Parcel VS Tract Map

BoundaryMan · Post by **BoundaryMan** » Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:42 pm

Our client owns 6 legal parcels for new development. The ultimate layout is shown on the attached Proposed Parcels Layout.
City Engineer told us that Tentative Tract Map is required as oppose to Tentative Parcel Map we intended to file.
Am I missing something?

LS 4722 · Post by **LS 4722** » Thu Aug 16, 2012 6:39 pm

NVM no message

Dave Karoly, PLS · Post by **Dave Karoly, PLS** » Thu Aug 16, 2012 6:44 pm

You have 6 and want to make 2?

I think that is a Lot Line Adjustment only.

Caveat though, I very seldom have to deal with the Subhuman Map Act working for a Gubmint Agency.

LS 4722 · Post by **LS 4722** » Thu Aug 16, 2012 6:48 pm

Dave Karoly, PLS wrote:LOL, Paul..

Haha you read my message before I had the chance to delete it :)

6 Lots is more than 4 Lots, Tentative Map required. What this means is "more extortion.

If he has 6 lots to start with and wants to end up with just two, then he's doing a merge...not my long suit so I will leave the answers to others.

Good place to start looking for an answer Boundary Man

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/GOV/1/7/d2/3/1.5

David... The type of map required depends a lot on the city this is situated in. Last year, or maybe the year before, like I care, I did a Parcel Map that took two parcels and combined them into one. The original development was to take the two lots, drop a small retail site on them and do a covenant to hold both parcels as one. City nixed that..said "Nope, file a Parcel Map" and yes, extortion is the right word. I believe that the map check fee alone for that was $ 7532..I posted my gripes on Beerlegs about that gouge!

So my point is, the city will call all the shots on what type of map has to be filed and will collect outlandish fees for doing pretty much nothing.

subman · Post by **subman** » Thu Aug 16, 2012 8:50 pm

Boundaryman

If this is a city in Los Angeles County, I would be happy to discuss the matter with you further on the phone and try to help educate the CE. I am a Deputy County Surveyor and oversee the subdivision map process in LA County and about 40 contract cities. 626 458-4006.

Unless there is some very unique circumstances, the answer looks pretty obvious; TPM/PM.

Dennis Hunter

LS 4722 · Post by **LS 4722** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 2:59 am

I was hoping you would jump in.

Boundaryman...give Dennis a call..he's a gold mine of info.!!

LS 4722 · Post by **LS 4722** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:03 am

subman wrote:Boundaryman

If this is a city in Los Angeles County, I would be happy to discuss the matter with you further on the phone and try to help educate the CE. I am a Deputy County Surveyor and oversee the subdivision map process in LA County and about 40 contract cities. 626 458-4006.

Dennis Hunter

...and five county airports :P

Anthony Maffia · Post by **Anthony Maffia** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 6:55 am

Woodcutter - do you have a copy?

My take - either a parcel map (only 2 resulting parcels)

- or -

Owner initiated lot merger of lots 2,3 & 4
same for lots 1,5,6
LLA if necessary

Now, lot mergers are a little known option in state law, and many jurisdictions think they are the same as an LLA, which they are not. The provision is a side effect of how cities used to do forced mergers of sub-standard lots. Typically it is just a one page form filed with the Recorder, easier than certificates of compliance if the planner is hip.

An LLA straight away would not be allowed because there are 6 existing lots.

Tract map can't be required, unless the guy misread your plot and thought you were going from 2 lots to 6. Tract Maps typically are more expensive, and per state law, can carry significant extra costs.

Stephen Johnson · Post by **Stephen Johnson** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 8:28 am

BoundaryMan wrote:Our client owns 6 legal parcels for new development. The ultimate layout is shown on the attached Proposed Parcels Layout.
City Engineer told us that Tentative Tract Map is required as oppose to Tentative Parcel Map we intended to file.
Am I missing something?

Unless you left out something big(I don't think you did), the CE doesn't have a clue and like was stated in this thread, needs some re-education.

Dave Karoly, PLS · Post by **Dave Karoly, PLS** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 12:48 pm

Paul-

I completely forgot that you can't do an LLA on 6 lots anymore.

See we are exempt from our own laws HA so I don't have to deal with the SMA.

-Dave

BoundaryMan · Post by **BoundaryMan** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 1:15 pm

Wait, the CE responded as follows and attached are the parcels circled in red that we are working on; resultant parcel is 2.
CE says:
Referring to the 2012 Subdivision Map Act:
Lets start by reading section 66499.20.25 of the Subdivision Map Act, titled "Authorization for Parcel Map for Reversion to Acreage". This section clearly states that (1) A City must have an ordinance authorizing the use of a parcel map for a reversion of 4 lots or less. Otherwise a final map (i.e. a Tract map must be used to revert to acreage. Since you have more than 4 lots a final map must be used to do a reversion to acreage.

Reading Section 66499.20.50 of the Subdivision Map Act . The section states that either a final map or parcel map may be used for a resubdivision, however, it does not state when one type of map should be used over the other to accomplish this. Since six (6) parcels are being involved instead of four (4) or less, it is more appropriate (in my opinion) that a final map (tract map), be used to merge and resubdivide the lands within the development you are proposing.

I hope this explains my recommendation to staff in this matter.

Any response? I do not have a 2012 Map Act.

BoundaryMan · Post by **BoundaryMan** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 8:35 pm

Woodcutter,

You are great man.
Thank you, thank you for sharing your valuable experience & expertise.

BoundaryMan · Post by **BoundaryMan** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 8:52 pm

Woodcutter,

66426(c) calls for Tentative Parcel Map as well since this is a commercial development.

LS 4722 · Post by **LS 4722** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 9:17 pm

The city will call the shots on this..You can fight city hall, but it would be best to get the approval of your client before you start the war.

In the City of Glendale, there is an individual that is very high up in the ranks. His mentality about a simple LLA between two lots, even if the line is shifted one inch, is that in doing the shift, one has "Created a new parcel/lot".

I know it's wrong, but no one can convince him that it's wrong. Many have tried, attorneys included, but this person who calls the shots is still in charge and that's just the way it is.

Anthony Maffia · Post by **Anthony Maffia** » Sat Aug 18, 2012 5:58 am

So LLAs are illegal in Glendale? wow

Jim Frame · Post by **Jim Frame** » Sat Aug 18, 2012 6:51 am

I know it's wrong, but no one can convince him that it's wrong.

Has anyone gotten a writ of mandamus in a Glendale LLA case? Even if the official won't listen to the citizenry, he might listen to a Superior Court judge.

.

LS 4722 · Post by **LS 4722** » Sat Aug 18, 2012 5:21 pm

Anthony Maffia wrote:So LLAs are illegal in Glendale? wow

Not illegal, just a total headache. I dont touch LLA's in Glendale or any other city.

PS It also has to do with what zone a property is in and how much street frontage is involved, 100 foot
minimum I believe. If a LLA is applied for that is not in this one particular zone, it will go through without
this person screwing it up.

Long to short, if you want a LLA in the redlined zone, you have to go Parcel Map.

BTW..How in the world did you glean "illegal" out of my post?

LS 4722 · Post by **LS 4722** » Sat Aug 18, 2012 5:24 pm

Jim Frame wrote:Has anyone gotten a writ of mandamus in a Glendale LLA case? Even if the official won't listen to the citizenry, he might listen to a Superior Court judge..

The last time I spoke to a surveyor who has dealt with this, he told me nothing has changed. I do know that one of Randy's LLA clients got an attorney involved and that fizzled. I was told that other people also hired counsel but they also lost the battle.

I avoid getting involved with city red tape so I am not in the full loop Jim

land butcher · Post by **land butcher** » Sat Aug 18, 2012 8:25 pm

City of Inglewood made my client do a PM for turning 2 parcels back into 1 as it was before becoming 2. They had already agreed to the PM before I was involved.
PITA City as they had no clue as to what they wanted on the map, they just kept redlining submittals until they liked it. Was never able to talk to the contract CE. City had me remove the county surveyor/recorder certs. After the city signed it I got a call from the County surveyor asking if it was ok to add a 3rd sheet for their certs etc. We had a good laugh and I said ok.

land butcher · Post by **land butcher** » Sat Aug 18, 2012 8:31 pm

I remember a project, I wasn't directly involved with, in Santa Barbara county where this land owner, I vaguely remember hundreds of acres involved and at least as many lots, some not currently legal, wanting to do some LLAs to combine lots and sell them.
The County gave him a ration until he said, "I have deeds for each lot and can sell them individually if I want, we are just trying to clean up a mess." The County relented.

Should be able to do the same here. Or sell lots 2,3&4 as a package and 1,5 &6 as a package.

Anthony Maffia · Post by **Anthony Maffia** » Sun Aug 19, 2012 6:54 am

But a building cannot be constructed that crosses the lot lines, and setbacks will apply.

land butcher · Post by **land butcher** » Sun Aug 19, 2012 9:37 am

All you need is a smart developer that threatens to build minimal size low quality hovels on the lots. I think this is commercial but same rules apply.

California Surveyors Forums

Parcel VS Tract Map

Parcel VS Tract Map

Start here

David

Dennis

CE Responded

Thank you, thank you

Anthony