Laserfiche WebLink
• Don't require affordable rental housing in any newly created units (but see below <br /> regarding impact fees for rental units and requirements when condominium maps <br /> have been recorded). <br /> • Don't include new affordable rental housing in a menu of options to meet <br /> affordable housing requirements (except as described in the next bullet). <br /> Including price-restricted rental housing in the program risks having the entire <br /> inclusionary scheme deemed "an overall program preempted by' Costa Hawkins. <br /> • Don't enter into a voluntary agreement to restrict rents unless the builder receives <br /> either money or an incentive provided in density bonus law, and agrees by <br /> contract to restrict rents. An agreement limiting rents without money or an <br /> incentive as consideration may not be enforceable, since it does not comport with <br /> the precise language of Costa Hawkins. <br /> • Don't calculate inclusionary in-lieu fees by dividing the total cost of subsidizing <br /> the City's entire fair share (RHNA) housing obligation by the number of units <br /> remaining to be built in the City (as was done by the City of Patterson). <br /> B. The Pure Exactions Approach <br /> The option that is conceptually the easiest to understand would treat all inclusionary <br /> requirements as exactions and/or impact fees. This would resolve the issues raised in Patterson <br /> and would convert all requirements for rental housing to an impact fee in response to Palmer. In <br /> this model, communities would: <br /> 16 <br /> 990051A1A720372.3 <br /> 8/7/2009 <br />