Map-Processing question

[Dane Ince]

Any suggestions for how to help a map checker move along. I am looking for Ca. code or case law to bolster my position.
We are working on a phased final map for which there will be a homeowners association at some point. The first phase map has recorded and now we are working on the second phase. There are two points of contention.
1. The checker believes that the First phase needs a storm drain easement over the second Phase so we have indicated in the owner's statement that the area labeled "SDE" is a storm drain easement appurtenant to and for the benefit of the lots and parcels of phase 1 and phase 2 subdivision maps. The checker contends that a title interest is created outside the boundaries of the land we are subdividing,and so we go around and around in circles.

2. We have a utility company which chooses not to accept offers for easements on the map but accepts them subsequent to the filing of the map. This is practice they have engaged in for years in many jurisdictions, yet the checker thinks that this is no allowable even though the phase 1 map was allowed to record with the utility company signaute on the map.

Thanks for your help

[Bob Hart]

A subdivision map may dedicate public easements to the body approving the map. The dedication occurs in the ownership statement where the grant is described by reference to what is shown on the map. The acceptance or rejection of the dedication occurs in the City Clerk or County Board Clerk Statement. If the utility company does not recognize the easements for their use, then the easements need to be dedicated by separate instrument prior to the map and the recording info shown on the map.
In most areas that I have filed maps or reviewed the filing of maps, the county or city will accept public utility easements where all sorts of public facilities may be located. The process of dedication and acceptance by map is only valid for the property within the boundary of the land being divided by the map in question. A public dedication is public in phase 1 or phase 2. If a dedication is "off-site" then an easement will be required to be recorded by separate instrument and noted on the map.

The Subdivision Map Act needs to be consulted, not case law. You want to educate the map checker and yourself to the requirements. If all else fails speak to the map checkers supervisior to stop going in circles.
Good Luck.
Bob Hart

[Dane Ince]

Bob,

Thanks for your response- I feel farily confident about the process involving public easements. At least the situations I have run into so far,seem to have been fairly straight forward. I probably didn't place enough emphasis on the fact that the issues in question relate to PRIVATE easements which are going to be addressed in the CC&R S developed for the HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.

[Jim Langone RLS PE]

Dane:
Have to agree with Bob. Although I no longer practice in CA., for the 20+ years I was out there (ending in '92'), only easements generated and offered to a party being signatory to the map (ie. the local agency approving it) were considered "factual" by their representation on the map.
I did on occation show as "reserved for the benefit and future owners", private easements (usually for engress/egress in "commercial" situations) but the title companies were never to happy about it, and we typically prepared a granting instrument of some sort, which was recorded as a seperate document, as soon as they (the title company) could get past the "you can't grant yourself, something that you already have" issue.

As far as "PUE's", I don't recall "ever" doing it, except and unless it was granted "to the City or County". When I was out there, 99% of ALL utility (distrubution) systems were mandated by the Local Agency to be installed within Street R/W and rights necessary to install "services" were considered an issue best left to each utilities discression.

As far as "Private" drainage easements...it was a very sore subject. At least in the area where I practiced (San Bernardino/Riverside area), cross lot drainage wasn't something all that common, and "private easements" to accomplish it were frowned on (too much history of individual lot owners blocking drainage...sometimes without even realizing it).

I worked for a couple of City's in the 70's and it used to irritate the heck out of me, when the Planners would come up with all these "requirements" that they wanted stuck in "CC&R's".
CC&R's are "nice" but in situations like single family res. development, they are not "mandated" (by statute) to stay in effect, like they are in a Condo., and are a "private" document over which the Local Agency doesn't have much, if any, control**. The "Home Owner's Association" is formed "initially", then people tend to get sick of it, ignore it, and, if they feel so inclined, just "vote it out of existance", along with the CC&R's it administers.

**One City I worked for decided to "over-come" this issue, by requiring that the "City" become a "party to" the CC&R's. I don't know whether they actually did that or not (it was happening just before I left to go into private practice in 1980). My suggestion (which was at least initially ignored by Planning) was to look into the issue of "what kind of liability the City might be opening itself up to" by doing it.

[Dane Ince]

Thanks Jim for your input, I have crafted language per what the title company indicated they would find insurable. This was not acceptable to the map checker and now we will have to record easements just in case the future subdivisions are never recorded or annexed into the Home Owners Association. I suppose my problem stems from the fact that I pick up this project in the middle from someone else in our office. And also I am a little amazed that some of these problems were not headed off at the pass. The project was always a common interest project, a fact the city was aware of form the start and provisions could have been made from the outset to cover loose ends.

Live and Learn Hopefully