PLS Act 8765(d)

User avatar
PLS7393
Posts: 678
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2004 2:09 pm
Location: Bay Area (Fremont)
Contact:

PLS Act 8765(d)

Postby PLS7393 » Thu Oct 25, 2018 7:14 am

There has been a lot of discussion about the costs to review record of surveys, and I understand the value and reasoning for review by the County Surveyor. Unfortunately the public is hit with the additional fees (map preparation, review and filing). I'm not even going to ask the status of what CLSA is doing pertaining the fight to repeal the $75 for affordable housing associated with a record of survey, as we haven't heard any updates since earlier this year.

The purpose of this post is to identify a cost saving value to the public that has no value for a record of survey to be filed. There are many situations when a subdivision was filed, and for whatever reason new deeds included or excluded parallel strips of a lot as shown on the subdivision. I currently have a proposal to a potential client that needs his rear line established to see if two large eucalyptus trees are on his property, or on the undeveloped property to his rear. Unfortunately I have to explain why he is paying the additional $1,000 and need to file a record of survey as the current law reads.

The deed reads:
"LOT 16, BLOCK 1, TRACT 3135 FILED DECEMBER 8, 1970, IN MAP BOOK 66, PAGE 42, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS.

EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE SOUTHERN 1 FOOT THEREOF." The exception is adjusting the sideline.

How does a surveyor survey this deed, verses surveying Lot 1, Block 1, Tract 3135 . . . . ?
There is no difference, since any surveyor needs to survey the underlying map, being Tract 3135, which by the way has sufficient street monuments set.

The current law states a record of survey is required because the parallel deed line is not shown on a filed map, but open your eyes and think if a record of survey is truly needed to protect the public in this type of situation? I argue no, there is no difference. Yet I do understand if a lot line was changed to be 01" different from a parallel line, a record of survey should be filed.

Over the years of discussion, I was told to change the statue, so I recently wrote up a proposal to add three words to the the referenced section,
" OR PARALLEL LINES". The proposal was sent to the Legs Committee, CLSA, and our current President Ron Nelms. Ron called me up and was reading from the current laws, and couldn't see the value in the proposal, so the frustration set in and I simply said "thanks for the call" and hung up.

I have discussed this before with a number of surveyors and the Board. Many surveyors agree, but for some reason many do not see the value to the public, so I open this up to you, other professionals with an opinion.

Should Sect. 8765(d) be revised to read; "When the survey is a retracement of lines,{ or parallel 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 a property corners thereon, . . . "

We are licensed to protect the public, and this is my attempt to protect the public and potential clients from paying unnecessary fees, not to mention how long should it take to review this record of survey, maybe one hour max?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Warren Smith
Posts: 704
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 6:41 am
Location: Sonora

Re: PLS Act 8765(d)

Postby Warren Smith » Thu Oct 25, 2018 7:57 am

I filed a corner record in the 1980s showing a 10' offset to corners shown on an underlying map, which had been adjusted to (wait for it) a 10' parallel line.
I was directed to by the LS (since deceased) I was working for at the time. It was part of an ALTA survey which he stamped, of course.

I may go to survey hell for that, but the client was well served, and I expect any retracing surveyor will figure it out.
Warren D. Smith, LS 4842
County Surveyor
Tuolumne County

User avatar
steffan
Posts: 192
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 2:44 pm
Location: N CA

Re: PLS Act 8765(d)

Postby steffan » Thu Oct 25, 2018 8:41 am

Sure. They were simply witness corners, right?

User avatar
btaylor
Posts: 451
Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2002 4:33 pm
Location: Foster City, CA

Re: PLS Act 8765(d)

Postby btaylor » Thu Oct 25, 2018 2:54 pm

I can't see arguing how this is a bad idea. This benefits all parties. We can do a simple corner record and the client saves around $1000 - maybe more. I am not sure why one would argue an ROS is more effective in this example.

And often we set parallel offsets anyway since at times a new fence or retaining wall is being placed and actual corners would be ineffective and lost immediately, so in those cases of offsets, it is essentially the same exact circumstance, minus the deed line.

User avatar
Peter Ehlert
Posts: 479
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 2:40 pm
Location: N31°43', W116°39'
Contact:

Re: PLS Act 8765(d)

Postby Peter Ehlert » Thu Oct 25, 2018 3:01 pm

pearly gates are in your future Warren.

Keith: what if you just survey Lot 1, Block 1, Tract 3135 and leave it at that? File a Corner Record if you stake it.
Peter Ehlert

User avatar
btaylor
Posts: 451
Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2002 4:33 pm
Location: Foster City, CA

Re: PLS Act 8765(d)

Postby btaylor » Thu Oct 25, 2018 3:11 pm

Peter Ehlert wrote:pearly gates are in your future Warren.

Keith: what if you just survey Lot 1, Block 1, Tract 3135 and leave it at that? File a Corner Record if you stake it.


Keith would be in violation since he is techincally setting offset points for a deed line not shown on a map of record.

User avatar
PLS7393
Posts: 678
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2004 2:09 pm
Location: Bay Area (Fremont)
Contact:

Re: PLS Act 8765(d)

Postby PLS7393 » Thu Oct 25, 2018 3:16 pm

Peter Ehlert wrote:
Keith: what if you just survey Lot 1, Block 1, Tract 3135 and leave it at that? File a Corner Record if you stake it.


I'm glad you mentioned that Peter. All five Bay Area Counties use to accept that mythology, and any point set was a reference (offset) point to the filed map. There are new individuals in power now that have decided that is not acceptable. It was brought to my attention after they used an Assessors Map and said I was staking a deed line. Yes I said they used an Assessors Map as a reference which I questioned and commented Assessors Maps are not legal maps, lol.

So by your comment Peter, you don't see any problems with a Corner Record?

User avatar
Peter Ehlert
Posts: 479
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 2:40 pm
Location: N31°43', W116°39'
Contact:

Re: PLS Act 8765(d)

Postby Peter Ehlert » Thu Oct 25, 2018 3:41 pm

Keith: correct, I think a Corner Record protects the public twice... 1. survey history preserved 2. protected from unnecessary fees

Brian: I believe Warren said that offsets to the property line/corners were set. There was no deed line.
Later the line was moved by deed, and it then coincided with the existing monuments of record.
Peter Ehlert

User avatar
Jay Wright
Posts: 87
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 11:39 am

Re: PLS Act 8765(d)

Postby Jay Wright » Fri Oct 26, 2018 8:45 am

Why just parallel offsets?
Can it be a 45' offset or a 0.19' offset?
If you are going to allow some Lot Line Adjustments to be monumented on a Corner Record why not all?
Establishing a previously unmapped line or corner is establishing a previously unmapped line or corner.

At least this change will keep those who either haven't read, don't understand, or willfully ignore 8762 from having an unfair business advantage.
Level the playing field one way or the other.

User avatar
Proud7191
Posts: 112
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 9:42 am

Re: PLS Act 8765(d)

Postby Proud7191 » Fri Oct 26, 2018 9:57 am

The problem with this whole discussion is that we as professionals are trying to find a reasonable professional solution to excessive review and filing costs.
If a record of survey and filing fees were reasonable there would be no discussion. My 2 cents, Jp

Edward M Reading
Posts: 120
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 7:23 am
Location: San Luis Obispo

Re: PLS Act 8765(d)

Postby Edward M Reading » Fri Oct 26, 2018 11:57 am

Proud7191 wrote:The problem with this whole discussion is that we as professionals are trying to find a reasonable professional solution to excessive review and filing costs.
If a record of survey and filing fees were reasonable there would be no discussion. My 2 cents, Jp


OK, then this begs the question; what is a reasonable fee to check an RS?
Edward M. Reading
SLO County

User avatar
Lee Hixson
Posts: 546
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 8:03 am
Location: Yuba City, CA
Contact:

Re: PLS Act 8765(d)

Postby Lee Hixson » Sat Oct 27, 2018 5:31 am

Edward M Reading wrote:
Proud7191 wrote:OK, then this begs the question; what is a reasonable fee to check an RS?


$250

User avatar
PLS7393
Posts: 678
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2004 2:09 pm
Location: Bay Area (Fremont)
Contact:

Re: PLS Act 8765(d)

Postby PLS7393 » Thu Nov 01, 2018 9:06 am

It amazes me that I post a valid question where some have not agreed with this mythology in the past, but not one of them has replied or explain to others why this would not benefit the public?

Even Bryan pointed out that we do this all the time to offset a corner when fences or retaining walls exist.

khuerth
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2015 9:33 am

Re: PLS Act 8765(d)

Postby khuerth » Thu Nov 01, 2018 10:30 am

Edward M Reading wrote:
Proud7191 wrote:The problem with this whole discussion is that we as professionals are trying to find a reasonable professional solution to excessive review and filing costs.
If a record of survey and filing fees were reasonable there would be no discussion. My 2 cents, Jp


OK, then this begs the question; what is a reasonable fee to check an RS?


$233 first sheet and $100 each additional sheet. Thanks for all the reasonable reviews you do, just wish a certain County south of you would follow your lead...

Edward M Reading
Posts: 120
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 7:23 am
Location: San Luis Obispo

Re: PLS Act 8765(d)

Postby Edward M Reading » Thu Nov 01, 2018 4:52 pm

khuerth wrote:$233 first sheet and $100 each additional sheet. Thanks for all the reasonable reviews you do, just wish a certain County south of you would follow your lead...

Thanks Kyle.
Edward M. Reading
SLO County

User avatar
Jay Wright
Posts: 87
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 11:39 am

Re: PLS Act 8765(d)

Postby Jay Wright » Fri Nov 02, 2018 1:59 pm

Hi Keith:

What part of IF THE PROPERTY YOU SURVEYED ISN'T SHOWN ON A MAP, DO A MAP. is confusing or mythological?

You seem to be confusing mythology with the Land Surveyor's Act.
I do not base my practice on mythology.
I have spent hundreds of hours doing proposals for jobs knowing someone will undercut me by not doing a map.

My questions weren't answered either...
Is a 0.13' offset or a 1234.56' offset okay?
Three words ain't gonna do it.

I'm gonna call you soon and see if we can do a roundtable thing on this subject at a meeting next year.
I promise to be much more offensive on the phone, but you already knew that.

User avatar
PLS7393
Posts: 678
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2004 2:09 pm
Location: Bay Area (Fremont)
Contact:

Re: PLS Act 8765(d)

Postby PLS7393 » Wed Nov 07, 2018 12:03 pm

Mr. Wright,
What part of the original post did you not read clearly?
Did you not read that some of us feel a small change in the law would be beneficial to the public?
I prefer to assist the public and help them when I can at a reasonable cost as outlined in the current laws.

Your question isn't a realistic one, so I won't answer it.

A round table discussion ("thing" as you state) isn't necessary if you truly understand the concept of the topic and potential change in the law, where mathematical closures are not necessary to understand the mathematical relationship and theory of "Parallel Line".

Maybe you are not aware of the current Board Rules that states under Section 464(d) "A corner record may be filed for any property corner, property controlling corner, reference monument, or accessory to a property corner, together with reference to record information".
I understand the difference between Board Rules (statutory), and PLS Act (legislative), but either way we are still surveying the underlying "filed" subdivision map.

So right there I have validated that there is a conflict in verbiage pertaining what type of map can be filed, as we currently have two options to document our surveys.

User avatar
subman
Posts: 425
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 6:22 pm
Location: Ventura County

Re: PLS Act 8765(d)

Postby subman » Mon Nov 12, 2018 9:27 am

Let’s keep in mind that the underlying premise is that these are both lots shown on a recorded tract map that has already been checked by the public agency (and significant fees collected), both lots already close within acceptable tolerances per tract traverse calcs ; and have tract corners monumented along with CL monuments. I agree a CR should be appropriate. An alternative would be a no fee ROS if you need it drawn on bigger paper. What additional data is there to show if filed as a CR vs. ROS?

User avatar
Jay Wright
Posts: 87
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 11:39 am

Re: PLS Act 8765(d)

Postby Jay Wright » Fri Nov 16, 2018 11:26 am

Mr. Nofield:
I don't think you read my first post on the subject when I stated I was for your idea. I asked what limitations you would put
on "or parallel offsets"

Documenting agreements resolving small encroachments would be great on a CR.
A transfer of an x foot strip needs to be better defined, there are gargantuan chunks of dirt in California
that could be involved realistically.

I didn't mention closure calcs, I think you should be able to do a strip along a curve or that hits a curve as well.

There is no conflict in the "may file" from the Board Rules and the "Shall file" from the L.S. Act.
Pretty sure Keith Nofield taught me that one when I was studying for my exam.

I would like to see many more Corner Records and have Record of Survey Maps be for material discrepancies.

I would also like those who told my prospective clients that "a ROS isn't necessary you can do a CR" to buy me a house.

User avatar
Olin Edmundson
Posts: 190
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 8:37 am

Re: PLS Act 8765(d)

Postby Olin Edmundson » Fri Nov 16, 2018 7:01 pm

In many cases the CR/RS distinction is a joke. I can survey a lot from an 1895 subdivision with a CR. They can be complex surveys showing a ton of info but with some creative drafting can fit on an 8-1/2" x 11" and save $530 bucks. It would be nice to have a larger piece of paper to work with. I thought paper was cheap! For those that say clients pay those fees, that is true, but of course the market has a limit on what a survey can be sold for, clients don't really care about fees they care about total cost for value provided so in the end we are paying for it. I think most of us get that but maybe not everyone.

User avatar
bruce hall
Posts: 630
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2003 9:18 pm
Location: huntington beach, orange county, california

Re: PLS Act 8765(d)

Postby bruce hall » Tue Nov 20, 2018 10:30 am

Back in the early 80's the pitch to file Corner Records on a lot survey was that you, the surveying community, wanted to know who had surveyed in the block prior to going out and setting stuff. Who's been here and what did he do? If I had a CR that said Sam Surveyor was in my block and surveyed lot 4, well then I could call up the surveyor prior to entering the field, get his notes and be ready.

Back then, when I ran across an unreferenced monument I would then call the surveyor who set it and ask for his notes, if I needed or wanted to. other times I didn't find a previously set monument and didn't know if someone else had been surveying in the block where I was. It was a method to get these surveys into the public records. nothing fancy, just where were you and what did you set. That was the proposed premise for changing the law AS I REMEMBER IT.

Gary Shelton, the county surveyor of oc at the time, made the statement "All we want from you guys is a sketch with four lines, four black or open circles, and the numbers on those lines. that's it. We just want to know that you were there and what you set".

A corner record was supposed to be something simple that would benefit the public and other surveyors. Well so much for the simple part. There is nothing simple about the mapping on a CR since the law change 30 years ago. Almost from the get-go.

Most of my surveys were filed as RS's just cause I couldn't show what was required on a CR cause the county wanted just too much stuff to be shown on this simple sketch. And this is all based on the CR law as written. I Had more room on a RS and there was no checking fee.

With the advent of cadd one can put a whole bunch of stuff on a 8 1/2 by 11. I can make the font really really really small yet legible. try hand drafting a cr using the size of font shown on todays cadd drafted crs. Impossible to do. well almost, not in every case. Cadd drafting existed in 1985 but was not as prevalent as it is today.

the initial premis was good and honorable, but the implementation and writing of the law change was not done in the spirit of the original premis. Made a mess of it as far as I am concerned.

Everything above is my opinion. But I was there when all this came down and that's how I see it. And So much for the original post.

User avatar
PLS7393
Posts: 678
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2004 2:09 pm
Location: Bay Area (Fremont)
Contact:

Re: PLS Act 8765(d)

Postby PLS7393 » Tue Jan 15, 2019 9:42 am

Rainy days allow for some to find time, and read up on the forum.

I have not heard any additional info on my submitted proposal from CLSA other than I received a phone call from the (then current CLSA President) who did not agree with my proposal.
What is the process on submitted proposals?
Is this even on the agenda for the next Board of Directors Meeting, or was it simply disregarded and "round filed"?
The legislation committee has sent me nothing, not even a thank you for taking the time to submit the proposal with my concerns in attempt to better the surveying profession.

Over the 30 +/- years of CLSA membership, I have seen a change in priorities.

User avatar
hellsangle
Posts: 244
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:31 am
Location: Sonoma, CA

Re: PLS Act 8765(d)

Postby hellsangle » Fri Jan 18, 2019 4:13 pm

Here comes, Crazy Phil !

SURVEYOR TO RECORDER . . . then most of the above would be moot?

Have a good weekend, all,

Phil - Sonoma


Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests