5 PARCEL PARCEL MAP.

[fallen1]

Question #1: I am reviewing a parcel map which shows a "T" roadway for access to four residential parcels. The roadway, or driveway, does not meet city street standards; the parcels are relatively small (3,600 sf); The access roadway is labeled Parcel 5. Does anyone have experience with 5 parcels on a Parcel Map, where one of the parcels is basically and easement for ingress/egress, utilities and emergency vehicle access?

Question #2: We are also reviewing a lot merger map which was accompanied by a Lot Book Guaranty in lieu of a title report. I am familiar with their use in other states where title attorneys abound, but in fifty plus year of practice in California have seen only a handfull of Lot Guaranties. Can anyone shed any light on thid matter?

[RAM]

#2 Lot Book does not show easements or other exceptions, does show ownership.

[Scott Tikalsky]

Who would own the road if the City will not accept? Sounds like the roadway is an access easement. Does your City allow such? I would talk to the LS and find out if he has an understanding of the Sub. Map Act and your local ordinances.

[Ian Wilson]

First, unless the property is commercial and the project fits the conditions, there is no such thing as a “five lot Parcel Map”. Please refer to §66426 of the Subdivision Map Act, a portion of the California Government Code.

I have a couple of other concerns, as well.

You mention that the lots are small – 3,600 sq ft. That is small. I don’t recall ever seeing lots that small except in a Condo situation. Lots created by a Parcel Map still have to meet minimum sizes per local ordinance and the General Plan and zoning. The lots must be legal lots in order to gain approval of the subdivision form the local jurisdiction.

Depending upon the layout, why not create four larger lots and set the access aside as a mutual use easement for a private drive?

Can you share more information about this project?

[E_Page]

Planners may or may not understand that a PM cannot have 5 parcels. They should, but don't always.

I was working on a final PM a few years ago for which a CE did the TM for the client. The County wanted a particular area to remain open for recreational and conservation use. The CE's first TM had 4 lots with an easement over the area for those purposes. Not good enough for the County. They wanted a separate lot so that none of the owners of the other lots would get the impression that they could do something with portions covered by the easement other than leave it alone. By the time I got the approved TM, it showed 5 parcels with Parcel 5 being designated as having an IOD to the County for recreation purposes.

A parcel can be subdivided and sold to a govenment entity w/o a parcel map, but I couldn't find anything in the SMA which allowed extra parcels on a PM if the extra parcel(s) were to be dedicated to a public agency. The County did not plan to accept the IOD, and would not accept the parcel prior to the PM by separate conveyance. They just wanted to make extra sure that a piece of land was left there undeveloped and didn't trust that an easement and appropriate restrictions would be adequate.

[subman]

The following SMA section could be interpreted that a parcel map with 4 lots created for residential purposes and 1 lot created for public purposes and granted/accepted in fee title by the public agency on the parcel map; would not require the processing of a final map (i.e. five lot subdivision); because the public agency lot is not counted for the purpose of computing the number of parcels. Just on man's opinion...

66426.5. Conveyances to Governmental Agencies, Public Entities or Public Utilities for Rights-of
Way; Computing Number of Parcels
Any conveyance of land to a governmental agency, public entity, public utility or subsidiary of a public utility for
conveyance to that public utility for rights-of-way shall not be considered a division of land for purposes of computing the
number of parcels. For purposes of this section, any conveyance of land to a governmental agency shall include a fee
interest, a leasehold interest, an easement, or a license.
[Amended, Chapter 176, Statutes of 2001]

[land butcher]

Evan

Who ended up with title to the 5th lot?

[E_Page]

Right Dennis, except that in the OP, the road was a private driveway, not meeting city street standards, so no IOD there.

And in the situation I related, the 5th parcel, even if the County were to accept it, was not being created, nor would it have been accepted as a RW. The language in that section is a little cumbersome though. Does it limit such conveyance to a RW only if it is to a public utility, or to any of the entities listed? If it is to a non-utility govt agency, can it be for any purpose?

And if it is an IOD and the County (in this case County Parks) has no intention of accepting, does that meet the criteria as the ownership of that parcel remains with the subdivider?



BTW - Sorry, fallen1 for the slight hijack.

[E_Page]

Evan

Who ended up with title to the 5th lot?

The project never went through to completion. The husband got very ill, and I think has since died and the wife has not proceeded with the subdivision.

When I started working on it, I went to the CS, who agreed with my take on it, got involved and helped convince Planning that the best route to achieve what they wanted was 4 lots with the Recreation and Conservation Easement dedicated on the map.

I prepared and submitted the map but set no monuments. It was about that time that the husband got ill.

The parent parcel was part of a PM that divided a several hundred acre parcel into smaller ones of 20 to 40 acres. No RS triggers, so nothing filed to date.

I'm not sure if the TM is still alive. With all the extending legislation that's happened over the last few years, it likely is.

[Anthony Maffia]

The 5 parcel subdivision described by fallen1 should be shown as a four parcel, with the roadway being an easement. Each parcel owns a portion of the roadway. The areas described therefore are net areas. Minimum parcel size per zoning regs typically use the larger gross area.

I've seen these done by architects and owners all the time. They try to get the city/county to accept the street, then when rejected make it a parcel.

If it was a tract map, the fifth parcel would have to be owned by an HOA, which would just be a needless recurring monthly expense.