City Engineer's requirements for Lot merger

sako · Post by **sako** » Fri Sep 09, 2011 9:48 am

I have prepared a plat map and description for a lot merger. The City Engineer asked me to rewrite the old descriptions for 2 adjacent lots and stamp it. He also sent me templates for a LLA. I tried to point out the differences in descriptions for LLA and Lot merger. He still insists in getting old descriptions stamped by me. Help, please.

RAM · Post by **RAM** » Fri Sep 09, 2011 2:45 pm

Refer him to the SMA.

JoeC · Post by **JoeC** » Fri Sep 09, 2011 3:18 pm

I would ask to see an example of previous lot mergers. You will have to work with the City Engineer and try to educate him/her on the SMA, ask for a copy of their policy on mergers.

Typically the Director of Planning is the individual who signs off on the lot mergers. That might be your next step if you have no luck with the City Engineer.

Also, I would not sign the old descriptions as they are not your work.

Good luck

land butcher · Post by **land butcher** » Fri Sep 09, 2011 6:39 pm

You might now even be dealing with the city engineer, just a engrg tech and the CE is just signing the letter without really reviewing the case.

One LA city I dealt with would not tell me who their City Engineer was, all I managed to get verbally was he was contract to the city.

Ric7308 · Post by **Ric7308** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 6:45 am

Tell the City Engineer that if you complied with his request, both him and you would be put into a position that could be considered unprofessional conduct and a violation of Board Rule 476. And that your license and ethics prohibit you from complying with that request.

And consider the advice from your peers on this forum regarding SMA and educating the City Engineer.

Ric

subman · Post by **subman** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 12:42 pm

Might get the County Surveyor involved to help you with the educational outreach

pls7809 · Post by **pls7809** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 7:46 am

The most I would do to comply is provide a copy of the deed showing the original property descriptions. I would go with Ric's and Dennis' advice.

Stephen Johnson · Post by **Stephen Johnson** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 8:34 am

Not only NO! but stated strongly to the extreme NO!!!!. Try nice first. But stay adamant.

That Engineer needs educated.

sako · Post by **sako** » Wed Sep 14, 2011 11:04 am

The engineer is out of office until next Tuesday. Since the owner insisted, I went to meet another engineer. The City has one procedure for both LLA and LM which requires submittal of legal descriptions and plats for lots before and after LLA. I provided him with a copy of the deed of the property. The deed describes 2 parcels, parcel 1 is a lot on a tract map, parcel 2 is metes and bounds description of a small property adjacent to said lot.
He basically wants me to put those 2 parcels on 2 separate pages and call them "the description of parcel 1 or 2, pre- LLA".
I asked him to accept the recorded deed as "pre-LLA" description. He wants to talk to his supervisor and respond.

sako · Post by **sako** » Wed Sep 14, 2011 11:13 am

RAM wrote:Refer him to the SMA.

the Engineer no. 2 told me that the LLA is excluded from SMA and their requirements need to be complied with.

pls7809 · Post by **pls7809** » Wed Sep 14, 2011 2:19 pm

Maybe put the City Engineer in touch with Ric Moore.

I have seen this requirement in some local agencies here in So Cal and I'm not surprised they won't budge. I am the checker for an agency here in So Cal and only copies of the current grant deeds are required.

Ian Wilson · Post by **Ian Wilson** » Thu Sep 15, 2011 6:16 am

The Lot Line Adjustment IS excluded from the SMA.

Re-writing the dees descriptions as two separate descriptions is not! In fact, it could be argued that the very act of separating the parts ofthe description could be a violation of the SMA and the local jurisdiction could be guilty of suborning the violation.

The LLA is exempt form the process because, for a very short period of time, one or more lots that would violate the SMA are created from one lot and then merged into another lot. Just because LLAs are exempted fro the SMA under Â§66412.d does not mean that LLAs can be a free for all.

scarpa · Post by **scarpa** » Thu Sep 15, 2011 1:37 pm

1. Does the City have ordinances regarding parcel mergers?

Many cities do not; thus, they resort to their ordinances for LLA procedures to handle the situation. I would venture to say most of us would be surprised at how many local agencies do not have parcel merger ordinances on the books.

2. Are some of us not comfortable with the phrase â€œrewrite the old descriptionsâ€ in sakoâ€™s original post?

A better term might have been â€œtranscribeâ€ as in â€œto make a written copyâ€. Many local agencies have a procedure for mergers and LLAâ€™s where there are â€œLegal Descriptions of Properties Prior to Merger/Adjustmentâ€ and â€œLegal Descriptions of Property(ies) After Approval of Merger/Adjustmentâ€. The â€œPriorâ€ is the description as one would find in a Deed. Not a rewrite, but a transcribe (copy).

Example:
Page 1: Deed Form
Page 2: Exhibit A â€“ description of land â€œxâ€ prior to merger
Page 3: Exhibit B â€“ description of land â€œyâ€ prior to merger
Page 4: Exhibit C â€“ description of land â€œx and yâ€ after approval of merger

Typically, Exhibit A & B are copies of the descriptions as one would find in a title report (stripped down to the caption, the body, and any qualifiers). These surveyors copy the descriptions word for word, punctuation for punctuation. The non-typicals (sorry Ric) reference the Deeds (Book/Page) so as to minimize blunders.

I am not subscribing right and wrong, just observations.

sako · Post by **sako** » Thu Sep 15, 2011 2:34 pm

sako · Post by **sako** » Thu Sep 15, 2011 2:42 pm

Regarding blunders:
The bearings of the adjacent small parcel(2) don't match with those of parcel one, because they were based on the bearings of adjacent Tract Map.
Now, hopefully I'm not asked to correct this discrepancy. This was another reason for my hesitation in transcribing the old deed.

sako · Post by **sako** » Tue Sep 20, 2011 7:06 pm

the first city engineer has come back to me with a letter saying there are some conflicts regarding bearings of adjacent tract maps (see my post above) and wants me to clarify ASAP in writing. Am I supposed to correct this description? It is clearly constructed of 2 different deeds, Parcel one is description by reference, Parcel two is a metes and bonds description.

pls7809 · Post by **pls7809** » Wed Sep 21, 2011 6:52 am

You can correct, or explain this by showing the record bearing in parentheses in your new legal description:

sample

Thence along the westerly line of said Parcel 1, North 00Â°35'52" East (Record North 00Â°35'45" per Document No. XXXXX, Recorded XXXX), 21.44 feet; thence...

btaylor · Post by **btaylor** » Wed Sep 21, 2011 7:14 am

Pretty much how I do it too.

As long as you are supplying the proper record calls, this should not be an issue.

sako · Post by **sako** » Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:10 pm

Today the engineer accepted my plat map and description with the changes I made. I mentioned the record bearing form the deed in the new description and plat map. I had more than enough evidence that the southerly line of the new lot has no angle point (surrounding tract maps).
Thank you guys for for your help.

California Surveyors Forums

City Engineer's requirements for Lot merger

City Engineer's requirements for Lot merger

A few questions and comments