County Surveyor Refuses to File R.S.

[JeffroH]

I have an 8-sheet Record of Survey that has been ready to be sent to the Recorder's Office (the County shall remain nameless). I have sent mylars in 3 times now to be filed, but each time my maps have been returned to me because the header is not the same on all 8 sheets, per their "Map Preparation Manual" (I did not include the full general description in the header in sheets 2 through 8). I have previously recorded a Record of Survey in this exct same manner without any problems, yet now I have been battling with them for 5 months to get them to file the map. Last month I sent the mylars, yet again, along with a letter stating that the map is in compliance with Business and Professions Codes 8762.5, 8763, 8764, 8764.5, 8771.5, and 8772, and that I will not be making their requested changes. I then concluded the letter stating that I was resubmitting the unmodified set of mylars to be filed without further change, in accordance with Business and Professions Code 8768. That was in the beginning of April.

The mylars came back again today.

I am curious to see what everybody else out there thinks about this situation.
Thank you for your input.

[pls7809]

If this is a battle that you feel is worth fighting, then at this point I would suggest having a meeting directly with the County Surveyor.

The header you are referring to, is this the part where you say, "Being a portion of Lot X, Tract No. YYYY, in the city of AAAAA..."? That's what I'm assuming you are referring to.

PS - I'm not saying whether it is worth fighting this battle or not. You just need to decide how far you are willing to take that fight after the meeting with the CS if nothing changes. Is it a matter of space on the subsequent sheets?

[LS 4722]

..... Last month I sent the mylars, yet again, along with a letter stating that the map is in compliance with Business and Professions Codes 8762.5, 8763, 8764, 8764.5, 8771.5, and 8772, and that I will not be making their requested changes. I then concluded the letter stating that I was resubmitting the unmodified set of mylars to be filed without further change, in accordance with Business and Professions Code 8768. That was in the beginning of April..

Do not give in. You are in the right place, don't let them browbeat you into submitting to their will.

IF they do put a note on your map, will it read something like this " This map does not comply with our personal drafting styles and techniques. "

Stand you ground please.

[dewardkb]

One of the flaws that I see in the California survey recording system is the one that is being described here.

I do not believe that some local County Surveyor should be able to dictate and enforce such ridiculous idiosyncrasies regarding such a matter.

If it was here in Texas I would simply file a complaint with the Board. If the other Land Surveyor can't show where I am not complying with the law then they will pay the price. If it can be shown that I am violating the law then I will pay the price simple as that.

You would be amazed how quickly other Land Surveyors lose their appetite for a confrontation when they have skin in the game. Suddenly those criticisms and claims evaporate when they have to put their own money where their mouth is.

[Jim Frame]

Unless the CS has noted a specific matter of statutory non-compliance, I'd force the issue. Meeting with the CS in person or by phone would be a good step.

If that fails you have a number of options. You can file a complaint with BPELSG, though that might take some time to achieve results. You might also consider delivering the mylars with a detailed cover letter to the Board of Supervisors and see if that gets anyone's attention.

[Tom Milo]

If that is the only change, why not just do it and get it recorded. What about you client's interest in getting the map filed? Maybe you can call and get a resolution, but why make the CS an enemy. In my experience I try to keep a good working relationship with the CS. They are a valuable resource for information. Seems like you wasting a lot time on a change that can be done in minutes in cad.

[Ric7308]

JeffroH,

It's been my experience that most CS's approach their responsibilities with well intentions. Try talking directly with the CS. Or if that doesn't work, give Ray Mathe a call at 916-263-2271 or by email Raymond.mathe@dca.ca.gov and provide Ray with everything you have that can explain both sides of the story. Maybe Ray can provide you with advice on how to approach the CS to resolve or maybe he can call himself.

Ric

[hellsangle]

Between the disparity in checking fees from County to County and this story . . . it would sure be nice to omit checking altogether and go from surveyor to recorder! But that's too simple, huh?

Phil - Sonoma

[LS 4722]

One of the flaws that I see in the California survey recording system is the one that is being described here.

I do not believe that some local County Surveyor should be able to dictate and enforce such ridiculous idiosyncrasies regarding such a matter..

Isolated incident and a weak argument for recording statues

[LS 4722]

If that is the only change, why not just do it and get it recorded. What about you client's interest in getting the map filed? Maybe you can call and get a resolution, but why make the CS an enemy. In my experience I try to keep a good working relationship with the CS. They are a valuable resource for information. Seems like you wasting a lot time on a change that can be done in minutes in cad.

This goes beyond changes requested by a checker or CS. Ignoring the specific statue(s) that allows the demanding of the filing of the RS by the OP is the issue. Let the CS abide by the same statues that we are bound to. If he/she does not like certain items on or not on the RS, then they are free to place a note to that affect on the map.

[bruce hall]

the heading (general description of the survey) only shown on the title sheet and not the rest, that is small potatoes and the CS shouldn't be messing with this item. Being able to modify the other 7 sheets because it is easy in cadd, is a non issue, and should not be the basis for REQUIRING the duplication of the heading on the subsequent sheets.

What if the map was hand drawn? Well then the CS or other members of this forum would probably state that I should get updated, learn the new technology or other stuff,(not that those are not valid suggestions)
but this really doesn't address the issue of the REQUIREMENT of having duplicate headings on each sheet.

If it is in cadd, it's easy, if it is in cadd, no problem, if it is in cadd, shouldn't take that long.

As to whether you should fight this thing, well, "nothing changes if nothing changes".

[Tom Milo]

I would pick a better battle with the CS. Meanwhile your client is most likely not happy his survey, the one he paid for is not recorded over what he may think is a trivial matter. In the county I practice it is quite common to have the same title block on all the sheets.

And yes it may go beyond the statute that allows demanding the map be filed, but at the end of the day the map is still not filed. If you like make the change, file the map and then file a complaint with the State Board.

[LS 4722]

I would pick a better battle with the CS.

Somehow I just do not think you would pick any 'battle' (which this is not) with a CS or checker.

[Tom Milo]

You should not be making assumptions on people you don't know. I picked many a battle with Caltrans, CS, and various Cities and Towns when called for on comments that are material and not just cosmetic changes. Really, someone will not change a title block to get their map recorded. There must be something else the OP is not sharing.

If you want standards legislated so everyone plays by the same rules then lobby CLSA to put together standards that are used state wide by the private and non-private surveyors. What I seen in the CT Manuals and CEAC Manuals I take as guidelines. At least CT has their standards for mapping in writing, too bad it still is not followed state wide. I have done work in several districts. The standards listed in the LS Act pertaining to the ROS are very general. I'll bet you can look at a ROS's from all over the state and see varying degrees mapping completeness.

[Warren Smith]

Records of Survey are not going to have County ordinances regulating content that subdivision maps do. The mandate for controlling orderly development drives those ordinances.

LCSO has promulgated standards for consistency of R/S, but they are still guidelines.

The key to understanding County Surveyors' office mindset is that these maps are required to be indexed, and there are local standards of practice beyond the statewide regulations.

I sense that there may be more at play here.

I see that I am the first from "this side of the fence" to post (other than Ric), so I'll don my flameproof suit ...

[Ric7308]

Only the OP of this thread (and maybe the individuals working at the CS Office) know the full story associated with this situation. The rest of us can only provide insight based on what was provided to us.

Tom, Paul, etc. I definitely appreciate your point of views. Tom, I would ask that you consider the validity of your argument in reverse as it relates to the CS electing to "choose a battle" based on the context of this situation. Is the public, the one(s) associated with this map and others related to the other maps waiting to be reviewed / filed, being adequately served in this situation? The OP's client should not (though there are times when it may happen) be affected by this transaction because the CS does not possess the authority to change the opinion expressed by the OP during the performance of the boundary survey. The survey is done. The CS's authority lies solely in ensuring that the submitted map (RS) complies with the listed sections of law.

The fact of the matter here is the CS has one of two options mandated by the PLS Act:

1. File the RS as is.
2. Include a CS note on the RS and the submitting PLS also include a note - then file the RS.

The CS has absolutely no additional authority beyond those two options relative to the filing of the RS based on the information provided.

If the submitting land surveyor feels the CS is acting in a negligent manner as those actions relate to the CS responsibilities as mandated by the PLS Act, the submitting land surveyor can simply submit the documentation to BPELSG for review and action if warranted.

If the CS feels the submitting land surveyor is acting in a negligent manner, the CS can simply submit the RS to BPELSG for review and action if warranted.

[JeffroH]

Hello all,

I just wanted to let everybody know that I just didn't post this thread and run away, I have been reading and following everybody's comments. I just wanted to remain silent so as to allow the conversation to flow without any further comment on my end.

In response to those who questioned whether or not there is "more at play here", I can guarantee you that it all comes down to one thing... the headers of the map (a.k.a. drafting style/personal preferences), with one side seeing only black, and the other side seeing all white, with no grey area in the middle to be found thus far. No more, no less.

After a discussion yesterday with the County Surveyor's No. 2 (or 3?), no agreement could be reached. The C.S. flat out refuses to file my R.S. as-is. So it appears that there is no grey area to be found in this one. I will contemplate my next move, but will be sure to follow up here so everybody will know what ultimately transpires from all of this.

I do appreciate everybody's comments, and look forward to any more that may come. It's nice to see that this site can still bring us surveyors together to discuss issues/concerns that we have. I have used this site as a resource in my growth as a surveyor. Many of you are like mentors to me, even though we have never met. Threads/Discussions like these have been quite valuable in molding the surveyor that I have become, and I'm sure will continue to open my eyes and mind to ideas that I might not of thought of on my own.

So thank you all for keeping the discussions alive.
Jeff

[pls7809]

If there is a refusal to file, then you have to go to BPELSG and Ray Mathe. They have to file the map, period. They can add a note and you can counter with your response note, but they still have to file it.

[Steve Martin]

A bit off the OP, but in response to Phil's suggestion to do away with reviews,

I think that a lot, and probably most, Surveyors are glad to have an independent check before recording their work. The amount of the fee is an entirely different matter, however having someone look over your work is invaluable.

I did a little bit of ROS checking 24 years ago, and a Surveyor who submitted a map showing setting 1/4 corners in Section 6 on-line and midway between section corners was really quite happy that I called him on it and that mistake did not get memorialized in perpetuity.

Sometimes there are "learning opportunities" for either the submitting Surveyor or the Map Checker. Either way, I think it is important that the learning occurs and we do not get maps recorded with procedural errors.

Regarding the OP, my preference is not to repeat statements on a map. I would rather put that space to good cartographic use, but I am willing to work with the County staff to come up with a mutually acceptable map.

[dewardkb]

While I appreciate the advantage of having a "check" it seems to me if the content is dictated by code then you either comply or you do not.

While an excuse that there was no "check" and that is why I did not comply with the law may be convenient I have never heard such an excuse hold up in court or in front of the board.

Professional Land Surveyors should limit their "checks" to the "checking" allowed by law.

[D Ryan]

Someone else already mentioned this, but I’ll say it again, a little differently; there's always more to the story in situations like this, especially when one is seeking affirmation of their position relative to their plight at hand, but for discussion purposes, let’s just assume you’ve accurately depicted the County Surveyor’s stance. A County Surveyor is on thin ice when taking a hard stance based on their "Map Preparation Manual". Although one would hope their map preparation manual is based on code, the code is what their review should be based on. Of course there are many aspects to what a County Surveyor does in checking surveys that requires their interpretation of the law as it relates to a process. That process isn‘t typically spelled out step by step in the law. That requires a professional opinion based on practice, experience, and engagement with others, both private and public, of what the law is reasonably saying.

If he can't point to a specific law to convince you to add or change something, he may try to appeal to your common sense or suggest it's a matter of ordinary practice. But, this approach requires all parties to be treating each other as professionals from the outset, and acting like professionals. We see again and again that this process can be contentious. Does it have to be that way?

A County Surveyor needs to know where his role falls relative to law, professional practice, and the licensing regulatory environment. I may be asking for something that isn’t spelled out word for word in the PLS Act, but I ask myself if other professionals would conclude it’s a reasonable interpretation of the law as applied to practice. Also, the PLS Act can't be applied in a vacuum. There may be other laws in play here, possibly related to recordable documents. But who knows, we really don't have all the facts.

What exactly do you mean by a “headerâ€￾? Would you be willing to post a pdf of these eight pages, or at least the “headersâ€￾?

I see a hole in the process- you state: “After a discussion yesterday with the County Surveyor's No. 2 (or 3?), no agreement could be reached. The C.S. flat out refuses to file my R.S. as-isâ€￾. First off, let’s assume you’re licensed and are signing this survey. Why have you and the County Surveyor not yet sat down together? Shouldn't that have happened way back in the process? Otherwise I’d venture this situation may be different.

I hope you’re able to resolve this with some reasonable, professional communication.

Dave Ryan,
Humboldt County

[JeffroH]

In response to Dave Ryan:

This thread has never been about "seeking affirmation of their position relative to their plight at hand". As I stated in the original post: "I am curious to see what everybody else out there thinks about this situation." That is why I am not naming names and have been trying to keep as quiet as I can while I watch fellow L.S.'s discuss this subject, having to add posts only to clarify and/or provide an update on the situation.

As for the "Headers" in question, I will not post .pdf copies, as it will name the parties in question, but I can provide the basic wording without divulging any names.

On Sheet 1, the header is shown, as follows:

In the City of XXX, County of XXX, State of California
RECORD OF SURVEY
"Being a portion of ... (Line 1 of description of general property being surveyed)"
"... (Line 2 of general description of property being surveyed)"
"... (Line 3 of general description of property being surveyed)"
"... (Line 4 of general description of property being surveyed)"
"... (Line 5 of general description of property being surveyed)"
"... (Line 6 of general description of property being surveyed)"
"... (Line 7 of general description of property being surveyed)"
"... in the City of XXX, County of XXX, State of California" (Line 8 of general description of property being surveyed).
Company Name
Date of Survey Project Name Surveyor's Name, P.L.S. ####

On Sheets 2 - 8, I did not include the 8 lines of "General Description" for the purpose of using that map space for actual mapping. The County Surveyor refuses to file because I did not include the "General Description" on Sheets 2 - 8, as 'required' per their Map Preparation Manual.

And that is the only thing that has been called into question. No more, no less.

I have actually had a number of other Records of Survey filed with this County, including one other multi-sheet Record of Survey, using this exact same template for the multi-sheet Record of Survey. Prior to this R.S., I have never had a reason to meet with the County Surveyor or their representatives, having been able to complete the process through standard submittals, checks, and letters, with most of them going from 1st check to mylar to the Recorder's Office without anything more than a few minor changes/additions/corrections.

In my latest letter to the County, I stated that I will make sure that all headers for all future Record of Survey submittals made by me will meet the "Heading" requirements in their Map Preparation Manual. But on this particular map I was not going to make their requested changes, and to file the map per Business and Professions Code 8768.
The map was returned, yet again.
And when I spoke to the C.S.'s representative, he informed me that "the County Surveyor refused to file the map because he does not want to perpetuate this error" (actual quote).

So there is "the rest of the story", if you can really say it's much of a story. That'll be for you all to decide. I'm just gathering information and opinions at this point, with the future of this map still to be determined.

Thank you all again for your input. It is not going unnoticed.
Jeff

[pls7809]

Thanks for clarifying what the "header" was. Hopefully it can be resolved without BPELSG action. Let us know what you do and what happened after it does get recorded.

[Lee Hixson]

Dave Ryan: "I may be asking for something that isn’t spelled out word for word in the PLS Act, but I ask myself if other professionals would conclude it’s a reasonable interpretation of the law as applied to practice."

That may be true as a starting point but once the submitting surveyor--in his/her professional opinion--declines to go along with the "recommended" change, then it should stop right there. Professionals can disagree. There should be no onus on the submitting surveyor to automatically go along. If the CS remains steadfast then add a note and file the map.

Edit: I would also distinguish between minor and major points of disagreement. This one is minor, in my opinion, and should not be pursued by the CS. On the other hand let's say, for example, that the submitting surveyor neglected to show an old land net point that is clearly relevant to the resolution of the subject parcel, a monument that defines a line that is called for in the legal description. This goes beyond a mere recommendation and the CS should lean heavily on the surveyor to properly address the issue.

[Warren Smith]

This sounds very much like the proverbial professional agreement to disagree.

In this instance, the inclusion of the lengthy caption on each following sheet - to the detriment of the salient features of the map - would seem to fit the category of yielding to the higher goal of clarity of purpose.

As I mentioned above, subdivision maps have local ordinances in place to dictate format. A record of survey has minimal statutory requirements. They tend toward a clear depiction of such things as material discrepancy with prior record maps.

If I were presented with such a situation, it would undoubtedly pass muster as described.

Flame on guys!