AgdaPkt 2002-11-04 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

loP-is Article 26, it arises by implication from the purpose section of Article 26 (%..encourage pedestrian traffic and serve the needs of Redwood City residents, businesses and workers"). The interpretation of the Zoning Code by the Zoning Administrator is not subject to the public hearing process. Moreover, the matter is now before the City Council, at a public hearing where appellant has been fully apprised of the position taken by staff. 7. Appellant's right to open is vested Appellant argues that it has obtained a vested right to complete its improvements and operate as it has received a building permit and business license (attached hereto as Exhibits "(3 "and "H '). Appellant cites Avco Oommuni~y Developers, Inc. v. South Ooast Regional Oommis$ion in support of its position. Indeed, the court in Avco held, "It has long been the rule in this state and in other jurisdictions that if a property owner has performed substantial work and incurred substantial liabilities in good faith reliance upon a permit issued by the government, he acquires a vested right to complete construction in accordance with the terms of the permit. (Citations omitted.) Once a landowner has secured a vested right the government may not, by virtue of a change in zoning law prohibit construction authorized by the permit upon which he relied." (P. 791 .) While the Avco case so held, the situation here is significantly different. First, as shown above, appellant entered into its lease agreement with the property owner based upon the due diligence and representations of itself and its representative. No evidence has been presented that the City made any representations to the appellant inducing it to enter into the lease agreement. Second, the testimony of the proponents of the appeal is that they, having significant experience in real estate transactions, had reviewed the City's zoning ordinance and had satisfied themselves that appellant's use of the property was appropriate under the Municipal Code. Thus, appellant had actual notice of the permitted, accessory and conditional uses permitted within the CBR district prior to entering into its lease agreement. Third, the administrative record does not reflect appellant having made inquiry of or provided any meaningful information to staff with respect to its business operations until notified that its use in the CBR district might be illegal. (No attempt is made herein to suggest any reason why information was not forthcoming at an earlier point in time.) PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL Council.lnnovatJons 8