Charter cities have special privileges under the state Constitution, Lee said, including the right to enact their own laws. When the state Legislature wants its laws to apply to those charter cities, Lee said lawmakers have to demonstrate the law addresses a statewide concern.
In his decision, Judge Curtis Kin said the Legislature didn’t do that in this case. Specifically, SB 9 says its purpose is to “ensure access to affordable housing.” Lee and her colleagues argued “affordable housing” means something very specific: below market-rate, deed-restricted housing.
Since the law doesn’t specifically require property owners to develop that kind of housing, the law is unconstitutional, Kin ruled.
Elmendorf called that interpretation, “kind of silly.”
By allowing property owners to split their lots and build up to two homes on each new one, the law promotes the construction of homes that are smaller and therefore relatively more affordable, he said.
“The Legislature is not a house full of idiots,” Elmendorf said, adding that the law itself makes the Legislature’s intent clear.
In a statement, state Sen. Toni Atkins (D-San Diego), who authored SB 9, called the judge’s ruling “sadly misguided” and vowed to “remedy any loopholes biased city governments might utilize” to block new housing.
“The assertion by NIMBY city governments that SB 9 is only about subsidized housing is a stretch at best,” said Atkins, who recently stepped down as Senate President Pro Tempore. “The goal of SB 9 has always been to increase equity and accessibility in our neighborhoods while growing our housing supply and production across the state.”
Since it went into effect in 2022, however, the law has produced little in the way of new lots or housing. A KQED survey of 16 cities of varying sizes found that between 2022 and 2023, the cities collectively approved 75 lot-split applications and 112 applications for new units under the law. That’s compared to more than 8,800 accessory dwelling units, or in-law apartments, the cities permitted during the same time frame.
Developers have generally supported the bill, but have criticized anti-speculation provisions in the law that require a property owner requesting a lot split to agree to live in the house for at least three years. They have also argued that fees and other barriers cities have imposed have prevented the law from working as intended.
Atkins authored a second bill, SB 450, to begin addressing some of those issues, but it is currently on hold.
Elmendorf said the Legislature’s unwillingness to address those issues demonstrates a certain unease with the law’s intent open single-family neighborhoods to more housing — even among lawmakers who voted to approve it.
“That unease is reflected in SB 9 itself,” he said. “SB 9 is written with loopholes.”
The state could easily fix those loopholes, Elmendorf said, just as it can easily remedy the error Kin identified in his ruling. How swiftly it does so will demonstrate how serious lawmakers are about dismantling barriers to housing in single-family neighborhoods.
“I think it’s worth watching the legislative response to this case,” he said.
Doing so will better answer the question underlying SB 9, Elmendorf added. “Do we really want these traditional single-family home neighborhoods to be transformed into something that’s a little bit different?”
