AgdaPkt 2002-11-04 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

09/23/2002 14:51 FAX {~011/012 I0 · Allen Matkins Leek Gamble & Mallory I,l.p · ttern~ys ~t Mayor Richard S. Claire Vice Mayor Jefflra September 23, 2002 Page 10 The opening of CosmoProfwas scheduled for AugUst 26, 2002, and the City delivered its finding of non-conformance on August 9, 2002, well after substantial work had been performed and substantial liabilities incurred. 8. .Redwood City May Be Estopped of Non-Conformance. From Enforcing Its Findin,, The City's finding of zoning non-conformance is fundamentally unfair to Innovations and cannot be enforced. A municipal agency may be estopped when, by its language or conduct, it leads a person to do what he would not other~dse have done, and such person is subject to loss or injury cansed bY disappointing the expectations upon which he acted. City of £ong Beach v.' Mansell (1970) 3 Cal. 3d 462, 488. This is precisely the situation in which Innovations now fads itself. Innovations applied for and received the necessary permits from the City in order to establish the CosmoProfstore. Relying on the permits, Innovations performed improvements on the Property, committed to a five-year lease, and made alt the necessary arrangements to open for business on August 26, 2002. The City had ample time to object to Innovations' proposed use of the Property and did not. The City's language and conduct induced Innovations into investing for the opening of the business. As a result, equity demands that the City be estopped from enforcing a finding of zoning non-conformance in order to prevent substantial harm and unfairness against Innovations. The City may also be estopped because the hardship to Innovations outweighs the City's interest in finding that the CosmoProfuse is non-conforming. A government entity may be estopped where the injustice which would result from a failur~ 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. Anderson v. City of£a M&a, (1981) 118 Cal. App. 3d 657, 661. .applying this vale, the court iaAnderson balanced the nature of a zoning violation against the hardship to the landowner and estopped the government entity from enforcing the zoning ordinance against the landowner. Here, given the work performed and the liabilities incurred, the hardship to Innovations outweighs the effect (if any) the estoppel would have on the City's public interest. The City has never expressed that a public interest exists in denying CosmoProf the opportunity to open for business. Nor can the City show that the establishment would adversely effect the downtown area. In fact, the contrary is true. Thus, in balance, the harm suffered by Innovations is of suffinient dimension to warrant estoppel against the City. The arguments above are based upon our initial review nfthe StaffReport. Innovations may provide additional oral or written arguments at or before the City Council hearing on this Agenda Item. This letter is submitted in order to exhaust administrative remedies prior to