California Court of Appeal

On appeal of a trial court's grant of an irrigation district's petition for a writ of mandate challenging a city's use of a mitigated negative declaration in approving a residential development, judgment is affirmed with holdings that: 1) the trial court did not err by including two documents in the record of proceedings, where substantial evidence supported the trial court's finding of fact that the documents were submitted to the city during its administrative process; 2) the district had standing to seek a petition for writ of mandate to enforce CEQA; and 3) evidence in the record should not be regarded as incredible and ignored when applying the "fair argument" standard for requiring an EIR.

Appellate Information

• Decided 03/09/2012
• Published 03/09/2012

Judges

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Neal E. Costanzo, Law Offices of P. Scott Browne