This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
By Adrian Reyna
June 17, 2024
The California Legislature has the power to supersede nearly all local ordinances, even those that have been passed through a popular vote of the people via initiative. The Legislature can also bestow this power upon local governments, especially in response to state-wide issues. The Second District Court of Appeal confirmed the breadth of this legislative power in AIDS Healthcare Foundation v. Bonta.
Facts of AIDS Healthcare Foundation v. Bonta
In response to the state’s severe housing crisis at all income levels, the California Legislature (“Legislature”) enacted Senate Bill 10 (“SB-10”), which allows local legislative bodies to adopt ordinances to zone a parcel for up to 10 units of residential density per parcel, so long as the parcel and the legislative body meet certain conditions. Under SB-10, local governments may enact such an ordinance notwithstanding most local housing density caps, whether these caps were put in place by ordinance or by voter initiative.
AIDS Healthcare Foundation challenged SB-10’s constitutionality under the California Constitution, arguing that SB-10 invalidated the California Constitution’s protection against legislative amendment of initiatives without voter approval. The trial court upheld the constitutionality of SB-10, which AIDS Healthcare Foundation appealed.
Court of Appeal’s Analysis
The Court of Appeal upheld the constitutionality of SB-10, finding that it satisfied the requirements necessary to supersede local density housing caps. Additionally, the Court of Appeal held that SB-10 does not run afoul of the California Constitution’s voter initiative power, and that it satisfied the requirements to preempt local voter initiatives.
SB-10 fulfills the requirements to preempt local zoning and land use laws, including the local laws of charter cities.
The California Constitution allows the Legislature to supersede nearly all non-charter city or county ordinances by providing that state law prevails when the two conflict. However, for charter cities and counties, state law supersedes conflicting ordinances as to municipal affairs only if the subject matter of the state law is of statewide or regional concern and if the state law is reasonably related to the resolution of that concern.
Here, the Court of Appeal held that granting local governments the authority to supersede local housing caps is reasonably related to addressing the statewide housing shortage, a matter of statewide concern. The Court of Appeal affirmed the sufficiency of the Legislature’s findings that the housing shortage is a statewide or regional concern, including that the rise in housing prices at every income level is linked to the insufficient housing supply at all levels.
Notably, AIDS Healthcare Foundation argued that the Legislature did not provide enough evidence that there was a shortage of all housing, as opposed to just affordable housing. The Court of Appeal disagreed, finding that the increase in housing at all levels reasonably supports the Legislature’s findings that there was a shortage at all levels.
SB-10 has preempted local laws setting housing density caps and has satisfied the higher standard required to preempt local voter initiatives.
The Legislature can preempt local ordinances by implication if the local legislation contradicts or is adverse to the state law. Here, the Court of Appeal found that SB-10 is a limited preemption of locally enacted density caps by implication, because such caps forbid local governments from approving projects that exceed the cap, which conflicts with the ability under SB-10 to opt in or out of exceeding the cap. Additionally, state law can preempt local laws adopted through initiative if there is a clear showing or definite indication of legislative intent to do so. The Court of Appeal found such legislative intent was manifested in SB-10’s clear terms.
The California Legislature can validly grant local governments the power to use their discretion to preempt local ordinances on a parcel-by-parcel basis.
Generally, if the Legislature has the power to perform an action greater in scope, it typically may also undertake actions lesser in scope. Here, the Court of Appeal pointed out that the Legislature could have validly nullified every local housing density cap across the state, but instead chose to validly take the lesser action of giving the local bodies some discretion on whether to supersede such caps.
Voter initiatives enacted earlier than SB-10 do not constitute a preemptive exercise of the local legislative body’s discretion under SB-10 such that the body lacks the power to supersede those initiatives.
AIDS Healthcare Foundation argued that SB-10 does not allow local governments to supersede voter initiative-based housing density caps that already exist, because the enactment of those existing caps counts as a decision by the local government under SB-10 to not supersede the caps. The Court of Appeal disagreed: the text of SB-10 does not provide for such an interpretation, and it would narrow the discretion the Legislature wanted local governments to have, frustrating SB-10’s purpose.
Ultimately, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court, finding in favor of the State.
Conclusion
AIDS Healthcare Foundation v. Bonta affirms the broad power of the California Legislature to step in and address issues with state-wide effects, especially the state housing crisis. This may pave the way for additional future preemption cases relating to housing, allowing the California Legislature to continue to take action to promote development to address the housing shortage.
If you have any questions regarding the holding in AIDS Healthcare Foundation v. Bonta or its effects on development, please feel free to contact Neil Hyytinen at nhyytinen@hechtsolberg.com or Adrian Reyna at areyna@hechtsolberg.com.