Alameda County Clerk - Map Rejections

[PLS7393]

It appears the Alameda County Clerks Office has gotten the power to reject maps after the County Surveyor sends them up for filing.
The California Codes identify they have the power to review subdivision maps, but nowhere does it address record of surveys.
The Co. Surveyors Office has mentioned they are rejecting multiple different issues that are non-technical, and the County Clerk is not listening to the County Surveyor. I currently have two maps that were rejected for issues that have been shown the same on recent maps filed previously within a few months.

See the attached and find the county issue, since the Board has sent me an email with their opinion, but they do not have any power over the County Clerk.

[dedkad]

Since the Recorder's office is all about legibility, my guess is that it is because your signature is obscuring part of the seal, making it "illegible". Am I right?

[PLS7393]

That is one interpretation, but three months ago they had me add "STATE OF CALIFORNIA" under my name to clarify that issue.
Those older licensee's may recall they use to require signatures be signed across the seal.

[Ric7308]

Should point out that the County could be rejecting the map simply because the statement that is attached is not in compliance with 8764.5

[pls7809]

I believe Ric has it...I had an RS rejected recently where I didn't quite trim the 0.01' thick line around the edge off.

The word "compliance" in your statement should be "conformance" per 8764.5.

Also, in 8764.5, it says "Name of Person authorizing survey" and in yours is a company name. (I've done this before too)

Signature line with date
LS or RCE number (with seal off to the side) (I would not sign across the stamp - I think it could be a legibility issue with that)

[PLS7393]

Should point out that the County could be rejecting the map simply because the statement that is attached is not in compliance with 8764.5

Thanks Ric, but you already are aware of this, lol. Not to mention the County is unaware they filed maps not in compliance with the code.
The addition "STATE OF CALIFORNIA" was per the County Clerks Office since I signed across "STATE OF CALIFORNIA" in the seal.
Pertaining the compliance issue, that is an issue of the County Surveyor approving a map to be in compliance per Section 8766.

See below attachments where an older map was filed, then a few months ago they requested the additional info, but today they changed it again (because they think they can).

Can someone reference where is the codes it allows the County Clerk to have final say on record of surveys? It mentions this for Final and Parcel Maps only, and the County Surveyor has pointed this out to the Clerk with no avail.

In light of Game 7 of the World Series, this is only more proof of "Who's on First"???

Thanks.

[Ric7308]

As I mentioned to you previously, NO ONE has the authority to make changes or deviate from the Surveyor's Statement, County Surveyor's Statement, or the Recorder's Statement as listed in 8764.5 for a Record of Survey. I don't care what has been recorded in the past. Your statement needs to change to be in compliance and the County has no discretion on that language. If they don't like that, have them contact me.

When I responded to you previously on this, I advised that you choose your battles and simply not sign over the seal as you don't have any authority over the County Recorder in that specific regard. However, if they are STILL insisting on changes to the language in any of the statements under 8764.5, they do not have the authority to do that.

[PLS7393]

Yes Ric,
I hear you loud and clear and picking my battles, but posted this to enlighten those who may or may not be aware of what is going on in Alameda County.
I'm not picking any battles, but we are dealing with other non-technical issues too, as interpreted by the County Clerk's Office.

Thanks as always for your input as it truly is appreciated!

[Ric7308]

So, just to be clear...who is actually the problem here? The County Clerk? or the County Recorder?

[PLS7393]

So, just to be clear...who is actually the problem here? The County Clerk? or the County Recorder?

The maps are being rejected by the County Clerk's Office, who is under the County Recorder.

[wingding]

I too had an Alameda county mylar rejected last month (record of survey)
The county surveyors office plan checker who called was puzzled as well.

[Warren Smith]

Our County Recorder's office has a rejection form that lists the reason for rejection and the relevant statute.

Although it is headed by a consolidated elected official "Assessor-Recorder-County Clerk", each department is autonomous in function.

[David Kendall]

Good thing you clarified that state of California part. Someone may have been confused...

[Anthony Maffia]

I had one ROS rejected by the Alameda County Recorder twice, for different reasons than mentioned above.
Keith, your link for RS 2772 is broken.

[Edward M Reading]

Interesting. In the other two states in which I am licensed, it is the norm to sign over the stamp.

[dedkad]

I had one ROS rejected by the Alameda County Recorder twice, for different reasons than mentioned above.
Keith, your link for RS 2772 is broken.

Sounds like your recorder's office is like mine. I honestly don't care if they require something, I just want them to be consistent. I'll walk over one day to record something and it's fine. The next day I take a document that is exactly the same as the other one over for recording and a different person is working the counter and it gets rejected. Very frustrating.

[PLS7393]

Latest rejection by the Alameda County Clerk's Office; your thoughts?

In the past on legal descriptions and maps, when I signed and sealed the document (or map) which had a date shown, that was sufficient to satisfy Section 8761 (d) of the LS Act.

If I signed the document the same day as shown on the document, I would not add the same date signed. Now the printed date seems to not satisfy the LS Act as interpreted by the clerks office. My latest RS map was rejected for this reason when the date was in the title block? I have a call in to the Board for their interpretation, but maybe Ric Moore or Dallas Sweeney can also respond here for all to see.

Furthermore, if the Clerk is rejecting a record of survey, isn't this unlawful if they do not have a surveyor on staff, as outlined in Section 8761 (e) of the LS Act? Isn't the map reviewed by the County Surveyor for technicalities?

It was discussed to pick your battles, but wouldn't a complaint to the Board against the Clerk referencing Section 8761 (e) require the Board to review and see what licensed surveyor is on staff? FYI the Clerks Office has no land surveyor on staff, and our County Surveyor has had meetings with the Clerk pointing out specific issues they can not over ride, and the Clerk simply ignores the County Surveyor.

[dedkad]

8761.
(d) All final maps, plats, reports, descriptions, or other land surveying documents issued by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer authorized to practice land surveying shall bear the signature and seal or stamp of the licensee and the date of signing and sealing or stamping. If the land surveying document has multiple pages or sheets, the signature, seal or stamp, and date of signing and sealing or stamping shall appear, at a minimum, on the title sheet, cover sheet or page, or signature sheet, unless otherwise required by law.

How can one assume that the date listed in a title block is the date the document was signed? Put the date next to your signature.

[PLS7393]

How can one assume that the date listed in a title block is the date the document was signed? Put the date next to your signature.

True, but I know when I signed it and the date is on the legal description directly above my name.
Stupidity, and technicians follow a check list, so multiple dates have already been initiated.

So dedkad, you don't have any answer to my second part, lol.

[PLS7393]

Latest rejection by the Alameda County Clerk's Office; your thoughts?

Awww snap, the CS had other maps with this scenario, but I did date the map next to my signature, so all this is for nothing, lol.
Maybe this will serve as a reminder to those reading but do not date their signing.

Carry on folks, now that I have wasted over an hour. I hope my boss doesn't read this, lol.

I still am interested in your thoughts about part 2.

[BrianSpore]

Keith,
as you know the Survey Section here at Hayward takes most of the City's recordings to the County. I do know what you are talking about as I have seen more and more inconsistency with the counter help at the Alameda County Recorders office. It would be nice if there was at least some kind of consistency when things are submitted for recording. I had an instance where our Tech took a document up for recording and it was rejected, I don't remember why, but I took it the next day unchanged and it was accepted with no problem.

[PLS9196]

Hi Keith,

I'm not completely following the 8771 reference, that aside this really looks like a paperwork issue that is outside the purview of CS review and responsibility(aside from the compliance vs conformance statement and listing the name of the person engaging the survey) (technical aspect reviewed and you have been requested to submit Mylar), therefore I don't think our board has any recourse, nor would involving them be appropriate and having an LS on staff at the recorders office wouldn't matter at that point. End of day, small potatoes, change it and move on, if there are issues with the recorder I'd suggest getting with you local peers and addressing it with the recorders office.

[PLS7393]

I'm not completely following the 8771 reference, . . .

Section 8761(e) of LS Act (Updated Codes)

If the Clerk's Office is rejecting maps, what gives them the authority to do so without a licensed surveyor on staff, after the County Surveyor (CS) has charged us to review and state that they are satisfied the map is technically correct?

As for meeting with local authorities, the CS along with other peers have met with the County Clerk, but the County Clerk simply ignores what the CS has to say.

Pick your battles, right, but to what end will this stop. Give the Clerk power now, next they will want more. The Board wants licensees to keep up on the codes, but doesn't care about those who enforce the codes (or try to)? Seems a little double standards to me?

[pls7809]

Perhaps go to the Board of Supervisors and bring up the issues. Or the head County administrator (down here in So Cal we have County CEO's) that run things.

[PLS9196]

I see where you are going with this, and not having experienced your situation, can imagine the frustration, perhaps as suggested above going to the Board of Supervisors would be a reasonable route.

Just remember that as long as the map rejections had nothing to do with elements stated in B&P code 8726, those rejections had nothing to do with Land Surveying, as defined, the recorder or clerk is clear to act under the standards of their profession, without a Land Surveyor on staff, in that particular situation, a member of DCA, the CS or other surveyors offering an opinion is merely a suggestion. Good Luck.