My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 27 - Appeal Application Nos. 2020-03 and 2020-04 - Central Pointe Mixed-Use Development
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2021
>
01/19/2021 Regular
>
Item 27 - Appeal Application Nos. 2020-03 and 2020-04 - Central Pointe Mixed-Use Development
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/10/2024 2:34:56 PM
Creation date
8/22/2023 9:23:52 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Doc Type
Agenda Packet
Agency
Clerk of the Council
Item #
27
Date
1/19/2021
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
694
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Appeal Application Nos. 2020-03 and 2020-04 — Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development <br />January 19, 2021 <br />Page 6 <br />substantial increase in the severity of previously identified <br />significant effects; <br />(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances <br />under which the project is undertaken which will require major <br />revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new <br />significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in <br />the severity of previously identified significant effects; or <br />(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not <br />known and could not have been known with the exercise of <br />reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified <br />as complete shows that the project will have new or more <br />significant impacts or that the project's significant impacts <br />could be reduced by mitigation measures or alternatives that <br />have not been adopted. <br />As explained by the California Court of Appeal, "Section 21166 comes into play <br />precisely because in-depth review has already occurred, the time for challenging <br />the sufficiency of the original EIR has long since expired and the question is <br />whether circumstances have changed enough to justify repeating a substantial <br />portion of the process." (Citizens Against Airport Pollution v. City of San Jose <br />(2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 788, 796.) <br />CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 expressly authorize use of a "program EIR" to <br />evaluate "a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project," and <br />make clear that program EIRs can be used to approve later activities within the <br />scope of the program: <br />If the agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162, no <br />subsequent EIR would be required, the agency can approve <br />the activity as being within the scope of the project covered by <br />the program EIR, and no new environmental document would <br />be required. Whether a later activity is within the scope of a <br />program EIR is a factual question that the lead agency <br />determines based on substantial evidence in the record. <br />Where environmental review has been conducted through a program EIR, CEQA <br />requires further review only in limited circumstances which are specified in Public <br />Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, Citizens <br />Against Airport Pollution v. City of San Jose (2014) 227 Cal.AppAth 788, 802. <br />Moreover, contrary to SAFER's assertions, "substantial evidence is the proper <br />standard where, an agency determines that a project consistent with a prior <br />program EIR presents no significant, unstudied adverse effect." <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.