My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
18 ATTACHMENT 1-4; 6-9
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2013
>
041613
>
18 ATTACHMENT 1-4; 6-9
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/28/2015 3:03:53 PM
Creation date
4/10/2013 3:42:07 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
4/16/2013
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
18 ATTACHMENT 1,4,6,9
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
206
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
I. Introduction <br /> Two published Court of Appeal decisions in the past six months, Badding lnc/nshr Assn <br /> of Cent. California rv. City of Patterson (-Patterson-1i and Palmer/Sixth Sheer Properties L.P. <br /> . <br /> City of Los Angeles ("Palmer")' have together upended previous understandings about the <br /> validity of, and appropriate analysis applied to, inclusionary housing ordinances. For the 170 <br /> communities in the State (nearly one-third of all cities) that had adopted inclusionary ordinances <br /> of some type by 2007: complying with Patterson and Palmer while still procucing affordable <br /> housing has become more difficult. <br /> As a means to understand the issues raised in Patterson and Palmer and to develop a <br /> coherent response, this paper initially discusses the various characterizations of inclusionary <br /> ordinances as either exactions, rent and price controls, or police power land use ordinances. <br /> While most communities in the state have adopted inclusionary ordinances as land use controls, <br /> Patterson found an inclusionary in-lieu fee to be a type of impact fee, and Palmer found that <br /> restricting rents in new developments violates State rent control laws, even though the Los <br /> Angeles plan at issue was adopted as a land use control. (Both cases are discussed in detail in the <br /> companion paper presented by Alan Seltzer, and so not all of the facts and holc.ings are repeated <br /> here.) This paper finally discusses alternative strategies for modifying inclusionary ordinances to <br /> meet the current legal landscape and the numerous associated issues raised by the cases. <br /> Palmer was decided less than a week before this paper was drafted, and the conclusions <br /> reached here should be considered preliminary. In particular, it is to be hoped that the California <br /> 171 Cal. App. 4'h 886(2009). <br /> 2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 1186(B206102, Second Appellate District, Div_4, tiled July 22 2009: <br /> Non-Profit I lousing Association of Northern California, .-1,/Jbrduh/e /iv Choice: Trendy in C.///urnia Inclusiunarr <br /> Housing Programs at 5 (2007)(hereinafter"NMI 2007"). <br /> wino i 72ot-2y <br /> �- 7onv <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.