Sievert v. City of National City

• Decision Date: 16 July 1976
• Citation: 60 Cal.App.3d 234,131 Cal.Rptr. 358
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: Paul C. SIEVERT et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, Defendant and Respondent. Civ. 14277.

Page 358

131 Cal.Rptr. 358

60 Cal.App.3d 234

Paul C. SIEVERT et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, Defendant and Respondent.

Civ. 14277.

Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1, California.

July 16, 1976.

Scrim & Walters by Robert R. Scrim, San Diego, for plaintiffs and appellants.

Jennings, Engstrand & Henrikson by C. Michael Cowett, San Diego, for defendant and respondent.

GERALD BROWN, Associate Justice.

Paul C. Sievert and Michael D. Leggett, doing business as Sievert-Leggett Medical Transfer (Sievert-Leggett), plaintiffs, appeal the granting of a judgment on the pleadings in favor of the City of National City, defendant. Sievert-Leggett's motion for summary judgment was denied.

The facts are not in duspute. Sievert-Leggett operates a state-licensed ambulance service based in Poway. It wishes to do business in National City and has applied for a certificate of public convenience and necessity as required by National City. However, the city denied its application becuase 'the existing ambulance service, available to the public within the City of National City is adequate to meet the public demand for such service.' (Ord. No. 1339, Art. III, § 6(d).)

As a result of being denied the certificate, Sievert-Leggett cannot 'engage in the business of operating an ambulance' within National City (Ord. No. 1339, Art. III, § 1). It challenges the validity of Section 6(d).

Although regulating the operation and equipment of ambulances, as well as certification of ambulance drivers, is generally a function of the state, Vehicle Code section 2512 specifically allows local authorities to adopt more restrictive regulations, and refutes Sievert-Leggett's contention the area has been preempted by state law (People v. Mueller, 8 Cal.App.3d 949, 953--954, 88 Cal.Rptr. 157).

We must still consider whether the object of the ordinance is one for which the police power may be improperly invoked, and if so, whether he ordinance bears a reasonable relation to that objective (Silver v. City of Los Angeles, 217 Cal.App.2d 134, 139, 31 Cal.Rptr. 545; Thain v. City of Palo Alto, 207 Cal.App.2d 173, 186, 24 Cal.rptr. 515).

The use of public streets for private enterprise is a special privilege peculiarly subject to regulation, and may be withheld on reasonable grounds related to public safety, health and welfare. There is no vested or constitutional right to use a public street for conducting private business (People v. Galena, 24 Cal.App.2d Supp. 770, 775, 70 P.2d 724; People v. Amdur, 123 Cal.App.2d Supp. 951, 964, 267 P.2d 445; McQuillin-Municipal Corporations, 3d ed. § 24.669).

The availability of ambulance service is a legitimate government concern, and National City has determined its existing service is adequate. The addition of Sievert-Leggett's business in National City would create a surfeit of ambulance companies which may impair the success and discourage the continued operation of the companies already...