Page 1
Court of Appeal:
L.A. Area Cities Lose Bid to Overturn Affordable Housing Law
Opinion Says General Law Municipalities Failed to Allege Constitutional Violation in Litigation Seeking to Overturn Senate Bill 9, Which Greenlights Splitting Single Family Lots, Guts Local Review Process
By Kimber Cooley, associate editor
Div. Four of this district’s Court of Appeal has held that judgment was properly entered against four general law cities in Los Angeles County challenging Senate Bill 9 which greenlights splitting lots zoned for single-family homes into two-unit properties and guts the authority of local governments to review the transition, finding that they failed to show that any constitutional provision was breached by the Legislature’s action.
The decision—in City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. State of California, 2025 S.O.S. 2367—follows an April 2024 ruling by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Curtis A. Kin in City of Redondo Beach v. Bonta, in which the jurist declared:
“[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….”
That case was filed by Redondo Beach, Carson, Torrance, Whittier, and Del Mar, all charter cities. Kin said the law violates Art. XI, §5(a) of the California Constitution which provides that the Legislature is prohibited from interfering in the government and management of such municipalities absent a showing that a statute is reasonably tailored to the resolution of a subject of statewide concern.
General-Law Cities
Thursday’s opinion addresses similar arguments raised by Rancho Palos Verdes, Lakewood, Simi Valley, and Paramount, each of which is organized under the general laws of California rather than by charter. They argued that the bill is in conflict with §7 of Art. XI of the California Constitution which grants them the authority to “make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances…not in conflict with general laws.”
In an opinion authored by Acting Presiding Justice Audrey B. Collins, the court agreed to take judicial notice of the Redondo Beach decision but declared:
“The language appellants use throughout their brief—namely that SB 9 ‘does not bear a reasonable and substantial relationship to its stated goal’—suggests an attempt to rely on the municipal affairs doctrine grounded in article XI, section 5….So too does their request for judicial notice of the trial court’s judgment in City of Redondo Beach v. Bonta.…Regardless of the ultimate correctness of that ruling, a question separately pending on appeal…, the municipal affairs doctrine is not applicable to this case involving general law cities.”
The judgment in Redondo Beach is presently before Div. Four. It was fully briefed as of Aug. 22.
City Authority
In June 2022, Rancho Palos Verdes and Lakewood filed a verified petition for writ of mandate and a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against California and Attorney General Rob Bonta, arguing that the bill intrudes on a “city’s authority to regulate for the public health, safety, and welfare of its community.”
Asserting that the law guts the municipality’s ability to consider the impacts of the zoning change on critical infrastructure—including parking, schools, water and sewer system usage, and emergency services—without any avenue for public input, they argue that the Legislature acted beyond the scope of its authority.
In the operative pleading, they further asserted that Senate Bill 9 “is not reasonably related” to affordable housing because “[a]ny and all new…lot splits…can be sold or leased at market rates.”
After the defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, then-Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mitchell L. Beckloff (now a private judge) granted a request to amend the pleading to add Paramount and Simi Valley.
The defendants then filed a demurrer to the amended complaint, incorporating the arguments raised in the earlier motion. Beckloff granted the motion for judgment on the pleadings and sustained the demurrer without leave to amend.
Thursday’s decision, joined in by Justices Audra Mori and Armen Tamzarian, affirms the ensuing defense judgment.
Traditional Control
Saying that “[o]ur analysis begins and largely ends with appellants’ status as general law cities,” Collins wrote: “[Appellants] characterize the instant suit as ‘an attempt to curtail the State’s illegal overreach into municipal affairs.’ However, ‘[i]n the absence of some constitutional restraint, the Legislature may increase or diminish the powers’ of a general law city ‘at will.’…Only charter cities are protected by the municipal affairs doctrine.”
Rejecting the municipalities’ assertion that “[a]lthough the Cities are general law cities, the state’s laws must still pass constitutional muster before they preempt local laws,” she said that they “fail[] to identify any constitutional provision the Legislature allegedly has violated.”
She commented that “appellants acknowledged…[that] they may not challenge state actions as violative of their federal due process, equal protection, or contract rights,” and addressed the reliance on Section 7 of Article XI in a footnote, remarking:
“During oral argument, appellants’ counsel represented that appellants’ position is that SB 9 violates article XI, section 7. Counsel also acknowledged, however, that they have not located any case law holding that a general law city may argue that a state law is unconstitutional under article XI, section 7. This court likewise has not located any such authority.”
As to whether the court erred in denying leave to amend so that the cities could allege an as-applied challenge by pleading specific facts showing the particular harm purportedly faced by each locality, she opined:
“[A]ppellants have not demonstrated the existence of any protected right here….Further, the additional allegations they propose adding to an amended complaint are not materially different from those included in the operative complaint….Their request for judicial notice of a recent executive order suspending SB 9 in areas affected by the Palisades and Eaton fires due to similar concerns is denied as irrelevant.”
Collins added:
“Appellants contend that SB 9 precludes them from addressing…legitimate concerns, but have not identified a nexus between that preclusion and any constitutional violation….They accordingly have failed to demonstrate any reasonable possibility that the complaint can be amended to state a viable…claim.”
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company