Laserfiche WebLink
<br />August 25, 2009 I Volume 3\ No. 16 <br /> <br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />to. a portion of the residential units within the [P]roject and [did] not (. '..,.\. <br />control the rents for the entire [P]roject." )' <br />The court also rejected the city's argument that S H.C's in lieu fee pro- <br />vision did not conflict with the Act, which did not mention impact fees. <br />The court found "the in lieu fee provision [did] not eliminate the conflict <br />between the Costa-Hawkins Act and [S l1.C]'s affordable housing re- <br />quirements." Although the fee option provided an alternative' to S l1.C's <br />affordable housing requirements, "because the fee amount [wa]s based <br />solely on the number of affordable housing units that a developer must <br />provide under the Plan, the Plan's affordable housip.g requirements and <br />the in lieu of fee option [we]re inextricably intertwined." Accordingly, <br />S l1.C's in lieu of fee provision was also preempted by the Act. . <br />Furthermore, the court found that the fact that Palmer could avoid <br />S l1.C's requirements by limiting the number of residential units per lot <br />did not eliminate the conflict that existed betweenS l1.C and the Act. <br /> <br />See also: Bullard v. San Francisco R~stdential Rent Stabilization Bd., 106 <br />Cal.AppAih 488,130 CalRptr.2d 819 (2003). <br /> <br />See also: Apartment Ass'n of Los .Angeles County, Inc. v. City of Los An- <br />geles, 136 Cal. App. 4th 119, 38 Cal. Rptr. 3d 575 (2d bist. 2006). <br /> <br />Case Note: The court acknowledged that the Costa-Hawkins Act <br />would not have applied if Palmer had agreed with the city to build <br />affordable housing "in consideration for a direct financial contribu- <br />tion or any other forms of assistance specified [under state law]." <br />Here, however,. there was' no such agreement. Palmer had refused to <br />build affordable housing units under any circumstances. <br /> <br />Telecommunications-City denies <br />telecommunications provider's application for <br />special. use permit <br /> <br />Provider alleges deIiial violates federal Telecommunications Act <br /> <br />Citation: T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. City of Anacortes, 2009 WL 2138980 <br />(9th Cir. 2009) <br />The 9th U.S. Circuit has jurisdiction over Alaska, Arizona, California, <br />.'Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. <br /> <br />WASHINGTON (07/20/09)-T-Mobile USA, Inc. offers digital wireless <br />voice, messaging and data services. It provides its services through a cellular <br />radio telephone network comprised of thousands of cell antenna sites. <br /> <br />8 <br /> <br />@ 2009 Thomson Reuters <br /> <br />54' <br /> <br />() <br /> <br />,(-~) <br /> <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />I <br />J <br />I <br />I <br />II <br />