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
Using the same logic adopted by the New Jersey courts and argued in Napa, in-lieu Ices <br /> have usually been based on the dollar subsidy required to provide the same number of <br /> inclusionary units, at the same income levels, as would otherwise be constructed on the site. (In <br /> practice, most in-lieu fees have been set at a significantly lower amount than is actually needed <br /> to provide the same number of units.1') While this author has long been concened that allowing <br /> an in-lieu fee alternative invites the courts to treat the entire inclusionary program as a <br /> development exaction rather than as a land use control (communities do not collect in-lieu fees <br /> as an alternative to setbacks and height limits), the California Supreme Court's approval of an art <br /> in public places fee provided at least some support for the concept that an in-lizu fee alternative <br /> would not automatically convert a zoning requirement to an exaction. In Elnrlich v. City u/ <br /> Culver Ci(v16 ("Ehrlich"), the Court reviewed a Culver City ordinance that required every <br /> development to include a piece of art equal to I percent of the building valuation or pay an <br /> equivalent fee to the City. The Court held unanimously that the fee was no a development <br /> exaction but rather an "aesthetic condition" akin to traditional land-use regulations such as <br /> setbacks, parking, lighting, and landscaping. While it might be questionable whether the Court <br /> would apply the same analysis to an inclusionary ordinance that restricts prices and rents and has <br /> no aesthetic component, the combination of Napa and the Ehrlich gave practitioners a fair <br /> amount of confidence in the strategy. <br /> The inclusionary requirement and alternative in-lieu fee established in Los Angeles' <br /> Central City West Specific Plan and challenged in Palmer was adopted as a land use control: it <br /> was based on a study showing high rates of poverty, a need for affordable housing in the Specific <br /> " See Non-Prolit I lousing Association of Northern California and California Coalition for Rural I lousing, <br /> inc luionarr/lousing in Caii/ornia: 30 Years nl Innovation at 17— 19 (2003). <br /> 12 Cal. 41'354, 885-86(1996). The case is discussed in depth in Alan Seltzer's paper. <br /> 5 <br /> 210) <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.