Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council introduces ordinance authorizing lot‑tie agreements to accommodate multi‑lot development
Summary
To make multi‑lot development and certain building configurations easier to permit without forcing lot mergers, the council introduced a building‑code amendment to add a ‘lot tie’ tool. Staff said the change mirrors tools used by other cities and will let property owners record a binding lot‑tie agreement instead of merging lots in certain cases.
The council voted to introduce an ordinance adding a new lot‑tie agreement tool to the building and construction chapter of the municipal code. City staff said the measure responds to requests by developers who prefer flexibility for multi‑lot projects rather than merging parcels, and that several other California jurisdictions (including San Diego) have analogous mechanisms.
Planning staff explained that a lot‑tie agreement treats two or more lots as a single development entity in perpetuity while the developer keeps separate tax parcels; the agreement would be recorded with the county and would require administrative review. “In order to have such a tool… we are required to have a lot tie ordinance that talks about that,” staff said, noting the city attorney’s direction.
Why it matters: The tool is intended to remove a procedural obstacle for projects that propose buildings near lot lines or that would otherwise require adjustments that trigger minimum‑lot‑size thresholds. Staff said the lot‑tie agreement is not meant to replace lot mergers when long‑term permanence is required, but to give a legal option that can be dissolved only under controlled conditions.
Action and next steps: Council introduced the ordinance on first reading; staff will return with final language and a recorded‑agreement process for council adoption.
Ending: The new code section is administrative in nature and will be used case by case; council members asked staff to ensure clarity about county recording and the conditions required to dissolve a lot‑tie agreement.
