A Superior Court decision 350 miles away could have housing ramifications statewide as cities look to comply with the controversial Senate Bill 9.
A Los Angeles judge granted a writ of mandate April 22, invalidating the lot-split law as unconstitutional in five state charter cities.
The action doesn’t immediately impact Los Altos or Los Altos Hills, both general law municipalities. But it could apply to Mountain View, a charter law city. If upheld on appeal, the decision could have broader impact on all charter cities. Charters are voter-approved with their own constitutions. General law cities abide by the state’s constitution.
Five southern California charter cities – Redondo Beach, Carson, Torrance, Whittier and Del Mar – joined forces to challenge the state law.
SB 9, also called the California HOME Act, streamlines the process of building a duplex or subdividing a single-family home lot into two equivalent-sized lots for further development. With no public hearings and review limited to city staff (called ministerial approval), the law allows development of a primary home and accessory dwelling unit on each subdivided lot. The 2022 law eliminates design subjectivity from the process – homeowners must meet a predetermined set of objective standards.
The petitioners contend SB 9 “is neither reasonably related to its stated concern of ensuring access to affordable housing nor narrowly tailored to avoid interference with local government.”
Judge Curtis A. Kin, acknowledged the legislature’s right to address affordable housing and the housing shortage in general. But he rejected SB9 because of its lack of specifics.
“Because the provisions of SB 9 are not reasonably related and sufficiently narrowly tailored, … to ensure access to affordable housing – SB 9 cannot stand,” Kin ruled.
The ruling comes as Los Altos is in the process of implementing its own SB 9 ordinance to comply with the state’s housing element mandate. Part of the general plan, the Housing Element provides direction and strategy for establishing and meeting housing needs. In its latest cycle, Los Altos is mandated to add 1,958 new housing units by 2031.
The city’s planning commission April 11 recommended approval of the SB 9 implementation ordinance to the city council after minor changes.
Last week’s court ruling prompted little reaction from Los Altos or Mountain View officials.
“We are a general law city and not charter city, so nothing would affect us at this time,” said Nick Zornes, Los Altos assistant city manager.
“The city of Mountain View updated its municipal code in 2022 in compliance with SB 9,” said spokesperson Lenka Wright. “The city is aware of the recent court decision. However, the city does not have any current plans to modify its regulations in response.”
The state’s Attorney General Rob Bonta is listed as a respondent/defendant in the SB 9 lawsuit.
“We are reviewing the decision and will consider all options in defense of SB 9,” Bonta’s office said in a statement.
The legal battle underscores the ideological differences at play in the debate over housing and land use. A wave a state laws in recent years eliminated housing approval constraints to encourage more development and address a housing shortage. But residents in single-family home dominant enclaves like Los Altos have rebelled against the higher-density mandates, saying the state was usurping local controls.
Zornes told the planning commission the city received 19 SB 9 related applications in the wake of the new law, but most were for building single-family homes. Zornes noted people were using SB 9 to side-step the design review process that was still in effect. With the subsequent removal of the design review commission under housing element edicts, applications have pivoted to more lot-split requests.
Under the SB9 ordinance, side and rear-yard setbacks are four feet for new structures. A divided lot can contain two primary units and two ADUs, or junior ADUs, with a minimum unit size of 800 square feet. Applicants must sign an affidavit acknowledging they intend to reside in one of the existing or proposed units for a 3-year minimum. This is to discourage developers from profiting under the law.
