Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />RESOLUTION NO.2010-)4 <br />A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF <br />RANCHO PALOS VERDES SETTING FORTH THE CITY <br />COUNCIL'S DETERMINATION THAT THE CITY SHOULD NOT <br />ACQUIRE THE 16 LOTS OWNED BY THE MONKS PLAINTIFFS <br />AND DOCUMENTING THE ACTIONS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL <br />HAS TAKEN TO PURGE THE CITY OF THE OBLIGATION TO <br />PURCHASE THE PROPERTIES <br />THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES HEREBY <br />FINDS, ORDERS AND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: <br />WHEREAS, in 2002, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2002-43, which <br />required owners of properties within Zone 2 of the City's Landslide Moratorium Area to <br />demonstrate that a zone -wide factor of safety of at least 1.5 exists before owners of <br />undeveloped properties within that Zone could develop their properties; and <br />WHEREAS, owners of 16 undeveloped lots within Zone 2 subsequently filed <br />lawsuits entitled Monks, et al. v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, et al., in state and <br />federal court challenging the adoption of that Resolution on the grounds that it <br />constituted a taking under the federal and state constitutions; and <br />WHEREAS, the,.City entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs <br />whereby the federal lawsuit was dismissed and the plaintiffs received payment for all of <br />their claims for a tempbrary taking; and <br />WHEREAS, the California Court of Appeal in the case entitled Monks v. City of <br />Rancho Palos Verdes, reversed a decision by the Los Angeles County Superior Court, <br />which previously had determined, after a lengthy trial, that the City's action of adopting <br />Resolution No. 2002-43 did not constitute a taking of property, and held that the <br />adoption of Resolution No. 2002-43 did cause a regulatory taking of property; and <br />WHEREAS, on December 17, 2008, the California Supreme Court denied the <br />City's petition for review of the decision in the Monks case; and <br />WHEREAS, in Hensler v. City of Glendale, 8 CalAt" 1(1994), the California <br />Supreme Court stated that following a judicial determination that a taking of property <br />has occurred by virtue of the adoption of a governmental regulation, the governmental <br />entity must be afforded the option to exempt the property from the scope of the <br />regulation or to repeal the offending regulation so that the governmental entity is not <br />required to pay compensation for the taking; and <br />