17A ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

Under these provisions of the Map Act, a parcel could be created by recording a final vesting subdivision map after January 1, 2007, but still have the vested right to develop not subject to the Initiative. This is because the State law granting vested rights pre- empts alocal policy, like the Initiative. There aze, however, no lazge projects (e.g., Lund Ranch II, Lester, Sportono) affected by the Initiative that aze likely to have completed vesting tentative map applications by November 2008. 5.16 What is the allowable subdivision of a "legal parcel"? The language of the Initiative can result in different interpretations when considering the issue of subdivision and development. On the one hand, the Initiative proposes to exempt certain property from its new Policy 12.3, as follows: ... Exempt from this policy are housing developments of 10 or fewer housing units on a single property that was, as of January 1, 2007, [sic] "legal parcel" pursuant to the California Subdivision Map law.... (Referred to below as Sentence 1) However, in the very next sentence of the Initiative, language is added to limit subdivision, as follows: ... Splitting, dividing orsub-dividing a "legal parcel" of January 1, 2007 to approve more than 10 housing units is not allowed. (Referred to below as Sentence 2) Additionally, in the statement of reasons for the Initiative, one of the reasons is described as follows: 3) Exempt 10 or less housing units and supporting infrastructure on "legal parcels" of January 1, 2007 from hillside development restrictions. (Referred to below as Sentence 3) The language of these sentences can give rise to different interpretations, including: Interpretation #1: The language in Sentence 1 and Sentence 3, when read together, might be interpreted to allow a property owner, with a legal pazcel as of January 1, 2007, to subdivide that pazcel to create 10 (or fewer) pazcels, each with a housing unit, and not be subject to Policy 12.3, based on the use of the word "exempt" in both sentences, and "legal parcels" (plural) in Sentence 3. Then, the language in Sentence 2 could be read complementary to prohibit serial re- subdivisions which cumulatively create more than 10 units (which might be done to try to avoid application of Policy 12.3 for each development of less than 10 housing units). This interpretation of Sentence 2 could also explain why the language "single parcel" was used in Sentence 1. 19