Laserfiche WebLink
Appeal Application Nos. 2020-03 and 2020-04 — Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development <br />January 19, 2021 <br />Page 10 <br />f. Further review is required because the Central Pointe Project will have effects not <br />examined in the MEMU EIR. <br />Staff Response — As explained above, where a project is within the scope of a <br />previously certified program EIR, "no new environmental document is required" <br />unless the project will have "new significant environmental effects or a substantial <br />increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects" than were <br />disclosed in the program EIR. CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15168(c)(2). <br />SAFER nonetheless argues that a subsequent EIR must be prepared because the <br />MEMU EIR disclosed certain unavoidable impacts. SAFER is incorrect. <br />As explained by the Court of Appeal: <br />To hold that a project -specific EIR must be prepared for all <br />activities proposed after the certification of the program EIR, <br />even where the subsequent activity is 'within the scope of the <br />project described in the program EIR' ... would be directly <br />contrary to one of the essential purposes of program EIR's, <br />i.e., to streamline environmental review of projects within the <br />scope of a previously completed program EIR. <br />And as also demonstrated in Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish <br />& Wildlife (2015) 234 Cal.AppAth 214, 239 explaining, a case involving a program <br />EIR that disclosed significant and unavoidable impacts, "CEQA does not require <br />the Department to engage in a public process when it determines whether the <br />impacts from a site -specific project were addressed and adequately mitigated in <br />the program EIR. And if the Department finds the impacts were addressed, it need <br />not prepare a new environmental document at all." <br />Since, the Central Pointe Project is within the scope of the MEMU EIR and will not <br />have any new or more severe impacts than those disclosed, the City is not required <br />to prepare a new CEQA document. <br />Appeal No. 2020-04 - Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (SWRCC) <br />The SWRCC appellant is requesting that the City Council overturn the Planning <br />Commission's decision based on (1) failure to address affordable housing, (2) failure to <br />include qualified Santa Ana residents, veterans and graduates or certificate holders of the <br />Santa Ana Unified School District and Rancho Santiago Community College District in the <br />Project's construction workforce, and (3) failure to ensure the maximum amount of viable <br />commercial development square footage is provided. The SWRCC represents 55,000 <br />carpenters in six states and hundreds of Santa Ana residents. <br />a. The SWRCC appellant states that, "the Planning Commission failed to adequately <br />address affordable housing. The City's municipal code requires that the proposed <br />