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^

[D Ryan]

I'm kind of late to the game here. You asked for "honest opinions". My answer depends on who is asking for the changes. If the reviewer is the District, they may have good reasons for wanting more information shown; putting it in their GIS and making it simple for a tech. to follow. Having the overall dimensions better defined for someone who is generally savvy with real property and has experience/familiarity dealing with survey documents. I've gotten good suggestions before to improving a surveying product from someone who will be using it and they gave insight from a user's perspective of how it would be better for their use. Of course I may have felt my product was already technically and professionally sufficient and could be followed by another fellow professional, but someone suggesting something in a reasonable manner can go a long ways toward achieving consensus. But I won't suggest just going the "easy/get along" route if they don't know what they're talking about. I'm stubborn that way.

Having said that, I don't disagree that your description is entirely legally sufficient. There are strip descriptions where you're messing with something that is already superior to adding unnecessary courses. But adding those easy to calc additional courses in this case isn't going to throw it into disarray.

It's 50/50 for me.

Dave Ryan
Arcata, Ca.

[dmcdougall]

Thanks for all the feedback thus far.

I've had a call with the District GM, he's a bit of a middle man, but he did say he's working on getting a call set up with me and the 'reviewer' who I am very, very interested in knowing if this is an actual LS or just some desk jock making up silly comments. I did get the impression the bearings and distances might be being requested so someone can go out there with a tape measure and see where it is, but honestly I have a hard time seeing anyone being able to do that, distances or not, given the odd improvements out there. And also, not to sound snooty... but isn't it our job as Surveyors to do that? Not some guy with a tape measure? I guess that's part of my resistance, I don't see my audience as just anyone. In my mind, the legal's audience is another surveyor retracing it.

This is really the worst part of the job. Doing what seems like the right way to do it, only to be told do the opposite like I'm some kind of drafter.

And yes, I've spent far more time on this vs. just doing the comments. Perhaps I'm just getting old and cranky.

[Peter Ehlert]

You are not Being Unreasonable.
Some unnamed dweeb requiring changes for god knows why... not cool.
...
I disagree with the thought of who is our consumer. Old and cranky happens... but off point.
the Land Owners have their needs too.
Digging around in the back with a tape happens daily, we just don't see it...
..
Our exclusive rights are intended to protect and assist the consumer. Maybe I'm wrong on that one