How would you judge?

Responses should be interesting....

Is there a then both a virtual pincushion and an actual monumented pin cushion in the field, both differing from each other and the original record?

In detail "A" is he actually saying that the corner he set is 0.14' "off"? That kind of lost me. Must be a Cali. thing.

I can't see the images here at work (stupid Sonic Wall).

First off, why is the surveyor showing details not holding and using original monuments? Second, why in the world is he setting a monument that he is clearly showing 0.14' away from where the corner should be by his own calculation? very confusing as to why a surveyor would feel justified in doing something like that.

As Robillard, Wilson, and Brown state in "Boundary Control and Legal Principles" original monuments in a subdivision are 'paramount'. Chapter 12.10 "Control of Original Monuments within Subdivision Boundaries"(page 352, 5th ed.). Looks like he could use a little brush up. This is quite common though. They know they should hold the originals, but instead hold the plat calls, in an attempt to use 'intent' as the basis of the decision. There are times where that may be prudent, but more times than not, hold what you find.

> In detail "A" is he actually saying that the corner he set is 0.14' "off"? That kind of lost me. Must be a Cali. thing.

No. It makes as little sense here as it would anywhere else.

Basis of Bearings

He shows all these mons out in the street, but doesn't show how they relate to the parcel he surveyed.

Basis of Bearings

> He shows all these mons out in the street, but doesn't show how they relate to the parcel he surveyed.

Agree,

Additionally, and maybe this is a point of consternation, but I would say that there is material discrepancies shown on both CR's with the record and a ROS would have been warranted.
Since:
LOT 19 CR referred to the found 2x2 as "No ref".

Looks Like Lot 14 CR establishes everything off of CL ties to monuments with "No Ref".
If there is no reference for the monument then a record of survey needs to be filled. What original monumentation of the Tract Map is he establishing the CR on? Again, back to material discrepancies.

I would never "hang my hat" on that limited amount of evidence so that is my opinion of those records.

1. The second one calling an original stake off. I know it is common to say "no reference" or "no record" when finding monuments that weren't specifically called out on the map but everyone knows the original surveyor set them. Around here Spink did a lot of that; setting 3/4" iron pipe centerline control at the open circles on the Subdivision Plat (Tract Map is a SoCal thing) that we all know are original but he doesn't say so on the Plat.

2. Calling an encroachment by 5 hundredths based on a math solution. That is amazing but a lot do it; unclear on the concept.

3. Favoring what I assume is secondary county centerline control over original monuments.

Basis of Bearings

WTF? Are you kidding me? This clown/surveyor actually staked a line, each end "established from record" and calls out a concrete wall encroaching on the neighboring lot by 0.05'!!!!!!!!!!

Good Lord, no wonder our profession is not considered a real profession anymore. We don't deserve it.

The more I look at these "CR's", the more depressed I get. Whomever resurveyed these lots is .... well..... about all I can politely say is thank god he's in California. If this guy practiced in Idaho, they would probably make him the "distinguised surveyor of the year" for his mathematical abilities, maybe even put him on the Board.

After looking at it a little while longer I think I get what he's doing: he is saying that he established a "baseline" shown on his map and then calculated the figure of his lot from that longer baseline, using record dimensions and directions, and that figure is what he is showing in his details. I think. I don't get the point, but I think I see what he did. Kind of makes my head hurt.

He calculated search points and then held them as gospel and showed them on his plat. I'm just gratified to hear it's not standard practice in Cali.

Two other things: that frist plat looks really nice; and N00degs01'04"E, 0.14' gave me a good chuckle.

Things I noticed..

> What common mistake did both of these surveyors make?

Using record from one street and not tying into the other street. Since this is a common rear line one would have to survey through all of those three streets, analyze existing, create new geometry using the control monuments and only after all that is done could the rear line be staked with a degree of certainty. In this case I would have gathered all evidence one day and after it was all sorted out come back another day and set the rear line up.

> What glaring error is on Lot 19's CR?

The 2"x 2"hub/tag which is called out as 'No Ref' bears the tag number LS 2600. This is Hopens number so it is an original undocumented (No Ref) monument and would be held in position. If the surveyor who rejected the 2" x 2" had of looked on the title sheet of the subdivision he would have seen that LS 2600 is a golden number.

> What does Lot 19's CR tell you when you examine his Detail "B"?

To me it says there is excess between the rights of way that needs to be addressed before moving on.

That 0.14' call is probably due to a staking error that was not picked up in the field but showed up in Cadd. Instead of going back out and moving the monument into it's math position, he simply calls it out as a witness to his calc'd corner.

I just finished a survey on Vista Avenue, east side, and there are some differences between record and measured in the C/L control. Fortunately I found some ancient lead/nails in the curb that Hopens crew probably set back in 1958-1959 when the lots were just graded pads. There was also a rebar and cap at the rear line in the hills that missed record distance by 0.09'. This rebar was in the general location of one of the 2" iron pipes that Hopen set for the tract corner. Unfortunately a new fence had been installed and the 2" pipe was probably destroyed in the fence building process. The rebar was held for a couple of reasons. The main one being that the rebar had been accepted by a home owner and used for construction. The other being that accepting it was the most sensible thing to do, no pincushion, no virtual corner calling the rebar out. There was an angle difference of four minutes compared to record but considering some of the other discrepancies in the neighborhood, four minutes in 255 feet in a hillside situation was just fine. The rebar setter did not file a record, I plan on calling him up and asking why he did not do so. His answer should be interesting.

Things I noticed..

I feel for you Paul. My last 4 boundaries have been just like that. Do you think they just don't understand what they are doing or just being lazy about the whole issue. Either way it makes way more work for us trying to do it the right way. In my last 4 boundaries I have run across monuments that were set by an LS or RCE with nothing filed with the county. The bad thing about that is one of the LS's was a Deputy County Surveyor so he knew better and the other LS is a member on this site. He is just ignoring the whole issue after being contacted. I am just filing my RS with the county and he will have to answer to them or maybe the board on it. I don't really care at this point because you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

Mojave

> .... Do you think they just don't understand what they are doing or just being lazy about the whole issue.

Probably both of those reasons. Some LS's just do not know how to survey a boundary. When it(their measurements) gets away from record they just do not know what to do about it. They should just stay in construction and not try to do any boundary work.

I have run across the rebar setter before. I am going to prepare a CR and send it to David Hobbs, he knows the rebar setter also from a previous non filing incident and we'll just see where it goes from there. This guy never files. Come to think of it, I found him on another survey a few weeks ago, so I guess that is two CR's that David gets to toy with. I am not at the point yet to get Ric Moore involved.

Things I noticed..

By comparison, I just reviewed a survey of a small tract that had an even smaller tract subtracted from it. Whoever prepared the description for the smaller tract really screwed the pooch. At one end of the "common line" there is a 22 foot gap and at the other end there is a 3 foot overlap. There is absolutely no good (or simple) excuse other than stupidity.

Paul

If you can educate the other surveyor and "make him see the light" on this and future work, I would rather that happen than get the Board involved. If after all that, you still can't you did the best you could.