Correspondence - Item 20 (3) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Jennifer L. Hall June 17, 2025 Page 5 project, program, or plan described in the program EIR." (Sierra Club, supra, 6 Cal.AppAth at 1321; Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island v. City and County of San Francisco (2014) 227 Ca1.App.4th 1036, 1050, fn. 6 ["when an agency attempts to tier its environmental review for a materially different project onto a prior program EIR, then the fair argument test is required . . In such as case, the activity is treated as a project that has not previously been reviewed under CEQA, and the agency's determination that an EIR is not required is reviewed under the "fair argument" standard. Under that standard, a reviewing court will reject the agency's decision that an EIR is not required if it finds substantial evidence in the agency's record sufficient to support a fair argument the project may result in significant environmental impacts. (Public Resource Code § 21151; No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75; Friends of "B"Street v. City of Hayward(1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988, 1002.) Here,the issues set forth above demonstrate that there is a fair argument that the Proposed Ordinance may result in significant impacts to multiple environmental resources. Even if the Addendum could somehow be viewed as within the scope of the 2010 EIR, a new EIR is still needed because the Proposed Ordinance will result in new or substantially more severe impacts due to substantial changes in what was contemplated under the 2010 EIR, substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Proposed Ordinance will be undertaken, and new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence. (CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a).) Therefore, an EIR must be prepared before the City can legally consider and act on the Proposed Ordinance. 2. As Drafted, the Ordinance Would Run Afoul of Ware's and other Industrial Owners' Vested Rights to Continue to O Aerate Ware and many other industrial property owners throughout the TZC Zone have secured vested rights to continue to use their properties in accordance with the rights that were granted onto them when they were originally constructed and/or improved upon. The fact that the Proposed Ordinance purports to unilaterally rescind those rights based on the City's determination that it no longer wishes to support those uses does not give the City the right to do so. In California, "if a property owner has performed substantial work and incurred substantial liabilities in good faith reliance upon a permit issued by the government, he acquires a vested right." (Avco Community Developers, Inc. v. South Coast Regional Com.,17 Cal. 3d 785 (1976).) Furthermore, once a landowner has secured a vested right the government may not, by virtue of a change in zoning laws or land use designation, prohibit the use by which the permit relied on. (Id.; see also City of West Hollywood v. Beverly Towers, Inc., 52 Cal.3d 1184, 1192 (1991) [subsequently enacted ordinance imposing new conditions to condominium conversion could not be enforced against property owners who had already obtained all discretionary permits to convert multi-family housing buildings to condominiums].)