Fourth District Court Reinforces State Oversight of Local Housing Plans in Landmark Decision

The Kennedy Commission v. Superior Court of San Diego County, __Cal.App.5^th___, Case No. D085237 (4^th Dist. Sept. 11, 2025)[‘’[

Background

In The Kennedy Commission v. Superior Court of San Diego County, the California Court of Appeal delivered a pivotal decision underscoring the state’s authority to enforce housing laws, even against charter cities. The ruling arose from Huntington Beach’s refusal to adopt a compliant “housing element,” a mandatory component of every local government’s general plan under California’s Housing Element Law (Gov. Code §§ 65580–65589.55).

The case centered on whether provisions within the Government Code, which require cities to correct deficiencies in their general plans within strict timeframes and authorize courts to impose provisional remedies, apply to charter cities such as Huntington Beach. The appellate court answered affirmatively, affirming a significant expansion of state oversight in housing enforcement.

The Legal Framework for Housing Elements

California’s Housing Element Law requires each city and county to identify and plan for sufficient sites to meet its “regional housing need allocation” (RHNA), the locality’s share of the statewide housing demand. This obligation applies to both general law and charter cities. Housing elements must assess existing and projected housing needs, designate adequate sites for development across all income levels, and establish programs to ensure compliance.

To facilitate accountability, local governments must submit housing element drafts to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review. If HCD finds a draft noncompliant, the locality must either revise it to meet legal standards or adopt it with a formal finding of substantial compliance. Failure to comply exposes cities to enforcement actions by the Attorney General, including fines and judicial orders compelling compliance.

The case against Huntington Beach exemplified the tension between local autonomy and the state’s housing mandates. Despite receiving HCD’s conditional approval of its draft housing element, the city refused to adopt it, citing environmental concerns and objections to what it viewed as inflated RHNA allocations.

State Enforcement and Procedural History

After Huntington Beach missed its October 2021 deadline to adopt its sixth-cycle housing element, HCD issued a notice of violation and later, joined by Attorney General Rob Bonta, filed a petition for writ of mandate. The petition sought a court order compelling the city to adopt a compliant housing element within 120 days, as required by Government Code § 65754, and to impose temporary restrictions on local permitting and zoning authority under § 65755 until compliance was achieved.

The trial court granted the writ but declined to include the 120-day deadline or any provisional remedies. On appeal, the Attorney General and the Kennedy Commission contended that these omissions violated the Government Code’s mandatory provisions.

The Court of Appeal’s Decision

The appellate court agreed with the Kennedy Commission, holding that the trial court erred by omitting the statutory deadline and enforcement tools. It directed the lower court to issue a new order that included both the 120-day compliance period and at least one provisional remedy limiting the city’s discretion over land use decisions.

Government Code’s Role and the Charter City Question

At the heart of the decision was whether the Government Code sections of the Planning Law, encompassing §§ 65750–65763, applies to charter cities. Huntington Beach argued that, under Government Code § 65700(a), most of Chapter 3 of the Planning Law does not apply to charter cities unless expressly stated. The city maintained that because Article 14 of the Government Code was not explicitly listed among the exceptions, its provisions could not be enforced against it.

The Court of Appeal rejected this interpretation. It reasoned that § 65700 simultaneously requires charter cities to adopt general plans containing all “mandatory elements” under Article 5, including housing elements, and that Article 14 provides the enforcement mechanisms ensuring those elements are meaningful. Reading the statutes together, the court found that the Legislature intended Article 14 to apply broadly to “any city” and that explicit references to charter cities within § 65754(b) confirmed that intent.

The court further emphasized the statewide importance of housing policy, quoting the Legislature’s declaration that the “availability of housing is of vital statewide importance.” Exempting charter cities, roughly one-quarter of all California municipalities, from enforcement would undermine the state’s ability to address its severe housing shortage.

Legislative Reinforcement: Senate Bill 1037 and Section 65009.1

While the litigation was pending, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill No. 1037 (Stats. 2024, ch. 293), which added Government Code § 65009.1, effective January 1, 2025. Subdivision (e)(2) of that statute expressly states:

“The remedies in Article 14 (commencing with Section 65750) of Chapter 3 apply to actions against all cities, including charter cities… This paragraph is declaratory of existing law.”

The appellate court cited this amendment as confirmation that its interpretation aligned with legislative intent. Because no prior case had definitively resolved Article 14’s applicability to charter cities, the Legislature’s declaration was entitled to deference as a clarification rather than a substantive change.

Huntington Beach’s argument that applying § 65009.1 violated its constitutional “home rule” authority under Article XI, Section 5 of the California Constitution was similarly rejected. The court found that the statute addressed a matter of “statewide concern,” the availability and affordability of housing, and was narrowly tailored to achieve that end. The decision reaffirmed that when state law targets issues of statewide importance, it prevails over conflicting municipal policies.

Conclusion and Implications

The ruling in Kennedy Commission v. Superior Court has profound implications for California’s housing framework. First, it eliminates any lingering ambiguity about the state’s power to compel charter cities to comply with housing mandates. All cities, charter or otherwise, must now adhere to the same enforcement mechanisms, including 120-day correction periods and potential provisional limits on development authority.

Second, the decision strengthens HCD’s and the Attorney General’s enforcement tools. By affirming that courts must impose provisional remedies, such as suspending local permitting authority or mandating the approval of compliant housing projects, the court ensures that noncompliant jurisdictions cannot indefinitely delay corrective action.

Third, the case underscores the judiciary’s role as an active enforcer of housing law. The appellate court directed the lower court not only to amend its order but also to lift its stay and adjudicate remaining issues expeditiously, reflecting a broader shift toward judicial urgency in resolving housing compliance disputes.

Finally, the decision contributes to the growing body of precedent reinforcing the state’s primacy in addressing California’s housing crisis. By explicitly recognizing housing availability as a matter of statewide concern, the court extended the reach of state housing policy to even the most autonomous municipalities.

The Kennedy Commission decision marks another step toward statewide housing control as opposed to local control. By holding that Article 14’s remedies apply to charter cities, the Court of Appeal affirmed the state’s constitutional and statutory authority to ensure that all local governments, regardless of their form, participate meaningfully in alleviating the housing shortage.

The ruling provides a clear roadmap for enforcement: when a city fails to adopt a compliant housing element, courts must impose a 120-day compliance deadline and one or more provisional remedies restricting local land-use authority until compliance is achieved. This approach promotes both accountability and uniformity, ensuring that statewide housing goals cannot be thwarted by municipal resistance.

For local governments, the message is unambiguous: housing element compliance is not optional, and assertions of charter autonomy will not shield cities from state enforcement. For advocates and policymakers, the decision represents a significant victory in the state’s broader effort to overcome local barriers to affordable housing development.

Ultimately, the Kennedy Commission decision reinforces that housing is not merely a local issue but a fundamental statewide concern, one that demands coordinated, enforceable, and timely action across all levels of government.

This article was originally published in the November 2025 edition of the California Land Use Law & Policy Reporter. It is posted here on our website with the permission of California Land Use Law & Policy Reporter, Argent Communications Group, Argent & Schuster, Inc., and the author, Darien Key. All rights remain with the original publisher.

Darien Key is a Land Use and Natural Resources Attorney based in Oakland. Darien’s practice focuses on Land Use entitlement (such as the Subdivision Map Act, Housing Accountability Act, and Builder’s Remedy), CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act), municipal law (such as the Brown Act, Public Records Act, Conflicts of Interest, etc.), water (SGMA compliance and groundwater adjudications), and related environmental laws both on the transactional side but also in litigation.