While this is not legal advice, this drafting template aims to help you present facts clearly and confidently, facilitating effective communication with agencies and courts to enforce housing laws and ensure project compliance.  I am not a lawyer, nor do I have any extralegal knowledge beyond experience.  Consult your own counsel.

HCD’s HAU enforces state housing laws, such as SB 4 and the Housing Accountability Act, and understanding this role can help you approach enforcement with confidence and purpose.

1) Template A — Enforcement Request to HCD Housing Accountability Unit (HAU)

Use this when your strongest claims are “ministerial/by-right approval required,” and the City is refusing to process/approve, imposing discretionary review, or “slow-walking” contrary to objective standards. 

SB-4 makes qualifying projects “use by right” and limits local review to objective standards that are not in conflict with SB-4.

[DATE]

Via HCD Housing Accountability Unit (HAU) Portal / Email

California Department of Housing and Community Development

Housing Accountability Unit

RE: Request for HCD Enforcement / Technical Assistance – City of [CITY], SB 4 (Gov. Code § 65913.16) and Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code § 65589.5) Noncompliance

Project: [PROJECT NAME], [SITE ADDRESS], APNs: [APNs]

Applicant/Developer: [LEGAL ENTITY], [CONTACT]

Religious Institution/Landowner: [CHURCH Corporation LEGAL NAME], [ENTITY TYPE], [CONTACT]

Dear Housing Accountability Unit:

 I.                   PURPOSE OF THIS SUBMISSION

I submit this request for HCD review, technical assistance, and enforcement regarding the City of [CITY]’s refusal to process and/or approve the above-referenced housing development consistent with SB 4 (Affordable Housing on Faith and Higher Education Lands Act of 2023, Gov. Code § 65913.16) and the Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code § 65589.5), as amended. HCD states it enforces SB 4 and the Housing Accountability Act and may take accountability actions, including referrals to the California Office of the Attorney General.  [CITE] [2](https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2024/09/california-legislature-passes-major-reforms-for)

 II.                 SUMMARY OF REQUESTED RELIEF

 We respectfully request that HCD:

 1)    Confirm the project’s eligibility for SB 4 “use by right” ministerial approval under Gov. Code § 65913.16;

 (https://www.danharkey.com/post/sb-808-accelerating-judicial-review-for-housing-development-disputes-technical-read)

 2)    Issue technical assistance and/or an enforcement letter directing the City to accept, process, and ministerially approve the project if it meets all SB 4 criteria and objective standards; [CITE] [2]

 (https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2024/09/california-legislature-passes-major-reforms-for)                                                                   (https://www.danharkey.com/post/sb-808-accelerating-judicial-review-for-housing-development-disputes-technical-read)

 3)    Require the City to identify any alleged conflicts with objective standards in writing (with citations and evidence), and to cease any discretionary/subjective demands inconsistent with a ministerial SB 4 pathway;

 (https://www.danharkey.com/post/sb-808-accelerating-judicial-review-for-housing-development-disputes-technical-read)

If noncompliance continues, clearly outline the following steps, such as submitting further enforcement requests or contacting the Attorney General, to guide advocates effectively.

 (https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2024/09/california-legislature-passes-major-reforms-for)

 III.               PROJECT OVERVIEW AND SB 4 ELIGIBILITY (FACTS)

 A.    Site and Ownership

• Site: [ADDRESS], APNs [APNs], zoning: [ZONE], General Plan: [GP DESIGNATION]

• Religious institution owner: [CHURCH LEGAL NAME], [Corporation sole/nonprofit religious Corporation], owns the site as of [OWNERSHIP DATE], which is on/before 1 January 2024.  [Attach deed/assessor record]

SB 4 applies to qualifying housing development projects on land owned by a “religious institution,” as defined, and provides “use by right” approval if the statutory criteria are satisfied. 

 (https://www.danharkey.com/post/sb-808-accelerating-judicial-review-for-housing-development-disputes-technical-read)

 B.    Proposed Development

• Units: [#] total (affordable units: [#], Manager’s units: [#], moderate-income units (if any): [#], staff units (if any):

• Affordability: [100% lower-income except permitted SB 4 allowances], with deed restriction term of [55 years rental / 45 years ownership], consistent with SB 4.  [CITE]

 (https://www.danharkey.com/post/sb-808-accelerating-judicial-review-for-housing-development-disputes-technical-read)

 • Objective standards: The application demonstrates compliance with all objective development standards not in conflict with SB 4.  [Attach objective standards matrix]

 SB 4 requires compliance with objective standards not in conflict with the statute and restricts local review to a ministerial process. 

 (https://www.danharkey.com/post/sb-808-accelerating-judicial-review-for-housing-development-disputes-technical-read)

 C.    Application Status

 • Application submitted: [DATE]

• Deemed complete / completeness dispute: [DETAILS]

• City actions at issue: [REFUSAL TO ACCEPT / REFUSAL TO PROCESS / DEMAND FOR CUP/CEQA / DENIAL / DELAY]

(See timeline and exhibits.)

 IV.              CITY CONDUCT CONSTITUTING NONCOMPLIANCE (DETAILS + EXHIBITS)

 A. Refusal to Provide Ministerial “Use by Right” Processing

The City has [describe], which is inconsistent with SB 4’s “use by right” ministerial framework that excludes discretionary review for qualifying projects.  [CITE]

 https://www.danharkey.com/post/sb-808-accelerating-judicial-review-for-housing-development-disputes-technical-read)

 B. Imposition of Non-Objective or Discretionary Requirements

 The City has required [e.g., CUP, discretionary design review, CEQA], or has relied on subjective standards such as [e.g., “neighborhood character”] rather than objective, written, quantifiable standards.  SB 4 limits review to objective standards and prohibits discretionary processes for qualifying SB 4 projects.  [CITE]

 https://www.danharkey.com/post/sb-808-accelerating-judicial-review-for-housing-development-disputes-technical-read)

 D.    Housing Accountability Act Issues (if applicable)

To the extent the City has disapproved or conditioned the project in a manner that renders it infeasible, the City’s actions implicate the Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code § 65589.5), which limits denials and requires specific written findings supported by evidence.  [CITE] [4]

(https://www.crowell.com/en/insights/client-alerts/california-to-empower-attorney-general-with-increased-authority-to-ensure-cities-comply-with-state-housing-laws)

(https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2024/09/california-legislature-passes-major-reforms-for)

 V.                We ask HCD to acknowledge receipt, guide within [10-14] days, and, if necessary, issue enforcement or technical assistance to the City within [30] days to support project compliance.

 Given the project’s time sensitivity and the public interest in compliant housing approvals, we request that HCD acknowledge receipt, advise on next steps within [10–14] days, and, if warranted, issue a technical assistance/enforcement communication to the City within [30] days.  HCD describes technical assistance and enforcement as part of its accountability process. 

https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2024/09/california-legislature-passes-major-reforms-for

VI.              EXHIBITS (INDEX)

Exhibit 1 – Project description/plans

Exhibit 2 – Deed/ownership proof (owned on/before 1/1/2024)

Exhibit 3 – Affordability restrictions draft / pro forma summary

Exhibit 4 – Objective standards compliance matrix

Exhibit 5 – Application submittal + completeness correspondence

Exhibit 6 – City denial letter/refusal letter/staff report (if any)

Exhibit 7 – Hearing transcripts/minutes/recordings links (if any)

Exhibit 8 – Timeline (dated events)

Exhibit 9 – Comparator approvals (optional, if discrimination/equal terms issues)

Thank you for your attention.  Please contact [NAME, PHONE, EMAIL] for follow-up.  We are ready to provide any supplemental information.

Sincerely,

[NAME]

[TITLE]

[ENTITY]

[ADDRESS]

[PHONE]

[EMAIL]

Why this works: It tracks HCD’s stated roles—enforcement, technical assistance, and referrals—and establishes the SB 4 “use by right” structure and objective-standards framework that agencies can quickly evaluate.

2) Template B — Enforcement/Intervention Request to California Attorney General (Housing Justice Team)

Use this when you want to flag (a) a city’s pattern of refusal to follow state mandates, (b) egregious delay/denial, or (c) grounds for state enforcement tools.  The AG Housing Justice Team accepts housing-related complaints and tips and enforces housing/development laws (often in Partnership's's with HCD), but it does not represent individual complainants.

SB 1037 penalties are triggered in court actions brought by the AG or HCD (not by private parties), which is why your submission should focus on a clean, factual record and the public-interest aspect.

 [DATE]

 Via Online Submission – California DOJ / Attorney General (Housing Justice Team)

Office of the Attorney General, State of California

RE: Housing Law Enforcement Tip / Request for Intervention – City of [CITY] Noncompliance with SB 4 (Gov. Code § 65913.16) and related housing mandates

Project: [PROJECT NAME], [SITE ADDRESS], APNs: [APNs]

Complainant: [CHURCH Corporation / 501(c)(3) / APPLICANT ENTITY], [CONTACT]

 Dear Housing Justice Team

I.                   PURPOSE OF SUBMISSION (PUBLIC-INTEREST ENFORCEMENT REQUEST)

I  submit this complaint/tip for the Attorney General’s review regarding the City of [CITY]’s refusal to comply with California housing laws requiring ministerial processing and approval of qualifying housing projects, including SB 4 (Gov. Code § 65913.16) and related Housing Accountability Act protections.  The Attorney General’s Housing Justice Team encourages Californians to submit complaints/tips related to housing and enforces state housing and development laws, including in coordination with HCD.  [CITE]

 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000cc) 

II.                 SUMMARY OF THE VIOLATION

The City of [CITY] has [denied/refused to accept/refused to process/delayed] a qualifying housing development proposed on land owned by a religious institution on/before 1 January 2024, and has [imposed discretionary review / required CEQA / required a CUP / relied on subjective criteria], contrary to SB 4’s “use by right” ministerial framework and objective-standards limitations. 

(https://www.danharkey.com/post/sb-808-accelerating-judicial-review-for-housing-development-disputes-technical-read)

III.               REQUESTED ACTION

 We respectfully request:

 1) Attorney General review of the City’s conduct for compliance with state housing Law, including required ministerial approvals;

 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000cc)

 (https://www.danharkey.com/post/sb-808-accelerating-judicial-review-for-housing-development-disputes-technical-read)

 2) Coordination with HCD’s Housing Accountability Unit for technical assistance/enforcement and/or referral escalation; HCD describes referrals to the Attorney General as a consequence of violations.  [CITE] [2](https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2024/09/california-legislature-passes-major-reforms-for)

3) Consideration of enforcement litigation where appropriate.  SB 1037 provides enhanced court-ordered civil penalties in actions brought by the Attorney General or HCD when a local agency fails to comply with specific housing mandates, including ministerial approval requirements.  [CITE]

 (https://oag.ca.gov/housing)[6](https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB4/id/2839610)

IV.  KEY FACTS (ELIGIBILITY + CITY ACTIONS)

A. SB 4 Eligibility Snapshot

• Religious institution owner: [NAME], [entity type], owns property as of [DATE] (on/before 1/1/2024).

• Project: [#] units; affordability structure: [describe compliance with SB 4 affordability and deed restriction terms].

SB 4 makes qualifying projects “use by right” and limits review to ministerial approval based on objective standards. 

 (https://www.danharkey.com/post/sb-808-accelerating-judicial-review-for-housing-development-disputes-technical-read)

 B. Timeline of City Conduct (abbreviated; complete timeline attached)

• [DATE] – Application submitted

• [DATE] – City response demanding [CUP/CEQA/discretionary review] or refusing to process

• [DATE] – City denial/refusal / delay milestone

• [DATE] – Any appeal/hearing

 V.  DOCUMENTS ATTACHED (CORE RECORD)

1) Ownership proof (deed/assessor record)

2) Application materials and completeness correspondence

3) City denial/refusal letters; staff report(s)

4) Objective standards compliance matrix

5) Timeline

6) Comparator approvals/evidence of unequal treatment

VI.  POINT OF CONTACT

[NAME, TITLE]

[ENTITY]

[PHONE] / [EMAIL]

Thank you for reviewing this submission.  We understand the Attorney General cannot represent private parties or provide legal advice, but we submit these facts for potential public-interest enforcement review. 

(https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000cc)

Respectfully,

[NAME]

[TITLE]

[ENTITY]

Optional add-on paragraph: SB‑808 expedited review + AB‑712 fee/fine leverage (keep it factual)

 California has adopted expedited and strengthened remedies related to housing entitlements and enforcement.  For example, SB 808 creates an expedited writ process for judicial review of denials of housing permits or entitlements and authorizes petitions by the applicant, the Attorney General, or HCD.  AB 712 provides for attorneys’ fees and requires that fines be imposed on local agencies when an applicant prevails in an action enforcing a housing reform Law as applied to the project.  These remedies underscore the Legislature’s intent that qualifying housing approvals proceed consistently with objective standards and ministerial requirements.

 Citations: SB 808’s scope/authorized petitioners and expedited review framework are described in legislative summaries.

AB 712’s fee-shifting and fines are summarized in bill analyses/overviews.

Attachments checklist (this is what makes agencies take it seriously)

Must-have (attach or link):

• Proof of ownership date (deed/assessor record) showing owned on/before 1/1/2024 (SB 4 eligibility).  Danharkey
• Project summary: unit count, affordability mix, deed restriction term (SB 4 affordability conditions).danharkey
• A timeline with dates and URLs to agendas/minutes/videos
• City correspondence: refusal to accept/process, completeness letters, denial letter, staff report
• Objective standards matrix: each objective standard → where satisfied → city’s stated conflict (if any) (SB 4 is objective-standards driven).danharkey

Nice-to-have (when relevant):

• Evidence of “discretion masquerading as objectivity” (subjective standards, vague findings)
• Comparator approvals (similar secular projects processed faster / approved)
• Any HCD correspondence already issued (if you previously contacted HCD)
• Short “cover email/form text” (paste into an online portal)

I am submitting a request for review and enforcement/technical assistance regarding the City of [CITY]’s refusal to process and/or approve a qualifying SB 4 housing development on land owned by a religious institution on/before 1 January 2024.  SB 4 provides ministerial “use by right” approval when criteria are met and limits review to objective standards.  Attached are ownership proof, the application materials, the City’s refusal/denial documentation, an objective standards compliance matrix, and a dated timeline.  I request an HCD/AG review and appropriate enforcement actions, including coordination among HCD, HAU, and the Housing Justice Team.

(Works because it tracks SB 4’s ministerial framework and HCD/AG’s stated roles.) 

Tailor the letter to your exact situation

·       What is the City, and what is the status (refusal to accept, deemed incomplete, formal denial, date)?

·       Is the project 100% affordable with SB 4’s allowed exceptions (Manager/moderate/staff), and do you have the ownership proof showing owned by the religious institution on/before 1 January 2024?  www.danharkey.com

·       What reason did the City give—exact words (parking, zoning, CEQA, “neighborhood compatibility,” etc.)?

Below are (1) a plug-and-play “Timeline of Events” section you can drop into either letter, (2) an “Appendix A” timeline you can attach as a standalone exhibit, and (3) a filled-in example (with placeholders) so you can see what “good” looks like.

Tip: Keep the timeline factual, not argumentative.  Save legal conclusions for a short “Why this violates SB‑4 / HAA” paragraph elsewhere.

1) Timeline Section (insert directly into your letter)

Use this inside Template A (HCD HAU) or Template B (AG Housing Justice Team) under a heading like “IV.  Timeline of Events”:

 IV.  TIMELINE OF EVENTS (DATED RECORD)

 Below is a chronological summary of key events.  Supporting documents are attached and cross-referenced by Exhibit number.1.  [MM/DD/YYYY] – Site Ownership Confirmed

• Document: [Grant Deed / Assessor Record / Title Report]

• Summary: [Religious institution] owned the property as of [date], on/before 01/01/2024.

• Exhibit: [Ex. 2]

 2.  [MM/DD/YYYY] – Pre-Application / Initial City Meeting (if applicable)

• Attendees: [Planning staff names/titles]

• Summary: [City stated SB-4 applies / City required CUP / City requested CEQA, etc.]

• Exhibit: [Ex. 5]3.  [MM/DD/YYYY] – SB-4 Streamlined Application Submitted

• Submittal type: [SB-4 streamlined approval request / ministerial application]

• Materials submitted: [list key items: plans, affordability, objective standards matrix]

• Exhibit: [Ex. 5]

 4.  [MM/DD/YYYY] – City Acknowledgment / Intake Response

• City communication: [email/letter]

• Summary: [City accepted for processing / refused to accept/demanded a discretionary permit]

• Exhibit: [Ex. 6]

5.  [MM/DD/YYYY] – Completeness Determination (or Dispute)

• City action: [Deemed complete / Deemed incomplete]

• Reasons cited: [quote the reasons exactly]

• Applicant response: [date + short summary]

• Exhibits: [Ex. 5, Ex. 6]

 6.  [MM/DD/YYYY] – City Demand for Discretionary Review / CEQA / CUP (if any)

• City action: [required CUP/design review/CEQA/rezoning]

• Rationale: [exact quote]

• Exhibit: [Ex. 6]

 7.  [MM/DD/YYYY] – Applicant Cure / Resubmittal (if any)

• Items provided: [revised plans / additional studies / revised affordability evidence]

• Exhibit: [Ex. 5]

 8.  [MM/DD/YYYY] – Staff Report / Hearing / Council Action (if any)

• Meeting: [Planning Commission / City Council] – [agenda item #]

• Outcome: [continued/denied / no action]

• Key statements (optional): [neutral quotes]

• Exhibit: [Ex. 7]

 9.  [MM/DD/YYYY] – Final Denial / Refusal to Act

• City action: [formal denial letter/refusal to process / failure to agendize]

• Reasons cited: [quote]

• Exhibit: [Ex. 6]

 10.  [MM/DD/YYYY] – Applicant Notice to State Agencies / Request for Intervention

• Submission(s): [HCD HAU request / AG Housing Justice Team tip]

• Exhibit: [Ex. 10] (this letter)

Standalone “Appendix A — Timeline of Events” (recommended as an exhibit)

Example Timeline (filled-in style — replace bracketed items)

Here’s an example you can emulate (still generic, but “realistic” formatting):

 IV.  TIMELINE OF EVENTS (DATED RECORD)

 1. 08/15/2019 – Site Ownership Established

• Document: Grant Deed recorded 08/15/2019; Assessor parcel record

• Summary: First Community Church (a nonprofit religious Corporation) owned the site well before 01/01/2024.

• Exhibit: Ex. 2

 2. 02/06/2025 – SB-4 Streamlined Application Submitted (Ministerial “Use by Right” Request)

• Submittal type: SB-4 streamlined approval request

• Materials: site plans, unit count/affordability package, draft deed restriction, objective standards matrix

• Exhibit: Ex. 5

 3. 02/20/2025 – City Refuses to Process as Ministerial

• City communication: email from Planning Manager

• Summary: City states project “must go through a conditional use permit and CEQA review.”

• Exhibit: Ex. 6

 4. 03/05/2025 – Applicant Responds; Requests Written Objective-Standards Conflicts

• Applicant response: letter requesting identification of objective standards conflicts and SB-4 basis for CUP/CEQA demand

• Exhibit: Ex. 5

 5. 03/28/2025 – City Issues “Incomplete” Letter

• City action: Notice of Incomplete Application

• Reasons cited: “Inadequate neighborhood compatibility; additional discretionary review required.”

• Exhibit: Ex. 6

 6. 04/10/2025 – Applicant Submits Cure Package

• Items provided: revised plans, parking exhibit, revised objective standards matrix, supplemental affordability documentation

• Exhibit: Ex. 5

 7. 05/02/2025 – City Maintains CUP/CEQA Requirement

• City communication: letter stating SB-4 does not apply because zoning prohibits multifamily housing

• Exhibit: Ex. 6

 8. 06/18/2025 – City Council Hearing; No Approval Action Taken

• Meeting: City Council – agenda item 7B

• Outcome: matter continued “indefinitely”; staff directed to “study neighborhood impacts.”

• Exhibit: Ex. 7

 9. 08/01/2025 – Final Refusal to Approve / Process as SB-4 Ministerial

• City action: formal refusal letter

• Reasons cited: “Project inconsistent with zoning; discretionary permit required.”

• Exhibit: Ex. 6

 10. 08/15/2025 – Enforcement Request Submitted to HCD HAU and AG Housing Justice Team

• Submission(s): HCD HAU request + AG housing request.