The court’s decision “ensures that every local government does its fair share to help address the statewide affordable-housing crisis,” said Rebekah Evenson, a Bay Area Legal Aid attorney who argued in support of the state law.

A contrary ruling “would create two different Californias” covered by two sets of housing laws, said another attorney in the case, Michael Rawson of the nonprofit Public Interest Law Project. He said officials in some charter cities, like Oakland, were willing to follow the state law, but others would be free to adopt their own rules.

Read the full article by Bob Egelko in the San Francisco Chronicle here.