Laserfiche WebLink
jmf 1/05/21 <br />environmental effects or a substantial increase in the <br />severity of previously identified significant effects; or <br />(3) New information of substantial importance, which was <br />not known and could not have been known with the <br />exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the <br />previous EIR was certified as complete, shows that the <br />project will have new or more significant impacts or that <br />the project's significant impacts could be reduced by <br />mitigation measures or alternatives that have not been <br />adopted. <br />As explained by the California Court of Appeal, "Section 21166 <br />comes into play precisely because in-depth review has already <br />occurred, the time for challenging the sufficiency of the original EIR <br />has long since expired and the question is whether circumstances <br />have changed enough to justify repeating a substantial portion of the <br />process." (Citizens Against Airport Pollution v. City of San Jose <br />(2014) 227 Cal. App. 4th 788, 796.) <br />CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 expressly authorizes use of a <br />"program EIR" to evaluate "a series of actions that can be <br />characterized as one large project," and makes clear that program <br />EIRs can be used to approve later activities within the scope of the <br />program: <br />If the agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162, no <br />subsequent EIR would be required, the agency can <br />approve the activity as being within the scope of the <br />project covered by the program EIR, and no new <br />environmental document would be required. Whether <br />a later activity is within the scope of a program EIR is a <br />factual question that the lead agency determines <br />based on substantial evidence in the record. <br />Where environmental review has been conducted through a program <br />EIR, CEQA requires further review only in limited circumstances <br />which are specified in Public Resources Code Section 21166 and <br />CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. Citizens Against Airport Pollution <br />v. City of San Jose (2014) 227 Cal. App. 4th 788, 802. Moreover, <br />contrary to SAFER's assertions, "substantial evidence is the proper <br />standard where ... an agency determines that a project consistent <br />with a prior program EIR presents no significant, unstudied adverse <br />effect." Mission Bay Alliance v. Office of Community Investment & <br />Infrastructure (2016) 6 Cal. App. 5th 160, 174; see also Citizens for <br />Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of San <br />Diego Redevelopment Agency (2005) 134 Cal. App. 4th 598, 611 <br />Resolution No. 2021-XXX <br />Page 3 of 12 <br />