CITY OF MORRO BAY
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, September 22, 2026, 5:30 p.m.
Veterans Memorial Hall
209 Surf St., Morro Bay, CA
Public Participation
Public participation is offered in the following ways:
• Community members may attend the meeting in person at the Morro Bay Veterans Hall.
Alternatively, members of the public may watch the meeting and speak during general Public Comment or on a specific agenda item by logging into the Zoom webinar using the information provided below. Please use the "raise hand" feature to indicate your desire to provide public comment.
•
• Zoom webinar link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82429164990 Or Telephone Attendee: 1 (669) 444-9171 or 1 (669) 900-9128 or 1 (346) 248-7799; Webinar ID: 824 2916 4990. Press *9 to raise hand for public comment. •
• Meetings are also livestreamed on the City's website.
Community Members are encouraged to submit agenda correspondence via email to the City Council at [email protected] prior to the meeting. Agenda correspondence received by 10:00 a.m. on the meeting day will be posted on the City website.
•
Pages
1. ESTABLISH QUORUM AND CALL TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. REPORTS
3.a Closed Session Report
3.b Mayor and Councilmembers' Reports, Announcements and Presentations
3.c City Manager Reports, Announcements and Presentations
3.d Subcommittee Reports - Verbal Update of Current Subcommittee Activities
1. Water Reclamation Facility & Morro Bay / Cayucos Sanitary District JPA
2. Morro Bay Power Plant (Vistra)
3. Morro Elementary School
4. RECOGNITION AND PRESENTATIONS
None.
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the audience wishing to address the Council on City business matters not on the agenda may do so at this time. For those desiring to speak on items on the agenda, but unable to stay for the item, may also address the Council at this time.
Public comment is an opportunity for members of the public to provide input to the governing body. To increase the effectiveness of the Public Comment Period, the City respectfully requests the following guidelines and expectations be followed:
•
Those desiring to speak are asked to complete a speaker slip, which are located at the entrance, and submit it to the City Clerk. However, speaker slips are not required to provide public comment.
•
When recognized by the Mayor, please come forward to the podium to speak.
Though not required, it is helpful if you state your name, city of residence and whether you represent a business or group. Unless otherwise established by the Mayor, comments are to be limited to three minutes. •
All remarks should be addressed to Council, as a whole, and not to any individual member thereof.
•
The Council respectfully requests that you refrain from making slanderous, profane or personal remarks against any elected official, commission and/or staff.
•
Please refrain from public displays or outbursts such as unsolicited applause, comments or cheering.
•
Any disruptive activities that substantially interfere with the ability of the City Council to carry out its meeting will not be permitted and offenders will be requested to leave the meeting.
•
Your participation in City Council meetings is welcome and your courtesy will be appreciated.
•
The Council in turn agrees to abide by its best practices of civility and civil discourse according to Resolution No. 07-19.
•
6. CONSENT AGENDA
Unless an item is pulled for separate action by the City Council, the following actions are approved without discussion. The public will also be provided an opportunity to comment on consent agenda items.
Recommended Action
Approve Consent Agenda Items 6.a through 6.c as submitted.
6.a Approval of Minutes
(City Clerk)
Recommended Action
Approve as submitted.
1. September 8, 2026 - Regular Council Meeting 4
2. September 8, 2026 - Special Closed Session Meeting 10
6.b Approval of Proclamations
(City Clerk)
1. Sea Otter Awareness Day Proclamation 12
2. Day of Peace and Peace/Non-Violence Month Proclamation 13
6.c Authorize the City's Voting Delegate and/or Alternate(s) to Vote In Favor of the Resolution being presented at League of California Cities 2026 Annual Conference Business Meeting
14 (City Clerk)
Recommended Action
Authorize the City’s Voting Delegate, and/or Alternate(s), to Vote in Favor of the Resolution being presented at League of California Cities 2026 Annual Conference Business Meeting, “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.”
7. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
None.
8. BUSINESS ITEMS
8.a Discussion regarding Post-Closing Visioning and Entitlement Process for the Morro Elementary School Property (Section I), pending historic nomination (Section II), and provide direction as necessary
46 (City Manager / City Attorney)
Recommended Action
Staff recommend the City Council review the three different site planning and decision-making structures described below for the post-closing visioning and entitlement process for the former Morro Elementary School property (1130/1330 Napa Avenue), receive an update on the historic nomination, and provide directions to staff as necessary.
9. COUNCIL DECLARATION OF FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
10. ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular Meeting will be held on October 13, 2026.
This agenda is subject to amendment up to 72 hours prior to the date and time set for the meeting. Please refer to the agenda posted at City Hall, 595 Harbor Street, Morro Bay, CA 93442 for any revisions or call the Clerk's office at (805) 772-6205 for further information.
Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the City Council after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection upon request by calling the City Clerk's office at (805) 772-6205.
In compliance with the Americans Disability Act, if you need special assistance to participate in a City meeting, please contact the Clerk's office 24 hours prior to the meeting to insure reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting.
1 MINUTES - MORRO BAY CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
September 8, 2026, 5:30 p.m.
Veterans Memorial Hall
209 Surf St., Morro Bay, CA
Members Present: Mayor Carla Wixom
Council Member Jeff Eckles
Council Member Cyndee Edwards
Council Member Zara Landrum
Council Member Bill Luffee
Staff Present: City Manager John Craig
City Attorney Brian Stack
City Clerk Dana Swanson
Finance Director Emily Conrad
Public Works Director David LaCaro
Community Development Director Airlin Singewald
Fire Chief Dan McCrain
Harbor Director Chris Munson
Police Commander Tony Mosqueda
Utilities Division Manager Damaris Hanson
_____________________________________________________________________
1. ESTABLISH QUORUM AND CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Wixom called the meeting to order at 5:31 p.m. with all members present.
Council Member Edwards announced she was participating remotely under SB 707 due to a medical condition which temporarily limits her ability to appear in person.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. REPORTS
3.a Closed Session Report
City Attorney Stack announced the Council met in closed session to discuss two items: (1) real property negotiations matter regarding Morro Dunes RV Park located at 1700 Embarcadero and (1) potential litigation matter. No reportable action was taken under the Brown Act on any item.
3.b Mayor and Councilmembers' Reports, Announcements and Presentations The Council took a brief recess at 5:42 p.m. due to technical difficulties and reconvened at 5:55 p.m. with all members present.
2 Council Member Edwards stated for the record there weree no other adults present at the remote location.
3.c City Manager Reports, Announcements and Presentations
3.d Subcommittee Reports - Verbal Update of Current Subcommittee Activities
1. Water Reclamation Facility & Morro Bay / Cayucos Sanitary District JPA
2. Morro Bay Power Plant (Vistra)
3. Morro Elementary School
4. RECOGNITION AND PRESENTATIONS
4.a National Estuary Program "State of the Bay" Presentation by Education & Outreach Coordinator, Forest Lurz
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
Sydney Ramos, Morro Bay, urged the Council to consider eliminating automated license plate reader cameras.
Barry Brannin, Morro Bay, requested an update on the urgency ordinance to ban BESS projects, acknowledged the City's successful effort to obtain grant funding for the police radio infrastructure project, and requested renewed creek clearing efforts along Quintana Road.
Richard Sadowski, Home Front EJ, promoted the Morro Bay Estuary Air Monitoring Project and sought financial support to replace aging CO2 air monitors.
Jacob Volkov, Morro Bay, expressed support for the sauna business operating at Coleman Beach and hoped they're allowed to expand services to 7 days per week.
Mike Gerson, candidate for Morro Bay City Council, announced he will be at Spencers Farmers Market Thursday afternoon and on the Dave Congelton Show with Michael Woody this Friday.
Betty Winholtz, Morro Bay, asked the City Manager to expand on his comments about the Morro Elementary School item that will be on September 22nd agenda.
End of public comment.
Staff responded to issues raised during public comment.
6. CONSENT AGENDA
Unless an item is pulled for separate action by the City Council, the following actions are approved without discussion. The public will also be provided an opportunity to comment on consent agenda items.
Mayor Wixom opened public comment for items on the Consent Agenda. Betty Winholtz, commented on the Quarterly Investment Report and proposed Lease Line Adjustment for Lease Sites 49/49W, 50/50W, 51/51W and 52/52W.
3 End of public comment.
Motion by Council Member Luffee
Seconded by Council Member Landrum
Approve Consent Agenda Items 6.a through 6.c as submitted.
Ayes (5): Mayor Wixom, Council Member Eckles, Council Member Edwards, Council Member Landrum, and Council Member Luffee
CARRIED (5 to 0)
6.a Approval of Minutes
Approve as submitted.
1. August 11, 2026 - Regular Council Meeting
2. August 19, 2026 - Special Council Meeting
3. August 25, 2026 - Special Closed Session Meeting
4. August 25, 2026 - Regular Council Meeting
6.b Fourth Quarter Investment Report (period ending June 30, 2026) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-26
Receive the attached Fourth Quarter Investment Report (period ending June 30, 2026) for FY 2025-26.
6.c Resolution No. 48-26 Approving Adjustment to Lease Site Maps for Lease Sites 49/49W, 50/50W, 51/51W and 52/52W at 495 Embarcadero Road Staff recommends the City Council adopt Resolution No. 48-26:
1. Approve the adjustments to Lease Sites 49/49W, 50/50W, 51/51W, and 52/52W located at 495 Embarcadero.
2. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to revise the approved Master Lease agreement language to reflect the updated legal descriptions and maps of the lease sites as proposed.
7. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
None.
8. BUSINESS ITEMS
8.a Framework for the Tidelands Business License Program (TBLP) Harbor Director Munson presented the report and responded to Council inquiries.
Mayor Wixom opened public comment for Item 8.a.
4 Russ Miyoshi, co-founder of Morro Bay Odder Club, shared the health benefits of cold-water immersion, offered his support for the California Sauna Club, and appreciated staff efforts to move this forward. Maxwell Muscavella, Morro Bay, spoke in support of the California Sauna Club.
John Rohner, Morro Bay, echoed his support for the California Sauna Club and was in favor of expanding operations to more than three days per week.
Amanda Keller, Los Osos, support the continuation and expansion of the California Sauna Club.
Darren Leva, owner of California Sauna Club, sought Council support for expanded operating hours and supported the proposed program as fees being asked to apply for a permit through Planning Commission were unreasonable.
Barry Brannin, Morro Bay, questioned whether the operations being discussed were allowed in the Measure D area.
Cal Myers, Harbor Advisory Board Subcommittee Member, shared that their focus was to look at locations that weren't in Embarcadero proper and believed there would be a lot of push back from lease holders if the licensed programs competed with those existing businesses.
End of public comment.
Staff responded to additional questions from Council questions.
Following Council comments and discussion, there was majority support for staff to seek input from the Chamber of Commerce, Master Leaseholder group and Harbor Advisory Board Ad-hoc Committee, incorporate those comments in a report and application to Planning Commission, then return to Council for final approval.
No formal action was taken on this item.
8.b Support for the City of Paso Robles Bid on the San Luis Obispo County Ambulance Services Contract
Fire Chief McCrain presented the report and responded to Council inquiries.
Mayor Wixom opened public comment for Item 8.b.
Darren Gennuso, Morro Bay, spoke in support of San Luis Ambulance remaining and against the public/private alliance model. Nick Drake, Morro Bay, highlighted the public benefits of the current 911 ambulance provider.
Terry Tatum, Cayucos, respectfully asked the Council to decline adoption of this resolution.
5 Serena Gennuso, Morro Bay, expressed opposition to Resolution No. 47- 26 and urged the Council to decline adoption.
Tom Sherman, SLO County resident, urged the Council to decline to adopt the Resolution with no further action be taken by staff. Michelle Amesquiti, Morro Bay, urged Council to decline adoption of Resolution No. 47-26.
Justin Kelton, San Luis Ambulance, asked the Council to not adopt Resolution No. 47-26.
Margaret Carman, Morro Bay, questioned the need to change services that work well and supported the fourth choice to not do anything further.
End of public comment.
Staff responded to additional questions and issues raised during public comment.
Following comments and discussion, there was consensus to decline adoption of Resolution No. 47-26. Should the City of Paso Robles move forward with a proposal and the public/private partner alliance be selected by the Board of Supervisors, it was understood the City would have an opportunity to consider membership in that alliance.
Motion by Council Member Landrum
Seconded by Mayor Wixom
Decline to adopt Resolution No. 47-26 expressing support for the City of Paso Robles to submit a bid for the San Luis Obispo County.
Ayes (5): Mayor Wixom, Council Member Eckles, Council Member Edwards, Council Member Landrum, and Council Member Luffee
CARRIED (5 to 0)
9. COUNCIL DECLARATION OF FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
At the Mayor's request, City Manager Craig announced he would bring forward an item at the September 22nd Regular Meeting seeking Council direction on how to move forward with site planning and recommended zoning changes following the purchase of Morro Elementary, and to also consider taking a position on the Friends of Morro Elementary application for historic designation.
Council Member Landrum restated her October 2025 future agenda item requests for consideration of a vacant property tax and economic development efforts that would improve the appearance of the City (i.e., spruce up streets, clean sidewalks and weed removal).
Council Member Landrum asked that the previously requested review and consideration of continued use of automated license plate reader cameras be brought forward within the next two meetings.
Council Member Landrum requested consideration of support for the City of Murietta's resolution urging the League of California Cities to form a working group to evaluate and
6 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 not 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.
Council Member Landrum requested but did not receive majority support for consideration of a fee reduction for the California Sauna Club's appeal or permit application.
10. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:57 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Dana Swanson, City Clerk
1 MINUTES - MORRO BAY CITY COUNCIL
CLOSED SESSION MEETING
September 8, 2026, 4:00 p.m.
City Hall Conference Room
595 Harbor Street, Morro Bay, CA
Members Present: Mayor Carla Wixom
Council Member Jeff Eckles
Council Member Cyndee Edwards
Council Member Zara Landrum
Council Member Bill Luffee
Staff Present: City Manager John Craig
City Attorney Brian Stack
_____________________________________________________________________
1. ESTABLISH QUORUM AND CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Wixom called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. with all members present.
Council Member Edwards announced she was participating remotely under SB 707 due to a medical condition which temporarily limits her ability to appear in person, and to let the minutes reflect there are no other adults present in the remote location.
2. CLOSED SESSION PUBLIC COMMENT
3. SUMMARY OF CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
4. THE COUNCIL WILL CONVENE IN CLOSED SESSION
4.a CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR - GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8
Property: 1700 Embarcadero, Morro Dunes RV Park
Property Negotiators: Kathy Claasen, Morro Dunes Trailer Park & Campgrounds, Inc.
Agency Negotiators: John Craig, City Manager; Brian Stack, City Attorney Negotiations: Price and Terms of Payment
4.b CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - POTENTIAL LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2): (one potential case)
5. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION
2 The City Council reconvened in Open Session. The Council did not take any reportable action in accordance with the Brown Act.
6. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 5:07 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Dana Swanson, City Clerk
A PROCLAMATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF MORRO BAY, CALIFORNIA,
DECLARING SEPTEMBER 20–SEPTEMBER 26, 2026, AS
THE 22nd ANNUAL SEA OTTER AWARENESS WEEK
CITY COUNCIL
City of Morro Bay, California
WHEREAS, the southern sea otter is a keystone species that plays an important role in maintaining healthy and resilient coastal ecosystems, including kelp forests and seagrass habitats that provide food and shelter for numerous marine species; and WHEREAS, southern sea otters were once hunted to near extinction, with their population reduced to approximately 50 individuals in the early 1900s, and decades of conservation and legal protection have helped the population recover; and WHEREAS, southern sea otters continue to face challenges to their recovery, including disease, shark bites, environmental changes, food availability, and other threats that affect their ability to expand into their historical range; and
WHEREAS, Morro Bay's vibrant coastal environment provides important habitat for southern sea otters and offers our community a unique opportunity to observe, appreciate, and learn about these remarkable animals and their role in the health of our ocean; and WHEREAS, protecting southern sea otters and the habitats upon which they depend helps support healthy and productive coastal waters for wildlife, commercial and recreational activities, residents, and visitors; and
WHEREAS, Sea Otter Awareness Week provides an opportunity to celebrate these important marine mammals, recognize ongoing conservation efforts, and encourage continued stewardship and protection of Morro Bay's coastal environment for future generations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Morro Bay City Council does hereby proclaim September 20 – September 26, 2026, to be the 22nd Annual “Sea Otter Awareness Week” in the City of Morro Bay and encourages the community to celebrate and learn more about the southern sea otter and the important role it plays in our coastal ecosystem.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have
hereunto set my hand and caused the
seal of the City of Morro Bay to be
affixed this 22nd day of September 2026
_____________________________
Carla Wixom, Mayor
City of Morro Bay, California
A PROCLAMATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF MORRO BAY
DESIGNATING SEPTEMBER 21ST OF EACH YEAR TO BE THE
CITY OF MORRO BAY DAY OF PEACE AND THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER
AS THE CITY OF MORRO BAY PEACE & NONVIOLENCE MONTH
CITY COUNCIL
City of Morro Bay, California
WHEREAS, peace is not merely the absence of war and violence, but a condition where a society has achieved a balance of prosperity, security, justice, and hope, and peace is achieved through following the concepts and methodology of nonviolence; and WHEREAS, for peace and nonviolence to prevail the City of Morro Bay will endeavor to foster a culture of peace through education and sustainable economic and social development as a necessity for peace to prevail; and
WHEREAS, the City of Morro Bay desires to promote and respect all human rights, advance understanding, tolerance, and solidarity, support participatory communication and the free flow of information and knowledge; and
WHEREAS, the City of Morro Bay is committed to establishing peace and nonviolence in the region to promote understanding, economic opportunity, and improve the quality of life of the people of our region, and this vision builds on the expertise of each person and involves all segments of our City in planning actions and making a difference; and WHEREAS, the City of Morro Bay will work together to create and implement initiatives that not only foster peace and nonviolence but create a positive and lasting change in our community, seeking to become a model for other communities; and WHEREAS, with these statements the City of Morro Bay rejects war, poverty, injustice, and environmental degradation; and
WHEREAS, each year the International Day of Peace is observed around the world on September 21, and the General Assembly of the United Nations has declared this as a day devoted to strengthening the ideals of peace, both within and among all nations and peoples.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Morro Bay, designates September 21 of each year to be the City of Morro Bay Day of Peace and the month of September as the City of Morro Bay Peace & Nonviolence Month.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto
set my hand and caused the seal of the City
of Morro Bay to be affixed this 22nd day of
September 2026
CARLA WIXOM, MAYOR
City of Morro Bay, California
Prepared By: DS Dept Review: DS
City Manager Review: JC City Attorney Review: BS
Staff Report
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Dana Swanson, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Authorize the City’s Voting Delegate and/or Alternate(s) to Vote In Favor of the Resolution being presented at League of California Cities 2026 Annual Conference Business Meeting
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Authorize the City’s Voting Delegate, and/or Alternate(s), to Vote in Favor of the Resolution being presented at League of California Cities 2026 Annual Conference Business Meeting, “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.”
ALTERNATIVE(S)
The Council may choose not to support the proposed Resolution.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The League of California Cities 2026 Annual Conference and Expo is being held September 23 - 25, 2026, in Anaheim, California. The League’s Annual Business Meeting and General Assembly is scheduled for 8:30 a.m. on Friday, September 25.
In order to conduct the annual League of California Cities’ business meeting, every represented city must have its city council designate a voting representative who will be registered at the conference and present at the annual business meeting (the General Assembly). Each member city may also appoint up to two alternates, one of whom may vote in the event the designated voting delegate is unable to serve in that capacity. At its August 25, 2026 Regular Meeting, the Council designated Mayor Wixom as the City’s voting delegate and Council Members Landrum and City Manager Craig as alternates.
The delegates in attendance at the General Assembly are asked to vote on resolution(s) submitted by member agencies and developed for the Assembly’s consideration. If adopted, then the resolutions are used to set League policy or to provide direction for the League’s work efforts in the coming year.
This year one resolution is being offered for membership consideration, the details of the proposed resolution are provided in Attachment 1 (beginning on page 8).
AGENDA NO: 6.c
MEETING DATE: September 22, 2026
2 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 The proposed Resolution appears consistent with the City’s Legislative Platform adopted by the City Council by Resolution 05-25 on January 28, 2025, including Guiding Principle 1 of the City’s Legislative Platform to “[p]reserve and protect the City’s powers, duties, and prerogatives to enact local legislation and policy direction concerning local affairs and oppose legislation that preempts local authority” and Community Development policy statement to oppose “2. Legislation that reduces or removes local control over zoning and other land use methods.”
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends the City Council authorize the City’s voting delegate to vote in favor of the proposed resolution being considered at the League of California Cities 2026 Annual Conference Business Meeting
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. 2026 League of California Cities Resolution Packet
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.
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 Prepared By: JC Dept Review: JC
City Manager Review: JC City Attorney Review: BS
Staff Report
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council DATE: September 17, 2026 FROM: John Craig, City Manager
Brian Stack, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Discussion regarding Post-Closing Visioning and Entitlement Process for the Morro Elementary School Property (Section I), pending historic nomination (Section II), and provide direction as necessary
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommend the City Council review the three different site planning and decision-making structures described below for the post-closing visioning and entitlement process for the former Morro Elementary School property (1130/1330 Napa Avenue), receive an update on the historic nomination, and provide directions to staff as necessary.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Direct staff to return with additional details on a preferred option, including proposed committee goals, membership criteria, or budget, prior to formal establishment.
2. Take no action at this time and continue the item to a future meeting.
FISCAL IMPACT
Fiscal impact varies by option and is not fully quantified at this time. A citizen advisory committee (Options 2 or 3) would carry modest staff support and meeting administration costs beyond those associated with the Council Subcommittee structure already in place. If an outside facilitator is needed for either option there would be a cost component for that.
SECTION I – POST-CLOSING VISIONING AND ENTITLEMENT PROCESS
BACKGROUND
On August 25, 2026, the City Council determined the former Morro Elementary School property to be suitable for the City's intended purposes and authorized staff to proceed toward closing under the Purchase and Sale Agreement with the San Luis Coastal Unified School District. Escrow is targeted to close on or before October 31, 2026, at which point the City will own the site with the obligation of paying the remaining $4.8 million to the school district. Staff will return to Council on October 13, 2026 to confirm the funding option(s) for closing, including consideration of the final funding documents for the seller carried option mentioned during the August 25, 2026 meeting.
The Due Diligence Report prepared by EMBC Planning Strategies identifies a post-closing pathway consisting of three components: a site-specific entitlement application (a General Plan AGENDA NO: 8.a
MEETING DATE: September 22, 2026
2 amendment and rezone of both the Property and the current City Hall/office parcels, paired with a Local Coastal Program amendment requiring California Coastal Commission action); alignment with the City's 2028 Housing Element update; and formation of a joint venture with a private partner to execute historic rehabilitation and access Federal Historic Tax Credits, for which the City itself is not an eligible applicant.
The Report identifies a public visioning process as the necessary first step in this pathway — to develop the City's programmatic vision for the Property, the community-supported balance between residential density and open space preservation, and the future use of the retained Classroom Buildings — before a request for partner qualifications is issued. The Report does not recommend who should lead that visioning process; it identifies this as a discretionary matter reserved to the City Council. This report presents three options for the Council's consideration, informed in part by the City's prior use of subcommittees and ad hoc committees to address comparable land-use and policy questions. No matter which of these, or any other option, the Council recommends, the result would be the same: a report would be brought back to the full Council at the end of the planning process for full council consideration and direction on next steps. At this stage of the cycle of Morro Elementary School purchase and site redevelopment, Council could decide that all Councilors should operate with the same level of detailed information on which to make decisions. No matter which option the Council prefers, staff believe tapping into community professionals for input in vital areas of concern would provide for robust exploration of alternatives and a more comprehensive report for Council consideration. Possible areas for professional involvement include historic preservation, architecture, finance, governance, building development, housing, nonprofit or business operations, youth involvement, etc.
DISCUSSION
VISIONING PROCESS
Option 1: City Council Subcommittee
Under this option, a two-member Council Subcommittee would continue and expand its role to lead site planning through the post-closing visioning phase, reporting findings and recommendations back to the full Council.
This option preserves continuity with the process to date and keeps initial site planning discussions closest to elected accountability. As a non-standing two-member body, the Subcommittee would not be subject to the Ralph M. Brown Act's open-meeting requirements, allowing more flexible scheduling and working sessions. However, if the Subcommittee formed a larger committee, it would become subject to Brown Act requirements because the allowance for subcommittees is limited to only Council members. This would mean capacity is limited by the availability of two sitting Council Members, and it does not by itself provide a structured mechanism for broader resident participation beyond the community meetings the City has already been conducting.
This model has precedent: a two-member Council subcommittee initially led public outreach on the City's short-term vacation rental policy in 2018, including sponsoring a community forum, and reported its findings back to the Council. The subcommittee led effort was later replaced by a City Manager appointed advisory committee discussed under Option 3 which was tasked with preparing a draft ordinance for staff to present to the Planning Commission and City Council.
Option 2: Council Appointed Citizen Advisory Committee
Under this option, the City Council would establish a citizen advisory committee, with members appointed by the Council, to lead the visioning process and bring recommendations back to the Council. Because it would be created by and report to the Council, this committee would be subject to the Brown Act: all meetings would need to be publicly noticed and open to the public, agendas posted in advance, public comment taken, and minutes prepared and retained.
3 This option offers the broadest formal public participation and transparency, consistent with the strong community interest already demonstrated in this project and produces a public record of the committee's deliberations. It is correspondingly the slowest and most administratively intensive of the three options, given noticing timelines, public meeting logistics, and minute-taking requirements. A recent example of this approach is the Waterfront Master Plan Advisory Committee (WMPAC) currently underway.
Option 3: City Manager Appointed Citizen Advisory Committee Under this option, the City Manager, rather than the Council, would appoint a citizen advisory committee to support the visioning process, with the committee's work and recommendations reported to the City Manager, rather than directly to the Council. Practically, this means the advisory committee would provide a final report to the City Manager who would then bring forward the full report and any additional staff input to the Council for further direction.
Because this committee would not be created by or report to the legislative body, it would not be subject to the Brown Act, allowing more flexible, working session style meetings and a potentially faster path to a report/ recommendation. This flexibility comes with reduced formal transparency and public process during the process, relative to Option 2, and the committee's output would need to be brought forward through a separate Council item.
This structure has precedent in Morro Bay, the City's past practice offers a few examples. The City Manager previously formed an ad hoc committee to consider land use and zoning changes to increase residential density around the Casa De Flores/Bayside Care Center area, with staff, Chamber of Commerce representatives, and other stakeholders. In a separate 2019 example, a short-term vacation rental ad hoc committee was formed by the City Manager with Council input to include sitting Council Members alongside residents and a Planning Commissioner.
Should Council support the City Manager pursuing Option 3, the Council could provide feedback to the City Manager, such as the potential advisory committee stakeholder categories (like residents, business community, historic preservation, architecture, and recreation) or committee deliverables that could be particularly helpful (like conceptual site plans and potential project delivery options and timelines). However, the City Manager would retain discretion in the final formation of the committee.
Comparison
− Speed: Option 3 is likely fastest, followed by Option 1; Option 2 is likely slowest due to Brown Act noticing and meeting requirements.
− Public transparency and participation: Option 2 provides the most formal public process; Option 1 and Option 3 rely more heavily on the community meetings the City conducts separately. But once again, all three options will be brought back for Council decision, and public comment can flow from any proposal at that time. − Accountability: Options 1 and 2 involve a non-quorum number of City Councilors; Option 3 reports to the City Manager, with Council review occurring at a later point. − Administrative burden: Option 2 carries the greatest burden (noticing, agendas, minutes); Options 1 and 3 are comparatively less.
(continued)
4 SECTION II – Update on the Historic Nomination
Background/Discussion
The peer review reports prepared by LSA as part of the due diligence report found that the portion of the Property containing the original main building, main building addition, “butterfly” classrooms and music building appears eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and that through careful design and detailed specifications during development of a future rehabilitation project the goals of protecting the school and building an operationally effective City Hall could be achieved in the original main building and main building addition. Future uses of the “butterfly” classrooms or music building have not been evaluated. The work of defining contributing from noncontributing character defining features would be evaluated during future planning efforts. It is Staff’s understanding that such efforts can and do commonly occur after nomination, and without prejudicing the City’s future planning efforts. Local government comments are welcomed by the Commission and requested seven days in advance of the hearing. Potential options for Council direction include submitting a letter of support and/or requesting that the School District withdraw their preliminary objection letter (as may be conditioned on the close of escrow).
Additionally, on September 14, 2026, the City received notice from the State Department of Parks and Recreation Office of Historic Preservation that the State Historical Resources Commission (Commission) intends to consider and take action at its November 12-13, 2026 meeting regarding the nomination of the Property to the National Register of Historic Places. More information about the pending nomination can be found here:
https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1067/files/CA_San%20Luis%20Obispo%20County_Morro%20Elem entary%20School_DRAFT.pdf
CONCLUSION
VISIONING PROCESS: Each of the three options is capable of carrying out the visioning work the Due Diligence Report identifies as the necessary first step of the post-closing pathway; none is precluded by the due diligence findings, and the choice among them is a governance and process preference reserved to the City Council. Staff recommend the Council discuss the tradeoffs described above — particularly the balance between formal public process under the Brown Act and the pace at which a recommendation can be brought back — and provide direction which structure is preferred or should be established, so that the visioning process can begin judiciously.
HISTORIC NOMINATION: The Council may provide direction regarding the upcoming hearing on the Property’s historic nomination.
ATTACHMENTS
None.