SB-4: California Church Corporations and Nonprofit Low-Cost Housing Building Opportunities. Dan J. Harkey

SB-4:

Property Owner Builder Remedies for Municipalities That Refuse to Cooperate With State Mandates

The following is for general information. I am not a lawyer and do not practice Law. Contact your lawyer for a more in-depth inquiry. With this general information, it may be helpful to consult your lawyer for guidance and remedies. The information presented is general in nature and not fact-specific.

Under the new regulations, the California Legislature retains ultimate authority over property development approvals. Local municipalities are now limited to granting ministerial approvals that align with state-level mandates. Any objection from the local municipality can trigger legal action and result in the withholding of state and federal funds.

A new world exists regarding zoning, densities, approvals, and land valuations. The new laws could significantly affect property valuation, and property owners and developers should be aware of these changes.

SB-4 California Church Corporations and nonprofit building opportunities. Are there legal remedies available to the church or nonprofit if a municipality refuses to cooperate and comply with state mandates?

Highlighting enforcement tools

Short answer: Yes. If a city drags-its-feet or refuses to apply California’s SB‑4 “Affordable Housing on Faith & Higher Education Lands Act,” churches and nonprofit colleges have multiple remedies—administrative and judicial—to force compliance, recover fees, and keep a project moving.

Below is a practical educational toolbox you can use.

SB‑4 in one line (for context)

SB‑4 makes qualifying 100% affordable housing on land owned on or before 1 January 2024, by a religious institution or nonprofit higher‑ed, a use‑by‑right with ministerial approval (i.e., no discretionary permits and generally not subject to CEQA), provided the site, affordability, and labor standards are met. Local zoning inconsistencies cannot be used to block such projects.

If a municipality refuses to cooperate, what remedies are available?

1) File with HCD’s Housing Accountability Unit (HAU) — administrative enforcement

· Reference Housing Accountability Unit (HAU) within the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) of the State of California.

· What it does: HCD’s HAU enforces state housing laws (including SB‑4) and can issue technical assistance and enforcement letters, revoke a jurisdiction’s housing element certification, and refer matters to the Attorney General. You can submit a complaint and request intervention.

· Why it helps: A formal HCD letter often compels staff/city attorneys to process ministerial approvals; if not, HCD can escalate to AG enforcement.

Action: Use HCD’s “Submit Potential Violations” portal on the Accountability & Enforcement page; attach your complete application, timeline, emails, and any denial/“deemed incomplete” letters.

2) Ask the California Attorney General to intervene — civil enforcement

AG Housing Justice Team/Strike Force: The AG maintains an active housing enforcement unit that investigates and sues localities for violations of state housing laws. They may act independently or upon HCD referral.
New penalty authority: SB-1037 (2024) increases the AG’s power to seek civil penalties from the date a violation began (minimum $10,000/month, up to $50,000/month) when a city acts arbitrarily or capriciously violating housing laws. (Effective after signatures prospectively.) Crowell

Action: Submit a complaint through the AG’s Housing portal; note the specific SB‑4 provisions being ignored and attach HCD correspondence (if any).

3) Petition the Superior Court for a Writ of Mandate

Writ under CCP §§ 1085/10. The Court asks the Court, and the City orders the City to approve ministerially and prohibit unlawful delays (e.g., by imposing discretionary hearings or CEQA where SB‑4 applies). Courts have compelled approvals under other streamlining laws (e.g., SB 35) and have also found HAA violations alongside streamlining claims.
Expedited timelines coming: SB-808 (effective 1 January 2026) creates accelerated writ procedures for housing denials/failures-to-act—45-day hearings and strict decision deadlines, with priority on appeal—available to applicants, HCD, or the AG. Plan now to use these fast tracks as they take effect.

Relief you can seek:

Peremptory writ compelling ministerial approval.
Attorney fees (e.g., under private attorney general doctrine in appropriate cases);
HAA reCity’s if the City’s actions amount to a denial or reduction in density without legally sufficient health/safety findings (see next section).

4) Leverage the Housing Accountability Act (HAA)

The HAA prevents local governments from denying or conditioning approval of housing projects that comply with objective standards unless they make specific, evidence-based health/safety findings. Courts regularly enforce the HAA and grant injunctions or writs when cities violate it.
Recent AG guidance and 2024–25 legislation clarified Builder’s Remedy and HAA enforcement—hCity if the City is out of housing‑element compliance —which further limits denials, even when a project conflicts with zoning or the general plan. (Builder’s Remedy is codified in Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(11); recent AG legal alert summarizes case Law and 2024 amendments.)

Why mention HAA for SB‑4 cases? Even though SB‑4 is its own ministerial pathway, cities often use pretextual “objective standards” to stall or reduce units. Pairing SB‑4 with HAA claims increases pressure and remedies for violating municipalities.

5) Use companion streamlining & incentive laws

Density Bonus Law: SB‑4 projects are eligible for incentives/waivers, and concessions to overcome local standards that physically preclude development (note: height bonuses differ in non-residential zones).
Permit Streamlining Act (PSA): If a city fails to act within statutory timeframes, projects can be deemed approved, or you can sue under the PSA to force action. HCD lists PSA among the laws it enforces.
SB-35 parallels: Case Law under SB-35 shows courts will order issuance of permits when a city improperly denies ministerial streamlining—persuasive authority for SB‑4 litigation strategy.

Practical, step-by-step playbook

· Confirm eligibility (before filing)

· Land ownership date (≤ 1 January 2024), affordability mix, labor standards, adjacency/industrial buffers, and qualified developer status. Use firm/agency checklists.

· Submit a complete ministerial application

· Cite Gov. Code § 65913.16 (SB‑4) in your cover letter; list objective standards satisfied; flag CEQA inapplicability and PSA timelines. Attach a matrix of each requirement and the evidence.

· Create an enforcement record

· Track dates (intake, incompleteness notices, responses). Save emails and any requests for a discretionary hearing. RecordEQA. This Record is critical for HCD/AG and writ petitions.

· If delayed/denied: escalate in parallel

· HCD complaint (HAU pRecord with full Record;

· AG Housing portal complaint referencing SB‑4/PSA/HAA;

· Demand letter threatening a writ and HAA action if not approved by a date specific.

· File suit (if needed) and seek fast relief

· Writ petition requesting immediate issuance of approvals; include HAA claims; cite Ruegg & Ellsworth for courts compelling ministerial approvals under streamlining regimes. Calendar SB-808 expedited procedures for 2026 filings.

· Public‑pressure & funding strategy (optional but effective)

· Share HCD/AG letters publicly; coordinate with mission-aligned stakeholders. Document subsidy readiness (LIHTC, local gap financing) to rebut “economic infeasibility” claims.

What cities cannot do under SB‑4 (common friction points)

Require discretionary approvals or CEQA where SB‑4’s ministerial criteria are met.
Apply subjective design control or politics (e.g., planning commission denial) instead of objective standards. The HAA blocks this.
Use zoning inconsistencies to deny ministerial approval; SB‑4 overrides local zoning for eligible sites.

Key citations & references (for your demand letter/petition)

SB‑4 (Gov. Code § 65913.16): ministerial, use‑by‑right approval; eligibility criteria; CEQA exemptions.
HCD Accountability & Enforcement: complaint portal; HCD authority to enforce SB‑4, HAA, PSA, and refer to AG.
AG Housing Justice Team/Strike Force: mandate and complaint portal.
SB 1037 (2024): enhanced AG penalty authority (civil penalties accruing from date of violation).
SB 808 (effective 1/1/2026): expedited writ/appeal timelines for housing denials/failures to act.
Ruegg & Ellsworth v. City of Berkeley (2023): courts compel ministerial approvals under streamlining laws; HAA remedies may be cumulative.
SB‑4 practice summaries (firm/client alerts): helpful to cite in correspondence for clarity on ministerial process and eligibility.

Non-Technical Readers can stop here. The following is background data to discuss with your lawyer. Caution: Do not attempt to use the following educational material without the direction of your attorney.

Here is a draft of a two-page demand letter tailored to a specific city.

If you share:

the parcel APN(s) and ownership History,
a brief project program (unit count, affordability mix, labor compliance),
Any city correspondence to date,

Example of a letter that (1) lays out SB‑4 eligibility, (2) gives a firm PSA timeline, (3) warns of HCD/AG referral and penalties, and (4) preserves the Record.

Here’s a strong two-page demand letter template you can adapt. It cites SB 4, the Permit Streamlining Act, and the enforcement remedies. I’ll keep it formal and persuasive:

[Your Letterhead]

Date: [Insert Date]
Via Email and Certified Mail
[City Manager / Planning Director Name]
[City Name]
[City Address]

Re: Demand for Ministerial Approval Under SB‑4 (Gov. Code § 65913.16) – [Project Name / APN]

Dear [Recipient Name]:

This letter serves as a formal demand that the City of [City Name] comply with California Law and immediately process and approve the above-referenced housing development application, as required by Senate Bill 4 (“SB‑4”), codified at Government Code § 65913.16.

Background

Applicant: [Church / Nonprofit Name]
Property: [Address / APN]
Ownership: Acquired before 1 January 2024
Project: [Number] units, 100% affordable, prevailing wage compliance
Application Submitted: [Date]

The project meets all SB-4 eligibility criteria, including affordability, labor standards, and site requirements. SB‑4 expressly provides that qualifying projects shall be a use by correct and subject only to ministerial approval, exempt from CEQA review and discretionary hearings.

City’s Noncompliance

Despite our complaint, the City has:

[Describe delays or refusals: e.g., “Requested discretionary design review,” “Imposed CEQA analysis,” “Failed to act within statutory timelines.”

These actions violate:

SB‑4 (Gov. Code § 65913.16) – Ministerial approval mandate
Permit Streamlining Act (Gov. Code §§ 65920 et seq.) – Timely processing requirement
Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code § 65589.5) – Prohibits denial or reduction without specific health/safety findings

Demand

We, the City, declare that the City:

· Approve the application ministerially no later than [specific date – e.g., 15 business days from receipt of this letter]; and

· Confirm in writing that no discretionary review or CEQA analysis will be required.

Failure to comply will leave us no choice but to pursue all available remedies, including:

Filing a complaint with HCD’s Housing Accountability Unit;
Referral to the California Attorney General’s Housing Strike Force, which may seek civil penalties of $10,000–$50,000 per month under SB 1037;
Initiating a writ of mandate under CCP §§ 1085/1094.5 and the Housing Accountability Act, seeking attorney’s fees and expedited relief under SB 808 (effective 1 January 2026).

Reservation of Rights

This letter is not a waiver of any rights or remedies under state Law. We expect full compliance and look forward to your confirmation.

Sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Title / Organization]
[Contact Information]

Attachments:

SB‑4 Eligibility Checklist
Copy of Complete Application
Timeline of City Correspondence

Here’s a demand letter with embedded legal citations you can use as a template:

[Your Letterhead]

Date: [Insert Date]
Via Email and Certified Mail
[City Manager / Planning Director Name]
[City Name]
[City Address]

Re: Demand for Ministerial Approval Under SB‑4 (Gov. Code § 65913.16) – [Project Name / APN]

Dear [Recipient Name]:

Background

Applicant: [Church / Nonprofit Name]
Property: [Address / APN]
Ownership: Acquired before 1 January 2024
Project: [Number] units, 100% affordable, prevailing wage compliance
Application Submitted: [Date]

The project meets all SB 4 eligibility criteria, including affordability, labor standards, and site requirements. SB‑4 expressly provides that qualifying projects shall be a use by correct and subject only to ministerial approval (Gov. Code § 65913.16(a)), exempt from CEQA review (Gov. Code § 65913.16(e)), and discretionary hearings.

City’s Noncompliance

Despite our complaint, the City has:

[Describe delays or refusals: e.g., “Requested discretionary design review,” “Imposed CEQA analysis,” “Failed to act within statutory timelines.”]

These actions violate:

SB‑4 (Gov. Code § 65913.16) – Ministerial approval mandate
Permit Streamlining Act (Gov. Code §§ 65920–65964) – Requires timely processing; failure to act may result in deemed approval
Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code § 65589.5(d)) – Prohibits denial or reduction without specific, evidence-based health/safety findings

Demand

We hereby declare that the City:

· Approve the application ministerially no later than [specific date – e.g., 15 business days from receipt of this letter]; and

· Confirm in writing that no discretionary review or CEQA analysis will be required.

Failure to comply will leave us no choice but to pursue all available remedies, including:

Filing a complaint with HCD’s Housing Accountability Unit (Gov. Code § 65585);
Referral to the California Attorney General’s Housing Strike Force, which may seek civil penalties of $10,000–$50,000 per month under SB 1037 (Gov. Code § 65585(l));
Initiating a writ of mandate under CCP §§ 1085 and 1094.5 and the Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code § 65589.5(k)), seeking attorney’s fees and expedited relief under SB 808 (effective 1 January 2026).

Reservation of Rights

This letter is not a waiver of any rights or remedies under state Law. We expect full compliance and look forward to your confirmation.

Sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Title / Organization]
[Contact Information]

Attachments:

SB‑4 Eligibility Checklist
Copy of Complete Application
Timeline of City Correspondence

Here’s the letter of demand with inline citations and footnotes referencing key case Law and enforcement authority:

[Your Letterhead]

Date: [Insert Date]
Via Email and Certified Mail
[City Manager / Planning Director Name]
[City Name]
[City Address]

Re: Demand for Ministerial Approval Under SB‑4 (Gov. Code § 65913.16) – [Project Name / APN]

Dear [Recipient Name]:

Background

Applicant: [Church / Nonprofit Name]
Property: [Address / APN]
Ownership: Acquired before 1 January 2024
Project: [Number] units, 100% affordable, prevailing wage compliance
Application Submitted: [Date]

City’s Noncompliance

Despite our communication, the City has:

[Describe delays or refusals: e.g., “Requested discretionary design review,” “Imposed CEQA analysis,” “Failed to act within statutory timelines.”

These actions violate:

SB‑4 (Gov. Code § 65913.16) – Ministerial approval mandate
Permit Streamlining Act (Gov. Code §§ 65920–65964) – Requires timely processing; failure to act may result in deemed approval
Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code § 65589.5(d)) – Prohibits denial or reduction without specific, evidence-based health/safety findings

Demand

We, City, declare that the City:

· Approve the application ministerially no later than [specific date – e.g., 15 business days from receipt of this letter]; and

· Confirm in writing that no discretionary review or CEQA analysis will be required.

Failure to comply will leave us no choice but to pursue all available remedies, including:

Filing a complaint with HCD’s Housing Accountability Unit (Gov. Code § 65585);
Referral to the California Attorney General’s Housing Strike Force, which may seek civil penalties of $10,000–$50,000 per month under SB 1037 (Gov. Code § 65585(l));
Initiating a writ of mandate under CCP §§ 1085 and 1094.5 and the Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code § 65589.5(k)), seeking attorney’s fees and expedited relief under SB 808 (effective 1 January 2026).

Reservation of Rights

This letter is not a waiver of any rights or remedies under state Law. We expect full compliance and look forward to your confirmation.

Sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Title / Organization]
[Contact Information]

Attachments:

SB‑4 Eligibility Checklist
Copy of Complete Application
Timeline of City Correspondence

Footnotes

1. Gov. Code § 65913.16(a): SB‑4 mandates ministerial approval for qualifying projects on faith-based or nonprofit college lands.

2. Gov. Code § 65913.16(e): CEQA does not apply to SB‑4 projects processed ministerially.

3. Gov. Code §§ 65920–65964: Permit Streamlining Act requires timely action; failure may result in deemed approval.

4. Gov. Code § 65589.5(d): Housing Accountability Act prohibits denial or reduction without specific health/safety findings.

5. Ruegg & Ellsworth v. City of Berkeley (2023): Court compelled ministerial approval under SB 35, reinforcing that cities cannot impose discretionary review where state Law mandates streamlining.

6. California Attorney General Housing Strike Force: Authorized to enforce housing laws and seek civil penalties (Gov. Code § 65585(l); SB 1037).

7. SB 808 (effective 1 January 2026): Creates expedited writ procedures for housing denials/failures to act.

Here’s a San Diego–specific SB‑4 demand letter with inline citations and footnotes:

[Your Letterhead]

Date: [Insert Date]
Via Email and Certified Mail
City Manager and Planning Director
City of San Diego
202 C Street
San Diego, CA 92101

Re: Demand for Ministerial Approval Under SB‑4 (Gov. Code § 65913.16) – [Project Name / APN]

Dear City Officials:

This letter serves as a formal demand that the City of San Diego comply with California Law and immediately process and approve the above-referenced housing development application, as required by Senate Bill 4 (“SB‑4”), codified at Government Code § 65913.16.

Background

Applicant: [Church / Nonprofit Name]
Property: [Address / APN]
Ownership: Acquired before 1 January 2024
Project: [Number] units, 100% affordable, prevailing wage compliance
Application Submitted: [Date]

City’s Noncompliance

Despite our cooperation, the City has:

[Describe delays or refusals: e.g., “Requested discretionary design review,” “Imposed CEQA analysis,” “Failed to act within statutory timelines.”]

These actions violate:

SB‑4 (Gov. Code § 65913.16) – Ministerial approval mandate
Permit Streamlining Act (Gov. Code §§ 65920–65964) – Requires timely processing; failure to act may result in deemed approval
Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code § 65589.5(d)) – Prohibits denial or reduction without specific, evidence-based health/safety findings

Demand

WeCityeby declares that the City:

· Approve the application ministerially no later than [specific date – e.g., 15 business days from receipt of this letter]; and

· Confirm in writing that no discretionary review or CEQA analysis will be required.

Failure to comply will leave us no choice but to pursue all available remedies, including:

Filing a complaint with HCD’s Housing Accountability Unit (Gov. Code § 65585);
Referral to the California Attorney General’s Housing Strike Force, which may seek civil penalties of $10,000–$50,000 per month under SB 1037 (Gov. Code § 65585(l));
Initiating a writ of mandate under CCP §§ 1085 and 1094.5 and the Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code § 65589.5(k)), seeking attorney’s fees and expedited relief under SB 808 (effective 1 January 2026).

Reservation of Rights

This letter is not a waiver of any rights or remedies under state Law. We expect full compliance and look forward to your confirmation.

Sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Title / Organization]
[Contact Information]

Attachments:

SB‑4 Eligibility Checklist
Copy of Complete Application
Timeline of City Correspondence

Footnotes

1. Gov. Code § 65913.16(a): SB‑4 mandates ministerial approval for qualifying projects on faith-based or nonprofit college lands.

2. Gov. Code § 65913.16(e): CEQA does not apply to SB‑4 projects processed ministerially.

3. Gov. Code §§ 65920–65964: Permit Streamlining Act requires timely action; failure may result in deemed approval.

4. Gov. Code § 65589.5(d): Housing Accountability Act prohibits denial or reduction without specific health/safety findings.

6. California Attorney General Housing Strike Force: Authorized to enforce housing laws and seek civil penalties (Gov. Code § 65585(l); SB 1037).

7. SB 808 (effective 1 January 2026): Creates expedited writ procedures for housing denials/failures to act.

Here’s the San Diego–specific SB‑4 demand letter with citations and recent case Law references:

[Your Letterhead]

Date: [Insert Date]
Via Email and Certified Mail
City Manager and Planning Director
City of San Diego
202 C Street
San Diego, CA 92101

Re: Demand for Ministerial Approval Under SB‑4 (Gov. Code § 65913.16) – [Project Name / APN]

Dear City Officials:

Background

Applicant: [Church / Nonprofit Name]
Property: [Address / APN]
Ownership: Acquired before 1 January 2024
Project: [Number] units, 100% affordable, prevailing wage compliance
Application Submitted: [Date]

City’s Noncompliance

Despite our city application, the City has:

[Describe delays or refusals: e.g., “Requested discretionary design review,” “Imposed CEQA analysis,” “Failed to act within statutory timelines.”

These actions violate:

SB‑4 (Gov. Code § 65913.16) – Ministerial approval mandate
Permit Streamlining Act (Gov. Code §§ 65920–65964) – Requires timely processing; failure to act may result in deemed approval
Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code § 65589.5(d)) – Prohibits denial or reduction without specific, evidence-based health/safety findings

Demand

WCityreby declares that the City:

· Approve the application ministerially no later than [specific date – e.g., 15 business days from receipt of this letter]; and

· Confirm in writing that no discretionary review or CEQA analysis will be required.

Failure to comply will leave us no choice but to pursue all available remedies, including:

Filing a complaint with HCD’s Housing Accountability Unit (Gov. Code § 65585);
Referral to the California Attorney General’s Housing Strike Force, which may seek civil penalties of $10,000–$50,000 per month under SB 1037 (Gov. Code § 65585(l));
Initiating a writ of mandate under CCP §§ 1085 and 1094.5 and the Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code § 65589.5(k)), seeking attorney’s fees and expedited relief under SB 808 (effective 1 January 2026).

Reservation of Rights

This letter is not a waiver of any rights or remedies under state Law. We expect full compliance and look forward to your confirmation.

Sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Title / Organization]
[Contact Information]

Attachments:

SB‑4 Eligibility Checklist
Copy of Complete Application
Timeline of City Correspondence

Footnotes

1. Gov. Code § 65913.16(a): SB‑4 mandates ministerial approval for qualifying projects on faith-based or nonprofit college lands.

2. Gov. Code § 65913.16(e): CEQA does not apply to SB‑4 projects processed ministerially.

3. Gov. Code §§ 65920–65964: Permit Streamlining Act requires timely action; failure may result in deemed approval.

4. Gov. Code § 65589.5(d): Housing Accountability Act prohibits denial or reduction without specific health/safety findings.

6. Kennedy Commission v. Superior Court (2025): Fourth District confirmed strict compliance deadlines and provisional remedies for housing element failures, limiting local discretion—even for charter cities.hklaw

7. Patrice Baker v. City of San Diego (2025): Federal litigation highlighted San Diego’s obligations under fair housing and state housing laws; settlement included commitments to prioritize housing in high-resource areas.sdhc

8. California Attorney General Legal Alert (2025): Clarified enforcement of Housing Accountability Act and Builder’s Remedy provisions; AG actively pursuing penalties for noncompliance.

Here’s the San Diego SB‑4 demand letter with a strong “Notice of Intent to Litigate” section added:

[Your Letterhead]

Date: [Insert Date]
Via Email and Certified Mail
City Manager and Planning Director
City of San Diego
202 C Street
San Diego, CA 92101

Re: Demand for Ministerial Approval Under SB‑4 (Gov. Code § 65913.16) – [Project Name / APN]

Dear City Officials:

Background

Applicant: [Church / Nonprofit Name]
Property: [Address / APN]
Ownership: Acquired before 1 January 2024
Project: [Number] units, 100% affordable, prevailing wage compliance
Application Submitted: [Date]

City’s Noncompliance

Despite our City application, the City has:

[Describe delays or refusals: e.g., “Requested discretionary design review,” “Imposed CEQA analysis,” “Failed to act within statutory timelines.”]

These actions violate:

SB‑4 (Gov. Code § 65913.16) – Ministerial approval mandate
Permit Streamlining Act (Gov. Code §§ 65920–65964) – Requires timely processing; failure to act may result in deemed approval
Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code § 65589.5(d)) – Prohibits denial or reduction without specific, evidence-based health/safety findings

Demand

City hereby declares that the City:

· Approve the application ministerially no later than [specific date – e.g., 15 business days from receipt of this letter]; and

· Confirm in writing that no discretionary review or CEQA analysis will be required.

Notice ofCityent to LiCityte.

If the City fails to comply with the above deadline, we will:

File a complaint with HCD’s Housing Accountability Unit (Gov. Code § 65585);
Refer this matter to the California Attorney General’s Housing Strike Force, which may seek civil penalties of $10,000–$50,000 per month under SB 1037 (Gov. Code § 65585(l));
Initiate a writ of mandate under CCP §§ 1085 and 1094.5 and the Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code § 65589.5(k)), seeking an immediate judicial order compelling approval;

Attorney’s fees and costs under Gov. Code § 65589.5(k)(1)(A);
Expedited relief under SB 808 (effective 1 January 2026), which mandates priority hearings and strict timelines for housing cases.

Recent case Law confirms courts will enforce these rights. In Ruegg & Ellsworth v. City of Berkeley (2023), the Court of Appeal ordered ministerial approval under SB 35, rejecting discretionary interference. Similarly, Kennedy Commission v. Superior Court (2025) reaffirmed strict compliance obligations for charter cities, and Patrice Baker v. City of San Diego (2025) highlighted San Diego’s duty to prioritize affordable housing under state Law and fair housing principles.

Reservation of Rights

This letter is not a waiver of any rights or remedies under state Law. We expect full compliance and look forward to your confirmation.

Sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Title / Organization]
[Contact Information]

Attachments:

SB‑4 Eligibility Checklist
Copy of Complete Application
Timeline of City Correspondence

Footnotes

1. Gov. Code § 65913.16(a): SB‑4 mandates ministerial approval for qualifying projects on faith-based or nonprofit college lands.

2. Gov. Code § 65913.16(e): CEQA does not apply to SB‑4 projects processed ministerially.

3. Gov. Code §§ 65920–65964: Permit Streamlining Act requires timely action; failure may result in deemed approval.

4. Gov. Code § 65589.5(d): Housing Accountability Act prohibits denial or reduction without specific health/safety findings.

8. California Attorney General Legal Alert (2025): Clarified enforcement of Housing Accountability Act and Builder’s Remedy provisions; AG actively pursuing penalties for noncompliance.

Here’s the San Diego SB‑4 demand letter with your project details inserted and the Notice of Intent to Litigate section included:

[Your Letterhead]

Date: 23 November 2025
Via Email and Certified Mail
City Manager and Planning Director
City of San Diego
202 C Street
San Diego, CA 92101

Re: Demand for Ministerial Approval Under SB‑4 (Gov. Code § 65913.16) – Project: Faith Housing Initiative, APN 123-456-78

Dear City Officials:

Background

Applicant: [Church Name]
Property: [Address], APN 123-456-??
Ownership: Acquired before 1 January 2024
Project: 72 units, 100% affordable, prevailing wage compliance
Application Submitted: [Insert Date]

City’s Noncompliance

Despite the complete application, the City has:

[Describe delays or refusals: e.g., “Requested discretionary design review,” “Imposed CEQA analysis,” “Failed to act within statutory timelines.”]

These actions violate:

SB‑4 (Gov. Code § 65913.16) – Ministerial approval mandate
Permit Streamlining Act (Gov. Code §§ 65920–65964) – Requires timely processing; failure to act may result in deemed approval
Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code § 65589.5(d)) – Prohibits denial or reduction without specific, evidence-based health/safety findings

DemaCitye hereby declares that the City:

· Approve the application ministerially no later than 15 business days from receipt of this letter; and

· Confirm in writing that no discretionary review or CEQA analysis will be required.

NoticeCityIntent to LiCityte

If the City fails to comply with the above deadline, we will:

File a complaint with HCD’s Housing Accountability Unit (Gov. Code § 65585)
Refer this matter to the California Attorney General’s Housing Strike Force, which may seek civil penalties of $10,000–$50,000 per month under SB 1037 (Gov. Code § 65585(l));
Initiate a writ of mandate under CCP §§ 1085 and 1094.5 and the Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code § 65589.5(k)), seeking an immediate judicial Order compelling approval;

Attorney’s fees and costs under Gov. Code § 65589.5(k)(1)(A)
Expedited relief under SB 808 (effective 1 January 2026), which mandates priority hearings and strict timelines for housing cases.

Recent case Law confirms courts will enforce these rights. In Ruegg & Ellsworth v. City of Berkeley (2023), the Court of Appeal ordered ministerial approval under SB 35, rejecting discretionary interference. Similarly, Kennedy Commission v. Superior Court (2025) reaffirmed strict compliance obligations for charter cities, and Patrice Baker v. City of San Diego (2025) highlighted San Diego’s duty to prioritize affordable housing under state Law and fair housing principles.¹

Reservation of Rights

This letter is not a waiver of any rights or remedies under state Law. We expect full compliance and look forward to your confirmation.

Sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Title / Organization]
[Contact Information]

Attachments:

SB‑4 Eligibility Checklist
Copy of Complete Application
Timeline of City Correspondence

Footnotes

1. Gov. Code § 65913.16(a): SB‑4 mandates ministerial approval for qualifying projects on faith-based or nonprofit college lands.

2. Gov. Code § 65913.16(e): CEQA does not apply to SB‑4 projects processed ministerially.

3. Gov. Code §§ 65920–65964: Permit Streamlining Act requires timely action; failure may result in deemed approval.

4. Gov. Code § 65589.5(d): Housing Accountability Act prohibits denial or reduction without specific health/safety findings.

8. California Attorney General Legal Alert (2025): Clarified enforcement of Housing Accountability Act and Builder’s Remedy provisions; AG actively pursuing penalties for noncompliance.

Below is a litigation-ready package tailored to San Diego, California, for your SB-4 project (APN 123-456-78; 72 units). It includes: a refined demand letter; Petition for Writ of Mandate & Complaint (with causes of action under SB‑4, HAA, and PSA); Memorandum of Points & Authorities; Proposed Order; Verification; Proof of Service; Exhibit List & Administrative Record Index; and templates for HCD and Attorney General complaints.

1) Final Demand Letter (with Notice of Intent to Litigate)

[Your Letterhead]
Date: 23 November 2025
Via Email and Certified Mail
City Manager and Planning Director
City of San Diego
202 C Street, San Diego, CA 92101

Re: Demand for Ministerial Approval Under SB‑4 (Gov. Code § 65913.16) — Faith Housing Initiative, APN 123‑456‑?? (72 units, 100% affordable)

Dear City Officials:

This is a formal demand that the City of San Diego immediately process and ministerially approve the above project under SB‑4 (Gov. Code § 65913.16). SB‑4 requires proper ministerial approval for qualifying projects on land owned by a religious institution, with CEQA inapplicable to such ministerial approvals and no discretionary hearings, on or before 1 January 2024.

City’s violations: By requiring (i) discretionary design review/commission hearings, (ii) CEQA analysis, and/or (iii) delaying action beyond statutory timelines, the City violates SB‑4, the Permit Streamlining Act (Gov. Code §§ 65920–65964), and the Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code § 65589.5(d)).

Demand:

· Approve ministerially within 15 business days of this letter, and

· Confirm in writing that no discretionary review or CEQA will be required.

Notice of Intent to Litigate: Absent compliance, we will:

File with HCD’s Housing Accountability Unit (Gov. Code § 65585),
Refer to the California Attorney General’s Housing Justice Team, which may seek civil penalties of $10,000–$50,000 per month under SB 1037 (Gov. Code § 65585(l)), and
File a writ petition under CCP §§ 1085/1094.5 and the HAA, seeking mandatory approval, fees, and injunctive relief, with expedited timelines under SB 808 (effective 1 January 2026).⁶ ⁷ ⁸ ⁹

Recent authority confirms courts will compel ministerial approvals and enforce state housing laws against cities, including San Diego: Ruegg & Ellsworth v. City of Berkeley (ordering ministerial approval under SB‑35), Kennedy Commission v. Superior Court (Fourth District—strict compliance consequences for charter cities), and Patrice Baker v. City of San Diego (settlement commitments on fair housing implementation).¹⁰ ¹¹ ¹²

Sincerely,
[Your Name], [Title / Organization]
[Email] | [Phone]

Attachments: SB‑4 Eligibility Checklist; Complete Application; Timeline of City Correspondence.

Footnotes:
1–2. SB‑4 ministerial/use‑by‑right and CEQA inapplicability: Gov. Code § 65913.16; practice summaries.
3. Permit Streamlining Act timelines & remedies.
4–5. HAA limits denials absent specific health/safety findings.
6. HCD enforcement portal & powers.
7. AG Housing Justice Team & strike force.
8. SB 1037—civil penalties accruing from the violation date.
9. SB 808—expedited writ/appeal timelines (effective 1/1/2026).
10. Ruegg & Ellsworth v. City of Berkeley (2023).
11 Kennedy Commission v. Superior Court (discussion).
. Patrice Baker v. City of San Diego settlement staff report.

2) Petition for Writ of Mandate & Complaint

(San Diego County Superior Court — Unlimited Civil Jurisdiction)

Caption:
[CHURCH NAME], a California nonprofit religious Corporation, Petitioner/Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF SAN DIEGO; CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO; PLANNING DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO; and DOES 1‑50, inclusive, Respondents/Defendants.

Case No.: (to be assigned)

Petition for Writ of Mandate (CCP §§ 1085, 1094.5); Complaint for Violations of SB‑4 (Gov. Code § 65913.16), Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code § 65589.5), Permit Streamlining Act (Gov. Code §§ 65920–65964), Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, and Attorneys’ Fees.

A. Parties, Jurisdiction, and Venue

1. Petitioner is a religious institution owning APN 123‑456‑78 (the “Property”) since before 1 January 2024. The Property is in San Diego, CA.

2. Respondents are the City of San Diego, its City Council, and the Planning Department.

3. Venue lies in this Court under CCP § 393(b). Jurisdiction exists for writ relief under CCP §§ 1085/1094.5 and statutory claims.

B. Factual Allegations

4. Petitioner submitted a complete SB‑4 ministerial application on [date] for 72 units, 100% affordable, with prevailing wage labor compliance.

5. The Project meets SB‑4 eligibility and site criteria; is consistent with objective standards; and qualifies for use‑by‑proper ministerial approval and CEQA inapplicability.

6. The City demanded discretionary review, CEQA, and/or failed to act within PSA timelines, effectively denying or reducing the project without HAA-compliant findings.

C. Causes of Action

First Cause (Writ — SB‑4 Violation; CCP § 1085/1094.5):
7. SB‑4 (Gov. Code § 65913.16) requires ministerial approval for the City’s certifications; the City’s failure to approve was unlawful.

Second Cause (HAA Violation; Gov. Code § 65589.5):
8. The City’s denial/conditions/reductions lack the specific, evidence-based health/safety findings required by § 65589.5(d).

Third Cause (PSA Violation; Gov. Code §§ 65920–65964):
9. The City failed to act within PSA timelines, warranting relief (including deemed approval where applicable) and mandamus.

Fourth Cause (Declaratory and Injunctive Relief):
10. An actual controversy exists; Petitioner seeks declarations that (a) SB‑4 applies; (b) ministerial approval is required; (c) CEQA is inapplicable; and (d) HAA/PSA constrain City action; and seeks injunctions preventing ongoing violations.

D. Prayer for Relief

Petitioner prays for:
A. A peremptory writ compelling ministerial approval of the SB‑4 application;
B. Injunction prohibiting discretionary review/CEQA for this project;
C. Declarations consistent with the above;
D. Attorneys’ fees and costs (including under Gov. Code § 65589.5(k)(1)(A) and CCP § 1021.5);
E. Any further Court as the Court deems proper.

Dated: 23 November 2025
[Law Firm / Counsel Name]
By: __________________________
Attorneys for Petitioner/Plaintiff

Footnotes:
1–2. SB‑4 ministerial and CEQA inapplicability framework.
3. PSA timelines & enforcement.
4–5. HAA denial standards & remedies.vlex+1hklaw

3) Verification (Code Civ. Proc. § 446)

I, [Name], for [Church Name], declare: I have read the foregoing Petition for Writ of Mandate & Complaint and know its contents; the facts are actual of my own knowledge except as to matters stated on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true.

Executed on 23 November 2025, in San Diego, California.

[Name], [Title]

4) Memorandum of Points & Authorities

I. Introduction & Relief Requested
Petitioner seeks a peremptory writ compelling ministerial approval of a qualifying SB‑4 project on faith-owned land, and injunctive relief preventing the City from imposing discretionary review or CEQA. The City’s actions violate SB‑4 (Gov. Code § 65913.16), the HAA (Gov. Code § 65589.5), and the PSA (Gov. Code §§ 65920–65964).¹–⁵

II. Legal Standards for Mandamus
Traditional and administrative mandamus lie to compel performance of a mandatory duty and to set aside actions contrary to Law. (CCP §§ 1085/1094.5.) Courts have ordered the issuance of approvals when cities resisted ministerial streamlining (see Ruegg & Ellsworth v. City of Berkeley, which compelled permits under SB‑35).⁶

III. SB‑4 Framework
A. Use‑by‑Right; Ministerial Approval; CEQA Inapplicability
SB‑4 provides that qualifying projects on land owned by religious institutions before 1 January 2024 are use‑by‑right and must be ministerially approved under objective standards; CEQA does not apply to such ministerial actions.¹ ²

B. Eligibility Met Here
A religious institution has owned the Property (APN 123‑456‑78) since before 1 January 2024. The project comprises 72 units, is 100% affordable, adheres to prevailing wage requirements, and meets the City’s site requirements. The City’s imposition of discretionary review/CEQA is ultra vires.¹–³

IV. Housing Accountability Act (HAA)
The HAA prohibits denial or conditioning of compliant housing projects absent specific, written, evidence-based findings of a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable health or safety Impact. (Gov. Code § 655City(d).) The City has made no such findings; its actions violate the HAA and warrant injunctions, writs, and fees.⁴ ⁵

V. Permit Streamlining Act (PSA)
The PSA imposes strict timelines and restricts moving targets after application completeness; failure to act supports mandamus and, in some circumstances, deemed approval.³

VI. Enforcement & Remedies
HCD’s Housing Accountability Unit and the Attorney General’s Housing Justice Team actively enforce these laws; SB 1037 authorizes civil penalties accruing from the date of violation; and SB 808 (effective 1 January 2026) provides expedited writ procedures.⁷ ⁸ ⁹

VII. San Diego‑Specific Authority & Context
Cityatrice Baker v. City of SCityiego, the City recognized obligations to affirmatively further fair housing, including prioritizing the production of affordable housing in high‑resource areas—further demonstrating that state housing mandates control local processes.¹⁰ Regionally, SANDAG and County resources emphasize implementation of state streamlining, bolstering the expectation of ministerial processing for qualifying projects.¹¹ ¹²

VIII. Conclusion
Issue the writ compelling approval; enjoin discretionary/CEQA processes; award fees and costs.

Citations:
1–2. SB‑4 ministerial/CEQA.
3. PSA enforcement.
4–5. HAA limits & remedies.Orderuegg & Ellsworth (Order to issue permits under streamlining).
7. HCD Accountability & enforcement.
8. SB 1037 penalties.
9. SB 808 expedited writs (2026).
10. Patrice Baker settlement report (San Diego).
11–12. Regional streamlining & resources (County/SANDAG).vlex+1hklawcayimbysandiegosandagtylerlawllplegiscan+1

5) Proposed Order (Short Form)

Courtion]

The Court, having considered the Petition for Writ of Mandate and supporting papers, ORDERS:

1. Respondents shall approve ministerially Petitioner’s SB‑4 application for APN 123‑456‑78; 72 units within 10 court days;

2. Respondents shall not require discretionary review or CEQA;

3. Respondents shall apply only objective standards consistent with SB‑4;

4. Petitioner is awarded attorneys’ fees under Gov. Code § 65589.5(k)(1)(A) and/or CCP § 1021.5 (amount to be determined);

5. The Court retains jurisdiction to enforce this Order.

DATED: ____________

Judge of the Superior Court

6) Proof of Service (Sample)

I am employed in Orange or San Diego County, over 18 years old, and not a party to this matter. On 23 November 2025, I served the foregoing Demand Letter / Petition / Memo / Proposed Order by email and mail to:

City Attorney, City of San Diego — cityattorney@sandiego.gov; 1200 Third Ave., San Diego, CA 92101
Planning Director — Planning@sandiego.gov; 9485 Aero Dr., San Diego, CA 92123
HCD Housing Accountability Unit — enforcement@hcd.ca.gov
California Attorney General (Housing Justice Team) — housing@doj.ca.gov

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true.

Executed on 23 November 2025, in San Diego, CA.

[Name]

7) Exhibits & Administrative Record Index (Suggested)

Exhibit A: SB‑4 Application (date‑stamped)
Exhibit B: SB‑4 Eligibility Matrix (ownership date; affordability; labor; site/adjacency)
Exhibit C: Ownership proof (deed; title profile showing pre‑1/1/2024)
Exhibit D: Labor compliance declaration (prevailing wage; apprentices/healthcare if applicable)
Exhibit E: Objective standards compliance table (zoning/design)
Exhibit F: City correspondence (incompleteness notices; CEQA requests; hearing demands)
Exhibit G: PSA timeline chart with statutory deadlines
Exhibit H: Affordability covenant draft (TCAC rent limits consistency)
Exhibit I: Site maps showing industrial buffer compliance
Exhibit J: Parking plan (AB 2097 applicability, if near transit)
Exhibit K: HCD complaint (with attachments)
Exhibit L: AG complaint submission
Exhibit M: Relevant case Law excerpts (Ruegg & Ellsworth; AG Legal Alert; Baker settlement)

References: SB‑4 practice and enforcement overviews.

8) HCD & Attorney General Complaint Templates

A) HCD Housing Accountability Unit — Complaint

Subject: City of San Diego — SB‑4 Violation (Faith Housing Initiative, APN 123‑456‑??)
Body:
We request HCD enforcement for violations of SB‑4 (Gov. Code § 65913.16), HAA (Gov. Code § 65589.5), and PSA by the City of San Diego. Our qualifying 72-unit, 100% affordable project on faith-owned land has been delayed by discretionary review and CEQA requirements, despite SB 4’s ministerial mandate. Please issue a Technical Assistance/Enforcement Letter and refer to the Attorney General if noncompliance continues. Attachments: Exhibits A–

B) California Attorney General — Housing Justice Team Complaint

Subject: Request for AG Enforcement — City of San Diego SB‑4/HAA/PSA Violations; Civil Penalties under SB 1037
Body:

We seek AG intervention regarding San Diego’s refusal to ministerially approve a qualifying SB 4 project (APN 123-456-78, Recordits). The Record shows unlawful discretionary/CEQA requirements and missed PSA timelines. Please consider civil penalties (Gov. Code § 65585(l), SB 1037) accruing from the violation date, and coordinate with HCD. Attachments: Exhibits A–M.

9) Service List (Initial)

City Attorney, City of San Diego — cityattorney@sandiego.gov; 1200 Third Ave., San Diego, CA 92101
Director of Planning — Planning@sandiego.gov; 9485 Aero Dr., San Diego, CA 92123
HCD Housing Accountability Unit — enforcement@hcd.ca.gov (Accountability & Enforcement portal)hklaw
CA AG Housing Justice Team — housing@doj.ca.gov (Housing portal)hklaw

10) Filing Checklist (San Diego Superior Court)

Petition/Complaint with Caption, Verification, POS
Memo of Points & Authorities
ProposeRecordr
Exhibits/Record (tabbed)
Civil Case Cover Sheet
Summons (for Complaint portions)
Filing fee or fee waiver
Ex Parte/OSC if seeking immediate injunctive relief

Notes on Authorities (for counsel’s citations page)

SB‑4 text & analysis: Gov. Code § 65913.16; practice alerts.
HCD enforcement & portal: Accountability & Enforcement.
AG Housing Justice Team & legal alerts: DOJ Housing portal; OAG Legal Alert (Builder’s Remedy/HAA updates).
SB 1037 penalties: client alert overview.sandiego
SB 808 expedited writs (effective 1/1/2026): litigation speedups overview.
Streamlining case Law: Ruegg & Ellsworth v. City of Berkeley (ministerial approvals under SB‑35).
San Diego context: Patrice Baker v. City of San Diego settlement staff report; County/SANDAG resources on state housing laws.

Dan J. Harkey

Master Educator | Business & Finance Consultant | Mentor

SB-4: California Church Corporations and Nonprofit Low-Cost Housing Building Opportunities.

Are there legal remedies available to the church or nonprofit if a municipality refuses to cooperate and comply with state mandates?

Share This Article

SB-4:

Property Owner Builder Remedies for Municipalities That Refuse to Cooperate With State Mandates

SB-4 California Church Corporations and nonprofit building opportunities. Are there legal remedies available to the church or nonprofit if a municipality refuses to cooperate and comply with state mandates?

Highlighting enforcement tools

Short answer: Yes. If a city drags-its-feet or refuses to apply California’s SB‑4 “Affordable Housing on Faith & Higher Education Lands Act,” churches and nonprofit colleges have multiple remedies—administrative and judicial—to force compliance, recover fees, and keep a project moving.

Below is a practical educational toolbox you can use.

SB‑4 in one line (for context)

If a municipality refuses to cooperate, what remedies are available?

1) File with HCD’s Housing Accountability Unit (HAU) — administrative enforcement

2) Ask the California Attorney General to intervene — civil enforcement

Action: Submit a complaint through the AG’s Housing portal; note the specific SB‑4 provisions being ignored and attach HCD correspondence (if any).

3) Petition the Superior Court for a Writ of Mandate

Relief you can seek:

4) Leverage the Housing Accountability Act (HAA)

Why mention HAA for SB‑4 cases? Even though SB‑4 is its own ministerial pathway, cities often use pretextual “objective standards” to stall or reduce units. Pairing SB‑4 with HAA claims increases pressure and remedies for violating municipalities.

5) Use companion streamlining & incentive laws

Practical, step-by-step playbook

What cities cannot do under SB‑4 (common friction points)

Key citations & references (for your demand letter/petition)

Non-Technical Readers can stop here. The following is background data to discuss with your lawyer. Caution: Do not attempt to use the following educational material without the direction of your attorney.

Here is a draft of a two-page demand letter tailored to a specific city.