Gentry

Gentry v. City of Murrieta

Good Law
1995 Cal. App. LEXIS 668·36 Cal. App. 4th 1359·43 Cal. Rptr. 2d 170·95 Daily Journal DAR 9513·95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5612
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 18, 1995E013126California24,627 words

Opinion

Opinion

Richli, J.

Appellant Rita Gentry (Gentry) raises virtually every conceivable objection under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) to the approval by respondent City of Murrieta (City) of a plan of respondent McMillin Communities (McMillin) to build 198 homes. The City found that the project, as mitigated, would have no significant environmental effects; as a result, it adopted a mitigated negative declaration and approved the project. The trial court rejected Gentry’s objections.

We, too, reject the vast bulk of Gentry’s objections and contentions. However, we agree with her that: (1) the City failed to comply with the requirement that it send a copy of its proposed negative declaration to one other public agency (not many other agencies, as Gentry claims); (2) the City imposed one mitigation condition (not many, as Gentry claims) which improperly deferred formulation of specific mitigation measures into the future; (3) the City improperly added certain mitigation conditions (but not as many as Gentry claims) after it released the proposed negative declaration for public review; (4) the trial court applied an incorrect standard of…

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.