Laserfiche WebLink
November 8, 2024 <br />Page 15 <br /> <br />7357-013acp <br /> printed on recycled paper <br />environmental impacts.65 An agency’s failure to adequately describe the existing <br />setting contravenes the fundamental purpose of the environmental review process, <br />which is to determine whether there is a potentially substantial, adverse change <br />compared to the existing setting. <br /> <br />Baseline information on which a lead agency relies must be supported by <br />substantial evidence.66 The CEQA Guidelines define “substantial evidence” as <br />“enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that <br />a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion.”67 “Substantial evidence shall <br />include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion <br />supported by facts ... [U]nsubstantiated opinion or narrative [and] evidence which is <br />clearly inaccurate or erroneous ... is not substantial evidence.”68 <br /> <br />A. The DEIR Fails to Characterize the Environmental Setting <br />With Respect to Noise <br /> <br /> Ms. Toncheva determined that the DEIR’s failure to analyze existing noise <br />conditions Project site and at the proposed Senior East County Lakes Project results <br />in an inadequate baseline against which to analyze the Project’s potentially <br />significant noise impacts.69 The DEIR’s noise analysis is therefore not supported by <br />substantial evidence for failure to establish an accurate baseline against which to <br />evaluate potential impacts. <br /> <br /> Ms. Toncheva emphasizes that “[t]he Project must conduct properly <br />documented ambient measurements near all sensitive receptors that capture the <br />current baseline conditions during quiet period of the day and night to determine <br />impact of construction and operational noise.”70 This baseline analysis will <br />constitute significant new information which must be included in a revised EIR, <br />recirculated for public review and scrutiny. <br /> <br /> <br />65 Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management District (2010) 48 <br />Ca.4th 310, 320. <br />66 CBE v. SCAQMD, supra, 48 Ca.4th at 321 (stating “an agency enjoys the discretion to decide […] <br />exactly how the existing physical conditions without the project can most realistically be measured, <br />subject to review, as with all CEQA factual determinations, for support by substantial evidence”); see <br />Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, <br />435. <br />67 CEQA Guidelines §15384. <br />68 Pub. Resources Code § 21082.2(c). <br />69 Toncheva Comments, p. 6. <br />70 Toncheva Comments, p. 6.