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

court observed that, "local governments may not choose a means of achieving that goal that is prohibited" The Court of Appeal's decision in Palmer uses language very similar to that in the Colorado and Wisconsin cases. The state Costa-Hawkins Act provides that, brining an exception, for any building completed after February I, 1995, "an owner of residential real property may establish the initial and all subsequent rental rates for a dwelling or unit."" The Palmer court held that the language of the statute was "clear and unambiguous" and that forcing Palmer to provide affordable housing at regulated rents was "clearly hostile" to his right under Costa- Hawkins to establish the initial rental rate for the dwelling unit. Further, in an analysis similar to the Colorado court's treatment of Telluride's fee and dedication alternatives, and without any acknowledgement of the contrary language in Napa. the Court found that because the objective of the Specific Plan was to impose affordable housing requirements and the amount of the fee was based on the number of affordable units required, the in-lieu fee option was "inextricably intertwined" with the preempted rent control option and similarly preempted. The Court went even further and stated in a footnote that if the base requirement had been a f2c, with voluntary provision of rental affordable units as an alternative, both the fee and the rohmtary provision of units would be part of"an overall plan that is preempted by [Costa Hawkins]" and illegal. 32 See Apt .isc'n of£Cent. Wis.. Inc. v City al Madison, 722 N.W.2d 614(Wi. Ct. App. 2006). '' Cal. Civ. Code Section 1954.52(a)(1). There is a fair amount of evidence that Costa-I lawkins was never intended to apply to inclusionary ordinances. Mike Rawson of the California Affordable Housing Lax Project stated in an interview that Costa-I Iawkins proponents specifically asserted that the bill would not corer inclusionary units. f lowever, he acknowledges that no such agreement is reflected in the legislative history. (Telephone Interview with Michael Rawson, Nov. 12, 2001.) See also Mallakh, supra note 28, at 1870-72. Mallakh also discusses the numerous statements of the bill's authors that Costa-Hawkins would affect only the five California cities that did not permit vacancy decontrol (Berkeley, Santa Monica, West Hollywood, Cotati, and East Palo Alto), see id. at 1870 n.149,although 64 cities at the time had inclusionary programs, and notes that nowhere in the legislative history was the act described as having a "prohibitive effect" on inclusionary programs. See id. at 1871 n.154. 12 900051 1 720372$ s 7 200