Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/03/2013

Home

Zoning Bulletin September 10, 2013 1 Volume 7 1 Issue 17 conflicts with state law and is void Citation: Latinos Unidos Del Valle De Napa y Solano v. County of Napa, 217 Cal. App. 4th 1160, 159 Cal. Rptr. 3d 284 (1st Dist. 2013) CALIFORNIA (07/11/13) —This case addressed the issue of whether a county's density bonus ordinance —which required developers to include a higher percentage of affordable housing units than required by the state's Density Bonus Law in order to obtain a density bonus — impermissibly conflicted with the state's Density Bonus Law and was thus void. The Background/Facts: In 1979, the California Legislature enacted the Density Bonus Law (Cal. Gov't Code § 65915). The law aims to address the shortage of affordable housing in California. In essence, the law rewards a developer who agrees to build a certain percentage of low- income housing with the opportunity to build more residences than would otherwise be permitted by the applicable local regulations. More specifically, under the Density Bonus Law, when a developer agrees to construct a certain percentage of the units in a housing development for low- or very low- income households, or to construct a senior citizen housing development, the city or county must grant the developer one or more itemized concessions and a "density bonus." The "density bonus" allows the developer to increase the density of the development by a certain percentage above the maximum allowable limit under local zoning law. The Density Bonus Law required local governments to adopt an ordinance establishing procedures for implementing the directives -of the statute. In 2010, Napa County (the "County") amended its ordinance to implement the state Density Bonus Law. Under the county's new density bonus ordinance (the "Ordinance "), the County would provide a developer with density bonuses when the developer "provides target units in addition to" an inclusionary requirement of up to 20% new dwelling units in a residential development project being made avail- able at prices affordable to moderate- income households. Latinos Unidos Del Valle de Napa y Solano and certain individuals (hereinafter, collectively, "Latinos Unidos") brought a legal action against the County. Among other things, Latinos Unidos alleged that the County's Ordinance conflicted with the state Density Bonus Law. They alleged that the Ordinance impermissibly required the developer to include a higher percentage of affordable units than the Density Bonus Law required in order to obtain a density bonus. The trial court disagreed, and issued a decision finding in favor of the County. Latinos Unidos appealed. DECISION: Judgment of superior court reversed in part. © 2013 Thomson Reuters 3