County Surveyor Refuses to File R.S.

[D Ryan]

Jeff-

Thanks for the clarification. And for the manner you've presented the situation on this forum (respectful and professional). I'll decline on offering any further opinions on what should be done. Things are different when they're sitting right in front of you in their larger real-world context.

Good luck in working it out.

Dave Ryan

[LS 4722]

In my latest letter to the County, I stated that I will make sure that all headers for all future Record of Survey submittals made by me will meet the "Heading" requirements in their Map Preparation Manual. But on this particular map I was not going to make their requested changes, and to file the map per Business and Professions Code 8768.

My opinion is that this was a fatal error on your part. Yielding to personal whims in future RS submissions just reinforces the CS stance on achieving a full yield to his personal preference for this particular RS.

Either take a full stand or don't take one at all.

[E_Page]

Jeffro,

You state that you didn't include the lengthy header on sheets 2 through 8. Did you include any header, and if so, was it sufficiently descriptive to indicate that these were subsequent sheets of the same survey?

IMO, a simplified header that can reasonably be read to be a continuation of the map fully described on Sheet 1 is necessary just for basic identification purposes and would fall under 8764(g) Any other data necessary for the intelligent interpretation..., but in nearly all cases, where a lengthy designation of the property (per 8764(c)) that may be necessary on the title sheet can be significantly shortened on subsequent sheets while still being clearly referring to the survey of the same property.

As long as there is something that clearly indicates that Sheets 2 - 8 are subsequent sheets of the same survey as on 1, and the header or title on the subsequent sheets is not misleading by being more readily interpreted as being a survey of some other property, then IMO, the CS has absolutely no authority to refuse to file it. If he wants to add a note because the title blocks are not verbatim on all sheets, then he will look pretty foolish to his peers (other CSs as well as other non-CS licensees).

In addition to forwarding the matter to BPELSG, you can also get a Writ of Mandamus. I've never had to do that myself, but others who post here from time to time have and can describe just how that's done better than I can.

[E_Page]

My opinion is that this was a fatal error on your part. Yielding to personal whims in future RS submissions just reinforces the CS stance on achieving a full yield to his personal preference for this particular RS.

Either take a full stand or don't take one at all.

I agree with this to a point. If the style point in the CS's mapping manual is not detrimental to the quality of my maps and adds no burdens that result in additional mapping time, then I would probably state that I would comply with that and other style suggestions in the manual when following them does not negatively impact the readability or accuracy of future maps. But I would also state that my compliance with such style suggestions would be as a courtesy to help with the efficiency of the CS's map checking process and not an acknowledgement of any authority vested in the CS to enforce style preferences.

With an otherwise finished map waiting only for CS signature and filing, I would stand my ground, stating my reasons. Readily capitulating to the demands of someone in a position of some authority when those demands exceed the authority of the position, more often than not encourages the person to continue presuming to exercise even greater control over those things for which he has no real authority to control.

Cooperation is good where it makes sense to do so, or where there is no good reason not to. But there are also times when one must draw a line in the dirt and hold it. It may seem a small thing in the near term, but is important for the long view.

[JeffroH]

Evan,

I did include the following headers on sheets 2 through 8:

"In the City of XXX, County of XXX, State of California"
"RECORD OF SURVEY"
"Company Name"
"Date of Survey Project Name Surveyor's Name, P.L.S. ####"

Also, each sheet is numbered "Sheet # of # Sheets", which is standard for all of my multi-sheet maps.

In addition, I included the specific R.S. number in the lower right-hand corner on every sheet (inside the 1" border), as they have requested, even though the "Heading" Section of their Map Preparation Manual specifically states that "The appropriate map number shall be shown." (How's that for a little irony?)

So I do believe that most educated people would be able to conclude that all of the sheets of this map belong to the same Record of Survey.

In response to Evan's 2nd Post:
When I stated in my latest letter to the County Surveyor that I will make sure that all headers for all future Record of Survey submittals made by me will meet the "Heading" requirements in their Map Preparation Manual, I actually did state that I would do so "as a courtesy". I know that I don't 'have' to do it, but on future maps I am willing to acquiesce to the full header on all sheets. In most cases I do not mind having my maps fit a desired 'look' for each specific county, as long as I know of their preferences ahead of time, and as long as they do not interfere with the meat of the map. As for this map, I see no logical reason to make changes for the sake of change.

I thought that the offer to acquiesce on future maps would be the olive branch to allow us to meet in the middle... that way we could both move on without further issue or confrontation, and we could continue to work together in a professional manner. But it appears that both sides have drawn the line in the sand and buried ourselves up to our knees for the long haul.

On one hand it seems pointless. On the other hand, we both seem to have a point we're trying to make.

[E_Page]

While I appreciate the advantage of having a "check" it seems to me if the content is dictated by code then you either comply or you do not.

Since CA does not have detailed MTS as many other states do, it's not always that simple. While a few of our code sections leave little or no room for parsing, many are open to interpretation, and sometimes a pretty broad range of interpretation. For instance, the code section behind this discussion is Bus & Prof §8764. There have been some pretty good debates on this site regarding what is actually required under parts (a) show all monuments, (d) relationship to adjacent tracts, and (g) additional info needed for intelligent interpretation.

But under the circumstances described by the OP, if a reasonably intelligent person would conclude by the headers on Sheets 2 - 8 that they are subsequent sheets of the same survey indicated on Sheet 1, it would seem pretty clear that Jeffro followed the code.

While an excuse that there was no "check" and that is why I did not comply with the law may be convenient I have never heard such an excuse hold up in court or in front of the board.

Steve, nor (unless I missed it) anyone else in this thread suggested that the lack of a check would be a valid excuse for non-compliance. I saw one licensee attempt to use similar reasoning in an enforcement hearing before an ALJ, and as you've observed in your experience, it didn't hold up.

I have seen several times where surveyors have used the converse of that argument to justify why an apparent violation couldn't be a violation: "The County Surveyor checked it and found it to be substantially correct, so it's obviously right."

The hole in that argument is that the CS usually does not have the full set of evidence that was available to the surveyor who performed the survey when reviewing the map and does not perform a survey himself. Therefore he does not always have the background to fully evaluate and provide the guarantee these surveyors seem to portray it as. While there are a few CSs who regularly review methodology and may take a deeper look at the evidence relied upon by the surveyor of record, my observation is that many more do not go beyond the ministerial aspects of map review and rarely, if ever add a note of disagreement to a map.

I've seen some pretty pathetic filed maps that depict obviously inadequately performed surveys that CSs have signed, indicating their review and finding it to be in compliance with certain sections of the PLSA. I'm certain that no CS, regardless of how thorough their typical review is, would be willing to accept responsibility for the results of the surveys represented by the maps they've reviewed.

When the RS is turned in to the CS for review, it should be in a state that the preparing surveyor believes to be complete and final. The CS review is not supposed to be for the purpose of providing comments to take a drawing from being a rough draft to a final product. It is to check for errors, ommissions, and points of clarity that a good review by another competent surveyor may have missed after a reasonable review. Comments and redmarks should be minimal. If there are several comments and several requested changes to data or drafting, then either the surveyor of record did a poor job or is abusing the review system, or the CS (or map checking underling) is going well beyond the scope of a reasonable review.

I appreciate the second set of eyes because I am not the perfect CADD operator and do occasionally mis a typo here or overlook a minor notation there. Every once in a while, I've turned in a map that resulted in no comments or marks at all, but usually there are a couple of very minor things.

Professional Land Surveyors should limit their "checks" to the "checking" allowed by law.

While the basic requirements for checking are interpreted by most as being pretty ministerial, and the CS does not have the authority to demand changes to methods or procedures, the CS does have the authority to review and comment on methods and procedures or comment on other matters shown on the map.

So they may review and comment on practically anything depicted on the map or the method of mapping (style), but there are only a few matters pertaining to basic information, statutory notes, and formatting that they have authority to actually enforce. As to any matters that might be open to reasonable differing interpretations, the CS really only has the power to suggest and failing reaching agreement on various issues, to add a note of disagreement.

Sometimes, especially if the CS or map checker is very familiar with the vicinity of a survey, they may provide comments that lead me to additional information that is in non-traditional sources for records - a public agency that has done work there, has filed nothing but has detailed records in their own files; unfiled boundary surveys performed well in the past by retired or deceased surveyors; a court judgment that was not filed with the Recorder as the court is required to do (failure to file by a court! Say it's not so! Sorry, sometimes it is so.) - and I really appreciate that insight.

Other times they may make comments that boil down to style preferences. If it's a request that's easy to comly with and does not interfere, I may make the change. If there are several such, I often won't, but will thank them for their "style matter suggestions". I've thus far not run into a CS who has held up a map for non-substantive style matters. I guess I've been fortunate in that regard.

[bwatkins]

I've been in this business over 40 years, 30+ in the private sector, the rest in the public sector. I've gone to battle many times with various public agencies, won some, lost some. What I can tell you is choose your battle carefully. You may win the battle but loose the war.

[LS 4722]

..You may win the battle but loose the war.

Just how would one lose this particular 'war'?

[land butcher]

I agree that what the CS is requiring is redundant and not necessary. Agreeing to it just adds another cell to the cancer.
I would research all their recent record RS maps to see who is complying and not and for how long.
I was once told to put arrows on the CL from cl int to the point opposite the BC/Ec of the PL corner curve and the previous name of the main street. This map was a redivision of a map approved less than a year earlier and these items were not required and these were the only 2 corrections on the first submittal. The CE signing the map told me to comply. I called the city map checker and told him what I felt about him justifying his job at my expense. I had to go back 6 years and ~10 maps to find the previous name of that street.

IMO reading this thread the CA State board should already be investigating this issue and hopefully the end result is the delicensing of the CS.

Why revoke the CS license? Because if he loses this battle this surveyor will play hell getting another map approved by this CS. He is obviously on a power trip.

If you ignore one battle you might as well lay down and die.

[Stephen Johnson]

Like Evan, I have had checkers make very astute observations which I took to heart and thanked them for making. I have also had them make insulting remarks which are way beyond their paygrade and or abilities. In the latter case the CS in charge was agreeable to my point of view and had a chat with the checker to rein in his enthusiasm. Of course the chat with the CS came AFTER I had my stomping, screaming, cussing vent and had calmed down considerably. It always helps to at least start the conversation with the CS while reasonably calm.

[JeffroH]

Upon further review...

After a few more conversations with a few more people involved within the County, I re-re-re-re-submitted the unchanged mylars, and...

Today I received a receipt from the County Recorder's Office with the recording information for my Record of Survey.

I appreciate everyone who took the time to offer me their advice/input. In situations like this, I'm not too fond of blazing my own new trail; it's much easier walking down a path that's already been paved. Hopefully someday I can return the favor, or perhaps even pass it on.

Jeff

[dmi]

I suggest the following language for subsequent sheet captions. "...being a survey of the lands (insert client name) as described on sheet 1. In this way, if the sheets become separated somehow, a reader will know that the subject property is identified and where to find the identity of the property within this mapping set.

[Darth Vader]

Jeff,

Are you now going to comply with Government Code 66466 (f) by sending the County Surveyor a copy of the map with all the recording information?

Darth

[land butcher]

IMO The state board should be talking to this govt agency loudly.
Is the state board involved at all?
or are they just ignoring it hoping it will resolve itself, which it did after unnecessary costs and delays to the private surveyor and his client, and now don't have get involved.

[RAM]

it is my understanding, a complaint must be filed before BPELSG can be involved, I do not think the staff could react based on the postings here. Someone would have to submit a complaint or inquiry.

[JeffroH]

Darth: Per Government Code 66466 (f)... "The requirements of this subdivision shall not apply to any county that requires a document filed pursuant to this section to be transmitted to the county surveyor and requires that official to maintain an index of those documents." This particular County falls within this Code. The receipt was from the Recorder's Office, but mailed by the County Surveyor's Office, so everybody involved is aware of the filing.

L.B. and RAM: I did not file any complaint with the State. I was hoping to handle this without climbing any higher up the governmental ladder, and thankfully we were able to accomplish that. I see no reason to continue to fight a battle that ended on acceptable terms.

[land butcher]

So the end result of this thread and 15 posts is nothing official happened to prevent this county employee from doing this to other surveyors over and over ad infinitum.
Sad.

[RAM]

or maybe the other side has been following this post as well and is rethinking how they do business. hard to say. for me personally, I rely on this forum to explore how others think and it is a great tool.

[land butcher]

California Dreamin