Legal Opinion
Ocean View Estates Homeowners Ass'n v. Montecito Water District
California Court of Appeal
Decided March 2, 2004No. B162920PublishedCited by 20 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
GILBERT, P. J.
A water district wishes to cover a reservoir. It issues a mitigated negative declaration (MND). The MND fails to identify and discuss significant environmental impacts. A homeowners association brings a writ of mandate to compel the water district to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) for its project. The trial court denies the petition.
Here we hold, among other things, mitigation measures taken after a MND is issued do not satisfy the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Res. Code, § 21000 et seq.) requirements. We reverse.
FACTS
The Ortega Reservoir…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Oro Fino Glod Mining Corp. v. County of El DoradoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1990
- Citizen Action to Serve All Students v. ThornleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1990
- Noronha v. StewartCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1988
3Cited by20 opinions
- Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of BakersfieldCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
- The Pocket Protectors v. City of SacramentoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
- Mira Mar Mobile Community v. City of OceansideCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
- North Coast Rivers Alliance v. Marin Municipal Water District Board of DirectorsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
- Porterville Citizens for Responsible Hillside Development v. City of PortervilleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.