Laserfiche WebLink
City of Santa Ana – The Bowery <br />May 11, 2020 <br />Page 16 of 28 <br />DEIR that could be evaluated for adequacy. All of these measures should provide <br />additional details so that they may be evaluated and were impermissibly deferred. <br />G. The DEIR Fails to Support Its Findings with Substantial Evidence <br />When new information is brought to light showing that an impact previously discussed <br />in the DEIR but found to be insignificant with or without mitigation in the DEIR’s <br />analysis has the potential for a significant environmental impact supported by <br />substantial evidence, the EIR must consider and resolve the conflict in the evidence. <br />(See Visalia Retail, L.P. v. City of Visalia (2018) 20 Cal. App. 5th 1, 13, 17; see also Protect <br />the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal. App. 4th 1099, <br />1109.) While a lead agency has discretion to formulate standards for determining <br />significance and the need for mitigation measures—the choice of any standards or <br />thresholds of significance must be “based to the extent possible on scientific and <br />factual data and an exercise of reasoned judgment based on substantial evidence. <br />(CEQA Guidelines § 15064(b); Cleveland Nat'l Forest Found. v. San Diego Ass'n of Gov'ts <br />(2017) 3 Cal. App. 5th 497, 515; Mission Bay Alliance v. Office of Community Inv. & <br />Infrastructure (2016) 6 Cal. App. 5th 160, 206.) And when there is evidence that an <br />impact could be significant, an EIR cannot adopt a contrary finding without providing <br />an adequate explanation along with supporting evidence. (East Sacramento Partnership for <br />a Livable City v. City of Sacramento (2016) 5 Cal. App. 5th 281, 302.) <br />In addition, a determination that regulatory compliance will be sufficient to prevent <br />significant adverse impacts must be based on a project-specific analysis of potential <br />impacts and the effect of regulatory compliance. In Californians for Alternatives to Toxics v. <br />Department of Food & Agric. (2005) 136 Cal. App. 4th 1, the court set aside an EIR for a <br />statewide crop disease control plan because it did not include an evaluation of the risks <br />to the environment and human health from the proposed program but simply <br />presumed that no adverse impacts would occur from use of pesticides in accordance <br />with the registration and labeling program of the California Department of Pesticide <br />Regulation. (See also Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch v Department of Forestry & Fire Protection <br />(2008) 43 Cal. App. 4th 936, 956 (fact that Department of Pesticide Regulation had <br />assessed environmental effects of certain herbicides in general did not excuse failure to <br />assess effects of their use for specific timber harvesting project).) <br /> <br />