Norwalk lifts moratorium on emergency shelters as part of settlement discussions with state
The Norwalk City Council voted to lift the moratorium preventing the development of emergency shelters and transitional housing in the city during their meeting Tuesday, Aug. 5, 2025. (Photo by Vince Medina)
In a unanimous decision, the Norwalk City Council voted not to extend the moratorium preventing the development of emergency shelters and transitional housing in the city during their meeting Tuesday night.
The decision comes as the city works to settle a lawsuit with the California state attorney general and regain certification for its housing element plan.
Norwalk was sued by the state in November, after the city council issued a moratorium to temporarily stop the development of new emergency shelters and transitional housing. The state argued the moratorium violates multiple state housing laws, including the Housing Crisis Act, which prohibits cities from restricting housing development.
The moratorium also placed temporary restrictions on developing certain commercial businesses including convenience stores, liquor stores, laundromats, vehicle washing services and payday loan establishments.
The state also argued in the lawsuit that the moratorium contradicts the city’s housing element plan to approve 5,024 housing units by 2029. The Department of Housing and Community Development approved Norwalk’s plan in 2023, but has since revoked the certification.
City of Norwalk representatives defended the original moratorium in a statement on Wednesday.
“The original moratorium followed Los Angeles County’s decision to launch a transitional housing program at 12500 Firestone Boulevard without City consultation – an action that raised serious concerns about local oversight and contributed to the State’s decertification of Norwalk’s Housing Element,” according to the statement. “The City has engaged in ongoing discussions with the State to work towards a resolution that affirms the City’s planning role while supporting regional housing goals.”
Alex Hamilton, interim director of community development, said settlement discussions between the city attorney and the state attorney general are ongoing, with a trial date set for Oct. 28, 2025.
“The exclusion of housing uses from the moratorium is a necessary step to address the state’s concerns and work towards a compliant housing element,” said Alex Hamilton, Interim Director of Community Development. “We are actively engaged in discussions with HCD to expedite the recertification process.”
Under the amended moratorium, the ban on developing emergency housing uses has been lifted, while the restrictions on the discount businesses have been extended for an additional year, until Aug. 5, 2026.
“We are committed to ensuring that our zoning regulations adequately address the impacts of these businesses on our community,” said Hamilton. “The extension allows us the necessary time to develop comprehensive standards that will mitigate any adverse effects.”
In a statement, the Norwalk representatives said the City has reviewed zoning standards, evaluated land use impacts and prepared updates that ensure future development aligns with Norwalk’s long-term goals since the moratorium was enacted in 2024.
“Norwalk is opening the door to housing that works,” wrote Mayor Tony Ayala. “We are seeking solutions that are well-planned, well-placed, and supported by the community it serves.”
Councilmember Rick Ramirez was absent from the meeting.
The case of People Of The State Of California v. City Of Norwalk was set to move forward to trial after a judge ruled mostly in favor of the state, rejecting the city’s attempt to dismiss the lawsuit in February.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge James Chalfant wrote in his tentative ruling that while the city has temporarily paused the moratorium, it “does not resolve these issues because it is only temporary while the city attempts to resolve the dispute with HCD.”
However, the judge ruled in Norwalk’s favor to remove the city council as a defendant in the litigation. Since the case concerns the council’s actions as a legislative body, it is not a legal entity separate from the city.
The Los Angeles Superior Court judge did issue a criticism of the state, writing that the case could have been conducted in a better manner.