Even as cities strain under the weight of new housing regulations, legislators are trying new ideas and resurrecting old ones.

City makes novel arguments like violation of First Amendment and Commerce Clause, but also argues that its charter city rights are violated and the relationship between the RHNA and CEQA puts it in an untenable position.

Appellate court shoots down a litany of CEQA arguments, finding fault only with wind impacts. But the stadium's sponsors are still looking for more funding for infrastructure.

Download this month's issue of CP&DR in PDF form.
Click title to access download: CP&DR Vol. 38 No. 3 March 2023
Non subscribers may purchase the report by: clicking here

Palo Alto claimed that in in-lieu downtown parking fee wasn't really a fee under the Mitigation Fee Act. But an appellate court ruled the other way -- and now Palo Alto developer Chop Keenan stands get almost $1 million back.

An Encinitas bluffside homeowner wanted to build a new house with a basement. The Local Coastal Plan says all structures must be removable in case of further erosion. The homeowner said the basement was removable; the Coastal Commission disagreed. Guess who won?

Both cities claim that their Housing Elements are compliant, even though HCD has not yet approved them. Sonoma also claimed an apartment proposals application was deficient.

Two years ago, an appellate panel ruled that the controversial housing proposal should have been processed under SB 35 -- the first major ruling. Now the court has ruled that a local judge had the authority to rule on Housing Accountability Act violations as well.

In a very strongly worded opinion, a Los Angeles appellate court shot down all the neighbors' arguments about an eldercare facility in Pacific Palisades -- and, in the process, reiterated that the role of the courts is to defer to the city’s judgment when substantial evidence exists and not "re-weigh the evidence".