Lot Merger City of Livermore

[goodgps]

Greetings,

I am asked to do a lot merger for a client who owns two lots and is expanding a building across the lot division line.
The City of Livermore stated to me that this must be accomplished under the "Parcel Map Waiver" format with a City fee of $4280 !!!
I am wondering if these guys are for real ? or have they misunderstood the question. ?

In My many years of Surveying and processing applications, it was realized that a "Voluntary Merger" is probably the easiest to process and complete.
If this is correct, the City is charging my client many times more than I will to complete this process !!!

Am I missing something here ? If anyone knows better, please clue me in.

Thank you so much
Dave "Good"

[mpallamary]

You should argue that it is a lot line adjustment wherein you are extinguishing a line. They cannot condition a lot line adjustment. BTW, that is what it is.

66412 SMA: This division shall be inapplicable to any of the following:

(d) A lot line adjustment between four or fewer existing adjoining parcels, where the land taken from one parcel is added to an adjoining parcel, and where a greater number of parcels than originally existed is not thereby created, if the lot line adjustment is approved by the local agency, or advisory agency. A local agency or advisory agency shall limit its review and approval to a determination of whether or not the parcels resulting from the lot line adjustment will conform to the local general plan, any applicable specific plan, any applicable coastal plan, and zoning and building ordinances. An advisory agency or local agency shall not impose conditions or exactions on its approval of a lot line adjustment except to conform to the local general plan, any applicable specific plan, any applicable coastal plan, and zoning and building ordinances, to require the prepayment of real property taxes prior to the approval of the lot line adjustment, or to facilitate the relocation of existing utilities, infrastructure, or easements. No tentative map, parcel map, or final map shall be required as a condition to the approval of a lot line adjustment. The lot line adjustment shall be reflected in a deed, which shall be recorded. No record of survey shall be required for a lot line adjustment unless required by Section 8762 of the Business and Professions Code. A local agency shall approve or disapprove a lot line adjustment pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act (Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 65920) of Division 1).

[land butcher]

~10 years ago the City of Inglewood required a Parcel Map to turn 2 parcels into one. Ironically it was turned back into the same lot it was before being split into 2 lots.
Could I have argued yes, but the developer, after talking to the City, considered it cheaper to just do the PM. Yes, the city collected a whole lot more money for the PM than on a LLO.

[JoeC]

Good - you should really push for a LLA. The City only charges $3,810 for a LLA and $4,280 for a Parcel Map Waiver.
You could save your client $470. Sad to say - I'm sure your fee isn't even close to these fees.. maybe it should be.

[Anthony Maffia]

12 years ago, the City of Oakland charged $0 to file a voluntary lot merger by deed, per Government Code Section 66451.12. Attached is a copy of their form, adapted for and used by Alameda County Planning Dept. on another of my projects.

[wingding]

This is not new,I've been surveying for 35 years and most review fees by the city cost more than the field surveying and mapping

Greetings,
.......
If this is correct, the City is charging my client many times more than I will to complete this process !!!
...........
Dave "Good"

[dedkad]

My city uses a form similar to the Alameda County one posted above, except we require that the owner sign also, and the Beneficiary on any Deeds of Trust. We attach the legals for the parcels direct from the title report and the surveyor usually submits a simple little exhibit to go with it. Boom. Done. $517 fee to process plus whatever the recording fee will be. Sounds to me like they just don't have a process set up to do these Voluntary Mergers, so they don't know how to categorize it. Maybe you can talk them into a time and materials fee to review.

[hellsangle]

The intent of the voluntary merger was to make it easy to lessen density . . . which equates to a better world. (Do we really want to "range" x number of people per square feet? Like the Coalinga stock yards!)

This is such a simple process - a caveman could do it.

"Oh . . . you want to merge those two lots? Piece of cake, sign this application; we'll sign and record a voluntary merger." Should cost maximum of one hour planning time and a giant THANK YOU FROM PLANNING . . . record . . . viola - done.

Let's not forget - government must be funded. No matter how simple the task.

I had a similar situation years ago in Marin whereby the County "conditioned" my client to file a Parcel Map because they was building over a lot line. (That's all changed now and they acknowledge the voluntary merger. My clients were a pair of attorneys with plenty of "resources" but they just wanted it done.)

Phil - Sonoma

[geoshale]

In cases like this, the City of Glendale uses a Lot Tie Covenants & Agreement to hold two viable parcels together. This gives the owner the option in the future to remove the building or improvements crossing between parcels, and develop both parcels afte the City release the covenant.

Bill A

[RAM]

So if a LLA can be used to reduce the number of parcels, what is a PM used for?

[Ian Wilson]

Nothing in 66412(d) says you cannot REDUCE the number of parcels, only that you cannot INCREASE the number of parcels.

And, a PM (Parcel Map) is used to create parcels...

[marchenko]

Chaeck the Municiap Code to make sure the City has a Voluntary Merger Ordinance in place. That is where it has to be codifed. If they don;t have such an ordinance I think you have to do the Lot LIne Adjustment. For $400, I would advise your client to do the Merger as your fees would be a lot less I am guessing.

[goodgps]

In speaking with the City Public Works Dept., I was told that the City of Livermore has a municipal code restricting lot line adjustments to 10% of the lot or less.
They have NO mechanism for Lot Merger and state to me that a Merger is moving a lot line 100% and therefor is not in conformance with City code.
They claim the ONLY way to accomplish abolishing a Lot/Parcel line, is by a Parcel Map Waiver. This consists of performing EVERYTHING on a Parcel Map ie; (title sheet, map sheet showing the parcel with ties to controlling monuments), AND a Parcel Map guarantee pkg by a title company PLUS filing a new deed for the merged parcels. In 30 plus years I have NEVER come across such logic. The Public Works individual was adamant that the City ordinance is perfectly in line with Subd Map act. My Clients cant afford attorneys to fight this. I am wondering who can review these policies ??

signed (not so) good gps :-(

[goodgps]

PS

Thank you for the information and input.
I will try to do a search for the City Ordinance (officials haven't responded to my request). Perhaps our Board can review this specific case in conjunction to the above opinion from the Surveyor Published article ???

[Anthony Maffia]

IANAL, but IMO, limiting an LLA to 10% of lot area is in violation of state law. Float this by them.

My lightweight understanding of state law is that some codes are prohibitive "you may not do the following," e.g. criminal code, and others are permissive "you may only do the following", e.g. education code.

State law for LLAs permits jurisdictions to review only against general plan and zoning code, that is minimums for lot size, frontage, setbacks, height, etc. In other words, the jurisdiction may deny an application for LLA if the resulting parcel(s) would violate their general plan or if they would result in a non-conforming lot. State law does not allow cities to review against anything else, including their idea that it should be a "minor" adjustment. If anyone has a hard time digesting this, think instead "can a city require a ROS for every LLA?" State law says no, but some agencies will demand them anyway.

Livermore's municipal code conflicts with and is trumped by state code. Your clients will have to hire a layer to review this line of reasoning and write a letter to the city attorney. This will still be less expensive than a Parcel Map. Or you can ask the city manager to request the city council codify owner initiated lot mergers. See my attachment above and Oakland Municipal Code for reference.

[Ian Wilson]

Anthony, that's exactly what I though when I saw that. However, in order to get the City to back down, you need a client with a big pocket and the willingness to say "NO!".

One Central Coast town "requires" a Record of Survey for every LLA. Their response when I shared GC§66412(d), "So, sue us."

One North Coast town believes §66412(d) includes a provision that precludes sequential LLAs within 5 years. Their response, "...<click - phone hangs up>..."

More than one county require that the LLA be done on a Parcel Map. One response, "But no one else complains."

If anyone has documentable stories of similar "violations" of §66412(d) by agencies, please forward them to me at ian.wilson.pls@gmail.com

[BrianSpore]

Good,
I don't know if this will help or not.

Brian

[Anthony Maffia]

Brian,

Thanks, it looks like Livermore already allows Parcel Merger. Perhaps the planning counter person had no experience and didn't know about it.

[BrianSpore]

Anthony,
That was my thoughts exactly.

Brian

[RAM]

to clarify my question above, if a LLA can reduce the number of lots, what is a Parcel Merger for?

[William Magee]

to clarify my question above, if a LLA can reduce the number of lots, what is a Parcel Merger for?

A volunteer parcel merger process, if so placed in local code, does not provide for an exclusive remedy. Not unlike the LLA process is not the exclusive remedy for adjusting lot lines as it can also be achieved by a parcel map.

Most agencies I've dealt with recognize that the LLA process can result in a lessor number of lots. Unfortunately it is true that there are some local agencies that feel a LLA has to retain the same number of lots. Hopefully they are a small minority.

[mpallamary]

SMA:

66451.10. (a) Notwithstanding Section 66424, except as is otherwise
provided for in this article, two or more contiguous parcels or
units of land which have been created under the provisions of this
division, or any prior law regulating the division of land, or a
local ordinance enacted pursuant thereto, or which were not subject
to those provisions at the time of their creation, shall not be
deemed merged by virtue of the fact that the contiguous parcels or
units are held by the same owner, and no further proceeding under the
provisions of this division or a local ordinance enacted pursuant
thereto shall be required for the purpose of sale, lease, or
financing of the contiguous parcels or units, or any of them.
(b) This article shall provide the sole and exclusive authority
for local agency initiated merger of contiguous parcels.

[dedkad]

SMA:

66451.10. (a) Notwithstanding Section 66424, except as is otherwise
provided for in this article, two or more contiguous parcels or
units of land which have been created under the provisions of this
division, or any prior law regulating the division of land, or a
local ordinance enacted pursuant thereto, or which were not subject
to those provisions at the time of their creation, shall not be
deemed merged by virtue of the fact that the contiguous parcels or
units are held by the same owner, and no further proceeding under the
provisions of this division or a local ordinance enacted pursuant
thereto shall be required for the purpose of sale, lease, or
financing of the contiguous parcels or units, or any of them.
(b) This article shall provide the sole and exclusive authority
for local agency initiated merger of contiguous parcels.

Mike, I'm not sure what your point is. That section applies only to forced mergers by a local agency. That section goes on to provide several alternatives for voluntary mergers in items (1) through (5). There's also Section 66499.20.3 which addresses voluntary mergers. I believe a voluntary merger is the subject of this thread.

[mpallamary]

Just more information.....

[goodgps]

Thank you Brian Spore

I will use this when the time comes to either merge these lots or do an adjustment to avoid the new construction.