Appellate court says overlay zone doesn't meet state's minimum density requirements because underlying zoning allows less -- and as a result discrimination laws were violated as well. 

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.

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.

Five of the 12 Bay Area jurisdictions sued over non-compliant housing elements are in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties. Meanwhile, Builder's Remedy applications begin to pop up. 

Coming just days after the region's RHNA deadline the lawsuits suggest pitched battle ahead over the Bay Area's housing targets -- and maybe even a Builder's Remedy battle or two.

Seven cities will now get preference for state housing programs -- and more cities will soon be designated.

Court found that developer had not pursued all administrative remedies before suing.

Among other things, the appellate ruling found that Livermore's design standards are not objective and therefore cannot be used to deny an affordable housing project.