75E - PH 2525 MAIN ST - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

November 26, 2018 Comment on Environmental Impact Report, 2525 N. Main Street Multi -Family Residential Project (aka Magnolia at the Park) SCH 2018021031, DP No. 2017-34 page 9 The General Plan Housing Element Policy 2.3 requires housing for all income levels. Yet, the Project includes only market -rate housing, with not a single unit set aside for low or moderate income residents. This is unacceptable given the area's 13 extreme shortage of affordable housing. Furthermore, the EIR does not analyze whether it is feasible to include income -restricted housing, as has been done throughout the State. The Final EIR rejects comments made concerning affordable housing, arguing that the issue is socio-economic and not environmental, and therefore not within the scope of CEQA. This is mistaken. It is well-established that urban decay is a CEQA issue. The lack of affordable housing has led to an increase in homelessness, which is a prime contributor to urban decay. In Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) (124 Cal.AppAth 1184) (Bakersfield Citizens), the court expressly held that an EIR must analyze a project's potential to cause urban decay if there is substantial evidence showing that the project may lead to such impacts. The court pointed out that CEQA requires the project proponent to discuss the project's economic and social impacts where "[a]n EIR may trace a chain of cause and effect from a proposed decision on a project through anticipated economic or social changes resulting from the project to physical changes caused in turn by the economic and social changes." (CEQA Guidelines §§ 15131(a) and 15064(f).) Where a local or regional policy of general applicability, such as an ordinance, is adopted in order to avoid or mitigate environmental effects, a conflict with that policy in itself indicates a potentially significant impact on the environment. (Pocket Protectors v. Sacramento (2005) 124 Cal.AppAth 903.) Indeed, any inconsistencies between a proposed project and applicable plans must be discussed in an EIR. (14 CCR § 15125(d); City of Long Beach v. Los Angeles Unif. School Dist. (2009) 176 Cal. App. 4th 889, 918; Friends of the Eel River v. Sonoma County Water Agency (2003) 108 Cal. App. 4th 859, 874 (EIR inadequate when Lead Agency failed to identify relationship of project to relevant local plans).) A Project's inconsistencies with local plans and policies constitute significant impacts under CEQA. (Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal.AppAth 777, 783-4, 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 177; see also, County of EI Dorado v. Dept. of Transp. (2005) 133 Cal.AppAth 1376 (fact that a project may be consistent with a plan, such as an air plan, does not necessarily mean that it does not have significant impacts).) 75E-253 14 15