Laserfiche WebLink
households in the City. Funds can be used to make loans to eligible <br />borrowers to provide affordable housing. Funds are also being used <br />to provide down payment assistance for first time home buyers. <br />The City has used its inclusionary revenues to fund the <br />development of many of its more recent affordable apartment <br />properties. <br />Inclusionary housing requirements cannot be confiscatory or <br />deprive an owner of a fair and reasonable return. California Gov't <br />Code § 65583(a) requires assessments of the potential and actual <br />constraints on the development of housing. Within that context, it is <br />important for affordable housing programs to be set up to balance <br />the interests of property owners and developers against the public <br />benefit created by the production of affordable housing units. As <br />such, the in -lieu fees above are based on an evaluation of the <br />affordable housing requirements that could be supported from an <br />economic perspective. The results of this analysis were translated <br />into order -of -magnitude estimates of the in -lieu fee amounts that <br />could be charged on a financially feasible basis. <br />G. Moreover, on October 3, 2023, the City Council found that the <br />supplemental comment letter dated August 17, 2023, from Mitchell M. <br />Tsai, on behalf of the SWMSRCC, was received outside of the 10-day <br />appeal period, pursuant to Section 41-645(b) of the SAMC. Therefore, the <br />subsequent appeal items do not satisfy the requirements of SAMC Section <br />41-645 and should not be considered. Nonetheless, staff has prepared a <br />comprehensive response below on all appeal items received. <br />I. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Compliance <br />a. The appellant contends that the City's Transportation <br />Mitigation Requirement is infeasible for the Project <br />As previously discussed, the Project would not result in any <br />significant LOS impacts, which is the metric utilized in the <br />Certified EIR. Further, the VMT Screening Memo for the <br />Project CEQA Findings, demonstrates, for informational <br />purposes only (and not as a legal requirement), that the <br />Project would not result in significant VMT impacts. <br />Therefore, no VMT-related mitigation measures are required. <br />b. The appellant contends that the Certified EIR fails to <br />adequately analyze the Project's noise impacts. Specifically, <br />the appellant contends that the Certified EIR fails to identify <br />all nearby sensitive receptors. <br />Resolution No. 2023-xx <br />24 <br />City Council 18 — 333 10/ 0 3 f <br />