Quick Tally: How many lots in one LLA?

[Lee Hixson]

Sutter County--per their zoning ordinance--will only allow two adjacent lots to be adjusted in one LLA. I'm curious to know how many other agencies are similarly restrictive. I want to lobby the county to allow more lots and it would help if I could find out what's common in other jurisdictions.

1. In the county/city(s) you work in, how many lots can be adjusted with one LLA?

2. What's a typical agency fee charged to the land owner? (About $1,100 in Sutter County.)

[JasonCamit]

CA law states that a Lot Line Adjustment can be between four or fewer existing adjoining parcels........ Cost can range in the central San Joaquin Valley from $400 to a few thousands dollars.

[pls7809]

I don't know of any in So Cal that are less than the SMA allowed 4 parcels. But I haven't worked in all of the agencies either to know what they are.

The fees vary greatly from agency to agency.

City of Murrieta is at about $3400. Last I looked city of La Canada Flintridge was at about $1600. Pasadena is $4000.

[Lee Hixson]

Thanks for the replies. So would it be safe to say that Sutter County is the only agency to allow less than 4?

[Rob_LS]

That was one of the topics of discussion - perhaps Ian Wilson will post the citation of the recent CA Supreme Court ruling...

Rob

[Lee Hixson]

Thanks, Rob.

[Ian Wilson]

The entire body of law governing Lot Line Adjustments is found in just eight sentences and 263 words! §66412 (d) is all there is and it’s very specific. Unfortunately, it’s also one of the least understood portions of the entire Subdivision Map Act.

The first complete sentence clearly states: “...A lot line adjustment between four or fewer existing adjoining parcels…”

The idea of limiting Lot Line Adjustments to two lots comes from the mistaken idea that land can only be taken from one parcel and added to the parcel immediately next to it. Nothing could be more wrong. Every single court case of which I am aware has struck down that idea. One of the best treatments of judicial thinking behind the fallacy of this “adjoining v adjacent” thing comes from the famous San Dieguito Partnership v. City of San Diego (7 Cal. App. 4th 748, 9 Cal. Rptr. 2d 440).

The Court wrote: “More important, the trial court's interpretation would permit a lot line adjustment only between two existing adjacent parcels, one parcel and one adjacent parcel, when the statute expressly contemplates lot line adjustments between "two or more " of such parcels.” Although this was in reference to the statute as it was written prior to the “reformation” in 2001, this logic still holds. The number of parcels permitted in a single Lot Line Adjustment is very carefully expressed by the statute. The interpretation alluded to by Lee is simply in error, mathematically, logically and grammatically. And the courts agree with that assessment.

The Court goes on to opine: ”In the context of the statute here, we believe "an adjacent parcel" refers to any one or more of the adjacent parcels with respect to which lot line adjustment is sought. If the Legislature had intended to restrict lot line adjustments to those involving one existing parcel adjusting its lot lines so as to result in only one adjacent parcel having different lot lines with land added only from the first parcel, it surely could have made this specific. It could have phrased the statute as did the trial court or referred explicitly to a situation where "land taken from no more than one parcel is added to no more than one adjacent parcel." From the fact the Legislature did not do so and instead expressly contemplates lot line adjustments "between two or more existing adjacent parcels, where the land taken from one parcel is added to an adjacent parcel," we cannot approve the trial court's rephrasing of the statutory language founded on an implication having no support in the statutory language or any other source.

Again, that’s about as clearly put as any court can make it.

I have yet to find a case where a request for a Writ of Mandamus requiring the local agency to approve the Lot Line Adjustment in cases where there was an agency limit on the number of parcel was fewer than §66412(d) was denied. Even more significant: the Courts have awarded costs – attorney’s fees, court fees and related costs – to the applicant!

In short, the thinking exposed by Lee is wrong.

It has never properly been upheld by any Court.

It has cost the local agency dearly in terms of time, money and resources that they simply cannot afford.

It needs to stop.

[Lee Hixson]

Woodcutter: here it is. It starts on page 21, reaching its unfortunate conclusion on page 22.

I have prepared a letter to the District 3 Supervisor requesting that my clients be granted a waiver while the county takes its time revising the zoning ordinance.

A planner told me yesterday that they are aware of the absurdity of their rule, and that someday they will get around to changing it. In the meantime, my clients will have to process 4 separate LLAs to accomplish what they need--what could have been done with one. Not only will it be 4 times the cost, but 4 times the trouble and length of time to process.

Sad but true.

[Ian Wilson]

Hmmm... that appears to be in direct violation of the Subdivision Map Act §66412(d).

Since State Statutes trump local ordinance, and your client is directly being injured by this absurd ordinance, I suggest the following:

Find an attorney;
File for a Writ of Mandamus;
File with a request for speedy disposition;
File demanding all fees: attorney, court, reproduction, etc., incurred durring the filing for the Writ.

Filing for the Writ is simple, straight forward, and, in this case, a relatively straight forward proposition with little likelyhood of the county prevailing.

It's time to change the ordinance in order to prevent MAJOR hits against the counties funds.

[Ian Wilson]

Actually, Woodcutter, I think it's very clearly written. I also think there are some who simple do not understand the plain language of the statute. Fortunately, there are courts to help those people understand.

[Anthony Maffia]

I agree with Woodcutter that it's "an ordinance providing for substandard lot sizes."

State law allows local agencies to reject an LLA application if the new parcels fail to meet zoning regulations, such as minimum parcel size. The language:

(1) Minimum lot sizes shall be determined... Smaller lot sizes may be approved:
(B)(5) Is an adjustment => between two adjoining lots <=

provides for a pre-approved staff level exception IN THIS CASE without having to go to the planning commission. They can write up exceptions any way they like - here, it is for two 40 or 80 acre parcels.

Since the paragraph is a portion of subsection (1), it is limited to determination of minimum lot sizes. It doesn't affect other LLAs. I think the county planner misinterpreted their zoning code.

[Lee Hixson]

Way to go, you guys! I didn't have the sharp eyes and mind that you did, and just sheepishly fell in line with their interpretation across the counter. I mean, how often do you have a whole department misunderstanding their own rules? I agree with you.

Yesterday morning I met with the District 3 Supervisor and discussed the issue with him. I also gave him a letter detailing the unfairness and absurdity of forcing my clients to pay for, and go through, 4 adjustments when 1 would do.

When I got home I read your comments about the context of that section and fired off an addendum email to him. Should be getting a response today.

Thanks.

(What a great forum!)

[Ian Wilson]

That portion of the Sutter County Zoning Code comes from the 1500-1310 A-2 Exclusive Agricultural District section. There are two places in the zoning ordinance that refer to lot line adjustments, the EXCLUSIVE AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT (A-2) and the GENERAL AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT (AG).

The wording in the ordinance for the A-2 and AG zones could lead to the confusion that only two lots may be adjusted in these zones. I wonder if that has happened before and if anyone has been limited to adjusting just two parcels at a time.

The Sutter County Lot Line Adjustment Application Has places for information from two owners only. There is no mention of a minimum number of lots anywhere on the application or in the Lot Line Adjustment procedures PDF file. I assume that the County would accept a “second” coversheet with an additional pair of owners listed in the case of a four lot adjustment where every lot is owned by different entities.