Reported / Citable
Background
Under California’s Housing Element Law (Government Code section 65585 et seq.), every city must periodically adopt a ‘housing element’ as part of its general plan analyzing existing and projected housing needs. The state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) reviews drafts and certifies whether they substantially comply with state law. Multiple back-and-forth iterations between the city and HCD are common.
The City of La Habra adopted a housing element in 2022. After receiving HCD feedback, the city worked through several rounds of revisions. The February 2023 version that ultimately satisfied HCD was finalized administratively by the city manager and was not re-noticed for an additional City Council or planning commission public hearing.
Californians for Homeownership, Inc., supported by amici including YIMBY Law and the California Building Industry Association, filed a writ of mandate challenging the February 2023 housing element. The plaintiffs argued the city violated section 65585’s procedural requirements by (1) failing to hold public hearings on the specific February 2023 version, and (2) allowing the city manager rather than the City Council to adopt the final version. The trial court denied the writ. The plaintiffs appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed. The court walked through the multistep statutory process for adopting and revising a housing element under section 65585. The statute requires public hearings before adoption of the housing element itself but does not require a separate public hearing for each subsequent revision needed to satisfy HCD comments. La Habra had held the required public hearings before adopting its housing element; the later revisions to satisfy HCD comments were within the statutory scheme.
Likewise, section 65585 permits a city to adopt revisions through delegated administrative action when the revisions are made to bring the element into substantial compliance with state law per HCD direction. The City Council had previously adopted resolutions setting out the framework for the revisions; the city manager’s role in finalizing the language consistent with HCD’s directions did not violate state law. The court emphasized that requiring a fresh public hearing and council vote for every iterative HCD revision would frustrate the statute’s certification process and produce no meaningful benefit.
Key Takeaways
- Cities making subsequent revisions to a housing element to satisfy HCD certification requirements do not need to hold a fresh public hearing for each revised version.
- Section 65585 permits administrative adoption of revisions made to bring an element into substantial compliance with state law, particularly when the revisions implement direction the City Council has already endorsed.
- YIMBY-aligned plaintiffs challenging housing-element processes face a high procedural burden when the city has followed the statute’s iterative-revision framework.
- The decision reinforces HCD’s role as the lead reviewer of housing-element compliance and limits opportunities for collateral judicial process challenges.
- Cities and counties revising their housing elements should still document the public-comment process and ensure their council resolutions adequately delegate administrative-finalization authority.
Why It Matters
This is an important decision for California’s housing-element compliance landscape, where YIMBY-aligned organizations and the Attorney General have stepped up enforcement against cities that fail to certify timely housing elements. The Fourth District’s opinion gives cities clearer breathing room to make iterative revisions to obtain HCD certification without triggering full re-adoption process every time.
For municipal-government practitioners, the case is a useful affirmation that section 65585’s iterative process can be administered efficiently. For housing advocates and plaintiffs, the decision signals that purely procedural challenges to the revision process are unlikely to succeed where the city has held the required initial public hearings and the final revisions are made to satisfy HCD comments. Substantive challenges to whether the housing element actually meets state-law requirements may still be available but will turn on substantive content rather than process.