Surveyor to Recorder

Surveyor to Recorder

Poll runs till Sun Mar 08, 2020 2:25 pm

I want Direct to Recorder
25
14%
I want the existing County Surveyor review
35
19%
I am in private practice
43
24%
I am in government
20
11%
I am a member of CLSA
53
29%
I am NOT a member of CLSA
4
2%
 
Total votes: 180

User avatar
hellsangle
Posts: 219
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:31 am
Location: Sonoma, CA

Surveyor to Recorder

Postby hellsangle » Thu Oct 25, 2018 2:25 pm

Ladies 'n Gents . . .

Per Saint Pete's suggestion . . . and some of my feeble thoughts . . . composed this survey.

I allowed 500 days for this . . . and due to "debate" if you change your mind you may change your vote.

Please give us your two cents and take the survey.

Thanks!

Phil - Sonoma
Last edited by hellsangle on Thu Oct 25, 2018 3:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Peter Ehlert
Posts: 456
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 2:40 pm
Location: N31°43', W116°39'
Contact:

Re: Surveyor to Recorder

Postby Peter Ehlert » Thu Oct 25, 2018 3:25 pm

thanks Phil
Peter Ehlert

User avatar
hellsangle
Posts: 219
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:31 am
Location: Sonoma, CA

Re: Surveyor to Recorder

Postby hellsangle » Sat Oct 27, 2018 6:59 am

Saturday morning 27 Oct 2018 . . .

60% for Surveyor to Recorder
40% for County Surveyor review.

Maybe Chapter secretaries could send this link to their members for more voters!

LOW VOTER TURN-OUT - BAD.

(Last line sounded a bit idjut, huh?)

Phil - Sonoma

User avatar
PLS7393
Posts: 671
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2004 2:09 pm
Location: Bay Area (Fremont)
Contact:

Re: Surveyor to Recorder

Postby PLS7393 » Sat Oct 27, 2018 7:19 am

Phil,
I agree the response is pretty low, but maybe with only 58 votes (at the time of this post), it is saying there are only 58 professional land surveyors active on this thread, lol.

User avatar
Peter Ehlert
Posts: 456
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 2:40 pm
Location: N31°43', W116°39'
Contact:

Re: Surveyor to Recorder

Postby Peter Ehlert » Sat Oct 27, 2018 8:34 am

Odd results. I just noted that I had not made a third selection (member status). I clicked on that and it popped to 59 votes.
reverse engineering says: Effectively there may be only 20 people participating...
such a small sampling seems to vague at this point. dunno.
maybe a forum admin can suck some more metadata out... I believe phpBB software has that capability.

Yes, we all need to pimp this personally as well as the Chapters.
Peter Ehlert

User avatar
LS_8750
Posts: 718
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Sonoma
Contact:

Re: Surveyor to Recorder

Postby LS_8750 » Mon Oct 29, 2018 4:20 pm

I'm on the fence. Cannot trust surveyors to do their jobs. Just reviewed a little block in Marin and out of a 10 minute review of four or five maps the only thing I ascertained with confidence was that none of those maps had the boundary lines correct. In this case I was disgusted at both the County Surveyor at the time the maps were recorded, and the surveyors who filed the maps.
Last edited by LS_8750 on Mon Oct 29, 2018 4:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
LS_8750
Posts: 718
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Sonoma
Contact:

Re: Surveyor to Recorder

Postby LS_8750 » Mon Oct 29, 2018 4:26 pm

I'm on the fence. Cannot trust surveyors to do their jobs. Just reviewed a little block in Marin and out of a 10 minute review of four or five maps the only thing I ascertained with confidence was that none of those maps had the boundary lines correct. In this case I was disgusted with both the County Surveyor at the time the maps were recorded, and the surveyors who filed the maps.

My mind will of course change again next time I go to file a map in some of these Counties I occasionally step foot in.

What I don't want to see is a polluted public record filled with garbage maps and corner records like I see in some parts of the Bay Area.

User avatar
hellsangle
Posts: 219
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:31 am
Location: Sonoma, CA

Re: Surveyor to Recorder

Postby hellsangle » Tue Oct 30, 2018 7:56 am

I hear you, Clark!

I am well aware of what you speak of. I have been surveying in that county since 1971.

However, having the “blessing” of the County Surveyor does not make a survey infallible. Has there ever been a boundary dispute where the County Surveyor was called to testify? Has BPELSG ever given testimony in a boundary dispute? A PPC? It is a court(s) of law that decide.

Contractors must “read” drawings in order to build that which is on paper.
Similarly, a surveyor must “read” a survey in order to determine the wheat from chaff.

Review fees are all over the place . . . with some review procedures/opinions/drafting techniques all over the board like a pachinko game!

It is the surveyor who is on the hook. And if the surveyor broke every law on the books, but prevails in the courts - that is new law. Art. Not a science.

That said . . . just because it is recorded, or unrecorded, does not relieve the surveyor accepting the survey(s) of the duty to vet the survey(s). Junk in. Junk out.

As most know, boundary surveys are more than far mathematical closures and employing the nearest Record of Survey. It is about evidence. And evidence that may not be in the form of a map (recorded or otherwise). ('Course I'm preachin' to the choir, Clark.)

Won’t you reconsider?

Thanks for you listening,

Phil - Sonoma

Edward M Reading
Posts: 113
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 7:23 am
Location: San Luis Obispo

Re: Surveyor to Recorder

Postby Edward M Reading » Tue Oct 30, 2018 11:57 am

hellsangle wrote:... Has there ever been a boundary dispute where the County Surveyor was called to testify? ...

Yes.
Edward M. Reading
SLO County

User avatar
hellsangle
Posts: 219
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:31 am
Location: Sonoma, CA

Re: Surveyor to Recorder

Postby hellsangle » Tue Oct 30, 2018 1:34 pm

Interesting, Ed!
Thanks for sharing.

User avatar
hellsangle
Posts: 219
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:31 am
Location: Sonoma, CA

Re: Surveyor to Recorder

Postby hellsangle » Thu Nov 01, 2018 2:40 pm

As of 1 November . . . 575 "lookie lou's" and only 36 have voted?
Thank you all for the response thus far . . . but I find it hard to believe this is not an issue with most private practice surveyors.
Please get this out to non-members too. And just like next Tuesday - VOTE!
Appreciatively,
Phil - Sonoma
PS last poll was 54 votes and they were about 50% - 50%

User avatar
DWoolley
Posts: 231
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 3:21 pm
Location: Orange County
Contact:

Re: Surveyor to Recorder

Postby DWoolley » Thu Nov 01, 2018 5:45 pm

hellsangle wrote:
However, having the “blessing” of the County Surveyor does not make a survey infallible. Has there ever been a boundary dispute where the County Surveyor was called to testify? Has BPELSG ever given testimony in a boundary dispute? A PPC? It is a court(s) of law that decide.

Phil - Sonoma


Has there ever been a boundary dispute where the County Surveyor was called to testify?

Yes, I have seen a County Surveyor called to testify. In fact, there is a County Surveyor calendared to testify next week on a private surveyor's record of survey he signed two years ago.

Has BPELSG ever given testimony in a boundary dispute?

Yes, I witnessed a former Registrar testify (ah, Phil, you were there with me). It was related to a negligence allegation stemming from a boundary dispute.

A PPC?

Yes, the former Orange County JPPC Chairman. He testified as the JPPC Chairman concerning complaints filed by the Orange County committee. He was questioned about the process, standard of care, etc.

"It is a court(s) of law that decides"

Are you suggesting all boundary issues go to court, similar to Massachusetts Land Court, at a cost of several hundred thousand dollars and 3 to 5 years time - rather than demand competency from the licensees? Furthermore, turn a blind eye to poor practice so as to go along to get along - honest business and the unwitting public be damned? Phil, please do not crawdad away from these questions or simply provide nonsensical (Booley) comments. After all, I took the time to thoughtfully answer your questions. Quid pro quo.

Judging from the poll numbers I may have overestimated the forum readership when I recently said 100 readers. It may be a considerably less, say, 75? 50?

California has a little north of 4200 land surveying licensees. The 50 people polled, not necessarily licensees, is approximately 1% of the licensed population. Any conclusions from the poll would be nothing more than anecdotal, meaningless.

Phil, again, what was a Big Bad Booley referenced in your other thread?

Best,

DWoolley

User avatar
hellsangle
Posts: 219
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:31 am
Location: Sonoma, CA

Re: Surveyor to Recorder

Postby hellsangle » Mon Nov 05, 2018 8:53 am

You're correct Dave . . . another abysmal response. Thirty eight votes!
.
I didn't mean to confuse when I asked if "others"were involved court action. I meant . . in a superior court dispute between two surveyors. (The one "we" were involved with was a Administrative Law court. Not a Marin superior court action between two surveyors.)

Marin is a unique county with regards to boundary determination. I hate to say it . . . but it may be cheaper to file a Quiet Title action . . . and hope the adjoiners like the survey results and fail to show . . . rather than depositions/conflicting surveys/court(s). (Torrens might be nice again. But that is pie-in-sky as is Surveyor to Recorder.)

Another analogy with regards to Surveyor to Recorder: when a dentist works on a mouth, who comes in and "reviews" his/her work? (Maybe in dental school before becoming licensed, that would happen. But not after he/she is licensed . . . and with EVERY MOUTH!)

Thank you all for taking this poll. I just wish more surveyors would give their two cents and vote. (Maybe Landon could link this in the CalSurveyor in hopes of getting a consensus?)

Have a good week, all.

Respectfully,

Phil - Sonoma

User avatar
Peter Ehlert
Posts: 456
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 2:40 pm
Location: N31°43', W116°39'
Contact:

Re: Surveyor to Recorder

Postby Peter Ehlert » Mon Nov 05, 2018 9:15 am

Poll runs till 08 Mar 2020 15:25 --- why so anxious? /humor

thanks Phil, et al
Peter Ehlert

User avatar
Jim Frame
Posts: 1115
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:52 pm
Location: Davis, CA
Contact:

Re: Surveyor to Recorder

Postby Jim Frame » Mon Nov 05, 2018 2:02 pm

Another analogy with regards to Surveyor to Recorder: when a dentist works on a mouth, who comes in and "reviews" his/her work? (Maybe in dental school before becoming licensed, that would happen. But not after he/she is licensed . . . and with EVERY MOUTH!)


That analogy might hold up if dental work on one person directly affected the dental health of his neighbors, but that's not the case. Any damage caused by a dentist is confined to the individual patient, who will be aware of the situation. By contrast, a surveyor's screwup affects his client and all adjoiners, thus the requirement that surveys disclosing facts and opinions at odds with the record be made availablefor public review.

User avatar
hellsangle
Posts: 219
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:31 am
Location: Sonoma, CA

Re: Surveyor to Recorder

Postby hellsangle » Mon Nov 05, 2018 2:26 pm

Not gonna fly, huh, Jim? LOL
I tried . . .

falcon
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri May 05, 2017 6:26 am

Re: Surveyor to Recorder

Postby falcon » Thu Nov 08, 2018 7:33 am

hellsangle wrote:Torrens might be nice again. But that is pie-in-sky as is Surveyor to Recorder.


I thought Torrens was attempted in some counties and done away with as it simply bankrupted the fund after the first big claim.

User avatar
hellsangle
Posts: 219
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:31 am
Location: Sonoma, CA

Re: Surveyor to Recorder

Postby hellsangle » Thu Nov 08, 2018 9:40 am

Hello Falcon!
Good point . . . but the point I was making is this: little to no ambiguities. Retrace the Torrens survey and you're done. Liken an adjudicated boundary.
Phil - Sonoma

User avatar
hellsangle
Posts: 219
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:31 am
Location: Sonoma, CA

Re: Surveyor to Recorder

Postby hellsangle » Tue Jan 22, 2019 5:05 pm

I'm hearing more and more complaints from of many more colleagues of nit-picking on what may be drafting technique, etc., (disagreements) with some County map reviewers.

This isn't bothering anyone? Is everyone happy with multiple reviews and taking about a year to get recorded?

Surveyor to Recorder . . . trying to get more than fifty responses (so am bringing this topic back to the top).

Phil - Sonoma

User avatar
Jim Frame
Posts: 1115
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:52 pm
Location: Davis, CA
Contact:

Re: Surveyor to Recorder

Postby Jim Frame » Tue Jan 22, 2019 6:25 pm

Code: Select all

I'm hearing more and more complaints from of many more colleagues of nit-picking on what may be drafting technique, etc., (disagreements) with some County map reviewers.  This isn't bothering anyone?


Sure, it's plenty bothersome. Especially when the CS is an employee of a nationwide ENR corporation who doesn't live in the county, doesn't practice in the county, and doesn't even have an office in the county. But sometimes you just have to say no and direct the CS to follow the law, even if it means an extra note on your map.
Jim Frame
Frame Surveying & Mapping
609 A Street
Davis, CA 95616
[url]framesurveying.com[/url]

User avatar
E_Page
Posts: 2019
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 6:49 am
Location: El Dorado County

Re: Surveyor to Recorder

Postby E_Page » Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:43 am

Looks like the total votes number simply tallies up every time any choice is checked. Looking at just the member/non-member votes (46/4), it seems that 50 have voted.

I voted for the current system only because there was no choice for an improved review system. The primary factor should be some verifiable level of competence by the reviewer. If an LSIT or other non-licensed person is performing review, their work should be limited to items that can be reduced to a checklist (proper margins, north arrow, presence of all statutorily required notes, etc.).

The review for adhering to appropriate practice and/or matters falling under 8764(g) (info to facilitate intelligent interpretation) should be done or directly supervised and signed off by competent licensed persons. The downside is verifying that competence. Being a CS is no guarantee of competence in boundary matters. I've been present for the testimony of one person as a sitting CS and another as a former CS and been shocked by what they testified to.

One, a current CS at the time, testified that the submittals for a particular survey (for a neighboring county), the first of which was missing so much info that it wasn't even a half decent effort for a preliminary drawing, and each of the 5 subsequent submittals exhibited several examples of false statements/facts and changing facts, as acceptable submittals meeting the normal standard of care. Some of the facts were having found non-existent monuments and indicating SNF for monuments which actually did exist in mon wells in the street. That CS also testified that it is perfectly acceptable to survey a lot of one subdivision from the controlling points of a neighboring junior subdivision while not looking for and in some cases ignoring controlling mons of the subdivision where the subject lot was located. Made my head spin.

In another case, a former CS testified that the surveyor whose survey was being challenged should have simply accepted the most recent record map although the survey of the previous record was demonstrably a balloon-on-a-string layout of deed dimension geometry from completely unrelated and unverified monuments with no effort to relate the boundaries to the controlling elements mentioned in the deed. That former CS also falsely testified that the surveyor the CS was testifying against had not provided information that was without question provided. In fact, after that under oath claim, a portion of an audio recording of a meeting in which the CS remarked on the info he said was not provided was played in the hearing. The surveyor the former CS was testifying against correctly rejected the previous record as being erroneous and endeavored to establish the boundaries based on evidence of the controlling elements. He provided reams of research, field data and analysis to the former CS's client organization. It was clear that much of the former CS's testimony was a result of ethical and moral turpitude. Not sure how much, if any was a result of incompetence. To assume that any was based on incompetence, one would actually have to give that former CS the benefit of the doubt.

Ideally, I would like to see some manner of expert-level certifications for different areas of practice (demonstrated knowledge significantly beyond the minimal competence tested on the licensing exam). I would also like to see new licensees receive a post-exam report informing them if there were areas in which they did not demonstrate sufficient knowledge to indicate minimal competence so they have a basis to knowingly abide by Board Rule 415.

Together with the (pipe dream of) demonstrated advanced knowledge, the CS and any party contracting for map review should be required to hold an advanced certification in boundary principles.

For the reasons Clark articulated, I believe there should be some form of competent review. I like the statutory limit built into the B&P Code which allows the CS to add a note but does not allow them to refuse to file for other than the lack of statutorily required checklist content. The CS should have a means of reasonable cost recovery whereby the costs to those who diligently perform surveys and adequately document their results are relatively low, but whereby higher fees can be collected from those who regularly turn in a poor version of a prelim drawing on first check and then require multiple rounds of review.

It does not serve the public well to have to pay review fees which approach the cost of having the survey performed in the first place if the review results in only a few legitimate and relatively minor comments. An incompetent review, at any cost (or even none at all) does not serve the public and potentially harms the public because of the implied additional level of checking.
Evan Page, PLS
A Certain Forum Essayist

User avatar
LS_8750
Posts: 718
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Sonoma
Contact:

Re: Surveyor to Recorder

Postby LS_8750 » Thu Jan 24, 2019 11:52 am

The County Surveyor is the County Surveyor.

I take that as meaning the County Surveyor knows the ins and outs of his/her particular County, including all relevant records, recorded or not, within their archives.

If the County Surveyor has knowledge of some record that is not included in the submitting surveyor's references, the topic should be brought to light.

To me, that is the one thing the County Surveyor should be doing that warrants a review and review fee.

Otherwise the County Surveyor is simply trying to separate the garbage from the rest, which I suspect is not an easy task.
Clark E. Stoner, PE, PLS
CFS Engineering
Sonoma County
Santa Cruz County
tel. 707.996.8449 (Sonoma) or 831.477.9215 (Santa Cruz)
stoner@cfsengineering.com

Edward M Reading
Posts: 113
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 7:23 am
Location: San Luis Obispo

Re: Surveyor to Recorder

Postby Edward M Reading » Thu Jan 24, 2019 6:29 pm

LS_8750 wrote:..... the County Surveyor is simply trying to separate the garbage from the rest, which I suspect is not an easy task.
Edward M. Reading
SLO County

User avatar
Warren Smith
Posts: 689
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 6:41 am
Location: Sonora

Re: Surveyor to Recorder

Postby Warren Smith » Fri Jan 25, 2019 8:05 am

Quite often, it is an easy task.

There is such a thing as consumer protection.
Warren D. Smith, LS 4842
County Surveyor
Tuolumne County

User avatar
Lee Hixson
Posts: 546
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 8:03 am
Location: Yuba City, CA
Contact:

Re: Surveyor to Recorder

Postby Lee Hixson » Sat Jan 26, 2019 6:32 am

Sometimes all it takes is a simple red-line comment by the CS alerting the surveyor to a possible oversight, the repercussions of which could cost the public enormous amounts of time and money to deal with later.

Like: "You don't show any evidence of occupation along P/Ls anywhere on your map. Is that because there isn't any?"

Could just be an oversight. Could also be a surveyor with insufficient experience or just plain incompetence. Either way, if the CS doesn't ask the question unnecessary expense and heartache may ensue.


Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests