The state's action on housing has focused on making entitlements easier to get. But housing production hasn't gone up. Maybe there aren't enough developers and planners left in the state to get the job done.
The Surf City claimed that its 14th Amendment rights were violated by the RHNA process -- and claimed it could sue because it is a charter city and not a "subdivision of the state". A federal judge disagreed.
In an unpublished ruling, an appellate court concluded that cities challenging RHNA targets can't sue the state. Previous rulings only said that cities couldn't sue their council of governments.
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.
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.
It's been on the books for 30 years but hardly used. As the Santa Monica situation suggests, however, it could completely upend local planning for housing in California.
In a case from San Diego, an appellate court reaffirms a 13-year old ruling that says the legislature has barred RHNA allocation lawsuits by COG members.
