Newport Beach decides to leave League of California Cities

The League of California Cities will be absent at least one member this year after the Newport Beach City Council voted 5-2 to not renew the city’s membership with the organization, citing differences in the League’s position and support of policies that did not match Newport’s.

According to the League of California Cities, Newport Beach has been a member for as long as records are available. As an organization, it has served as an advocacy group since 1898 to expand and maintain local control at the city level. Regional public affairs manager Connor Medina said the city has been one of the most engaged and active cities in Orange County. The loss of it as a member, he noted, was not insignificant for that reason, and he called attention to the fact city staff and Councilwoman Robyn Grant have had active roles with the organization.

The matter of membership was brought up by Mayor Will O’Neill in late February for a study session item. Council members pointed to a difference of opinion between the city and Cal Cities over ACA 13 and Proposition 1.

The latter, which is on track for approval statewide, appears to have been rejected by Orange County voters, with 58% of ballots cast. The proposition would authorize the issuance of $6.4 million in bonds in order to direct funding toward supportive housing, treatment facilities and mental health systems to address the state’s homelessness crisis.

In September, the state Legislature voted to put ACA 13 before voters. It calls for an amendment to the state Constitution that, if approved, would foil a business-led effort to make it harder to pass new taxes. It would ensure that a simple majority of statewide voters cannot restrict the will of a supermajority of voters in a local community. It is expected to appear on the ballot in the November election.

Cal Cities voted to support both ballot measures in December.

The annual fee to maintain membership is $24,800, according to city staff. Medina said the city’s dues were not put toward the league’s political action committee, CitiPAC, and did not contribute to any funding in support of Proposition 1.

Councilman Erik Weigand, who was one of two votes to stay in the League alongside Grant, said he felt the cost of membership wasn’t significant when dropping it meant Newport Beach would be losing a “seat at the table and we don’t get an ability to shape any of those policy discussions — $25,000 really isn’t that much for some of the stuff [Medina] had mentioned the return on investment.�

“It’s easy for us to say, ‘Let’s pull the plug because there are certain things we don’t agree with,’ and I certainly am one of those persons who is upset at some of the rhetoric that the League has, and I think it’s frustrating for us to see, but I think there’s a greater investment here for a very minimal cost that the city puts into it.�

O’Neill said he liked the local chapter of the League and those involved, but his thoughts on whether the city should stay or go circle back to Proposition 1.

“The reason it’s been so hard to stomach and accept as we’re working this through is that the League of Cities knew that Prop. 1 was bad. They knew it was bad for cities,� O’Neill said, pointing to a series of paragraphs included in the December news release announcing the Cal Cities board of directors’ support for the two ballot measures.

The Dec. 6 statement reads, “Cal Cities maintained a support position on both measures for most of the year. However, last-minute changes to AB 531 taken just one week before the end of the legislative session generated concerns among cities. As a result, Cal Cities withdrew its support. These amendments allow for by-right approvals of unlocked and locked behavioral health facilities, sober living homes, and recovery housing.

“While existing law generally requires by-right approval of these facilities in residential areas, Proposition 1 would also apply this approval process to office, retail, and parking zones. The Cal Cities Board directed staff to engage in the regulatory process and pursue legislation to address these concerns while also supporting Proposition 1.�

O’Neill said to his council colleagues, “Every time for eight years when we’ve been trying to work through this issue, we haven’t gotten anywhere near the amount of regulatory help to try and rein this in, and now we’ve got a proposition that’s passing by 29,000 of votes as of [Tuesday night], out of millions of ballots cast. Literally any position that could’ve been not just support but opposed to this would’ve been helpful for cities like ours throughout the state dealing with this issue.�

O’Neill said the issue of sober living homes comes up routinely in meetings with local residents, and he feels it’s “unfathomable� for the organization to support the proposition while knowing it would impact cities like Newport Beach.

He said it was possible the city might only take a year off from the organization to see what it looks like in the next year, but it was not reasonable to remain at this juncture.