Boundary Retracement Policy

LS_8750 · Post by **LS_8750** » Thu Mar 27, 2014 2:29 pm

Is the attached some sort of new trend? After reading it, I am left with only questions.

Please have a look and comment.

Warren Smith · Post by **Warren Smith** » Thu Mar 27, 2014 2:39 pm

For a draft policy, it looks like it's heading in the right direction.

Given the issues relating to retracements in San Francisco - due to the 1906 fire destroying prior records - this is a fairly good restatement of policy.

Hopefully it is being circulated for feedback purposes, n'est ce pas?

RAM · Post by **RAM** » Thu Mar 27, 2014 2:51 pm

Interesting. Seems to be a policy to set a Standard of Practice.

btaylor · Post by **btaylor** » Thu Mar 27, 2014 2:54 pm

This stems from a small conflagration involving a couple of private surveyors butting heads with the City recently. There are some areas in the City that are destined for conflict with deed calls - mainly in those areas where the City established the street rights of way without their usual "plus/minus" calls.

I have no idea how they established the rights of way in these areas, but it appears they did not analyze occupation within the block and worked backwards, but I defer to those here who work in the City more than I.

You can have an area where 100 year old buildings all are built to a "zero lot line" situation, and the deeds fit together on paper, but the call from the block corner will make all of them encroach on each other by a half foot or more.

My understanding is the City was telling someone to hold the deed calls and show everyone encroaching. So this new thing is related to the meeting when things came to a head.

dmi · Post by **dmi** » Thu Mar 27, 2014 4:25 pm

I might have slept through the class where everyone learned that the County Surveyor has the authority to to tell private property owners that they must undertake quite title actions or enter into boundary line agreements.

Dave Karoly, PLS · Post by **Dave Karoly, PLS** » Thu Mar 27, 2014 5:31 pm

So if the property owners can't agree to a lot line adjustment (or maybe the City denies it) and the court refuses to recognize the 100 year old established physical boundary (the party wall) although they would have done so prior to the 1994 declaration of the sanctity of legal descriptions (which said sanctity never existed in law prior), then what? Do we get out our cold chisels and chisel a foot (or whatever) off of the 100year old building?

This reminds me of the deed staker that set a nail and tag off of modern block control in the a Town of Mendocino 2' into a 150 year old building.

dmi · Post by **dmi** » Thu Mar 27, 2014 5:47 pm

Deeds were not sancitifed in 1994. What was sanctifed is the fact that you need evidence to over come the deed...and prove you have an agreement...

Dave Karoly, PLS · Post by **Dave Karoly, PLS** » Thu Mar 27, 2014 6:30 pm

How is it possible to prove a valid agreement that happened decades ago and everyone is long dead? Why is it unreasonable to expect the courts to do their job and infer the agreement like they used to do?

The very purpose of establishment doctrines is to deal with difficult problems that don't line up perfectly, to have an equitable solution.

dmi · Post by **dmi** » Thu Mar 27, 2014 7:13 pm

How is it equitable, when everyone who was a party to an agreement, did not pass along evidence of the agreement and they are long dead , with respect to current owners. If the current owners are able to put their deeds on the ground as a matter of equity shouldn't the current owners be able to enjoy the fullest extent of their property? I understand that if there had been detriment reliance on the agreement it is not equitable tonow try insiste massiveand exoensive improvements now have tob relocated. I doubt any court following precedent would require such a thing. i agree with the court.Not every grapestake is evidnce of an agreement without other evidnce to support the proposition.

mpallamary · Post by **mpallamary** » Thu Mar 27, 2014 9:21 pm

It is my opinion that things like this, if even legally sound, should be the product of a joint committee comprised of public and private sector land surveyors. In San Diego, our city surveyor, Greg Hopkins encourages private sector involvement. Indeed, more agencies should emulate him and his efforts. Although San Diego does not have a lot of really hard directives, per se, we do have a mapping manual that provides some guidance. Whenever a government agency or individual propagates his or her idea of the world, it inevitably fails. You need private sector input.

http://www.sandiego.gov/development-ser ... manual.pdf

mpallamary · Post by **mpallamary** » Thu Mar 27, 2014 9:37 pm

Any thoughts about the attached? It is too bad CLSA and the state board are unwilling to consider something like this. I have suggested an outline like this, at least to be considered, to no avail. One of the biggest problems CLSA has involves a radical disparity in surveying standards and interpretation of the Land Surveyors Act. Worse is the inconsistency between government agencies as to how they interpret the subdivision map act.

dewardkb · Post by **dewardkb** » Fri Mar 28, 2014 2:33 am

Since when does a City have the authority to regulate boundary determinations of Professional Land Surveyors? If this letter were to be generated by the city of Houston in Texas the State Board of Professional Land Surveying would immediately charge them with violation of State law. I am certain the Board would prevail and the City would be forced to withdraw such a directive.

Peter Ehlert · Post by **Peter Ehlert** » Fri Mar 28, 2014 5:31 am

"Since when does a City have the authority to regulate boundary determinations of Professional Land Surveyors?"

I appreciate the effort to make complex problems dead simple by mandate, but what goes here?

(Deward, SF is a City _and_ a County... does that make a difference?)

Dave Karoly, PLS · Post by **Dave Karoly, PLS** » Fri Mar 28, 2014 6:16 am

FINALLY AN INTERESTING THREAD!

hellsangle · Post by **hellsangle** » Fri Mar 28, 2014 7:24 am

a different planet down there

Phil - Sonoma

dmi · Post by **dmi** » Fri Mar 28, 2014 8:08 am

Do you mean Texas or SF?

hellsangle · Post by **hellsangle** » Fri Mar 28, 2014 8:31 am

Good call, Dane! LOL

Phil - Sonoma

Stephen Johnson · Post by **Stephen Johnson** » Fri Mar 28, 2014 11:45 am

a bunch of comedians here. A bunch of comedians.

mpallamary · Post by **mpallamary** » Fri Mar 28, 2014 12:53 pm

How does the attached look? Is that an acceptable outline as a general process?

Warren Smith · Post by **Warren Smith** » Fri Mar 28, 2014 1:07 pm

mpallamary wrote:It is my opinion that things like this, if even legally sound, should be the product of a joint committee comprised of public and private sector land surveyors. In San Diego, our city surveyor, Greg Hopkins encourages private sector involvement. Indeed, more agencies should emulate him and his efforts. Although San Diego does not have a lot of really hard directives, per se, we do have a mapping manual that provides some guidance. Whenever a government agency or individual propagates his or her idea of the world, it inevitably fails. You need private sector input.

http://www.sandiego.gov/development-ser ... manual.pdf

Mike,

This is an impressive document. I can see signs of private sector input throughout.

The section pertaining to City ties to centerline monuments is a refreshing viewpoint, with the caveats employed.

It is very useful to have a default position stated, from which deviations must be carefully analysed. That is where the CCSF policy paper seems to be headed.

pls5528 · Post by **pls5528** » Fri Mar 28, 2014 2:56 pm

I applaud Mr. Pallamary for his input on this issue. This certainly should be a local policy such as what is promoted in San Diego. Having worked in both sides of the State, Northern California has always lagged behind slightly. I know I will most likely get some hate mail for that, but, that has been my experience. We are still trying to overcome the ol "Cowtown" reference in Sacramento (maybe that's why we don't have a Football Team??).

mpallamary · Post by **mpallamary** » Fri Mar 28, 2014 3:21 pm

[ATTACH][/ATTACH]Attached is the most recent decision in a boundary agreement case I was involved in (issued last week). My opinions and the survey were appealed and the appellate court agreed with the evidence I presented in support of the BLA. It was unfortunate that my client had to go to these extremes to defend his survey. Clark Stoner, this is a case of one providing expert testimony to resolve a conflict between two surveyors. I have redacted the names of the surveyors out of courtesy and discretion. These 100 year old agreements can be defended if need be but we would have preferred otherwise.

This was a wild one. Check out the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMey_ui ... e=youtu.be

LS_8750 · Post by **LS_8750** » Fri Mar 28, 2014 4:56 pm

Thank you Mr. Pallamary.
I had one exactly like that in 2012, tractors tearing down fences and everything.
It is on video somewhere.
I called the sheriff about an hour ahead of my arrival to the scene because I knew something was about to go down.
I was the hated one, until the deputy arrived with me.

mpallamary · Post by **mpallamary** » Sat Mar 29, 2014 2:33 pm

I am travelling today and will post the court decision next week to place this matter in context. This is constructive dialogue from my perspective.

land butcher · Post by **land butcher** » Sun Mar 30, 2014 5:55 pm

As for politicians overriding experts the area I live in has a lot of 2 lane roads and no curbs or sidewalks.
During the widening of the I-5 and the I-5/55 interchange lots of commuters cut thru this area.
The county traffic engineering dept, costing taxpayers millions of dollars a year, recommended enforcement (in this case CHP since we are county). The local politician, with zero engineering expertize, overrode his own traffic engineering dept and had about a dozen stop signs installed. Did not reduce the traffic at that time at all. The commuters disappeared when the fwy const ended. We still have the fkg stop signs. When I contact his office I address him as Stop Sign XXXXXXXX.

California Surveyors Forums

Boundary Retracement Policy

Boundary Retracement Policy

what am I missing?

come on now Dave

Well Dave please explain

The recent headlines says it all . . .

where Phil ?

Yee look no further . . .

Retracement Policy