California Court of Appeal

The trial court's judgment denying plaintiffs petition for a writ of administrative mandamus compelling the City to set aside its public convenience or necessity decision, in which it concluded that granting real party in interest 7-Eleven's application for a liquor license would serve public convenience or necessity, is affirmed, where: 1) the 90 day statutory period for the determination begins to run when the City receives the request for a public convenience or necessity determination, not when the request is made; 2) the City's resolution delegating authority to make the public convenience or necessity determination to the City's Planning Commission and Director of Development Services does not change the governing standard and does not apply to the City Council's final determination; 3) the City relied on reasonable factors supported by substantial evidence to make its determination; and 4) the Development Director did not advocate on 7-Eleven's behalf.

Appellate Information

• Decided 12/23/2014
• Published 12/23/2014

Judges

• Aronson

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel