AgdaPkt 2002-11-04 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Fourth, on the face of the business license the following is provided: "It is issued for revenue purposes only and does not constitute a permit to operate a business in violation of City ordinances or State laws." Fifth, the building permit was issued to construct a small office within the building space and appellant may complete those improvements in accordance with the permit terms. (The Avco case does not, as argued by appellant, hold that once a building permit has been issued, a permittee has a vested right to operate a business upon the improved property when said use is prohibited by ordinance.) Finally, there has been no change in Article 26 since the time appellant secured either his business license or building permit. Under these circumstances, Avco provides no legal basis for appellant having a vested right to operate its business in the CBR district. 8. Redwood City may be estopped from enforcing its finding of non-conformance Appellant argues that the legal theory of equitable estoppel forms the basis for permitting its business to be located within the CBR district. Equitable estoppel has been explained in City of Long Beach v. Mansell (1970) 3 Cal.3d 462, as follows: "The vital principle is that he who by his language or conduct leads another to do what he would not otherwise have done shall not subject such person to loss or injury by disappointing the expectation upon which he acted. Such a change of position is sternly forbidden. It involves fraud and falsehood, and the law abhors both." Generally speaking, four elements must be present in order to apply the doctrine of equitable estoppel: (1) the party to be estopped must be apprised of the facts; (2) he must intend that his conduct shall be acted upon or must so act that the party asserting the estoppel had a right to believe it was so intended; (3) the other party must be ignorant of the true state of facts; and (4) he must. rely upon the conduct to his injury. (At pp. 488-489.) Appellant first argues that the City may not find appellant's use to be prohibited in the CBR zone as the "City's I~guage and conduct induced Innovations into investing for [sici :ne ope ting the b,.siness." By applying the administrative record to each of the four elements of equitable estoppel as set forth above, the questions to be determined are: (1) was city staff apprised of the facts? (2) did City staff intend that appellant rely upon their conduct? (3) was appellant ignorant of the true facts? (4) did appellant rely upon staff's conduct to its detriment? Conversely, equitable estoppel could be applied to the appellant in the following manner: (1) was appellant apprised of the facts? (2) did appellant intend that city PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL Council.lnnovalJons 9