California Surveyors Forums

If I read this correctly, if we stake an existing easement, if only for locating existing underground electrical facilities, we'll be required to file a record of survey. It also appears to trigger a record of survey just by creating a new easement.

We create dozens of easements every year and stake out dozens more so our field crews can replace aging underground cables. Please tell me I'm reading it wrong.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bil ... oduced.pdf

Is CSLA backing this legislation?

PathFinder wrote:Is CSLA backing this legislation?

I would hope not.

As with other issues, I have to believe staking an easement will become part of construction staking, which will not trigger a ROS. Now if permanent points are set for an easement, I can see a ROS, because there must be a bigger picture for establishing the easement and monumenting it.

IIRC setting offset stakes for a fence does not trigger a RS even if the line is not monumented as long as you do not set tagged monuments. Same should apply here, but then there is the surveyor that sets tacked 1/2s or scribe crosses for PL on a unmonumented lot for a new million dollar home.

It boils down to we cannot legislate every thing we or others do as much as the govt would try. As professionals we are supposed to do the proper thing to provide our client and future owners of the land the service they need. Tooooo many times a CE as said "the cost of maps is not in the budget". You can't convince me that paying ~$600K for 2 lots with a 60yo tear down on it and building a $1million dollar home on each legal lot that there isn't $3k in there for filing a RS and setting the final corners. I walked away.

I believe this is something that got going by a surveyor who knows an assemblyman and was not the result of a proposal by CLSA.

If my information is correct, I know who advanced this and his reason for it is the number of permanent monuments he has seen over the years placed at easement corners and lines that, because they are not for the purpose of marking ownership boundaries, are interpreted by BPELSG as not falling under current 8762 filing requirements.

I understand and agree with his desire to have permanently monumented easements fall under some manner of mapping requirements but disagree with simply adding the word "easements" to key lines of 8762. Doing so creates a whole host of unintended consequences by which nearly every easement would be required to be reflected on an RS, whether or not it makes sense to do so.

More thought needs to go into the proposal and wording devised such that only certain easements need be shown on some mapping format, whether it be an RS or a CR, while exempting those which are not monumented and which cannot be interpreted as having established the location of related ownership boundaries.

land butcher wrote:IIRC setting offset stakes for a fence does not trigger a RS even if the line is not monumented as long as you do not set tagged monuments. Same should apply here, but then there is the surveyor that sets tacked 1/2s or scribe crosses for PL on a unmonumented lot for a new million dollar home.

It boils down to we cannot legislate every thing we or others do as much as the govt would try. As professionals we are supposed to do the proper thing to provide our client and future owners of the land the service they need. Tooooo many times a CE as said "the cost of maps is not in the budget". You can't convince me that paying ~$600K for 2 lots with a 60yo tear down on it and building a $1million dollar home on each legal lot that there isn't $3k in there for filing a RS and setting the final corners. I walked away.

Okay, but suppose you're PG&E and you file 1000 easements every year. Or you have to locate them on the ground for your field crews so they can replace old cables. Are you going to file hundreds of ROS a year? You would need to hire people just to handle them. And the county surveyor would be required to hire several more people to check them. The bill summary says the state doesn't anticipate reimbursing the counties. Where's that money coming from?

We're a small utility as utilities go and we get 150 easements even in these slow times. I'd really hate to deal with 150 new ROS every year. It would be good for the surveying profession because it would create jobs but the consumer buying electricity is going to pay for it.

E_Page wrote:I believe this is something that got going by a surveyor who knows an assemblyman and was not the result of a proposal by CLSA.

If my information is correct, I know who advanced this and his reason for it is the number of permanent monuments he has seen over the years placed at easement corners and lines that, because they are not for the purpose of marking ownership boundaries, are interpreted by BPELSG as not falling under current 8762 filing requirements.

I understand and agree with his desire to have permanently monumented easements fall under some manner of mapping requirements but disagree with simply adding the word "easements" to key lines of 8762. Doing so creates a whole host of unintended consequences by which nearly every easement would be required to be reflected on an RS, whether or not it makes sense to do so.

More thought needs to go into the proposal and wording devised such that only certain easements need be shown on some mapping format, whether it be an RS or a CR, while exempting those which are not monumented and which cannot be interpreted as having established the location of related ownership boundaries.

We've recently started filing a plat along with the legal description for new easements. The plats are not intended to represent a boundary survey, they're only to drawn to help the customer understand where the easement lies. They always have a map or deed reference and a tie to a parcel corner, street intersection or a line in an existing easement. I'd have no problem sending the plat to the county. But going through a Record of survey for every easement? What a waste of time and the public's money.

E_Page wrote:...but disagree with simply adding the word "easements" to key lines of 8762. Doing so creates a whole host of unintended consequences by which nearly every easement would be required to be reflected on an RS, whether or not it makes sense to do so.

That is right on the nail head Evan.

If the attached AB 1551 passes does it mean we have to get permission to use a recorded map as a reference?

"8761.3. (a) No person shall use a licensed land surveyor’s
maps, plats, reports, descriptions, or other documentary evidence
authorized by Section 8761 without the consent of the licensed
land surveyor in a written contract, written agreement, or written
license specifically authorizing that use."

If not and the filed maps are available w/o permission what is this proposed legislation for.

I think your question (MFord) is valid and maybe worthy of its own thread so more could see it.

I'm sure the CLSA legislative committee will have a report on it.

MIKE READ THE BILL IN IT'S ENTIRETY...

A licensed land surveyor may reasonably withhold consent to use the maps, plats, reports, descriptions, or other documentary evidence for cause, including,
but not limited to, lack of full payment for services provided or failure of the requesting person to fulfill his or her obligations under a written contract pertaining to the services.

MFORD wrote:If the attached AB 1551 passes does it mean we have to get permission to use a recorded map as a reference?

Whether filed or unfiled, there is a concept in copyright law known as "fair use". It is often invoked when using copyrighted materials for non-commercial educational purposes.

Citing boundary evidence per a previous map, filed or unfiled would almost certainly fall under the fair use concept.

I suspect this legislation was proposed with proprietary drawings such as site topos in mind. Or possibly even filed maps that are reproduced and then drawn on top of. A colleague in El Dorado County had, IIRC either one of those unlicensed drafting people or an architect he had never heard of copy site topos he had drawn and draw their own plan on top then submit it to a planning agency (neighboring county, IIRC). The culprit didn't even bother to remove the signature, stamp, or company logo. I've seen similar misuse of survey drawings as well.

In the case I mentioned here, the surveyor contacted the planning agency to report the violation and demand they reject the drawings. The agency's attitude was "not our problem". I can understand why someone would try to get legislation that gives the drawing originator a little more leverage over their work product.

If you do a topo for landowner A and are paid in full, then A sells the property to B and B submits the topo to an architect for improvements the surveyor once paid has no claim to the original work.

It doesn't matter if the surveyor got paid or not, a topo isn't protected by copyright, except for any elements of style it might contain like custom symbols, company logo, etc. As Evan points out, those would likely be covered by the Fair Use doctrine in the case of a public agency application submittal.

It cost me over $5k to learn this lesson (current cost over $8k with court-approved interest; current value $0 due to judgment-proof client).