San Diego County Surveyor Retires

[mpallamary]

See:

http://californialandsurveyorsforum.com ... etires.97/

[desert turtoise]

No doubt, county surveyor departments, where they have been instituted in certain counties and limited states, have played a significant role in establishing, and maintaining systems of monument control for public road right of ways, related sectionalized lands, just to mention a few jobs they were/are tasked with. An historical benefit to the public, not to mention private practitioners, especially early on, when the nations survey systems were being developed. Which leads to the present day question of "what should the scope of a county surveyor department be in the present ?"

Warren Ward, a county surveyor from Colorado, was quoted in the recent November issue of POB magazine. Ward points out, unlike California, county surveyors in his state are not in the business of "review". Warren feels "over-review" leads to surveyors filing less survey plats, which cannot be good for surveyors or the public. He goes on to explain that in his state the surveyors organized to eliminate boundary plat review because in Warren's own words, "they did not like the way it was being done".

Unfortunately, such "over-review", as Warren calls it, may have led to an over- reaction by the land surveyors' association in that state, as apparently even subdivision plats are no longer reviewed. If anyone has questions or would like details on the above, Warren Ward can be contacted by e-mail at XYHt magazine, where he has been a contributing writer.

[mpallamary]

There is clearly a balance with regards to the roles and duties of a County Surveyor. I believe one of the problems is the lack of uniformity with regards to what these folks are supposed to do and I also feel the State Board can and should address this problem. The Board has developed and promoted a manual for the review of Records of Survey and Corner Records from the perspective of a government official overseeing a private sector surveyor. What the Board fails to consider is who is exercising oversight on the County Surveyors? There are some very good ones out there and there are others not so good. It is my opinion that a manual - one that includes private sector input - should be developed to provide guidance to County Surveyors. I work in various counties and even though the governance of County Surveyors is supposed to be accomplished through state laws, it seems many of the County Surveyors interpret these same laws differently and this leads to confusion and problems.

[land butcher]

What I have experienced in the last 5-10 years is a dramatic increase in the number of times a plat/plan is reviewed and returned for corrections. A number of these corrections should have been caught on the 1st or 2nd check not the 4th or 5th. Simple legal descriptions, lot and block or the west 5 ft of xx parcel, are being turned into lengthy redundant metes and bounds, reminds me of the days when scribers were paid by the word. The worst part of the above is the checkers number, if they have one, doesn't go on the plat/document the private practitioners name and number does. One agency is measuring the 1/2inch open border on legal descriptions and plats to less than 1/16 of an inch.
Not applicable to this board but plan checking has become a tree destroying industry. By the 5th check the agency, in it's zeal to use red pens, are requiring corrections that were corrected to their criteria on the 2nd check and are now red lined to be changed back to what was on the original submittal. When you have to submit 2 sets of 10-20 or more page plan sets that is a major cost eventually transferred down to the consumer.
A simple driveway removal on a State highway took numerous checks over an 18 month period. A fire plan for a convalescent home has been under review for almost 2 years and the building is nearly finished. Latest check they are requesting items already on the plan.
My usual statement is "Follow the money". Much of this map/plan checking is now on an hourly basis for the agencies hence the more plan checks the more money the agency receives.

[David Kendall]

I appreciate the bearing of this thread. That POB article that was referenced is fantastic for perspective on the nationwide trend. I can say from experience that the ROS maps being produced in California are much of better quality than the private survey records coming out of Texas but is the extra cost justified? In my opinion, CA and OR "overchecking" map reviewers would be wise to take note of the fact that there are very few offices like theirs remaining in existence and if the problem persists in creating extreme costs for the general public (and typically a percentage of the community well known for wielding great political power) then the powers that be may eventually abolish the whole lot of them or at least remove the checking powers (which I would consider an overall disservice to the public).

The issues that land butcher is describing are par for the course and the more personalities that are involved in the process, the more expensive it becomes as the agencies essentially have a blank check to spin away on under the current protocol. I don't know that tighter regulation will solve the problem but improved oversight and training for government employees (which they seem to do plenty of anyway) may be in order and in my humble opinion, CLSA ought to take the lead as it is clearly a matter of great concern to the California surveying community.

[desert turtoise]

DK, your input is appreciated. As for CLSA taking the lead in considering what kind of legislation could modify the scope of review currently practiced by government agency map checkers, consider this: I happen to know from a reliable source that informational article was submitted three times over a period of five years to the California Surveyor magazine and the article was rejected each time. Although the people behind the magazine did not deem it worthy, maybe the general state membership may someday be willing to act so that the non-agency land surveyor is back in the driver's seat in regards to his own survey. Or put another way, is it the same old question of "just whose survey is it anyway?" I have seen this answered as "it's the public's survey". I think maybe the better answer is no, "it's the surveyor's survey" and should be treated as such.

[-Dave Ryan-]

I once heard a wise surveyor put it this way: It's your survey; it's the public's Record of Survey.

[mpallamary]

Hopefully we will see a change in direction of the California Surveyor magazine. They historically follow an editorial agenda dictated by the Central Office. The editor has rejected a large number of solid articles determined not to be "worthy," and this is one of many. It is a good topic but historically does not see the light of day.

[dedkad]

I don't know that tighter regulation will solve the problem but improved oversight and training for government employees (which they seem to do plenty of anyway) may be in order and in my humble opinion, CLSA ought to take the lead as it is clearly a matter of great concern to the California surveying community.

I agree, but the emphasis on training and oversight needs to be a two-way street. I have seen many submittals where the mistakes are so basic that it is clear that it was not reviewed by the person signing the document before it was submitted.

[mpallamary]

Yes, that is a sad cycle. In many instances, some surveyors intentionally submit poor quality plans because of the lack of consistency in plan checking and they have given up because no matter how well they try to prepare their plans, they are never uniformly reviewed and the comments are never the same. This is especially true in a lot of contract situations. There are of course others who are simply incompetent. In any event, more reasons to seek consistency.

[desert turtoise]

One of the key themes of that POB article centered on the fact that 48 of the 50 states have not seen fit to have a local agency official (read county survey department) "review" the work of the survey practitioner... a process in place in this state so long that it is ingrained with no one today even blinking an eye... which raises the question as to how and why, historically, this anomaly (doesn't two states out of fifty seems to be an anomaly?) could have happened. Just how did the private practice licensed land surveyor relinquish his/her driver's seat in this state? How could it have been allowed to happen?

For example, a poll of CA county surveyors was taken a few years ago, as part of that article, I was told, (most of whom did not respond) as to the question of Who determines what is a material discrepancy? The answer of virtually all those few who did respond: "We make that call".

Could it be too many licensed practitioners failed to step up to the plate, did not or would not recognize a discrepancy for what it was, i.e., material in nature, and did not file accordingly? Maybe this led to the "barn door left wide open" for others to make such decisions, (to borrow a phrase from an old salt surveyor). Comments please ?

[mpallamary]

Your comments are important and insightful. We need to open up a dialogue on this issue and this is something CLSA should be doing. That is one of the reasons I want to open up the County Surveyor forum CLSA sponsors on this site but that prohibits members from viewing or participating in (even though we are paying for it).

[mpallamary]

BTW, as a member of LSACTS, we have discussed this topic and time permitting, we want to publish a white paper on this topic. I have some thoughts on this and they are sort of like the old ALTA standards.

[David Kendall]

I agree, but the emphasis on training and oversight needs to be a two-way street. I have seen many submittals where the mistakes are so basic that it is clear that it was not reviewed by the person signing the document before it was submitted.

I believe your comment is tangent to the conversation we are having here. Yours is an unrelated issue and in my opinion, poor internal survey review prior to submittal does not justify comprehensive, unilateral "overchecking" which to me indicates mandates on style or surveying and mapping methodology, theorizing of terminology and other generalities that are beyond the scope (or an overly broad interpretation of) the relevant legislated power of the county office.

Enforcement on cases of blatant dereliction of duty by licensed surveyors is not the responsibility of the County Surveyor. I believe that task would fall on the licensing board. There are many fine lines involved and distinctions are complicated so I feel that a higher degree of examination and consideration (administrative law; due process; documented public court proceeding) is called for in this instance.

With that said, I agree with your assertion and I will be the first in line to advocate for a legislated continuing education requirement for surveyors and technicians. As 'professionals' I feel that we should welcome that sort of accountability, not deny it on the basis that we are too professional to be held accountable. That attitude is a straight up cop-out.

As a person that is learning to survey, research, analyze boundaries and draw maps, I admit to making many silly mistakes and I am grateful to the map reviewer that calls me on them. At the end of the day, those comments should typically be suggestive in nature and what is really lacking from all of the map review conversations that have frustrated me in the past is an open-minded attitude and willingness to discuss and consider both sides of the situation and compromise when another professional presents a defensible opinion.

Idealists have no place in government yet that seems to be where they all end up and I find the culture allowing that propagation repulsive.

[Warren Smith]

Interesting points are being raised here.

I'll chime in with a few personal observations.

I feel fortunate to have spent many years in the private sector preparing and submitting maps for review and approval. Since I've been on this side of the "counter", it has helped my perspective of what the end result truly is - ultimately the responsibility (and liability) of the preparer. In California (I'm licensed in three other states), the approval of subdivision maps is a mandated function of orderly development - since the 1929 version of the Map Act. Boundary establishment issues aside, the creation of subdivided lots for sale is driven by adherence to local agencies' adopted General Plans. The combination of improvement plans, subdivision agreements, performance bonds, conditions of approval, adherence to local ordinances, etc. make subdivision maps very dependent upon the coordination of many disciplines in order to reach the stage of final approval. That is, after all, what the County/City Surveyor's Statement entails.

Then there are the boundary establishment issues, both for subdivision maps and, of course, records of survey. Essentially, the standard of review for technical compliance is not on the level of, say, an appellate court review of a trial proceeding. We have all retraced earlier maps which are exceedingly sparse on notation as to methodology. Certainly when deciding on acceptance of found monuments not of record, or the reestablishment of dividing lines from a common grantor, our forensic and analytic skills come into play. When gleaning intent from within the 'four corners' of a deed, we must place ourselves in the mindset of the parties involved.

I especially like David's characterization of review comments being suggestive in nature and the concomitant willingness to engage in meaningful dialogue.

As to the proper philosophy to adopt as a government employee, my stance is that it is focal point for a local community of professionals and is best served by active involvement in local chapter activities, liaison committees, statewide associations and, yes, forums like this one.

Flame on, ladies and gentlemen!

[desert turtoise]

So Warren, with your broad background, you may be one of the few with a balanced perspective (my perspective, like others, is partly biased and not necessarily balanced), to shed more light on how it came to be that CA surveyors are (to quote the POB article) subjected to "an unmatched level of scrutiny". I find it a compelling fact that 48 states choose to not place their surveyors under a microscope for everyday boundary (non-subdivision) surveys.

[mpallamary]

Sadly, a great deal of this is attributable to politics. Some surveyors find their work scrutinized to an extraordinary degree while others are recorded without question or discussion. That certainly creates a number of problems as there is no consistency or certainty. Plan checking needs to be better regulated. Years ago when County Surveyors were elected, a certain amount of political incentive was not uncommon but that is not the case today..

[Warren Smith]

c'est la vie ...

Before I would file results of survey maps in Arizona with the Recorder, I always spent an inordinate amount of time re-checking my numbers.

On the whole, I feel that California has the right idea with the office in each County that serves as a clearinghouse for local survey activity. Adjacent surveys in process are required to be shared per PLSA 8762 (d)(2). As a repository of unfiled survey records from retired or deceased practitioners, the CS provides an invaluable service. Currently, the obligation to preserve controlling monuments gives the CS leverage with project managers to ensure they are reset.

Being invested in a community ensures consistency and the opportunity to continue the history and traditions of our predecessors. Surveyors in the private sector have a business plan. The same holds true for dedicated public servants. That is, a philosophy to assure that the public good is at the forefront of what we surveyors leave for our progeny. Since retracement is at the heart of our profession, I feel that leadership should be such that it is perceived as positive.

Historically, County Surveyors were the first on the ground to subdivide the recently patented public lands. Two of my predecessors were former GLO deputies, and continued to perform Swamp and Overflow surveys for patent by the State Surveyor General. As time went on, the office has been charged with indexing filed maps and maintaining ties to section corners and rancho lines. With the advent of GIS, it has been a key element to have surveyors provide the base cadastral layer. Electronic dissemination of records has transformed research. Of course, there are projects which require a visit to the vault to pore over original petitions for roads and the subsequent deeds. As cities began incorporating and special districts formed, there is a service performed by the CS for annexation descriptions.

I wanted to give a cursory overview of some of the other functions of a County Surveyor that aren't limited to spell-checking maps.