In what capacity would the CE be singing? It wouldn't be appropriate for him to sign as a reviewing authority as the property is outside of the City's jurisdiction.
I don't know if there is any preclusion to crafting a more generic review certificate, but it would be rather meaningless, especially if he is not a pre-82 CE.
Does SMA limit who can sign a map?
-
Ric7308
- Posts: 719
- Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 2:50 pm
Why would the City Engineer state that they reviewed a map that is outside their incorporated jurisdiction? What weight would that hold?
I would guess that Section 66450 would govern this action:
(a) City Engineer is not applicable - unincorporated area
What's interesting is that Arcticle 3. Parcel Maps doesn't have a section similar to 66443 listed under Final Maps that allows for other certificates or acknowledgments as required by local ordinance.
That could be preventive right there.
Will be nice to know how this one works out.
I would guess that Section 66450 would govern this action:
(a) City Engineer is not applicable - unincorporated area
What's interesting is that Arcticle 3. Parcel Maps doesn't have a section similar to 66443 listed under Final Maps that allows for other certificates or acknowledgments as required by local ordinance.
That could be preventive right there.
Will be nice to know how this one works out.
-
D Ryan
- Posts: 190
- Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2002 12:20 pm
- Location: Arcata, CA
Steve,
My take on that cite (Section 66445(g)) is that it was geared toward eliminating building set-backs, flood zones, etc. from subdivision maps, which many agencies were requiring, but were beginning to clutter the map, diluting it's main function. See also 66434.2(b).
I think 66450 is your governing section. Not sure how they could read it any different than to spell out the appropriate reviewing party who is to sign the map.
Dave Ryan
Eureka
My take on that cite (Section 66445(g)) is that it was geared toward eliminating building set-backs, flood zones, etc. from subdivision maps, which many agencies were requiring, but were beginning to clutter the map, diluting it's main function. See also 66434.2(b).
I think 66450 is your governing section. Not sure how they could read it any different than to spell out the appropriate reviewing party who is to sign the map.
Dave Ryan
Eureka
-
subman
- Posts: 453
- Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 6:22 pm
- Location: Ventura County
Steve,
The recorded example map we emailed you earlier today should be enough to convince the City (your client) that only the Mayor and Deputy City Clerk's signatures should be in the owners statement. There is no appropriate purpose that I can think of for any other City official to place a signature on a map for property they own in the unincorporated county area. To do so may cause a rejection by the County Recorder.
My 2 cents...
Give me a call if the issue persists.
The recorded example map we emailed you earlier today should be enough to convince the City (your client) that only the Mayor and Deputy City Clerk's signatures should be in the owners statement. There is no appropriate purpose that I can think of for any other City official to place a signature on a map for property they own in the unincorporated county area. To do so may cause a rejection by the County Recorder.
My 2 cents...
Give me a call if the issue persists.
Dennis Hunter, PLS & PE
Simi Valley, CA
Simi Valley, CA
-
bwatkins
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 9:09 am
Why do you want to fight it? The city is the client. Just put a note (statement) on the map for the City Engineer to sign that states that he reviewed the map on behalf of the City and it's acceptable to the City.
Does not have to state that it conform to any state or local requirements, that would be the County Surveyors statement.
Does not have to state that it conform to any state or local requirements, that would be the County Surveyors statement.
-
Paul Goebel
- Posts: 105
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 1:47 pm