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

Based on our review to date of Pa/ner'c implications, here are additional thoughts on issues raised by the case. Because of the many issues, the discussion in most instances is cursory and intended primarily to alert practitioners to the issue. Projects with Condominium Maps that Are Initially Rented. Developers of rental housing often record a condominium map at the time of construction so that they may be able to avoid the terms of a condominium conversion ordinance when and if they decide to sell the units. Even if the developer at the time of approval intended to sell the units, market conditions may require developers to rent for a time. The issue is whether these units could be subject to a local inclusionary ordinance. There does not seem to he an obstacle to requiring as a condition of map approval that the developer provide a proportion of the units as ownership affordable units (assuming that this requirement is contained in the General Plan, zoning ordinance, or other generally applicable ordinance). As an option, the developer could he permitted to provide the units as rentals by entering into an agreement that meets the requirement of the Costa Hawkins exception (including City provision of a financial or regulatory incentive). This requirement withstood a challenge in the Action Apartment Assoc. v. CYtr of Santa Monica case discussed in Alan Seltzer's accompanying paper.' Santa Monica automatically waives two taxes for required affordable housing units so that each project receives an incentive and also allows affordable units to receive density bonuses and incentives pursuant to State density bonus law (Section 65915). The rental option itself could also be defined as an incentive in an effort to reconcile Costa-Hawkins (which does not allow rent control unless the developer has received an incentive) and " See Santa Monica Municipal Code Sections 9.56.050(a)and(b)and 9.56.090(fee waivers). 19 wort' r720372.3