Laserfiche WebLink
• Nexus studies are expensive. <br /> Nonetheless, the relative simplicity of the exactions approach (see discussion below) and <br /> its ability to resolve both Patterson (by showing that the fee is related to the deleterious impact <br /> of the project) and Palmer (by replacing a requirement for on-site units with an impact fee) may <br /> make this the majority approach. <br /> C. Inclusionary Ordinances as Rent or Price Control <br /> A potential conflict between inclusionary zoning and rent control statutes -- in particular, <br /> the Costa-Hawkins Act27 — has been recognized for some time." As early as 1998. a lawsuit <br /> claiming a conflict between inclusionary requirements and the State Costa-I lawkins Act was <br /> tiled against the City of Santa Monica and settled by the City.29 Nonetheless, based on the court <br /> decisions in New Jersey and the legislative history of the Costa-Hawkins Act, there was some <br /> hope that the California courts would agree that inclusionary controls on rents did not constitute <br /> rent control. <br /> Conflicts with State Statutes Regulating Rent Control. Rationales presented for <br /> distinguishing inclusionary ordinances from rent control statutes include inclusionary zoning's <br /> remedial character as a response to exclusionary zoning; its application to a small portion of new <br /> development nnly rather than to existing apartments; its inclusion of both rental and ownership <br /> serving activities such as supermarkets. An alternative nexus theory, more difficult to quantify. is that market-rate <br /> projects use up land that would otherwise be available for affordable housing. In a case involving commercial <br /> linkage fees, the Ninth Circuit discussed the "indirectness of the connection between the crea.ion of new jobs and <br /> the need for low-income housing," but ultimately concluded that the fees bore a "rational rel-nionship to a public <br /> cost closely associated with" new development. Commercial Builders of Northern California r City of Sacramento. <br /> 941 F.2d 872, 874-76 (9"' Cir. 1991). <br /> Civil Code Sections 1954.51 — 1954.535. <br /> '"See California Affordable I lousing Law Project& Western Center on Law& Poverty,Inclus,onan-Zoning: legal <br /> Issues at 24-29 (December 2002) (hereinafter "Legal Issues"); Kautz, supra note 4. at 1015-17; Nadia El Mallakh, <br /> Does the Costal lawkins Act Prohibit Local Inc/usinnarr Zoning Programs/89 Cal. L.Rev. 1847 (2001). <br /> '°See Mallakh, h/, at 1851. <br /> 10 <br /> 990u5I•r720377.3 <br /> 7 71109 <br />