California Surveyors Forums

Anyone ever have a city or county ask you to dedicate an easement that was not on the approved tentative map or in the conditions of approval? If so what did you do? Comply? Tell them no because its not in the COA or on the TM? I'm doing a parcel map where there is a new city surveyor who I think clued the city in that they should have a PUE dedication along the frontage of the property. The city didn't ask for it in the COA or on the tentative map, can they ask for it now?

They can always ask. Doesn't mean they will get it. I don't think they can make any additional demands that aren't covered in the COA. However, If they were really nice I would probably give them their PUE if the developers were ok with it. Or maybe use it as a bargaining chip.

I called the city surveyor and asked him about the easement. He told me that since the city is a utility provider (storm drain) that they can ask for any easement they want to be put on the parcel map, even if its not in the COAs or on the TM.

that a tentative map was just what it says on the map, tentative. As to the conditions of approval, Guess what? There really should be a easement there to carry the water and also so that somebody CAN MAINTAIN IT.

Now if that isn't the case, no pipes or water, then why the need for an easement? But I've been wrong before.

No, the city can't demand easements for other utilities. If you want your parcels serviced by utilities, then I would suggest you provide the easements as required by the various utilites. Whether or not the City fell down on their job to properly condition you project is irrelevant to the question of the need for easements for use by other utility providers. If these providers need easements and require easements, guess what, you are going to be granting easements, no matter what the City thinks about the issue. A 5' or 10' PUE strip along the front of the parcels is not a big deal. This is par for the course, keep your powder dry for a different and more important battle.

When we are preparing a final map in my area, we are required to send a copy of the approved tentative map to each utility company or agency serving the parcel. We ask if they have adequate easements on the property or need easements. If they need we give. It has nothing to do with Conditions of Approval.

I should have been clearer in my original post. The lot is in a developed area. All utilities are already existing, and none need the easement. The city has asked for the easement in case there is a FUTURE need for it, even though no current utilities have any need. Does this make any difference to any of your responses?

No Sir, same answer.

Dylan,
Without the full extents of the background behind the question I can only say that I’ve experienced the agency that is hyper-sensitive in allowing development without getting any and everything they can from the developer. The “what if we need to put utilities on your land in the future (but we don’t want to build any utilities right now)” seems to be beyond industry standard but again, I don’t know the full extent of the situation.

I’ve seen two different strategies: (1) The “play dead on every issue” strategy and (2) The “fight for your client based on the rules of engagement” strategy.

“Play dead on every issue” strategy usually quickens the approval process at the expense of the clients’ assets (encumbering land, offsite improvements, etc.). If all consultants played dead on all the issues what would happen?

“Fight for your client based on the rules of engagement” strategy usually incites pride and can quickly turn personal. If all consultants fought for the client what would happen?

I believe COAs can be likened to a contract. You may subdivide, improve, etc the land based on the conditions and nothing more. What does your client want to do?

As a general rule, if you say no, no is no. Otherwise it is a take and the Constitution frowns on that. If they want it they can pay for it or condem to get it. As a rule you get one bite of the apple. Poor planning does not mean your client has to pay. That is what government is for.

Sell it if they need it.

I thought that the affected/concerned agencies/utility providers were supposed to make their demands known at the time of the submittal/review of the tentative map? Seems out of order to be requesting addtional requirements AFTER the tentative plan is approved. That could cause additional and possibly unnecessary revisions to the subdivision lay out.

It is the client who should decide. Review the impact, if any, on improvements, and advise your client.

In my experience, after TM a project will be futher "fleshed out" and may require easements. This is normal.

But if it isn't needed, if there aren't similar easements on adjoiners, and if it will require even the slightest change to proposed improvements (e.g. no fences will be allowed) then advise the client to say no.