As-Staked Report of Final Monumentation

[Jim Frame]

I don't do much work in Sacramento County, despite the fact that it's right next door, but every now and then I get asked to do a boundary survey on the other side of the Causeway. Today I got the OK to submit a ROS mylar for filing, and was asked to send it along with a CAD linework file and an As-Staked Report of Final Monumentation (oh yeah, and a couple of hefty checks). Not knowing what that report was all about, I asked and was told "we are looking for are the N/E deltas between the Stake out points and the as staked points."

I sent the CAD file -- I don't believe there's any legal requirement to do so, but it was easy enough and seemed harmless -- but I balked at the report. The monuments were set as shown on the ROS and in comportment with the standard of practice, as attested to by my signature and seal. Compiling a report that properly characterizes the statistical errors associated with the as-staked monuments would take a considerable amount of work without producing any perceptible value, while at the same time creating yet another avenue of liability. It's definitely beyond the statutory purview of the county surveyor review, so I declined.

Are any other counties asking for this kind of report?

[Edward M Reading]

Nope

[Ian Wilson]

No.

The CAD file is not required, either. It's purpose is to stuff into a GIS platform, though.

[Warren Smith]

No, but a line work and annotation only .dwg is appreciated - for the reason Ian stated.

[Jim Frame]

a line work and annotation only .dwg is appreciated

They asked for linework, not annotation, so I only provided linework.

[Anthony Maffia]

... and then the GIS guy accuses you of surveying the wrong location.

[Jim Frame]

There GIS guy is going to have to fit it into his map by hand; my survey isn't on grid.

[E_Page]

Are they asking for a statistical error analysis or something more like a horizontal cut sheet type doc that many DC programs produce from stakeout data?

Neither are required. The former can be a burden to produce if you haven't already run it through a least squares adjustment program and have no other reason to do so. The latter should be simple enough if you set the monuments with your DC's stakeout routine and saved the data. Although not required, if it takes little effort to generate the delta N&E's and they comport with reasonable practice, I don't see any additional liabilities.

If you really don't want to provide the info for whatever reason, there's no legal basis to compel you to. But if it's info you already have and can provide it with minimal effort, I don't see any reason not to.

[Jim Frame]

I don't see any additional liabilities.

I do. Why should I set up the defendant's attorney to make statements like, "The witness' our own report shows that he didn't set the monuments where his map says he did, which calls into question the reliability of his entire survey." That can't be explained away with a sound bite, it requires a long technical discussion that a judge or jury may have a hard time understanding. No thanks.

[MikeT]

That seems like overkill for sure.

I've haven't come across any such requests.

[mpallamary]

The case I was involved in was in Cathedral City. I filed the final map. A new developer hired a different engineer (not a licensed surveyor) to set new monuments as there were approximately 300 lines adjusted on my old map. The engineer filed a series of lot line adjustments to eventually cover all 300 lots. No one told me what was going on.

When I learned about it, I got a copy of the engineer's new ROS map. Thereon, he claimed to have found all of my monuments on the 300 lot subdivision. This was a blatant and brazen lie as had never set any final mons.

I forced the city to call the bond due and to pay me to set the final monuments even though they did not agree with the adjusted lines.

This was a very bad situation to have to deal with.