I have recently experienced various city checkers in the bay area which take checking a surveyor's legal to a different level. I asked a co-worker about it, and they said "that's just the way it is with him", and if you want to get it through the system, you best follow their wants and needs. Ok, just like a boundary analysis, every surveyor will have perhaps a different opinion on the analysis. Record of Surveys a few years ago were being scrutinized by County checkers in how a surveyor may have come up with his resolution, and perhaps made comments on why wasn't this held or that. Since then, the laws have been revised so that the check now knows what their true responsibility is (perhaps due to complaints such I am saying in this thread). I developed my writing style and format from Gurdon Wattles "Writing Legal Descriptions", combined with some good suggestions in the Caltrans publications for legals. When I get comments which contradict those publications, it seems to be a personal preference by the checker, who most of the time is not an LS. As long as the calls are proper, the preamble is proper, it closes geometrically, in my opinion, done deal. I would propose some revisions to the language of the law to, again, let them know what their responsibility is in this area.
I recently had an experience where the City checked the legals and plats and approved them, but had to send them to a contract firm to have another checker review. That surveyor took off on vacation and was less then responsive to address the comments that he made, even though, it was a "time sensitive matter" due to a funding issue. I pressed it,and got a rude comment back from that contract surveyor, and, the City had no answers, other than, you have to do what he wants.
It sort of reminds me of an alcoholic sibling I have , which has always been abrasive and disrespectful to everyone. I would speak to my brother and/or sister about her, and say something like, "I just can't stand being around her, she always treats and talks to me like sh__!" Their response has always been, "well, she's always been that way, that's just her".
It still doesn't make it right, and I see it needs to change.
Legal Description checking by municipalities
-
pls5528
- Posts: 241
- Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 5:42 pm
Legal Description checking by municipalities
Michael J. Walters PLS
Associate Surveyor Lea and Braze Engineers
916-813-5528 (Cell)
pls5528@gmail.com
Associate Surveyor Lea and Braze Engineers
916-813-5528 (Cell)
pls5528@gmail.com
-
btaylor
- Posts: 501
- Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2002 4:33 pm
- Location: Foster City, CA
I think I do not find myself too annoyed out here, but there are definitely comments on the legals that can be personal/subjective thing, and it makes me wonder if there is a certain narcissism you are seeing in the person - things that come to mind are twisting around a phrase with the same words to get the same point ("to an angle point denoted by a harrows tooth" is changed to a "to a harrows tooth at an angle point") or requests to bold certain phrases they feel should stand out.
Personally I think everyone should number their courses like I do, so not everything is massed into a paragraph, but that is my subjective opinion, and I would not dictate it upon others.
However I am writing my Congressperson as we speak so I can have the power of law behind me when/if I check legals in the future, so watch out peeps.
Personally I think everyone should number their courses like I do, so not everything is massed into a paragraph, but that is my subjective opinion, and I would not dictate it upon others.
However I am writing my Congressperson as we speak so I can have the power of law behind me when/if I check legals in the future, so watch out peeps.
-
land butcher
- Posts: 1615
- Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 7:26 pm
- Location: calif
I recently ran into that down here and it's very annoying. Their response is always "Yes yours ok but we prefer it written our way" which is BS. They are there to check the legal for errors. I think its a result of job justification. If I have to sign it it becomes my responsibility not the agency checker's.LS 4722 wrote:I agree 100%. I do not stand for personal preference checking and I let them know it pretty damn fast when it happens.
Defund govt
To fully fund govt first the national debt would have to be paid. The US Govt is $18 TRILLION in debt, using 350 million people in the USA it would require $51,000 from every man, woman and child to pay it off. And that's just the Federal debt. Did you write your check yet?
To fully fund govt first the national debt would have to be paid. The US Govt is $18 TRILLION in debt, using 350 million people in the USA it would require $51,000 from every man, woman and child to pay it off. And that's just the Federal debt. Did you write your check yet?
-
Warren Smith
- Posts: 1006
- Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 6:41 am
- Location: Sonora
From a checkers' standpoint, my only concern is to avoid ambiguous calls that may lead to potential gaps/overlaps. That is, the lack of "to" or "along" calls.
Other than that, style is certainly just that.
Wattles is the guru, but even "the book" is written to point out pitfalls, not dictate content.
Other than that, style is certainly just that.
Wattles is the guru, but even "the book" is written to point out pitfalls, not dictate content.
Warren D. Smith, LS 4842
County Surveyor Emeritus
County Surveyor Emeritus
-
Warren Smith
- Posts: 1006
- Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 6:41 am
- Location: Sonora
Bryan,
A State legislator, in order to be convinced of a pressing need to amend the appropriate section of the PLS Act, typically will be swayed by an Association such as CLSA or its lobbyist.
It may not be a matter of changing existing statutes, as much as enforcement of the administration of them.
One venue would the surveyor's policy committee of the County Engineers Association of California.
If you have consistently encountered egregious cases of overstepping reasonable bounds in the checking process, there are means of bringing attention to the ongoing situation. County Surveyors serve at the pleasure of the Board of Supervisors (except for El Dorado County - an elected position), and are usually evaluated by the County Administrator or Director of Public Works (Resource Management in Solano County). Working up the local food chain to see about resolving these issues is the most effective course. All politics is local ...
A State legislator, in order to be convinced of a pressing need to amend the appropriate section of the PLS Act, typically will be swayed by an Association such as CLSA or its lobbyist.
It may not be a matter of changing existing statutes, as much as enforcement of the administration of them.
One venue would the surveyor's policy committee of the County Engineers Association of California.
If you have consistently encountered egregious cases of overstepping reasonable bounds in the checking process, there are means of bringing attention to the ongoing situation. County Surveyors serve at the pleasure of the Board of Supervisors (except for El Dorado County - an elected position), and are usually evaluated by the County Administrator or Director of Public Works (Resource Management in Solano County). Working up the local food chain to see about resolving these issues is the most effective course. All politics is local ...
Warren D. Smith, LS 4842
County Surveyor Emeritus
County Surveyor Emeritus
-
btaylor
- Posts: 501
- Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2002 4:33 pm
- Location: Foster City, CA
-
Warren Smith
- Posts: 1006
- Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 6:41 am
- Location: Sonora
It's all good, Bryan!
I probably should have responded to Michael. He was talking, of course, about a City checker, but they are still bound by the State statutes.
As a City Surveyor for 22 years, I was under the direction of the Public Works Director. The same method applies about letting the administration know what is happening on its watch ...
I probably should have responded to Michael. He was talking, of course, about a City checker, but they are still bound by the State statutes.
As a City Surveyor for 22 years, I was under the direction of the Public Works Director. The same method applies about letting the administration know what is happening on its watch ...
Warren D. Smith, LS 4842
County Surveyor Emeritus
County Surveyor Emeritus
-
hellsangle
- Posts: 710
- Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:31 am
- Location: Sonoma, CA
- Contact:
agreed . . . but worth a "listen" to the checker
I don't know the minutia of your particular description . . . However, if what you wrote is correct the "checker" may have a point. (You know your parcel better than any of us.)
"to an angle point denoted by a harrows tooth" is changed to a "to a harrows tooth at an angle point"
There could be a difference if the "intent" is to the harrows tooth or to an angle point. If you said angle point, then the harrows tooth is not the primary intent. If you said "to a harrow's tooth" - then this is the primary intent. Could be a big difference when lawyered up monied up people are quibbling over tenths. Such wording would put the lawyered-up-monied-up quibblers dead in their tracks and the lawyers would out of it. When we write a description there should be no ambiguities.
I do agree - some checkers are over the top . . . but I still listen . . . and not always "make sweet" with them. lol
Have a good weekend! And GO GIANTS!!!!!
Phil - Sonoma
"to an angle point denoted by a harrows tooth" is changed to a "to a harrows tooth at an angle point"
There could be a difference if the "intent" is to the harrows tooth or to an angle point. If you said angle point, then the harrows tooth is not the primary intent. If you said "to a harrow's tooth" - then this is the primary intent. Could be a big difference when lawyered up monied up people are quibbling over tenths. Such wording would put the lawyered-up-monied-up quibblers dead in their tracks and the lawyers would out of it. When we write a description there should be no ambiguities.
I do agree - some checkers are over the top . . . but I still listen . . . and not always "make sweet" with them. lol
Have a good weekend! And GO GIANTS!!!!!
Phil - Sonoma
Phil - Sonoma
-
Gary Schenk
- Posts: 92
- Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 7:01 am
- Location: Huntington Beach
-
Anthony Maffia
- Posts: 530
- Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2003 4:52 pm
- Location: Contra Costa County, CA
Phil,
OTOH, I see these phrases as having identical intent:
1 - to an angle point monumented by a 1" ip
2 - to a 1" ip monument at an angle point
And title officers that I respect (all retired now, unfortunately) taught me to not reword phrases in the current description when writing a new one, e.g. for a LLA. Rewording when transcribing / rewriting introduces your intent and understanding, whereas it is the original author's intent that would be important.
I don't _like_ the "denoted by" phrase because it is unfamiliar, but if that is how the current deed reads, I'd keep it. That said, I see the two phrases as structurally identical.
OTOH, I see these phrases as having identical intent:
1 - to an angle point monumented by a 1" ip
2 - to a 1" ip monument at an angle point
And title officers that I respect (all retired now, unfortunately) taught me to not reword phrases in the current description when writing a new one, e.g. for a LLA. Rewording when transcribing / rewriting introduces your intent and understanding, whereas it is the original author's intent that would be important.
I don't _like_ the "denoted by" phrase because it is unfamiliar, but if that is how the current deed reads, I'd keep it. That said, I see the two phrases as structurally identical.
- Anthony Maffia, LSIT
-
btaylor
- Posts: 501
- Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2002 4:33 pm
- Location: Foster City, CA
-
dmi
- Posts: 981
- Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:42 pm
- Location: San Francisco
- Contact:
1. put your ego aside.
2. read the checker's comments very carefully
3. give the checker the benefit of the doubt,for doing their job
4. write a response to comments letter
5. go comment by comment and indicate which changes you made.
6. identify the comments that you take exception to and prefer not to change. A competent, experienced land surveyor, ought to be able to explain in excruciating detail why the description method selected is sufficient and adequate to meet the purposes of the description.
7. provide book references
8. Be generous, perhaps the checker is actually less experienced and could benefit from your saga tutoring
2. read the checker's comments very carefully
3. give the checker the benefit of the doubt,for doing their job
4. write a response to comments letter
5. go comment by comment and indicate which changes you made.
6. identify the comments that you take exception to and prefer not to change. A competent, experienced land surveyor, ought to be able to explain in excruciating detail why the description method selected is sufficient and adequate to meet the purposes of the description.
7. provide book references
8. Be generous, perhaps the checker is actually less experienced and could benefit from your saga tutoring
-
E_Page
- Posts: 2144
- Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 6:49 am
- Location: El Dorado County
I agree with Dane. Several years ago, upon receiving comments on an RS from an unlicensed checker, the first ones I saw at a quick glance really ticked me off. But as I looked at all of them, I saw that while several were style comments, or an easily answered "why'd you do that?" type of comment, he had also caught a typo and made a couple of good suggestions based upon his long-time local knowledge, cluing me in to some unrecorded survey work (gasp!) by the county DOT and a private surveyor.
I checked the sources he gave me (made no substantial difference, but was good info to tie in and to have checked), fixed the typo, adopted one style change he suggested that I liked, and thanked him for the other style suggestions but declined to adopt them, explaining that since they were merely style and not substantive, I prefer to remain with the style I was using.
I showed the checker respect by addressing his substantive comment and thanking him for his style suggestions. He thereafter showed me respect by not making any comments on matters of style. It didn't cause any delay in review for that particular map or any subsequent ones.
I checked the sources he gave me (made no substantial difference, but was good info to tie in and to have checked), fixed the typo, adopted one style change he suggested that I liked, and thanked him for the other style suggestions but declined to adopt them, explaining that since they were merely style and not substantive, I prefer to remain with the style I was using.
I showed the checker respect by addressing his substantive comment and thanking him for his style suggestions. He thereafter showed me respect by not making any comments on matters of style. It didn't cause any delay in review for that particular map or any subsequent ones.
Evan Page, PLS
A Visiting Forum Essayist
A Visiting Forum Essayist
-
Dave Ryan
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 10:39 am
- Location: Arcata, Ca.
Evan and Dane, I think you've hit on the crux of the matter and have provided very insightful and educational (not to mention positive and constructive) commentary. The checking process is by its very nature a fairly lousy means of communication. One party is critiquing the other party's work via "red"marks all over the other's work product. There's pride involved. That very relationship likely tends to invoke old not-too-fond "teacher-student" memories for many.
It takes some longer than others to learn to differentiate between style comments and the more important substance comments when learning the review process. Recognizing you may have a 'green' reviewer and having the patience to work with them in the manner Evan describes is highly commendable and not an approach many of us are willing to pursue. Many will say that's not their responsibility, and I can't disagree, but if they are obviously not being mentored nor supervised, Evan and Dane have found a way to make the process work better. There's ego involved for sure, but it's also incumbent on the reviewer to recognize they are checking the work of a professional and to ensure all comments are made in a professional context, i.e. it's often better to pose comments as questions rather than directives (you will do this). There's a natural tendency to be defensive of our professional work product, so taking a deep breath and considering all the comments in the manner Evan suggested is a great idea.
The scribbling of notes back and forth, either on a legal description or Record of Survey just lends themselves to intent and meaning being taken out of context. There's an art to tactfully and effectively reviewing a fellow professional's work pursuant to legal requirements, and guess what-when's the last time you've been to that class?
When we learn that a legal description (and a Record of Survey)is more a boundary product than a technical undertaking, we'll all write better legals(and prepare better Records of Surveys). It's boundary retracement in reverse. There's no software program that can do it for you despite magazines that spout the amazing products out there.
Dave Ryan
Humboldt County
It takes some longer than others to learn to differentiate between style comments and the more important substance comments when learning the review process. Recognizing you may have a 'green' reviewer and having the patience to work with them in the manner Evan describes is highly commendable and not an approach many of us are willing to pursue. Many will say that's not their responsibility, and I can't disagree, but if they are obviously not being mentored nor supervised, Evan and Dane have found a way to make the process work better. There's ego involved for sure, but it's also incumbent on the reviewer to recognize they are checking the work of a professional and to ensure all comments are made in a professional context, i.e. it's often better to pose comments as questions rather than directives (you will do this). There's a natural tendency to be defensive of our professional work product, so taking a deep breath and considering all the comments in the manner Evan suggested is a great idea.
The scribbling of notes back and forth, either on a legal description or Record of Survey just lends themselves to intent and meaning being taken out of context. There's an art to tactfully and effectively reviewing a fellow professional's work pursuant to legal requirements, and guess what-when's the last time you've been to that class?
When we learn that a legal description (and a Record of Survey)is more a boundary product than a technical undertaking, we'll all write better legals(and prepare better Records of Surveys). It's boundary retracement in reverse. There's no software program that can do it for you despite magazines that spout the amazing products out there.
Dave Ryan
Humboldt County