Record of Survey vs Corner Record

[kwilson]

Subject: Centerline Monuments

Many cities have monuments for which we have no specific record of how they were created. (Typically centerline monuments in monument boxes). This discussion is not referring to monuments for which there is a specific record (FM, PM,RS, CR, City Field Book).

These monuments for which we have no record are typically accepted and have historically been used by surveyors to establish the streets and blocks. There are typically many of the same type of monument throughout the city that everyone assumes was set by a city survey crew many years ago but the records, if any, cannot be found or were not maintained by the city.

If one of these monuments are used for boundary control and there is no previous record of anyone using that specific monument yet other similar monuments have been found, used and accepted, would that then require a Record of Survey under 8762 (1) "Material evidence or physical change which in whole or in part does not appear on any ...recorded map"

If the original map shows a little dot (and the map does not describe the actual type of monument set) would that change your opinion? What about an offset to the centerline (such as a 5 foot offset).

[David Kendall]

The way I see it....

The spirit of the law is to require documentation (record of survey) of methodology for innovative solutions to boundary establishment. Boundary retracement in reliance on (or disclosure of):

• Locally accepted reference solutions, like the ones which you describe

• discrepanant facts that are already noted in other available records, and

• locations that are easily determined from available evidence and for which there are no reasonable alternative solutions or contrary evidence revealed in the course of the survey

could be documented on a corner record as the filing surveyor sees fit. Sometimes this feat calls for some assertive negotiation with the agency review person...

The letter of the law implies that a record of survey is to be filed every time the original monument from the filed map acquires a patina of rust or mud. This seems to be a common technical interpretation. I reckon I will take my chances and pay the fine as needed, so long as I feel that I am doing right by the community

Ian Wilson wrote a Cal Surveyor article last fall with a somewhat different viewpoint than mine. I was not around when the corner record was conceived but I have been told that it was intended to have a narrower scope

The legal standard is likely somewhere in the middle grey area, meandering romantically with the elusive textbook definition for material discrepancy

[Mike Mueller]

To me that is a RoS under 8762(b)1 and likely 3.

It would be the same as splitting curbs. Its new evidence not present on the original map that is material to the outcome, hence 8762(b)1
It might also be the best available evidence of the positions of that original map. However, the moment the term "best available" is used, it means there is other evidence that was discovered, weighed and found less compelling. Depending on how a surveyor weighs evidence, the outcome could change, which is pretty clearly a trigger under 8762(b)3 alternate positions.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[Mike Mueller]

The letter of the law implies that a record of survey is to be filed every time the original monument from the filed map acquires a patina of rust or mud.

Where you are getting that requirement?

8765(d) is pretty clear to me that a CR is expressly intended to be sufficient for updates on character.

(d) When the survey is a retracement of lines shown on a subdivision map, official map,
or a record of survey, where no material discrepancies with those records are found and
sufficient monumentation is found to establish the precise location of property corners thereon,
provided that a corner record is filed for any property corners which are set or reset or found to
be of a different character than indicated by prior records. For purposes of this subdivision, a
“material discrepancy” is limited to a material discrepancy in the position of points or lines, or in
dimensions.

That said, in my mind there is a valid debate about what does "character" mean and what is a "property corner" in that section of the law, and I would bet a few dollars that whoever wrote that section goofed up. Mainly because there seems to be a conflation between a monument and a property corner. Monuments which have character as mentioned in 8764(a)1 are generally separate and distinct from a "property corner" which is generally defined by the title document. A property corner does not have a width or material...

8765(d) says that property corners can be set, or reset which clearly means that the monuments are property corners within the views of the scivenor of this section of the PLSA. Often the monument IS the property corner, like subdivision monuments within a subdivision, but consider this example:

A property that only has a metes and bounds description that does not call for any monuments,. A correctly done and wonderfully thorough RoS was filed 20 years ago for that property which set monuments at all 4 corners. Retracing that property for a topo, 1 of those monuments is missing and the client wants it replaced.
Which of the words within 8765(d) describes that missing monument?
Is the fact that its "missing" a quality that is encompassed within the word "character"?
If that missing monument is not a property corner, how does a CR get filed for it when the CR is only for property corners?
Does a new monument set as a Point on Line between two deed called for monuments count as a property corner?

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[PLS7393]

Unfortunately this appears to be in line with a RoS in my interpretation since the monument is not referenced on an official map. But as you mentioned if the centerline intersection has a clear dot, then one could interpret this as a monument. This is open for interpretation, and could depend on the city/county you are working in. Some cities do not have any knowledgeable staff to answer the question, or even know where to begin to research it, and we are out of luck. Some cities (with a staff surveyor) will work with you but they still may not find any documentation, yet the disc is stamped with their city info. The old part of Niles District (City of Fremont) is just that, and the City Surveyor has always worked with me, but also I have needed his assistance for a RoS. On the map, simply document the discussion with the City Surveyor, if able, and move on.

Some County Surveyors have their own agenda and not willing to work with private surveyors, where others are willing to work with us. Once again we are open to interpretation to what a County Surveyor allows us to file.

Yup when preparing an estimate it may not be clear cut when you see existing street monuments on google earth at 1am, only to find after the fact that a RoS is required. I've had to suck it up and pay the extra fees, so sometimes it is easier to simply plan for a RoS.

Retirement is getting closer and closer with the newer County Surveyors, lol.