Nishkian v. City of Long Beach

California Court of Appeal Apr 25, 1951 No. Civ. 17861Published

Before: Drapeau

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the city council's denial of a building permit was supported by substantial evidence, as the record contained testimony regarding potential fire hazards and neighborhood degradation, which falls within the council's discretionary authority.

Issues

Whether the city council's denial of a building permit was supported by substantial evidence.
Whether the city council abused its discretion in denying the permit to move a structure.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“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 evidence is sufficient to support a finding that moving this old barracks into the neighborhood would violate and disturb the public welfare of the city of Long Beach.”

DRAPEAU, J.—

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 300 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. Prom this judgment the city appeals.

[751]

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 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.) 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.

Nishkian v. City of Long Beach

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief