Mon. wells with no. mons. and other gripes

MikeTurnrose · Post by **MikeTurnrose** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 3:13 pm

It sure is frustrating when you find nice mon. boxes with nothing in them. I found this yesterday throughout a whole subdivision. Too bad the survey was done back in 1974 or I would be filing a complaint. Also the same sub. map had a 2.5' closure error in the lot I'm surveying and significant measurement discrepancies between monuments (like 51.5 feet meas. v. 48.71 rec.). Huh? How could things get so messed up like this?? Makes a mess for me to try and figure out. Rant off.

LS 4722 · Post by **LS 4722** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 5:25 pm

MikeTurnrose wrote:It sure is frustrating when you find nice mon. boxes with nothing in them. ........I'm surveying and significant measurement discrepancies between monuments (like 51.5 feet meas. v. 48.71 rec.). ....

Any slippage in your area? I have seen iron pipes in well monuments on the edge of the monument sleeve. Another time the pavement had moved so much that we could not even recover the pipe that the well monument had been placed for.

btaylor · Post by **btaylor** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 5:27 pm

There is an area in San Carlos like this. I found straddlers for the area I was in, but overall you are S.O.L. Nothing was set in them. So less slippage there, and more like "slackage".

LS_8750 · Post by **LS_8750** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 7:41 pm

Beats maps that call for monument wells and pipes then finding nothing at all.

Lee Hixson · Post by **Lee Hixson** » Fri Jul 18, 2014 5:31 am

MikeTurnrose wrote:It sure is frustrating when you find nice mon. boxes with nothing in them. I found this yesterday throughout a whole subdivision. Too bad the survey was done back in 1974 or I would be filing a complaint. Also the same sub. map had a 2.5' closure error in the lot I'm surveying and significant measurement discrepancies between monuments (like 51.5 feet meas. v. 48.71 rec.). Huh? How could things get so messed up like this?? Makes a mess for me to try and figure out. Rant off.

Would be interesting to just shoot to the center of all the lids. What if the resulting positions came close to matching record? Kind of a "best fit lid" solution.

MikeTurnrose · Post by **MikeTurnrose** » Fri Jul 18, 2014 11:50 am

This was in Monte Sereno, Santa Clara County.

land butcher · Post by **land butcher** » Fri Jul 18, 2014 2:30 pm

1974 That's about when the bottom dropped out of the const industry here. One subdivision here was left in a perfect state for teaching const, from pads to framed bldgs all stages.
Many engrg companies closed or changed their names.

PLS7393 · Post by **PLS7393** » Mon Jul 21, 2014 9:21 am

Hey Mike,
Have you contacted the County to see what CR or ROS have been filed (if any)?
See if any are valid, by using documented monuments that don't exist?

This is a prime example to show how a governmental agency overseeing the subdivision process is not following the SMA as required. Yes their lapse to do a competent job makes a mess for us to act upon.

As Bryan said, there are areas in SM County with similar issues, and I found one while running the County in the Redwood Shores area with a similar empty concrete monument box.

If we don't police or own, Google will take over surveying, so don't be afraid to write a letter, even if it an old subdivision map. At least send a letter to the Town of Monte Serreno Engineer to put them on notice. In my experience, only a few gov't agencies include a "Punch List Item" in their final subdivision check list to include monumentation.

dedkad · Post by **dedkad** » Mon Jul 21, 2014 12:02 pm

PLS7393 wrote: This is a prime example to show how a governmental agency overseeing the subdivision process is not following the SMA as required. Yes their lapse to do a competent job makes a mess for us to act upon.

I was surprised to find out our County Surveyor does not verify monumenation shown on the Record of Survey maps that they approve. I work for a City and I have the inspector verify every monument on the map before we record it or release the monumentation bond. I would estimate that at least 50% of the time monuments are missing or are of a different character than shown on map. It is something that agencies really should be verifying.

land butcher · Post by **land butcher** » Mon Jul 21, 2014 12:30 pm

SB county would check monumentation and ties. They would ALWAYS find an error, which would turn out to be their error, but necessitated us sending the crew back out to check it and of course the county guys got to waste the better part of a day driving up from SB to Santa Maria area again.

pls7809 · Post by **pls7809** » Mon Jul 21, 2014 12:32 pm

Subdivision Maps and monuments set for those subdivisions are one thing, because there are new lines and new streets being created. The agency has skin in the game to get those things marked out. The monuments are required per agency code and bonded to be set after improvements are built so they need the monument inspection prior to release of the bonds.

Records of Surveys are a single surveyor's opinion and fall into a state law. Technically there is not even a requirement in the RS laws that says monuments are required to be set. IMO County Surveyor's do not need to be inspecting those monuments. We pay enough for map checking already and then to pay for a county crew to inspect? No thanks.

Jim Frame · Post by **Jim Frame** » Mon Jul 21, 2014 4:18 pm

I agree, the CS shouldn't be checking ROS monuments, or stated measurements, either. That would be going *way* beyond the technical check intended by the statute.

The only reasonable circumstance under which I can envision a CS checking monuments and/or measurements is if he has a solid reason to believe that the filing surveyor is guilty of negligence, incompetence and/or fraud, and the CS needs to collect evidence in support of a complaint to BPELSG. Even then, the violations would have to be egregious to justify the expenditure of county resources, and only after exhausting less costly remedies (e.g., discussions with the surveyor, referral to a PPC).

D Ryan · Post by **D Ryan** » Tue Jul 22, 2014 8:48 am

8766. (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) The examination pursuant to this section shall be performed
by, or under the direct supervision of, a licensed land surveyor or
registered civil engineer.

MikeTurnrose · Post by **MikeTurnrose** » Tue Jul 22, 2014 1:20 pm

Keith,

Thanks for your input. Of course I checked for record of surveys/CRs. There was recent one that documented the empty wells.

Sending a letter to the City is probably a good idea, but it's hard to find time for these things. Plus, it may fall on deaf ears. One time in Portola Valley, I dug up an original iron bar under 3" of brutally hard AC and partially under a speed bump. I left the hole there and contacted the public works dept. telling them about it and suggesting they put a box on it. I didn't get any response.

btaylor · Post by **btaylor** » Tue Jul 22, 2014 2:21 pm

From what I have experienced in the Bay Area, the City of San Jose will come and encase those brass plug types that are not ferrous. San Mateo County will take a note of a buried monument and eventually recover them. City of Palo Alto will dig for those old granite monuments if you calc out the location. Other than those three, I do not think any other agency here ("here" being the Peninsula portion of the Bay Area) will be proactive about the street monuments.

Others either have no idea what you are getting at when it comes to monuments - where they came from, where their records are, or what they are supposed to do with them if you expose them.

land butcher · Post by **land butcher** » Tue Jul 22, 2014 3:18 pm

Very few pubic agencies react to letters from Land Surveyors. I discovered that a city had taken part of one BM desc and erroneously added it to the next numbered BM desc. Contacted the City Engr twice in writing - no response either time.

Tom Milo · Post by **Tom Milo** » Wed Jul 23, 2014 7:40 am

There is an area in Cupertino (Santa Clara County) that has monument wells (no straddle nails) that are empty, but there are lead and tacks set at the back of walk on the lot lines. As newer homes are being built or remodeled the City as part of the project approval is making the owners replace the sidewalks and driveway aprons. As a result the lead and tacks are being destroyed.

land butcher · Post by **land butcher** » Wed Jul 23, 2014 8:45 am

Tom Milo wrote:There is an area in Cupertino (Santa Clara County) that has monument wells (no straddle nails) that are empty, but there are lead and tacks set at the back of walk on the lot lines. As newer homes are being built or remodeled the City as part of the project approval is making the owners replace the sidewalks and driveway aprons. As a result the lead and tacks are being destroyed.

Is our State board looking into this?

LS_8750 · Post by **LS_8750** » Thu Jul 24, 2014 8:14 pm

Nobody cares. Figure it out.