G & D Holland Construction Co. v. City of Marysville

Good Law
12 Cal. App. 3d 989·1970 Cal. App. LEXIS 1687·91 Cal. Rptr. 227
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 17, 1970Civ. 12699California2,705 words

Opinion

Opinion

Friedman, J.

There are triable issues of fact in this mandate proceeding and the trial court erred in granting a summary judgment in favor of respondents, the City of Marysville and its officials.

Subject of the controversy is a land use proposal involving a square block of real estate in a section of the city known as East Marysville. Petitioners seek a writ of mandate to compel issuance of a building permit for an apartment house development on the property. The project, to consist of six buildings containing 76 apartment units, is to be financed under a provision of the National Housing Act authorizing government interest subsidies on housing designed for “lower income families.” (12 U.S.C.A. § 1715z-l, Public Law 90-448, tit. II, § 201(a); 82 Stat. 498 .)

The city’s basic zoning ordinance, of which we take judicial notice, was adopted in 1963. At that time the block in question was zoned R-3. That designation signified a “neighborhood apartment district,” permitting a maximum of four family dwellings per building. In 1966 the property owner requested that this single block be rezoned to R-4 (general apartment district) in order to accommodate a “garden type” apartment house.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.