Remainder Parcel

[mpallamary]

Howdy folks,

I trust everyone is safe and well. I had an interesting once come up. A client is processing a parcel map with a remainder parcel. The city wants him to state on the map that future development of the remainder parcel will require another one-lot map as a condition for a COC. I do not think this is proper. I believe a future COC has to stand on its own merits. The city is trying to force the owner to include the larger remainder parcel, across the street, to be part of the map. it does not make sense as the parcels he wants to create are on the west side of the road where the land is level.

Has anyone every come across this before? The whole purpose of the remainder parcel is so that it is segregated.

Thoughts?

[Warren Smith]

SMA section 66445 (d) (1):

"The exterior boundary of the land included within the subdivision shall be indicated by distinctive symbols and clearly so designated. The exterior boundary of the land included within the subdivision shall not include a designated remainder or omitted parcel that is designated or omitted under Section 66424.6. The designated remainder parcel or omitted parcel shall be labeled as a designated remainder parcel or an omitted parcel."

Section 66424.6 (d) speaks to the subsequent sale of a designated remainder or omitted parcel being capable of being sold, but that a local agency may require a certificate of compliance or conditional certificate of compliance. The imposition of a one lot map doesn't fit into my experience, and I'm not sure that a local ordinance requiring such would pass muster.

[David Kendall]

I recently had a discussion on this topic as well. My first thought was that the DR is technically not a part of the subdivision so how could it be conditioned by the map or tentative subdivision approval? Like Warren I don't believe they can do much to stop you beyond COC

[Elias French]

Agree with David and Warren.

This map is not an appropriate place to pre-condition a future COC that may or may not even need to be required per SMA.

This touches on a question that comes up from time to time: “Is a Parcel Map ever an appropriate condition of a COC?” Generally, I think not. The conditions of a Conditional COC are the conditions that would have been applied to a properly done subdivision at the time of creation in most cases (build sidewalk, utility connections etc,). A map is not a condition, a map IS THE INSTRUMENT OF SUBDIVISION. A COC is only sought to ascertain the legality of a parcel that has already been created. The act of subdivision has already occurred. It is not possible, necessary, or appropriate to attempt to subdivide by map now, that which has already been subdivided!

My 0.02 anyway, but have never heard a good argument to the contrary.

[mpallamary]

You guys are simply brilliant as always! Thanks

[dedkad]

Was your client the one who subdivided across the street and created the large remainder parcel? Is this a case of 4x4ing? Is the reason why the City wants this other remainder parcel included so they can get road improvements?

[mpallamary]

I am not sure why. I believe the street is fully improved.

[mpallamary]

I am not sure why. I believe the street is fully improved.