Bradbeer v. England
| Decision Date | 12 June 1951 |
| Citation | 104 Cal.App.2d 704,232 P.2d 308 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | BRADBEER et al. v. ENGLAND et al. Civ. 18456. |
A. J. O'Conner, George J. Hider, Los Angeles, for appellants.
Clyde Woodworth, Inglewood, and Dunlap, Holmes, Ross & Woodson, Pasadena, for respondents.
Spencer & Harris, Inglewood, for interveners.
The Hollywood Turf Club, herein referred to as Turf Club, as owner of 124 acres within the City of Inglewood filed with the City's Planning Commission, herein designated Commission, an application for zone variance with respect to a portion of its property from R-1, one family zone, to R-3, multiple family zone, by virtue of provisions of section 14 of ordinance 925 as amended by ordinance 947. Its application was duly denied by the Commission which found the prerequisites of section 14 to be not supported, and that the granting of such variance would be materially detrimental to the public welfare. Turf Club thereupon appealed from the decision of the Commission to the City Council which was composed of respondents who after a public hearing overruled the commission and granted the variance. After a reconsideration of their decision, respondents decided to adopt resolution No. 3150 granting the Turf Club the variance requested. Thereafter, appellants as residents, electors and taxpayers of Inglewood filed their petition in the superior court for a writ of certiorari demanding an annulment of resolution No. 3150. After respondents filed their answer, one Samuel Firks as trustee of Hollypark Knolls, Inc., filed his complaint in intervention declaring that corporation to be interested in the results of the litigation by reason of its contract to purchase several parcels of land including the subject acres and had contracted to expend large sums of money for such lands and in developing a housing project thereon.
The action was duly tried and decision filed substantially adopting the findings of respondents made while sitting as the City Council of Inglewood. They found that before a variance may be granted it shall be shown:
'1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to the property or class of uses in the same vicinity or zone.
'2. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone.
'3. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located; and
as required by subparagraph C, Part II of section 14, ordinance 925 of Inglewood as amended by ordinance 947.
Also, it was found that (1) the Turf Club is owner of 124 acres lying within the City of Inglewood; (2) its application demanded relief pursuant to sub-paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 of paragraph C, Part III of section 14 of ordinance 925, above quoted; (3) it prayed for a variance from R-1, single family zone, to R-3, multiple family zone with respect to a portion of its acres; (4) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to the property or class of uses in the same vicinity or zone; (5) the subject property is vacant, comprises 20 acres, fronting 1070 feet on Crenshaw boulevard with a depth of 820 feet, and lies at the top of a downward slope overlooking the easterly portion of the race track installations which consist of a quarter-mile practice track, dormitories and barns for 1300 horses; (6) in January, 1950, intervenor Firks as trustee contracted for the purchase of the 20 acres for the purpose of developing same for multiple residential use, and he and his principal, Hollypark Knolls Inc., are now the owners of such lands; (7) they and their predecessors have expended $17,876 for the preparation of plans for the erection of a garden-type-apartment project consisting of 22 multiple residential units on the lands for the use of the Turf Club, for processing preliminary applications for financing the project and for processing applications before the Federal Housing Administration; (8) on May 2, 1950, respondents adopted resolution 3150 granting a variance from R-1 to R-3 for multiple residential use; (9) upon the adoption of such resolution, Firks and his principal became obligated to complete the purchase of the land at a cost of $187,000, which sum they paid to the Turf Club; (10) since the granting of the variance the Hollypark Knolls, Inc., with knowledge of the pendency of this proceeding has expended for services and materials in the construction of the 22 multiple residential units the sum of $76,853.99 and have become indebted for architect's fees, lumber, concrete, plumbing, plastering, painting, hardwood flooring, electrical wiring, appliances and other necessary materials and subcontracts in the sum of about $1,320,000 and have a commitment for a loan of $2,550,000 from a responsible bank to finance the 22 units and the Federal Housing Administration has issued its commitment for the required insurance; (11) prior to ordering the variance respondents granted a fair trial and hearing and their findings are supported by substantial evidence; (12) the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in that vicinity, nor will it adversely affect the comprehensive general plan of zoning the City of Inglewood.
Sole Issue.
On this appeal only one issue is presented, to wit, is there substantial evidence to support the findings of the trial court. That the proof introduced on behalf of appellants might be equally substantial and more voluminous does not affect the rule that this court is powerless to reverse a judgment where it has substantial evidential support. Appellants' stipulation to the truth of practically all the facts comprising the defense alleged in the answer appears in abbreviated form on the margin hereof. 1 In addition thereto,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles
...8 (see, e.g., Siller v. Board of Supervisors (1962), 58 Cal.2d 479, 482, 25 Cal.Rptr. 73, 375 P.2d 41; Bradbeer v. England (1951), 104 Cal.App.2d 704, 707, 232 P.2d 308), they have failed to clarify whether the administrative agency must always set forth findings and have not illuminated th......
-
Broadway, Laguna, Vallejo Ass'n v. Board of Permit Appeals of City and County of San Francisco
...decision of similar import (see, e.g., Flagstad v. City of San Mateo (1957) 156 Cal.App.2d 138, 318 P.2d 825; Bradbeer v. England (1959) 104 Cal.App.2d 704, 232 P.2d 308), did the governing provisions require the administrative board to specify its subsidiary findings and its ultimate The p......
-
Lagrutta v. City Council
...are such as to require, under the provisions of the zoning ordinance, the granting of the variance.' (See also Bradbeer v. England (1951) 104 Cal.App.2d 704, 709, 232 P.2d 308.) Furthermore, it appears to be the general practice of city councils in conducting hearings on appeal to hear any ......
-
Lagrutta v. City Council of City of Stockton
...are such as to require, under the provisions of the zoning ordinance, the granting of the variance." (See also Bradbeer v. England (1951) 104 Cal.App.2d 704, 709, 232 P.2d 308.) Furthermore, it appears to be the general practice of city councils in conducting hearings on appeal to hear any ......