Martin

Martin v. City and County of San Francisco

Good Law
135 Cal. App. 4th 392·2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 1987·2006 Daily Journal DAR 120·37 Cal. Rptr. 3d 470·36 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20003
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 29, 2005A107768California5,456 words

Opinion

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 such an interior home project, even where the residence is listed as a city landmark and is located within an area registered as a state and a national historic district. What an owner plans to do to the private interior of his or her home does not implicate a significant adverse effect on the environment, which is the predicate for requiring CEQA review by a municipality.

A secondary issue is whether, apart from CEQA, a court will preempt administrative review under section 26 of the San Francisco Business and Tax Regulations Code of an application for a building permit. The answer again is “no.” The…

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.