BY BRADEN CARTWRIGHT
Daily Post Staff Writer
The state Court of Appeal has upheld a controversial state law that allows up to four homes on a single-family lot.
State lawmakers have clarified the purpose of the law, Senate Bill 9, to help justify their authority to take away local control, a Court of Appeal ruled on March 20.
The Court of Appeal’s ruling sends a challenge to SB9 back to Los Angeles Superior Court to decide if the law is constitutional.
SB9 has been a battleground between pro-housing state lawmakers and local officials who want to keep neighborhoods as they are.
How it works
Starting in January 2022, properties that were zoned for one home could be split into two lots without a city hearing, and then a duplex could get built on each one.
Cities can’t deny SB9 projects unless a property is historic, a fire risk or too small. The cities of Redondo Beach, Carson, Torrance and Whittier sued the state in March 2022, arguing that the state shouldn’t be making land-use decisions for them.
The cities that sued are charter cities, which have their own constitution and can make their own land-use decisions, except when a matter is of statewide concern.
Local impact
California has 121 charter cities, including Palo Alto, San Mateo, Redwood City and Mountain View.
Atherton and Portola Valley are looking at becoming charter cities.
The rest of California’s cities are general law cities that follow the rules of the state, and the lawsuit doesn’t apply to them.
Judge Curtis Kin sided with the charter cities in April 2024, saying the state failed to show that SB9 would realistically help with its stated purpose: ensuring access to affordable housing in California. SB9 projects “would not necessarily be below market rate or accessible to people with lower financial means, especially in economically prosperous cities,” Kin said.
State officials appealed Kin’s ruling and passed SB450 in August 2024.
SB450 clarified the purpose of SB9 — to increase California’s housing supply, addressing a severe statewide housing shortage. The sole focus was no longer affordability.
“There is no question the amendments made by SB450 directly impact (Kin’s) analysis,” the Court of Appeal said in a tentative ruling, written by three justices: Helen Zukin, Armen Tamzarian and Craig Van Rooyen.
The Court of Appeal told Kin to reconsider his ruling, including an order for the state to pay $270,000 in attorney’s fees.
Be the first to comment