Correspondence - Item 20 (3) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Jennifer L. Hall June 17, 2025 Page 2 1. The Citv's Use of a Conclusory Addendum in this Case is Im kro per Under the California Environmental Quality Act (a) A New EIR Is Required Before the City Can Approve the Ordinance It is well settled that if a proposed project is outside the scope of a program EIR,the agency cannot rely on the EIR to provide an analysis of the project's environmental impacts and must treat the activity as an independent project that has not been reviewed under CEQA. (Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.AppAth 1307, 1320-1321 [First Appellate District rejects claim that modification to a plan was within the scope of a previously-prepared program EIR for the plan];IBC Business Owners for Sensible Development v. City of Irvine(2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 100 [court rejects reliance on addendum to program EIR for plan change given insufficient evidence showing project's greenhouse gas emissions were within the scope of the program EIR];Save Our Access v. City of San Diego (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 819, 858 [rejecting reliance on program EIR for code amendments when there was no evidence the EIR considered the impacts of those changes.].) Similarly, an EIR can only be used in a subsequent review context if the agency determines it is relevant and retains information value. (Friends of the College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo Community College Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937,952.) And an addendum is appropriate only for minor technical changes or additions to a project that"do not raise important new issues about the significant effects on the environment." (Ventura Foothill Neighbors v. County of Ventura (2014) 232 Cal.AppAth 429, 435; see also CEQA Guidelines § 15164.) Anything more than minor technical changes requires a subsequent or supplemental EIR. (Public Resources Code § 21166; CEQA Guidelines § 15162.) Here, the City seeks to rely on a 15-year old environmental document that was based on fundamentally different assumptions to largely avoid meaningful environmental review in this instance. The proposed changes reflected in the Addendum represent a fundamental alteration of the underlying assumptions of the original EIR,particularly with respect to land use, operational characteristics, and environmental impacts. These are not minor technical updates but material changes that warrant the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR pursuant to CEQA. Notably, the 2010 EIR specifically contemplated the continuation of industrial uses in the TZC in the M-1 and M-2 Zones. (DEIR, pp. 1-7, 4.7-15.) Now this City seeks to eliminate the M-1 and M-2 Zones entirely, rendering all industrials uses nonconforming. Additionally, certain uses the City deems to be "noxious"will have to be discontinued entirely. This is a far cry from the 2010 EIR's analysis that assumed these industrial uses would remain in the TZC. The Addendum's environmental analysis—particularly with respect to air quality, traffic, and greenhouse gas emissions—is based on flawed and misleading assumptions. Specifically,the