Standardization of Dedication Language in Public Dedications

[rmaher]

Dear Colleagues,

I have observed a notable lack of consistency in the dedication/acceptance language used by local agencies for public dedications. This inconsistency is evident even within the same agency, where conditions of approval often feature varying dedication language. Frequently, the language is simply carried over from previous maps without much thought, leading to a continued cycle of inconsistency. The common justifications, such as "this is what we’ve always done" or "this is what was here when I arrived," don’t provide much clarity or rationale.

Consider the following examples commonly used in dedications to the "City of Oz":

A public easement for right-of-way and utilities...
An easement for public right-of-way and utilities...
An easement for street and public utilities...

Additionally, there is ambiguity regarding the acceptance of public dedications. Should they be accepted by the City, or made to the public and then accepted by the City on behalf of the public?

The questions I pose are:

Does the specific wording in these cases matter significantly?
Are there sources, citations, or even case law that could guide me(us) towards a more consistent approach?

I am contemplating reaching out to our state county surveyors for their standard language. However, I suspect I might encounter a similar variety in their responses. Before proceeding, I wanted to consult this grpup to see if there is a broader standard or guideline that I might consider.

Any insights or references you could share would be greatly appreciated.

[jamesh1467]

I'm going to say generally no to the specific wording question. Just mean what you say when you convey to the best of your ability and let the attorneys fight about the rest.

BELLO v. ABA ENERGY CORPORATION (2004) went into great detail on this, the case precedent before it throughout California history and acknowledges "Specific language has never been required in California to establish the scope of a public right-of-way." Its a good read.

[Jim Frame]

What rankles me is when a document is submitted for a discretionary approval and the agency's Engineering Technician I tasked with checking the document dives in with all sorts of ideas about what a proper map and/or description should look like, a boxful of freshly-sharpened red pencils close at hand. The submittal comes back bleeding crimson, descriptions tarted up with all sorts of needless "said"s and "aforesaid"s and reading like something written by a seventh-grader with a brand-new thesaurus. I usually push back against the more ridiculous "suggestions," but sometimes it becomes a matter of endlessly fighting City Hall versus moving the client's project forward. Ugh.

I much prefer the ROS process, which is regulated at the state level, recognizes that the County Surveyor and the submitting surveyor are on equal footing, and has a clear protocol for resolving -- or at least addressing -- differences of opinion.

[jamesh1467]

What rankles me is when a document is submitted for a discretionary approval and the agency's Engineering Technician I tasked with checking the document dives in with all sorts of ideas about what a proper map and/or description should look like, a boxful of freshly-sharpened red pencils close at hand. The submittal comes back bleeding crimson, descriptions tarted up with all sorts of needless "said"s and "aforesaid"s and reading like something written by a seventh-grader with a brand-new thesaurus. I usually push back against the more ridiculous "suggestions," but sometimes it becomes a matter of endlessly fighting City Hall versus moving the client's project forward. Ugh.

I much prefer the ROS process, which is regulated at the state level, recognizes that the County Surveyor and the submitting surveyor are on equal footing, and has a clear protocol for resolving -- or at least addressing -- differences of opinion.

A few cities in San Joaquin County have a contract with the county surveyor to check their maps for them on behalf of the city. It is sooooo niceee. I miss it quite a bit.

The number of times I have looked at redlines from a map or LLA or something and just go to myself "I'm the only person in this entire chain of map checking or approval processing that is remotely qualified to judge what is going on here" is amazing. The number of incorrect redlines that would invalidate the conveyance or at least provide massive ambiguity in the conveyance......don't get me started.

That said, I worked in Massachusetts for awhile. There is absolutely 0 checking by any government agency of any work a surveyor does. Surveyors just make the maps and record them at the recorders office. The day to day job of boundary determination was an absolute mess because of it. Maps left right and center had all kinds of errors that you had to go through and figure out what they meant. Just day to day boundary determination was incredibly hard. Count your blessings. I would rather have incompetent map checking than no map checking.

I did some more research. I am pretty sure BELLO is the precedent here and hasn't been superseded. A few counties use it to justify their encroachment permit process now. There were a couple of others since then that kind of got involved with Bello like subjects to define right of way, but never really got into it. One was Schmidt-v_-Bank-of-America (2014). Another was Riverside County Transportation Comm. v. Southern Cal. Gas Co. (2020). Both are sort of offshoots of Bello. Bello also should answer the original posts question about ambiguity in the acceptance of dedication.

[Ric7308]

...
I much prefer the ROS process, which is regulated at the state level, recognizes that the County Surveyor and the submitting surveyor are on equal footing, and has a clear protocol for resolving -- or at least addressing -- differences of opinion.

This right here says it all!

[SueDonim]

Bello v. Aba Energy Corp.pdf