Legal Opinion

Martin v. City and County of San Francisco

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 29, 2005No. A107768PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

MUNTER, J. *

The novel and very narrow issue presented is this: May a municipality lawfully require the owner of a private single-family residence who proposes to modify a portion of the interior of his residence, in an area not visible to the general public, to undergo the burden and expense of a review of his proposed project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)? The answer is “no.” As we explain, although a municipality has very broad statutory discretion to grant or deny a required building permit, that authority does not extend to imposing CEQA review upon…

2Cases cited31 opinions

  1. Webster v. FallSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
  2. Friends of Mammoth v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
  3. Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
  4. No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
  5. Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990

26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. City of Manhattan BeachCalifornia Supreme Court · 2011
  2. Cal. Water Impact Network v. Cnty. of San Luis Obispo, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
  3. Friends of Glendora v. City of GlendoraCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
  4. CA Water Impact Network v. Co. of San Luis ObispoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2018
  5. Gallagher v. City and County of San FranciscoDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2024

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API