California Surveyors Forums

Well said Dave. That is where I see the heart of the issue.

Surveyor A says, “I’ve been commissioned by the owner to stake a fence on PL. This equals construction staking and temporary points (via lath in the ground) for construction purposes only. It is incidental that I have to calc a boundary in order to locate the location of the proposed fence and therefore no ROS or CR applies.”

Surveyor B says, “I’ve been commissioned by the owner to stake a fence on PL. This equals establishing the boundary and therefore ROS or CR triggers apply. It is incidental that the owner wants construction stakes for a fence. Where the fence is built isn’t as important as where I set the property corners and how I tell the public what I did."

Great thread!

Im still waiting to hear how those who defend setting temporary points (regardless of filing the 2 page $10 CR) explain how it saves them money and therefore enables them to bid lower than the competitor?

is it the time it takes to drill and set a lead? set iron? use up a precious brass tag? where is the savings.....to the client......to the public.....what is it about setting permanent points affects your bottom line?

By "permanent points" you mean "durable monuments"

For a genuine Land Survey ROS or Cor-Rec, there are no expendatures for Iron, over wood stakes.

You're correct . . . in fact it takes the same time to do a sloppy job as it does to do a correct job.

The problem is the "basic cost to operate"
Often this cost exceeds market value.

One gentleman suggests doing the jobs for free ????
Also suggested is the imperialistic point that "just cause a survey is needed, doesnt mean it can be afforded"

A point was made that there are milloins of dollars spent on property litigation that could've been avoided by initial presence of a land surveyor. . . . .but then by that "rational thinking" if one cant afford it . . . go measure it yourself ??????? This tangle thought process is giving me a headache.
The arrogance and then demeaningness has me all confused.

Lets just make a new Discipline . . [Liscensed Fence Staker]

Bye the way, I've lost a many a job, even this year, because I wouldn't pull off the curbs and slap some stakes for a fence. So I'm not defending the "Sidewinder"
I'm trying to redefine just what we do. . . . if we don't measure ? then what?

Expert witness ?

I dunno ~:>)

Bubblewatcher, there is significant savings in not drafting and processing a ROS.

I can kill a good day, and maybe then some, drafting the RS on a relativley simple (if there is such a thing) survey. Can save a few hours of drafting on a CR, except here in the OC, it might as well be a mini rs.

Dave, the example I gave had nothing to do with This Half/That Half. That takes it into an entirely different realm.

The example I first tossed out was of a lot within a block, that once the measurements were made to the existing monumentation (might be just the block corners, or might be other lot corners), that all matched record, no RS triggers encountered (start talking about halfs and you almost certainly hit the deed parcel trigger), and you have foreknowledge that whatever you set will be gone within days.

The PLSA does not require that some form of map be filed anytime you determine a boundary. It requires it under various, but not all conditions.


Good, measurement is one thing we do to obtain field measurement and other physical evidence to consider in forming our professional opinions. Measurement is not the main thing we do, it supports the main thing we do. It just happens to be the most visible thing we do.


Ben, good point, and good succint view of the issue in your 3:00 PM post.


Bubble, in the case I describe, there would be the cost of returning to the site after the temp points are destroyed to set permanent ones and/or to locate the fence. Even if that's just a drive across town and 1/2 hour on site, by the time it's said and done, that's 2 hours field crew time, or $300 +/-, depending on your rates.

Then there would be the cost of preparing the CR. Depending upon how elaborate you make it. Let's call it 2 hrs of note reduction and drafting by a tech, $180. And 1/2 hour of PLS time to properly check it, $70.

So that's $550 to set points that the client may no longer want or need, and file the required CR.

Oh yeah, and that pesky filing fee, $10. Tell you what, I'll cover the filing fee for the client as a special bonus.

But wait! You say "I'd just set the permanent points to begin with, file the CR and be done with it! If the client wants to destroy them once I'm gone that's his business."

Well that's just great! With the foreknowledge that the points you set will be gone in days, and knowing that sufficient monumentation exists to facilitate the simple reestablishment of that line, and knowing that there is no deviation from record, you are going to charge the client to prepare and file the CR. Assuming that under this scenario, you have eliminated the need to return to the site ($300 field time), that's still $260 that you are going to charge for the CR. That's a CR that shows nothing that the previous record doesn't already show except that it references points that won't exist by the time the CS indexes the CR.

Now that is a fine service to both the client and the larger public.

But wait, I say! But wait! While you're walking away from the job feeling good about having met the letter of the law in filing your CR for the soon to be (or already) destroyed "permanent" monuments, you've violated the law! With your foreknowledge that fence construction was going to cause the destruction of those points, you were required under §8771(b) to tie them out and file a pre-construction CR, and then reset them after construction and file another CR. By the same arguments made by those who have said that there is no question that a map must be filed, you cannot assume that the client knows this code section and cannot abdicate your responsibility under this section to him. The requirement is on you. Whether you build that in to your fee is up to you.

Now you've got to get your butt back out there and take care of that bit of business for free. Or were you just going to skip that part? That is actually a disservice to the client and to the public.

If you're going to argue that the letter of the law must be followed with no room for interjecting a little long view sense, then you had better follow ALL the letters of the same law.

Which brings me to the curb offsets. Some have said that even if you set offset stakes for the fence, you are referencing the PL, and therefore are required to file a map on those points. Well, under the example I presented of the curb, your stakes reference the curb, which references the PL. So your stakes indirectly reference the PL. Someone could measure off the improvement which you staked to identify the PL, just as someone could use the fence that you staked to ID the PL. By the same logic that says that you must file a map for the offsets to the fence, wouldn't you need to file one for the offsets to the curb?

I must be missing a link in the logic. Someone help me out here.

For those who seem to think that I, or anyone else here has advocated that it is OK to set temp points to avoid filing a RS or CR any time the client just wants to build a fence, I will state, again, that is NOT what I, or Jim, or anyone else has done.

I presented a VERY SPECIFIC set of circumstances under which it is arguable that it MIGHT be OK to set temp points and not file a map.

Under the vast majority of cases, it wouldn't even be credibly arguable. And it is almost inconceivable that it is a valid offer of service prior to having the field work completed.

OK, back to the debate.

where it states in the PLSA that if I know that the monuments at the corners of the lot, let's say the northeast and northwest corner of Lot 4, are going to be destroyed, that I have to file a Corner record on these monuments prior to their destruction, and then come back later and set replacements, and file another CR.

I know it's there somewhere, and I might have even just read it, but I would sure like you to show me.

thanks,

Maybe I see it. 8771(b) the same section that you helped me with last night.

Well the first sentence, which was a godsend to me from you, says we gotta locate stuff and file a record on them prior to the time when street, highways, blah blah.............are improved, maintained resurfaced. I don't see anything in there about lot lines, such as the line between lots 4 and 5.

I am sure that it is in there, I just can't see it.

The next sentence talks about resetting monuments at the surface of the new construction(I guess that it is in the street, highway, other rights-of-way, or easements)and then filing a corner record if something gonna get knocked out covered.

The next sentence talks about sufficient controlling monuments being retained blah blah. Now does this sentence refer to the previous two sentences or what? I would think so, but I have been wrong before.

In refering to the mythical survey at hand, I would think that there would be sufficient controlling monuments retained-the block corners-to reestablish Lot 4/5 and not be devious about it, cause everything is perfect regarding the record.

And this construction is not taking place on street, highway, other rights of way or easements. I see what you are saying about not setting the monuments or filing the CR cause it will save the landowner money, in a way.

But I don't think that the CR is a wasted effort. I think that it references monuments of record that existed a long time ago at the block corners and that it lets everyone know that they are stilllllllll therrrrrrrrre, and everything measures perfect between them.

I suppose that if I am retracing a 4 year old subdivision, so what? But retracing a subdivision circa 1951, and the block corners are still there, who'd a thunk it? But maybe that isn't a good service for the client or the public at large to let everyone who might be interested know about it.

PS. The help was from Jim Frame regarding 8711- although I am sure you had it on the tip of your tongue as well.

So what you are saying Evan is...
Client wants property line staked for fence. You go out and find block corners everything fits you set your temporary point because it is only for construction staking and client can put fence where ever he wants because it is only for construction.
You get a call from the client a few years after this saying there is a problem with fence. Neighbor had his surveyor come out and set durable monuments and it doesn't fit with the fence. All block corners you found were destroyed and the neighbors surveyor finds different block corners and has to prorate the lot lines in.
When you are in court and the neighbor's lawyer questions why you only set temporary points when establishing someones property line. When you should have been setting a durable monument and filing a CR or ROS with the proper agency you just tell him... It was for construction staking! That $10 is looking good right about now.

These kinds of actions does a great deserve to us surveyors. Shouldn't we be informing the public that we are professionals and not just tradesman throwing in hubs because hey it is just for construction staking. Let the flaming begin.

Mojave, go back and read the whole thread. You've missed the context and I don't want to rerepeat myself again.


Bruce, after another look, I see you are correct about §8771. It would apply only if there were an easement along this property line.

So what is temporary? I just found 2x2 redwood hubs that were set in 1911 as lot corners.

I am enjoying the disscussion. I am counting it as CEU'S

I have been following this thread since it started, so I won't get into it. I would set durable monuments and would file the CR or ROS with the public agency. Inform my client for the reasons not to destroy the monument. Setting temporary points is just a waste of time after you have done all the other surveying to establish a lot line why not do it right. That is my opinion.

Board Response to similar posed question (Fall/Winter Bulletin 1996). See Question F. Being the litigious society these days and If I was providing staking for a fence line, set front/rear monuments and file the CR. Always a safe bet.

I did know if I was reading the black correct or not.

page one and two, so that I can see what the "lot above" is. It would seem to me that by reading this portion of the 3 page opinion regarding fence line staking, that as long as monuments were not set at the corners, a CR or RS is not necessary.

This would seem to make Evan's mythical lot survey for construction purposes probably okay as long as nothing was set at the corners.

Bruce, here are pages 1 and 2.

"3. A survey that only places temporary stakes or non-durable markers (wood stakes, untagged nails, etc.) is not complying with state laws regarding boundary surveys.
4. It is illegal to set line stakes on a property line and not set or find the actual property corner monuments."

Excuse me while I flog this dead horse, but in my opinion both items 3 and 4 are incorrect as written and reflect a misinterpretation of the law. Neither accommodates construction surveying, in which -- under the right conditions -- all of the above are legal and ethical actions. The right conditions may not be commonly encountered, but they're easily envisioned, as Evan has set forth previously. That they may exist renders the unconditional statements of illegality in items 3 and 4 erroneous.

.

"Temporarily for construction purposes. After the improvements are finished he must set durable monuments and file the appropriate map. This applies whether it is a 1000 lot subdivision or a single property line."

Rather than spend more time on this, I'll just say I disagree and leave it at that. It's been a good discussion, even if no minds were changed.

.

That opinion is great. I like the questions asked and i like the answers given

What, exactly, does this statement mean:

"If a survey performed relating to land boundaries or property lines by a licensed land surveyor, or licensed civil engineer, then a record of survey is required to be filed with the county surveyor in the county in which the survey was made that DISCLOSES any of the matters defined in Section 8762(b)(1)-(5) relating to the survey performed."



How does that bear on the example where NO RS triggers as defined in §8762(b)(1)-(5) are encountered?

If you are of the opinion that this letter states that an RS would be required in all cases by virtue of marking the boundary on the ground, then where is there room for the CR?

Remember that all BPELS opinions are based upon the particulars of the matter presented to the BPELS staff. This opinion is great for the general case where a RS trigger is encountered, but it is incomplete without Jim's letter and of limited value when looked to for application to a case where no RS trigger is encountered.

My mistake. I was reading in a hurry and stopeed at Cindi's signature, not even scrolling down further.

I see that Jim's question doesn't elaborate further as to specifics. So my questions still stand.

It seems to me that BPELS answers the question for the general case, but then adds that paragraph, emphasizing the word "discloses".

So, does that mean that no map need be filed if no matters as defined in those sections are disclosed by the survey?


Greg, you say that you doubt that the "perfect" conditions exist. While I will stipulate that the conditions described earlier in this thread would be rare, they do not need to be "perfect". They only need to be such that no RS triggers are encountered. Every time you perform a boundary survey for which you've filed a CR, there were presumably no RS triggers encountered, so that part of the conditions are not that rare. The only other part of the scenario is that you have foreknowledge that the points will not remain beyond construction activities to happen in the very near future, and that you accordingly set something more resembling a construction stake than a monument, and that the client has specified that no permanent points need be set (he and his neighbor will have the fence as a visible demarcation of the line). I don't think that is so far beyond the realm of possibility that a surveyor might see it a couple of times in a career.

Material discrepancy does not mean ANY deviation from record dimensions. It means significant difference.

Is 0.05' significant? In some rare case, perhaps. In most cases, not.

Is 3' significant? In most cases, yes. In some rare cases, perhaps not.

If you are using a CR for mon preservation, what do you do if your measurements to existing ties differs from record ties? I hope you are not filing a RS.

Part of the utility of the corner record is the "Find and Replace" option. It doesn’t matter if the monuments show on a record drawing or if they monument a lot line, centerline, right of way, or are control points.

The question of what “monuments” do you tie out and which ones do you allow to get destroyed is another topic.

Can you imagine the amount of work involved if you had to make boundary decisions on every PK you might need to perpetuate?

Greg,

Now your saying that you wouldn't use a CR for monument preservation?

Let's say the monuments are tagged or marked, do show on some record, but you find differences between your measurements to the ties and those shown of record. Do you file a RS over those differences? Do you consider them "material"?


Ben, yes, that is one of the purposes of the CR.