Court Opinion

ID: 9838788
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-07 21:04:31.271776+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:42.518089
License: Public Domain

Filed 9/7/23 (unmodified opn. attached)
                          CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

       IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                             SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

 SANTA RITA UNION SCHOOL                      H049854
 DISTRICT et al.,                             (Monterey County
                                              Super. Ct. No. 20CV000242)
         Plaintiffs and Respondents,
                                              ORDER MODIFYING OPINION
         v.                                   AND DENYING REHEARING

 CITY OF SALINAS,                             NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT

         Defendant;

 REXFORD TITLE, INC., et al.,

         Real Parties in Interest and
         Appellants.

       BY THE COURT:
       It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on August 10, 2023, be
modified as follows:
       1.      On page 7, starting on line 11, the phrase beginning with “citing
section” and ending on line 12 with “section 15186,” is deleted so the sentence
reads:
       The EIR also noted that future site-specific environmental review
       would be required for each new school from the responsible school

                                          1
district as lead agency before approval of as yet unknown designs for
each facility.

There is no change in judgment.

Respondent’s petition for rehearing is denied.

                                  2
                                            ____________________________
                                            WILLIAMS, J. ∗

WE CONCUR:

____________________________
DANNER, ACTING P.J.

_____________________________
WILSON, 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 article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
Filed 8/10/23 (unmodified opinion)
                         CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

        IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                           SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

 SANTA RITA UNION SCHOOL                     H049854
 DISTRICT et al.,                            (Monterey County
                                             Super. Ct. No. 20CV000242)
        Plaintiffs and Respondents,

        v.

 CITY OF SALINAS,

        Defendant;

 REXFORD TITLE, INC., et al.,

        Real Parties in Interest and
        Appellants.

       This appeal arises under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.; further unspecified statutory
references are to this code) and its implementing regulations (Cal. Code Regs.,
tit. 14, § 15000 et seq. (Guidelines)). At issue is whether the Final
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the West Area Specific Plan (Specific
Plan or Project), as certified by the City of Salinas as lead agency, was
inadequate. The Draft EIR did not discuss or analyze any potential off-site
impacts flowing from an assumption that the construction of new schools as
contemplated by the Project would never be built. The Santa Rita Union School
District (SRUSD) and the Salinas Union High School District (SUHSD;
collectively, the Districts) contended that they would never receive sufficient
funding for these new facilities, and would therefore have to instead
accommodate new students from residential development resulting from the
Specific Plan at existing school sites or by other means. The Project identified
locations for new schools and the EIR addressed anticipated off-site impacts of
development at those sites. The City also imposed developer impact fees for the
Project as set by the Districts under Education Code section 17620 and capped
under Government Code sections 65995 and 65996, deemed full and complete
mitigation under CEQA for adverse impacts of a project on local school
facilities.
       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

                                         2
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.
      After the City approved the Project and certified the Final EIR, the
Districts petitioned the trial court for relief in mandate, raising the same
challenges to the adequacy of the Final EIR as were asserted in their prior
letters and public comments. The trial court, applying independent review,
determined 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
funding to build the proposed new school sites identified.” The court further
determined that the Final EIR “failed to adequately respond to comments made
by [the Districts] with regard to potential off-site impacts.” Thus, the court
determined, the City had failed to proceed in the manner required by CEQA,
and it granted narrow writ relief. The court did not set aside prior Project
approvals, instead imposing severance under section 21168.9 and requiring the
City to “prepare additional discussion of potential off-site environmental
impacts” and to “provide more detailed responses to [the Districts’] comments”

                                         3
about the “potential off-site impacts” before granting any further development
entitlements within the Specific Plan.
      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 construction, as offered by the Districts.

      1 Real parties in interest are apparently landowner applicants for the

Specific Plan approvals. They are not identified in briefing but they are, as far
as we can tell, Rexford Title, Inc.; Patricia Jane Bondesen; Diane M. Vorwerck,
as Trustee of The Diane M. Vorwerck Irrevocable Trust; Nancy Lyn Kelley, as
Trustee of the Nancy Lyn Kelley Irrevocable Trust; Kaylene M. Mortensen, as
Trustee of The G & K Mortensen Revocable Trust; Krista L. Vannest; Brian S.
Mortensen; Marc D. Mortensen; Alvin C. Mortensen and Karen Rae Mortensen,
as Trustees of the Mortensen Family Trust; Ray M. Harrod, Jr., dba Harrod
Construction Company; RCS—Salinas Investment I, LLC; and Ann Aaroe,
Individually and as Successor Trustee. We refer to these parties collectively as
real parties.

                                          4
These what-if alternatives were all premised on the mere assumption of
insufficient funding over the next several decades that would preclude the new
schools contemplated by the Specific Plan from ever being built. The Districts’
expressed concerns about a perennial lack of sufficient school-facilities funding
without providing more detailed information or identifying a more specific
alternative plan to address this possibility—for which they, and not the City,
would be responsible—amounted to no more than speculation and uncertainty.
Therefore, no further environmental review or response from the City, beyond
its existing responses to the Districts’ comments and this conclusion of
speculation as provided under Guidelines section 15145, was required in the
Final EIR. We accordingly reverse.
                         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

                                         5
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 for these topics is
driven by the number of units and square footage of development, which is
detailed in the land use and design projections. In some cases, there may be
specific commercial uses that have design details developed at a later date that
cannot reasonably be analyzed at a project-level at this time. Additionally, the
design of school facilities and other public facilities are not known at this time,
so they are not able to be analyzed at a project-level. [¶] . . . Subsequent
individual development that requires further discretionary approvals will be
examined in light of this EIR to determine whether additional environmental
documentation must be prepared.” (Italics added.)
            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

                                          6
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 Government Code sections 65995 and 65996 provide
that school-related impacts are fully mitigated under CEQA through payment
of developer-impact fees set by local school districts under Education Code
section 17620, the EIR also concluded that anticipated construction of new
schools within the Site would contribute to significant and unavoidable
environmental impacts related to air quality, biological resources, greenhouse
gases, noise, and transportation and traffic circulation. The EIR provided
certain mitigation measures for these impacts based on the site footprints and
using industry models. The EIR also noted, citing section 21151.8 and
Guidelines section 15186, that future site-specific environmental review would
be required for each new school from the responsible school district as lead
agency before approval of as yet unknown designs for each facility. This review
would consider any impacts or other circumstances not known when the City
prepared the Specific Plan EIR, which it viewed in many respects as a program-
level EIR 2 from which later projects could tier off when seeking approvals, and

      2 A “ ‘program EIR’ evaluates the broad policy direction of a planning

document, such as a general plan, but does not examine the potential site-
specific impacts of the many individual projects that may be proposed in the
future consistent with the plan. (§§ 21068.5, 21093; Guidelines, §§ 15168,
15385.)” (Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island v. City and County of San
Francisco (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1047 (Treasure Island).) But the same
legal standards apply to all EIR’s, and the question is not whether a particular
project calls for a program or a project EIR. It is instead “whether the EIR
addressed the environmental impacts of this [p]roject to a ‘degree of specificity’
consistent with the underlying activity being approved through the EIR.
(Guidelines, § 15146; see § 15168, subd. (c)(5).)” (Id. at p. 1052.) In reviewing a
challenge to an EIR, “it is unconstructive to ask whether the EIR provided
‘project-level’ as opposed to ‘program-level’ detail and analysis. Instead, we
focus on whether the EIR provided ‘decision makers with sufficient analysis to

                                         7
that each school, if constructed, would be subject to the relevant mitigation
measures in the Final EIR.
               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

intelligently consider the environmental consequences of [the] project.’
[Citation.]” (Ibid.)

                                          8
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
impacts related to the construction of new schools in Section 3.9 (Public
Services). The Draft EIR noted that the Specific Plan was expected to generate
between approximately 1,927 and 2,354 additional students for the Districts,
with a maximum of 1,623 for the SRUSD, and that the Districts’ existing
schools were already at or near full capacity with shortages already being
experienced at the elementary and middle school levels. 3 The new high school
was expected to be at or near full capacity by the fall of 2019. The Draft EIR
observed that besides the one new elementary school that had already been
constructed and the new high school then under construction, the Specific Plan
“may result in the need for the construction of [three] new schools, which has
the potential to cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts.”
And locations for the new schools were identified.
      The general topics of environmental impacts addressed in the Draft EIR
related to air quality (Section 3.1), biological resources (Section 3.2), cultural

      3 Based on information received from SRUSD on these projected

enrollment numbers as being too low, the City adjusted its analysis in an
Errata to incorporate the higher figures provided.

                                          9
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.
These letters all raised the same concerns, some in verbatim language. They
asserted that as a result of “the realities of school facilities funding,” sufficient
funding “may not be available” for the construction of new school sites, yet the

                                          10
Draft EIR did not consider this “possibility” and contained no environmental
evaluation of impacts related to the alternative of the Districts having to
accommodate the new students at existing sites or by other means. The
alternatives identified in the letters, with no further specification, included “any
or all of” the following: installing portable classrooms at existing sites,
expansion of or new facilities at existing sites, altering attendance boundaries,
bussing, and inter-district transfers. The indirect and off-site environmental
impacts flowing from these alternatives to accommodate new students were
generally identified by the Districts, in conclusory terms, as including
“increased traffic, air quality, noise, and other reasonably foreseeable impacts.”
The Districts both expressed that financing new schools with developer fees was
“woefully optimistic,” because that source of funds alone would still leave large
shortfalls, even if additional efforts by the Districts to obtain more state-
facilities school funding—an item in a “perpetual state of flux” and not certain
to occur—were successful.
       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

                                         11
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), consistent
with buildout of the Specific Plan area. Just as the number of students living in
the Specific Plan Area will gradually ramp up over time, so too will the District
have the ability to make decisions as to where such students will attend schools,
if no on-site school 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 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 patterns of school
bussing. To the extent that the District contemplates the installation of
additional portable classrooms at existing school facilities, the City notes that
CEQA provides a categorical exemption (Class 14) for ‘minor additions’ to

                                          12
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.”
              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 EIR
as it concerned new school facilities and funding therefor. Specifically, it

                                        13
described the “three-legged-stool” (state-bond-fund grants, developer fees, and
local funding) for school funding under the law as adopted by the Legislature in
1998 in Senate Bill 50 (Ed. Code, § 17070.10 et seq., Stats. 1998, ch. 407, § 4,
Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998, (Sen. Bill 50)) and contended that
due to what they considered a high improbability (or at least uncertainty) of
ever obtaining sufficient state and local funding for new school-facilities
development, SRUSD would likely not be able to construct the three new
schools contemplated by the Specific Plan and assumed by the Final EIR, which
would result in numerous indirect environmental impacts “on” existing
facilities. 4 The letter also represented that SRUSD was not financially able to
absorb these impacts perceived to be caused by the Project and that the
payment of maximized developer impact fees would be insufficient to offset
them. The letter urged the City “not to certify the EIR until the Project
proponents have proposed additional, adequate mitigation to offset the
anticipated impacts of the Project,” none of which were specified in the letter
that, again, emphasized the likelihood of a perpetual shortage of school-
facilities funding.
      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

      4 The letter also pointed out that all three sources of funds of the “three-

legged stool” would be altered, negatively so from the Districts’ perspective, if
Proposition 13 on the March 2020 ballot, a state bond measure (Voter
Information Guide, Ballot Pamp., Primary Elec. (Mar. 3, 2020) text of Prop. 13,
pp. 26–46) were to pass—yet another uncertainty affecting school-facilities
funding at the time the Final EIR was certified. Proposition 13 was ultimately
rejected by the voters.

                                        14
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 CEQA 5 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 was the Final EIR’s contemplated “construction of 4,340 new homes,
which will generate approximately 2,000 new elementary and middle school
students, as well as many high school students” and its “fail[ure] to properly
address the probability that funding will not be available to fund new school
facilities,” coupled with the “probab[ility] that environmental impacts will
result from construction activities at existing sites rather than the construction
of new sites.” Thus, the Final EIR was alleged to be deficient in that it made

      5 The Districts labeled the cause of action as having been brought under

both traditional and administrative mandate under Code of Civil Procedure
sections 1085 and 1094.5, respectively, and CEQA, specifically sections 21167,
21168, and 21168.5.
       6 The first cause of action under CEQA was related to what was labeled in

the Districts’ fifth cause of action for injunctive relief, which is not a cause of
action but a remedy. (Ivanoff v. Bank of America, N.A. (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th
719, 734 [permanent injunction is a remedy, not a cause of action, and it may
not be issued if the underlying cause of action is not established].) The trial
court here ruled and entered judgment in the Districts’ favor on the fifth cause
of action as though it were a separate cause of action. We will treat that ruling
not as one on an independent cause of action but, rather, as the trial court
having issued injunctive relief in the judgment as a remedy tethered to the
CEQA violations it found in the first cause of action.

                                         15
“the unsupported assumption that all environmental impacts associated with
schools will come from the construction of new schools on new sites” and “did
not evaluate what the Specific Plan’s impact on the environment will be when
existing sites inevitably have to house the new students [as contemplated by
the Project], including construction and traffic[-]related impacts.”
      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 Guidelines section
15088, subdivision (c), in that it “failed to provide adequate responses to [the
Districts’] contentions” made before certification of the Final EIR about the
“lack of adequate funding for new schools and unanalyzed environmental
impacts on existing facilities.” Instead of providing responsive “good faith,
reasoned analysis,” the City first responded that Government Code section
65996, subdivision (a) “ ‘obviated the need to analyze and mitigate a
development’s direct impacts on existing school facilities in an EIR because

                                        16
[the] Education Code sets forth the “exclusive methods” for consideration and
mitigation of such impacts’ ” under CEQA. Next, as alleged by the petition, the
City contended that the “scenarios described by [the Districts] are somehow ‘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), consistent with buildout of the Specific Plan Area.’ ” Both
positions were alleged by the Districts to be an inadequate response under
CEQA, and the City provided “no justification for failing to analyze the more
probable environmental impacts related to school facilities in the [Final EIR.
The City] is not entitled to analyze a scenario that has little chance of occurring
(construction of new schools), and then claim that even though there is a far
more likely scenario, the impacts that would arise do not need to be analyzed at
this time.”
      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

      7 The second cause of action was also in mandate, challenging the Project

for violations of the planning and zoning law concerning consistency with the
City’s General Plan (Gov. Code, § 65000 et seq.), and the third alleged violations
of the Brown Act (Gov. Code, § 54950, et seq.) in connection with the Specific
Plan’s approvals by the City’s Planning Commission. The fourth cause of action
merely restated the first three but sought declaratory relief, and the fifth, as
noted, sought injunctive relief resting on the previously alleged law violations.
The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings against the Districts on the
third and fourth causes of action before reaching the merits of the rest. In later
addressing the merits, the court ruled against the Districts on the second cause
of action for their failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The scope of the
real parties’ appeal is limited to their challenges to the trial court’s ruling in
favor of the Districts on the first cause of action for CEQA violations and the
injunctive relief provided for those violations to the extent captured in what is
labeled the fifth cause of action. We therefore do not address the trial court’s
rulings beyond these.

                                        17
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 (§ 21080, subd. (d); Guidelines, § 15384), and
as distinct from administrative mandamus review of a quasi-adjudicative
decision under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. The issue as so framed
was argued to be whether the EIR’s discussion of the potentially significant
school impacts was adequate, generally a mixed question of law and fact, but

                                         18
here urged to be predominating with factual questions, such as which
methodologies the City chose to employ for analyzing school-related
environmental impacts. (See, e.g., South of Market Community Action Network
v. City and County of San Francisco (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 321, 331, citing
Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 516 (Sierra Club).)
      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., Guidelines, § 15145.) Real parties further
contended that the Final EIR, a program-level document in certain aspects (see
Guidelines, § 15168), was adequate under CEQA, and for several reasons, the
City was not required to provide analysis on uncertain and only generalized
alternatives based on speculation about insufficient funding for new school
construction well into the future. These reasons included that analysis of and
mitigation for impacts to schools is limited by CEQA and other law (see Gov.
Code, § 65996, subd. (a) [exclusive methods of considering and mitigating
impacts on school facilities resulting from planning or development project]; Ed.
Code, § 17620 [development of school impact fees by district levy]). And because
the Districts had provided no specificity or plans as to which alternative
accommodations as to which existing school sites might be made, and any such
plans were solely within the Districts’ control, generalized environmental
review by the City of those impacts based on the vague information the

                                        19
Districts had provided would not be meaningful. Further, the identified
alternatives to construction of new schools within the Specific Plan would either
independently require later site-specific CEQA review by the Districts or would
be exempt.
      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. (Guidelines,
§ 15145.) Further, the City observed that the level of detail required in a
response may correspond to the level of detail in the comment (see Guidelines,
§ 15088, subd. (c)) and that the dispute about the City’s level of response to
comments rested not on its avoidance of a response but on a legal disagreement
about whether the City was required to conduct an analysis based on
speculation and uncertainty that would not lead to meaningful analysis or
information.
      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

      8 The court’s written ruling after the hearing did not itself contain lengthy

discussion or analysis, but it incorporated by reference and attached the full
hearing transcript containing the parties’ arguments and the court’s expressed
reasoning.

                                        20
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.
      In the end, the trial court concluded from the administrative record that
“it was reasonably foreseeable that existing school facilities would need to be
expanded or adjusted in some way to accommodate the influx of new students
from the” Specific Plan and that the EIR failed to fulfill its informational
“purpose because it did not disclose all potential school-related environmental
impacts that could result.” This was because the Final EIR “only addressed
impacts from the construction of new schools and failed to include potential
impacts arising from the expansion of existing school facilities, and those
impacts are external to the facility, not on the facility.” The court also concluded
that the EIR “failed to adequately respond to [the Districts’] comments.”
      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

                                        21
(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
Government Code sections 65995 and 65996. The court indicated it would grant
the writ as to the CEQA cause of action because the City had failed to proceed
in the manner required by law, and would order that “no further entitlements
be granted until the City complies with the writ of mandate.” (Capitalization
omitted.) The court directed the Districts’ counsel to prepare a proposed order
after hearing.
      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

                                         22
proposed judgment and peremptory writ of mandate “for the court’s
consideration.”
      Two months later, on August 24, 2021, the trial court entered a stipulated
order “regarding stay of entry of judgment . . . to allow [the] parties time to
discuss settlement.” (Capitalization omitted.) The order referenced the deadline
for appeal from the prior merits order, and assumed that any appeal here would
be from a later judgment and not the merits ruling entered on June 23, 2021.
The stipulated stay order expressly contemplated the court’s later entry of
judgment and issuance of a peremptory writ of mandate incorporating the prior
merits rulings should the parties be unable to reach a settlement for a different
disposition.
      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 section 21168.9 for severance of portions of a
project and the court’s retention of jurisdiction, as jointly proposed by the City

                                         23
and real parties. The judgment entered three weeks later on January 18, 2022,
reflected those remedial and severance provisions under section 21168.9 and
clarified that the court was not suspending or setting aside prior Project
approvals but rather employing severance and enjoining the City’s approvals of
any further development entitlements within the Specific Plan until such time
that the City complied with the court’s “limited relief” in the judgment and writ.
The separate peremptory writ of mandate likewise reflected this narrow relief.
        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
judgment and has chosen to voluntarily comply with the trial court’s judgment
and writ, effectively waiving the right to appeal. (Save Our Residential
Environment v. City of West Hollywood (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1745, 1750–1751
(Save Our Residential), citing Bruce v. Gregory (1967) 65 Cal.2d 666, 671.)
Voluntary compliance with a writ of mandate by the City would likely moot its
right to appeal in any event. (Save Our Residential, at pp. 1750–1751.) But such
compliance by the City as lead agency does not eliminate or waive a real party
in interest’s independent right to appeal, where that party is exposed to an
award of attorney fees as a result of the trial court’s action, as real parties
represent they are here. 9 (Ibid. [agency may voluntarily comply with trial court
writ while real party in interest defends on appeal agency action giving rise to

        9 The parties here have stipulated to defer the issue of attorney fees until

after this appeal is resolved.

                                          24
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 section 21168.9 the
court had in mind, given its prior rulings. Although the June 2021 merits order

      10 We previously issued an order to show cause to appellants on this

appealability issue and have reviewed their response. The order to show cause
was previously discharged by separate order.

                                         25
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

                                         26
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 petition in its entirety and did not contemplate
any further action in the case. (Meinhardt, 76 Cal.App.5th at p. 63; see also
Public Defenders’ Organization v. County of Riverside (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th
1403, 1409; City of Calexico v. Bergeson (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 180, 190 [order
denying mandate petition disposing of all claims between the parties is an
immediately appealable final judgment]; Laraway v. Pasadena Unified School
Dist. (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 579, 583 [same]; Valero Refining Co.-California v.
California Bay Area Quality Management Dist. Hearing Bd. (2020) 49
Cal.App.5th 618, 633, fn. 10 [“the appealable judgment was the court’s order
granting writ of mandate, not a ‘judgment’ it subsequently entered”].)
      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

                                          27
“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].) And while the judgment here simply restates
the prior order’s merits rulings on the various causes of action, it substantively

                                         28
does more in its specification of specific statutory CEQA remedies. Further,
although the separate order entered between the merits order and the judgment
“staying” the entry of judgment could not have affected the appealability of the
merits order had that order effectively been the final judgment, and further
could not have extended the time for appeal, because the judgment entered in
January 2022 is the court’s final and appealable determination, the terms of the
interim stay order are irrelevant to the timeliness of the appeal.
      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” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1064) and which
finally terminated the litigation between them on the merits of the case.
(Dhillon, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 1115 [“a judgment is final, and therefore
appealable, ‘ “ ‘ “when it terminates the litigation between the parties on the
merits of the case and leaves nothing to be done but to enforce by execution
what has been determined” ’ ” ’ ”]; see also Natomas, supra, 86 Cal.App.5th at
pp. 1026–1027.) As the real parties timely appealed from the later final
judgment, we have jurisdiction to review the appeal.
      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

                                        29
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. (§ 21065.)” (Tomlinson, supra, 54
Cal.4th at p. 286.) If the proposed activity is a “ ‘project,’ ” the second step
requires the public agency to decide whether it is exempt from compliance with
CEQA under narrow circumstances. (Ibid., citing §§ 21080, 21084, subd. (a);
Guidelines, § 15300.) “If a project does not fall within a CEQA exemption, the
lead agency conducts an initial study to determine whether the project may
have a significant impact on the environment. (Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano
County Airport Land Use Com. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 372, 380 [(Muzzy Ranch)];
[Guidelines, §§ 15063, subd. (a), 15002, subd. (k)(2).]” (Ocean Street Extension
Neighborhood Assn. v. City of Santa Cruz (2021) 73 Cal.App.5th 985, 1002.) “If
the administrative record before the agency contains substantial evidence that
the project may have a significant effect on the environment … it must go to the
third stage of the CEQA process: preparation and certification of an EIR.
(§§ 21100, 21151; Guidelines, §§ 15002, subd. (k)(3), 15063, subd. (b)(1), 15064,
subds. (a)(1), (g)(1), 15362.)” (Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th
1359, 1372.)
      “As a general proposition, CEQA depends on the EIR. ‘An environmental
impact report is an informational document,’ the purpose of which ‘is to provide

                                          30
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.’ (. . . § 21061.) According to our
Supreme Court: ‘The purpose of an EIR is to give the public and government
agencies the information needed to make informed decisions, thus protecting
“ ‘not only the environment but also informed self-government.’ ” [Citation.] The
EIR is the heart of CEQA, . . .’ [Citation.]” (Tiburon Open Space Committee v.
County of Marin (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 700, 724–725, fn. omitted (Tiburon).)
      “ ‘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. (. . . §§ 21100, subd. (a), 21151, subd. (a);
Guidelines, § 15064, subd. (a)(1).) The EIR must describe the proposed project
and its environmental setting, state the objectives sought to be achieved,
identify and analyze the significant effects on the environment, state how those
impacts can be mitigated or avoided, and identify alternatives to the project,
among other requirements. (. . . §§ 21100, subd. (b), 21151; Guidelines,
§§ 15124, 15125.)’ ” (Tiburon, supra, 78 Cal.App.5th at p. 725.) The relevant
geographic area for CEQA evaluation of a project’s environmental impacts is
not limited to the project boundaries and is “ ‘the area which will be affected by
a proposed project.’ ” (Muzzy Ranch, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 387, citing
§ 21060.5.)
      “ ‘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. (. . . §§ 21091, subds. (a),
(d), 21092; Guidelines, §§ 15087, 15088.) The agency must also consult with and
obtain comments from other agencies affected by the project and respond to

                                          31
their comments. (. . . §§ 21092.5, 21104, 21153; Guidelines, § 15086.) It must
prepare a final EIR including any revisions to the draft EIR, the comments
received from the public and other agencies, and responses to comments.
(Guidelines, §§ 15089, subd. (a), 15132.)’ ” (Tiburon, supra, 78 Cal.App.5th at
p. 725.)
      “ ‘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. (. . . §§ 21002, 21002.1,
subd. (b); Guidelines, § 15021, subd. (a)(2); [Citation].) An agency may find,
however, that particular economic, social, or other considerations make the
alternatives and mitigation measures infeasible and that particular project
benefits outweigh the adverse environmental effects. (. . . § 21081, subds. (a)(3),
(b); Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(3).) Specifically, an agency cannot approve a
project that will have significant environmental effects unless it finds as to each
significant effect, based on substantial evidence in the administrative record,
that (1) mitigation measures required in or incorporated into the project will
avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect; (2) those measures are
within the jurisdiction of another agency and have been adopted, or can and
should be adopted, by that agency; or (3) specific economic, legal, social,
technological, or other benefits outweigh the significant environmental effects.
(. . . §§ 21081, 21081.5; Guidelines, § 15091, subds. (a), (b).) A finding that
specific overriding project benefits outweigh the significant environmental
effects (. . . § 21091, subd. (b)) is known as a statement of overriding
considerations. (Guidelines, § 15093.)” (Tiburon, supra, 78 Cal.App.5th at
pp.725–726.)
      “ ‘Thus, a public agency is not required to favor environmental protection
over other considerations, but it must disclose and carefully consider the

                                         32
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.)
      At the same time, “[t]oo much should not be expected of an EIR. It is not
to have the exhaustive scope of scientific textbook. ‘An EIR should be prepared
with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decisionmakers with information
which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of
environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a
proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be
reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among
experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the
main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have looked not for
perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full
disclosure.’ (Guidelines, § 15151.)” (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

                                         33
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 evaluate effects that are uncertain to occur or
whose severity cannot reliably be measured is ‘a needlessly wasteful drain of
the public fisc. [Citation.]’ ([Citation]; see, e.g., Save Round Valley Alliance v.
County of Inyo (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1437, 1450–1451 [an EIR for a
subdivision of single-family residences was not deficient in failing to consider
the possibility that the future lot owners might build a second dwelling on their
lot pursuant to a local ordinance allowing such dwellings, because possibility

                                          34
was remote and speculative].)” (Treasure Island, supra, 227 Cal.App.4th at
pp. 1060–1061.)
      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

                                          35
(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
review in a CEQA case, as provided in sections 21168.5 and 21005, is abuse of
discretion.’ (Sierra Club, supra, 6 Cal.5th at p. 512.) ‘Abuse of discretion is
established if the agency has not proceeded in a manner required by law or if
the determination or decision is not supported by substantial evidence.’ (§
21168.5.)” (Preservation Action Council v. City of San Jose (2023) 91
Cal.App.5th 517, 532 (Preservation).)
      “ ‘ “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 § 21061].) “But, failing to include
information ‘normally will rise to the level of a failure to proceed in the manner
required by law only if the analysis in the EIR is clearly inadequate or
unsupported. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Treasure Island, supra, 227 Cal.App.4th
at p. 1046.) “A challenger . . . asserting inadequacies in an EIR must show the
omitted information ‘is both required by CEQA and necessary to informed
discussion. [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (Id. at pp. 1046–1047.) “ ‘Only if the manner
in which an agency failed to follow the law is shown to be prejudicial, or is
presumptively prejudicial, as when the [lead agency] fails to comply with
mandatory procedures, must the decision be set aside . . . .’ [Citation.]”
(Environmental Protection Information Center v. California Department of
Forestry & Fire Protection (2008) 44 Cal.4th 459, 485 (Environmental

                                         36
Protection).) 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 consider[] whether the record “contains
substantial evidence to support [the agency’s] factual determinations.” ’
(Protecting Our Water [& Environmental Resources v. County of Stanislaus
(2020) 10 Cal.5th 479,] 495; see Sierra Club, [supra, 6 Cal.5th] at p. 512.)”
(Preservation, supra, 91 Cal.App.5th at p. 532.) Under CEQA, “[s]substantial
evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated on facts, and
expert opinion supported by facts.” (§ 21082.2, subd. (c); see also Guidelines, §
15064, subd. (f)(5).) It does not include “argument, speculation, unsubstantiated
opinion or narrative, evidence which is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or

                                         37
evidence of social or economic impacts which do not contribute to, or are not
caused by, physical impacts on the environment.” (Ibid.)
      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

                                          38
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 review to
be applied, the Districts urging independent review and the real parties
emphasizing the factual nature of the City’s determination of the Districts’
information as speculative.
      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

                                         39
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.)
      IV.     School Facilities and Funding as Treated Under CEQA
      Both sides to this appeal appear to contend that Chawanakee and its
construction of Government Code section 65996 support their respective
positions. While we view the case as relevant to the issues here, it is not
dispositive, given the narrow way in which the trial court found the Final EIR
and the City’s responses to the Districts’ public comments to be inadequate—by
failing to generally discuss and respond to comments about off-site, indirect
impacts of the Districts’ accommodating additional students at existing school
sites or by other means—and the equally narrow writ relief the trial court
ordered. We therefore provide some discussion of this case and the law on school
facilities and funding as treated under CEQA.

      11 On this record in which the City did respond to the Districts’ comments

in the Final EIR, albeit not in a manner or to the degree that the Districts
contend was required, we do not view the claim as one for the failure by the
City to have considered comments altogether. (Environmental Protection, supra,
44 Cal.4th at p. 487, fn. 9 [drawing distinction between a claim of failure to
consider public comments versus a failure to adequately respond].)

                                         40
      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 (§ 21065; cf. § 21060.5), and that the “[e]conomic or social effects of
a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment”
(Guidelines, § 15131, subd. (a)). (Goleta, at pp. 1030–1033.)
      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

                                         41
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
§ 21080, subd. (b).) The supplemental EIR sufficiently provided information
about potential physical impacts that may result from implementing the
development plan and it discussed a wide variety of mitigation measures for
these possible impacts. (Ibid.) It was not required to do more, including
committing the Regents to provide funding to build classrooms. (Id. at pp. 1028,
1034.)
      As discussed in Chawanakee, Sen. Bill 50 concerning school-facilities
funding, was enacted in 1998. Among its provisions were changes to
Government Code section 65996, subdivision (a), which is a “restriction on the
‘methods of considering and mitigating impacts on school facilities’ caused by a

                                         42
development project.” 12 (Chawanakee, supra, 196 Cal.App.4th at p. 1021.) The
initial enactment of this statute in 1986 (stats. 1986, ch. 887, § 11) followed
questions in the years after CEQA’s initial enactment about its “application to
development projects that caused an increase in student enrollment and
overcrowding in schools” (Chawanakee, at p. 1021) and case law to the effect
that the impact of increased school enrollment was cognizable under CEQA.
(Ibid.; see El Dorado, supra, 144 Cal.App.3d at pp. 126, 131–132.) In 1986, the
Legislature enacted “a complex statutory scheme to govern the imposition of
school facilities fees on those seeking the government approvals needed to
develop real estate. [Citation.] The school facilities legislation (1) allowed school
districts to levy a charge against new developments to fund construction of
school facilities but capped the amount that could be charged and (2) limited the
types of mitigation requirements local government could impose against a
development project to alleviate the project’s impacts on school facilities.
[Citation.] Stated generally, the capped school facilities fees became the sole
measure for mitigating the impacts of increased enrollment.” (Chawanakee,
supra, 196 Cal.App.4th at p. 1021; see also Corona-Norco Unified School
District v. City of Corona (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 1577, 1581–1583 (Corona)
[affirmed sustaining of demurrer against allegations of CEQA violations and
inadequacy of EIR based on entitlement approvals where schools were
overcrowded, proposed developments would exacerbate overcrowding, and
statutorily authorized fee was insufficient to fund construction of new facilities
to alleviate overcrowding].)

      12 The two methods are the generation of developer impact fees under

Education Code section 17620 and the interim school-facilities provisions in
Government Code section 65970 et seq. (Gov. Code, § 65996, subd. (a).)

                                         43
      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 Gov. Code, § 65996
not applicable to legislative actions such as rezoning]; Murrieta Valley Unified
School District v. County of Riverside (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1212, 1234 [county
could impose nonfee mitigation measures to ameliorate adverse effects of
development on school facilities by reducing density of residential development
and imposing controlled phasing in areas of project with inadequate school
facilities].) Sen. Bill 50 was the legislative response to these CEQA-expanding
judicial decisions. It used “ ‘three primary means to preempt the field of
development fees and mitigation measures related to school facilities and to
overturn [this case law]. First, [Sen. Bill 50] provides for a cap on the amount of
fees, charges, dedications or other requirements which can be levied against new
construction to fund construction or reconstruction of school facilities. Second,
[Sen. Bill 50] removes denial authority from local agencies by prohibiting
refusals to approve legislative or adjudicative acts based on a developer’s
refusal to provide school facilities mitigation exceeding the capped amounts, or
based on the inadequacy of school facilities. Third, it limits mitigation measures
which can be required, under [CEQA] or otherwise, to payment of the
statutorily capped fee amounts and deems payment of these amounts to provide
full and complete school facilities mitigation[.]’ [Citation.]” (Chawanakee, supra,
196 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1023–1024.) Sen. Bill 50 amended Government Code
section 65996, among other provisions, to effect these changes. (Chawanakee,
supra, at p. 1024.)

                                        44
      In Chawanakee, as relevant here, the court specifically considered some of
the changes in language to Government Code section 65996, subdivision (a)
brought by Sen. Bill 50. First, the court concluded that the provision’s change in
phrase from “ ‘exclusive methods of mitigating’ ” to “ ‘exclusive methods of
considering and mitigating’ ” limits not only the mitigation that may be
required for school impacts but also the scope of impact review and the findings
for those impacts. (Chawanakee, supra, 196 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1026–1027.)
Because of Sen. Bill 50, the provision now “obviates the need for an EIR to
contain a description and analysis of a development’s impacts on school
facilities,” including “any analysis of the environmental consequences for the
existing school facilities that will be forced to accommodate” increased student
enrollment resulting from a project. (Id. at pp. 1027–1028.)
      As for Sen. Bill 50’s change from “related to school facilities” to “on school
facilities” in Government Code section 65996, subdivision (a) when describing
the impacts that might occur as a result of project approval, the court viewed
this amendment as a “narrowing of the statute” in its protective effect. The
“phrase ‘impacts on school facilities’ . . . does not cover all possible
environmental impacts that have any type of connection or relationship to
schools. . . . [T]he prepositional phrase ‘on school facilities’ limits the type of
impacts that are excused from discussion or mitigation to the adverse physical
changes to the school grounds and school buildings, and ‘any school-related
consideration relating to a school district’s ability to accommodate enrollment.’
(Govt. Code, § 65996, subd. (c).) Therefore, the project’s indirect impacts on parts
of the physical environment that are not school facilities are not excused from
being considered and mitigated.” (Chawanakee, supra, 196 Cal.App.4th at p.
1028, italics added.)

                                          45
      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 Government Code section 65996, subdivision (a). (Chawanakee,
supra, 196 Cal.App.4th at p. 1029, italics added.) The court then held that,
notwithstanding a “causal connection between the overcrowding created by the
project’s students,” which itself need not be considered or mitigated, “and the
construction to alleviate the overcrowding,” the development of additional
school facilities at an existing site to accommodate increased enrollment might
have “reasonably foreseeable” impacts, such as “dust that degrades air quality
and noise caused by the construction activity,” on the “non-school physical
environment.” (Ibid.) “These types of impacts to the nonschool physical
environment are caused indirectly by the project and should be considered in
the EIR.” (Ibid., citing Guidelines, § 15358, subd. (a)(2) [indirect effects caused
by the project].)
      Thus, Chawanakee held that a project’s indirect impacts on parts of the
physical environment that are not school facilities are not excused under
Government Code section 65996 from being considered and mitigated in an
EIR. (Chawanakee, supra, 196 Cal.Appl.4th at p. 1028.) It identified impacts in
that case—traffic beyond school grounds related to getting students to and from
a school facility, and the reasonably foreseeable impacts on the non[-]school
physical environment of construction at an existing school site to accommodate
increased enrollment resulting from a project—as impacts indirectly caused by
the project that are not subject to the limitations of Government Code section
65996, subdivision (a). Such impacts therefore must be considered in an EIR.
(Id. at p. 1029.)

                                         46
      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 Government Code section
65996 of only indirect environmental impacts on parts of the physical
environment that are not school facilities and providing writ relief to only this
extent. Chawanakee is therefore not dispositive authority for the finding of any
error here, because the court’s ruling was in line with the distinction in its
holding between impacts “on” school facilities and those more broadly “related
to” school facilities in the application of Government Code section 65996. But as
recognized in Chawanakee, and as the trial court here observed, the impacts at
issue still must be “reasonably foreseeable” under CEQA to be the basis of a
CEQA violation and to be subject to judicially mandated additional
consideration, mitigation, and response in the Specific Plan EIR.

                                        47
      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 to address speculation that the
university might not be built or analyze impacts on that assumption], citing
Vineyard, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 431 [but reference to the entire project being
built specific to water supply].) The City here made that assumption, and
identified and set aside new school sites within the Specific Plan to
accommodate increased enrollment caused by the Project. It also provided
project-level mitigation measures for non-school physical impacts from
construction of these facilities where possible, including to address air quality,
traffic, noise, and other such issues, observing that site-specific environmental
review and mitigation by the Districts as lead agencies for each respective
school site would come later as plans for these new schools developed. (See also
§ 21151.8 & Guidelines, § 15186 [special requirements for districts to address
health impacts in EIR for school facilities].) And the City imposed developer
impact fees under Government Code section 65996 in full and complete
mitigation for school impacts. In these ways, the City complied with CEQA, and
the Districts do not argue otherwise.
      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

                                        48
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, § 15146 [degree of specificity required in EIR].)
Further, the Districts did not offer or cite to substantial evidence in the record
that build-out of the entire Project over the estimated 20 to 30 years would not
occur gradually or would not naturally ramp up over time based on market or
other conditions affecting development prospects.
      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, § 15382 [an economic or social change by

                                        49
itself is not considered a significant effect on the environment but a social or
economic change related to a physical change may be considered in determining
whether the physical change is significant]; see also Goleta, supra, 37
Cal.App.4th at pp. 1031–1034; Chawanakee, supra, 196 Cal.App.4th at
pp. 1027–1028.)
      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, § 15126.6.) The EIR here
included discussion of such alternatives. But while alternatives to the proposed
project must be discussed in an EIR, “that requirement is ‘applicable only to the
project as a whole, not to the various facets thereof,’ ” such as new schools
within the context of the entire Specific Plan. (California Native Plant Society v.
City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 993.)
       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.

                                         50
            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 assumption
holds true, the Districts may ultimately need to instead accommodate the
additional students resulting from the Project through one or more alternative
means such as installing portable classrooms at unspecified existing sites,
expanding unspecified existing facilities or constructing new facilities at those
sites, providing for an undetermined number of inter-district transfers,
changing unspecified attendance boundaries, bussing unidentified numbers of
students to other districts, and allowing an unidentified number of students to
transfer to other districts; 13 and 3) these possible alternative and varied means
of accommodating additional students, a responsibility of the Districts, will
cause impacts affecting traffic and noise levels, air quality, loss of greenspace or
play areas, and other unspecified impacts at unspecified existing school or other
district sites, for an undetermined duration of time, whether within or without

      13 The Districts contend in their respondents’ brief that existing school

sites “are well established, as are the areas around them.” But this does not
elucidate or clarify which of the existing sites would be used or modified in
which way to alternatively accommodate increased enrollment for purposes of
assessing potential environmental impacts. Nor does this even suggest which
existing sites might be used first or might best lend themselves to any of the
identified alternatives.

                                        51
the boundaries of the Specific Plan but unspecified as to which. In assessing
this information, we note that with “respect to the production of evidence, a
party, here the Districts, that makes assertions based on actions it claims it will
take in the future”—such as various alternative measures to building new
schools to accommodate increased enrollment—“is in the best position to
present evidence that shows its plans for that future action. [Citation.]” (Wal-
Mart Stores, Inc. v. City of Turlock (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 273, 288 (Wal-
Mart).)
      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 did provide
in the Final EIR in its response to the Districts’ public comments. Real parties
urge that the trial court erred in concluding otherwise and ordering further

                                        52
generalized discussion and response by the City based on the Districts’
expressed concerns, which discussion could only be less than meaningful, given
the type and quality of the information the Districts provided. We conclude that
this position has merit.
      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, § 15384.) “If, after
thorough investigation, a lead agency finds that a particular impact is too
speculative for evaluation, the agency should note its conclusion and terminate
discussion of the impact.” (Guidelines, § 15145.) Subdivision (d) of Guidelines
section 15064 provides that “[i]n evaluating the significance of an
environmental effect of a project, the lead agency shall consider” both “direct
physical changes” and “reasonably foreseeable indirect physical changes” in “the
environment that may be caused by the project.” (Italics added.) Subdivision
(d)(3) of Guidelines section 15064 adds that an “indirect physical change is to be
considered only if that change is a reasonably foreseeable impact which may be
caused by the project. A change which is speculative or unlikely to occur is not
reasonably foreseeable.” (Italics added.)
      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

                                        53
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
displacement. The EIR found that the lack of specific and reliable information
as to where relocation would occur necessarily made any assumptions about
relocation speculative. The EIR thus disregarded air quality or emissions
impacts beyond the project site, finding that without specific and reliable
information on relocation, such analysis would likewise be speculative. (East
Oakland, supra, 89 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1249–1250.) The project challengers
disputed the agency finding of speculation and contended that the EIR should
have addressed emissions impacts of parking relocation because “longer
distances traveled by relocated truckers might generate greater emissions.” (Id.
at p. 1250.) The trial and appellate courts both rejected the challenge,
concluding that the EIR’s finding of speculation—because “the extent and
character of relocation could not be reliably determined at this time and any
attempt to estimate the extent of relocation was, therefore, speculative”—
supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record. (Id. at p. 1251.)
      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

                                        54
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 would
be located . . . . It included no ‘specific construction schedule’ because the
‘sequence and pace for constructing various land uses and facilities would be
market driven.’ And it emphasized the potentially sporadic pace of

                                         55
development, noting that some years may have no construction and other years,
in contrast, may involve simultaneous construction of several ‘elements’ of the
project. For these types of reasons, the EIR explained, ‘it would not be practical,
and would require a great deal of speculation, to identify specific noise levels for
every single receptor.” (Id. at p. 105.)
      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, § 15145) and instead may discuss potential
project impacts at a ‘level of specificity . . . determined by the nature of the
project and the rule of reason [citations].” (Sierra Watch, supra, 69 Cal.App.5th
at p. 105; see also Muzzy Ranch, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 388 [level of detail
required in EIR in any particular case necessarily depends on multitude of
factors, including the nature of the project, the directness or indirectness of the
contemplated impact, the ability to forecast the actual effects the project will
have on the physical environment, whether future effects will themselves
require CEQA analysis, and that the effects will be felt outside the project area;
less detail is required where effects are more indirect than effects felt within
project area or where it would be difficult to predict them with any accuracy];
Wal-Mart, supra, 138 Cal.App.4th at pp. 291–294 [petitioner’s assertions about

                                           56
the inevitability of development of a multitenant shopping center at particular
location as a result of project approval were vague, uncertain, and contingent
and thus amounted to speculation]; Marin Municipal Water Dist. v. Kg Land
Cal. Corp (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1652, 1662–1663 (Marin) [when nature of
future development is nonspecific and uncertain, EIR need not engage in “sheer
speculation” as to future environmental consequences]; Save the El Dorado
Canal v. El Dorado Irrigation District (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 239, 263
[possibility that a property owner might deliberately fill a ditch at some point in
future rather than maintain their property to minimize flood risk is not a
reasonably foreseeable indirect impact of project, which included abandonment
of the ditch]; Citizens’ Committee to Complete the Refuge v. City of Newark
(2021) 74 Cal.App.5th 460, 479 (Newark) [city did not need to evaluate its
potential responses to rising sea levels 50 to 80 years into the future, in part
because “the range of projections for sea levels by that time are wide and sea
levels at different ends of those projections could warrant significantly different
responses”]; No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 77, fn. 5 [“an
impact statement prepared before reliable information is available would ‘tend
toward uninformative generalities’ ”].)
      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

                                          57
Specific Plan imposed developer impact fees to fund new school development in
full mitigation under Government Code section 65996, set according to law by
the Districts, and that the City would aid in collecting those fees. The City
expressed its belief that it had sufficiently addressed, “at least in general
terms,” the physical impacts of constructing new schools within the Specific
Plan area, and that the “footprint-related impacts of the schools are subsumed
within the analysis of the footprint of the entire Specific Plan,” including
mitigation.
      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 school
facilities.” (Italics added.) The City acknowledged the Districts’ concerns about
accommodating increased student enrollment and raised the estimate of new
students from the Specific Plan based on information on current enrollment
provided by the Districts. The City further observed that the Specific Plan and
EIR maximized the developer fees that could be collected for schools and that
the City could not legally impose greater fees for new-school facilities, with the
Districts as lead agencies responsible for construction of their own new schools.

                                         58
      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

                                         59
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 (Butte); see id. at p. 161,
[treating lead agency’s “finding of uncertainty” about impacts of climate change
as factually supported in the record]; Tiburon, supra, 78 Cal.App.5th at p. 728
[legal error in failing to comply with CEQA is reviewed independently but all
factual determinations are reviewed for substantial evidence, including the
methodology used for studying an impact, the scope of an EIR’s analysis of a
topic, and the reliability or accuracy of the data upon which EIR relied]; Ebbetts
Pass Forest Watch v. California Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (2008)
43 Cal.4th 936, 955 [determination of future uncertainties and unpredictability
as leading to less detailed and specific analysis was predominantly factual
question].)
      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’

                                        60
comments were speculative, noted the conclusion, and terminated the
discussion, the City complied with Guidelines section 15145 concerning
speculation and section 15088 on responses to comments. (See, Guidelines, §
15088, subds. (a) & (c) [lead agency must respond to comments on “significant
environmental issues” in good faith, giving detailed reasons why specific
comments and suggestions were not accepted but level of detail may correspond
with level of detail provided in comment; responses to general comments may
be general].) Given the non-specificity of the comments and the extent to which
information about decisions the Districts might make in the future to
accommodate additional students if new schools were not built, and any related
environmental impacts resulting from those future decisions, was not yet
known, additional discussion, analysis, or response by the City could not
possibly be meaningful in the sense CEQA intends and requires to serve its
informational and decision-making purposes.
      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 who did
not participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully
the issues raised by the [Specific Plan]” ’ [Citation.] That was enough.” (Butte,
supra, 90 Cal.App.5th at p. 164; Sierra Club, supra, 6 Cal.5th at pp. 520–521;
Laurel Heights, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 405.) As an informational document, the
Final EIR was required to study and analyze only the reasonably foreseeable
consequences of the Specific Plan. (See High Sierra Rural Alliance v. County of
Plumas (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 102, 125–126.) It was not required to engage in
“ ‘sheer speculation’ ” based on non-specific and uncertain information about
events or development that might occur in the future. (Marin, supra, 235
Cal.App.3d at p. 1662.) Further, the Districts’ comments and the City’s

                                        61
responses reflect the Districts’ concerns and disagreement with the adequacy of
the EIR as it concerns school funding and facilities. This content serves CEQA’s
informational function to apprise the public of these issues and to enable those
who did not participate in the EIR’s preparation to consider the issues to the
extent currently possible, given the present unknowns. (See e.g. Banning
Ranch, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 940; Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San
Diego Assn. of Governments (2017) 3 Cal.5th 497, 516–517 [discussion in section
for responses to comments in EIR may satisfy informational purposes of the
document under CEQA]; City of Irvine v. County of Orange (2015) 238
Cal.App.4th 526, 550, 553 [responses to comments are part of EIR itself and
their sufficiency must be viewed in light of reasonable feasibility].) The record
reflects that the City used its best efforts to ascertain and disclose all that it
reasonably, feasibly, and currently could under the circumstances, addressing
identified reasonably foreseeable impacts as required and avoiding what could
only be speculative analysis or uninformed generalities based on the type and
quality of the information the Districts provided. Finally, the Districts’ “general
comments [could] be met with general responses,” which here are adequate.
(Save the El Dorado Canal v. El Dorado Irrigation Dist., supra, 75 Cal.App.5th
at p. 268.)
      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 full; and (3) recall the writ of mandate. Appellants are entitled to their costs
on appeal by operation of California Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(1) and (2).

                                         62
                                            ____________________________
                                            WILLIAMS, J. ∗

WE CONCUR:

____________________________
DANNER, ACTING P.J.

_____________________________
WILSON, 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 article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
Trial Court:                                Monterey County Superior Court
                                            Superior Court No.: 20CV000242

Trial Judge:                                The Honorable Marla O. Anderson

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and                Lozano Smith
Respondents Santa Rita Union
School District et al.                      Sloan R. Simmons
                                            Michael R. Linden
                                            Junaid Halani

Attorneys for Real Parties in               Pioneer Law Group, LLP
Interest and Appellants Rexford
Title, Inc., et al.                         Andrea A. Matarazzo
                                            Kathryn L. Patterson
                                            Teresa L. Zuber

Santa Rita Union School District, et al., v. City of Salinas, et al.
H049854