The state of California filed a fresh motion in Orange County Superior Court April 10 seeking compliance from Huntington Beach for a state-mandated affordable housing plan in a lawsuit that already challenged the city for violating housing laws.
Under the original lawsuit filed March 8, California sought to strike down Huntington Beach’s ban on the processing of applications under SB 9—which was passed by the California Legislature in 2021 and allows up to four homes on lots where only one existed previously—and for accessory dwelling units, better known as ADUs or “granny flats.”
But a month after initiating the ban, city officials unanimously voted March 21 to resume accepting the applications, complying with state law.
Now Attorney General Rob Bonta, Gov. Gavin Newsom, and California’s Housing Community Development Department allege the city is intentionally failing to adopt a mandatory “housing element,” which is a state-mandated affordable housing plan, after city officials couldn’t come to an agreement on it during an April 4 council meeting.
The plan was due last October.
“The City Council’s most recent actions and inactions on April 4, 2023, show that the City has no intention of complying with the Housing Element Law,” the amended lawsuit reads.
Hesitation to approve the plan comes after a city staff presentation March 21 that indicated approving it would create “significant and unavoidable,” environmental impacts, such as exceeding thresholds for such things as air quality, greenhouse gases, water quality, and noise.
For approval, city officials would have to sign a letter declaring the need for housing overrules those potential environmental impacts. The council voted 4–3 April 4 with the newly elected conservative majority voting against signing the declaration. Councilors Dan Kalmick, Natalie Moser, and Rhonda Bolton voted in favor.
“I will not allow the state to violate my first amendment right by forcing me to sign a document that says I think these housing mandates are more important than the negative impacts on the environment that they will create. I won’t do it,” Councilman Casey McKeon said during the meeting.
According to the state’s housing department, 233 jurisdictions statewide currently have non-compliant housing elements. Huntington Beach is the only city that faces a lawsuit over such.
Huntington Beach Mayor Tony Strickland announced in a press release April 10 that the state would need to file a new lawsuit now that the former issues regarding SB 9 and ADU’s are no longer of concern.
“If the State wants to now sue the City for an alleged Housing Element violation, the State’s laws on procedure require the State to file a new lawsuit. Simply “amending” is not an option. Bonta should know that,” the statement by Strickland reads.
City Attorney Michael Gates told The Epoch Times he believes the state is “forum shopping,” since Huntington Beach filed its own lawsuit March 9 in federal court against the state regarding the number of units—over 13,000—the state is requiring it to zone for, saying the number is disproportionate to other cities, and the largest allocation in the state based on a city’s size and population.
California officials would rather stay in state court, hence their attempt to amend a lawsuit that’s not legally amendable, Gates said.
In order to keep the latest allegations by the state with its original suit, it now seeks a declaration that Huntington Beach’s past actions were unlawful, as well as declare the city is in violation of housing element law and to enforce its compliance within 120 days.
A press release from Bonta’s office the same day said even though the city reversed course over issues in the initial filing, the recent filing seeks “declaration from the court that the city’s previous ban on SB 9 and ADU applications was unlawful and may not be reinstated.”
But according to Gates, the state is only seeking to salvage its original lawsuit to avoid federal court where it may be less advantaged.
“The whole thing is ridiculous. The past acts that have been resolved, those are not actionable as a matter of law anyway,” Gates said. “ADU law and SB 9 law is completely different, separate, and apart from housing element law. They’re trying to shoehorn them together, but it’s not even procedurally proper.”
A request for comment April 12 from Bonta’s office was not returned by deadline.
With Huntington Beach’s lawsuit already challenging the state’s mandated housing element requirements in federal court, California would have no reason to file a new lawsuit if its current suit was dismissed, according to Gates.
But state officials argue in their recent filing that without some sort of punishment for the city’s previous unlawful actions, it may continue to violate state law.
“The City deliberately defied applicable state law, voluntarily ceased doing so once this litigation was filed, and may by its own volition resume violating state law in the absence of a judicial remedy,” the latest filing reads.
Bonta doubled down on pressure for the city to follow state law in the April 10 press release.
“The City’s refusal last week to adopt a housing element in accordance with state law is just the latest in a string of willfully illegal actions by the city,” he said. “We won’t stand idly by as Huntington Beach continues to flagrantly violate state housing laws designed to bring crucial affordable housing opportunities to our communities.”
