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
in-lieu tee as an impact tee, any community that wishes to continue to characterize its in-lieu fee <br /> as a land use control akin to the Ehrlich art in public places fee will need to be prepared to <br /> defend their fees against a challenge that their analysis does not comport with the language in <br /> Patterson, nor is it like the impact fee that was reviewed in San Remo. Developers have viewed <br /> Patterson as a significant victory. ("[T]he Patterson decision provides a powe-ful new tool for <br /> developers to use in challenging affordable housing in lieu fees...cities or counties must show <br /> that the fees are reasonably related to impacts being created by the new market rate <br /> development.""). <br /> The effort by the building industry to characterize inclusionary ordinances as exactions <br /> has been known for years, yet few communities have completed nexus studies to support their <br /> inclusionary and in-lieu fee requirements. In retrospect, this seems surprising, since cities are <br /> familiar with the procedural requirements for impact fees and exactions and this may be a "safer" <br /> alternative. There are several explanations: <br /> • Affordable housing advocates have disfavored nexus studies because they open <br /> result in reduced affordable housing requirements, especially in less wealthy <br /> communities. (In general, the wealthier the community, the higher percentage of <br /> affordable housing that can be justified.) <br /> • The methodology for completing these studies is not as developed as that for, say, <br /> traffic impact fees.26 <br /> ,, Cox Castle Nicholson, "Court hoIds that Affordable I lousing In Lieu Fees Must be Reasonably Related to the <br /> 'Deleterious Impact'Caused by New Market Rate Ilousing"(March 3. 20091. <br /> " Nexus studies typically show that the construction of market-rate housing contributes to the need for affordable <br /> housing by increasing household spending in a community and so creating low-wage jobs—the kind of job creation <br /> that redevelopment plans anticipate when they facilitate downtown housing in order to create a market I or local- <br /> 9 <br /> 9ouuSi „n},,,3 <br /> - 7004 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.