In-Fill Projects

[mpallamary]

When we started the JPPC down here in San Diego in 1980, we took a vow that if any of us lost a job under these circumstances, we would conduct a field inspection and find out who did the work. We would then contact that personm and pressure them. It took several years of hard work before we got the system ironed out. Now that I think of it, that was 30 years ago.

What we learned is the best place to start is a chapter meeting wherein these issues and concerns are discussed and then letters are sent out. We have a very focused and successful campaign.

The longest journey starts with the first step and if not now, when? I know these are cliches but they are for a reason.

[dmi]

We all experience the same thing. I dred getting a call for form certification letters, or just about anything for that matter. They almost always involve records of surveys AND NO ONE WANTS TO PAY FOR A RECORD OF SURVEY.

So what is happening, is that practicioners that do not do the required filing get the jobs. BECAUSE THEY ARE CHEEEPER.... and this is all the public is concerned about- PRICE.

MJ, I do not get the jobs either.

A very big problem is the lack of education at the local agency level....
EVERYDAY EXHIBITS ARE PREPARED AND TURNED IN that were not prepared by the appropriately licensed individual.

It is not an unsual thing for setback letters to be prepared by a post 82 civils
and accepted by local agencies......

In my brief solo career, I have discovered there are some clients that appreciate having the entire picture laid out to begin with not being nickled and dimed.

I believe that the best way to remove the obstruction is to get rid of the fees and find a better way to fund the country surveyors' offices in the state. The best example of this is Orange county, zero R/S fees nearly 100% compliance......

[bruce hall]

I am having such a difficult time.

[land butcher]

When I was in the central coast the surveyors there filed a RS for every survey inc ALTAs. Real Estate cos would pull these maps and many times it resulted in additional work for the surveyor. The surveyors title block had the company name in big bold letters.

As for const staking. I always specified that the property corners had to be in place, if not extra work and fees would apply.

Lots of single building sites are done by the initial surveyor setting c nails on the c/l of the street and in the alleys on PL prods and saying "No r/s needed as property corners were not set.


On the same train of thought I got a letter today from the San Bernardino County Surveyor
RS $500 plus $100/additional sheets. ITS A RS WTF ARE THEY CHECKING.

Research - actual cost. min $55 for 30 min. So does that mean we can't do our own research we have to pay them. Aren't we required to do our own research.

And I love this one. $105 Consultation on final map process = Our system is confusing on purpose so we can charge you more money

Time to return to a government of the people by the people for the people.

[dmi]

Okay shut my mouth, on the zero fee/near 100% compliance thingy....
It is a sad comment, that folks will not file even when its freeeee.

Mr Butcher, I am not on board wth the TEA Party platform. It seems the PEOPLE of San Bernardino have spoke and they are in fact in control of their government. That is why they have the highest or one of the highest R/S fee structures in the State, they voted to make it that way.

[bruce hall]

if the new "fees" were put before "all the people" in San Berdoo. I am not sure if it made the ballot at the last election or not. Maybe it made the one before that, but I doubt it.

Probably this came about in The Board of Supervisors meeting, or something along those lines. Granted these folks are in theory "the people" cause they represent the people.

Our government representing the people does a lot of stuff that won't pass muster if this stuff was put to a vote "by the people" in a real election.

Saw a cartoon in another surveying website. Something like a son telling his father that the son was thinking about "getting into organized crime". The father replies "government or private sector?"

I guess it is all how ya wanna look at it.

[dmi]

REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY HAVE ANY MEANING? Please excuse me, but I a tired of hearing the cries of victims when folks do not get their way on every little thing. Do not get me wrong, I am no fan of FEES, but to claim that somehow that the situation we live under is not the will of the people, is simply a view that is not supported by reality. JUST BECAUSE YOU DO NOT LIKE IT OR THE RULE SEEMS UNFAIR OR IS A BURDEN TO YOU SPECIFICALLY is no gage as to whether or not the rule or law is the will of the PEOPLE. The high fees for map checking in SB IS the will of the people. It is not illegitimate or invalid cuz you do not like.

[E_Page]

Wow, this is getting sidetracked. Everybody complains that government is not acting in their interest or in the public's interest, but few bother to actually educate themselves as to what the people they actually, personally voted for do in terms of enacting fees, ordinances, legislation, etc.

So often people vote for concepts reflected in a politicians rhetoric, and never bother to learn (or often to accept when the truth is presented to them) that their favorite politicians bear little resemblence to the candidate they thought they voted for.

So you are both right. Politicians and unelected bureaucrats often govern against the will of the people and against the best interest of the public, AND we, collectively elect many politicians who have their personal interests ahead of those of their constiuencies, and in turn empower unelected bureaucrats to create end enforce policies to those ends. We, collectively don't often get the government we want, but we get the government that we, collectively, deserve. Ignorance can be very expensive. Willful ignorance should be criminal.

[end rant, end hijack]


Back to Mr. Walters concern. A clause in the CLSA standard contract form covers the eventuality of the requirement of an RS on a project. You don't necessarily need to address it in your Scope of Services or proposal letter.

The clause basically says that whether or not a RS was considered in the original scope of work, if that work uncovers or creates the requirement of a RS, the client is responsible for your fees and government fees associated with it.

I don't necessarily advocate leaving out plain discussion of the potential need for an RS, either in your Scope of Services, or in other pre-contract coorespondence. If the requirement arises, this will almost certainly seem like a hidden cost to the client. But it is in the contract so it is not truly a hidden issue, it's just one that you did not address as a major issue.

Personally, if I had been losing out on several contracts over that very issue, I would probably weigh the likelihood of an RS being required, and then decide whether I would mention it in the Scope, the proposal letter, or just let it be addressed by the fine print of the contract. Whether I make that decision at 'not very likely', 'somewhat likely', 'very likely', or 'near certainty' would largely depend upon how many projects I've been successful in getting vs how many I've lost over the issue, and how close I was to having the lights shut off and the home foreclosed.

However it's addressed up front, you would still need to follow the law if a RS is found to be required once into the job. Then you get to fight about the fees.

[Anthony Maffia]

We can't get a builder to pay for property corners when the city TELLS them it is unnecessary.

City planning depts allow projects go to construction with topographic surveys that don't show any property corners found or set, nor ties to other monuments. Also, changes to bearings / distances, no title block or signature by the surveyor?

I like that Oakland requires property corners to be set prior to construction in most cases. Perhaps not when there are street monuments. This is so that inspectors can determine that the building / forms are within the setback.

[VANCE]

When I was in the central coast the surveyors there filed a RS for every survey inc ALTAs. Real Estate cos would pull these maps and many times it resulted in additional work for the surveyor. The surveyors title block had the company name in big bold letters.

As for const staking. I always specified that the property corners had to be in place, if not extra work and fees would apply.

Lots of single building sites are done by the initial surveyor setting c nails on the c/l of the street and in the alleys on PL prods and saying "No r/s needed as property corners were not set.


On the same train of thought I got a letter today from the San Bernardino County Surveyor
RS $500 plus $100/additional sheets. ITS A RS WTF ARE THEY CHECKING.

Research - actual cost. min $55 for 30 min. So does that mean we can't do our own research we have to pay them. Aren't we required to do our own research.

And I love this one. $105 Consultation on final map process = Our system is confusing on purpose so we can charge you more money

Time to return to a government of the people by the people for the people.

Napa county's R/S checking fee is $1,530.00 (yes not a typo one thousand, five hundred and thirty dollars, not sure that the extra thirty dollars is for) so do not complain about $500.00 is seems to be in the ball park for my area (expect for Napa where money grows on vines).

FYI I just saw that Napa County has lowered the checking fee to a very "reasonable" price of $1,046.49 plus $8 for recording fees

[mpallamary]

Might I make a suggestion? Those of you or that one of you most excited by this issue ought to consider formalizing their concerns and submitting a formal article for inclusion in the Cal Surveyor or some other periodical. These are very valuable debates and it is a shame for them to fade into Internet oblivion. If you write an article and circulate a paper and ask for formal input beyond this forum, you will have better success.

I have moved mountains employing this strategy and this is one of those mountains that needs moving.

It is obvious that the first step needs to involve education. First and foremost educate your peers.

Second, you need to apply peer pressure and it needs to be friendly but constant. You need to stand tall and not move. This is an issue of importance to everyone and the end result can only benefit the profession. All that it requires is hard work and that is what we should all be used to.

With all due respect for this issue, it is not a problem for me. I act quickly and decisively and I make my position known right away. I do not let these problems happen to me because I object and protest immediately. If the LSA is violated, you have a manifest duty to speak up. The forum is not going to cut it. You need to do something.

If we, as a profession are going to advance, we need to start here, now, today.

I will step down from the soapbox. Thanks for indulging me.

[land butcher]

Thats true Mike.

When the County of Orange instituted a "counter fee" at the survey records dept my next stop was Jon Canas' office then to the JPC in turn Roger Frank did a survey of the County Records depts in CA and the fee was eliminated and I got a refund.

I'll start with a letter to the CA Surveyor editor I guess. I tend to be a little blunt.

What really burns me is that when construction work gets slow, what was 2-3 map/plan checks becomes 5 or 7. Not due to faulty plans but to govt job security and revenue income.


Anybody got the email addy for the editor of CA Surveyor, guess I tossed all my mags and only the CLSA addy is on here

[mpallamary]

Thanks Mike,

How have you been? And yes, I am now done... Thanks for pointing that out (typo fixed).

As an aside, I was with John Canas yesterday at the ESRI conference. We were chatting with some of the NOAA guys about the new datum and the rise in sea levels and the impact on benchmarks. That is going to get very messy.

As a second aside, one of the other benefits of a letter is it should encourage others to respond.

[mpallamary]

Well put and right on. Thanks for your observations. That is a good eye opener for a Monday.

[JasonCamit]

How do you root them out? It seems like a great idea, but what are the logistics? It would seem that much of the discussion here are planning issues and planners lack of knowledge of the law or common sense. How would you combat that. Or if an owner has a surveyor do work for cheap and accepts subpar surveying as a result, who does the rooting there? Is it the surveyor who follows bad/subpar work to file a complaint with the board? What would the professional etiquette be? It is tough to take this on, unless the industry, as a whole, decides to go on a mission collectively.

[PLS7393]

As previously mentioned, some cities have it right, like Oakland.
Hayward is another city that has had an ordinance requiring corners be set for all new construction, and that opens up the requirement for a record of survey.

Too many people in the Planning Dept. don't care and think surveying is an extra cost to the public, because they do not respect, or understand the value of a property survey. Don't get me started, but I've been down that road, and called a "Busy Body" from planning when attempting to work with them. Remember, surveyors do not review documents involved with lot line adjustments or mergers here. That should tell you what type of individuals I'm dealing with, lol.

The problem starts with the Planning, because when an applicant comes into the office, they are not informed of the need of a "real" survey. This has been identified above, and happens across the state with the majority of planning departments.

[PLS7393]

Lets all remember that if no property corners are set, but dimensions are shown from the boundary to either an existing foundation, or proposed foundation, and a setback letter is signed by a surveyor, then isn't the concrete foundation being referenced to the property line an accessory, or better yet, an offset monument to the property line?

Hmmmm, sound familiar to anyone?

[Ric7308]

Keith,

"Remember, surveyors do not review documents involved with lot line adjustments or mergers here."

Who performs the review of the legal descriptions associated with these functions at your county? If it is not a land surveyor, that is in direct violation of the law. Try education first, if that doesn't work, you know the right thing to do. Is anyone protecting the public by knowing this is happening (if it is) and not acting upon it?

[dmi]

It takes a better person than yours truly to fight these battles. Surveyors get no respect. If you insist on doing the right thing and that means it adds cost to the job.... Katie bar the door. These problems are systemic and it will take more than education. More like education and a big stick, but employees are not in a position to wield big sticks and keep their jobs.....

[Anthony Maffia]

Willard Hall said:
A “Record” boundary is a paper boundary to me. I know, because most situations that are purported to be possible, are possible; that using only two found monuments to ascertain the boundary would be counter to my practices and procedures. I would be hard pressed either as an expert witness or p/d to argue that this practice is acceptable.

=============

"Record" or "paper" boundaries are often correct. Not every property has problems. Not all deeds are faulty.

In the Bay Area, often you can survey 3 or 4 monuments in a line in a street. In mapped subdivisions, THEY are the primary and most acceptable monumentation. Lot corners aren't set, only PL extensions onto curb. Side lines are fences.

Then, even if the mon-mon distance is long or short 0.03 feet in 300 feet, 50' wide parcels are 50.005 or 49.995 feet wide, so they are still 50' wide parcels. I can locate the parcel no problem. (Note, I check the rear adjoiner if this is a boundary parcel.)

With deeded properties, development projects often have neglected adjoining parcels with bad fences and no pipes.

DARN - I just argued myself into the opposite side of the argument. That said, I still want the original surveyor to set property corners if I'm taking over the project for construction staking. Not setting them, so he/she can prevent others from working on the project, is BS.

[Dave Lindell]

Could someone find and post a link to the article I wrote for the California Surveyor about the "only" record of survey filed in a fictitius county?

(It's Friday and I'm pooped!)

[E_Page]

Sometimes, you come across a project with a "record boundary" on the plans, but you check, and it matches a recent subdivision or surrounding surveys, and you can see that the likelihood of a required RS is very low. Most often in such a case, you perform a few checks to existing monumentation as you run your control and your good to go.

Quite often, the record boundary is from a M&B deed description, down to the second of bearing and hundredth of distance on each course, few or no monuments are shown, and there is no reference to any recorded surveys. Occasionally, there is even a note on the plans that states that the boundary shown is not based upon a field survey.

You may find, once you are well into the job that a RS is not required, but if the layout is in any way dependent upon the boundary, if it is based on one of the boundary lines or the design is close to a setback line, you certainly do fall below the standard of care if you do not do enough work to verify the boundary. [edit: ... and file a RS if you find it is required under 8762.]

It just doesn't fly to say that an architect, contractor, developer, post-82 CE, or some other non-surveyor told you that you should rely only on the CAD drawing. As the surveyor, you are the presumed expert who should recognize such issues, who your client is entitled to rely on to recognize and properly address such issues, and who will be held responsible for missing them. There are times when protecting the public means that you are required to protect them from their own poor decisions or drop the job.

[dmi]

I appreciate the benefit of your sharing your experience and undertsanding.

I am very troubled by what I see in this discussion. Since when is doing what you are SUPPOSED TO DO considered far and above the minium standard of care?

Is there anyone, that is a part of this conversation, that would take a plan prepared by someone else and stake that plan on the ground without checking the plan first? I would submit, also that if you developed the plan yourself, that you had better devise a way to QA/QC that plan beofe it gets staked.

Since no one would stake a plan without checking it first, why would you consider staking improvements that rely upon boundary locations without checking the boundary first?

Since almost everyone would check a plan first before staking and take appropriate action based upon the results of the check, why would they not follow the same proceedure with regard to a boundary based upon the work of others?
The purpose of a budget is to adequately fund the effort needed to provide the requested service, the provision of service may include scope items that the client is certain that they "don't need". This decision is not up to them. This is the decision of the professional service provider. The sooner that we understand and accept our responsiblity, the sooner we will come to appreciate the fact that the process is wholly unrelated to the "BURGER KING mentality of have it your way". The professional opinions we advance need to be made those qualified to make them and they are far more important than whether to hold the pickles and onions or not.

The concept of "paper boundary" is oxymoronic. The sooner you divest yourself of the notion of a "paper boundary" the better off you will be.

Boundary surveying involves the development of a professional opinion. Developing an opinion comes at the END of a process, that includes collection and examination of ALL relevant EVIDENCE related to a specific boundary.
Record evidence is a very important part of the evidence, but it is NOT the only evidence that must be considered.

[Anthony Maffia]

Dane Ince said:
Since almost everyone would check a plan first before staking and take appropriate action based upon the results of the check, why would they not follow the same proceedure with regard to a boundary based upon the work of others?
======================
If a boundary is shown with monument ties but no corners, and is stamped and signed by another surveyor, then I submit that they are responsible for the boundary determination.

I would check the monument ties and that the boundary closes, and if there are problems, alert the owner and have the original surveyor fix his/her work.

Reviewing deeper is a whole new boundary survey, the purpose of which is to check and approve of the original surveyor's work, and IMO absolves the original surveyor of all responsibility. And it would cost the same as an original boundary survey, $4K-30K, which is a bit steep for a construction staking extra.

I'd like to eliminate this assumption of liability by requiring, by state law, that corner monuments be set prior to construction on a commercial project. I don't see the same issues with public works or subdivision work.

[dmi]

Tony, our job is to protect the public. Can you explain to me how a professional's reliance on an erronous survey fulfills our duty to protect the public?

As pointed out by Dave Woolley and it is a widely accepted presumption, that if a surveyor relies on the work of another surveyor and there is an error in that first surveyor's work and this error is ignored or goes undetected, then that the second surveyor assumes liabilty for that error. These are not Dave's words exactly, but the drift is pretty much the same.

Wishing the rule were different won't help matters. The rule is the rule for a reason and that is because surveyors are obliged to protect the public.

Nothing prevents you as a licensed surveyor from being ordinarily prudent, except perhaps for a desire to be a true professional and perhaps the desire to keep you license and your career.

I believe the issue of fees is totally misplaced. When called to account for your actions as licensed professional, no consideration is going to be given to the argument that you would not have been negligent or incompetant had you been adequately compensated.