Help With Question For ROS Trigger Webinar

[Sunburned_Surveyor]

Hey guys. I'm in the process of preparing for my webinar next week on ROS triggers defined in Section 8762. I'm hoping to get some help with a couple questions I have on the triggers. Here is the background for the questions:

1) A surveyor is required to prepare a site plan (or similar exhibit) for an LLA or subdivision tentative map.
2) The parcel isn't shown on a existing filed survey map.
3) The surveyor must show dimensions from the parcel boundaries (existing and proposed) to site features like buildings and driveways.

Here are the two questions:

1) Is there any way the surveyor can show the information requested by the agency without a field survey?
2) If a field survey is performed, is a ROS required under Section 8762?

I have my own opinion on these questions, but I'd like to hear from my peers. I'll make sure we discuss this question during the webinar.

Be kind and respectful in your comments on this thread please. I'm not trying to start any flame wars, and we all need to acknowledge these questions don't always have crystal clear answers.

If you want to share your comments with me offline, please do so. I can keep them confidential. The best way to do that is by e-mail:
sunburned.surveyor@gmail.com

Thank you!

Landon

[Peter Ehlert]

1) yes. those are "entitlement" drawings, conceptual only.

[David Kendall]

1) yes. those are "entitlement" drawings, conceptual only.

What in cornbread hell is that supposed to mean? Please don't just drop some obscure line like that then walk off like you hit a home run. I don't expect a Page essay on the subject but elaborate a little on what you mean by "conceptual site plan that shows dimensions between boundary lines and improvements" .

My understanding is that the TM process is excepted if you plan on filing a subdivision map or LLA later. The rubber meets the road when the deal falls apart and you have done all of the work but no map is filed.

I recently did an LLA where I retraced only the line shown on a record of survey then "faked in" the rest from record data and more or less calls with qualifiers. I was expecting (and contracted) to file RS but after I wrote the description I chose not to monument or map the new line if the client didn't want it done.

If the line had not been previously mapped then it I would have felt like I was on tenuous legal footing to do the LLA legal description without filing RS. I believe there ought to be something previously mapped (and easily retraceable) for reference, if not the entire boundary

[Peter Ehlert]

excuse me. It is a term I got accustomed to hearing. Google "local agency "entitlement" drawings".
they entitle the applicant to proceed with the next step. Such as build or convey, subject to applicable codes and regulations.

[David Kendall]

Thanks I believe we are speaking of the same thing. It's a great topic and I look forward to the webinar and the conference

I've recently heard of a couple of situations where the new lines were monumented before the deal fell apart so now there are random pipes hanging out in the middle of the lots and the owners know about them and use them.

Next the inclination is to go remove the pipes but some people say that is illegal

Establishment doctrine?

[Warren Smith]

Or line offsets to the true corner ...

[Timothy J. Reilly]

CA Building Code §107.2.5 Site Plan. The construction documents submitted with the application for permit shall be accompanied by a site plan showing to scale the size and location of new construction and existing structures on the site, distances from lot lines, the established street grades and the proposed finish grades and, as applicable, flood hazard areas, floodways, and design flood elevations; and it shall be drawn in accordance with an accurate boundary line survey. In the case of demolition, the site plan shall show construction to be demolished and the location and size of existing structures and construction that are to remain on the site or plot. The building official is authorized to waive or modify the requirement for a site plan when the application for permit is for alteration or repair or when otherwise warranted.

My answer to your questions:
1) The code section referenced above states that the site plan "shall be drawn in accordance with an accurate boundary line survey". Then there is a period after that. The requirement for the site plan can be waived or modified only by the building official. The way I read it, if you're preparing a site plan for permitting, an accurate boundary line survey is required unless waived by the building official.

2) 8762(b)(4) is pretty clear. If you establish a line not shown on any subdivision map, official map, or record of survey, you're on the hook to file. The reason for having establishing the line is irrelevant. Lot line adjustment, site plan, or your kid's third grade summer school project all qualify. If you cause the line to be known and it hasn't been shown previously, you're required to file. You've pulled the trigger.

[Peter Ehlert]

David, I believe those "random pipes" belong to the land owners, to do with as they see fit. A public record would be cool, but cost prohibitive in your environment today.

[LA Stevens]

A record of survey is required if a field survey has been conducted that mapped the location of existing improvements relative to an existing boundary that has not been previously mapped or if a proposed boundary line is shown on a map for a LLA and it subsequently gets approved and the LLA is completed. Once the deed records creating the deed described boundary line, it triggers the 90 days ROS submission to County Surveyor. Most of the time, we file the Record of Survey and the deed at the same time.

On the other hand, if I sold the north 10 feet of my 22 acres and I showed it on a map that I had compiled from record data and aerial photography from the County GIS, it would not require a ROS. No field work was done.

[MikeT]

Excellent topic--worthy of discussion

I completely agree that if a field survey is done showing features in relation to property lines not shown on a recorded map then you are on the hook for an RS. An RS should be filed whether you set pipes or not. I was told by my previous employer many many years ago that if you didn't set mons., then you didn't have to file. That was wrong. I've heard others say the same.

I've been trying to tell architects lately about the site plan requirements for showing PLs. I hope some are listening. I can't tell you how many site plans I've seen showing property lines that were not derived from survey.

[E_Page]

"I don't expect a Page essay on the subject ..."

Sheesh! Some people have no appreciation! ;)

1) I agree with those who've said that if the LLA is based on field measurements you make to determine the new line location, you trigger 8762(b)(4), regardless of whether any other RS triggers are encountered.

2) It depends upon the level of precision required. Larry offered a very good example of when and how a low precision distance might be required and determined without the need for a RS.

No essay this time. Sorry to disappoint.

[Sunburned_Surveyor]

Thank you for all the comments so far. This is my favorite:
"My understanding is that the TM process is excepted if you plan on filing a subdivision map or LLA later. The rubber meets the road when the deal falls apart and you have done all of the work but no map is filed."

I'll make sure I bring that situation up during the webinar. I think private surveyors need to handle this risk in the way they write their scope-of-services.

Here is another interesting comment from the thread above:
"On the other hand, if I sold the north 10 feet of my 22 acres and I showed it on a map that I had compiled from record data and aerial photography from the County GIS, it would not require a ROS. No field work was done."

I think the requirements of the local agency become important in this context. If they are asking you the relationship between physical site features or buildings and an existing parcel line on a site plan, how do you do that without a field survey? If you are using a sketch from a tax assessor map or GIS parcel data thrown on an orthophoto, how accurate is your dimensions between the site features and the existing parcel boundary? If the agency is using your site plan to verify the proposed boundary lines meet setback requirements, how is plotting a boundary without a field survey good enough?

If you set and survey targets with your RTN rover, fly your UAV and plot a record boundary over your UAV orthophoto, has your survey of the targets met the definition of "field survey" in Section 8762? How are you placing your record boundary plot over the UAV orthophoto? Are you using found monuments, or holding walls and fences? If you are adjusting your record boundary plot to match features on the aerial, are you really meeting the requirements of the local agency if they are trying to verify setbacks?

I look forward to more comments. Please remember to be respectful and kind.

Landon

[steffan]

Back in 2006 BPELS responded in writing to Northstar Engineering in regards to similar questions that Landon is asking. The letter was widely circulated. And even though it shouldn't be considered as establishing regulation or even represents current BPESLG thinking, it is something worth being aware of simply for perspective.

A portion from said letter is worth repeating here:

"The creation of the adjusted lot line as described in the legal description in the recorded deed for the lot line adjustment should not be confused with the establishment of an existing property, or boundary line described in an existing deed, or as shown on a subdivision map of record during the performance of a field survey. Legal descriptions of the adjusted lot lines are prepared in the office based on the parameters required by the owner's of the property and as approved by the public agency. These lines are not then established in the field.

In these circumstance, a Record of Survey is not required to be prepared and filed with the County Surveyor's Office."

[E_Page]

I think the requirements of the local agency become important in this context. If they are asking you the relationship between physical site features or buildings and an existing parcel line on a site plan, how do you do that without a field survey? If you are using a sketch from a tax assessor map or GIS parcel data thrown on an orthophoto, how accurate is your dimensions between the site features and the existing parcel boundary? If the agency is using your site plan to verify the proposed boundary lines meet setback requirements, how is plotting a boundary without a field survey good enough?

First, what is the real question, or reason for the question being asked by the agency? Typically, they ask for this to ensure that existing or proposed (if any are involved) will be farther from the properly line than the setback. If you take an example like Larry's, it may be that the nearest building or other improvement subject to setback requirements is several hundred feet from either existing or adjusted boundary locations. Unless dealing with some specific environmentally sensitive area setback, it is highly unlikely that a line several hundred feet from improvements will result in those improvements encroaching on a building setback (typically 10' to 50' in rural or semi-rural areas).

How accurate does that distance need to be? How accurately can you place a boundary based on record data on an existing orthophoto obtained from an agency GIS or similar source? In most cases, you could likely place record data boundaries on the ortho image that are accurate to +/- 25' or so on a parcel of about 20 acres. Closer if there are physical features such as roads that are on or adjacent to boundaries. But even if it's realistically +/- 50' while the structures subject to set back are 200' or so from the nearest boundary, isn't that accurate enough for that purpose?

If you set and survey targets with your RTN rover, fly your UAV and plot a record boundary over your UAV orthophoto, has your survey of the targets met the definition of "field survey" in Section 8762? How are you placing your record boundary plot over the UAV orthophoto? Are you using found monuments, or holding walls and fences? If you are adjusting your record boundary plot to match features on the aerial, are you really meeting the requirements of the local agency if they are trying to verify setbacks?

Now you are talking about doing some form of fieldwork yourself for the preparation of the LLA. How are you choosing the targets? How are you determining coordinates or spatial relationships between targets? Are you relating the targets to boundary lines or points, and if so, how?


The "site plan" for a LLA is not the same thing as a "site plan" for construction anymore than a Mortgage Report is a Boundary Survey. "Site Plan" is terminology used for a wide variety of purposes. For an LLA, it typically amounts to a very simple exhibit sketch. Unless being reviewed in conjunction with a plan of proposed improvements, or lines placed necessarily based upon certain features, most look about like a very neatly drawn field book sketch, but with less detail. I've seen some submitted by landowners that look like they had their 3rd grader sketch it on a piece of notebook paper.

The requirements and the need for greater or lesser precision and accuracy depends upon the nature of the community and the circumstances of the specific properties involved. Also, don't necessarily confuse what the person at the agency counter is telling you that you need to do with the actual requirements as written into the ordinances. If the ordinances require that adherence to appropriate setbacks are met, it means exactly that. It doesn't mean that you have to report the distance from improvement to boundary to the nearest 0.01', 0.1', or any particular standard of precision.

In the example discussed above where the building considered is 200' or so from the nearest boundary, the surveyor could label that as "more than 150 feet" and the requirement would be met.

Where the improvements subject to setback are about 30 feet from the nearest boundary, and the setback is 25', then it would be a very good idea to make some measurements. There may be instances where you have sufficient records and clear enough aerial images (with reliable orthorectification) that you can place a record data boundary over the image and be confident that the placement is accurate to +/- 2 or 3 feet. In most such cases, that's not a chance I'd feel comfortable taking.

The decision to perform a field survey (of any type) to help accomplish a LLA depends on what the requirements actually are and what it takes to actually satisfy those requirements. Part of our professional responsibility is to not incur costs on behalf of our clients needlessly. Doing so is a form of padding your fee and is very unethical. It is no less unethical than not performing work that you know you should perform in order to meet the actual requirements.

Just because we have the ability to do the work in order to report those distances to accuracies well less than +/- 1' doesn't mean we have to in all instances. If any believe that to be so, then please explain to me why it would be necessary to create contours on a topo map of a 20+ acre piece of land to be used for planning a residence and driveway at 0.1' intervals, even if there is about 200' of relief across the parcel.

Sound silly? Well, if you think a survey must be performed for any LLA, including the example discussed above, you are essentially arguing the same principle.

There's your essay David.

[pls5528]

Here is a copy of the letter from BPELSG to Northstar Engineering (referred to above).

[mpallamary]

I dealt with this topic years ago and to my knowledge, nothing has changed. See how it applies in this inquiry.

[Sunburned_Surveyor]

Thanks for all of the great comments! I really appreciate it!

This thread is a good example of how nuanced the law can be. Much depends on the circumstances. Here are my favorite comments from Evan Page:

"First, what is the real question, or reason for the question being asked by the agency? Typically, they ask for this to ensure that existing or proposed (if any are involved) will be farther from the property line than the setback. If you take an example like Larry's, it may be that the nearest building or other improvement subject to setback requirements is several hundred feet from either existing or adjusted boundary locations. Unless dealing with some specific environmentally sensitive area setback, it is highly unlikely that a line several hundred feet from improvements will result in those improvements encroaching on a building setback (typically 10' to 50' in rural or semi-rural areas)...How accurate does that distance need to be? How accurately can you place a boundary based on record data on an existing orthophoto obtained from an agency GIS or similar source? In most cases, you could likely place record data boundaries on the ortho image that are accurate to +/- 25' or so on a parcel of about 20 acres. Closer if there are physical features such as roads that are on or adjacent to boundaries. But even if it's realistically +/- 50' while the structures subject to set back are 200' or so from the nearest boundary, isn't that accurate enough for that purpose?...The requirements and the need for greater or lesser precision and accuracy depends upon the nature of the community and the circumstances of the specific properties involved. Also, don't necessarily confuse what the person at the agency counter is telling you that you need to do with the actual requirements as written into the ordinances. If the ordinances require that adherence to appropriate setbacks are met, it means exactly that. It doesn't mean that you have to report the distance from improvement to boundary to the nearest 0.01', 0.1', or any particular standard of precision."

Those are all great things to think about.

Evan also wrote: "The decision to perform a field survey (of any type) to help accomplish a LLA depends on what the requirements actually are and what it takes to actually satisfy those requirements. Part of our professional responsibility is to not incur costs on behalf of our clients needlessly. Doing so is a form of padding your fee and is very unethical. It is no less unethical than not performing work that you know you should perform in order to meet the actual requirements."

I suspect that we have surveyors performing record-of-survey maps when it isn't needed because they don't understand the law, not because they are trying to "pad their fee". I suspect we also have surveyors that aren't performing record-of-survey maps when they are needed because they don't understand the law, not because they are trying to "cheat".

I have only a few things to add at this point:

1) As Evan's thread indicates, the requirement for an accurate boundary survey in this situation can become a question of "how close is close enough"? As Evan mentioned, you have to understand the requirements of the local ordinances and the characteristics of the property involved. I'd recommend whatever your decision is, you document it in writing as part of your project documentation.

2) I would argue that in most cases, the requirement for a site plan as part of an LLA is for the primary purpose of verifying the setback requirements are going to be met. Although I don't think showing the distance from a structure to the proposed parcel boundary can trigger the ROS requirement, I certainly think showing the distance from a structure to an existing parcel boundary can. (It seems to me like the main public agency review of a lot line adjustment allowed by state law is the verification of land use regulation compliance.)

On many of these issues I have more questions than I have answers. This forum continues to be a great learning resource for me.

I also appreciate the guys who posted the documents from BPELSG on this topic.

Landon

[Tom Herrin]

A couple of relevant code sections from the PLS Act and SMA, that affect filing requirements for LLA's and Subdivisions:

8762.5. Record of survey - land division
No record of survey of land shown on the latest adopted county assessment roll as a unit
or as contiguous units, which shows a division of such land into additional parcels, shall be filed
with the county surveyor or with the county recorder, unless there is attached thereto a certificate
by the county surveyor if the land lies within an unincorporated area, or a certificate by the city
engineer if the land lies within a city, of compliance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map
Act, Division 2 (commencing with Section 66410) of Title 7 of the Government Code, and any
applicable local ordinance enacted pursuant thereto.

8765. Record of survey - exemptions
A record of survey is not required of any survey:
...
(c) When a map is in preparation for recording or shall have been recorded under the
provisions of the Subdivision Map Act.
...

8762. Records of survey
...
(d) (1) If the 90-day time limit contained in subdivision (c) cannot be complied with for
reasons beyond the control of the licensed land surveyor or licensed civil engineer, the 90-day
time period shall be extended until the time at which the reasons for delay are eliminated. If the
licensed land surveyor or licensed civil engineer cannot comply with the 90-day time limit, he or
she shall, prior to the expiration of the 90-day time limit, provide the county surveyor with a
letter stating that he or she is unable to comply. The letter shall provide an estimate of the date
for completion of the record of survey, the reasons for the delay, and a general statement as to
the location of the survey, including the assessor’s parcel number or numbers.
...

Subdivision Map Act, section 88612(d)
...
(d) A lot line adjustment between four or fewer existing adjoining parcels, where the land taken from one parcel is added to an adjoining parcel, and where a greater number of parcels than originally existed is not thereby created, if the lot line adjustment is approved by the local agency, or advisory agency. A local agency or advisory agency shall limit its review and approval to a determination of whether or not the parcels resulting from the lot line adjustment will conform to the local general plan, any applicable specific plan, any applicable coastal plan, and zoning and building ordinances. An advisory agency or local agency shall not impose conditions or exactions on its approval of a lot line adjustment except to conform to the local general plan, any applicable specific plan, any applicable coastal plan, and zoning and building ordinances, to require the prepayment of real property taxes prior to the approval of the lot line adjustment, or to facilitate the relocation of existing utilities, infrastructure, or easements. No tentative map, parcel map, or final map shall be required as a condition to the approval of a lot line adjustment. The lot line adjustment shall be reflected in a deed, which shall be recorded. No record of survey shall be required for a lot line adjustment unless required by Section 8762 of the Business and Professions Code. A local agency shall approve or disapprove a lot line adjustment pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act (Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 65920) of Division 1).
...

The point was made above about the subdivision falling through and the surveyor then being on the hook for the RS filing. I am just throwing these code sections out for reference, and to show that the Final or Parcel map in lieu of the RS can come in much later than the 90 day requirement, and still be in compliance with the law.

The relevance of section 8762.5 comes when filing an RS on an LLA project. This is one of the loophole areas in the law that needs to be fixed, IMHO. As written, 8762.5 may be interpreted to negate the filing requirement of an RS for an LLA project, as you are not allowed to show it on an RS until the LLA is completed. In our county, we do not require the RS as part of the project, but we will allow it only with concurrent recordation with the LLA documents, so that no violation of 8762.5 is made. Without the conflicting language of 8762.5 and 66412(d), I believe every LLA based on a field survey would require an RS under 8762(b)(4).

[Jim Frame]

The relevance of section 8762.5 comes when filing an RS on an LLA project.

A Lot Line Adjustment can't create more parcels than already exist, so I don't understand how §8762.5 pertains.

[Tom Herrin]

Thanks Jim. Strangely enough, I had not thought about the situation in that specific way before with 8762.5. This has been one of those things that was always interpreted a certain way by our previous CS's, and we did not question that it was open to another interpretation. I think I am hung up on parcels not being shown on the latest adopted tax rolls (which was the phrasing always used in discussion in our office, errant or not) as being the problem. Something to think about...

[E_Page]

Jim,

If an 8762 trigger has been encountered, a RS is required unless there is a PM or final Tract map in process which will show the pertinent info for the survey of the boundary survey of the parcel being divided.

[PLS7393]

It is all open for interpretation, so who's interpretation is truly valid? Interpretation is another animal, and a double edged sword.
The Board feels their interpretation is the only valid one, even if the jurisdiction's Standard of Care proves differently.

Until it is clearly defined in the PLS Act, a LLA does not trigger a ROS.

[Jim Frame]

Strangely enough, I had not thought about the situation in that specific way before with 8762.5

You're not the only one. I recently surveyed some parcels described in an LLA, and the ROS check print came back with a note to add a certificate per §8762.5. I declined to do so because no new parcels were created. Yesterday I got the go-ahead to submit the mylar.

[Lee Hixson]

Hey guys. I'm in the process of preparing for my webinar next week....Landon

But it's on the 20th, though, right?

[rmaher]

RESCHEDULED: ROS Trigger Webinar

http://oc-surveyors.org/events/2018/2/2 ... s-triggers