Deed - 260 W Juana Ave - File 510, 1962

Home

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 15 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 the San i-eandro Municipal Code, as revised February 1, 1954, which section deals with am, endments of zoning ordinances and reads as follows: "(b) The decision of the City Council shall be rendered within sixty (60) days after the receipt of a report and recor nnnendation frond the 'Manning Com nis- sion or after the expiration of such ninety (90) days as aioresai{ . il As the. petition file herein.. clearly shows, all preceding acts and. conditions necessary to the action of the S..n Leandro City Council pursuant to Section 4.54(b) have been completed and. fulfiller";.. Petitioner further asks that &,e City Council be directec_ not only to act, but also to act in a certain way, namely: That the City Council be directed to er_act an ordinance providing for the rezoning of the lane .7esig- nated in the petition to reclassify it from an K-3 zone to a ;-1 zone. The writ will issue if the facts prove that there can be only one conclusion ant. establish the right of the petitioner to have the act performcu. In Klevesahl vs. vyir:gton, 1 C.:.A.(2c1) 671, there st has been set "Down: ''Ainong the rules by which courts are guicec, in the issuance of writs of manc.ate are the following: (1) The writ will issue, in a proper case, to compel the exercise of discretion; (2) It will Never issue to control aliscretion, either before, or after exercise then<eoi; (3) In a proper case, the writ will issue to correct an abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion, howave•L°, is not the exercise of discre- tion but action beyond the limits of discretion; (4) It will issue only w-hen the act to be comnaroded is certain, defin- ite and fixed. 'Where discretion has not been exerciser., the definite thing comniandec. is to act. `Where the limits of discretion have been excee(Jec, the definite comi-nand is to act within such lirnita . " Browning vs. Low, 60 'C.A., 660, 682. It is the contention of the petitioner that it Las in good faith so change,` its position to its detriment in reliance upon the acts, c'.Qeds an - obvious intentions of the City C-l'ouncil that said. Counci-1 now has a duty tc. pass an ordinance rezoning the property as prayer, in its Petition. Donovan vs. —City of Santa Monica, 58 G.A.(261) 386. It is now well recognize- that an equitable estoppel will run against the government where justice and right i ecLuire it. The basis for such estoppel is this: SPRUANCE & SIMONIAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1514 WASHINGTON AVE. FELTON CENTER SAN LEANDRO, CALIF. LOCKHAVEN 9-1301 2.