California Surveyors Forums

My home county (Yolo) has gone through some unfortunate County Surveyor changes in recent years. The CS of many years -- who did a terrific job -- retired, so the county hired a part-time retired annuitant from one of the cities. He filled the position for a year or two, then the county went to a contracted consultant position with an out-of-county firm.

Both the full-time CS and the part-time annuitant were county employees who worked out of the Public Works department office and had ready access to all the county maps. The consultant, however, works out of his private employer's office, which is about a 45 minute drive from the county seat. I surmise that most, if not all, of his interaction with county staff occurs via email and postal mail. As a result, county staff has asked that ROS and Corner Record submittals be accompanied by copies of all supporting documentation, including filed maps.

I have traditionally supplied copies of deeds and unusual documents (e.g. unrecorded maps) when submitting a ROS or CR for checking, since I have copies on hand anyway and it doesn't seem reasonable to ask CS staff to dig up deeds, but I've always relied on the county to refer to its own records for filed maps. However, I pretty much never get conformed copies of my own filed maps; unlike some counties, Yolo doesn't provide a conformed copy after filing, and it doesn't make maps available for download. Thus the county's new request imposes a burden not heretofore borne by the submitting surveyor: buy conformed copies of all supporting maps, whether by digital purchase from a third party vendor or by purchasing a hard copy in person or by mail from the Recorder's office.

In reviewing §8762, §8764, §8766 and §8773.2, I don't find any requirement that the submitting surveyor provide supporting documentation -- these sections all appear to address the requirements to be met by the CS in examining the submitted document.

I haven't decided yet how I will approach this on my next submittal, but would be interested in hearing from others on the matter.

Not to hijack this, but I have to endorse San Mateo County, which is a pleasure to deal with in this regard. They are up to speed with things and digitize their maps quite swiftly. This is never an issue.

I cannot say the same for the other counties in the Bay Area I work in, and looks like Yolo County is similar.

I cannot say the same for the other counties in the Bay Area I work in, and looks like Yolo County is similar.

Neighboring Solano County, by contrast, is a model of information availability. All of their maps are online for download without charge.

Jim Frame wrote:Neighboring Solano County, by contrast, is a model of information availability. All of their maps are online for download without charge.

It's unfortunate that some counties make mapping compliance more difficult - either by imposing requirements that are outside the PLS Act, or by requiring additional documents, or by excessive fees, or by introducing their opinions and/or personal taste.

I do not believe you are under any obligation to provide copies of recorded, referenced maps. If the county nevertheless does require this, then try deducting the labor and reproduction cost from their fee.

Or better yet, use this to help persuade the county to make the maps available for all (including the firm contracted to review maps).

Has anyone ever looked into whether or not a peer RS review could replace a county surveyor RS review. Specifically what I mean is, could one of my colleagues be deputized as a county surveyor and review my map? Some counties make the RS review far too lengthy and exhausting and it seems like it's getting worse, not better. At times I think we could do without any county surveyor review. Our maps should be correct and ready for recording when submitted for the first time.

I would just ignore the request and shrug it off. If it's not required then why should we be burdened, we have enough to do just preparing the RS.

My county tosses these little extras out also, some I go along with, others I just ignore.

Jim:

I think this is an important issue that CLSA can help with. It is very important to surveyors in private practice that we don't add extra regulatory burdens to the Record of Survey process without some REALLY GOOD reasons.

Let's talk in private at our next chapter meeting so we can get some more details. Then I'd like to approach the Sacramento Chapter about talking to the Yolo County folks about this requirement.

If CLSA is reluctant to act, I'll bring this up to the ACEC Professional Surveyors Committee.

(As a side note: I think the contract surveyor should've considered the costs of record acquisition in his proposal for the County.)

A simple solution for Yolo County would be to get their survey maps online.

Landon

The county of Orange has required a copy of all references, record maps, CRs, ties, deeds etc with first submittal for decades. Even though they have the maps on the same floor and are online also.
It's been a while but I think the other counties down here also require copies of all references.
My guess is they hate trees.
Interesting side note is on the check print they will reference other maps etc and ask if you considered these. So they are looking at maps in the area during the checking process.

The attached PDF was sent to me privately, and sheds at least some light on the matter.

I realize the letter dates "way back" to 2004, but it seems disingenuous in that letter to reference the 100-dollar fee as some justification for the County to not be able to procure their own maps when it comes to checking. Fast-forward to now with some counties charging in the 4-digits, and we have the same situation.

Generally, when it comes to an ROS, the map being retraced is the record map to be scrutinized, and the others are much, much less needed as a document to be viewed over (i.e. take the case of finding a monument and referencing some ROS map, which would be all that reference is needed for) so the need for a hardcopy of all the maps is a wasteful one in many cases.

"who is gonna provide the CS (or contract CS) with the initial references(or pay for the initial references), be it the deeds or the CoC's or the record maps."

I know I have to have them for my work (and I have already purchased them or acquired them somehow) and I don't have a problem making a print and sending it to the guy checking my maps. It takes time to do this, either me or the other guy's time.

I also believe that the underlying maps or references are important, maybe just as important as the map I am submitting. I usually have to start somewhere, hopefully on a pipe shown on some map. (I take that back, I think I'll just start here, no pipe, no reference.)

Putting the maps online is a great idea. Should only cost about 500 bucks to do it. In my dreams maybe, but doing that is gonna cost money too.

I am lucky here in the OC. No charge for the RS, the checkers do a good job usually, even tell me about other maps that I didn't reference as the Butcher mentioned, and I send them all my references so they don't have to spend a whole lotta time reinventing the wheel. It can keep the costs down. At least at the CS's end.

As to hating trees, maybe we should just submit the references on disk or thumb drive. Make it tougher on the guys who work in Oregon and Washington who harvest trees for a living.

if the county charges a checking fee for the RS, have them provide their own record maps at their cost. it should be easy for the contract CS to do.

I don't have that issue here in the OC, no fees.

land butcher wrote:The county of Orange has required a copy of all references, record maps, CRs, ties, deeds etc with first submittal for decades. Even though they have the maps on the same floor and are online also.
It's been a while but I think the other counties down here also require copies of all references.
My guess is they hate trees.
Interesting side note is on the check print they will reference other maps etc and ask if you considered these. So they are looking at maps in the area during the checking process.

Though I have never done a Tract map, Plat map or ROS in Orange county, I have done them in surrounding counties and that is the first time I have heard of a CS office suggesting plats to consider. While I am adamant against some unlicensed checker making demands about my boundary decisions, I am quite willing to consider suggestions. Sounds like some good people working in Orange County.

Mostly the suggestions are understandable but when you are surveying the south xxft of lot xxx and you find record mons at the corners of lot xxx and you are asked "did you consider proration?" I question the abilities of the map checker. And I hate being asked if I looked for corners that even if found off would have no effect on my boundary location.

From the other side.
in trying to minimize the time involved in map check, maps submitted without supporting documents requires retrieving the documents. Yes I have the documents available to me. Not all in the same location or format. So it is a matter of time. In my office, due to limited staff, I do not have anyone available to assign the task. I do not have a staff map checker and this is only one of many tasks I oversee with a staff of one. ME. Therefore is it really unreasonable to ask the submitted surveyor to provide copies of the materials the surveyor used to complete the survey? Materials the surveyor has in their file. During my 20+ years of private practice, I didn't think so. Anything I could do to simplify the checking process, make the checkers job easy, meant my map passed thru the system.

Just MHO.

I think some of us, myself included, are specifically referring to maps only. I do not like to dump on any map checker a submittal that refers to other records like deeds, or unrecorded items like field note references from other places in their office, without providing that information.

I provide everything mentioned on the map. I have two counties nearby (Orange and LA) that are relatively cheap on review fees (free and $170 for one sheet and $58 for each additional) and two counties that are deposit based ($500 for one sheet and $300 for each additional, initial deposit). The less time those deposit based counties spend on my map, the better. If I don't give them the maps, they will charge that time pulling copies to the deposit.

I just try to make things as simple for the map checker as possible. No extra time on my part, since I have the info already.

No it is not excessive or over burdening to require surveyors to submit a complete package with the record of survey. RAM makes a fine point.

The submittal package should be complete and easy for the County Surveyor or his/her designee to review without back and forth from the submitting surveyor.

And...the checking package should be returned upon completion of the survey. Therefore, any potential loss of maps and deeds is removed. I know some counties keep the packages, and it is cumbersome sometimes to make copies of everything prior to submission...

Since I have been on the other side, as a map reviewer, it is nice to open up a new project and have all referenced docs right there. It saves time on whoever is reviewing the map. As for returning documents, I make copies with all submittals and don't want them back, but one south county in the Bay Area returns all docs (maybe thats why they charge so much), lol. I can recycle the package just as easily as they could.