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 Pennell V. Cie ' Of Sun Jose,° the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed a constitutional <br /> challenge to a San Jose rent control ordinance based on a provision that permitted the City to <br /> consider "hardship to a tenant" when setting rents but did not require a reduction. The Court held <br /> that the provision was not unconstitutional absent any evidence of its actual impact. <br /> Pennell appears to stand for the proposition that price controls cannot be challenged on <br /> their face unless they actually deny an owner a fair return. However, inclusionary provisions <br /> could he subject to rate of return analysis if viewed as price controls. Whether a court would <br /> review the rate of return fbr only the inclusionary units (likely negative) or for the entire project <br /> (likely positive) is unknown, since no court in California has applied such an analysis to a <br /> development project. <br /> Conflicts with Other Statutes. 'Mc Painter decision potentially conflicts with the Mello <br /> Act,`" which requires that every new housing development in the coastal zone, "where feasible." <br /> provide housing affordable to low and moderate income households and alsc requires that all <br /> housing demolished in the coastal zone and formerly occupied by low and moderate income <br /> households be replaced within three years (subject to certain exceptions) or twat the developer <br /> pay an in-lieu fee. Developers of new rental housing in the coastal zone will certainly argue that, <br /> given Pu/pier, it is no longer "feasible" for them to be required to provide affordable housing, <br /> and those who need to pay an in-lieu fee may argue that it is tainted by an on-site rent-controlled <br /> alternative. Although the issue was raised in the briefs, the Palmer court ignored it. <br /> In addition, Government Code Section 65589.8 specifically allows developers who are <br /> required to provide inclusionary units to use rentals to provide all or some of the units: <br /> 485 U.S. 1 (1988). <br /> 's Government Code Section 65590-65590.1. <br /> 14 <br /> 990o31 I.T_03" 3 <br /> s ^o■e <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.