Yes, you are correct - an amended R/S was recorded four years later and showed all the previously set points off by between 0.2' to 0.7'.
Still . . . it would have been better that nothing was set in this particular case.
Or if there had been a CS note suggesting the possibility of alternate boundary locations based on accepted local standards of practice.
This would allow the public to understand that they may want to dig a little deeper before they make use of the discrepant monuments.
A ton of damage could be done in four years and the practice of filing a map like this that presumably calls off original (or perpetuated) subdivision monuments indicates to me that the County Surveyor signature at the bottom of the survey has a very low practical value
Not long after . . . there was a BPELSG action against this County Surveyor. A short time later the County Surveyor retired.
This particular County Surveyor was the only County Surveyor that took the time to present and get enacted a Monument Preservation Ordinance. He understood the importance of preserving monuments. His legacy will be: the preservation of copious monuments, due to the passage of that Ordinance and the County's purchase of the largest survey archive in Marin. Having these survey archives become public was profound!
For what its worth, Richard Hogan located in Sebastopol was known for not filing maps. I interviewed his son about where he learned to survey. Turns out Richard learned surveying while working for the San Bernadino DoT and the Marines. He was already a practicing surveyor when he moved to the North Bay and set up shop here in Sebastopol in the 50's.
After Ric's post on the record of survey attached by Phil earlier, I went back to review the map.
The map is emblematic of exactly what I was writing about in a previous posts i.e. calling off monuments from the same map, holding record dimensions, etc.
The map posted has three city well monuments set at 90 degrees - imagine monuments set at the three corners of a right triangle. The surveyor held the two monuments on the short leg and called off the monument on the long leg by several tenths (0.45'). Madness. The surveyor could have held the long leg and the location of the property monuments set would move several tenths (more than 0.45'). Equally disturbing is the west line (the back line) was set at record depth without consideration of the the location of the adjoining lot 3 or the lots 77 and 79 on the north and south.
The brass tacks are many layman today can replicate this logic and place math on the ground without any consideration of the property rights - the same as the survey in question. This map was performed by a seasoned surveyor, signed by a County Surveyor, which begs the question, how many surveys were performed like this over the last 30 years (50?, 100? 500?)? How many surveyors were mentored under this practice and went on to continue this practice? Sure, the surveyor "fixed" it, who cares? Keep in mind, this was not an unrecorded bootleg survey, no sir, this map was proudly filed as a record of survey. The damage was done. Compliance achieved, only a few thousand more maps in the county consider.
How did this map become the practice? The land surveyor licenses are used to hold the public hostage, not to protect them.
The attached corner record holds curb split of a Dr. Seuss style curved road and a no record chiseled cross to set side lines of a 5000 square foot lot on a 1911 subdivision map.
All you have to do is look at occupation along the sidelines and see something is off. The buildings were constructed in the 1920s.
Forget record of survey. This is a corner record.
See this sort of thing all the time in the East Bay.
I have the same questions. How did the profession of land surveying arrive here? How the hell am I supposed to begin a survey with this sort of thing in the record? What did occupation look like before the new fences were constructed?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Since the curbs are being used as "monuments" that are not shown on previous record maps, that qualifies for a Record of Survey under Section 8762(b)(1) and should not have been filed as corner record.
That document should be forwarded to Dallas Sweeney at BPELSG or as a full blown complaint.
We got here because too many people want to cut corners and don't understand the purpose of the documents we file.
Dunning Kruger perhaps? The flip side of DK is that most real experts underestimate their own competence.... which leads to not appreciating just how many steps in knowledge and ability that might exist between themselves and the "typically" competent.
To me there is no cure for that surveyor except a Planckian paradigm shift:
Max Planck: "a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
How many on this forum would change their mind on something they KNOW to be correct? I know I have a hard time changing my mind about a topic that I think I am an expert in..... What would convince Dave that recording maps is typically bad? or LS_8750 that fences are almost always meaningless? Prolly nothing. I would bet a fair amount that you both believe that you are right, for correct reasons that are based on sound facts. I would also bet that you both think you have thought through the other side's facts and reasons found them lacking, or incomplete etc. For the record I don't doubt your facts or reasons, I think most of the differences expressed on this forum come down to deep down fundamental assumptions and definitions that are often not articulated.
I agree with you Dave on the tragedy of the techs who were "mentored" by anyone who could file that map. For what its worth, its why I am starting to think that CE would be worth it, if only to allow those who might have been "mentored" by the surveyor who did that map an opportunity to hear a different point of view.
Perhaps it should be a CE requirement to maintain your LSIT? That way it would be planting seeds of introspection before their views were locked in by inertia and shame avoidance? If we accept that few will change their mind after 20 years of practice, then interventions while their mind is still open might achieve more results? Or could we add a requirement for 40 hours of training/classes as part of the application for the LS?
To complete the story of the Phil map, the surveyor filed another map four years later at the prompting (legit map coaching) of the BPELSG. The monuments moved as much as 0.7' according to the table on the second map.
Also note, the monument shown on the short leg of the triangle was not shown on the second map, what happened there? Also note, there are now found monuments on the lot 3 line (back line). These found monuments were as old as father time and were clearly in place at the time of the original survey. Also note, this is a an "amending" record of survey. Clearly, the map is not an amended record of survey - being equal to a certificate of correction. I saw an Amended Parcel Map, signed by the same County Surveyor, that moved a line more than 20'. Clearly the limitations of "amended maps" were not well understood in that jurisdiction. The surveyor was actually newly licenced. However, when St. Pete saw the work he had done on this map, coupled with BPELSG's course of action, he called the surveyor home early. Apparently, He felt like He had to protect the public if nobody else would do it.
Doing my best Paul Harvey "Rest of the Story", said County Surveyor had BPELSG nipping at his heels. After nine years, maybe it was 8 years, the CS's hearing was set. The SME had died, so much time had passed the DAG struggled to present the case, the CS retired, I believe the case was dropped and nobody was any worse for wear - or some similar flavor.
The amended (laughable) record of survey is redacted and attached.
DWoolley
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Last edited by DWoolley on Tue Nov 28, 2023 1:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mike Mueller wrote: Tue Nov 28, 2023 11:46 am
...
To me there is no cure for that surveyor except a Planckian paradigm shift:
Max Planck: "a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
...
Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County
Mikey, to your point, I am no longer vested in any arguments, neither winning or losing. I am somewhat curious, moreover, I am passing the time by rolling survey words around like a cow chewing cud. Sweet tea and porch talk.
The land surveying bow has cracked and will one day rest on the bottom. Again, these are not one off situations when you near the red of the bullseye. The "why" probably doesn't much matter anymore.
But you are Dave, and its wonderful. I have often directed techs to these forums so they can read a variety of opinions and discuss those different opinions compared to what our office generally does. Your 10 minute surveyor videos and constant push to raise the bar is the wind pushing on the sails of the next generation's minds. Your efforts are clearly winning some hearts and minds, even if in some cases it is through passive inception :)
As an aside, until recently I was not aware of the extant of the limitations on the Amended RoS. It has made me wish for a type of map that was explicitly and literally spelled out as a revocation of the previous map's opinions to be superceded by the new map in cases of a new boundary location. I had a case where I had two resolutions shown on a map, both deed described to children of the same parents, held what I considered the best claim to senior rights , but showed the junior's line that matched some old pipes that no one could access the records for. FYI it was a series of back and forths by several children and their spouses, sometimes not including all grantors who owned each parcel, sometimes selling partial ownerships, in the 1930's era with some foreclosures iirc. Later I got access to those records (Abbott's) and I had proof I was wrong, and I filed an Amended RoS to show that I mixed up the senior rights and changed the linetype of the two lines and included the maps as sheet 2 and 3.
Point of the story being that I wish I had a mapping document to make it completely clear that the old map is not correct. Considering the limitations within the law for the changes to be minor things, I would be hesitant to file an Amended RoS these days in the same situation because of the major changes involved. However I am not sure what would be the best course aside from an Amended RoS.... I would prolly still try it at the best available means of alerting the world of the change and hope the CS would consider it minor enough to "approve for correction".
Just because a County Surveyor blesses the amended map or BPELSG, does not mean that you can file an Amended Record of Survey that impacts the ultimate location of the boundary. The LS Act 8770.5 and SMA 66410 is clear,
BPELSG hires self proclaimed experts to provide opinions and their opinions don't supersede the written law.
The Amended Map or Cert of Correction is only to be used for minor errors that can be determined on the face of the map or to further describe the conditions, but not to change the title line.
What is the issue with filing a new Record of Survey. I would file a new R/S to be in compliance and not chance having an Amended Map only. You can explain it all on the RS. Maybe it will help educate the masses.
Mike Mueller wrote: Tue Nov 28, 2023 2:11 pm
...
Considering the limitations within the law for the changes to be minor things, I would be hesitant to file an Amended RoS these days in the same situation because of the major changes involved. However I am not sure what would be the best course aside from an Amended RoS...
Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County
I believe the surveyor should file a new record of survey, explain in a detailed surveyor's note that new evidence was discovered and the map supercedes the previous map, done. I think we've all been there. I would be inclined to show a detail of the relationship from the previously established lines to the newly established lines.
Bogus amended maps are not exclusive to Marin County or the red Benson bullseye zone.
A bit of a change of topic toward historical references.
Can anyone add some insight from the California Surveyor General or Legislative information pertaining to why the act to license surveyors was enacted? I can easily find the Report of the Surveyor General State of California biannual report of 1890 -1892 which includes the legal verbiage and first licensees, etc. I'm curious to the why the law was enacted, I need clarification or evidence regarding one of the forum statements that California land surveyor licensing was because of the Benson Syndicate.
The Benson Syndicate modus operando interestingly is a bit of a reversal to some of the statements made regarding this forum topic; They filed maps but didn't perform the complete surveys, as opposed to performing a survey, not filing, and keeping a private map collection as this topic has been debating. It should also be noted the Benson syndicate motives were financial and not only a land survey plat fraud but mainly land classification, purchase, and settlement schemes that included bankers, attorneys, politicians, dummy settlers, and federal USGLO Deputy Surveyors. Major areas of their financial interests were: Swamp and Overflowed lands, State school land and in lieu school land, and valuable timber (Redwood) land.
Here is a portion of the 1891 act:
AN ACT TO DEFINE THE DUTIES OF AND TO LICENSE LAND SURVEYORS. [Approved March 31, 1891.]
The People of the State of California, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. Every person desiring to become a licensed land surveyor in this State must present to the State Surveyor-General of this State a certificate that he is a person of good moral character; also a certificate signed by three licensed surveyors, or a certificate signed by the Board of Examining Surveyors (provided for in section five of this Act), which certificate shall set forth that the person named therein is, in the opinion of the person signing the same, a fit and competent person to receive a license as a land surveyor, together with his oath that he will support the Constitution of this State and of the United States, and that he will faithfully discharge the duties of a licensed land surveyor, as defined in this Act...
SEC. 11. Within sixty days after a survey relation got the sale or subdivision of lands, the retracing or establishing of property and boundary lines, public roads or trails, original cemetery or town sites, and their subdivisions has been made by a licensed surveyor, he shall file with the Recorder of the county in which such survey or any portion thereof lies, a record of survey. Such record shall be made in a good draughtsmanlike manner, on one or more sheets of firm paper of the uniform size of twenty-one by thirty inches. This record of survey shall be either an original plat or a copy thereof, and must contain all the data necessary to enable any competent practical surveyor to retrace the survey. The record of survey must show: All permanent monuments set, describing their size, kind and location, with reference to the corners which they are intended to perpetuate; all bearing or witness trees marked in the field; complete outlines of the several tracts or parcels of land surveyed within courses, and lengths of boundary lines; the angles, as measured by Vernier readings, which the lines of blocks or lots, if the record relate to an original town-site survey, make with each other and with the center lines of adjacent streets, alleys, roads, or lanes; the variations of the magnetic needle with which old lines have been retraced; the scale of the map, the date of survey; a proper connection with one or more points of an original or larger tract of land, and the name of the same; the name of the grant or grants, or of the townships and ranges, within which the survey is located; the signature and seal of the surveyor; provided, that nothing in this section shall require record to be made of surveys of a preliminary nature, where no monuments or corners are established.
DWoolley wrote: Tue Nov 28, 2023 6:43 am
How did this map become the practice? The land surveyor licenses are used to hold the public hostage, not to protect them.
DWoolley
It is disturbing that Dave continues to utilize a public forum, open to all, not just surveyors, to disparage and criticize other surveyors.
My experience is that the land survey profession is full of intelligent and ethical women and men, all of whom are worthy of being considered my peers. I’ll stand proud with all, but do not tolerate this continued assault from within in full public display.
John Williams, PLS wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2023 11:30 am
I need clarification or evidence regarding one of the forum statements that California land surveyor licensing was because of the Benson Syndicate.
Since Benson was presumably a GLO surveyor that would be exempt from state licensing requirements, I cannot make this connection
If only I had more time. Let's start here with an appetizer:
“The original surveys in the portions of the City to which I refer were anything but accurate and are generally located by land marks (or calls, as they are designated). The old surveys being inaccurate,
(having been made when a few feet of land amounted to little or nothing) there remains then nothing to guide your surveyor but the land marks, and as these are rapidly disappearing and in many cases were originally indefinite, great confusion must necessarily exist, these circumstances have been in many instances taken advantage of by irresponsible outside surveyors who have caused much additional confusion by their awkward work, and bad judgment, causing owners to subdivide, locate streets and erect buildings in improper locations."
S. Harrison Smith, City and County Surveyor June 30, 1889 report to the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco
[My emphasis, please read it again, "[the public]...have been in many instances taken advantage of by irresponsible outside surveyors who have caused much additional confusion by their awkward work, and bad judgment...center of the bullseye.
Benson was a private surveyor, County Surveyor and contract surveyor for the GLO- based on the report above he was not exclusive in his practice methods. Standby, over the weekend I will post more. Again, we are only a couple of generations from this practice model. The DNA, well, it hasn't had enough time to dilute.]
DWoolley wrote: Tue Nov 28, 2023 6:43 am
How did this map become the practice? The land surveyor licenses are used to hold the public hostage, not to protect them.
DWoolley
It is disturbing that Dave continues to utilize a public forum, open to all, not just surveyors, to disparage and criticize other surveyors.
My experience is that the land survey profession is full of intelligent and ethical women and men, all of whom are worthy of being considered my peers. I’ll stand proud with all, but do not tolerate this continued assault from within in full public display.
Was the quote you posted from 1889 Smith's report to the Board of Supervisors? Is so, it is a meaningless quote considering the great quake of 1906 made it mood - the City and its contents were destroyed!
hellsangle wrote: Sat Dec 02, 2023 9:21 am
Mr. Woolley,
Was the quote you posted from 1889 Smith's report to the Board of Supervisors? Is so, it is a meaningless quote considering the great quake of 1906 made it mood - the City and its contents were destroyed!
+2
Crazy Phil again
The 1889 citation was a contemporary perspective of the land surveying community prior to (prompting) licensure. I went the extra step of restating and bolding the words. Phil, is it your contention the earthquake and subsequent fires in 1906 made the land surveyors abandon their documented practices of "...in many instances taken advantage of by irresponsible outside surveyors who have caused much additional confusion by their awkward work, and bad judgment,..."? Arguably, history and current practice in some jurisdictions speaks to the contrary.
As for the +1 folks, noted. Land surveying is a closed community with many folks having little contact with other professionals. Are we to ignore, thereby allowing to flourish, the dark underbelly of the profession? Alternatively, where should these discussions be held? I would argue sitting on our hands offers no chance of a correction and certainly, acts counter to a sustainable business model.
If everything you have seen and/or known is peachy professionally, you were blessed into a bubble.
Chew on this, there are more than 50,000 active PE licenses and 4,000 PLS licenses (13:1). If the land surveying community is ethically, legally and technically righteous, why do land surveyors make up more than 50% of the complaints and citations? Licensure is intended to protect the public from the practitioners. Why was it determined land surveyors required licensure 40 years before engineers? Why were California land surveyors the first to be licensed in the nation? Ridin' dirty?
For my +1 friends, sincerely, offer me an alternative. Strother Martin said it best "Some men you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it. I don't like it any more than you men."
DWoolley wrote: Sat Dec 02, 2023 12:27 pm
As for the +1 folks, noted. Land surveying is a closed community with many folks having little contact with other professionals. Are we to ignore, thereby allowing to flourish, the dark underbelly of the profession? Alternatively, where should these discussions be held? I would argue sitting on our hands offers no chance of a correction and certainly, acts counter to a sustainable business model.
If everything you have seen and/or known is peachy professionally, you were blessed into a bubble.
I dont like it any more than you men,
This forum is a perfect place to have a conversation like this. I believe that part of the problem we are discussing is a result of surveyors who are too polite or timid to speak up when there is something wrong with the picture. This is the mentality that encouraged Benson’s success.
One of the marks of a professional is the ability to discuss a topic using practical reasoning and philosophy. This is not a personal disagreement it is a business matter. Emotional responses are irrelevant and immature.
Furthermore, anyone who thinks that the general public is reading through three pages of forum discussion in order to dig up dirt on the land surveying profession is delusional. Pass the screen over to your wife beginning on page 1 and see how far she gets….
Please make a point to add something to the conversation or go watch football.
DWoolley wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2023 2:55 pm
“The original surveys in the portions of the City to which I refer were anything but accurate and are generally located by land marks (or calls, as they are designated). The old surveys being inaccurate,
(having been made when a few feet of land amounted to little or nothing) there remains then nothing to guide your surveyor but the land marks, and as these are rapidly disappearing and in many cases were originally indefinite, great confusion must necessarily exist, these circumstances have been in many instances taken advantage of by irresponsible outside surveyors who have caused much additional confusion by their awkward work, and bad judgment, causing owners to subdivide, locate streets and erect buildings in improper locations."
S. Harrison Smith, City and County Surveyor June 30, 1889 report to the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco
DWoolley
So a Bay Area CS was complaining about out of town surveyors doing shoddy work. How is this evidence of the Bay Area being a hotbed of morally lacking surveyors circa 1890 that begot the 1940's era of non recordation? I do not see the link.
Regarding complaints. Two points:
1. When a man has had a training in one of the exact sciences, where every problem within its purview is supposed to be susceptible of accurate solution, he is likely to be not a little impatient when he is told that, under some circumstances, he must recognize inaccuracies, and govern his action by facts which lead him away from the results which theoretically he ought to reach. Observation warrants us in saying that this remark may frequently be made of surveyors. Quote from first paragraph of Justice Cooley's quasi judicial
Engineers are generally in control of the facts that contribute to the outcome. IE they can add more steel, more base rock, more straps, etc. Surveyors are not in control of the set of facts. We are in control of finding what facts remain. If not all the facts needed for a complete picture are left, no amount of more measurement or diligence will let us fix it.
2. Bedside manner is far more strongly correlated to complaints in the medical world than skill. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 162013.htm I would be looking for non-technical skill related aspects of the situation for the root cause of that ratio. IE are the surveyors just bad at communication?
So a Bay Area CS was complaining about out of town surveyors doing shoddy work. How is this evidence of the Bay Area being a hotbed of morally lacking surveyors circa 1890 that begot the 1940's era of non recordation? I do not see the link.
...
I would be looking for non-technical skill related aspects of the situation for the root cause of that ratio. IE are the surveyors just bad at communication?
Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County
All we have is what the County Surveyor wrote. The County Surveyor clearly and undeniably wrote about land surveyors exploiting the public, performing awkward surveys and exercising bad judgement. His words, then and now, are not flattering. In fact, he quantified his statement with "many instances" rather than "occasional". If I was the City County Surveyor, I would be inclined to say "outside surveyors" rather than "local surveyors". It allows the CS to say to his local pals "not you, the other guys".
I have more written testimony from that period that indicates similar observations. I will post it this week, time permitting.
The correlation being, lawless factions in 1890 is lawless in 1940 is lawless in 2023. The rationalization was sure to have been "clients cannot afford a record of survey" or "client did not want monuments to be set" or "I didn't file a map because I did not set monuments" etc - readers can find that on this forum in 2023. Is it really a stretch to get from 1890 to today? Nope.
As for bedside manner, ah, maybe, or is it simply a learned flim-flam nature? I am not subscribing to bedside manner on a 13:1 ratio. Besides, land surveyors I have known have 10x personality over a generic PE.
I understand why folks prefer not to discuss our sordid history. As a land surveyor, there was a time when I took great pride in the profession. I worked in a bubble and was unfamiliar with the issues discussed in this thread. My professional innocence was lost in learning the history of licensure and in the facts of jurisdictional land surveying practices in 1890, 1940, 1969, and 2023. There is a straight line from my perspective.
I don't like it any more than you, my +1 friends.
The one thing I have held true is many of the public agencies wrote and held to land surveying standards - 1889 City County Surveyor recognized a difference. Many of these agencies provided the structure for the professional practice that has carried over to the private sector in some instances.
The following excerpts are taken from various reports to the Legislature:
“Nor has our State been the only sufferer by fraudulent or imperfect surveys, as will be seen by the following extracts of Prof. Lesley’s preface to the Second Pennsylvania Geological Survey, Vol. Q, by Prof. L.C. White, 1878. Prof. Leslie writes: ‘It (Geological Survey) must, therefore, use the almost worthless maps, county maps, and township maps, which exists, rudely run as their lines have been by irresponsible men, on cheap money contracts, rapidly and carelessly platted afterwards, and finally forced together recklessly and without judgment, so as to come within county lines, which are themselves utterly false and oftentimes half a mile aware from their true places.’
"There are no words which can more truthfully portray the condition of California than the above by Professor Lesley as applied to Pennsylvania..."
"These atlas sheets were compiled from public surveys of the U.S. Gov. in as careful and correct manner as the frequent discrepancies in those surveys allowed. These discrepancies are due partly to bad surveying, caused not always by bad intentions, but frequently by employing indifferently trained deputy surveyors."
“At the time this work was commenced, not more than half the counties in the State had county maps; a number of these were old compilations, known to be radically defective and incomplete.
“They were not on uniform scales, and would not fit together. During this four years, a number of new county maps have come out, but although these are comparatively full and correct, there is a want for uniformity of scale, faults of omission are often glaring, and errors in construction almost always to be detected”.
Report of The State Mineralogist, Wm. Irelan, Jr., October 1, 1890, page 14. Appendix to Journals, Vol. V, 29th Session (1891)
[These passages, together with Benson, is precisely why land surveyors were required to be licensed in California. Readers should be clear as to the facts after reading these contemporary records, circa 1890.
The reader can see today’s laws in the 1891 law. For example, in 1891 the law said “This record of survey shall be either an original plat or a copy thereof, and must contain all the data necessary to enable any competent practical surveyor to retrace the survey. The record of survey must show: All permanent monuments set, describing their size, kind and location, with reference to the corners which they are intended to perpetuate. …a proper connection with one or more points of an original larger tract of land…”. And yet, we have another current thread, December 2023, advocating two monument tangos (establishing back corners record angle and distance from monuments in the front and not looking for or utilizing existing monuments in the back), surveyors that want to eliminate regulatory reviews, reject the setting of monuments, the tagging of monuments and/or any regulations that would require further competencies and accountabilities.
I leave the readers with this, the laws have been in place for over 130 years, clearly segments of the practice are deficient in various areas, the remnants of the bullseye remain. Our collectively response, if we are to believe this forum is representative of the collective, which may not be the case, we have chosen to "... live offa the fatta the lan’, George” by performing and/or accepting the soft grift in the industry. Any effort at reformation is quickly rejected.
Our comeuppance will have been earned.]
DWoolley
Last edited by DWoolley on Thu Dec 07, 2023 10:20 am, edited 2 times in total.
