City is a Subdivider

[subman]

Looking for some first hand experience. I am working on a final map for an older approved tentative map in a small City that has had a lot of turn over resulting in a lack of institutional knowledge. My client bought the property recently and there were several prior owners going back to the original applicant. It turns out the City owns a half acre parcel within the approved tentative.

In addition to the owner of the other 200+ acres, the City will need to sign under the owner statement since they show up as a required signatory in the Subdivision Guarantee. Furthermore, their half acre is within Lot 142 (once map records) which is being granted in fee title to the City as a 20 acre flood basin. How do they grant and accept property they own??? The flood basin will be transferred to the County flood control district when the improvements are completed.

Can any of the County Surveyors recall a similar final map where a city or County was an owner signing on a tract map individually or in partnership with a private land owner? I have seen examples of Official Maps where the City or County was the owner of the land being divided. But that is not a tentative map/final map land division. Who signs, the Mayor?

If so please post a sample. Appreciate feedback from both public and private surveyors. Thanks in advance.

[CBarrett]

Someone needs to look into the city's articles of incorporation to determine who has the authority to sign on real property (title company job?). Probably board of supervisors needs to approve, and then City Clerk should have the authority to actually sign (just like when there are vacations or accepting dedications, which are also a form of real-estate transactions on behalf of the city and on behalf of public).

As far as the parcel needing to go to the county flood control - was this a condition on the map? if not then it is up to the city to grant this land or whatever rights are appropriate to the flood control district. Lot of places require CCnR's to be recorded, conditioning and restricting land use prior to the recordation of a final map, so to reinforce compliance, purpose of lot 142 can be limited in the CCnr's and restated on the map.

If the owner of the land is developing the 200 acres, they probably have a real-estate attorney of some sort involved on the project. This is really a question for the title company and clients real-estate attorney.

I did couple of maps in recent years, one in city of Anaheim and one in I believe in the city of Irvine where city owned part of the land. I will have to dig them up and look up how it was done. As a surveyor I wasn't very involved in signature and title part of the process, other than placing certificates they gave us on the map and having a chance to observe the process.

[mpallamary]

Generally the city clerk depending on their form of government and the governing charter for the organization. Verify how the city was organized.

[mpallamary]

Here is an outline of San Diego:


https://www.sandiego.gov/city-clerk/aboutus/history

[PLS7393]

The City Manager signed for the City of Hayward on the attached Parcel Map.
They often signed documents pertaining to the City's interest in real property, not the clerk as mentioned (at least in Hayward).

[hellsangle]

If I understand this correctly, there is a fee parcel owned by City inside the subdivision?

Isn't that similar to an adjoiner being inside the subdivision therefore is "not a part" of the subdivision?

The attached is an example in, Marin County, of parcels that were conveyed before the subdivision map was recorded. If the subdivision IS NOT the creating instrument for the City's fee ownership then it would seem that the City in not part of the subdivision? You know more about this than I, Subman so I'm trying anything that might help you.

I wonder if one could argue that point, (not part of subdivision), with the title company?

Good luck and have a good week.

Crazy Phil Surveyor to Recorder

[Warren Smith]

Dennis,

There was a final map filed in the late 80s of land along Winchester Parkway, where the City of Los Angeles was the subdivider. The Mayor signed on behalf of the City, authorized by resolution to do so.

[Scott]

Why can't you leave the City's portion out of the Subdivision?

[CBarrett]

Why can't you leave the City's portion out of the Subdivision?

It would depend on whether NAP or any sort of phasing was shown on the approved tentative or not. final map has to substantially conform to the tentative map. if it does not, then they need to apply for modification of the tentative map. This tends to be lengthy and possibly expensive process which may not fit builder/owner's financial timeline.
Planning dept. would have to review at the minimum.
Let's assume the extra parcel is meant to be open space, or a drainage basin of some sort. Tentative map approval is likely based on those conditions (x amount of open space, park areas ratio etc..) including or excluding a chunk of land changes whether the map satisfies approved or conditionally approved criteria.

[dedkad]

Is it a City parcel within a County subdivision or a City parcel within a City subdivision? If all in City, then the resolution approving the final map could also include an authorization for whomever at the City (City Manager, Mayor, City Clerk) to sign on behalf of the City. If City parcel within a County subdivision, a separate resolution by the City indicating who is authorized to sign would be most prudent and the Resolution Number should be referenced in the signature block. Some agencies may already have a blanket resolution on file for this sort of thing, but probably not likely for fee title. This if assuming that you've already explored the possibility of omitting the parcel from the map since conveyances to and from a public agency are exempt from map act.