In HPT IHG-2 Properties Trust v. City of Anaheim, published December 21, 2015, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division 3 affirmed a trial court decision to issue a writ setting aside a conditional use permit the defendant city enacted. The city planned to build an overpass. The project required it to acquire land that would impact the plaintiffs' resort development, reducing the amount of parking available for the resort. The city issued a conditional use permit for the development that set out the number of parking spaces required for the development, along with upgraded setback and landscape requirements. The CUP was based in part on a parking study the city had approved. The parking study showed a two-level parking structure on a piece of land the city would acquire. The plaintiffs' asserted that the city had promised to build the parking structure and comply with the same setback and landscape requirements. In reliance on the CUP, the plaintiffs designed their project with fewer hotel rooms, and with the required setbacks and landscaping. After building the overpass, however, the city enacted a second CUP, the one at issue. It allowed construction of a surface parking lot instead of the parking structure, and different setbacks and landscaping. The trial court found that the city had made representations about the parking structure that it had changed after the plaintiffs relied on the representations; and that the city was estopped from issuing the CUP changing the plans for the parking.
The appellate court held that equitable estoppel is available against public entities only under extraordinary circumstances, and only where necessary to avoid great injustice. But substantial evidence supported the trial court's conclusion that the elements of estoppel had been met; and that in light of the plaintiffs' acts in reliance on the defendant's representations, and their ignorance that defendants would change the design for the parking, extraordinary circumstances warranting estoppel were present.
Comments