In 1980, the City of Sunnyvale adopted an ordinance requiring new housing development to make 12.5% of units affordable or otherwise pay an in-lieu. A developer challenged the ordinance in 2009 claiming the requirement was unconstitutional. After the trial court dismissed the case on statute of limitations grounds, the developer appealed.The Public Interest Law Project along with the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley filed a brief of amici curiae in support of Sunnyvale. The court of appeals, relying in part on the amicus briefing, held that inclusionary zoning requirements are not monetary exactions on development. Significantly, the court acknowledged that the purpose of inclusionary housing—to ensure future housing development includes affordable housing—is a legitimate public purpose of local government.PILP represented Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California, California Coalition of Rural Housing, Southern California Association of Affordable Housing, San Diego Housing Federation and Affordable Housing Network of Santa Clara County.Trinity Park LLP v. City of Sunnyvale, 193 Cal.App.4th 1014 (2011).