- “Huntington Beach has run out of excuses in our state’s courts.” – Rob Bonta
- “Huntington Beach needs to end this pathetic NIMBY behavior.” – Gavin Newsom
by Vanguard Staff
OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Gov. Gavin Newsom declared victory after the California Supreme Court declined to hear Huntington Beach’s appeal in a closely watched housing lawsuit, leaving intact a lower court ruling that subjects the city to court-ordered remedies for its prolonged refusal to comply with state housing law.
The Supreme Court’s denial of review in Kennedy Commission v. Superior Court means a unanimous decision by the Fourth District Court of Appeal remains controlling. That ruling held that Huntington Beach’s status as a charter city does not exempt it from mandatory judicial remedies after violating California’s Housing Element Law for years.
The decision marks another major legal loss for Huntington Beach, which has repeatedly challenged the state’s authority to enforce housing requirements and has spent years resisting adoption of a substantially compliant housing element. Under state law, cities must update their housing elements on a regular schedule to demonstrate how they will plan for their share of regional housing needs across income levels.
Huntington Beach was required to adopt a compliant housing element by Oct. 15, 2021. It did not do so. As a result, on March 9, 2023, Bonta, Newsom and California Department of Housing and Community Development Director Gustavo Velasquez filed suit against the city. The state sought a court order requiring Huntington Beach to come into compliance within 120 days and to limit the city’s permitting, zoning and subdivision authority until a lawful housing element was adopted.
In May 2024, a San Diego Superior Court judge ruled that Huntington Beach violated the Housing Element Law. However, the court declined to include the remedies requested by the state, including a firm compliance deadline and provisional limits on the city’s land-use authority.
The state and housing advocates appealed. In a unanimous decision, the Fourth District Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court was required to impose those remedies and failed to do so. The appellate court held that the lower court “erred when it omitted the 120-day compliance deadline and one or more mandatory provisional remedies” from its order.
The appellate ruling also directed the trial court to issue a new order granting the relief requested by the state and to “expeditiously” resolve all remaining issues in the case. By declining review, the California Supreme Court left that directive fully in place.
“Huntington Beach has run out of excuses in our state’s courts,” Bonta said in a statement following the high court’s action. “It was required to submit a compliant housing element on October 15, 2021, more than four years ago. Rather than follow the law, the City has been squandering public money to avoid building its fair share of housing.”
Bonta said the state intends to continue pressing the case in trial court. “We promised that we would hold Huntington Beach accountable, and we have successfully done so at every turn to date,” he said. “Our case now returns to the trial court, where we will continue to ensure that the City answers for its unlawful actions.”
Newsom was even more blunt in his criticism of the city’s resistance to state housing mandates.
“Huntington Beach needs to end this pathetic NIMBY behavior,” Newsom said. “They are failing their own citizens by wasting time and money that could be used to create much-needed housing. No more excuses, you lost once again — it’s time to get building.”
Velasquez said the ruling reinforces the state’s authority to enforce housing law against all local governments, including charter cities that claim broader autonomy.
“This decision reaffirms that no one is above the law, and Huntington Beach can no longer refuse to do its part to address California’s crisis of housing affordability and homelessness,” Velasquez said. “Charter cities are not exempt from state housing law, and the few bad actors who believe so need to stop looking for a way to avoid their responsibilities.”
The housing element dispute has been only one front in Huntington Beach’s broader legal campaign against state housing policy. In response to the state lawsuit, the city filed a separate federal case challenging the constitutionality of several California housing laws.
That federal lawsuit was dismissed by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit unanimously affirmed the dismissal, and the Ninth Circuit later denied the city’s petition for rehearing en banc.
Huntington Beach has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review those federal rulings. That request remains pending, but the California Supreme Court’s decision ensures that the state enforcement case will move forward regardless of the outcome at the federal level.
The appellate court ruling that now governs the case makes clear that courts must impose specific enforcement tools when a city fails to adopt a compliant housing element. Those tools can include a firm deadline for compliance and temporary restrictions on a city’s land-use authority until state law is satisfied.
Housing advocates say the outcome has implications well beyond Huntington Beach. The decision reinforces the state’s ability to compel compliance with housing law at a time when California continues to face a severe shortage of affordable housing and mounting pressure on local governments to plan for growth.
For Huntington Beach, the path forward is increasingly narrow. With the Supreme Court declining to intervene, the city now returns to trial court facing the likelihood of a court-ordered deadline and judicial oversight until it adopts a housing element that complies with state law.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
Appealing to U.S. Supreme Court. Hard core resistance.