Which of the following are likely to be upheld legally as the public rationale for...

Office-housing linkage programs require developers to provide or fund affordable housing as a condition of office development, aiming to balance jobs and housing. To be legally upheld, the rationale must demonstrate a legitimate public purpose and a nexus between the program and the stated goals, as established in cases likeNollan v. California Coastal Commission(1987) andDolan v. City of Tigard(1994). Option I (counteracting market forces for affordable housing) and option IV (balancing jobs and housing while easing traffic) directly address public welfare by linking office development to housing needs and reducing commute-related congestion, which courts have upheld as valid public purposes. Option II (controlling random office growth) is less directly tied to housing and may not justify the linkage requirement. Option III (new revenue source) is not a sufficient public purpose for imposing exactions, as it lacks a direct nexus to the housing issue. The APA’sAICP Certification Exam Content Outline(2022), under “Plan and Policy Development,” notes that linkage programs must “demonstrate a public purpose, such as addressing housing shortages for workers and reducing traffic impacts,” supporting options I and IV. TheCPC Study Manual(2024) confirms that “linkage programs are upheld when they address housing-jobs imbalances and related issues like traffic,” aligning with option A.