Southern California Cities vs. State Housing Mandates

Across Southern California, cities are facing mounting pressure from Sacramento to comply with sweeping housing mandates. The State’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process assigns every city a quota of new housing units that must be planned for during each cycle. To meet these obligations, cities are required to adopt a certified Housing Element that identifies the land and zoning capacity necessary to accommodate those units. If a city fails to comply, it becomes vulnerable to lawsuits and a powerful legal provision known as the Builder’s Remedy—an override that allows developers to bypass local zoning entirely and propose high-density housing in areas where it may not otherwise be allowed.

This matters because cities that fall out of compliance face real and costly consequences. The courts have repeatedly ruled in favor of the State, and cities have been hit with steep legal penalties, court-ordered rezonings, frozen permits, and an erosion of local control. Worse yet, not a single city in Southern California has prevailed in court when challenging the State’s housing element mandates.

Consider Huntington Beach, which was sued in 2023 by the California Attorney General for refusing to process ADUs, banning SB 9 applications, and failing to adopt a compliant Housing Element. The city responded by filing its own federal lawsuit, claiming state mandates violated its charter authority. That lawsuit was thrown out, and in October 2024, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal. Simultaneously, a Superior Court judge gave the city 120 days to comply with state law. It’s not the first time Huntington Beach has faced consequences—years earlier, the city was forced to pay $3.5 million in attorney’s fees to a housing advocacy group in a separate legal challenge.

In La Cañada Flintridge, the legal fallout was just as severe. After being sued by Californians for Homeownership (CFH) and later CalHDF over its failure to rezone, the city lost a Builder’s Remedy lawsuit and was ordered to process a project that it had previously denied. When the city tried to appeal the ruling, the court imposed a $14 million appeal bond—essentially a financial guarantee the city couldn’t afford. La Cañada withdrew its appeal and ultimately agreed to a $1.3 million legal settlement, paid entirely with taxpayer dollars.

Beverly Hills also came under legal scrutiny in 2023. A court ordered the city to revise its Housing Element, and a Superior Court judge froze all residential building permits while the city remained non-compliant. Four separate Builder’s Remedy lawsuits have since been filed, aiming to build over 270 housing units in locations that would not have been approved under local zoning rules.

Fullerton was sued by both the State and CFH after failing to adopt a compliant housing element. The city entered into a settlement agreement requiring it to meet state deadlines by November 5, 2024, but still faces rezoning requirements and Builder’s Remedy risk until it reaches full compliance.

South Pasadena found itself in a similar position. Sued for missing its 2021 housing deadline, the city agreed to a court-approved settlement requiring rezoning within 120 days and placing a ballot measure before voters to lift a 45-foot height cap on housing sites—a direct consequence of state pressure.

Other cities including Bradbury, La Habra Heights, Laguna Hills, Manhattan Beach, Vernon, and Claremont were also sued by CFH for missing their housing element deadlines. Each settled or entered into binding legal agreements requiring them to rezone properties and adopt compliant housing plans. La Habra Heights, for instance, ultimately committed to planning for 244 new homes, including 164 affordable units, and remains under ongoing legal scrutiny from housing groups and the State.

Beyond lawsuits, a growing number of cities have been targeted by Builder’s Remedy filings—legal housing applications submitted by developers when a city is out of compliance. These applications have been used to force high-density housing proposals in cities like Los Angeles, Santa Monica (which has received over 16 such filings), Redondo Beach, Pasadena, West Hollywood, Orange, Lawndale, Alhambra, and Mission Viejo. These cities didn’t necessarily face lawsuits, but they lost control over their zoning because of late or inadequate Housing Elements.

Here’s the reality: no city has successfully fought the State and won. Every city that’s tried—whether in court or through political defiance—has either lost, settled, or been forced into compliance. And the financial burden has been substantial. Huntington Beach’s legal bill from one case alone was $3.5 million. La Cañada Flintridge nearly bankrupted itself just to post an appeal bond. Beverly Hills is now fending off multiple lawsuits. These are cautionary tales—not hypothetical risks.

So what can we in Upland learn from all this? We need to prioritize Housing Element compliance—not because we agree with the mandates, but because failing to comply will cost our city financially and strip away our ability to make land use decisions locally. We can’t afford to be next in the crosshairs of litigation or to be forced into approving dense development without the infrastructure to support it.

More importantly, Upland residents need to stay engaged—and hold their state legislators accountable. These mandates don’t materialize out of thin air. They are created, passed, and funded by elected officials in Sacramento. Ask your Assemblymember and State Senator: Did you vote for SB 9, SB 10, or support the RHNA process? Did you fight for infrastructure funding, or just pass the burden onto local governments? These are the questions we all need to be asking.

Local government should not be left to carry the full weight of Sacramento’s housing crisis. Cities like ours are doing everything we can with limited resources, aging infrastructure, and real public safety concerns. Yet we are constantly handed unfunded mandates with no support. It’s time for the State to be a partner—not just a regulator.

This blog post isn’t a warning—it’s a reality check. The legal and financial outcomes are clear. The court precedent is clear. And the stakes for Upland are very real. If we want to protect our city, preserve our neighborhoods, and maintain the ability to make thoughtful planning decisions, we must comply with the law—but we must also stand up and demand better policy from Sacramento.

Thank you for staying informed and engaged.

—
James Breitling
Councilmember, District 2
City of Upland
📧 jbreitling@uplandca.gov | ☎️ (909) 342-2523