Item 27 - Appeal Application Nos. 2020-03 and 2020-04 - Central Pointe Mixed-Use Development

Home Browse Search

jmf 1/05/21 July 1, 2020, Santa Ana, through Resolution No. 2019-049, elected to be governed by this section on the earlier date of June 18, 2019, and by the same resolution, adopted VMT thresholds of significance for transportation impact analysis under CEQA Irrespectively, however, CEQA Guidelines Section 15007 states that "amendments to the guidelines apply prospectively only," and that "if a document meets the content requirements in effect when the document is set out for public review, the document does not need to be revised to conform to any new content requirements in Guideline amendments taking effect before the document is finally approved." Thus, under the plain language of the Guidelines, any EIR that was publicly circulated prior to the City's earlier adoption of VMT analysis in 2019 — like the MEMU EIR -- is not required to include the VMT analysis now mandated by Section 15064.3. Moreover, the this determination is consistent with longstanding case law where the court explained that a responsible agency was not required to prepare a supplemental EIR to comply with a new statute requiring additional traffic analysis, noting "fairness and the need for finality" require that the adequacy of an EIR "be measured against those regulations in effect" when the EIR was presented for public review. Long Beach Savings & Loan Assn v. Long Beach Redevelopment Agency (1986) 188 Cal. App. 3d 249, 261 n.12. As discussed above, the MEMU EIR was not only publicly circulated, but certified long before the VMT requirements took effect. Accordingly, the requirements set forth therein are inapplicable to such EIRs, and any future project within the scope of those EIRs is not required to do a VMT analysis. As explained above, where a project is within the scope of a previously certified program EIR, "no new environmental document is required" unless the project will have "new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects" than were disclosed in the program EIR. CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162, 15168(c)(2). SAFER nonetheless argues that a subsequent EIR must be prepared because the MEMU EIR disclosed certain unavoidable impacts. SAFER is incorrect. As explained by the Court of Appeal: To hold that a project -specific EIR must be prepared for all activities proposed after the certification of the program EIR, even where the subsequent activity is `within the scope of the project described in the Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 7 of 12