Am I Being Unreasonable?

[dmcdougall]

Hello folks,

I have what I think should be the simplest strip easement ever. However, I've encountered a plan checker that I think doesn't understand what a strip easement is, asking for things like bearings and distances and a closure calc.

We've gone multiple rounds where they ask for bearings and distances to be added to the sidelines, and I respond in writing stating that this is a strip easement and that adding bearings and distances would only serve to add competing and potentially conflicting data in the future for someone to resolve.

It feels like it's turned into a stalemate where I refuse to do exactly what they're asking, and they refuse to (in my opinion) have common sense and accept the legal as-is. I really don't think there is anything technically wrong with the legal and it's crazy they're injecting their opinions here. The water district refuses to facilitate me and the reviewer getting in contact, so at this point it's unclear who is making the comments and if they are even licensed or not.

I'm sure my client and the water district would just love it if I rolled over and made the 'simple changes'. Am I being crazy and stubborn? Seeking honest opinion here.

[Ric7308]

Review comments do not appear to be signed/sealed. Is the reviewer authorized to practice land surveying in CA? If not, please contact the Board with information you have on hand, along with any communication between you and the reviewer (district) so we can see if we can assist the process.

[dmcdougall]

Thanks Ric, I've asked for the reviewer's contact info several times, and each time am met with a response from the district akin to "I don't think that's necessary, the comments are simple".

I'll more directly ask if they are licensed, and head in that direction.

[Scott]

Just label the four lines, provide a closure, and be done with it.
It probably took you longer to make this post.

My feeling is the district can ask for any format they want for easements that are offered to the district, as long as it sufficient to describe the property. Even if it is dumb (any LAFCO description).
It will be their easement.

I have even seen a licensed district surveyor refuse to accept anything submitted by a particularly inept licensed submitting surveyor, telling the owners they need to find somebody else.

Thank you Ric. I sign/stamp/date everything I check as a contract jurisdictional surveyor, but the check prints I receive back from submittals by me as a private surveyor are rarely signed/stamped/dated.

[pls5528]

I have done perhaps thousands of various easements in my career and dealt with many municipalities in processing such documents. I have my own thoughts on how a legal should be composed to keep it simply, yet serve the intent without ambiguity. I don't have any problem with the way yours is prepared, and you can fight it, but, is it worth it to prove a point? With it's relationship to a record Parcel Map, it would be simple to redo it in a metes and bounds, yet, tied to that map. This way it has no ambiguity, serves the intent, and the checker would be happy? Kind of like dealing with a teenage son, pick your battles wisely and stand your ground when absolutely necessary.

[Peter Ehlert]

^agreeed^