COM 0200.051 2006-2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

• Home Builders Assn of Northern California v. City of Napa, 108 Cal. Rptr. 2d 60 (Ct. App. 2001). The city's 10% affordable housing requirement was upheld as constitutional, based on the following: o Detailed studies. ¦ Over 700 pages of documentation; ¦ A detailed study of various affordable housing solutions, much like the City of Sacramento; and ¦ Significant findings based on the studies; o Significant incentives and benefits for developers and land owners. Developers and land owners were provided significant benefits, including expedited processing, fee deferrals, loans or grants and density bonuses; and o Reasonable and proportionate requirements. The final required affordable housing set-aside was limited to 10% of all newly constructed units. The above summaries are based on our review of the pertinent case law; however, we respectfully recommend that the Council should seek a legal opinion from the Corporation Counsel regarding the above-summarized case law and the legality of imposing affordable housing requirements. C. Based on legal advice from Hawaii County Corporation Counsel, Mayor Kim vetoed Bill 156, which would have imposed affordable housing requirements on industrial park developments. LURF submitted prior testimony in opposition to Bill 156 and a legal memorandum prepared by Professor David Callies, which warned that Bill 156 was unconstitutional, and suggested alternatives to incentivize more affordable housing. Notwithstanding LURF's efforts, the Council approved Bill 156. However, after consultation with Corporation Counsel, Mayor Kim vetoed Bill 156 based on legal grounds raised in LURF's testimony and Professor Callies' memo. In his attached veto message, Mayor Kim provided the following reason for his veto: "It has been pointed out to me by the Office of the Corporation Counsel that a bill seeking to impose affordable housing requirements on non-residential development should have as its justification an unbiased study that demonstrates and quantifies the relationship or connection between non-residential development and the demand for affordable housing. Such a study has no been done, which makes the requirements of this bill of questionable merit and propriety. For this reason, Bill 156 Draft 6 has been vetoed." D. Bill 156 is counterintuitive to the development of affordable housing. Hawaii's history has generally shown that that overly aggressive affordable housing requirements result in (1) the costs of such affordable housing requirements being passed on to residents as increased prices of market homes; and (2) many times such aggressive requirements result in landowners and