To: Honorable Mayor Orgill and City Council Members
From: Megan Garibaldi, City Attorney
Date: January 30, 2026 (Strategic Planning Meeting)
Re: General Law vs. Charter Cities – A High-Level Overview of Municipal Authority
Under California law, municipalities may be organized under one of two legal structures:
general law or charter law.
1 General law cities, such as the City of Laguna Beach (“City”) currently, derive their authority primarily from State of California (“State”) statutes. Charter cities, by contrast, derive certain powers from a locally-adopted charter pursuant to Article XI of the California Constitution. Although both types of cities perform the same basic municipal functions, their differing sources of powers create meaningful implications for the scope and limits of their municipal authority.
This memo is intended to provide a high-level overview of the frameworks of general law and charter cities, as well as briefly describing some of the legal and practical consequences of each form of municipal organization.
I. Two Paths to Governance: General Law vs. Charter Cities A. General Law Cities
Like the majority of cities in California, the City is currently governed as a general law city. As such, the City is bound by the laws of the State, regardless of the subject matter of those laws. In other words, whether a State law relates to issues that are purely local (i.e., “municipal affairs”) or issues that affect the entire State (i.e., “matters of statewide concern”), the City must comply with the State law.2
General law cities derive their police power from the California 1 General law cities are organized under the general law of the State of California (Gov. Code § 34102), while charter cities are organized under a charter (Gov. Code, § 34101). These are each more briefly described below. 2 As discussed more below, the term “municipal affair” (as used in this context) originates from the California Constitution, while the term “matters of statewide concern” is not found directly in the Constitution but emerged from the case law interpreting it. (See, e.g., California Fed. Savings & Loan Assn. v. City of Los Angeles (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1 (hereinafter “Cal. Fed.”).) As one might imagine, there has been (and will continue to be) much debate in determining what is a “municipal affair” and what is “a matter of statewide concern.” Attachment 1
3 constitution3
and their other municipal authority from State statutes, and they may exercise this power and authority subject to the limitations and preemptive effect of State law.
B. Charter Cities
In California, a municipality’s ability to operate as a charter city derives from the California Constitution. “Charter cities are specifically authorized by our state Constitution to govern themselves, free of state legislative intrusion, as to the matters deemed municipal affairs.”4 In particular, amongst other provisions, the California Constitution provides in pertinent part as follows:
For its own government, a … city may adopt a charter by majority vote of its electors voting on the question. …. The provisions of a charter are the law of the State and have the force and effect of legislative enactments. 5 …
It shall be competent in any city charter to provide that the city governed thereunder may make and enforce all ordinances and regulations in respect to municipal affairs, subject only to restrictions and limitations provided in their several charters and in respect to other matters they shall be subject to general laws. City charters adopted pursuant to this Constitution shall supersede any existing charter, and with respect to municipal affairs shall supersede all laws inconsistent therewith.
6 This constitutional framework is commonly referred to as the “home rule” doctrine. The principle of “home rule” is simply that a city is best positioned to regulate its own local affairs (or, as the California Constitution says, “municipal affairs”), while the State retains control over matters of statewide concern.
This distinction is the core practical benefit to charter status: in matters that are purely municipal, charter cities enjoy the power of self-determination, meaning that a city’s local laws prevail over inconsistent State laws addressing the same subject.7 3 Cal. Const., Art. XI, § 7 [“A … city may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.”]. 4 State Building & Construction Trades Council of California v. City of Vista (2012) 54 Cal.4th 547, 555 (hereinafter, “City of Vista”).
5 Cal. Const., Art. XI, § 3(a).
6 Cal. Const., Art. XI, § 5(a) [emph. added].
7 Although beyond the scope of this high-level memo, the issue is more nuanced than generally summarized here. The California Supreme Court has explained that whether a subject is a “matter of statewide concern” is “only one side of the coin of home rule” and one step in a four-part constitutional analysis. (Cal. Fed., supra, 54 Cal.3d at 13.) 4 II. Defining the Line: Municipal Affairs vs. Matters of Statewide Concern If the central purpose of being a charter city is to have control over municipal affairs, the critical question is then: What is a municipal affair, and what is a matter of statewide concern? While the term municipal affair appears in the Constitution, it is not defined there, and the law does not otherwise provide a clear brightline definition or definitive and conclusive list of categories. Indeed, determining whether something qualifies as a municipal affair is not always clear. As the California Supreme Court has explained:
[T]he question whether in a particular case the home rule provisions of the California Constitution bar the application of state law to charter cities turns ultimately on the meaning and scope of the state law in question and the relevant state constitutional provisions. . . . The decision as to what areas of governance are municipal concerns and what are statewide concerns is ultimately a legal one.8 The legal question as to whether something qualifies as a municipal affair or a matter of statewide concern is evaluated through a four-part test developed by the California Supreme Court.9
All of that is to say, the determination of whether a matter is a municipal affair or statewide concern requires case-by-case judicial analysis. Notwithstanding there is not a finite list of municipal affairs (or, conversely, a finite list of matters of statewide concern), the California Constitution summarizes four broad categories of municipal affairs and, through the evolution of California case law, there is a non-exhaustive list of what is today considered a municipal affair and what is considered a statewide concern, which is detailed more below.
Whereas Article XI, section 5, subdivision (a), of the California Constitution, quoted above, articulates the general principle of self-governance, subdivision (b) sets out the nonexclusive list of the four ‘core’ categories that are, by definition, municipal affairs. Those are regulation of:
1. “city police force”;
2. “subgovernment in all or part of a city”;
3. “conduct of city elections”; and
4. “the manner in which . . . municipal officers [are] elected.”10 Beyond this list, it is up to the courts to determine what is and is not a municipal affair.
Over the last decade, there has been a winnowing of the municipal affairs category as the matters of statewide concern have expanded. Notably, for example, charter cities used to be able to exempt themselves from prevailing wage requirements and similarly had near plenary authority over local land use (although affordable housing has been considered a matter of statewide concern for 8 City of Vista, supra, 54 Cal.4th at 558.
9 Cal. Fed., supra, 54 Cal.3d 1. Analyzing this four-part test and its application to various topics is beyond the scope of this memo.
10 Cal. Const., Art. XI, § 5(b).
5 decades).11 Local control over those issues has significantly narrowed through court and legislative actions.12
Below is a non-exhaustive list of some general topics that impact municipalities, and how they are generally categorized. Note these are high-level categorizations and there is nuance to each of them, which may result in differing characterization on an as-applied basis (in other words, a lot of this can result in an answer of “it depends” based on what is being proposed).
Municipal Affairs Statewide Concern
City Police authority and force
Traffic control; streets and sidewalks;
vehicle regulation (e.g., registration of
vehicles)
Legislative authority (e.g., how ordinances
and resolutions are adopted, etc.)
Tort claims against public agencies
Municipal elections13 Prevailing wage law14
Governmental organization; qualifications
and compensation of local officials (e.g., a
city can set its own qualification
requirements so long as does not violate the
U.S. Constitution)
Most housing laws15
11 AIDS Healthcare Foundation v. Bonta (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 73 [“the subissue of ensuring affordable housing has been a matter of statewide concern for nearly six decades”]. 12 See, e.g., SB 7 (2014), which effectively forces California charter cities to apply State prevailing wage laws to public projects by withholding State funding for construction projects from cities that continue to exempt themselves from prevailing wage requirements; The Kennedy Com. v. Superior Court (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 385, which confirmed that State Housing Element Law did not infringe on home rule authority. 13 While a charter city, for example, does not need to comply with the timelines of the Elections Code, practically, if it is consolidating elections with the county elections, the city will still be bound by the county’s deadlines which often mirror the Elections Code.
14 As referenced above, a charter city may opt out of State prevailing wage law, but it must forego its State funding. 15 See, e.g., fns. 11 & 12.
6 Municipal Affairs Statewide Concern
Certain taxation matters (e.g., Real Property
Transfer Tax)16
Public Records Act, Brown Act, Political
Reform Act
Certain personnel matters17 School systems
Contractual services18
Public Contracting19
Penalties and cost recovery for violations of
local law
III. Claiming Home Rule: The Charter Adoption Process
To become a charter city, a city must adopt a charter by a majority vote of its electorate.
If the goal is for the City to place this question before the voters as soon as possible, the earliest it could do so here is November of 2026. The most expeditious approach to doing so would be for the City Council, on its own motion, to draft a charter and vote to place it on the ballot.
Unlike other ballot measures, a city charter requires additional steps for which the City must comply before placing it on the ballot—most notably, multiple public hearings. To help guide the consideration of this effort for the immediate feature, below is a draft timeline for a November 2026 ballot measure. This timeline is tentative as, amongst other things, the County Registrar has not yet released its own deadlines for submittals.
16 State law (Proposition 62) generally prohibits cities from enacting new or additional Real Property Transfer Taxes (“RPTT”). However, California courts have held that Proposition 62’s limitation does not apply to charter cities and therefore, a charter city may enact a RPTT at a higher rate than the State’s rate, subject to voter approval. Notably, the home rule doctrine does not, however, overrule the procedural requirements of enacting local taxes. 17 Important limitations apply here, including but not limited to, for example, the procedures of certain labor laws, such as the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, still apply to charter cities. 18 General law cities derive their contacting authority, both explicitly and implicitly, from the Government Code. A city charter, by comparison, can specify its own contracting rules. 19 Can be exempt from complying with bidding statutes provided the city charter or ordinance exempts the city from such statutes, and the subject matter of the bid constitutes a municipal affair. (Pub. Cont. Code § 1100.7.) 7 City Charter Ballot Measure
Draft Timeline (Dates Are Approximate and Subject to Change) Action Deadline Notes
Election Day Tuesday, November 3, 2026
ROV Deadline to
Submit All Election
Documents
Friday, August 7, 2026 88 days prior to Election*
last day (“l/d”) to
submit Rebuttal
Arguments
Monday, August 3, 2026
10 days after publishing of Direct
Arguments
l/d to submit Direct
Arguments and
Impartial Analysis
Friday, July 24, 2026 Set by Resolution
l/d to vote to submit
Measure to Voters Tuesday, July 14, 2026 At least 21 days of Second Public Hearing l/d to conduct
Second Public
Hearing
Tuesday, June 23, 2026 At least 30 days after First Public Hearing
l/d to Notice Second
Public Hearing Tuesday, June 2, 2026 At least 21 days prior to Second Hearing l/d to conduct First
Public Hearing Tuesday, May 12, 2026
l/d to Notice First
Public Hearing Tuesday, April 21, 2026 At least 21 days prior to Second Hearing Draft ballot
measure February through April, 2026
8