2000 AGN MAY 16 I05 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

SEN' BY: 5- 1- 0 ; 4:32PM ; BEST BEST & HRIEGER-4 9493745154;# 3/ 6 California City:Attorneys Page 2 April 18, 2000. The history of the adoption of the ordinance is notable in reflecting that Napa did not "force" the ordinatce on the development community, but rather created a truly local, Consensus solution unanimously supported by all local stakeholders, including developers and builders. When the fust version of the ordinance was presented to the City Council at a public hearing in early 1999, extensive public comment from the building, development and realtor communities concerning perceived burdens and problems with the draft ordinance's initial requirements prompted the Council to direct staff to undertake additional consensus building, and to ,make substantial revisions to the draft ordinance, in order to address the concerns of, and compromise with, all stakeholders, including the Chamber of Commerce, affordable housing advocates, non- profits, the Napa-Solano Builders Exchange, the Napa Construction Coalition, the Napa Valley Economic Development Corporation, the North Bay Association of Realtors and the Napa Chapter of the Association of Realtors. These revisio subsequently were approved by the City Council, and the! ordinance, which was supported by findings articulating the relationship between the dovelppment of market rate housing and the aggravation of the affordable housing crises, was adopted in July, 1999. Shortly af%r the ordinance became effective, t by the Pacific ]Leg4l Foundation (PLF), filed a lawsuit lawsuit contained six causes of action claiming as fo: on an ordinance -specific study showing a nexus betwe and the need for affordable housing, and thus on its fat scrutiny" analysis°assertedly imposed under the NQW of the California: Supreme Court's Ehrlia decision imposed there; (4) the ordinance violated due pro( between the development of market rate housing and and by denying developers of market rate housing a I development fee Wop#ed in violation of the Mitiga 66000, et seq.; (4) the ordinance imposed a tax in viol, imposed a tax in Violation of Proposition 62; and (6) Proposition 218.: The City demurred, arguing that settled law, prture, or both. The Superior Court sustained its the City's demurrer as to all causes of a� Builders then appgaled the case to the First District Col This case ,obviously involves several issues First, although there are published decisions validati development, this; is the first challenge of which Nab ordinance requiring developers of residential, market or in -lieu payments. Insofar as some 75 cities and cc requirements, the outcome of this case will directly irr 1e Associated Home Builders, represented challenging the ordinance on its face. The lows: (1) the ordinance was not premised m the development of market rate housing e constituted a taking under a "heightened n/DRIan line of cases, and under that part concerning the ad ho recreational fee ess by lacking any demonstrated nexus the creation of affordable housing needs, air return"; (3) the ordinance constituted a ion Fee Act, Government Code Section ation of Proposition 13; (5) the ordinance ►e ordinance imposed a tax in violation of lege arguments were either at odds with ped with the City's arguments, and thus tion without leave to amend. The Home art of Appeal. critical importance to cities statewide. affordable housing fees on commercial is aware to any residential inclusionary to housing to provide inclusionary units ►ties statewide have similar inclusionary ct the validity of such ordinances.