Item 23 - Appeal Application Nos. 2020-03 and 2020-04 — Central Pointe Mixed-Use Development

Home Browse Search

Appeal Application Nos. 2020-03 and 2020-04 — Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development January 19, 2021 Page 6 substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete shows that the project will have new or more significant impacts or that the project's significant impacts could be reduced by mitigation measures or alternatives that have not been adopted. As explained by the California Court of Appeal, "Section 21166 comes into play precisely because in-depth review has already occurred, the time for challenging the sufficiency of the original EIR has long since expired and the question is whether circumstances have changed enough to justify repeating a substantial portion of the process." (Citizens Against Airport Pollution v. City of San Jose (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 788, 796.) CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 expressly authorize use of a "program EIR" to evaluate "a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project," and make clear that program EIRs can be used to approve later activities within the scope of the program: If the agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162, no subsequent EIR would be required, the agency can approve the activity as being within the scope of the project covered by the program EIR, and no new environmental document would be required. Whether a later activity is within the scope of a program EIR is a factual question that the lead agency determines based on substantial evidence in the record. Where environmental review has been conducted through a program EIR, CEQA requires further review only in limited circumstances which are specified in Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, Citizens Against Airport Pollution v. City of San Jose (2014) 227 Cal.AppAth 788, 802. Moreover, contrary to SAFER's assertions, "substantial evidence is the proper standard where, an agency determines that a project consistent with a prior program EIR presents no significant, unstudied adverse effect."