Basis of Bearings on a Land Description

[Ian Wilson]

When and why did we start teaching that a Basis of Bearings Statement was necessary for a description of land?

I have had several descriptions sent back by local jurisdiction for revisions because I did not include a Basis of Bearings Statement.

Is a Statement necessary for “…the northerly 10.00 feet of Parcel 2 of Parcel Map…”? (I was also asked for my closures on this one.)

How about a centerline description that such as this one:

Commencing at the northwesterly corner of Lot X of Map of “Lands”; Thence South 89°45’00” East, along the northerly lone of said Lot X, 117.50 feet to the Point of Beginning; Thence South 00°15’00” West, perpendicular to said northerly line, 410.00 feet to a line parallel with and 40.00 feet northerly of the southerly line of said Lot X, as measured perpendicular thereto; Thence South 89°32’00” East, along said parallel line, 14.00 feet.

The basis of bearings is set in every single course. And, it might change, depending upon your field survey and whether you agree with my angular relationships.

If the Basis of Bearings was established as the centerline of X Street and the description ran along a line away from the road and then a few other courses, how would you resolve a mess where your field survey disagreed with the angular relationships on the description? Almost no one would think to apply double distance calls in a description; why would they want to add potentially double bearing calls?

When I review descriptions, I want to make sure that the description works and will not likely be misinterpreted in the future. I may not like the style, but, unless there is something actually wrong with the description, I’m not going to demand it be changed.

I’m interested in other points of view and look forward to reading yours…

[btaylor]

Every once in a while I get this request, and I agree. I generally just add it since it is not worth it for me to battle over. Lately I do not provide a closure if the parcel is rectangular, so it will be interesting to see how many times I am asked to provide one.

I posted this before, but most here seem to disagree, but unless the site is difficult to ascertain from online methods like Google, why do we need vicinity maps? The intersection of A Street with B Street in a specified city is difficult to ascertain in the 21st Century?

Again I just do this stuff, but to me it is just unnecessary.

[William Magee]

I haven't seen that request, but then again most all descriptions I prepare are only reviewed by title officers, not agency "surveyors". All I know for certain is if you ask 3 surveyors for their opinion, you are likely to get 4 different perspectives. Ain't surveying grand.

[PLS9196]

"When and why did we start teaching that a Basis of Bearings Statement was necessary for a description of land?"

It was either Brown or Wattles, unable to confirm, my library is sitting at the office, I do recall that the excerpt I'm referencing stated it was their opinion that reference to the record map and lines satisfied the requirement, as you did, the premise as we all know is, someone else can recreate what you intended.

[pls5528]

Most likely the agency "checker" is following a protocol set internally and/or their respective preference. I try to keep close to "Wattles" writings, and found that acceptable throughout California, with the exception of the Bay Area. There are a few private firms which have subcontracted to several of the city agencies in this general area. What I have personally experienced is that it is a personal preference, and much unlike "Wattles". I have actually been required by them, to write "secondary bearings". I do not agree with this "checking process" with these local agencies, in that, they are telling a land surveyor how to write his/her description. As is with a surveyor's boundary resolution on a map being processed with an agency, as long as it follows reasonable boundary retracement rules, methods and guidelines, their job is simple, check the closures and the city/county format. Legal description should be no different. As long as their is no ambiguity, it is written in a method similar to "Wattles" or, perhaps "Caltrans" (which is a close resemblance), check the geometry, spelling, and lets move on! I actually wrote a post on this a few months ago.

[Olin Edmundson]

In my opinion, getting uniform and limited checking requirements in place should be a priority for CLSA in 2017. Everyone has their own experiences, mine is that things are mostly good out there w/ a few exceptions, but these exceptions can be a headache. I previously shared a recent experience I had on this forum, while I was ultimately successful in keeping my professional autonomy, it was not without multiple phone calls, emails and a formal letter which was a real time suck.

[rmaher]

In my opinion, getting uniform and limited checking requirements in place should be a priority for CLSA in 2017...

If you would be willing to chair a subcommittee on putting those standards together I can assure you the OC Chapter would carry this forward to the board requesting that a committee be put together that included a couple of directors and an additional couple members to help carry the water. I presume we could collaborate with CEAC or LCSO to get it inserted into a relevant existing guidelines publication.

I hate writing a metes & bounds when a part-of description is best myself ... so that means I volunteer to be on your committee :)

Let us know pronto as agenda items for the next meeting are due shortly.

[Olin Edmundson]

In my opinion, getting uniform and limited checking requirements in place should be a priority for CLSA in 2017...

If you would be willing to chair a subcommittee on putting those standards together I can assure you the OC Chapter would carry this forward to the board requesting that a committee be put together that included a couple of directors and an additional couple members to help carry the water. I presume we could collaborate with CEAC or LCSO to get it inserted into a relevant existing guidelines publication.

I hate writing a metes & bounds when a part-of description is best myself ... so that means I volunteer to be on your committee :)

Let us know pronto as agenda items for the next meeting are due shortly.

I would be willing to help...I don't know that I'd be best as chair as I've never worked in committees and have a limited amount of time with a small family but could definitely chip in towards the effort.

[Ian Wilson]

Richard, Olin, let's see if we can touch base tomorrow in a phone conference. I'll be free tomorrow afternoon. I'd be very interested in setting up a committee to work on this.

Ian

[DWoolley]

I can think of one instance in which a Basis of Bearing statement would be an appropriate requirement - when referencing state plane coordinates. The Publilc Resource Code defines the information which must be noted and the appropriate place would be in a Basis of Bearing statement. When a land description recites a record line, usually in the first course, the basis of bearing is established. I would be interested in how the agency would check a LAFCO jurisdictional description where there are several different basis of bearings.

If a member would like CLSA action please email the Orange County Director Whip, Joe Padilla or the Orange County Tech Czar, Rich Maher with specifics. Ideally, before January 4th if you want to make the next Board of Director's agenda.

DWoolley

[-Dave Ryan-]

Ian, I wonder if you’re asking the right question. “When and why did we start teaching that a Basis of Bearings Statement was necessary for a description of land?”. You state this has happened with several of your descriptions from “a local jurisdiction”. Granted, this is a no-brainer that an added basis of bearings statement serves no purpose for the first example you give, nor really for the others where every angular relationship is given and is controlling.

Getting back to the original question, is the person checking the legal description a trained land surveyor? An educated surveyor would know better than to insist on a basis of bearings in the instances you give, so maybe the person checking it is not a surveyor. THAT seems to be the problem, not that “we” are somehow passing on the notion a basis of bearings is required in every instance. A non-surveyor blindly using a checklist (as someone else suggested) is a lack of professional oversight by the agency, and maybe an education issue, if this is indeed a surveyor making this requirement.

I will say, reporting a basis of bearings is generally a good thing, so I wouldn’t dismiss it as never being valuable in a legal description. It’s certainly advised if it helps show intent or allows the description to be retraced in the manner intended. Again, not in the instances you presented, but Wattles does devote a section in his book to basis of bearings as pertains to legal descriptions, so it’s not universally irrelevant.

I think we’re suffering the effects of management (who sometimes don’t understand the legal aspects of surveying themselves) handing what they see as technical review tasks to “greenish” technicians who are given checklists that will supposedly guide them brilliantly through the process. These technicians work cheaper and are neither properly trained nor given follow-up oversight. The fact you were asked for closures on a rectangle is a big flag someone knows nothing about the job they are doing. That’s like the counter person at the auto parts store asking what color your car is when you go in for a thermostat (do cars still have thermostats? maybe I’m too old).

I digress, but the committee you convene needs to talk about the larger issue of our review process; 1)When Planning departments try to review surveying documents, and 2)When surveying management is comprised of those who believe reviewing surveying documents/maps is a mere technical/checklist function done by any flunky they can pass it down to.

It goes both ways though. Is the preparation of the description or the map being delegated to a flunky with no oversight? Then we have flunkies preparing-flunkies checking and everyone is pissed off, because the product coming out of both ends is flawed.

Obviously, I’ve got some opinions on these matters, but we don’t have time.

Dave Ryan,
Arcata

[Ric7308]

I'm going to chime in as it pertains to Dave Ryan's response, and maybe it is pertinent to Ian's original concerns or not. (If not, I apologize to Ian in advance)

If any of you are encountering review comments that go beyond just a ministerial review and involves surveying judgment which is not being issued appropriately in accordance with signing and sealing survey reports or is not being issued by an appropriately licensed individual at an agency, you need to let BPELSG know. Our primary objective is to contact the agency and help them implement an appropriate process that is in compliance with the laws governing the practice. Then, if non-compliance continues, BPELSG will take appropriate further action.

A few months back, a surveyor had an issue with the Coastal Commission (I think it was) on how a review of the legal description was performed and by a unlicensed individual. That surveyor contacted BPELSG and we sought compliance. It was a difficult battle that probably has not fully worked itself out yet due to the attorney from this commission not agreeing with us. After several discussions, the attorney finally "appeared" to understand that as the eventual easement holder, they did have the right to ask for an easement and where they wanted it to go, but by dictating the manner in which the land surveyor prepared the description and checking it for mathematical accuracy, the staff were practicing land surveying and that required licensure. There may not be much change in their process yet, but BPELSG did put them on notice. This is not an issue of legislation or action by a JPPC. The laws are clear on this.

[Ian Wilson]

Dave: Great comments! I've run into agencies with PLSs reviewing descriptions who are making these comments. It's been incredibly frustrating. And it's getting worse.

One recently asked me for closures on a strip description for which the centerline was described. The easement ran through the project site. The reviewer would not or could not get off the idea of needing closures. I ended up providing a closure report that started at one side of the property, ran along the centerline to the other side of the property and then wrapped along the two property lines back to the start of the strip. It covered a few acres more land than was being granted in the strip easement, but the reviewer was then quite happy and couldn't understand why I had such a problem in the first place.

Ric: Your comments are spot on the mark. Thanks for chiming in.

It's good to see you participating on this Forum and to see your efforts in working with both the public and private sector to resolve these sorts of issues. Thank you!

To others: I am serious about establishing an Ad Hoc Committee, to be ratified at the Board Meeting on February 4th, to address this growing problem. I need someone to step up and act as Chair. I believe we can get two Directors to step up and serve on the committee. I would welcome Dave Ryan's participation based on his long record of exemplary work in the private sector. I would also welcome Ric's participation in providing a tool for education, bot to the private and public sides, on checking survey documents.

Make no mistake, some of the submittals I've been shown are embarrassing. The problem has two sides.

Ian Wilson, PLS
CLSA President - 2017

[land butcher]

Our latest experiences have been that city "engineering techs" have no clue as to how to write descriptions. They turn lot and block descs into metes and bounds, basically turning one small paragraph into a full page legal desc. We can't pass laws to cover every possible description and trying to reason with "all knowing" govt employees is like trying to move Morro Rock, and they always reply "that's the way we want it and if you don't adhere to the corrections we will not approve your legal desc.", all the client cares about is getting it approved. In my opinion if they have the power to change our legal desc then they can save us and them a lot of time by letting the govt agency write the legal AND sign it. I have real issues with putting my seal and signature on a document essentially rewritten by someone else as it's my license on the line not theirs.

[rmaher]

8726. Land surveying defined
A person, including any person employed by the state or by a city, county, or city and
county within the state, practices land surveying within the meaning of this chapter who, either
in a public or private capacity, does or offers to do any one or more of the following:
<...>
(l) Determines the information shown or to be shown within the description of any deed,
trust deed, or other title document prepared for the purpose of describing the limit of real
property in connection with any one or more of the functions described in subdivisions (a) to (f),
inclusive.
<...>
The review, approval, or examination by a governmental entity of documents prepared or
performed pursuant to this section shall be done by, or under the direct supervision of, a person
authorized to practice land surveying.

So it would appear that the first step on receiving comments on a land surveying document would be to request a signed and sealed review/report. Then, assuming it is provided by someone licensed to practice a professional discussion can be had and absent a contractual or legal requirement to amend a legal description to conform with another's preference it should be accepted by that professional if not in error.

There may be a list of (I can think of at least three) items that agencies may not be having checked appropriately (e.g. legal descriptions, tentative parcel and final maps, story-pole exhibits, etc).

Perhaps a committee could create an exhaustive list of these types of documents and then our association can issue a letter for distribution to agencies that explains the applicability of 8726. I think this could also be tied into notifying the agencies that Notice of Department Designation Forms should be on file as required by Section 8725.1 ... then anyone receiving 'crazy' reviews of their submittals would know who to talk to about it.

[Lee Hixson]

This nails it: "So it would appear that the first step on receiving comments on a land surveying document would be to request a signed and sealed review/report."

That's my tactic for any future run-ins.

[William Magee]

. ...
So it would appear that the first step on receiving comments on a land surveying document would be to request a signed and sealed review/report......

I don't believe that's an accurate assessment of the operative language in 8761 along with 8726. It would be a dramatic change in industry standard practice.

But it is an interesting thought and one that has me taking a step back to digest the pros and cons. Thinking back I have seen peer reviews stamped and sealed but only on a limited basis and primarily on critical structural engineering qc/qa reviews. I can't recall a stamped and sealed agency review report for a ROS or PM/FM. Something to think about though.

[DWoolley]

This talk about establishing committees, the idea of CLSA "doing something" at the state level, is sure to further members bitter resignation to the fact our best ideas seldom result in an efficient measure of success. We have the ideas, we have the initial commitment, however, our state association structure is the Potemkin village. If we examine and move to modify our structure we can accomplish goals and provide member benefits which may increase the membership and member participation.

We have Met the Enemy and He is Us

For instance, we already have a committee for issues like the illegitimate basis of bearing requirements, the Professional Practices Committee ("PPC"). And yet, the kneejerk reaction is to start another committee which will report back to the Board of Directors quarterly? We have already been through this same exercise - most recently when we established the Qualification Based Selection ("QBS") committee - another good idea, which correctly was established as its own committee in July, 2015 - some 18 month ago. We have received nothing tangible from the committee to date. The common reaction is to begin pointing fingers when we see nothing has been done. Inevitably, next is for the committee chairman to attack the inquiring individuals with "what have you done?" Or "I have a job which requires..." - which is always counterproductive. Then we have the proclamation "it's a volunteer organization" which somehow translates to members must adjust our expectations and accept no or low performance from our committees. Hogwash, I say. In describing these challenges I haven't yet accounted for those with tender feelings and fragile egos - the very bane of my CLSA existence.

No Longer Business as Usual - End the Insider's Game

The initial baseline question must be - do we want to feel good by stroking each other and handing out plaques for merely showing up for one meeting every 3 months and maybe, completing a report for the BoD which states "no report" or do we want the committee chairman to be held accountable when they fail to produce? Next, are the chairman selected based on their commitment to produce or their insider crony status?

Our current method of governance and structure dooms most ambitious projects - no individual or group of individuals is to blame. The inability to complete weighty projects is largely due to fatigue and frustration created by our current structure. For example, it is not entirely uncommon for us, the BoD, to take 9 months, 3 quarterly meetings, to make a decision - then, on the 4th meeting, we change the officers, sometimes the committee chairs, and begin again. We also struggle with topics which cannot be fully vetted due to the length of a quarterly agenda - we have to keep moving through the agenda.

An Eyewitness Account

In the recent past, we have allowed a committee chairman to overturn the work of the committee, their respective vote and then, watched the Executive Committee act on the individual chairman's whim which ultimately resulted in legislation passing with CLSA support. Again, contrary to the committee's work and vote. This also resulted in a few of the senior level work horses quitting the committee. I continue to attend the meetings via conference call, however I would not likely take responsibility for an assignment. Had the chairman not usurped the committee and the committee vote was allowed to stand CLSA would have rightfully killed a bill which is now on the books. This particular bill, AB 177, creating Bus. & Prof. § 8780.2, extended the authority of the regulating body to forego a professional's due process rights - later confirmed by a subsequent Legislative Counsel Opinion. The fallout for chairman that ignored a thorough debate among committee members, wading through the research and ultimately, a committee vote which was 10-6 against the bill? Reappointment as chairman of the committee for 2017, thanks Ian Wilson. To add insult to injury, nobody told the committee members their vote was overturned. Imagine my surprise when I appeared before the California Senate subcommittee to testify against the bill - only after witnessing the CLSA legislative advocate testify on behalf CLSA in support of the bill.

One Structural Solution

CLSA has plenty of people with the mental horsepower and work ethic to accomplish any task. That is not the challenge. The challenge is the current structure is such that it will not allow success for the ambitions of the membership. Namely, the limitations created by only meeting on a quarterly basis. The quarterly meeting structure does not accommodate turning ideas into tangible work product and member benefits. However, we now, for the first time, have the tools to change how CLSA conducts business at the state level.

As it stands, we cannot be responsive to time sensitive issues on a quarterly meeting schedule. In the past, we have not had the resources to have more meetings. We are no longer constrained by the time and expense of assembling in Oakland. In November 2016, we conducted our first successful virtual meeting which allowed members to login to the meeting and vote with the computer, phone or tablet. This means we could have monthly meetings to address issues as they arise, provide BoD authority when needed and be responsive to member input - which will encourage inclusive member participation. Imagine being able to report back to a chapter the progress of a particular tasked committee with only a one month latency? And in turn, carrying the chapter's members input back to the committee. We can do this now. The BoD of directors could be assembled for a topic specific meeting and vote. These meetings would most often be less than one hour. We do not need wait to assemble every member on the board. Only enough members to establish a quorum.

One upside for the members of the Board of Directors is our quarterly meetings will be shorter in that we will singularly focus on the housekeeping and administrative issues. The more meaty and time sensitive issues should have been worked through at the monthly meeting. We will also have chairman accountability rather than waiting an entire quarter only to realize the chairman has done nothing.

The Orange County chapter has placed monthly meeting motion on the February agenda - which I hope will be out this week. I am encouraging members to weigh in on their directors if they would like to see us restructure CLSA to be responsive to the industry.

Respectfully,

DWoolley
Orange County Director

[Rich Fultz, no experience is required to chair a committee. Like most things, a good attitude together with a work ethic will successfully cross most hurdles. The challenge is picking a committee which will put in the work and a chairman that will place demands on the members.]

[DWoolley]

Unrelated to my previous post:

I am tired of William Magee inserting his local ideas of "practical" which is in direct conflict with the written state statutes. In other instances inserting words like "record" as in "record monuments" when referencing 8771. There are no provisions for only record monuments to being located and perpetuated by an agency. Similarly, the law is clearly stated, thank you Rich Maher (Orange County) and the fact we have non-compliance does not make it a standard or "practical". It is precisely this sort of nonsense which has lead to the regional incompetence and poor practice in pockets of the state.

DWoolley

[William Magee]

I am tired of William Magee inserting his local ideas.....
It is precisely this sort of nonsense....

DWoolley

With some there is no agreeing to disagree, instead it is a matter of agree or face attack. There is a long history of this behavior against those who have different perspectives.

Per the American Psychology Association:
"Bullying is a form of aggressive behavior in which someone intentionally and repeatedly causes another person injury or discomfort. Bullying can take the form of physical contact, words or more subtle actions."

When is it going to stop?

[mpallamary]

Mr. Magee,

When are you going to identify yourself? It is very hard to evaluate your comments as they are patently critical and constitute a form of bullying. Your reliance on the guise of anonymity is a problem at many levels; it is difficult to take you seriously. Please come out so we can see you and have an adult discussion.

[DWoolley]

Magee:

Collectively, we have allowed our practice to falter. I recently heard the BPELSG Executive Officer, Ric Moore, state the majority of licensees do not know the laws which govern the practice. Based on your recent forum post this includes you. I find this repugnant and wholly unacceptable by any member of our community. The PLSA is approximately 20 pages with 8 pages of pertinent content. There is simply no excuse to not knowing the contents.

Interestingly, not surprisingly though, you had to chop an already short paragraph to create context which served your purpose. Rather than look up bullying I would suggest you look up "nonsensical" (making no sense) - which clearly was the right word. Plain talk is not bullying.

DWoolley

[Lee Hixson]

Personally, I did not find Dave's post in any way bullying. I didn't think so the first time I read it and not the second time either. Your last post, on the other hand, seemed evasive and deflective.

[rmaher]

I don't believe that's an accurate assessment of the operative language in 8761 along with 8726. It would be a dramatic change in industry standard practice.

But it is an interesting thought and one that has me taking a step back to digest the pros and cons. Thinking back I have seen peer reviews stamped and sealed but only on a limited basis and primarily on critical structural engineering qc/qa reviews. I can't recall a stamped and sealed agency review report. Something to think about though.

I'm not sure how to assess the words other than what they say.

That certain laws governing our profession aren't followed sometimes or even the majority of the time doesn't surprise me in one bit.

If you've had a map or legal description checked by me in one of several agencies then you've received a signed and sealed letter of my professional review of the map/legal. As well, when my local agency checks my submitted maps, I receive a signed and sealed letter. These letters generally accompany a copy of the map "redlined".

If any of you are encountering review comments that go beyond just a ministerial review and involves surveying judgment which is not being issued appropriately in accordance with signing and sealing survey reports or is not being issued by an appropriately licensed individual at an agency, you need to let BPELSG know. Our primary objective is to contact the agency and help them implement an appropriate process that is in compliance with the laws governing the practice. Then, if non-compliance continues, BPELSG will take appropriate further action.

When I have been dissatisfied with the review of a map or legal description I have always asked for a signed letter by the professional that is providing the direction to change my submittal. So far that has always resulted in a good discussion with said professional or in come cases my submittal was then sent to a contracted professional reviewer and the items I had an issue with "dissapeared".

I don't think Ric pulled this out of thin air ... together with what I've quoted from the PLS Act in an earlier post (re-submitted further below) you can incorporate this section into forming a complete "assessment of the operative language":

8761. Use of signature and seal
<...>
(b) All maps, plats, reports, descriptions, or other land surveying documents shall be prepared by, or under the responsible charge of, a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer authorized to practice land surveying and shall include his or her name and license number.
<...>
(d) All final maps, plats, reports, descriptions, or other land surveying documents issued by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer authorized to practice land surveying shall bear the signature and seal or stamp of the licensee and the date of signing and sealing or stamping. If the land surveying document has multiple pages or sheets, the signature, seal or stamp, and date of signing and sealing or stamping shall appear, at a minimum, on the title sheet, cover sheet or page, or signature sheet, unless otherwise required by law.

RE-QUOTED FOR REFERENCE

8726. Land surveying defined
A person, including any person employed by the state or by a city, county, or city and
county within the state, practices land surveying within the meaning of this chapter who, either
in a public or private capacity, does or offers to do any one or more of the following:
<...>
(l) Determines the information shown or to be shown within the description of any deed,
trust deed, or other title document prepared for the purpose of describing the limit of real
property in connection with any one or more of the functions described in subdivisions (a) to (f),
inclusive.
<...>
The review, approval, or examination by a governmental entity of documents prepared or
performed pursuant to this section shall be done by, or under the direct supervision of, a person
authorized to practice land surveying.

[William Magee]

Not to be argumentative, so take it as food for thought or what you will. In my experience, I would say generally the redlines I've received were typically the reviewer questioning certain aspects of the item, and generally not determinations warranting a stamped report. It has not been often where I've had a reviewer's comments/redlines be ultimatums on methods or procedures regarding professional judgment. Almost always a redline comment regarding professional judgment opens a follow up discussion with the reviewer with the ultimate determination still being with me, the preparer.