Gov. Code § 65589.5

Gov. Code § 65589.5

Housing Accountability ActTITLE 7. PLANNING AND LAND USE › DIVISION 1. PLANNING AND ZONING › CHAPTER 3. Local Planning › ARTICLE 10.6. Housing Elements

Amendments not yet in effect. SB 1072 (Ch. 322, Stats. 2026) amended this section; AB 1621 (Ch. 780, Stats. 2026) amended this section, effective January 1, 2027. The text below is the current Code text (current law). Open the History tab and choose a bill to see the section as that bill leaves it. Not legal advice.

Key provisions · Claude summary, not statute text

The Housing Accountability Act: limits a local agency’s ability to disapprove, reduce the density of, or render infeasible housing development projects and emergency shelters, requires written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence, sets the rules for “builder’s remedy” projects, freezes applicable standards at preliminary application, and provides court enforcement with fines and attorney’s fees.

  • Findings and policy. The Legislature declares a housing supply and affordability crisis caused in part by local actions that limit approval and raise costs, finds the section’s intent of curbing local denial, density reduction, and infeasibility has not been fulfilled, and states that the section be interpreted to afford the fullest possible weight to the approval and provision of housing; conditions with a specific, adverse public health or safety impact are intended to arise infrequently. Local governments must not reject or make infeasible projects meeting the regional need without thorough analysis and compliance with (d), and development should be guided away from prime agricultural lands toward infill. (a)–(c)
  • Affordable projects and shelters. A local agency may not disapprove, or condition in a way that renders infeasible (including through design review standards), a housing development project for very low, low-, or moderate-income households or an emergency shelter unless it makes written findings, based on a preponderance of the evidence, on one of six grounds: (1) a compliant housing element and the RHNA share (or emergency shelter need) for the project’s income category has been met; (2) a “specific, adverse impact” on public health or safety that cannot feasibly be mitigated without making the project unaffordable or the shelter financially infeasible; (3) denial or conditions are required by specific state or federal law; (4) agricultural/resource land surrounded on at least two sides by such uses, or lacking adequate water or wastewater facilities; (5) a compliant housing element and inconsistency with both zoning and the general plan land use designation; or (6) no compliant housing element and the project is not a builder’s remedy project. (d)
  • Limits on findings. A “specific, adverse impact” is a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards as of the date the application was deemed complete; inconsistency with zoning or the general plan designation and eligibility for the welfare tax exemption are not such impacts. Ground (5) cannot be used for a project on a housing element site identified for lower or moderate income that is consistent with the element’s density, or for an emergency shelter on an industrial, commercial, or multifamily site where the agency has not identified adequate by-right shelter zones (with the agency bearing the burden of proof). (d)(1)–(5)
  • Other laws preserved. The section does not relieve the agency from the congestion management program, the California Coastal Act, CEQA findings under Pub. Resources Code § 21081, or other CEQA compliance. (e)
  • Objective standards. Agencies may require compliance with “objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies” consistent with meeting the RHNA (or emergency shelter need), applied to facilitate the density permitted and proposed, and may impose fees and exactions otherwise authorized by law; density bonus eligibility under § 65915 is not limited. A project is deemed consistent if substantial evidence would allow a reasonable person to so conclude, and a zoning or general plan change after the application was deemed complete is not a valid basis to disapprove or condition approval. Such standards are defined as involving no personal or subjective judgment and being uniformly verifiable; where they conflict, the project is consistent with the one allowing density and unit type closest to the proposal. (f)(1)–(5), (9)
  • Builder’s remedy rules. A builder’s remedy project may only be held to objective standards that would apply under a general plan designation and zoning allowing the proposed density and unit type (or ones the proponent identifies from another designation); standards may not render the project infeasible or preclude it as proposed (agency bears the burden of proof). It gets two extra density bonus incentives or concessions, with base density set by (h)(11)(C); needs no general plan amendment, rezoning, or other legislative approval or any non-standard permit; is deemed consistent for all purposes and not nonconforming; and may not be subjected to any requirement, including increased fees or inclusionary requirements, because it is a builder’s remedy project. It is deemed compliant for § 65912.123(b) density standards and § 65913.4(a)(5) objective standards. (f)(6)(A)–(F)
  • Local inclusionary limits. If a local affordable housing requirement in effect on January 1, 2024, required a greater percentage or deeper affordability than (h)(11)(A), the agency may apply only that percentage or level to mixed-income builder’s remedy housing, capped at 20% affordable units and no deeper than lower income at 20%, and only after written findings by a preponderance of evidence that compliance would not render the project infeasible. Affordable units must have comparable bedroom and bathroom counts to market-rate units and count toward both requirements. (f)(6)(G)
  • Transition and housing element sites. For applications deemed complete before January 1, 2025, the proponent may elect the rules in place when the preliminary application was submitted or, for a builder’s remedy project, any or all provisions in effect January 1, 2025, and may revise to become a builder’s remedy project without a new preliminary application even if units or square footage change by 20% or more. A project on a housing element site identified for lower or moderate income, consistent with the element’s density but inconsistent with both zoning and the general plan, is subject to (f)(6)(A), (B), (D) and (f)(9). (f)(7)–(8)
  • Charter cities. The section applies to charter cities because the lack of housing, including emergency shelter, is a critical statewide problem. (g)
  • Housing development project. A “housing development project” is residential-only development; mixed-use with at least two-thirds residential square footage and no transient lodging (any hotel portion may be separately approved without housing benefits); mixed-use with at least 50% residential and at least 500 net new units and no transient lodging other than a residential hotel; or such a project that also demolishes or converts at least 100,000 sq. ft. and at least 50% of existing nonresidential uses; plus transitional or supportive housing and farmworker housing. (h)(2)
  • Income categories. “Housing for lower income households” is 100% of units (excluding managers’) for lower income households; “housing for moderate-income households” is 100% moderate-income; both carry 55-year (rental) or 45-year (owner) deed restrictions. “Housing for mixed-income households” has at least 7% extremely low income, 10% very low income, or 13% lower income units, or is 10 or fewer units on a site under one acre at a minimum 10 units per acre, with 55-/45-year affordability. (h)(3)
  • Disapproval defined. “Disapprove the housing development project” includes a final vote or action denying the application; missing Permit Streamlining Act (§ 65950), § 65913.3, or Health & Safety Code § 17970.3 deadlines; a course of conduct for an improper purpose that effectively disapproves the project, after written notice, posting within five working days, at least 60 days of consideration, and 90 days for the agency to cease or issue objective findings; violating § 65905.5; improper incompleteness determinations (items not on the checklist, new items on resubmittal, or after two resubmittals with burden on the agency); violating (f)(6)(D) or (E); improperly declaring a preliminary application expired; and, until January 1, 2031, CEQA failures under §§ 65589.5.1 and 65589.5.2. (h)(6)–(7)
  • Builder’s remedy project. A “builder’s remedy project” is a housing development project for very low, low-, or moderate-income households where the jurisdiction lacked a compliant housing element when the application was deemed complete, with pre-bonus density not exceeding the greatest of 50% above the § 65583.2(c)(3)(B) default density, three times the allowed density, or the housing element density (plus 35 units per acre near a major transit stop, in a very low vehicle travel area, or in a high/highest resource tract); meeting minimum densities near commuter or heavy rail (or the lower of the local minimum or half the default density elsewhere); and not abutting a site used more than one-third for heavy industrial or Title V industrial use in the past three years. (h)(11)
  • Other definitions. Also defined: “feasible,” “area median income,” “deemed complete” (preliminary application or complete application, with the agency bearing the burden of showing incompleteness), “lower density,” “objective,” “determined to be complete,” “condition approval,” “unit type,” and “proposed by the applicant.” (h)(1), (4)–(5), (8)–(10), (12)–(14)
  • Burden of proof. If a denial or conditions with a substantial adverse effect on the viability or affordability of a lower- or moderate-income project are challenged in court, the local legislative body bears the burden to show its decision is consistent with the (d) findings, supported by a preponderance of the evidence, and complies with (o). (i)
  • Compliant projects. For a project complying with applicable objective general plan, zoning, subdivision, and design review standards, disapproval or a lower-density condition requires written findings by a preponderance of evidence of a “specific, adverse impact” on public health or safety with no feasible mitigation other than disapproval or lower density. The agency must identify inconsistencies in writing within 30 days of completeness (150 or fewer units) or 60 days (more than 150 units), or the project is deemed consistent. Density bonus concessions and waivers are not a basis for inconsistency, and a project consistent with the general plan needs no rezoning where zoning is inconsistent with the general plan. (j)
  • Enforcement. The applicant, an eligible resident, or a “housing organization” may sue; if the court finds a violation of (d), (j), (o), or builder’s remedy provisions, it must order compliance within 60 days, may order approval if the agency acted in bad faith, and must award attorney’s fees except in extraordinary circumstances or certain good-faith CEQA disputes (until January 1, 2031). If the order is not met, fines of at least $10,000 per unit go to a local housing trust fund (or the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund) for extremely low, very low, or low-income housing within five years, and the court may vacate the decision and deem the project approved. Housing organizations may only challenge disapprovals. (k)
  • Bad faith penalties. If the agency acted in bad faith and failed to carry out the court’s order in time, fines are multiplied by five, with an additional factor for each prior violation in the same planning period; “bad faith” includes frivolous, pretextual, delaying, or meritless actions. (l)
  • Litigation procedure. Actions proceed under Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5; the agency must certify the record within 30 days of service at its own cost; petitions must be filed and served within 90 days of the final action or the expiration of applicable time periods; appellate review is by petition within 20 days (extendable 20 days) or appeal; an appealing agency must post a bond for an applicant plaintiff. CEQA-based disapprovals become final after the § 65589.5.1 or 90-day notice periods (until January 1, 2031). The record may be prepared by the petitioner or respondent, with costs taxable to a prevailing petitioner. (m), (n)
  • Vested standards. A project is subject only to the ordinances, policies, and standards in effect when a complete preliminary application under § 65941.1 was submitted, except for automatic cost-index fee adjustments, measures needed to avoid a specific, adverse health or safety impact or a CEQA impact, failure to start construction within 2.5 years (3.5 years for an affordable housing project) of final approval, or revisions changing units or square footage by 20% or more (excluding density bonus increases). “Ordinances, policies, and standards” include plans, zoning, design and subdivision standards, and fees; CEQA mitigation and later use and occupancy rules for completed units (e.g., rent stabilization, short-term rental limits) are unaffected. (o)
  • Attorney’s fees on approvals. In challenges to a project approval, courts weighing Code Civ. Proc. § 1021.5 fees must consider how the approval furthers this section, site suitability, and reasonableness; fees should rarely, if ever, be awarded where an agency in good faith approved a project meeting § 65589.5.1(a)(1)–(3) or § 65589.5.2(a)(1)–(3). Inoperative January 1, 2031. (p)
  • Name and severability. The section is the Housing Accountability Act, and its provisions are severable. (q), (r)

Paraphrased from the statute text; each point cites its subdivision. Check the text before relying on it.

ClaudeGreen text is a summary heading written by Claude to help navigate. It is not statute text; the statute text is in black.

§ 65589.518 subdivisions

Source. California Code text from the Legislature's bulk download (the same data as leginfo), reproduced character for character (spacing normalized). Current page on leginfo ↗

History. (Amended by Stats. 2025, Ch. 789, Sec. 1.5. (SB 838) Effective January 1, 2026. Inoperative January 1, 2031, pursuant to Sec. 1 of Stats. 2023, Ch. 768.)

Cites, in this navigator. Gov. Code § 65583, Gov. Code § 65583.2, Gov. Code § 65584, Gov. Code § 65588, Gov. Code § 65400, Gov. Code § 65589.5.1, Gov. Code § 65589.5.2, Gov. Code § 65912.101, Gov. Code § 65912.123, Gov. Code § 65915, Gov. Code § 65913.3, Gov. Code § 65913.4, Gov. Code § 65913.16, Gov. Code § 65941.1, Gov. Code § 65943, Gov. Code § 65905.5, Health & Saf. Code § 50052.5, Health & Saf. Code § 50053, Health & Saf. Code § 50106, Health & Saf. Code § 50105, Health & Saf. Code § 50079.5, Health & Saf. Code § 50093, Pub. Resources Code § 21081

Cited by, in this navigator. Gov. Code § 65582.1, Gov. Code § 65583.2, Gov. Code § 65585, Gov. Code § 65589.5.1, Gov. Code § 65589.5.2, Gov. Code § 65589.55, Gov. Code § 65589.6, Gov. Code § 65912.101, Gov. Code § 65912.124, Gov. Code § 65852.21, Gov. Code § 65852.28, Gov. Code § 65860, Gov. Code § 65863.2, Gov. Code § 65915, Gov. Code § 65852.24, Gov. Code § 65913.3, Gov. Code § 65913.4, Gov. Code § 65913.4.5, Gov. Code § 65913.16, Gov. Code § 65913.13, Gov. Code § 65913.6, Gov. Code § 65913.11, Gov. Code § 65913.12, Gov. Code § 65914.7, Gov. Code § 65914.2, Gov. Code § 65651, Gov. Code § 66499.41, Gov. Code § 65852.30, Gov. Code § 66499.46, Gov. Code § 65912.156, Gov. Code § 65912.157, Gov. Code § 65912.159, Gov. Code § 66411.7, Gov. Code § 65941.1, Gov. Code § 65943, Gov. Code § 65905.5, Pub. Resources Code § 21080.1, Pub. Resources Code § 21080.27, Pub. Resources Code § 21080.66, Pub. Resources Code § 21080.73, Pub. Resources Code § 21159.22, Pub. Resources Code § 21159.24

See these connections on the network →

Other sections cited. 22 sections outside this navigator are underlined in the text; hover one for its leginfo link; the References tab lists them all.

Statute text comes from the California Legislative Information page saved for this section; spacing and line breaks are normalized and every other character is reproduced as published. Check leginfo for any amendment made after the page was saved. Not legal advice.