California Surveyors Forums

I submitted a Record of Survey to Orange County for checking last year. One particular correction involved my logo in which appears my name, address, phone number, email address and web address. I did not remove it when i sent in my corrected print and this note appeared.

THIS IS NOT ACCEPTED HERE IN OC SURVEY, ONCE AGAIN, WE REQUEST YOU REMOVE THIS STATEMENT.

Another curious item. OC SURVEY provided me with non-standard Recorder's Certificate which does not comply with the current PLS act Statement.

I plan on pursuing this but am wondering why they think they can make up their own laws in OC. Have all the other surveyors down there been agreeing to this?

Ken Wilson
LS 5571

Are you getting these comments from an LS or from an unlicensed map checker?

I've seen certificates (Recorder's, CS, and Surveyors) that differ slightly from those in the PLSA. Typically, they are not significant and for the CS or Surveyor's Statement, reflect some non-typical aspect of the survey or map that when viewed in the given circumstances, make more sense than the statutory language. I've seen a few Recorder's Statements which vary somewhat to accommodate some local quirk of the recording stamp and don't amount to anything substantial.

If the difference to the Recorder's Statement is one that somehow alters the meaning of the statement, I'd ask for the reasoning and a cite to the statute that authorizes the change.

Likewise as to your logo. That sounds like a style preference being presented as a requirement. Again, ask for the statute which precludes company logos and/or contact info, or which authorizes local jurisdictions to require removal.

kwilson wrote:One particular correction involved my logo in which appears my name, address, phone number, email address and web address. I did not remove it when i sent in my corrected print and this note appeared.

THIS IS NOT ACCEPTED HERE IN OC SURVEY, ONCE AGAIN, WE REQUEST YOU REMOVE THIS STATEMENT.

Can you be more specific? Is it that they don't allow any logos on the RS at all, or is there an issue with legibility, or maybe you've included a copyright note or symbol in your logo?

Does the certificate conform to the examples shown in the attached link provided on the Orange County website?

http://www.ocpublicworks.com/civicax/fi ... lobID=8440

Again, ask for the statute which precludes company logos and/or contact info, or which authorizes local jurisdictions to require removal.

To me that sounds like asking permission for something you believe to be a right rather than a discretionary act. In cases like these I generally take a different tack: I request draft language for the CS explanation-of-differences note pursuant to §8768. Most of the time the map then gets filed as-is; only once has the CS provided note language, which I massaged a bit until we both agreed to it. I put the note on the map and everybody was happy.

The individual making these corrections is an LS. He is saying that no logos are allowed on a Record of Survey. And with regard to the Recorder's note they insist on using a non-standard form and want the word CERTIFICATE instead of STATEMENT. This change happened quite a while ago and i believe there was a legal reason for it. Now I could just cave in and put whatever they are asking for no the map and be done with it. But it is more a matter of principle.

Interestingly, the checker also seriously questioned my method of boundary establishment and feels I did not do enough field work. He wants me to tie out more monuments and show more information. Everything fit within 0.10 to 0.15. I used a railroad track split to establish RR centerline and he wanted me to find original railroad monuments from 1880 deed. He also provided me with a five page rendition of how to survey and why my map and methods were less than stellar. After making the changes i sent my map back in only to get another 5 page criticism back.

Ken Wilson
LS 5571

kwilson wrote: Interestingly, the checker also seriously questioned my method of boundary establishment and feels I did not do enough field work. He wants me to tie out more monuments and show more information. Everything fit within 0.10 to 0.15. I used a railroad track split to establish RR centerline and he wanted me to find original railroad monuments from 1880 deed. He also provided me with a five page rendition of how to survey and why my map and methods were less than stellar. After making the changes i sent my map back in only to get another 5 page criticism back.

Ken Wilson
LS 5571

That's pretty nuts. And there are "railroad monuments" from 1880 down there? What would those be?

After making the changes i sent my map back in only to get another 5 page criticism back.

What drives me crazy is when the second check calls out a bunch of stuff that wasn't called out on the first check.

That's pretty nuts. And there are "railroad monuments" from 1880 down there? What would those be?


RAILROAD SPIKES!!!

bruce hall wrote:That's pretty nuts. And there are "railroad monuments" from 1880 down there? What would those be?


RAILROAD SPIKES!!!

I'm hoping for vertical rails that are a lot bigger than a tenth, which would not affect his resolution.

I have mentioned it on other threads here that I see a growing trend of govt employees demanding that your submittal conform exactly to how they want it without regard to the accuracy/correctness of the map/doc. The map/legal desc checkers name and seal is never placed on the map/doc but when done it's how they want it without regard to how correct the original submittal was.

FYI I have never met any Orange County map checkers

The more I hear these stories, the more I'm thinking about whether the entire system in Ca is set up to best advance the greatest public good. I'm now wondering if the best system may be one where there is no map review and no filing fees. Simply drop the map off and let it be recorded (or filed) I'm not necessarily advocating this position or convinced in my own mind that it would be best. But simply bringing the topic up for discussion.

When evaluating what system is best, we must compare the benefits of the map review with the cost that comes with the process. I would assume that the mapping is of higher quality with less technical errors after going the checking process. But the cost this comes with is that fewer ordinary people are able to afford a survey when they actually need one. It is not only the filing fees but the time it takes to usher the map through the process in certain situations. I have heard statements on this forum to the effect that you don't need a survey to build a fence. I don't agree with this in all cases. If there is uncertainty in the property line location it should be resolved a with survey so that occupation is conformance with true property lines. Occupation at variance with true property lines is not good for either party and can lead to costly problems down the road.

Given that the ultimate and most important question of fact that is determined by survey is the physical location of boundary on the ground, my question to all of you out there would be, in what percentage of instances does the review process result in the actual location of the line to be changed on the ground?

in what percentage of instances does the review process result in the actual location of the line to be changed on the ground?

If the review requirement were to be removed, some number of marginal practitioners who currently shy away from boundary surveys because they know a competent surveyor will be reviewing their work will decide that they can take on those projects with little likelihood of their work being challenged. I won't hazard a guess as to numbers, but I do believe that negligent/incompetent surveys would become more common in that scenario.

I agree that to remove all map checking is not a good idea, but I see a trend of over examination of the maps. Unlike the public sector, private sector has monetary limits and if the map meets the minimum requirements then that should be sufficient.

I'm not sure of the reference but isn't there something in the LS act that the map checking agency cannot require more field work or looking for additional monuments to approve a RS? They have the option to put their note on the RS and the surveyor is allowed a rebuttal note.

Jim Frame wrote:

in what percentage of instances does the review process result in the actual location of the line to be changed on the ground?

If the review requirement were to be removed, some number of marginal practitioners who currently shy away from boundary surveys because they know a competent surveyor will be reviewing their work will decide that they can take on those projects with little likelihood of their work being challenged. I won't hazard a guess as to numbers, but I do believe that negligent/incompetent surveys would become more common in that scenario.

It's hard to say how much of that is at play. It may also be that these same marginally skilled surveyors are taking on these jobs but just not filing the map as they should by law. Typically the incompetent don't even know that they are incompetent, and this is the problem. If the maps were to be filed, because the process was easier, at least others following would have a record, right or wrong, of what transpired.

Jim Frame wrote:If the review requirement were to be removed, some number of marginal practitioners who currently shy away from boundary surveys because they know a competent surveyor will be reviewing their work will decide that they can take on those projects with little likelihood of their work being challenged. I won't hazard a guess as to numbers, but I do believe that negligent/incompetent surveys would become more common in that scenario.

That is one possibility. Another is that people would try harder to present a more reputable product in the first place if they didn't have a mandated babysitter to enable them to be lazy. I have worked in another state where there was no map review or mandatory filing and I assure you that the wheels did not fall off of the land boundary system. While I am a proponent of mandatory filing I do not support government survey review. I feel that the costs outweigh the benefits and the costs continue to rise.

You also presume that every county surveyor is a competent boundary surveyor and I don't share your faith in the system, this has not been my experience.

Suppose your scenario were true, what better evidence could you ask for enforcement action against an incompetent surveyor than a stack of surveys demonstrating negligence down at the county recorder's office for the whole world to see?

land butcher wrote:I'm not sure of the reference but isn't there something in the LS act that the map checking agency cannot require more field work or looking for additional monuments to approve a RS?

8766. Record of Survey - examination
(a) Within 20 working days after receiving the record of survey, or within the additional
time as may be mutually agreed upon by the land surveyor or civil engineer and the county
surveyor, the county surveyor shall examine it with respect to all of the following:
(1) Its accuracy of mathematical data and substantial compliance with the
information required by Section 8764.
(2) Its compliance with Sections 8762.5, 8763, 8764.5, 8771.5, and 8772.
(b) The examination pursuant to this section shall not require the licensed land surveyor
or registered civil engineer submitting the record of survey to change the methods or procedures
utilized or employed in the performance of the survey, nor shall the examination require a field
survey to verify the data shown on the record of survey.
(c) Nothing in this section shall limit the county surveyor from including notes
expressing opinions regarding the record of survey, or the methods or procedures utilized or
employed in the performance of the survey.
(d)....

It states pretty clearly that they cannot require you to change your methods or procedures. I have heard that interpreted to say that they cannot order you back to the field as a condition of filing the RS. However in my short career I have seen this rule violated repeatedly. I propose we start a thread (like the quote of the day) where we post comments we've received in violation of this section.

I just had a survey where the CS demands (it was presented as an imperative as most are in this particular county -- I appreciate very much the few offices which distinguish between suggestive and imperative comments on map review) that we go back to tie a center quarter corner when we set a 1/16th on a calculated line per another map. I agree that it's a good idea but it is cost prohibitive. The client cannot afford for us to spend another full day running through the mounatins and woods to search for this additional corner. If it's gone then will they require us to break down the section? This supports my statement above regarding 'competent boundary surveyors' If you have someone who has never run a 1/4 mile through the woods reviewing maps where that method is common then what have you got? You have a bunch of theories on what is right and wrong but little practical experience to apply to the equation. It adds up to high costs and low value.

As Olin said, if my methods and procedures are demonstrated then it is your prerogative as the retracing surveyor to accept or reject their validity. Demanding perfect boundary surveying at all costs in every situation is not necessarily serving the public in my opinion. The map of the example I presented will go unfiled for a while until someone starts screaming over it. I have no solution, it has not served me well to stomp my feet or sling regulations at them. They always pay me back on the next subdivision submittal...

Marginal practitioners can show up anywhere. Hell I believe I am one half the time but someone was silly enough to send me a plastic surveyor card. The difference is that I'm willing to ask questions and show my ass in attempt to overcome this classification and claw my way up to expert. When I get the sense that everyone in the CS office is an expert already and I should just listen and do whatever they say because they know what's best for the world is about when the party is over for me.

In spite of my disdain for this process I have learned very much from County Surveyors and the map review process and while it certainly has value, I don't think the current costs justify it. If it was up to me I would hire my own expert to review the map and let those county guys focus more on record keeping, subdivisions, road improvements and monument preservation

Jim Frame wrote:

After making the changes i sent my map back in only to get another 5 page criticism back.

What drives me crazy is when the second check calls out a bunch of stuff that wasn't called out on the first check.

My favorite is when they do that (it’s a fact of life these days on the more complex maps, it’s like they just didn’t make it that far on the original review) and then after you fix it all up for them and send it in again then on the third check they ask you to change it back to the way it was on the first check....

At least OC is providing a thorough and I presume formal explanation of the issues. I think I like that better than the two or three word comments (usually in illegible handwriting) scribbled in red in the margin that some offices send us

I have no solution, it has not served me well to stomp my feet or sling regulations at them. They always pay me back on the next subdivision submittal...

Govt retaliation unfortunately is alive and well these days.

I am also wondering, in these days of unionized govt employees and their job protective contracts, if supervisors have any control over the people under them anymore? I don't ask this idly but from information told to me by ex local govt employees.

land butcher wrote:

I am also wondering, in these days of unionized govt employees and their job protective contracts, if supervisors have any control over the people under them anymore? I don't ask this idly but from information told to me by ex local govt employees.

Yes this is a fact in Alameda County, as the CS does not see a map until the final copy (Corner Rec., or RS) is on his desk for signature.

kwilson wrote:The individual making these corrections is an LS. He is saying that no logos are allowed on a Record of Survey.

I'm not aware of any statutory proscription against logos. As long as they are legible, I don't think they can require it to be removed.

kwilson wrote:And with regard to the Recorder's note they insist on using a non-standard form and want the word CERTIFICATE instead of STATEMENT. This change happened quite a while ago and i believe there was a legal reason for it. Now I could just cave in and put whatever they are asking for no the map and be done with it. But it is more a matter of principle.

I believe there was some sort of liability concerns about the word "Certificate". But if the County wants to change it back to "Certificate" from "Statement" only for the Recorder's Certificate/Statement, why should the surveyor care? That change does not affect the surveyor's liability one iota. As long as the recording data as shown on the typical Recorder's Statement in the PLSA is included, I don't see any problem with this. If the wanted to change Surveyor's Statement to Surveyor's Certificate, notwithstanding the limitation of the definition of "certify" or "certification" stated in 8770.6, I could understand the surveyor pushing back on that one.

kwilson wrote:Interestingly, the checker also seriously questioned my method of boundary establishment and feels I did not do enough field work. He wants me to tie out more monuments and show more information. Everything fit within 0.10 to 0.15. I used a railroad track split to establish RR centerline and he wanted me to find original railroad monuments from 1880 deed.

A few years ago, I attended a seminar titled "Railroad Surveying 101". One of the things that surprised me was that the railroad RW is very rarely an offset of the centerline alignment. Where centerline was designed with spirals at the curves, the RW curves were standard circular curves. Also, some maintenance procedures tend to move the physical locations of the tracks slightly, particularly on curves. And occasionally, the RR may have intentionally moved a rail line laterally within the RW without filing any record of it.

Sometimes the map checkers might be aware of the existence of particular monuments or of certain records that are not found in standard basic survey research locations. It might pay to ask the map checker if he or she is aware of the existence of any original RR RW mons or reasonably reliable perpetuations of those locations, and if they know of any readily available maps or notes reflecting that info.

Often they will just kick the problem of discovering if there are any pertinent RR RW records, and where to find them, and discovering whether any reliable RR RW monumentation still exists back on the surveyor. But occasionally, map checkers have seen enough records cross their desk, or perhaps have direct experience to know whether monuments and records exists and can either provide copies of the records or direct you where to get them. It's worth asking.

kwilson wrote: He also provided me with a five page rendition of how to survey and why my map and methods were less than stellar. After making the changes i sent my map back in only to get another 5 page criticism back.

It's difficult to form an opinion one way or the other without the check print or the comments, but 5 pages seems like an awful lot. When I get comments back, whether irritated by them or not, I give each some consideration. If there seems to be some substance and/or reasonable advice & guidance, then I'll put in a little more work to see if it is something I can or should follow up on. If it's some style change couched as a mapping requirement, if the change is easy and takes very little time, I might do it. If it is something that would be a pain to do, if it does nothing to add clarity to the map or the info presented, and particularly if I'm feeling a bit cranky that day, I acknowledge the style change "suggestion" in my return correspondence sent in with the next check print and tell them I'll keep it in mind for any maps I produce for filing in that county in the future.

If the methodology criticisms are not valid in your opinion, counter the checker's arguments with your own, backed up by reference to statute and/or other authoritative reference. If you can't back up your opinion with such references, reconsider whether you need to change your opinion and standard procedures on those specific matters. Often, methodology comments might be predicated on knowledge of local conditions, history, or records the surveyor might not be aware of. Consider whether that might be the case here. Other times, methodology comments may simply be misguided understanding of proper weight and uses of evidence that often come from a limited breadth of experience or a misunderstanding of principles as presented in commonly used survey texts. A good knowledge and patient explanation of CA law to overcome the misunderstanding of text book principle is often effective.

My criteria for addressing map comments on the map or in reply is whether or not the requested changes will result in a better map that more clearly explains what I did and why I did it. I've had map comments that I was initially irritated about, only to later appreciate the effect the requested changes made on my map. I've also addressed comments by declining to make a substantive change, presenting my well-reasoned arguments why I declined in responding correspondence. Sometimes, probably more often than not, the map checker acknowledged that they learned something and occasionally expressed appreciation for the way I responded. Also more often than not, when I addressed each comment with honest consideration and in a respectful manner, the picky, non-substantive style comments I declined to make changes for just seem to become non-issues.

This is getting more interesting. I submitted back to them in the mail some hard copies (prints) of the final Record of Survey so that they could either accept it or give me a note to put on the map. Then I got this request:

"We received RS 2017-1110 in the mail however it is not signed by you, is there a way you can e-mail me your 3rd submittal of this map a PDF of your signed map so I can log it in?"

I have never had a County Surveyor ask for a signed print just to check the map.

Thank you all for your comments. I don't have time to respond now but will do so shorlty.

On check prints, I put "PRELIMINARY" in a large bold font on my signature line. I don't stamp & sign check prints, only the final mylar.

According to Page 24 of the linked document, interim (non-final) documents are not required to be signed and sealed, but they need to include the name and license number of the LS and a notation such as "preliminary" "draft" or "for review only".

http://www.bpelsg.ca.gov/pubs/local_officials_guide.pdf

Could it be the checker is referring to Section 8764.5:
"No other statements may appear on the face of the map except those required or authorized by this article." ?

Well so much for the "STATEMENT OF PURPOSE" note that is required by the oc county surveyor.