Save Mount Diablo v. Contra Costa County
240 Cal. App. 4th 1368
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Ronald and Shirley Nunn bought a 586-acre tract in Contra Costa County that, due to a 1997 eminent domain taking by the Contra Costa Water District, is physically divided into four noncontiguous parts by two intersecting public strips (a road relocation and a buried pipeline).
- The deed and assessor records treat the remainder as a single parcel; access between parts remains practicable (gravel crossing, road crossings/underpasses).
- The Nunns initially applied for a parcel map to subdivide into four lots but abandoned that process and instead sought four certificates of compliance under Gov. Code § 66499.35 asserting the condemnation had already effected a subdivision.
- County staff denied the request, the Planning Commission reversed, and the Board of Supervisors issued four certificates; Save Mount Diablo petitioned for a writ asking the county to set aside the certificates.
- The trial court granted the writ; the court of appeal affirmed, holding that a physical separation caused by condemnation of strips across a parcel does not, by itself, constitute a subdivision under the Subdivision Map Act and therefore does not entitle the owner to separate certificates of compliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether condemnation-created physical separation of a privately owned parcel constitutes a "division" under the Subdivision Map Act for purposes of issuing certificates of compliance (Gov. Code § 66499.35). | The Nunns: the eminent domain taking physically divided the tract into four parcels, so each part is a separate "real property" eligible for a certificate of compliance. | SMD/County: physical separation by condemnation of narrow strips does not itself create a statutory "division" of the privately owned remainder; certificates legitimize prior divisions recognized by the Act. | Held: No. Physical separation by condemnation of intervening strips does not constitute a division of the noncondemned remainder under the Act; no certificates for each part. |
| Whether the condemnation exemption for rights-of-way (§ 66428(a)(2)) authorizes certificates for the privately retained parts. | Nunns: the exemption should apply because the separation arose from land conveyed to a governmental agency in condemnation. | County: exemption covers only land conveyed to/from government (i.e., the taken strips), not the privately retained remainder; statute’s plain language and policy foreclose expanded application. | Held: Exemption inapplicable to privately retained portions; it only exempts the land conveyed for rights-of-way. |
| Whether the Nunns could obtain conditional certificates under § 66499.35(b) if regular certificates were denied. | Nunns: if a regular certificate is denied, the agency must at least issue a conditional certificate. | County: Conditional certificates apply only where a division already occurred but fails to comply; they do not convert a denial of a requested subdivision into an approved (conditional) subdivision. | Held: No obligation to issue conditional certificates because no division occurred within the meaning of the Act. |
| Whether prior AG opinions or authority require a different result. | Nunns: AG opinions recognize situations where condemnations produced separate parcels warranting certificates. | County: The cited AG opinions are distinguishable (different facts or pre-1972 law) and do not support certificates for post-1972 condemnations that leave privately owned remainder contiguous-in-law. | Held: AG opinions are not controlling and are distinguishable; they do not alter the statutory interpretation here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gardner v. County of Sonoma, 29 Cal.4th 990 (clarifies map requirements and effect of recorded final/parcel maps as certificates of compliance)
- Abernathy Valley, Inc. v. County of Solano, 173 Cal.App.4th 42 (conditional certificate not required merely because applicant was denied a regular certificate)
- Keizer v. Adams, 2 Cal.3d 976 (motivated statutory predecessor creating certificates to protect innocent purchasers)
- Witt Home Ranch, Inc. v. County of Sonoma, 165 Cal.App.4th 543 (explains Subdivision Map Act’s purposes and local agency review scope)
- Fishback v. County of Ventura, 133 Cal.App.4th 896 (explains applicability of grandfather provisions for pre-1972 parcels)