Laserfiche WebLink
• Allow rental developments to provide on-site affordable housing only pursuant to <br /> a contract reciting financial or other incentives provided to the development. <br /> • Retain existing on-site inclusionary requirements for ownership units as land use <br /> controls, with any in-lieu fee equal to the cost of providing the units elsewhere <br /> and with language stating clearly that the fee is not an impact fee. However, the <br /> in-lieu fees would remain subject to attack under Patterson and would need to be <br /> differentiated from the affordable housing in-lieu fees analyzed in San Remo. An <br /> option is to simply require that the units be provided on site and not include an in- <br /> lieu fee option. <br /> One advantage of this structure may be that the city can amend only those portions of its <br /> ordinance related to rental housing, saving its existing provisions for ownership housing from a <br /> facial attack.40 In addition, if the courts agree that the on-site requirements are land use controls, <br /> they will be subject only to the highly deferential "rational basis" test. However, as Alan <br /> Seltzer's paper states, once a nexus study is completed, it would be hard to avoid its conclusions <br /> regarding the justification for the fee in-lieu of producing housing on-site. As a final variation, <br /> this result can be avoided by removing rental housing without recorded condominium maps from <br /> all affordable housing requirements and retaining only provisions for ownership housing. <br /> D. Random Considerations <br /> 40See Buena Park Motel Assn. v. City of Buena Park(2003) 109 Cal. App.4th 302,308,holding that plaintiffs were <br /> precluded from challenging portions of a later-adopted ordinance that were "not altered" from an earlier ordinance. <br /> 18 <br /> 990051AIA720372.3 <br /> 8/7/2009 <br />