City Engineer Stamp on a Record of Survey

[JasonCamit]

I need some feedback on what constitutes a City Engineer's Stamp on a Record of Survey.

The PLS Act (8762.5) states that: No record of survey of land shown on the latest adopted county assessment roll as a unit or as contiguous units, which shows a division of such land into additional parcels, shall be filed with the county surveyor or with the county recorder, unless there is attached thereto a certificate by the county surveyor if the land lies within an unincorporated area, or a certificate by the city engineer if the land lies within a city, of compliance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, Division 2 (commencing with Section 66410) of Title 7 of the Government Code, and any applicable local ordinace enacted pursuant therto.

In the past, I have seen these certificates both in a county & city limits when a Lot Line Adjustment or a Parcel Map Waiver are monumented and an RS is submitted. This makes sense (I would prefer that the acting city surveyor should be the person to add the certificate).

The situation that I am in is this. A City was deeded land by Southern Pacific Railroad within the city limits. No subdivision was performed nor was it needed with RR land, as I understand the law and RR rights. This deeded parcel is being developed as a Train Depot, and funding will be granted to the city for this development only if the city owns the land (this is the reason for the acquisition). This Parcel of land is on the latest assessor roll and the city would like it monumented, which would require an Record of Survey to be filed.

The question is, Does the City Engineer need to add a Certificate based on PLS Act 8762.5? The county surveyor is requesting that this be included on the Record of Survey. I am not sure that it applies in this case. The RR rights that allow this conveyance comes from the "Public and Utility Code" 7526 (b) and not the SMA. What are your thoughts?

[goodgps]

Perhaps if there is a situation similar to "The City and County of San Francisco" . . . . but thats a stretch.

The LS Act is pretty clear on who signs the ROS.

OR , , , is this ROS being prepared FOR the City in question ?

This dual signature situation is common for Parcel maps in a City where the County Surveyor is the review agent. The City Engineer signs as to the conformance with Approved resolution/conditions

I personally think they are messing with you . . .

Perhaps Ian "the great" or Evan "the terrible" can shed some legal words of wisdom and wit . . . .

[JasonCamit]

The record of survey is being prepared for the city, since the city has requested the property to be monumented. The problem that I have is when a city engineer is putting his stamp and signing a record of survey, it is to assure the county that the lines being surveyed are being created in conformance with the SMA.

In this case, the lines being monumented are created by deed by means of the public utility code (Railroad conveyance).

The city engineer is nervous about complying to his stamp on the map due to this situation. I tend to agree with him.

[Sunburned_Surveyor]

I haven't read the portion of the public utility code you cite in your post. However, it seems the intent of the LS Act in this case is to keep people from wiggling around the SMA. That clearly doesn't apply here.

Can you have the City Engineer call and discuss this with the County Surveyor?

Can you put a note on the face of the map explaining why the City Engineer didn't seal in this case?

Landon

P.S. - Sorry about the mistake in the title. I meant "LS Act" not "Map Act".

[JasonCamit]

This section of the SMA is what the County Surveyor has cited in my situation. Take a look. It seems to be acceptable for me.

[Ric7308]

Jason,

I'm not sure why 8762.5 would apply? Maybe I don't fully understand the situation. Here is what I do understand, so correct me if I'm wrong...

City owns property acquired by deed - exempt from required map due to 66428(a)(2).

City requests monuments to be set, and in this case essentially to have the deed lines surveyed on the ground. A Record of Survey would definitely be in order - 8762(b)(5) and subsequently 8762(b)

I don't see where 8762.5 would apply, unless a case could be made that by developing the parcel, the City has now triggered SMA requirements and/or local ordinance requirements that stipulate preparation of a parcel (or final) map. In which case, a Parcel Map or Final Map would be the appropriate document in lieu of a Record of Survey...8765(c).

[mpallamary]

In the City of San Diego, for many years, the Record of Survey was used as a subdivision map. Under these circumstances, the City Engineer would sign the map and issue a declaration validating the subdivision. The City would concurrently approve a Metes and Bounds description of the property. In essence the ROS served as both a TM when in draft and a Final map when recorded. Here is an excerpt from the City of San Diego Municpal Code as to what a "lot" is:

§113.0237 Determining a Lot
(a) A lot is legal for purposes of development if it meets any one of the following
criteria:
(1) The lot is an individual parcel designated with a number or letter on a
final map or parcel map recorded with the County Recorder, a record
of survey map approved by resolution of the City Council and
recorded with the County Recorder after December 5, 1954, or a
division plat approved by and filed with the Development Services
Department; or
(2) The lot has been officially determined as a suitable building site or
approved for development under the Land Development Code; or
(3) The lot was created before March 4, 1972 as a result of a boundary
adjustment between two adjoining lot owners wherein the land was
taken from one parcel and added to the adjoining parcel and no new
lots were thereby created; or
(4) The lot was created before March 4, 1972, held as a separate parcel by
a subsequent purchaser, and has at least 15 feet of street frontage or
other legal access to a dedicated street as approved by the City
Engineer; or
(5) The lot was held as a separate legal parcel upon annexation to the City
of San Diego.
(b) Any lot or parcel that does not comply with the minimum lot area or required
lot dimensions may nevertheless be used in compliance with the applicable
zone if the lot is a legal lot as determined by Section 113.0237(a).
(c) A Certificate of Compliance may be requested in accordance with Section
125.0210 to certify that a lot is legal for development.
(Added 12-9-1997 by O-18451 N.S.; effective 1-1-2000.)
(Amended 11-13-2008 by O-19801 N.S.; effective 12-13-2008.)
********************************

The approval process was not recorded as it was a City resolution document like a modern condition of map approval.

[JasonCamit]

Mike,
I am coming into this project at the end. But my knowledge is that the property in question was recently purchased by the city from the RR. My, guess is that the property was then monumented and a RS filed for review with the County before the assessor's tax maps were updated, showing the new property. At the time it fell into my lap, the first thing that I did was look at the latest assessor's tax map (and it was shown). I began to question why the city certificate was needed. I received a combative email from the county surveyor stating that this certificate has been accepted and used by the survey community and if I did not want to use I needed to provide him a letter stating so, blah, blah, blah. I am assuming there is some ego issues there, but all I wanted was some clarification.

Bottom line is this, if the RS was filed for review prior to the tax maps being updated showing the new property, then I see how the additional certificate would be needed. Do you agree?

[mpallamary]

There is nothing to my knowledge prohibiting the inclusion of additional stamps and statements. I have had clients sign R/S maps as well as others. I make the determination of what is necessary and appropriate for my surveys. Anything that adds clarity is to be embraced in my opinion.
FYI, when I run into a combative County Surveyor/City Engineer, I encourage them to add their own note. And yes, it is usually an ego issue; turf battle, etc.
On the same hand, I am not familiar with any process related to an R/S that requires a City Engineer stamp. There is nothing prohibiting it.

I am not certain if this helps.

[D Ryan]

I'm guessing this addition (see below) to section 8764.5 was added at some point to clarify that City Engineers do not check or sign Records of Survey in lieu of the County Surveyor. Taken verbatim from the PLS Act:



8764.5. Required Statements.

Statements shall appear on the map as follows:

Dave's edit: it then lists the 3 statements; Surveyor, County Surveyor, and Recorder.

No other statements may appear on the face of the map except those
required or authorized by this article.

[JasonCamit]

The purpose of this section is meant to assure the public that the properties being surveyed and monumented on a record of survey were created in compliance with the SMA, when the parcels delineated on the RS are not consistant with the latest assessor roll. Normally you see this when a Lot Line Adjustment/parcel map waiver is/are monumented, a record of Survey has been filed, and the assessor's tax roll has not been updated yet.

Sometimes the assessor will not update there tax roll within the time constraints required to to file an RS. So, this additional certificate is used to confirm that the property was created in compliance the SMA. If the Lot Line Adjustment/Parcel Map Waiver was performed in an unincorporated area the associated County surveyor will sign and stamp this certificate. If the Lot Line Adjustment/Parcel Map Waiver was performed in the city limits the city engineer will sign and stamp this certificate

[tharris]

Yes, in fact there are restrictions on the number of statements and stamps which can appear on the Record of Survey. The LS Act is clear what statements shall appear and how they shall appear. Find in the LS Act the form and content of a City Engineer statement on a ROS. What should a statement signed by a client look like? And does the notary get to throw a statement on there too?

I assume that where I am coming from is clear, but I welcome some LS Act-based information that can explain the positions taken by others above.

And as to the question Mr. Camit has posed, my opinion is that DOC LS has pointed you in the right direction; figure out with the City Engineer what "attached thereto" means. Because 8764.5 makes it clear that such a statement shall not appear on the face of the map.

[bruce hall]

we surveyors add a "Statement of Purpose" on RS's. The County Surveyor wants it, and it okay with me.

Near as I can tell the City Engineer could have some type of writing on the map and just don't call it a "Statement".

We could call it, "City Engineers' Map Approval" or whatever. But if the City Engineer doesn't want to mess with the RS, who is gonna force him/her to add their signature?

The RS used to have "Certificates" but they were changed to "Statements".
At least that is how I remember it.

[Ric7308]

Jason,

I would be happy to assist you, the City Engineer and the County Surveyor in resolving this issue as it pertains to compliance with the respective statutes. You can email me the information at Ric_Moore@dca.ca.gov

Ric

[mpallamary]

Semantics I suppose but there does appear to be a distinction between statements and memorandums:

8762.5. No record of survey of land shown on the latest adopted
county assessment roll as a unit or as contiguous units, which shows
a division of such land into additional parcels, shall be filed with
the county surveyor or with the county recorder, unless there is
attached thereto a certificate by the county surveyor if the land
lies within an unincorporated area, or a certificate by the city
engineer if the land lies within a city, of compliance with the
provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, Division 2 (commencing with
Section 66410) of Title 7 of the Government Code, and any applicable
local ordinance enacted pursuant thereto.

8764. The record of survey shall show the applicable provisions of
the following consistent with the purpose of the survey:

(e) Memorandum of oaths.
(f) Statements required by Section 8764.5.
(g) Any other data necessary for the intelligent interpretation of
the various items and locations of the points, lines, and areas
shown, or convenient for the identification of the survey or
surveyor, as may be determined by the civil engineer or land surveyor
preparing the record of survey.

****************************
I have had clients sign R/S maps when they authenticate a corner or in one instance when they provided a statement that the road shown on the map had been in place and used for more than five years. I recall having the clients sign an R/S when I filed a lot line agreement. I think it is along the lines of Bruce's comments.