Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutUse Permit 81-9 - Foxx Development Corporation - Refurbish fof VIRTUE C&SCHECK16 LAWYERS C UAVID PA'-1 R VJALFICaJ L1 ::Efl FO ERT E CALLAHAN KATHf_EENV r-AP 1;....t i C A R C L L. C V-AN RCHARD M c I L PAUL U liF F:.t THCI /AS M. :'E S i;l JNuFSS 11�4 CJ viF,G!?:IAC+JTE SLISAN'+Y 01,ILIDEVAN INCORPORATED July 2, 1981 Mayor Ruth Finley Huntington Beach City Council 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Use Permit No. 81-9 Dear Mayor and Council Members: 1E C; -el V JAC ' OLN NOTS55 Cn,3! GctCo'tl• ^n N* c of cm �u L A-' 'f I HAND DELIVERED The law firm of Virtue & Scheck, Incorporated has been retained by Foxx Development Corp. ("Foxx") to assist it in processing its application for Use Permit No. 81-9 ( the "Application") . The purpose of this letter is to attempt to clarify what has become a continuing and very frustrating misunderstanding regarding the nature of the proceedings before, first, the Planning Commission (the "Commission") and, now, the City Council (the "Council"). On February 23, 1981, Foxx filed the Application which requested nothing more than to allow it to refurbish the front elevation of its office building located �t 305 17th Street. (the "Property") . The use permit was sought pursuant to and in accordance with the RC3 zoning of the Property. On April 1, 1981, staff refused to process the Application through the Board of Zoning Adjustments on the ground that "the zone change on the property required that all four (4) of the corner lots he included in a project for the site." The Application was not heard by the BZA. All subsequent activity re concerning the Property has evolved from this usa to rocess the Aj7­Kration . On May. 19, 1981, I appeared at the meeting of the Commission And requested that the Commission direct staff. to accept the Application for processing. The matter was continued to the June 2, 1981, meeting of the Commission. t 'P.O. t,COX 2950 / 17 CORPORATE PLAZA DRIVE, NEWF ORT 9EAC;H, CALIFORNIA 92660 TELEPHONE i714) 644.9WU -VIR` UE C& SCHECK Mayor Ruth Finley j Huntington Beach Cite Council July 2, 1981 Page 2 On May 26, 1981, by the letter included in your agenda package at D-2g- 9, Foxx forme ly requested the Commission to direct staff to accept the Application for processing and requested that this item be placed upon the agenda for the June 2, 1981, meeting of the Commission. On May 26, 1981, I delivered to the City Attorney the letter included in your agenda package at D-2g-11 outlining Foxx's legal position with respect to the Application . The main conclusions of this letter are that (i) the reason given by staff for the rejection of the Application has no basis in the files, minutes, approvals, or ordinances oL the City and (ii) the Application is consistent with the QC3 zoning of the Property. At the meeting of the Commission on June 2, 1981, an initial m-tion was made to direct staff to accept the Application for processing; however, this motion was withdrawn. The final action taken by the Commission was to adopt a motion requesting staff to prepare an ordinance to remove the QC3 zoning from the Property. On June 12, 1981, Foxx filed an appeal ;rom the action of th-- Commission. The Request for City Council Action prepared by staff indicates that the appeal is from the Commission's direction to prepare the ordinance change. However, the appeal is not from the direction to prepare the ordinance change. The appeal is from the Commission's refusal to direct staff to accept the Application for processing. _ The issue before the Council on its agenda for July 7, 1981, is whether the Commission properly refused to direct staff to accept the Application for processing. If the Council rejects this appeal, Foxx will have exhausted its administrative remedies iTl seeking the processing of the Application and will be required to seek a writ of mandate by way of legal action. Foxx wishes to avoid the necessity of a lawsuit, particularly when it appears that any such lnwsuit would be the result of a misunderstanding concerning the issue to be addressed by the Council. Simply stated, Foxx has a right to have the Application processed. If it is necessary to initiate a lawsuit, it will be the result only of the failure of the City Attorney and staff to understand the issues presented by the Application and the appeal. The letter included in your agenda package at D-2g-11 sets forth in great detail Foxx's legal position concerning the Application and its relatirnship to Zone Change No. 78-14. It is Foxx's position that the current zoning on the Property is QC3 and that staff must accept the Application for VIRTUE C& SCHECK r- �J LA WEAS INCORPORATED Mayor Ruth Finley Huntington Beach July 2, 1981 Page 3 City Council Foxx requests the processing. If any to answer, please very .nuch lilte to exist. Very truly yours, Council to direct staff to accept the Application for Coun:-il ;nember has any questions which I may be able feel free to contact me before the meeting. I would clari!'y any misunderstandings which may presently VIRTUE & SCHECK, INCORPORATED By —Cv-A/� V) SUSAN IV. IIALDEP"AN /kg cc: Gail Hutton, City Attorney Arthur Folger, Assistant City Attorney Charles Thompson, City Administrator James Palia, Department of Development Services June Catalano, Department of Development Services Savoy Bellavia, Deportment of Development Services James Foxx