SANTA RITA UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT et al.,
H049854 (Monterey County Super. Ct. No. 20CV000242)
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Filed 8/10/23
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
This appeal arises under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (
Leading up to the approval of the Specific Plan by the City and its certification of the Final EIR, the Districts objected to the EIR‘s adequacy. They contended that because of present insufficient school-facilities funding sources—a scenario they assumed would persist over the 20-30 year expected build-out of the Specific Plan—the new schools contemplated by the Project to accommodate increased enrollment would likely never be built, and that discussion in the Final EIR of indirect, off-site environmental impacts related to the Districts alternatively accommodating new students by other means was required under CEQA.
The City responded to the Districts’ concerns by explaining that the purpose for its having identified sites for new schools within the Project site was to ensure there was adequate land set aside for the development of new schools, and that the EIR had sufficiently analyzed potentially significant and reasonably foreseeable impacts related to new-school construction, as contemplated by the Project. At bottom, the City maintained that the information relayed by the Districts—all premised on the assumption that sufficient funding to build new schools as contemplated by the Specific Plan would not become available over the next 20-30 years—amounted to no more than speculation and uncertainty not requiring further environmental review or response. The City further posited that no meaningful review or analysis of suggested indirect and off-site impacts from the Districts alternatively accommodating new students at existing sites or in other ways could be conducted in any event based on the type of vague, uncertain, and generalized information on alternatives the Districts had provided. The City also responded that, for various specified other reasons, CEQA did not require further review or analysis of potential impacts from the Districts’ suggested alternatives for accommodating increased enrollment.
The City chose to voluntarily comply with the trial court‘s judgment and writ in an attempt to cure the narrow defects in the Specific Plan EIR as identified by the trial court, and it did not appeal. But real parties in interest Rexford Title, Inc., et al.,1 appealed from the judgment, defending the City‘s actions as compliant with CEQA as against potential claims for attorney fees based on the Districts having prevailed in the trial court.
We conclude that the Final EIR for the Specific Plan complied with CEQA with respect to the Districts’ challenges. The EIR and its accompanying analysis of environmental impacts properly assumed that the contemplated new schools would be built as part of the Specific Plan and Project. Further, the City imposed developer impact fees as full and complete mitigation for impacts of the Project on school facilities. And it provided mitigation measures to the extent feasible for potentially significant off-site impacts related to the development of the new schools, recognizing that the Districts themselves would need to later address any project-specific impacts. The City was not required to analyze any potentially significant off-site impacts of ill-defined, uncertain, generalized, and speculative alternatives to new-school
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
I. Relevant Factual Background
A. Project Overview
The City approved the Specific Plan, some 20 years in the making, in December 2019. It is based on the City‘s General Plan and covers an approximate 797-acre site (Site), which consists of 13 parcels in the northern portion of the City. The Specific Plan was prepared to establish the overall land-use concept and development framework for the Site. Contemplated development within the Specific Plan included 4,340 new residential dwelling units affordable to people of various income levels, with up to 15,928 residents at full build-out—some 20-30 years away—helping to meet a state goal of resolving the current housing-supply and affordability crisis. The provision of housing to accommodate Salinas‘s local critical need was likewise one of the principal objectives of the Specific Plan. In addition to housing, the Specific Plan included development within the Site of mixed-commercial uses, parks and open space, and—as relevant here—schools, to address projected increases in student population resulting from the new residential housing units.
As noted in the Draft EIR, “the Specific Plan provides a very high level of design detail for certain components of the project. To the extent that sufficient detail is available in the Specific Plan, a full project-level analysis is provided in this EIR. Examples of a full project level analysis would include topics that are related to the physical acreage affected (i.e., the project footprint), as opposed to the number of units, land uses/zoning, or other design parameters. . . . Additionally, the Specific Plan includes a substantial level of detailed information that allows for a project-level analysis of topics such as Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change, Noise, Population and Housing, Transportation and Circulation, and Utilities. The analysis
B. Schools Within the Specific Plan
At the outset, the Specific Plan included three elementary schools, one already operational, and one middle school, all located within the SRUSD, along with one high school, already planned and under construction, within the SUHSD. The Specific Plan notes that the “[r]esponsibility for development of public schools lies with the [Districts]” and that school facilities within the Specific Plan are to be built “based on the projections of the need” in a phased approach as “determine[d] and control[led]” by the Districts.
While observing that
C. Specific Plan EIR Process and the Districts’ Public Comments
The CEQA Initial Study for the Specific Plan was circulated for public review and comment in October 2015. Of the identified five schools within the Site, by then one elementary school (McKinnon Elementary) was already operational and the high school (Rancho San Juan) had already been planned. The Initial Study noted potentially significant impacts for schools, and it represented that a “detailed analysis with adequate mitigation measures will be prepared in the EIR,” including the “examination of public facilities impact fees.”
In response to the Initial Study, SUHSD wrote a letter to the City in November 2015. The letter pointed out the lack of assurance that all students anticipated within the Specific Plan area could be served by the new high school, then projected to be open in the fall of 2018.
In January 2016, SRUSD likewise sent a comment letter to the City. This letter pointed out that student generation from the Specific Plan would fill two elementary schools and one middle school, but that the responsibility for constructing the schools would be borne by SRUSD alone and that “development fees are generally insufficient to cover all the costs associated with the necessary infrastructure around schools and other impacts to schools caused by the development, let alone construction[,] of additional schools themselves.” The letter added that SRUSD did not have room for growth at its existing schools. And it emphasized that the payment of developer impact fees would not excuse the City from reviewing environmental impacts other than direct impacts on school facilities, and because the Project alone would cause these sorts of impacts, the City could not properly defer environmental analysis until after Specific Plan approval. The thrust of SRUSD‘s letter was focused not so much on environmental impacts but on its objection to the “lack of clear funding called for in the Specific Plan” and the need to “include additional mechanisms to ensure funding for construction of the three needed school facilities, necessary infrastructure around the schools, and other costs for school-related impacts caused by the project.”
The City circulated the Specific Plan Draft EIR for public comment from February 17, 2019, to April 15, 2019. The document specifically addressed
The general topics of environmental impacts addressed in the Draft EIR related to air quality (Section 3.1), biological resources (Section 3.2), cultural resources (Section 3.3), greenhouse gas emissions and climate change (Section 3.4), hazards and hazardous materials (Section 3.5), hydrology and water quality (Section 3.6), noise (Section 3.7), population (Section 3.8), public services (Section 3.9), transportation (Section 3.10), and utilities (Section 3.11). The Draft EIR adopted mitigation measures for all these categories. Along with addressing related impacts for new schools among these various categories of impacts, the specific mitigation measures included for public schools the implementation of a requirement for payment of development impact fees by the applicant of a residential building permit before a permit could be issued.
The Draft EIR further noted that such developer impact fees are considered as full and complete mitigation under CEQA for the construction of new schools, and that public schools within the Specific Plan “will be constructed based on projections of the need for these facilities” with the Districts determining “the appropriate phasing of [their] facilities” as driven by increased demand and enrollment. The Project was “designed such that each current institutional or individual owner may develop their property independent of development by other property owners.” The Draft EIR further noted that future site-specific environmental review would be required for each new school by the responsible school district before approval of a design for a specific facility, and this review would consider environmental impacts not known when the Project EIR was prepared. And each future school, if constructed, would be subject to the relevant mitigation measures in the EIR.
The City received comment letters from the Districts, as well as from Alisal Union School District, during the comment period for the Draft EIR.
The City addressed these comments and letters from the Districts, along with the one from Alisal Union School District, in the Final EIR. As the comments had all been similar, if not exact, the responses were likewise repetitive. The City asserted that for several reasons, inadequate funding to school districts for the construction of new schools was not a matter required to be addressed in an EIR under CEQA, and that any need to expand existing facilities as a result of funding shortfalls for any new construction amounted to “economic or social effects” from a project that likewise did not require CEQA analysis. The City further contended that it could do no more under the law to mitigate school impacts because developer fees, which are set not by the City but by the school districts, “are deemed to be ‘full and complete school facilities mitigation’ for impacts caused by new development.” The City further observed that “[u]ltimately, the Education Code tasks the [s]chool [d]istrict with the responsibility for design and construction of their own schools” and it pledged support to the Districts “with the provision of infrastructure and land to facilitate school facility development, as well as the collection of school impact fees to fund new school development.”
The City ultimately rested in the Final EIR on its inability to respond further to the Districts’ expressed concerns and the potential environmental impacts they claimed to be related to their identified alternatives for accommodating new students at existing sites, because the City viewed the information as too speculative, uncertain, and vague. The City responded that “[t]he potential [alternative] scenarios . . . are too speculative to give rise to meaningful environmental assessment, particularly since, if they occur, they will occur over an extended period of time (perhaps 20 to 30 years),
D. The District‘s Further Comments and Project Approval
On December 4, 2019, the Project came before the City‘s Planning Commission in a public hearing. The Project approvals under consideration were the Specific Plan, the Final EIR, a rezoning ordinance, and a development agreement. The Districts provided public comments at this hearing, emphasizing the purely economic point made in prior comment letters that school-facilities funding for the new schools identified in the Specific Plan was likely to be insufficient based on present scenarios. At the close of the hearing, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the Project to the City Council, including certification of the Final EIR and adoption of CEQA findings and a statement of overriding considerations.
On December 16, 2019, the Districts submitted another letter to the City, this time urging that the Final EIR did not adequately address environmental impacts resulting from the “phasing” of the Project, in that it did not include any information about the sequencing or scheduling of development or impose any restrictions on its timing. The Districts emphasized that the Final EIR provided no basis to assume that development of the Site would occur gradually and incrementally over the time expected for full build-out, and the Final EIR did not evaluate the possibility that a significant amount of development of the Specific Plan could occur simultaneously or all at once because of market conditions.
On December 17, 2019, the Districts submitted a final letter to the City. This letter further commented about the asserted inadequacies of the Final
The City Council‘s hearing for the Project‘s approvals took place on December 17, 2019. SRUSD‘s Board President spoke at the hearing and explained to the City Council that developer impact fees imposed as part of the Project would pay only about one-third of the costs for anticipated new schools, so the schools would thus not likely ever be built.
The City Council nonetheless unanimously approved the Project in its entirety, including certification of the Final EIR, and adoption of CEQA findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Specific Plan.
II. Procedural Background
The Districts timely filed their petition for writ of mandate. As relevant here, the petition sought in its first cause of action for violation of CEQA5 a peremptory writ of mandate setting aside the City‘s certification of the Specific Plan Final EIR and related project approvals.6 The factual basis for
The cause of action further alleged that “there is nothing in the record demonstrating there will be enough funding from enough sources to construct new schools“; “developer fees most often do not cover impacts caused by [school] development“; “it is undisputed in the record that [the Districts] cannot meet the demands for new school construction caused by the anticipated influx of students” as a result of the Specific Plan; state funding, developer fees, and local bond funds, each for separate reasons, are likely to be insufficient for the Districts to build the new schools contemplated by the Specific Plan and the Final EIR fails to acknowledge the inadequacies of these funding sources; and “there are foreseeable environmental impacts connected with adding or modifying school facilities at existing school sites” to alternatively accommodate the new students brought by development under the Specific Plan but the Final EIR “does not evaluate” them.
The second component of the Districts’ alleged CEQA violations was the assertion that the City as lead agency did not comply with
The pleadings were joined in the trial court and the matter briefed for hearing, which occurred on April 19, 2021.7 The Districts’ briefing with respect to the alleged CEQA violations likewise argued, as they maintain on appeal, that the Draft and Final EIRs evaluated environmental impacts related to schools only on the erroneous assumption that new schools would be constructed and failed to “adequately inform the public that due to the high probability of a lack of sufficient funding to build new schools, there will be significant environmental impacts, including impacts related to traffic, utilities, and public services, due to the inevitable need to modify the Districts’ [existing] facilities to accommodate the influx of new students.” The Districts’ briefing further emphasized that in responding to comments on the Draft EIR, the City had failed to provide a justification for not analyzing significant environmental impacts relating to existing school facilities or a good faith, reasoned analysis for not doing so.
In pressing their arguments, the Districts urged that their claims were predominantly those of ” ‘improper procedure’ ” under CEQA by the City having omitted essential information from the EIR or having failed to address a necessary issue, warranting de novo judicial review under Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach (2017) 2 Cal.5th 918, 935 (Banning Ranch) and Vineyard Area Citizens for responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 435 (Vineyard).
For their part, the real parties’ briefing below, filed jointly with the City, framed the CEQA issues before the court as factual conclusions and quasi-legislative decisions by the City as lead agency subject to deferential substantial evidence review specific to CEQA (
At core, real parties’ arguments were, and remain, premised on the characterization of the Districts’ assertions about future insufficient funding for new-school construction as contemplated by the Specific Plan, and related off-site impacts because of asserted necessary alternative accommodations at existing facilities over a 20-30-year span, as purely speculative and uncertain and not reasonably foreseeable under CEQA. According to real parties, such speculation and uncertainty did not give rise to a legal duty for the City to either evaluate these vague and generalized impacts or to provide further response to such comments. (See e.g.,
As to the charge that the City had not in the Final EIR adequately responded to the Districts’ comments, real parties contended the City‘s responses were sufficient in that a lead agency may conclude that information about potential environmental impacts is speculative, in which case the agency must so conclude and then terminate discussion of those impacts. (
The trial court held the merits hearing on April 19, 2021.8 On the Districts’ CEQA claim, the court at the outset characterized the issue as “whether the [EIR] omits material necessary to [reasonable] decision[-]making and informed public participation as required by CEQA.” The court further queried whether “[n]otwithstanding the lack of precision or specificity around the specific school[-]expansion scenario such as portables or reorganization of boundary lines or bus[s]ing, . . . was the City nonetheless required to discuss at
least in general terms the potential environmental impacts of a scenario in which existing school facilities would have to accommodate new students due to the lack of funding or any other foreseeable problems to construct[ing] new schools. And “does the record sufficiently explain why the City chose to analyze the impacts of constructing new schools and not the impacts of existing facilities absorbing new students when it seem[s] there is arguably evidence in the record to suggest that the latter was possible and more likely than the former?”
As to the applicable standard of judicial review, the court questioned the existence of any relevant factual determinations by the City that might lead to deferential review for substantial evidence. The court asked whether the “City [had] made a factual determination, such as an agency‘s decision to use a particular methodology,” in omitting discussion of the Districts’ alternative scenarios as opposed to constructing the new school facilities as contemplated by the Specific Plan.
The court was careful to delineate the indirect, off-site impacts that, in its view, required further environmental review and comment, recognizing the distinction drawn by Chawanakee Unified School District v. County of Madera (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1016, 1026–1028 (Chawanakee) between indirect impacts more broadly related to modification of existing school facilities and impacts on those facilities, with only the latter considered fully mitigated under
On June 23, 2021, the court entered its written order ruling on the merits of the various causes of action alleged in the Districts’ petition, including the third and fourth as to which the court had previously granted judgment on the pleadings against the Districts. The order granted the petition on the CEQA cause of action, concluding that the Final EIR “was insufficient because [it] failed to include discussion of potential off-site environmental impacts resulting from the [Specific Plan] due to [the Districts‘] presented concerns that [they] will lack sufficient funding to build the proposed new school sites identified within the [Specific Plan]. The [Final EIR] also failed to adequately respond to comments made by [the Districts] with regard to potential off-site impacts. As such, [the City] failed to proceed in accordance with the law under CEQA.” The order also generally granted related injunctive relief as pleaded by the fifth cause of action, “enjoining [the City] from approving any further development entitlements within the [Specific Plan] until such time that [the City] complies with the peremptory writ of mandate to be issued by the Court” (capitalization omitted) in relation to the CEQA cause of action. The order denied relief on the second cause of action and finally directed the Districts’ counsel to prepare a proposed judgment and peremptory writ of mandate “for the court‘s consideration.”
After the expiration of the stipulated stay of entry of judgment, on December 27, 2021, the court noticed a hearing re “[c]larification of judgment and orders” to occur the next day. (Capitalization omitted.) During the hearing, the court acknowledged having received a proposed judgment and other related submissions from the parties. The clarification the court provided, seemingly prompted by a dispute among the parties, was the narrow scope of the injunctive relief to be ordered—no further Specific Plan approvals or entitlements to be granted until the City complies with the court‘s directive to provide a generalized discussion and further responses to comments in the Final EIR about the alternative off-site impacts of the Districts’ accommodation of new students in existing facilities as opposed to the construction of new schools. The court made explicit that it was not directing the set-aside or vacation of prior Project approvals. Because of this narrow focus, the court directed modifications to the Districts’ proposed judgment and writ of mandate, including specific language under
Notice of entry of judgment was served the next day, on January 19, 2022. The real parties filed their notice of appeal from the judgment on February 8, 2022.
DISCUSSION
I. Appealability
As addressed by real parties in their opening brief, the City as lead agency and respondent in the writ action below did not appeal from
the writ]; Protect Niles v. City of Fremont (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 1129, 1140 (Niles) [appeal by real party in interest not moot when lead agency‘s prior approval of project would be restored if real party‘s appeal is successful].) The City here has recognized that if real parties prevail on appeal, then the City‘s December 2019 certification of the EIR will stand, even though the City is preparing a supplemental EIR in the meantime in compliance with the trial court‘s judgment and writ. The appeal is therefore not moot notwithstanding agency compliance with the writ because its prior 2019 certification of the Final EIR may be restored should the real parties prevail on appeal and an award of fees depends on the propriety of the trial court‘s determination. (Save Our Residential, at pp. 1750–1751; Niles, at p. 1140.)
Accordingly, real parties’ appeal from the judgment here is ripe for review and not moot even though the City did not also appeal and has chosen to voluntarily comply with the trial court‘s judgment and writ, pending resolution of the appeal.
A separate issue relating to the timeliness of the notice of appeal is also present here.10 As noted, the trial court issued its order ruling on the merits of the Districts’ mandate petition on June 23, 2021, with notice of its entry served that day. But the court did not enter judgment—granting relief in mandate on the Districts’ CEQA cause of action with related remedies and denying relief on three other causes of action—until seven months later, on January 18, 2022, after noticing and conducting a hearing to clarify the scope and contents of the judgment, including the statutory CEQA remedies under
directed the Districts to submit a proposed judgment and peremptory writ of mandate, the certain statutory CEQA remedies contained in the later judgment as clarified by the court at the hearing in the interim were omitted from its prior merits order. A separate writ document was issued by the court clerk the same day judgment was entered.
And as noted in the judgment, some three months after the trial court entered its order ruling on the merits, the court signed a stipulated order “regarding stay of entry of judgment” (capitalization omitted) to allow the parties time to discuss settlement and the possibility of an agreeable stipulated judgment given the court‘s merits ruling. This pre-judgment stipulated order provided that “ ‘[t]he time period for the parties to submit either a proposed peremptory writ of mandate or a proposed judgment for the court‘s consideration, as contemplated by the [prior merits] order, is extended for a period of 75 days.’ ” (Capitalization omitted.) The 75-day period passed, but judgment was not entered until January 18, 2022, some two and a half months later and after the hearing at which the court clarified the scope and content of the narrow remedies to be ordered. Real parties filed their notice of appeal from the judgment on February 8, 2022, which is timely from the judgment but not from the court‘s prior order ruling on the merits if that is the trial court‘s appealable determination in this case.
In Meinhardt v. City of Sunnyvale (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 43, review granted June 15, 2022, S274147 (Meinhardt), our colleagues in Division One of the Fourth Appellate District held that a ruling denominated an “ ‘order’ ” in a mandate case was an appealable final judgment even though a separate document styled a “ ‘judgment,’ ” which “merely restated the prior” order, followed. (Id. at p. 51.) The Meinhardt court dismissed the appeal as the notice of appeal, while timely filed from the later “judgment,” was not timely filed from the prior order denying the petition. (Id. at pp. 50–51.)
Relying on Dhillon v. John Muir Health (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1109, 1113 (Dhillon), the court in Meinhardt reiterated that “ ‘ “[a]s a general test, which must be adapted to the particular circumstances of the individual case, ... where no issue is left for future consideration except the fact of compliance or noncompliance with the terms of the first decree, that decree is final, but where anything further in the nature of judicial action ... is essential to a final determination of the rights of the parties, the decree is interlocutory.” ’ ” (Meinhardt, 76 Cal.App.5th at p. 49, review granted, quoting Dhillon, at p. 1115.) Applying this test, as stated, the court in Meinhardt concluded that the initial order there was a final judgment subject to appeal regardless of its title or form and notwithstanding entry of a later “judgment,” because the order effectively denied the mandate
The denial order in Meinhardt disposed of all issues between the parties and did not address further action, including the preparation of another order or judgment; it was therefore treated as a final and appealable judgment and the period to appeal was not restarted by the later entry of a document styled a “judgment” that simply reiterated the rulings in the prior order. (Meinhardt, supra, 76 Cal.App.5th at p. 63, review granted; Dhillon, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 1115 [order granting or denying petition for writ of mandate in its entirety, when such order contemplates no further action in the case, concludes the special proceeding of a civil nature].) As stated in Natomas Unified School District (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1013, 1027 (Natomas), what the Supreme Court precisely said in Dhillon (2 Cal.5th at pp. 1113–1114, with italics added) was that a “ ‘trial court‘s judgment granting administrative mandamus, and ordering the substantive relief sought by the petitioner, is a final judgment.’ ”
Applying these principles here to confirm our appellate jurisdiction, we conclude that the trial court‘s order ruling on the merits of the petition in June 2021 was not the appealable determination, and that the real parties’ notice of appeal from the later judgment was timely filed. First, the earlier merits order itself contemplates and directs the later preparation of a judgment and a separate writ document. But more than that, and as real parties point out, in the merits order, the trial court did not articulate the specific and narrow statutory CEQA remedies it would direct as a consequence of its rulings granting the mandate petition, and the court noticed and held a hearing before judgment was entered to clarify and address the specific remedies to be included in the judgment. Thus, the prior order did not finally determine the rights of the parties by specifying the statutory relief the Districts would receive, which led to disputes over the appropriate terms of the judgment and writ that were resolved by the court at later hearing. (See Natomas, supra, 86 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1026–1027 [post-order disputes about terms of judgment that required a hearing on scope and terms of relief to be granted support appealability of later judgment].)
We thus conclude that here, unlike in Meinhardt, it is the later judgment (entered in January 2022) and not the prior merits order that is the “final determination of the rights of the parties” (
II. The EIR in CEQA Overview
We begin with a general overview of the CEQA statutory scheme, at the heart of which is the EIR.
CEQA “and the regulations implementing it ([Guidelines]) embody California‘s strong public policy of protecting the environment. ‘The basic purposes of CEQA are to: [¶] (1) Inform governmental decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of proposed activities. [¶] (2) Identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced. [¶] (3) Prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when the governmental agency finds the changes to be feasible. [¶] (4) Disclose to the public the reasons why a governmental agency approved the project in the manner the agency chose if significant environmental effects are involved.’ ” (Tomlinson v. County of Alameda (2012) 54 Cal.4th 281, 285–286 (Tomlinson), quoting Guidelines, § 15002.)
“To achieve these goals, CEQA and the implementing regulations provide for a three-step process. In the first step, the public agency must determine whether the proposed development is a ‘project,’ that is, ‘an activity which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment’ undertaken, supported, or approved by a public agency. (
“As a general proposition, CEQA depends on the EIR. ‘An environmental impact report is an informational document,’ the purpose of which is to provide public agencies and the public in general with detailed information about the effect which a proposed project is likely to have on the environment; to list the ways in which the significant effects of such a project might be minimized; and to indicate alternatives to such a project.’ (...
“ ‘A public agency must prepare an EIR or cause an EIR to be prepared for any project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment. (...
“The agency must notify the public of the draft EIR, make the draft EIR and all documents referenced in it available for public review, and respond to comments that raise significant environmental issues. (...
“ ‘An agency may not approve a project that will have significant environmental effects if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures that would substantially lessen those effects. (...
“ ‘Thus, a public agency is not required to favor environmental protection over other considerations, but it must disclose and carefully consider the environmental consequences of its actions, mitigate adverse environmental effects if feasible, explain the reasons for its actions, and afford the public and other affected agencies an opportunity to participate meaningfully in the environmental review process. The purpose of these requirements is to ensure that public officials and the public are aware of the environmental consequences of decisions before they are made.’ [Citation.]” (Tiburon, supra, 78 Cal.App.5th at p. 726.)
“Much of what goes into an EIR is left to the discretion of the agency preparing it. The leading treatise summarizes: ‘The lead agency has discretion to design the EIR and need not conduct every recommended test or perform all required research. [Citations.] An EIR is not required to address all of the variations of the issues presented. [Citations.] An analysis of every permutation of the data is not required.’ (1 Kostka & Zischke, Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act (Cont.Ed.Bar 2d ed. 2022) § 11.28, pp. 11-19–11-20 [(Kostka & Zischke)]; see Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 415 (Laurel Heights) [‘A project opponent ... can always imagine some additional study or analysis that might provide helpful information. It is not for them to design the EIR. That further study ... might be helpful does not make it necessary‘].) [¶] ... ‘Drafting an EIR or preparing a negative declaration necessarily involves some degree of forecasting. While foreseeing the unforeseeable is not possible, an agency must use its best efforts to find out and disclose all that it reasonably can.’ (Guidelines, § 15144.)” (Tiburon, supra, 78 Cal.App.5th at pp. 726–727.)
Thus, “ ‘[t]he fact that precision may not be possible ... does not mean that no analysis is required.’ ” (Banning Ranch, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 938, citing Laurel Heights, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 399.) Still, an “EIR is not required to engage in speculative analysis. (Guidelines, § 15145.) Indeed, this core principal is well[-]established in the Guidelines and case law. While a lead agency must use its ‘best efforts’ to evaluate environmental effects, including the use of reasonable forecasting, ‘foreseeing the unforeseeable’ is not required, nor is predicting the unpredictable or quantifying the unquantifiable. (Guidelines, § 15964, subd. (d)(3) [‘A change which is speculative or unlikely to occur is not reasonably foreseeable‘]; Cadiz Land Co. v. Rail Cycle (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 74, 108 [“ ‘agency is required to forecast only to the extent that an activity could be reasonably expected under the circumstances’ ”].) [¶] This rule rests on both economic and practical considerations. It has long been recognized that premature attempts to
CEQA review is thus not triggered where there is not yet an identifiable impact as until that point, the review process could not be meaningful in the sense that it allows consideration of alternatives that could mitigate the impact. (Friends of the Sierra Railroad v. Tuolomne Park & Recreation District (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 643, 657–659 [reasonably foreseeable likelihood of some development plus possibility that the development could impact historical resource did not require EIR that could only speculate on future environmental consequences]; see also Laurel Heights, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 396 [premature environmental analysis before a particular use or proposal is reasonably foreseeable may be deferred as it may be meaningless and financially wasteful].)
“ ‘The judicial attitude to EIRs is deferential. ... It follows that courts “do not require technical perfection or scientific certainty.” (Sierra Club[, supra, 6 Cal.5th at p. 515].) ’ ” (Tiburon, supra, 78 Cal.App.5th at p. 727.) As noted, reviewing courts “ ‘ “have looked not for an exhaustive analysis but for adequacy, completeness and a good-faith effort at full disclosure.” ’ [Citations.]” (Sierra Club, at p. 515; see Guidelines, § 15151 [sufficiency of EIR viewed in light of what is reasonably feasible].)
III. The Standard of Review
On appeal, the parties reprise their respective positions taken in the trial court, as outlined above, on the adequacy of the Final EIR.
“ ‘ “ ‘ “An EIR is presumed adequate,” ’ ” ’ and the party challenging its adequacy ‘ “ “ ‘has the burden of proving otherwise’ ” ’ ” by establishing a ‘ “prejudicial abuse of discretion.” ’ ” (South of Market Community Action Network v. City and County of San Francisco (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 321, 329 (South of Market); see Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority (2013) 57 Cal.4th 439, 463.)
“In evaluating the adequacy of an EIR, the appellate court reviews the agency‘s actions, not the trial court‘s decision. [Citations.] ‘The standard of
“ ‘ “A prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs if the failure to include relevant information precludes informed decisionmaking and informed public participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process.” ’ ” (South of Market, supra, 33 Cal.App.5th at p. 331; see also Vineyard, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 428 [absence of information in an EIR may be a failure to proceed in a manner required by law under
The failure to comply with mandatory procedures gives rise to presumptive prejudice when the result is a subversion of CEQA‘s purposes; for example, if the absence of information frustrated public comment or made meaningful assessment of potentially significant environmental impacts impossible. (Id. at pp. 485-486.)
Judicial review for a claimed failure to proceed in the manner required by CEQA, on the one hand, or for reaching factual conclusions unsupported by substantial evidence, on the other hand, “differs significantly: [w]hile we determine de novo whether the agency has employed the correct procedures, ‘scrupulously enforc[ing] all legislatively mandated CEQA requirements’ [citation], we accord greater deference to the agency‘s substantive factual conclusions.” (Vineyard, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 435.) “These differences require the ‘reviewing court [to] adjust its scrutiny to the nature of the alleged defect, depending on whether the claim is predominantly one of improper procedure or a dispute over the facts.’ (Ibid.; accord, Sierra Club, supra, 6 Cal.5th at p. 512 [recognizing ‘a procedural issues/factual issues dichotomy’ with respect to the CEQA standard of review].) Consistent[ly] with the differentiated standards stated above, we independently review the administrative record for “any legal error” by the agency and deferentially
But “the distinction between de novo and substantial evidence review ‘is not always so clear.’ [Citation.] The Supreme Court acknowledged this difficulty in Sierra Club. It explained that while ‘there are instances where the agency‘s discussion of significant project impacts may implicate a factual question that makes substantial evidence review appropriate’ ([Sierra Club, supra, 6 Cal.5th] at p. 514), courts ‘have consistently recognized that adequacy of discussion claims are not typically amenable to substantial evidence review.’ (Id. at p. 15.) That is, ‘[t]he determination whether a discussion is sufficient is not solely a matter of discerning whether there is substantial evidence to support the agency‘s factual conclusions.’ (Id. at p. 516.) Rather, ‘[t]he ultimate inquiry ... is whether the EIR includes enough detail “to enable those who did not participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues raised by the proposed project.” ’ (Ibid.) That inquiry, which presents a mixed question of law and fact, ‘is generally subject to independent review.’ (Ibid.)” (Preservation, supra, 91 Cal.App.5th at pp. 532–533, citing Sierra Club, at p. 516.) Still, “underlying factual determinations—including, for example, an agency‘s decision as to which methodologies to employ for analyzing an environmental effect—may warrant deference. [Citations.] Thus, to the extent a mixed question requires a determination whether statutory criteria were satisfied, de novo review is appropriate; but to the extent factual questions predominate, a more deferential standard is warranted. [Citation.]” (Sierra Club, supra, 6 Cal.5th at p. 516.)
Here, the central issue is whether the Final EIR for the Specific Plan was adequate under CEQA notwithstanding that it did not discuss the possibility that sufficient funding would never become available to build the contemplated new schools within the Site and, in that event, the Districts might be required to absorb increased student enrollment through alternatives. These included modifications to existing school facilities, some located outside the Project Site. And some of the possible alternatives potentially would present off-site and indirect environmental impacts. The parties dispute the standard of
We view the question presented ultimately as whether the Final EIR complied with CEQA, that is whether it fulfilled statutory and regulatory mandates and whether the identified omission impaired the EIR‘s “purpose as an informational document” (Sierra Club, supra, 6 Cal.5th at p. 516), which purpose, as noted, is “ ‘to enable those who did not participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues raised by the proposed project.’ ” (Id. at p. 516; see Guidelines, § 15151 [EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decisionmakers with information that enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences].) The question of the EIR‘s sufficiency here does not necessarily turn on underlying factual determinations, although the City‘s assessment of the information provided by the Districts as uncertain and speculative is a factual question. (Anderson First Coalition v. City of Anderson (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1173, 1186 (Anderson) [substantial evidence supported agency‘s factual conclusion that asserted environmental impact of urban decay was speculative and not reasonably foreseeable].) Review here is thus not solely a matter of discerning whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support such factual conclusions. (See Sierra Club, 6 Cal.5th at p. 516.) It is rather a “mixed question [of law and fact] requir[ing] a determination whether statutory criteria were satisfied” to which we will apply independent review while affording deference to any relevant underlying factual determinations by the City. (Ibid.; Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1198 [substantial evidence standard applies to the reliability or accuracy of the data upon which EIR relied].)
As to the Districts’ claim that the City failed to respond or did not adequately respond to their public comments, such a claim is likewise one for the failure to proceed in a manner required by CEQA and is reviewed for prejudicial abuse of discretion.11 (Environmental Protection, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 487.)
Both sides to this appeal appear to contend that Chawanakee and its construction of
We first observe that before the legislative changes on school-facilities funding addressed in Chawanakee, the court of appeal in Goleta Union School District v. Regents of University of California (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1025 (Goleta) held that the UC Regents, as lead agency for a long-range development plan for university projects that would increase enrollment in a local elementary school district, had no obligation to propose or commit funds for methods to alleviate overcrowding in local public schools expected to result from the project. (Id. at pp. 1028, 1033–1034.) The basis for the court‘s holding was that CEQA requires consideration only of “physical change[s]” in the environment (
The supplemental EIR in Goleta, ordered after the trial court had found a CEQA violation and granted a writ of mandate, described impacts of the proposed development plan, and proposed various options for schools that included building classrooms to accommodate additional students, redistributing students to other facilities, starting year-round schools, adding portable classrooms, and building new classrooms. (Goleta, supra, 37 Cal.App.4th at p. 1029.) The supplemental EIR noted that mitigation of the physical environmental impacts associated with these options was the responsibility of the school district, but the Regents offered to contribute “a fair share.” (Ibid.) The court recognized that in some cases, “socio-economic effects may cause physical changes that significantly affect the environment under . . . CEQA” (id. at p. 1032) but that “classroom overcrowding, per se, does not constitute a significant effect on the environment.” (Ibid.) Still, a project ultimately requiring physical changes in the environment “such as construction of new school facilities, new bus schedules and changed traffic patterns” would require an EIR to address these impacts. (Ibid.; see also Fullerton Joint High School District v. State Board of Education (1982) 32 Cal.3d 779, 794, criticized on other grounds in Board of Supervisors v. Local Agency Formation Com. (1992) 3 Cal.4th 903, 917–919; El Dorado Union High School District v. City of Placerville (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 123, 131 (El Dorado) [although increased student enrollment and potential for overcrowding might not implicate CEQA per se, evidence of present overcrowding and projections of increasing enrollment that would likely necessitate constructing a new school, changing bus routes, and altering traffic patterns is sufficient to require an EIR].)
The Goleta court found that the projected increases in school enrollment there, which were not considered to be sizable, did not themselves constitute a significant effect on the environment, so the supplemental EIR was not required to show that the development plan alleviated the increased enrollment. Further, the Regents had no responsibility to “tell the [d]istrict what it should do to increase capacity.” (Goleta, supra, 37 Cal.App.4th at p. 1033, citing
As discussed in Chawanakee, Sen. Bill 50 concerning school-facilities funding, was enacted in 1998. Among its provisions were changes to
Sen. Bill 50 then came in 1998 after court decisions had “narrowed the application of the limits on mitigation contained in the [earlier 1986] school facilities legislation and thereby expanded the reach of CEQA.” (Chawanakee, supra, 196 Cal.App.4th at p. 1022; see, e.g., Mira Development Corp v. City of San Diego (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1201, 1218 [restrictions in
In Chawanakee, as relevant here, the court specifically considered some of the changes in language to
As for Sen. Bill 50‘s change from “related to school facilities” to “on school facilities” in
The Chawanakee court concluded that traffic impacts in that case near and related to getting students to and from a school facility is not an impact ” ‘on school facilities’ ” exempt from consideration and mitigation under CEQA for purposes of
Thus, Chawanakee held that a project‘s indirect impacts on parts of the physical environment that are not school facilities are not excused under
As noted, the trial court here was careful in its order and judgment to delineate and provide narrow writ relief only as to “potential off-site environmental impacts resulting from the [Specific Plan] due to [the Districts‘] presented concerns that [they] will lack sufficient funding to build the proposed new school sites identified within the [Specific Plan]. The [Final EIR] also failed to adequately respond to comments made by [the Districts] with regard to potential off-site impacts.” This followed from the court‘s comments at the merits hearing that the relief it was granting, under the holding of Chawanakee, was “focused on those impacts that are external to school facilities” “when existing facilities may be changed or augmented” as alternative to the construction of new schools as contemplated by the Project to accommodate increased student enrollment. The court‘s decision thus complied with Chawanakee in its distinct treatment under
V. The City‘s Final EIR Complied With CEQA
A. The EIR Properly Assumed Schools Within the Project Would be Built, and Considered and Analyzed Reasonably Foreseeable Impacts on the Physical Environment From That Assumption
In drafting an EIR, a lead agency is required to assume that all phases of a project will eventually be built. (Environmental Council of Sacramento v. County of Sacramento (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 1020, 1030, 1032 [project description and analysis of impacts for a planned community with a university was sufficient because EIR not required
The Districts do complain that the Specific Plan and EIR don‘t require, provide for, or address phasing of the project build-out over time, instead leaving the pace of proposed development to individual landowners and market conditions. But there is no authority requiring an EIR to phase a decades-long project such as a land-use plan and CEQA does not require analysis of individual phases of projects, instead requiring analysis of the whole, including with less detail when the sequence and pace of construction are largely unknown at the time the EIR is prepared. (Sierra Watch v. County of Placer (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 86, 105 (Sierra Watch) [lead agency need not speculate about as yet unknown details of project impacts and may discuss potential impacts at a level of specificity determined by the nature of the project and the rule of reason]; see Guidelines,
Further, as argued by real parties, the required analysis of a proposed development‘s impacts on increased demand for public services such as schools is limited. If a proposed development would create an increased demand for public services, as the City acknowledged may happen here with respect to schools, then an EIR must inquire as to whether new or expanded physical facilities may be required to provide such service and address them if so. The impacts that must be addressed under CEQA are the physical effects of providing the increased service, not any possible failure to provide adequate service under applicable standards because of insufficient public funding for which the lead agency is not even responsible. (See City of Hayward v. Board of Trustees of the California State University (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 833, 843 [lead agency not required to address need for additional fire-protection services, which itself is not an environmental impact that CEQA requires a project proponent to mitigate]; Guidelines,
The City was thus not required under CEQA to provide for, ensure, or guarantee additional school-funding mechanisms to build the contemplated new schools beyond what the Specific Plan already provided, as the Districts’ early comment letters appear to have suggested. Nor was the City required to assume or resolve a failure in the provision of schools as a public service by insufficient funding or otherwise. Nor was it required to view or analyze the Districts’ suggested possible scenarios at existing school sites resulting from the assumption of perpetual insufficiencies in school-facilities funding as alternatives to the proposed Project as a whole. Under CEQA, a lead agency must describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the project or the location of a project, and this includes a “no project” alternative and those having the potential to feasibly achieve the project objectives while avoiding or substantially lessening project impacts. (Guidelines,
These principles set some contours for assessing whether the Final EIR here complied with CEQA with respect to the Districts’ claimed omissions and inadequacies in the EIR as an informational document.
B. The Information Provided by the Districts Did Not Identify Reasonably Foreseeable Impacts and Was Too General, Uncertain, and Speculative to Require Further Analysis or Response Under CEQA
The extent of the information conveyed and reiterated by totality of the Districts’ letters and comments about the inadequacy of the Specific Plan EIR can be summarized as: 1) based on current funding scenarios, sufficient funding over the next two to three decades for construction of the new schools contemplated by the Project was uncertain or unlikely; 2) if this
The most specific of the information provided by the Districts concerned the manner in which school-facilities funding is currently generated or sourced and the fact that funding is now insufficient for them to build new schools. The range of one or more possible alternative means by which the Districts might accommodate students at unspecified existing sites or in other districts was given based on the assumption of a perpetual state of insufficient facilities funding for decades into the future. But the information was not provided with any site specificity, preferences or priorities among the alternatives given, the expected tolerances of each option, their timing, or any other details. These options that the Districts might take at some future unidentified point or points were predicted to generally result in several indirect impacts to the physical environment outside existing facilities, whether within or without the Specific Plan boundaries.
Real parties characterize the information provided by the Districts as pure speculation based on uncertainty and vague generalities not requiring further consideration or response by the City under CEQA, other than the conclusion of speculation with an explanation as to why, as the City
We have already noted that under CEQA, evidence of environmental impacts must be founded on facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, and expert opinion supported by facts; it cannot be based on speculation, argument, or unsubstantiated opinion or narrative. (Guidelines,
There are many examples in case law of courts finding adequacy of an EIR when information conveyed about omitted impacts or complained inadequate treatment of impacts is of the type and quality that the Districts offered here. The Districts provided long-term projections about insufficient funding premised only on current scenarios, which is not itself an environmental impact. These projections led to a general range of one or more options that might be taken by the Districts sometime in the future to accommodate increased enrollment (also itself not an environmental impact) at one or more existing school sites, either within or beyond the Project area, leading to vaguely described environmental impacts on the non-school environment, whether somewhere inside or outside the Project Site. “When the environmental impact from a particular project feature cannot be reliably ascertained and estimated, it is properly characterized as speculative.” (East Oakland Stadium Alliance v. City of Oakland (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 1226, 1250 (East Oakland).)
For example, the court in East Oakland rejected a challenge to an EIR to the extent it had found the impacts of truck-parking relocation from a project (but outside of it) were speculative, given the difficulty of predicting how current users of a terminal that would be eliminated would respond to their
The East Oakland court cited Rodeo Citizens Assn. v. County of Contra Costa (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 214 (Rodeo Citizens) in support of its conclusion about the EIR‘s finding of speculation and consequent lack of need for further analysis of the air quality or emissions impacts. (East Oakland, supra, 89 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1250–1251.) In Rodeo Citizens, as explained by the East Oakland court, “a refinery sought approval to install equipment that would permit the refinery to capture and sell butane and propane as a byproduct of its operations. ([Rodeo Citizens] at pp. 217–218.) The petitioner contended that the EIR prepared in connection with the permit approval was inadequate because it failed ‘to quantify the greenhouse gas emissions from the downstream uses of the recovered propane and butane.’ (Id. at p. 226.) The court held that the agency properly declined to analyze these emissions as speculative. (Id. at pp. 226–227.) As the [Rodeo Citizens] court explained, it could not be assumed that the propane and butane would be burned because these chemicals have significant nonfuel uses. (Id. at p. 227.) Further, because of changing market conditions, ’ “historical market data would be an unreliable predictor of the future” ’ regarding the manner in which the butane and propane would be used. (Ibid.) As a result, the court held, ‘the lead agency responsibly determined that further analysis of the potential impacts was impractical and not required.’ (Id. at p. 228.)” (East Oakland, supra, 89 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1250–1251.)
In Sierra Watch, supra, 69 Cal.App.5th 86, 105–106, the court of appeal declined to find the EIR inadequate for its failure to estimate the duration of construction noise at a location involving most of the project. “The EIR sufficiently demonstrated why specific detail about the duration of construction noise at each specific location . . . was not possible. The project would be constructed over 25 years. It included no specific plan on where buildings
The Sierra Watch court noted that the lead agency there “could have speculated how long construction noise would occur over the next 25 years at each specific location” and “could have presumed where buildings would ultimately be located” and then “assumed that all buildings in any [particular location] would be constructed at the same time—resulting in a shorter period of construction noise. Or perhaps it could have assumed something else altogether. But any estimate . . . would entail a fair bit of speculation. . . . So while [the petitioner] may have preferred detailed estimates about construction duration in each specific location . . . the EIR was not required to supply speculative estimates. A lead agency, after all, need not speculate about project impacts (see CEQA Guidelines,
In the City‘s responses to the Districts’ comments contained in the Final EIR, the City included the comment letters and responded to each. The City noted that impacts associated with schools were analyzed in the EIR with Public Services, among other general topics of impacts, and that the City‘s policies were to work with local districts to identify and set aside new school sites and consider impacts to ensure public services and maintain public-facilities standards. The City identified the five new school sites within the Project, and noted that the Education Code tasks the Districts with the responsibility for constructing their own schools. The City also noted that the Specific Plan imposed developer impact fees to fund new school development in full mitigation under
The City also noted its perception of legal limitations on analyzing impacts from new or expanded facilities involving the provision of public services and that the social and economic effects of a project—like increased enrollment—are not themselves treated as significant effects on the environment. The City further noted that with the construction of new schools, there would be site-specific environmental review conducted by the responsible school district for impacts not yet known, as the City did not have specific designs from the Districts for the three as yet undesigned new schools. Thus, the EIR “does not speculate beyond the material facts that are available for each site” at the time the Specific Plan was being considered.
The City also noted the holding of Chawanakee, and that it “obviated the need to analyze and mitigate a development‘s direct impacts on existing
As to the District‘s proffered range of alternative options for accommodating new students at existing sites—by using portables, expanding or modifying existing sites, adjusting attendance boundaries, and allowing inter-district transfers—with the vaguely identified and non-site-specific impacts on “noise-levels, air quality, loss of greenspace or other play areas” (italics omitted), the City specifically responded that the “potential scenarios” offered by the Districts “are too speculative to give rise to meaningful environmental assessment.” In support of this conclusion, the City noted that if the cited scenarios were to occur, that would only happen over 20 to 30 years as number of students living in the site gradually increased. The Districts would have the ability over that time “to make decisions as to where such students should attend schools, if no on-site facilities are yet in place. The specific decisions the District will have to make cannot be predicted with any level of certainty at present, and, in any event, are beyond the City‘s control. In particular, the City has no way at present to try to predict boundary changes the District might impose in future years. Although such decisions could affect traffic and other environmental resources, any details of such impacts cannot be predicted at present. The same is true of options such as student transfers, the construction of other, currently unplanned schools at other sites, or changes in current patterns of school bussing. To the extent that the District contemplates the installation of portable classrooms at existing school facilities, the City notes that CEQA provides a categorical exemption (Class 14) for ‘minor additions to existing schools within existing school grounds where the addition does not increase original student capacity by more than 25% or ten classrooms, whichever is less.’ ”
The City‘s determination of the Districts’ proffered information as speculation not capable of leading to meaningful analysis or requiring further response in the EIR is a factual conclusion entitled to deference. (Anderson, supra, 130 Cal.App.4th at p. 1186 [substantial evidence supported agency‘s factual conclusion that asserted environmental impact of urban decay was speculative and not reasonably foreseeable]; County of Butte v. Department of Water Resources (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 147, 164
Beyond that, we conclude that based on the non-specific, uncertain, and vague nature and quality of the information provided by the Districts, in the context of a land-use and long-range planning document like the Specific Plan, the Final EIR for the Specific Plan and the City‘s responses to the Districts’ comments were adequate under CEQA. This is especially true when the generally identified potential indirect and off-site impacts related to existing school facilities were impacts that might flow and could be identified only from later decisions by the Districts themselves, which impacts may call for later project-level environmental review by the Districts, not the City. The City was not required to “dimly guess” about potential impacts based on uncertain and non-specific information and many unknowns. (Newark, supra, 74 Cal.App.5th at p. 479.) To the extent the City reached the conclusion that the Districts’ comments were speculative, noted the conclusion, and terminated the discussion, the City complied with Guidelines
On this record, and based on our independent review while deferring to the City‘s factual determination of speculation in the Districts’ comments, “we are satisfied that the EIR ’ “include[d] detail sufficient to enable those
Having concluded that the City‘s Final EIR complied with CEQA, we reverse the judgment determining otherwise.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is reversed. On remand, the trial court is directed to (1) vacate its order granting the Districts’ mandate petition as to the first and fifth causes of action; (2) enter a new order and judgment denying the petition in
DANNER, ACTING P.J.
WE CONCUR:
WILSON, J.
WILLIAMS, J.*
Santa Rita Union School District, et al., v. City of Salinas, et al.
H049854
* Judge of the Santa Clara County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to