Fear Not Law Articles: CITIZENS v. MCCLOUD COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT

Filed 1/2/07 Certified for publication 1/31/07 (order attached)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Siskiyou)

CONCERNED MCCLOUD CITIZENS,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

MCCLOUD COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT et al.,

Defendants and Appellants;

NESTLE WATERS NORTH AMERICA, INC.,

Real Party in Interest and

Appellant.

C050811

(Super. Ct. No. SCCVPT04500)

This case concerns an agreement for a contingent proposal for the sale and purchase of spring water, between McCloud Community Services District (District) and Nestle Waters North America, Inc. (Nestle). Concerned McCloud Citizens (Citizens), an unincorporated association formed for the purpose of protecting natural and cultural resources in the area of the town of McCloud in Siskiyou County, filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the District's approval of the agreement with Nestle because the District failed to conduct any environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)^{^[1]} prior to its approval of the agreement. The trial court concluded the District's approval of the agreement without prior CEQA review was a prejudicial abuse of discretion and entered a judgment granting the requested writ of mandate requiring the agreement to be vacated, set aside, and voided.

The District and Nestle appeal, primarily contending the District's execution of the agreement was not an â€

Description	Public Resources Code Sec. 21177(b), which requires that a citizen objecting to a project under CEQA do so during public comment period or prior to the close of public hearing to retain standing to challenge the project in court, did not bar action where local agency did not hold a public hearing within the meaning of the statute but merely an informational meeting on a tentative agreement, the approval of which it did not consider to be an approval of a project within the meaning of CEQA, and where no notice of determination was issued following the meeting. Agreement for development of natural resource that was conditional on subsequent CEQA review did not itself constitute a "project" within the meaning of CEQA.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.