5A Public Hearings 2021 0706 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

May 19, 2021 Page 14 5005-004acp printed on recycled paper so long as it does not result in impairing the obligations of a contract or interfere with vested rights existing prior to the enactment of the law.”62 In this case, the Project is not grandfathered out of compliance with the Zoning Code’s Inclusionary Housing requirements, and the Project does not fall under any of the exceptions. The Project’s failure to comply with Inclusionary Housing requirements is therefore a violation of the Zoning Code which the City must enforce. Following the filing of this Appeal, the Project’s permits will not receive final approval unless or until they are approved by the City Council. There are therefore no vested rights related to the Project which would be impaired by retroactive application of the City’s Inclusionary Housing requirements in response to this Appeal. If the City Council were to approve the Project without requiring the full number of inclusionary housing units set forth in the Zoning Code, it would increase the deficit of affordable housing in the City, to the detriment of the City and the welfare of its residents. It could also cause the City to fall farther behind in meeting State RHNA requirements related to affordable housing. The City Council should retroactively apply these requirements to the Project to require the full number of inclusionary housing. The Board of Zoning Adjustments voted to increase the number of inclusionary housing units at the May 6, 2021 hearing from five to ten.63 If the Board of Zoning Adjustments felt it appropriate to change the number of inclusionary units from five to ten, in the best interest of the people of San Leandro, then the City Council should act in line with the Board, and in compliance with the Zoning Code, and require an additional 19 inclusionary units be added to the Project. The San Leandro City Council should not approve the Project without bringing the Project up to modern day standards for inclusionary housing. The Project should, therefore, add an additional 19 inclusionary units to provide the required 29 units of inclusionary housing under the Zoning Code. B. The Project Will Cause New Significant and Unmitigated Air Quality Impacts The decision by the Board of Zoning Adjustments to approve the Project violated CEQA and San Leandro Zoning Code Section because the Checklist failed to accurately analyze the Project’s construction and operational air quality 62 Roth Drug, Inc., v. Johnson (1936) 13 Cal.App.2d 720; City of Los Angeles v. Oliver, 102 Cal.App. 299, 309; McCann v. Jordan, (1933) 218 Cal. 577. 63 73