Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Resolution 12-11 - (1852 Rhodes-1845 Hillcrest LLA)1 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 12-11 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN TWO PARCELS AT 1852 RHODES STREET AND 1845 HILLCREST DRIVE , LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 21, 22, 38 AND 39, TRACT 2548, CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH. The Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby resolve and order as follows: Section 1. An application for a lot line adjustment (LLA 12-1) was filed by Linda and Stephen Beck requesting to adjust the lot lines between two parcels, 1852 Rhodes Street and 1845 Hillcrest Drive, as shown in Exhibits A and B, to conform said lines to historic use and the location of an existing fence and wall. Section 2. The Planning Commission considered the staff report, testimony and evidence, both written and oral, presented to the Commission. Section 3. The project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15305, Class 5, minor lot line adjustments not resulting in the creation of any new parcel or change or use or density in areas with an average slope of less than 20 percent. Section 4. Based on the Staff Report, testimony and evidence received, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: 1. The subject parcels are zoned R-1 and each is developed with one residential dwelling unit. The applicant represents that a fence and a wall are located on each side of the proposed boundary. 2. The chain of title for these two adjacent properties, dating back to 1952, indicates a convoluted history involving a 10.5' strip comprising the area between the W. 25.95’ of Lots 21 and 22 and the W. 15.45’. In 1973, the lot line was modified by deed, from the W. 25.95’ of Lots 21 and 22, to the W. 15.45’ of Lots 21 and 22. In 1977, the lot line was modified to the W. 25.95’ of Lots 21 and 22. An easement over the E. 10.5' of the W. 25.95’ of Lots 21 and 22 was concurrently recorded. This easement was amended in 1978 to specify the easement was a 'backyard' extension. 3. In 1989, the City recorded lot mergers combining the substandard 25 foot wide lots and remnant lots comprising 1852 Rhodes (Lots 38, 39 and the W. 15.45’ of Lots 21 and 22) as one parcel, and the substandard lots that comprised 1845 Hillcrest (Lots 21 and 22, except the W. 15.45') as a separate parcel. It appears that in the Assessor’s Map which the City relied upon to mer ge the lots, showing the lot line at W. 15.45’, was inconsistent with property lines shown on the recorded deeds which described the boundary at the W. 25.95’ of Lots 21 and 22. 4. Inasmuch as the City's action in 1989 to merge the lots was part of a larger lot merger program involving many lots and there is no evidence in the lot merger files to suggest that the City or then-property owners were aware of the discrepancy between the deeded boundaries and the legal descriptions set forth in the lot merger, it appears that the lot merger inadvertently adjusted the boundaries of the subject parcels in a manner inconsistent with the deeds for the properties. 2 5. Despite the lot merger recorded by the City in 1989, the property at 1852 Rhodes was in 1996 deeded at W. 25.95’ of Lots 21 and 22. The property was deeded again in 2001 to the current owner of 1852 Rhodes Street, with the lot line at W. 25.95’. 6. The proposed lot line adjustment, at W. 21.05’ of Lots 21 and 22, will be a compromise between the existing deeds and the lot merger approved by the City. The proposed adjustment will set the lot line in a manner that is consistent with the use of the property, as demonstrated by the existing fence and wall separating the properties. The owners of both properties support this lot line adjustment and have submitted documentation agreeing to the adjustment. 7. The owners of both properties support this lot line adjustment and have submitted documentation agreeing to the adjustment. 8. The elevation change and location of an existing fence and wall appear to support this history. 9. On June 16, 2009, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 09-16 approving lot line adjustment #LLA 09-1 for the same project as now proposed. The prior approval expired on June 15, 2010, an extension was not applied for, and the approval is null and void. No changes to conditions as they existed in 2009 have occurred and modifications to project conditions are not warranted, other than providing procedures for requesting an extension of time. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: 1. Pursuant to Subdivision Map Act (California Government Code Section 66412) the resulting parcels developed with single family dwellings are consistent with the General Plan Low Density designation and the R-1 zone rear yard setback and will remedy an inconsistency between the deed property descriptions and a lot merger, and possibly other discrepancies dating back to at least 1989. 2. The lot line adjustment will not increase the nonconformance of the deeded property description for 1845 Hillcrest Drive. 3. Project conditions are limited to those allowed under Section 66412 of the Government Code. 4. The project will conform property lines to patterns of use and improvements on the properties. 5. A greater number of parcels will not being created by the adjustment. Section 5. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves Lot Line Adjustment 12-1, as described in the proposed legal descriptions attached hereto as Exhibit A and shown in the diagram in Exhibit B, subject to the following Conditions of Approval: 1. A preliminary title report, current within six months of the date of this approval, encompassing Lots 38 and 39 and the W. 21.05’ of Lots 21 and 22, shall accompany the proposed legal descriptions reflecting that easements, if any, are located, relocated or granted to facilitate the provision of utilities to both parcels. Prior to recordation of the Certificate of Compliance, any utilities that would be interrupted by the lot line adjustment shall be relocated to facilitate the provision of utilities to both parcels to the satisfaction of the City. 3 2. Prepayment of all taxes as required California Government Code Section 66412 and any fees required by the City shall be evidenced prior to recordation of the Certificate of Compliance. 3. A Certificate of Compliance and legal descriptions in a form approved by the City and compliant with the Subdivision Map Act shall be submitted consistent with the plan approved by the Planning Commission, approved by the Community Development Director and City Attorney, and recorded with the Office of the Los Angeles County Recorder and evidence of recording shall be submitted to the Comm unity Development Department within one (1) year of this approval. 4. Quit claim deeds shall be concurrently recorded to conform parcel boundaries to those approved by the City under this lot line adjustment. 5. Approval of this permit shall expire one (1) year from the date of approval by the Planning Commission. One or more extensions of time may be requested. No extension shall be considered unless requested, in writing to the Community Development Director including the reason therefore, at least 60 days prior to the expiration date. No additional notice of expiration will be provided. Section 6. This grant shall not be effective for any purposes until the permittee and the owners of the property involved have filed at the office of the Planning Division of the Community Development Department their affidavits stating that they are aware of, and agree to accept, all of the conditions of this grant. This permit shall be recorded, and proof of recordation shall be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to issuance of a building permit. Each of the above conditions is separately enforced, and if one of the conditions of approval is found to be invalid by a court of law, all other conditions shall remain valid and enforceable. To the extent permitted by law, Permittee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Hermosa Beach, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside, or void any permit or approval for this project authorized by the City, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys’ fees and costs in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its choice. The permittee shall reimburse the City for any court and attorney's fees which the City may be required to pay as a result of any claim or action brought against the City because of this grant. Although the permittee is the real party in interest in an action, the City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of the action, but such participation shall not relieve the permittee of any obligation under this condition. The subject property shall be developed, maintained and operated in full compliance with the conditions of this grant and any law, statute, ordinance or other regulation applicable to any d evelopment or activity on the subject property. Failure of the permittee to cease any development or activity not in full compliance shall be a violation of these Conditions. Section 7. Pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6, any legal c hallenge to the decision of the Planning Commission, after a formal appeal to the City Council, must be made within 90