My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CORRESPONDENCE - #37
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2021
>
12/07/2021 Regular
>
CORRESPONDENCE - #37
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/8/2021 5:07:58 PM
Creation date
12/6/2021 9:03:55 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Date
12/7/2021
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
99
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
Verily Carvajal <br /> October 6, 2020 <br /> Page 6 <br /> 65300.5 (requiring "internally consistent" General Plan); Sierra Club v. Kern County <br /> Board of Supervisors (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 698, 704. Such revisions could provide that <br /> the HOO continues to apply to projects above the pre-Update density, even if that density <br /> is allowed by right under the Update. Alternatively, the City could increase the <br /> ordinance's inclusionary requirements, so that sufficient affordable housing is built even <br /> if the HOO applies to fewer projects. <br /> The Update's upzoning and its obstruction of the HOO will combine to displace <br /> present community members. Much of the housing development in the upzoned areas is <br /> likely to consist of market-rate housing unaffordable to lower-income residents. This is <br /> likely to increase prices of existing lower-cost housing in the surrounding neighborhoods. <br /> Rising rents and costs of living will displace people, potentially necessitating housing <br /> construction elsewhere. As the DPEIR acknowledges, such construction is potentially a <br /> significant environmental impact under CEQA. DPEIR at 5.13-10; 14 Cal. Code Regs. <br /> Appendix G, § XIV(b). <br /> The DPEIR, however, reasons that the proposed Update "would provide more <br /> housing opportunities than currently exist" and concludes that "implementation of the <br /> [Update] would not displace people and/or housing," leading to "no impact." DPEIR at <br /> 5.13-14 (Impact 5.13-2). This analysis fails to take any account of the mismatch between <br /> the affordability of housing under the Update and the means of the City's present <br /> residents. The DPEIR must reconsider its analysis of these impacts in light of the <br /> Update's failure to provide sufficient affordable housing. <br /> III. The DPEIR does not sufficiently analyze the Update's environmental justice <br /> impacts. <br /> The DPEIR also fails to adequately consider the Update's environmental justice <br /> impacts. S.B. 1000 requires local governments to include an environmental justice <br /> element in their general plan (or integrate environmental justice goals and policies into <br /> other elements). Gov. Code § 65302(h). This discussion must identify "disadvantaged <br /> communities" in the jurisdiction and identify ways to reduce health risks and other <br /> impacts on those communities, as well as improvements and programs that address their <br /> needs.Id. Government Code section 65302(h)(1)(A) requires general plans to "[i]dentify <br /> objectives and policies to reduce the unique or compounded health risks in disadvantaged <br /> communities by means that include, but are not limited to, the reduction of pollution <br /> exposure, including the improvement of air quality, and the promotion of public facilities, <br /> food access, safe and sanitary homes, and physical activity." The Update does not include <br /> a stand-alone environmental justice element, instead asserting that environmental justice <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.