Loading...
PC MINS 20150224 Approved March 10, 2015 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 24, 2015 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Leon at 7:04 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner James led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Cruikshank, Emenhiser, James, Tomblin, Vice Chairman Nelson, and Chairman Leon. Absent: Commissioner Gerstner was excused Also present were Community Development Director Rojas and Senior Planner Kim. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas noted that there were no items to report from the February 17th City Council meeting. Director Rojas distributed one item of correspondence related to agenda item No. 2 and reminded the Commission of the upcoming Planning Commission Academy taking place next week in Newport Beach. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of the January 27 2015 Minutes Commissioner Emenhiser moved to approve the Consent Calendar as presented, seconded by Vice Chairman Nelson. Approved without objection. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. General Plan Update — Land Use Designation change for 3778 Coolhei hts Drive Senior Planner Kim began by briefly updating the Commission on the remaining items that need to be completed prior to bring the entire package back to the Commission for review. She noted that one of the outstanding issues is the land use designation change for 3778 Coolheights Drive. She gave a brief history of the property in terms of a land dispute between the property owner and the City. She explained that, consistent with the Settlement Agreement and the original intent of the conveyed property, staff is recommending that the Commission approve a land use change for the parcel from Residential 1-2 dwelling units per acre to Natural Environment Hazard as part of this General Plan update. She noted that, despite the language in the Settlement Agreement, the property owner is opposing the change and is instead requesting the Planning Commission allow a higher density on the subject site. She also explained that the parcel in question is similar to a flag lot, and because of the slopes on the property staff felt that if development were allowed it would be limited to lots of 30 feet by 80 feet, and building pads of approximately 20 feet in width by 60 feet in depth. Staff did not feel that any house developed on this property would most likely not be consistent with what exists in the neighborhood. Therefore, staff is recommending the land use change move forward. Vice Chairman Nelson asked if staff has taken into consideration the issue of Eminent Domain in regards to this property. Director Rojas explained that this issue first surfaced back when the City was purchasing the Forrestal property. He explained that there was not a legal lot on the property at that time, and to help settle the issue the City created a parcel so that Mr. Ortolano could continue with his use of the property. He stated that it was never the city's intent to create a legal, developable parcel. Vice Chairman Nelson asked staff, if staff's recommendation is approved, will Mr. Ortolano lose the use of this lot. Director Rojas explained there was an agreement created that said the owner can use the lot but he cannot develop the lot. With this General Plan update, staff feels that, given that agreement, the lot should be zoned accordingly to ensure it is not developed. Commissioner James asked staff if the Commission were to recommend something other than what the Settlement Agreement provides, would the City then be in violation or breeching the Settlement Agreement, given there are several other parties involved in the Settlement Agreement. Planning Commission Minutes February 24,2015 Page 2 Director Rojas stated that if the land use remains as is, or is changed to something other than what staff is recommending, it would not be a violation of the Settlement Agreement, noting the Settlement Agreement does not say it shall be changed to a certain zoning district. Commissioner Cruikshank asked staff if the property owner has been conforming to all of the restrictions to the property and if there have been any violations in regards to the conditions. Director Rojas answered to staff's knowledge the property has been conforming to the conditions. Chairman Leon opened the public hearing. Ralph Ortolano Jr. began by saying that the staff incorrectly states that he is opposed to this proposed zone change. He explained he is not opposing this proposal, as he wants to remain consistent with the Settlement Agreement, however what he is saying is that it makes no sense. He stated that what makes sense is to zone this lot consistent with the 690 adjacent lots in the surrounding community. He also noted the statement in the staff report that half of the property is an easement is not true. He explained that the portion of the lot with the easement has half of the easement on his property and half of the easement on his neighbor's property. He also explained that the reason the City took control of the property and then re-deeded it to everyone was to get around the Sub-division Map Act restrictions on lot creation. He explained that he has the right to do things on that property that are not consistent with the proposed zoning, and therefore again felt it made better sense to zone it consistent with the surrounding properties. He also felt that there are two buildable pads on this property, noting the lower pad is larger than the upper pad. Chairman Leon noted in his correspondence that Mr. Ortolano stated he paid taxes on this lot, yet he understood that the Diamond Brothers were the owners of this lot prior to the legal settlement. Mr. Ortolano explained that the Diamond Brothers purported to sell a portion of his lot to the City, but he had established title to this property over a number of years. He explained there was some confusion over who actually owned the lot and he did a quiet title action when the Diamond Brothers tried to sell a portion of the lot to the City. Commissioner James asked Mr. Ortolano if it would be correct to state that when the dispute occurred that resulted in the Settlement Agreement, that the City disagreed with him in regards to his claim of having a prescriptive easement on the property. Mr. Ortolano did not think the City ever disagreed with that point, but noted it was not a prescriptive easement but rather a prescriptive fee title. Planning Commission Minutes February 24,2015 Page 3 Commissioner James asked Mr. Ortolano if, prior to the Settlement Agreement, he had any deed to this property. Mr. Ortolano answered that he gained title to the property in the same way the King of Spain gained title to the State of California before it began the chain of title by which people granted deeds to one another. Chairman Leon asked Mr. Ortolano if he was planning any legal action to try to gain back some of this land or change the conditions. Mr. Ortolano explained that the reason this ended up in this state of affairs was because he had a one-third acre lot in an area that was in an area zoned RS-1-2. He stated that the City Attorney stated the lot was unbuildable because it was not 1 to 2 acres. He stated he was told that the City had to do what they did because zoning his property the way everything else is zoned in the area would require a General Plan amendment, and the City was not willing to do that. He stated that the City is now doing a General Plan amendment and felt the Planning Commission can revisit this issue and make a recommendation to the City Council that harmonizes land use with the rest of the community. He did not think it was beneficial to property values to have one lot out of 691 lots that has different zoning from the lots adjacent to it. Joe Nassiri explained that before this lot existed his family purchased a lot at the end of the cul-de-sac on Coolheights Drive to build his house. Soon after purchasing the land he was informed that a neighbor claimed that he had been cultivating on part of his land and claimed ownership of that section of land. He explained that his attorney felt that Mr. Ortolano had no such claim, however he also explained that Mr. Ortolano could tie this issue up in court for quite awhile. He therefore decided to settle the case by deeding a section of land to his neighbor so that he could begin building his house. He explained that the existing lot consists of two sections, a section that formerly belonged to the City, and a section that formerly belonged to him. He stated this newly created lot has a very steep slope, is a very odd shape, and he was told it is not suitable for any development. He felt any development on this lot will decrease the value of the neighborhood. He also explained that one of the reasons he settle and agreed to the Settlement Agreement was because he was assured this lot could never be developed. He hoped the Commission would uphold the Settlement Agreement, and approve staff's recommendation. Joan Ortolano did not understand Mr. Nassiri's comments that he agreed to a Settlement Agreement as he is not a signatory on the agreement and the did not own the land, the Diamond Brothers owned the land. In regards to the proposed land use change, she asked that during their review, the Planning Commission keep an eye on the big picture. She stated the General Plan updating process will not be compromised if the City does not rezone this parcel as Natural Environmental Hazard. She noted that, per the Settlement Agreement, Mr. Ortolano is allowed to continue all of the uses he was engaging in on the parcel before the settlement, including maintaining a shed, having a dog run, and about a dozen other things. She was not aware of any other Planning Commission Minutes February 24,2015 Page 4 Natural Environmental Hazard parcel in the City that permits such uses. She felt it was more reasonable and more compatible with the surrounding parties to continue the present zoning of residential, with the restrictions. She felt this was more reasonable than establishing a precedent of Natural Environmental Hazard zoning with special privileges. She wondered if there is more to the proposed change than meets the eye, and questioned if the proposed land use change might be an attempt to eliminate the uses agreed to in the Settlement Agreement. She recommended the City leave well enough alone and not change the existing General Plan land use designation. Mr. Ortolano (in rebuttal) stated he wanted to be clear that the record chain of title shows that Diamond Brothers were owners of this property, was transferred to another party, and then the title was transferred to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and then transferred to him. He noted that about fifteen months later Mr. Nassiri became a record title owner. He stated that during the pendency of this action there was a Lis pendency recorded with the County and this was all done according to the California Civil Code, he met all of the requirements, and paid all of the taxes. Chairman Leon closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tomblin asked staff what the zoning is for Mr. Nassiri's lot. Senior Planner Kim answered that the zoning is Residential 1 to 2 dwelling units per acre. Commissioner Tomblin asked staff, if the Commission were to vote to keep this property with its current zoning, the deed restrictions would stay the same and staff would not be able to issue any building permits. Director Rojas answered that was correct. Chairman Leon asked if there were any other areas in the preserve that have these kinds of conditions that allow people to have beneficial use of their property but are not allowed to develop the property. Director Rojas clarified that this property is not in the preserve, but noted that there are no other properties adjacent to the preserve that have similar conditions. Chairman Leon asked if, other than the Settlement Agreement prohibiting building, was there was any downside to not changing the zoning and allowing it to remain as it is. Director Rojas answered that there was not. Commissioner Tomblin felt that staff was bringing this issue before the Commission to bring the property into conformance with the General Plan, and did not think there was anything subversive in doing so. Planning Commission Minutes February 24,2015 Page 5 Commissioner Tomblin felt that if there was not a condition based on a Settlement Agreement, he would have no problem not taking staff's recommendation, as he felt lots C and E conform to the rest of the neighborhood. He also agreed with staff, based on covenants, restrictions, and conditions that this lot could not be built on. Commissioner Tomblin moved to keep the existing zoning and not change the General Plan to reflect the terms of the Settlement Agreement, seconded by Vice Chairman Nelson. Chairman Leon stated he was in favor of leaving the current zoning in place, as staff has commented that keeping the current zoning will do no harm and all of the current restrictions and conditions stay in place. Commissioner James agreed, noting that he felt it was unclear as to what was going on when the Settlement Agreement was reached, and the Planning Commission is now in an awkward position as they are boxed in by this prior agreement. He was not troubled that this may be the only lot in the neighborhood with a different zoning, however he did not think this was a decision that should be made by the Planning Commission. He also was not convinced this change was necessary to complete the General Plan, and therefore was in support of the motion. Commissioner Tomblin felt that this was before the Commission because staff was complying with the terms in the Settlement Agreement. In addition, he did not think this was being forced or pushed through by staff, and any urgency was only from the Commission putting pressure on staff to get the General Plan finished. Chairman Leon agreed, adding that staff is trying to make a consistent and clear document of the General Plan. Commissioner James also agreed, noting that the fact that he would vote to support the motion does not mean that he would vote for either what Mr. Ortolano is proposing or what staff is proposing some day in the future under other circumstances. Commissioner Cruikshank felt that a deal is a deal at this point, and the City changing the zoning just for the sake of the General Plan doesn't sit well with him. The motion to keep the existing zoning and not change the General Plan was approved, (6-0). ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 3. Pre-A. ends for the meeting on March 10 2015 The pre-agenda was reviewed and approved as presented, with the Director noting that the exterior lighting item is not ready to be placed on the agenda since the Commission Planning Commission Minutes February 24,2015 Page 6 asked that the code language first be presented to the Planning Commission sub- committee on this topic. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:47 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes February 24,2015 Page 7