Martin v. City and County of San Francisco
California Court of Appeal
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
- Webster v. FallSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
- Friends of Mammoth v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
- Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
- No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
- Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. City of Manhattan BeachCalifornia Supreme Court · 2011
- Cal. Water Impact Network v. Cnty. of San Luis Obispo, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
- Friends of Glendora v. City of GlendoraCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
- CA Water Impact Network v. Co. of San Luis ObispoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2018
- Gallagher v. City and County of San FranciscoDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2024
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.