Laserfiche WebLink
and will therefore affect "the nature and extent of the uses of land and of buildings. . . i 10 <br /> Further, the court held that inclusionary in-lieu fees are not exactions similar to impact fees, <br /> because the affordable housing requirements are not based on the impact of a project, but rather <br /> on the "the relationship that . . . development has on both the need for lower-income residential <br /> development and on the opportunity and capacity of municipalities to meet that need . . ."n <br /> No court in California has resolved the issue or definitely characterized inclusionary <br /> ordinances as a land use control. In Home Builders Ass'n v. City of Napa 12 ("Napa'), the first <br /> published California case regarding inclusionary zoning, the City of Napa argued that its <br /> inclusionary ordinance was a land use ordinance that merely regulated the use of a small part of a <br /> development, and that inclusionary in-lieu fees were not impact fees because the underlying <br /> inclusionary requirement was not a monetary exaction, but rather a land use control, and fees <br /> were paid only at the election of the developer.13 The Court of Appeals did not reach this issue. <br /> Nonetheless, the Napa court's generally favorable comments about inclusionary zoning <br /> led most California practitioners to assume that inclusionary ordinances could be considered to <br /> be land use ordinances and adopted them as such, most commonly including findings regarding <br /> the need for affordable housing in the community (as documented in its housing element) and the <br /> strong State interest in affordable housing.14 Certainly, the expansive interpretation of local <br /> police power and the State's interest in affordable housing appeared to support inclusionary <br /> housing as strongly in California as in New Jersey. <br /> °Id. at 286-97. <br /> " Id. at 288. <br /> I2 108 Cal. Rptr. 2d 60(2001). <br /> ' See Brief of Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondent City of Napa at 9, City of Napa (Cal. Ct. App. 1 s' Dist.) <br /> (No. A090437); memorandum of Points & Authorities in Support of Defendant City of Napa's Demurrer at 17, <br /> Home Builders Ass'n v. City of Napa(Napa County Super.Ct.)(No. 26-07228). <br /> '"See, e.g., Government Code Sections 65580,65581,and 65582.1. <br /> 4 <br /> 990051 720372.3 <br /> 8/7/2009 <br />