Opinion
Page 746a
167 Cal.App.4th 746a __ Cal.Rptr.3d__ JOHN MONKS et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, Defendant and Respondent. B201280 California Court of Appeal, Second District, First Division October 22, 2008Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YS010425
ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]
THE COURT:
It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on October 1, 2008, 167 Cal.App.4th 263; ___ Cal.Rptr.3d ___, be modified as follows, and the petition for rehearing is DENIED:
1. On page 32 [167 Cal.App.4th 295, advance report, 2d full par.], delete the first full paragraph (“Whether there was a compensatory taking . . . Allegretti & Co. v. County of Imperial (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1261, 1269 [42 Cal.Rptr.3d 122].)”) and replace it with the following paragraph, without any quotation marks.
Whether there was a permanent taking in violation of the California Constitution is a question of law we review de novo. (See Ali v. City of Los Angeles (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 246, 250 [91 Cal.Rptr.2d 458].)
2. On page 42 [167 Cal.App.4th 304, advance report, 1st full par.], after the second full paragraph (which begins, “But in Monks I, we held” and ends, “ABF Capital Corp. v. Grove Properties Co. (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 204, 212 [23 Cal.Rptr.3d 803].)”), insert the following new paragraph:
The city contends that the law of the case is not applicable because the evidence at the trial differed substantially from what was presented at the earlier hearing reviewed in Monks I. (See Nally v. Grace Community Church (1988) 47 Cal.3d 278, 301-302 [253 Cal.Rptr. 97, 763 P.2d 948]; Wicktor v. County of Los Angeles (1960) 177 Cal.App.2d 390, 394-395 [2 Cal.Rptr. 352].) We disagree. The gist of the evidence did not change. At the trial, plaintiffs simply offered more evidence that a local safety factor was geologically acceptable and that their lots had a safety factor of at least 1.5; the city asserted again that, under the resolution, plaintiffs had to prove a gross safety factor and offered more evidence that the safety factor of Zone 2 was less than 1.5. And no one, including Poormand, provided any additional evidence about the cost of determining the gross safety factor of Zone 2. In these circumstances, it would make a mockery of the principle of finality (see Nally, at p. 302) if, after we remanded the takings claim for a trial on the merits, the
Page 746b
trial court found instead that plaintiffs should seek an exclusion under the resolution a second time, using the same administrative process as before.
3. On page 42 [167 Cal.App.4th 304, advance report, 2d full par., line 10], in the third full paragraph (which begins, “Assuming for the sake of argument”), after the seventh sentence (which ends, “his opinion at trial and on appeal.”) and before the eighth sentence (which begins, “There is no reason to believe”), insert the following sentence:
Indeed, the city’s principal witness, Tofani, testified that the majority of Zone 2 should be moving, indicating a gross safety factor below 1.0.
There is no change in the judgment.
Respondent’s petition for rehearing is denied.