Court grants charter cities legal win over controversial housing law

The Los Angeles County Superior Court on April 22 handed charter cities a major win in a case involving a controversial housing law, SB 9 (Atkins, 2021). Cal Cities filed an amicus brief in the case, arguing land use and zoning regulations are municipal affairs and that SB 9 deprived charter cities of their home rule authority. Over 240 cities opposed the bill when lawmakers sent it to Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2021.  

“We are pleased the court’s decision recognizes the vitally important home rule authority of charter cities,” said Carolyn Coleman, Cal Cities executive director and CEO. “The court’s ruling reaffirms the foundational principle that land use planning and zoning are local matters.”   

What does SB 9 do?  

SB 9 generally requires cities to approve certain housing development projects containing up to two duplexes on single-family zoned parcels. It also allows property owners to split a qualifying lot into smaller parcels. This effectively requires cities to allow for up to four homes in single-family residential zones. Five charter cities — Redondo Beach, Carson, Torrance, Whittier, and Del Mar — filed a lawsuit against the state in 2022 over the law.  

How did the case play out?  

The five charter cities invoked the home rule doctrine in the state Constitution to challenge SB 9. Home rule gives charter cities control over municipal affairs. Courts have held the state cannot override that authority except to address a matter of statewide concern — and only if the state law is “reasonably related” to the resolution of that concern and “narrowly tailored” to avoid unnecessary interference with local governance.  

The cities argued that SB 9 is unconstitutional because it is not reasonably related to furthering affordable housing nor narrowly tailored to avoid unnecessarily interfering with local governance of land use and zoning.  

“By removing any local control over single-family residential zoning, the State has taken away the ability for cities to best plan for their residents and respond to local environmental, geographic, and community concerns," the cities alleged. 

The court agreed with the charter cities and Cal Cities’ amicus brief. It found “[b]ecause the provisions of SB 9 are not reasonably related and sufficiently narrowly tailored to the explicit stated purpose of that legislation-namely, to ensure access to affordable housing — SB 9 cannot stand, and the writ petition must be granted.”  

The court further held that “the broad requirement of ministerial approval of duplexes and urban lot splits does not contain any connection to affordable housing.” It also determined SB 9 is “unconstitutional as violative of the ‘home rule’ doctrine.”  

What are others saying?  

Redondo Beach City Attorney Mike Webb called the ruling a victory for potentially every charter city in the state, noting the bill would have effectively ended single-family zoning without creating more affordable housing.  

“We are grateful for Judge Kin’s thoughtful and well-reasoned opinion that protects the home rule’ provisions of the California Constitution, Webb said. “I also am very appreciative of the League of California Cities’ efforts in defending the rights of charter cities by filing an important amicus brief in this case.” 

A representative for Attorney General Rob Bonta told The Daily Post that his office is reviewing the decision and “will consider all options in defense of SB 9.” 

Cal Cities thanks Derek Cole and Tyler Sherman of Cole Huber LLP for authoring the Cal Cities amicus brief. More information about the Cal Cities legal advocacy program is available online.