just in case you need something to read

dmi · Post by **dmi** » Thu May 09, 2013 6:12 pm

Well the time has come to share this. Comments are welcomed and BTW I did check with author before posting

pls7809 · Post by **pls7809** » Fri May 10, 2013 7:04 am

Good info Dane. Thanks for posting it.

Jim Frame · Post by **Jim Frame** » Fri May 10, 2013 8:37 am

The problem is that some agencies, particularly smaller cities, don't have anyone on staff who knows a good survey from a bad one. They know how to check lot closures and make sure the title block follows the city standard, but beyond that they're unable to assess compliance with the standard of surveying practice. The County Surveyor doesn't get to weigh in, so the map ends up looking nice and gets filed, but the boundary may be negligent or incompetent. By the time it gets discovered -- often many years down the road -- the damage is already done.

.

Scott Tikalsky · Post by **Scott Tikalsky** » Fri May 10, 2013 8:52 am

Jim;

I know you are familiar with this, but it seems to me that 66442 of the SMA requires that the subdivision map be check by someone authorized to practice land surveying. If you have "technicians" just checking lot closures and the city engineer signing off, then that local agency could be held liable per Ray's letter. Is this a corrrect interpretation Ray?

Jim Frame · Post by **Jim Frame** » Fri May 10, 2013 2:50 pm

then that local agency could be held liable per Ray's letter

The agency wouldn't be liable, the responsible licensee (e.g. city engineer) would. It would require that someone who knows what they're doing file a complaint against a senior agency staff person. If that someone is local, they'll be filing a complaint against a person from whom they're likely to be seeking discretionary approvals in the future. That tends to discourage formal complaints.

.