California Surveyors Forums

the lines of "does my survey discover/disclose any CHANGE or SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE than the existing records?"

Sounds to me like you are surveying a parcel line that shows up on the record, the distances and angles between the found monuments are not different significantly(material) than what the records indicate, and nothing else has been exposed(evidence) which MIGHT/COULD put the line somewhere else.

If everything is the same, why would it be mandatory to file the RS. It seems to be that the line was established a while back, it is still there, hasn't moved, nothing has been built weird to the line in question, and I am just walking over Woolleys(hope you don't mind Dave) line that he marked out in 1998 or whenever.

I am probably missing something here, and if I am, would someone bring it to my attention so that I could rethink my position.

I'm thinking of a situation where for example one or more corners are missing. In this case you would need to expand your survey out to bring the lines back in (i.e. prorate, etc...). Say that is the case but your end result is a boundary that substantialy matches the original Record of Survey. Remember that you are still showing dimensional ties to the boundary on your exhibit. Is a Record of Survey needed in this case? I think that I would lean to this needing a Record of Survey.

What I keep getting hung up on is the question of showing dimensional ties from improvments to the boundary triggers a ROS or not. I'm trying to come up with a logical interpretaion of the Boards January 3, 2007 letter in response to a question on when a ROS is needed. To quote said letter:

"A licensed Land Surveyor or licensed Civil Engineer establishes, and is subject to the record of filing requirements, when he or she represents beyond reasonable doubt or dispute the location, relocation, establishment, re-establishment or retracement of a boundary, or propertyline, to another party pursuant to .... the PLSA. This representation includes......showing dimensional ties from the boundary or property line to physical features......"

???

"....................... pursuant to .... the PLSA."

Pursuant to (according to) probably sections 8762 or 8765. I am subjuct to the requirements of the RS filing according to the PLSA, not just because I have dimensional ties to some improvements.


But I am probably missing something here as well.

As I read it, the paragraph I referenced is attempting to define " establish" and then the second paragraph basically says to refer to Section 8762 (b) 1-5 of the PLSA, where establishing a line is one of the triggers for filing a ROS and yet the PLSA refers to estalishment only if the points or lines are not shown on any record map. I agree that this letter doesn't clear up the question of when to file a ROS very well.

Does anyone else have any thoughts?

I have to agree that it seems there is some confusion as to what constitutes"establish".

I'm even more confused by the setback certification thread wherein the logic presented says you are not establishing the location of the boundary but are establishing and certifying where the boundary is NOT (i.e. not in a position that would violate setbacks).

I would presume that the legislators who choose the word establish would be able to explain to the professional land surveyor how to interpret the application of the law for a given scenario.

Your post preceeding stated ".......I would presume that the legislators who choose the word establish.....". You presume way tooooo much!!!!!

Chances are that the legislators didn't pick the word "establish". It was more than likely some surveyor or surveyors from CLSA, or another surveying "lobby" that picked this word.

The legislators know "Jack about Jill", much less anything about surveying and the words used in this line of work.

The requirements in 8762(b)(4) have changed in the 2013 version of the PLS Act:

(4) The location, relocation, establishment, reestablishment, or retracement of one or more points or lines not shown on any subdivision map, official map, or record of survey, the positions of which are not ascertainable from an inspection of the subdivision map, official map, or record of survey.

It seems that the new wording does nothing to clear up the ambiguity between the boards 2007 letter and the PLSA. One could argue that if the line that you retraced was from a record map and you found enough monuments in the field to have a confident location of the line you would not have to file a ROS even if you showed dimensional ties to the boundary line on your exhibit. I have only seen a few ROS's filed for the specific reason of compliance with the PLSA and the dimensional tie to the boundary.

Is there a common practice that the surveyors on this forum follow?

practice is that I USUALLY file a RS or a CR whenever I perform a survey relating to land boundaries IF THE SURVEY DISCLOSES SOMETHING DIFFERENT than the existing records.

Okay – I know some people may not like this – but here it goes.

I would encourage everyone to go back and read this thread with an open mind and listen to what is being said. There seems to be a lot of confusion about one of the simplest things we need to file. It is a record of survey or corner record? Heck – I don’t even know anymore ;-(

This goes back to - do we need continuing education in our profession? What is wrong with continuing education? I know we are all busy and I know most of you here have been surveying for 15-20 years and you might think it is a waste of your time. Well it is not.

I also think most of us look forward to the CLSA Conference so we can get some exposure and ask question regarding things we don’t normally do every day.

Heck - right now most CLSA Chapters offer some sort of continuing education each month anyways. We all talk about how can we educated the public. So, why are we so against educating ourselves?

Joe, you are 100% correct. Unfortunately, the current state of CA government (legislature and governor) will not allow us to put through a requirement for continuing education. I believe there is a letter from the Governor or his office that states this. We have to educate ourselves.

Mr. Winglovitz, you asked: is there a common practice that the surveyors on this forum follow?

I don’t think it would be realistic to expect a common practice simply explained on this forum. Everyone comes from a different background and with a different set of experiences. Each of us may have what we consider our own common practice, but it’s not going to be group consensus.


Here’s my litmus test for the situation you present:

If monuments of record exist in their record positions at each end of a line I’m going to stake, layout, flag, etc., no record of any kind is required. You can set lath, wood hubs, hang flagging from trees, etc. along that line (or do a sketch and dimension a foundation in relation to this line).

If the end of the line isn’t monumented, you are required to monument it in order to flag, stake the line, etc. This will require filing either a Corner Record or a Record of Survey depending on the monumentation history of the corner needing to be set (or reset, as the case may be).

Corner Record required- if you can set the missing corner at a location where a monument previously existed by coming off of other nearby monumentation, also of record, and all measurements and other map conditions match record within reason (see the material discrepancy discussion), or if its position can be accurately determined from other nearby record monuments and maps that showed its “resolvedâ€￾ location.

Record of survey required- if multiple scenarios or methods that result in different positions have to be considered and weighed in order to place the missing monument (or to place a monument where one never existed).

Dave Ryan,
Humboldt County

GWinglovitz wrote:What I keep getting hung up on is the question of showing dimensional ties from improvments to the boundary triggers a ROS or not. I'm trying to come up with a logical interpretaion of the Boards January 3, 2007 letter in response to a question on when a ROS is needed. To quote said letter:

"A licensed Land Surveyor or licensed Civil Engineer establishes, and is subject to the record of filing requirements, when he or she represents beyond reasonable doubt or dispute the location, relocation, establishment, re-establishment or retracement of a boundary, or propertyline, to another party pursuant to .... the PLSA. This representation includes......showing dimensional ties from the boundary or property line to physical features......"

???

You need to put this in context of the full letter. You also need to realize that although these Board letters get circulated around and we can often glean broadly applied Board policy from them, they are answers to specific questions about specific circumstances. That makes context very important.

In the case of the Herrick letter, there were other RS triggers present in the survey. The question was with regard to those who reason that since they did not set monuments, they have not established any lines or points.

So let's compare context between that case and your case. In that case, one or more other RS triggers were present. In your case, no RS triggers are present except that you seem to be forming the reasoning that the topo ties might constitute material evidence (§8762(b)(1)). In some specific circumstances, topo information may fit that reasoning.

If the topo survey reveals occupation evidence that is of a nature that could effect boundary location, then it may fall under the material evidence trigger, but more often than not, that can be credibly argued either way. Topo ties to features that do not constitute delineation of lines of occupation (structures and other features not along boundary as opposed to fences or walls along the boundary) to an already established boundary may be useful to future surveyors attempting to relocate that line, but if they are not used as evidence to re-establish or verify a boundary location, they are not the material evidence referred to in §8762(b)(1).

To put your situation in perspective, forget the topo for a moment. If you were hired only to find and remonument the boundary, and in re-establishing it per record dimensions or proration as appropriate from nearby monuments, and then replacing the missing monuments of your client's line, what manner of reporting would you employ?

Presuming that the lines and points appeared on one or more previous record maps and that your re-establishment found no material discrepancies from record, you would probably file a CR to show the reset mons, yes?

Now bringing the topo back into the equation and removing the reset mons, you are looking at the features located as forms of reference monuments to the lines and corners as you've re-established them, right?

If so, and if you feel they are truly useful as reference monuments that would allow reasonably precise re-establishment of your client's boundary, a CR is quite sufficient. If some of these features are fences or walls that effectively delineate the boundary, a CR may even be advisable.

With no material discrepancy in the re-established boundary or other RS triggers, an RS would not be required in the case you describe.

Evan you explained your understanding of the PLSA very well. Thanks to everyone for their input.

so isnt participating in this discussion a part of CE? Group disscussion, open participation, keep an open mind, drawing conclusions. It is where I get alot of mine,