Sacramento PPC

[E_Page]

I'm really sorry I missed it. Family obligations with no alternate solutions available.

The PPC wanted to keep discussion focused on just a couple of issues. This one, like most scenarios that have more than 1 possible interpretation, had the potential of having discussion going in about 30 different directions. The fictionalized version was designed to focus on those issues and deliberately left out some info which would tend to have surveyors going off on other tangents, as many of us are likely to do.

The point wasn't necessarily "where would you put the boundary", but more a couple of sub-topics about what the first surveyor might have done to more solidly perpetuate his findings or dissuade, by his work, documentation, and monumentation, another following surveyor from reinventing the whole wheel and possibly leaning to a differing opinion which may cause needless controversy.

To be sure, each surveyor in the real life case used methodology that most surveyors would find acceptable, or at least most would not find unacceptable. It was not an easy place to work in terms of boundary evidence. So discussion here, like at the Chapter meeting should not go into the real life case any more than it already has.


---- Break in Programming for a Confidentiality Alert ----

IF YOU WERE INVOLVED OR ARE AWARE OF THE REAL LIFE CASE, PLEASE REFRAIN FROM BRINING IN ANY DETAILS OR NAMES FROM THAT CASE.

There are confidentiality concerns. Steve has outed himself, which he has the right to do, but has wisely left it at that. This discussion cannot turn into an argument about which surveyor was right, nor can it bring in more detail of the real case. Otherwise, I may need to ask Crissy to remove the thread. So if you are aware of the real case, please tread carefully.

---- End Confidentiality Alert. We now return you to your regular programming, already in progress. ----


But let's pose a similar scenario and one of the same questions here that the PPC developed for discussion:

Scenario: In an old lot & block subdivision where there is insufficient monumentation to directly define the block and the lots within it, the first retracing surveyor comes along to do a lot survey. He redefines the lot either by curb splits or by bringing in control from well outside the block in question, or a combination thereof (exactly how he defined the block is irrelevant for this discussion - just accept that he used methodology which is considered acceptable considering the dearth of evidence).

Question: If that surveyor were to monument the intersections or block corners of the block as he redefined it, would you, as another surveyor coming in at some later time, be more likely to accept that block definition than if it were not monumented?


Another similar question may be presented later in the thread.

[PE_PLS]

Yes, I would be more likely to accept a block resolution if the block corners or intersections were monumented. The key in my response is "more likely", this doesn't mean that I wouldn't put in some serious investigation as to how the first surveyor went about establishing the block corners or intersections.

[Dave Karoly, PLS]

It was a good discussion.

I don't necessarily think setting the street PIs that define the block would automatically mean the next Surveyor would use those PIs rather than wander into a different solution.

Surveyors tend to get lost in the technical details and don't stop to consider the subdivision is 105 years old, a lot has happened in 105 years and this is not a purely technical problem. It is really a people problem, afterall boundaries are invented by people.

As Steve pointed out on the phone to me this morning; in the era of this subdivision there were no requirements to build all the streets or even stake the lots. The Engineer whipped up a plat, filed it and voila the land owner could now make lots of money. Because of this the improvements, fences and houses tended to get laid out in an ad-hoc fashion. I don't doubt sometimes the builder just used his 100' tape to measure from the fence on one side to the other side of his lot so he could lay out the house and build it.

Imagine if I give you a copy of a 19th century novel, say Mobey Dick. Assume you have never heard of the novel. Now randomly rip one page out of the first third, one page out of the middle third and one out of the last third. Now tell me what the book is about. Now just for fun lets blindfold you and have you go into the library and randomly rip a few pages out of a few books randomly chosen and mix those in with the Mobey Dick book. Now tell me what it's about.

Now consider we have curbs of unknown origin. We have a street with ambiguities in the evidence of the centerline. We have fences that wander and have probably been rebuilt in various locations over the years. We have a genuine difference of opinion on how to locate the street centerlines which affects the breakdown. The thing I personally have a hard time with is dealing with the expectation of the client that it's just a science problem. Even my wife said "but isn't Surveying an exact science?" The science and engineering part is exact sure but the evidence part is an art. Persuading a client that there are multiple solutions to the problem based on interpretation is tough. Even if I can convince the client, what about the neighbor?

We can argue about the technical details all day long. You know you do it like this or I would do that. But what happens when I choose solution A and you choose solution B and they are both reasonable (assuming we both handle the technical part competently.

I'm sorry but I have more questions than answers.

[E_Page]

I understand Steve. On a matter of principle and protocol, anything the PPC looks at needs to remain confidential in order to foster and maintain a high level of trust within the local professional community.

You declaring that you were one of the surveyors does not violate that confidentiality because in that regard it's your confidentiality that was being protected. But there are other parties involved: the other surveyor, and the landowners. Any of them may view it as airing dirty laundry and would need to speak for themselves on the matter.

It sounds as if your personal opinion and mine are in alignment that neither surveyor has anything to be personally concerned about here and that each was adequately diligent in their efforts, but that's not the point.

This may be a good time to point out that the PPC, before creating a fictionalized situation loosely based upon your case, cleared doing so with both surveyors involved. Each graciously allowed the PPC to set it up for discussion. There are a couple of aspects to it that have the potential to be quite educational to the local survey community.

This would also a good time to point out that the PPC does not intend to create an educational presentation on every case it considers, and would never do so without the consent of the surveyors involved. Great care was taken in this instance to change the facts enough, and simplify the scenario enough to make it and the parties not readily recognizable to anyone who might be casually aware of the real facts.

Although without any true authority, PPC opinions can have an impact upon people's property and livelihood. Thus, confidentiality is a paramount concern.