California Surveyors Forums

So I am doing some pro-bono work and helping with a Parcel Merger. The City doesn't have an ordinance for PM, so they want to call it a LLA. Fine. We do two submittals, and then they tell us to submittal signed originals for recording. The folks sign my originals, and get the notarized. Then we get ANOTHER review, a third review, by a new reviewer where they actually marked up the California General Acknowledgement Form for notaries. When I questioned this, the response is that the City requires signed and notarized submittals for each submittal?

Have any of you ever heard of this?
Do I have cause for filling a complaint? I don't get any responses and phone calls are not returned. Additionally, it does not appear that a pre-82 engineer or a licensed land surveyor are reviewing this work but there is no way for me to confirm this, since none of my questions are being addressed.

Any ideas? I believe that this is causing delays, and expenses for my client beyond what is fair and equitable.

That is ridiculous and irresponsible. If the city/county pressed the merger, it runs afoul of the SMA as a lot merger is EXCLUSIVE under the SMA. A lot line adjustment is exempt from the SMA under 66412(d). Get three other surveyors and ask for a meeting with the surveyor in "responsible charge." If that does not work, ask for a meeting with the city/county attorney.

Ask the city for a copy of the Department Designation Form. If that does not work, submit a Public Records Act Request. Ric Moore can also help you if you ask. You would be amazed at the response you get when cities are required to disclose who is in "responsible charge." The law was adopted nearly 6 years ago but many agencies have not filed theirs. Do not be shy. Insist they file their form. The purpose behind the law was to address these kinds of problems. Instead of a city/county being responsible, the individual is. it is akin to a "Come to Jesus" experience.

Ask to speak with that person. If they do not respond, file a complaint.

Take a look at the attached. Also per the PLSA:

8725.1. Legislative intent – requirement for responsible charge at state and local government entities

It is the intent of the Legislature that the licensure requirements that are imposed upon
private sector professional land surveyors and land surveying partnerships, firms, or corporations
shall be imposed upon the state and any city, county, city and county, district, and special district
that shall adhere to those requirements. Therefore, for the purposes of Section 8725 and this
chapter, at least one person authorized to practice land surveying shall be designated the person
in responsible charge of professional land surveying work practiced in any department or agency
of the state, city, county, city and county, district, or special district.

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 . . .

Thank you. I am getting comments and review redlines for the Notary statement that is IDENTICAL to the form the state requires...........getting review comments by folks who have never reviewed anything before is really frustrating.

Demand they follow the law.

As a former notary, I can attest that there are often quite a few mistakes on the notary forms. Would you mind sharing with me the redlines you received? I PM'd you my contact info. That being said, I think they are confusing the requirement for an engineering seal on every draft with a notary seal.

The State Board put out a set of instructions for public agencies when reviewing private sector documents. It is abundantly obvious, a more useful manual would be one for public agencies to follow, when performing this work.

Since presenting the LLA/COC webinar on Friday, I have received a number of very positive emails and phone calls asking for more information. Virtually all have to do with public agency problems wherein the reviewers don't know what they are doing or, having plans and documents reviewed by unlicensed people, wasting a lot of time and money. The problem appears endemic across the state.

Anyone have thoughts on this?

dedkad wrote:As a former notary, I can attest that there are often quite a few mistakes on the notary forms. Would you mind sharing with me the redlines you received? I PM'd you my contact info. That being said, I think they are confusing the requirement for an engineering seal on every draft with a notary seal.

Eric sent me the notary acknowledgment redlines. I agree the agency overstepped their bounds on that one.

mpallamary wrote:That is ridiculous and irresponsible. If the city/county pressed the merger, it runs afoul of the SMA as a lot merger is EXCLUSIVE under the SMA. A lot line adjustment is exempt from the SMA under 66412(d). Get three other surveyors and ask for a meeting with the surveyor in "responsible charge." If that does not work, ask for a meeting with the city/county attorney.

Ask the city for a copy of the Department Designation Form. If that does not work, submit a Public Records Act Request. Ric Moore can also help you if you ask. You would be amazed at the response you get when cities are required to disclose who is in "responsible charge." The law was adopted nearly 6 years ago but many agencies have not filed theirs. Do not be shy. Insist they file their form. The purpose behind the law was to address these kinds of problems. Instead of a city/county being responsible, the individual is. it is akin to a "Come to Jesus" experience.

Ask to speak with that person. If they do not respond, file a complaint.

Take a look at the attached. Also per the PLSA:

8725.1. Legislative intent – requirement for responsible charge at state and local government entities

It is the intent of the Legislature that the licensure requirements that are imposed upon
private sector professional land surveyors and land surveying partnerships, firms, or corporations
shall be imposed upon the state and any city, county, city and county, district, and special district
that shall adhere to those requirements. Therefore, for the purposes of Section 8725 and this
chapter, at least one person authorized to practice land surveying shall be designated the person
in responsible charge of professional land surveying work practiced in any department or agency
of the state, city, county, city and county, district, or special district.

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 . . .

This is great advice and I have experienced the same thing with City reviews. Often times, the consultant providing reviews has a pre82 engineer "on staff", but they arent reviewing the document someone unlicensed is and the "pre82 engineer" just stamps it at the end. Very frusterating and cannot really be proven, but its extremely obvious based on the comments you receive. For example, this reviewer in this specific City demanded I remove unrecorded surveys from my references, which is crazy when working in Marin County because MANY MANY surveys are unrecorded. I told the reviewer that referencing unrecorded surveys is common practice in this County and pulled 5 recently recorded ROSs (just 5 from the top of the list) and four of those five had references to unrecorded surveys. I followed that up with I would be happy to schedule a meeting with you and the County Surveyor to go over this and the reviewer backed off and accepted my references.

The biggest problem with pushing back is you can create grudges. This is hard to avoid and its really the reason its gotten so bad in many locations. Most poeple deal with it because they have to work with the City on the next project and don't want to piss them off. With that said, if nothing is ever done the problem just continues.

At the risk of insulting anyone, which is not my intent, we all have a duty to ourselves, the profession, and the public. The problem with many municipalities is that they become entrenched in their jobs, largely because their worldly exposure is very limited. The untoward influence of the unions also creates a environment wherein they discourage change.

As you know, I do not tolerate disrespect from any agency. If I am dissatisfied with the way things are going I stand up and object. That is our duty as citizens and our duty to the profession. What I find best is to continue elevating the issue and build a record. Usually when you ask for a meeting, you can get some good results. I recommend approaching a few other surveyors and having them join you. I have done this numerous times with splendid results. I also find it effective to partner with the local agency people and advance as a team. Years ago when the city of San Diego prepared its mapping manual, it was a collaborative efforts between the public and private sector. It is an incredible document.

Years ago when I was having problems in San Diego, I conducted a poll of the local CLSA chapter regarding the issue of showing street reversions. I asked the members to take the poll anonymously and I then collected them. Their was near unanimous support for my efforts. I shared the results with the city surveyor to demonstrate support for the position I advocated and we prevailed on that issue. The main reason was liability At the end of the day, the surveyor "in responsible charge" of the work is on the hook and not the city surveyor.

With regard to the notion of creating "grudges" I remind every city/county employee that they work for me as I am a taxpayer, my client is a taxpayer, and they are public servants. If they take offense with those facts, it is usually because they are small people. That being said, there are of course some exceptions. I can think of one Northern California county wherein the level of expertise and understanding is extraordinary.

As an aside, many years ago, CLSA had a Proprietor's Council. Once again, this is one of those areas where CLSA could play a vital role if the association wanted to. From my perspective, and given the benefits of Zoom, and seeing that a lot of people have more time because of the pandemic, we could get so much done if we wanted to.

I will get off the soap box and submit myself to whatever feedback arises.

Be safe!

When to find the time to file a complaint..................... hopefully December will be slow......... Tired of Cities reviewing things and not now what they are doing!

Eric,

I dislike seeing this as well. When I was City Surveyor at Oxnard, I keenly felt the responsibility to do the right thing. We adopted a merger ordinance to enable the process rather than to adjust a lot line into oblivion.

As to review and examination of maps, I was then - and still am - fully engaged in the process, whether an LSIT is receiving training or licensed staff, it is under direct supervision. The role of the manager is to ensure that these missteps do not result in the unnecessary delay of an applicant's project.

Gromatici wrote:When to find the time to file a complaint..................... hopefully December will be slow......... Tired of Cities reviewing things and not now what they are doing!

Eric,
Complaints are extremely easy to file. The Board even has a new online form. The last two that I did took about 10 minutes.

Warren Smith wrote:
The role of the manager is to ensure that these missteps do not result in the unnecessary delay of an applicant's project.

Warren,
We all know what a manager is suppose to do, and some do it right. Unfortunately I'm seeing more and more managers not reviewing documents before being sent out.

But with this crazy year, they all say Covid Covid Covid. Some work from home, so that confirms how much government work is actually getting done, causing additional delays! Do you honestly think a manger is reviewing work being done while the employee is working from home? I simply doubt it, causing additional frustrations to us private surveyors, and our clients.

Keith,
We are working from home and I review every map that goes out of our office.
Ed

I've heard similar frustrations from other surveyors and I sense an opportunity. It seems that we (as a profession) would benefit from a documented process we each could follow in similar situations. I agree with what MP says in this regard, but it would be helpful to have this written down and published in a manner that we could reference (along with the reviewers).

Such documentation would also be helpful if the ultimate appeal to judicial intervention were invoked. As a threshold matter, it is necessary to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing a writ of mandate but since this is such a unique situation (surveying map review), it would help to have a CLSA endorsed document that laid out the steps for questioning and conferring on contested review comments before ultimately appealing to civil court.

As an attorney who has seen both sides (private and gov't), I'm pretty sure that just getting the process documented of getting to civil court would help a lot of gov't agencies self-police some of these extreme bad actors. Usually, once counsel gets involved advising a county surveyor or other reviewing official, the reality of cost and time and hassle becomes abundantly clear. Then, unless there is really a substantive issue in dispute, I'd expect the offending gov't official to self-correct.

The other benefit of this approach is that it could be done prior to filing a complaint with the Board, which as others have noted, may tend to create a "grudge" that could be held against the private professional in other work. With a process that brings in county (or other) counsel in an objective, predictable manner, the parties know what to expect and can control their fate - if they wish to. And if not, the process may bring about their removal and accomplish the bigger objective of having competent review.

Shedding light on obscure and firewalled gov't agency reviews is possible, but requires some thought and attention from the profession. From what I've observed, the usual surveyor response of pulling one's hair out, just lowers one's quality of life and accomplishes little. If we are a profession, we have to act professional.
If any of you would like to write a constructive and thoughtful article on this issue, I'd be happy to help edit and publish it for you in the California Surveyor.