California Surveyors Forums

Sorry, I forgot to mention, he told me he had reported two surveyors in his county surveyor career to that state board.

Desert Turtoise, You have to look at the Macro (not Micro) picture here to see the different processes involving the exchange, development and redevelopment of property in both systems (West verses East/MidWest States; some with Public Lands many without, Title Companies and no Title Companies etc). Those States with stronger educational standards and requirements to be a licensed professional engineer, land surveyor and Geologist have enhanced the quality of service and the product by enforcing tougher requirements. Our system has improved a great deal over the decades but has a lot more hurdles to over come and the checks and balance system through the use of the County Surveyor's Office has assisted to protect and educate the public and the engineering / land surveying profession. Seeing is believing as my late mother always said and I leave open my invitation to show the kind of Tract Maps, Parcel Maps, Record of Surveys (Lot Line Adjustments) and Corner Records that come across our desks daily. You will probably adjust your view point on the importance of the service that the County Surveyor Office provides; not to mention the State of the Art Geo-Reference System / Land Base System.

I agree with Foster. Please come and see what we deal with. I have maps submitted that I have returned without checking due lack of basic items, i.e. a basis of bearings, no found monuments and on and on. We are not here to help the surveyor draw their map. When submitted for checking, the map should be ready to file. For me its about 50/50.

"What I do know is, the department of "County Surveyor" is a rarity outside of CA and Oregon. There are a few Midwest states, for example Indiana, which has a couple of county surveyor departments."

A quick visit to the National Assoc. of County Surveyor's website seems to include at least 20 states by looking at officers, newsletters, minutes. That's just for starters. I don't see a complete list, but those are the ones that appear active.

That's a little more than "a few midwest states".

RAM wrote:I agree with Foster. Please come and see what we deal with. I have maps submitted that I have returned without checking due lack of basic items, i.e. a basis of bearings, no found monuments and on and on. We are not here to help the surveyor draw their map. When submitted for checking, the map should be ready to file. For me its about 50/50.

Am curious Ram, to restate Ric's question, "so why are all of you not submitting complaints on these surveys?"

For fun reading on this, take a look at the legal conclusion found on page 16, Item 2.a. of the following enforcement action:

http://www.bpelsg.ca.gov/public/l--7952_dec970.pdf

Thank you for your invitation; probably not practical for me but what county are you in ?

If you don't mind I will steer this conversation only ever so slightly to a related topic as per the title above.

In most states it is common for a 3 or 5 person group or panel appointed by a state board to review an engineer or surveyor's work when there has been a complaint. We are expected to do our due diligence in our surveys, but due diligence is a two way street and sometimes forgotten. When there are 3 or 5 "experts" involved in providing opinions to boards in those states, you know they are doing their due diligence at their end.

At the risk of being repetitive here, this is common across the board in other professions; accountants, doctors, etc. That way you don't have one sole "expert" rendering an opinion for a board to rely upon for a decision, as is unfortunately the case here in CA. I can't speak for others regarding the question that Ric M raised, but that is one reason why I am hesitant to report what might be poor surveys; I do not necessarily consider myself an "expert" and I have no confidence with the system in place to expertly judge what another surveyor has done.

By the way, hopefully Ric M. can update us to the current "expert" qualifying process. It had been a matter of filling out a one page resume of qualifications with one oral interview. Or at least that is the way it was advertised to us.

Hopefully that will change in this state. Maybe it had been proposed and there is a lack of funding as usual to provide that level of due diligence by a state board.

William Magee, Our Orange County Office works with the professional/s first, second with the JPPC and then third with the State Board (in some cases the State Board was contacted immediately). The Board is backlogged in years of investigation and cases like the one you posted. The County Surveyor example of Ms. Gee represents other Counties that have no County Surveyor and personally I feel this is spreading her professional duties and responsibilities too far! Those Counties where the violations of the law or statutes occur should remain within that county and responsibility of those local officials. Unfortunately, continued lack of fiscal responsibility by many government Board of Supervisors are making the job of Public Works more challenging and difficult to oversee. Thank you for the input!

D Ryan wrote:"What I do know is, the department of "County Surveyor" is a rarity outside of CA and Oregon. There are a few Midwest states, for example Indiana, which has a couple of county surveyor departments."...

For those counties and/or states without a county surveyor, or survey dept. who is responsible for maintaining and indexing the records?

Throughout Pinal County and Maricopa County, and in all of the State of Arizona, an Arizona surveyor is required to file a Record of Survey Map in the local County Recorder’s office for most boundary surveys, which will become public record. Click Here or contact us at 520-723-3261 for a quote on our expert boundary survey services. Google any State and you will find similar information.

William Magee wrote:Am curious Ram, to restate Ric's question, "so why are all of you not submitting complaints on these surveys?"

For fun reading on this, take a look at the legal conclusion found on page 16, Item 2.a. of the following enforcement action:

http://www.bpelsg.ca.gov/public/l--7952_dec970.pdf

Is state being petty in typical spat between practitioner and rookie map reviewer ?
Notice state's expert and lawyers failed to find evidence for incompetence in his procedure. A County Surveyor from another county served as his expert and supported his procedure.
Problem was his lack of honesty. State gave that as the only reason for revocation of license. His map stated that he found a chiseled cross at the calculated location of the south corner of parcel. His prior submittals had a symbol for set nail and tag there. So he was too lazy to go back out there and set the tag; much easier to just say found a cut cross there where his guy had set the cross.
State admitted the public was not harmed in any way. They stated honesty is paramount in this profession and revoked him.

..................For fun reading on this, take a look at the legal conclusion found on page 16, Item 2.a. of the following enforcement action:

http://www.bpelsg.ca.gov/public/l--7952_dec970.pdf....................

Well, it just goes to show ya. Exactly what? Not exactly sure but I have a guess that works for me. But you can figure it out on your own. And if you do, be careful how you word it, if you word it at all.

That is a fine distinction made by the Administrative Law Judge. I suspect that hackles were raised by the time it reached that level.

Certainly, representing yourself brings a lot of scrutiny beyond the underlying allegations.

Ultimately, the respondent's lack of remorse played a large role in his license revocation.

[quote="bruce hall"]

Hint:
"Respondent's most fundamental contention is that a surveyor cannot be disciplined for matters stated on a map submitted for examination, as opposed to a map in final form submitted for filing. He asserts that a map submitted for examination "cannot be considered evidence of fraud, deceit, negligence or incompetence".

Respondent is incorrect.....Public protection requires that a licensed surveyor meet professional standards in the course of his or her practice, even on a first submittal."

Para's 55 & 56 on pages 14-15 give additional insight on this important item.

So no, Mr tortoise, I don't see this as a petty disciplining, as the decision was not solely based on the accused's honesty as you imply (albeit honesty is trademark of one's ability to be an impartial analyst of boundary evidence).
Rather, one stating that the CS review is for the purpose of covering one's own lack of due diligence is absurd and telling of where one's stature in the profession should be.

So, considering the point of my last post, could a county surveyor who continually gets crappy 1st submittals from certain individuals/firms, be considered as aiding and abetting if he/she doesn't take action through a ppc or directly through the board? Certainly could be considered as enabling the inividual/firm.

If the individual surveyor is of the opinion that a 1st submittal to the CS does not need to be in final form with all due diligence exhausted, would it follow that the quality of work that individual performs that does not require a CS review is of an elevated quality from that which is submitted to a CS? If the CS does not recognize and take action against such incompetent behavior, then who will? the layperson client?

The public entrusts the CS as opposed to the public empowers the CS.

Since it's now public record, it shouldn't be a problem for me to comment. And as you read this, recall some of the debates in this forum that have occurred between me and Dave Woolley. Typically, he has always taken the more stringent view of what is or is not negligent, and I've taken the view that allows more leeway and room for the LS to correct oneself or adjust a level of care to the circumstances. I think on this one, Dave and I would have been in full agreement as to the levels of negligence, incompetence, and misrepresentation.

With regard to Item 2a. of the enforcement decision (L7952, Case 970-A), it wasn't as simple as a few typos on a check print.

In this instance, there were four check prints, the last bearing almost no resemblance to the first.

The map checker was an experienced LS, not a LSIT or pre-LSIT technician. The map review was more rigorous than most might be, but there were several inconsistencies with other records as to what existed on the ground, and significant questions as to methodology.

Although not typical procedure, the County's map checker LS had reason to be in the field for a different matter near the sites surveyed by the respondent, so took a little time to see if he could answer some of his questions on his own as to monument descriptions, which existed, and which didn't.

He found that the respondent had reported finding non-existent monuments and reported SFNF for monuments that were clearly evident and in good shape. He also found that monuments set were of different character than as reported. He found that the respondent had ignored nearby control within the subdivision the lots were in in favor of using control from a neighboring subdivision.

As to questionable methodology, the respondent had neglected to include adequate dimensions as well as descriptions on his first check print to show how he arrived at his conclusions. Aside from all of these very significant errors and omissions, there were also numerous typos.

His 2nd check print looked very different, eliminating an entire side of a block that he had, according to his first check print, used as part of his determination of lot line locations, and showing other found monumentation he had not previously shown. These changes were largely due to the questioning of methodology by the map checker LS.

But the 2nd check print raised more questions than it answered. Of the additional monuments shown, there were again some that were identified as being existing that turned out later to have been long gone, and others identified as SFNF that, again, were clearly evident in the field. Although the respondent supposedly performed additional surveying to locate additional monuments, resulting in a very different configuration of controlling monuments than as shown on the 1st check print, the newly gathered field data did not change any of his conclusions as to the locations of lot corners so much as a hundredth for any corner. Reportedly, this newly located monumentation, over 1000' from the monumentation that he eliminated from his controlling point configuration matched the record between all those points so closely that it had no effect on the outcome.

These were 1907 and 1908 subdivisions, with monuments set by several different county remonumentation surveys over several decades, and a few monuments from various private surveyors in the mix. Amazing! I've never seen such a coordination of outstanding measurement by different crews, using different types of equipment spanning 100 years of work in 35 years of surveying.

One of the lots he was surveying was on the subdivision boundary. This is the one that he used control from the adjacent subdivision to control.

Each of the subdivisions had identified a lot to be used as possible future right of way should the county decide later to push a cross street through to the next subdivision. These two lots nearly lined up per the dimensions of each, yet were several tenths from lining up precisely. There was no physical evidence provided that showed that the sidelines of these lots did indeed line up more precisely.

There were adequate dimensions on each map to determine the positions of lot corners for the blocks of each subdivision, the back line of each block being the line common to both subdivisions. The older subdivision lacked a bearing label for the interior lot lines on this block, but lot distances matched the whole for the blocks, so the bearing could be determined. All other blocks in the subdivision did have labeling to determine the interior lot lines and they were consistently about 1D 40' from perpendicular to the fronting streets in all other blocks.

The respondent had made 2 assumptions when calculating his lot lines: 1) that the "street" lots did line up precisely, and 2) that the lots of the block in the 1907 subdivision were perpendicular to the fronting street contrary to what the clearly shown and internally consistent dimensions indicated.

To make his assumptions work, he had to arbitrarily alter lot dimensions in the block of the older subdivision. But hey, it was a lot several lots away from the lines he was attempting to reproduce and he wasn't setting anything there, so what's the harm, right?

He did not look for any monumentation along the common subdivision line. There were two granite monuments shown on one of the maps at subdivision corners, but not individual lot corner monuments shown. One of those granite monuments may have still existed, but was more than likely gone due to nearby road and site improvements, but there was a very good chance that the other still exists. Knowing mapping and monumentation practice in N. CA in that time period, I would have taken the time to look for redwood hubs at the lot corners as well. Quite often the original surveyors set corner hubs but neglected to show it on the maps. The respondent looked for nothing along the subdivision boundary.

The part that really floored me was when the county surveyor from the neighboring county testified that: 1) it was proper to assume that lots of old subdivisions are always intended to be at 90 degrees to the fronting street regardless of what dimensions may indicate,

2) that it was proper to assume that the street lots (which were never used for street purposes but sold and developed as residential lots) lined up precisely,

3) that it was proper to assume that mapped dimensions were in error and alter them in your calculations without further supporting evidence of the magnitude or location of mapping errors in order to make such assumptions work, and

4) that it was proper to utilize the centerline monuments of one subdivision to control the location of a lot in an adjacent subdivision while disregarding the monumentation of the subdivision the surveyed lot is in without evidence to show that the existing monumentation is not in the location of the original or that the existing monumentation in the subdivision that the lot is not in is somehow more reliably in the position of those original points.

That county surveyor also testified that it was within the proper standard of care to turn in four successive check prints that had an average of about 20 errors, omissions, false statements, and typos each.

Now perhaps your experience is different, or maybe your views of what should be expected of an LS in the conduct and mapping of a boundary survey is different than mine. But IMO, on a fairly simple lot survey where most of the evidence fits fairly closely, the first check print may have a typo or two, possibly a forgotten dimension or mon description, but the 2nd should be problem free. On a relatively complicated one-sheet map, it may be your 3rd or 4th before the surveyor and the checker catch everything that requires correction or clarification.

This survey, given the lack of original monumentation and the myriad of remonumentation that had occurred, was of moderate complexity/difficulty for a single rectangular lot (the other lot was reflected on a CR and was on the next street over in the same subdivision - it had a different yet similar set of problems). I would expect the average surveyor to have had this one ready for mylar by the 2nd, or maybe the 3rd check print if a typo or two slipped through.

Bear in mind that when asked in an open forum at a recent CLSA annual conference about whether the county surveyor's review included a look at methodology, this county surveyor was the only one to state that the review in their county only looked at the statutory format and note requirements that a minimalist reading of review statutes requires. This county surveyor opined that it was better to have a poorly drawn map of a poorly executed survey filed than to discourage filing with a more stringent review. [I'm paraphrasing some there, but not much]

So this wasn't simply a case of an unlicensed map checker with just enough experience to think he knows it all and be a PITA telling a surveyor what he was doing wrong on a survey that was way over the map checker's pay grade. Nor was it a matter of a few typos or a couple of missing dimensions or notations.

It was an example of a surveyor used to getting away with doing poor work by filing in a county where it has been publicly admitted that no substantial review of the survey is performed for fear of discouraging filing, finally filing where the map check both understands surveying and was concerned about the veracity of what was shown and what may have actually occurred during the survey.

The other thing to keep in mind is that enforcement cases that make it all the way to an administrative hearing and judgment tend to involve a respondent who resists all reasonable attempts by BPELSG to get him to rectify his problematic work. There's a certain "my way or the highway" attitude in most of the ones I've seen up close that transcends the realm of rational action. The final judgment seldom discloses the opportunities that were afforded the respondent to prevent a self-inflicted train wreck.

Evan,

Thanks for the detailed background. This had the look and feel of a lot of ruffled feathers along the way. And, as Jim pointed out, a lot of missed opportunities to set things right.

Humility can go a long way in this profession.