Jurisdiction of the City of Huntington Beach. Michael Gates compared the three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to a "firing squad.”
The panel brought in a lot of ammunition Monday morning in Pasadena when it heard Gates’ lawsuit against California’s housing regulations.
“They’re basically blaming the whole discussion and the authorities, really on both sides,” Gates told the Daily Pilot in an interview after the session. “Of all the appeals I’ve made, this one seemed pretty typical. It’s hard to read. I’m just waiting for the final verdict.”
Judges Richard Tolman, Ryan Nelson and Daniel Bress peppered Gates with questions. Brace was quick to pounce on Gates’ claims that the state was “overbearing” and “high-handed” in enforcing Huntington Beach’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment requirements, which set out zoning for 13,368 units from 2021 to 2029. Ta.
“I don’t want to get in the way, but there are big questions about whether this lawsuit can be filed,” Brace said. “Is there standing room?”
A district court judge ruled last November that Huntington Beach did not actually have standing in federal court in the case against the city of Huntington Beach and others. vs. Gavin Newsom et al.
Gates appealed to the Ninth Circuit, arguing that the city’s rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments were violated.
Gates on Monday cited precedent cited by the district court, including City of South Lake Tahoe v. City of Tahoe, California Ordinance. (1980) did not apply because South Lake Tahoe is not a charter city like Huntington Beach, but rather a “political area” of the state.
Nelson said he was sympathetic to Gates’ argument, but the 1998 decision in Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport v. Burbank that even charter cities in California can be designated as political subdivisions mentioned.
New townhomes will be built on Talbert Avenue in April 2023. The city of Huntington Beach is fighting the state’s RHNA mandate to zone 13,368 units this cycle.
(file photo)
Gates responded that the case involved joint powers between the three cities and did not present a serious analysis of the legal nature of charter cities.
“It (JPA) is actually a political arm of the state because it was created by law,” Gates said. “Charter cities are not created by law, your honor, they are created by the California Constitution.”
He cites Otis v. City of Los Angeles (1942), which states that while counties are political subdivisions, charter cities are in some sense “independent political entities.” Gates also cited Johnson v. Bradley (1992), a reference to the 1880 People v. Hoge case, which says the framers of the state constitution freed charter cities from the authority of the California Legislature.
The justices seemed skeptical of this argument.
“From a federal constitutional perspective, they are not free,” Brace said. “Huntington Beach is not a free-floating entity that can do whatever it wants and call itself whatever it wants, nor is it a California city. I just don’t understand this argument.”
Tolman said Gates doesn’t need answers from the federal government, but answers from the states regarding charter city powers.
Thomas Kinzinger, an attorney with the California Attorney General’s Office, represented the case.
“Adopting a city charter does not make (Huntington Beach) the 51st state,” Kinzinger said. “It’s a derivative government.”
A related state lawsuit against Huntington Beach was originally filed in March 2023 and is pending in the San Diego Court of Appeals. A San Diego Superior Court judge ruled in May against Huntington Beach that Surf City must plan for more housing and pass compliant housing elements within 120 days, but Gates An appeal was filed.
Gates said a ruling on Monday’s appeal could take weeks or months. He told the panel in court that the case was based on first impressions, meaning it raised new questions for legal interpretation.
“If the Ninth Circuit is going to rule against us, they may find many ways to rule against us,” he told the Daily Pilot. “But if you’re going to do that, you can’t rely on South Lake Tahoe or Burbank, which are basically the only cases lower federal courts have relied on. As a matter of law, that’s a close call. I don’t think so either. It’s very clear to me.”
