Opinion ID: 1189801
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Merger Initiated and Carried Out by Local Agency

Text: Section 66451.10(b) provides: This article [§§ 66451.10-66451.21] shall provide the sole and exclusive authority for local agency initiated merger of contiguous parcels. On and after January 1, 1984, parcels may be merged by local agencies only in accordance with the authority and procedures prescribed by this article. (Italics added.) A merger by a local agency is one that becomes effective when the local agency causes to be filed for record with the recorder of the county ... a notice of merger.... (§ 66451.12). Sections 66451.10 to 66451.21 thus expressly occupy the field of procedures for parcel mergers that are local agency initiated and are by the local agency. Plaintiffs contend that the challenged ordinances come within that field because they provide that before issuance of a coastal development permit, parcels shall be required to be combined in order to comply to the maximum extent possible with current density standards (Ord. No. 3718, § 2, italics added; see fn. 2, ante ). An ordinance is not within the expressly occupied field, however, simply because it requires merger as a condition to granting an owner's request of permission to build. Under the county ordinances, no merger takes place unless the property owner takes the initiative by applying for a development permit. The ordinances may then require, as a condition to issuance of the permit, that the owner, not the county, merge certain parcels by recordation of a reversion to acreage, voluntary merger, final parcel map, or final tract map (Ord. No. 3718, § 2; see fn. 2, ante ). The ordinances thus provide for the owner's implementation of the merger by means that section 66451.10(b) exempts from the exclusive procedural requirements for mergers initiated and effected by local agencies. [16] This provision for merger by the owner, instead of the county, may afford the owner a choice of which parcels to merge if there are alternative combinations that would meet the zoning requirements. Accordingly, the ordinances are not expressly preempted by section 66451.10(b) because they are outside that statute's expressly occupied field of mergers initiated and carried out by local agencies.