California Court of Appeal

The trial court properly denied a petition for writ of mandate in which petitioner alleged that defendant-county violated various provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in approving a commercial real estate project in the county, where: 1) defendant-county did nor err in failing to prepare and recirculate a revised draft environmental impact report (EIR) adding the staff alternative, because the staff alternative was not "significant new information" within the meaning of the CEQA Guidelines; 2) defendant-county was not required to make findings regarding the feasibility of the staff alternative because the alternative was proffered after preparation of the final EIR and adequate alternatives were discussed in the EIR; and 3) defendant-county did not rely on future traffic improvements, but instead relied on the current actual use of the road in question, rather than its current traffic designation.

Appellate Information

• Decided 11/06/2013
• Published 11/06/2013

Judges

• MAURO

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel