CC SR 20221101 02 - Consideration of Cal Cities Membership
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 11/01/2022
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Regular Business
AGENDA TITLE:
Consideration and possible action to evaluate the City’s membership in the League of
California Cities (Cal Cities).
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Receive a summary report and staff’s observations on the action and result of the
Our Neighborhood Voices Initiative Petitioned Resolution at the 2022 General
Assembly in Long Beach;
(2) Review the services provided by Cal Cities as it compares to membership in other
organizations, and provide Staff with direction on the City’s future membership with
Cal Cities; and
(3) If directed to remain in Cal Cities, authorize the Mayor to sign a letter to the Cal
Cities President, CEO, and Regional Public Affairs Manager, requesting the
General Assembly be held earlier during the annual conference , additional voting
methods be considered, and expressing the need for Cal Cities to reaffirm its
commitment to local control.
FISCAL IMPACT: The City pays approximately $17,000 in annual dues to Cal Cities, in
addition to participating in various Cal Cities events such as the
Annual Conference with associated expenses. There is no fiscal
impact associated with the recommendations provided in this report.
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: McKenzie Bright, Administrative Analyst
REVIEWED BY: Karina Bañales, Deputy City Manager
APPROVED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Draft letter to Cal Cities (page A-1)
B. Table comparing the City’s organizational memberships (page B-1)
C. December 7, 2021 staff report
D. February 2, 2021 staff report
E. February 9, 2021 Cal Cities response letter
1
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
BACKGROUND:
The League of California Cities (Cal Cities) is an association of California cities with the
stated mission to “defend and expand local control through advocacy efforts in the
Legislature, at the ballot box, in the courts, and through strategic outreach that informs
and educates the public, policymakers, and opinion leaders.”1
Cal Cities hosts an annual conference, which culminates in a General Assembly where
the membership votes on resolutions brought forward by cities or Cal Cities committees.
The 2022 conference was held in Long Beach from September 7 -9 and was attended by
Mayor Bradley, Councilmember Cruikshank, and Staff. During the General Assembly, the
voting delegates voted to refer a petitioned resolution requesting Cal Cities’ support for
the Our Neighborhood Voices Initiative to policy committees for further review. The
Initiative seeks to allow local ordinances/regulations/etc., to supersede state law when
they are in conflict. For more information on the Our Neighborhood Voices Initiative, see
Attachment C.
One of the primary concerns raised regarding the action taken during the General
Assembly was that the vote was taken without debate or comment. However, according
to the Cal Cities bylaws,2 after a motion on the recommended action is on the floor, there
must be a motion to open debate, seconded, and approved by the voting delegates.
During the General Assembly, the motion to debate failed, with 98 delegates voting in
favor of opening the debate and 167 opposed. Therefore, there was no discussion on the
item nor a chance to offer alternate motions. Business returned to the motion on the floor,
which was to accept the Cal Cities’ General Resolutions Committee (GRC)
recommendation to refer the item to the housing and environmental quality policy
committees. It is anticipated that the policy committees, and eventually the Cal Cities
board, will take up the item in the new year.
As a result of this action, at the September 20, 2022 City Council meeting, Mayor Bradley
requested the City’s involvement and membership in Cal Cities be brought forward for
consideration, which is the subject of this report.
DISCUSSION:
1. Our Neighborhood Voices Initiative Petitioned Resolution at the 2022 General
Assembly in Long Beach
Following the vote of the 2022 General Assembly on the Our Neighborhood Voices
Initiative petitioned resolution, the South Bay cities delegation expressed dissatisfaction
that the item was voted on without any meaningful discussion. The action taken by the
General Assembly, which did not vote to open debate, was in accordance with Cal Cities
bylaws. Regardless of the recommendation made by the GRC, discussion/debate is only
1 See calcities.org/about-us
2 See Bylaws for the League of California Cities (effective November 23, 2021)
2
opened by an affirmative vote of the voting delegates, otherwise, business proceeds
directly to the vote.
Staff observed two challenges during the General Assembly: that the nature of the
petitioned resolution may have contributed to delegates not having robust information on
the nature of the Our Neighborhood Voices Initiative, inherently a result of the established
resolution process; and that many delegates were concerned with concluding business
quickly to catch flights resulting in unintended consequences. The following summarizes
the staff-observed challenges during the General Assembly.
1.A. The Resolution Process
Cal Cities members have two ways to have an item considered during a General
Assembly: through a resolution or a petitioned resolution. Resolutions must be submitted
no later than 60 days prior to the opening session at the General Assembly and are
reviewed and/or amended by Cal Cities policy committees. Cal Cities staff prepares an
in-depth staff report providing background on the item and the recommended action. City
councils typically take formal positions on the resolution to guide the vote of their
designated delegate representative.
If a resolution misses the 60-day window, proponents can circulate a petition during the
conference. It must receive signatures from at least 10% of the voting delegates and be
submitted to Cal Cities at least 24 hours before the start of the General Assembly. The
GRC meets the evening prior to propose a recommended action but cannot make any
amendments to the petition.
In the case of the Our Neighborhood Voices Initiative (Initiative), conference attendees
were emailed the resolution as part of the 2022 General Assembly Packet3 at 7:30 p.m.
on September 8 – 16 hours before the General Assembly was scheduled to start. Voting
delegates who did not check their email may not have known there was a petitioned
resolution being considered until they checked in to the General Assembly minutes before
voting occurred. Additionally, the petition proponents did not include the text of the
Initiative, so delegates not familiar with the Initiative may not have understood the
intended scope of the petitioned resolution. As it was a petitioned resolution, Cal Cities
staff does not prepare a staff report with background, so what was provided by petition
proponents was all that was passed on to voting delegates.
To put this matter in context, it is worth noting that in 2018, the City of Beverly Hills
submitted a resolution requesting Cal Cities explore initiating and promoting a ballot
measure to protect local control, which was affirmed by the 2018 General Assembly. At
the time, the Cal Cities Board of Directors explored the idea of creating a local control
ballot measure but ultimately decided against actively pursuing it due to polling indicating
there was little popular support for such a measure. There continues to be polling
conducted by entities other than Cal Cities, showing little support among Californians for
local control measures, likely as a result of the ongoing housing crisis. However, Cal Cities
3 See the 2022 General Assembly Packet (petitioned resolution begins on page 19)
3
staff continues to explore the creation of a local control ballot measure, outside of the Our
Neighborhood Voices Initiative.
The Cal Cities policy committees and Board of Directors considered taking a position on
the Our Neighborhood Voices Initiative ballot measure several months ago but ultimately
took a neutral position. Cal Cities’ decision was based on a lack of support from third
parties such as labor groups that could help form a coalition to gain the support needed
to pass the ballot measure and concern for the unintended consequences of the initiative
– that it may not go far enough to ensure that local control would be protected as intended.
Additionally, the lack of funding and fundraising capability exhibited by the Our
Neighborhood Voices campaign was another factor considered, as it can be very
expensive to run a successful initiative campaign.
While the Our Neighborhood Voices Initiative was a new item before the General
Assembly, it was not the first time Cal Cities as a body considered the Initiative, or similar
measures.
1.B. Unintended Consequences During the General Assembly
Staff has observed that because the General Assembly is the last item scheduled during
the annual conference, voting delegates have a perverse incentive to be generally
opposed to opening debate in order to conclude business quickly to catch flights or oth er
transportation. This results in an unintended consequence on the effectiveness of the
General Assembly.
Therefore, the City Council may wish to direct staff to send a letter to Cal Cities requesting
their consideration to: 1) changing the time of the G eneral Assembly to earlier in the
conference to avoid risk of delegates incentivized to vote against opening debate in order
to conclude business quickly in order to leave and 2) a voting platform that could be used
during the General Assembly to both more accurately count votes as opposed to a voice
vote and more quickly tabulate votes than the current method of Cal Cities staff attempting
to count raised ballots and/or submitted paper ballots.
Implementation of changes to the Cal Cities bylaws may be required to address the
concerns raised over the resolution process. The Cal Cities Board of Directors recently
created a governance committee that is responsible for suggesting changes to the
bylaws, which are then voted on during the General Assembly. With respect to the
decision of the General Assembly to refer Cal Cities’ support of the Our Neighborhood
Voices Initiative to policy committees, the Cal Cities Board of Directors can still support
the measure after it has gone through the Cal Cities review process.
2. Services Provided by Cal Cities
In general, Cal Cities provides the City:
• Monitoring, tracking, and engagement on bills and policy issue areas.
4
• Communication on advocacy efforts, legislative developments, and highlights on
cities implementing new or innovative strategies.
• Action alerts and sample letters/language on bills of high importance.
• Monitoring of court cases and submission of friend -of-the-court briefs; filing
lawsuits to protect local control.
• Professional development for staff and public officials, including roundtables and
educational conferences, meetings, webinars, and department-specific activities.
2.A. Membership Benefits of Cal Cities
As a member, the City receives passive advocacy on bills the City Council does not take
a position on but may benefit from and court cases Cal Cities advocates on behalf of cities
for. The City also receives direct advocacy and support on bills the Council considers or
takes a position on, and a mechanism for City priorities to be considered by the Cal Cities
Board of Directors for adoption, through the resolution process. Additionally, RPV Staff
serve or participate in various Cal Cities professional departments, gaining networking
opportunities with other city leaders and the ability to shape Cal Cities policy, as well as
introduce policy topics for consideration by the City Council.
In participating in the resolution process, the City can directly influence Cal Cities policy.
As an example, in 2019, the City brought forward a resolution whereby Cal Cities would
call on the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to expand the Rule 20 program
to include wildfire mitigation as an eligible project to qualify for funds for undergrounding
power lines. The resolution was passed by the Environmental Quality and Traffic,
Communications, and Public Works committees with separate amendments, and the
GRC recommended the resolution be referred back to the policy committees for
concurrence. During the General Assembly, the delegates agree d with the GRC’s
recommended action. After the policy committees agreed on language, in February 2020,
the Board of Directors voted to adopt the City’s proposed policy and Cal Cities began to
work toward the inclusion of emergency-related undergrounding within Rule 20A. Cal
Cities is currently participating as a party in the ongoing CPUC case and continues to
advocate for the inclusion of wildfire prevention as criteria for undergrounding.4
2.B. Concerns Regarding Efficacy of Cal Cities’ Lobbying
In February 2021, the City sent a letter to Cal Cities expressing the City’s desire that Cal
Cities reaffirm its mission to support local authority and oppose legislation that erodes
local control (see Attachment D). The City received a response from Cal Cities that local
control remains the organization’s core mission, as well as outlining Cal Cities’ role in
protecting local land use authority (see Attachment E).
While Cal Cities has had some success in lobbying to defeat many housing and land use
bills, in recent years, it has been unable to defeat bills that significantly infringe on local
land use control, such as Senate Bill (SB) No. 9 (Statutes of 2021) that requires ministerial
4 See CPUC docket for R1705010, pertaining to revisions to Electric Rule 20.
5
approval of duplexes and lot splits. There is continued concern from a number of cities
that Cal Cities is not taking a strong enough position on housing and local land use bills.
The trend in the Legislature has been an apparent lack of response to city positions.
However, nearly a third of legislators will be freshmen members after the election, so
there is a unique opportunity to gain new support for city interests and the protection of
local land use authority.
2.C. Comparison of Cal Cities Membership with the City’s Other Organizations
Cal Cities is the largest coalition group of cities in California, providing a wider base of
support than any of the City’s other organizational memberships. With in the scope of the
City’s legislative advocacy efforts, the Council has expressed a desire to form coalitions
with like-minded cities to help advance our voice in Sacramento – there is no larger
coalition of cities than Cal Cities (see Attachment B).
The City is also a member of the Southern California Association of Governments
(SCAG), California Contract Cities Association (CCCA), and South Bay Cities Council of
Governments (SBCCOG). SCAG, CCCA, and the SBCCOG provide similar lobbying,
educational, and regional networking and collaboration as Cal Cities, but on smaller
scales. SCAG represents 188 cities in Southern California but focuses on regional
planning, such as regional housing need allocations (RHNA). CCCA represents contract
cities, predominantly in Los Angeles County, and focuses on advancing the contracting
model and local control. SBCCOG represents the cities in the South Bay, and works to
address regional issues such as transportation, technology, and homelessness.
The City holds memberships in a variety of single-issue groups, which provide targeted
regional networking and advocacy, such as the Palos Verdes Peninsula Chamber of
Commerce.
The statewide benefits and networking Cal Cities offers cannot be replicated by any of
the City’s other membership organizations. While some of the benefits of Cal Cities, such
as professional development at the Cal Cities Annual Conference, could still be received
at non-member rates, if the City were to leave the organization, it would not be able to
leverage the Cal Cities coalition, as it did for the Rule 20 program.
While Cal Cities may not take as strong of a position as the City would like on certain
areas related to local land use, the advocacy provided by Cal Cities may, at times, benefit
the City’s interests, and the interests of the collective California cities, to warrant
participation. In areas where Cal Cities’ advocacy/positions fall short of the City’s
preferences, the City can leverage its lobbying firm to support the City’s position i n
Sacramento. If membership is retained, the City could continue to work within Cal Cities
to address policy concerns to leverage support from nearly all cities, which is a
significantly larger coalition than the City would otherwise have access to (see Attachment
B).
6
Based on the above, Staff seeks City Council direction on the City’s future membership
with Cal Cities.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
City Meeting with Cal Cities Regional Public Affairs Manager
On October 11, Mayor Bradley, Councilmember Cruikshank, and Staff met with Cal Cities
Regional Public Affairs Manager Jeff Kiernan to discuss the City’s membership and the
General Assembly process. The information provided during the meeting has been
incorporated in this report and Regional Public Affairs Manager Kiernan has confirmed
his attendance for tonight’s meeting and will be available to answer any questions.
In addition, Regional Public Affairs Manager Kiernan recommended the City consider
taking a more active role in policy committees to directly influence Cal Cities policy and
actions. The application window for 2023 policy committees closed on September 30 but
will be available again next year.
Torrance’s Cal Cities Membership
At its regular meeting on October 11, the Torrance City Council voted to discontinue its
membership with Cal Cities, effective January 1, 2023, citing a political decision to make
a statement of Torrance’s dissatisfaction with Cal Cities’ inability to protect local control.
The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act Initiative
The California Business Roundtable (CBRT) has proposed a ballot measure, known as
the “Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act” (Initiative 21-0042A1),
which appears to have qualified for the November 2024 ballot. The measure would limit
the ability of state and local governments to enact, modify, or expand taxes, assessments,
fees, and property-related charges.
If the initiative were to pass:
• State and local new or increased taxes would be subject to voter approval. All
state and local taxes or fees adopted after January 1, 2022 would be retroactively
voided if they did not align with the provisions of the initiative.
• Fines and penalties for violations of local laws, including nuisance abatement and
failure to maintain a vacant property, must be voter-approved, unless a new,
undefined adjudicatory process is used to impose the fines and penalties.
• Local advisory measures would be prohibited, and measures may not appear on
the same ballot that would indicate what the revenue from a general tax could be
used for.
• Franchise fees for entry to governmental property must be “reasonable.” It is
unclear what the reasonable measure would be and provides substantial
opportunity for companies, utilities, and other corporations to seek legal action.
7
• Fees and charges for services and permits may not exceed the “actual cost” of
providing the product or service for which the fee is charged. Examples include
planning services, excavation and encroachment permits, preparation of candidate
statement, and permit parking.
Cal Cities, labor and public safety leaders, infrastructure advocates, businesses, and local
governments – including the City of Rolling Hills Estates – have opposed the initiative.
The initiative previously sought to get on the 2018 ballot in relatively similar form, which
the proponents ultimately withdrew after a coalition including Cal Cities opposed the
measure and the passage of Assembly Bill (AB) No. 1838 (Statutes of 2018) which placed
a 12-year moratorium on new or increased soda taxes or taxes on other groceries.
The California Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that the measure would result in
lower annual state and local revenues, potentially substantially lower, depending on future
actions of the Legislature, local governing bodies, voters, and the courts.5
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends the City Council: 1) receive a summary report on the 2022 General
Assembly; 2) review the services provided by Cal Cities, compared to membership in
other organizations and provide direction to Staff on the City’s future membership with
Cal Cities; and, if directed to remain in Cal Cities, 3) authorize the Mayor to sign a letter
to the Cal Cities President, CEO, and Regional Public Affairs Manager, requesting the
General Assembly be held earlier during the annual conference, additional voting
methods be considered, and expressing the need for Cal Cities to reaffirm its commitment
to local control (see Attachment A).
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternative actions are available for
the City Council’s consideration:
1. Direct Staff to initiate a resolution to address specified concerns.
2. Direct Staff to explore discontinuing the City’s membership in Cal Cities.
3. Take other action, as deemed appropriate.
5 See Legislative Analyst’s Office A.G. File No. 21-0042
8
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD. / RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275-5391 / (310) 544-5207 / FAX (310) 544-5291 / WWW.RPVCA.GOV
November 1, 2022 Via Email
The Honorable Ali Sajjad Taj; Carolyn Coleman, Executive Director; and Jeff Kiernan,
Regional Public Affairs Manager
League of California Cities
1400 K Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814
SUBJECT: Request for Consideration of Modifications to the General Assembly
Schedule and Voting Procedure and for Cal Cities’ Heightened Commitment to
Local Control
Dear President Taj, Director Coleman, and Mr. Kiernan:
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes joins other cities to express our concern regarding the
League of California Cities’ (Cal Cities) commitment to protecting local control, specifically
as was exhibited during the 2022 General Assembly in Long Beach. We understand that
the vote process adhered to the Cal Cities bylaws, but we are concerned that perverse
incentives stymied debate and potentially, the outcome of the vote.
To address this, we recommend two actions: 1) that the General Assembly be scheduled
earlier in the conference; and 2) that electronic voting options be considered to expedite
the voting process.
We have observed that many participants in the General Assembly are concerned with
catching flights and are therefore disinclined to open debate. We recommend Cal Cities
consider scheduling the General Assembly earlier during the Annual Conference. At a
minimum, the General Assembly should be called before the leadership transition,
swearing in, and associated remarks. Although, we would also encourage you to have
the General Assembly as the first item of business on Friday before educational sessions
and leadership transitions or consider having it on Thursday. We recognize that moving
up the General Assembly will shorten the timeframe for petitioned resolutions such as the
one considered in September, but the necessity of rescheduling the General Assembly
to avoid concerns with catching flights or other transportation cannot be overstated.
In terms of voting, when votes are close, and voice vote s cannot be determined, the
process of raising cards and having Cal Cities staff count is relatively slow, further
A-1
CITY OF
DAVID L. BRADLEY, MAYOR
BARBARA FERRARO, MAYOR PRO TEM
ER IC ALEGR IA, COUNC ILMEMBER
JOHN CRU ll<SHAN I<, COUNC ILMEMBER
l(E N DYDA, COUNC ILMEMBER
i,;~
"'<> "' ~ RANCHO PALOS VERDES
Request for Consideration of Modifications to the General Assembly Schedule and
Voting Procedure
November 1, 2022
Page 2
disincentivizing discussion on additional items. Therefore, we also recommend
exploration of a voting platform that could be used during the General Assembly to both
more accurately count votes as opposed to a voice vote and more quickly tabulate votes
than the current method of Cal Cities staff attempting to count raised ballots and/or
submitted paper ballots. This will expedite the voting process and provide a verifiable roll
call.
If these adjustments to the General Assembly process require bylaws amendments, we
are willing to introduce that resolution for the 2023 General Assembly, but would
encourage you and the Board of Directors to make the adjustments you can that
addresses the significant concerns cities are expressing with the General Assembly
voting process.
We understand some of these discussions are already ongoing, and we thank you for
your efforts in this matter. Cal Cities serves as a powerful voice in Sacramento. With many
freshman members of the Legislature expected to be elected in November, we encourage
you to redouble your efforts to work with new legislators to protect local control and take
advantage of this unique opportunity to ensure city voices are being heard.
Cal Cities’ mission is to defend and expand local control, yet we continue to see the
erosion of our local land use authority. We rely on Cal Cities to strongly advocate on
behalf of California cities, and to use our collective action and platform to protect our
interests. We encourage Cal Cities to recommit to this mission and to take stronger
actions to protect local control.
Sincerely,
David L. Bradley
Mayor, City of Rancho Palos Verdes
cc: Rancho Palos Verdes City Council and City Manager
A-2
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ORGANIZATIONAL MEMBERSHIPS
Organization Annual Cost
(FY22-23) Representation Objectives
LOBBYING/EDUCATIONAL/REGIONAL COLLABORATION GROUPS
League of California Cities
(Cal Cities) $16,477
479 member
cities
Representation: CA Cities
Defend and expand local control,
speaking on behalf of vast majority of
cities in California.
League of California Cities –
Los Angeles County Division $1,381
86
Representation: LA County
Cities
Division within Cal Cities specializing
in Los Angeles County regional
issues. Provides a forum for LA
County cities to network and
collectively advocate.
Southern California
Association of Governments
(SCAG)
$4,986
188
Representation: Southern
California Cities
Regional planning (e.g. regional
housing need allocations (RHNA) and
long-range regional transportation
plans).
California Contract Cities
Association (CCCA) $5,800
80
Representation: Contract
cities (predominantly LA
County)
Advance the benefits of the
contracting model and strengthen
local control and governance.
South Bay Cities Council of
Governments (SBCCOG) $18,776
16
Representation: South Bay
Cities
Working to collectively address issues
of common interest in the South Bay
(e.g. transportation, technology, and
homelessness).
SINGLE-ISSUE GROUPS
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Chamber of Commerce $750 PV Peninsula Promote and foster business on the
Palos Verdes Peninsula.
San Pedro Chamber of
Commerce $750 San Pedro Promote the interests of the business
community in San Pedro.
West Basin Municipal Water
District --
Produces recycled water purchased
by Cal Water; provides conservation
and education programs.
Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCO) $1,128 LA County Oversees changes to local
government boundaries in LA County.
CA Resource Recovery
Association $200 California Statewide recycling association.
Southern California Waste
Management Forum $65 Southern
California
Waste management and
environmental networking.
Los Angeles Regional Agency
(LARA) $4,230 18 cities Promoting environmental
sustainability and responsibility.
Los Angeles Economic
Development Corporation
(LAEDC)
$2,500 LA County Focused on equitable economic
growth.
CITY LOBBYIST
Renne Public Policy Group
(RPPG) $51,000 RPV
Advance the City’s policy priorities in
Sacramento and lobby on bills the
City sponsors and/or takes a position
on.
B-1