case the home rule in California

2026Interpreting that law and those provisions presents a legal question, not a factual one. [Citations.] Courts accord great weight to the factual record that the Legislature has compiled [citations], and also to any relevant facts established in trial court proceedings. [Citation.] Factual findings by the Legislature or the trial court, however, are not controlling. [Citation.] The decision as to what areas of governance are municipal concerns and what are statewide concerns is ultimately a legal one.” (City of Vista, supra, 54 Cal.4th at p. 558 .) 16 i. Municipal affairs.

2026Interpreting that law and those provisions presents a legal question, not a factual one. [Citations.] Courts accord great weight to the factual record that the Legislature has compiled [citations], and also to any relevant facts established in trial court proceedings. [Citation.] Factual findings by the Legislature or the trial court, however, are not controlling. [Citation.] The decision as to what areas of governance are municipal concerns and what are statewide concerns is ultimately a legal one.” (City of Vista, supra, 54 Cal.4th at p. 558 .) 16 i. Municipal affairs.

2018Co. v. City & County of S.F. (1959) 51 Cal.2d 766, 771 .) “Some portions of a local matter may ultimately become of general state interest.” (Weekes v. City of Oakland (1978) 21 Cal.3d 386, 423 .) “There must always be doubt whether a matter which is of concern to both municipalities and the state is of sufficient statewide concern to justify a new legislative intrusion into an area traditionally regarded as ‘strictly a municipal affair.’ Such doubt, however, ‘must be resolved in favor of the legislative authority of the state.’ ” (Baggett v. Gates (1982) 32 Cal.3d 128, 140 (Baggett).) “[T]he

2017Co. v. City & County of S.F. (1959) 51 Cal.2d 766 , 771, 336 P.2d 514 .) "Some portions of a local matter may ultimately become of general state interest." ( Weekes v. City of Oakland (1978) 21 Cal.3d 386 , 423, 146 Cal.Rptr. 558 , 579 P.2d 449 .) "There must always be doubt whether a matter which is of concern to *216 both municipalities and the state is of sufficient statewide concern to justify a new legislative intrusion into an area traditionally regarded as 'strictly a municipal affair.' Such doubt, however, 'must be resolved in favor of the legislative authority of the state.' " ( Bagge

2018Co. v. City & County of S.F. (1959) 51 Cal.2d 766, 771 .) “Some portions of a local matter may ultimately become of general state interest.” (Weekes v. City of Oakland (1978) 21 Cal.3d 386, 423 .) “There must always be doubt whether a matter which is of concern to both municipalities and the state is of sufficient statewide concern to justify a new legislative intrusion into an area traditionally regarded as ‘strictly a municipal affair.’ Such doubt, however, ‘must be resolved in favor of the legislative authority of the state.’ ” (Baggett v. Gates (1982) 32 Cal.3d 128, 140 (Baggett).) “[T]he

2017Co. v. City & County of S.F. (1959) 51 Cal.2d 766 , 771, 336 P.2d 514 .) "Some portions of a local matter may ultimately become of general state interest." ( Weekes v. City of Oakland (1978) 21 Cal.3d 386 , 423, 146 Cal.Rptr. 558 , 579 P.2d 449 .) "There must always be doubt whether a matter which is of concern to *216 both municipalities and the state is of sufficient statewide concern to justify a new legislative intrusion into an area traditionally regarded as 'strictly a municipal affair.' Such doubt, however, 'must be resolved in favor of the legislative authority of the state.' " ( Bagge

2017Interpreting that law and those provisions presents a legal question, not a factual one." ( State Building , supra , 54 Cal.4th at p. 558 , 143 Cal.Rptr.3d 529 , 279 P.3d 1022 .) 4 "Until the 1970's, every city and county in California adopted its own building code, unfettered by mandated state standards or state control. ( City of Bakersfield v. Miller (1966) 64 Cal.2d 93 , 97 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 889 , 410 P.2d 393 ] [citations].) In 1970, the Legislature put an end to all that by declaring a statewide interest in uniform building codes (Stats. 1970, ch. 1436, § 7, p. 2785) and otherwise expressin

2017Interpreting that law and those provisions presents a legal question, not a factual one." ( State Building , supra , 54 Cal.4th at p. 558 , 143 Cal.Rptr.3d 529 , 279 P.3d 1022 .) 4 "Until the 1970's, every city and county in California adopted its own building code, unfettered by mandated state standards or state control. ( City of Bakersfield v. Miller (1966) 64 Cal.2d 93 , 97 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 889 , 410 P.2d 393 ] [citations].) In 1970, the Legislature put an end to all that by declaring a statewide interest in uniform building codes (Stats. 1970, ch. 1436, § 7, p. 2785) and otherwise expressin

2017Interpreting that law and those provisions presents a legal question, not a factual one." ( State Building , supra , 54 Cal.4th at p. 558 , 143 Cal.Rptr.3d 529 , 279 P.3d 1022 .) 4 "Until the 1970's, every city and county in California adopted its own building code, unfettered by mandated state standards or state control. ( City of Bakersfield v. Miller (1966) 64 Cal.2d 93 , 97 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 889 , 410 P.2d 393 ] [citations].) In 1970, the Legislature put an end to all that by declaring a statewide interest in uniform building codes (Stats. 1970, ch. 1436, § 7, p. 2785) and otherwise expressin

2017Interpreting that law and those provisions presents a legal question, not a factual one." ( State Building , supra , 54 Cal.4th at p. 558 , 143 Cal.Rptr.3d 529 , 279 P.3d 1022 .) 4 "Until the 1970's, every city and county in California adopted its own building code, unfettered by mandated state standards or state control. ( City of Bakersfield v. Miller (1966) 64 Cal.2d 93 , 97 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 889 , 410 P.2d 393 ] [citations].) In 1970, the Legislature put an end to all that by declaring a statewide interest in uniform building codes (Stats. 1970, ch. 1436, § 7, p. 2785) and otherwise expressin