Court of Appeal Confirms Charter Cities Are Subject to Housing Element Cure

 A recent decision by the Fourth District Court of Appeal confirms that the expedited procedures and judicial remedies against municipalities that lack a compliant housing element apply to charter cities. Kennedy Commission v. Superior Court of San Diego County, 114 Cal. App. 5th 385 (2025).

State law requires the housing element of a city’s general plan to identify adequate sites and plan for future housing needs for residents of all income levels. If a court finds noncompliance, Article 14 (Gov. Code §§ 65750–65763) establishes expedited procedures and mandatory judicial remedies to achieve compliance. These remedies include a 120-day deadline to amend the plan or element into substantial compliance, bringing zoning into consistency within 120 days of such amendment, and the inclusion of at least one provisional remedy limiting permitting, zoning, or subdivision approvals—or mandating approvals meeting statutory criteria—until the city achieves substantial compliance. 

Huntington Beach, a charter city, failed to adopt a compliant housing element despite the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) indicating that a draft would substantially comply if adopted. The Attorney General and HCD secured a writ compelling compliance in court, but the decision omitted Article 14’s 120-day deadline and any provisional remedies. 

The key issue on appeal was whether Article 14’s procedures and remedies apply to charter cities. The court held it unequivocally did, noting that Article 14 applies to “any action” challenging the validity of “the general plan of any city,” and that Section 65754(b) directly references charter cities. The court also relied on recent legislation, Senate Bill 1037, clarifying that Article 14 remedies apply to actions against charter cities enforcing housing element requirements. The city argued that the new statutory language impinged on its “home rule” authority under the California Constitution that empowers charter cities to govern themselves when dealing with municipal affairs. But because the statute addresses a statewide concern—housing supply and affordability—and is narrowly tailored, the court rejected home-rule objections. The court directed the trial court to enter a new order that included the 120-day deadline and one or more provisional remedies, and to give calendar preference to remaining matters.

Under this decision, cities like Huntington Beach should expect accelerated timelines to adopt compliant housing elements and constraints on their land use authority until such compliance is achieved. Developers, in turn, may see fewer delay tactics and will benefit from provisional remedies limiting downzoning or even mandating approval of certain projects.