Laserfiche WebLink
Court of Appeals so provided, but only after aetailed studies and at a far lower percentage (10%) <br /> of affordable housing set-asides and -more importantly, against the backdrop of a California <br /> statute which, in its recently amended form, requires such bonuses as soon as the affordable <br /> units set-asides reach a threshold of 5%, and escalating sharply in terms of number and kinds of <br /> bonuses as the percentage of affordable housing set-asides increases. <br /> As to housing exactions or set-asides on commercial development, the principle -indeed <br /> virtually only -federal case approving such set-asides did so only after the local government <br /> requiring such set-asides engaged in thorough and detailed studies of the workforce jobs required <br /> and generated by the proposed commercial development, which requirements were then cut in <br /> half -far less than the 40% which the draft County of Kauai Housing Policy Ordinance would <br /> require of such commercial development. <br /> In sum, the proposed ordinance imposes the mandatory housing set-asides at the wrong <br /> stage of the land development process, without nexus or proportionality, all required by the U.S. <br /> Constitution's Fifth Amendment as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court. <br /> III. ANALYSIS <br /> A. The Constitutionality of Mandatory Affordable/Work1'orce Housing (Linkage) <br /> Mandatory affordable housing requirements or linkage fees in lieu of housing raise two <br /> <br /> basic takings issues. The first issue is whether such fees pass scrutiny under the Supreme <br /> 3 <br /> <br />