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

exactions. Since the California Supreme Court has limited ,VollowDolun to exactions required on an individualized basis as a condition for development," and the inclusionary requirements being challenged were generally applicable legislative enactments, the Court of Appeal consistently rejected the effort to apply No//cm/Dolan. In Patterson, however, the Court of Appeal instead applied the more deferential "reasonable relationship" test to an inclusionary in-lieu fee, assuming that it was a generally applicable impact fee and without ever considering (at least in the published opinion) whether the underlying requirement was an exaction or a land use requirement. There are many odd facts about Patterson that have led practitioners to believe that it could he distinguished from most inclusionary in-lieu fees in a properly briefed case: the case arose in the context of interpreting a development agreement that required fees to he "reasonably justified;" the fee was calculated based on the cost of subsidizing the City's entire regional housing need, not just the affordable housing that would otherwise have been included in the project; the argument was apparently never made that basic inclusionary requirement was similar to the art in public places requirement reviewed in Ehrlich.23 Nonetheless, the language in Patterson characterizes the in- lieu fee as not substantively different from an affordable housing fee reviewed in San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco ("San Remo")'`a and subject to the requirement that there be a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the "deleterious public impact of the development." The San Remo fee in fact was an impact fee: it was intended to mitigate the impact on the City's affordable housing supply caused by the conversion of residential hotels to tourist hotels. however, because the language in Patterson characterizes an See Sumo ■Ytonico Beach, Lid. r. Superior Court(1999) 19 Cal. 4°'952,966-67. '' I lowever, this author has not reviewed the Puneevnn briers. ,a 27 Ca1.4'"643, 670-71 (2002). R 9,)0051 i 720172 1 7 MIN