18 ATTACHMENT 1-4; 6-9 - Laserfiche WebLink

and will therefore affect "the nature and extent of the uses of land and of buildings. . . "1a Further, the court held that inclusionary in-lieu lees are not exactions similar to impact fees, because the affordable housing requirements are not based on the impact of a project, but rather on the "the relationship that . . . development has on both the need for lower-income residential development and on the opportunity and capacity of municipalities to meet that need . . ."� No court in California has resolved the issue or definitely characterized inclusionary ordinances as a land use control. In flume Builders Ass'n v. City of Napa" ('Napa"), the first published California case regarding inclusionary zoning, the City of Nape argued that its inclusionary ordinance was a land use ordinance that merely regulated the use of a small part of a development, and that inclusionary in-lieu fees were not impact fees because the underlying inclusionary requirement was not a monetary exaction, but rather a land use control, and fees were paid only at the election of the developer." The Court of Appeals did not reach this issue. Nonetheless, the Napa court's generally favorable comments about inclusionary zoning led most California practitioners to assume that inclusionary ordinances could be considered to be land use ordinances and adopted them as such, most commonly including findings regarding the need for affordable housing in the community (as documented in its housing element) and the strong State interest in affordable housing.N Certainly, the expansive interpretation of local police power and the State's interest in affordable housing appeared to support inclusionary housing as strongly in California as in New Jersey. °1 id. at 286-97. 'L /d. at 288. 12 I O8 Cal. Rptr. 2d 60(2001). Sre Brief of Amiens Curiae in Support of Respondent City of Napa at 9, City cJ.Newt, IC al. Ct. App. I" Dist.) (No. A090437): memorandum of Points & Authorities in Support of Defendant City of Napa's Demurrer at 17, I lome Builders Ass'n v.City of Napa(Napa County Super. Cr) (No. 26-07228). See, c.c.. (iovenvnent Code Sections 65580, 65581.and 65582.1. 4 9900$1 -]n:72.� a 7 21019