Ray Mathe is new San Diego County Surveyor

[mpallamary]

Howdy all,

Ray is now the County Surveyor for San Diego County. He has replaced Terry Connors who recently retired. He started last week.

[Warren Smith]

Well that is great news!

[Edward M Reading]

Great news for the County of San Diego. Congrats to them and to Ray.

[RAM]

this is a big win for San Diego and a loss for BPELSG

[squid]

this is a big win for San Diego and a loss for BPELSG

Well put, Russ. I agree 100%.

Congrats to Ray!

[desert turtoise]

When he and his associate at Borpelsg gave their spring 2015 presentation at that particular annual CLSA convention, they told everyone their primary focus was on section 8764 with particular attention to sections (d) the relationship to those portions of adjacent tracts, streets or senior conveyances which have common lines with the survey, and (g) any other data necessary for the intelligent interpretation of the various items and locations of the points, lines,...as may be determined by the land surveyor.

Everyone seemed to agree it was a good and worthwhile seminar

I assume he may repeat this focus when he addresses the local chapter for the first time in the spring.

Will anyone be willing to stand up and provide him with a brief history of the last three county land surveyors' practice policy in that county? The last county surveyor (not the prior ones) spent 10 years of theretofore unmatched critique of both survey drafting and survey procedure, i.e., to the nth degree, above and beyond the section 8764 basic professional mapping procedure requirements. This was the consensus of the dozens of surveyors I spoke with in that county. The consensus also was that the overall amount of mapping data requested to be shown on a typical submittal had by far increased from the previous county surveyor, but that the quality of the overall surveying in the county had picked up a notch as a result.

Maybe a county's past history of county surveyors is not relevant today but should someone be asking him in front of the group to state if he intends to go above and beyond section 8764 ? In other words, does he plan to tell land surveyors how to survey as was done the prior 10 years ?

[RAM]

I think you just need to go back and review the policy when Ray was CS at Orange Co..

[surveyoron]

Congratulations Ray on your new position!

[hellsangle]

Congratulations, Ray.

Your open-mindedness will be an asset to the Office.

Phil - Sonoma

[dmi]

Great news Sorry Ric

[desert turtoise]

Ram, do you have any suggestions on how one may learn of his policy at the position he held in that county?

[Warren Smith]

Ray was Chair of the revision committee for the "Guide for the Preparation of Records of Survey and Corner Records", 2009 edition, CEAC.

[mpallamary]

Our former CS, Lou Hall was an initial author. Our last CS, would not use the statewide manual as he developed his own without any private sector input despite the fact that we urged him to do so. He felt his was better.

The Statewide manual is a brilliant piece of work. https://dpw.lacounty.gov/sur/info/RSCR_guide.pdf

Here's a link to the updated CS website.

http://www.sandiegocounty.gov/dpw/surveyor.html

[Dave Karoly, PLS]

A Surveyor here did an R/S in San Diego County (Rincon). He set the sheet up in Portrait. The comment came back all maps in San Diego County are landscape, change your map. The answer sent back from our office: NO, all other comments complete, file the map please. They did. The world is still spinning!!!

[desert turtoise]

I have always wondered about the implications in the particular choice of words in the title of the guide. The word "preparation" is used, not "review". Could that mean our founding fathers (from the 1980s-1990's, that is) meant to acknowledge the PLS Act, sect. 8768 - explanation of differences, (each party notes their opinion on the map) which appears to place the final judgment as to mapping product in the hands of the preparer, i.e., the actual land surveyor, and not the reviewer? How did the reviewers find themselves in the driver's seat in so many counties, whether it be drafting of map or procedure? Could it be not enough of us have always put our best foot forward, leaving the barn door wide open for the reviewer,and not the preparer, to take the lead ?

There are 48 states that mandate no review at all for boundary surveying, with exceptions at times for certain states providing regs for review of subdivision maps in order to protect the public. How did California land surveyors allow such an unprecedented level of review, sometimes amounting to interference on routine mapping submittals, compared to the 48 other states? This current state of affairs is sometimes shrugged off as part of a modern society with big government and bureaucracy. Is that just an excuse for having allowed this to happen? Whenever I see unnecessary reviewer's comments, I look over at an associate who is involved in civil engineering submittals. After seeing that flood of red pencil comments, I can see where the contrast with the fewer red lines on a typical surveyor's map might tend to cause surveyors to feel all warm and fuzzy in comparison, maybe another reason we never changed the system.

The surveyors in one county in Colorado did not like the way maps were being checked. They went to their board of supervisors and eliminated the function. Unfortunately, all boundary review was eliminated due to a few over-zealous county reviewers. Those reviewers sparked the over-reaction leading to no protection of the public in subdivision work. Somewhere there has to be the golden mean.

[mpallamary]

Many of us feel there should be a manual to guide County Surveyors and city employees as to their duties. As opposed to them feeling they have to instruct us, many of them need to be guided. There are a great many private surveyors who are far more adept and far more skilled at land surveying and map preparation than many city and county surveyors. The problem arises when these government employees assert their understanding of how one should survey when, in reality they are clueless. There should be a manual that guides them in the same way there is a manual which is supposed to guide the private surveyor. I have been surveying for 45 years and it is embarrassing when a young surveyor who happened to get a job working for the county proceeds to "teach" me how to survey. I say that not for ego's sake, but instead to illustrate the problem.

[Warren Smith]

Desert,

Interesting observations. I especially like your comparison to improvement plan checks. There is a pretty identifiable nexus to protection of the public in getting those right - structural, wastewater conveyance and treatment, storm drainage and the like. There are some hefty review fees for these as well. Given that public agencies become the owners of these facilities, it is sensible for that level of scrutiny.

In the case of map review, it has become a matter of cost recovery. With the passage of Prop 13, property taxes as a source of general fund balance leveled off and examination fees became instituted. Subdivision maps are regulated under the permissive statutes of the SMA by local development ordinances. As part of the implementation of adopted General Plans, this examination covers much more ground than just technical compliance.

Records of survey, on the other hand. are statutory creatures. The office of County Surveyor is also mandated by the Government Code, along with specified duties.

Michael,

Also interesting observations. I agree that the "Guide" is due for a revisit. It does contain the mutual obligations and expectations of both the submitting surveyor and the reviewing surveyor. It is limited to review of RS and CRs because, other than boundary determination, subdivision maps are subject to compliance with local ordinances - some 500 jurisdictions statewide.

As to the level of experience of responsible office holders, that is a universal condition for all professions which are subject to public agency regulation. It may be our curse as a profession to have tremendous egos in order to be drawn into and to stay within surveying. Safeguards against abuse include the Department of Consumer Affairs Boards, local association practice committees, department heads, city managers and county administrators and, not to be dismissed, the elected members of city councils and boards of supervisors. But it really boils down to a constructive two-way relationship on both sides of the "counter".

BTW - this thread has taken an expansive detour from the original post, but it is substantive material.

{edit - grammar}

[land butcher]

It's too bad we have to contemplate writing a manual, basically a Dick and Jane story, on map checking by govt employees.
Govt seems to always want some little thing more and many times I hear "It's not that big a deal, just do it" I have even seen those words on here. Then after a few maps have little extra that extra becomes a standard and then the next "little extra" raises it's ugly head and ad infinitum. That thinking is usually based on keeping the project on track time wise and it's faster to comply then argue the point since calling a govt agency means leaving a message then playing phone tag for days. I have even stated in my messages "Call back after 3pm". When do they return my call? 8:30am - DUH.
Govt complains about a lack of resources, prop 13 seems to always be the culprit, but they continually want to create more work for themselves, many times by trying to create issues where there are none.
A record of survey, or corner record, is just that. While I can see the need to check the basics of the map, math, references, spelling, but telling the surveyor they feel there are/might be alternate solutions is not their job. If a future surveyor doesn't like that map he doesn't have to use it. Another issue seems to be the finding of minor items on the 3rd check that were there on the 1st submittal, this seems to be especially prevalent when the agency is charging by the hour with 4hr minimums.
I think the biggest issue today with map/plan checkers is their lack of education and training. How can you check a legal description when you don't know who Gordon Wattles or Curtis Brown is.

[land butcher]

Congratulations to Ray and those who will be submitting maps to San Diego County.

Then there is San Diego City......

[desert turtoise]

This is all valuable input from everyone and well worth the detour

[Warren Smith]

Butcher,

I really can't speak for my colleagues, but my impetus in the category of suggestions with a review comment is geared toward clarity from the perspective of my long time in the private sector. I am immensely grateful for comments offered in that spirit from map checkers - it added to my education.
It stands to reason that a well crafted record of survey is not liable to get "bled on" very much. Many of the older surveys I have had to retrace were lacking in documentation about how points and lines were established. The same can be said for many descriptions.
If there is a groundswell for a work product that is less than professional, and a reluctance to view comments as constructive, listen to your conscience and have that conversation with your CS.

[mpallamary]

Speaking of mapping manuals, the one prepared and overseen by Greg Hopkins, at the City of San Diego, is one of the finest pieces of work I have ever seen. Part of the reason is the cooperative effort Greg encouraged wherein a committee of public and private sector surveyors developed the manual. In doing that, he wisely got the private sector to buy in on it and as such, to my knowledge, it has never been challenged or its recommendations disputed. A considerable part of this success was due to Greg's enviable management skills and policies.

In my opinion it should serve as a national model.

http://www.sandiego.gov/development-ser ... manual.pdf