8771 Update

[Elias French]

Hello all,
Reviewing the Board of Directors July Agenda I see the proposed PLS 8771 update language requiring marking of all major corners for a Record of Survey. I'm still undecided on this myself but for those in the know I am curious:

- What was the reason for the introduction of this new language?
- Is this likely to be approved by BOD and subsequently by the state legislature?
- Could this create a situation where a Record of Survey would have more stringent monumentation requirements than a Parcel/Final Map, depending on local monumentation requirements for those maps?
- Are folks in your area supportive of this proposal?

Thanks in advance for the discussion, proposed language is below, emphasis is mine:
(a) Monuments shall be placed, or a reference monument or witness to the corner, at all major
corners of the boundary of the surveyed property, unless already marked or referenced by existing
monuments or witnesses in close proximity to the corner. Monuments set shall be of sufficient
durability and efficiently placed so as not to be readily disturbed, to ensure, together with monuments
already existing, the perpetuation or facile reestablishment of any point or line of the survey. All found
untagged monuments accepted as controlling shall be tagged in accordance with section 8772.
(a) Monuments set shall be sufficient in number at each corner of the property being established and
durability and efficiently placed so as not to be readily disturbed, to ensure, together with monuments
already existing, the perpetuation or facile reestablishment of any point or line of the survey. All
found monuments accepted as controlling shall be tagged.

[David Kendall]

My understanding is that it is a response to the proliferation of no-monument surveys. I feel that not setting monuments is a waste of everyone's time and a disservice to the profession. Therefore I support this proposal in theory.

On the other hand, I occasionally get calls to establish (meaning with monuments to me) a portion of a property where something specific is being built. In these cases I am not establishing the rest of the parcel and no monuments will be placed and no measured dimensions provided to the other lot corners. I'm not sure if this law provides me any grace by the way it is written.

The likely intent is to end the no-monument boundary establishment, not to actually make you set every bend in the line. The term "major" would be the caveat. I find this usage ambiguous. The final monumentation rules could rest in the judgment of the County Surveyor on a case-by-case basis. This could be problematic as well.

Boundary establishment should be on the ground, not just lines on paper

I wouldn't bet on it being approved by the BOD although I will probably vote to move it forward for discussion purposes. It's not the worst idea I've heard this week.....

[hellsangle]

Personally, it would be insane legislation! In many cases the consumer would find the survey too costly . . . find someone else to do as they want or not pursue the survey. More often than not, large improvement projects would destroy corner points during clearing, excavation, etc. Most construction projects work of off-set points relative to the boundary.

It should be up to the consumers. They are the ones paying our tab. We can advise them to set points but ya can't make 'em drink?

Crazy Phil - Surveyor to Recorder

[MikeT]

I'm with Phil on this one. If you have enough found monuments in the area that are durable to enable the boundary to be retraced then that should suffice. Sometimes setting the actual corners requires an extra site visit which adds a significant cost to the consumer. I have set random durable monuments and referenced them on an RS. Those marks typically aren't property corners and/or witness corners but can be used to retrace. You don't need an extra site visit to do that....A lot of times the consumer doesn't care about property corner markers especially in the case of additions/remodels so why add that cost. Consumers have already been hit hard with the increase in map check and recording fees recently.

[David Kendall]

If you have enough found monuments in the area that are durable to enable the boundary to be retraced then that should suffice.

Reference monuments are clearly listed in subsection (a). Nowhere does the proposal say “actual corners”. It doesn’t seem like you are advocating for a survey with no monuments but please clarify. My understanding of the current law is that establishing a line requires sufficient durable tagged monuments. This proposal would be clarifying but the exact language is negotiable

To be clear, this is not an all or nothing proposal. It is also not my idea but I appreciate a reasoned discussion of the merits

[MikeT]

Yes that is correct David, I'm not advocating a no monument survey. But I don't think it's necessary to reference every corner. For example if you did an RS of say a 6000 square foot lot on a standard urban lot and you split the curbs for your boundary determination and no monuments were set, then that would definitely be insufficient....What I'm advocating in an instance like this (and others), is that you could set 3-4 random reference points (like a 3" steel nail and washer) around the block and show ties on the RS, then that would suffice for retracement. You wouldn't need to directly offset back lot corners, etc. ...But as you say, It looks like there is room for interpretation in this proposal.

[LS7773]

I am a little confused by the language of "at all major corners of the boundary of the surveyed property,". What if we are surveying a line between two properties? I also find this language is in conflict with Section 8764 which states: "the Record of Survey need not consist of a survey of an entire property."

Just my thoughts

[Mike Mueller]

David:
I agree with you on the partial survey issue. I would be far more in favor of the proposed changes if they instead said this
"at all major exterior corners of the surveyed boundary lines of the subject property"

That said, I am still leery of laws that raise the minimum legal level farther and farther from what the public actually wants to pay for.

Consider that this law is theoretically applicable to Corner Records as well, and that there is a faction that believe that all staking should have a CR filed to document the wooden hubs that should have your license number on them. If every staking job triggered a requirement to set a monument at EVERY corner of the subject property, this could spiral pretty far.

If all my client wants is to satisfy an agency requirement for a setback verification and to be sure the foundation forms are 5.0' away from a boundary line why do I need to monument that line? As long as its facile for me (aka licensed surveyor) I should be fine.

Consider how some people reset monuments in subdivisions IE off of the CL mons. (debate about pros and cons of that not here please, see other threads) If I am forced to set a monument on either end of that boundary line, it is just added cost, because any competent surveyor coming behind me will be checking my newly set monuments to the CL mons, and then calling me out if I am out of tolerance. Thus the only benefit I see is to the neighbor of my client to allow them to see the physical representations of the line and call foul if need be. Not an insignificant consideration...

For RoSs I feel we would better accomplish the goal of more monuments being set by requiring 8771 to be checked by the CS review. Then sufficient will be determined by a local person who has perspective and knowledge of local custom, rather than a sledgehammer approach forcing every shaped peg through the same square (with monuments at the corners!!) hole.

It will be interesting to see how this one is received :)

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[Ric7308]

Makes one wonder how all the thousands of property owners in all those other states, which have requirements for monuments to be set, can afford those monuments? Is there a special HELOC funding mechanism for homeowners for funding monuments?

[DWoolley]

Makes one wonder how all the thousands of property owners in all those other states, which have requirements for monuments to be set, can afford those monuments? Is there a special HELOC funding mechanism for homeowners for funding monuments?

+1 [10x bold]

Remarkable the level of faux concern for other people's money. I suspect there are no other professions, besides the oldest profession, in which the practitioners are willing to break the law [er, to save a client money]. Peculiar. Feet don't fail me now! Surveyors were intended to be called sprinters, but the name was already taken. New thought, for namesake purposes, we can call those surveys "A Carl Lewis" or "A Forest Gump".

In fact, the law doesn't require the surveyor to perform a survey, simply walk away. If the surveyor feels a benevolent obligation, there is no law that states the surveyor has to charge for the services.

An owner doesn't need a survey to build a fence. Google says the average cost to build a house in California per square foot is $202, excluding land costs, permit fees, excavations, and other costs. The cost of a survey is of no consequence in this instance.

DWoolley

[DWoolley]

If the language sounds familiar it is because it was taken from the nationally adopted NSPS/ ALTA minimum standards.

Imagine eliminating the "I didn't file a record of survey because I didn't set monuments", forever. Imagine finding monuments representing boundary lines - lowering retracement costs, confusion and adversity between adjoiners. Imagine every surveyor, in every jurisdiction, being held to the same level playing field. Only Lennon himself could imagine more.

DWoolley

[Elias French]

Does 8771 apply to all surveys or ROS only?
Is 8771 currently interpreted to require sufficient monumentation of all surveys? Making this rewrite actually more of a clarification?

I think common sense would say that any boundary survey should come with monuments. I wonder if fewer monuments are set now than in times past due to ROS avoidance. Anyone have experience in a state where this is currently implemented?

[David Kendall]

Consider how some people reset monuments in subdivisions IE off of the CL mons.... If I am forced to set a monument on either end of that boundary line, it is just added cost, because any competent surveyor coming behind me will be checking my newly set monuments to the CL mons, and then calling me out if I am out of tolerance

LOL I always set those corners and file a corner record. This allows the builder of the fence or extra bedroom to run a string line between the two points; allows the building inspector to see clearly that a survey was performed and relied upon and usually saves me a couple of trips to the site to stake and certify forms and setbacks, etc

In fact, it was a conversation with you a few years back during lunch at a BOD meeting that made me start doing that when you told me that the Board's (presumably verbal) assertion was that all staked lines needed to have durable monuments at the endpoints. This seems to me like the right thing to do....

How do you do it?

See existing 8771 here:
https://www.bpelsg.ca.gov/laws/pls_act.pdf

[DWoolley]

Does 8771 apply to all surveys or ROS only?
Is 8771 currently interpreted to require sufficient monumentation of all surveys? Making this rewrite actually more of a clarification?
...

Records of survey and corner records. Subdivision monumentation is usually governed by local ordinance under the authority of the Subdivision Map Act. I suppose 8771 could apply to subdivision maps in the absence of an ordinance.

Yes, the rewrite is more of a clarification because the Carl Lewis surveys are not monumented (traceable) and no records of survey are filed (because no monuments were set). Imagine the old saw about not setting monuments became an admission to another infraction. The ALTA chop shops would have to return to California to set monuments - that'll leave a mark.

DWoolley

[hellsangle]

Imagine finding monuments representing boundary lines - lowering retracement costs, confusion and adversity between adjoiners.

Are we saying accept all found monuments as gospel in order to save "retracement costs, confusion & adversity between adjoiners"? Just hang your hat on that last survey? Don't vet the survey?

Or are we suggesting accepting previous points . . . as though it were an agreed boundary?

Codified "all" corners could be a waste of time (see attached photo) and the client's monies. Codified "all" leaves the surveyor no choice or the Board will slap he/she silly because they didn't monument "all" corners.

Crazy Phil again . . .

[Mike Mueller]

How do you do it?

The same 95% of the time, but there are the odd situations where its just too silly and I feel I could defend the "facile" clause sufficiently to avoid what I consider to be an overzealous interpretation of "sufficient."

If you remember the 3 bar analogy from the other thread, I know this is an attempt to make an easily enforceable black white test to raise the lowest bar and catch the lowest group, but it hits everyone pretty hard, and a true bad actor can just absorb the punishment costs as part of the cost since the punishment costs are mostly an honor/pride system. Remember the story about the multi million dollar freeway/road that had no surveyors, and got hit for a couple grand, or couple 10ks? IE far less than %1 of the cost of the job, and prolly less than %1 of the profit made by the bad actor.

Professionals exercise judgement. Judgement allows for better suited solutions. Too many laws remove the room for judgement. Too many laws = not a professional.

I am not saying the status quo is perfect, btw, just that this is a pretty blunt approach to raising the lowest bar.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[DWoolley]

Imagine finding monuments representing boundary lines - lowering retracement costs, confusion and adversity between adjoiners.

Are we saying accept all found monuments as gospel in order to save "retracement costs, confusion & adversity between adjoiners"? Just hang your hat on that last survey? Don't vet the survey?

Or are we suggesting accepting previous points . . . as though it were an agreed boundary?

Codified "all" corners could be a waste of time (see attached photo) and the client's monies. Codified "all" leaves the surveyor no choice or the Board will slap he/she silly because they didn't monument "all" corners.

Crazy Phil again . . .

Phil:

A law requiring monumentation is “insanity”, noted. It also negates everything a land surveyor is responsible for and authorized to practice i.e. boundary line agreements, evaluation of evidence to determine boundaries, again, noted.

Phil, in fearmongering with absurdities, you left out the staples i.e. setting monuments is clearly alt-right (like physical fitness), leaves a carbon footprint, and undoubtedly, contributes to climate change (we can no longer call it global warming after it was discovered the globe was actually cooling again). If land surveyors start placing monuments to mark the boundaries established, it is predictable the temperature in the US is sure to rise 2–3 degrees by 2027 – if not for you, think of the children. Environmentally conscience land surveyors will perform their Carl Lewis survey to fight climate change. I appreciate your keen awareness.

Professional Land Surveyors, Not the Sprinters

Readers that do not see the world ending in ball of fire and gnashing teeth due to monuments being set, there is room to discuss and modify the language. Generally, monuments hold over bearings and distances and the information shown on maps. Monuments contribute to public harmony. The public can rely on monuments as can land surveyors. The courts have recognized this fact since the dawn of time. Once in the law, the construction specifications, Green Book and local agencies will know of the requirements or minimally, know what a monument is and that it needs to be preserved under 8771. Monuments are one of the public awareness calling cards available to land surveyors.

Technology allows, even if the law does not, union tradesmen and unlicensed technical folks to perform topography and construction staking. These swathes of work will continue to erode away from the land surveying profession. The establishment of boundaries, subdivision mapping, legal descriptions (kinda) AND the setting of monuments are the things that separate a professional land surveyor from everyone else. As an example, the cities of Newport Beach, Laguna Beach and soon, Long Beach (I am finishing the ordinances this week) require monuments to be set before permits are issued. The two Orange County cities account for approximately 2/3rds of the records of survey filed. The surveys in Newport Beach are now quick and easy. Twenty years ago, boundaries were hand to hand combat in many areas of the city. I used to be involved in semi-regular litigation in the city. That is no longer true. My last boundary case was in 2016.

There is plenty of room for professional discretion in determining the “major corners” to be monumented. Again, this is the nationally adopted minimum standard detail.

I am willing to risk the alt-right sunburns and the future of all humanity to drive an 18” iron pipe with a brass tag down 0.5’ at an established property corner.

DWoolley

[hellsangle]

The public can rely on monuments as can land surveyors.

Then why are surveyors filing BPELG complaints against other surveyors if the public and surveyors can rely such monuments?

[DWoolley]

The public can rely on monuments as can land surveyors.

Then why are surveyors filing BPELG complaints against other surveyors if the public and surveyors can rely such monuments?

Do you have anything more to offer for context? Or was this meant as a rhetorical question?

Could it be a modern day Clay Allison, once quoted he "never killed a man who didn't need killing", in the BPELSG complaint sense?

DWoolley

[CBarrett]

Meanwhile my veterinarian is charging $1400 per day for cat hospitalization, and us broke ass Surveyor's are expected to pay it, or suffer a devastating loss.

On the other hand, omg, paying $3000 or $4000 to monument your property once in a lifetime is too much to ask. People will complain about the cost.

[Sorry very pissed and emotionally drained today, and tired of this bass backwards business we are in. I should have been a veterinarian, or a lawyer or something other than this crap.]

[bryanmundia]

We have deviated from what I really think this amendment will do. Let me break it down in an easy readable way for the masses.

1.) Requiring to set monuments will only benefit the public in the long run with costs of retracement surveys becoming less expensive as more corners are set.
2.) This amendment will essentially save our profession. If there is a law that specifically states that only surveyors can set monuments then there is less of an opportunity for de-regulation. What item on the list of the definition of surveying isn't already performed by others, some of which are unlicensed all together and some who are licensed as an RCE? It sure isn't construction staking, legal descriptions, site plans, subdivision maps that us as surveyors can hang our hat on saying that we are the only ones who can do it.
3.) Those surveyors who are complaining that it will cost the property owner too much money shouldn't be advocating for any particular property owner, remember, we have an obligation to the public as a whole, not an individual property owner. Besides, with the cost of land in the State of California, 1% of your property value to get a survey done isn't crazy to think of in my opinion.
4.) Furthermore, as a professional what tangible item do you give to your clients for your service? I would imagine that a monument in the ground would be much more valuable to them then a paper map that has some lines drawn on it that they probably don't even know how to read.
5.) Step up your game as a professional and act like one instead of some hero trying to save some stranger money. You think that the client who appreciates you saving them money respects you as a professional? Nope, their loyalty lies in your price, not the quality of work you do as a professional.

Like Dave mentioned, this is nationally accepted language that was taken from the ALTA/NSPS standards. It has stood the test of time and we need to do something to advance our professional practice and prove our worth to the public.

[Mike Mueller]

Bryan I love the well thought out points and presentation. Please take my comments in the spirit of lively debate.

1.) Requiring to set monuments will only benefit the public in the long run with costs of retracement surveys becoming less expensive as more corners are set.

Agree. But how long until the breakeven point is up for debate. I think the break even point will vary widely by area. Hence the discussion.

2.) This amendment will essentially save our profession. If there is a law that specifically states that only surveyors can set monuments then there is less of an opportunity for de-regulation. What item on the list of the definition of surveying isn't already performed by others, some of which are unlicensed all together and some who are licensed as an RCE? It sure isn't construction staking, legal descriptions, site plans, subdivision maps that us as surveyors can hang our hat on saying that we are the only ones who can do it.

Saving out profession is a bit of hyperbole. Very few changes will ever save of kill something on their own. This particular change would likely have little net positive effect outside of certain cities. If costs go up, fewer surveys are done. Basic economics. As costs go up, RoS will only be done when required by other laws. I am not sure if you have noticed that the cost of housing in CA is higher than most other places? What percentage of the cost of a new house is because of the costs of subdivison, permiting, engineering, do goody efficiency laws, solar panels, etc. Title 24 sheets? I realize that when you are presented with a tragedy of the commons situation, the optimal strategy is to graze as much as you can, but I personally would rather not have my cows eat the last blade of grass. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

3.) Those surveyors who are complaining that it will cost the property owner too much money shouldn't be advocating for any particular property owner, remember, we have an obligation to the public as a whole, not an individual property owner. Besides, with the cost of land in the State of California, 1% of your property value to get a survey done isn't crazy to think of in my opinion.

I am not advocating for individual owners, I am advocating for judgement to be incorporated so that rural areas are not stuck dealing with laws made to address urban issues. Banning fireplaces? Great in sub/urban areas, I love it. Rural areas where there are too many trees as it is? Plain sillyness. Monumenting all corners? Great on sub/urban lots. Not so great on sprawling thousand acre ranches where they are land rich, cash poor, and only want to know where to put a gate. If the cost goes up, then they will just do it themselves off of images from the County GIS that shows parcel lines and satellite images. Its like the cannabis situation. It was illegal, so everyone did it poorly, trashing the land, gutting houses, tons of bad chemicals used in production, etc. It was made legal to ameliorate those harms. At least in my area the legalization process is so onerous that a few well funded entities made it through, but most folks went back to doing it illegally. The situation was not made better because there were too many rules and too much cost to doing it "right".
1% of a houses value is also what we pay in property taxes. That sort of bill is not easy money for many of my clients, and is beyond the means of many of the people who inquire about a survey, and then choose not to hire me. See the correlation? If every professional involved in a project thought, ohh its just 1%, it starts adding up. Insert tragedy of the commons here too.

4.) Furthermore, as a professional what tangible item do you give to your clients for your service? I would imagine that a monument in the ground would be much more valuable to them then a paper map that has some lines drawn on it that they probably don't even know how to read.

We are a free market. So we let consumers decide what they think is valuable, right? If my client is only getting the RoS so we can show the lines on a site map for an indoor kitchen remodel, and I offer the additional option of monumenting the lines, and they decline because they are choosing what is valuable to them, how is that wrong? My professional obligation is in educating them enough so they can make an informed decision. It is not forcing them to "to the right thing". I could go in and add some monuments on my own in key spots(and I do sometimes) but then I am spending my money to help the public. Where is that money coming from? We joke in our office that sometimes it feels like we have a boundary problem(think gambling problem) that we pay for with other services.

5.) Step up your game as a professional and act like one instead of some hero trying to save some stranger money. You think that the client who appreciates you saving them money respects you as a professional? Nope, their loyalty lies in your price, not the quality of work you do as a professional.

Actually I do. It is the true sign of competency when I can modify a thing and still have it work. Think chef vs cook. I have clients that are truly appreciative of my efforts to educate them about the situation, provide my views of the pros and cons, and then let them choose their own path, as is there right in our wonderful free market. These same clients are often return clients. When I tell them they really ought to pay more in some cases, they often listen, since I have proven that I am not just trying to take their money. I would say its our professional duty to not waste our clients money on silly rules that make no sense.

...we need to do something to advance our professional practice and prove our worth to the public.

I agree, however I think forcing them to do something they clearly don't want to do is a little hard to say its "proving our worth". The fact that we are thinking we need a prescriptive law forcing people to do something is proof that it is not wanted by some of the paying customers. Which is why I am advocating for more judgement in the fix. IE make 8771 part of the RoS review, rather than a black/white rule of monumenting all corners of the property being surveyed.

Alternate option, make this a requirement only if there is public money being spent or prevailing wage situations etc. Public benefit paid for by the public.

How many reading this forum think that the process for permitting/designing/surveying a bridge, or a house, or a porch, or a driveway lacks common sense and flexibility? Did this process spring like Athena out of the head of some bureaucrat somewhere? No, it was the gradual implementation of more rules and more policies, each one considered an "improvement", or a "save" to some interested party.

"An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind" to paraphrase Gandhi
"A law for a law leaves everyone a criminal"

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[bruce hall]

who decides what is "major"? i/m with Kendal on that. all i see is more "ink" in the pages of the plsa.

[hellsangle]

Hear hear, Mickey!

Well said. (now if only we could cut out the R/S review fee)

Have a good weekend all . ..

Crazy Phil - Surveyor to Recorder

[Peter Ehlert]

Hear hear, Mickey!

Well said. (now if only we could cut out the R/S review fee)

Have a good weekend all . ..

Crazy Phil - Surveyor to Recorder

+2

BTW direct to recorder works really well in Arizona