Easement dedication rejections

[MikeTurnrose]

I have a 1925 sub. map that shows a 6' sewer and public utility easement along the back of a lot I surveyed. It was offered for dedication on the map, but the City rejected it. Does this cause the easement to be extinguished? The prelim. doesn't specifically mention the easement, but the exceptions list under one of the items "all easements and offers of dedication shown on filed map". Just trying to determine whether I need to show it on a map or not. Thanks.

[RAM]

did the City reject but reserve a future right to accept?

[Warren Smith]

Mike,

If it was offered today, the rejection would extinguish it if it wasn't an irrevocable offer.

The provisions of the Subdivision Map Act in effect in 1925 may not have had the three options that section 66440 now provides: acceptance, acceptance subject to improvement, or rejection.

I can look through Mike Durkee's material about predecessors to the SMA.

The title report refers to offers shown on the map, but doesn't address status. A kicker would be if there are any utilities within the strip.

[MikeTurnrose]

Ram,
Map doesn't state anything about future use.

Warren,

I'm trying to find out if there are existing utilities there. I can't remember and we didn't do a topo, only boundary.

[LS 4722]

.... The prelim. doesn't specifically mention the easement, but the exceptions list under one of the items "all easements and offers of dedication shown on filed map". .... Thanks.

I would keep in mind that authors of these 'prelims' make blanket calls on easements etc. and never take the time to actually look into an exception item to see if it actually impacts the parcel or not. Either due to negligence or work load or both, it really does not matter.

Since this particular item is mentioned in Schedule B (I assume) then just note the agency's rejection on the map. Let the title company sort it out.

I also would not delineate it on the main part of your map but would make a separate exhibit showing a faded non dimensioned line (to scale) depicting the rejected easement with the appropriate notations.

The reason I would not show the easement on the main map or dimension it on the exhibit is this:

If the dimensioned line is used by an architect to be the limit of improvements and it is later discovered that the line does not really exist, the developer could go back to the architect asking "Why was my building shortened X feet?" The architect would then point the big finger at you.

[steffan]

Gov't Code 66477.2.

(a) If at the time the final map is approved, any streets, paths, alleys, public utility easements, rights-of-way for local transit facilities such as bus turnouts, benches, shelters, landing pads, and similar items, which directly benefit the residents of a subdivision, or storm drainage easements are rejected, subject to Section 771.010 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the offer of dedication shall remain open and the legislative body may by resolution at any later date, and without further action by the subdivider, rescind its action and accept and open the streets, paths, alleys, rights-of-way for local transit facilities such as bus turnouts, benches, shelters, landing pads, and similar items, which directly benefit the residents of a subdivision, or storm drainage easements for public use, which acceptance shall be recorded in the office of the county recorder.

[LS_8750]

Is it being used? Perhaps the City later accepted it. There also exists a concept called "implied acceptance", or something like that, where City uses the land for easement purposes despite having not accepted the dedication. I've seen this with drainage easements quite often.

First make sure the City did not later accept the dedication. Then make sure there are no known utility lines are sewer lines going through it. Then show it on the map with appropriate explanation.

[Anthony Maffia]

Gov't Code 66477.2

Ah, but was that effective in 1925? Doubtful...

Write a letter to the city Public Works Director or the appropriate individual there. I'm always hopeful that jurisdictions know what they own or have rights to, but that's not always the case.