Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/07/2018

Home

May 10, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 9 Zoning Bulletin Also addressing the Plaintiffs' equitable estoppel argument, the court explained that to trigger the doctrine of equitable estoppel, the Plaintiffs had to show: "(1) the City knew that medical marijuana collectives were an impermissible use; (2) the City intended, by delaying enforce- ment and collecting marijuana business taxes, to induce [the P]laintiffs into operating a medical marijuana collective (or acted in a manner entitling [the P]laintiffs to perceive such an intent); (3) [the P]laintiffs did not know that medical marijuana collectives were unauthorized; (4) [the P]laintiffs detrimentally relied on the City's conduct; and (5) the injustice that would result from a failure to estop the City [was] so great that it outweigh[ed] the effect the estoppel would have on public policy or the public interest." Here, the court found that the Plaintiffs failed to make such a showing. First, the court concluded that the Plaintiffs' reliance on delayed enforcement and on payment of taxes was not reasonable. The court found that the Plaintiffs had been on notice from a City inspector since 2010 that their medical marijuana collective might not be a permissible land use. The fact that it took the City multiple years to enforce the law, did not estop the City from subsequently enforcing it, said the court. Moreover, the court concluded that in light of express disclaimers in the Municipal Code and on the medical marijuana busi- ness tax certificate, the Plaintiffs' reliance on paying required business taxes as authorization to operate a medical marijuana collective was "unreasonable as a matter of law." Finally, the court found that enforce- ment of the Code against the Plaintiffs —resulting in an inability to operate a medical marijuana collective at the property in the Com- mercial Office zone —would only result in "minimal" economic hard- ships of relocating the collective and reletting the property. Such "minimal hardship" was outweighed by the public policy interests of eliminating nonconforming uses and of maintaining City control over the location of medical marijuana collectives, and thus equitable estop- pelwas not warranted, concluded the court. See also: Feduniak v. California Coastal Com'n, 148 Cal. App. 4th 1346, 56 Cal. Rptr. 3d 591 (6th Dist. 2007). See also: Schafer v. City of Los Angeles, 237 Cal. App. 4th 1250, 188 Cal. Rptr. 3d 655 (2d Dist. 2015). 8 © 2018 Thomson Reuters