III Appellant also contends there is no substantial evidence to support the court's finding that the intersection project was consistent with the county's General Plan. In particular, she complains that the CVR Specific Plan required simultaneous reconstruction of the intersection and improvement of Carmel Valley Road to four lanes between Robinson Canyon Road and Via Petra. The contention is without merit. We find nothing in the Plan itself or in the Board's subsequent conduct to indicate that when it approved the Specific Plan, it intended simultaneous construction of the two-road improvement projects. For example, the agreement entered into between the County and CVR to carry out the conditions imposed by the Specific Plan contained no simultaneous construction requirement.
Judgment is affirmed.
All rights reserved.