The laudable efforts of the Legislature in adopting “super statutes” such as the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”; Gov. Code, § 65589.5) notwithstanding, housing in California remains a scarce and precious commodity.  The interplay of the HAA with another “super statute” – CEQA (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) – also continues to be the subject of interesting and important litigation in which the core objectives and provisions of these two statutory schemes clash and must be reconciled.  The First District Court of Appeal’s mostly published 36-page opinion in Coalition of Pacificans for an Updated Plan v. City Council of the City of Pacifica (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 647, filed on December 30, 2025, deals with the immediate economic fallout from such a clash; the context of the decision was the parties’ post-judgment battle over attorneys’ fees in a case where the CEQA plaintiff prevailed in challenging the HAA-protected housing development approvals for a small infill project in a physically challenging location.  While the City and housing developer prevailed in their appeal of an adverse fee award, their victory might be short-lived or of limited impact in light of the narrow grounds on which the Court of Appeal reversed, and the significant discretion the trial court still retains in reconsidering the fee award on remand.  Thus, in one of the opinion’s many ironies, the case could actually represent a setback for those seeking to use the protections of the HAA to defend housing projects from being sued, and to protect local agencies and developers from hefty fee awards when such suits are successful.