In Toigo v. Town of Ross (1998) 70 Cal.App.4th 309, the plaintiffs alleged that in rejecting their first application to subdivide a parcel, the Town of Ross led them to believe a second application would be accepted if it incorporated certain design specifications. The plaintiffs responded by redesigning the proposal, but the town denied their second application. (Id. at pp. 314-318.) The Toigo court refused to apply the doctrine of equitable estoppel. "Courts have yet to extend the vested rights or estoppel theory to instances where a developer lacks a building permit or the functional equivalent, regardless of the property owner's detrimental reliance on local government actions and regardless of how many other land use and other preliminary approvals have been granted. To the contrary, it has been stated that '"where no such permit has been issued, it is difficult to conceive of any basis for such estoppel."'" (Id. at p. 322.) In Toigo v. Town of Ross, the town had denied a landowner's application to subdivide a hillside property. The court noted: "The futility exception is extremely narrow: 'The mere possibility, or even the probability, that the responsible agency may deny the permit should not be enough to trigger the excuse. To come within the exception, a sort of inevitability is required: the prospect of refusal must be certain (or nearly so).' Our colleagues in Division Five have recently held that where a 'general plan does not preclude all development,' futility cannot be demonstrated in the absence of a development proposal that 'conforms to the existing general plan or at least does not require as drastic a modification to present land use designations as an amendment to the general plan.'" (Id., at p. 327.) The court reasoned that: "In arguing that a final decision has been made for ripeness purposes, the claimant has the heavy burden of setting forth facts that are 'clear, complete, and unambiguous' showing that the agency has 'drawn the line, clearly and emphatically, as to the sole use to which the property may ever be put.' After all, 'a court cannot determine whether a regulation has gone "too far" unless it knows how far the regulation goes.' Thus, in attempting to show the regulation of the subject property is excessive, a property owner may need to resubmit modified development proposals that satisfy the governmental entity's objections to the development so that the extent of the regulation can be accurately identified." ( Toigo v. Town of Ross, supra, 70 Cal.App.4th 309, 325-326.) The court rejected the landowners' futility argument because they had not explored "a reduction in size, scope or intensity of the proposed development." ( Id., at p. 330.)