Laserfiche WebLink
2 <br />4 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />Colton City Council <br />April 19, 2022 <br />Page 2 <br />WHEREAS, after continuing the duly noticed public hearing twice, on May 4, 2021, the <br />City Council determined, that the Appeal should be granted and the application for Tentative Tract <br />Map No. 18233 and Conditional Use Permit (DAP-001-378) should be denied (in part) for <br />inconsistency with the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance (City's Hillside Development <br />Ordinance), but the City Council retained jurisdiction over the Appeal and directed the Applicant <br />to return with revisions to the design of the Project; and <br />WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public hearing, the City Council adopted Resolution <br />No. R-29-21 to deny the Project; and <br />WHEREAS, on July 6, 2021, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on <br />the Project's proposed alternative designs at which time all persons wishing to testify in connection <br />with the Project were heard, and the Project was reviewed and considered; and <br />WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public hearing, the City Council adopted Resolution <br />No. R-84-21 to deny the two alternatives proposed by the Applicant for the Project.; and <br />WHEREAS, on July 28, 2021, the Applicant filed a lawsuit against the City alleging <br />several causes of action including: (1) Violation of Housing Accountability Act (Government Code <br />§65589.5); (2) Violation of the Subdivision Map Act; (3) Inverse Condemnation (California <br />Constitution Article 1, § 19); and (4) Deprivation of Civil Rights (alleging violations of procedural <br />and substantive due process, and a taking of property claim) and <br />WHEREAS, the City was successful in knocking out the procedural and substantive due <br />process portions of the civil rights claim, but the claims related to the Housing Accountability Act. <br />Inverse Condemnation, Takings and Subdivision Map Act remained and the lawsuit continues; and <br />WHEREAS, as part of the lawsuit, the City was preparing to attend a status conference <br />with the Court to discuss, among other things, briefing and the status of any settlement negotiations. <br />Leading up to the date of the status conference, the parties reached a settlement that provides the <br />following parameters: <br />1. Applicant would dismiss their lawsuit; <br />2. Applicant would cap the recovery of their attorney fees at $50,000; <br />3. Applicant would indemnify the City in accordance with the conditions of <br />approval adopted by the Planning Commission as part of Resolution No. R-08-21; and <br />WHEREAS, on February 10, 2022, the City received a letter from the California <br />Department of Housing & Community Development (HCD) informing that they had concluded an <br />investigation and alleging the City violated the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) when the City <br />Council denied the Applicant's Project; and <br />WHEREAS, the Notice of Violation from HCD demands the City cure the violation; and <br />WHEREAS, as a result of the settlement agreement terms and the Notice of Violation, the <br />City Council wishes to consider rescind and repeal the prior City Council resolutions from May 4, <br />2021 and July 6, 2021, denying the Project, and to reinstate the approval of the Project granted by <br />-2- <br />