AgdaPkt 2002-11-04 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

staff rely upon its conduct? (3) was city staff ignorant of the true facts? (4) did city staff rely upon appellant's conduct to its detriment? On balance and based upon the administrative record, it would not appear that the doctrine of equitable estoppel is cleady applicable in either instance. Appellant next argues that the City is "estopped because the hardship to Innovations outweighs the City's interest in finding that CosmoProf use is non- conforming." Appellant cites Anderson v. City of La Mesa as authority for this position. In City of La Mesa, the city had issued a building permit for a single family dwelling (according to then current zoning ordinances) with a side yard set back of at least five feet. Dudng construction, the city inspected the house six times. Upon completion, the city claimed a specific plan ordinance required the house to have a side yard set back of ten feet and refused to issue a permanent occupancy permit unless plaintiff removed that portion of her house within the ten foot set back. There, the court held, "A government entity may be estopped, however, where, as here, the injustice which would result from a failure to uphold an estoppel is of sufficient dimension to justify any effect upon public interest or policy which would result from the raising of an estoppel." (Citing City of Long Beach v. Manse/I, at 496-497, supra.) Unlike City of La Mesa, the administrative record demonstrates that there would be significant detriment to 'public interest or policy' if estoppel were to be applied in this instance: "[-r]he downtown retail area of Redwood City has yet to achieve the purpose and goals outlined in both the Central Business (CB) Zoning District in which it is located and those policies discussed in the 1983 Downtown Development Plan. For these reasons, staff is proposing a Zoning Text and Zoning Map Amendment which will attempt to encourage the improvement and revitalization of the downtown area by allowing certain retail uses and amenities." (October 15, 1991 Redwood City Planning Commission Staff Report attached hereto as Exhibit "1".) In furtherance of the stated purpose, Redwood City enacted Article 26, and created a zone which "dictate the types of uses permitted..." (October 15, 1991, Redwood City Planning Commission S' - Re ';rt. ~nd. unlike CityofLa Mesa, appellant had actual notice of sa~d ore . ~ce ,x~d L~ d upon its own due diligence, committed itself to a long term ,ease prior [~ obtaining any building entitlements or business license. /// /// PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL Council. Innovations 10