity to thoughtfully evaluate the appropriate balance between California's statewide housing objectives and the constitutional principle of local governance. Establishing a statewide working group to examine a potential constitutional amendment, legislative reforms, or other policy initiatives will provide a meaningful forum to assess how local authority over housing and land use decisions can be strengthened while continuing to address the State's housing challenges.
Cities are uniquely positioned to understand the needs, opportunities, and constraints of their communities. Local elected officials are accountable to the residents they serve and are best equipped to make land use decisions that reflect a community's character, infrastructure capacity, economic development goals, environmental stewardship, and long-term vision. Equally important, local governments bear the primary responsibility for protecting public safety. Decisions regarding housing density, transportation, emergency access, wildfire preparedness, evacuation routes, police and fire service capacity, water availability, and critical infrastructure are inherently local matters that require the knowledge and judgment of those who serve their communities every day.
While the State has an important role in addressing California's housing needs, a collaborative approach that respects local expertise and preserves meaningful local discretion will produce stronger, safer, and more sustainable communities. The proposed working group offers an opportunity to evaluate policies that achieve these shared objectives while restoring an appropriate balance between state direction and local authority.
21 Mr. Gabe Quinto, President
League of California Cities
July 23, 2026
Although this letter reflects my personal position and is not an official action or policy of the City of Temecula or the Temecula City Council, I respectfully endorse the City of Murrieta's submission of this resolution and encourage its favorable consideration by the League of California Cities General Assembly.
Thank you for your leadership and your thoughtful consideration of this important issue.
Respectfully,
Jessica Alexander
Mayor, City of Temecula
Signing in her individual capacity
and not on behalf of the City of Temecula
or the Temecula City Council.
22 2026 Resolution Packet
Resolution No. 1: Staff Analysis
23 League of California Cities Staff Analysis on Resolution No. 1 Staff: Brady Guertin, Legislative Advocate
Committee: Housing, Community, and Economic Development Summary:
Resolution No.1 states that the League of California Cities (Cal Cities) will:
1. Support the development and advancement of a state constitutional amendment or legislative, policy, or ballot-based strategy that restores and strengthens local authority over housing and land use matters, including general plans, housing elements, zoning, density, design and development standards, project siting, and the approval or denial of housing development applications.
Pursuant to the resolution, the strategy should preserve the state’s authority to set broad, statewide housing goals and enforce civil rights, fair housing, building safety, and environmental standards while protecting local control by preventing the state from compelling the approval of developments that conflict with local requirements, override local zoning or density standards, or overturn local land use decisions where a city has planned for and maintained sufficient capacity to meet its housing obligations.
2. Consider establishing a statewide working group or other appropriate committee(s) to evaluate and develop a proposed constitutional amendment or other legislative, policy, or ballot-based strategies to restore and strengthen local authority over housing and land use matters.
The resolution states: “conducting legal, fiscal, and policy analyses; engaging cities and other stakeholders; and building a statewide coalition of proponent supporters in preparation for the November 2030 General Election, or within another reasonable time period.” Background:
As provided in the background information, the city of Murrieta is sponsoring this resolution in response to concerns over state laws that have increasingly reduced city discretion over housing and land use decisions, including legislation that requires ministerial or by-right approvals for housing projects, limits the application of local development standards, and strengthens state enforcement mechanisms against local governments.
Additionally, the city of Murrieta, in its background information, maintains that these legislative efforts have not resulted in sufficient housing production to address California's housing shortage and have not adequately accounted for 24 local infrastructure, public service needs, public safety, market, and fiscal considerations.
The resolution states that California’s housing goals are better advanced through state funding, streamlined environmental requirements, and voluntary partnerships, while preserving local authority over how and where housing is best planned and approved.
Consideration of the resolution may be informed by a brief examination of how the California Constitution allocates authority between the state and cities with respect to land use decisions.
The constitution grants cities the power to adopt local laws to protect the public’s health, safety, and welfare. This grant is called the “police power,” which is the basis for local land use regulation. The constitution grants charter cities the additional power to adopt local laws affecting “municipal affairs.” This power, commonly referred to as “home rule,” is based on the principle that a city, rather than the state, is in the best position to identify and satisfy the needs of the local community.
The constitution’s broad grant of police power contains a significant limitation.
Local law adopted under the police power is not valid if it “conflicts” with state law. A local law “conflicts” with state law when it regulates the same “field” in which the Legislature has stated its intent to occupy. In that case, state law is said to “preempt” the local law and it cannot be enforced.
An ordinance adopted by a charter city under the municipal affairs power cannot be enforced if it affects a “matter of statewide concern.” The subjects that have been identified as “matters of statewide concern” have changed over the years due to economic, social, and political circumstances.
Since the 1960s, the state has enacted numerous laws that limit or preempt aspects of local land use and zoning authority. These laws include the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Housing Element Law, Housing Accountability Act, Density Bonus Law, Permit Streamlining Act, accessory dwelling unit laws, California Environmental Quality Act, and others. In recent years, the state has enacted several laws that Cal Cities was the leading opposition force against, as many of the proposals pre-empted local land use authority, limited public review, and constrained local flexibility. In support of its housing and land use legislation, the Legislature has cited a statewide housing crisis and the need for increased housing production at all income levels while asserting that a uniform approach to local land use decision-making is required. 25 Discussion:
The resolution does not prescribe a specific policy mechanism. The eight letters in support recommend creating a working group or committee to evaluate potential approaches, including legislative proposals, constitutional amendments, or ballot initiatives to strengthen local authority over housing and land use matters.
A discussion of a strategy to restore and strengthen local authority over housing and land use matters will need to consider the California Constitution’s framework for both preemption of police power enactments and municipal affairs, discussed above. It will also need to determine whether changes to the California Constitution will be proposed, and whether they constitute an amendment or a revision, which require different processes.
A constitutional revision is a multistep process blending legislative consensus, voter support, and on occasion, a constitutional convention. It requires significant public engagement.
A constitutional amendment would require a ballot initiative, which includes gathering enough valid signatures to qualify for the ballot, building large coalitions to support election efforts, and campaigning to voters to support the initiative. This process can involve significant costs. In the last major election for ballot initiatives in 2024, proponents spent $8-$18 million to qualify for the ballot and spent nearly $700 million for the full election cycle, averaging out to about $100 million per ballot initiative.
Cal Cities has been engaged in ballot advocacy for over 20 years. In the early 2000s, Cal Cities developed a ballot advocacy infrastructure that included forming an issue political action committee, fundraising, establishing a network of regional managers, and building a coalition with other organizations to ultimately advocate on a ballot measure. Ballot advocacy requires the approval of the Board of Directors with a supermajority vote.
In the Legislature, Cal Cities plays an active and influential role to ensure that local flexibility and autonomy in the land use and housing space is maintained by engaging on dozens of bills every legislative session to ensure that cities' voices are heard at the state Capitol. Below, you will find Cal Cities “Existing Policy” on local control, housing, and land use policies.
Fiscal Impact
The resolution itself would not have a significant direct fiscal impact. However, depending on what actions follow, the fiscal costs could be significant. 26 Existing Cal Cities Policy
Vision
To be recognized and respected as the leading advocate for the common interests of California's cities.
Mission Statement
To expand and protect local control for cities through education and advocacy to enhance the quality of life for all Californians.
We Believe
• Local self-governance is the cornerstone of democracy. • Our strength lies in the unity of our diverse communities of interest. • In the involvement of all stakeholders in establishing goals and in solving problems.
• In conducting the business of government with transparency, openness, respect, and civility.
• The spirit of honest public service is what builds communities. • Open decision-making that is of the highest ethical standards honors the public trust.
• Cities are vital to the strength of the California economy. • The vitality of cities is dependent upon their fiscal stability and local autonomy.
• The active participation of all city officials increases the League's effectiveness.
• Partnerships and collaborations are essential elements of focused advocacy and lobbying.
• Ethical and well-informed city officials are essential for responsive, visionary leadership and effective and efficient city operations.
Zoning
Cal Cities believes local zoning is a primary function of cities and is an essential component of home rule. The process of adoption, implementation and enforcement of zoning ordinances should be open and fair to the public and enhance the responsiveness of local decision-makers. State policy should leave local siting and use decisions to the city and not interfere with local prerogative beyond providing a constitutionally valid procedure for adopting local regulations. State agency siting of facilities, including campuses and office buildings, should be subject to local notice and hearing requirements in order to meet concerns of the local community. Cal Cities opposes legislation that seeks to limit local authority over parking requirements.
Housing Element
Housing issues should be addressed in the general plan as other planning issues are. The housing element should be prepared for the benefit of local 27 governments and should have equal status with the other elements of the general plan.
Encourage Full Community Participation
Foster an open and inclusive community dialogue and promote alliances and partnerships to meet community needs.
Well-Planned New Growth
Recognize and preserve open space, watersheds, environmental habitats, and agricultural lands, while accommodating new growth in compact forms, in a manner that:
• De-emphasizes automobile dependency;
• Integrates the new growth into existing communities;
• Creates a diversity of affordable housing near employment centers; • Provides job opportunities for people of all ages and income levels.
Support:
The following letters of concurrence were received:
City of Banning
City of Calimesa
City of Canyon Lake
City of Moreno Valley
City of Norco
City of Torrance
Crystal Ruiz, Mayor, City of San Jacinto
Jessica Alexander, Mayor, City of Temecula
28