San
Dieguito Partnership, L. P., vs. City of San Diego et al.
Cite
as: 7 Cal.App.4th 748; 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 440 (June, 1992, Fourth
District, Div. One)
Summary
| Opinion | Facts
| Discussion | Disposition
| Counsel
Summary
A
lot line reconfiguration of 9 parcels was attempted by the
owners of 189 acres. Five of the parcels had no frontage to
the street, and the lot line adjustment was proposed so that
all 9 parcels would have frontage. A city attorney maintained
that because the proposal seemed to be a creation of more
than 5 lots, compliance with the Subdivision Map Act, which
is Government Code Section 66410 et seq., was required. The
owners petitioned the court for a writ of mandate in order
to force the city to deal with the request as a lot line adjustment.
The Subdivision Map Act does not apply to lot line adjustments
(see, Government Code Section 66412, subd. (d)). However,
the trial court agreed with the city attorney, finding the
request outside of the lot line adjustment provisions. The
owners’ petition for writ of mandate was denied. The trial
was held in the Superior Court of San Diego County under Judge
Michael I. Greer, Case No. 624087.
The
Court of Appeal disagreed, reversing the lower court ruling,
and directing the trial court to issue the requested writ.
The holding was that so long as more parcels were not being
created, the lot line adjustment provisions held. Therefore,
the lower court erred when it said that Government Code Section
66412, subd. (d) permitted a lot line adjustment only when
taking land from one parcel and adding it to an adjacent parcel.
The appellate court further found that an agency which approves
a lot line adjustment must follow the strictly bounded regulations,
and a city may not overturn the law by acting as if a subdivision
map is required when only a lot line adjustment is requested.
(The opinion was by Acting Presiding Justice Todd, and Justices
Froehlich and Nares concurred.)
Summary
| Opinion | Facts
| Discussion | Disposition
| Top
Opinion
This
case involves changes in the lot lines of certain parcels
of land located in the San Dieguito Valley East of the Del
Mar Fairground and Interstate 5 freeway, South of Via de la
Valle and the San Dieguito River, and West of El Camino Real.
The question is whether a particular reconfiguration of the
parcels is "[a] lot line adjustment between two or more existing
adjacent parcels, where the land taken from one parcel is
added to an adjacent parcel, and where a greater number of
parcels than originally existed is not thereby created. .
. ." (Gov. Code,1 § 66412, subd. (d).) If the reconfiguration
of the parcels fits this definition, it is not subject to
the Subdivision Map Act. (SMA; § 66410 et seq.; § 66412.)
The
trial court found the reconfiguration was not within the lot
line adjustment provisions and denied the petition for a writ
of mandate of the owner, San Dieguito Partnership, L. P.,
(Owner) seeking to compel the City of San Diego (City) to
treat it as such. We conclude the lot line adjustment provisions
of section 66412, subdivision (d), exempt from the SMA an
adjustment of the type sought here and require the City to
approve the adjustment subject only to a determination whether
it conforms to City’s zoning and building ordinances. There
is no statutory language or indication of a legislative purpose
to limit lot line adjustments to "minor" ones as the City
argues and the trial court concluded. To the contrary, the
express prohibition against a City’s requiring a tentative
map, parcel map or final map as a condition to approval of
such an adjustment denotes a legislative purpose to include
adjustments involving five or more lots within the application
of section 66412, subdivision (d), if the proposal otherwise
meets the statutory criteria. Thus, we reverse.
Summary
| Opinion | Facts
| Discussion | Disposition
| Counsel | Top
Facts
Generally,
the lot line reconfiguration in this case involves a total
of approximately 189 acres of land in a group of 9 existing
parcels, 5 of which have no frontage to a street (here El
Camino Real). (See exhibit A, attached.) If approved, the
reconfiguration would result in the 189 acres containing the
same number of parcels, 9, ranging in size from just over
10 acres to just over 50 acres, each having frontage on El
Camino Real ranging from just over 200 feet to just over 550
feet. The 189 acres in question are part of a total of approximately
350 acres held by Owner. Owners of the nine lots in question
owned the property for over thirty years before March 1990
when the lot line adjustment was being sought. The City annexed
the land in 1958. The land within the requested lot line adjustment
is subject to the following zoning, phasing plans, and guidelines:
- A-1-10
Zone—Agricultural (10-acre minimum lots).
- FW
Zone—Floodway.
- FPF
Zone—Floodplain fringe overlay zone.
- Open
Space—General plan designation.
- Future
Urbanizing—General plan development phasing designation.
- Coastal
Zone—State of California designation.
- San
Dieguito River regional plan.
When
the City’s first progress guide and general plan was adopted
in 1967, Owner’s land was designated for agricultural use.
In 1972, the A-1-10 agricultural zone was applied to Owners’
land, permitting not only agricultural uses but also open
space, commercial and private stables, single family homes,
churches and uses approved by conditional use permits. The
A-1-10 zone regulates permitted uses and establishes property
development regulations such as minimum lot size and property
setbacks. In 1976, portions of the Owner’s property were zoned
floodway (FW) and floodplain fringe (FPF), as an overlying
zone, so as to regulate and control development in areas subject
to flooding. Estimating by eyesight on the certificate of
compliance plat, between one-third and one-half of the acreage
on the Western side of the existing parcels is zoned FPF.
Only existing parcel 9 does not contain some FPF zoning. Each
of the existing parcels 1, 2 and 3 contains a triangular portion
of acreage zoned FW consuming approximately a quarter or less
of the acreage of those three existing parcels. No residential
use is allowed in the FW zone and there are property development
restrictions in the FPF overlay zone additional to those in
a base A-1-10 zone.
In
1979 City adopted a major general plan revision identifying
Owner’s land as open space and, for purposes of phasing or
timing of development, as future urbanizing. Under the general
plan, land in a future urbanizing area is to be held as an
urban reserve, to be released for development as the planned
communities are built or as opportunities to implement the
balanced housing or land use goals of the City arise. The
land in question is subject to additional development regulations
of the state Coastal Commission. It is also subject to City’s
1984 San Dieguito River Regional Plan which is intended to
provide a comprehensive planning framework for this river
basin. The regional plan designates Owner’s land for agricultural
and recreational open space uses and contains a number of
goals, one of which is to "[p]rotect and preserve significant
natural, cultural and aesthetic resources, including the visual
integrity of the River basin." These goals are guidelines
and they refine the provisions of the general plan.
The
189 acres also are included in a proposed 215-acre, 20-lot
subdivision known as Stallions Crossing for which an application
has been in process since September 1989. (Application No.89-1145.)
Based on an environmental initial study of the Stallions Crossing
project indicating it "may result in significant environmental
impacts,"2 an environmental impact report (EIR) is being prepared.
As of October 1990, the environmental analysis section of
City’s planning department was in the process of reviewing
and commenting on the first draft EIR prepared by Owner’s
environmental consultants.3 In connection with Application
No. 89-1145 and the requirements of City’s Resource Protection
Ordinance, in November 1989 Owner stated it had no intention
of constructing residences, but rather "will sell the lots
individually or in bulk to a builder/developer."
The
parcels were legal lots before the land containing them was
annexed to the City in 1958. The City allows development of
legal lots if the County of San Diego would have permitted
it at the time of the annexation. The City’s definition of
a lot, however, requires that the parcel have a minimum frontage
on a dedicated street. (San Diego Mun. Code, § 101.0101.34(C).)
The City advised Owner that failure to have adequate frontage
for each lot may result in the inability of the owner to get
a building permit on the project site in the absence of either
a variance which is subject to findings of unusual circumstances
and hardship or an approved subdivision map to establish the
lots as legal building sites. Another alternative would be
to obtain a certificate of compliance (COC) processed by the
subdivision section of the development and environmental quality
division of City’s planning department. (See § 66499.35.)
Using
the COC method suggested by the City and relying on the lot
line adjustment provisions of section 66412, subdivision (d),
Owner submitted its request to the City in March 1990. In
April 1990, the chief deputy city attorney, opined that a
COC could not be used to create parcels or adjust lot lines.
He described this case in part as one involving the same total
number of lots but proposing "numerous lots . . . where none
existed before" and one "which proposes to create more than
five lots," thus requiring a tentative and final map under
the SMA. In May 1990, City’s planning department notified
Owner’s civil engineer that a tentative and final map would
be necessary. Owner sent another letter expressing disagreement
with the City’s position and requesting a lot line adjustment
identical to the original request for the COC. City refused
to process Owner’s proposed lot line adjustment.
The
present petition for writ of mandate was filed three days
before Owner’s second request for a lot line adjustment. The
petition sought to compel City to accept for processing and
to process the lot line adjustment and approve it if it met
statutory standards. After a hearing in November 1990, the
trial court denied the petition. The trial court agreed with
the City’s interpretation of the legislative intent behind
the exemption in section 66412, subdivision (d), that there
is a limit to the number of lots which may be adjusted under
the exemption and that it is intended to permit only minor
changes in parcel lines without requiring the processing of
an entire subdivision map." (Original italics.) The court
found that normal precepts of statutory construction support
City’s administrative decision the proposed lot line adjustment
"created more than 5 lots, and therefore required the filing
of a tentative map and final map." The court cited certain
provisions of the SMA, including the requirement of a tentative
and final map "for all subdivisions creating five or more
parcels" (§ 66426), and cases stating the purposes of the
SMA. It expressed the belief that permitting the lot line
adjustment would enable the Owners to avoid important statutory
requirements and safeguards such as the guidelines in the
General Plan of Open Space and Future Urbanizing, and the
guidelines in the San Dieguito River Regional Plan.
The
court relied on a passage in California Subdivision Map Act
Practice (Cont.Ed.Bar 1987) section 2.12, page 29, in which
it is said, "The idea behind this exemption is to permit minor
changes in parcel lines without requiring the processing of
an entire subdivision map." (Italics added.) It found "the
proposed multiple lot line adjustments, which would create
9 reconfigured parcels involving over 189 acres in an environmentally
sensitive area, is not a minor change in parcel lines." The
court went on to find section 66412, subdivision (d), "implies
that land may not be taken from more than one parcel, and
land may not be added to more than one adjacent parcel"; the
SMA permits the City to make a preliminary determination as
to whether a land division is legally exempt from the SMA;
Owners fit within the definition of a "subdivider"4; the proposed
reconfiguration is a "subdivision"5; and that since the statute
grants the City authority to approve a proposed lot line adjustment,
by reasonable implication, it also authorizes the City to
disapprove a proposed lot line adjustment and to require tentative
and final maps, given the language which includes the phrase
"provided the lot line adjustment is approved by the local
agency."
Summary
| Opinion | Facts
| Discussion | Disposition
| Counsel | Top
Discussion
The
full text of section 66412, subdivision (d), reads: "This
division [the SMA] shall be inapplicable to:
"…………………………………………………………………………………………………
"(d)
A lot line adjustment between two or more existing adjacent
parcels, where the land taken from one parcel is added to
an adjacent parcel, and where a greater number of parcels
than originally existed is not thereby created, provided 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 local 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
local zoning and building ordinances, or except 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."
(1)
We approach the question of whether this statute applies to
exempt Owner’s proposal from the SMA keeping in mind the following
rules: "’[A] court "should ascertain the intent of the Legislature
so as to effectuate the purpose of the law."’ [Citations.]
‘An equally basic rule of statutory construction is, however,
that courts are bound to give effect to statutes according
to the usual, ordinary import of the language employed in
framing them.’ [Citations.] Although a court may properly
rely on extrinsic aids, it should first turn to the words
of the statute to determine the intent of the Legislature.
[Citations.] ‘If the words of the statute are clear, the court
should not add to or alter them to accomplish a purpose that
does not appear on the face of the statute or from its legislative
history.’ [Citations.]" (California Teachers Assn. v. San
Diego Community College Dist. (1981) 28 Cal.3d 692, 698 [170
Cal.Rptr. 817, 621 P.2d 856].)
Here,
we apply the rule that if the language is clear, there can
be no room for interpretation; effect must be given to the
plain meaning of the words. (Building Industry Assn. v. City
of Camarillo (1986) 41 Cal.3d 810, 818 [226 Cal.Rptr. 81,
718 P.2d 68].) The first sentence of the statute under consideration
contains the elements of a lot line adjustment which makes
the SMA inapplicable. The next three sentences impose limits
or restrictions on the approving agency in dealing with an
application for a lot line adjustment in whatever form the
application may take. The final two sentences deal with procedural
formalities of a lot line adjustment and need not be further
mentioned. We deal first with the elements of a lot line adjustment
spelled out in the statute.
(2)
It is especially noteworthy that the statutory language does
not contain the word "minor" or any other words conveying
the notion of a limitation of the number or size of parcels
that may be affected by a lot line adjustment under its provisions,
so long as "a greater number of parcels than originally existed
is not thereby created."
There
is no question the lot line adjustment under consideration
comports with the no greater number of parcels element. The
existence of the no greater number of parcels element, the
absence of other limiting words and the manner in which the
language is phrased very directly suggest this is the extent
of the Legislature’s limitation on the number of parcels which
are permitted to be included in a lot line adjustment. It
also suggests the Legislature’s determination, consistent
with its definitions of "subdivider" and "subdivision" in
which the dominant word is a variable of the verb "divide"6
(see fns. 4, 5, ante), that the dominant concern of the SMA
is division of real property resulting in a greater number
of parcels than existed before the division. The requirement
of a tentative and final map "for all subdivisions creating
five or more parcels" also involves "parcel[s] created by
the division" (§ 66426, subds. (a), (b) and (d), italics added);
in other words, new parcels which came about as a result of
a division of real property. Thus, consistently with the Legislature’s
definitional use of "division" involving the creation of parcels,
the use of "created" in the lot line adjustment statute connotes
a division resulting in more parcels with resultant application
of the SMA to that division.7 If, however, a greater number
of parcels is not so created by the lot line adjustment, there
is no division of real property and the SMA is inapplicable.
Likewise suggesting the Legislature was not concerned with
the number of parcels which may be subject to a lot line adjustment
is its use of the phrase "two or more" without attaching any
maximum numerical limit. It surely would have been an easy
task to attach such a limit had the Legislature so intended.
There can be no question that the nine parcel lot line adjustment
here involved fits within the two or more element.
(3)
Nor can it be questioned that the adjustment here involves
"existing adjacent parcels." The usual, ordinary import of
"adjacent" is that the position of one thing relative to another
is "not distant or far off," "nearby but not touching," "relatively
near and having nothing of the same kind intervening"; "[a]djacent
is sometimes merely a synonym for near or close to." (Webster’s
New Internat. Dict., supra, p. 26; see also County of Yuba
v. Kate Hayes Mm. Co. (1903)141 Cal. 360, 362 [74 P.1049],
"A thing is adjacent to another when it lies near or close
to it, although it is not in actual contact therewith"; Sonora
etc. School Dist. v. Tuolumne County Bd. of Education (1966)
239 Cal.App.2d 824, 826-829 [49 Cal.Rptr. 153] [disapproved
on another point in Anderson Union High Sch. Dist. v. Schreder
(1976) 56 Cal.App.3d 453, 462 (128 Cal.Rptr. 529)], holding
"adjacent" in the statute before it "does not mean ‘contiguous’
or ‘touching’ or adjoining’ but rather ‘neighboring’ or ‘near
to’ . . . .") Under this commonly understood meaning of adjacent
as near or close to, rather than adjoining, touching or contiguous,8
all of the parcels involved in the lot line adjustment we
consider were "existing adjacent parcels." It literally was
a "lot line adjustment between two or more existing adjacent
parcels" that resulted in the same number of reconfigured
parcels after the adjustment. (See exhibit A, attached.)9
(4)
Moreover, "land taken from one parcel is added to an adjacent
parcel" in the case of each parcel in the proposed lot line
adjustment under review. The trial court emphasized the singular
aspect of this phraseology in both the "one parcel" and "an
adjacent parcel" language. The court stated, "The statute
implies that land may not be taken from more than one parcel,
and land may not be added to more than one adjacent parcel
in a lot line adjustment." (Original italics.) In light of
the basic rule that unless the provision or context otherwise
requires, the singular number includes the plural and the
plural the singular (§§ 5, 13), we do not think such an interpretation
is called for here. More important, the trial court’s interpretation
would permit a lot line adjustment only between two existing
adjacent parcels, one parcel and one adjacent parcel, when
the statute expressly contemplates lot line adjustments between
"two or more" of such parcels. (Italics added.) In certain
cases of lot line adjustments between more than two existing
adjacent parcels, there may well be no way to achieve the
lot line adjustment allowed by the statute under the trial
court’s interpretation that would permit the adjustment in
the single circumstance where land taken from one parcel is
added to one adjacent parcel. Thus, the trial court’s interpretation,
adding language to the statute that is not there, in many
cases would thwart the express statutory permission to carry
out lot line adjustments between "two or more" existing adjacent
parcels. In the context of the statute here, we believe "an
adjacent parcel" refers to any one or more of the adjacent
parcels with respect to which lot line adjustment is sought.
If the Legislature had intended to restrict lot line adjustments
to those involving one existing parcel adjusting its lot lines
so as to result in only one adjacent parcel having different
lot lines with land added only from the first parcel, it surely
could have made this specific. It could have phrased the statute
as did the trial court or referred explicitly to a situation
where "land taken from no more than one parcel is added to
no more than one adjacent parcel." (Italics added.) From the
fact the Legislature did not do so and instead expressly contemplates
lot line adjustments "between two or more existing adjacent
parcels, where the land taken from one parcel is added to
an adjacent parcel," (italics added) we cannot approve the
trial court’s rephrasing of the statutory language founded
on an implication having no support in the statutory language
or any other source.10 The lot line adjustment we consider
here comports with this reading of the statute.11 (5) In concluding
the proposed lot line adjustment here in question is within
the scope of the statutory language exempting such adjustments
from the provisions of the SMA, we have kept in mind the purposes
of the SMA as cited by the trial court.12 Those purposes,
of course, have primary bearing on cases in which the SMA
applies, not on cases where the act explicitly provides an
exemption as here. The language of section 66412, subdivision
(d), is the key determinant of the question in this case,
and we are persuaded to reach the conclusion we have made
not only by the language of the first sentence of the statute
as analyzed above, but also by the succeeding three sentences
expressing very direct limitations on the power and function
of the approving agency when presented with a lot line adjustment
meeting the provisions of the first sentence. Those limitations
are:
A.
"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 local
zoning and building ordinances."
B.
"An advisory agency or local agency shall not impose conditions
or exactions on its approval of a lot line adjustment except
to conform to local zoning and building ordinances, or except
to facilitate the relocation of existing utilities, infrastructure,
or easements."
C.
"No tentative map, parcel map, or final map shall be required
as a condition to the approval of a lot line adjustment."13
Thus,
the regulatory function of the approving agency is strictly
circumscribed by the Legislature in a lot line adjustment,
with very little authority as compared to the agency’s function
and authority in connection with a subdivision. In other words,
the agency is not to deal with a lot line adjustment in a
way similar to the way it deals with a subdivision. Certainly,
when the lot line adjustment is within the language of the
first sentence, the agency is not authorized to turn down
a lot line adjustment approval request on the ground asserted
here, that the lot line adjustment is a subdivision.
Two
additional points deserve mention. First, any of horribles
sought to be created if these parcels in this lot line adjustment
are not held to be subject to the SMA should be considered
in light of the multitude of zoning and regional planning
regulation applicable to this land. The situation is not one
in which uncontrolled use of the land is available to the
Owner. Part of the land in the FW and overlying FPF zones
is subject to building restrictions; all of the land is apparently
subject to a minimum 10-acre lot size along with open space
requirements under the A-1-10 zoning; it is classified as
Future Urbanizing held as an urban reserve; and it is subject
to Coastal Commission and regional plan provisions. Governmental
land-use planning and control is present with respect to this
land, notwithstanding its exclusion from the SMA. Moreover,
the 189 acres in question is part of a larger subdivision
for which SMA approval was in process at the time the case
was before the trial court. The land well may be subject to
the SMA after all.
The
second point deserving mention is that, just as the statute
does not mention such things as the amount of acreage or number
of parcels that may be subject to a lot line adjustment and
does not contain any mention of the word "minor," it also
does not carve out any special consideration or contain any
provision for "environmentally sensitive" areas which the
trial court mentioned twice in its statement of decision.
Thus, whether particular land is "environmentally sensitive"
plays no role in determining the applicability of the statute.
If the trial court factored the "environmentally sensitive"
aspect into its decision, it erred.
Summary
| Opinion | Facts
| Discussion | Disposition
| Counsel | Top
Disposition
Judgment
reversed. The trial court is directed to issue the writ as
requested. Costs on appeal are awarded to Owner.
Froehlich,
J., and Nares, J., concurred.
1.All
statutory references are to the Government Code unless otherwise
specified.
2.The
areas where there may be significant environmental impacts
are identified as: "land use, biology, hydrology/water quality
and erosion, transportation/circulation (traffic/access) visual
quality, landform alteration, cultural/scientific resources
(archaeology and paleontology), geology and soils, natural
resources (agricultural land), recreational resources, air
quality (odors), noise, cumulative impacts and growth inducement."
3.About
98 percent of the Stallions Crossing project was included
in an earlier application for a vesting tentative map and
planned residential development permit encompassing approximately
347 acres straddling the San Dieguito River. (Application
No.87-0998.) The project called for a 30-unit clustered residential
development on an approximately 10-acre portion of the 347
acres. A City Planning Department study called for a full
EIR and after it issued a draft EIR for public review in June
1989 and received numerous comment letters during the public
review period ending in August 1989, it was requested not
to issue a final EIR. Douglas M. McHenry, associate planner
in the environmental analysis section of city’s planning department,
opined that the 1987 application was withdrawn because "the
EIR identified a significant unmitigated impact to land use
and the applicant apparently believed that the project would
not be approved."
4."
‘Subdivider’ means a person, firm, corporation, partnership
or association who proposes to divide, divides or causes to
be divided real property into a subdivision for himself or
for others except that employees and consultants of such persons
or entities, acting in such capacity, are not ‘subdividers.’
" (§ 66423.)
5."
‘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 except for
leases of agricultural land for agricultural purposes. Property
shall be considered as contiguous units, even if it is separated
by roads, streets, utility easement or railroad rights-of-way….(§
66424.)
6."Divide"
means simply to separate into two or more parts, areas, groups:
to split up. (Webster’s New Internat. Dict. (3d ed. 1971)
p.663.) In any division, of course, there are more parts after
the division than there were before.
7.Here,
since there would be no greater number of parcels created
as a result of a division, the City’s and trial court’s use
of "create" does not reflect the meaning the Legislature has
given to the term in the SMA, a meaning involving a division
resulting in a greater number of parcels. For example, in
its statement of decision, the court agrees with the City’s
statutory interpretation and finds that "the Partnership’s
proposed lot line adjustment created more than 5 lots, and
therefore required the filing of a tentative map and final
map." (Italics added.) The court also states, "the proposed
multiple lot line adjustments, which would create 9 reconfigured
parcels involving over 189 acres in an environmentally sensitive
area, is not a minor change in parcel lines," and "it proposes
to divide 9 parcels many different ways in order to create
9 new, reconfigured parcels within the same boundaries as
the original parcels." (Italics added.)
8.Consistent
with this view of the meaning of adjacent is the Legislature’s
specification in the definition of "subdivision" that "[p]roperty
shall be considered as contiguous units, even if it is separated
by roads, streets, utility easement or railroad rights-of-way."
(§ 66424, ante, fn. 5, p.755.) Thus, the Legislature is not
using "contiguous" in its commonly understood sense as involving
property that is touching or adjoining.
9.The
column on the left represents the parcel numbers of the two
or more existing adjacent parcels between which there was
a lot line adjustment. The column on the right represents
the parcel number of the resulting parcel.
Existing
Parcels Adjusted Resulting Parcel Number
E-1,
E-2 1 and 2
E-1,
E-2, E-6 3
E-2
through E-6 4
E-4,
E-5, E-6 5
E-4,
E-6, E-8 6
E-8,
E-9, E-10 7, 8 and 9
10.We
have considered and excluded as possible authority for the
trial court’s conclusion San Diego Municipal Code section
102.0207, which reads: "A parcel map or other recordable document
may be used for the purpose of adjusting lot lines between
adjoining lots provided the adjustment does not result in
an increase in the number of lots. All lots or parcels must
meet the minimum requirements of the Planning and Zoning Regulations
and Building Code in regard to lot frontage, depth and area,
and also all existing buildings must meet the minimum requirements
for setbacks, lot coverage, parking, etc. The adjusted lot
line(s) must be monumented in accordance with Sections 102.0204
and 102.0412 if applicable."
11.Each
existing parcel has land taken from it and added to an adjacent
parcel to result in a parcel with a different boundary configuration.
It is true, however, that land from more than one existing
parcel is added to one or more adjacent parcels in the case
of all resulting parcels except resulting parcel 1. Resulting
parcel 1 derives from having land taken from existing parcel
1 (as well as existing parcel 2), as permitted by the statute,
bringing about resulting parcel 2. Thus, resulting parcel
1 is within the statute even though it does not consist of
any land added from another parcel, but merely is a reduced
version of existing parcel 1.
12.The
trial court set forth the primary purposes and intent of the
SMA as follows: "1. To encourage orderly community development
by providing for the regulation and control of the design
and improvement of the subdivision, with a proper consideration
of its relation to adjoining areas (Santa Clara County Contractors
etc. Assn. v. City of Santa Clara (1965) 232 C.A.2d 564, 572-573
[43 Cal.Rptr. 86] [disapproved on another point in The Pines
v. City of Santa Monica (1981) 29 Cal.3d 656, 664 (175 Cal.Rptr.
336, 630 P.2d 521)]; [¶] 2. To ensure that the areas within
the subdivision that are dedicated for public purposes will
be properly improved by the subdivider so that they will not
become an undue burden on the community (Bright v. Bd. of
Supervisors (1977) 66 C.A.3d 191, 194 [135 Cal.Rptr. 758]);
and [¶] 3. To protect the public and individual transferees
from fraud and exploitation (Pratt v. Adams (1964) 229 C.A.2d
602, 606 [40 Cal.Rptr. 505])."
13.Amicus
curiae, California Land Surveyors Association, points out
that the Legislature added these three sentences in 1985.
Amicus curiae argues these changes were intended to limit
local entity review of lot line adjustments and provide mandatory
approval of them if local zoning and building ordinances are
satisfied. City concedes the "statute prohibits the conditioning
of lot line adjustments so as to protect owners from onerous
conditions." City argues, however, the statute does not prohibit
it "from finding, under proper circumstances, that the lot
line adjustment process is not appropriate and a subdivision
map is required." In light of the clear statutory language,
we cannot accept the City’s position that it may require a
subdivision map based on its own finding "the lot line adjustment
process is not appropriate," apparently by any standard it
chooses.
Summary
| Opinion | Facts
| Discussion | Disposition
| Counsel | Top
Counsel
Worley,
Schwartz, Garfield & Rice, Donald R. Worley and Jennifer
Treese Wilson for Plaintiff and Appellant.
McDonald,
Hecht & Solberg, Charles R. Gill and Jill C. Wolfenzon
as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.
John
W. Witt, City Attorney, C. Alan Sumption and Eugene P. Gordon,
Chief Deputy City Attorneys, Larry E.
Renner
and Leslie J. Girard, Deputy City Attorneys, for Defendants
and Respondents.
Summary
| Opinion | Facts
| Discussion | Disposition
| Counsel | Top |