LLA between parcels separated by a railroad ROW

[Jon Olin]

Per the SMA:

66412. (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…..

66424. "Subdivision" means the division, by any subdivider, of any unit or units of improved or unimproved land, or any portion thereof, shown on the latest equalized county assessment roll as a unit or as contiguous units, for the purpose of sale, lease or financing, whether immediate or future.

Property shall be considered as contiguous units, even if it is separated by roads, streets, utility easement or railroad rights-of-way.......

Per Black' Law dictionary:

adjoining (a-joyn-ing), adj. Touching; sharing a common boundary; CONTIGUOUS

We have a client who wishes to pursue a LLA between two parcels separated by a railroad ROW. My gut tells me the two parcels are not adjoining, so no LLA allowed. However 66424 states "Property shall be considered as contiguous units, even if it is separated by roads, streets, utility easement or railroad rights-of-way......."

I realize a LLA is an exemption from the SMA so that definition may not apply.

Has anyone seen a LLA between parcels separated by a road or railroad ROW? I guess it could depend on the local agency.

Thanks in advance

[steffan]

For clarification, is the RR ROW an easement or fee?
If an easement, are you certain there are 2 separate parcels held?
Same question if in fee and considering Save Mt Diablo vs CoCo County.

[Jon Olin]

The RR ROW is in fee. The parcels on each side of the RR ROW have separate APN's, and are described as separate parcels in the Preliminary Report. Both are owned by our client.

A little background. Our client owns four parcels. Three of the parcels on the west side of the RR ROW and one long skinny (relatively useless) parcel on the east side of the RR ROW. We completed a LLA on the three parcels on the west side, about 6 months ago, to reconfigure those for development. Our client's plans have evolved and they now wish to reconfigure two of the recently adjusted parcels with the one parcel on the east side of the RR ROW by a LLA. The result would be that the long skinny parcel on the east side would now include a portion of two of the parcels on the west side of the RR ROW.

Our client is also inquiring with the contract surveyor who reviews survey matters for the local agency. If they do not approve of a LLA, our client will most likely pursue Parcel Map to accomplish this. It is too bad they did not have their plans better defined earlier so they could have just done a Parcel Map to begin with.

I seem to recall seeing a LLA years ago that involved one parcel which spanned a public street ROW but I do not recall the details. I have not seen a LLA between two separate parcels lying on either side of a ROW (fee or easement).

[steffan]

I haven’t come across your exact situation. All I can suggest is review precedent such as 61 OP. Atty. Gen. 299 and Save Mt. Diablo vs Contra Costa County as to how lands bisected by those similar entity held fee simple strips are treated. From those I would offer that because those similar entity held fee simple strips don’t operate in the eyes of legislation and the courts as separating bisected parcels, the converse must also be true in how parcels are viewed for these situations in both how the existing and resulting parcel configurations are to be treated.

[mpallamary]

Please revisit the use of this language in light of the legal arguments I made in the San Dieguito case.

[Jon Olin]

Thanks steffan!

I did take a look at Save Mt Diablo vs Contra Costa County and found the case to be interesting and similar to my situation.

Thanks Mike!

I will take a look at the attachments you posted.

[steffan]

Please revisit the use of this language in light of the legal arguments I made in the San Dieguito case.

Michael,
I am curious as to how your posted attachments have relevance to the specific topic at hand. Please clarify.
Thanks.

[mpallamary]

The appellate decision discusses the concept of contiguity and adjacent parcels, assuming that is a concept that might apply.

The court agreed with CLSA's position that parcels do not need to touch to be considered candidates for a lot line adjustment.

If that notion is irrelevant, than please disregard my post. Because of work obligations, I have not studied this discussion exhaustively.

Good luck!

[steffan]

Thank you for the clarification Michael. While it didn't provide me with cause to revisit my language, and 2 of your 3 attachments do appear irrelevant, the copy of the CLSA article did include a reference to part of the court's opinion in San Dieguito Partnership vs City of San Diego, the content of which is very much germane to the subject matter at hand. In that regard, I think interested persons are better served by being directed to the appellate decision itself, attached and in particular emphasizing the portion starting with the last paragraph on page 6.

[mpallamary]

Sure.

[Jon Olin]

Our project manager presented the circular logic in the original post with some emphasis added (below) to the local agency's engineer who, as I understand it, ran this by the local agency's legal council.

Per the SMA:

66412. (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…..

66424. "Subdivision" means the division, by any subdivider, of any unit or units of improved or unimproved land, or any portion thereof, shown on the latest equalized county assessment roll as a unit or as contiguous units, for the purpose of sale, lease or financing, whether immediate or future.

Property shall be considered as contiguous units, even if it is separated by roads, streets, utility easement or railroad rights-of-way.......

Per Black' Law dictionary:

adjoining (a-joyn-ing), adj. Touching; sharing a common boundary; CONTIGUOUS

Basically our assertion is the SMA states that lots are contiguous even if separated by RR ROW, and adjoining = contiguous. Therefore a LLA should be permissible across RR ROW.

We were given approval to move forward with the Lot Line Adjustment.

[mpallamary]

Excellent! Good luck!