Coronado Citizens etc. v. City of Coronado CA4/1

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 23, 2024D082360California6,770 words

Opinion

Opinion

Irion, J.

I.

BACKGROUND

A. Legal Background “CEQA generally requires a state or local public agency to prepare an EIR on any activity it undertakes or approves which may have a significant

Further undesignated citations are to the Public Resources Code. 2 effect on the environment.” (Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1371 (Gentry).) However, such agency may instead adopt a “ ‘mitigated negative declaration’ ” if the effects can be mitigated “to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur” and “there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment.” (§ 21064.5.) B. Factual and Procedural Background Since at least 2011, the City has been investigating “the feasibility of developing a new recycled water supply.” The City conducted several studies with stakeholders over the years, considering three potential sites for a facility. By 2020, the City had identified a final proposed site and put forward a plan to build a wastewater treatment plant on the Coronado Municipal Golf Course, next to the San Diego Bay, to provide…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.