What is the test for determining the validity of the findings of the zoning board and the board of supervisors?

The issue facing the trial court in the Lockwood case, therefore, was the validity of the findings of the zoning board and the board of supervisors when measured by the above standard. In Ames v. City of Pasadena (1959) 167 Cal.App.2d 510, at page 516, 334 P.2d 653, at page 657, the court said: '* * * the decision of the municipal body in granting or denying a variance will not be disturbed by the courts in the absence of a clear and convincing showing of an abuse of discretion. [Citation.]

'Finally, it is to be observed as pointed out in Steiger v. Board of Supervisors, 1956, 143 Cal.App.2d 352, 357, 300 [222 Cal.App.2d 636] P.2d 210, that the granting of the variance and exception did not operate to give the defendant * * * any right which was not theretofore vested in her. It merely removed certain restrictions imposed by the zoning ordinance in an R-1 zone. The exception does not restrict plaintiffs or those they purport to represent in the use of their property and they have no vested right in the maintenance of the restrictions.'

In Flagstad v. City of San Mateo (1957) 156 Cal.App.2d 138, 142, 318 P.2d 825, 828, the court noted that 'Courts must curb carefully the temptation to make policy in the field of zoning variance. The point of view to be satisfied is that of the city council. The courts inquire only whether the decision of the council is arbitrary or capricious, whether it is an abuse of discretion or is without any reasonable justification. Unless so proscribed, the council's determination must stand, regardless of the court's view as to its wisdom.' (Accord: Siller v. Board of Supervisors (1962) 58 Cal.2d 479, 25 Cal.Rptr. 73, 375 P.2d 41.)