My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
ATTACHMENTS
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2013
>
050113 WORKSHOP
>
ATTACHMENTS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/8/2015 12:43:10 PM
Creation date
4/25/2013 11:19:45 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
5/1/2013
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
ATTACHMENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
79
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, Building Industry Assn <br /> of Cent. California v. City of Patterson ("Patterson")I and Palmer/Sixth Street Properties L.P. <br /> v. City of Los Angeles ("Palmer.)2 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 2007,3 complying with Patterson and Palmer while still producing 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 holdings 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.4th 886(2009). <br /> '2009 Cal.App. LEX1S 1186(B206102, Second Appellate District, Div. 4, filed July 22,2009) <br /> Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California, Affordable by Choice: Trends in California inclusionary <br /> Housing Programs at 5 (2007)(hereinafter"NPH 2007"). <br /> 990051A1 A720372.3 <br /> 8/7/2009 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.