California Surveyors Forums

I got a check print back from the Yolo County Surveyor a few days ago, and he's asking me to add the following:

RECORD OF SURVEY CERTIFICATE

THIS RECORD OF SURVEY COMPLIES WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE
SUBDIVISION MAP ACT, DIVISION 2 (COMMENCING WITH SECTION 66410) OF
TITLE 7 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE AND TITLE 8 OF THE YOLO COUNTY CODE
AND RELATED COUNTY ORDINANCES.

DATE:
COUNTY SURVEYOR

I'm not understanding the purpose of this -- it seems superfluous -- and I don't want to needlessly add yet another piece of boilerplate. It's arguably in violation of §8764.5 ("No other statements may appear on the face of the map except those required or authorized by this article"), even though it's nominally a certificate rather than a statement.

Anyone else run into this?

Jim
look at 8762.5. Sounds like it has to do with assessor’s configuration. If so be thankful. I know of at least one county surveyor who would require you go through the planning department’s COC process.

I know of at least one county surveyor who would require you go through the planning department’s COC process.

My client has already been through the CofC process for a lot line adjustment. This ROS is to document the monumentation of the adjusted parcel configurations.

The CS is also requesting a separate note stating "This map does not create, merge or eliminate any legal lots," plus a purpose note ("The purpose of this survey is to mark the parcel lines described in 2017-0030571 O.R."). It seems to me that he's taking the belt-and-suspenders things a little farther than necessary.

steffan wrote: Sounds like it has to do with assessor’s configuration. If so be thankful. I know of at least one county surveyor who would require you go through the planning department’s COC process.

I recently had a CS try to have me add information from an un-filed subdivision for the adjoiners, but the County couldn't supply me with a copy of the map. Heck if they supplied me with a copy of the map, I could have simply prepared and filed a Corner Record.

My clients deed along with the adjoiners deeds referenced the un-filed subdivison too, but I kept that info off of the map because I did not have solid evidence of the un-filed map. When I asked where he found the requested reference material, the CS stated the Assessor's Map. I'm so glad these CS understand they can do what they want, and use the Assessor's Map for reference material other than parcel identification.

Counties will require a statement like that for any parcel that does not agree in its configuration with the current assessor map. PLS act requires that parcels shown on an RS be in conformance with the current assessor map. If it is not in conformance then a statement like this is required by Sec 8762.5

kwilson wrote:Counties will require a statement like that for any parcel that does not agree in its configuration with the current assessor map. PLS act requires that parcels shown on an RS be in conformance with the current assessor map. If it is not in conformance then a statement like this is required by Sec 8762.5

The assessor's office is sometimes months behind on mapping changes to lot boundaries. If that's the case, the note will be triggered even though you have already recorded a lot line adjustment and CofC.

My interpretation of 8762.5 is that it only applies to a configuration showing 'additional" parcels. It would not apply in a LLA situation where no additional parcels are created. I could be wrong though. I've only been doing this CS stuff for a couple years and still learning.

Ron has it right. The language Jim is being asked to provide is straight from PLSA section 8762.5 - which only applies in situations where a division of land into additional parcels is shown on a record of survey, but not on the latest assessment roll. This usually happens if a school district, for example, purchases additional land under the SMA section 66428(a)(2) exemption.

I'm resubmitting without the cert and will see what happens.

Warren Smith wrote:Ron has it right. The language Jim is being asked to provide is straight from PLSA section 8762.5 - which only applies in situations where a division of land into additional parcels is shown on a record of survey, but not on the latest assessment roll. This usually happens if a school district, for example, purchases additional land under the SMA section 66428(a)(2) exemption.

What if two existing parcels share a single APN? Record of Survey shows two parcels. APN map shows one.

dedkad wrote:

Warren Smith wrote:Ron has it right. The language Jim is being asked to provide is straight from PLSA section 8762.5 - which only applies in situations where a division of land into additional parcels is shown on a record of survey, but not on the latest assessment roll. This usually happens if a school district, for example, purchases additional land under the SMA section 66428(a)(2) exemption.

What if two existing parcels share a single APN? Record of Survey shows two parcels. APN map shows one.

That could be an issue if the assessor doesn't indicate the underlying parcel lines. By convention, most assessor maps do - as dashed lines. The single APN is usually done for the convenience of mailing out one tax bill for the two lots.

Uh-oh! I'm working on an ROS for 3 parcels of an industrial site, which has a single APN for about 6 legal parcels. I'll have to see how that goes.