Nishkian v. City of Long Beach
| Decision Date | 25 April 1951 |
| Citation | 230 P.2d 156,103 Cal.App.2d 749 |
| Parties | NISHKIAN et ux. v. CITY OF LONG BEACH et al. Civil. 17861. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Irving M. Smith, City Atty., Atlee S. Arnold, Deputy City Atty., Long Beach, for appellants.
Lane & Lane, Long Beach, for respondents.
Martin Nishkian owned real property in the City of Long Beach. He desired to move a former army barracks from Costa Mesa and put it upon his Long Beach lots.
A city ordinance of the City of Long Beach provides that one desiring to move structures along the streets of the city must apply for a permit to do so; that the city building inspector must then post notices on the property to which it is proposed to move the house or building; and that persons owning property within a radius of three hundred feet of the proposed new location may protest to the city council; whereupon the city council must hold a hearing and decide whether or not to grant the permit.
Mr. Nishkian and the city building inspector proceeded in conformity with the ordinance; protests were filed; and after a hearing, the city council denied the application.
Mr. Nishkian then petitioned the Superior Court for a writ of mandate, commanding the city council to grant the permit. The written protests received by the city council and the minutes of the hearing are set forth in the Petition for Writ of Mandate. Upon stipulation the ordinance was received in evidence.
The Superior Court granted the peremptory writ. From this judgment the City appeals.
The ordinance provides that the permit shall be denied if the city council finds that it will result in a violation of any city or county or state law, or greatly inconvenience any considerable number of persons, or will violate or disturb the public welfare, safety, or peace.
The City contends that the city council properly found that moving the house would disturb the public welfare, in that it would have adversely affected the area where it was proposed to locate the barracks.
Mr. Nishkian contends that the action of the city council in denying his application was arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion, in that that there was no substantial evidence produced at the hearing to warrant denial of the permit.
The City of Long Beach is a chartered city. Stats. 1921, p. 2054. Its city council is a local administrative agency, clothed by the city charter with discretionary power to grant or to deny applications to move buildings over its city streets, and to place such buildings upon property within the city. Greif v. Dullea, 66 Cal.App.2d 986, 153 P.2d 581; also see 2 Stanford L. Rev. 291.
It is the general rule that courts will not compel public administrative agencies to act in a particular manner. Lindell Co. v. Board of Permit Appeals, 23 Cal.2d 303, 144 P.2d 4.
A reviewing court is not to judge the intrinsic value of evidence considered by an administrative agency, nor to weigh it, if the record discloses substantial evidence to support the decision. The inquiry is to be devoted only to the question whether the record shows an abuse of discretion. Cantrell v. Board of Supervisors, 87 Cal.App.2d 471, 197 P.2d 218.
If reasonable minds may well be divided as to the wisdom of an administrative board's action, a court will not substitute its judgment for that of the administrative body. Rible v. Hughes, 24 Cal.2d 437, 150 P.2d 455, 154 A.L.R. 137.
Whether the decision be by a state-wide public board or public officer, or by a local board or tribunal, the scope of judicial review is limited to determine whether there has been an abuse of discretion, and the courts have no power to try the issues de novo. McDonough v. Garrison, 68 Cal.App.2d 318, 156 P.2d 983. The rule that state-wide administrative boards and officers are vested with a high discretion in working out their problems, and that an abuse of discretion must appear very clearly before the courts will interfere, Nelson v. Dean, 27 Cal.2d 873, 168 P.2d 16, 168 A.L.R. 467, is applicable to local administrative boards.
The case comes down then to a consideration of the controlling question: Was there substantial evidence to support the action of the city council?
A number of citizens and owners of property adjacent to the Nishkian lots presented written protests,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Flaherty v. Board of Retirement of Los Angeles County Emp. Retirement Ass'n
...picture of the course thereof may be presented to the court in a proceeding such as the present. (See Nishkian v. City of Long Beach, 103 Cal.App.2d 749, 752, 230 P.2d 156; cf. Reardon v. City of Daly City, 71 Cal.App.2d 759, 765, 163 P.2d 462.) But in the present case Captain Flaherty elec......
-
California Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO v. Oxnard Elementary Schools
...manner (see Jones v. Oxnard School District et al., Cal.App., 75 Cal.Rptr. 836, filed March 11, 1969; Nishkian v. City of Long Beach, 103 Cal.App.2d 749, 751, 230 P.2d 156).3 Although the averments of the pleadings purport to establish a claim for relief on behalf of Leona Miller as an indi......
-
ABS Institute v. City of Lancaster
...judgment review, it at least had a right (in the trial court) to substantial evidence review. (See Nishkian v. City of Long Beach (1951) 103 Cal.App.2d 749, 751, 230 P.2d 156; Gubser v. Department of Employment (1969) 271 Cal.App.2d 240, 245, 76 Cal.Rptr. 577 [substantial evidence is "relev......
-
Wood v. City Planning Commission of City of San Buenaventura
...them, and an abuse of that discretion must be clear and manifest before the courts will interfere. Nishkian v. City of Long Beach, 103 Cal.App.2d 749, 751, 752, 230 P.2d 156; Cantrell v. Board of Supervisors, 87 Cal.App.2d 471, 475, 197 P.2d 218; Fascination, Inc., v. Hoover, 39 Cal.2d 260,......