Opinion ID: 1236953
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Actual Conflict Between State and Charter City Law

Text: (1) As we explained in CalFed, supra, 54 Cal.3d 1, the first step in a reviewing court's inquiry is to determine whether there is an actual conflict between general state law and charter city authority. Accordingly, we would normally address initially the claim raised by amici curiae for respondents that section 85300 has been rendered inoperative as a result of proceedings in federal court. We decline to do so in this case, however, because: (i) the same and related severability issues are pending before us in Gerken v. Fair Political Practices Com. (S025815), and will be resolved in that case; (ii) this case presents an important issue of constitutional law that potentially affects all charter cities (see United Farm Workers of America v. Superior Court (1976) 16 Cal.3d 499, 503-504 [128 Cal. Rptr. 209, 546 P.2d 713]), the issue is well briefed in this court by the parties and various amici curiae, and furthermore, although not controlling, [a]ll parties on the appeal appear to wish a decision on the municipal affairs/statewide concern issue ( People v. West Coast Shows, Inc. (1970) 10 Cal. App.3d 462, 468 [89 Cal. Rptr. 290]); and, finally, (iii) regardless of how we resolve the severability issue in this case, the result will be the same because we conclude that even if section 85300 survives, the city retains the authority to adopt the challenged regulation of its own municipal affairs.