OPINION OF THE COURT

Kaye, J.

A property holder in nearby proximity to premises *410that are the subject of a zoning determination may have standing to seek judicial review without pleading and proving special damage, because adverse effect or aggrievement can be inferred from the proximity. Where, however, petitioner’s only substantiated objection is the threat of increased business competition — an interest not within the "zone of interest” protected by the zoning laws — even a close neighbor lacks standing to contest a zoning determination.

Sun-Brite Car Wash

In March 1984 respondents Gulf Oil Corp. and Fenley & Nichol Co. (Gulf) applied for a permit to erect a prefabricated metal automatic car wash on their property, which is used as a gas station — a nonconforming legal use. The automatic car wash was to replace a self-service car wash. The Building Department denied the application both because the proposed use was not permitted in the district and because the proposed structure did not comply with the building code, which prohibited unprotected metal structures in business and industrial zones. Gulf appealed the denial by applying to respondent Board of Zoning and Appeals for a use variance. The application was first forwarded to the Planning Commission, and after the plan was amended in accordance with its recommendations, the Board held a public hearing — consisting largely of evidence of competitive business losses that would result from the variance — and granted the variance.

Petitioner, Sun-Brite Car Wash — the long-term lessee of a car wash across the street from Gulf, also a nonconforming legal use — commenced this article 78 proceeding to annul the Board’s determination. Supreme Court found, first, that SunBrite, as a lessee in the immediate vicinity of the affected property, was as a matter of law "aggrieved” within the meaning of Town Law § 267 (7), and therefore had the requisite standing. Second, on the merits, the court vacated the Board’s decision, holding that upon review of the administrative record applicants had failed to demonstrate that the property was unsuitable for permitted uses or could not yield a reasonable return. The Appellate Division reversed, concluding that Sun-Brite lacked standing to bring this article 78 proceeding because its only substantiated objection to the variance was that it would result in competition. We granted leave to appeal and now affirm.

*411 Allen Avionics

Defendant Universal Broadcasting purchased a portion of the subject property from defendant Incorporated Village of Mineóla. The Village Board of Trustees approved the transaction, stipulating that the height of the radio tower Universal proposed to build would be limited to 250 feet, that the tower was permissible on the property — located in the Village’s "M-l Light Manufacturing Zone”1 — and that the Village would issue a building permit. In August 1982, some two years after the purchase, Universal applied for a building permit, which was issued on October 5, 1983 following an engineer’s report but without a public hearing. That very day the Village Board of Trustees temporarily suspended the permit pending investigation of the safety of the tower. After the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Health issued opinions that the operation of a radio tower presented no undue health risk, the permit was reissued. Plaintiffs — owners of properties adjacent to the parcel2 — thereafter commenced this action seeking to enjoin construction, maintenance and use of the tower, alleging that it was dangerous to public health or safety, and to plaintiffs’ properties, and further that radiation emitted from the tower would interfere with Allen’s business of manufacturing electric parts, and thus excluded from use in an M-l district.

Following a trial on the merits, including extensive engineering testimony, Supreme Court held that the construction of a 250-foot radio tower was authorized by and conformed to the Mineóla Village Code, and required no zoning change or public hearing. Alternatively, the court concluded that, even if the tower was not a permitted use, plaintiffs lacked standing to maintain the injunction action because they failed to establish that the tower threatened imminent injury to their property or business, or would cause a genuine change to the community, or would increase community hazards. The court *412termed the claim of possible collapse "highly speculative and unsupported by the evidence,” adding that plaintiffs "completely failed to establish that their real and/or personal property will be jeopardized by the construction of the tower, or that their employees will be placed in serious peril, or that radiation emitted from the tower will interfere with its manufacturing business.” The Appellate Division affirmed on the basis that plaintiffs lacked standing. We granted leave to appeal and, in this appeal as well, affirm the Appellate Division order, but on a different rationale.

Discussion

Central to both appeals is the issue whether the petitioning parties have standing to assert their claims.

Zoning ordinances are a proper exercise of the police power because they are enacted to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. In general, a person acquiring premises in a restricted zone may reasonably rely both on the promise the ordinance itself provides and on the fact that the municipality will enforce the ordinance, thereby protecting against diminution in the value of the property by nonpermitted uses. If the municipality fails to enforce its zoning laws, or acts arbitrarily or capriciously in varying the application of the ordinance, and a person is thereby aggrieved, it may seek relief in its own right. As in any other challenge to administrative action, a "petitioner need only show that the administrative action will in fact have a harmful effect on [it] and that the interest asserted is arguably within the zone of interest to be protected by the statute.” (Matter of Dairylea Coop, v Walkley, 38 NY2d 6, 9; see also, Matter of Dental Socy. v Carey, 61 NY2d 330, 334.)

Whether in the form of an article 78 proceeding for review of an administrative determination or an action for an injunction, challenges to zoning determinations may only be made by "aggrieved” persons (see, Town Law § 267 [7]; Little Joseph Realty v Town of Babylon, 41 NY2d 738, 741; 3 Rathkopf, Zoning and Planning § 43.01). By the same token, an aggrieved person may have standing to seek judicial review even where a statute vests exclusive power to enjoin zoning violations in local authorities (see, e.g., Village Law § 7-714), because such a person pursues "more than a civic interest in law enforcement; he is vindicating a discrete, separate identifiable *413interest of his own” (Little Joseph Realty v Town of Babylon, supra, at 742).

While the immediate parties to an administrative proceeding are aggrieved persons who may seek judicial review, it is less clear what other persons are aggrieved in a sense that entitles them to seek review. Aggrievement warranting judicial review requires a threshold showing that a person has been adversely affected by the activities of defendants (or respondents), or — put another way — that it has sustained special damage, different in kind and degree from the community generally (see, Matter of Douglaston Civic Assn. v Galvin, 36 NY2d 1, 5; Cord Meyer Dev. Co. v Bell Bay Drugs, 20 NY2d 211). Traditionally, this has meant that injury in fact must be pleaded and proved.

Standing principles, which are in the end matters of policy, should not be heavy-handed; in zoning litigation in particular, it is desirable that land use disputes be resolved on their own merits rather than by preclusive, restrictive standing rules (see, Matter of Douglaston Civic Assn. v Galvin, supra, at 6). Because the welfare of the entire community is involved when enforcement of a zoning law is at stake, there is much to be said for permitting judicial review at the request of any citizen, resident or taxpayer; this idea finds support in the provision for public notice of a hearing. But we also recognize that permitting everyone to seek review could work against the welfare of the community by proliferating litigation, especially at the instance of special interest groups, and by unduly delaying final dispositions (see, 4 Anderson, American Law of Zoning § 27.09 [3d ed]; but see, Ayer, Primitive Law of Standing in Land Use Disputes: Some Notes From a Dark Continent, 55 Iowa L Rev 344, 360).

While something more than the interest of the public at large is required to entitle a person to seek judicial review— the petitioning party must have a legally cognizable interest that is or will be affected by the zoning determination — proof of special damage or in-fact injury is not required in every instance to establish that the value or enjoyment of one’s property is adversely affected (see, Matter of Douglaston Civic Assn. v Galvin, 36 NY2d 1, supra; Little Joseph Realty v Town of Babylon, 41 NY2d 738, supra). The fact that a person received, or would be entitled to receive, mandatory notice of an administrative hearing because it owns property adjacent or very close to the property in issue gives rise to a presump*414tion of standing in a zoning case. But even in the absence of such notice it is reasonable to assume that, when the use is changed, a person with property located in the immediate vicinity of the subject property will be adversely affected in a way different from the community at large; loss of value of individual property may be presumed from depreciation of the character of the immediate neighborhood. Thus, an allegation of close proximity alone may give rise to an inference of damage or injury that enables a nearby owner to challenge a zoning board decision without proof of actual injury (see, Matter of Prudco Realty Corp. v Palermo, 93 AD2d 837, affd., on other grounds 60 NY2d 656; Matter of Marasco v Luney, 99 AD2d 492, Iv denied 63 NY2d 605; see also, 4 Anderson, American Law of Zoning § 27.18 [3d ed]; 3 Rathkopf, Zoning and Planning § 43.04).

The status of neighbor does not, however, automatically provide the entitlement, or admission ticket, to judicial review in every instance. Petitioner, for example, may be so far from the subject property that the effect of the proposed change is no different from that suffered by the public generally (cf., Brechner v Incorporated Vil. of Lake Success, 23 Misc 2d 159, 161 [Meyer, J.]; 3 Rathkopf, op. cit. § 43.04; ALI Model Land Development Code §§9-103, 9-104 [Proposed Official Draft 1975] [property owner within 500 feet has standing]). Moreover, petitioner must also satisfy the other half of the test for standing to seek judicial review of administrative action — that "the interest asserted is arguably within the zone of interest to be protected by the statute.” (Matter of Dairylea Coop. v Walkley, 38 NY2d 6, 9, supra.) Petitioner’s status may be challenged on the ground that the interest it is asserting is not arguably within the "zone of interest” which the regulation is designed to protect. In such instances, even where petitioner’s premises are physically close to the subject property, an ad hoc determination may be required as to whether a particular petitioner itself has a legally protectable interest so as to confer standing.

We next turn to application of these principles to the facts presented. In both cases before us, the petitioning parties have asserted standing based on close physical proximity, and standing has been disputed by respondents.

Sun-Brite’s standing is first of all challenged because it is a lessee. A leaseholder may, however, have the same standing to challenge municipal zoning action as the owner. A change *415in contiguous or closely proximate property obviously can as readily affect the value and enjoyment of a leasehold as the underlying ownership interest (see, Lavere v Board of Zoning Appeals, 39 AD2d 639, affd no opn 33 NY2d 873 [month-to-month tenant]; Daub v Popkin, 5 AD2d 283, affd no opn 4 NY2d 1024; Community Planning Bd. No. 2 v Board of Stds. & Appeals, 43 AD2d 670; 4 Anderson, American Law of Zoning § 27.13 [3d ed]). Sun-Brite’s status as a tenant is therefore not an impediment to its right to maintain this proceeding.

However, Sun-Brite lacks standing to seek judicial review because, as established in the administrative proceeding, its only substantiated objection was the threat of increased business competition, which is not an interest protected by the zoning laws (see, Matter of Dairylea Coop. v Walkley, 38 NY2d 6, 9, supra; Cord Meyer Dev. Co. v Bell Bay Drugs, 20 NY2d, at 211, supra; Matter of Paolangeli v Stevens, 19 AD2d 763; see also, 4 Anderson, American Law of Zoning § 27.17 [3d ed]; 3 Rathkopf, Zoning and Planning § 43.06). Individual property owners "have no vested rights to monopolies created by zoning laws or ordinances. These are not enforced at the instance of one competitor in order to prevent or reduce competition.” (Cord Meyer Dev. Co. v Bell Bay Drugs, 20 NY2d, supra, at 215.) Thus, by virtue of the administrative action "the land owner has lost nothing and cannot be said to have been aggrieved.” (3 Rathkopf, Zoning and Planning § 43.06, at 43-34.) As we made clear in Cord Meyer (20 NY2d, supra, at 218), the fact that petitioner is a competitor would not alone deprive it of standing if there were other injury, such as depreciation in the value of the property arising from the manner in which the use is conducted (see also, 3 Rathkopf, Zoning & Planning § 43.06, at 43-35). Here, however, the administrative record reveals that the only substantiated objection to the variance was the claim that it would result in increased competition. Zoning laws do not exist to insure limited business competition. Therefore, as the Appellate Division correctly concluded, petitioner lacked standing to maintain this proceeding.3

In Allen, we affirm the Appellate Division order but we do so on a different ground. As adjoining land owners, plaintiffs are members of a group presumptively affected by the *416change on neighboring property and therefore technically have standing to maintain this action. Indeed, the Village ordinance recognizes plaintiffs as property owners who must be given notice prior to a hearing on an application for a conditional or special use,4 and on a zoning change application.5

Having the admission ticket to judicial review is not, however, a guarantee of success on the merits. The Appellate Division order must be affirmed because, in the words of the Special Term Judge, plaintiffs "have not established the major elements of their causes of action set forth in the complaint.” We agree with the Trial Judge on the legal proposition that the tower is clearly within the broad definition contained in the Mineóla Village Code, without limitation as to height and subject only to approval by the Board of Trustees. Moreover, there is an affirmed finding, amply supported by the record, that plaintiffs are threatened with no irreparable injury. While observing that it was unnecessary to reach the merits of plaintiffs’ claims, the Appellate Division also stated that it had reviewed the entire record, including the expert testimony, and concluded that the evidence supported Special Term’s finding that plaintiffs failed to establish that construction of the tower would result in any imminent threat of irreparable injury or result in diminution of the value of plaintiff’s property. In these circumstances, there is no cause to remit the matter to the Appellate Division for a determination on the merits.

*417Accordingly, in each case the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur; Judge Alexander taking no part.

In each case: Order affirmed, with costs.

Spina, J.

In June, 2006, the zoning board of appeals of Chat-ham (board) granted a special permit to Louis and Ellen Hieb (Hiebs) for the demolition, reconstruction, and expansion of their house located at 25 Chatharbor Lane in South Chatham *116(Hieb property). The plaintiffs, Brian and Carol Kenner (Kenners), owners of real property at 18 Chatharbor Lane (Kenner property), challenged the issuance of the permit by filing a complaint in the Land Court against the board and the Hiebs. In their answer, the Hiebs requested that the complaint be dismissed because the Kenners were not “aggrieved” parties within the meaning of G. L. c. 40A, § 17, and, therefore, had no standing to bring their action. After a trial, which included a view of the properties, a judge concluded that the Kenners lacked standing to challenge the issuance of the permit, and, even if they did have standing, they failed to show that the board had acted improperly. Judgment entered for the Hiebs. The Appeals Court reversed in an unpublished memorandum and order issued pursuant to its rule 1:28. See Kenner v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Chatham, 76 Mass. App. Ct. 1110 (2010). We granted the joint application for further appellate review filed by the Hiebs and the board. We conclude that the Kenners lacked standing to obtain judicial review of the board’s decision and, accordingly, need not reach the merits of this case.

1. Background. The Hieb property, which abuts the Atlantic Ocean, consists of 13,237 square feet, most of which is nonbuildable marshland. A single-family house is located on a portion of the approximately 2,200 square feet of the property that is suitable for building. The Kenner property lies to the north of the Hieb property, directly across Chatharbor Lane, such that the Hieb property is located between the Kenner property and the Atlantic Ocean. On the Kenner property is a single-family home. The special permit sought and secured by the Hiebs allows them to raze their existing house and construct in the same footprint a new house that will be seven feet taller than their existing one.

In considering the Kenners’ challenge to the issuance of the special permit, the judge stated that because the Kenners were abutters to the Hieb property, they were presumed to be “aggrieved persons” with standing to seek judicial review of the board’s decision. However, the judge continued, once the Hiebs challenged the Kenners’ standing, the Kenners were required to present credible evidence to substantiate their particularized claims of harm to their legal rights. This, in the opinion of the *117judge, the Kenners failed to do. The judge stated that the Kenners’ contentions that the increased height of the Hiebs’ new house would block light and ocean breezes to the Kenner property and would cause traffic problems in the neighborhood were either generalized concerns, not particular to the Kenners, or were speculative. As to the Kenners’ contention that the increased height of the Hiebs’ new house would obstruct the Kenners’ view of the ocean, the judge agreed that this constituted a claim of individualized harm and stated that § V.B.5 of the Protective By-Law of the Town of Chatham (2007) required the board to consider, when deciding whether to grant a special permit, the impact of a proposed structure on views, vistas, and streetscapes. However, the judge concluded that any impact of the increased height of the Hiebs’ new house on the Kenners’ view of the ocean was de minimis and, as such, was not sufficient to confer standing on the Kenners. Finally, the judge stated that the Kenners’ evidence pertaining to a purported diminution in the value of their property as a consequence of the Efiebs’ new house was unsound and speculative, particularly where their alleged loss of view was insignificant.

2. Standing based on obstruction of ocean view. The Kenners first contend that the Hiebs’ new house, which will be seven feet taller than their existing house, will obstruct the Kenners’ view of the ocean. They assert that this negative impact on their property constitutes a particularized harm, separate from the general concerns of the neighborhood as a whole. As such, the Kenners continue, they are “aggrieved persons” and, therefore, have standing to challenge the board’s issuance of a special permit to the Hiebs. We disagree.

General Laws c. 40A, § 17, states that “[a]ny person aggrieved by a decision of the [zoning] board of appeals . . . may appeal to the land court department ... by bringing an action within twenty days after the decision has been filed in the office of the city or town clerk.” A “person aggrieved” is one who “suffers some infringement of his legal rights.” Marashlian v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Newburyport, 421 Mass. 719, 721 (1996), citing Circle Lounge & Grille, Inc. v. Board of Appeal of Boston, 324 Mass. 427, 430 (1949). As pertinent to the circumstances here, landowners directly across the street from a *118property on which changes are proposed enjoy a rebuttable presumption that they are persons aggrieved. See Marashlian v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Newburyport, supra at 721-722. See also G. L. c. 40A, § 11 (defining “parties in interest” entitled to notice of public hearing under zoning law as including “owners of land directly opposite [subject property] on any public or private street”).

If standing is challenged, and evidence is offered in support of such challenge, the jurisdictional question will be decided on “all the evidence with no benefit to the plaintiffs from the presumption” of aggrievement. Marotta v. Board of Appeals of Revere, 336 Mass. 199, 204 (1957). See Marashlian v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Newburyport, supra at 721. See also Watros v. Greater Lynn Mental Health & Retardation Ass’n, 421 Mass. 106, 111 (1995) (where no evidence presented to rebut plaintiffs’ presumption of standing, plaintiffs entitled to rely entirely on presumed status as aggrieved parties to challenge grant of special permit). A party challenging the presumption of aggrievement “must offer evidence ‘warranting a finding contrary to the presumed fact.’ ” Standerwick v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Andover, 447 Mass. 20, 34 (2006), quoting Marinelli v. Board of Appeals of Stoughton, 440 Mass. 255, 258 (2003). “Once the presumption is rebutted, the burden rests with the plaintiff to prove standing [i.e., aggrievement], which requires that the plaintiff ‘establish — by direct facts and not by speculative personal opinion — that his injury is special and different from the concerns of the rest of the community.’ ” Standerwick v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Andover, supra at 33, quoting Barvenik v. Aldermen of Newton, 33 Mass. App. Ct. 129, 132 (1992).

“A review of standing based on ‘all the evidence’ does not require that the factfinder ultimately find a plaintiff’s allegations meritorious. To do so would be to deny standing, after the fact, to any unsuccessful plaintiff. Rather, the plaintiff must put forth credible evidence to substantiate his allegations” (emphasis added). Marashlian v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Newburyport, supra. See Jepson v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Ipswich, 450 Mass. 81, 91 (2007); Hoffman v. Board of Zoning Appeal of Cambridge, 74 Mass. App. Ct. 804, 809 (2009); Central St., LLC v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Hudson, 69 Mass. App. Ct. *119487, 492 (2007). Standing essentially becomes a question of fact for the judge. See Marashlian v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Newburyport, supra. “[W]hether a party is ‘aggrieved’ is a matter of degree . . . and the variety of circumstances which may arise seems to call for the exercise of discretion rather than the imposition of an inflexible rule.” Paulding v. Bruins, 18 Mass. App. Ct. 707, 709 (1984), quoting Rafferty v. Sancta Maria Hosp., 5 Mass. App. Ct. 624, 629 (1977). The judge’s ultimate findings on this issue will not be overturned unless shown to be clearly erroneous.3 See Marashlian v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Newburyport, supra at 722; Central St., LLC v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Hudson, supra. See also Mass. R. Civ. R 52 (a), as amended, 423 Mass. 1402 (1996).

Here, the Hiebs challenged the standing of the Kenners by offering evidence to rebut the Kenners’ presumption of aggrievement based on their claim that the Hiebs’ new house would block the Kenners’ view of the ocean. There was uncontroverted testimony from Karen Kempton, the Hiebs’ architect, that the house was redesigned several times in order to lower the ridge height of the new roof such that it would be only seven feet taller than the structure it replaced. She also provided unrebutted testimony, supported by architectural renderings of the Hiebs’ new house that were admitted in evidence, that the ridge height of the new roof would be 34.3 feet above sea level. David Clark, a professional engineer, gave uncontroverted testimony that the site plan for the Kenners’ house indicated that the top of its foundation was 32.5 feet above sea level. Moreover, several photographs showing various perspectives on the *120Hieb and Kenner properties were admitted in evidence. Once the Hiebs offered this evidence to negate the presumption that the Kenners were aggrieved persons with standing to challenge the issuance of the special permit, which the judge concluded the Hiebs had successfully done, the Kenners had the burden of proving, by direct facts and not speculative evidence, that they would suffer a particularized injury as a consequence of the increased height of the Hiebs’ house.

A person aggrieved under G. L. c. 40A must assert “a plausible claim of a definite violation of a private right, a private property interest, or a private legal interest.” Harvard Sq. Defense Fund, Inc. v. Planning Bd. of Cambridge, 27 Mass. App. Ct. 491, 493 (1989). See Standerwick v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Andover, supra at 27. The right or interest asserted by a plaintiff claiming aggrievement must be one that G. L. c. 40A is intended to protect. See id. at 27-28; Circle Lounge & Grille, Inc. v. Board of Appeal of Boston, supra at 430-431. Generally speaking, concerns about the visual impact of a proposed structure on an abutting property are insufficient to confer standing. See Martin v. Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 434 Mass. 141, 146 (2001). See also Sheehan v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Plymouth, 65 Mass. App. Ct. 52, 55 (2005) (plaintiff’s concern about visual impact of condominium development on nearby wooded hill not sufficient to impart standing); Denneny v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Seekonk, 59 Mass. App. Ct. 208, 213 (2003) (plaintiff’s concern about aesthetic deterioration caused by construction of 135-foot communications tower beyond scope of interests protected by G. L. c. 40A); Harvard Sq. Defense Fund, Inc. v. Planning Bd. of Cambridge, supra (concerns about diminished aesthetic views are “matters of general public concern” and are not basis for standing).

However, where a municipality’s zoning bylaw specifically provides that the zoning board of appeals should take into consideration the visual impact of a proposed structure, this “defined protected interest may impart standing to a person whose impaired interest falls within that definition.” Martin v. Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, supra at 146-147 (standing conferred *121on abutter to challenge issuance of special permit to church for construction of steeple atop temple where Belmont zoning bylaw provided that “[v]iews from public ways and developed properties should be considerately treated in the site arrangement and building design”); Monks v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Plymouth, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 685, 688 (1994) (for summary judgment purposes, standing conferred on plaintiffs to challenge issuance of special permit to Cellular One for construction of 190-foot tower where Plymouth zoning bylaw provided that proposed structure could not in any way detract from visual character or quality of neighborhood, and plaintiffs established direct visual impact of proposed tower not only on home but also on neighborhood).

Here, § V.B.5 of the zoning bylaw states that the board, when deciding whether to grant a special permit, shall consider, among other things, the “[ijmpact of scale, siting and mass on neighborhood visual character, including views, vistas and streetscapes.” This language does not suggest that the zoning bylaw was designed simply to protect individual homeowners’ views of the ocean from their own property. Rather, § V.B.5 addresses the visual impact of a proposed structure, or of changes to an existing structure, on the visual character of the neighborhood as a whole. Thus, in order for a plaintiff to establish standing based on the impairment of an interest protected by Chatham’s zoning bylaw, the plaintiff would need to show a particularized harm to the plaintiff’s own property and a detrimental impact on the neighborhood’s visual character. See Monks v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Plymouth, supra at 688-689. As will be discussed shortly, the Kenners did not put forth credible facts to support their allegation that the increased height of the Hiebs’ new house will block their view of the ocean. Moreover, apart from the Kenners’ unsubstantiated claims and personal opinions, there was no evidence that the increased height of the Hiebs’ new house would have a detrimental impact on the visual character of their neighborhood, the interest that the zoning bylaw is designed to protect.

Aggrievement requires a showing of more than minimal or slightly appreciable harm. See, e.g., Martin v. Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- *122 Day Saints, supra at 147 (plaintiff had standing under zoning bylaw where “towering” church steeple would be visible from most, if not all, of her property, both during day and when lit at night); Denneny v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Seekonk, supra at 211 (plaintiff must be able to demonstrate factually that there has been “some” infringement of legal rights); Rogel v. Collinson, 54 Mass. App. Ct. 304, 315 (2002) (standing to appeal from denial of request for enforcement of zoning bylaw with respect to commercial trail rides conferred where “palpable” harms caused by odors and dust produced by horses); Rinaldi v. Board of Appeal of Boston, 50 Mass. App. Ct. 657, 660 (2001) (burden of establishing standing not satisfied where proposed changes to buildings’ use unlikely to cause “significant” increase in traffic and loss of parking spaces); Butts v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Falmouth, 18 Mass. App. Ct. 249, 253 (1984) (intervener had standing as person aggrieved where claim that ocean view would be “completely blocked” by new structure on abutting property not challenged). The adverse effect on a plaintiff must be substantial enough to constitute actual aggrievement such that there can be no question that the plaintiff should be afforded the opportunity to seek a remedy. To conclude otherwise would choke the courts with litigation over myriad zoning board decisions where individual plaintiffs have not been, objectively speaking, truly and measurably harmed. Put slightly differently, the analysis is whether the plaintiffs have put forth credible evidence to show that they will be injured or harmed by proposed changes to an abutting property, not whether they simply will be “impacted” by such changes.

Here, Carol Kenner testified as to her personal opinion that the increased height of the Hiebs’ new house “will have an impact on [the] views and vistas” that the Kenners enjoy from the deck of their home.4 Similarly, Brian Kenner testified that the increased height of the Hiebs’ new house will diminish significantly their enjoyment of that property in terms of what the Kenners look at when they sit either at their dining room table or on their screened porch. The Kenners introduced two photographs taken by their neighbor, Steven Wardle, while he stood on the Kenners’ porch, looking out toward the ocean. *123Superimposed on each photograph was a transparent box that purported to show the alleged obstruction of the Kenners’ ocean view. On cross-examination, Brian Kenner testified that it was his understanding that Wardle configured the size of the transparent boxes based on Wardle’s estimated measurements of the Hiebs’ existing home and their proposed new house. Kenner further testified on cross-examination that Wardle’s occupation was that of a jeweler.

The judge found that the Hiebs’ new house would have the same location footprint and setback as the existing structure, and the increase in height of the new house would be only seven feet. The judge stated that the evidence showed that the increased height of the new house would have a de minimis impact on the Kenners’ view of the ocean. The judge had the benefit of a view, which put him in a better position than we to evaluate the potential impact of the increased height of the Hiebs’ new house on the Kenner property. Based on our review of the record, including the photographs, we cannot conclude that the judge’s ultimate finding that the Kenners were not aggrieved persons such that they had standing to challenge the board’s issuance of a special permit to the Hiebs was clearly erroneous.

3. Standing based on diminution in property value. Related to the Kenners’ contention that the increased height of the Hiebs’ new house will block their view of the ocean is their claim that an obstructed ocean view diminishes the value of their property. Diminution in the value of real estate is a sufficient basis for standing only where it is “derivative of or related to cognizable interests protected by the applicable zoning scheme.” Standerwick v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Andover, 447 Mass. 20, 31-32 (2006). See Central St., LLC v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Hudson, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 487, 492 (2007). Zoning legislation “is not designed for the preservation of the economic value of property, except in so far as that end is served by making the community a safe and healthy place in which to live.” Tranfaglia v. Building Comm’r of Winchester, 306 Mass. 495, 503-504 (1940). “To untether a claimed diminution in real estate values from an interest the zoning scheme seeks to protect would permit any abutter who claims that any change in property use would diminish the value of property to obtain standing to challenge a *124zoning decision.” Standerwick v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Andover, supra at 32. Conferring standing “in such circumstances would permit any plaintiff to make an ‘end run’ around the rigorous standing requirements we have consistently recognized.” Id., citing Circle Lounge & Grille, Inc. v. Board of Appeal of Boston, 324 Mass. 427, 431 (1949). Given that, here, the Kenners’ view of the ocean is not an interest protected by the town of Chatham’s zoning bylaw, and that the judge concluded, in any event, that any impact on their ocean view would be de minimis, the alleged diminution in value of the Kenner property is not a basis for standing.5

4. Standing based on traffic concerns. The Kenners contend that they have standing to challenge the board’s granting of a special permit to the Hiebs based on traffic concerns. More particularly, the Kenners assert that the Hiebs’ plan to build a retaining wall along the front of their property will make it impossible for two vehicles to pass each other on Chatharbor Lane such that one will have to back up into the Kenners’ driveway or over their property in order to allow the other to pass. Section V.B.8 of the zoning bylaw states that the board, when deciding whether to grant a special permit, shall consider, among other things, the “[i]mpact on traffic flow and safety.” As such, the Kenners’ traffic concerns are within the scope of the zoning laws. See Marashlian v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Newburyport, 421 Mass. 719, 722 (1996); Perez v. Board of Appeals of Norwood, 54 Mass. App. Ct. 139, 139-140 n.3 (2002); Bedford v. Trustees of Boston Univ., 25 Mass. App. Ct. 372, 376-377 (1988). However, the judge found that the Kenners’ allegations did not rise above the level of speculation and, therefore, did not constitute a basis for standing. We cannot conclude that the judge’s ultimate finding on this issue was clearly erroneous.6

*1255. Conclusion. The Kenners did not have standing to obtain judicial review of the board’s decision to grant the Hiebs a special permit for the demolition, reconstruction, and expansion of their house. As such, the Land Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the Kenners’ action. See Planning Bd. of Marshfield v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Pembroke, 427 Mass. 699, 703 (1998). The judgment below is vacated, and this case is remanded to the Land Court for entry of a judgment dismissing the Kenners’ complaint.

So ordered.

MEADE, J.

*233Following the approval by the zoning board of appeals of Somerville (ZBA) of a modification of a special permit submitted by Esh Circus Arts, LLC, Ellen Waylonis, and Belam II, LLC, the property owner (collectively Esh unless otherwise noted), Claudia Murrow appealed the approval to the Land Court, *234where a judge dismissed Murrow's complaint due to her lack of standing. Judgment entered and Murrow appeals. We affirm.

1. Background. Esh operates a "for-profit [circus] school for instruction in arts, skills, or vocational training" in Somerville. Esh held a special permit that the ZBA previously granted in an earlier case. On September 30, 2015, Esh applied for what appears to be a modification to that special permit from the ZBA, seeking to increase the floor area and alter the site plan. Notice of the application and the public hearing "was given to persons affected and was published and posted, all as required by G. L. c. 40A, § 11, and the Somerville Zoning Ordinance," as noted in the ZBA decision. After a public hearing, on November 4, 2015, the ZBA unanimously voted to approve Esh's application. The decision was filed with the city clerk on November 13, 2015.

*962Murrow received notice of the ZBA decision and filed a complaint in the Land Court on December 3, 2015. She alleged, among other things, that Esh's proposed changes would cause a detrimental health, safety, and welfare effect on Murrow and Esh's surrounding neighbors. Waylonis filed a motion to dismiss Murrow's complaint on July 8, 2016, arguing that Murrow was not an aggrieved party and therefore lacked standing. The parties filed an excerpt of the Somerville Zoning Code and a list of abutters for the judge's consideration. Following a hearing, the judge allowed the motion to dismiss on August 26, 2016, finding that Murrow was not a party in interest entitled to a rebuttable presumption of aggrievement, and that her complaint failed to state facts that would establish her standing to appeal the ZBA's decision.

2. Discussion. We review the allowance of a motion to dismiss de novo, accepting the allegations in the complaint as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. See Curtis v. Herb Chambers I-95, Inc., 458 Mass. 674, 676, 940 N.E.2d 413 (2011). In order to withstand a motion to dismiss, the complaint must include factual allegations sufficient "to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Iannacchino v. Ford Motor Co., 451 Mass. 623, 636, 888 N.E.2d 879 (2008), quoting from Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007).

a. Rebuttable presumption of aggrievement. Murrow claims that the judge erred in finding that Murrow lacked a rebuttable presumption of aggrievement as a "party in interest" under G. L. c. 40A, § 11. We disagree.

To have standing to challenge the decision of a municipal zoning authority, a plaintiff must be a person aggrieved.

*235G. L. c. 40A, § 17. See Marinelli v. Board of Appeals of Stoughton, 440 Mass. 255, 257, 797 N.E.2d 893 (2003). Aggrieved person status is jurisdictional. Denneny v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Seekonk, 59 Mass. App. Ct. 208, 211, 794 N.E.2d 1269 (2003), citing Barvenik v. Aldermen of Newton, 33 Mass. App. Ct. 129, 131, 597 N.E.2d 48 (1992). Demonstrating aggrievement requires a plaintiff to show she has suffered a specialized, cognizable injury "not merely reflective of the concerns of the community." Denneny, supra at 211-212, 794 N.E.2d 1269, citing Harvard Square Defense Fund, Inc. v. Planning Bd. of Cambridge, 27 Mass. App. Ct. 491, 492-493, 540 N.E.2d 182 (1989). A plaintiff is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of aggrievement if she is a "party in interest" under § 11.2 Id. at 212, 794 N.E.2d 1269. As defined there, "party in interest" refers to "the petitioner, abutters, owners of land directly opposite on any public or private street or way, and abutters to the abutters within three hundred feet of the property line of the petitioner as they appear on the most recent applicable tax list." G. L. c. 40A, § 11. By § 11's strict terms, Murrow-who lives across the street from, but not directly opposite, Esh's property-is not, and does not allege to be, the petitioner, an abutter, or the owner of land directly across from Esh's property.

*963However, Murrow does claim that she is a party in interest as one of the "abutters to the abutters within three hundred feet" because she lives within three hundred feet of the Esh property. We disagree. When interpreting a statute, "each clause or phrase is to be construed with reference to every other clause or phrase without giving undue emphasis to any one group of words." Worcester v. College Hill Properties LLC, 465 Mass. 134, 139, 987 N.E.2d 1236 (2013), quoting from Selectmen of Topsfield v. State Racing Commn., 324 Mass. 309, 312-313, 86 N.E.2d 65 (1949). The phrase "within three hundred feet" modifies "abutters to the abutters" and does not create a standalone category of parties in interest. To read § 11 otherwise would "render [a] portion of it meaningless," Adamowicz v. Ipswich, 395 Mass. 757, 760, 481 N.E.2d 1368 (1985), which we decline to do.

Murrow also claims she has standing pursuant to the fourth sentence of G. L. c. 40A, § 11, which states that "[t]he assessors *236maintaining any applicable tax list shall certify to the ... special permit granting authority the names and addresses of parties in interest[,]" which "shall be conclusive for all purposes." Ibid. Murrow claims that, because she received notice of the public hearing and of the ZBA's decision, presumably by virtue of her appearance on a certified abutters list, she qualifies for the rebuttable presumption, even if she does not meet the definition in the third sentence of § 11. As a plain reading of § 11 belies Murrow's claim, we disagree.

As previously explained, the third sentence of § 11 provides a limited definition of "parties in interest" to be used throughout G. L. c. 40A. In particular, it states that more remote abutters, i.e., abutters to abutters within three hundred feet, are considered parties in interest "as they appear on the most recent applicable tax list." As discussed above, Murrow does not qualify as a party in interest under this provision. The fourth sentence of § 11 provides that tax assessors "shall certify ... the names and addresses of parties in interest," which is a reference to the definition of parties in interest expressed in the previous sentence. It does not expand the earlier definition, nor does it empower the tax assessor to identify individuals as parties in interest who do not meet the limited statutory definition.

In addition, this provision states that the tax assessor's certification of parties in interest "shall be conclusive for all purposes." In light of the limited scope of the assessor's certification in the context of the notice requirement of § 11, we do not interpret "for all purposes" to mean that the tax list creates new parties in interest. To do so would nullify the clear and unambiguous definition set forth in the previous sentence. Furthermore, such an interpretation would ignore much of the standing jurisprudence related to G. L. c. 40A, §§ 8,3 11, and 17.4 See Chongris v. Bd. of Appeals of Andover, 17 Mass. App. Ct. 999, 1000, 459 N.E.2d 1245 (1984), citing Turner v. Bd. of Appeals of Milton, 305 Mass. 189, 192-193, 25 N.E.2d 203 (1940). Rather, the tax list identifies and certifies owners of relevant properties, a subset of which may fit within the narrow confines of the "parties in interest" definition, and that certification *237of ownership shall be conclusive. Put another way, although the list *964may contain individuals who do not qualify as "parties in interest" under the statutory definition, such as Murrow, the assessor's certification is conclusive as to who owns what parcel for the purposes of the notice requirement; it is not an unassailable list of parties with standing.5

Taking the facts in the complaint in the light most favorable to Murrow, her name appears on two abutter's lists,6 and she received a notice of the public hearing and of the ZBA's ultimate decision. This does not entitle her to the rebuttable presumption afforded parties in interest under the statute. Were we to adopt Murrow's reasoning and find otherwise, tax assessors would be empowered to confer standing on parties who are otherwise not identified in § 11 as parties in interest. We decline to create such an impracticable result.

b. Burden to plead aggrievement. Finally, Murrow claims that the judge improperly placed on her the burden to plead that she is aggrieved by Esh's application for special permit. We disagree.

Murrow properly observes that if a plaintiff qualifies for the rebuttable presumption of "standing as an aggrieved person, a defendant must offer evidence warranting a finding contrary to the presumed fact." Marinelli, 440 Mass. at 258, 797 N.E.2d 893. However, as here, when a plaintiff fails to meet the "party in interest" designation, she may nevertheless have standing if she is a person aggrieved, in other words, if the "permit causes, or threatens with reasonable likelihood, a tangible and particularized injury to a private property or legal interest protected by zoning law." Standerwick v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Andover, 64 Mass. App. Ct. 337, 340, 833 N.E.2d 181 (2005), S.C. 447 Mass. 20, 849 N.E.2d 197 (2006), citing *238Marashlian v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Newburyport, 421 Mass. 719, 723, 660 N.E.2d 369 (1996). But it is always a plaintiff's burden to demonstrate her aggrievement. Standerwick v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 447 Mass. at 34-35 n.20, 849 N.E.2d 197.

Here, the judge did not err in dismissing Murrow's complaint for lack of standing. Because Murrow does not qualify as a party in interest and is not entitled to the presumption, the burden remained on her to put forth credible facts of her specialized injury. Despite having the opportunity to do so at the hearing, Murrow chose to rely on the bald allegations in her complaint, which fail to set forth a particularized injury caused by Esh's proposed expansion. Instead, Murrow claims personal damages in only two paragraphs of her factual allegations, where she generally alleged that Esh's "recreational use" and "proposed increase in size and occupancy" would be "detrimental to Murrow and the *965neighborhood by increasing the potential for overcrowding and undue concentration of population, discouraging housing for persons of all income levels, enhancing danger from fire, diminishing the value of surrounding properties, and adding to noise, light, traffic, loss of privacy, and trespass."

This conclusory statement, unadorned with particularized details, is insufficient to establish aggrievement. See Nickerson v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Raynham, 53 Mass. App. Ct. 680, 683, 761 N.E.2d 544 (2002) ("While the plaintiff undoubtedly is inconvenienced by the heavy traffic ... this evidence is an insufficient predicate for finding that he is a 'person aggrieved' "). Compare Marashlian, supra at 723, 660 N.E.2d 369 (standing found where defendant's hotel project would likely increase traffic and eliminate some public parking, upon which plaintiffs relied for "business and personal needs"); Bertrand v. Board of Appeals of Bourne, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 912, 912, 790 N.E.2d 704 (2003) (finding standing existed where plaintiff alleged environmental impacts of the septic system, increase in artificial light and noise, and decrease in privacy resulting from defendant building two houses directly behind the plaintiff's house). Therefore, contrary to Murrow's claim, the judge did not err in finding that Murrow had the burden to show an "alleged injury" that was "special and different from the concerns of the rest of the community" and failed to do so. Compare Boston Edison Co. v. Boston Redev. Authy., 374 Mass. 37, 46, 371 N.E.2d 728 (1977) (Boston Edison has standing as a "person aggrieved" where its loss is "direct, substantial, and ascertainable").

c. Esh's demand for costs, damages, and attorney's fees. Although Murrow has failed to persuade us that the judge erred in *239dismissing her claims, sanctions are not warranted as this appeal is neither frivolous nor was it initiated in bad faith. See Avery v. Steele, 414 Mass. 450, 455, 608 N.E.2d 1014 (1993). We therefore decline to exercise our discretion to award attorney's fees, costs, and damages. See Masterpiece Kitchen & Bath, Inc. v. Gordon, 425 Mass. 325, 330, 680 N.E.2d 1150 (1997).

Judgment affirmed.

RUBIN, J., concurring.

This case involves an important question that has vexed the judges of the trial court, who have reached different conclusions about it. I join the court's opinion, but add a few words since the statute says the assessors' certified list of "the names and addresses of parties in interest" shall be "conclusive for all purposes," and, at least at first blush, it may look like we are holding it is not conclusive for at least one purpose, the rebuttable presumption of standing given by our courts to those defined by the statute as "parties in interest." See G. L. c. 40A, § 11.

The question of standing involves a construction of who is a "person aggrieved" under G. L. c. 40A, § 17. While some "parties in interest" may also be "person[s] aggrieved," and vice versa, the concepts are different. See, e.g., Denneny v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Seekonk, 59 Mass. App. Ct. 208, 212-213, 794 N.E.2d 1269 (2003) (plaintiff was an abutter to an abutter within three hundred feet of the petitioner's property line, and thus a "party in interest," but was not a "person aggrieved" by the board's decision).

The prior version of what is now G. L. c. 40A, § 11, provided that,

"The board of appeals shall fix a reasonable time for the hearing of any appeal or other matter referred to it or any petition for a variance, and give public *966notice thereof in an official publication, or a newspaper of general circulation, in the city or town, and also send notice by mail, postage prepaid, to the petitioner and to the owners of all property deemed by the board to be affected thereby, as they appear on the most recent local tax list, and to the planning board of such city or town." G. L. c. 40A, § 17, as appearing in St. 1954, c. 368, § 2.1

*240In Marotta v. Board of Appeals of Revere, 336 Mass. 199, 143 N.E.2d 270 (1957), the Supreme Judicial Court held "that there is a presumption that property owners to whom the board in the performance of its statutory obligation has sent notice as persons 'deemed by the board to be affected thereby' have an interest and are persons aggrieved. 'It ordinarily must be presumed that such determination of landowners likely to be affected will be made in good faith and exclude none fairly within the scope of the statute.' Godfrey v. Building Commissioner of Boston, 263 Mass. 589, 591 [161 N.E. 819 (1928) ]." Id. at 204, 143 N.E.2d 270 (footnote omitted). Of the rebuttable presumption of standing it articulated, the court also said that "it is a rule of reason which, in the absence of direct evidence on the issue, will hold the board to the implications of its own determination and carry the appealing parties over the jurisdictional threshold." Ibid.

Apparently concerned about the discretion given the zoning boards of appeals to determine under this section who would receive notice, the Legislature in 1975 amended it. Rather than leaving the determination of who should get notice to the judgment of the ZBAs, it created the previously unknown legal category, "parties in interest:" As originally enacted, the statute said " '[p]arties in interest' as used in this chapter shall mean the petitioner, abutters, owners of land directly opposite on any public or private street or way and owners of land within three hundred feet of the property line all as they appear on the most recent applicable tax list, notwithstanding that the land of any such owner is located in another city or town, the planning board of the city or town, and, the planning board of every abutting [city or town]." G. L. c. 40A, § 11, as appearing in St. 1975, c. 808, § 3. Under this definition, Murrow would have been a party in interest. The statute was further amended, however, in 1979 to partially narrow "parties in interest," so that instead of including all "owners within three hundred feet of the property line" it now includes only "abutters of the abutters within three hundred feet of the property line of the petitioner." St. 1979, c. 117. Parties in interest, as defined by the statute, are entitled to notice. See G. L. c. 40A, §§ 9, 9A, 10, 11, 15, 16.

The 1975 amendment also added the language at issue in this case, providing, "[t]he assessors maintaining any applicable tax list shall certify to the permit granting authority or special permit *241granting authority the names and addresses of parties in interest and such certification shall be conclusive for all purposes." While ultimately we need not decide the issue in this case, I note that it is not clear with respect to what "such certification" is supposed to be conclusive. Perhaps it is conclusive with respect to "the names and addresses" of parties in interest, and if a person within the statutory definition is missing from the list, he or she can nonetheless be notified. *967Perhaps it is supposed to be conclusive only for all purposes of the authority to which the certification is made. Or perhaps, as Ms. Murrow argues, it is supposed to be conclusive as to what owners meet the statutory definition, providing a conclusive list identifying the names and addresses of "parties in interest."

Even assuming the latter is the case, however, ultimately we are not concerned here with who are deemed "parties in interest." We are concerned with who is entitled to the rebuttable presumption of standing. The statute does not say that "parties in interest" are to be given a presumption that they are "persons aggrieved." If it did, perhaps the certified list would control for that purpose, though, again, we need not resolve that question.

The presumption of standing articulated in Marotta was a judicial creation, and, in the absence of legislation, its scope must be judicially determined. It actually originated both out of deference to the statutorily mandated determinations of the zoning appeals boards and as a means of holding those boards to their determinations as to which property owners were "affected" by their decisions: if a board determined that a property owner would be affected by its decision, as evidenced by its notifying the property owner, that property owner's appeal would be "carr[ied] ... over the jurisdictional threshold" unless there was "direct evidence on the issue." Marotta, 336 Mass. at 204, 143 N.E.2d 270.

Marotta itself of course does not address the significance of being a "party in interest"-a concept the Legislature did not adopt until almost twenty years after that decision-and so the use of that designation to create a presumption of standing cannot have been one of the "purposes" contemplated by the Legislature in 1975. Rather, appellate cases decided after the 1975 amendments to the statute have given a judge-made rebuttable presumption of standing to this newly-defined category. They have done so by citation to Marotta, and without any explicit analysis of why the rebuttable presumption, originally given to those deemed by the board to be affected, should be given to statutorily described *242"parties in interest." See, e.g., Watros v. Greater Lynn Mental Health & Retardation Assn., Inc., 421 Mass. 106, 111, 653 N.E.2d 589 (1995) ; Marashlian v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Newburyport, 421 Mass. 719, 721, 660 N.E.2d 369 (1996) ; 81 Spooner Road, LLC v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Brookline, 461 Mass. 692, 700, 964 N.E.2d 318 (2012) ; Valcourt v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Swansea, 48 Mass. App. Ct. 124, 127-128, 718 N.E.2d 389 (1999) ; Choate v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Mashpee, 67 Mass. App. Ct. 376, 381, 853 N.E.2d 1089 (2006).

In my view, however, the reason our courts provide this rebuttable presumption is clear: it is not because the parties have been given notice, which is what the legislature has required be provided to "parties in interest," or because they have been deemed "parties in interest," whether by a tax assessor, a zoning board of appeals, or anyone else. It is because they meet the definition of "parties in interest" set out by the Legislature. I believe our cases and those of the Supreme Judicial Court are best understood to reflect a conclusion that, if the Legislature believes those individuals and entities are entitled to notice, they are also entitled to a rebuttable presumption of standing. Cf. Standerwick v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Andover, 447 Mass. 20, 33, 849 N.E.2d 197 (2006) (presumption of standing exists because "those entitled to notice of the proceedings are presumed to have the requisite interest").

I would not expand the category of those who are entitled to the presumption of standing to include those outside the *968definition who happen to be on a tax assessors' certified list, nor would I contract it to exclude any of those within the definition who are left off such a list. Whether someone within the definition has been left off the certified list, or, as here, someone not within the definition has been added, or, indeed, whether or not the certified name or address is wrong, I believe those actually within the definition are the ones entitled to the judicially-created rebuttable presumption of standing and, consequently, that a court must independently determine whether a party meets the definition. Consequently, even if the tax assessors' certified list amounts to a conclusive determination of who are the "parties in interest" that must receive notice, that list is ultimately irrelevant to the determination the court must make of which parties are entitled under the case law to the rebuttable presumption they are "persons aggrieved." Ms. Murrow is not entitled to that presumption; someone in her circumstance might nonetheless be a "person aggrieved," but the burden was on her to demonstrate that fact, and, since she failed to do so, the judgment must be affirmed.

Abrams, J.

At issue is whether the planning board of one town has standing to obtain judicial review of a decision of the zoning board of an adjacent town. After a bench trial, a judge in the Superior Court affirmed a decision of the zoning board of appeals of Pembroke (zoning board) on the ground that the planning board of Marshfield (planning board) lacked standing to challenge the decision. We granted the planning board’s application for direct appellate review. We agree with the judge that Marshfield’s planning board did not have standing. Therefore, we conclude, as did the Superior Court judge, that it *700lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment and direct that the complaint be dismissed.

We set forth the facts which are not in dispute. The planning board is the municipal board of Marshfield that is concerned with issues of zoning, traffic access, land use planning, and watershed protection in that town. It regularly proposes changes to the Marshfield zoning bylaw to address planning needs identified by it. It is the special permit granting authority under the Marshfield zoning bylaw for the water resource protection district created by that bylaw.

Route 139 is the primary means of access to and egress from Marshfield. Route 3, the principal highway connecting the south shore with the rest of the Commonwealth, divides the town of Pembroke with ninety per cent of the town to the west and ten per cent to the east. Marshfield lies completely to the east of Route 3 with one access, Route 139, to the principal highway. Development of the small section of Route 139 lying between the Marshfield-Pembroke town line and Route 3 in Pembroke has the potential to affect the concerns addressed by the Marsh-field zoning bylaw and will have a greater impact on the health, safety, and general welfare of the inhabitants of Marshfield than on their counterparts in Pembroke.

The defendant trustee, G. Stephen Miers, owns a parcel of land located on Route 139 in Pembroke adjacent to Marshfield.2 Miers proposes building a ten-screen, 1,600-seat cinema complex on this land (project). The portion of Route 139 where the project is proposed is within a few hundred feet of the interchange between that road and Route 3. To develop the project, Miers required a special permit and site plan approval, as well as a variance because the site contains sixty-four fewer parking spaces than are required by the Pembroke zoning bylaw. The zoning board granted the special permit, site plan approval, and variance in the decision that the planning board now seeks to challenge. The planning board has no duties relative to zoning requirements for traffic. The planning board has special permit duties as to uses within a water resource protection district, but water is not an issue in this case. Neither the proposed use nor the lack of parking spaces would affect Marsh-field’s water supply.

The judge acknowledged the planning board’s evidence that *701the project would affect traffic flowing to and from Marshfield on Route 3 but stated that he found this evidence unconvincing because the planning board’s expert failed to do traffic counts or to consider traffic improvements on Route 139. The judge also acknowledged the planning board’s claims of traffic “back-up on the site, police officers paid by the theater owner unduly prioritizing theater traffic, and conflict with a signalized intersection,” but found no evidence to support these claims. The judge concluded that the planning board had no standing as a “person aggrieved” or as a “municipal officer or board” under G. L. c. 40A, § 17.

The planning board argues that it does have standing as a municipal board within the meaning of the statute.3 We disagree.

General Laws c. 40A, § 17, provides that “any municipal officer or board may appeal” a decision of a zoning board of appeals without showing that its interests are harmed by the decision. See Harvard Square Defense Fund, Inc. v. Planning Bd. of Cambridge, 27 Mass. App. Ct. 491, 493 (1989). The statute contains no language of limitation and, if taken literally, would appear to sweep very broadly. However, construing the similarly worded predecessor to § 17, we said: “There are many public officers of a city or town who could be classed broadly as municipal officers but it is hardly conceivable that the Legislature could have intended to give them the right to appeal from decisions of the board of appeals. ... To interpret the statute as giving the right of appeal to such officers would greatly impair the effective operation of the statute.” Carr v. Board of Appeals of Medford, 334 Mass. 77, 80 (1956). We concluded that the right of appeal was limited to municipal officers who had duties to perform in relation to the building code or zoning. Id. See Planning Bd. of Springfield v. Board of Appeals of Springfield, 338 Mass. 160, 163 (1958) (Springfield); Planning Bd. of Reading v. Board of Appeals of Reading, 333 Mass. 657, 662 (1956) (Reading). We continue to be of this view. Section 17, like its predecessor, grants standing only to “municipal officer[s] or board[s]” that have duties to perform in relation to the building code or zoning. Planning boards do have such duties. See Springfield, supra; Reading, supra.

This, however, is not the end of the inquiry. In each of the cases cited above, the plaintiff was a city council member or a *702planning board in the same municipality as the subject land. We have not yet considered the situation where a planning board challenges a zoning decision governing land in an adjacent town. The planning board, whatever its duties with respect to zoning in Marshfield, has produced no evidence that it has duties with respect to zoning in Pembroke. We think this makes a difference.

The § 17 grant of standing to municipal officers and boards is exceptional in that it does not require any showing of injury to a legally protected interest. We think the provision must be construed narrowly so as to minimize the class of parties who have suffered no legal harm, yet “can compel the courts to assume the difficult and delicate duty of passing upon the validity of the acts of a coordinate branch of government.” Ginther v. Commissioner of Ins., ante 319, 322 (1998), quoting Tax Equity Alliance v. Commissioner of Revenue, 423 Mass. 708, 715 (1996). We do not believe the Legislature intended § 17 to grant standing to the planning board of one town to challenge a decision of another town’s zoning board.

Moreover, in Carr, supra at 79, interpreting Reading, supra at 662, we stated that “a municipal board seeking to appeal . . . must have duties which relate to the subject matter.” The subject matter of this case is not zoning generally, but zoning in Pembroke, more specifically, the Pembroke zoning bylaw’s application to a project to be developed in Pembroke. The planning board therefore has no duties relating to the subject matter of this case.

Finally, we reject the planning board’s argument that, because it is a “party in interest” with a right to notice of hearings and of zoning appeal decisions, see G. L. c. 40A, §§ 11, 15, it has standing to challenge those decisions. The term “party in interest,” defined in § 11 and used in § 15, does not appear in the standing provisions of § 17. The Legislature apparently did not intend to grant the right of appeal to all “parties in interest.” See Ginther, supra at 324 (where Legislature uses different language in different parts of same statute, it intends different meanings). We also reject the planning board’s contention that it can represent the interests of Marshfield residents. The planning board has shown no reason why Marshfield residents, if they are “person[s] aggrieved” within the meaning of § 17, *703cannot represent themselves.4 We conclude that G. L. c. 40A, § 17, grants standing only to those municipal boards that have duties relating to the building code or zoning within the same town as the subject land. Because the planning board has no such duties in Pembroke, it does not have standing.

Although we agree with the judge’s conclusion that the planning board lacks standing to obtain judicial review of the zoning board’s decision, we differ as to the proper disposition of this case. Standing is an issue of subject matter jurisdiction. Ginther, supra at 322. Because the planning board lacks standing, the judge should have dismissed the planning board’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction rather than affirmed the zoning board’s decision.

The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Superior Court for entry of a judgment dismissing the complaint.

So ordered.

Spina, J.

In this case, we consider whether a judge in the Land Court properly granted summary judgment in favor of George P. Fogg, in (George), and his mother, Frances K. Fogg (Frances), on the issue of their standing as “aggrieved” persons *693pursuant to G. L. c. 40A, § 17. The Foggs challenged the issuance of a building permit to 81 Spooner Road, LLC (developer) by the building commissioner for the town of Brookline (town or Brookline). The town’s zoning board of appeals (board) determined that the permit should be rescinded. After the issue of standing was eliminated on summary judgment, the matter proceeded to a bench trial on the merits. The judge affirmed the decision of the board. The developer appealed. The Appeals Court affirmed the judgments, both as to standing and the underlying merits, concluding, among other things, that the developer had failed to rebut the Foggs’ presumptive standing as abutters. See 81 Spooner Rd., LLC v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Brookline, 78 Mass. App. Ct. 233 (2010). We granted the developer’s application for further appellate review. For the reasons that follow, we now affirm the granting of summary judgment to the Foggs on the standing issue.3

1. Background. We summarize the relevant facts as found by the Land Court judge, supplemented where necessary by undisputed facts in the record. George lives in a single-family home at 91 Spooner Road in Brookline, and Frances lives in a single-family home at 61 Spooner Road. Their properties were located on either side of and abutted the property at 81 Spooner Road (subject property), which had an area of approximately 22,400 square feet. On June 30, 2004, the developer purchased the subject property, on which was located a single-family home. The subject property is situated in an S-10 zoning district. A sketch made by the Land Court showing the properties at issue is attached hereto as an Appendix.

In an S-10 zoning district, the town’s zoning bylaw permits single-family homes on lots having a minimum size of 10,000 square feet. Table 5.01 of the zoning bylaw specifies the uses, the minimum lot size, the maximum floor-to-area ratio, the minimum lot width, the maximum building height, the setback *694requirements, and the open space requirements for each zoning district in the town. As pertinent to this case, the floor-to-area ratio limits the size of the building that can be situated on a lot of a particular area. The floor-to-area ratio applicable to an S-10 zoning district is .3, and, at the time the subject property was purchased by the developer, it conformed to this requirement by having a floor-to-area ratio of .17.

On March 9, 2005, the town’s planning board indorsed the developer’s “approval not required” subdivision plan pertaining to the subject property. See G. L. c. 41, § 81P (approval of plan not subject to subdivision control law). The plan divided the subject property into two lots — 81 and 71 Spooner Road. The lot with the existing single-family home at 81 Spooner Road, which became 10,893 square feet after the division, then was sold to Fredrik and Rebecca Velander on March 25, 2005.4 George at 91 Spooner Road remained the abutter to this property. The developer retained the newly created lot at 71 Spooner Road, which was 11,648 square feet after the division. On April 8, 2005, the town’s building commissioner issued a permit to the developer, allowing the construction of a two-story, single-family house at 71 Spooner Road. Frances at 61 Spooner Road became the abutter to this property.

By letter to the town’s building commissioner dated May 16, 2005, the Foggs requested, pursuant to G. L. c. 40A, § 7,5 that the building permit “be rescinded and that all development on 71 Spooner Road be ordered halted.” Among other concerns, they asserted that, absent the property at 71 Spooner Road, the existing home at 81 Spooner Road exceeded the maximum floor-to-area ratio allowed under the zoning bylaw, rendering the lot at 71 Spooner Road invalid for separate development (known as “infectious invalidity”).6 The Foggs also claimed that the floor-to-area ratio of the proposed house at 71 Spooner *695Road would exceed the maximum ratio allowed under the bylaw. On May 31, 2005, the building commissioner denied the Foggs’ request to rescind the building permit, concluding that both 71 and 81 Spooner Road conformed with the requirements of the zoning bylaw. The Foggs appealed from that decision to the board pursuant to G. L. c. 40A, § 8.

Public hearings were held on September 22 and October 20, 2005. At the outset, the developer asserted that the Foggs did not have standing to challenge the building commissioner’s decision before the board because they were not “aggrieved” persons. The board declined to consider the developer’s argument and proceeded with the hearing.

By decision dated November 1, 2005, the board rescinded the building permit issued to the developer. The basis for the board’s decision was its finding that, notwithstanding the developer’s claim that disputed space on the second floor of the 71 Spooner Road house was “non-habitable attic space,” the developer intended for such space to be habitable. Therefore, the disputed space had to be included in the dwelling’s gross floor area for the purpose of calculating its floor-to-area ratio. Once included in such calculation, the house at 71 Spooner Road, when completed, would exceed the maximum floor-to-area ratio allowed in an S-10 district under the zoning bylaw. The board rejected the Foggs’ contention that, once the subject property was divided into two lots, the existing home at 81 Spooner Road exceeded the maximum allowable floor-to-area ratio because the property at 71 Spooner Road was necessary to maintain 81 Spooner Road’s compliance with the bylaw. The board stated that it had received information from the building commissioner that the Velanders had applied for and been issued a permit to “[rjemove interior finish from the attic.” In the board’s view, removing all interior finish from the third floor “attic” would render that area “non-habitable space,” and it then could be excluded from the home’s gross floor area. Once this occurred, the house at 81 Spooner Road would be in compliance with the zoning bylaw’s maximum floor-to-area ratio for an S-10 district. The board *696cautioned that its decision regarding this issue was based on its assumption that the Velanders actually converted the attic to “non-habitable space.”

In response to the board’s decision, the building commissioner notified the developer’s general contractor that the building permit for 71 Spooner Road was suspended until either new plans were submitted showing that the house conformed to the maximum allowable floor-to-area ratio, or the ensuing appeal from the board’s decision was resolved. The building commissioner ordered the contractor to stop all work at 71 Spooner Road, except any work necessary to make the property safe and secure.

In November, 2005, the developer and the Foggs each filed a complaint in the Land Court, seeking judicial review of the board’s decision pursuant to G. L. c. 40A, § 17.7 The focus of the developer’s complaint against the board and the Foggs was its contention that the board erred in rescinding the building permit based on its finding that the 71 Spooner Road house, when completed, would exceed the maximum floor-to-area ratio allowed in an S-10 district under the zoning bylaw.8 The developer also reiterated its assertion that the Foggs did not have standing as “aggrieved” persons to challenge the issuance of the building permit before the board. In their complaint against the board and the developer, the Foggs took issue with the board’s rejection of their argument as to the “infectious invalidity” of 71 Spooner Road.

On February 22, 2006, the developer filed separate motions for summary judgment with respect to its own complaint and that of the Foggs. The basis for each motion was the developer’s *697contention that the Foggs were not “aggrieved” persons within the meaning of G. L. c. 40A, § 17, and, therefore, lacked standing to appeal from the issuance of the building permit before the board. In support of its position, the developer relied on its own memoranda of law and on portions of the Foggs’ deposition testimony. The Foggs filed an opposition and a cross motion for summary judgment with respect to both complaints, requesting entry of an order pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 56 (d), 365 Mass. 824 (1974), that they had standing to appeal from the building commissioner’s decision.9 In support of their position, the Foggs presented their own deposition testimony, several photographs, a site plan of the area, and a section of a legal treatise concerning the regulation of density in urban areas.

On April 13, 2007, the judge denied the developer’s motions for summary judgment, granted the Foggs’ motion for summary judgment, and eliminated the issue of standing from a trial on the merits of the parties’ complaints seeking judicial review of the board’s decision. He found that Frances, as an abutter to the property at 71 Spooner Road, was entitled to a presumption of standing as a “party in interest.”10 He stated that while the evidentiary record before the court was “thin,” the issue was not *698whether the Foggs had presented enough evidence, but, rather, whether the developer had presented sufficient evidence to rebut their presumption of standing. The judge concluded that the developer had not. He stated that the developer did not present any evidence beyond pointing out deficiencies in the Foggs’ claims of aggrievement. In his view, this was insufficient to rebut the Foggs’ presumption of standing. Finally, the judge stated that, even if the developer was successful in rebutting the presumption, the Foggs still would have standing based on one of their substantive claims of aggrievement — that the proposed house at 71 Spooner Road would cause a diminution in their property values — where the claim related to a cognizable interest protected by the zoning bylaw.

The cases proceeded to trial on December 4 and 5, 2007. After the resolution of various posttrial motions that are not relevant here, separate judgments entered in favor of the Foggs on April 27, 2009, affirming the decision of the board. With respect to the developer’s action, the judge agreed with the board that the disputed space on the second floor of the proposed house at 71 Spooner Road was habitable space, designed as part of a complete two-story dwelling, and was not an “attic” within the meaning of the zoning bylaw. As such, the judge continued, the disputed space had to be included in the home’s gross floor area. Once included, the house exceeded the maximum allowable floor-to-area ratio for an S-10 zoning district. Accordingly, the judge concluded that the board properly rescinded the building permit issued to the developer for 71 Spooner Road. With respect to the Foggs’ action, the judge stated that the house at 81 Spooner Road, when considered on its own without the 71 Spooner Road lot, exceeded the maximum allowable floor-to-area ratio for an S-10 zoning district and was rendered nonconforming. Consequently, the lot at 71 Spooner Road also was rendered nonconforming as a result of “infectious invalidity.” See note 6, supra. The judge concluded that the board properly determined that a building permit could be issued to 71 Spooner *699Road if all interior finish from the third floor “attic” of the house at 81 Spooner Road was removed, thereby bringing that house into compliance with the zoning bylaw.11

2. Discussion. The developer contends that the Land Court judge erred in concluding that the Foggs were “aggrieved” persons with standing to challenge the building commissioner’s decision to issue a building permit for 71 Spooner Road. We disagree.

We review de novo the judge’s decision granting summary judgment to the Foggs on the issue of standing. See Marhefka v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Sutton, 79 Mass. App. Ct. 515, 517 (2011). Because a judge does not engage in fact finding when ruling on cross motions for summary judgment, we do not give deference to the judge’s decision. See Albahari v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Brewster, 76 Mass. App. Ct. 245, 248 (2010). Contrast Marashlian v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Newburyport, 421 Mass. 719, 720, 722 (1996) (Marashlian) (after contested evidentiary hearing, appellate court will not overturn judge’s findings on standing unless clearly erroneous). “[Wjhere both parties have moved for summary judgment, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment [entered].” Albahari v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Brewster, supra at 248 n.4. Cf. Graham v. Quincy Food Serv. Employees Ass’n & Hosp., Library & Pub. Employees Union, 407 Mass. 601, 603 (1990) (when court grants summary judgment for non-moving party, we view record in light most favorable to summary judgment loser). A party seeking summary judgment may satisfy its burden of demonstrating the absence of triable issues, see Pederson v. Time, Inc., 404 Mass. 14, 16-17 (1989), by showing that the party opposing the motion will not be able to prove an essential element of its case. See Kourouvacilis v. General Motors Corp., 410 Mass. 706, 716 (1991). See also Standerwick v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Andover, 447 Mass. 20, 32 (2006) (Standerwick).

*700Under the Zoning Act, G. L. c. 40A, only a “person aggrieved” has standing to challenge a decision of a zoning board of appeals. G. L. c. 40A, § 17. See Barvenik v. Aldermen of Newton, 33 Mass. App. Ct. 129, 131 (1992) (status as “person aggrieved” is jurisdictional prerequisite to maintaining action under G. L. c. 40A, § 17).12 See generally M. Bobrowski, Massachusetts Land Use and Planning Law § 11.03[A], at 343-353 (3d ed. 2011). A “person aggrieved” is one who “suffers some infringement of his legal rights.” Marashlian, supra at 721, citing Circle Lounge & Grille, Inc. v. Board of Appeal of Boston, 324 Mass. 427, 430 (1949). Of particular importance, the right or interest asserted by a plaintiff claiming aggrievement must be one that the Zoning Act is intended to protect, either explicitly or implicitly. See Kenner v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Chatham, 459 Mass. 115, 120 (2011) (Kenner); Standerwick, supra at 27-28. See also Marhefka v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Sutton, supra at 518-519, and cases cited. We do not define aggrievement narrowly, see Marashlian, supra, but we have stated that “[a]ggrievement requires a showing of more than minimal or slightly appreciable harm.” Kenner, supra at 121, and cases cited.

Abutters are entitled to a rebuttable presumption that they are “aggrieved” persons under the Zoning Act and, therefore, have standing to challenge a decision of a zoning board of appeals.13 See G. L. c. 40A, § 11 (presumption of standing conferred on “parties in interest,” who include “abutters”). See also Marashlian, supra; Watros v. Greater Lynn Mental Health & Retardation Ass’n, 421 Mass. 106, 111 (1995); Marotta v. Board of Appeals of Revere, 336 Mass. 199, 204 (1957). However, an adverse party can challenge an abutter’s presumption of standing by offering evidence “warranting a finding contrary to the presumed fact.” Marinelli v. Board of Appeals of Stoughton, 440 Mass. 255, 258 (2003). See Watros v. Greater Lynn Mental Health & Retardation *701 Ass’n, supra (presumption rebutted when defendant “challenges a plaintiff’s status as an aggrieved person and offers evidence supporting his or her challenge” [emphasis in original]). See also Standerwick, supra at 34. The presumption of aggrievement conferred on abutters does not shift the burden of proof on standing. See id. at 34-35 & n.20. The plaintiff always bears the burden of proving aggrievement necessary to confer standing; an abutter’s presumption of standing simply places on the adverse party the initial burden of going forward with evidence. See id.

If a defendant offers enough evidence to warrant a finding contrary to the presumed fact, the presumption of aggrievement is rebutted, and the plaintiff must prove standing by putting forth credible evidence to substantiate the allegations. See Kenner, supra at 118; Sweenie v. A.L. Prime Energy Consultants, 451 Mass. 539, 543 & n.11 (2008); Marashlian, supra. This requires that the plaintiff “establish — by direct facts and not by speculative personal opinion — that his injury is special and different from the concerns of the rest of the community.” Standerwick, supra at 33, quoting Barvenik v. Aldermen of Newton, supra at 132. See Kenner, supra at 118, 120. At that juncture, the jurisdictional issue of standing will be decided on the basis of all the evidence, with no benefit to the plaintiff from the presumption of aggrievement. See id. at 118. See also Marashlian, supra; Barvenik v. Aldermen of Newton, supra at 131. “Standing essentially becomes a question of fact for the judge.” Kenner, supra at 119.

In contrast, when a defendant fails to offer evidence warranting a finding contrary to the presumed fact, the presumption of aggrievement is not rebutted, the abutter is deemed to have standing, and the case proceeds on the merits. See Marinelli v. Board of Appeals of Stoughton, supra (where evidence insufficient to rebut presumption of aggrievement, plaintiff has standing to appeal from determination by board of appeals); Watros v. Greater Lynn Mental Health & Retardation Ass’n, supra (where no evidence presented to rebut presumption of standing, plaintiffs entitled to rely entirely on presumed status as aggrieved parties, and court has jurisdiction to review decision of board of appeals); Valcourt v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Swansea, 48 Mass. App. Ct. 124, 128 (1999) (where defendant fails to meet burden of producing evidence to rebut presumption of *702standing, presumption remains operative and abutters are “persons aggrieved” within meaning of G. L. c. 40A, § 17); Murray v. Board of Appeals of Barnstable, 22 Mass. App. Ct. 473, 476 (1986); Rafferty v. Sancta Maria Hosp., 5 Mass. App. Ct. 624, 629-631 (1977).

The crux of the present dispute is what evidence a defendant must produce, in the context of summary judgment, to rebut successfully the presumption of standing. First, and perhaps most simply, a defendant can rebut the presumption by showing that, as a matter of law, the claims of aggrievement raised by an abutter, either in the complaint or during discovery, are not interests that the Zoning Act is intended to protect. See Kenner, supra at 120, and cases cited (concerns about visual impact of proposed structure on abutting property generally insufficient to confer standing because not within scope of interests protected by G. L. c. 40A). See also Standerwick, supra at 30-31 (preservation of real estate value of property abutting affordable housing development does not constitute cognizable basis for standing to challenge issuance of comprehensive permit where G. L. c. 40B not intended to protect such interest). An abutter can have no reasonable expectation of proving a legally cognizable injury where the Zoning Act and related zoning ordinances or bylaws do not offer protection from the alleged harm in the first instance. In such circumstances, the defendant will have rebutted the plaintiff’s presumption of standing.

Second, where an abutter has alleged harm to an interest protected by the zoning laws, a defendant can rebut the presumption of standing by coming forward with credible affirmative evidence that refutes the presumption. The evidence must “warrant!] a finding contrary to the presumed fact” of aggrievement. Marinelli v. Board of Appeals of Stoughton, supra. For example, the defendant may present affidavits of experts establishing that an abutter’s allegations of harm are unfounded or de minimis. See Kenner, supra at 119-120. See also Standerwick, supra at 23-24, 35.14 Such evidence, if believed, would contradict the *703presumed fact of aggrievement and, thus, rebut the plaintiff’s presumption of standing.15

We acknowledged in Standerwick, supra at 35, that, in the summary judgment context, “a defendant is not required to present affirmative evidence that refutes a plaintiff’s basis for standing” (emphasis added). Rather, “[i]t is enough that the moving party ‘demonstrate!], by reference to material described in Mass. R. Civ. P. 56 (c), [365 Mass. 824 (1974),] unmet by countervailing materials, that the party opposing the motion has no reasonable expectation of proving’ a legally cognizable injury.” Id., quoting Kourouvacilis v. General Motors Corp., 410 Mass. 706, 716 (1991). See Bell v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Gloucester, 429 Mass. 551, 554 (1999). To rebut the presumption of standing in Standerwick, the developer presented the plaintiffs’ own responses to discovery in which they conceded that they had no evidence to support various allegations of aggrievement. See Standerwick, supra at 24, 35-36. Where such admissions were made, the developer was entitled to rely on them as evidence to show that the plaintiffs had no factual basis for their claims of harm and, therefore, had no reasonable expectation of proving that they were “aggrieved.” Id. at 35-37. We cautioned that “[i]t is not sufficient for a defendant simply to file a motion for summary judgment, or to deny the plaintiffs’ allegations.” Id. at 37. See Valcourt v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Swansea, supra (defendants’ answer to abutters’ complaint and memoranda of law opposing abutters’ motions for summary judgment did not constitute evidence supporting challenge to presumptive standing). However, where a plaintiff acknowledges during discovery a lack of substantive evidence to establish a legally cognizable injury, a defendant may rely on those admissions to rebut the plaintiff’s presumption of standing, rather than *704presenting independent evidence that would warrant a finding of no aggrievement.

Here, the Foggs enjoyed a presumption of standing to challenge the issuance of the building permit to the developer. The developer’s strategy to rebut such presumption was not to present any affirmative evidence but, rather, to rely on its own legal arguments and on portions of the Foggs’ deposition testimony. As to his allegations of aggrievement, George testified that he was damaged “financially and esthetically” by the configuration of 71 Spooner Road. He stated that “[t]he house is crowded in and not [in] keeping with the other houses on the street and stands out in not a positive way . . . .” George also testified that the house at 71 Spooner Road “shuts off a view” he had to his mother’s property such that he could no longer keep track of entering and exiting vehicles. He acknowledged that he had not gotten “any professional opinion” as to how the value of his own house might be affected by the new construction. With regard to 71 Spooner Road, Frances testified that “[i]t’s too big a house on too small a lot. It’s against the law.” She also stated that it “spoils [her] view” and “causes traffic.”

Although not versed in the terminology of zoning law, the Foggs’ testimony clearly indicates that one of their allegations of aggrievement16 was that construction of the house at 71 Spooner Road violated the density provisions of the zoning bylaw.17 The Foggs presented several photographs and a site plan of the area showing the 71 Spooner Road house in relation to their own properties. Simply put, they identified a legally cognizable injury. See Sheppard v. Zoning Bd. of Appeal of Boston, 74 Mass. App. Ct. 8, 11-12 (2009), S.C., 81 Mass. App. Ct. 394 (2012) (variances granted to defendant further exacerbated density problems that zoning code was meant to *705address and, consequently, conferred standing on abutter as aggrieved person); Dwyer v. Gallo, 73 Mass. App. Ct. 292, 296 (2008) (where zoning bylaw designed to prevent congestion and overcrowding of land, abutter has cognizable legal interest in stopping further construction in overly dense zoning district). The developer’s mere reliance on the Foggs’ deposition testimony did not constitute evidence “warranting a finding contrary to the presumed fact” of aggrievement. Marinelli v. Board of Appeals of Stoughton, supra. Unlike in Standerwick, the developer did not show, through such deposition testimony, that the Foggs had no factual basis for their claim of harm, namely, the overcrowding of the 71 Spooner Road lot that negatively affected the density of the neighborhood. As we have stated, the initial burden of producing evidence was on the developer, not the Foggs, because they were presumed to be aggrieved. We conclude that the developer failed to rebut the Foggs’ presumption of standing. Accordingly, because the Foggs were deemed to have standing, the judge properly eliminated that issue from the ensuing trial on the merits of the parties’ complaints seeking judicial review of the board’s decision to rescind the building permit.

3. Conclusion. The decision and order of the Land Court judge granting summary judgment to the Foggs on the issue of standing is affirmed.

So ordered.

*706Appendix.

Lynch, J.

The defendant Gloucester Housing Authority (authority) applied for a comprehensive permit to build low *552income housing on its land under G. L. c. 40B, § 21.3 The defendant zoning board of appeals of Gloucester (board) scheduled a public hearing on the authority’s application. Because the public hearing did not occur within thirty days of the board’s receipt of the application, as is required by G. L. c. 40B, § 21, the application was constructively approved.

Mac Stewart Bell, trustee of M-M Realty Trust (trustee), an abutter of the authority’s land, appealed to the Superior Court asserting that, because the board failed to hold a public hearing, he was precluded from airing his opposition.

After the denial of their motions to dismiss and for summary judgment the authority and the board jointly moved to dismiss, asserting that the trustee lacked standing because he was not an “aggrieved person,” which the statutes require as a prerequisite to appealing from a grant of a comprehensive permit.4 The trustee again opposed the motion, claiming that, because his property abutted the proposed project site, he enjoyed a rebut-table presumption that he had standing as an “aggrieved” person.

The judge treated the motion as one for summary judgment and allowed the motion. She ruled that the defendants had successfully rebutted the trustee’s presumptive standing because there was no evidence showing that the proposed project would affect any legally protected interests of the trustee.

On appeal the trustee argues that (1) the judge applied the wrong standing requirements; (2) even if the judge applied the correct rule, she incorrectly ruled that the trustee was not an “aggrieved” person under that standard; and that (3) the judge erred in treating the defendants’ motion to dismiss under Mass. R. Civ. P. 12 (b) (1), 365 Mass. 754 (1974), as a motion for summary judgment. We transferred the case to this court on our own motion. We now conclude that the judge’s ruling was correct as to these claims and affirm the grant of summary judgment.

*5531. Standing requirements. The trustee argues that the standing requirements of G. L. c. 40A are not applicable to appeals under G. L. c. 40B. The trustee points out that G. L. c. 40A, which governs local zoning, is designed to protect “the public interest of certain neighborhoods against uses which are believed to be deleterious to such neighborhoods,” Kaplan v. Boston, 330 Mass. 381, 384 (1953), citing Circle Lounge & Grill, Inc. v. Board of Appeal of Boston, 324 Mass. 427, 431 (1949), and as such, encourages local authorities to adopt zoning regulations. The trustee contends that G. L. c. 40B, on the other hand, is designed to diminish local authority by allowing the Commonwealth to override a local zoning regulation where such regulation may impede the construction of low income housing. From this distinction, the trustee broadly concludes that these legislative policies are mutually exclusive, and therefore a single rule of standing cannot adequately accommodate both chapters.5 This argument is unavailing.

The trustee’s argument ignores the plain language of G. L. c. 40B, § 21, which provides that persons “aggrieved by the issuance of a comprehensive permit. . . may appeal to the court as provided in section seventeen of chapter forty A” (emphasis added). As the judge below correctly noted, this unambiguous legislative directive disposes of the trustee’s argument.

Furthermore, we see no conflict between a policy geared toward overcoming local objection to low income housing and a rule of standing that limits the right to appeal from the grant of a permit. We therefore agree with the judge that the same standing requirements apply to appeals under G. L. c. 40A and G. L. c. 40B appeals.

2. Rebuttal of presumptive standing. In Marashlian v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Newburyport, 421 Mass. 719, 721 (1996), we stated:

“Abutters . . . enjoy a rebuttable presumption they are ‘persons aggrieved.’ ... If standing is challenged, the jurisdictional question is decided on ‘all the evidence with no benefit to tile plaintiffs from the presumption.’ ... A review of standing based on ‘all the evidence’ does not require that the factfinder ultimately find a plaintiff’s al*554legations meritorious. To do so would be to deny standing, after the fact, to any unsuccessful plaintiff. Rather, the plaintiff must put forth credible evidence to substantiate his allegations. In this context, standing becomes, then, essentially a question of fact for the trial judge.” (Citation omitted.)

The trustee argues that the defendants presented no evidence to rebut his presumptive, standing and, accordingly, the judge erred in ruling that he was not an “aggrieved” party under G. L. c. 40A, § 17. But the judge ruled that the trustee’s deposition testimony failed to show that the proposed project will impair any interests of the trustee that are protected by the zoning law. Thus, the defendants have rebutted the trustee’s presumption of standing and the trustee has failed to offer any evidence of “a plausible claim of a definite violation of a private right, a private property interest, or a private legal interest” necessary to challenge the permit at issue. Harvard Square Defense Fund, Inc. v. Planning Bd. of Cambridge, 27 Mass. App. Ct. 491, 493 (1989).

For example, the complaint alleges that the defendants’ permit application proposal (1) fails to consider whether the proposed housing would suit the neighborhood scheme generally; (2) may not “provide for the highest and best use of the taxpayers’ Public Lands and Public Funds”; (3) lacks exploration of other potential low income housing solutions; and (4) does not conform to the layout of the local neighborhood. To the extent that these allegations aver any injury, the injury inures only to the detriment of the community at large, and not to the trustee specifically. Although the trustee also alleged that the proposed project would “eliminate^ the option to provide any additional parking or access” to a local playing field, neither his complaint nor his deposition testimony indicates that the proposed project would take away parking to which he was legally entitled. Instead, he alleges only that the project may someday limit the community’s ability to gain access to and to park by the playing field.

The trustee failed to offer any evidence to “establish — by direct facts and not by speculative personal opinion — that his injury is special and different from the concerns of the rest of the community.” Barvenik v. Aldermen of Newton, 33 Mass. App. Ct. 129, 132 (1992). Accordingly, the judge did not err in ruling that the trustee is not an aggrieved person under G. L. c. 40A, § 17.

*5553. Propriety of treating the motion to dismiss as one for summary judgment. The trustee next challenges the judge’s treatment of the defendants’ motion under Mass. R. Civ. P. 12 (b) (1), as a summary judgment motion.6 To support this challenge, he relies solely on Watros v. Greater Lynn Mental Health & Retardation Ass’n, 421 Mass. 106, 109 (1995). In that case we concluded that a motion to dismiss brought under rule 12 (b) (1) was not required to be treated as a motion for summary judgment where the judge considered matters outside the pleadings. We reasoned that, under the plain language of rule 12, where a party presented (and the judge admitted) material outside the pleadings, only Mass. R. Civ. P. 12 (b) (6), 365 Mass. 754 (1974) (failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted) compels the judge to treat the motion to dismiss as one for summary judgment. However, we have never held that this logic precludes a judge from treating a motion under rule 12 (b) (1) as one for summary judgment in the appropriate circumstance. We decline to do so here. The judge acted within her discretion in treating the defendant’s motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment.

We therefore conclude that the judge’s dismissal was proper and affirm the decision.

So ordered.

OPINION

EASTAUGH, Justice.

I. INTRODUCTION

After the Homer City Council passed an ordinance limiting the floor area of stores in three City of Homer zoning districts to between 20,000 and 45,000 square feet, Homer residents passed an initiative that increased the area to 66,000 square feet for all three zoning districts. Homer resident Frank Griswold sued the city and argued that the initiative was invalid for various reasons. The superior court upheld the initiative and granted summary judgment to the city. Griswold appeals, arguing that zoning is not a proper subject for an initiative. Because this zoning initiative impermissibly bypassed the Homer Advisory Planning Commission, and therefore exceeded the city council's own legislative power, we conclude that the initiative was invalid. We consequently remand for entry of judgment for Griswold.

II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

When Fred Meyer, Inc. publicly announced plans in late 2002 to build a 95,000-square-foot store in Homer, the city began an extensive review of its existing zoning code to determine whether it needed to alter *560floor area limits for retail and wholesale stores. For two years, beginning in March 2008, the question was considered by a special task force, by the Homer Advisory Planning Commission, and by the Homer City Council in more than a dozen hearings. After analyzing issues including traffic impact, the ideal rate of development, landscaping, maintaining the local character of Homer, and protecting groundwater, the planning commission made a series of recommendations to the city council regarding the appropriate floor area for retail and wholesale stores.

While those hearings were still being conducted, Homer voters in March 2004 filed with the city clerk an initiative petition that proposed a "footprint area" of 66,000 square feet for retail and wholesale business buildings in the Central Business District, General Commercial 1 District, and General Commercial 2 District. On April 12, 2004, the city council passed Ordinance 04-11(A), which set building floor area limits of 35,000 square feet in the Central Business District, 20,000 to 45,000 square feet in the General Commercial 1 District, and 45,000 square feet in the General Commercial 2 District. On the same day, in response to the initiative petition, the city council scheduled an election on the initiative for June 15, 2004. The voters approved the initiative at the June 15 election; the initiative became effective on June 21, 2004 as Ordinance 04-18.

Stating that a change in the zoning code sections was "required to properly convey the will of the voters," and that an ordinance was "necessary to implement the will of the voters," in February 2005 the city council enacted Ordinance 05-02, adopting a maximum floor area of 66,000 square feet for retail and wholesale business buildings in the three affected zoning districts. Ordinance 05-02 amended Ordinance 04-11(A) to reflect the text of the initiative. Ordinance 05-02 also effectively defined "footprint area" as "floor area," meaning "the total area occupied by a building, taken on a horizontal plane at the main grade level, exclusive of steps and any accessory buildings." 1

Frank Griswold challenged the initiative in the superior court, claiming among other things that the initiative process could not be used to amend the zoning code. The city prevailed on summary judgment.

Griswold appeals.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

We review a grant of summary judgment de novo.2 We decide the questions of law presented on appeal from a grant of summary judgment by adopting "the rule of law that is most persuasive in light of precedent, reason, and policy." 3

B. The Initiative Was an Invalid Exercise of the City's Legislative Authority Because It Bypassed the Homer Advisory Planning Commission.

Griswold argues that the zoning initiative is invalid for several reasons. He contends, among other things, that the zoning authority delegated to the City of Homer requires it to pass only zoning ordinances that are consistent with the city's comprehensive plan. The city, citing Citizens Coalition for Tort Reform v. McAlpine,4 responds that the voters' constitutional right to enact initiatives should be broadly construed to permit the voters to amend zoning laws. The city contends that because the city council has the power to enact zoning ordinances, the voters must have the same power.

The power to initiate cannot exceed the power to legislate.5 To decide whether Homer voters could invoke the initiative pro*561cess to amend the City of Homer zoning code we must determine the extent of the city council's zoning power and the explicit and implicit limitations on that power. The city's zoning power flows from two sources: Alaska statutes providing for planning, platting, and land use regulation by local governments, and Kenai Peninsula Borough ordinances delegating zoning powers to cities within the borough.

We first review the statutory sources of that power. Alaska Statute 29.40.010 requires first and second class boroughs to provide for "planning, platting, and land use regulation on an areawide basis." 6 If a city within a borough consents by ordinance, the borough assembly may delegate any of its land use regulation powers to the city.7 Alaska Statute 29.40.020(a) provides that the borough "shall establish a planning commission" and AS 29.40.020(b) provides that the planning commission "shall prepare and submit a proposed comprehensive plan in accordance with AS 29.40.0380. ..."8 Section .030 describes "a comprehensive plan" as "a compilation of policy statements, goals, standards, and maps for guiding the physical, social, and economic development, both private and public, of the first or second class borough." 9

These statutes require "areawide" planning and creation of a comprehensive plan "for the systematic and organized development" of the community, and they implicitly recognize the importance of the planning commission and the comprehensive plan to the process of regulating land use.10

A planning commission has statutory responsibilities beyond drafting the comprehensive plan. Per AS 29.40.020(b)(2), the commission must also "review, recommend, and administer measures necessary to implement the comprehensive plan, including measures provided under AS 29.40.040." 11 Because "zoning regulations" are one of the *562"measures provided under AS 29.40.040," 12 subsection .020(b)(2) requires the planning commission to "review, recommend, and administer" zoning regulations "necessary to implement the comprehensive plan." The assembly by ordinance "shall adopt or amend" land use provisions "[iJn accordance with a comprehensive plan" and "in order to implement the comprehensive plan." 13

The statutes therefore expressly require that the planning commission have an active role in creating a comprehensive plan for "systematic and organized" local development, reviewing and recommending zoning regulations, and adopting measures "necessary to implement the comprehensive plan." 14 The statutes implicitly recognize that the planning commission plays an important part in the formation and amendment of local land use regulations by providing assistance to the borough (or city) to ensure that development proceeds in a "systematic and organized" manner.15

We now consider the second source of the city's power to regulate land use. The Kenai Peninsula Borough, by ordinance, delegated the zoning power to cities willing to accept the delegation, and also delegated to those cities power to establish a planning commission "to hear all requests for amendments to zoning codes." 16 The same ordinance also authorized a city with this delegated zoning power to "exercise all zoning powers within the city to the extent that such powers have been granted to the borough by statute." 17 The Kenai Peninsula Borough therefore delegated the power to regulate zoning to the City of Homer, which by ordinance requested the delegation. The city, standing in the place of the borough, was therefore obligated to establish a zoning commission, draft a comprehensive plan, and comply with state law governing planning and land use regulation. And, most relevant here, KPBC 21.01.020(B) delegated to the city council "the power to establish a planning commission to hear all requests for amendments to zoning codes."

The City of Homer created the Homer Advisory Planning Commission, in accordance with AS 29.40.020 and KPBC 21.01.020.18 The city charged the commission with holding hearings and preparing recommendations for the city council when a zoning amendment is proposed.19 In addition, the cormission may propose amendments to the zoning code.20

The city council also has the power to propose amendments to zoning ordinances,21 *563as does "any person," 22 presumably meaning any Homer resident.

The relevant state statutes are clear. A borough or a city, having the power possessed by the City of Homer, cannot pass or amend a zoning ordinance without involving its planning commission in reviewing that ordinance.23 This review includes considering whether a proposed ordinance is consistent with the comprehensive plan.24 A borough assembly or city council may eventually choose not to follow the recommendations of the planning commission, but the statutes preclude bypassing the planning commission altogether.

Likewise, KPBC 21.01.020(B) gives the city council power to establish a planning commission to hear all requests for amendments to zoning codes.25 This provision can be read as giving the planning commission the primary authority for initial consideration of zoning amendments. At the very least, this provision confirms the commission's role in considering proposed amendments to an existing zoning code that was itself adopted "[iln accordance with a comprehensive plan and in order to implement the plan....26

It is for this reason that zoning by initiative is invalid. The Homer City Council does not have the power to pass piecemeal zoning amendments without at least giving the Homer Advisory Planning Commission opportunity to review the proposals and make recommendations. Therefore, voters, who have no obligation to consider the views of the planning commission or be informed by its expertise, cannot use the initiative process to eliminate the planning commission's role in "areawide" land use planning and regulation, and thus potentially undermine the comprehensive plan for "systematic and organized" local development.27

The city contends that we must determine "IwJhether the Constitution and statutes preempt the use of the initiative for zoning ordinances." But, because the initiative was local, and not statewide, the power to initiate here was directly derived from AS 29.26.100, not article XI, section 1 of the Alaska Constitution.28 And we conclude that zoning by initiative exceeds the scope of the legislative power granted by the legislature to the city council.

The city also contends that initiatives are not "governed by all the procedures ordinarily applicable to the enactment of city council ordinances." The city seems to argue that because notice and a hearing are required for a city council ordinance but not an initiative, it is acceptable for initiatives to bypass certain procedural requirements. But as seen above, the participation of the city's planning commission in the zoning process required by the legislature and the borough is more than just a mere procedural requirement.

The facts in this case illustrate how the initiative process limits or even eliminates the intended role of a planning commission. The planning commission spent many months considering appropriate floor area limits for business buildings in the affected zoning districts. The city council charged the commission with "develop[ing] standards for addressing large retail and wholesale development" and "recommend[ing] a size cap for large retail and wholesale development." To that end, the commission, city council, and a task foree conducted more than a dozen hearings. The commission reviewed recommendations from the Large Structure Impact Task Force and the Chamber of Commerce Legislative Committee; researched necessary improvements to lighting, landscaping, stormwater drainage, and parking; and developed standards for traffic and economic impact analyses. The commission explicitly applied the standards found in *564the Homer Comprehensive Plan in its decision-making process. And before the initiative election, the city council considered the planning commission's recommendations and amended the zoning code, adopting different floor area limitations for the subject zoning districts. The voters then approved the initiative and adopted a single, and greater, limitation for all three districts before the commission completed its findings.

Given the public hearings that were being conducted and the opportunity for public debate, it is logical to ask whether the voters had, in effect, the same access as the council to the recommendations of the planning commission, and thus whether the initiative process did not actually bypass the planning commission. The council was required to consider the commission's recommendations, even if it ultimately rejected them. The council acts as a collegial and public body; it is a matter of public record whether it addresses the commission's recommendations and attempts to reconcile proposed amendments with the comprehensive plan and state and borough ordinances. That is not at all the process an initiative election follows. Just as the council cannot choose to completely ignore the recommendations in adopting a zoning amendment, the voters cannot pass an initiative in which the commission's recommendations play no formal, or perhaps even informal, role at all.

The commission does more than simply give notice of hearings and allow the public to be heard on the subject of zoning ordinances. If a zoning amendment is proposed, the commission's role is to analyze the impact of the proposed changes in light of the city's development goals as stated in the comprehensive plan, and to suggest other changes that should accompany the proposed zoning amendment.29 Even if a city council chooses to disregard the recommendations of the city planning commission, its decision has been informed by the planning commission's consideration of the potential social and regulatory costs and benefits of the proposed amendment. The city's planning commission's role is not merely "procedural," but is substantive. Homer voters therefore could not bypass the commission by using the initiative power.

The city argues that if an initiative fails to comply with the comprehensive plan, a court could review it post-enactment. Because the dispute here turns not on consistency with the comprehensive plan, but on the involvement of the planning commission in the amendment process, we are unconvinced by this argument.

The city argues that the ultimate issue here is "whether the Alaska Constitution or statutes do or do not delegate the power to enact zoning regulations exclusively to the city couneil." The city argues the people's power to enact zoning measure by initiative is precluded if the constitution and statutes delegate the power to zone exclusively to the city council. The city implies that for Gris-wold to prevail we must find that the city council exclusively has the power to zone. We disagree, and instead conclude that Gris-wold prevails because zoning by initiative eliminates the planning commission's role both specified and implied in state statutes and borough ordinances.30 Even if the pow*565er to zone was exclusively and ultimately delegated to the city council, the initiative process prevents the planning commission from exercising the review and recommendation power clearly delegated to it.

Finally, we consider the validity of Ordinance 05-02. The city argues that because Griswold failed to adequately brief his request to strike down Ordinance 05-02, that ordinance should not be invalidated.

Griswold preserved the issue below. His complaint asked the superior court to "enter an injunction preventing [the initiative's] enforcement or the enforcement of any other ordinance adopted or enacted as a result of this illegal action." Summary judgment was granted in favor of the city on that cause of action before the city council enacted Ordinance 05-02.

Griswold adequately argues on appeal that Ordinance 05-02 would not have been enacted but for passage of the initiative. The "whereas" clauses of Ordinance 05-02 seem to establish that the only purpose of the ordinance was "to implement the will of the voters." The ordinance gives no indication that the council was giving independent consideration to the planning commission's ree-ommendations or that it was considering the zoning amendment on its own merits in light of the comprehensive plan. We are consequently persuaded that because the initiative is invalid, the only legislative purpose for passing Ordinance 05-02 is now absent; Ordinance 05-02 is therefore also invalid.

IV. CONCLUSION

We REVERSE the superior court's grant of summary judgment and REMAND for entry of judgment for Griswold.

CARPENETI, Justice, dissenting.

BRYNER, Justice, not participating.

CARPENETTI, Justice,

dissenting.

Because the initiative power gives voters the ability to legislate without being subject to the restrictions applicable to other legislative bodies, I cannot agree that the procedural requirements applicable to the Homer City Council apply to a voter initiative that involves a zoning ordinance. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.

The court reasons that Homer voters' power to initiate is limited by the Homer City Council's power to legislate, and therefore voters must necessarily follow the same procedures as the city council. The court effectively holds that voters step into the shoes of the city council when attempting to initiate an ordinance that involves zoning laws, and therefore the initiative must be reviewed by the planning commission before the voters may pass it. There are four reasons I believe the court's reasoning is flawed.

First, and most importantly, under the Alaska Statutes and the Alaska Constitution the voter initiative is intended to be a sui generis means of legislating that is not subject to the procedures applicable to regular lawmaking. Alaska Statute 29.26.100 grants municipal voters the power to initiate legislation. It provides that "[the powers of initiative and referendum are reserved to the residents of municipalities, except the powers do not extend to matters restricted by article XI, section 7 of the state constitution." 1 There are no other limitations on the voters' power to initiate that are relevant to this case. The process for exercising the initiative at the municipal level is fairly straightforward. A proposed initiative is first reviewed by the municipal clerk to determine that it meets certain substantive requirements.2 The initiative's sponsors must then *566gather the requisite number of signatures to support the initiative petition.3 Where both these conditions are met, the initiative is to be submitted to the voters 4 and a majority vote favors the [initiated] ordinance or resolution, it becomes effective upon certification of the election, unless a different effective date is provided in the ordinance or resolution." 5 .Similarly, the Alaska Constitution requires that statewide initiatives be subject to a technical and subject matter review 6 and provides that an initiative will be enacted "[}f a majority of the votes cast on the proposition favor its adoption...." 7

The Alaska Constitution also makes clear that the procedural requirements for enacting an initiative are different from the procedures applicable to the regular legislative process. In order for the state legislature to pass a bill, the bill must go through at least "three readings in each house on three separate days, except that any bill may be advanced from second to third reading on the same day by concurrence of three-fourths of the house considering it" and be approved by "an affirmative vote of a majority of the membership of each house."8 Unless the governor vetoes the bill within fifteen days after its passage, it will become law.9

The differences between the regular legislative process and the procedures for statewide initiatives demonstrate that the framers of our constitution envisioned a separate, simplified process for initiative elections, one not generally subject to the constraints imposed on the legislature. The special treatment afforded to the initiative process stems from the fact that the initiative is a form of direct democracy. As the Supreme Court of California has explained, "[t]he original proponents of the initiative and referendum sought to give the electorate the ability to govern directly by majority rule: this was to be true democracy as distinguished from representative democracy."10 That court has also held that a right of such importance should be "jealously guard[ed]." 11

By importing requirements applicable to a different legislative body, the court today does exactly the opposite. Its approach not only ignores the fact that initiative elections stand apart from the traditional legislative process, but also weakens voters' ability to participate directly in the affairs of the city in which they live. In Brooks v. Wright12 we stated that the constitutional framers "chose to include the initiative process as a lawmaking tool with full knowledge of the risks inherent to direct democracy."13 Today's decision ignores Brooks's wisdom.

Second, the court overlooks that the legislature has imposed explicit subject matter prohibitions on municipal initiatives and has declined to include zoning among those prohibitions. Alaska Statute 29.26.100, in *567preserving the powers of initiative and referendum to residents of municipalities, incorporates the limitations that article XI, section 7 of the Alaska Constitution 14 imposes upon those powers. That constitutional section lists five matters that may not be the subject of an initiative: (1) dedication of revenues; (2) appropriations; (3) creation of courts; (4) changing of court rules or jurisdictions; or (5) local or special legislation.15 If the legislature intended to prohibit zoning by initiative, it could easily have included zoning among the prohibited subject matters. That the legislature did not employ this simple and direct means to prohibit zoning by initiative strongly suggests that it did not intend to accomplish the same result through the roundabout means the court today attributes to it.

Third, the court bases its decision to prohibit zoning by initiative on the concern that allowing zoning by initiative would undermine comprehensive zoning.16 But zoning ordinances, whether they are enacted by the voters or by the city council, are subject to post-enactment review. We explained in Brooks that "[cloncerned parties can bring a post-election substantive challenge to what they may believe is an ill-advised law.17 In Price v. Dahl18 suggested that an ordinance could be challenged on the grounds that it is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, stating, "[blorough land use regulations are to be 'in accordance' with the comprehensive plan."19 Thus, I believe the initiated ordinance was subject to a post-enactment challenge on the grounds that it failed to comply with Homer's comprehensive plan.

Finally, the court's decision conflicts with well-reasoned holdings from other states that have addressed zoning by initiative. California has definitively resolved the issue before us today in favor of allowing zoning by initiative. As the California Supreme Court suc-cinetly explained, "[pJrocedural requirements which govern [City] Council action ... generally do not apply to initiatives, any more than the provisions of the initiative law govern the enactment of ordinances in council." 20 The Nevada Supreme Court similarly concluded that voters could enact zoning laws through the initiative process without following the procedures applicable to the city council attempting to enact the same ordinance.*568 21 In both cases special procedures applied to the enactment of zoning laws by the local government bodies, but the courts nevertheless recognized that subjecting voter initiatives to those procedures would imper-missibly restrict the voters' initiative powers.

In sum, the initiative process is unique. When exercising the initiative power, municipal voters do not simply step into the shoes of the legislative body they are bypassing, as the court today assumes. Instead, voters in an initiative election are participating in a process that is separate from the regular means used for legislating. Because the initiative process is intended to be separate from the procedures that the Homer City Council must follow when passing a zoning ordinance, the initiative ordinance in this case should not be subject to review by the Homer Advisory Planning Commission. I would hold that the initiated ordinance does not violate any of the subject matter restrictions imposed by article XI, section 7 of the Alaska Constitution (and made applicable to municipal elections through AS 29.26.100 and to elections in Homer through HCC 4.60.010), and I therefore would affirm the superior court's grant of summary judgment to the City of Homer.

Lanzinger, J.

{¶ 1} This zoning case involves the interpretation of a single statutory phrase. We are asked to determine whether R.C. 519.02 requires a township to adopt a “comprehensive plan” separately from its zoning resolution. We hold that a comprehensive plan pursuant to R.C. 519.02 may be included within a township’s zoning resolution and need not be a separate and distinct document. Furthermore, a zoning resolution is enacted in accordance with a comprehensive plan, as required by R.C. 519.02, if it (1) reflects current land uses, (2) allows for change, (3) promotes public health and safety, (4) uniformly classifies similar areas, (5) clearly defines district locations and boundaries, and (6) identifies the use or uses to which each property may be put.

I. Case Background

{¶ 2} Appellant, Apple Group, Ltd. (“Apple”), purchased 88 acres of undeveloped land in Granger Township (“Granger”) in May 2006. The property was zoned R-l residential, which permits the construction of single-family and two-family homes on a minimum lot size of two acres. Granger’s zoning resolution also provides for an R-2 residential district that allows two to three dwelling units per acre if they can be serviced by central water and sanitary sewers at the time of development. Because Apple sought to develop a subdivision consisting of 44 single-family homes situated on approximately one-acre lots on its property, it applied to appellee Granger Township Board of Zoning Appeals (“BZA”) for *190176 variances, four variances for each of the 44 proposed lots.1 The BZA denied the variance application.

{¶ 3} Apple filed an administrative appeal, and the BZA’s decision was affirmed by the Medina County Court of Common Pleas. The court found that the BZA’s decision was supported by a preponderance of the evidence and that the request for variances was in reality an attempt to rezone the land to a new district unlike the R-l or R-2 residential districts, a request that the BZA was not authorized to grant. Apple also filed a complaint for declaratory judgment, seeking a declaration that Granger’s zoning resolution establishing the R-l zoning classification is unconstitutional and beyond the authority delegated to Granger in R.C. Chapter 519. A magistrate issued a decision denying Apple’s claims. With respect to the constitutional claim, the magistrate concluded, “Granger Township’s desire to maintain the rural character of its land is a legitimate governmental goal, which may be regulated by its zoning resolution.” In denying Apple’s claim that Granger exceeded its authority in enacting the zoning resolution without enacting a separate comprehensive plan, the magistrate concluded, “The zoning resolution itself meets the statutory requirement of a comprehensive plan, because it has the essential characteristics of a comprehensive plan; it encompasses all geographic parts of the community and integrates all functional elements.” The common pleas court adopted the magistrate’s findings, and Apple appealed to the Ninth District Court of Appeals.

{¶ 4} At the court of appeals, Apple argued that the trial court’s declaration that Granger had complied with R.C. 519.02’s requirement that a zoning resolution be adopted in accordance with a comprehensive plan was in error and was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The court of appeals concluded that the township’s failure to enact a separate comprehensive plan did not mean it lacks authority to adopt a zoning resolution. The court reasoned that the purpose of the requirement in R.C. 519.02 for a comprehensive plan is to prevent piecemeal zoning and ensure that someone purchasing property will be able to determine in advance how the property may be used. The appellate court rejected Apple’s argument that a zoning ordinance cannot constitute a comprehensive plan and concluded that the trial court’s decision that Granger’s zoning resolution constitutes a comprehensive plan pursuant to R.C. 519.02 was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

{¶ 5} An appeal was taken to this court, and we accepted Apple’s two propositions of law:

*191For purposes of a township’s exercise of its statutory zoning power, the “zoning plan” that R.C. Chapter 519 empowers townships to adopt by resolution, which includes the zoning regulations and a zoning map, is not identical to or a substitute for the “comprehensive plan” identified in R.C. 519.02, with which R.C. 519.02 requires the “zoning plan” to be “in accordance.”

A township’s zoning regulations, adopted by resolution under R.C. Chapter 519, are, standing alone, insufficient as a matter of law to establish that such regulations are “in accordance with a comprehensive plan,” as R.C. 519.02 requires.

See 139 Ohio St.3d 1404, 2014-Ohio-2245, 9 N.E.3d 1062. In short, Apple argues that a comprehensive plan must be enacted separately and apart from zoning regulations.

II. Legal Analysis

{¶ 6} “Zoning” is “the government’s ‘regulation of the character and intensity of real estate uses through police power.’ [American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal 332 (1984)].” Developers Diversified Ltd. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 84 Ohio St.3d 32, 36, 701 N.E.2d 975 (1998). In Ohio, the authority of a township to enact zoning ordinances derives not from the township’s inherent authority or the Ohio Constitution, but from the General Assembly. Torok v. Jones, 5 Ohio St.3d 31, 32, 448 N.E.2d 819 (1983), citing Yorkavitz v. Columbia Twp. Bd. of Trustees, 166 Ohio St. 349, 142 N.E.2d 655 (1957).

{¶ 7} R.C. Chapter 519 sets forth the method by which townships may regulate land use. R.C. 519.02(A) grants authority to a township’s board of trustees to regulate the size and location of buildings and other structures and the use of land for residences or other purposes:

Except as otherwise provided in this section, in the interest of the public convenience, comfort, prosperity, or general welfare, the board by resolution, in accordance with a comprehensive plan, may regulate the location of, set back lines for, and the uses of buildings and other structures * * * and the uses of land * * * in the unincorporated territory of the township, and may establish reasonable landscaping standards and architectural standards excluding exterior building materials in the unincorporated territory of the township.

*192(Emphasis added.)

{¶ 8} Apple’s appeal does not challenge the reasonableness of Granger’s zoning resolution but only whether the township’s resolution may also function as its comprehensive plan. According to Apple, a comprehensive plan must be created first to assure the public that the township’s zoning has been properly considered. Apple argues that a zoning resolution must implement the comprehensive plan. Granger argues that its Revised Zoning Resolution is the comprehensive plan identified in R.C. 519.02. The parties thus disagree over the meaning of the phrase “in accordance with a comprehensive plan.”

A “Comprehensive Plan”

{¶ 9} There is no standard definition for “comprehensive plan” in the context of zoning law. The original Standard Zoning Enabling Act (“SZEA”), which the United States Department of Commerce issued in 1922 as a model for state legislation enabling and limiting local zoning power, included a requirement that zoning decisions be made “in accordance with a comprehensive plan.” Hirokawa, Making Sense of a “Misunderstanding of the Planning Process”: Examining the Relationship Between Zoning and Rezoning Under the Change-or-Mistake Rule, 44 Urb.Law. 295, 299 (2012). However, “[t]he term ‘comprehensive plan’ was not defined in the SZEA, and so both its purpose and confines of legal sufficiency have not been well understood or enforced.” Id. at 300. The view of the majority of states adopting the SZEA language is that “comprehensive planning requires some form of forethought and reasoned consideration, as opposed to a separate plan document that becomes an overarching constitution guiding development.” Sullivan & Richter, Out of the Chaos: Towards a National System of Landr-Use Procedures, 34 Urb.Law. 449, 454 (2002). A minority of states view the comprehensive plan as “an independent document separate from the comprehensive zoning ordinance.” Benintendi, Comment, The Role of the Comprehensive Plan in Ohio: Moving Away from the Traditional View, 17 U.Dayton L.Rev. 207, 217 (1991).

{¶ 10} While R.C. Chapter 519 offers detailed instructions on how townships are to adopt or amend zoning plans or resolutions, it does not define the term “comprehensive plan” or offer any specific guidance on the standard to be used to establish one. But we have considered the phrase “in accordance with a comprehensive plan,” as used in R.C. 519.02, and stated indirectly what it was not in Cassell v. Lexington Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 163 Ohio St. 340, 127 N.E.2d 11 (1955). There, we held:

A township zoning regulation, which provides merely that a section of a township, one square mile in area, shall be zoned for farming, residential, *193commercial and recreational uses, and which does not specify therein which portions of said section may be used for any or all of such purposes or is not accompanied by a map designating such use areas, is not adopted in accordance with a comprehensive plan.

Id., paragraph two of the syllabus. Thus, by implication, a comprehensive plan consists of something more than zoning a section of a township to allow farming, residential, commercial, and recreational uses without specifying which portions of the section can be used for any of those purposes. In Cassell, we expressed concern over leaving the administration of zoning to the “unwarranted whim or caprice” of enforcement officials. Id. at 345-346. “The absence of any comprehensive plan in the regulation involved * * * open[ed] the door to an arbitrary and unreasonable administration of the regulation.” Id. at 346.

{¶ 11} We considered the phrase “in accordance with a comprehensive plan” more recently in B.J. Alan Co. v. Congress Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 124 Ohio St.3d 1, 2009-Ohio-5863, 918 N.E.2d 501. That case addressed whether a township could rely on a comprehensive plan created at the county level. In answering yes, we explained:

R.C. 519.02 does not require that a township create its own comprehensive plan — it requires only that a zoning resolution be “in accordance with a comprehensive plan.” (Emphasis added.) To require each township to create its own comprehensive plan is to read additional language into R.C. 519.02.

Id. at ¶ 13. We emphasized that our holding in the case was limited and noted that among the issues not determined in the case was whether the township zoning ordinance was indeed “in accordance” with the county’s comprehensive plan. Id. at ¶ 43.

{¶ 12} Neither Cassell nor B.J. Alan provides the answer to the issue before us today, but each ease sets forth principles that aid us in our decision. Cassell stands for the proposition that a comprehensive plan serves to protect against the arbitrary and unreasonable administration of a zoning regulation. B.J. Alan explains that a township is not required to create its own comprehensive plan, but that its zoning resolution must be enacted in accordance with a comprehensive plan.

{¶ 13} Apple argues that the term “comprehensive plan” is a term of art among zoning professionals and that the statutory language must be interpreted according to the meaning prevalent in that profession. This court, however, has never *194treated the term “comprehensive plan” as a term of art, and no court has found that the phrase “comprehensive plan” has acquired a technical or particular meaning pursuant to R.C. 1.42. We have emphasized that “the plain meaning of a statute is always preferred.” State ex rel. Plain Dealer Publishing Co. v. Cleveland, 106 Ohio St.3d 70, 2005-Ohio-3807, 831 N.E.2d 987, ¶ 40, citing Lamie v. United States Trustee, 540 U.S. 526, 536, 124 S.Ct. 1023, 157 L.Ed.2d 1024 (2004). Furthermore, “ ‘[i]f a review of the statute conveys a meaning that is clear, unequivocal, and definite, the court need look no further.’ Columbus City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Wilkins, 101 Ohio St.3d 112, 2004-Ohio-296, 802 N.E.2d 637, ¶ 26.” Id. at ¶ 38. Our consideration of the statutory language leads us to conclude that no formally enacted comprehensive plan is required by R.C. 519.02.

{¶ 14} We agree with Granger that the plain meaning of the phrase “in accordance with a comprehensive plan” is that zoning regulations should be adopted pursuant to a plan that is comprehensive, or all-encompassing, in the sense that the plan addresses the specific goals and objectives for the entire township. This definition is implied in, and in keeping with, Cassell, which emphasizes that comprehensive plans are essential to protecting against arbitrary enforcement of zoning regulations. A court of appeals decision, however, is even more helpful in establishing a meaning of the contested phrase.

White Oak

{¶ 15} The Twelfth District Court of Appeals also concluded that a comprehensive plan need not be an independent document. White Oak Property Dev., L.L.C. v. Washington Twp., 12th Dist. Brown No. CA2011-05-011, 2012-Ohio-425, 2012 WL 368254. In White Oak, the property owner sought declaratory relief on the basis of its claim that Washington Township’s zoning resolution was unenforceable because it was not in accordance with a comprehensive plan. Id. at ¶ 4. The zoning resolution divided the territory of the township into four districts (agricultural, residential, commercial, and industrial) and reflected the primarily agricultural nature of the township’s land. Id. at ¶ 17, 24. The zoning resolution covered many topics, including land use, housing, and environmental precautions, and it incorporated a zoning map that marked the location and boundaries of each district, which the court noted allowed potential purchasers to identify the permissible uses of any particular piece of property. Id. at ¶ 25. While the zoning resolution covered the entire township, the court of appeals emphasized that it also allowed for changes in zoning as the township’s needs developed. Id. at ¶ 24.

{¶ 16} The Twelfth District agreed that the township’s zoning resolution and accompanying zoning map constituted a comprehensive plan and that it therefore complied with R.C. 519.02. Id. at ¶ 23. The court considered the term “compre*195hensive plan” to be a “flexible term” that “ ‘must be sufficiently detailed that a potential purchaser might ascertain in advance to what use property might be put.’ ” Id. at ¶ 16, quoting Rumpke Waste, Inc. v. Henderson, 591 F.Supp. 521, 534 (S.D.Ohio 1984). And furthermore, “[w]ith respect to sufficient detail, the plan must ‘define with certainty the location, boundaries and areas of the * * * districts,’ and a failure to do so renders the plan invalid.” White Oak at ¶ 16, quoting Westlake v. Elrick, 52 Ohio Law Abs. 538, 541, 83 N.E.2d 646 (8th Dist.1948). We adopt the factors that the White Oak court considered to be indicative of a comprehensive plan, i.e., that it “(1) reflect current land uses; (2) allow for change; (3) promote public health and safety; (4) uniformly classify similar areas; (5) clearly define district locations and boundaries; and (6) identify the use(s) to which each property may be put.” Id. at ¶ 46, citing Rumpke Waste and Elrick. These factors are present within Granger’s zoning resolution.

Granger’s Zoning Resolution

{¶ 17} Granger’s Zoning Resolution is an exhaustive document, which consists of more than 100 pages and incorporates an attached zoning districts map.

{¶ 18} The resolution’s stated purpose is

to promote and protect the health, safety, morals, and welfare of the residents of the unincorporated area of Granger Township, Medina County, Ohio, and to conserve and protect property and property values, and to provide for the maintenance of the rural character of Granger Township, and to manage orderly growth and development in said Township.

{¶ 19} Thus, the zoning resolution is intended to be a comprehensive plan for the entire township. And all six White Oak points are met.

1. Reflects current land uses

{¶ 20} The resolution contains general regulations that apply to all districts or zones within the township and sets forth specific uniform regulations for each individual district. The resolution also clearly sets forth the zoning districts and their boundary line on the attached map, which allows any potential purchaser to determine the uses to which a piece of property may be put.

{¶ 21} It reflects current land uses in its intention to “provide for the maintenance of’ the already-existing “rural character of Granger Township” and its establishment of zoning districts reflecting the established rural character of the township.

*196 2. Allows for change

{¶ 22} The resolution allows for change: it establishes a process for property owners to obtain conditional zoning permits, which “provide controllable and reasonable flexibility in requirements for certain kinds of uses that will allow profitable latitude for the investor.”

3. Promotes health and safety

{¶ 23} The resolution promotes public health and safety: a number of provisions, such as those regulating the placement of signs that are in part “intended to reduce sign or advertising distractions and obstructions that may contribute to traffic accidents,” regulate potential hazards.

k- Uniformly classifies similar areas

{¶ 24} The resolution uniformly classifies similar areas: it creates seven distinct district types (R-l Residential, R-2 Residential, C-1 Local Commercial, C-2 General Commercial, C-3 Highway Interchange Commercial, 1-1 Industrial Commercial, and PDD Planned Development) and adopts clear regulations for each type of district.

5. Clearly defines district locations and boundaries

{¶ 25} The resolution contains clearly defined district locations and boundaries that are set forth on a zoning-districts map incorporated into the resolution. It presents rules for interpretation in the event that “uncertainty exists with respect to the boundaries of any of the aforesaid districts as shown on the zoning map.”

6. Identifies the use or uses to which each property may be put

{¶ 26} Finally, the resolution identifies the use or uses to which each property may be put within each zoning type. For example, it allows for single-family dwellings, two-family dwellings, certain manufactured homes, and certain roadside stands among the permitted uses within an R-l Residential District.

{¶ 27} We accordingly conclude that the resolution satisfies the requirement of R.C. 519.02 that it be enacted “in accordance with a comprehensive plan.”

III. Conclusion

{¶ 28} We agree with those appellate courts that have considered the issue and have held2 that a comprehensive plan need not be set forth in a separate *197document and may be included in the township’s zoning plan. A comprehensive plan is defined as one that reflects current land uses within the township, allows for change, promotes public health and safety, uniformly classifies similar areas, clearly defines district locations and boundaries, and identifies the use or uses to which each property may be put. Granger’s zoning resolution was enacted in accordance with such a comprehensive plan pursuant to R.C. 519.02.

{¶ 29} We accordingly affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, O’Donnell, French, and O’Neill, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, J., dissents.

Kennedy, J.,

dissenting.

{¶ 30} Respectfully, I dissent. How the General Assembly intended a township to exercise its zoning power over privately owned land is at the very heart of this controversy.

[TJownships of Ohio have no inherent or constitutionally granted police power, the power upon which zoning legislation is based. Whatever police or zoning power townships of Ohio have is that delegated by the General Assembly, and it follows that such power is limited to that which is expressly delegated to them by statute.

Yorkavitz v. Columbia Twp. Bd. of Trustees, 166 Ohio St. 349, 351, 142 N.E.2d 655 (1957).

{¶ 31} Because the unambiguous language in R.C. 519.02(A) demonstrates the General Assembly’s intent to strictly limit a township’s zoning authority to zoning regulations enacted “in accordance with a comprehensive plan,” I dissent from the majority opinion’s determination that a township’s zoning resolution and a comprehensive plan can be one and the same.

{¶ 32} I also disagree with the majority’s delineation of factors that it holds are indicative of a comprehensive plan and its determination that Granger Township’s zoning resolution is a comprehensive plan, because these issues were not raised as propositions of law in this appeal and the parties neither briefed nor argued these matters. The majority defines a term that has acquired a particular meaning without reliance on authoritative or expert knowledge in a manner that is incongruous with the expert testimony presented in this matter, without consideration of the unique needs of Granger Township.

*198{¶ 33} I do not believe that a comprehensive plan must be a single formal document. Instead, it may be compiled from several sources. In the event, however, that Apple Group is able to prove that Granger Township does not have a comprehensive plan separate from its zoning resolution, even one compiled from several sources, the resolution should not be presumptively deemed invalid. Instead, the burden of proof shifts to Granger Township to establish that the resolution is a valid exercise of the power to zone granted by the General Assembly.

{¶ 34} Accordingly, I would reverse the judgment of the Ninth District Court of Appeals, and I would remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. Issues Presented on Appeal

A. Statutory Interpretation of R.C. 519.02(A)

{¶ 35} When interpreting a statute, a court’s paramount concern is legislative intent. State ex rel. United States Steel Corp. v. Zaleski, 98 Ohio St.3d 395, 2003-Ohio-1630, 786 N.E.2d 39, ¶ 12. “[T]he intent of the lawmakers is to be sought first of all in the language employed, and if the words be free from ambiguity and doubt, and express plainly, clearly, and distinctly the sense of the lawmaking body, there is no occasion to resort to other means of interpretation.” Slingluff v. Weaver, 66 Ohio St. 621, 64 N.E. 574 (1902), paragraph two of the syllabus. We apply the statute as written and refrain from adding or deleting words when the statute’s meaning is clear and unambiguous. Boley v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 125 Ohio St.3d 510, 2010-Ohio-2550, 929 N.E.2d 448, ¶ 20; Armstrong v. John R. Jurgensen Co., 136 Ohio St.3d 58, 2013-Ohio-2237, 990 N.E.2d 568, ¶ 12.

{¶ 36} R.C. 519.02(A) states:

Except as otherwise provided in this section, in the interest of the public health and safety, the board of township trustees may regulate by resolution, in accordance with a comprehensive plan, the location, height, bulk, number of stories, and size of buildings and other structures, including tents, cabins, and trailer coaches, percentages of lot areas that may be occupied, set back building lines, sizes of yards, courts, and other open spaces, the density of population, the uses of buildings and other structures, including tents, cabins, and trailer coaches, and the uses of land for trade, industry, residence, recreation, or other purposes in the unincorporated territory of the township. Except as otherwise provided in this section, in the interest of the public convenience, comfort, prosperity, or general welfare, the board by resolution, in accordance with a comprehen*199sive plan, may regulate the location of, set back lines for, and the uses of buildings and other structures, including tents, cabins, and trailer coaches, and the uses of land for trade, industry, residence, recreation, or other purposes in the unincorporated territory of the township, and may establish reasonable landscaping standards and architectural standards excluding exterior building materials in the unincorporated territory of the township. Except as otherwise provided in this section, in the interest of the public convenience, comfort, prosperity, or general welfare, the board may regulate by resolution, in accordance with a comprehensive plan, for nonresidential property only, the height, bulk, number of stories, and size of buildings and other structures, including tents, cabins, and trailer coaches, percentages of lot areas that may be occupied, sizes of yards, courts, and other open spaces, and the density of population in the unincorporated territory of the township. For all these purposes, the board may divide all or any part of the unincorporated territory of the township into districts or zones of such number, shape, and area as the board determines. All such regulations shall be uniform for each class or kind of building or other structure or use throughout any district or zone, but the regulations in one district or zone may differ from those in other districts or zones.

{¶ 37} The term “comprehensive plan” is not defined in R.C. Chapter 519. Contrary to the majority’s assertion, however, we have previously recognized that the term has acquired a particular meaning. Symmes Twp. Bd. of Trustees v. Smyth, 87 Ohio St.3d 549, 555, 721 N.E.2d 1057 (2000). R.C. 1.42 instructs that “[wjords and phrases that have acquired a technical or particular meaning * * * shall be construed accordingly.” Therefore, the testimony of experts engaged in the field of planning and zoning is relevant to determining the meaning of the term “comprehensive plan” as it is used in R.C. 519.02(A). See Order of Ry. Conductors of Am. v. Swan, 329 U.S. 520, 525, 67 S.Ct. 405, 91 L.Ed. 471 (1947); Evid.R. 702.

{¶ 38} We have not, however, treated the word “resolution” as having acquired a particular meaning. An ordinary and common meaning of “resolution” is “a formal expression of opinion, will, or intent by an official body or assembled group.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1933 (2002).

{¶ 39} The General Assembly used the phrase “in accordance with a comprehensive plan” and the word “resolution” in the same sentence in R.C. 519.02(A). Because “comprehensive plan” has acquired a particular meaning and “resolution” has not, they cannot describe the same thing. This interpretation is supported by the testimony of both parties’ experts. Nothing in the experts’ *200testimony provides support for concluding that “comprehensive plan” and “resolution” convey the same meaning. To the contrary, both of the experts who testified stated that a zoning resolution is the implementation of the comprehensive plan. Therefore, the terms cannot be interchangeable.

{¶ 40} Moreover, while the majority reads the phrase “in accordance with” out of the statute, under our rules for statutory interpretation, we are required to give each word effective meaning. “Accordance” is defined as “agreement, accord” and is “now used chiefly in the phrase ‘in accordance with.’ ” Webster’s at 12. Another definition states, “To be in accordance is to be in conformity or compliance.” (Italics sic.) Garner, A Dictionary of Modem Legal Usage 14 (2d Ed.1995). We also recently noted that “in accordance with” connotes rigid compliance. State v. Niesen-Pennycuff, 132 Ohio St.3d 416, 2012-Ohio-2730, 973 N.E.2d 221, ¶ 19.

{¶ 41} Once we strictly apply rules of statutory interpretation to R.C. 519.02(A), its meaning is clear and unambiguous. The General Assembly’s language refers to two distinct items: a comprehensive plan and a zoning resolution. Therefore, the General Assembly granted townships the authority to zone, but required that the authority be exercised only in compliance with a comprehensive plan. The zoning resolution cannot comply with itself. Accordingly, the requirement of rigid compliance, coupled with the fact that “resolution” and “comprehensive plan” are distinct terms, conveys the meaning that they are separate documents.

{¶ 42} This interpretation is supported by the language in other statutes and regulations in which the General Assembly and regulatory agencies use the phrase “in accordance with” when identifying separate actions. In R.C. 941.21, which sets forth definitions relating to an animal disease, the General Assembly uses the phrase “in accordance with” numerous times. See, e.g., R.C. 941.21(B)(1) (“negative” means animals that are determined to be negative “by tests conducted in accordance with [United States department of agriculture] methods and standards”). Ohio Adm.Code 3745-300-11, pertaining to the cleanup of contaminated property, repeatedly uses the phrase. See, e.g., Ohio Adm.Code 3745-300-11(A)(1) (“when a phase II property assessment conducted in accordance with [Ohio Adm.Code] 3745-300-07”) and 3745~300-11(C)(1) (“an operation and maintenance plan prepared in accordance with this rule”). These sections cannot be interpreted to mean that the test is also the methods and standards, R.C. 941.21(B)(1), or the assessment or maintenance plan is also the rule, Ohio Adm.Code 3745-300-11(A)(1) and (C)(1), that they must comply with. Instead, each action is separate.

{¶ 43} Lastly, the majority’s holding requires the insertion of words into R.C. 519.02(A) that were not used by the General Assembly. Specifically, under the *201majority’s holding, R.C. 519.02(A) would state, “the board may regulate by resolution, in accordance with itself.” However, we have repeatedly held that “[i]n matters of construction, it is the duty of this court to give effect to the words used, not to delete words used or to insert words not used.” Cleveland Elec. Illum. Co. v. Cleveland, 37 Ohio St.3d 50, 524 N.E.2d 441 (1988), paragraph three of the syllabus.

B. Precedents and Scholarly Interpretations

{¶ 44} In addition to ignoring the rules of statutory interpretation, today’s majority also ignores our precedents. While this is the first case to specifically consider whether a township zoning regulation can also be a “comprehensive plan,” our precedents have acknowledged the significance of the General Assembly’s term “in accordance with a comprehensive plan.”

{¶ 45} In Columbia Oldsmobile, Inc. v. Montgomery, 56 Ohio St.3d 60, 65, 564 N.E.2d 455 (1990), this court held that “there is no statutory requirement that [a municipality] * * * enact a comprehensive community plan pursuant to its power to zone under R.C. 713.06 et seq." To reach that conclusion, the court compared the statutory language permitting municipalities to zone with the statutes permitting counties and townships to enact zoning regulations. Id. at 66-67. R.C. 713.06, which addresses a municipality’s power to zone, states only that a municipality may create “zones or districts * * * in the interest of the public health, safety, convenience, comfort, prosperity, or general welfare” and states that the municipality may adopt a plan for doing so. Id. But “R.C. 303.02, regulating rural land use in counties, and R.C. 519.02, regulating land use in townships, require that zoning regulations promulgated by counties and townships be in accordance with a comprehensive plan.” (Emphasis sic.) Columbia Oldsmobile at 66.

{¶ 46} Moreover, contrary to the majority opinion’s statement, our recent decision in B.J. Alan Co. v. Congress Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 124 Ohio St.3d 1, 2009-Ohio-5863, 918 N.E.2d 501, did not analyze the entire phrase “in accordance with a comprehensive plan.” Instead, our focus was whether the term “a comprehensive plan” required a township to create its own comprehensive plan or whether it could follow the comprehensive plan created by the county. Id. at ¶ 13, 31. We avoided any discussion of the phrase “in accordance with,” stating, “[W]e have not determined today * * * whether the * * * Township zoning ordinance is indeed ‘in accordance’ with the * * * County Comprehensive Plan.” Id. at ¶ 43.

{¶ 47} Our analysis in B.J. Alan, however, supports the conclusion that the resolution and comprehensive plan are distinct. We did not examine whether the resolution was intended by the township to be a comprehensive plan, but instead remanded for the trial court to determine whether the resolution complied with *202the separate and distinct county comprehensive plan, thus implicitly recognizing that a zoning resolution and a comprehensive plan are separate and distinct.

{¶ 48} As 'noted in the dissenting opinion of Judge Belfance in the court of appeals in this case:

[R]ecent case law from the Ohio Supreme Court suggests that townships are required, pursuant to R.C. 519.02, to engage in some form of planning and study that would form the basis for the creation and adoption of their zoning regulations. See B.J. Alan Co. v. Congress Twp. Bd. of Zoning, 124 Ohio St.3d 1, 2009-Ohio-5863 [918 N.E.2d 501], ¶ 32-42 (noting that Wayne County’s plan constituted a comprehensive plan as it “presented] a thorough study of the region and set[ ] forth comprehensive land-use goals for the county [ ]”). It would seem that, if the Supreme Court was inclined to take the position that a zoning regulation and a comprehensive plan were one and the same, it could have used B.J. Alan as an opportunity to clarify the law in this area.

Thus, instead of examining whether the county’s plan was a comprehensive plan, the Court could have chosen to examine the zoning regulations to see if they constituted a comprehensive plan.

(Brackets sic.) 2013-Ohio-4259, 2013 WL 5437644, ¶ 36.

{¶ 49} Planning-and-zoning scholars Stuart Meck and Kenneth Pearlman contend that B.J. Alan “resolved an important issue: zoning must be consistent with an independently prepared comprehensive plan that is adopted separately.” Meck & Pearlman, Ohio Planning and Zoning Law, Section 4:37, at 121 (2014).

{¶ 50} Perhaps more troubling is the unintended consequences of today’s majority opinion. Without explanation, the majority has compromised our holding in B.J. Alan. The language of R.C. 519.02(A) is almost identical to the language of R.C. 303.02(A), which grants authority to county commissioners to regulate building and land use. The General Assembly used the phrase “in accordance with a comprehensive plan” in both statutes to limit the exercise of police power in county and township zoning. The logical conclusion from today’s majority opinion has a twofold effect. First, a county will not need to formulate a separate and distinct comprehensive plan to guide the enactment of its zoning resolutions. Second, a township will now be able to enact a zoning resolution that is merely “in accordance with” a county’s zoning resolution.

{¶ 51} Lastly, the majority’s reliance on Cassell v. Lexington Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 163 Ohio St. 340, 127 N.E.2d 11 (1955), as providing an implied definition of the term “comprehensive plan” is misplaced. The Cassell court did *203not analyze the term “comprehensive plan” as used in R.C. 519.02(A): the statement that “[t]he absence of any comprehensive plan in the regulation * * * opens the door to an arbitrary and unreasonable administration of the regulation,” id. at 346, was dicta. Cassell was a constitutional due-process challenge to a zoning regulation in Lexington Township. In reaching its conclusion that “the power to enact zoning regulations can not be exercised in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner,” the court cited Youngstown v. Kahn Bros. Bldg. Co., 112 Ohio St. 654, 148 N.E. 842 (1925), and State ex rel. Synod of Ohio of United Lutheran Church in Am. v. Joseph, 139 Ohio St. 229, 39 N.E .2d 515 (1942). Id. at 345-346. Both of those cases were decided prior to the enactment of the statute enabling townships to zone and were due-process challenges to municipal zoning ordinances. Neither case addressed the term “comprehensive plan” because a municipality’s zoning resolution does not need to be formulated in accordance with a comprehensive plan.

II. Issues Decided by the Majority That Were Not Accepted for Review

A. Factors of a Comprehensive Plan

{¶ 52} The issue of what constitutes a comprehensive plan was not appealed to this court, and the parties did not brief or argue this point of zoning law. In fact, at oral argument, Apple Group’s counsel, in response to questions from the bench, specifically stated that the issue of what constitutes a comprehensive plan was not before the court. Nevertheless, the majority uses this case as an opportunity to define a term that already has a particular meaning, without relying on experts or authoritative statements and without considering the unique needs of Granger Township, by adopting the six factors delineated by the Twelfth District Court of Appeals in White Oak Property Dev., L.L.C. v. Washington Twp., 12th Dist. Brown No. CA2011-05-011, 2012-Ohio-425, 2012 WL 368254, ¶ 46.

{¶ 53} Without engaging in any statutory analysis, the White Oak court, relying on cases that were decided on constitutional grounds or that involved municipalities, which are not required to have a comprehensive plan, held that a township’s zoning resolution and map was a “comprehensive plan” as that phrase is used in R.C. 519.02. Id. at ¶23. That court then stated that because the township’s zoning resolution had addressed six factors, the resolution and map were “a comprehensive rural zoning plan.” Id. at ¶ 46.

{¶ 54} The majority’s decision to adopt these six factors to define a comprehensive plan is problematic. First, like the majority, the White Oak court failed to engage in any statutory interpretation of R.C. 519.02(A) and failed to acknowledge that this court had previously determined that the term “comprehensive plan” had a particular meaning, see Symmes, 87 Ohio St.3d at 555, 721 N.E.2d *2041057, and ignored the commands of R.C. 1.42 that “[w]ords and phrases that have acquired technical or particular meaning * * * shall be construed accordingly.” The White Oak court also did not analyze the history of or trace the development of the term “comprehensive plan” in the specialized field of land planning.

{¶ 55} Second, the White Oak court limited its adoption of the six factors to the zoning resolution and map before it, id. at ¶ 46, but today’s majority broadens that application and uses those factors to define the term “comprehensive plan” as it is used in R.C. 519.02. This determination, in my opinion, removes the unique independent considerations of what factors should constitute a comprehensive plan for each township. See Meck & Pearlman, Section 4:32, at 102-104.

{¶ 56} Lastly, the White Oak factors are nothing more than the General Assembly’s statutory limitations on township trustees’ authority to regulate land use. See R.C. 519.02(A) (“in the interest of the public health and safety,” “percentages of lot areas that may be occupied,” “sizes of yards, courts, and other open spaces [and] the density of population,” “the uses of land for trade, industry, residence, recreation, or other purposes,” and the “board may divide all or any part of the * * * township into districts or zones of such number, shape, and area as the board determines”). Land use is a component of, but not synonymous with, a comprehensive plan. See B.J. Alan, 124 Ohio St.3d 1, 2009-Ohio-5863, 918 N.E.2d 501, ¶ 31; Meck & Perlman, Section 4:32, at 102-103.

{¶ 57} The White Oak factors are inconsistent with the expert opinions presented by the parties in this case and the elements discussed in the authoritative treatise by Meck and Perlman. Granger Township itself presented the expert testimony of Susan Hirsch, deputy director of the Medina County Department of Planning Services. She testified that a comprehensive plan is a document “looking 20 years in to the future” that serves as “a guide for a community’s growth and development” and that it often incorporates maps and charts that show the community’s likely future growth. According to Hirsch, the comprehensive plan contains “elements like housing, economic development, parks and recreation, agriculture,” public facilities, and transportation and sets forth goals and objectives for the community as well as ways to implement those goals and objectives.

{¶ 58} David Hartt, president and sole owner of D.B. Hartt, Inc., a Cleveland-based planning-and-development consulting firm, testified as an expert for Apple Group. He stated that a comprehensive plan is “typically a community’s deliberate, thoughtful statement of what their aspirations are as they look ahead * * * to how they envision the community being developed and/or preserved.” He contended that the plan should take into account the pattern of economic development, traffic, public facilities, and road and infrastructure improvements as well as the implementation of the plan, typically through zoning. Additionally, *205Hartt stated that the map that often is included in the plan “can be a very precise map indicating a future land use for each property or it can be more of a general map where it outlines some options for some property.”

{¶ 59} Hirsch and Hartt agree as to what constitutes a comprehensive plan. Each opined that it should set forth the community’s future goals as to growth and development, discuss community facilities, land use, economic development, transportation, and implementation and should contain a map. Their opinions reflect the discussion in Meck and Pearlman’s treatise, which states that a comprehensive plan should be accompanied by a map and contain the following elements: general statements of the community’s planning goals, land use, transportation, community facilities, housing, an implementation framework, and plans for the specific needs of a particular community, e.g., economic-development strategy or historic preservation. Meck & Pearlman, Section 4:32, at 102-104.

{¶ 60} It defies logic that the White Oak factors are indicative of a comprehensive plan when those are the factors set out in R.C. 519.02(A) as the aspects of land use that are to be regulated by a resolution in accordance with a comprehensive plan.

B. Expert Opinions Whether Granger Township Has a Comprehensive Plan

{¶ 61} The majority applies the six factors from White Oak to Granger Township’s zoning resolution and concludes that Granger Township’s resolution is a comprehensive plan. However, both Hirsch and Hartt opined that Granger Township’s resolution is not a comprehensive plan.

{¶ 62} Hirsch testified that the resolution was deficient because it did not have a statement of goals and objectives, a survey of transportation infrastructure, demographic data, or an inventory of community facilities. Hartt opined that the lack of a comprehensive plan and the failure to include the features of a comprehensive plan in the zoning resolution left nothing for a planner to consult to determine whether the preservation of the community’s natural features was appropriate to meet Granger Township’s goals. Nevertheless, the majority rejects out of hand this expertise and knowledge, instead finding that Granger Township’s zoning resolution is a comprehensive plan.

C. Comprehensive Plan Rendered Meaningless

{¶ 63} The majority’s decision is a death knell to the General Assembly’s limitation of a township’s exercise of police power because it eliminates the requirement for a comprehensive plan independent of a township’s zoning resolution. First, the majority opinion identifies land use as only one element needed for a comprehensive plan. Then, by holding that a zoning resolution may be the comprehensive plan, the majority has eliminated the distant-future-planning factor from a comprehensive plan.

*206{¶ 64} The statutory procedures for townships and counties to amend a zoning resolution are not so onerous that they cannot be undertaken on a regular basis. See R.C. 519.12 and 303.12. This case illustrates how easily zoning regulations can change: Granger Township enacted a zoning resolution effective May 17, 2006, and a mere 15 months later enacted another zoning resolution effective August 8, 2007. The ability to amend a zoning resolution in such a short period of time is antithetical to a comprehensive plan’s purpose of looking 15 to 20 years into the future.

{¶ 65} Accordingly, the majority opinion renders the grant of authority to a township to zone pursuant only to a resolution in accordance with a comprehensive plan meaningless. Township trustees as well as county commissioners will be able to exercise this power without considering the long-term impact of their zoning decisions. Zoning resolutions will be enacted at the whims of those elected at that moment in time. Such an outcome is contrary to the majority’s recognition “that a comprehensive plan serves to protect against the arbitrary and unreasonable administration of a zoning regulation.” Majority opinion at ¶ 12, citing Cassell, 163 Ohio St. 340,127 N.E.2d 11.

III. Alternative Resolution

A. Judicial Review when Township Lacks a Separate, Single, Formal Comprehensive Plan

{¶ 66} Before the rise of zoning regulations in the early 20th century, governments did not regulate land-use conflicts in advance. Meck & Pearlman, Section 1:2, at 4-5, and Section 2:1, at 19. Instead, conflicts were decided primarily by the courts after a dispute had arisen. Id., Section 2:1, at 19. Regulating land use in this manner was limiting. Decisions affected only the parties to the suit and often the broader needs of society were not considered. Id. at 19-20. Further, the increasing complexity of the issues imposed upon the expertise and time of courts. Accordingly, governments turned to zoning to regulate land use so that property disputes would not arise and planning and land development could proceed appropriately. Id. at 19.

{¶ 67} The state’s authority to plan and regulate land use is derived from its police power, which is vested in the legislature. See Ohio Constitution, Article II, Section 1. Municipalities were the first to receive the police power to regulate by zoning in R.C. Chapter 713.

{¶ 68} The Ohio Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a municipal zoning ordinance in Pritz v. Messer, 112 Ohio St. 628, 149 N.E. 30 (1925). Recognizing the home-rule authority of a municipality in Article XVIII, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution, we held that “[ujnder the police power[,] society may restrict the use of property without making compensation therefor, if the *207restriction be reasonably necessary for the preservation of the public health, morals, or safety.” Pritz at 637-638.

{¶ 69} One year later, the United States Supreme Court held that a municipal ordinance restricting use of land in a residential area was constitutional. Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 396, 47 S.Ct. 114, 71 L.Ed. 303 (1926). After recognizing the validity of exercising police power for the benefit of the public welfare, the court stated, “A regulatory zoning ordinance, which would be clearly valid to the great cities, might be clearly invalid as applied to rural communities,” id. at 387, “like a pig in the parlor instead of the barnyard,” id. at 388. In reaching its determination, the court held that the burden of proof rested with the party challenging the zoning ordinance and the court’s role was limited to determining whether the ordinance was reasonable to promote a valid public purpose. Id. at 395-397.

{¶ 70} Absent the adoption of a charter, see Ohio Constitution, Article X, Section 3, Ohio counties’ and townships’ police-power authority “originates through direct statutory delegation by the General Assembly, instead of through the state constitution.” Meck & Pearlman, Section 3:4, at 63. The General Assembly granted the authority to regulate land use to counties and townships in R.C. Chapters 303 and 519. As stated previously, such an exercise of police power is limited “to that which is expressly delegated * * * by statute.” See Yorkavitz, 166 Ohio St. at 351, 142 N.E.2d 655.

{¶ 71} Like legislative enactments, zoning regulations enjoy a presumption of constitutionality. Brown v. Cleveland, 66 Ohio St.2d 93, 95, 420 N.E.2d 103 (1981). The burden of proving unconstitutionality is on the party challenging the zoning regulation. Negin v. Mentor Bd. of Bldg. & Zoning Appeals, 69 Ohio St.2d 492, 495, 433 N.E.2d 165 (1982); Ketchel v. Bainbridge Twp., 52 Ohio St.3d 239, 245, 557 N.E.2d 779 (1990). Furthermore, “[i]n the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the procedure necessary to the legal adoption of legislation by a public legislative body has been followed.” Smith v. Juillerat, 161 Ohio St. 424, 119 N.E.2d 611 (1954), paragraph one of the syllabus.

{¶ 72} It is against this historical backdrop and with these legal principles in mind that I turn to the issues presented currently. Apple Group asserts two propositions of law.

{¶ 73} The first proposition of law states:

For purposes of a township’s exercise of its statutory zoning power, the “zoning plan” that R.C. Chapter 519 empowers townships to adopt by resolution, which includes the zoning regulations and a zoning map, is not identical to or a substitute for the “comprehensive plan” identified in R.C. *208519.02, with which R.C. 519.02 requires the “zoning plan” to be “in accordance.”

{¶ 74} As stated above, the clear and unambiguous language of R.C. 519.02(A) requires a comprehensive plan separate and distinct from the zoning resolution.

{¶ 75} Apple Group’s second proposition of law states:

A township’s zoning regulations, adopted by resolution under R.C. Chapter 519, are, standing alone, insufficient as a matter of law to establish that such regulations are “in accordance with a comprehensive plan,” as R.C. 519.02 requires.

{¶ 76} Apple Group seemingly argues in both propositions of law that a comprehensive plan is a document drafted after professionals complete studies of the area and its future growth. While I agree that a comprehensive plan would best be drafted as a single formal document, there is no textual support for such a requirement in the Revised Code.

{¶ 77} The General Assembly did not define the term “comprehensive plan” in R.C. Chapter 519. While zoning-and-planning experts agree with our precedents that the term has a particular meaning, it is clear that those experts believe that a plan should nevertheless be flexible and controlled by the unique needs of each township. I agree with Apple Group that what is appropriate for an agricultural township might not be what is appropriate for a more cosmopolitan township. However, I reject the argument made by Apple Group and amicus curiae, Ohio Township Association, that to be valid, a “comprehensive plan” must be drafted by a professional planner, which could require the expenditure of “tens of thousands of dollars.” The statute does not require a comprehensive plan formulated by professional planners after the completion of expensive studies. Instead, the statute requires a zoning commission, in the development of the zoning plan, to make use of “information and counsel” from “public officials, departments and agencies,” but it leaves to the discretion of the township, and its financial health, whether to employ “planning consultants.” See R.C. 519.05. It would be unreasonable to find that a comprehensive plan must be created by professional planning consultants when it is clear that the General Assembly considered the fiscal limitations of townships and granted townships the discretion whether to employ them.

{¶ 78} I further reject Apple Group’s determination that Granger Township does not have a comprehensive plan separate from the zoning resolution. The statement that Granger Township does not have a comprehensive plan for *209guidance for the proposed rezoning, which is found in a staff report from the township’s planning department, is subject to multiple meanings.

{¶ 79} A comprehensive plan does not need to be a single document. Instead, I believe that a comprehensive plan may rely on numerous sources. In other words, the township’s rationale for ensuring the appropriate use and development of land may be derived from several sources. This conclusion balances the need to rely on experts to formulate the comprehensive plan, see Order of Ry. Conductors, 329 U.S. at 525, 67 S.Ct. 405, 91 L.Ed. 471, against the fact that the General Assembly has failed to provide a definition for the term “comprehensive plan” and the mechanisms by which it is to be formulated. I refuse, however, to speculate as to the source or sources from which a comprehensive plan might be formulated, because this determination would fall within the province of the trial court.

{¶ 80} Lastly, contrary to Apple Group’s argument, the determination that Granger Township lacks a separate, single, formal comprehensive plan does not render the township’s zoning resolution invalid. Instead, I believe that the failure to have a separate comprehensive plan means only that the presumption of the resolution’s validity is rebuttable. See Raabe v. Walker, 383 Mich. 165, 178, 174 N.W.2d 789 (1970); Forestview Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Cook Cty., 18 Ill.App.3d 230, 242, 309 N.E.2d 763 (1974). Therefore, if the party challenging the zoning resolution shows that a township does not have a separate comprehensive plan, the burden shifts to the township to present evidence that notwithstanding its failure to formulate a plan, the resolution is a valid exercise of police power granted by the General Assembly.

B. Remand to Trial Court

{¶ 81} Accordingly, I would reverse the judgment of the Ninth District Court of Appeals, and I would remand this matter to the trial court with instructions to determine, relying upon the knowledge and experience of experts, what would constitute a comprehensive plan formulated for the unique needs of Granger Township. Thereafter, Apple Group would have the burden to prove that Granger Township does not have a separate comprehensive plan. Whether Apple Group is successful in establishing that Granger Township does not have a separate comprehensive plan will dictate which party carries the burden of proving that the resolution is a proper exercise of police powers.

IV. Conclusion

{¶ 82} Respectfully, I dissent. “In Ohio, the authority of a township to enact zoning ordinances derives not from the township’s inherent authority or the Ohio Constitution, but from the General Assembly.” Majority opinion at ¶ 6. There*210fore, township trustees can exercise only the authority specifically granted by the legislature.

Berns, Ockner & Greenberger, L.L.C., Sheldon Berns, Benjamin J. Ockner, and Gary F. Werner, for appellant.

Dean Holman, Medina County Prosecuting Attorney, and Brian M. Richter, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellees.

Brosius, Johnson & Griggs, L.L.C., Donald F. Brosius, Peter N. Griggs, and Jennifer L. Huber, urging affirmance for amicus curiae, Ohio Township Association.

{¶ 83} The unambiguous language in R.C. 519.02(A) demonstrates that the General Assembly intended to limit a township’s exercise of zoning power to regulations enacted “in accordance with a comprehensive plan.” Since a township’s zoning resolution and a comprehensive plan cannot be one and the same, I would hold that a comprehensive plan must be separate and distinct from a zoning resolution.

{¶ 84} Moreover, I would neither delineate the factors that are indicative of a comprehensive plan nor determine whether Granger Township even has a comprehensive plan. These issues were not raised as propositions of law in this appeal, and the parties neither briefed nor argued these matters. The majority crafts its own definition for a term that has a particular meaning in the field of zoning. The majority’s definition is inconsistent with the expert testimony presented in this matter and does not consider the unique needs of Granger Township.

{¶ 85} Further, I do not believe that a comprehensive plan must be a single formal document. Instead, it may be derived from several sources. In the event, however, that Apple Group is able to prove that Granger Township does not have a comprehensive plan, even one derived from a compilation of sources, Granger Township’s zoning resolution would not be presumptively invalid. Instead, the burden of proof would then shift to Granger Township to establish that its resolution is a valid exercise of the police power granted to it by the General Assembly.

{¶ 86} Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

TIMMONS-GOODSON, J.

This case involves a dispute between the City of Kannapolis (“defendant”), which rezoned rural land to promote commercial development, and neighboring land owners (“plaintiffs”). At issue is whether defendant approved a statement of reasonableness as required by N.C.G.S. § 160A-383 when adopting the zoning amendment. We hold defendant did not approve such a statement, and therefore, the amendment is invalid. Accordingly, we reverse the opinion of the Court of Appeals and remand for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

The property at issue in this case consists of 75.9 acres owned by Coddle Creek, LLC and the Wallace Charitable Trust (collectively, “the Owners”). Until 2007 the property was subject to Cabarrus County zoning designations. In September of that year defendant annexed the property at the request of the Owners, thus subjecting it to defendant’s Unified Development Ordinance and 2015 Land Use Plan. A month later the Owners submitted a zoning request to the Kannapolis Planning and Zoning Commission (“Zoning Commission”) seeking a more permissive zoning classification, Campus Development-Conditional Zoning. This classification would permit the Owners to develop a neighborhood office and a light industrial and retail business park on the property. In November 2007, the Zoning Commission approved the request, and plaintiffs, as neighboring property owners, appealed to the Kannapolis City Council (“City Council”).

At a public hearing in December 2007, the City Council received a staff report from the Zoning Commission regarding the proposed zoning amendment. The staff report contained an analysis of the proposed amendment, including the compatibility of the proposed zoning designation with the surrounding area and impacts on safety, traffic, parking, the environment, and public facilities. Ultimately, the city staff concluded that the rezoning request was “consistent with the long range goals of the City, and reasonable in light of existing and approved infrastructure.” At the December 2007 meeting defendant approved the zoning request. The following month defendant adopted a resolution to designate the property as Campus Development-Conditional Zoning.

*451In March 2008 plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in Superior Court, Cabarrus County, alleging, inter alia, that defendant failed to “adopt a statement” as required by N.C.G.S. § 160A-383 and that the rezoning constituted illegal spot zoning. Plaintiffs asked the court to declare the zoning amendment void and to rezone the property to its previous classification. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment and stipulated that there was no genuine issue of material fact. On 23 February 2009, the trial court entered an order granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment on all claims and dismissing plaintiffs’ declaratory judgment action.

Plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals. Regarding the section 160A-383 issue, the panel presumed the zoning amendment valid and held that plaintiffs failed to show the City Council did not “approve a statement.” Wally v. City of Kannapolis, _ N.C. App. _, 709 S.E.2d 601, 2011 WL 601167, at *5 (2011) (unpublished). The court also held that section 160A-383 prohibits judicial review of whether the City Council’s statement was statutorily sufficient. Id. On a separate issue, the Court of Appeals, relying upon Blades v. City of Raleigh, 280 N.C. 531, 187 S.E.2d 35 (1972), and its progeny, held that the rezoning did not constitute spot zoning because the property had more than one owner at the time of rezoning. Wally, 2011 WL 601167, at *6-7. The Court of Appeals also addressed additional issues that are not before this Court. We allowed plaintiffs’ subsequent petition for discretionary review of two issues: (1) whether defendant complied with N.C.G.S. § 160A-383 when adopting the zoning amendment, and (2) whether the rezoning of a property with more than one owner can constitute spot zoning.

Analysis

“We review atrial court’s order for summary judgment de novo ....” Robins v. Town of Hillsborough, 361 N.C. 193, 196, 639 S.E.2d 421, 423 (2007) (citations omitted). In determining whether defendant complied with N.C.G.S. § 160A-383 when it adopted the subject zoning amendment, we recognize that the amendment is presumed valid “and the burden [is] upon [plaintiffs] to show otherwise.” Raleigh v. Morand, 247 N.C. 363, 368, 100 S.E.2d 870, 874 (1957) (citations omitted), appeal dismissed, 357 U.S. 343, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1367 (1958). We conclude that plaintiffs have met their burden and therefore hold that the zoning amendment is invalid. Because the amendment is void, it is unnecessary for us to address the spot zoning issue.

*452Zoning ordinances regulate land use, not ownership. See Blades, 280 N.C. at 546, 187 S.E.2d at 43 (“The whole concept of zoning implies a restriction upon the owner’s right to use a specific tract....”). “The original zoning power of the State reposes in the General Assembly.” Allgood v. Town of Tarboro, 281 N.C. 430, 437, 189 S.E.2d 255, 260 (1972) (citation omitted). The General Assembly, in turn, may delegate zoning authority to the legislative body of a municipality. Id. Because zoning authority derives from the state’s police power, zoning ordinances are valid only when they “promote the public health, the public safety, the public morals or the public welfare.” Zopfi v. City of Wilmington, 273 N.C. 430, 433, 160 S.E.2d 325, 330 (1968). In addition, “[t]he power to zone ... is subject to the limitations of the enabling act,” Schloss v. Jamison, 262 N.C. 108, 114, 136 S.E.2d 691, 695 (1964) (citations omitted), and “[z]oning regulations shall be made in accordance with a comprehensive plan,” N.C.G.S. § 160A-383 (2011). Exercise of the zoning power also must comport with certain procedural requirements, such as those provided in section 160A-383.

When adopting or rejecting any zoning amendment, the governing board shall also approve a statement describing whether its action is consistent with an adopted comprehensive plan and any other officially adopted plan that is applicable, and briefly explaining why the board considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public interest. That statement is not subject to judicial review.

N.C.G.S. § 160A-383.

By its plain language section 160A-383 states that when the governing board adopts a zoning amendment, the board “shall also” approve a statement. Id. Thus, the statute requires that defendant take two actions in this situation: first, adopt or reject the zoning amendment, and second, approve a proper statement. Id. The approved statement must describe whether the action is consistent with any controlling comprehensive plan and explain why the action is “reasonable and in the public interest.” Id. In addition, the statute declares that when such a statement is made, it “is not subject to judicial review.”

Defendant asserts that N.C.G.S. § 160A-383 expressly prohibits judicial review of the City Council’s statement, and therefore, the trial court did not err by granting summary judgment in its favor. Next, defendant argues that the City Council approved a statement in satis*453faction of section 160A-383 by adopting the zoning amendment with the staff report that was before the City Council. Under this theory, the City Council impliedly approved the staffs statement regarding consistency and reasonableness. Finally, defendant contends that the City Council complied with the statute by adopting the following statement: “[T]he Council’s final vote conforms to the guidelines under which they are granted final authority to act upon a rezoning petition.” We are not persuaded by these arguments.

As a preliminary matter, we disagree with defendant’s argument that the statute bars judicial review of this issue. The statute provides, “That statement is not subject to judicial review,” and by “[t]hat statement,” the statute refers to an approved statement. While an approved statement is not subject to judicial review, the statute does not prohibit review of whether the City Council approved a statement, which is the issue here. Accordingly, we review whether the City Council approved a statement.

Turning to the issue proper, we hold that the City Council did not approve a statement as required by N.C.G.S. § 160A-383. First, while the City Council took the initial step of adopting the zoning amendment, it failed to take the second step and “approve a statement” that addresses consistency, reasonableness, and the public interest. This failure is evidenced by the trial court’s uncontested finding of fact that “there was no per se written statement of reasonableness,” a fact that is binding on appeal. Morand, 247 N.C. at 365, 100 S.E.2d at 872 (stating that where no challenge is made to the findings of fact, those findings are presumed supported by competent evidence and are binding upon appeal).

Second, we are not persuaded by defendant’s argument that it complied with the statute by impliedly approving the staff report by virtue of having the report in hand when adopting the zoning amendment. The language of section 160A-383 does not authorize an implied approval. Defendant cites no authority permitting implied approval in this context, and we have found none. Defendant’s argument also fails because, while section 160A-383 requires the approved statement to explain why “the board [the City Council] considers the action taken to be reasonable,” the staff report merely states that the staff considers the action reasonable.

Finally, we do not agree that the City Council satisfied the statute by adopting a statement announcing that it acted within the guidelines of its zoning authority. Compliance with section 160A-383 *454requires more than a general declaration that the action comports with relevant law. Section 160A-383 explains that to meet the statutory requirements, an approved statement must describe whether the zoning amendment is consistent with any controlling land use plan and explain why it is reasonable and in the public interest. The statement adopted by the City Council provides no such explanation or description. Rather, it consists of a general declaration that in adopting the zoning amendment, the City Council acted within the guidelines of its zoning authority.

Conclusion

The zoning amendment at issue is invalid because defendant failed to properly approve a statement under N.C.G.S. § 160A-383. Having determined the amendment void, it is unnecessary for us to address the spot zoning issue. Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeals and remand this case to the Court of Appeals for further remand to the trial court for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

*604Perretta, J.

Article 51 of the town meeting warrant, an amendment to the zoning by-law, was enacted by the defendant town of North Attleborough (town) after approval by the required two-thirds vote at the representative town meeting held October 23, 1993. The amendment changed approximately thirty-seven acres of land from a residential to a commercial zoning district. It was approved by the Attorney General, and notice of that approval was posted by the town clerk conform-ably with G. L. c. 40, § 32. See G. L. c. 40A, § 5. The plaintiffs then brought this action in the Land Court pursuant to G. L. c. 40A, § 4, and G. L. c. 231 A, § 1. The trial judge found that the adoption of the amendment was a valid exercise of local zoning power and dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint. As below, the plaintiffs’ principal arguments on appeal are that the amendment constitutes “spot” or “contract” zoning in violation of the Massachusetts Constitution and G. L. c. 40A, and that the town failed to follow its own “master plan” established pursuant to G. L. c. 41, § 8 ID. We affirm the judgment.

1. The facts. We relate the facts as found by the trial judge.2 The plaintiffs reside at 31 Newport Avenue, Attleboro. Their property contains about eleven acres, all situated in Attleboro, and abuts the line dividing North Attleborough and Attleboro. Alfred Carpionato, the defendant-intervener, is a developer who owns approximately eighty-two contiguous acres of land in North Attleborough. This land abuts the Attleboro line as well as part of the plaintiffs’ property.

On August 13, 1993, Carpionato, acting pursuant to G. L. c. 40A, § 5, filed a warrant article with the North Attleborough selectmen seeking to include on the October town meeting agenda a rezoning of approximately thirty-seven acres of land (locus) from an R-30 residential district to a C-60 commercial zoning district.3 The plaintiffs’ property does not abut the locus but is adjacent to a parcel of fourteen and one-half acres owned *605by Carpionato that will remain in the R-30 district. The locus is situated on the easterly side of Route 1, contiguous to land zoned C-60. A small mall, known as “Fashion Crossing,” is located directly north of the locus, and a Walmart store is directly to the south. Also, there is a Bradlees store directly across Route 1 from the locus, and the Emerald Square Mall is diagonally across Route 1 from the locus.

Carpionato plans to develop the locus into a 260,000 square foot shopping mall and multiscreen movie complex. Under the town’s 1974 zoning regulations, a 600-foot wide commercial strip fronting both sides of Route 1 was established within the R-30 residential district. Consequently, as rezoned, the locus effectively increases the width of the existing commercial strip along Route 1.

Prior to the October town meeting, Carpionato voluntarily made various proposals to State and town authorities which, as alleged, were intended to mitigate the potential impact of his planned commercial development. Those proposals included the creation of a fourteen and one-half acre “no build” buffer zone in an area to remain zoned as R-30, thereby shielding neighbors to the east, including the plaintiffs, from the C-60 district; provision for traffic improvements; the establishment of a “mitigation fund” for the town in the amount of $260,000;4 the payment in mitigation of an amount between $400,000 and $450,000 to the Massachusetts Highway Department for roadway improvements; and an agreement not to seek a tax abatement on any of the rezoned land for a period of five years. Carpionato signed a “restrictive covenant,” a “deed restriction,” and a “mitigation covenant” memorializing some of these proposals. These signed documents were to be recorded at the registry of deeds after Article 51 was approved, without amendment, at the town meeting and by the Attorney General.

Additional facts will be related in conjunction with the resolution of the plaintiffs’ claims of “spot” and “contract” zoning, each of which required the trial judge to determine “whether there has been shown any substantial relation between the amendment and the furtherance of any of the general objects of *606the [zoning] enabling act.” Lanner v. Board of Appeal of Tewksbury, 348 Mass. 220, 228 (1964). See Johnson v. Edgartown, 425 Mass. 117, 121 (1997).

2. Spot zoning. Spot zoning occurs when there is a “singling out of one lot for different treatment from that accorded to similar surrounding land indistinguishable from it in character, all for the economic benefit of the owner of that lot.” Whittemore v. Building Inspector of Falmouth, 313 Mass. 248, 249 (1943). See Board of Appeals of Hanover v. Housing Appeals Comm., 363 Mass. 339, 361-362 (1973). Such zoning “constitutes a denial of equal protection under the law guaranteed by the State and Federal Constitutions,” id. at 362 n.15, and violates the “uniformity” requirement of c. 40A, § 4.5 See Canteen Corp. v. Pittsfield, 4 Mass. App. Ct. 289, 293 (1976). See also Bobrowski, Massachusetts Land Use and Planning Law § 3.4.3 (1993).

Although Carpionato clearly benefits from the zoning amendment, the general public also received considerable benefits. See Lanner v. Board of Appeal of Tewksbury, 348 Mass. at 228-229; Raymond v. Building Inspector of Brimfield, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 38, 42 nn.3 & 4 (1975). The trial judge found that the town previously had rezoned sixty acres of commercial land to residential use and that the present amendment compensates for the loss of those sixty commercial acres. Further, it serves to increase the town’s tax base and will likely increase the availability of retail services and employment opportunities. Citing Martin v. Rockland, 1 Mass. App. Ct. 167, 169 (1973), and Sullivan v. Acton, 38 Mass. App. Ct. 113, 117 (1995), for the respective propositions that “commercial development is a proper public goal that is appropriately achieved through zoning” and that it is proper to “concentrate] future development in a particular area,” the trial judge concluded: “[The] locus, a parcel of vacant land adjacent to a commercial district on a main thoroughfare connecting two major metropolitan areas, can reasonably be viewed as an ‘obvious area’ for the expansion of an existing commercial zone.” We agree. See Cohen v. Lynn, 333 Mass. 699, 704 (1956); Raymond v. Building Inspector of Brimfield, 3 Mass. App. Ct. at 42.

*6073. Contract zoning. “ ‘Illegal contract zoning is said to involve the process by which a local government enters into an agreement with a developer whereby the government extracts a performance or promise from the developer in exchange for its agreement to rezone the property’. . . [and] ... ‘is disapproved of largely on the basis of the principle that a municipality may not contract away its police power to regulate on behalf of the general welfare.’ ” Bobrowski, supra at § 3.4.4, quoting from 1A Rathkopf, Zoning and Planning §§ 29A-25 and 29A-27 (4th ed. 1982). The plaintiffs argue that the zoning amendment is invalid because the town illegally bargained away its police powers in exchange for Carpionato’s various proposals, as memorialized in the “restrictive covenant,” “deed restriction,” and “mitigation covenant,” all of which were subject to an escrow agreement until the amendment was approved, without change, by the town and the Attorney General.

A remarkably similar argument was presented in Sylvania Elec. Prod. Inc. v. Newton, 344 Mass. 428 (1962), where the prospective developer of a tract of land, Sylvania, sought a zoning amendment changing the classification of the land from residential to limited manufacturing. After discussions with zoning officials, Sylvania voluntarily agreed to impose on the tract various conditions and use restrictions in addition to those already made applicable under the zoning ordinance to land within a limited manufacturing district. Those additional conditions and restrictions were as follows. Sylvania, which held an option to purchase the tract in issue, agreed to cede three acres of the parcel to the Oak Hill Park Association. Those three acres were to be retained in the residential district for a period of thirty years. Sylvania’s agreement was to be set out in a deed to be attached to a proposed option agreement by which Sylvania would give the city a thirty-year option to purchase, for $300, a thirty-acre strip of land which was adjacent to land belonging to the Metropolitan District Commission. Sylvania also proposed other restrictions, including creation of a “buffer zone” upon which no buildings could be erected, limitation of the floor area of the planned buildings, and establishment of a pattern of traffic in connection with the construction of the premises. After the board of alderman enacted the zoning amendment, Sylvania recorded the option agreement and attached deed form. Id. at 431-432.

We set out the essentials of the court’s reasoning in upholding the validity of the zoning amendment.

*608“[Although no condition was imposed by the aldermen in their vote, the conclusion is inescapable that the option proposal was a significant inducement of the zoning amendment and the amendment induced the giving of the option.

“It is said that there was a purported, invalid exercise of the zoning power, for the vote operated to subject the locus not only to the restrictions of a limited manufacturing district but also to the restrictions of the option and deed form. But that is not, precisely, what happened. The induced, voluntary action of Sylvania, not the vote of the council, imposed the option restrictions; the vote reclassified land which was being subjected to those restrictions. The zoning decision was that the locus, so restricted by its owner, should be made a limited manufacturing district. That, in form, was an appropriate and untainted exercise of the zoning power.

“What was done involved no action contrary to the best interest of the city and hence offensive to general public policy. It involved no extraneous consideration (as, for example, a request to give land for a park elsewhere in the city) which could impeach the enacting vote as a decision solely in respect of rezoning the locus.

“We discern no aspect of spot zoning, lack of uniformity, or failure to conform to the comprehensive zoning plan. Even if the restrictions had been made a part of the zoning ordinance, they would not have created spot zoning. The site was all the land in the neighborhood which was proposed for reclassification. The private restrictions in no way made the locus less appropriate for classification as a limited manufacturing district. It is inconsequential that other areas elsewhere in the city, in, or to be put in, such a zoning district, would not have those restrictions. Requirements of uniformity and conformity to a plan do not mean that there must be identity of every relevant aspect in areas given the same zoning classification.”

Id. at 433-434 (footnotes omitted).

The plaintiffs argue that there is an “extraneous consideration” in the present case which removes it from Sylvania and *609renders the town meeting vote an invalid exercise of zoning power, viz., Carpionato’s agreement to pay $260,000 directly to the town without that money being specifically tied to any projected costs to the town as a result of the development. As noted in Sylvania, 344 Mass. at 434, conditioning a zoning amendment upon a required payment into a municipality’s general fund “could impeach the enacting vote” on the basis that it was not made “solely in respect of rezoning the locus.”

We do not think a payment that is promised by the developer rather than required by the municipality and that is reasonably intended to meet public needs arising out of the proposed development can be viewed as an “extraneous influence” upon a zoning decision. See Wegner, Moving Toward the Bargaining Table: Contract Zoning, Development Agreements, and the Theoretical Foundations of Government Land Use Deals, 65 N.C. L. Rev. 957, 991 & n.181 (1987). Carpionato’s “mitigation covenant” acknowledged that the zoning amendment, if enacted, would allow commercial development on the locus which, in turn, “will have substantial impact on the Town,” and that “[i]n order to mitigate the effect of such rezoning, and the resultant commercial development that will take place thereafter on the Town, [Carpionato] hereby covenants . . . [to] make a gift to the Town” of $260,000, said amount calculated on the basis of $1 per square foot of retail space available in the building or buildings erected on the locus. See note 4, supra.

Although the plaintiffs rely heavily on the use of the word “gift” in the covenant, there was evidence to show that the money was intended to mitigate the impact of the development upon the town. In a letter sent to the town’s planning board, Carpionato expressly stated that the money was being given to mitigate the impact of the development in the “surrounding neighborhoods and the entire North Attleborough community.” While he advised the planning board that he had numerous suggestions as to how the money could be used, such as the repairing and repaving of Route 1, he also stated that “it would be inappropriate for us to tell the Town what it needs.”

There was also the testimony of John Kokot, the executive vice-president of Carpionato Properties, Inc., and Robert Daylor, a site planner as well as a registered professional engineer and a registered land surveyor. Kokot testified that,, because there was no set formula or methodology by which to determine the amount of any mitigation offer, he arrived at the figure of *610$260,000 ($1 per square foot) on the basis of information about the proposed development itself, the mitigation offer made in the development of Emerald Square Mall, and opinions obtained from various people in North Attleborough.

Daylor testified that mitigation money is frequently used “for trade-off of density in the commercial zone,” such as sidewalks, bicycle trails, or just green space and open space. He also explained that it is to a town’s benefit to establish a mitigation fund without specifying the intended uses of that money at the initiation of a development process. The rationale for an early establishment of a general mitigation fund is especially applicable “in areas that are expanding quite rapidly in which there is a great deal of development activity, and a lot of the commercial development tends to get clustered around the malls, so you see development expanding in corridors. [Because of] [t]he uncertainty of the phasing and the speed and the exact type of development, from the town’s perspective it’s an advantage to have some dedication of funds so they can actually look at the real problems as the real problems develop.”

Finally, the minutes of the town meeting discussion concerning passage of Article 51 do not support the claim of “extraneous influence.” Those minutes show that Kokot spoke at the meeting and detailed not only what Carpionato was required by various State authorities to do in order to mitigate the impact of the development, especially in respect to a predictable traffic increase, but also what more he was volunteering to do. Consistent with the sentiment expressed in the earlier mentioned letter to the town’s planning board, Kokot told the town meeting representatives, “I don’t want to get involved in the personal solution, all I want to do is pay for it.” The minutes indicate that one issue for debate by the town meeting representatives was the conflict between protecting the residential zone and increasing the tax base and employment opportunities. The details of that debate were not recorded and are, instead, reflected in the minutes as “much discussion.”

Applying the analysis set out in Sylvania Elec. Prod. Inc. v. Newton, 344 Mass. at 434, to the evidence before us, we6 conclude that the trial judge was not in error in finding that two-thirds plus one of the town meeting members were not improperly influenced to act on behalf of the developer rather *611than in the best interests of the town. Cf. Caires v. Building Commr. of Hingham, 323 Mass. 589, 596 (1949).

4. The town’s master plan. General Laws c. 41, § 8ID, as amended through St. 1990, c. 372, requires that “[a] planning board . . . shall make a master plan of such city or town or such part or parts thereof as such board may deem advisable and from time to time may extend or perfect such plan.” The plaintiffs claim that passage of the zoning amendment was not preceded by a traffic study as required under the master plan adopted by the town in 1991 and that the trial judge’s finding to the contrary is clearly erroneous.7

There was evidence to show that Carpionato had filed an environmental impact report with the Secretary of Environmental Affairs setting out all the required studies that had been conducted relating to the project. See G. L. c. 30, § 62A. The report, which included a traffic study, was also circulated to the town planning board. There was also evidence to show that the zoning amendment furthered other goals of the master plan, including the allowance of a large commercial project with committed highway improvements as well as the increase of *612commercial growth and development, especially in an area (Route 1) that already had substantial commercial development.

Additionally, the master plan itself provides that it “should not be construed as a ‘blueprint’ for the entire town,” that a “ ‘blueprint’ does not provide flexibility,” and that it was not the intent of the planning board, in drafting the master plan, “to produce a rigidly structured document.” The planning board expressed its view that it had produced a “flexible, usable document . . . which will provide the policies town officials will use to guide the growth and development of [the town] over the next 10 to 20 years in an orderly manner, in areas best suited for development according to the needs of all town residents, both present and future.” The planning board expressly emphasized that the “plan is not cast in concrete . . . and its recommendations must change and evolve to reflect current conditions in [the town].”

Neither the master plan itself nor the law requires that zoning be in strict accordance with a master plan. See Manning v. Boston Redev. Authy., 400 Mass. 444, 450-451 (1987). See also Bobrowski, supra at § 12.13. The most that can be thought required is an analysis by town officials before the zoning decision of land use planning considerations. See National Amusements, Inc. v. Boston, 29 Mass. App. Ct. 305, 310-311 (1990). There was sufficient evidence before the trial judge to show that this requirement had been satisfied, and we see no error in his finding.

5. Adequacy of the findings. There is complaint about the adequacy of the trial judge’s findings, especially in respect to the history of Carpionato’s attempts to have the locus rezoned. Although the trial judge admitted evidence as to that history, he did not find it relevant to the questions of whether the zoning amendment constituted spot zoning or contract zoning. The trial judge issued a well-reasoned decision. That he did not find the plaintiffs’ evidence persuasive on certain issues does not diminish the force or validity of his decision. See Willis v. Selectmen of Easton, 405 Mass. 159, 161 (1989) (trial judge sitting without a jury need only “articulate the essential grounds for a decision”).

We see no error in the trial judge’s refusal to admit in evidence a “planning and zoning update” produced by the State Office of Planning and Management in which communities were “urged” to review National Amusements, Inc., supra. Although *613he excluded the update from evidence, the trial judge allowed the plaintiffs to cross-examine an expert witness about its contents for purposes of impeaching his knowledge of zoning and planning law. Nor do we see error in the trial judge’s refusal to strike the testimony of the defendants’ expert witnesses on the ground that they were unaware that Carpionato intended to include a movie theater within the proposed project. The trial judge knew of Carpionato’s intention, and he was able to evaluate the experts’ testimony in light of the fact that they did not.

6. Conclusion. It follows from what we have said that we conclude there was no error in the trial judge’s decision that the adoption of Article 51 was a valid exercise of the town’s zoning power in that the amendment has a reasonable relationship to the public welfare, safety, and purposes of G. L. c. 40A.

Judgment affirmed.

Ireland, J.

We transferred this case here on our own motion *84to determine the validity of an amendment to the defendant town of Kingston’s (town’s) zoning bylaw that created a “smart growth” zoning overlay district (zoning amendment) pursuant to G. L. c. 40R and its enabling regulations, 760 Code Mass. Regs. §§ 59.00 (2005). The plaintiffs, who own and reside on land abutting or near the smart growth zoning district,3 contend that the zoning amendment is an arbitrary or unreasonable exercise of the town meeting’s zoning power because the town “failed to analyze and consider adequately relevant land use planning considerations.” The plaintiffs focus on a decrease in the amount of developable land comprising the smart growth zoning district on account of a change in designation of a portion of that land as a “priority habitat” (see note 11, infra) for rare species protected under the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (MESA), G. L. c. 131 A, and its implementing regulations, 321 Code Mass. Regs. §§ 10.00 (2005). Although the town should have revised its figures concerning the amount of developable land comprising the smart growth zoning district, we conclude that its failure to do so did not invalidate the zoning amendment. We therefore affirm the Land Court judge’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants and the judgment dismissing the complaint.

1. Statutory and regulatory framework. In 2004, the Legislature enacted legislation entitled “Smart Growth Zoning and Housing Production,” which is codified at G. L. c. 40R. See St. 2004, c. 149, § 92. The stated purpose of the statute is “to encourage smart growth and increased housing production in Massachusetts.” G. L. c. 40R, § 1. The statute defines “[sjmart growth” as follows:

“Smart growth is a principle of land development that emphasizes mixing land uses, increases the availability of affordable housing by creating a range of housing opportunities in neighborhoods, takes advantage of compact design, fosters distinctive and attractive communities, preserves open space, farmland, natural beauty and critical environmental areas, strengthens existing communities, provides a variety of transportation choices, makes develop*85ment decisions predictable, fair and cost effective and encourages community and stakeholder collaboration in development decisions.”

Id. The Legislature has designated the Department of Housing and Community Development (department) as the regulatory agency charged with administering smart growth development. Id. at § 12. The department has implemented regulations concerning the smart growth program and its operation. 760 Code Mass. Regs. §§ 59.00.

To effectuate smart growth, municipalities are authorized to create so-called “smart growth zoning districts” in “eligible location[s].”4 G. L. c. 40R, § 3. A smart growth zoning district may be adopted by any city or town as part of its zoning ordinance or bylaw in accordance with the standards set forth in G. L. c. 40A, § 5 (setting forth procedure for adoption or amendment to municipal zoning ordinance or bylaw). G. L. c. 40R, § 3. The smart growth statute requires, among other mandates, that primary residential use be allowed “as of right” in a smart growth zoning district. Id. In addition, a municipality may permit “business, commercial or other uses consistent with primary residential use” in a smart growth zoning district. Id. A comprehensive list of the minimum requirements for a smart growth zoning district appears at G. L. c. 40R, § 6 (a).

It should be understood that a smart growth zoning district is an overlay district that is “superimposed over [one] or more zoning districts in an eligible location, within which a developer may elect to either develop a project in accordance with requirements of the smart growth zoning ordinance or by-law, or develop a project in accordance with requirements of the underlying zoning district.” Id. at § 2. Projects developed in accordance with the requirements of a smart growth zoning ordinance or bylaw are to be governed solely by those provisions and “without any reference to the standards or procedures of the [underlying [z]oning that would otherwise be applicable to developments *86within the same geographic area as the [district.” 760 Code Mass. Regs. § 59.04(1)(1). “Without limitation,” the smart growth zoning district ordinance or bylaw “shall set out the dimensional, use, parking, and other standards applicable to [projects within the [smart growth zoning district] including but not limited to height limits, setbacks, lot areas, lot dimensions, unit to lot ratios, floor area ratios, lot coverage ratios, open space ratios, parking ratios, parking locations, and roadway design standards.” Id. “Such provisions may change the dimensional and other standards contained in the [underlying [z]oning in order to allow the densities, [a]ffordability,[5] mix of uses, and physical character of [projects which are permitted [a]s-of-right . . . .” Id. The ordinance or bylaw “may allow the [approving [a]uthority,[6] through the [p]lan [r]eview process, to waive specific dimensional and other standards (other than [a]ffordability requirements) otherwise applicable to a [p]roject.” Id.

In providing for smart growth zoning, G. L. c. 40R and 760 Code Mass. Regs. § 59.05 set forth a detailed procedural framework for municipalities and the department to follow. As relevant here, a municipality must first hold a public hearing on whether the provisions of a smart growth zoning ordinance or bylaw shall be adopted by the municipality. 760 Code Mass. Regs. § 59.05 (1). Thereafter, a municipality submits its completed application to the department for a preliminary determination of eligibility. Id. at § 59.05 (2). The information in the application shall:

“(a) identify and describe the boundaries of the proposed smart growth zoning district;

“(b) identify and describe the developable land area within the proposed smart growth zoning district;

*87“(c) identify and describe other residential development opportunities for infill housing and the residential re-use of existing buildings and underutilized buildings within already developed areas;

“(d) include a comprehensive housing plan, as set forth in section 8;

“(e) include a copy of the proposed smart growth district ordinance or by-law;

“(f) by narrative and exhibits, establish the elements set forth in section 6 [minimum requirements for smart growth zoning district].”

G. L. c. 40R, § 5. See 760 Code Mass. Regs. § 59.03.

Concerning the identification of the developable land area within the proposed smart growth zoning district, the smart growth statute defines “[d]evelopable land area” as “that area within an approved smart growth zoning district that can be feasibly developed into residential or mixed use development determined in accordance with regulations of the department.” G. L. c. 40R, § 2. The statute goes on to specify what is excluded from developable land area. “Developable land area shall not include . . . land area that is already substantially developed [or] areas exceeding [one-half] acre of contiguous land that are unsuitable for development because of topographic features or for environmental reasons, such as wetlands.” Id. Under the department’s regulations, developable land area excludes “[substantially [developed [l]and”7 and “areas exceeding *88[one-half] acre of contiguous land that are . . . rare species habitat designated under [F]ederal or [S]tate law.” 760 Code Mass. Regs. § 59.02. The component of developable land area is significant in determining the minimum as-of-right density requirements (housing units) in a smart growth zoning district, see id. at § 59.04(l)(d),8 and correspondingly, the amount of certain financial incentives awarded to stimulate smart growth. See G. L. c. 40R, § 9; 760 Code Mass. Regs. § 59.06.9

On receipt of a municipality’s complete application to create a smart growth zoning district, the department “shall make a preliminary determination, before the [municipality votes on its *89proposed [s]mart [g]rowth [z]oning, whether the application satisfies the approval requirements set forth in [760 Code Mass. Regs. § 59.04 (1), concerning mandatory requirements for smart growth zoning].” Id. at § 59.05 (2). See G. L. c. 40R, § 4 (a). The department may approve an application, issuing a “[l]etter of [eligibility,” with or without conditions, or may deny it. 760 Code Mass. Regs. § 59.05 (2)(c). See G. L. c. 40R, § 4 (a).

Once a municipality obtains a letter of eligibility from the department, it may vote on the proposed zoning ordinance or bylaw set forth in its application. 760 Code Mass. Regs. § 59.05 (3). A municipality “shall make any changes to its [smart growth zoning ordinance or bylaw] and other elements of the application as may have been required by the [department.” Id. The zoning adoption process is the same as under G. L. c. 40A, with the exception that “the local vote [must] occur[] within three years of the date of the [l]etter of [eligibility,” 760 Code Mass. Regs. § 59.05 (3). See G. L. c. 40R, § 3.

Following the local adoption of a zoning ordinance or bylaw for a smart growth zoning district, a municipality must apply to the department for final approval of the smart growth zoning ordinance or bylaw. G. L. c. 40R, § 4 (b). The municipality “shall submit to the [department proof of such adoption [of the smart growth zoning ordinance or bylaw].” 760 Code Mass. Regs. § 59.05(4). If the department has required any amendments to the smart growth zoning ordinance or bylaw, the municipality’s application, or “any other related matter,” the municipality’s submission “shall confirm that such amendments) have been made and incorporated.” Id. In addition, if there has been any other change to the smart growth zoning ordinance or bylaw, or to “any other element of the original application, other than changes that the [department has required in a conditional [l]etter of [e]ligibility, then the [d]epartment may treat the submission as an amendment to the application, and it shall notify the [m]unicipality of its decision to do so in writing.” Id. “In such event the [department shall confirm its final approval within [sixty] days of receipt of the submission, provided that the amended application satisfies all of the approval criteria set forth in 760 [Code Mass. Regs. §] 59.04(1).” 760 Code Mass. Regs. § 59.05(4). Once a municipality has received final *90approval from the department, it becomes eligible to receive the zoning incentive payment [see note 9, supra] and the letter of approval “shall specify ... the number of [i]ncentive [ujnits and the amount of the [zjoning [ijncentive [pjayment that shall be made.” Id. at § 59.05(4).

The department’s oversight does not end with the issuance of its final approval. Every municipality with an approved smart growth zoning district (or which has filed an application for a proposed smart growth zoning district within the fiscal year) must furnish an annual update, on or before July 31 of each year, to the department. Id. at § 59.07(1). The annual update “shall contain,” among other requirements, “[a] list of all [a]p-proved and currently proposed [smart growth zoning districts] within the [mjunicipality, with a tabulation for each [smart growth zoning district] of the total land area, the [d]evelopable (1) and area and the [substantially [developed [l]and area, the number of [ijncentive [ujnits, and the amount of [djevelopable and [substantially [developed [l]and zoned at various allowable [a]s-of-right residential densities under the [smart growth zoning ordinance or bylaw].” Id. at § 59.07(l)(a).

“On or before October 1 of each year after the year of approval of a [smart growth zoning] district by the department, the department shall send a smart growth zoning district certificate of compliance to each city or town with an approved district.” G. L. c. 40R, § 7 {a). To receive the certificate, a municipality “shall verify within the time specified by the department: (1) that the city or town has adopted an approved smart growth zoning district; (2) that the certification has not been revoked by the department; (3) that the district is being developed in a manner that reasonably complies with the minimum requirements set forth in section 6 for housing density and affordability; [and] (4) that the approving authority has not unreasonably denied plans for projects . . . .” Id. A municipality also must timely submit its annual update. 760 Code Mass. Regs. § 59.07(3). If the department is unable to certify compliance, it shall issue a letter of noncompliance, giving a municipality sixty days to submit proof of compliance or the commencement of remedial measures. Id. If this showing is not satisfactory, the department “shall hold a public hearing subject to chapter 30A. . . and may revoke certification.” *91G. L. c. 40R, § 7 (b). See 760 Code Mass. Regs. § 59.07(3). “Any revocation of certification or other sanctions imposed by the department shall not affect the validity of the smart growth zoning ordinance or by-law, or the application of such ordinance or by-law to land, development or proposed development within the smart growth zoning district.” G. L. c. 40R, § 7. See 760 Code Mass. Regs. § 59.07(3). Such action, however, may trigger the suspension of financial incentives to a municipality or the municipality’s repayment of financial incentives to the department. 760 Code Mass. Regs. § 59.06(3)(c) and (d).

The department is required to file annual reports to the Legislature, “[n]o later than November 15th of each year.” 760 Code Mass. Regs. § 59.07(4). See G. L. c. 40R, § 12. The report, among other mandates, must list the municipalities that have approved smart growth zoning districts or have submitted applications for such a district within the prior year. 760 Code Mass. Regs. § 59.07(4). The report also must set forth the aggregate size of all approved and proposed smart growth zoning districts, including specifying the aggregate total land area, developable land area, and substantially developed land area. Id. The department’s report shall contain information concerning the zoning incentive and density bonus payments. Id. Reports are to be made “available to the general public.” Id.

2. Background. The material undisputed facts are as follows. The town is a coastal community in southeastern Massachusetts that, in recent years, has experienced unprecedented development pressures. From 1980 to 2000, the town’s population grew by sixty per cent, with the majority of development taking the form of single-family residential homes on large lots. In February, 2006, the town was approached by the defendant Thorndike Development Corporation (Thorndike), about the possibility of adopting a zoning amendment that would create a smart growth zoning district on property located less than one-half mile from the Kingston commuter rail station (property). The property consists of 109 acres and includes an excavated sand pit. Thorndike had acquired an option to purchase the property from its owners, the defendants Mary O’Donnell and Robert Moakley, trustees of the O’Donnell Family Realty Trust, and was interested in developing a smart growth development to be *92called 1021 Kingston’s Place (Kingston’s Place). Kingston’s Place would consist of up to 730 new residential units, 50,000 square feet of retail space, and 250,000 square feet of commercial space.

In February, 2006, the town requested and received a preliminary determination from the department that the property would be in an “eligible location” for smart growth development. In June, 2006, the town submitted its application to the department for its proposed smart growth project. Included in the town’s application, as required, was a certification of the amount of developable land in the proposed smart growth zoning district. Specifically, the town’s application certified that the proposed smart growth zoning district consisted of 109 acres, of which 69.6 acres (or 63.9 per cent of the district) consisted of developable land. The application also identified that the proposed district included 11.2 acres (or 10.3 per cent) of environmentally constrained land, none of which, at the time, included rare species habitat designated under State or Federal law.

Effective October 1, 2006, the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program,10 issued the twelfth edition of its Natural Heritage Atlas (atlas). Pursuant to the atlas, a substantial portion of the land comprising the proposed Kingston’s Place development, possibly as much as fifty per cent, was designated as a priority habitat of State-listed rare species (including the eastern box turtle)11 and an estimated habitat of rare wildlife.12

The town became aware of the atlas designations in November *93of 2006. Subsequently, the town did not revise its figures contained in its application to the department concerning the developable land area, environmentally constrained land, or total future zoned incentive units in the proposed smart growth zoning district.

On April 4, 2007, the department issued a letter of eligibility to the town, approving the town’s application for the creation of the smart growth zoning district and the underlying zoning amendment, with certain conditions. As relevant here, as part of one of the conditions, the department required annual updates to be filed with the department “[o]n or before July 31 of each year . . . containing... a table indicating the total land area, the develop-able [l]and [a]rea, the [substantially developed [l]and [a]rea, the number of [incentive [ujnits, the amount of developable and [substantially developed [l]and zoned for each type of residential use allowed under the [smart growth zoning ordinance or bylaw] for the [smart growth zoning district].”

On April 11, 2007, the zoning amendment was adopted by a vote of the Kingston town meeting. The department granted its final approval of the zoning amendment on August 28, 2007. The town received a zoning incentive payment in the amount of $600,000. In its first annual update to the department, dated July 30, 2008, the town did not revise its figures relating to the developable land area, environmentally constrained land, or total future zoned incentive units.13

*94On November 14, 2007, the plaintiffs filed their original complaint in the Land Court seeking, pursuant to G. L. c. 240, § 14A,14 to have the zoning amendment invalidated. After various proceedings, the remaining defendants (see note 2, supra) moved for summary judgment on count three of the complaint (the only remaining count), which alleges that the zoning amendment is invalid as an arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of zoning power because the town “failed to analyze and consider adequately relevant land use planning considerations.” Specifically, as relevant to this appeal,15 the plaintiffs claimed that the town failed adequately to consider, and should have informed the department of, the effect of the change in the priority habitat designation to the calculation of developable land for the proposed Kingston’s Place development.

In her summary judgment decision, the Land Court judge acknowledged that the town’s calculation of the amount of developable land, for summary judgment purposes, was incorrect at the time the department issued its letter of eligibility on April 4, 2007, and when the zoning amendment was adopted by the town meeting on April 11, 2007 (because the atlas containing the priority habitat designation became effective on October 1,2006). She concluded, however, that the error did not invalidate the zoning amendment. The judge explained that the town’s duty to submit its first annual update had not yet arisen when *95the zoning amendment was adopted by the town, and that thereafter, the motives of the town for failing to update the developable land component of its application, could not be considered by the court. In addition, she did not otherwise find a duty imposed by the smart growth statute or regulations on the town to supplement its application on learning of the rare species priority habitat designation. The judge pointed out that the department’s approval is not “the final step for Thorndike in completing its proposed development,” and that “many permits [are] still required before Thorndike can begin its project, including permitting processes through which the specific question of impact on endangered species will be vetted.” For these reasons, the judge concluded that the plaintiffs had not and could not meet their burden of proving facts that compel a conclusion that the validity of the zoning amendment “is not even fairly debatable,” Crall v. Leominster, 362 Mass. 95, 103 (1972). The judge granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and entered a judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaint.

3. Discussion. Smart growth zoning districts must be adopted in accordance with G. L. c. 40A, § 5. G. L. c. 40R, § 3. Whether a smart growth zoning ordinance or bylaw is valid accordingly rests on the settled principles that pertain to zoning ordinances or bylaws enacted under G. L. c. 40A. Under these standards, “[t]he enactment of a zoning bylaw by the voters at town meeting is not only the exercise of an independent police power, it is also a legislative act.” Durand v. IDC Bellingham, LLC, 440 Mass. 45, 50 (2003) (Durand). See Opinion of the Justices, 358 Mass. 838, 840 (1971). Consequently, a strong presumption of validity is to be afforded to the challenged bylaw or ordinance. Durand, supra at 51. The presumption “will not normally be undone unless the plaintiff can demonstrate ‘by a preponderance of the evidence that the zoning regulation is arbitrary and unreasonable, or substantially unrelated to the public health, safety ... or general welfare.’ ” Id., quoting Johnson v. Edgartown, 425 Mass. 117, 121 (1997). “If the reasonableness of a zoning bylaw is even ‘fairly debatable, the judgment of the local legislative body responsible for the enactment must be sustained.’ ” Durand, supra, quoting Crall v. Leominster, supra at 101. “Such an analysis is not affected by consideration of the *96various possible motives that may have inspired legislative action.” Durand, supra, and cases cited.

As an initial matter, the term “developable land” expressly excludes “areas exceeding [one-half] acre of contiguous land that are . . . rare species habitat designated under [Fjederal or [S]tate law.” 760 Code Mass. Regs. § 59.02. Although a developer may challenge a priority habitat designation under State law, see 321 Code Mass. Regs. § 10.25 (2005), that process has no bearing on the definition of the term “developable land” under the smart growth zoning statute. Thus, for summary judgment purposes, the effect of the atlas designation in this case was significantly to decrease the amount of developable land comprising the proposed smart growth zoning district.

There is no question that the duty of a municipality to identify correctly the amount of developable land in a proposed smart growth zoning district takes on great significance under the statutory and regulatory scheme. As has been mentioned, this component affects the permissible density of a smart growth project, as well as the amount of financial incentives to be given a municipality from State funds. Consequently, throughout the lengthy process to create a smart growth zoning district, information concerning the amount of developable land in a proposed or approved smart growth zoning district, when required, should be, to the best of a municipality’s ability, current and correct as of the date of a submission. To conclude otherwise, would render the various statutory and regulatory obligations after the submission of the original application superfluous. We also note the absence of any express requirement to use the figure (concerning the amount of developable land) set forth in the original application in submissions following the original application.

When originally submitted on June, 2006, the town’s application, regarding the amount of developable land in the proposed smart growth zoning district, was accurate. Like the Land Court judge, we find no statutory or regulatory mandate imposed on the town to revise its application (concerning the amount of developable land) prior to the department’s issuance of a letter of eligibility under 760 Code Mass. Regs. § 59.05(2)(c). The same, however, cannot be said of the town’s obligations in con*97nection with seeking final approval for the smart growth zoning district from the department. Pursuant to 760 Code Mass. Regs. § 59.05(4), after a municipality has adopted a smart growth zoning ordinance or bylaw, it is required to notify the department of “all differences between the proposed [smart growth zoning ordinance or bylaw] and the [smart growth zoning ordinance or bylaw] as adopted locally.” In addition, a municipality “shall identify” in its submission, “any other changes to the original application.” Id. These identification obligations allow the department, if it chooses, to “treat the submission as an amendment to the application,” which must satisfy “all of the approval criteria set forth in [760 Code Mass. Regs. § 59.04(1) (pertaining to mandatory requirements for smart growth zoning district)].” 760 Code Mass. Regs. § 59.05(4). We agree with the plaintiffs that this broad regulatory mandate obligated the town to revise its figures concerning the project’s developable land area in its submission seeking the department’s final approval of its smart growth zoning district. The fact that the town did not on its own cause the figure concerning the amount of developable land to be altered does not matter. When the town learned of an event (the atlas designation) that rendered information in its original application (concerning the amount of developable land) incorrect, a change was necessitated and the town, as the applicant, was obligated to bring that change to the department’s attention in its submission seeking the department’s final approval. Should the change to the original application be insignificant, the department retains the discretion to go forward and need not treat every change as an amendment. However, that determination is one for the department, and not for the town, to make.

We also agree with the plaintiffs and the Land Court judge that the town, in its annual updates, is obligated to set forth the current figures concerning the amount of developable land in the smart growth zoning district. See 760 Code Mass. Regs. § 59.07(l)(a) (municipality with smart growth zoning district “shall file” annual update with department by July 31 each year that “shall contain . . . the [d]evelopable [l]and area”). Moreover, although the town’s obligation to file its first regulatory annual update arose after the department’s final approval *98on August 28, 2007, of the smart growth zoning district, in its April 4, 2007, letter of eligibility, the department specifically required as one of its conditions that the town file annual updates “[o]n or before July 31 of each year . . . containing ... a table indicating . . . the [d]evelopable [l]and [ajrea . . . .” This condition imposed the duty on the town to file an annual update on or before July 31 of 2007 that contained correct figures as of that date concerning the amount of developable land. Current figures on the developable land area were necessary because duplication of the figures contained in the original application would serve no purpose. For example, inaccurate figures would not assist the department in determining the proper density and corresponding amount of financial incentives to be awarded to the town.

Although we conclude that the town failed to revise its figures concerning the developable land area in accordance with the duties discussed above, we conclude that these omissions are not a basis to invalidate the zoning amendment itself. As relevant to the development of Kingston’s Place, the amount of developable land bears on the number of units to be developed and the amount of financial incentives to be paid to the town. When a smart growth project is not being “developed in a manner that reasonably complies with the minimum requirements set forth . . . for housing density and affordability,” G. L. c. 40R, § 7 (a) (3), because a decrease in the amount of develop-able land has rendered the density and affordability figures inaccurate, or a town fails to submit its regulatory annual updates, see 760 Code Mass. Regs. § 59.07(3), the department may seek, as recourse, to revoke its certification of the smart growth zoning district. G. L. c. 40R, § 7 (b). See 760 Code Mass. Regs. § 59.07(3). Significantly, a certificate of revocation “shall not affect the validity of the smart growth zoning ordinance or by-law.” G. L. c. 40R, § 7 (b). See 760 Code Mass. Regs. § 59.07(3). Thus, the town’s omissions do not invalidate the zoning amendment. Rather, the consequence is one of a financial nature, triggering the suspension or repayment of financial incentives awarded to a municipality. See 760 Code Mass. Regs. § 59.06(3)(c) and (d).

Our conclusion does not undermine the purpose of G. L. *99c. 40R to “preserve!] . . . critical environmental areas,” G. L. c. 40R, § 1. The zoning amendment creates a smart growth zoning bylaw authorizing a smart growth zoning district in the town. The record demonstrates that the town faced unprecedented development and had a pressing need for additional housing. Thus, the zoning amendment, regardless of how the exact development turns out, served a valid public purpose as well as one of the purposes of the smart growth zoning statute — to create additional housing. The plaintiffs seem to overlook that the zoning amendment is just one component in a lengthy application and approval process. Significantly, the zoning amendment does not function as a permit to develop the land, as relevant here, in derogation of MESA or the Wetlands Protection Act, G. L. c. 131, § 40. As noted by the town, a designation of land as a priority habitat for rare species does not preclude development. To the contrary, the priority habitat designation change serves to impose an additional layer of permitting on the ultimate development in the smart growth zoning district. See 321 Code Mass. Regs. §§ 10.18-10.23 (2005). Specifically, Thorndike will need to apply for a conservation and management permit to build in the designated area and satisfy the requirements of 321 Code Mass. Regs. § 10.23, which are designed to protect the impacted State-listed species.

For these reasons, we agree with the Land Court judge’s determinations that the plaintiffs have not proved “facts which compel a conclusion that the question [of the validity of the zoning amendment] is not even fairly debatable,” Crall v. Leominster, 362 Mass. 95, 103 (1972), and that the zoning amendment is valid. The judge was correct to grant summary judgment to the defendants and to direct entry of a judgment dismissing the complaint.

Judgment affirmed.

Barnes, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this appeal, Lee H. dayman and Alan B. Mackall, the appellants, seek the reversal of an order, dated November 11, 1971, of the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County (Ralph W. Powers, J.), affirming the action of the Board of County Commissioners for Prince George’s County, sitting as a District Council (District Council), one of the appellees, in granting the application (No. A-7885) of R. Warren Amman, et al., the remaining appellees, for the rezoning of 6.3545 acres of land in Prince George’s County from the R-R zone (Rural Residential) to the C-2 zone (General Commercial).

The land involved in the requested rezoning consists of 7.0645 acres of land in Prince George’s County located on the east side of Piscataway Road, north of Wind-brook Drive. It fronts 771.47 feet on Piscataway Road and 574.30 feet on Windbrook Drive. The Technical Staff of the Prince George’s County Planning Board after deducting .71 acre of land for a right-of-way, leaving 6.3545 acres for the proposed C-2 use, recommended that the application for rezoning to the C-2 zone be denied because such rezoning would be contrary to the General Plan adopted in January 1964; there could likely be some delay in the completion of the necessary water and sewer facilities; there had been no mistake in the original zoning or a change in the character of the neighborhood since the original zoning; and any further use of land for commercial facilities should be where provided in the General Plan, which locations were far more advantageous than the subject property located, as it was, at the intersection of only an arterial and a major road.

*412The Planning Board, however, did not accept the recommendation of the Technical Staff, but on May 21, 1969, recommended approval of the requested rezoning upon three conditions, i.e. (1) the establishment of a 50-foot buffer along the north property line; (2) that landscaping should be provided along the frontage of Piscataway Road and Windbrook Drive to protect the residential development across these roads; and, (3) that the landscape plan be reviewed by the Planning Board. The reasons for its recommendation of approval of the granting of the application, subject to the conditions mentioned, were (1) it is on the corner of two major roads; (2) it is centrally located to serve as a neighborhood shopping center for the developed area around it; and, (3) the applicant has demonstrated a need. Commissioner Malzone dissented substantially upon the reasons for disapproval set forth in the Technical Staff report.

After hearings on September 9 and October 9, 1970, at which the applicants offered expert and other testimony and exhibits and the protestants offered evidence in opposition and submitted various written protests, the District Council on October 28, 1970, approved the application with three conditions, i.e. (1) a 20-foot buffer strip shall be established along the north property line; (2) landscaping shall be provided along the frontage of Wind-brook Drive to protect the residential development across these roads; and, (3) the landscape plan should be reviewed by the Planning Board, subject, however, to the applicants’ acceptance of these conditions.

The protestants, Clayman, et al., on November 30, 1970, filed their request to the District Council for reconsideration based on the reasons advanced by them in this appeal; but their request was ignored.

The applicants filed their acceptance of the rezoning conditions on December 23, 1970; and the District Council took final action to approve the conditional rezoning on the 2nd day of February, 1971, setting forth findings of fact and conclusions. In these, the District Council determined that the “neighborhood” of the subject prop*413erty was “the market area of the proposed shopping center.” The District Council also found that within this neighborhood there had been changes indicative of increased density and urbanization. Sewerage became available to the emerging residential subdivisions; Piscataway Road is to be widened; population has increased substantially; traffic has increased on Piscataway Road; and Windbrook Drive is to be extended to Floral Park Road and Thrift Road; and, the applicants had established “a definite need for a shopping center in the area.” The District Council concluded that “due to the substantial changes and change in character of this neighborhood that commercial use is now justified.”

A notice of appeal was duly noted and, on January 18, 1971, the protestants, dayman and Mackall, filed their petition for review in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, setting up many grounds of alleged error. In Paragraph 5 of the petition for review, the petitioners alleged that they were “persons and taxpayers in Prince George’s County Maryland, and own property in the general area of the property that was the subject of Zoning Map Amendment Petition No. A-7885.” They allege that their homes and properties will be reduced in value and their enjoyment of their respective properties gravely impaired if the rezoning is allowed to stand. They further allege that each of them is a person qualified to appeal “pursuant to Article VII of the Prince George’s County Charter and pursuant to Section 59-85(e) of the Public Local Laws of Prince George’s County, Chapter 898, 1965 Laws of Maryland).” The answer of the County to the petition for review denied the allegations of Paragraph 5 of that petition. The applicants, on February 16, 1971, filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that it was prematurely filed, the final action of the District Council not having occurred until February 2, 1971, and further that one of the applicants, William V. Meyers, was only acting as agent and attorney for the owners of the subject property, had no other interest in it, and accordingly the ap*414peal should be dismissed as to him. Replies to this motion to dismiss were filed by the petitioners and the County and Judge DeBlasis denied the motion to dismiss on April 29, 1971.

On May 4, 1971, the applicants filed their answer to the petition for review, denying the allegations of Paragraph 5 of that petition and affirmatively alleging that the petitioners were not aggrieved within the provisions of § 59-85 (e) of the Public Local Laws of Prince George’s County, and that Chapter 713 of the Prince George’s County Charter (the Charter) was not applicable at the time of the hearing before the District Council ; and, in any event, there was no evidence that the petitioner Mackall was a taxpayer and was, therefore, not “a person of record, as defined in § 701 (e) of the Charter,” and, if so held to be such, § 713, purporting to expand the right of appeal to all taxpayers in any zoning case without requiring proof of interest in the case, “is invalid and unenforceable.” It was also alleged that petitioner dayman was in no sense a party to the case, he merely being a spokesman for the opposition and, if deemed to be a party, was in no manner aggrieved by the decision of the District Council.

The County, on May 27, 1971, filed an elaborate memorandum in opposition to the memorandum theretofore filed by the petitioners. No point was raised or argued in regard to the standing of the petitioners to take the appeal. On September 29, 1971, the applicants filed a reply memorandum adopting the County’s reply memorandum and advancing the argument that the petitioners were without standing to appeal, citing several Maryland cases.

The matter came on for hearing before Judge Ralph W. Powers on October 1, 1971, and after argument was taken under advisement.

Judge Powers, on November 11, 1971, filed his opinion and an order affirming the action of the District Council.

Judge Powers was of the opinion that it was fairly debatable that there were sufficient changes in the *415“neighborhood” to change its character and that the District Council could legally grant the application so far as the Maryland “change-mistake” rule was concerned. He rejected the contention of the petitioners and protestants that conditional zoning was not prohibited by the adoption of the new Charter for Prince George’s County inasmuch as this Charter became effective after the case was decided by the District Council. It will be noted that Judge Powers did not consider or decide any question in regard to the standing of the petitioners to take the appeal from the action of the District Council. He passed an order on November 11, 1971, affirming the action of the District Council, and not dismissing the appeal for want of standing to take the appeal. In sum, the question was not “tried and decided” by the lower court.

The County did not challenge the standing of the appellants to take the appeal from the action of the District Council to the lower court either in its brief or at the argument before us nor did the appellants argue the question of standing in their brief. The appellants raised a number of contentions on the appeal to us which they had raised and argued before the lower court, i.e., (1) that the action of the District Council was arbitrary, unreasonable and capricious in that (a) the applicants offered no sufficient evidence to establish the proper boundaries of the “neighborhood” of the subject property and (b) made no showing of changes in the neighborhood changing its character (there being no “mistake” in the original zoning) and (2) the action of the District Council was illegal and void in granting conditional zoning inasmuch as such action was (a) without statutory authority and was contrary to public policy; (b) was in violation of the statutory zoning moritorium and the zoning moritorium in the Charter; (c) was in violation of the express prohibition of conditional zoning in the Charter; and, (d) was in violation of statutory and constitutional requirements for uniformity of treatment of the zoning law to all land within the same zoning classification.

In regard to the question of standing, we shall not con*416sider it because of the provision of Maryland Rule 885 that this Court does not ordinarily “decide any point or question which does not plainly appear by the record to have been tried and decided by the lower court * * (Emphasis supplied.) Not only does the issue of standing not plainly appear by the record to have been tried and decided by the lower court, but the record plainly shows to the contrary. This aspect of the present case is to be distinguished from our decision in Panamerican Consulting Co. v. Broun, 238 Md. 438, 548, 209 A. 2d 575 (1965) in which two legal questions were presented and argued in the lower court; and the trial court, having decided one question, did not deem it necessary to decide the other. There is nothing in the record to show that the question of standing was argued before the lower court and the absence of any consideration of the question in the briefs of the appellants or the appellee County strongly suggests that it was not. There is no mention of the question in the opinion of the lower court which also strongly suggests that it was not pressed or argued before that court.

As our prior decisions indicate, the principal purposes of this provision of Rule 885 were (a) to require counsel to bring the position of their client to the attention of the lower court at the trial so that the trial court can pass upon, and possibly correct any errors in the proceedings, Lane v. State, 226 Md. 81, 172 A. 2d 400 (1961) and (b) to prevent the trial of cases in a piecemeal fashion, thus accelerating the termination of litigation, Hewitt v. State, 242 Md. 111, 218 A. 2d 19 (1966). In our opinion, it would frustrate these purposes of Rule 885 to decide the issue of standing which was not “tried and decided by the lower court.”

On the merits of this appeal, the appellants have raised a number of questions, several of which might well require a reversal of the order of November 11, 1971. We only find it necessary, however, to decide one of these questions, i.e., whether there was sufficient evidence before the District Council to make fairly debatable its *417findings of changes in the “neighborhood” of the subject property since the comprehensive zoning which have resulted in a change in the character of the neighborhood. In our opinion, there was not sufficient evidence, under our prior decision, to make these issues fairly debatable.

In Chevy Chase Village v. Montgomery County Council, 258 Md. 27, 41-2, 264 A. 2d 861, 868 (1970), we stated:

“ ‘On innumerable occasions, this Court has held that “there is a strong presumption of the correctness of original zoning and of comprehensive rezoning, and that to sustain a piecemeal change therefrom, there must be strong evidence of mistake in the original zoning or in the comprehensive rezoning or else a substantial change in conditions.” * * ”

(Emphasis in original.)

In Montgomery v. Board of County Commissioners for Prince George’s County, 256 Md. 597, 602, 261 A. 2d 447, 450 (1970), it was stated by the Court:

“Inasmuch as there is no contention in the present case that there was a mistake in the original zoning, it was necessary that the applicants establish before the District Council (a) what area reasonably constituted the ‘neighborhood’ of the subject property, (b) the changes which have occurred in that neighborhood since the comprehensive rezoning and (c) that these changes resulted in a change in the character of the neighborhood. These are the ‘basic facts’ and ‘conclusions’ which the District Council must find and express in writing when it grants or denies a map amendment or special exception.”

See also, Harley v. Aluisi, 259 Md. 275, 282, 269 A. 2d 575, 579 (1970), citing Montgomery with approval and pointing out that the applicant for rezoning has the burden of proof in establishing these factors.

*418Although what constitutes the neighborhood of a subject property for the purposes of applying the Maryland “change-mistake” rule “should not be precisely and rigidly defined, but may vary from case to case,” Woodlawn Ass’n v. Board of County Commissioners for Prince George’s County, 241 Md. 187, 198-199, 216 A. 2d 149, 156-157 (1966), nevertheless, the neighborhood in any area must be an area which reasonably constitutes the immediate environs of the subject property. Montgomery, supra. In our opinion,- the “neighborhood” of an area coinciding with the market area of the proposed Wind-brook Shopping Center (which appears as Map 2) — said to contain some 51.6 square miles 1 — is most certainly not an area reasonably constituting the neighborhood of the subject property. The rule requires that the “neighborhood” must be the immediate neighborhood of the subject property, not some area miles away; and the changes must occur in that immediate neighborhood of such a nature as to have affected its character. See Bauserman v. Barnett, 257 Md. 258, 261, 262 A. 2d 521, 523 (1970) and Randolph Hills v. Whitley, 249 Md. 78, 83, 238 A. 2d 257, 260 (1968), and cases therein cited. In our opinion, the applicant did not establish, and the District Council did not properly make a finding, of what constituted the area which reasonably constituted the neighborhood of the subject property and for this reason appellees’ position must fail.

Also, in our opinion, the applicant did not establish changes which, under our decisions, resulted in a change in the character of the “neighborhood” even assuming, arguendo, that a reasonable area constituting the neighbor*419hood had been established. Nor do the changes found by the District Council in its findings of fact meet the test of our decisions.

The District Council first found that sewerage for the emerging subdivision had become available since the comprehensive zoning was adopted in 1960. We have held, however, that the availability of sewer and water services does not result in a change in the character of the neighborhood in that these services are equally important to residential as to commercial development. Chatham Corp. v. Beltram, 252 Md. 578, 585-86, 251 A. 2d 1, 5 (1969) and Smith v. Board of County Commissioners of Howard County, 252 Md. 280, 285, 249 A. 2d 708, 711 (1969) , and cases therein cited.

Secondly, the District Council found that Piscataway Road is planned for widening, and the extending of Windbrook Drive is planned. Here again, we have held that these contemplated road improvements do not change the character of a neighborhood. Chatham Corp. v. Beltram, supra, 252 Md. 578, 585, 251 A. 2d 1, 5 (1969) ; Helfrich v. Mongelli, 248 Md. 498, 504, 237 A. 2d 454, 458 (1968) and cases cited in the opinions in those cases.

Thirdly, the District Council found that “traffic has increased on Piscataway Road.” This indefinite finding evidences no change in the character of the neighborhood. See Hardesty v. Dunphy, 259 Md. 718, 271 A. 2d 152 (1970) and our prior decisions cited in the opinion in that case.

The fourth finding of the District Council was that there had been subdivision growth with increased density and urbanization. The comprehensive zoning placed the area in an R-R zone and thus it was contemplated that single-family residential development would occur. It did, but this contemplated growth does not indicate a change in the character of the immediate neighborhood. Hardesty v. Dunphy, supra, and Cabin John Limited Partnership v. Montgomery County Council, 259 Md. 661, 271 A. 2d 174, 179 (1971), and cases therein cited.

Under our decisions, no changes were established by *420the applicant and found by the District Council, even when all of the alleged indicia of change are considered together, which resulted in a change in the character of the immediate neighborhood so that there was no fairly debatable issue before the District Council which would justify its action in granting the rezoning.

Order of November 11, 1971, reversed, one-half of the costs to be paid by Prince George’s County, one of the appellees; the other appellees to pay the remaining one-half of the costs.

HOWELL, J.

The plaintiffs, homeowners in Washington county, unsuccessfully opposed a zone change before the Board of County Commissioners of Washington County. Plaintiffs applied for and received a writ of review of the action of the commissioners allowing the change. The trial court found in favor of plaintiffs, disallowed the zone change, and reversed the commissioners’ order. The Court of Appeals affirmed, 7 Or App 176, 489 P2d 693 (1971), and this court granted review.

The defendants are the Board of County Commissioners and A.G.S. Development Company. A.G.S., the owner of 32 acres which had been zoned R-7 (Single Family Residential), applied for a zone change to P-R (Planned Residential), which allows for the construction of a mobile home park. The change failed to receive a majority vote of the Planning Commission. The Board of County Commissioners approved the change and found, among other matters, that the change allows for “increased densities and different types of housing to meet the needs of urbanization over that allowed by the existing zoning.”

The trial court, relying on its interpretation of Roseta v. County of Washington, 254 Or 161, 458 P2d 405, 40 ALR3d 364 (1969), reversed .the order of the commissioners because the commissioners had not shown any change in the character of the neighborhood which would justify the rezoning. The Court of Ap*578peals affirmed for the same reason, but added the additional ground that the defendants failed to show that the change ivas consistent with the comprehensive plan for Washington county.

According to the briefs, the comprehensive plan of development for Washington county ivas adopted in 1959 and included classifications in the county for residential, neighborhood commercial, retail commercial, general commercial, industrial park and light industry, general and heavy industry, and agricultural areas.

The land in question, which, was designated “residential” by the comprehensive plan, was zoned R-7, Single Family Eesidential.

Subsequent to the time the comprehensive plan was adopted, Washington county established a Planned Eesidential (P-R) zoning classification in 1963. The P-E classification was adopted by ordinance and provided that a planned residential unit development could be established and should include open space for utilities, access, and recreation; should not be less than 10 acres in size; and should be located in or adjacent to a residential zone. The P-E zone adopted by the 1963 ordinance is of the type known as a “floating zone,” so-called because the ordinance creates a zone classification authorized for future use but not placed on the zoning map until its use at a particular location is approved by the governing body. The E-7 classification for the 32 acres continued until April 1970 when the classification was changed to P-E to permit the defendant A.G.S. to construct the mobile home park on the 32 acres involved.

The defendants argue that (1) the action of the county commissioners approving the change is pre*579sumptively valid, requiring plaintiffs to show that the commissioners acted arbitrarily in approving the zone change; (2) it was not necessary to show a change of conditions in the area before a zone change could be accomplished; and (3) the change from R-7 to P-R was in accordance with the Washington county comprehensive plan.

We granted review in this case to consider the questions—by what standards does a county commission exercise its authority in zoning matters; who has the burden of meeting those standards when a request for change of zone is made; and what is the scope of court review of such actions?

Any meaningful decision as to the proper scope of judicial review of a zoning decision must start witl^ a characterization of the nature of that decision. The-' majority of jurisdictions state that a zoning ordinance] is a legislative act and is thereby entitled to presumptive validity. This court made such a characterization/ of zoning decisions in Smith v. County of Washington, 241 Or 380, 406 P2d 545 (1965):

“Inasmuch as ORS 215.110 specifically grants to the governing board of the county the power to amend zoning ordinances, a challenged amendment is a legislative act and is clothed with a presumption in its favor. Jehovah's Witnesses v. Mullen et al, 214 Or 281, 292, 330 P2d 5, 74 ALR2d 347 (1958), appeal dismissed and cert. denied, 359 US 436, 79 S Ct 940, 3 L Ed2d 932 (1959).” 241 Or at 383.

However, in Smith an exception to the presumption was found and the zoning held invalid. Furthermore, the case cited by the Smith court, Jehovah's Witnesses v. Mullen et al, supra, at least at one point viewed the contested zoning in that case as an administrative as opposed to legislative act.

*580At this juncture we feel we would be ignoring reality to rigidly view all zoning decisions by local governing bodies as legislative acts to be accorded a full presumption of validity and shielded from less than constitutional scrutiny by the theory of separation of powers. Local and small decision groups are simply not the equivalent in all respects of state and national legislatures. There is a growing judicial recognition of this fact of life:

“It is not a part of the legislative function to grant permits, make special exceptions, or decide particular cases. Such activities are not legislative but administrative, quasi-judicial, or judicial in character. To place them in the hands of legislative bodies, whose acts as such are not judicially reviewable is to open the door completely to arbitrary government." Ward v. Village of Skokie, 26 Ill2d 415, 186 NE2d 529, 533 (1962) (Klingbiel, J., specially concurring).

The Supreme Court of Washington, in reviewing a rezoning decision, recently stated:

“Whatever descriptive characterization may be otherwise attached to the role or function of the planning commission in zoning procedures, e.g., advisory, recommendatory, investigatory, administrative or legislative, it is manifest * * * that it is a public agency, * * * a principle [sic] and statutory duty of which is to conduct public hearings in specified planning and zoning matters, enter findings of fact—often on the basis of disputed facts— and make recommendations with reasons assigned thereto. Certainly, in its role as a hearing and fact-finding tribunal, the planning commission’s function more nearty than not partakes of the nature of an administrative, quasi-judicial proceeding, * * Chrobuck v. Snohomish County, 78 Wash 2d 884, 480 P2d 489, 495-96 (1971).

Ordinances laying down general policies without

*581regard to a specific piece of property are usually an exercise of legislative authority, are subject to limited review, and may only be attacked upon constitutional grounds for an arbitrary abuse of authority. On the other hand, a determination whether the permissible use of a specific piece of property should be changed is usually an exercise of judicial authority and its propriety is subject to an altogether different test. An illustration of an exercise of legislative authority is the passage of the ordinance by the Washington County Commission in 1963 which provided for the formation of a planned residential classification to be located in or adjacent to any residential zone. An exercise of judicial authority is the county commissioners’ determination in this particular matter to change the classification of A.G.S. Development Company’s specific piece of property. The distinction is stated, as follows, in Comment, Zoning Amendments— The Product of Judicial or Quasi-Judicial Action, 33 Ohio St L J 130 (1972):

“* # * Basically, this test involves the determination of whether action produces a general rule or policy which is applicable to an open class of individuals, interest, or situations, or whether it entails the application of a general rule or policy to specific individuals, interests, or situations. If the former determination is satisfied, there is legislative action; if the latter determination is satisfied, the action is judicial.” 33 Ohio St L J at 137.

We reject the proposition that judicial review of the county commissioners’ determination to change the zoning of the particular .property in question is limited to a determination whether the change was arbitrary and capricious.

In order to establish a standard of review, it is *582necessary to delineate certain basic principles relating to land use regulation.

The basic instrument for county or municipal land use planning is the “comprehensive plan.” Haar, In Accordance iviih a Comprehensive Plan, 6S Ilarv L Rev 1154 (1955); 1 Yokley, Zoning Law and Practice, § 3-2 (19G5); 1 Rathkopf, The Law of Zoning and Planning, § 9-1 (3d ed 1969). The plan has been described as a general plan to control and direct the use and development of property in a municipality. Nowicki v. Planning and Zoning Board, 148 Conn 492, 172 A2d 386, 389 (1961).

In Oregon the county planning commission is required by ORS 215.050 to adopt a comprehensive plan for the use of some or all of the land in the county. Under ORS 215.110(1), after the comprehensive plan has been adopted, the planning commission recommends to the governing body of the county the ordinances necessary to “carry out” the comprehensive plan. The purpose of the zoning ordinances, both under our statute and the general law of land use regulation, is to “carry out” or implement the comprehensive plan. 1 Anderson, American Law of Zoning, § 1.12 (1968). Although we are aware of the analytical distinction between zoning and planning, it is clear that under our statutes the plan adopted by the planning commission and the zoning ordinances enacted by the county governing body are closely related; both are intended to be parts of a single integrated procedure for land use control. The plan embodies policy determinations and guiding principles; the zoning ordinances provide the detailed means of giving effect to those principles.

ORS 215.050 states county planning commissions “shall adopt and may from time to time revise a com*583prehensive plan.” In a hearing of the Senate Committee on Local Government, the proponents of OES 215.050 described its purpose as follows:

«i? # *= jnte:nt hgj-g js require a basic document, geared into population, land use, and economic forecasts, which should be the basis of any-zoning or other regulations to be adopted by the county. * * *”①

In addition, ORS 215.055 provides:

“215.055 Standards for plan. (1) The plan and all legislation and regulations authorized by OES 215.010 to 215.233 shall be designed to promote the public health, safety and general welfare and shall be based on the following considerations, among others: The various characteristics of the various areas in the county, the suitability of the areas for particular land uses and improvements, the land uses and improvements in the areas, trends in land improvement, density of development, property values, the needs of economic enterprises in the future development of the areas, needed access to particular sites in the areas, natural resources of the county and prospective needs for development thereof, and the public need for healthful, safe, aesthetic surroundings and conditions.”

We believe that the state legislature has conditioned the county’s power to zone upon the prerequisite that the zoning attempt to further the general welfare of the community through consciousness, in a prospoctive sense, of the factors mentioned above. In other'\ words, except as noted later in this opinion, it must be proved that the change is in conformance with the comprehensive plan*

In proving that the change is in conformance *584with the comprehensive plan in this case, the proof, at a minimum, should show (1) there is a public need for a change of the kind in question, and (2) that need will be best served by changing the classification of the particular piece of property in question as compared with other available property.

In the instant case the trial court and the Court of Appeals interpreted prior decisions of this court as requiring the county commissions to show a change of conditions within the immediate neighborhood in which the change was sought since the enactment of the comprehensive plan, or a mistake in the comprehensive plan as a condition precedent to the zone change.

In Smith v. Washington County, supra, the land in question was designated residential under the comprehensive plan, and the county commissioners enacted an amendatory ordinance changing the classification to manufacturing. This court held that the change constituted spot zoning and was invalid. We stated:

“* * * Once a [zoning scheme] is adopted, changes in it should be made only when such changes are consistent with the over-all objectives of the plan' and in keeping with changes in the character of the area or neighborhood to be covered thereby. * * * (Emphasis added) 241 Or at 384.

In Roseta v. Washington County, supra, the land in question was classified as residential under the comprehensive plan and had been originally zoned as R-10, Single Family Residential. The county commissioners granted a zone change to A-l, Duplex Residential. We held that the commissioners had not sustained the burden of proving that the change was consistent with the comprehensive plan and reversed the order *585allowing the zone change. In regard to defendants’ argument that the change was consistent with the comprehensive plan because the plan designated the areas as “residential” and the term included both single family dwellings and duplex residences, we stated:

“* * * However, the ordinance established a distinction between the two types of use by classifying one area as B-10 and another area as A-l. It must be assumed that the Board had some purpose in making a distinction between these two classifications. It was for defendant to prove that this distinction was not valid or that the change in the character of the use of the * * * parcel was not inconsistent with the comprehensive plan.” 254 Or at 169.

The instant case could be distinguished from Roseta on the basis that we are involved with a floating zone which was not before the court in Roseta. ②

However, Roseta should not be interpreted as establishing a rule that a physical change of circumstances within the rezoned neighborhood is the only justification for rezoning. The county governing body is directed by ORS 215.055 to consider a number of other factors when enacting zoning ordinances, and the list there does not purport to be exclusive. The important issues, as Roseta recognized, are compliance *586with the statutory directive and consideration of the proposed change in light of the comprehensive plan.

Because the action of the commission in this instance is an exercise of judicial authority, the burden of proof should be placed, as is usual in judicial proceedings, upon the one seeking change. The more drastic the change, the greater will be the burden of showing that it is in conformance with the comprehensive plan as implemented by the ordinance, that there is a public need for the kind of change in question, and that the need is best met by the proposal under consideration. As the degree of change increases, the burden of showing that the potential impact upon the area in question was carefully considered and weighed will also increase. If other areas have previously been designated for the particular type of development, it must be shown why it is necessary to introduce it into an area not previously contemplated and why the property owners there should bear the burden of the departure.③

*587Although we have said in Roseta that zoning changes may be justified without a showing of a mistake in the original plan or ordinance, or of changes in the physical characteristics of an affected area, any of these factors which are present in a particular case would, of course, be relevant. Their importance would depend upon the nature of the precise change under consideration.

By treating the exercise of authority by the com-) mission in this case as the exercise of judicial rather than of legislative authority and thus enlarging the scope of review on appeal, and by placing the burden of the above level of proof upon the one seeking// change, we may lay the court open to criticism by legal scholars who think it desirable that planning authorities be vested with the ability to adjust more freely to changed conditions. Hoivever, having weighed the dangers of mailing desirable change more difficult *588against the dangers of the almost irresistible pressures that can be asserted by private economic interests on local government, we believe that the latter dangers are more to be feared.

What we have said above is necessarily general, as the approach we adopt contains no absolute standards or mechanical tests. We believe, however, that it is adequate to provide meaningful guidance for local governments making zoning decisions and for trial courts called upon to review them. With future cases in mind, it is appropriate to add some brief remarks on questions of procedure. Parties at the hearing before the county governing body are entitled to an opportunity to be heard, to an opportunity to present and rebut evidence, to a tribunal which is impartial in the matter—i.e., having had no pre-hearing or ex parte contacts concerning the question at issue—and to a record made and adequate findings executed. Comment, Zoning Amendments—The Product of Judicial or Quasi-Judicial Action, 33 Ohio St L J 130-143 (1972).

When we apply the standards we have adopted to the present case, we find that the burden was not sustained before the commission. The record now before us is insufficient to ascertain whether there was a justifiable basis for the decision. The only evidence in the record, that of the staff report of the Washington County Planning Department, is too conclusory and superficial to support the zoning change. It merely states:

“The staff finds that the requested use does conform to the residential designation of the Plan of Development. Tt further finds that the proposed use reflects the urbanization of the County and the necessity to provide increased densities and differ*589ent types of housing to meet the needs of urbanization over that allowed by the existing zoning. ** *

Such generalizations and conclusions, without any statement of the facts on which they are based, are insufficient to justify a change of use. Moreover, no portions of the comprehensive plan of Washington County are before us, and we feel it would be improper for us to take judicial notice of the plan without at least some reference to its specifics by counsel.

As there has not been an adequate showing that the change was in accord with the plan, or that the factors listed in ORS 215.055 were given proper consideration, the judgment is affirmed.

BRYSON, J.,

specially concurring.

The basic facts in this case exemplify the prohibitive cost and extended uncertainty to a homeowner when a governmental body decides to change or modify a zoning ordinance or comprehensive plan affecting such owner’s real property.

This controversy has proceeded through the following steps:

1. The respondent opposed the zone change before the Washington County Planning Department and Planning Commission.

2. The County Commission, after a hearing, allowed the change.

3. The trial court reversed (disallowed the change).

4. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court.

5. We ordered reargument and additional briefs.

6. This court affirmed.

*590The principal respondent in this case, Fasano, happens to be an attorney at law, and his residence is near the proposed mobile home park of the petitioner A.G.S. No average homeowner or small business enterprise can afford a judicial process such as described above nor can a judicial system cope with or endure such a process in achieving justice. The number of such controversies is ascending.

In this case the majority opinion, in which I concur, adopts some sound rules to enable county and municipal planning commissions and governing bodies, as well as trial courts, to reach finality in decision.. However, the procedure is no panacea and it is still burdensome.

It is solely within the domain of the legislative branch of government to devise a new and simplified statutory procedure to expedite finality of decision.

ZAGER, Justice.

The. Dyersville City Council voted to rezone the area containing the Field of Dreams movie site from A-l Agricultural to C-2 Commercial in order to facilitate the development of a baseball and softball complex. Community members filed two writs of certiorari, now combined, challenging the rezoning. The district court annulled both writs. The community members appealed the decision of the district court arguing that, since the city council acted in a quasi-judicial function, the actions of the city council in passing each of the ordinances was invalid for a number of reasons. They also argued there was sufficient opposition to the rezoning to trigger a unanimous vote of the city council contained in the Dyersville city code. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the district court and annul the writs.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

The 1989 Field of Dreams movie was filmed primarily at the Lansing farm now located in Dyersville, in rural Dubuque County.1 Due to the popularity of the film, Donald and Rebecca Lansing kept the baseball field and their white farmhouse intact for visitors and tourists. The house and baseball diamond were a popular destination, and thousands of tourists visited the Lansing property each year. In recent years, however, tourist numbers have been declining.

The City of Dyersville has a comprehensive plan for the city that has been in place for many years. In the early 1960s, the city enacted a plan that included Dyersville City Zoning Ordinance No. 285,' which states purposes for rezoning, one of which includes:

WHEREAS, the City Council of City of Dyersville, Iowa deems it necessary in order to lessen congestion in the streets; to secure safety from fire, panic and other dangers; to promote health and the general welfare; to provide adequate light and air; to prevent the overcrowding of land; to avoid undue concentration of population; to facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, and other public requirements;. to conserve the value of buildings and property; and to encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the City with reasonable consideration, and .in accordance with a comprehensive plan.

Dyersville, Iowa, Zoning Ordinance No. 285 (1962). •

The comprehensive plan also states that any zoning regulations enacted by the council “shall be made with reasonable consideration” as to concerns such as the character of the area, the suitability of the area for certain uses, the conservation of buildings and values, and the encouragement of the most appropriate use of the land throughout the city. Dyersville, Iowa Planning & Zoning Comm’n, Comprehensive Plan for Dyersville, Iowa 91 (1962) [hereinafter Comprehensive Plan] (quoting Iowa Code § 414.3 (1962)).

In 1974, Dyersville enacted a comprehensive development plan that included goals for future land use. The development plan included key policy goals and recommendations specific to commercial and business development. One of the goals was to “discourage proliferation of scat*31tered commercial development throughout the residential community.” Dubuque Cty. Metro. Area Planning Comm’n, Dyersville Area Comprehensive Development Plan 51 (1974). Another recommendation was to encourage the expansion of the already-existing central business district through a coordinated design scheme. Id. at 52. The plan also noted that the city should encourage businesses to be located only in those areas that were easily accessible for water and sewage services. In 1975, the city supplemented the plan with a requirement for a detailed evaluation of water, sewage, and waste systems. See Dyersville, Iowa, Planning & Zoning Comm’n, Dyers-ville Area Comprehensive Development Plan Supplemental Section, Intro (1975).

In 1991, the city drafted a community builder plan. This plan expressly addressed the impact of the Field of Dreams movie on the city’s tourism and concluded that the main concern was that “Dyersville must become much more aggressive in guiding and encouraging its own growth.” Dyersville, Iowa, Community Builder Plan: A Five Year Strategic Plan, Intro 2 (1991) [hereinafter Community Builder Plan]. The 1991 plan listed twelve opportunities for growth in the city, one of which was “continued (national/international) attention for Field of Dreams and other tourist attractions.” Id. at 5. It also identified eleven threats to the city’s growth, one of which was “loss of Field of Dreams or other major tourist attraction.” Id. The plan concluded that, without any changes, Dyersville’s three main tourist attractions would continue to attract a consistent number of tourists. Id. at 6. In 1997, the city supplemented the community builder plan to evaluate which goals had been met and how to pursue the remaining goals. Dyersville, Iowa, Community Builder Plan (1997).

In 2008, the City of Dyersville drafted a future annexation plan that identified areas of nearby land that were likely to be annexed into the city in the future. The annexation plan grouped areas of land into those likely to be annexed within five years, five to ten years, or ten to twenty years. At that time, the Field of Dreams property was not included in any of these annexation estimates.

In 2010, the Lansings listed their property for sale. Their property included the baseball diamond and white farmhouse, and an additional 193 acres that are used as farmland. Ultimately, the Lansings signed a purchase agreement' with Mike and Denise Stillman. The' sale' was contingent upon the property being rezoned for commercial use, among other things. The Stillmans intended to create All-Star Ballpark Heaven on the land, a baseball and softball complex with up to twenty-four fields to be used for youth baseball and softball. They intended to continue to maintain the farmhouse and original baseball diamond as a tourist attraction.

The Dyersville City Council met on November 21, 2011. One of the action items on the agenda was “Authorize City Administrator to Sign IIW Proposal for Professional Services for Field of Dreams Utilities Extension Feasibility Study 2011.” The proposal provided that the City of Dyersville would pay IIW Engineering approximately $9625 to prepare a utilities extension feasibility study. This study would determine the cost and logistics of providing water and sewer services to the Field of Dreams site. The feasibility study was discussed for approximately nineteen minutes, with the mayor,2 the city administrator,3 and various city council members *32weighing, in. Jaeque Rahe, the director of the Dyersville Economic Development Corporation. (DEDC) also discussed how to secure-funding for the project so the city could avoid any.,taxpayer burden. She discussed talking to state officials to secure funding and a future meeting with the Governor. The motion to approve -the study was passed unanimously by the city council. On December 5, the city council held a special meeting immediately -following the regular city council meeting. The sole agenda item for the special .meeting was a presentation by the Stillmans, entitled “Future Development ■ of Field of Dreams.”

In December, the Stillmans organized a bus trip to Des Moines for the purpose of meeting with legislators and other state officials to discuss financing the All-Star Ballpark Heaven project. The mayor and two city council members joined the Still-mans on the bus trip to Des Moines, and they also attended a group dinner. A member of the planning and zoning commission also participated in the bus trip to-Des Moines. .The Stillmans presumably funded both the. bus trip and the dinner. The purpose of the trip and the dinner was to begin lobbying state officials for financial assistance in developing the project..

In early 2012, the Strategic Economics Group from Des Moines completed an economic and fiscal impact study report regarding the proposed project. The report analyzed the proposed project, the general Dubuque County area, and the potential economic impact of the project. The report predicted the project would result in the creation of 1400 new jobs by its eighth year of operation. The report also estimated $34.1 million in additional payroll and $102 million in additional goods and services for the State of Iowa, in addition to increases in local tax revenue.

The city council met again on February 20, 2012, and one of the agenda items was the “Field of Dreams Extension.” A number of the petitioners and other community members attended the meeting and were able to speak about the proposed All-Star Ballpark. Heaven complex. Petitioner Wayne Vorwald expressed concerns about having open-range cattle in the area if the project were completed because of the juxtaposition of urban and farming areas. Petitioners Jeff Pape and Wayne Ameskamp mentioned concerns with runoff into the nearby creek and flooding. Ron Ober-: broedding was worried about.the project interfering with deer hunting in the area. A number of community members talked about growing up on family farms and wanting to maintain those farms and values for their own families. Petitioner Matt Mescher discussed traffic concerns because one of the most dangerous intersections in the state is located in Dyersville. He also stated that his “neighbors 'do not want ball fields in the middle of their cornfields.” Petitioners Mescher and Vor-wald both proposed moving the project to the Dyersville business park.

Denise Stillman and several community members spoke in favor of the proposed project. Jaeque Rahe stated that the DEDC supported the project because its mission is to make Dyersville “a better place to live, work and play.” She also expressed concern about being left out of neighborhood meetings about the project and urged the community to include the DEDC.

At the April 2 city council meeting, an engineer from IIW Engineering, introduced his conceptual water and sewer evaluation report and discussed the details of how to provide water and sewer services to the Field of Dreams area. The report estimated it would cost approximately $1.1 million to run water to the complex and *33approximately $2.9 million to provide sewer service. Council members and at least one community member asked questions about the report. One nearby resident expressed concerns she and her neighbors had about the impact on their wells.

At the May 7 city council meeting, council member Molly Evers expressed concerns about how the project would affect the community and requested more information about the timeline. She also mentioned she had received a number of phone calls and other correspondence from community members about the project. She urged them to speak up and asked when the council would hold a public hearing in order to permit members from the community to speak. Two other council members agreed that they wanted to know what the citizens of Dyersville were thinking, and stated that they had also heard from a number of community members about the proposed project.

On May 21, the council met'again and one of the agenda items was to receive a file and presentation by Joe Scherrman in support of the All-Star Ballpark Heaven project. Scherrman operates a business near Dyersville. He opined that the best way to preserve the original movie site was to expand and build extra fields around it. Council member Evers again expressed concern about input from the community and asked when a public hearing would be set. At least one of the petitioners was present at the meeting. Petitioner Ameskamp expressed concerns about flooding, water runoff, and traffic. He also asked what would happen to the land if the project failed and there were not enough kids in and around Dyersville to support twenty-four new baseball and softball fields. He was also concerned about the impact the project would have on his ability to hunt on his own land.

At the June 4 city council meeting, one of the council members moved to table Resolution 31-12. The resolution was an application by the Lansings and several other Dubuque County property owners who were seeking to voluntarily annex their property into the City &f Dyersville.4 The annexation of the Lansing property into the city was one of the conditions of the Stillmans’ purchase agreement for the Lansing farm. Because the application still needed the signature of one of the property owners, the resolution was tabled.'

On June 11, a special meeting of the Dyersville City Council was held with the mayor and all council members present. A number of community members. spoke about the proposed project, both in favor of and agairjst. A number of community members continued to express concerns about traffic, water runoff, hunting, and rural family values. Several members of the public who spoke were undecided, but were upset with some of the false information that was being spread by community members who were opposed to the project. A handful of the community members present expressed a desire for a referendum or vote on the issue of the proposed project and any necessary zoning change. The council members also discussed Resolution 31-12 and unanimously voted to set the date to consider the annexation request for July 2.

On June 18, the city council met in a regular session to discuss Resolution 35-12, which was a resolution requesting approval of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)'between the, City of Dyersville *34and Go the Distance Baseball, LLC.5 The MOU was signed by-the mayor and the developers. It set forth components that were key to the anticipated development agreement to create the All-Star Ballpark Heaven. The key points were

I) Annexation

The City will put forth its best effort to annex all of the property the Company has under contract (the “Property”) in Dubuque County into the city limits by October 1, 2012. The Company will provide reasonable assistance that shall not require out-of-pocket, costs to meet this goal.

II) TIF and Zoning

The City will put forth its best effort to undertake the process of adding the Property to the Urban Renewal Area, establishing the Property as a tax increment financing district. Furthermore, the City agrees to use its best efforts to rezone the Property to commercial use or other appropriate use to allow the Company to use it for its intended purpose.

III) Infrastructure Project

The Company agrees to construct the Infrastructure Project to connect the Property to the city’s water and sewer services for an estimated cost of $2.48M and in accordance with the specifications of the City. The Infrastructure Project shall be completed by no later than December 30, 2014.

IV) Fund Obligation and Payments

The City will undertake the authorization of a development agreement under which the City would agree to make economic development payments (the “Payments”) to the Company for a period not to exceed 15 years.-The amount of Payments to be made under the agreement will be subject to future negotiation amongst the parties. The City anticipates funding Payments in an amount equal to the actual costs of the Infrastructure Project without annual appropriation contingencies. Furthermore the City anticipates considering the provision of additional Payments provided that such payments are made subject to annual appropriation by the City Council. In any event all Payments will be funded exclusively from incremental property tax (TIF) revenues received by the City which are attributable to the Property.

During this meeting, the city attorney for Dyersville was asked to explain the MOU. He explained that it merely contained the intention of the parties so both parties would know that they were “headed in the same direction and that there’s no road blocks that somebody may throw up.” He further explained that the vote on the resolution would simply allow the council to take a vote on annexation, rezoning, and approval of the development agreement. If any of those items failed a vote, then the project would be done.

A number of residents spoke at the June 18 meeting, both in support of and in opposition to the project. Denise Stillman also spoke at the meeting and discussed the possibility of creating a dome over the fields for year-round play and a dormitory building for coaches and players to stay during tournaments. The council unanimously voted to approve the resolution.

On July 2, the council met to discuss the resolution regarding the voluntary annexation of property into the City of Dyers-ville. The mayor and all five- city council members were present, in addition to the *35city attorney. A number of community members were present. A few community members, some of whom are petitioners in this case, appeared at the meeting with their attorney, Susan Hess. A television crew from KCRG Channel 9 news was present at the meeting.

Stillman spoke first in support of the project. She then introduced Ron Kittle, a former professional baseball player. He spoke about the impact of baseball in his life and the benefits the project could bring to Dyersville. The council then opened the meeting up to community members who spoke against the proposed project. Petitioner Mescher spoke about funding concerns and the impact on taxpayers. He also spoke about growing division in the small community and how the council should be taking noise and pollution into account in addition to economic benefits. Jack Mescher, son of petitioner Mescher, also spoke against the annexation. He said the city had not done the requisite hydraulic, traffic, or pollution studies. Attorney Hess stated that the citizens of Dyersville wanted to vote on the issue.6

Director of the DEDC, Jacque Rahe, spoke in support of the voluntary annexation. She pointed to the reports that estimated the project would provide twenty-four full time, year-round jobs for the citizens of Dyersville. Eric Schmechel from the Dubuque Soil and Water Conservation District spoke to address concerns about watershed management. The council members asked him questions about storm water and watershed management practices. He opined that, if done correctly, the project could actually improve the location’s water runoff problems. When the motion came to a vote, the council voted 4-1 to approve the resolution. Evers was the sole council member voting no.

The council also voted on Resolution 38-12, which was a resolution to refer the rezoning of the property from A-l Agriculture to C-2 Commercial to the planning and zoning commission. The city administrator explained that the proposal for rezoning was for conditional use

for the preservation of the existing white farmhouse with wrap-around porch overlooking the Field of Dreams, the preservation of the existing Field of Dreams, and the creation and construction of All-Star Ballpark having a complex featuring 24 baseball and softball fields targeted for competition and training for youth 8 to 14 and incidental uses thereof. ■ ■

The city council unanimously voted to send the resolution to the zoning commission. On July 3, the zoning commission sent a notice to interested property owners about the public hearing it would hold regarding the proposed rezoning.

On July 8, the zoning commission hosted a work session at the Dyersville Social Center. The agenda listed the work session as a “community overview meeting” regarding the project, which would include a presentation followed by an opportunity for the community members to ask questions. The overview was provided by Denise Stillman.

The zoning commission met the following day to discuss rezoning the Field of Dreams property from agricultural to commercial. The city administrator began by providing an overview to the zoning commission about the proposed rezoning. He described the area to be rezoned, which included a 200-foot buffer zone on three sides of the area that would remain agri*36cultural. He explained that the buffer zone was “created to protect adjoining property owners” and would prevent concerns about children playing baseball right up against the adjoining property lines. He also described how the buffer zone would allow the adjacent farms to continue to spread manure and engage in other farming activities without interrupting the baseball and softball facilities. He informed the zoning commission that the city council had looked into the impact on property values, storm water and drainage issues, and crime.

A number of the petitioners also attended the meeting and were able to offer their opinions to the zoning commission. Petitioner Mescher expressed concerns that the proposed 200-foot buffer zone was-designed to prevent the neighboring property owners from objecting, since the. new commercial zoning area would not directly touch their land. His son also spoke about the buffer zone and concerns about the impact on water issues in the area. Several other community members had the opportunity to offer their opinions of the project, both in favor of and in opposition to the project.

Two members of IIW Engineering spoke about the study and report their group had completed. One engineer offered information about the wastewater study and how the generated wastewater would be used. Another spoke about the traffic concerns that had been raised by community members and how the roads would be affected by increased traffic to the baseball and softball complex. After everyone was offered the opportunity to speak, the zoning commission unanimously voted to approve a positive recommendation in favor of the proposed rezoning.

On July 16, the city council met to consider Resolution 47-12, which recommended setting a date for the council to consider the proposed rezoning. The city council unanimously voted to approve the resolution and set the date for August 6. On July 25, the council published a notice in the local newspaper. On August 3, the agenda for the meeting was posted in the directory at Dyersville City Hall and on the Dyersville city website. The agenda was also sent to the Cedar Rapids Gazette, the Telegraph Herald, and the Dyersville newspapers. The agenda was additionally provided to the Dyersville Police Department and two radio news stations, KDST and KMCH.

The agenda listed the first action item as a public hearing “to approve the rezoning of certain property from A-l Agricultural to C-2 Commercial.” The second item action was Ordinance 770, which included the legal description of the land to be rezoned as

SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 22, Township 89 North, Range 2 West of the 5th Principal Meridian in Dubuque County, Iowa, except for the Northerly 200 feet thereof;

SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 23, Township 89 North, Range 2 West of the 5th Principal Meridian in Dubuque County, Iowa, except for the Northerly and Easterly 200 feet thereof;

NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 27, Township 89 North, Range 2 West of the 5th Principal Meridian in Dubuque County, Iowa, except for the South 200 feet of the West 200 feet and the West 200 feet of the South 200 feet thereof; NW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 26, Township 89 North, Range 2 West of the 5th Principal Meridian in Dubuque County, Iowa, except for the Southerly-200 feet of the East 400 feet and the Easterly 200 feet thereof;

Lot 1 of the SW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 26, Township 89 North, Range 2 West of the 5th Principal Meridian in *37Dubuque County, Iowa, except for Southerly and Easterly 200 feet thereof; and

Lot 2 of Trinity Acres of the SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 27, Township 89 North, Range 2 West of the 5th Principal Meridian in Dubuque County, Iowa, except for the Southerly and Westerly 200 feet thereof.

At the August 6 city council meeting, attorney Hess spoke first. She urged the council to remain impartial and stated it was acting in a quasi-judicial manner and therefore was required to remain impartial. She noted concerns with the planning and zoning commission and opined that it had failed to remain impartial because the members attended a work session presentation put on by the developer. She asked the council not to vote on the rezoning at the meeting and to table the topic for a later meeting. She also referred to a letter she wrote that she had been unsuccessful in delivering to the council earlier that day. The city attorney informed the council members that he would review the letter Hess wrote on behalf of a group of concerned Dyersville citizens. He also advised the council members that a unanimous vote was not required for the proposed rezoning.

A number of the petitioners attended the meeting, in addition to other community members. There was approximately thirty minutes of discussion before the citizens at the meeting stopped volunteering to speak. Council member Evers moved to close the public hearing, which was seconded. She then moved to table the discussion of Ordinance 770, but received no second. The city council voted to approve the first reading of the ordinance, and the motion passed in a vote of 4-1, with council member Evers voting no. Evers then read a written statement and expressed community concerns about the project. She stated that more members of the' community opposed the project than favored it. The council moved to waive the second and third readings of'the ordinance. The motions passed with votes óf 4-1, Evers was the sole council mémber voting no.

On September 4, 2012, the Residential and Agricultural Advisory Committee, L.L.C. and twenty-three other individuals7 (petitioners) filed a petition for writ of certiorari and a request for a stay and injunction against the Dyersville City Council, the mayor of Dyersville, and the individual city council members (city council). The petitioners resisted the rezoning of the Field of Dreams property from A-l Agricultural to C-2 Commercial. They argued the city council acted in violation of both' Iowa law and Dyersville city ordinances; in excess of its authority; arbitrarily and capriciously; and against public safety, health, morals, and the general welfare.

The district court set a one-hour hearing for September 25. ‘After the hearing was set, Go the Distance filed a petition to intervene. Shortly thereafter, F.O.D. Real Estate, L.L.C.; Field of Dreams Movie Site, Inc.; and Donald and Rebecca Lansing also filed petitions to intervene. On September. 21, the city council filed a motion to dismiss the petition. It claimed the Residential and Agricultural Advisory Committee lacked standing, and further, the city council had been acting in a legislative capacity and was immune from suit. The petitioners responded by filing a request to hold a later hearing because additional testimony and discovery was necessary “to determine the legality of the City Council’s action.” On September 25 — the day the hearing was scheduled — the city council filed a second motion to dismiss, *38this time claiming the petition for writ of certiorari failed to state a claim. The petitioners resisted the city council’s motion to dismiss.

On October 9, the district court issued its order denying the petition for writ of certiorari. In the order, the district court concluded,

Clearly, the Dyersville City Council had jurisdiction to hear and decide the proposed rezoning of the property in question. The Defendants have complied with any and all procedural requirements pertaining to the rezoning of the property. Proper due process rights have been afforded the Plaintiffs. The Defendants heard and considered numerous issues and concerns associated with the rezoning of the property. The Zoning and Planning Commission voted 8-0 in favor of recommending the proposed.zoning change. The Court finds no illegality in the rezoning of the property. The Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits.

The petitioners then filed an Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.904(2) motion to enlarge, amend, or modify the order. They claimed the district court should not have determined the legality of the rezoning at the hearing because the hearing was only to determine whether a writ of certiorari should issue and not the merits of the case. The petitioners also argued the district court did not follow proper procedure for issuance of a writ of certiorari or consider all of the issues raised in the petition. The petitioners requested that the district court enter an order granting their request for additional testimony and discovery. The district court denied the 1.904(2) motion, and the plaintiffs appealed. We transferred the appeal to the court of appeals.

While this appeal was pending, the council became aware that Ordinance 770 contained an error in the legal description of the land. The ordinance described part of the land as “SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 22, Township 89 North, Range 2 West of the 5th Principal Meridian in Dubuque County, Iowa, except for the Northerly 200 feet thereof.” (Emphasis added.) The correct description should have listed the property as “SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 22, Township 89 North, Range 2 West of the 5th Principal Meridian in Du-buque County, Iowa, except for the Northerly 200 feet thereof.” (Emphasis added.) At the May 6, 2013 city council meeting, the council voted 4-1 to approve Ordinance 777, which corrected the description of the land contained in Ordinance 770. The public was invited to speak on the issue, but no one volunteered. The city attorney classified the mistake as a typo and noted that the prior public hearing had given fair notice to the public and everyone knew which parcel of land was being discussed at the rezoning hearing. ' '

Thereafter, a second petition for writ of certiorari was filed on May 15, 2013. This second writ of certiorari was filed in response to the city council’s vote approving Ordinance 777 correcting the description of the' rezoned land. The district court directed that this writ issue on May 23, arid the writ was returned on June 10. Trial on the second writ was set to begin on January 6, 2014.

The court of appeals issued its decision on the first writ of certiorari on November 6, 2013.8 The court of appeals concluded that the district court had improperly decided the merits of the petition for writ of *39certiorari, rather than confine its decision to whether the writ should be issued. The court of appeals reversed the decision of the district court and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.

On November 8, the petitioners filed a motion to consolidate the two writs of cer-tiorari and continue the trial. The district court granted the motion to consolidate and set a hearing for January 6, 2014. On January 3, Go the Distance withdrew its motion to intervene.

The pending matters came before the district court for hearing on January 6. The district court heard four issues: (1) the city council’s motion to dismiss the individual city council members and mayor, (2) the petitioners’ 1.904(2) motion, (3) the petitioners’ request for an injunction, and (4) the petitioners’ motion for discovery. The district court issued its order on January 21 and denied the motion to dismiss the individual city council members, the 1.904(2) motion, and the request for an injunction. The district court denied the motion to dismiss the individual council members because legislative immunity would only apply if the council acted in a legislative capacity, which it concluded was a question of fact. The district court denied the 1.904 motion because it raised arguments that petitioners were required to appeal to the Board of Adjustment, but had failed to do. The district court denied the request for an injunction to halt development because none of the named respondents owned the property, and therefore the injunction would be meaningless.9 The district court allowed the petitioners to continue with discovery.

On May 1, the petitioners filed a motion for issuance of writ. The court of appeals decision from November 6, 2013, required the district court to either order a writ or take other action on remand. At the time the petitioners filed the motion, the district court had yet to issue a writ or take any other action on remand. The district court issued the writ on May 29, and the writ was returned on June 12. The district court set the consolidated cases for trial.

Trial was held betwe'en February 16 and February 24, 2015. The district court issued its order on May 21, holding that the actions of the Dyersville City Council were sustained and the writs with respect to Ordinances 770 and 777 were annulled. Petitioners filed a motion to enlarge, which the district court denied on July 24. The petitioners filed an appeal, which we retained.

II. Analysis.

On appeal, the petitioners raise a number of issues. They argue the district court applied the incorrect standard of review to the city council’s rezoning of the land. They argue the council’s actions were quasi-judicial in nature rather than legislative, triggering ¿ different standard of review. They allege Ordinance 770 is invalid for a number of reasons. They also argue there was sufficient opposition to the ordinance from adjacent landowners to trigger Dy-ersville Code section 165.39(5). They assert Ordinance 777 is invalid because it purported to rezone property without following proper procedure. Last, they assert equal protection and due process violations. We address each issue in turn.

A. Correct Standard of Review of the City Council’s Actions. We must first address the proper standard of review in this action. The petitioners argue the district court applied the wrong standard of *40■review to the city council’s actions in rezoning the Field of Dreams site. They argue the council’s actions were quasi-judicial in nature rather than legislative. The district court order concluded that, for purposes of determining whether certiora-ri was available, the council was acting in a quasi-judicial manner. However, the underlying decision to rezone was a legislative, function and the council was therefore not required to make findings of fact, or provide for a more formal proceeding similar to a judicial proceeding.

In chapter 335 of the Iowa Code, the legislature grants the county boards of supervisors the authority to determine zoning matters in the counties. Iowa Code §§ 335.1, .3 (2015); see also Perkins v. Bd. of Supervisors, 636 N.W.2d 58, 65 (Iowa 2001). This includes the power to designate areas into districts and to regulate the use of land within those districts. Iowa Code §§ 335.3, .4. “The board of supervisors shall provide for the manner in which the regulations and restrictions and the boundaries of the districts shall be determined, established, and enforced, and from time to time amended, supplemented, or changed.” Id. § 335.6.

Chapter 414 goes on to provide specific rules, powers, and duties related to city zoning. Iowa Code section 414.4 provides that the city council “shall provide for the manner in which the regulations and restrictions and the boundaries of the districts shall be determined, established, and enforced, and from time to time amended, supplemented, or changed.” Id. § 414.4. To do so, the city council must also follow proper procedure. Id, The council must givé the community members published notice of the time and place of a public hearing with at least seven days’ notice. Id,-, see also id, § 362.3. The council must hold a public hearing during which community members are offered the opportunity to offer opinions regarding the proposed zoning or rezoning. Id, § 414.4. Iowa Code section 414.5 provides specific voting rules for situations where an ordinance would change land from one zoning district to another. Id. § 414.5. In this situation, if twenty percent or more of the owners of property located within 200 feet of the proposed rezoning area file a written protest, the council is required to approve the rezoning ordinance by a vote of at least three-fourths of the members. Id.

The statutory scheme set forth in the Iowa Code mirrors the general rule that zoning determinations are a legislative function of a city council or board of supervisors. 101A C.J.S. Zoning and Land, Planning § 2, at 18-19 (2016). Likewise, we have long recognized that “[z]oning decisions are an exercise of the police power to promote the health, safety, order and morals of society.” Montgomery v. Bremer Cty. Bd. of Supervisors, 299 N.W.2d 687, 692 (Iowa 1980). A city council or board of supervisors exercises its delegated police power through zoning decisions so long as the decisions are "made in accordance with a comprehensive plan and designed ... to encourage efficient urban development patterns ... [and] to promote health and the general welfare.” Iowa Code § 414.3; id. § 335.5; see also Molo Oil Co. v. City of Dubuque, 692 N.W.2d 686, 691 (Iowa 2005), A zoning decision or regulation is an exercise of delegated police powers so long as it is

made with reasonable consideration, among other things, as to the character of the area of the district and the peculiar suitability of such area for particular uses, and with a view to conserving the value of buildings and encouraging the most appropriate use of land throughout [the] city.

Iowa Code § 414.3(2). However, we have also recognized that there are some sitúa-*41tions in which a zoning decision can take on a quasi-judicial nature that may necessitate a different standard of review than the normally limited standard of review we utilize. when reviewing zoning decisions. See, e.g., Sutton v. Dubuque City Council, 729 N.W.2d 796, 797 (Iowa 2006).

Some historical perspective helps in our analysis. In Buechele v. Ray, we laid out the test to determine whether an action is judicial or quasi-judicial, which we noted is a difficult determination. 219 N.W.2d 679, 681 (Iowa 1974). The pertinent rule of procedure states “[a] party may commence a certiorari action when authorized by statute or when the party claims an inferior tribunal, board, or officer, exercising judicial functions, or a judicial magistrate exceeded proper jurisdiction or otherwise acted illegally.” Iowa R. Civil P. 1.1401; see also Buechele, 219 N.W.2d at 681.10 The term “judicial functions” as utilized in this particular rule is not construed strictly or technically and can apply if the. underlying act is quasi-judicial. Buechele, 219 N.W.2d at 681.

Other courts have found that a body that is not a court exercises a judicial function when “(1) the questioned act involves a proceeding in which notice and opportunity to be heard are required; or (2) a determination of rights of parties is made which requires the exercise of discretion in finding facts and applying the law thereto.” Id. While our analysis of judicial function is not as restrictive, we afford weight to the listed judicial attributes. Id. We also consider “whether or not the challenged act goes to the determination of some right the protection of which is the peculiar office of the courts.” Id. However, merely exercising judgment or discretion is not sufficient to constitute a quasi-judicial act. Id.

In Buechele, we were asked to determine whether the State Executive Council’s decision to employ ah attorney to defend a state representative in a slander action constituted a quasi-judicial act. Id. at 680. The petitioners brought the action in a writ for certiorari. Id. The council argued on appeal that its act was not a judicial, or quasi-judicial function, and therefore certiorari review was not appropriate. Id. at 681. We held that the council’s action was a discretionary, executive decision and not the exercise of a judicial or quasi-judicial function. Id. at 682. In reaching this decision, we noted that none of the council’s actions had any of the attributes normally associated with judicial functions: the council was not required to give notice, hold a hearing, take evidence, engage in fact finding, or make legal conclusions. Id.

In Montgomery, perhaps the most analogous case to the one before us now, the board rezoned two parcels of land from agricultural to industrial after two rezoning petitions were filed. 299 N.W.2d at 691. Following the rezoning petitions, the board gave notice, held a public hearing, and heard from both proponents and opponents of the rezoning proposal. Id. The board unanimously approved both rezoning requests. Id. Opponents of the rezoning brought petitions for writ of certiorari in the district court, which were later combined. Id.

On appeal, we addressed the question of the proper scope of review for a certiorari proceeding challenging a board of supervisors’ rezoning decision. Id. at 692. We confirmed that a writ of certiorari was the proper procedure for challenging the *42board’s amendments to the rezoning ordinance. Id. We found that the zoning decision by the board was an exercise of its delegated police power and held that “the generally limited scope of review applicable to this case is to determine whether the decision by the Board to rezone is fairly debatable.” Id.

In Sutton, the' city council passed an ordinance that amended the city’s existing zoning code. 729 N.W.2d at 797. The ordinance reclassified property from a commercial recreation district to a planned unit development (PUD) district. Id. The ordinance passed with a vote of four to three, and two objectors brought a challenge to the rezoning decision with a petition for writ of certiorari. Id. The action was dismissed as untimely, and the objectors then brought an action for declaratory judgment. Id. The city argued the claims were barred because certiorari, was the exclusive remedy and the time limitation for bringing a certiorari challenge had already passed. Id. We ultimately held that the opponents of the rezoning decision were required to bring a writ of certiorari and therefore were precluded from bringing the declaratory judgment action. Id. at 799.

We also discussed the standards for determining whether a zoning decision has remained a legislative function or evolved into a quasi-judicial function. Id. at 798. We expanded on the two-part test from Buechele by citing to factors identified by the Washington Supreme Court in determining whether zoning activities are quasi-judicial in nature or legislative in nature:

(1) rezoning ordinarily occurs in response to a citizen application followed by a statutorily mandated public hearing; (2) as a result of such applications, readily identifiable proponents and opponents weigh in on the process; and (3) the decision is localized in its application affecting a particular group of citizens more acutely than-the public at large.

Id.; see also Fleming v. Tacoma, 81 Wash.2d 292, 502 P.2d 327, 331 (1972) (en banc). While we cited these factors, with approval, we had the opportunity to review the entirety of the Fleming case and did not choose to adopt the Washington court’s holding in that ease that all public zoning hearings should be classified as adjudicatory.11 Sutton, 729 N.W.2d at 798; see also Fleming, 502 P.2d at 331.

The Sutton case dealt with -a different situation than many of our previous zoning cases because it involved PUD zoning. Sutton, 729 N.W.2d at 798. We noted that the “quasi-judicial character of municipal rezoning is particularly evident in matters involving PUD zoning.” Id. We discussed the distinction between traditional rezoning and PUD zoning:

[Creating] zoning districts and rezoning land are legislative actions, and ... trial courts are not permitted to sit as “super zoning boards” and overturn a board’s legislative efforts.

The planned unit development concept varies from the traditional concept of zoning classifications. It permits a flexible approach to the regulation of land uses. Compliance must be measured against certain stated standards....

... [S]ince the Board was called upon to review an interpretation and application of an ordinance ... and the ordi*43nance was not challenged per se, the Board’s decision was “clearly quasi-judicial.”

Id. (quoting Hirt v. Polk Cty. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs, 578 So.2d 415, 417 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991) (citation omitted) (emphasis added)).

We find the situation we decide today to be much more analogous to the one we faced in Montgomery than in Sutton. In this case, the city council was acting in a legislative function in furtherance of its delegated police powers. The council was not sitting to “determin[e] adjudicative facts to decide the legal rights, privileges or duties of a particular party based on that party’s particular circumstances.” Montgomery, 299 N.W.2d at 694. The city council decision to rezone was not undertaken to weigh the legal rights of one party (the All-Star Ballpark Heaven) versus another party (the petitioners). The council weighed all of the information, reports, and comments available to it in order to determine whether rezoning was in the best interest of the city as a whole. See, e.g., Iowa Code § 414.3(1) (describing the delegated police powers to include making decisions to promote health and the general welfare of the community). We therefore hold that the proper standard of review in this case is “the generally limited scope of review” we utilize in order “to determine whether the decision by the Board to rezone is fairly debatable.” Montgomery, 299 N.W.2d at 692.

Zoning regulations carry a strong presumption of validity. Molo Oil, 692 N.W.2d at 691. A zoning regulation “is valid if it has any real, substantial relation to the public health, comfort, safety, and welfare, including the maintenance of property values.” Id. (quoting Shriver v. City of Okoboji, 567 N.W.2d 397, 401 (Iowa 1997)). If the reasonableness of a zoning ordinance is “fairly debatable,” then we decline to substitute our judgment for that of the city council or board of supervisors. Id. The reasonableness of a zoning ordinance is “fairly debatable” when

for any reason it is open to dispute or controversy on grounds that make sense or point to a logical deduction, and where reasonable minds may differ; or where the evidence provides a basis for a fair difference of opinion as to its application to a particular property.

Id.; see also Neuzil v. City of Iowa City, 451 N.W.2d 159, 163-64 (Iowa 1990).

B. Validity of Ordinance 770. The petitioners allege Ordinance 770 is invalid for a number of reasons. They assert the city council was not impartial; the decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable; the rezoning was contrary to the city’s comprehensive plan; and the ordinance constitutes illegal spot zoning. We discuss each of the petitioners’ arguments in turn.

1. Partiality of the city council. The decision to rezone the Field of Dreams site was subject to fair debate. See Molo Oil, 692 N.W.2d at 691. Members of the community came to multiple public hearings and multiple council meetings. A number of community members — not limited to the petitioners in this case — were against the rezoning. However, other community members were unsure whether they supported the rezoning and requested more information. Still others expressed support for the rezoning and the new baseball and softball complex. While it is true that' several council members' viewed the rezoning and the project as an opportunity for the city, each council member attended all meetings, read reports, listened to citizens speak for and against the project, asked questions, and investigated issues regarding water, sewage, crime, traffic, and other issues. Further demonstrating that the issue was subject to fair debate is *44the final vote on the decision to rezone. The final vote was 4-1, with one council member voting against rezoning.

There is nothing in the record'that demonstrates that any council member or the mayor had any family or financial interest in the project.. The petitioners claim that members of the city council and mayor could not be impartial or unbiased due to the mayor signing the MOU, with the developers, and several members participating in an economic development bus trip to Des Moines to discuss the project with legislators and state officials. We disagree. The mere participation in such activities for the potential benefit of the city does not establish partiality or bias. Rather, this is more akin to the council members upholding their public duty by performing their due diligence in determining what state aid might be available to help with the project before any formal action was undertaken. The city council made its decision based on what it believed was best for the community after a full arid open discussion of the issues ovef many months. We agree with the district court that the city council was impartial in its rezoning decision.

2.’ Arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. The party attacking the validity of a zoning regulation carries the burden of demonstrating the zoning is unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, or discriminatory. Id. A regulation is arbitrary and unreasonable when it is not authorized by statute or is contrary or unsupported by the facts. Baker v. Bd. of Adjustment, 671 N.W.2d 405, 413 (Iowa 2003).

The city council’s decision to rezone the Field of Dreams site was supported by the facts and was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. The city council made ■ its decision after a full and lengthy consideration of the overall welfare of the city. The city council investigated water, sewage, traffic, crime, and water runoff. It received economic reports detailing increased jobs and revenue for the state and city. Each member of the city council attended meetings, read reports, asked questions, participated in public hearings, listened to the opinions of community members, and considered the economic benefits and impact on the city.

The petitioners also contend it was unreasonable for the mayor to enter into the MOU. We have generally analyzed challenges to these types of agreements to determine whether they are unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, or discriminatory. See, e.g., Blumenthal Inv. Trusts v. City of West Des Moines, 636 N.W.2d 255, 266 (Iowa 2001). While the council members considered the MOU, they were not bound by it. See, e.g., Marco Dev. Corp. v. City of Cedar Falls, 473 N.W.2d 41, 44 (Iowa 1991). The MOU was simply an agreement whereby the council agreed to consider a rezoning proposal partially due to the incredibly unique circumstances surrounding the Field of Dreams land. Given the unique parcel of land and the juxtaposition of agriculture and commercial land that already existed, it was not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious for the city to agree to consider the possibility of rezoning the area.

3. Relationship to the city’s comprehensive plan. Iowa Code section 414.3 requires that any zoning regulations adopted by a city council or board of supervisors “shall be. made in accordance with a comprehensive plan.” Iowa Code § 414.3. The party challenging a zoning decision on the. basis that it was not made in accordance with the city’s comprehensive plan carries a heavy burden that requires the party to counter the “strong presumption of validity accorded zoning decisions.” 37 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d *45383 (1996 & Supp. 2016), Westlaw (database updated Dec. 2016). This requirement was adopted to prevent haphazard zoning. Wolf v. City of Ely, 493 N.W.2d 846, 849 (Iowa 1992). The purpose of the comprehensive plan requirement is to ensure a board or council acts rationally in applying its delegated zoning authority. Id. at 849.

In the context of rezoning, we have held that “compliance with the comprehensive plan requirement merely means that zoning authorities have given ‘full consideration to the problem presented, including the needs of the public, changing conditions,.and the similarity of other land in the same, area.’ ” Iowa Coal Min. Co. v. Monroe County, 494 N.W.2d 664, 669 (Iowa 1993) (quoting Montgomery, 299 N.W.2d at 695). A board’s zoning decision is not static, and the fact that a board or council may have failed to predict that an area of land could be rezoned for a different use is not enough to demonstrate that it acted without considering the comprehensive plan. See, e.g., Montgomery, 299 N.W.2d at 695.

The district court found that the rezoning was passed in accordance with and in furtherance of the comprehensive plan, despite none of the council members expressly linking their votes to the plan. We agree. The council members gave full consideration to “the needs of the public, changing conditions, and the similarity of other land in the same area.” Id. The council held multiple meetings and the appropriate public hearing during which community members were able to offer differing viewpoints. All council members attended these meetings, listened, and asked questions. The city council requested and reviewed reports about water, sewage, water runoff, traffic, crime, and increased economic benefits. The council considered the unique nature of the Field of Dreams site and potential tourism benefits.

The city’s comprehensive plan notes that rezoning should be made with consideration of the unique character of the area, the suitability of the land for the proposed use, the conservation of buildings or values, and the encouragement of the most appropriate use of the land. Comprehensive Plan at 91. All of these goals were considered by the .‘council. The Field of Dreams site is a unique parcel of land unlike any other land in that area. The council considered the -distinctiveness of the land and whether the proposed rezoning would be the best use of the site for the benefit ,of the community, including its impact on tourism. The council-considered whether the proposed rezoning would be for the overall health and welfare of the community as a whole, and whether it would preserve the property for the benefit of its citizens. The city council concluded that it would be consistent with its comprehensive plan.

The city’s community builder plan also specifically addresses the importance of preserving' the Field of Dreams site in order to maintain and increase tourism. The plan stated that a main concern for the city was to “become much more aggressive in guiding and encouraging [the city’s] growth.” Community Builder Plan at 2. It identified the loss of tourism to the Field of Dreams site as one of the main threats to the city’s growth.' Id. at 5. We hold that the petitioners did not meet their burden of demonstrating that the rezoning did not meet the requirements of the city’s comprehensive plan.

4. Spot zoning. “Spot zoning is the creation of a small island of property with restrictions on its use different from those imposed on surrounding property.” Perkins, 636 N.W.2d at 67. Not all spot zoning is illegal, however, and we have *46created a three-prong test for determining whether spot zoning is valid. Id. Under this test, we consider

(1) whether the new zoning is germane to an object within the police power; (2) whether there is a reasonable basis for making a distinction between the spot zoned land and the surrounding property; and (3) whether the rezoning is consistent with the comprehensive plan.

Id.; see also Little v. Winborn, 518 N.W.2d 384, 388 (Iowa 1994). When there is spot zoning, “there must be substantial and reasonable grounds or basis for the discrimination when one lot or tract is singled out.” Perkins, 636 N.W.2d at 67 (quoting Fox v. Polk Cty. Bd. of Supervisors, 569 N.W.2d 503, 509 (Iowa 1997), overruled in part on other grounds by Sutton, 729 N.W.2d at 799).

As a preliminary matter, we acknowledge that the rezoning appears to constitute spot zoning. The property surrounding the new commercial area is agricultural land. The rezoning created a commercial “island” of property amidst land zoned as agricultural. See, e.g., Little, 518 N.W.2d at 388. However, that does not end our inquiry. The next step is to determine whether the spot zoning was valid. See id.

First, we have already determined that the rezoning was made within the scope of the city council’s general police power. The decision to rezone the area for the project was made in consideration of the general health and welfare of the community. Second, the council had a reasonable basis for its decision to rezone the land despite the surrounding property. The Field of Dreams property has been a unique site for years. The baseball field on the Lansing farm has been used in the community for baseball and -softball games, in addition' to local and national tourism. Part of the location’s charm is simply that it is a baseball field surrounded by farmland. The council made the- decision to rezone and allow for more baseball fields to capitalize on this unique site and increase tourism for the City of Dyersville, Last, as we already1 concluded, the spot zoning is consistent with the overall comprehensive plan. The city’s community builder plan expressly mentions the necessity of maintaining the Field of Dreams site and increasing tourism for the city. We agree with the decision of the district court and hold that this was not illegal spot zoning.

C. Triggering of Dyersville Code. The petitioners allege that there was sufficient opposition to the proposed rezoning contained in Ordinance 770 to trigger a unanimous vote under Dyersville Code of Ordinances § 165.39(5). The code section provides,

Council Vote. If the [Zoning and Planning] Commission recommends against, or if a protest against such proposed amendment, supplement, change, modification or repeal is presented in writing to the Clerk, duly signed by the owners of twenty percent (20%) or more either of the area of the lots included in such proposed change, or of those immediately adjacent in the rear thereof extending the depth of one lot or not to exceed two hundred (200) feet therefrom, or of those directly opposite thereto, extending the depth of one lot or not to exceed two hundred (200) feet from the street frontage of such opposite lots, such amendment, supplement, change, modifications, or repeal shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of all members of the Council.

Dyersville, Iowa, Code of Ordinances § 165.39(5) (2011). Based on this code section, the petitioners contend that a unanimous vote of the council was required for the rezoning.

*47On the day of the hearing on the rezoning, the petitioners’ attorney faxed a letter to the city clerk purporting to include the signatures of the required twenty percent of landowners needed to trigger the unanimous council vote. The opposition letter included the signatures of a number of individuals; however, only two of the signatories owned small amounts of property adjacent to the property to be rezoned. The petitioners did not provide a letter that included the requisite twenty percent of adjacent land owners at the time of the meeting, nor did they provide a letter or other document at trial. Accordingly, there was no formal or valid protest which would invoke the requirement of a unanimous vote.

D. Use of 200-Foot Buffer Zone. The ordinance that rezoned the Field of Dreams property included a 200-foot buffer zone of agricultural land that surrounded the property that was rezoned to commercial. The petitioners challenge the use of this 200-foot buffer zone. They argue that the buffer zone was put in place in order to prevent the nearby property owners from objecting to the project under the procedure outlined in Iowa Code section 414.5. The council asserts that the purpose of the 200-foot buffer zone was to address some of the concerns raised about manure spreading, farming activities, and children playing baseball up against the property line of adjoining owners.

At first blush, the 200-foot buffer zone can appear to be unfair, as it limits the number of adjacent landowners who can object to the rezoning. However, it does provide a benefit to adjacent landowners by addressing their expressed concerns with the rezoning. A number of petitioners raised concerns about hunting, spreading of manure, and grazing if their farming property was directly adjacent to the new ballfields. The buffer zone provides a solution to those concerns.

Additionally, a number of other courts have held that a council may avoid a super-majority vote requirement by creating a buffer zone between the property to be rezoned and the land of adjacent property owners. See, e.g., Schwarz v. City of Glendale, 190 Ariz. 508, 950 P.2d 167,170 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997) (noting that the use of buffer zones is the majority approach and upholding the use of a 150-foot buffer zone to avoid the triggering of a supermajority vote); St. Bede’s Episcopal Church v. City of Santa Fe, 85 N.M. 109, 509 P.2d 876, 877 (1973) (upholding a 100-foot buffer zone utilized to avoid the triggering of a supermajority vote); Eadie v. Town Bd. of Town of N. Greenbush, 7 N.Y.3d 306, 821 N.Y.S.2d 142, 854 N.E.2d 464, 467-68 (2006) (upholding a 100-foot buffer zone used to avoid triggering a supermajority vote); Armstrong v. McInnis, 264 N.C. 616, 142 S.E.2d 670, 679 (1965) (upholding a buffer zone of 101 feet that avoided triggering a statutory supermajority vote). Some courts require a finding that the imposition of a buffer zone was for the town’s general welfare and was not made for arbitrary or capricious reasons. See, e.g., Town of Beech Mountain v. Genesis Wildlife Sanctuary, Inc., — N.C.App. -, 786 S.E.2d 335, 345 (2016) (noting it was proper for the district court to allow factual evidence regarding the question of whether a 200-foot buffer zone was arbitrary or capricious).

Nevertheless, even if the petitioners had established the requirement of a superma-jority vote under Iowa Code section 414.5, the requirement was met. The statute requires the pertinent ordinance to pass by a vote of three-fourths of all members of the council, or seventy-five percent. Iowa Code § 414.5. The rezoning of the Field of *48 Dreams site passed by a vote of 4-1, or eighty percent.

E. Validity of Ordinance 777. While the first appeal was pending, it was determined that Ordinance 770, and the corresponding notices regarding the rezoning, contained an incorrect legal description. In an attempt to correct the incorrect legal description, the city council passed Ordinance 777, which rezoned the subject property with the correct legal description. The petitioners allege Ordinance 777 is invalid because it rezoned property without the appropriate notice, public hearing, and due process requirements of Gorman v. City Development Board, 565 N.W.2d 607 (Iowa 1997).

In Gorman, the Roemig family requested the voluntary annexation of approximately 120 acres of their property into the City of Cedar Rapids. Id. at 608, The Roemigs erred in describing their property, which resulted in the description they provided to the city including forty acres of land owned by a neighbor and leaving out eighty acres owned by the Roemigs. Id. The city followed the proper notice protocols, but included the incorrect legal description. Id. The city council held a public meeting and unanimously adopted a resolution approving the annexation of the Roemig property. Id. The Linn County Board of Supervisors approved the annexation and, at the same time, corrected the error in the legal' description. Id. A resident of Cedar Rapids, Goman, sought judicial review. Id. We ultimately held that the Roemigs’ application for voluntary annexation did not substantially comply with the statutory requirements because the applicable statute required a legal description of the property. Id. at 610.

We reached this conclusion for a number of reasons. First, the statute required the legal description of the property. Id. Second, the statute required published notice, and we found that this implied a requirement that the property be legally descript-ed. Id, Last, the description was relied upon throughout the proceedings and therefore did not provide proper notice to the public or other potentially interested parties regarding which property was meant to be annexed. Id. at 611.

Failing to comply with every word of a statute is not fatal in every situation. Id.; see also City of Des Moines v. City Dev. Bd., 473 N.W.2d 197, 200 (Iowa 1991). What we require is substantial compliance, which we have defined as “compliance in respect to essential matters necessary to assure the reasonable objectives of the statute.” Gorman, 565 N.W.2d at 610 (quoting Burnam v. Bd. of Review, 501 N.W.2d 553, 554 (Iowa 1993)). We noted that, when we determine, “whether the erroneous description satisfies the requirement of substantial compliance, we consider the impact of the error upon the proceedings.” Id. at 610. The error in this case was significant because two-thirds of the property the Roemigs intended to annex into the city was not included in the legal description and forty acres were included that were never owned by the Roe-migs. Id. at 611-12,

We have also decided other cases that included errors in the legal description of property. In Incorporated Town of Windsor Heights v. Colby, the legal description was listed as “Walnut Creek” when the proper description should have been “North Walnut Creek.” 249 Iowa 802, 804-05, 89 N.W.2d 157, 158 (1958). We held this was a “technical misdescription” and was not substantial. Id. at 806-07, 89 N.W.2d at 159. The error did not mislead any of the parties. Id. In Wall v. County Board of Education, a lengthy description of a parcel of real estate included one typographical error. 249 Iowa 209, 221-22, *4986 N.W.2d 231, 238-39 (1957). We held that the error did not mislead and did not adversely affect the reorganization of school districts at issue. Id. Generally, substantial compliance requires that a statute or rule “has been followed sufficiently so as to carry out the intent for which it was adopted.” Bontrager Auto Serv., Inc. v. Iowa City Bd. of Adjustment, 748 N.W.2d 483, 488 (Iowa 2008) (quoting Brown v. John Deere Waterloo Tractor Works, 423 N.W.2d 193, 194 (Iowa 1988)). Thus, we must determine whether the purpose of the statute or rule has been accomplished. Id.

In this case, neither the Iowa Code nor the Dyersville City Code of Ordinances require notice of the legal description of property. Iowa Code § 414.4 (requiring hearing and a notice of the time and place of the hearing but not requiring any particular description of the land); id. § 414.5 (noting that the same notice requirements apply equally to changes and amendments; and not requiring a legal description); id. § 414.6 (establishing a zoning commission responsible for recommending boundaries, but not requiring a legal description before a public hearing);- Dyersville, Iowa, Code of Ordinances § 165.39(1) (requiring a clear description of the land, but not a legal description). Further, none of the members of the public were misled about the property the council voted to rezone. The intent of the notice statute requires a public hearing during which concerned citizens may be heard. Iowa- Code § 414.4. The statute provides a procedure for providing published notice of a time and place of a public hearing, which was followed by the city council. Id. Many members of the community came to the public hearing and voiced their concerns about the rezoning of the Field of Dreams site. Many of the notices contained maps and drawings regarding the proposed property to be rezoned. There was no reasonable confusion regarding the -property which was being considered for rezoning under ordinance 770. Likewise, after the correction was included in ordinance 777, the city counsel provided notice to the public. No community members spoke at the city counsel meeting during which ordinance 777 was discussed and passed. We agree with the decision of the district court and find that the proceedings before the city council substantially complied with the statutory requirements. Ordinance 7774s valid.

F. Equal Protection and Due Process. The petitioners assert that the rezoning violated the equal protection and due process clauses of the Iowa Constitution. For purposes of the equal protection clause, they argue that all1 of the surrounding neighbors of the rezoned area are similarly-situated, but the 200-foot buffer surrounding three sides of the area prevented those neighbors from exercising the same right to object as the neighbors whose property does not have a buffer. For purposes of procedural due process, they assert that they were not provided a meaningful opportunity to be heard.

The Iowa Constitution guarantees “[a]ll laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class -of citizens, privileges, or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.” Iowa Const. art. I, § 6. In practice, this means that “laws treat alike all people who are ‘similarly situated with respect to the legitimate purposes of the law.’ ” McQuistion v. City of Clinton, 872 N.W.2d 817, 830 (Iowa 2015). (quoting Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W.2d 862, 882 (Iowa 2009)). Zoning and land -use ordinances that do not impact a suspect, classification must only meet the rational relationship test. 16C C.J.S. Building and Zoning Regulations § 1590, *50160-61 (2015); see also Blumenthal, 636 N.W.2d at 268.

We generally consider the federal and state equal protection clauses to be “identical in scope, import, and purpose.” War Eagle Vill. Apartments v. Plummer, 775 N.W.2d 714, 719 (Iowa 2009) (quoting State v. Bower, 725 N.W.2d 435, 441 (Iowa 2006)). The Supreme Court has succinctly articulated the rational basis test under the Federal Constitution as a “question [of] whether the classifications drawn in a statute are reasonable in light of its purpose.” Bierkamp v. Rogers, 293 N.W.2d 577, 580 (Iowa 1980) (quoting McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U.S. 184, 191, 85 S.Ct. 283, 288, 13 L.Ed.2d 222, 228 (1964)). We use this test as a guiding principle in our analysis of the rational basis test under the Iowa Constitution. Racing Ass’n of Cent. Iowa v. Fitzgerald (RACI), 675 N.W.2d 1, 7 (Iowa 2004) (“It was this enunciation of the rational basis test that our court said in Bierkamp was appropriate for analyzing a claim based on the Iowa equality provision found in article I, section 6 of the Iowa Constitution.”); Bierkamp, 293 N.W.2d at 580 (“We have long found a standard similar to that of McLaughlin to flow from Article I, section 6”).

Based on the principles of the federal test, we have developed a three-part framework to assist our analysis when we evaluate whether the rational-basis test has been met under the Iowa Constitution. See, e.g., McQuistion, 872 N.W.2d at 831; Horsfield Materials, Inc. v. City of Dyersville, 834 N.W.2d 444, 458-59 (Iowa 2013); RACI, 675 N.W.2d at 7-8. First, we must determine whether there was a valid, “realistically conceivable” purpose that served a legitimate government interest. McQuistion, 872 N.W.2d at 831 (quoting RACI, 675 N.W.2d at 7); see also Horsfield, 834 N.W.2d at 458. To be realistically conceivable, the ordinance cannot be “so overinclu-sive 'and underinclusive as to be irrational,” Horsfield, 834 N.W.2d at 459 (quoting State v. Mitchell, 757 N.W.2d 431, 439 (Iowa 2008)). Next, we decide whether the identified reason has any basis in fact. McQuistion, 872 N.W.2d at 831. Last, we evaluate whether the relationship between the classification and the purpose for the classification “is so weak that the classification must be viewed as arbitrary.” Id. (quoting RACI, 675 N.W.2d at 8).

We also recognize that the rational-basis test is a deferential test. Horsfield, 834 N.W.2d at 458; Ames Rental Prop. Ass’n v. City of Ames, 736 N.W.2d 255, 259 (Iowa 2007). Under the rational-basis test, we presume that the ordinance is constitutional unless the challenging party is able to meet its burden to “ne-gat[e] every .reasonable basis that might support the disparate treatment.” Horsfield, 834 N.W.2d at 458 (quoting Ames Rental Prop. Ass’n, 736 N.W.2d at 259). We will not declare something unconstitutional under the rational-basis test unless it “clearly, palpably, and without doubt infringed] upon the constitution.” RACI, 675 N.W.2d at 8 (quoting Glowacki v. State Bd. of Med. Exam’rs, 501 N.W.2d 539, 541 (Iowa 1993)).

The rezoning decision here clearly meets the rational-basis test. The council made the decision to rezone the Field of Dreams site in consideration. of the best interests of Dyersville. It considered the economic impact of increased tourism and investigated any water, sewage, traffic, and crime issues the rezoning could create. The decision was made with the overall zoning scheme of the city in mind, as one of the main goals of the comprehensive plan is to expand tourism to Dyersville via the Field of Dreams site. There was a “realistically conceivable” purpose for the *51rezoning that served a legitimate government interest, because the council believed the rezoning could increase tourism to the city. See, e.g., McQuistion, 872 N.W.2d at 831. The council’s determination that the ballpark could increase tourism to the city and could lead to more jobs and to the tax base of the city was based on facts presented to and considered by the council. See, e.g., id. The council ordered studies done regarding the financial impact on the city and listened to the opinions of multiple community members. Additionally, the use of the 200-foot buffer zone was a reasonable solution to the concerns of the community members and was not arbitrary or capricious. Last, as we determined above, the reason for the rezoning was not arbitrary. See, e.g., id. There was no equal protection violation in this case.

The due process clause commands that “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Iowa Const. art. I, § 9. “The requirements of procedural due process are simple and well established: (1) notice; and (2) a meaningful opportunity to be heard.” Blumenthal, 636 N.W.2d at 264; see also Aluminum Co. of Am. v. Musal, 622 N.W.2d 476, 479 (Iowa 2001) (“The two fundamental principles of due process áre (1) notice and (2) the opportunity to defend”).

We have held that procedural due process does not require a formal evidentiary hearing before the city council in the context of rezoning. Montgomery, 299 N.W.2d at 693. “Even if we assume that neighbors to a rezoned area have a life, liberty or property interest which requires some type of hearing, the statutorily required comment-argument hearing ... is sufficient to meet due process.” Id. The petitioners were given adequate notice of the parcel of land that was proposed to be rezoned and adequate notice of the time and place of city council meetings and hearings. Further, they were actually heard on numerous occasions, as a number of the petitioners attended both regular city council meetings and' the public hearing on the issue of rezoning. All community members in attendance who wished to speak were allowed. The petitioners in this case were afforded procedural due process.

III. Conclusion.

We conclude that the district court was correct in annulling the writs of certiorari. The city council acted in its proper legislative function when it rezoned the Field of Dreams property. Both ordinances were validly passed, and no procedural or substantive errors affected the decisions of the city council in its rezoning decisions.

DECISION OF DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMED; WRITS ANNULLED.

All justices concur except Wiggins, J., who concurs specially.

WIGGINS, Justice

(concurring specially).

I concur with the majority decision. Our decision does not mean that the actions of the city council are not beyond the reach of the persons they were elected to serve. At the next election, the council’s actions are subject to review by the electorate. Under the separation-of-powers doctrine, “electoral control [is] an important restraint on legislative conduct.” Teague v. Mosley, 552 N.W.2d 646, 660 (Iowa 1996).

TERNUS, Chief Justice.

The appellant, Iowa City Board of Adjustment, approved the application of appellant, Shelter House Community Shelter and Transition Services, for a special exception to a local zoning regulation to allow Shelter House to construct transient housing in a commercial district. The appel-lees, opponents of Shelter House’s application, successfully challenged the board’s decision in district court. Although the district court rejected the objectors’ contention the board had failed to make the necessary factual findings, the court ruled there was not substantial evidence to support the board’s finding that the proposed transient housing would not substantially *485diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. The court also determined the board had improperly interpreted and applied the parking-space requirements governing transient housing.

The board and Shelter House appeal the district court’s reversal of the board’s approval of Shelter House’s application. We agree with the district court that the board made sufficient factual findings, but conclude error was not preserved on the adequacy of the parking spaces. Because we think there was substantial evidence to support the board’s finding that property values would not be adversely affected, we reverse the judgment of the district court and remand this case for entry of a judgment affirming the board’s decision.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

Shelter House is a nonprofit corporation that has operated transient housing on North Gilbert Street in Iowa City for approximately twenty years. The facility on Gilbert Street is approved for housing twenty-nine transient persons at one time. It was undisputed the shelter has to turn homeless persons away due to a lack of space.

In 2004 Shelter House sought to build a new two-story facility at 429 Southgate Avenue that would provide transitional housing for up to seventy people. This site is zoned intensive commercial, which permits transient housing by special exception. In order to approve a special exception, the board must find the applicant meets the standards set forth for the specific proposed exception, as well as seven general standards to the extent they are applicable.

The Iowa City Department of Planning and Community Development reviewed Shelter House’s application and recommended approval. Subsequently, the board held a well-attended meeting at which approximately thirty-seven persons spoke. The main concern of objectors was the possibility of increased criminal activity in the neighborhood, a concern the proponents of the special exception attempted to refute. There was also some evidence elicited relating to property values, with the witnesses for and against the application disagreeing on whether property values would decrease due to the construction of transient housing in the affected neighborhood. Following public comments, the board approved the special exception on a vote of three to one. A written decision granting the application was filed several days later.

Thereafter, neighboring landowners filed petitions for writ of certiorari in the district court, which were consolidated.1 They claimed the board acted illegally for several reasons, three of which are pertinent to this appeal:

a. The Board of Adjustment acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it granted the application even though the evidence before the Board was that the requested special use would substantially diminish or impair the property values in the neighborhood of the requested special exception and that the proposed special exception would be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the area. Under these circumstances the actions of the Board are a violation of Iowa City Ordinance 14-6W-2(B)(2)(b).

f. The property which is the subject of the special exception does not comply with various provisions of Iowa City zoning law ...:

*486a) There is insufficient parking under Ordinance 14-6N-1....

g. The Board has made inadequate findings of fact and conclusions of law, contrary to Ordinance 14-6W-3(D).

The last allegation of illegality — that the board’s findings of fact were inadequate— was based on the board’s alleged failure to specifically find in its written decision that the proposed exception would not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood.

In response to the petitions, the board submitted its records to the court, including the application for special exception, the staff report recommending approval of the special exception, written materials and comments received by the board, a transcript of the public hearing, the board’s minutes, and the board’s written decision. In addition, at the trial on the objectors’ petitions, the district court heard further testimony from Robert Mik-lo, city planner for the City of Iowa City. Miklo testified with respect to the staff report and the board’s findings of fact. No other evidence outside the board’s records was offered or received.

The court subsequently issued a ruling reversing the board’s decision. Although the court decided the board had sufficiently complied with the requirement for written findings of fact, it concluded Shelter House had failed to present substantial evidence the proposed special exception would not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. The court also held the board had not correctly interpreted the parking-space requirements of its ordinance.2 The board had approved the special exception on the basis that eighteen parking spaces would be sufficient; whereas, under the district court’s interpretation, the ordinance would require twenty-two parking spaces.

The board and Shelter House filed timely appeals from the district court’s decision. For convenience, any references in this opinion to the board include Shelter House unless the context indicates otherwise.

II. Issues on Appeal.

On appeal, the board contends there was substantial evidence to support its determination that property values would not be substantially diminished or impaired by the location of transient housing at the proposed site. With respect to the court’s ruling on the required parking spaces, the board asserts that it correctly interpreted the parking-space requirements of its ordinance.

The objectors disagree, of course, with the arguments asserted by the board on appeal. In addition, they claim that, even if the district court’s decision on these issues was incorrect, its ruling can nonetheless be upheld on the basis that the board did not make an adequate factual finding on the property-values issue.

In our review of the record, we have discovered a preliminary issue that must be addressed: whether any error with respect to the board’s determination of the required number of parking spaces was preserved by the objectors. See Top of Iowa Coop. v. Sime Farms, Inc., 608 N.W.2d 454, 470 (Iowa 2000) (stating “this court will consider on appeal whether error was preserved despite the opposing party’s omission in not raising this issue at *487trial or on appeal”). We will address that issue first.

III. Error Preservation on Parking-Spaces Objection.

The objectors argued in the district court and again on appeal that the board failed to properly interpret the parking-spaces requirement of the applicable city ordinance and, consequently, acted illegally in approving a special exception that did not propose an adequate number of parking spaces. In reviewing the record certified by the board to the district court, we are unable to find any discussion of this issue before the board. The application for special exception stated that the plot plan “shows 18 spaces.” The staff report also reflected this fact and stated, “Eighteen parking spaces are required.... ” The petitions signed by the opponents to the special exception did not raise any concerns with respect to the parking requirements. At the board’s meeting, city staff presented its report and again specifically informed the board and those present that the property would be required to have eighteen parking spaces. No one at the meeting challenged the legality of the proposed exception on the basis that it did not comply with the applicable standard for parking spaces.

“In most jurisdictions a reviewing court will not decide an issue which was not raised in the forum from which the appeal was taken.... A reviewing court will not entertain a new theory or a different claim not asserted on the board level.” 4 Kenneth H. Young, Anderson’s American Law of Zoning § 27:37, at 633-34 (4th ed. 1996); accord 83 Am.Jur.2d Zoning & Planning § 957, at 791 (2006) (“It has been held that a reviewing court will not decide an issue that was not raised in the zoning board from which an appeal has been taken.”). Our court has similarly held that “issues must first be presented to the agency in order to be preserved for appellate review.” State ex rel. Miller v. DeCoster, 608 N.W.2d 785, 789 (Iowa 2000); accord Licari v. Bd. of Educ., 280 A.D.2d 673, 721 N.Y.S.2d 372, 373 (2001); Iwan v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 252 A.D.2d 913, 677 N.Y.S.2d 190, 191 (1998); Leoni v. Whitpain Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 709 A.2d 999, 1002 (Pa.Commw.Ct.1998). Based upon this principle and the record before us, we conclude the issue concerning the alleged inadequacy of the proposed parking spaces, which was not raised at the hearing before the board of adjustment, has not been preserved for this court’s review.

IV. Sufficiency of Board’s Factual Finding Regarding Impact on Property Values.

The Iowa City Code requires the Iowa City Board of Adjustment to render its decision in writing, “including findings of fact and conclusions of law.” Iowa City Code § 14-6W-3(D). It is undisputed the board failed to make a specific finding or conclusion in its written decision regarding the effect of the proposed special exception on property values. This issue was of critical importance because, before the board may approve an application for a special exception, the board must find the applicant has met several general standards. One of those standards states: “The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood.” Id. § 14-6W-2(B)(2)(b).

Notwithstanding the board’s failure to specifically address this standard in its decision, the district court concluded the board had substantially complied with the requirement of written findings of fact and conclusions of law. The board urges this *488court to reach the same conclusion with respect to the adequacy of its written decision.

The Iowa City ordinance codifies the rule adopted by our court “that boards of adjustment shall make written findings of fact on all issues presented in any adjudicatory proceeding.” Citizens Against the Lewis & Clark (Mowery) Landfill v. Pottawattamie County Bd. of Adjustment, 277 N.W.2d 921, 925 (Iowa 1979). We agree with the district court that substantial — as opposed to literal — compliance with the written-findings requirement is sufficient.

In Thorson v. Board of Supervisors, 249 Iowa 1088, 90 N.W.2d 730 (1958), we held a board’s substantial compliance with a statutory requirement was satisfactory, noting “the requirements imposed by statute upon an inferior tribunal should not be too technically construed, lest its efficiency be wholly paralyzed.” 249 Iowa at 1097, 90 N.W.2d at 735; accord Johnson v. Bd. of Adjustment, 239 N.W.2d 873, 887 (Iowa 1976) (“ ‘[OJnly where it clearly appears there was a failure to substantially comply with the statutory requirements will there be found jurisdiction violations.’ ” (quoting Bd. of Educ. v. Iowa State Bd. of Pub. Instruction, 261 Iowa 1203, 1210, 157 N.W.2d 919, 923 (1968))). More recently, in Obrecht v. Cerro Gordo County Zoning Board of Adjustment, 494 N.W.2d 701 (Iowa 1993), we held substantial compliance with a zoning ordinance was sufficient. In that case, the county zoning ordinance required that an application for special use be signed by the landowner. Obrecht, 494 N.W.2d at 703. The application at issue had been signed by the lessee of the land, not the owner. Id. at 702. The owner had, however, appeared at and participated in the hearing on the application and had voiced no opposition. Id. at 703. We held the owner’s presence at the hearing was substantial compliance with the ordinance requiring the owner’s signature on the application because “the owner was available to verify his support of the application and to answer any questions.” Id. Therefore, “[t]he objectives of the owner filing requirement were more than satisfied.” Id.

As implied by this statement from Obrecht, “substantial compliance” means the statute or rule “ ‘has been followed sufficiently so as to carry out the intent for which it was adopted.’ ” Brown v. John Deere Waterloo Tractor Works, 423 N.W.2d 193, 194 (Iowa 1988) (quoting Smith v. State, 364 So.2d 1, 9 (Ala.Crim. App.1978)). Thus, the reviewing court must determine based on the facts of the particular case whether the actual compliance has accomplished the purpose of the statute or rule. Id. Consequently, we begin with an examination of the purpose of the requirement at issue.

This court was persuaded to adopt a rule requiring written findings by the following “compelling considerations”: “‘facilitating judicial review, avoiding judicial usurpation of administrative functions, assuring more careful administrative consideration, helping parties plan their cases for rehearings and judicial review, and keeping agencies within their jurisdiction.’ ” Citizens, 277 N.W.2d at 925 (quoting K. Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 16.05 (2d ed. 1978)). Consistent with these considerations, we noted in Citizens that a board’s findings “must be sufficient to enable a reviewing court to determine with reasonable certainty the factual basis and legal principles upon which the board acted.” Id.; accord Bd. of Dirs. v. Justmann, 476 N.W.2d 335, 340 (Iowa 1991). Here, the objectors appear to claim that, because there is no mention of the property-values issue in the board’s written decision, the board failed to make a decision on *489this issue, thereby rendering its action granting the special exception illegal.

Our review of the record convinces us that neither the objectors nor the district court had to guess whether the board considered and resolved the property-values issue. The board was clearly aware of the requirement that the special exception could not be approved if it substantially impaired neighboring property values. Shelter House addressed this standard in its application, and later, at the meeting scheduled to consider the application, city planner Robert Miklo told the board it must consider, among other items, the requirement that “the proposed special exception ... will not substantially dimmish or impair property values in the neighborhood.” In addition, several of the numerous persons who spoke at the hearing addressed the issue of property values.

After the public comment portion of the meeting concluded, the board members expressed their views. Board member Mauer was the first to speak, and he expressly focused his remarks on “the general standards.” Mauer commented on several of these standards, including the matter of property values. He stated the impact on property values was “a big issue” that could not be determined for sure until someone decides to sell property in the area after Shelter House is there. Mauer was most concerned, however, regarding the impact of the facility on the comfort, safety, and health of neighboring residents (another general standard). At this point in the proceedings, board counsel Holecek reminded the board that the board had to “conclude each of these standards has been met.” Board member Mauer then voted “no,” immediately followed by board member Wright, who discussed the general standards without any specific mention of property values, and then voted “yes.” Board member Leigh then commented on the impact of the current transient house on North Gilbert on the surrounding neighborhood and concluded by saying the proposal “has met the standards as were previously mentioned and I will vote in favor of this.” Board member Alexander then stated, “For the reasons already mentioned, I too am going to vote in favor.” A roll call vote was then taken, resulting in approval of the application for a special exception on a vote of three to one.

The board later filed a written decision on the Shelter House application that contained findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a disposition. In its conclusions of law, the board concluded “that developing the Shelter House at [the proposed] location will not be detrimental overall to the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare,” as required by section 14-6W-2(B)(2), but did not make specific reference to the other portion of section 14-6W-2(B)(2) dealing with property values.

These facts show that with respect to the property-values aspect of general standard section 14-6W-2(B)(2), the board did not literally comply with the rule that findings of fact and conclusions of law be in writing. We think, however, that there was substantial compliance. Considering the board’s written decision in the context of the meeting at which the vote memorialized in the decision occurred, we are able “to determine with reasonable certainty the factual basis and legal principles upon which the board acted.” Citizens, 277 N.W.2d at 925. We think it is sufficiently clear that the board considered the general standards, including whether the proposed special exception would “substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood,” and concluded by a majority vote that these standards were met. The board’s failure to reference the entirety of the general standard appearing *490in section 14-6W-2(B)(2) in its written conclusions of law is not a fatal flaw that warrants reversal.

Y. Scope and Standard of Review of Property-Values Issue.

Our standard of review of the district court’s ruling on the property-values issue is dependent upon resolution of a disagreement between the parties with respect to the proper role of the district court in its review of the board’s decision. Shelter House maintains that the district court must conduct a substantial-evidence review of the board’s findings. See generally Grant v. Fritz, 201 N.W.2d 188, 195 (Iowa 1972) (“The ‘substantial evidence rule’ is utilized in judicial checking of findings of fact_”). Under that standard of review, the board’s findings are binding if supported by substantial evidence. In contrast, the opponents claim the district court is entitled to find the facts anew and on appeal to this court, the district court’s findings are binding if supported by substantial evidence.3

Unlike the typical certiorari case, in which the standard of review is well established, the review of decisions of boards of adjustment has always been somewhat problematic. Iowa Code chapter 414 (2003) provides the procedure for review of a decision of a city board of adjustment.4 A person aggrieved by a board decision may file a petition for writ of certiorari in the district court, identifying the claimed illegality of the board’s action. Iowa Code § 414.15 (stating petition must “specify! ] the grounds of the illegality” of the board’s decision). Upon the filing of a petition, the board of adjustment must make a return to the writ, which includes the “papers acted upon by it” and “other facts as may be pertinent and material to show the grounds of the decision appealed from.” Id. § 414.17.

At this point, the review process reveals its unique characteristics. Section 414.18 states:

If upon the hearing which shall be tried de novo it shall appear to the court that testimony is necessary for the proper disposition of the matter, it may take evidence or appoint a referee to take such evidence as it may direct and report the same to the court with the referee’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, which shall constitute a part of the proceedings upon which the determination of the court shall be made. The *491court may reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or may modify the decision brought up for review.

Id. § 414.18 (emphasis added). This court has attempted over the years to interpret what the legislature intended when it provided for a trial de novo and for the taking of additional necessary evidence by the district court.

In our first case to interpret section 414.18,5 Anderson v. Jester, 206 Iowa 452, 221 N.W. 354 (1928), we considered “what questions may be raised on certiorari.” 206 Iowa at 462, 221 N.W. at 359. Relying on section 414.15, we held only issues of illegality are a permissible basis for relief. Id. at 463, 221 N.W. at 359. We observed that “arbitrary and unreasonable action or proceedings” that are not authorized, are contrary to the statute defining the powers of the board, or are unsupported by facts upon which the board’s power to act depends are illegal. Id. These grounds of illegality track those that are raised in certiorari actions generally. See Nash Finch Co. v. City Council, 672 N.W.2d 822, 825 (Iowa 2003) (‘“An illegality is established if the board has not acted in accordance with a statute; if its decision was not supported by substantial evidence; or if its actions were unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.’ ” (quoting Perkins v. Bd. of Supervisors, 636 N.W.2d 58, 64 (Iowa 2001))). See generally 3 Arden H. Rathkopf et al., Rathkopfs The Law of Zoning & Planning § 62:32, at 62-66 (2001) (noting same grounds) [hereinafter Rathkopfs Law of Zoning].

We also considered in Anderson “the method and scope of review by the trial court permitted by [this] legislative enactment.” Anderson, 206 Iowa at 454, 221 N.W. at 355. Noting that the board of adjustment is not required “to return findings of fact,” this court explained the purpose of the district court’s power to take additional evidence as follows:

If all the material facts appear in the record, or are not disputed, or only questions arising upon the record are presented, the taking of evidence is not necessary. Questions likely to arise in such cases are of such great importance that the Legislature appears to have had in mind that the parties should, on the question of the legality of the board’s action, be entitled to a full and complete hearing before a proper court of record and according to accepted judicial method of ascertaining facts.

Id. at 461-62, 221 N.W. at 359 (emphasis added). Thus, when the record is inadequate to determine the legality of the board’s action, additional evidence is necessary and may properly be taken by the district court.

Our discussion in Anderson of the district court’s scope of review was not as clear. We said:

The parties are not, on certiorari, bound by the finding or opinion of the local board on the facts, or by the evidence offered there, or by knowledge outside of the evidence on which the board may have acted, but, ordinarily at least, are entitled to take testimony when a determinative issue of fact is raised.

Id. at 462, 221 N.W. at 359 (emphasis added). Later in the same opinion, this seemingly expansive de novo review is qualified:

If it had been intended to give to the aggrieved party the right to remove the *492determination of the entire matter from the local officers and board to the court, it is reasonable to suppose that the remedy provided would have been appeal rather than certiorari....

... The trial de novo permitted, and the determination of whether testimony is necessary, and the admission of such testimony, ... should be confined to the questions of illegality raised by the petition for the writ.... If one of the grounds of alleged illegality is arbitrary, unreasonable, or discriminatory action on the part of the board, and on the facts the reasonableness of the board’s action is open to a fair difference of opinion, there is, as to that, no illegality. The court is not, in such case, authorized to substitute its judgment for that of the local board.

Id. at 462-63, 221 N.W. at 359 (emphasis added). We noted that arbitrary and unreasonable action includes action that is not authorized by the statute defining the board’s power or that is contrary to or unsupported by the required facts. Id. at 463, 221 N.W. at 359.

Although one could argue our discussion of the statute in Anderson did not completely clarify the district court’s de novo fact-finding role, our subsequent cases consistently limited the trial de novo “to the questions of illegality raised by the petition for the writ.” Deardorf v. Bd. of Adjustment, 254 Iowa 380, 383, 118 N.W.2d 78, 80 (1962); accord Vogelaar v. Polk County Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 188 N.W.2d 860, 863 (Iowa 1971). Our cases also confirmed that the statute did not provide “for trial de novo by equitable proceedings.” Deardorf, 254 Iowa at 383-85, 118 N.W.2d at 80 (examining sufficiency of evidence before the board on question of unnecessary hardship); accord Trailer City, Inc. v. Bd. of Adjustment, 218 N.W.2d 645, 647 (Iowa 1974) (“The term ‘de novo’ ... does not bear its equitable connotation.”); Vogelaar, 188 N.W.2d at 863 (noting trial is de novo only “in the sense that testimony in addition to the return may be taken if it appears to the court necessary for the proper disposition of the matter”); Zilm v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 260 Iowa 787, 794-95, 150 N.W.2d 606, 611 (1967) (reversing district court’s determination of boundary line location contrary to that found by the board, stating there was no basis for finding board did not act reasonably and therefore, court could not substitute its judgment).

We now turn to our decision in Weldon v. Zoning Board, 250 N.W.2d 396 (Iowa 1977). In that case, we considered “what effect the statutes have on the mode and scope of district court review when a claim of illegality in the certiorari action involves an issue of the sufficiency of evidence to support the decision of the inferior tribunal.” Weldon, 250 N.W.2d at 400. We observed that section 414.18 had “modified” the rule applicable in ordinary certio-rari actions that “the findings of fact of the inferior tribunal may not be upset if they are supported by substantial evidence before that tribunal.” Id. We attributed this interpretation of section 414.18 to our decision in Anderson:

Therefore, the teaching of the Anderson case is that in a certiorari proceeding in a zoning case the district court finds the facts anew on the record made in the certiorari proceeding. That record will include the return to the writ and any additional evidence which may have been offered by the parties. However, the district court is not free to decide the case anew. Illegality of the challenged board action is established by reason of the court’s findings of fact if they do not provide substantial support *493for the board decision. If the district court’s findings of fact leave the reasonableness of the board’s action open to a fair difference of opinion, the court may not substitute its decision for that of the board.

Id. at 401. It appears, then, that in Weldon we interpreted section 414.18 to place the entire fact-finding role on the district court even when the claimed illegality was that the evidence was not sufficient to support the board’s decision. See Giesey v. Bd. of Adjustment, 229 N.W.2d 258, 260 (Iowa 1975) (holding illegality exists when there is not substantial evidence to support the decision of the board).

Notwithstanding our attempt in Weldon to clarify what the legislature meant by the language “tried de novo,” in at least two subsequent cases in which the alleged illegality of the board’s decision was a lack of substantial evidence to support its decision, the district court simply reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence to support the board’s decision without making its own fact-findings. See Cyclone Sand & Gravel Co. v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 351 N.W.2d 778, 783 (Iowa 1984); Jorgensen v. Bd. of Adjustment, 336 N.W.2d 423, 426 (Iowa 1983). These cases appear to be more in line with a case that predated Weldon, Buchholz v. Board of Adjustment, 199 N.W.2d 73 (Iowa 1972), which considered a county zoning statute identical to the city zoning statute at issue in this case. In Buchholz, we stated that “de novo” as used in section 335.21

does no more than permit the introduction of additional evidence in district court if the court finds that course necessary for proper disposition of the cause. With that qualification the decision of the administrative body is conclusive unless arbitrary, capricious or otherwise illegal.

199 N.W.2d at 78.

In considering the scope of review in the present appeal, this court is faced with the problem of ascertaining the meaning of section 414.18 in the face of conflicting case law. It is helpful, then, to examine general authorities in this area of the law. In Rathkopfs Law of Zoning, the authors state the review provision in the standard zoning enabling act “gives the court the power to take evidence when there is an issue raised by the pleadings in the proceeding other than whether the determination is supported by substantial evidence.” 6 Rathkopfs Law of Zoning § 62:46, at 62-123 (emphasis added).

In those cases in which the issue is whether the action of a board is based upon substantial evidence, the determination as to the validity of a board’s decision should be based upon the record of the proceedings before the board as supplemented by the testimony taken before the court. It should not decide the case merely on the basis of the testimony taken before it if the facts found by the court therein are materially at variance with those found by the board. The court cannot make new findings on issues presented below.

Id. at 62-129 (emphasis added).

The author clarifies that, with respect to issues of substantial evidence, “[i]t is only in those extraordinary cases in which it is not clear from the record what a board considered and how it arrived at its findings that additional testimony will ordinarily be taken in order for a court to evaluate [the board’s] determination.” Id. § 62:46, at 62-130 to -131. According to this treatise, other claims of illegality more *494properly give rise to the need for additional testimony in district court:

Where an issue is raised by the petition and answer as to whether the determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, or was arbitrary and an abuse of discretion, the court should take evidence with respect to the matters thus put in issue, and apply the law thereto. Since such matters would not ordinarily appear in the return and record of the respondent in the proceedings, such authority will be utilized when questions of fact are presented which cannot be summarily decided in the review proceeding on the basis of allegations in the petition, although sworn to, or in affidavits, or on the exhibits and other types of informal evidence which a board of appeals is accustomed to consider.

Where the person appealing from the action of the administrative body sets forth in his petition sufficient facts to persuade the court that there were “in fact or in all likelihood, factors present, not of record which influenced the action of the council complained of,” ... the court should conduct a hearing and consider evidence not of record before the administrative body since the court could not properly have determined the question from the transcript of the proceedings at the public hearing.

Id. at 62-123 to -124, 62-128.

Thus, with respect to the district court’s proper role in taking additional evidence, this authority distinguishes between illegalities that appear in the record made before the board, e.g., insufficiency of the evidence to support the board’s findings, and illegalities that are outside the record, e.g., a board member’s conflict of interest. Only when the illegality does not appear in the record made before the board should the district court take additional evidence. In addition, this authority would limit the court’s fact-finding role to issues that were not before the board.

Although the standard act discussed in Rathkopf admittedly does not contain the “tried de novo” language appearing in Iowa’s statute, courts from other states interpreting statutory language similar to Iowa’s have interpreted their statutes consistently with Rathkopfs analysis. See Colorado Land Use Comm’n v. Bd. of County Comm’rs, 199 Colo. 7, 604 P.2d 32 (1979); People ex rel. St. Albans-Springfield Corp. v. Connell, 257 N.Y. 73, 177 N.E. 313 (1931); Bd. of Zoning Appeals v. Combs, 200 Va. 471, 106 S.E.2d 755, 758-59 (1959) (relying on Iowa Anderson case). In Colorado Land Use Commission, the Colorado Supreme Court defined the phrase “trial de novo” as used in a statute describing review of decisions of the board to mean something less than “trial anew on the merits”: “The de novo term is included to indicate that any relevant evidence may be introduced to attempt to prove illegality such as fraud, sham, bribery, failure to comply with statutory requirements, or abuse of legislative discretion.” 604 P.2d at 36. Since the appellant in that case had sought a de novo review of the merits of the board’s determination, the Colorado court held the trial court had properly dismissed the appellant’s complaint. Id. Similarly, in St. Albans-Springfield, the highest court in New York observed that a court having a power of review similar to that provided in chapter 414 “is not supposed to exercise it as though it were the board of standards and appeals.... The courts must not trespass upon this administrative work, but confine their review to correcting legal errors.” 177 N.E. at 315.

Although these decisions and Rathkopfs discussion of the district court’s role in reviewing a board decision are contrary to *495our holding in Weldon, we think the analysis of these authorities makes sense and is entirely consistent with our statutory language. Section 414.18 allows the court to take evidence “[i]f ... it shall appear to the court that testimony is necessary for the proper disposition of the matter.” (Emphasis added.) Ordinarily, testimony would not be necessary when the claimed illegality is insufficient evidence, at least when a record was made before the board. Our proposed interpretation of the statute also reflects our traditional deference to the fact-finding role of the local tribunal with respect to the issues of fact essential to its decision by preserving the substantial-evidence rule in the review of board decisions. We think it is simply inconsistent to define an illegality as a lack of substantial evidence to support the board’s decision, a rule used to review an inferior tribunal’s fact-finding, but then place the ultimate fact-finding responsibility on the district court. In other words, a substantial-evidence review makes more sense if the fact-finding relevant to the issues before the board remains with the board.

We also think application of the substantial-evidence rule is more consistent with the principle stated in Weldon and other Iowa cases that the court should not substitute its judgment for that of the board. See, e.g., Helmke v. Bd. of Adjustment, 418 N.W.2d 346, 352 (Iowa 1988); Weldon, 250 N.W.2d at 401; Anderson, 206 Iowa at 463, 221 N.W. at 359. The existence of a particular fact is often outcome determinative, as in the present case. To allow the district court to make this crucial finding of fact necessarily allows the court to substitute its judgment for that of the board.

Importantly, interpreting section 414.18 consistently with Rathkopfs explanation of the standard act does not render the Iowa statute’s reference to “the hearing which shall be tried de novo” superfluous because, for illegalities that are not based on the board’s fact-finding function, the district court does find the facts pertinent to the claimed illegality. Finally, we think the Rathkopfs interpretation is more understandable, more easily and consistently applied by the district courts, and more consistent with the certiorari mode of review adopted by the legislature for review of board decisions.

In summary, we overrule Weldon to the extent it permitted the court to make new factual findings on issues that were before the board for decision. Such fact-findings will be reviewed under the substantial-evidence test traditionally employed in certiorari reviews.

VI. Substantial Evidence to Support Board’s Finding That Property Values Would Not be Substantially Diminished or Impaired.

As noted above, the board could not grant a special exception to Shelter House unless it was satisfied “[t]he specific proposed exception ... will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood.” Iowa City Code § 14-6W-2(B)(2)(b). We must determine whether there was substantial evidence to support the board’s finding that this standard was met. “Evidence is substantial “when a reasonable mind could accept it as adequate to reach the same findings.’ ” City of Cedar Rapids v. Mun. Fire & Police Ret. Sys., 526 N.W.2d 284, 287 (Iowa 1995) (quoting Norland v. Iowa Dep’t of Job Serv., 412 N.W.2d 904, 913 (Iowa 1987)).

In concluding Shelter House “failed to present substantial evidence that the proposed Special Exception will not substantially dimmish or impair property values in the neighborhood,” the district court observed

*496there was no testimony or comment at the public hearing from any real estate assessor, real estate appraiser, realtor or owner of property near the current Shelter House concerning this issue, with the exception of a property manager who commented on the already existing problem of renting out property [in the vicinity of the new location].

The district court also gave little credence to the testimony of an urban planner, who referred to national research that property values located in areas of transient housing do not necessarily go down, because the speaker did not provide any documentation of the research or its source. The court concluded the minutes of the board meeting, the transcript of that meeting, and the board’s written decision did not collectively contain substantial evidence to support the board’s finding that property values would not be impaired or substantially diminished.

While the issue is close, we conclude there was substantial evidence to support the board’s decision. As the district court accurately observed, there was no expert testimony that property values would not be impaired by the location of the transient home. Nonetheless, the absence of such evidence is not fatal, as expert testimony concerning the valuation of property is not required by our cases or by the Iowa City Code. Cf. Petersen v. Harrison County Bd. of Supervisors, 580 N.W.2d 790, 796 (Iowa 1998) (noting no requirement under chapter 352, dealing with designation of property as an agricultural area, that expert testimony concerning reduced property values be presented at hearing before the board). See generally Norland v. Worth County Comp. Bd., 323 N.W.2d 251, 253 (Iowa 1982) (noting determination of a prevailing wage is not an exact science, and there was no statutory constraint on the type of evidence the board could consider).

One person residing in the vicinity of the current transient house commented that the property values in that neighborhood had not been adversely affected. The board was certainly permitted to rely on such anecdotal evidence. See Cambodian Buddhist Soc’y v. Planning & Zoning Comm’n, 285 Conn. 381, 941 A.2d 868, 905-06 (2008) (noting “commission was entitled to credit the anecdotal reports that past activities on the society’s property had made neighboring properties less desirable” in determining whether proposed construction of temple would impair property values). In addition, the board may rely on commonsense inferences drawn from evidence relating to other issues, such as use and enjoyment, crime, safety, welfare, and aesthetics, to make a judgment as to whether the proposed use would substantially diminish or impair property values in the area. See Miller v. Hill, 337 Ill.App.3d 210, 271 Ill.Dec. 600, 785 N.E.2d 532, 539 (2003) (concluding testimony of neighbors of firing range that noise did not bother them and they were not concerned about safety was adequate proof that proposed firing range would not adversely affect property values); Balias v. Town of Weaverville, 121 N.C.App. 346, 465 S.E.2d 324, 326-27 (1996) (holding testimony that “bed and breakfast would be an ‘attribute to the community’ supports an inference that it would not impair property values in the neighborhood”). We examine, then, evidence before the board that would permit an inference with respect to property values.

The concern most often voiced by opponents of the special exception was the increased likelihood of criminal acts in the neighborhood. Several witnesses reviewed the statistics concerning the arrest rates for residents of the current shelter house and for residents of Hilltop Mobile Home *497Court, a mobile home development in the neighborhood of the new location. Although the witnesses differed in their interpretation of this data, a close inspection of these figures reveals that the arrest rate for persons giving Shelter House as their address was likely less than the arrest rate for persons giving Hilltop Mobile Home Court as their address. Moreover, there appeared to be more concern about potential crime due to the number of persons turned away by Shelter House than by the persons who actually stay there. There was testimony that the proposed doubling of capacity at the new facility may offset this negative impact by significantly reducing the number of persons turned away for lack of room. There was also a statement from a neighbor of the current shelter house that he did not observe any “rise or change in the amount of crime in the neighborhood.”

In addition to the evidence regarding crime, there was testimony from two persons residing in the neighborhood of the current shelter house that the establishment caused no problems in the neighborhood other than some detrimental aesthetics relating to trash cans and the lawn. These issues were to be addressed at the new transient house through a requirement that the new location have a landscape buffer and an eight-foot privacy fence. Another neighbor at the current location denied there was any increase in vehicular traffic due to the presence of the transient house. There was also evidence that it was already difficult to rent property at any price in the area of the new location, supporting an inference that transient housing would not have much of an effect on the already depressed property values. Finally, notwithstanding a lack of documentation, the board could consider the testimony of the urban planner that national research showed property values do not necessarily go down when such a use is introduced into a neighborhood.

We think this evidence, considered collectively, is adequate to support the board’s conclusion that the proposed special exception would not substantially diminish or impair the value of neighboring properties. Although there was evidence to the contrary, the reasonableness of the board’s decision is open to a fair difference of opinion, and therefore, the board’s decision should have been affirmed on that basis. See Helmke, 418 N.W.2d at 352 (stating “whether the evidence in a close case such as this one might well support an opposite finding is of no consequence, for the district court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the board of adjustment”).

VII. Disposition.

We conclude the board made adequate findings, and its decision was supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the district court erred in reversing the board’s grant of Shelter House’s application for a special exception. We therefore reverse the district court’s judgment and remand this case back to the district court for entry of an order affirming the decision of the board of adjustment.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Alexander, J.

The regulations promulgated by the City of New York (Executive Order No. 91, Aug. 24, 1977, entitled City Environmental Quality Review [CEQR]) as authorized by and in implementation of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (ECL art 8 [SEQRA]) require lead agencies to consider both the short- and long-term and primary and secondary effects of a proposed action in determining whether the action may have a significant effect on the environment so as to require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Since respondents’ environmental analysis failed to consider the environmental effects required by the regulations, the order of the Appellate Division should be reversed.

*362I

This controversy arises out of the proposed construction of Henry Street Tower, a high-rise luxury condominium, on a vacant lot in the Chinatown section of New York City. This building is to be the first construction in the Special Manhattan Bridge District (SMBD),1 a special zoning district created by the City of New York designed to preserve the residential character of the Chinatown community, encourage new residential development on sites requiring minimal relocation, promote the rehabilitation of existing housing stock, and protect the scale of the community (see, New York City Zoning Resolution § 116-00 et seq.; Asian Am. for Equality v Koch, 129 Misc 2d 67, 71-74). An application for a special permit for Henry Street Tower was submitted by the developer, Henry Street Partners, to the Department of City Planning and the Department of Environmental Protection, the colead agencies responsible for implementing SEQRA in the City of New York (see, CEQR 1 [k]). Following a thorough environmental review of the effects of the project on the physical environment, the agencies issued a conditional negative declaration asserting that the project will not have any significant effect on the environment if certain modifications were adopted by the developer (see, CEQR 1 [d]; 7 [b] [2]).2 The modifications were accepted by the developer and the application for a special permit was thereafter approved by the City Planning Commission and the Board of Estimate.

A combined plenary action and article 78 proceeding was commenced by various members of the Chinatown community challenging the Board of Estimate approval of the special permit.3 Their verified complaint and petition alleged viola*363tians of SEQRA and CEQR, the SMBD regulations, the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP), and the due process clause of the New York State Constitution and sought, among other things, a declaration that the special permit was null and void. After joinder of issue, respondents’ motion for summary determination (CPLR 409 [b]) and for summary judgment (CPLR 3212) was granted and petitioners’ cross motion for summary judgment was denied. The Appellate Division affirmed and petitioners were granted leave to appeal by this court.

As limited by their brief to this court, petitioners argue that the city’s environmental review was arbitrary and capricious because of the failure of the lead agencies to consider whether the introduction of luxury housing into the Chinatown community would accelerate the displacement of local low-income residents and businesses or alter the character of the community. Respondents contend that absent a determination that the proposed action will have a significant adverse impact on an area’s physical environment, SEQRA and CEQR do not require consideration of any social or economic impacts such as those asserted by petitioners.

II

In reviewing administrative proceedings in general and SEQRA determinations in particular, we are limited to considering "whether a determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion” (CPLR 7803 [3]). As we stated in Matter of Jackson v New York State Urban Dev. Corp. (67 NY2d 400, 416), "it is not the role of the courts to weigh the desirability of any action or choose among alternatives, but to assure that the agency itself has satisfied SEQRA, procedurally and substantively”. Thus, we do not decide here whether an EIS is required prior to the construction of Henry Street Tower or what environmental impacts may flow from that construction. The limited issue presented for our review is whether the respondents identified the relevant areas of environmental concern, took a "hard look” at them, and made a "reasoned elaboration” of the basis for *364their determination (Matter of Jackson v New York State Urban Dev. Corp., supra, at p 417; Aldrich v Pattison, 107 AD2d 258, 265; H.O.M.E.S. v New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 69 AD2d 222, 232). A conditional negative declaration is properly issued when the agencies have made a thorough investigation of the problems involved and reasonably exercised their discretion (Matter of Cohalan v Carey, 88 AD2d 77, 79, appeal dismissed 57 NY2d 672; H.O.M.E.S. v New York State Urban Dev. Corp., supra, at p 231).

SEQRA requires agencies subject to its provisions to adopt procedures necessary to implement the requirements of the statute provided that such "procedures shall be no less protective of environmental values [than the procedures provided in SEQRA]”, although procedures more protective of the environment can be adopted (see, ECL 8-0113 [3] [a]). Thus, the propriety of respondénts’ determination must be judged not only according to the requirements of SEQRA but also according to the regulations promulgated by the City of New York in CEQR to the extent those regulations are more protective of the environment.4

The initial determination to be made under SEQRA and CEQR is whether an EIS is required, which in turn depends on whether an action may or will not have a significant effect on the environment (ECL 8-0109 [2]; CEQR 7 [a]). In making this initial environmental analysis, the lead agencies must study the same areas of environmental impacts as would be contained in an EIS, including both the short-term and long-term effects (ECL 8-0109 [2] [b])5 as well as the primary and secondary effects (CEQR 1 [g]) of an action on the environment. The threshold at which the requirement that an EIS be prepared is triggered is relatively low: it need only be demon*365strated that the action may have a significant effect on the environment (see, Oak Beach Inn Corp. v Harris, 108 AD2d 796, 797; H.O.M.E.S. v New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 69 AD2d 222, 232, supra). 6

The dispute here concerns the reach of the term "environment”, which is defined as "the physical conditions which will be affected by a proposed action, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, noise, objects of historic or aesthetic significance, existing patterns of population concentration, distribution, or growth, and existing community or neighborhood character” (ECL 8-0105 [6]; CEQR 1 [¶] [emphasis supplied]). Petitioners argue that the displacement of neighborhood residents and businesses caused by a proposed project is an environmental impact within the purview of SEQRA and CEQR, and the failure of respondents to consider these potential effects renders their environmental analysis invalid. Respondents contend that any impacts that are not either directly related to a primary physical impact or will not impinge upon the physical environment in a significant manner are outside the scope of the definition of "environment”, and that the lead agencies were therefore not required to investigate the potential effects alleged by petitioners.

Respondents’ limited view of the parameters of the term "environment” is contrary to the plain meaning of SEQRA and the city’s regulations and must be rejected. Initially, we note that there is no basis here to rely on any special expertise of the agency since all that is involved is the proper interpretation of statutory language (Matter of Trump-Equitable Fifth Ave. Co. v Gliedman, 62 NY2d 539, 545; Kurcsics v Merchant Mut. Ins. Co., 49 NY2d 451, 459). It is clear from the express terms of the statute and the regulations that environment is broadly defined (ECL 8-0105 [6]; 6 NYCRR 617.2 [k]; CEQR 1 [f]; see, Matter of Jackson v New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 67 NY2d 400, 414, supra; Weinberg, Practice *366Commentary, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 11V2, ECL 8-0105, p 66) and expressly includes as physical conditions such considerations as "existing patterns of population concentration, distribution, or growth, and existing community or neighborhood character”.7 Thus, the impact that a project may have on population patterns or existing community character,8 with or without a separate impact on the physical environment, is a relevant concern in an environmental analysis since the statute includes these concerns as elements of the environment. That these factors might generally be regarded as social or economic is irrelevant in view of this explicit definition. By their express terms, therefore, both SEQRA and CEQR require a lead agency to consider more than impacts upon the physical environment in determining whether to require the preparation of an EIS. In sum, population patterns and neighborhood character are physical conditions of the environment under SEQRA and CEQR regardless of whether there is any impact on the physical environment (see, Ulasewicz, Department of Environmental Conservation and SEQRA: Upholding Its Mandates and Charting Parameters For The Elusive Socio-Economic Assessment, 46 Alb L Rev 1255, 1266, 1282).

Turning to the specific allegations in this case, we conclude that under CEQR the potential displacement of local residents and businesses is an effect on population patterns and neighborhood character which must be considered in determining *367whether the requirement for an EIS is triggered. A significant effect on the environment may be found if a proposed project impairs "the character or quality of * * * existing community or neighborhood character” (CEQR 6 [a] [5]) or impacts upon "existing patterns of population concentration, distribution, or growth” (ECL 8-0105 [6]; see, CEQR 6 [a] [10]). It is not relevant whether the proposed project may effect these concerns primarily or secondarily or in the short term or in the long term since the regulations expressly include all such effects (CEQR 1 [g]).

The potential acceleration of the displacement of local residents and businesses is a secondary long-term effect on population patterns, community goals and neighborhood character such that CEQR requires these impacts on the environment to be considered in an environmental analysis. The fact that the actual construction on the proposed site will not cause the displacement of any residents or businesses is not dispositive for displacement can occur in the community surrounding a project as well as on the site of a project. Indeed, this project is to be constructed on one of seven sites available for development in the SMBD and three of these sites are within one square block of the site of Henry Street Tower.9 As we have indicated in a related context, land development impacts not only on the actual property involved but on the community in general (Berenson v Town of New Castle, 38 NY2d 102, 110). CEQR does not merely require that the displacement caused by the actual physical construction on this one site be considered. In fact, it specifically requires that "[f]or the purpose of determining whether an action [may have a significant effect on the environment], the action shall be deemed to include other contemporaneous or subsequent actions which are included in any long-range comprehensive integrated plan of which the action under consideration is a part” (CEQR 6 [b]; see, 6 NYCRR 617.11 [a] [11] [b]). Furthermore, as noted above, the statutory scheme requires the consideration of both secondary and long-term effects.10 Thus, in considering the sec*368ondary and long-term effects of this project on population patterns and neighborhood character, respondents must look to more than the potential effects of this one parcel and must consider the potential impacts on the surrounding community.

We do not decide whether these impacts will in fact flow from the construction of Henry Street Tower nor do we express any opinion on the merits of the proposed project. Our holding is limited to a determination that existing patterns of population concentration, distribution or growth and existing community or neighborhood character are physical conditions such that the regulations adopted by the City of New York pursuant to SEQRA require an agency to consider the potential long-term secondary displacement of residents and businesses in determining whether a proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment. Since respondents did not consider these potential effects on the environment in their environmental analysis, their determination does not comply with the statutory mandate and therefore is arbitrary and capricious.

Ill

Having concluded that the environmental analysis of respondents was arbitrary and capricious, it is necessary, to consider the appropriate remedy for their violation of the statutory mandate imposed by SEQRA. Although this issue was neither briefed nor argued in this court, we conclude, contrary to the conclusion tendered by the dissenters, that this issue is squarely governed by our recent decision in Matter of Tri-County Taxpayers Assn. v Town Bd. (55 NY2d 41, modfg 79 AD2d 337).

In that case, the Town of Queensbury adopted three resolutions to establish a local sewer district as part of a larger sewer system, subject to the approval of voters at a special election. After the election, which resulted in a vote in favor of the proposition, a SEQRA challenge was commenced. The Appellate Division was unanimous in determining that there was a violation of SEQRA but was divided as to the appropriate remedy. The majority declined to annul the resolutions and the special election because "it would serve no useful purpose to undo what has already been accomplished” (79 AD2d 337, 339) and deemed it sufficient to direct the municipality to comply with SEQRA before proceeding with the project.

On appeal to this court, where the only issue raised was the *369appropriate remedy, we reversed and declared the resolutions and special election null and void (55 NY2d 41, 43). This was required, we held, in order to not "clearly frustrate the objectives of SEQRA” (id., at p 47) and to further its "objectives and enforcement of [its] provisions” (id., at p 43) in accordance with the legislative direction to administer SEQRA to " 'the fullest extent possible’ ” (id., at p 46). Moreover, we noted that a disposition which would eliminate consideration of the required environmental effects by the town board at the time the action is initially authorized would relegate SEQRA’s mandates for environmental protection to an afterthought in contravention of the express legislative purposes (id., at p 47; see, Ruzow, SEQRA in the Courts, 46 Alb L Rev 1177, 1181-1182).

The instant case presents no different issue. Respondents have failed to comply with the requirements of SEQRA and CEQR and the appropriate remedy is to grant petitioners’ motion for summary judgment declaring the special permit null and void. The suggestion in the dissenting opinion that the omission here can be cured by "an amended negative declaration” (dissenting opn, at p 371) finds no support in the carefully drafted procedures of the statute and would effectively allow the municipality to comply with SEQRA and CEQR only as an afterthought following a successful challenge to their prior action. Such a result is directly contrary to our holding in Matter of Tri-County Taxpayers Assn. v Town Bd. (supra) and moreover, would contravene the important purposes underlying SEQRA. Indeed, it would allow a project to be initially approved without the benefit of a valid environmental review.11 In order to further the strong policies served by SEQRA and to not frustrate its important objectives, we hold that the appropriate remedy here is the annulment of the special permit.

IV

Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division affirming *370Supreme Court’s grant of summary judgment to respondents is reversed and petitioners’ cross motion for summary judgment granted.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Hancock, Jr., J.

(concurring and dissenting in part). We concur with the majority to the extent that it holds that "under CEQR the potential displacement of local residents and businesses is an effect on population patterns and neighborhood character” (majority opn, at p 366) which should have been considered by the lead agency before it issued the conditional negative declaration. This holding, it must be emphasized, is not predicated on the requirements of SEQRA. It is based solely on "the rules, procedures, criteria and guidelines” adopted by the City of New York pursuant to ECL 8-0113 (3) in Executive Order No. 91, known as City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) and, specifically on the definition found in CEQR (but not in SEQRA or any of its implementing regulations) that: "Environmental analysis means the lead agencies’ evaluation of the short and long term, primary and secondary environmental effects of an action [in determining] whether an action under consideration may or will not have a significant effect on the environment” (CEQR 1 [g] [emphasis added]).

Because this project consists of one high-rise apartment — to be constructed on a vacant lot — which adds no more than 400 persons to an existing area population of approximately 40,000, it cannot be said that under SEQRA standards it has any discernible present effect on population patterns or community or neighborhood character (ECL 8-0105 [6]) which could constitute "a significant effect on the environment” (ECL 8-0109 [2]; 6 NYCRR 617.11). Nothing in Matter of Jackson v New York State Urban Dev. Corp. (67 NY2d 400) (which concerns a project which concededly has an immediate impact on "existing patterns of population concentration” and on "existing community or neighborhood character” [ECL 8-0105 (6) (emphasis added)]) suggests that under SEQRA the potential long-term or secondary effects on population and neighborhood character would, without more, require consideration before issuance of a negative declaration. Indeed, in Jackson we cautioned that (at p 417): "[A]n agency’s substantive obligations under SEQRA must be viewed in light of a rule of reason. 'Not every conceivable environmental impact, mitigating measure or alternative must be identified and addressed before a FEIS will satisfy the substantive require*371ments of SEQRA’ (Aldrich v Pattison, 107 AD2d 258, 266, supra; Coalition Against Lincoln W. v City of New York, 94 AD2d 483, 491, affd 60 NY2d 805, supra). The degree of detail with which each factor must be discussed obviously will vary with the circumstances and nature of the proposal (see, Webster Assoc. v Town of Webster, 59 NY2d 220, 228). Second, the Legislature in SEQRA has left the agencies with considerable latitude in evaluating environmental effects and choosing among alternatives (see, e.g., ECL 8-0109 [8]). Nothing in the law requires an agency to reach a particular result on any issue, or permits the courts to second-guess the agency’s choice, which can be annulled only if arbitrary, capricious or unsupported by substantial evidence (Aldrich v Pattison, 107 AD2d 258, 267, supra; see also, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v Natural Resources Defense Council, 435 US 519, 555).”

We note, moreover, that the majority opinion carefully avoids any implication that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) may be called for even under the more stringent requirements of CEQR. Thus, the court’s ruling does not preclude the possibility that the omission under CEQR can be readily cured by the lead agency’s preparation and submission of an amended negative declaration after it has given due consideration to the potential impact on population patterns and neighborhood character. We must, therefore, strongly disagree with so much of the majority decision as may have the effect of invalidating the special permit. Such a result is not mandated by our decision in Matter of Tri-County Taxpayers Assn. v Town Bd. (55 NY2d 41) where the court determined specifically that "an environmental impact statement [under SEQRA] should have been prepared and made available to the members of the town board and the public prior to the adoption of the resolutions” (id., at p 46). Here, under CEQR, we hold merely that certain potential effects should have been considered before the lead agency decided that an EIS was unnecessary. It is not at all certain that these effects will ultimately require anything other than a reiteration that they have no significant effect on the environment as defined in CEQR 1 (g). The invalidation of a project, even at great loss to the sponsors, is warranted when, as in Matter of Tri-County Taxpayers Assn. v Town Bd. (supra), it is clear that the public has been improperly deprived of the "detailed information about the effect which [the] proposed action is likely to have on the environment” (ECL 8-0109 [2]) which an EIS would *372have provided and that the project has proceeded in outright violation of SEQRA. It by no means follows, however, that a project should be nullified when, as here, it may well be concluded that a negative declaration rather than an EIS is the proper course.

Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye and Titone concur with Judge Alexander; Chief Judge Wachtler and Judge Hancock, Jr., concur in part and dissent in part and vote to grant the petition conditionally in a memorandum.

Order reversed, with costs, and petitioners’ cross motion for summary judgment granted.

*1193Opinion

BUCKLEY, Acting P. J.

INTRODUCTION

Appellant Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control (BCLC) has challenged development of two retail shopping centers in the southwestern portion of the City of Bakersfield (City), alleging violations of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The shopping centers are located 3.6 miles apart.1 When complete, they will have a combined total of 1.1 million square feet of retail space. Each shopping center will contain a Wal-Mart Supercenter (Supercenter) plus a mix of large anchor stores, smaller retailers, and a gas station. An environmental impact report (EIR) was prepared and certified for each project.

In these consolidated appeals we are called upon to assess the sufficiency of the EIR’s. In the published portion of this opinion, we first determine that BCLC has standing, that it exhausted its administrative remedies and that the appeals are not moot. We then explain that the EIR’s do not fulfill their informational obligations because they failed to consider the projects’ individual and cumulative potential to indirectly cause urban/suburban decay by precipitating a downward spiral of store closures and long-term vacancies in existing shopping centers. Furthermore, the cumulative impacts analyses are defective because they did not treat the other shopping center as a relevant project or consider the combined environmental impacts of the two shopping centers. Finally, we explain that failure to correlate the acknowledged adverse air quality impacts to resulting adverse effects on human respiratory health was erroneous. These defects are prejudicial and compel decertification of the EIR’s and rescission of project approvals and associated land use entitlements. In the unpublished portion of this decision, we resolve the rest of the CEQA challenges.

FACTUAL OVERVIEW

Real party in interest Panama 99 Properties LLC (P99) is developing a 370,000-square-foot retail shopping center named Panama 99 (Panama) on 35 acres of vacant land located at the northeast comer of Panama Lane and Highway 99. The project site was zoned for mobilehome use and its general plan designation was low-density residential/open space.

Real party in interest and appellant Castle and Cooke Commercial-CA, Inc. (C & C), is developing a 700,000-square-foot regional retail shopping center *1194named Gosford Village (Gosford) on 73 acres of vacant land located on the southwest comer of Pacheco Road and Gosford Road. The project site’s zoning and general plan land use designation was service industrial.

Panama is located 3.6 miles east of Gosford. The two shopping centers share some arterial roadway links.

Each shopping center will feature a 220,000-square-foot Supercenter as its primary anchor tenant. Supercenters “combin[e] the traditional Wal-Mart discount store with a full-size grocery store.” Supercenters compete with large discount stores, traditional department stores, supermarkets and other grocery stores, as well as drug stores and apparel stores. The Supercenter at Panama will replace an existing Wal-Mart store that currently is located 1.4 miles north of the Panama site. In addition to the Supercenter, Panama will contain a Lowe’s Home Improvement Warehouse (Lowe’s), a gas station and a satellite pad. Gosford will contain a total of 17 retail stores, plus fast food restaurants and a gas station. In addition to the Supercenter, there will be six other anchor tenants, including Kohl’s Department Stores (Kohl’s) (apparel and home-related items) and Sam’s Club (warehouse club selling groceries and a wide array of consumer products).

P99 and C & C (collectively, developers) applied in early 2002 for project approvals and associated zoning changes and general plan amendments. A separate EIR was prepared for each shopping center (hereafter the Panama EIR and the Gosford EIR). The Panama EIR concluded that Panama would have significant and unavoidable direct adverse impacts on air quality and noise. The Gosford EIR concluded that Gosford would have a significant and unavoidable adverse impact on air quality, both individually and cumulatively.

The Panama EIR identified the Supercenter and Lowe’s as the two anchor tenants. The Gosford EIR did not identify any tenants. In response to comments questioning the environmental effects resulting from locating two Supercenters in a 3.6-mile radius, the Gosford EIR states that no tenants have been identified. However, it is clear from the administrative record that prior to certification of the Gosford EIR, the public and the City knew that one of Gosford’s tenants was going to be a Supercenter.

The planning commission and the City Council considered the two projects at the same meetings. On February 12, 2003, the City Council certified the EIR’s and adopted statements of overriding considerations on the nonpublic consent calendar. Then, after public hearing, it approved both projects and granted associated zoning changes and general plan amendments.

*1195In March 2003, BCLC filed two CEQA actions challenging the sufficiency of the EIR’s and contesting the project approvals and related land use entitlements (the Panama action and the Gosford action).

Soon thereafter, construction-related activities commenced on the project sites. In July 2003, the trial court denied BCLC’s request for a temporary restraining order enjoining construction-related activities at the Gosford site.

Trial was held on the Panama action in November 2003 and on the Gosford action in January 2004. In both actions, the court concluded that CEQA required study of the question whether the two shopping centers, individually or cumulatively, could indirectly trigger a series of events that ultimately result in urban decay or deterioration.

BCLC unsuccessfully sought a temporary restraining order enjoining construction-related activities at the Panama site after the court orally announced its decision in the Panama action.

Argument was held concerning the proper remedy. The trial court concluded that the failure to study urban decay rendered the EIR’s inadequate as informational documents and it ordered them decertified. It left the project approvals and associated land use entitlements intact and it severed the Supercenters from the remainder of the projects. It enjoined further construction of the partially built Supercenter buildings but allowed all other construction activities to continue pending full CEQA compliance. In its written judgments, the court found the EIR’s deficient because they did not consider the direct and cumulative potential of “the Panama 99 project and the related Gosford Park project” to indirectly cause urban decay. However, the additional environmental review it ordered focused exclusively on the Super-centers, ordering study of the following two points: (1) cumulative impacts “on general merchandise businesses” arising from operating both Super-centers; (2) urban decay that could result from closure of the existing Wal-Mart on White Lane.

BCLC partially appealed both judgments; C & C partially cross-appealed the judgment in the Gosford action. The appeals were consolidated on our own motion.

Previously, we have denied petitions for writ of supersedeas that BCLC filed in March and June of 2004. Therein, BCLC sought an injunction prohibiting construction-related activities on the project sites pending resolution of the appeals.2

*1196During the pendency of these actions, the Lowe’s store was constructed and it is operating at Panama. The Kohl’s store was constructed and it is operating at Gosford. Sam’s Business Trust acquired a 12-acre parcel at Gosford and we were notified in June 2004 that this entity would seek issuance of a building permit to construct the Sam’s Club. A group known as Gosford at Pacheco LLC has purchased 25 acres of the Gosford site. Both Supercenters are partially constructed.

DISCUSSION

At the outset, it is necessary to explicitly reject certain philosophical and sociological beliefs that some of the parties have vigorously expressed. For the record, we do not endorse BCLC’s elitist premise that so-called big box retailers are undesirable in a community and are inherently inferior to smaller merchants, nor do we affirm its view that Wal-Mart, Inc. (Wal-Mart) is a destructive force that threatens the viability of local communities. Wal-Mart is not a named party in these actions and we rebuff BCLC’s transparent attempt to demonize this corporation. We do not know whether Wal-Mart’s entry into a geographic region or expansion of operations within a region is desirable for local communities. Similarly, we do not know whether Wal-Mart is a “good” or a “bad” employer. We offer no comment on Wal-Mart’s alleged miserly compensation and benefit package because BCLC did not link the asserted low wages and absence of affordable health insurance coverage to direct or indirect adverse environmental consequences.

Likewise, we will not dignify with extended comment C & C’s complaint that BCLC is just a “front” for a grocery worker’s union whose disgruntled members feel threatened by nonunionized Wal-Mart’s entry into the grocery business. As will be explained, BCLC has standing to pursue this litigation and it exhausted its administrative remedies. This is sufficient. We do not know whether Wal-Mart adversely affects the strength of organized labor and we have not considered this question.

In sum, we have no underlying ideological agenda and have strictly adhered to the accepted principle that the judicial system has a narrow role in land use battles that are fought through CEQA actions. “The only role for this court in reviewing an EIR is to ensure that the public and responsible officials are adequately informed ‘ “of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made.” ’ ” (Berkeley Keep Jets Over The Bay Com. v. Board of Port Cmrs. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1356 [111 Cal.Rptr.2d 598] (Berkeley).)

*1197I. Standard of Review

CEQA is codified at Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq. CEQA is augmented by the state CEQA Guidelines, codified at title 14 of the California Code of Regulations section 15000 et seq.3 The Guidelines must be interpreted “in such a way as to ‘afford the fullest possible protection of the environment.’ ” (Friends of the Eel River v. Sonoma County Water Agency (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 859, 868 [134 Cal.Rptr.2d 322] (Eel River).) No party has challenged the legality of any of the applicable Guidelines and none of them appear to be “ ‘clearly unauthorized or erroneous under CEQA.’ ” (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1123, fn. 4 [26 Cal.Rptr.2d 231, 864 P.2d 502] (Laurel Heights II).) Therefore, we will afford them “ ‘great weight.’ ” (Ibid.)

The applicable standard of review is well established. If the substantive and procedural requirements of CEQA are satisfied, a project may be approved even if it would create significant and unmitigable impacts on the environment. (Fairview Neighbors v. County of Ventura (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 238, 242 [82 Cal.Rptr.2d 436].) “In reviewing an agency’s determination under CEQA, a court must determine whether the agency prejudicially abused its discretion. (§ 21168.5.) Abuse of discretion is established if the agency has not proceeded in a manner required by law or if the determination is not supported by substantial evidence.” (Dry Creek Citizens Coalition v. County of Tulare (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 20, 25-26 [82 Cal.Rptr.2d 398] (Dry Creek).) Courts are “not to determine whether the EDR’s ultimate conclusions are correct but only whether they are supported by substantial evidence in the record and whether the EIR is sufficient as an information document.” (Association of Irritated Residents v. County of Madera (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1383, 1391 [133 Cal.Rptr.2d 718] (Irritated Residents).) “ ‘The appellate court reviews the administrative record independently; the trial court’s conclusions are not binding on it.’ ” (Id. at p. 1390.)

“ ‘The EIR must contain facts and analysis, not just the bare conclusions of the agency.’ [Citation.] ‘An EIR must include detail sufficient to enable those who did not participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues raised by the proposed project.’ ” (Irritated Residents, supra, 107 Cal.App.4th at p. 1390.) “CEQA requires an EIR to reflect a good faith effort at full disclosure; it does not mandate perfection, nor does it require an analysis to be exhaustive.” (Dry Creek, supra, 70 Cal.App.4th at p. 26.) Therefore, “[n]oncompliance with CEQA’s information disclosure requirements is not per se reversible; prejudice must be shown.” *1198 (Irritated Residents, supra, 107 Cal.App.4th at p. 1391; § 21005, subd. (b).) Failure to comply with the information disclosure requirements constitutes a prejudicial abuse of discretion when the omission of relevant information has precluded informed decisionmaking and informed public participation, regardless whether a different outcome would have resulted if the public agency had complied with the disclosure requirements. (Dry Creek, supra, 70 Cal.App.4th at p. 26; Irritated Residents, supra, 107 Cal.App.4th at p. 1391.)

The substantial evidence standard is applied to conclusions, findings and determinations. It also applies to challenges to the scope of an EIR’s analysis of a topic, the methodology used for studying an impact and the reliability or accuracy of the data upon which the EIR relied because these types of challenges involve factual questions. (Federation of Hillside & Canyon Associations v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1252, 1259 [100 Cal.Rptr.2d 301] (Hillside).) “Substantial evidence is defined as ‘enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached.’ ” (Irritated Residents, supra, 107 Cal.App.4th at p. 1391; Guidelines, § 15384, subd. (a).) Substantial evidence is not “[argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence which is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence of social or economic impacts which do not contribute to, or are not caused by, physical impacts on the environment, is not substantial evidence. Substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts.” (§ 21082.2, subd. (c); Guidelines, § 15384.)

II. Procedural Issues

A. Standing

C & C asserts that BCLC lacks standing because it is an economic competitor and not a bona fide environmental group. We reject this accusation as unproved speculation. The record supports the trial court’s determination that BCLC has standing to pursue this litigation. “CEQA litigants often may be characterized as having competing economic interests.” (Burrtec Waste Industries, Inc. v. City of Colton (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1133, 1138 [119 Cal.Rptr.2d 410].) One of BCLC’s members is a homeowner residing near Gosford and he spoke in opposition to the projects at a public hearing prior to their approval. This is sufficient to satisfy CEQA’s liberal standing requirement. (Id. at pp. 1138-1139; Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Com. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263, 272 [118 Cal.Rptr. 249, 529 P.2d 1017] (Bozung).) In any event, unions have standing to litigate environmental claims. (See, e.g., International Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s Union v. Board of Supervisors (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 265 [171 Cal.Rptr. 875].) Since C & C *1199did not support with legal argument or authority its perfunctory assertion that the trial court erred by quashing a deposition meant to elicit facts about BCLC’s standing, we deem this point to be without foundation and reject it on this basis. (In re Steiner (1955) 134 Cal.App.2d 391, 399 [285 P.2d 972].)

B. Exhaustion

Next, we reject C & C’s complaint about the timing of BCLC’s objections to the shopping centers. C & C decries BCLC’s failure to submit written comments on the draft EIR’s and points out that BCLC’s attorney presented his client’s oral and documentary objections to the projects at the public hearing concerning project approvals that was held by the City Council on February 12, 2003. C & C does not specifically contend with proper legal argument and citation to applicable authority that BCLC failed to exhaust its administrative remedies but this appears to be the implication of its argument. Although we could dismiss as undeveloped whatever legal point C & C might have intended, we have elected to substantively resolve the exhaustion question because the issue is likely to reoccur.

Exhaustion of administrative remedies is a jurisdictional prerequisite to maintenance of a CEQA action. Only a proper party may petition for a writ of mandate to challenge the sufficiency of an EIR or the validity of an act or omission under CEQA. The petitioner is required to have “objected to the approval of the project orally or in writing during the public comment period provided by this division or prior to the close of the public hearing on the project before the issuance of the notice of determination.” (§ 21177, subd. (b).) The petitioner may allege as a ground of noncompliance any objection that was presented by any person or entity during the administrative proceedings. (Resource Defense Fund v. Local Agency Formation Com. (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 886, 894 [236 Cal.Rptr. 794].) Failure to participate in the public comment period for a draft EIR does not cause the petitioner to waive any claims relating to the sufficiency of the environmental documentation. (Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1120-1121 [71 Cal.Rptr.2d 1] (Galante).) However, the lead agency is not required to incorporate in the final EIR specific written responses to comments received after close of the public review period. (City of Poway v. City of San Diego (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 1037, 1043-1044 [202 Cal.Rptr. 366].)

When discussing exhaustion some opinions have identified certification of the EIR rather than approval of the project as the crucial cutoff point. (See, e.g., Galante, supra, 60 Cal.App.4th at p. 1121.) However, section 21177 specifically refers to close of the public hearing on project approval prior to issuance of the notice of determination, not certification of the EIR. *1200(§ 21177, subds. (a) & (b).) The correct formulation is expressed in Hillside, supra, 83 Cal.App.4th at page 1263: “[A] party can litigate issues that were timely raised by others, but only if that party objected to the project approval on any ground during the public comment period or prior to the close of the public hearing on the project.”

We believe that the apparent inaccuracy in some case law results from the fact that environmental review is not supposed to be segregated from project approval. “[Pjublic participation is an ‘essential part of the CEQA process.’ ” (Laurel Heights II, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 1123.) Although public hearings are encouraged, they are not explicitly required by CEQA at any stage of the environmental review process. (Guidelines, § 15087, subd. (i).) “Public comments may be restricted to written communications.” (Guidelines, § 15202, subd. (a).) Yet, “[pjublic hearings on draft EIRs are sometimes required by agency statute, regulation, rule, ordinance, or the agency’s written procedures for implementation of CEQA.” (1 Kostka & Zischke, Practice Under the Cal. Environmental Quality Act (Cont.Ed.Bar 2004) § 9.26, p. 408 (CEQA Practice).) “If an agency provides a public hearing on its decision to carry out or approve a project, the agency should include environmental review as one of the subjects for the hearing.” (Guidelines, § 15202, subd. (b).) Since project approval and certification of the EIR generally occur during the same hearing, the two events are sometimes treated as interchangeable. (See, e.g., Hillside, supra, 83 Cal.App.4th at p. 1257 [final EIR certified at same hearing during which project was approved]; Irritated Residents, supra, 107 Cal.App.4th at p. 1389 [same].)

C & C disparagingly refers to BCLC’s oral presentation and its submission of evidence at the February 12, 2003 City Council hearing as a last minute “document dump” and an intentional delaying tactic, pointing out that EIR’s had been certified prior to opening of the public hearing. We reject this complaint because C & C omitted the key fact that the City had improperly segregated environmental review from project approval in contravention of Guidelines section 15202, subdivision (b). The planning commission bifurcated the process by agendizing certification of the EIR’s as nonpublic hearing items and separately agendizing project approval and related land use entitlements as public hearing items. Similarly, the City Council agendized certification of the EIR’s on the closed consent calendar and agendized the “concurrent general plan amendment/zone change[s]” necessary to implement the projects on the public hearing calendar. Since certification of the EIR’s had been placed on the nonpublic consent calendar that was handled prior to the opening of the public hearing, counsel for BCLC necessarily voiced all of BCLC’s objections, including defects in CEQA compliance, during the hearing on project approvals. He specifically objected to the bifurcated process and asked for certification of the EIR’s to be removed from the *1201consent calendar and heard concurrently with the hearing on the project approvals and land use entitlements. The City Attorney recommended against this, incorrectly stating that this “would open up the entire EIR process, open up the new comment period, and delay the entire project because it would not be able to certify the EIR tonight.”

City appears to have thought that the public’s role in the environmental review process ends when the public comment period expires. Apparently, it did not realize that if a public hearing is conducted on project approval, then new environmental objections could be made until close of this hearing. (§ 21177, subd. (b); Guidelines, § 15202, subd. (b); Hillside, supra, 83 Cal.App.4th at p. 1263.) If the decisionmaking body elects to certify the EIR without considering comments made at this public hearing, it does so at its own risk. If a CEQA action is subsequently brought, the EIR may be found to be deficient on grounds that were raised at any point prior to close of the hearing on project approval.

C & C seems to assume that it was somehow entitled to final project approval in February 2003. On the contrary, the City Council was not obligated to certify the EIR’s that evening. “[E]xpediency should play no part in an agency’s efforts to comply with CEQA.” (San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City and County of San Francisco (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 61, 74 [198 Cal.Rptr. 634] (Reasonable Growth).) As was cogently noted by the trial court, “the public agency decides when they are going to certify the EIR . . . . [f] . . . [][] . . . They didn’t have to do it that night.” C & C’s complaint that allowing project opponents to raise objections after close of the public comment period for the draft EIR allows them to “sandbag” project proponents and delay certification “ad infinitum” should be presented to the Legislature, for it is a complaint about the design of the CEQA process.

We reject C & C’s related contention that BCLC failed to participate in the public review process prior to certification of the EIR’s because it is factually incorrect. BCLC actively participated in the administrative review process prior to certification of the EIR’s. The City Planning Commission accepted public comment concerning the adequacy of the draft EIR’s at a hearing on October 3, 2002. Sheila Stubblefield, who is described in the minutes of this meeting as BCLC’s president and founder, spoke in opposition to both projects at that meeting. After the City Planning Commission voted in December 2002 to recommend certification of the EIR’s and approval of the projects, BCLC notified the City in writing that it was appealing the planning commission’s decision. The issues specifically raised by BCLC in this letter include urban decay and cumulative impacts. If an EIR is certified by an unelected planning commission, then the lead agency must *1202allow the public an opportunity to appeal the certification to an elected body. (§21151, subd. (c); Guidelines, § 15090, subd. (b); Vedanta Society of So. California v. California Quartet, Ltd. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 517, 525-526 [100 Cal.Rptr.2d 889].) BCLC sent a second letter to City before the February 2003 City Council meeting. It outlined several inadequacies in the EIR’s and raised other objections to approvals of the project. Then, BCLC’s legal counsel appeared at the City Council meeting and proffered oral and documentary support for BCLC’s previously expressed position that the EIR’s were legally inadequate. Since the certification of the EIR’s had been placed on the nonpublic consent calendar, he necessarily spoke during the hearing on project approvals.

Finally, we dismiss C & C’s assertion that BCLC only challenged the Supercenter aspect of the shopping centers. The evidence contradicts this position and demonstrates that BCLC’s objections concerning urban decay and cumulative impacts related to the shopping centers as a whole. For example, BCLC’s December 2002 letter appealing the decision of the planning commission specifically referenced the addition of over one million square feet of retail space. Nowhere within this letter did BCLC mention Wal-Mart or the Supercenters. BCLC’s February 2003 letter also references urban decay as a consequence of the shopping centers and it cites relevant authorities. The trial court’s oral decisions and written judgments found the EIR’s deficient because they failed to consider whether the shopping centers could indirectly cause urban decay. It was only the remedy that inexplicably was limited to the Supercenters.

In essence, C & C has imputed bad faith on BCLC’s part without offering any evidence to justify the accusation. BCLC actively and properly participated in the administrative review process. It did not contravene CEQA by challenging the adequacy of the EIR’s at the February 2003 City Council meeting and submitting evidence supporting their position. There is no indication in the record that if the City had seriously considered the objections asserted by BCLC and others and if it had revised the EIR’s in response to these objections, BCLC subsequently would have asserted new inadequacies solely to delay the projects. It is the City’s bifurcated process, which resulted in segregation of environmental review from project approval, that supports an imputation of bad faith, an inference BCLC civilly does not press.

C. Mootness

Developers achieved an important practical victory when they convinced the trial court to leave the project approvals in place, sever the Supercenters from the remainder of the projects and allow construction of the rest of the *1203shopping centers to proceed prior to full CEQA compliance. As a result, retail businesses currently are operating at both project sites and nonparties have acquired portions of the project sites. This has generated substantial economic and psychological pressures in favor of the shopping centers as presently approved and partially constructed. BCLC cannot provide any precedent for closure of an operating retail establishment because the retailer’s landlord failed to adequately comply with CEQA and it has not asked us to order these businesses to cease operations pending full CEQA compliance. Given this state of affairs, questions necessarily arise concerning redressability and consequent mootness. Has the danger of irreversible momentum in favor of the shopping centers, about which we warned in San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713 at page 742 [32 Cal.Rptr.2d 704] (Raptor), been realized?

Undoubtedly some would view further environmental study of the partially completed projects as a futile waste of time and money. Since CEQA’s purpose is not to generate meaningless paperwork (Bozung, supra, 13 Cal.3d at p. 283), we were tempted to find the alleged defects in CEQA compliance essentially nonredressable and therefore moot. Yet, after reviewing briefing on this question, we decided not to adopt this rather cynical position. For the following reasons, we have concluded that the CEQA issues remain viable and therefore, we decline to dismiss the appeals as moot.

First, developers expressly recognized that they were proceeding at their own risk when they relied on the contested project approvals during the pendency of this litigation. When an injunction is not granted after commencement of a CEQA action, the agency is to assume that the contested EIR or negative declaration satisfies CEQA’s requirements. However, “[a]n approval granted by a responsible agency in this situation provides only permission to proceed with the project at the applicant’s risk prior to a final decision in the lawsuit.” (Guidelines, § 15233, subd. (b).) Although BCLC’s failure to diligently and expeditiously seek injunctive relief necessitated our denial of its belated pleas for issuance of extraordinary relief pending issuance of this opinion, it did not provide developers with a “pass” on full CEQA compliance or grant them any vested interest in improvements that were completed at their own risk. The sale or lease of land to third parties was beyond BCLC’s control. Such third party transactions do not immunize defective land use approvals. As a matter of public policy and basic equity, developers should not be permitted to effectively defeat a CEQA suit merely by building out a portion of a disputed project during litigation or transferring interests in the underlying real property. Failure to obtain an injunction should not operate as a de facto waiver of the right to pursue a CEQA action.

Second, questions concerning urban decay and cumulative impacts constitute important issues of broad public interest that are likely to reoccur. *1204 (Lundquist v. Reusser (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1193, 1202, fn. 8 [31 Cal.Rptr.2d 776, 875 P.2d 1279]; Cucamongans United for Reasonable Expansion v. City of Rancho Cucamonga (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 473, 479 [98 Cal.Rptr.2d 202].)

Finally, even at this late juncture full CEQA compliance would not be a meaningless exercise of form over substance. The City possesses discretion to reject either or both of the shopping centers after further environmental study and weighing of the projects’ benefits versus their environmental, economic and social costs. As conditions of reapproval, the City may compel additional mitigation measures or require the projects to be modified, reconfigured or reduced. The City can require completed portions of the projects to be modified or removed and it can compel restoration of the project sites to their original condition. (Association for a Cleaner Environment v. Yosemite Community College Dist. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 629, 641 [10 Cal.Rptr.3d 560]; Woodward Park Homeowners Assn. v. Garreks, Inc. (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 880, 888-890 [92 Cal.Rptr.2d 268].) We presume that the City will fully and sincerely assess the new information contained in the revised EIR’s and that it will fairly and independently decide whether reapproval of the projects is in the best interests of the City’s residents, giving no weight to the fact that the shopping centers are partially constructed.

m. Urban Decay

Water contamination and air pollution, now recognized as very real environmental problems, initially were scoffed at as the alarmist ravings of environmental doomsayers. Similarly, experts are now warning about land use decisions that cause a chain reaction of store closures and long-term vacancies, ultimately destroying existing neighborhoods and leaving decaying shells in their wake. In this case, the trial court recognized that the shopping centers posed a risk of triggering urban decay or deterioration4 and it concluded that CEQA required analysis of this potential impact. C & C has challenged this determination. We find C & C’s arguments unpersuasive and agree that CEQA requires analysis of the shopping centers’ individual and cumulative potential to indirectly cause urban decay.

Guidelines section 15126.2 requires an EIR to identify and focus on the significant environmental impacts of the proposed project. In relevant part, this section provides: “Direct and indirect significant effects of the project on the environment shall be clearly identified and described, giving due consideration to both the short-term and long-term effects.” (Guidelines, § 15126.2, subd. (a).) Guidelines section 15064, subdivision (d) *1205mandates that both primary (direct) and “reasonably foreseeable” secondary (indirect) consequences be considered in determining the significance of a project’s environmental effect.

“CEQA is not a fair competition statutory scheme.” (Waste Management of Alameda County, Inc. v. County of Alameda (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1223, 1235 [94 Cal.Rptr.2d 740].) Therefore, the economic and social effects of proposed projects are outside CEQA’s purview. (Guidelines, § 15131, subd. (a).) Yet, if the forecasted economic or social effects of a proposed project directly or indirectly will lead to adverse physical changes in the environment, then CEQA requires disclosure and analysis of these resulting physical impacts. (Friends of Davis v. City of Davis (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1019 [100 Cal.Rptr.2d 413] (Friends of Davis); Citizens for Quality Growth v. City of Mt. Shasta (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 433, 445-446 [243 Cal.Rptr. 727] (Mt. Shasta).) Subdivision (e) of Guidelines section 15064 provides that when the economic or social effects of a project cause a physical change, this change is to be regarded as a significant effect in the same manner as any other physical change resulting from the project. (See, e.g., El Dorado Union High School Dist. v. City of Placerville (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 123, 131 [192 Cal.Rptr. 480] [potential of increased student enrollment in an already overcrowded school resulting from construction of the proposed apartment complex was an environmental effect that required treatment in an EIR because it could lead to the necessity of constructing at least one new high school].) Conversely, where economic and social effects result from a physical change that was itself caused by a proposed project, then these economic and social effects may be used to determine that the physical change constitutes a significant effect on the environment. (See, e.g., Christward Ministry v. Superior Court (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 180, 197 [228 Cal.Rptr. 868] [when a waste management facility was proposed next to a religious retreat center, CEQA required study whether the physical impacts associated with the new facility would disturb worship in the natural environment of the retreat center].) Guidelines section 15131, subdivision (a) provides, “An EIR may trace a chain of cause and effect from a proposed decision on a project through anticipated economic or social changes resulting from the project to physical changes in turn caused by the economic or social changes. The intermediate economic or social changes need not be analyzed in any detail greater than necessary to trace the chain of cause and effect. The focus of the analysis shall be on the physical changes.”

Case law already has established that in appropriate circumstances CEQA requires urban decay or deterioration to be considered as an indirect environmental effect of a proposed project. The relevant line of authority begins with Citizens Assn. for Sensible Development of Bishop Area v. County of Inyo (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 151 [217 Cal.Rptr. 893] (Bishop). There, the appellate court held that adoption of multiple negative declarations for *1206different aspects of the same large regional shopping center violated CEQA. (Id. at p. 167.) The court also agreed with appellant that on remand “the lead agency must consider whether the proposed shopping center will take business away from the downtown shopping area and thereby cause business closures and eventual physical deterioration of downtown Bishop.” (Id. at p. 169.) Citing Guidelines section 15064, the court found that the lead agency had an affirmative duty to consider whether the new shopping center would start an economic chain reaction that would lead to physical deterioration of the downtown area. (172 Cal.App.3d at p. 170.) Therefore, “[o]n remand the lead agency should consider physical deterioration of the downtown area to the extent that potential is demonstrated to be an indirect environmental effect of the proposed shopping center.” (Id. at p. 171.)

Next, Mt. Shasta, supra, 198 Cal.App.3d 433, invalidated an EIR for a proposed shopping center for numerous reasons. In relevant part, the court determined that the EIR was defective because it failed to “consider the potential physical effect of the rezoning on the central business area. The EIR pointed out the proposed project may pose a significant economic problem for existing businesses, but offered little analysis of the issue . . . .” (Id. at p. 445.) The court rejected respondent’s justification that “no analysis of economic effects was required in the EIR.” (Id. at p. 446.) Citing Bishop, supra, 172 Cal.App.3d 151 and Guidelines section 15064, it explained that “[t]he potential economic problems caused by the proposed project could conceivably result in business closures and physical deterioration of the downtown area. Therefore, on remand, City should consider these problems to the extent that potential is demonstrated to be an indirect environmental effect of the proposed project.” (Mt. Shasta, supra, 198 Cal.App.3d at p. 446.)

City of Pasadena v. State of California (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 810 [17 Cal.Rptr.2d 766] addressed this issue as part of its determination whether a project to relocate a parole office was exempt from CEQA. In assessing whether the significant effect exception applied, the court discussed Bishop, supra, 172 Cal.App.3d 151. It agreed that social and economic effects must be considered if they will cause physical changes but found Bishop distinguishable because appellant in this case had not made a “showing or argument that [relocation of the parole office] would cause the physical deterioration of the area.” (City of Pasadena, supra, 14 Cal.App.4th at p. 828.)

Friends of Davis, supra, 83 Cal.App.4th 1004 (distinguished, post) rejected the position that identification of a Borders bookstore as a prospective tenant in a retail development compelled supplemental environmental review. There, the City of Davis (Davis) certified an EIR for a specific plan that reflected designation of the subject property for retail use. The applicant subsequently *1207acquired an option to purchase the property and applied for design review of a proposed retail development that conformed to the specific plan and current zoning designation. During the design review process, it was revealed that one of the tenants would be a Borders bookstore. Davis planning staff took the position that the design review process did not differentiate between one type of retail tenant and another. Over objection from citizens who sought to use the design review ordinance to exclude Borders from locating in Davis, the planning commission’s decision to approve the design review application was upheld. The appellate court agreed with Davis, carefully explaining that it was “not reviewing the record to determine whether it demonstrates a possibility of environmental impact, but are viewing it in a light most favorable to the City’s decision in order to determine whether substantial evidence supports the decision not to require additional review.” (Id. at p. 1021.) Prior environmental review already encompassed retail use of the property. A subsequent EIR was not required merely because it “appears likely” that Borders would compete with existing bookstores. (?Ibid.) Appellant had not presented any evidence supporting its assumptions “that existing downtown bookstores will not be able to compete with Borders and will close[,] . . . that the bookstores will not be replaced by new or different businesses . . . [and] that the bookstore closures will cause other downtown businesses to close, thus leading to a general deterioration of the downtown area.” (Ibid.)

Most recently, it was held that the project description for a proposed warehouse distribution center did not have to specifically identify the end user because this information did not implicate new or different environmental effects other than those that had been addressed in the EIR. (Maintain Our Desert Environment v. Town of Apple Valley (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 396 [15 Cal.Rptr.3d 322] (Apple Valley).)

It is apparent from the case law discussed above that proposed new shopping centers do not trigger a conclusive presumption of urban decay. However, when there is evidence suggesting that the economic and social effects caused by the proposed shopping center ultimately could result in urban decay or deterioration, then the lead agency is obligated to assess this indirect impact. Many factors are relevant, including the size of the project, the type of retailers and their market areas and the proximity of other retail shopping opportunities. The lead agency cannot divest itself of its analytical and informational obligations by summarily dismissing the possibility of urban decay or deterioration as a “social or economic effect” of the project.

C & C contends that study is not required because the record does not contain substantial evidence proving that the shopping centers will cause urban decay. This argument founders because it is premised on the wrong *1208standard of review. Substantial evidence is the standard applied to conclusions reached in an EIR and findings that are based on such conclusions. (Irritated Residents, supra, 107 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1390-1391.) BCLC is not challenging a conclusion in the EIR’s that the shopping centers would not indirectly cause urban decay or a finding adopted by the City. It is not arguing that the City used the wrong methodology in assessing whether urban decay will be an indirect effect of the project or challenging the validity of an expert’s opinion on this topic. Rather, BCLC’s argument is that the EIR’s failed to comply with the information disclosure provisions of CEQA because they omitted any meaningful consideration of the question whether the shopping centers could, individually or cumulatively, trigger a series of events that ultimately cause urban decay. Neither EIR even contains a statement indicating reasons why it had been determined that urban decay was not a significant effect of the proposed projects. (§ 21100, subd. (c).) BCLC is challenging the City’s view that such an analysis was purely economic and therefore was outside the scope of CEQA. The substantial evidence standard of review is not applied to this type of CEQA challenge. The relevant question is whether the lead agency failed to proceed as required by law. (1 Kostka & Zischke, CEQA Practice, supra, § 12.5, pp. 464-466.1.) “[Although the agency’s factual determinations are subject to deferential review, questions of interpretation or application of the requirements of CEQA are matters of law. [Citations.] While we may not substitute our judgment for that of the decision makers, we must ensure strict compliance with the procedures and mandates of the statute.” (Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 118 [104 Cal.Rptr.2d 326] (Peninsula).) If C & C is contending that claims concerning omission of information from an EIR essentially should be treated as inquiries whether there is substantial evidence supporting the decision approving the projects, we reiterate our rejection of this position for the reasons previously expressed in Irritated Residents, supra, 107 Cal.App.4th at page 1392.

In any event, C & C’s position has no substantive merit. There is a great deal of evidence in the record supporting the validity of concerns that the shopping centers could cause a ripple of store closures and consequent long-term vacancies that would eventually result in general deterioration and decay within and outside the market area of the two shopping centers. Although much of BCLC’s evidence specifically applied to the Supercenters, the administrative records as a whole contain sufficient indication that addition of 1.1 million square feet of retail space in the shopping centers’ overlapping market areas could start the chain reaction that ultimately results in urban decay to necessitate study of the issue with respect to the entirety of the shopping centers.

*1209First, BCLC retained a professor of economics at San Francisco State University, C. Daniel Vencill, to study the cumulative economic effects that will be caused by the two new Supercenters (the Vencill report). Together with two colleagues, Vencill reviewed literature and analyzed the five-mile area surrounding the project sites. Photographs were taken of the sites and “existing blight conditions which have remained unabated for some years in the area surrounding the proposed new sites” were documented. The Vencill report determined that the two shopping centers are in the same shopper catchment area and they will be competing with each other as well as with existing retail establishments. It states that “[tjhere are [four] existing shopping centers and malls that will be adversely affected by [Gosford and Panama]. One regional mall is suspected of being in serious decline.” The two Supercenters represent significant excess capacity as configured and located. “This will result in oversaturation and fall-out of weaker competitors in the at-risk commercial blight zone the developments will create.” The Vencill report identified 29 businesses, primarily but not exclusively grocery stores, that are at direct risk of closure. Two Albertsons are “facing extinction” and a small nursery that is located across the street from Gosford “would certainly become defunct.” Additionally, no “alternative plans” were observed for the Wal-Mart building on White Lane that will be vacant when this Wal-Mart store is replaced by the Supercenter at Panama. The Vencill report finds: “It is reasonably probable [that] competition provided by the two proposed [Supercenters] (i.e., the diversion of existing sales from local merchants), individually and especially cumulatively, will have economic impacts on existing businesses triggering a chain of events that may lead to adverse effects on the physical environment in the southern part of Bakersfield. One of the ways this may occur is that smaller retailers in the area, particularly those located within five miles of the sites, and even more specifically those retailers already struggling or on the verge of having to terminate operations, will be unable to compete and will have to go out of business. In turn, this may cause permanent or long-term vacancies of retail space in the area. The result is typically neglect of maintenance and repair of retail facilities, the deterioration of buildings, improvements, and facilities. This may then culminate in physical effects associated with blight-like conditions, which include visual and aesthetic impacts accompanying the physical deterioration.”

BCLC also submitted numerous studies and articles analyzing the adverse effects other communities in California (San Diego, Orange County and Calexico,) and elsewhere (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; Bath, Maine; Eastern Pennsylvania; Chicago, Illinois; Syracuse, New York) have experienced as a *1210result of saturation of a market area with super-sized retailers.5 As relevant here, the authors found numerous adverse effects resulting from saturation of a market area with Supercenters and similar retail facilities, such as SuperTargets and SuperKmarts. These effects include, but are not limited to, physical decay and deterioration resulting from store closures in the same market area or in established areas of the community (i.e., the “traditional downtown area”) due to competitive pressures, followed by an inability to easily re-lease the vacated premises. The authors also found that it had been difficult to find tenants for buildings that formerly housed Wal-Mart stores that were replaced by the new Supercenters. Many of the empty buildings physically deteriorated.

This evidence cannot be cavalierly dismissed as “hit pieces” designed to disparage a specific corporation. Studies discussing the experiences of other communities constitute important anecdotal evidence about the way the proposed shopping centers could serve as a catalyst for urban deterioration and decay in the City. The Vencill report is extremely significant and it strongly supports BCLC’s position that CEQA requires analysis of urban decay.6

Moreover, numerous individuals commented about urban decay during the administrative process. For example, at the planning commission’s public hearing on the adequacy of the draft EIR’s, Cindy Fabricius stated, “[T]here are 45 empty Wal-Marts in the state of Texas. There are 34 empty standing Wal-Marts in the state of Georgia. There are 27 in Utah. Find them. Go look at them. They are empty. When Wal-Mart moves on they leave their boxes. Those boxes are not bought up by other [businesses]; who can afford that huge of a store; that huge of a rent?” Herman Lee commented that there are parts of East Bakersfield that need revitalization. Yet, the proposed shopping centers are out in the southwest part of town. He queried, “What about the people on the east side of town?” Some comments made at the February 2003 City Council meeting are also relevant. A representative of Save Mart *1211Supermarkets spoke in opposition to the project and submitted the data concerning Oklahoma City. He stated that the addition of the two shopping centers will adversely affect existing shopping centers and asserted that the “[t]he potential for urban blight and decay is a matter which must be considered” in the EIR’s. Another commercial property owner wrote that he had been unable to re-lease a building that formerly housed a grocery store and he ended up demolishing the building. When a grocery store closes, the remainder of the stores in the shopping center are likely to close. The center “could end up with many boarded up storefronts.” Another citizen wrote a letter that included six examples of buildings in the City that formerly housed large retail stores and now are “vacant, rundown box buildings and shopping centers.” He was concerned that the proposed projects would result in more “empty warehouse type, rundown buildings” littering the City. While these individuals are not experts in any sense of the word, their firsthand observations should not casually be dismissed as immaterial because “relevant personal observations are evidence.” (Bishop, supra, 172 Cal.App.3d at p. 173; see also Ocean View Estates Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Montecito Water Dist. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 396, 402 [10 Cal.Rptr.3d 451].)

The responses in the EIR’s to these and other comments do not meaningfully address the issue of urban decay. The Gosford EIR states that vacant buildings “are part of the evolutional change of the retail environment.” It then asserts that further analysis is outside the scope of CEQA because economic and social effects are not considered environmental effects under CEQA. The response in the Panama EIR is similarly incomplete. Ignoring the question of urban decay or deterioration, it simply replies that “blight” is a legal term that does not apply. It also asserts that vacancy rates and business closures are purely economic impacts and therefore outside of CEQA. Finally, it states that a survey of vacant buildings had been prepared and this survey demonstrated that “retailers entering or leaving the market, relocations, re-leasing to new tenants or conversions to other uses is a normal part of a dynamic market.”7

The Retail Impact Analysis (retail analysis) that was appended to the Panama EIR does not constitute an acceptable substitute for proper identification and analysis in an EIR. The retail analysis analyzed “the potential market support and retail sales impacts” of the Supercenter component of Panama. It found that general merchandise stores have a market area of approximately *1212five miles; grocery stores have a market area of approximately two miles.8 It concluded that there is sufficient capacity to sustain the Supercenter at Panama without causing closure of existing general merchandise or grocery stores. However, the Supercenter would reduce the business volume of existing stores. The retail analysis stated that the existing Wal-Mart store building could be utilized in another unspecified capacity.

The retail analysis did not reference Gosford or consider whether there is sufficient capacity to sustain both shopping centers. It did not analyze whether the combined influx of both shopping centers would lead to the closure of existing grocery or general merchandise stores, particularly where their market areas overlap. Rather, it focused on the single narrow question whether there is sufficient demand to sustain the Supercenter at Panama. It did not meaningfully consider whether addition of 1.1 million square feet of new retail space, much of it housing Supercenters, Sam’s Club and other large retailers such as Lowe’s and Kohl’s (which dominate individual merchandise areas and are sometimes referred to as “category killers”) will displace older, smaller retail stores and shopping centers, leaving long-term vacancies that deteriorate and encourage graffiti and other unsightly conditions. Furthermore, the retail analysis fails to meaningfully address the question whether the building on White Lane that currently houses a Wal-Mart store will experience a long-term vacancy when this store is closed. No facts are offered in support of the retail analysis’s conclusion that the building can be leased to another tenant. “Can” is not equivalent to “will” and the difference in the two words is crucial when assessing whether the store closure will result in an adverse environmental impact. The retail analysis characterizes vacancies as normal parts of a dynamic and evolving retail environment without considering whether those vacancies are clustered in one area or are likely to be long term.

We agree with BCLC that Mt. Shasta, supra, 198 Cal.App.3d 433, is analogous. Just as in Mt. Shasta, it is apparent that in this case the shopping centers could, individually and cumulatively, trigger the same downward spiral of business closures, vacancies and deterioration that other communities have experienced when they allowed similar saturation development. Therefore, CEQA requires analysis of this potential environmental impact.

C & C argues that the instant case is analogous to Friends of Davis, supra, 83 Cal.App.4th 1004. We disagree. Friends of Davis considered whether a *1213supplemental EIR was required. No zoning change or nonconformity with the existing specific plan existed and retail development on the project site had already been subjected to full environmental review. In contrast here, there has not been any previous study of the environmental effects associated with the requested zoning changes and general plan amendments. No prior EIR’s considered the consequences of building shopping centers on the project sites. Rather, it is the sufficiency of the initial EIR’s that is at issue.

It must be mentioned that although we do not quarrel with the holding in Apple Valley, supra, 120 Cal.App.4th 396, it is factually distinguishable from this situation. Here, recognition of the characteristics of the shopping centers’ tenants is a necessary prerequisite to accurate identification and analysis of the environmental consequences that will result from approval of the proposed projects. When the particular type of retail business planned for a proposed project will have unique or additional adverse impacts, then disclosure of the type of business is necessary in order to accurately recognize and analyze the environmental effects that will result from the proposed project. A rendering plant has different environmental impacts than a chandler. In the retail context, Supercenters are similarly unique. Unlike the vast majority of stores, many Supercenters operate 24 hours per day seven days a week. Such extended operational hours raise questions concerning increased or additional adverse impacts relating to lights, noise, traffic and crime. While specific identification of the name of the tenant may be unnecessary, to simply state as did the Gosford EIR that “no stores have been identified” without disclosing the type of retailers envisioned for the proposed project is not only misleading and inaccurate, but it hints at mendacity.

Accordingly, we hold that the omission of analysis on the issue of urban/suburban decay and deterioration rendered the EIR’s defective as informational documents. (Mt. Shasta, supra, 198 Cal.App.3d at p. 446.) On remand, the EIR’s must analyze whether the shopping centers, individually and/or cumulatively, indirectly could trigger the downward spiral of retail closures and consequent long-term vacancies that ultimately result in decay. (Ibid.; Bishop, supra, 172 Cal.App.3d at p. 171.)

IV. Cumulative Impacts

The Gosford EIR and the Panama EIR considered each shopping center in isolation. The cumulative impacts sections of each EIR do not reference the other shopping center and neither EIR contains any discussion of or reference to retail development in the area surrounding the project site. BCLC argues that the “failure to treat Panama and Gosford as ‘relevant projects’ for purposes of evaluating cumulative effects” is “[a]n overarching legal flaw in both EIRs.” We agree. The trial court correctly realized that the cumulative *1214effect of the two shopping centers must be analyzed with respect to the topic of urban decay. However, it inexplicably failed to follow the applicable chain of reasoning to its logical conclusion and recognize that the cumulative effects analyses were fimdamentally flawed because they did not recognize that the shopping centers were relevant projects and did not analyze the type and severity of impacts that will result from construction and operation of both projects.

“A fundamental purpose of CEQA is to ensure that governmental agencies regulate their activities ‘so that major consideration is given to preventing environmental damage, while providing a decent home and satisfying living environment for every Californian.’ [Citations.] . . . The heart of CEQA is the EIR. [Citation.] Its purposes are manifold, but chief among them is that of providing public agencies and the general public with detailed information about the effects of a proposed project on the environment. [Citations.] [][] Part of this vital informational function is performed by a cumulative impact analysis.” (Reasonable Growth, supra, 151 Cal.App.3d at pp. 72-73.) “The term ‘ “[cumulative impacts” refer[s] to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.’ ” (Raptor, supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 739.) “[A] cumulative impact consists of an impact which is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts.” (Guidelines, § 15130, subd. (a)(1).) “ ‘The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably] foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.’ (CEQA Guidelines, § 15355, subd. (b).) ‘Cumulative impact analysis “assesses cumulative damage as a whole greater than the sum of its parts.” ’ ” (Irritated Residents, supra, 107 Cal.App.4th at p. 1403.)

“The significance of a comprehensive cumulative impacts evaluation is stressed in CEQA.” (Schoen v. Department of Forestry & Fire Prevention (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 556, 572 [68 Cal.Rptr.2d 343].) Proper cumulative impact analysis is vital “because the full environmental impact of a proposed project cannot be gauged in a vacuum. One of the most important environmental lessons that has been learned is that environmental damage often occurs incrementally from a variety of small sources. These sources appear insignificant when considered individually, but assume threatening dimensions when considered collectively with other sources with which they interact.” (Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 114 [126 Cal.Rptr.2d 441], fns. omitted; see also Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. City of Los Angeles (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1019, 1025 [68 Cal.Rptr.2d 367].) “[Consideration of the effects *1215of a project or projects as if no others existed would encourage the piecemeal approval of several projects that, taken together, could overwhelm the natural environment and disastrously overburden the man-made infrastructure and vital community services. This would effectively defeat CEQA’s mandate to review the actual effect of the projects upon the environment.” (Las Virgenes Homeowners Federation, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 300, 306 [223 Cal.Rptr. 18].)

When faced with a challenge that the cumulative impacts analysis is unduly narrow, the court must determine whether it was reasonable and practical to include the omitted projects and whether their exclusion prevented the severity and significance of the cumulative impacts from being accurately reflected. (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 723 [270 Cal.Rptr. 650] (Farm Bureau).)

It is beyond dispute that the two shopping centers are both “present” projects within the meaning of Guidelines section 15355, subdivision (b). They were proposed within a month of each other and both shopping centers were considered at the same meetings of the City Planning Commission and the City Council. Many citizens, including BCLC, voiced their opinions about both shopping centers at the same time. Thus, the determinative question is whether Gosford and Panama also are “closely related” within the meaning of Guidelines section 15355, subdivision (b). We answer this question in the affirmative.

First, there is evidence showing that the two shopping centers will compete with each other. Some of the anchor tenants at both shopping centers are regional draws with a market area in excess of five miles. The Vencill report states that the market area for stores like Supercenters is about five miles. It concludes that the two shopping centers are in the same shopper catchment area and the Supercenters will compete with each other. Sifnilarly, the retail analysis states that general merchandise stores have a market area of five miles or more. Grocery stores have a market area of two miles or more. Since Gosford and Panama are 3.6 miles apart, the two market areas necessarily overlap. As previously discussed, the record contains numerous studies analyzing the adverse effects other communities have experienced when a market area was saturated with large-scale retailers such as traditional Wal-Mart stores and their siblings, Supercenters and Sam’s Clubs. Studies discussing the adverse effects that other communities experienced after similar retail development constitutes important anecdotal evidence about the adverse impacts that the City may experience.

Second, the Gosford FIR and the Panama FIR show that the two shopping centers share four arterial roadways: Pacheco Road, Panama Lane, Harris *1216Road and White Lane. A planning commissioner stated that he was concerned that the two projects could have combined, unrecognized adverse impacts on traffic.

Third, ambient air quality is a serious concern. Each of the EIR’s concluded that the proposed shopping center would have an unavoidable adverse impact on ambient air quality. The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) expressed the opinion that each project “and others similar to it will cumulatively reduce air quality in the San Joaquin Valley.” This will “make it more difficult to meet mandated emission reductions and air quality standards.”

When considered in its entirety, this evidence strongly supports BCLC’s position that the two shopping centers are closely related and may have several cumulatively significant adverse impacts. Therefore, CEQA compels assessment and disclosure of these combined environmental effects.

There is no merit to the position of City and developers that cumulative impacts analysis does not require consideration of both shopping centers because, in each case, the other shopping center is outside the radius of the “project area” as defined in EIR’s. An EIR is required to discuss significant impacts that the proposed project will cause in the area that is affected by the project. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.2, subd. (a).) This area cannot be so narrowly defined that it necessarily eliminates a portion of the affected environmental setting. Furthermore, Guidelines section 15130, subdivision (b)(3) directs agencies to “define the geographic scope of the area affected by the cumulative effect and provide a reasonable explanation for the geographic limitation used.” Neither the Gosford EIR nor the Panama EIR complied with this requirement. The EIR’s state what has been determined to be the appropriate geographic area for each category of potential impacts, but no explanation was offered as to the criterion upon which this determination was made. Simply put, selection of “appropriate” geographic areas that just happen to narrowly miss the other large proposed shopping center in every category of impacts despite their overlapping market areas and shared roadways does not constitute the good faith disclosure and analysis that is required by CEQA. In Raptor, supra, 27 Cal.App.4th 713, we found the description of the environmental setting in an EIR prepared for a residential project to be deficient because it failed to mention nearby wetlands and a wildlife preserve. (Id. at pp. 722-729.) Omission of any reference in the EIR’s to the other proposed shopping center is similarly “inaccurate and misleading.” (Id. at p. 724.)

We are unpersuaded by C & C’s argument that the cumulative impacts of the two projects were accounted for because the Gosford EIR *1217based its discussion of certain environmental effects, such as air quality, on a summary of projections contained in an approved planning document. Use of a planning document does not preclude challenge to the accuracy or sufficiency of the cumulative impacts analysis. As recognized in a respected CEQA treatise, “[t]he summary-of-projections approach may present problems if the projections in the general plan or related planning document are inaccurate or outdated.” (1 Kostka & Zischke, CEQA Practice, supra, § 13.39, p. 537.) Such is the case here. Both of the shopping center projects required amendment of the general plan. The addition of large regional shopping centers such as Gosford and Panama are not accounted for in the projections. We need not comment on the propriety of using the list of projects method for some aspects of cumulative impacts analysis and using the summary of projections for other aspects because, under either method, the cumulative impacts section is underinclusive. (Id. at § 13.39, pp. 537-538.)

Proper cumulative impacts analysis is absolutely critical to meaningful environmental review of the shopping center projects. Four analogous cases support our conclusion that the EIR’s are legally inadequate due to their underinclusive and misleading cumulative impacts analysis.

In Reasonable Growth, supra, 151 Cal.App.3d 61, the appellate court ordered an EIR prepared for a high-rise project to be decertified because it underestimated the amount of new downtown development and consequently had not evaluated “the true severity and significance” of the cumulative impacts. (Id. at p. 80.) The court explained that the danger created by providing understated information subverts an agency’s ability to adopt appropriate and effective mitigation measures, skews its perspective concerning the benefits of the particular projects under consideration and precludes it from gaining a true perspective on the consequences of approving the project. (Ibid.)

Similarly, in Farm Bureau, supra, 221 Cal.App.3d 692, this court determined that limiting the scope of cumulative impacts analysis to the mid-San Joaquin Valley was unduly restrictive and resulted in an inaccurate minimization of the cumulative impacts on air quality resulting from construction of the proposed cogeneration plan together with the many other proposed energy projects. (Id. at pp. 721-724.)

Next, in Raptor, supra, 27 Cal.App.4th 713, we invalidated an EIR prepared for a housing project, in part because it failed to analyze the project in conjunction with other development projects in the surrounding area. (Id. at pp. 739-741.)

*1218Most recently, in Eel River, supra, 108 Cal.App.4th 859, the court found that an EIR considering a project to divert water was legally inadequate because the cumulative impacts analysis did not take into account other pending proposals that would curtail water diversions. The court concluded that it was “reasonable and practical” to include other pending curtailment proposals in the cumulative impacts analysis and that this omission resulted in an EIR that failed to alert decision makers and the public to the possibility that the agency would not be able to supply water to its customers in an environmentally sound way. (Id. at pp. 868-872.)

Following and applying these authorities, we likewise conclude that the EIR’s are inadequate because they did not analyze the cumulative environmental impacts of other past, present and reasonably foreseeable retail projects in the market areas served by the proposed shopping centers. Neither EIR meaningfully addressed comments stating that the two shopping centers will have cumulative adverse impacts. As a result, the cumulative impacts analyses in both EIR’s are underinclusive and misleading.

The record raises numerous questions respecting the type and severity of cumulative adverse environmental impacts that likely will result from the two shopping centers. Topics such as traffic, noise, air quality, urban decay and growth inducement immediately surface.9 City and developers cannot fault BCLC because it does not have evidence answering these and other questions related to the cumulative impacts resulting from construction and operation of both Gosford and Panama. “To conclude otherwise would place the burden of producing relevant environmental data on the public rather than the agency and would allow the agency to avoid an attack on the adequacy of the information contained in the report simply by excluding such information.” (Farm Bureau, supra, 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 724.)

On remand, each EIR must analyze the cumulative impacts resulting from construction and operation of the proposed shopping center in conjunction with all other past, present or reasonably foreseeable retail projects that are or will be located within the proposed project’s market area. This includes, but *1219is not limited to, analysis of the combined adverse impacts resulting from construction and operation of Gosford and Panama.10

V. Failure to Correlate Adverse Air Quality Impacts to Resulting Adverse Health Impacts

The Gosford EIR concluded that Gosford would cause significant unavoidable direct adverse impacts to regional air quality from construction and operation. The direct adverse air quality impacts are derived “primarily from automobile emissions during operation and from architectural coatings and construction equipment during construction phase. No feasible mitigation measures are available that would reduce impacts to less than significant levels.” Furthermore, Gosford “could potentially result in cumulatively considerable impacts to regional air quality from construction and operation.”

Similarly, the Panama EIR concluded that Panama “may result in an overall increase in the local and regional pollutant load due to direct impacts from vehicle emissions and indirect impacts from electricity and natural gas consumption. This impact is considered significant and unavoidable for ROG and NOx.” The Panama EIR reached a different conclusion than the Gosford EIR with respect to cumulative impacts, determining that a “less than significant” impact would occur in this regard.

BCLC contends that both EIR’s omitted relevant information when they failed to correlate the identified adverse air quality impacts to resultant adverse health effects. We agree.

Guidelines section 15126.2, subdivision (a) requires an EIR to discuss, inter alia, “health and safety problems caused by the physical changes” that the proposed project will precipitate. Both of the EIR’s concluded that the projects would have significant and unavoidable adverse impacts on air quality. It is well known that air pollution adversely affects human respiratory health. (See, e.g., Bustillo, Smog Harms Children’s Lungs for Life, Study Finds, L.A. Times (Sept. 9, 2004).) Emergency rooms crowded with wheezing sufferers are sad but common sights in the San Joaquin Valley and elsewhere. Air quality indexes are published daily in local newspapers, schools monitor air quality and restrict outdoor play when it is *1220especially poor and the public is warned to limit their activities on days when air quality is particularly bad. Yet, neither EIR acknowledges the health consequences that necessarily result from the identified adverse air quality impacts. Buried in the description of some of the various substances that make up the soup known as “air pollution” are brief references to respiratory illnesses. However, there is no acknowledgement or analysis of the well-known connection between reduction in air quality and increases in specific respiratory conditions and illnesses. After reading the EIR’s, the public would have no idea of the health consequences that result when more pollutants are added to a nonattainment basin. On remand, the health impacts resulting from the adverse air quality impacts must be identified and analyzed in the new EIR’s.

VI. Prejudice

“When the informational requirements of CEQA are not complied with, an agency has failed to proceed in ‘a manner required by law.’ ” (Peninsula, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th at p. 118.) If the deficiencies in an EIR “preclude[] informed decisionmaking and public participation, the goals of CEQA are thwarted and a prejudicial abuse of discretion has occurred.” (Id. at p. 128.)

An EIR’s role “as an environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return” (County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 810 [108 Cal.Rptr. 377]) is equally vital whether one is protecting our coastline and forests or preserving our inland neighborhoods as viable communities. For many of us, adverse environmental impacts such as reduction of endangered species habitat are regrettable but largely abstract harms. In contrast, deterioration of our local communities is a very real problem that directly impacts the quality of our daily life. When our morning commutes are marred by the sight of numerous vacant or half-vacant strip malls adorned with graffiti and weeds, when we hesitate to move into an established neighborhood because of the absence of close and convenient shopping and when it hurts to take a deep breath on hot August afternoons because of the poor air quality, the importance of thorough environmental analysis and complete disclosure before new projects are approved is all too evident.

In this case, City’s failure to assess whether the shopping centers, individually and cumulatively, will indirectly cause urban decay, to evaluate the cumulative impacts of both shopping centers and to correlate the adverse air quality impacts to resulting adverse health consequences, cannot be dismissed as harmless or insignificant defects. As a result of these omissions, meaningful assessment of the true scope of numerous potentially serious adverse *1221environmental effects was thwarted. No discrete or severable aspects of the projects are unaffected by the omitted analyses; the defects relate to the shopping centers in their entirety, not just to one specific retailer. These deficiencies precluded informed public participation and decision making. Therefore, certification of the EIR’s was a prejudicial abuse of discretion. (Peninsula, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th at p. 128.)

The Guidelines unequivocally require the lead agency to certify a legally adequate final EIR prior to deciding whether or not to approve or carry out a contested project. (Guidelines, §§ 15089 to 15092.) “[T]he ultimate decision of whether to approve a project, be that decision right or wrong, is a nullity if based upon an EIR that does not provide the decision-makers, and the public, with the information about the project that is required by CEQA.” (Santiago County Water Dist. v. County of Orange (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 818, 829 [173 Cal.Rptr. 602].) Thus, the project approvals and associated land use entitlements also must be voided. (See, e.g., Eel River, supra, 108 Cal.App.4th at p. 882; Raptor, supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at pp. 742-743.)

VII.-IX.*

DISPOSITION

The judgments are reversed and the actions are remanded to the Superior Court of Kern County. BCLC is awarded its statutory costs in both actions. C & C is to pay the entirety of the cost award in the Gosford action; P99 is to pay the entirety of the cost award in the Panama action. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 27(a)(4).) BCLC’s request for judicial notice is granted.

Upon remand, the superior court is directed as follows in both actions:

(1) To issue new peremptory writs of mandate ordering the City to void its certification of the EIR’s and findings of overriding considerations and to void its approval of the projects and associated zoning changes, general plan amendments and other related land use entitlements;

(2) To issue orders, after notice and hearing, that set a date by which the City must certify new EIR’s in accordance with CEQA standards and procedures, including provisions for public comment, and make any findings *1222that CEQA may require. These orders are to require the City, after full CEQA compliance is effected, to determine upon further consideration and in accordance with all applicable laws, whether or not to reapprove the projects and grant associated zoning changes, general plan amendments and land use entitlements. The City may require modification of the projects and/or additional mitigation measures as conditions of reapproval; it may require completed portions of the projects to be changed or removed;

(3) To determine, after notice and hearing, whether continuance of construction and retail activities on the project sites prior to full CEQA compliance and reapproval will prejudice the consideration or implementation of particular mitigation measures or alternatives to the project and to issue appropriate relief pursuant to section 21168.9. As part of this determination it is to consider the following: (i) continuance of construction activities, other than those necessary to ensure safety; (ii) continued operation of businesses that currently are open to the public; (iii) opening of new businesses; (iv) expansion of existing businesses;

(4) To determine, after notice and hearing, whether BCLC should be awarded attorney fees and costs pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, the proper amounts, the party or parties against whom the fee awards should be assessed and to issue appropriate orders.

Wiseman, J., and Levy, J., concurred.

Liu, J.

*503The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq. ) requires that public agencies assess the environmental impacts of projects requiring government permits. The law is intended " 'to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return.' " ( Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392, 253 Cal.Rptr. 426, 764 P.2d 278 ( Laurel Heights ).) One of the impacts that public agencies must analyze under CEQA is whether a project will significantly increase greenhouse gas emissions.

In this case, the project is a regional development plan for the San Diego area intended to guide its transportation infrastructure from 2010 to 2050. The Attorney General and various environmental groups challenged an environmental impact report (EIR) accompanying the plan on several grounds. At issue here is their claim that the EIR failed to adequately analyze the plan's impacts on greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. In particular, the challengers contend that the EIR should have evaluated the plan's impacts against an executive order signed by Governor Schwarzenegger in 2005 declaring a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in California to 80 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2050. The EIR projects that *504under the plan, greenhouse gas emissions will fall through 2020 but then rise and maintain an upward trajectory through 2050. The challengers claim that this trend is at odds with the state's climate change goals, as reflected in the 2005 executive order, and that the EIR should have clearly analyzed and informed the public about that inconsistency. The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), the regional planning **993agency that issued the EIR, argues that it was not obligated under CEQA or any other law to use the executive order in its analysis.

We conclude that SANDAG did not abuse its discretion by declining to explicitly engage in an analysis of the consistency of projected 2050 greenhouse gas emissions *298with the goals in the executive order. The EIR sufficiently informed the public, based on the information available at the time, about the regional plan's greenhouse gas impacts and its potential inconsistency with state climate change goals. Nevertheless, we do not hold that the analysis of greenhouse gas impacts employed by SANDAG in this case will necessarily be sufficient going forward. CEQA requires public agencies like SANDAG to ensure that such analysis stay in step with evolving scientific knowledge and state regulatory schemes.

I.

We begin with an overview of the regulatory scheme by which this state seeks to address greenhouse gas emissions as part of a global effort to slow climate change.

In June 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order No. S-3-05, which set overall greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets for California. (Governor's Executive Order No. S-3-05 (June 1, 2005) (hereafter Executive Order or EO).) The Executive Order established three general benchmarks: (1) reduce emissions to 2000 levels by 2010; (2) reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020; and (3) reduce emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. These targets were based on a scientific consensus that climate change was largely caused by human activity resulting in elevated levels of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere and that drastic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions were required to stabilize the climate.

As the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the agency charged with implementing the state's climate change policy, has explained: "The experts tell us that an additional increase in global average temperatures of just 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) is very likely dangerous. With a 2 degree Celsius increase, disastrous effects become likely, including more extreme and more frequent severe weather, more wildfires, greater frequency of droughts and floods, rapid and higher sea level rise, and increased habitat *505destruction and extinctions. These environmental effects will undoubtedly lead to serious economic, political, and national security disruptions.

"In order to reduce the risk of dangerous climate change, we must stabilize atmospheric levels of GHG [greenhouse gas emissions] at approximately 450 parts per million (ppm) by mid-century. We are fast approaching this limit.... [¶] In response to the challenge of climate change, California has taken a leadership role by committing to reduce its GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (about a thirty percent reduction in business-as-usual emissions in 2020) and to eighty percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The latter target is consistent with the scientific consensus of the reductions needed to stabilize atmospheric levels of GHGs at 450 ppm by mid-century." (CARB, Recommended Approaches for Setting Interim Significance Thresholds for Greenhouse Gases under the California Environmental Quality Act (Oct. 24, 2008) p. 3, fns. omitted [preliminary draft staff proposal].)

In 2006, shortly after the Executive Order was issued, the Legislature enacted the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Stats. 2006, ch. 488, adding Health & Saf. Code, § 38500 et seq. ), commonly known as Assembly Bill No. 32 (AB 32). AB 32 partially adopted the Executive Order's goals by directing CARB to "determine what the statewide greenhouse gas emissions level was in 1990, and approve in a public hearing, a statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit that is equivalent to that level, to be achieved by 2020." ( Health & Saf. Code, § 38550.) The *299Legislature also directed CARB to prepare a "scoping plan" to identify how to achieve the "maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective reductions in greenhouse gas emissions by ... 2020." (Id. , § 38561, subd. (a).) The scoping plan prepared by CARB explained that " '[r]educing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels means cutting approximately 30 percent **994from business-as-usual emission levels projected for 2020, or about 15 percent from today's levels.' (Air [Resources] Bd., Climate Change Scoping Plan (Dec. 2008) Executive Summary, p. ES-1 (Scoping Plan).) The Scoping Plan then set out a 'comprehensive array of emissions reduction approaches and tools' to meet the goal, including expanding energy efficiency programs, achieving a statewide renewable energy mix of 33 percent, developing with our regional partners a cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gases, establishing targets and policies for emissions in transportation and implementing existing clean transportation programs, and creating targeted fees on certain activities affecting emissions. (Id. , pp. ES-3 to ES-4.)" ( Center for Biological Diversity v. California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204, 216, 195 Cal.Rptr.3d 247, 361 P.3d 342 ( Center for Biological Diversity ).)

The Legislature has also adopted the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (Stats. 2008, ch. 728, § 1; Stats. 2009, ch. 354, § 5), *506commonly known as SB 375. In enacting this law, the Legislature found that the transportation sector contributed 40 percent of the state's greenhouse gas emissions and that automobiles and light trucks alone are responsible for 30 percent. (Stats. 2008, ch. 728, § 1, subd. (a).) The Legislature also found the state could not meet its emission reduction goals without improved land use and transportation policy. (Id. , § 1, subd. (c).) SB 375 directs CARB to develop region-by-region emission reduction targets for automobiles and light trucks for 2020 and 2035. ( Gov. Code, § 65080, subd. (b)(2)(A).) CARB must update these targets every eight years until 2050, and it may update the targets every four years based on various factors. (Id ., subd. (b)(2)(A).) The targets set by CARB for the San Diego region, using a 2005 baseline, require a 7 percent per capita reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and a 13 percent per capita reduction by 2035.

In order to achieve these targets, SB 375 imposes additional requirements on regional transportation plans (RTPs) used by federally designated metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), such as SANDAG. Every four to five years, MPOs are required to adopt a comprehensive RTP that addresses no less than a 20-year planning horizon. ( 23 C.F.R. § 450.324(c).) Under SB 375, MPOs are required to develop a "sustainable communities strategy" (SCS), consistent with the CARB regional targets, as part of their RTPs. ( Gov. Code, § 65080, subd. (b)(2).) The strategy must be developed through an intensive public consultation process. ( Gov. Code, § 65080, subd. (b)(2)(E), (F).) The strategy must address, among other things, regional distribution of land uses and population, housing needs, and protection of resource areas. ( Id. , § 65080, subd. (b)(2)(B).)

Importantly, for purposes of this case, the strategy must "set forth a forecasted development pattern for the region, which, when integrated with the transportation network, and other transportation measures and policies, will reduce the greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles and light trucks to achieve, if there is a feasible way to do so, the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets approved by the state board." ( Gov. Code, § 65080, subd. (b)(2)(B).) The reductions mandated by SB 375 may be achieved through a variety of means, including "smart growth" planning *300to maximize building densities at locations served by public transit and to locate residences near needed services and shopping to reduce automobile dependency. Other means include shifting investment toward mass transit, changing transportation pricing, and encouraging car sharing, walking, and biking. (See Cal. Transportation Com., 2010 Regional Transportation Plan Guidelines (2010) pp. 137-138.)

Once an MPO has adopted a sustainable communities strategy that CARB finds acceptable, some transit priority projects consistent with the strategy are *507exempt from CEQA requirements, whereas other transit priority projects, residential projects, and mixed-use projects consistent with the strategy are subject to streamlined CEQA requirements. ( Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21155 - 21155.4, 21159.28 ; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15183.3 (Guidelines).)

II.

CARB's 2008 scoping plan (Scoping Plan) "encourages local jurisdictions to develop '

**995"climate action plans" ' or greenhouse gas ' "emissions reduction plans" ' for their geographic areas, and several jurisdictions have adopted or proposed such plans as tools for CEQA streamlining." ( Center for Biological Diversity , supra , 62 Cal.4th at p. 230, 195 Cal.Rptr.3d 247, 361 P.3d 342.) Pursuant to this directive, SANDAG in 2010 issued its "Climate Action Strategy," (sometimes CAS) that said: "Achieving the near-term goal of reducing statewide greenhouse gas emissions to the 1990 level by the year 2020 is ambitious but likely achievable with available policy measures and technology options. However, the long-term goal of reducing statewide greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below the 1990 level by the year 2050 will require fundamental changes in policy, technology, and behavior." (SANDAG, Climate Action Strategy (Mar. 2010) p. 11.) The Climate Action Strategy then recommended a number of land-use and transportation measures designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. (Id. at pp. 24-55.)

In 2011, SANDAG issued its RTP/SCS plan (Plan) pursuant to Government Code section 65080, subdivision (b). The Plan was adopted as a "blueprint for a regional transportation system, serving existing and projected residents and workers within the San Diego region ... over the next 40 years, that further enhances quality of life and offers more mobility options for people and goods. The 2050 RTP/SCS looks 40 years ahead, accommodating another 1.2 million residents, half a million new jobs, and nearly 400,000 new homes. The Plan addressed a 40 year period ending in 2050." In addition, SANDAG prepared a draft EIR (occasionally, DEIR) to analyze the Plan's environmental effects, including its projected impact on the region's greenhouse gas emissions.

The draft EIR proposed three different measures-labeled GHG-1, GHG-2, and GHG-3-for determining whether the region's greenhouse gas emissions under the Plan would be significant, and it applied each measure to the years 2020, 2035, and 2050. GHG-1 compared the projected total regional GHG emissions to conditions existing in 2010. The draft EIR concluded that after taking into account the transportation and land use changes set forth in the Plan, regional greenhouse gas emissions in 2020 are expected to be lower than in 2010. Therefore, the draft EIR judged the emission impacts for 2020 to be insignificant.

*508In 2035, the draft EIR found, "[r]egional growth/land use change GHG emissions" are "expected to be greater than in 2010, while transportation-related GHG emissions are expected to be lower than in *3012010. The total emissions expected in 2035 for both regional growth/land use change and transportation network improvements would be 30.18 MMT CO2e [million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent], accounting for state measures and including construction-related emissions. Compared with the estimated 2010 emissions of 28.85 MMT CO2e, this represents an increase over baseline conditions. Therefore, implementation of the 2050 RTP/SCS would lead to an overall increase in GHG emissions in 2035 compared to 2010 levels and constitutes a significant impact...."

The draft EIR further concluded that "[l]and-use and transportation-related GHG emissions in 2050 are expected to be greater than in 2010. The total emissions expected in 2050 would be 33.65 MMT CO2e, accounting for state measures. Compared with the estimated 2010 emissions of 28.845 MMT CO2e, this represents an increase over baseline conditions. Therefore, implementation of the 2050 RTP/SCS would lead to an overall increase in GHG emissions compared to baseline levels and constitutes a significant impact for which mitigation measures are described in Section 4.8.5."

The draft EIR's second measure of significance, GHG-2, compared projected regional emissions with the reduction targets mandated by SB 375. The draft EIR explained: "GHG-2 analyzes a narrower range of GHG emissions than GHG-1.... SB 375 requires [CARB] to develop regional GHG emission reduction targets, compared to 2005 emissions, for cars and light trucks for 2020 and 2035 for each of the state's MPOs." The draft EIR concluded that the plan would meet CARB's mandated targets of reducing per capita emissions 7 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 13 percent below 2005 levels by 2035 through a variety of measures, including **996denser residential development and increased use of mass transit. In applying GHG-2, the draft EIR made no determination of significant environmental effects with respect to the year 2050 because CARB has not yet established 2050 reduction targets.

The third measure of significance, GHG-3, compared projected regional emissions with applicable emission reduction plans, specifically CARB's Scoping Plan and SANDAG's own Climate Action Strategy. The draft EIR states that, consistent with the Climate Action Strategy, "land use changes and transportation improvements expected as a result of implementation of the 2050 RTP/SCS focus on transit and compact development near transit centers. These are aligned with the policies outlined in the CAS and therefore implementation of the 2050 RTP/SCS would not impede the CAS and would constitute a less than significant impact." As for comparison with the Scoping *509Plan, the draft EIR said: "The Scoping Plan does not have targets established beyond 2020 and therefore the impacts to the Scoping Plan are not analyzed for 2050."

Several parties filed comments critical of the draft EIR's greenhouse gas emissions analysis. Typical of these comments, the Attorney General observed that the EIR "finds the impact of the RTP/SCS on GHG emissions to be not significant in 2020 ..., significant in 2035 ..., and significant in 2050.... SANDAG must, however, make a determination whether the project as a whole has significant climate change impacts. We believe strongly that it does. What the DEIR shows is that the suite of strategies relied on by SANDAG, which include[s] a heavy reliance on roadway expansion projects, does not deliver GHG reductions that are sustainable in the long term. In fact, infrastructure and land use decisions made in the early years of the RTP/SCS may lock in transportation inefficiencies *302and preclude any realistic possibility of meeting the Executive Order's goal of an 80% reduction in GHG emissions." The Attorney General faulted the draft EIR for rejecting any need to analyze the consistency between the Plan's long-term projections and the 2050 emission reduction objectives of the Executive Order. SANDAG's position, the Attorney General argued, failed to recognize that the Executive Order "is designed to meet the environmental objective that is relevant under CEQA (climate stabilization)."

In the final EIR, SANDAG maintained it had no obligation to analyze projected emissions against the Executive Order's goals: "The 2050 RTP/SCS complies with SANDAG's SB 375 emissions reductions targets, which in turn are based on AB 32 implementation. SANDAG recognizes the aspirational nature of the EO [Executive Order] S-3-05 2050 target, but the 2050 RTP/SCS emissions reductions are not legally required to be consistent with this target, and as explained below, this target is not an appropriate CEQA threshold of significance." The EIR continued: "SANDAG chose not to use the 2050 EO emissions reduction target as a threshold of significance because the EO is not an adopted GHG reduction plan within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines [section] 15064.4(b)(2), and because SANDAG's role in achieving this target is uncertain and likely small. Although comments note the Attorney General ... [has] advised that the EO 2050 target can inform CEQA analysis, there is no legal requirement to use it as a threshold of significance. Under the CEQA Guidelines and case law, SANDAG retains the discretion to select certain GHG emissions reduction thresholds and not select others. [¶] Furthermore, even if SANDAG had used the 2050 EO emissions reduction target as a threshold of significance, the Impact GHG-1 impact conclusions for 2035 and 2050 would not have changed. These impacts would be significant and unavoidable using either the net increase threshold used in Impact GHG-1, or an EO based threshold."

*510After SANDAG certified the EIR, two nonprofit groups, CREED-21 and the Affordable Housing Coalition of San Diego County, filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the EIR's adequacy under CEQA. The Cleveland National Forest Foundation and the Center for Biological Diversity filed a similar petition, in which Sierra Club and the Attorney General later joined.

The superior court issued a writ of mandate in plaintiffs' favor, finding that the EIR failed to fulfill its role as an informational **997document because it did not analyze the consistency between the Plan's emission impacts and the Executive Order's emission reduction goals. The court also found that the EIR did not adequately address mitigation measures for significant emission impacts. In light of these findings, the court declined to decide any of the other challenges raised in the petitions. The writ of mandate directed SANDAG to set aside its certification of the EIR and to prepare and certify a revised EIR curing the identified deficiencies.

SANDAG appealed, arguing that the EIR complied with CEQA, and the Cleveland National Forest Foundation and other environmental organizations (collectively, Cleveland) cross-appealed, arguing that the EIR further violated CEQA by failing to analyze a reasonable range of project alternatives, by failing to adequately analyze and mitigate the Plan's air quality impacts, and by understating the transportation plan's impacts on agricultural lands. The Attorney General separately cross-appealed, contending that the EIR further violated CEQA by failing to adequately analyze and mitigate the transportation *303plan's impacts from particulate matter pollution. The Court of Appeal, largely agreeing with plaintiffs, affirmed the trial court's judgment setting aside the EIR certification but modified the judgment to require that a subsequent EIR fix most of the defects identified in the cross-appeals. Justice Benke dissented from the court's holding that SANDAG was required to analyze the consistency of projected emissions with the goals of the Executive Order and concluded that SANDAG's analysis was supported by substantial evidence.

We granted review on the following question: "Must the environmental impact report for a regional transportation plan include an analysis of the plan's consistency with the greenhouse gas emission reduction goals reflected in Executive Order No. S-3-05 to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act ( Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq. )?"

III.

We granted the Attorney General's request to judicially notice the fact that SANDAG updated its RTP/SCS in 2015 in accordance with its statutory mandate and, in doing so, included some analysis of the Plan's consistency *511with the Executive Order. None of the parties contends, however, that the question of whether CEQA requires such consistency analysis should be dismissed as moot. The parties recognize that this question may recur. SANDAG makes clear that it undertook the consistency analysis in 2015 because it "prudently reacted" to the Court of Appeal opinion below and that whether CEQA requires such analysis is still in dispute. The issue before us presents an important question of law that is likely to recur yet evade review because of the relatively short period between adoption of a RTP and adoption of a successor plan. Accordingly, we proceed to decide the issue even though SANDAG's 2010 regional transportation plan has now been superseded. (See California Charter School s Assn. v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1221, 1233-1234, 185 Cal.Rptr.3d 556, 345 P.3d 911.)

A.

"The EIR is the primary means of achieving the Legislature's considered declaration that it is the policy of this state to 'take all action necessary to protect, rehabilitate, and enhance the environmental quality of the state.' ( [Pub. Resources Code,] § 21001, subd. (a).) The EIR is therefore 'the heart of CEQA.' [Citations.] An EIR is an 'environmental "alarm bell" whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return.' [Citations.] The EIR is also intended 'to 'demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action.' [Citations.] Because the EIR must be certified or rejected by public officials, it is a document of accountability. If CEQA is scrupulously followed, the public will know the basis on which its responsible officials either approve or reject environmentally significant action, and the public, being duly informed, can respond accordingly to action with which it disagrees. [Citations.] The EIR process **998protects not only the environment but also informed self-government." ( Laurel Heights , supra , 47 Cal.3d at p. 392, 253 Cal.Rptr. 426, 764 P.2d 278.) An EIR "must include detail sufficient 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. 405, 253 Cal.Rptr. 426, 764 P.2d 278.)

At the same time, courts must proceed with caution when determining *304the adequacy of EIRs. "In reviewing an agency's compliance with CEQA in the course of its legislative or quasi-legislative actions, the courts' inquiry 'shall extend only to whether there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion.' ( Pub. Resources Code, § 21168.5.) Such an abuse 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.' " ( *512Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 426, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 821, 150 P.3d 709, fn. omitted ( Vineyard ). " 'CEQA gives lead agencies discretion to design an EIR ...' (2 Kostka & Zischke, Practice Under the Cal. Environmental Quality Act [Cont. Ed. Bar (2011) ] § 20.81D, p. 1030 (rev. 3/12)) and the agency is not required to conduct every recommended test or perform all requested research or analysis (Guidelines, § 15204, subd. (a)).... An EIR is required to evaluate a particular environmental impact only to the extent it is 'reasonably feasible' to do so. (Guidelines, § 15151; 2 Kostka & Zischke, Practice Under the Cal. Environmental Quality Act, supra , § 20.81D, p. 1030 (rev. 3/12).)" ( Rialto Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rialto (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 899, 937, 146 Cal.Rptr.3d 12.)

We have also recognized that the analysis of greenhouse gas emissions in an EIR poses particular challenges. "First, because of the global scale of climate change, any one project's contribution is unlikely to be significant by itself. The challenge for CEQA purposes is to determine whether the impact of the project's emissions of greenhouse gases is cumulatively considerable, in the sense that 'the incremental effects of [the] individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.' (§ 21083, subd. (b)(2); see Guidelines, § 15064, subd. (h)(1).) 'With respect to climate change, an individual project's emissions will most likely not have any appreciable impact on the global problem by themselves, but they will contribute to the significant cumulative impact caused by greenhouse gas emissions from other sources around the globe. The question therefore becomes whether the project's incremental addition of greenhouse gases is "cumulatively considerable" in light of the global problem, and thus significant.' [Citation.]

"Second, the global scope of climate change and the fact that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, once released into the atmosphere, are not contained in the local area of their emission means that the impacts to be evaluated are also global rather than local. For many air pollutants, the significance of their environmental impact may depend greatly on where they are emitted; for greenhouse gases, it does not." ( Center for Biological Diversity , supra , 62 Cal.4th at pp. 219-220, 195 Cal.Rptr.3d 247, 361 P.3d 342.)

In 2010, the Natural Resources Agency promulgated a guideline for assessing the significance of greenhouse gas emissions impacts under CEQA. Guidelines section 15064.4, subdivision (a) provides in part that "[a] lead agency should make a good-faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project." Subdivision (b) states that "[a] lead agency should consider the following factors, among others, *513when assessing the significance of impacts from greenhouse gas emissions on the environment: [¶] (1) The extent to which the project may increase or reduce greenhouse gas emissions as compared to the existing environmental *305setting; [¶] (2) Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project; [¶] (3) The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements **999adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions."

B.

In addressing the controversy between the parties, we begin by noting three points not in dispute. First, the parties agree that the EIR should consider the Plan's long-range greenhouse gas emission impacts for the year 2050. As noted, SANDAG explained in its Climate Action Strategy that "[o]nce in place, land use patterns and transportation infrastructure typically remain part of the built environment and influence travel behavior and greenhouse gas emissions for several decades, perhaps longer." (SANDAG, Climate Action Strategy, supra , at p. 25.) The EIR must reasonably evaluate these downstream impacts.

Second, neither party disputes that the Executive Order lacks the force of a legal mandate binding on SANDAG in the preparation of its EIR. What plaintiffs and the Attorney General argue here is that the Executive Order's significance for purposes of CEQA analysis is its scientific basis, i.e., its expression of what scientific research has determined to be the level of emissions reductions necessary to stabilize the climate by midcentury and thereby avoid catastrophic effects of climate change. Nor does any party dispute that the Executive Order's 2050 emissions reduction target is grounded in sound science. In its Climate Action Strategy, SANDAG observed that the 2050 target "is based on the scientifically-supported level of emissions reduction needed to avoid significant disruption of the climate and is used as the long-term driver for state climate change policy development." (SANDAG, Climate Action Strategy, supra , at p. 10.)

Third, the parties do not dispute that the projected increase in greenhouse gas emissions under the Plan from 2020 through 2050 is a significant environmental effect. As noted, SANDAG stated in the EIR that implementation of the 2050 RTP/SCS would lead to an overall increase in greenhouse gas emissions in 2050 and that this impact is "significant and unavoidable."

What the parties dispute is whether CEQA required SANDAG to analyze the consistency between the Plan and the Executive Order in assessing the significance of the Plan's impact on greenhouse gas emissions in 2050. The *514Attorney General and Cleveland argue here, as they did in their comments to the draft EIR, that the EIR inadequately describes the Plan's emission impacts. The Attorney General notes that transportation is responsible for nearly 50 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the San Diego region, and one of the chief objectives of an SCS is to reduce the total amount of driving in the region, measured as vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The Attorney General observes: "The total amount of driving expected under the 2050 Plan ... will increase by more than 50 percent over the life of the Plan. The expected increase in driving is not due solely to increases in population in the San Diego area; under the 2050 Plan, people will drive more on a per capita basis in 2050 than they did in 2010." The Attorney General points to the Plan's projections that daily per capita VMT for all vehicle types would fall in 2020 but would rise by 2035 and would continue to rise through 2050. This increase in total and per capita VMT, the Attorney General contends, *306drives the upward trend in projected emissions for the San Diego region after 2035.

In light of this projected trend, the Attorney General argues that the EIR's analysis of emission impacts is misleading: "Without placing these emissions into any meaningful context, the EIR summarily concludes that the impacts are 'significant and unavoidable' in 2035 and 2050 because gross annual emissions will be above 2010 levels in these discrete years." According to the Attorney General, this understates and obscures the extent to which the Plan's emission impacts run counter to the state's climate change goals; analyzing the consistency of the Plan with the Executive Order's 2050 emissions reduction target would supply the missing context.

In response to this concern, the final EIR said that "SANDAG chose not to use the 2050 EO emissions reduction target as a threshold of significance because the EO is **1000not an adopted GHG reduction plan within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines 15064.4(b)(2), and because SANDAG's role in achieving this target is uncertain and likely small. Although the comments note the Attorney General ... [has] advised that the EO 2050 target can inform CEQA analysis, there is no legal requirement to use it as a threshold of significance. Under the CEQA Guidelines and case law, SANDAG retains the discretion to select certain GHG emissions reduction thresholds and not select others."

In evaluating these arguments, we begin with three points. First, an EIR's designation of a particular adverse environmental effect as "significant" does not excuse the EIR's failure to reasonably describe the nature and magnitude of the adverse effect. (See Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Committee v. Board of Port Comrs. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1371, 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 598 ["The EIR's approach of simply labeling the effect 'significant' without *515accompanying analysis of the project's impact on the health of the Airport's employees and nearby residents is inadequate to meet the environmental assessment requirements of CEQA."]; Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1123, 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 1.) An adequate description of adverse environmental effects is necessary to inform the critical discussion of mitigation measures and project alternatives at the core of the EIR. (See Guidelines, § 15151 ["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."].)

Second, SANDAG's conclusory statement that its role in achieving the Executive Order's 2050 emission reduction target is "likely small" is not a valid reason for rejecting the target as a measure of significance. As noted, "because of the global scale of climate change, any one project's contribution is unlikely to be significant by itself." ( Center for Biological Diversity , supra , 62 Cal.4th at p. 219, 195 Cal.Rptr.3d 247, 361 P.3d 342.) The solution to climate change requires the aggregation of many small reductions in greenhouse gas emissions by public and private actors at all levels. (See United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Paris Agreement (Dec. 12, 2015, --- U.N.T.S. ---- [English text, p. 52; Annex, p. 21] ["[recognizing ] the importance of the engagement of all levels of government and various actors, in accordance with respective national legislation of Parties, in addressing climate change"].) The fact that a regional plan's contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions is likely to be small on a statewide level is not necessarily a basis for concluding that *307its impact will be insignificant in the context of a statewide goal.

Third, we agree with plaintiffs that SANDAG's response in the final EIR that the Executive Order "is not an adopted GHG reduction plan" and that "there is no legal requirement to use it as a threshold of significance" is not dispositive of the issue before us. Although lead agencies have discretion in designing an EIR, the exercise of that discretion must be "based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data." (Guidelines, § 15064, subd. (b).) The Executive Order's 2050 goal of reducing California's greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels expresses the pace and magnitude of reduction efforts that the scientific community believes necessary to stabilize the climate. This scientific information has important value to policymakers and citizens in considering the emission impacts of a project like SANDAG's regional transportation plan.

Nonetheless, contrary to what plaintiffs and our dissenting colleague contend, the EIR does not obscure the existence or contextual significance of the Executive Order's 2050 emissions reduction target. The EIR makes clear that the 2050 target is part of the regulatory setting in which the Plan will *516operate. Further, the EIR straightforwardly mentions the 2050 target in the course of explaining why SANDAG chose not to use the target as a measure of significance. This discussion appears just three pages after the EIR declares, with supporting analysis, that "[l]and-use and transportation-related GHG emissions in 2050 are expected to be greater than in 2010. The total emissions expected **1001in 2050 would be 33.65 MMT CO2e, accounting for state measures. Compared with the estimated 2010 emissions of 28.85 MMT CO2e, this represents an increase over baseline conditions. Therefore, implementation of the 2050 RTP/SCS would lead to an overall increase in GHG emissions compared to baseline levels and constitutes a significant impact for which mitigation measures are described in Section 4.8.5." (Italics added.) Similarly, in its responses to comments, the EIR repeatedly mentions the 2050 target in the course of restating its conclusion that the increase in greenhouse gas emissions compared to existing conditions "would be significant in 2035 and 2050." In sum, the basis of plaintiffs' and the dissent's critique of the EIR-i.e., the divergence between projected 2050 emissions and the Executive Order's goals-is apparent in the EIR itself. If the long-term rise in projected emissions was "the elephant in the room" (dis. opn., post , at pp. 2, 10, 16), then a fair reading of the EIR confirms that an elephant is hard to hide.

Although there were perhaps clearer or more graphic ways the EIR could have facilitated a comparison between 2050 projected emissions and the Executive Order's 2050 emissions reduction target, we find that the EIR presented the information enabling that comparison "in a manner calculated to adequately inform the public and decision makers, who may not be previously familiar with the details of the project." ( Vineyard , supra , 40 Cal.4th at p. 442, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 821, 150 P.3d 709 ; see Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island v. City and County of San Francisco (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1046, 174 Cal.Rptr.3d 363 ["[A]n EIR must be upheld if it 'reasonably sets forth sufficient information to foster informed public participation and to enable the decision makers to consider the environmental factors necessary to make a reasoned decision.' "].) We have made clear, and recently reiterated, that " 'information "scattered here and there in EIR appendices" or a report "buried in an appendix,"

*308is not a substitute for "a good faith reasoned analysis." ' " ( Vineyard , at p. 442, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 821, 150 P.3d 709 ; see Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach (2017) 2 Cal.5th 918, 941, 216 Cal.Rptr.3d 306, 392 P.3d 455.) Here, however, it was not difficult for the public, reading the EIR, to compare the upward trajectory of projected greenhouse gas emissions under the Plan from 2020 through 2050 with the Executive Order's goal of reducing emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The fact that part of the discussion of greenhouse gas impacts and the Executive Order occurs in the "Response to Comments" section of the EIR rather than the original draft (see dis. opn., post , 220 Cal.Rptr.3d at p. 314, 397 P.3d at pp. 1006-1007) is not an infirmity. Because a lead agency's response to *517comments is an integral part of the EIR (see Rural Landowners Assn. v. City Council (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 1013, 1023, 192 Cal.Rptr. 325 [EIRs must adequately address comments of state agencies] ), it is reasonable to expect that those interested in the contents of an EIR will not neglect this section.

Moreover, SANDAG did not abuse its discretion in declining to adopt the 2050 goal as a measure of significance in light of the fact that the Executive Order does not specify any plan or implementation measures to achieve its goal. In its response to comments, the EIR said: "It is uncertain what role regional land use and transportation strategies can or should play in achieving the EO's 2050 emissions reduction target. A recent California Energy Commission report concludes, however, that the primary strategies to achieve this target should be major 'decarbonization' of electricity supplies and fuels, and major improvements in energy efficiency [citation]." We cannot say that SANDAG abused its discretion by refusing, on these grounds, to say more in the EIR about whether the projected emissions were consistent with the 2050 goal. Neither the Attorney General nor the other plaintiffs point to any guidance as to how the 2050 goal translates into specific reduction targets broken down by region or sector of emission-producing activity. Further, as SANDAG notes, "there are presently no reliable means of forecasting how future technological developments or state legislative actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions may affect future emissions in any one planning jurisdiction.... Lead **1002agencies can only guess how future technical developments or state (or federal or international) actions may affect emissions from the myriad of sources beyond their control." (See Marin Mun. Water Dist. v. KG Land California Corp . (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1652, 1663, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 767 [CEQA does not require analysis of potential impacts from possible future development that are too speculative to evaluate].) It is not clear what additional information SANDAG should have conveyed to the public beyond the general point that the upward trajectory of emissions under the Plan may conflict with the 2050 emissions reduction goal. (Cf. Center for Biological Diversity , supra , 62 Cal.4th at pp. 225-228, 195 Cal.Rptr.3d 247, 361 P.3d 342 [discussing difficulty of inferring required level of emissions reduction for an individual project from a statewide emissions reduction goal].)

Nor can we say it was unreasonable for SANDAG to use its threefold approach in the EIR: (1) Where statute and regulation provide specific regional emissions reduction targets, as for cars and light trucks for 2020 and 2035, the EIR analyzes consistency of projected emissions with those targets (GHG-2). (2) For longer-term emissions through 2050, for which no statute or regulation provides regional or sector targets, the EIR analyzes projected emissions *309against a baseline of current emissions (GHG-1). This is one of the approaches specified in Guidelines section 15064.4, subdivision (b), which calls on lead agencies to consider "[t]he extent to which the project may increase or reduce greenhouse gas emissions as compared to the existing *518environmental setting." (3) The EIR analyzes whether the Plan incorporates land use changes and transportation improvement designed to reduce emissions, as reflected in SANDAG's Climate Action Strategy and CARB's Scoping Plan (GHG-3). (See Center for Biological Diversity , supra , 62 Cal.4th at p. 229, 195 Cal.Rptr.3d 247, 361 P.3d 342 [recognizing the potential value of " 'performance based standards' " as outlined in the Scoping Plan or other authoritative body of regulation].) Whether or not any one method, by itself, would have provided sufficient analysis, we conclude that these three methods together adequately informed readers of potential greenhouse gas emission impacts.

We emphasize the narrowness of today's holding. Our decision is not a general endorsement of the adequacy of SANDAG's EIR, much less an endorsement of the adequacy of the regional plan that the EIR analyzes. Specifically, we do not address whether SANDAG's responses to the indisputably significant greenhouse gas impacts of the 2011 regional plan were adequate. The Court of Appeal concluded that the EIR failed to sufficiently consider feasible mitigation measures and project alternatives that would reduce vehicle miles traveled and curb the rise in greenhouse gas emissions. These issues are not before us, and we express no view on them. We hold only that SANDAG, in analyzing greenhouse gas impacts at the time of the EIR, did not abuse its discretion by declining to adopt the Executive Order as a measure of significance or to discuss the Executive Order more than it did.

Moreover, we caution that our conclusion that SANDAG did not abuse its discretion in its analysis of greenhouse gas emission impacts in the 2011 EIR does not mean that this analysis can serve as a template for future EIRs. Under CEQA, "[t]he determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful judgment on the part of the public agency involved, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data." (Guidelines, § 15064, subd. (b).) As more and better data become available, analysis of the impact of regional transportation plans on greenhouse gas emissions will likely improve. Indeed, SANDAG explains that its EIR, in analyzing its 2015 regional transportation plan, "was able to account for many factors in the GHG inventories that were not accounted for in 2011, reflecting 'additional certainty regarding the regulatory environment, including future projections of renewable energy, building energy efficiency, water conservation programs, and solid waste diversion." A regional planning agency like SANDAG, charged with assisting the implementation of the state's climate goals, must straightforwardly address in the relevant environmental review documents whether its regional transportation **1003plan as a whole is in accord with those goals. Its capacity to do so will likely improve over time.

Furthermore, after briefing was submitted in this case, the Legislature in 2016 enacted Senate Bill No. 32 (SB 32) (2015-2016 Reg. Sess.), adding *519Health and Safety Code section 38566, which adopts a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2030. This 40 percent reduction is widely acknowledged as a necessary interim target to ensure that California meets its longer-range goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2050. (See Governor's *310Executive Order No. B-30-15 (Apr. 29, 2015) [explaining the significance of the 40 percent reduction].) SB 32 thus reaffirms California's commitment to being on the forefront of the dramatic greenhouse gas emission reductions needed to stabilize the global climate. The legislation directs CARB to craft regulations to implement its goal. ( Health & Saf. Code, § 38566.) These regulations may further clarify the way forward for public agencies to meet the state's 2050 climate goals. This regulatory clarification, together with improved methods of analysis, may well change the manner in which CEQA analysis of long-term greenhouse gas emission impacts is conducted.

In sum, nothing we say today invites regional planners to "shirk their responsibilities" under CEQA or other environmental statutes. (Dis. opn., ante , 220 Cal.Rptr.3d at p. 319, 397 P.3d at p. 1010.) To the contrary, we affirm that planning agencies like SANDAG must ensure that CEQA analysis stays in step with evolving scientific knowledge and state regulatory schemes.

CONCLUSION

We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal insofar as it determined that the 2011 EIR's analysis of greenhouse gas emission impacts rendered the EIR inadequate and required revision. As noted, the Court of Appeal also affirmed the trial court's judgment that the 2011 EIR's analysis of greenhouse gas emission mitigation measures was inadequate, identified other deficiencies in the EIR, and affirmed the issuance of a writ of mandate setting aside the EIR's certification on these grounds. We did not grant review on these issues and express no view on how, if at all, today's opinion affects their disposition. We remand to the Court of Appeal for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

We Concur:

Cantil-Sakauye, C.J.

Werdegar, J.

Chin, J.

Corrigan, J.

Kruger, J.

DISSENTING OPINION BY CUÉLLAR, J.

Through statutes enacted by its elected representatives, the State of California recognizes climate change spurred by greenhouse gases to be a staggering threat to California and the world. The state's response to this challenge reflects not only the projected harm to California but also the state's own contribution to the problem. (See Health & Saf. Code, § 38501.) At the core of that response is a comprehensive effort *520updating a long-established body of laws designed to protect the environment. Among the most important of those laws is the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Pub. Resources Code, § 21001 et seq. ), which requires public officials to disclose the environmental harm of proposed construction projects. Enacted nearly a half century ago, CEQA mandates that "the long-term protection of the environment, consistent with the provision of a decent home and suitable living environment for every Californian, shall be a guiding criterion in public decisions." ( Pub. Resources Code, § 21001, subd. (d).) For decades CEQA has ensured public deliberation about present choices that bear future environmental harm. Now, a new generation of state environmental statutes has aligned California law with scientific consensus regarding how to confront climate change. Long-term greenhouse gas emissions have taken their place among the *311most important **1004harms that CEQA requires public officials to analyze and meaningfully explain.

The question in the case is whether the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) violated CEQA when it issued an environmental impact report (EIR) for a long-term transportation development plan that failed to explain the plan's divergence from long-term greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets first set out in a 2005 executive order. There is no dispute that those targets are relevant to this case regardless of the executive order's legal force, to the extent the targets reflect sound scientific consensus about the steps necessary to stabilize the climate. Likewise, no one disputes that SANDAG has flexibility in designing its regional transportation plan and framing the plan's environmental impact report. Instead, the critical issue in the case is whether the EIR is clear enough about the environmental harm of SANDAG's plan, which reshapes the region's transportation infrastructure in a manner that will increase per capita greenhouse gas emissions and per capita vehicle use in the long term. The answer is no, because among other things the EIR manages to occlude the elephant in the room-that the plan was associated with a major projected increase in greenhouse gas emissions, diverging sharply from emission reduction targets reflecting scientific consensus. This issue matters not only because CEQA aims to facilitate public deliberation and limit the risk that policymakers ignore the environmental consequences of their choices but also because the precise contours of an EIR's impact analysis dictate what mitigation measures and alternative options public officials must consider. Because I believe SANDAG did not fulfill its CEQA obligations, I dissent.

I.

In June 2005, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issued Executive Order No. S-3-05, which announced statewide greenhouse gas reduction targets for 2010, 2020, and 2050. The 2050 target proposed to reduce statewide emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by that year. This target reflects *521scientific consensus about the greenhouse gas emissions reductions necessary to stabilize global temperatures and prevent catastrophic climate effects. The Legislature soon began to carry out the Governor's mandate through a series of statutes. One of the first of these laws was the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. (Stats. 2006, ch. 488, § 1, p. 3419.) Since recognized as "landmark legislation," this act "established as state policy the achievement of a substantial reduction in the emissions of gases contributing to global warming." ( Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204, 215, 195 Cal.Rptr.3d 247, 361 P.3d 342 ( Center for Biological Diversity ).) The statute directed the Air Resources Board to announce strategies for achieving the Governor's emissions reduction targets. This plan was issued in 2008.

Next came the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, enacted as SB 375. This act focuses on the role that regional planners will play in reversing climate change. In particular, the Legislature observed that the transportation sector produces a significant share of the state's greenhouse gas emissions. (See Stats. 2008, ch. 728 § 1(a), p. 5065 ["The transportation sector contributes over 40 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions in the State of California; automobiles and light trucks alone contribute almost 30 percent. The transportation sector is the single largest contributor of greenhouse gases of any sector."].) Though new fuel *312and vehicle technology would help reduce those emissions, the Legislature recognized that those advances would not be enough; instead, the state would also need to reshape its transportation infrastructure to reduce vehicle use. (See id. , § 1(c), p. 5065 ["Greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles and light trucks can be substantially reduced by new vehicle technology and by the increased use of low carbon fuel. However, even taking these measures into account, it will be necessary to achieve significant additional greenhouse gas reductions from changed land use patterns and improved transportation."].)

Apart from any other practical impact they had, these laws also affected CEQA-a statute as ubiquitous in disputes about land and infrastructure as it is important to California's **1005protection of its environment. For 47 years, CEQA has required for "the long-term protection of the environment" to serve as "the guiding criterion in public decisions." ( Pub. Resources Code, § 21001, subd. (d), as added by Stats. 1970, ch. 1433, § 1, p. 2781.) In particular, the statute requires agencies that oversee projects like SANDAG's regional transportation plan to prepare an EIR whose "purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made." ( Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564, 276 Cal.Rptr. 410, 801 P.2d 1161.) Given CEQA's focus on long-term environmental impact, an agency needs to do more than simply list a few short-term benefits and claim success. Rather, *522an EIR must look beyond immediate impact and explain clearly whether the project prioritizes "short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals." ( Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15065, subd. (a)(2).)

When it comes to climate change, the state's long-term environmental goals are clear. SB 375 and other statutes have codified into California law the scientific consensus that the state must reduce greenhouse gas emissions over the next few decades. (See, e.g., Center for Biological Diversity , supra , 62 Cal. 4th at p. 215, 195 Cal.Rptr.3d 247, 361 P.3d 342 ; Health & Saf. Code, § 38501.) While the particulars of that goal (exactly what quantities of reduction, through what means, at what times) might remain subject to some debate, the overall trend-reduction of emissions, not steep increases-does not. In October 2011, SANDAG issued one of the plans required by SB 375, along with an EIR laying out the plan's environmental costs. Though this EIR is governed by the same general framework that governs the validity of an EIR for a typical development project, it was also somewhat distinct in that the whole purpose of the project at issue-the entire reason the Legislature directed SANDAG to issue a regional transportation plan-was to help achieve the state's goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from transportation infrastructure. CEQA and SB 375 together created a duty to explain in detail whether SANDAG's regional transportation plan will work "to the disadvantage of" that long-term goal. ( Pub. Resources Code, § 21083, subd. (a)(1).) The Court of Appeal was persuaded by the Attorney General and other challengers that the EIR failed that requirement. I agree.

II.

Throughout our CEQA jurisprudence, we have recognized how statutes enacted after CEQA may train attention on certain environmental impacts in ways that limit an agency's discretion about whether and how to depict those particular impacts. For example, we recently explained that the California Coastal Act of 1976's (Coastal *313Act) "enhanced protection" for sensitive coastal habitats requires heightened CEQA concern for harm to those areas. ( Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach (2017) 2 Cal.5th 918, 936, 216 Cal.Rptr.3d 306, 392 P.3d 455 ( Banning Ranch ).) In this way, the Coastal Act answers questions that might otherwise have been left to local discretion, and an agency cannot pretend those answers are too speculative for it to incorporate into analysis of potential environmental impact. ( Banning Ranch , at pp. 936-937, 216 Cal.Rptr.3d 306, 392 P.3d 455.) SB 375 is another statute that changed how public officials must measure environmental impact. Crucially, this change does not have the same effect on every EIR. Instead, SB 375 took aim at the precise type of public actor whose EIR is under scrutiny in this case: a large regional planner. And it told that actor to do the very thing *523SANDAG failed to do: take long-term steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation, rather than expect these reductions to come from technological advances or other measures.

SB 375's particularized focus sets today's case apart from a typical development project or permit application. In fact, that legislation established that the EIR in this case will preclude certain environmental analysis for various future projects. Part of the political bargain behind SB 375 was a tradeoff between centralized coordination and individual action. Once a regional transportation plan is final, SB 375 provides that any future "mixed-use and transit priority projects that **1006are consistent with the limits and policies specified in [the plan] need not additionally analyze greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks." ( Center for Biological Diversity , supra , 62 Cal.4th at p. 230, 195 Cal.Rptr.3d 247, 361 P.3d 342.) This is another reason why SANDAG was required by both SB 375 and CEQA to elaborate on why the plan's long-term emissions increases are harmful. When a regional planner's EIR fails to sufficiently depict long-term impact, the problem trickles down into other projects over the years, further compounding the harm to the Legislature's climate stabilization goals.

Because this case is our court's first effort to address the relationship between SB 375 and CEQA, it's worth emphasizing what is at stake in mapping the intersection of these two statutes. SB 375 is part of a new generation of California law that deals with the complex threat of greenhouse gas emissions. And the parts of the statute at issue in this case specifically confront the role that actors such as SANDAG-the regional planner for a sprawling metropolitan area that millions of Californians call home-play in the generation of greenhouse gases. To the extent climate change is the starkest environmental threat of our time, SB 375 is one of this era's most important environmental statutes. CEQA, meanwhile, has long stood as one of the state's most important classic environmental statutes. Today's majority opinion is the first statement from this court about how the duties created by each of these statutes relate to one another. By ruling that the EIR in this case passes CEQA muster, the majority does harm not only to CEQA but to SB 375 as well.

III.

The fundamental problem with SANDAG's plan is that it fails the exact long-term environmental goal SB 375 was enacted to further. Climate change is distinct from certain other types of environmental harm in that individual contributions to the overall problem are both small and widespread. But rather than simply accepting the widespread responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions as a structural constraint *314limiting California's *524capacity to reduce emissions, SB 375 calls on regional planners to coordinate a response, in the form of centralized plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from a region's transportation infrastructure. (See Gov. Code, § 65080, subd. (b)(2).) The legislation begins by warning that the "transportation sector is the single largest contributor of greenhouse gases" in the state, producing nearly half of overall greenhouse gas emissions. (Stats. 2008, ch. 728, § 1(a), p. 5065.) The Legislature thus declared that "greenhouse gas reductions from changed land use patterns and improved transportation" will be "necessary" to slowing climate change. (See id. , § 1(c).)

Though the EIR carefully occludes this problem, it nonetheless appears SANDAG largely ignored SB 375's call. As is true statewide, vehicle emissions comprise nearly half of the San Diego region's output of greenhouse gas. But rather than confronting that problem in the manner SB 375 prescribes-reductions in overall vehicle use-SANDAG proposes to increase vehicle emissions in the long run. Crucially, this increase goes well beyond the effect of population growth. SANDAG's regional transportation plan proposed to increase both per capita greenhouse gas emissions and per capita daily vehicle miles traveled between 2010 and 2050. Once SANDAG's plan is implemented, each person in the San Diego region will on average be driving more every day and generating more greenhouse gas than the region's inhabitants today. Needless to say, the entire region will be producing far more greenhouse gas from transportation in 2050 than today as well.

Increasing per capita greenhouse gas emissions and vehicle miles traveled over the next 40 years cuts precisely against SB 375's mandate to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions and vehicle use in the long run. But because this is a CEQA case, the ultimate question is not whether SANDAG's plan will achieve some particular measure of environmental preservation. Rather, the question is whether SANDAG explained the plan's environmental impact in enough detail and with enough clarity that the public can make an informed decision that the proposed **1007changes are worth the long-term cost to the planet's health, as well as understand the urgency of mitigating the harm. (See In re Bay-Delta etc. (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1143, 1162, 77 Cal.Rptr.3d 578, 184 P.3d 709 ( Bay-Delta ) ["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." ' "].) SANDAG's EIR fails on that score.

Even as SANDAG's plan contemplate, on careful inspection, four decades of increased emission of greenhouse gases, its EIR obscures this problem in several ways. For starters, the crucial fact that the plan will increase per capita vehicle miles driven throughout the next 40 years does not appear to *525have been included anywhere in the body of the EIR's cumulative impact analysis, which is where most people are likely to focus their attention when considering the plan's costs and benefits. Instead, SANDAG appears to have not mentioned this fact up until it issued a response to the objections that the Attorney General filed to the draft EIR. That response to objections triggered by the draft is buried in a nearly 700-page appendix to the EIR. As this court explained just a few months ago, " ' "[i]nformation 'scattered here and there in EIR appendices,' or a report 'buried in an appendix,' is not a substitute for '[the] good faith reasoned analysis' " ' " that CEQA requires. ( Banning Ranch , supra , 2 Cal.5th at p. 941, 216 Cal.Rptr.3d 306, 392 P.3d 455.) *315Instead, the statute requires for this information to " 'be presented in a manner calculated to adequately inform the public and decision makers, who may not be previously familiar with the details of the project.' " ( Ibid. )

But the problem with SANDAG's EIR is not simply that the agency failed to mention the projected increases to per capita vehicle use until it responded to outside comments. Even if this information were part of the impact analysis, the EIR would still obscure the plan's long-term environmental harm. SANDAG's EIR uses three significance criteria to depict greenhouse gas emissions under the plan. Only two of these three criteria actually measure emissions levels. The third, labeled GHG-3, addresses the Air Resources Board's statewide "Scoping Plan" and SANDAG's own "Climate Action Strategy." Neither of these documents establishes specific emissions targets. Instead, they both focus on the general strategies and policies that will be needed to reverse climate change. But even for these strategies and policies, SANDAG's EIR misleads the public. First, the statewide Scoping Plan specifically calls on regional planners to "implement sound land use and transportation policies to lower VMT [vehicle miles traveled] and shift travel modes." The plan also predicts that over the next few decades "[r]egional land use and transportation strategies would grow in importance and reverse the trend of per-capita vehicle miles traveled." Nowhere does the Scoping Plan support SANDAG's implicit assumptions that others will conveniently make up for emissions increases from increased driving. To the contrary: the Scoping Plan expects regional planners to reduce vehicle traffic.

SANDAG's Climate Action Strategy-issued in the same year as the EIR challenged here-similarly lists "Reduce Total Miles of Vehicle Travel" as "Goal 1" in a list of "land use and transportation-related policy options available to help SANDAG" "achieve short-term (2020) and longer-term (2035 and 2050) goals for greenhouse emissions." The Climate Action Strategy further observed that "[s]tate-level efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions ... will not succeed if the amount of driving-also known as vehicle miles traveled-continues to follow past trends and rates of increase" and warned that improvements in fuel technology alone "will not achieve the long-term 2050 goal for greenhouse gas reduction unless per capita vehicle *526miles traveled in the state is reduced about five percent below the baseline 2005 level." Indeed, the Climate Action Strategy even proposed strategies for reducing vehicle use, explaining that "[l]owering vehicle miles traveled means providing high-quality opportunities to make trips by alternative means to driving alone ... and by shortening vehicle trips that are made."

Which brings us to the elephant in the room-one SANDAG's EIR manages to **1008leave remarkably occluded. Given the relative clarity of statewide statutory goals for greenhouse gas emissions and the nature of SANDAG's responsibilities under CEQA, there is a jarring disconnect between the projected impact of SANDAG's plan and the reference points that GHG-3 uses to measure the plan's harm. Whereas the Air Resource Board's Scoping Plan and SANDAG's Climate Action Strategy both recognize that the San Diego region needs to reduce vehicle use and shift travel modes in the long run, SANDAG's plan projects decades of per capita increases. But instead of acknowledging this problem-the elephant in the room-the EIR states the "[t]he Scoping Plan does not have targets established beyond 2020" and claims that the regional transportation plan "would be aligned with" and "help to implement the goals and policies" of the Climate Action Strategy. SANDAG's attempt *316to ignore what it recognized just months earlier in its Climate Action Strategy is troubling, since it lets SANDAG make reassuring promises in an aspirational strategy document while at the same time investing billions in contrary policies whose impact the EIR in this case obscured. An EIR that ignores the authoring agency's own promises to the public does not contribute to "informed self-government" in the way CEQA contemplates. ( Bay-Delta , supra , 43 Cal.4th at p. 1162, 77 Cal.Rptr.3d 578, 184 P.3d 709.)

Just as misleading is SANDAG's presentation of the two significance criteria in the EIR that quantify emissions increases. GHG-2 is the only one of those two criteria that analyzes greenhouse gas impact for the plan's entire lifetime, rather than just a short-term window before the real harm sets in. This is a problem because SANDAG's plan deviates from the state's long-term goals even as the plan technically meets short-term emissions targets. According to the Attorney General and other challengers, even this short-term good news is not due to anything SANDAG is doing or building. Rather, it comes from the success of the state's new vehicle efficiency regulations as well as the lingering effects of the economic recession. And sure enough, as construction under SANDAG's plan sets in, emissions will increase. Because GHG-2 ends real analysis at 2035 though, it does not depict the harm of the plan's later phases. Instead, SANDAG presents a rosy picture of limited immediate harm, even while it marches the region toward a much worse future. SANDAG needed to communicate this problem better. A future in which the San Diego region's transportation sector emits more greenhouse gas than today-both per capita and cumulatively-is at odds *527with the state's aim to reduce vehicle use and cut greenhouse gas emissions in the long run, no matter if the plan meets short-term reduction targets.

As for GHG-1, the sole criteria that measures long-term impact in more detail, it too fails to depict the extent of the plan's harm. GHG-1 compares 2010 emissions levels with projections for 2020, 2035, and 2050. The plan first notes that 2020 emissions will be lower than 2010 levels and thus notes that the plan will not be harmful in that timeframe. Again, this may have more to do with statewide vehicle regulations than any of SANDAG's choices. And more to the point, the state's climate plan is not to reduce transportation emissions for a few years and then give up and begin to increase them again. But that is exactly what SANDAG is proposing. By 2035, as the infrastructure changes take hold, the region's transportation emissions will begin to surpass 2010 levels. That increase becomes more dramatic by 2050, once, in the EIR's words, "most of the highway, transit, and ... other infrastructure projects, [will] be in place and operational in accordance with the [plan]." The EIR thus notes that the plan will have "a significant impact" by that year.

While SANDAG is correct to note that 2050 greenhouse gas output will be "significant," the EIR never explains the extent and impact of the plan's steep emissions increase. After all, SANDAG's plan does more than simply fall short of statewide emissions reduction goals. Rather, the plan trends in the opposite direction and thus makes those goals difficult to achieve, with no analysis in the EIR of just how difficult. The majority observes that "the basis of the plaintiffs' ... critique of the EIR ... is apparent in the EIR itself." (Maj. opn., supra , 220 Cal.Rptr.3d at p. 307, 397 P.3d at p. 1001.) Yet **1009CEQA's provisions and purpose are designed to facilitate deliberation by empowering the public to understand environmental consequences, *317and not simply to ensure that an expert reading an EIR could conceivably connect the dots. (See California Building Industry Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 388, 196 Cal.Rptr.3d 94, 362 P.3d 792.) In the absence of additional explanation and context, the public simply has no way to understand what it means for a raw emissions quantity (in this case, 33.65 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent for 2050 compared to 28.85 for 2010) to be "significant." The EIR never compares the plan's increased greenhouse gas output with the emissions reductions that both scientific consensus and state policy have deemed necessary to stabilize the climate. And it never explains whether or to what extent long-term emissions reduction goals will remain feasible if SANDAG builds what it has proposed. The EIR's cursory treatment of 2050 impact-with no meaningful effort to explain how the emissions increase is significant-fails to depict the plan's incompatibility with the goals recognized in SB 375 and in SANDAG's own Climate Action Strategy. *528SANDAG was not required to reduce emissions at precisely the same rate that the entire state aims to do the same. (Cf. Center for Biological Diversity , supra , 62 Cal.4th at p. 226, 195 Cal.Rptr.3d 247, 361 P.3d 342 [noting that "nothing ... cited in the administrative record indicates the required percentage reduction from business as usual is the same for an individual project as for the entire state population and economy"].) But it needed to explain better the danger of increasing vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions (both total and per capita), in defiance of the statutory call to dramatically reduce those contributors to climate change. Long-term plans require long-term impact analysis. (See Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 441, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 821, 150 P.3d 709.) Instead, this one highlights the plan's limited short-term damage and then fails to contextualize or explain the cause and extent of long-term damage. Difficult though it may be to hide the elephant in the room, the EIR manages time and again to obscure the problems SANDAG's plan would beget.

IV.

California law makes greenhouse gas emission reduction a priority and embraces an understanding of metropolitan governance that places regional planners in a pivotal position to support that long-term goal. Now that SB 375 and other statutes clearly establish both the statewide goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and place regional planners in such a crucial role, SANDAG and other regional planning agencies have a duty under CEQA to explain where and how the regional transportation plans they issue pursuant to SB 375 disadvantage that goal. The first problem with SANDAG failing that duty in this case is that the public was left with little sense of how harmful the region's continual emissions increases will be in the long run. A second, related problem is that this shortsighted discussion of environmental impact limited the EIR's analysis of potential alternatives and mitigation. The majority and I seem to agree that SANDAG and other regional planning authorities have a responsibility to "ensure that CEQA analysis stays in step with evolving scientific knowledge and state regulatory schemes." (Maj. opn., supra , 220 Cal.Rptr.3d at p. 310, 397 P.3d at p. 1003.) The crux of my concern here is that it is precisely this responsibility SANDAG failed to fulfill. This failure distorts both the public's deliberation about the plan and the agency's proposed efforts to mitigate the harm of the projected emissions increases.

*318CEQA's environmental protection comes not only from requiring public officials to disclose environmental impact but also from analysis of how harmful impact can be mitigated or avoided. This "mitigation and alternatives discussion forms the core of an EIR." ( Bay-Delta , supra , 43 Cal.4th at p. 1162, 77 Cal.Rptr.3d 578, 184 P.3d 709.) While the validity of SANDAG's mitigation and alternatives analysis was not the question we granted review on, that issue is not fully *529separable from the question of whether SANDAG did enough to depict the environmental impact of **1010its plan. An EIR's failure to explain the precise nature and extent of that harm can affect-and in this case, limit-the alternative measures that the agency offers to the public. (See, e.g., Lotus v. Department of Transportation (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 645, 658, 167 Cal.Rptr.3d 382 ["The failure of [an] EIR to separately identify and analyze the significance of the impacts ... precludes both identification of potential environmental consequences arising from the project and also thoughtful analysis of the sufficiency of measures to mitigate those consequences."].)

SANDAG was required under CEQA to explain feasible measures for mitigating or avoiding the steep emissions increases (both per capita and cumulative) that its plan proposed. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21601.) Sometimes it proves difficult for a reviewing court to identify what alternative measures an EIR could in theory have compared to the proposed plan. But the amicus curiae briefing in this case explains that the EIR considered no plans to prioritize mass transit over highway lane construction. This includes two alternative plans-both proposed during the CEQA process by members of the public-that would have led to much lower vehicle miles traveled and overall greenhouse gas emissions while accommodating the region's projected population growth. The EIR never analyzed an alternative plan of that kind. Instead, five of the six alternatives analyzed in the EIR produce either the same or more greenhouse gas emissions as SANDAG's plan. And the one alternative plan that compares favorably to SANDAG's plan would still produce more greenhouse gas emissions in 2050 than the region emitted in 2010. Put simply, despite the mandate in SB 375 that regional planners reduce greenhouse gas emissions, SANDAG refused to consider any future scenario where the region's transportation infrastructure emits less greenhouse gas than today. Part of why the agency could get away with this halfhearted-if not highly misleading-mitigation analysis is that it downplayed the impact of increasing greenhouse gas emissions into 2050. As the Court of Appeal found, SANDAG's failure to convey the extent of its long-term harm made it easy for the agency to ignore alternatives to the plan's steep emissions increases.

V.

Together, CEQA and the state's greenhouse gas emission statutes establish the legal structure for how the state is to contend with climate change, and how it may balance the considerable benefits of development with the costs to the planet's health. In providing that framework, the statutes leave regional planners an important measure of discretion. But there are limits on that discretion. Where statutes establish environmental goals as clearly as SB 375 and the rest of the state's climate change legislation, CEQA requires *530analysis of whether a project will work "to the disadvantage of" those imperatives. ( Pub. Resources Code, § 21083, subd. (b)(1).) At a minimum, SANDAG had to explain how its regional transportation plan affects the state's long-term goal of reducing greenhouse *319gas emissions from transportation infrastructure.

No one is asking SANDAG to singlehandedly prevent California from blowing through its greenhouse gas emissions limits. But the agency was given a specific role in the state's coordinated climate change agenda: to reduce transportation emissions from the San Diego region. Under SANDAG's plan and according to its projections, the opposite will occur. While the agency is for the most part entitled to make that choice, it does not have discretion to downplay the consequence-one requiring blunter acknowledgement as the elephant in the room that it is. If SANDAG plans to permit hundreds of billions of dollars to be spent in pursuit of a plan that departs so starkly from scientific and political consensus about the emissions decreases needed to avert climate catastrophe, it must explain this divergence in sufficient detail for the public to recognize the long-term harm that will unfold in its name. SANDAG's EIR is too vague and shortsighted to fulfill that duty. In excusing this failure, the majority heightens the risk that other regional planners will shirk their responsibilities, too.