42 Cal.App.5th 683
Cal. Ct. App.2019Background
- San Jose (a charter city) adopted Policy 7‑13 to govern sale of surplus city land; the policy departs from California’s Surplus Land Act (SLA) by creating exemptions (e.g., downtown high‑rise), broadening eligible income ranges, and omitting certain covenant recording requirements.
- The SLA (Gov. Code §§ 54220–54233), especially after 2014 amendments, requires local agencies disposing of surplus land to prioritize low‑ and moderate‑income housing and, in certain scenarios, to reserve minimum percentages of units at specified affordability levels.
- Plaintiffs (two low‑income residents and two housing advocacy organizations) sued, alleging Policy 7‑13 conflicts with the SLA and violates state housing and civil‑rights laws; they sought writ/declaratory relief compelling City compliance with the SLA.
- The City demurred, asserting home‑rule immunity: as a charter city it has plenary power over municipal affairs (including disposition of its property) and thus may set its own surplus‑land policy.
- The trial court sustained the demurrer, holding disposal of city land is a municipal affair and the SLA did not preempt San Jose’s policy.
- The Court of Appeal reversed: applying the California Fed. Savings / City of Vista home‑rule framework, it held the SLA addresses a matter of statewide concern (the shortage of sites for affordable housing), the SLA is reasonably related and narrowly tailored to that concern, and Policy 7‑13 therefore conflicts with and must yield to state law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Surplus Land Act (SLA) applies to a charter city’s surplus‑land sales | SLA addresses shortage of sites for affordable housing and thus applies to all local agencies, including charter cities | Home‑rule: disposition of city property is a municipal affair beyond state reach | Held: SLA applies; state interest in site shortage is statewide, so SLA can constitutionally govern charter cities when it conflicts with local policy |
| Whether disposal of surplus city land is a "municipal affair" immune from state regulation | Even if municipal, the SLA targets a statewide problem (site shortage) and thus preempts conflicting local measures | Disposal of city property is quintessential municipal control over local assets and spending | Held: Disposal is a municipal affair in general, but the SLA addresses a statewide concern that pro tanto supersedes local control here |
| Whether the SLA’s subject is a statewide concern (bedrock inquiry) | The SLA’s stated purpose—shortage of sites for low/mod housing—is a statewide concern tied to California’s housing crisis | The statewide housing interest is too abstract to justify intruding on a city’s management of its land | Held: Shortage of sites for affordable housing is a matter of statewide concern given legislative history, recent amendments, and statewide housing needs |
| Whether the SLA is reasonably related and narrowly tailored (limits on local autonomy) | SLA’s notice/priority process and limited set‑aside rules are procedural plus targeted substantive floors and do not unduly strip local discretion | SLA imposes substantive constraints on local land disposition and unduly interferes with municipal decisionmaking | Held: SLA is reasonably related and narrowly tailored—the statute applies only to surplus land, leaves surplus determination and pricing to the local agency, and imposes limited set‑aside floors only in specified scenarios |
Key Cases Cited
- California Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v. City of Los Angeles, 54 Cal.3d 1 (Cal. 1991) (articulates four‑part home‑rule framework and ‘statewide concern’ inquiry)
- State Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. City of Vista, 54 Cal.4th 547 (Cal. 2012) (applies and refines the home‑rule test; distinguishes procedural vs. substantive intrusion)
- California Bldg. Industry Assn. v. City of San Jose, 61 Cal.4th 435 (Cal. 2015) (recognizes severity of statewide affordable‑housing shortage; legislative/statewide housing duties)
- County of Riverside v. Superior Court, 30 Cal.4th 278 (Cal. 2003) (discusses limits on state intrusion and procedural/substantive distinction)
- Buena Vista Gardens Apartments Assn. v. City of San Diego Planning Dept., 175 Cal.App.3d 289 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985) (holds housing‑element obligations can implicate statewide concern)
- Marquez v. City of Long Beach, 32 Cal.App.5th 552 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (upholds substantive state wage floor as consistent with home‑rule precedents)
- Coalition Advocating Legal Housing Options v. City of Santa Monica, 88 Cal.App.4th 451 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (acknowledges state interest in housing supply and limits on local restrictions)