- within Real Estate and Construction topic(s)
- within Compliance topic(s)
Rulings Reinforce That General Law Cities Must Comply with State Laws – and Even Charter Cities' Constitutional Autonomy Is Limited.
Highlights
- State housing laws such as California Senate Bill (SB) 330 and SB 79 remain effective only if courts enforce them as applicable to charter cities. Two recent published opinions cast serious doubt on the ability of cities to use the "municipal affairs" doctrine to assert that they are immune from state laws surrounding housing production.
- The California Second District Court of Appeal affirmed that general law cities are subject to SB 9 of 2021's duplex and lot-split law, and cannot assert "home rule" arguments against state housing laws. Whether SB 9 applies to charter cities is the subject of a pending appeal in Redondo Beach v. Bonta.
- In Kennedy Commission v. Superior Court, the California Fourth District Court of Appeal confirmed that even charter cities are subject to strict consequences for failure to comply with Housing Element Law, including 120-day compliance deadlines and provisional remedies that restrict development approvals until compliance is achieved.
As state laws increasingly limit local government authority over housing production, cities and housing opponents have sought refuge in provisions of the California Constitution that give "charter cities" – cities that have adopted a charter for self-government – an exemption from complying with state laws that impermissibly intrude into "municipal affairs." Two recent published Court of Appeal opinions cast considerable doubt about whether charter cities will be able to succeed in asserting that the "municipal affairs" doctrine exempts them from state housing laws – and leave very little doubt that general law cities will not be able to do so.1
General Law Cities Must Comply with State Laws
Rancho Palos Verdes v. State of California
In City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. State of California, the Second District Court of Appeal delivered a straightforward message: General law cities that have not adopted a charter cannot invoke the "municipal affairs" doctrine to challenge state housing laws.2
Four general law cities (Rancho Palos Verdes, Lakewood, Paramount and Simi Valley) challenged Senate Bill 9 of 2021 (SB 9), which requires ministerial approval of certain duplexes and lot splits in single-family zoning districts. (See Holland & Knight's previous alert, "California Gov. Signs Landmark Duplex and Lot-Split Legislation into Law," Sept. 17, 2021.)3
The cities argued that SB 9 usurps a city's authority over its own municipal affairs, intrudes on a city's authority to regulate for the public health, safety and welfare of its community, creates infrastructure and service constraints, and undermines democratic participation (due to the ministerial approvals). The cities also argued SB 9's means were not reasonably related to its goal of ensuring access to affordable housing.
These arguments are essentially the same as those commonly offered by charter cities when challenging a state law as impermissibly intruding into municipal affairs. But the Second District Court of Appeal had little difficulty dismissing these claims because general law cities simply cannot invoke the "municipal affairs" doctrine. Affirming the trial court, the Court of Appeal held that laws of general law cities that conflict with state law are void and that SB 9 preempts any local enactments in conflict with it.
Meanwhile, a group of charter cities has also challenged SB 9 in a case currently pending before the Court of Appeal.4 Those cities will at least be able to assert the municipal affairs doctrine because they are charter cities. But if the Kennedy Commission v. Superior Court opinion is any guide, this may not be enough to prevail.
Charter City "Home Rule" Immunity Has Limits, Too
Kennedy Commission
In contrast to general law cities, charter cities can assert a limited autonomy from state laws that impermissibly intrude into "municipal affairs." However, Kennedy Commission demonstrates that this autonomy has limits when it comes to Housing Element compliance.5
The City of Huntington Beach, a charter city, refused to adopt its state-mandated Housing Element update. After the state of California prevailed in challenging the city's failure to comply with state housing law, the state sought to enforce provisions in Article 14 of Chapter 3 of the Planning and Zoning Law (Article 14) that impose strict deadlines and development restrictions in cases of noncompliance with Housing Element Law.6 Huntington Beach argued that as a charter city, it was exempt from these enforcement provisions on the grounds they violated the city's right to home rule and impermissibly regulated municipal affairs.
The Fourth District rejected that argument. To begin with, the court confirmed there was no doubt the California Legislature intended for the law to apply to charter cities. The court noted that the statutory text used broad and unqualified language applying to "any action brought to challenge the validity of the general plan of any city" and that Section 65754 of the Government Code explicitly references "chartered cities" when requiring cities to update their zoning ordinances after amending their general plans. Accordingly, the court held that "charter cities must adopt general plans with all of the mandatory elements required by Article 5, subject to the judicial enforcement procedures and remedies of Article 14."7 The court's interpretation was bolstered by the Legislature's recent enactment of Section 65009.1 of the Government Code, which states that Article 14's remedies "apply to actions against all cities, including charter cities" and declares this to be "declaratory of existing law."8
Having confirmed that the Legislature intended for these provisions to apply to charter cities, the court next turned to the question of whether the provisions unconstitutionally infringed upon Huntington Beach's home rule authority as a charter city. The court applied the established four-part analytical framework to determine whether a state law unconstitutionally infringes the home rule authority of charter cities granted by Article XI Section 5 of the California Constitution.9 In this case, it was conceded that the law related to a municipal affair and that an actual conflict existed between state law and local law, and the court concluded that the matter addressed was a matter of statewide concern. The fourth element, as usual, was dispositive: The court held that the laws at issue "do[] not infringe on the City's home rule authority because the state law is reasonably related to the resolution of a statewide concern and narrowly tailored to avoid unnecessary interference with local governance."10
Key Takeaways
The continued viability of state housing production laws – such as SB 330, "Builder's Remedy," this year's SB 79 and more – depends upon the willingness of courts to apply those laws as applicable to charter cities. If charter cities can succeed in persuading courts that state housing laws unconstitutionally intrude into "municipal affairs," they would deal a significant blow to the Legislature's efforts to fashion a statewide response to the statewide housing crisis.
However, housing is not just a municipal affair, it is a matter of pronounced statewide concern. As long ago as 1976, the California Supreme Court emphasized that "municipalities are not isolated islands remote from the needs and problems of the area in which they are located."11 As the Court of Appeal held in the California Renters opinion, "The Legislature has declared the shortfall in housing in California to be a matter of statewide importance ... and both our high court and appellate courts have acknowledged the statewide nature of the interest in providing a stock of housing sufficient to meet the needs of all Californians."12 Kennedy Commission marks the latest in a series of published opinions dating back decades that reject attempts by charter cities to assert an exemption from complying with state housing laws.13
This is not to say that no court will ever find a state housing law inapplicable to charter cities. Kennedy Commission leaves open the possibility that a law may not apply to charter cities if it is not sufficiently clear that the Legislature intended for the law to apply to charter cities. And it is at least possible – although it has not happened yet – that a court could find in a published opinion that a state housing law fails to establish a reasonable relationship to a statewide problem or sufficiently well-tailored approach. City of Rancho Palos Verdes previews the next case that will answer whether charter cities can break their current streak when the Court of Appeal considers whether charter cities are exempt from complying with SB 9 in City of Redondo Beach v. Bonta.
If you have any questions, please contact the authors or your Holland & KnightWest Coast Land Use and Environmental Practice Groupattorney.
Footnotes
1. Mr. Golub argued California Renters Advocacy & Education Fund (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 820, 846-52, one of the leading published California Court of Appeal authorities regarding the "municipal affairs" doctrine. That case affirmed that the Housing Accountability Act, Gov. Code § 65589.5, was constitutionally applicable to charter cities and did not impermissibly intrude into municipal affairs.
2. City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. State of California (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 13.
3. SB 9, enacted in 2021, provides that a proposed housing development of no more than two residential units in a single-family residential zone must be approved ministerially, without discretionary review or a hearing, if it meets specified requirements (Gov. Code, § 65852.2). SB 9 also requires ministerial approval of a parcel map for an "urban lot split" in such zones, where the resulting two parcels are of roughly equal size and each is at least 1,200 square feet. (Gov. Code, § 66411.7).
4. City of Redondo Beach v. Bonta (Case No. B338990, 2nd District).
5. Kennedy Comm'n v. Superior Ct. (2025) 114 Cal. App.5th 385.
6. These mechanisms, contained in Article 14 of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code, include 120-day compliance deadlines (Gov. Code § 65754) and provisional remedies restricting development approvals (Gov. Code, § 65755).
7. Kennedy Commission, 114 Cal.App.5th at 414.
8. The Legislature enacted SB 1037 (Stats. 2024, Ch. 293, § 2), which added Section 65009.1 to the Government Code, effective Jan. 1, 2025. See subdivision (e)(2).
9. See City of Huntington Beach v. Becerra (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 243, 255.
10. Kennedy Commission, 114 Cal.App.5th at 421.
11. Associated Home Builders etc. Inc. v. City of Livermore (1976) 18 Cal. 3d 582, 607.
12. California Renters, 68 Cal. App. 5th at 848.
13. See, e.g., Anderson v. City of San Jose (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 683, 718; Bruce v. City of Alameda (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 18, 22; Buena Vista Gardens Apartments Assn. v. City of San Diego Planning Dept. (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 289, 307.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
