SMA 66426(c)

[subman]

I would agree with Opinion No. 1 for the following reasons:

1. The land has approved access to an existing public street by virtue of fronting on 2 arterial roadways
2. The land is zoned commercial
3. The approval of the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map by the governing body addressed the street alignment and width criteria

I have attached a sample commercial/industrial parcel map which is similar to your example that portrays Los Angeles County’s interpretation of this section of the SMA (Opinion No. 1). It includes dedication of additional easements adjacent to the existing arterial roadway for sanitary sewer purposes.

I don’t read any requirement that precludes the dedication of additional easements on a parcel map filed under 66426(c). As you may notice in 66426(a), the SMA is very explicit that a parcel map filed under this provision can have no conditions for dedications or improvements. If the SMA intended this criteria to apply to 66426(c), I believe it would have been stated that way.

Just my humble opinion.

[subman]

Jerry,

The answer may lie in whether or not the ordinance of the local agency requires a tentative map for a proposed parcel map. If a local agency does not require a tentative map for a parcel map, then I would agree with you that you cannot have dedications for additional road RW because there has been no approval by the governing body with respect to street alignments and widths.

However, if the local ordinance requires a tentative map for a parcel map and the governing body approves it, including conditions to provide additional road RW width, I believe 66426(c) would allow a parcel map.

As with just about everything in the SMA, nothing is black and white.