City of Los Angeles Requirement for Additional Monuments
Just recently I have gotten back into doing Final tract and Parcel Maps in the City of Los Angeles. I am doing this work via sub contracting for another company that is swamped.
A lot has changed with the city. No longer will a “to be set” certification be allowed on the final maps. All boundary and accessory monuments required must be in place prior to the map being finalized and recorded.
This is fine.
However, there is one particular item that is being requested by the city survey division which I have yet to discover as being valid.
It involves additional monuments to be set and centerline tie sheets to be submitted to the city survey division. If that is not done, then the survey division will not approve the final map and it will not record.
I spoke with an individual last Friday, who is involved with this and asked him if there was a city ordinance passed that required this extra work to be done by private engineers and surveyors, he told me that there was an ordinance passed a few years ago and that he would email me a copy of it. I thanked him for that, told him I was quite interested in reading the ordinance but the email never arrived.
About two weeks prior to this conversation I was talking with one of the principals of the company I am doing the maps for about this extra work and he emailed me what he had on it….
Here is what he was faxed by someone at the city..
Here is a copy of the government code that is being used to justify this extra work..
2010 California Code
Government Code
Article 9. Monuments
Share | GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 66495-6649866495. At the time of making the survey for the final map or parcel
map unless the survey is not required pursuant to Section 66448, the
engineer or surveyor shall set sufficient durable monuments to
conform with the standards described in Section 8771 of the Business
and Professions Code so that another engineer or surveyor may readily
retrace the survey. He shall also set such additional monuments as
may be required by local ordinance. The local agency shall require
that at least one exterior boundary line of the land being subdivided
be adequately monumented or referenced before the map is recorded.I then did a search on the City of Los Angeles site that has all their ordinances
available for public viewing. Using the search function I used the words ‘Survey & Monument
& Centerline & Intersection’. Nothing hit.I did find one ordinance however that was passed in 2008, just at the time frame the city employee
had mentioned.
Now, if there is such an ordinance, then all is well. However, if one does not exist I see a two fold problem
that the city is facing.Survey work does cost money to do. The finances spent could be paid by either the private practitioner or the developer.
If this additional work has been demanded without due city process then it does stand to reason that the developer or the private practitioner does have a right for reimbursement by the city for the expense that was paid out to do this additional work.
I blocked out the name and phone number of the company I am involved with simply to avoid their being a target of any type of retaliation. It may be a precaution that was not necessary, but I believe it is a prudent one.
Naturally, if the ordinance does exist, then this post is nothing more than that, a forum post.
I am posting here because I know that city survey personnel do lurk on the board and I am hoping to get a response back regarding the ordinance. Doe’s one exist or not. All I want is a definite answer to that question.
- 11 Replies
One thing is certain… Every large city in America is more of a pain in the ass now than during the boom when the beuracrats had a lot to do. They have since then had tons of free time to cook up new ways to create their own job security by in acting certain “policies” and or ordinances that serve their interests and not the public interest. As we move forward municipal redtape will hinder or profession more and more…. And the price goes up and up
Paul
How can the City expect the surveyor to set all monuments and accessories before the final/parcel map records if there is grading and internal street improvements that need to be constructed before internal street centerline monuments can be set along withe the accessory tangent ties?
That has been the historic reason for “to be set” monuments. we still allow “to be set” monuments in the unincorporated County.
Dennis
> Paul
>
> How can the City expect the surveyor to set all monuments and accessories before the final/parcel map records if there is grading and internal street improvements that need to be constructed before internal street centerline monuments can be set along withe the accessory tangent ties?Dennis..
I think that the tract and parcel maps that are not allowed the “to be set” certification are those that are fronting a dedicated and improved right of way. The one lot condos in an established neighborhood would be a good example, as would the new small lot subdivisions by a Parcel Map that are taking place. The work I am currently involved with are situations like those.
I am still getting to know the new in’s and outs for final maps but that’s my best guess at this time.
I’ll bring that question up tomorrow when I talk to the guys I am doing work for.
Be happy to set monuments. Try surveying where jack-leg bor’s like
Indiana and Colorado do not require any monuments be found or set.
Paul,
You think this may be an attempt around situations where the developer / owner goes bankrupt and improvements / monuments are not finalized years after the map is recorded? I’m wondering if that is the case after these last 3-4 years.
Ric
> Paul,
>
> You think this may be an attempt around situations where the developer / owner goes bankrupt and improvements / monuments are not finalized years after the map is recorded? I’m wondering if that is the case after these last 3-4 years.
>
> RicWell..good question. The scuttlebutt is that survey monument bonds are no longer required but like Dennis brought up, for a new subdivision that will be grading and dedicating new right of ways etc, the survey monument bond is probably still part of the process when the “to be set” is in the certification.
It’s been maybe 20 years since I was active with final maps in the City or County of LA. I have done a couple that were in incorporated cities, but have avoided any direct City or County of LA sole jurisdiction maps.
Another good question that needs an answer.
To answer your question though, No, I do not believe that these additional monument requirements have anything to do with a developer going belly up.
> One thing is certain… Every large city in America is more of a pain in the ass now than during the boom when the beuracrats had a lot to do. They have since then had tons of free time to cook up new ways to create their own job security by in acting certain “policies” and or ordinances that serve their interests and not the public interest. As we move forward municipal redtape will hinder or profession more and more…. And the price goes up and up
i disagree. as a county gov’t surveyor, we are wanting markers in the ground where there are marks on an instrument. this is not some bizarre invention of a beaureaucrat (sp). the idea is that the markers are set. the paradox of the issue is the grading, regrades etc.
the downside is that the surveyor often gets their check and does not return to set final markers. you wouldn’t be that type, i think, but they’re out there
> It involves additional monuments to be set and centerline tie sheets to be submitted to the city survey division. If that is not done, then the survey division will not approve the final map and it will not record….
On the one hand, I appreciate that the cost of a survey in California, as in Oregon, is already stupendous compared to other parts of the country. The camel’s back may already be broken and adding yet another cost may be akin to tire marks on flattened road kill.
On the other hand, I appreciate that the City of L.A. cares enough about it’s cadastre to try to maintain it.
Paul
In LA County, our local ordinance requires cash for monument security to avoid situations where the developer goes belly up and the bonds are not worth the paper they are printed on. That way the surveyor can request the cash security from the County (as spelled out in the Map Act)if the developer disappears and is not around to pay him to fulfill his obligation to set the monuments.
Even on the condo maps in the urban area, you are going to have perimeter walls, driveway cuts and parkway improvements that will have a strong likelihood of disturbing
monuments set before the map records unless all of the site improvement work is done before the map records and the map recordation is the final step to getting the certificates of occupancy, closing escrow and selling units.I still support the “to be set” monument practice. Just my opinion…
City of Los Angeles Requirement – Dennis
> I still support the “to be set” monument practice. Just my opinion…
Same here Dennis. I spoke briefly about this yesterday with one of the guys I am doing the Small lot subdivision Parcel Maps for and he affirmed that in these situations the ‘to be set’ and monument bond (cash deposit) is out the window. We did not talk about the condos in urban areas.
I’ll be talking with an individual later today who has been in business since 1950..if anyone knows the specifics on this, Jack will.
Last night I pulled up a recently filed PM. Two lots, south of Ventura Boulevard. Aside from the normal monumentation for this type of map, I counted 18 additional monuments that were needed to be set on one of the narrow 30 foot wide curvilinear streets thats along the perimeter of the PM. The PM was filed Dec 22, 2011 and had the ‘to be set’ certification.
http://dpw.lacounty.gov/sur/nas/landrecords/parcel/PM371/PM371-083.pdf
Dennis, if the county is requiring a cash deposit I bet the City also requires one now. How much is the amount for 18 additional monuments? I roughed up a figure of $ 27,000. Am I close?
I really do not have a problem with what City of LA Survey wants, but I do have a problem when it is being demanded without a city ordinance to back it up. So far, no one has been able to cite an ordinance for this survey requirement.
City of Los Angeles Requirement – Dennis
Paul
Our current practice is to ask the surveyor of record to provide a cost estimate as the basis of the cash security deposit. I recall our past practice was an outdated formula in the neighborhood of $1,750 + $250 per monument.
Dennis
Log in to reply.