Boghos v. Certain Underwriters At Lloyds of London Boghos v. Certain Underwriters At Lloyds of London

Boghos v. Certain Underwriters At Lloyds of London

115 P.3D 68, 36 CAL.4TH 495, 30 CAL.RPTR.3D 787, 2005 DAILY JOURNAL D.A.R. 8556, 05 CAL. DAILY OP. SERV. 6260, 2005.CA.0006323

    • $0.99
    • $0.99

Publisher Description

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.

GENRE
Professional & Technical
RELEASED
2005
July 18
LANGUAGE
EN
English
LENGTH
20
Pages
PUBLISHER
LawApp Publishers
SELLER
Innodata Book Distribution Services Inc
SIZE
84.8
KB
International Arbitration : Issues, Perspectives and Practice: Liber Amicorum Neil Kaplan International Arbitration : Issues, Perspectives and Practice: Liber Amicorum Neil Kaplan
2019
The Essential Contract Law Casebook The Essential Contract Law Casebook
2015
People V. Richardson People V. Richardson
2008
Robinson Helicopter Co. Robinson Helicopter Co.
2004
People V. Mills People V. Mills
2010
People V. Davis People V. Davis
2009
People V. Holloway People V. Holloway
2004
Stephens v. County of Tulare Stephens v. County of Tulare
2006