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
A local government which adopts a requirement in its housing element that a housing <br /> development contain a fixed percentage of affordable housing units, shall permit a <br /> developer to satisfy all or a portion of that requirement by constructing rental housing at <br /> cy(lbtzlable monthly rents, as determined by the local government. <br /> Nothing in this section shall be construed to expand or contract the authority of a local <br /> government to adopt an ordinance, charter amendment, or policy requiring that any <br /> housing development contain a fixed percentage of affordable housing units. (emphasis <br /> added) <br /> This statute was not cited in either the City's or the amicus brief, but would appear to <br /> have no meaning at all if— as concluded in Palmer— rent control is only permitted pursuant to a <br /> agreement in exchange for money or incentives.'" Perhaps one way to reconcile the two statutes <br /> and the Court's holding is to classify the developer's ability to substitute rental units for <br /> ownership units as an incentive provided pursuant to density bonus law (see discussion below). <br /> Ill. Options for a Defensible Inclusionary Ordinance <br /> This section describes some initial ideas for creating a defensible inclusionary ordinance <br /> in the wake of Palmer and Patterson and discusses various associated issues. The discussion <br /> should be considered preliminary and subject to change. <br /> A. Don'ts. <br /> In light of Palrner and Patterson, some past inclusionary practices are no longer <br /> permitted: <br /> This provision would also appear to provide ammunition to the argument that Costa I lawkins was never intended <br /> to apply to inclusionary ordinances, since the wording of this provision does not contain any a.knowiedgentent that <br /> rent control provisions might apply to inclusionary ordinances. <br /> 15 <br /> 990051 I 7201-' 1 <br /> s 7 2nnw <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.