Recent Section breakdown survey

[btaylor]

Looks like there are only two monuments 276' +/- apart that are found and used for all the calcs. This is also very tricky to do since the two are deep in a road and located (obviously) from the top- i.e. you can have a leaning pipe and not know it, so you can easily be quite well off on angle when you calc everything out.

I assume the pipes are set by the City in propagating the original hubs that are referenced in 1937 since he holds record from them.

[Ian Wilson]

In the interest of making sure we have as much information as we can, here's 44 RS 5.

[pls7809]

And here's the deed referenced on the new RS...

[pls7809]

Per the deed the fee ownership goes to the south line of Bouquet Canyon Road. The south line's dimensions can be calculated from the map, but he did not annotate them.

Attached is also the CSB map listed in the monument references for the two found road CL monuments. This area is on sheet 9 of the CSB.

[btaylor]

Ryan I assume you are working off this and the surrounding area. Is it difficult to access the section corners? I know some places out here can be very difficult --even with GPS, acquiring signal is dubious at best and the idea of traversing just to get one corner can be daunting.

[dmi]

I remain unconvinced, just because some land has been surveyed twice before; that somehow,now a third surveyor is relieved of their responsiblity to the public to perform an actual survey upon the ground is just not a credible opinion to be advanced by a professional. I have heard the argument before..."What I am I supposed to do? Survey the whole world?"

Nope, no one is saying go above and beyond. I think I am saying do at least the minimum. I believe that if you put a line on a map, that act comes with the responsibility to demonstrate that the line is based upon substantial evidence or reference to some authority that would support that location.

Mr Hall points out that nearby corners were apparently not searched for or found. One should note that the 1990 survey found oodles of points from the 1938 survey, so it is odd that the 2010 survey finds hardly anything.

It could be that all the evidence is gone and all you have is the math, but prove it. Show the public, that there is some type of reliance on those missing 1938 monuments.

The deed posted contains the following
"according to the official plat of said land". I would suggest that this language REQUIRES certain actions on the part of the surveyor.

[land butcher]

Some portions of Bouquet Cyn rd are really fun to canyon carve.

[subman]

He is the Principal Engineer and founder of Andel Engineering:

http://www.andelengineering.com/about_ed.html

He is an older gentleman, but still personally active in processing his projects at the County. I see him meeting with my plan checkers from time to time.
Pre- 1982 CA Civil Engineer. However, he is licensed as a Surveyor in Illinois.

[bruce hall]

I think the fella used three monuments for the calcs. He set up on the pi in the street, backsited the county monument 276 feet easterly, turned record delta to the west, went a calcd distance of around 320 feet +- to his westerly PL, which also the east line of the 1990 RS.

He then set up on the centerline of Bouquet Canyon and turned a record angle north per the 1990 RS, measured 300 +- feet north and found that boat spike within a half an inch of where the 1990 map said it was supposed to be. Granted that boat spike was supposed to be tagged, is it the same one set in 1990?

I guess there could be a debate on whether the boat spike that the survey in question found is the same one that was set in 1990, but I think he used three points for the control. He said that the boat spike was per the 1990 survey, so I guess it is.

So this fella pushes (for lack of a better term) a line that is 278 feet long(between the two found monuments in Bouquet Canyon) another 640 feet and turns two angles in the process and and hits this "record" boat spike basically perfect. That is not too bad. Or maybe he was just lucky.

So where do I think this west line of this survey really is? It probably is really, really close to where that old man has it. And if that is the case, the east line of the survey is probably really really close also. And by that I mean within an inch or so. Just guessing.

Don't get me wrong here, I still think that the proper thing to do was to search for those monuments that I mentioned in my earlier post. Survey that small portion of the world. But I can see where this guy was comming from. Why resurvey the world when I have three record monuemnts that fit perfect in 600 to 900 feet?

It may have been that the county surveyor wanted "our surveyor" to add the "non-calls" to the quarter corners. "Our surveyor" might have only wanted to show his little area showing the three found monuments, turning record and measured to set his survey corners and lines, and be done with it. And still not looking for the relatively close monuments. But the county surveyor wouldn't have it without the quarter corners shown.

This is what I think "our surveyor" was thinking and trying to sell. "What is wrong with turning and measuring record angles and distances, especially when the alternative is having to climb down that gully through all that brush and crap? And that is just for one of the pipes. The other two are up hill through twice as many trees and stuff. And besides I have two maps that tell me where these lines are-with a few calcs. And I have three points that fit together perfectly. And the county notes fit the two maps. What is wrong with doing that? Why do we even have records, if I can't use them?

If needed, you can pull out your salt shaker if you want to.

BTaylor, I started on this post just trying to let you know I thought there were three monuments that the guy was using, not two. And see where this leads me.

[btaylor]

Bruce I see what you are saying. I did not look at the 1990 survey, so I was not paying attention to that boat spike. Because of the 1990 survey and the boat spike that relates to the 1937 survey, I do not find the 2010 survey as questionable as I had initially thought.

[Lee Hixson]

Maybe I read the prior posts too quickly, but if we're going to settle for doing surveys to at least the "minimal level of expected effort," shouldn't that include properly addressing the adjoiners? This map doesn't even bother to list the Bk. & Pg. of any of the adjoiners, let alone demonstrate that there are no gaps or overlaps. Seems my pet peeve hasn't bothered anyone else.

One could reasonably assume that all the deeds in the parcel matrix have sectionalized descriptions. But do they? How would we know from this map? Are there no metes & bounds to contend with? No Jr/Sr rights issues?

The lot to the east shows a width along its north line of 1254.57'. Is that what the adjoiner deed shows? Doesn't the minimal effort include showing me (let alone the client) that the adjoiner deed is, or is not, in conflict with this distance?

Looks to me like, at some point in time, the PIQ picked up an extra 53± feet on the east side. Are these two descriptions compatible? Doesn't anyone else think that a minimum effort--in this critical regard--has NOT been shown?

Considering just the PIQ and the adjoiner to the east, none of the N-S lines are parallel with each other. So, when the 53' strip got added, how was it described? Seems a little unlikely that they would have said, "thence East 53.38' to a point." Really? Exactly 53.38 feet? And then what? "Thence, south parallel with the section line that's 53' away? Parallel with the section line over to the east? Parallel/perpendicular to anything?" Fine. He's showing that none of them are parallel now. Has that always been the case?

How was the SE corner of the PIQ established? Did he hold 240.60' based on his client's deed? Is that distance reflected in the adjoiner's deed?

Again: hasn't this map, in point of fact, completely sidestepped the most important question of all, that there are, or are not, any conflicts between deeds as they have been shown on this map and monumented on the ground?

Sure, I could conduct my own research, pull all the deeds, and come to my own conclusions. But isn't this the job of the surveyor preparing the map?

Sorry, but on this point alone, the map is deficient and the County Surveyor should have gone to battle to enforce compliance.

[Stephen Johnson]

There is a possibility that the engineer was told to do the RS that he should have done 7 years earlier. However I wouldn't want to let it out of my office. It does not meet minimum standards in AZ, NM, TX or OK. And unless my memory fails me, it has been a few years, it misses in CA also.

[btaylor]

Now that I paid attention to that 1990 survey (the one with hubs set for the most part which I found odd considering all the work involved), one can tell that despite the misgivings one feels about the 2010 survey, he essentially holds to the 1990 survey since he found the boat spike.

I think we all can agree on the weakness of the map, but in the long run I do not think he will be that far off, so I am in agreement with Bruce. I think it is one survey where a person can get away with not being very thorough - not a justification, just pointing out I do not think the public is significantly harmed on this one.

[Lee Hixson]

btaylor: really? So you're not the slightest bit worried about the points that Dave and I just made? You're satisfied that the monument he set at the SE corner is good, despite his complete failure to address the adjoiner deed?

[btaylor]

No I am not satisfied with the survey. I thought I made it clear that I did not find it as outrageous as I initially thought.

[dmi]

Thanks Lee and Dave. Still no one has explained what they think they ought to do when the deed that is the subject of their survey contains the language
"according to the official plat of said land". Is this Cragen v Powell territory? I do not see how one is relieved of the responsiblity to do what they ought to do, just because it is easier to rely on the 1990 survey. Is the 1990 survey in harmony with the Official Plat and notes called for in the deed ? One could expend a lot of effort to prove that they are in fact "not that far off". But that is not the point, the point is WHAT SHOULD A PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR BE DOING?

[Lee Hixson]

The deed for the PIQ states that it is based on the "West 20 acres of the N 1/2 of the S 1/2 of the NE 1/4 of Sec. 27." I now see that the map correctly forces the E P/L to be parallel with the West line of the NE 1/4. Fine.

But what about the west P/L of the PIQ? Since it was created by the exception ("Except therefrom the W 1/2 of the"....) shouldn't this, similarly, be parallel with the West line of the NE 1/4?

But the breakdown on the map is based on a normal aliquote breakdown, namely, midpoint to midpoint. Unless I'm missing something this means that the position for the SW corner of the PIQ is almost 2 feet off?

[Dave Karoly, PLS]

My Dad's number was RCE 10508 (born in 1925) and my Uncle's is RCE10580 (born in 1923).

In a perfect world I could see doing that (using interior monuments to establish positions using record data on the exterior monuments) but we don't live in a perfect world. If there the errors in the existing Surveys are small then it shouldn't be a problem except that how do I know what the errors are without measuring them for myself?

[pls7809]

I'm not doing any work around this. I just came across it randomly while searching on the LA County site for a survey of mine that will record soon. I When I clicked on that link it opened up and I saw the notes for the section corners along the north line that said "Not searched for".

This is a rural area and maybe he has some historical experience in this area and maybe personally knew or maybe even worked with the RCE that did that RS 44/5. That's just speculation though.

After seeing thoses notes and then examining a little closer and seeing very few found monuments, I was pretty surprised that this was a final recorded product and not a preliminary plat provided for a client telling them that more work was required to search further away from the suspected boundary lines.

[T. S. Higgins]

I've gone in the opposite direction on this than btaylor it seems. The more I review the additional information, the more outrageous it seems to me.

Considering the monuments that are potentially out there, I see little reason for not even sending the crew for a search.

It would appear he turned a record angle to the boat spike and ended up quite close to it. That's great, now verify.

I do agree that he's probably fairly close based on the 1990 survey, but there are too many variables to consider, and too little information to be able to stamp and sign it. If I'd brought this little data back from the field, I'd be embarrassed to plot it and try to get it crammed through, and extremely nervous about the liability.

He needs more than what he has to resolve the ROW of Bouquet Canyon Road, let alone his side lines, and judging by his Detail "A", he's at least somewhat interested in the relation of the parcel line to the existing fence.

I'm trying to give him and the Co. Surveyor the benefit of the doubt, but it's really difficult in this situation. I can't think of many scenarios where this would be considered acceptable.


That all said, it's entirely possible that, given a chance to explain the map, this RCE would be able to disprove all of the assumptions and show why the map is just fine. Hopefully that's the case.

[bruce hall]

"Again, offer a defense, we read and comment on this forum to learn."

I would be hard pressed to defend the survey with the 2010 map as evidence of my work. I don't know what else to say except I stand by what I said in my previous posts.

But I certainly would not want to have to explain all that in front of the Administrative Law Judge or in Superior Court. I would be in big trouble, I think. Would just be hoping that the pipes/rebar were close enough not to cause any damage, whatever that means.

Happy New Year.

[btaylor]

I would not defend it either. I only "defend" that it went in my mind from something that can be 50 feet off to something that is "merely" very weak.

TS you and I are closer than you may think on this, but for me I went from "WHAT?!?" to merely "yuck".

Good OP Ryan. It got this board humming for a few days.

[Lee Hixson]

Not just "merely weak"...........too weak!