Owners of a fast food restaurant in a high crime area agreed to comply with several conditions recommended by the city police department, but would not agree to operating conditions requiring patrons not to ‘“linger over a soda or other soft drink for more than 30 minutes’”; not allow prostitutes, pimps, drug users or dealers, or homeless individuals to loiter on the property for any purpose; not allow alcoholic beverages to be consumed on the property; paint over graffiti on the property with a matching color within 24 hours; have a California licensed, bonded, and uniformed security guard at the restaurant seven days a week from dusk until the restaurant closed who would, among other things, enforce the suggested operating conditions; install and maintain adequate fencing closing off the space on the north side of the business; implement a 24-hour ‘hot line’ telephone number for any inquiries or complaints about the restaurant or its operation; and limit the restaurant’s hours of operation to 6:00 a.m. to midnight Sunday through Thursday and to 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. Friday and Saturday.” When the matter did not resolve, the Zoning Administrator determined the restaurant was a public nuisance and imposed 22 conditions. That determination was upheld by the City Council’s Planning and Land Use Management Committee. The restaurant filed a petition for writ of mandate which was denied by the superior court. In their appeal from the denial of their request for extraordinary relief, the restaurant argued the de novo standard of review applied. The appellate court determined the substantial evidence standard of review applied and found there was substantial evidence to support the administrative determination the restaurant constituted a nuisance. (Benetatos v. City of Los Angeles (Cal. App. Second Dist., Div. 5; April 14, 2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 1270 [186 Cal.Rptr.3d 46].)
