Perpetuation of Evidence vs Establishment of Boundary
This a a curious issue, one that has been discussed many many times.
Perhaps we can look at it this way, but taking a step further back and looking at the context of the requirements.
-----
“8762. Records of survey
(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), after making a field survey in conformity with the practice of land surveying, the licensed surveyor or licensed civil engineer may file with the county surveyor in the county in which the survey was made, a record of the survey.
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), after making a field survey in conformity with the practice of land surveying, the licensed land surveyor or licensed civil engineer shall file with the county surveyor in the county in which the field survey was made a record of the survey relating to land boundaries or property lines, if the field survey discloses any of the following: … “
------
(a) is pretty simple, it just says a surveyor MAY file a Record of Survey if he wants, even if it is not Required... “surveyor's choice”.
Now we need to read (b) a little more carefully... specifically “if the field survey discloses any of the following:”
So, if a surveyor goes on the ground, finds monument(s), makes measurements, then walks away; what did that field survey disclose? Nothing.
The existence of monuments and their physical relationship to other things is simply topographic data. At that point, No obligation to research, evaluate, analyze, and form an opinion has been incurred.
A Corner Record can be prepared and filed with no issues. Simply a Xerox of the field notes or a fancy drafted sketch of the data collected is just fine, you don't need to go any further.
If you are compulsive and go beyond, at some point you can easily “ring the bell” and incur that liability.
This is a subjective standard.
Peter..
Thanks for the input.
I have a question now.
From a surveyors viewpoint can you or anyone else tell me what a RS would add that this CR lacks? If a CR tells the story then why go through the unnecessary expense of filing an RS?
I think that the act should be revised to get the counties OUT of the picture other than custodians of CR and messengers to the county recorders for RS.
Jim Frame..A voice of reason
"Protect the public" and the cost of an RS are not mutually exclusive considerations.
Whether or not an RS is required is a statutory consideration, and cost cannot be weighed in the decision to file one when it is statutorily required.
When it is optional, then the client should be consulted. Occasionally they may want a RS rather than a CR. Not likely where there is a significant cost difference, but it's still their decision what they want to pay for. Where a RS is optional, the professional will advise the client of their options.
Deciding to file a CR where a RS is required by law cannot be justified because one thinks that the cost to the client is too high, or not fair, or whatever. Intentionally circumventing the law for any reason is unprofessional.
County review fees for RSs is an issue of its own to be addressed. If I regularly worked in counties that typically charge almost as much as the surveyor's fee to perform the survey, I would not easily let go of that issue.
Perpetuation of Evidence vs Establishment of Boundary
> So, if a surveyor goes on the ground, finds monument(s), makes measurements, then walks away; what did that field survey disclose? Nothing.
> The existence of monuments and their physical relationship to other things is simply topographic data. At that point, No obligation to research, evaluate, analyze, and form an opinion has been incurred.
>
> A Corner Record can be prepared and filed with no issues. Simply a Xerox of the field notes or a fancy drafted sketch of the data collected is just fine, you don't need to go any further.
>
> If you are compulsive and go beyond, at some point you can easily “ring the bell” and incur that liability.
> This is a subjective standard.
Once you've performed a field survey, the information gathered is disclosed to you, and to anyone who then witnesses what you have located. I believe that is what the law contemplates.
Some of those trigger issues may not be readily apparent until you've done your analysis, so if you stop your work prior to that, you did not yet "ring the bell". Sometimes, all you need to do is pull up on site and see that the bell will ring as soon as you start measuring.
If you don't want to risk your field survey disclosing anything, don't do field surveys.
Evan
Thanks for your opinion. Different than mine, but I respect it.
Perpetuation of Evidence vs Establishment of Boundary
> Once you've performed a field survey, the information gathered is disclosed to you, and to anyone who then witnesses what you have located. I believe that is what the law contemplates.
In my opinion, disclosure occurs when information pertaining to a survey is intentionally provided to someone other than the land surveyor and his subordinates. It doesn't happen when the surveyor remarks to his instrument operator, "Gee, that misses record by a foot!" It doesn't occur when the surveyor is taking notes about a material discrepancy and a bystander sneaks up behind him and peers over his shoulder. The results of a field survey belong only to the surveyor until he acts in a manner that can reasonably be foreseen to pass those results to a person or persons beyond the scope of his professional control.
Perpetuation of Evidence vs Establishment of Boundary
It would be interesting to hear from Ric what constitutes "disclosing" a material discrepancy requiring the filing of an ROS from the Board's point of view. I like your interpretation, Jim, but I have a feeling that the Board's opinion if they were asked to review a situation where a discrepancy was found and not reported, would be that it should have been reported. In the real world, without "disclosing" it to anybody but oneself or one's crew, it probably wouldn't end up at the Board anyway, though.
Perpetuation of Evidence vs Establishment of Boundary
I don't know Jim. Say your on site and dig up an old iron pipe that happens to be in the vicinity of where you expect a corner to be, or falls close to a fenceline your client or his adjoiner thought was at least pretty close to the line, and either that landowner or adjoiner are either standing there as you find and tie it in, or come along shortly afterwards and see it there.
You may say nothing to them about it. You may tell them that you don't know yet whether it properly marks a corner or line. But with them, they've now seen this official looking survey point, at or near what they thought was a corner or line of their property, and they may have seen you measuring it in.
Just like you can't unsay a word or unring a bell, you can't prevent them from having seen that pipe and drawing the conclusions that they naturally would. It's disclosed not only to you, but to whoever saw it whether you did it intentionally or not.
I'm sure many disagree with me, and if it were ever to be definitively decided by some authority, they may be more correct than I, but I think that the spirit of the law is that once the surveyor discovers one of the circumstances enumerated in §8762 (read in light of §8765), he then has a professional obligation to make a public record of the evidence found. If it doesn't fall under an exception enumerated under §8765, that record is a RS.
Perpetuation of Evidence vs Establishment of Boundary
I am in complete agreement with Jim.
Anyone of us can get a copy of a tax map and pace the block and know which existing lot line prod monument would need an RS or not. Would a surveyor doing that be under an obligation to file an RS?
County checking of an RS does not and never will guarantee that the submission surveyor has done a thorough and professional job.
I think that county involvement in the records we file needs to come to an end. They have become more of a hindrance than a help.
Paul
Paul: Sorry, I did not review the PDFs before my last response.
Page 2. You are establishing 4 centerlines, and the entire exterior of the block. I would expect you to show the record data for the monuments used for that.
But I suppose I could do the research and run the math and figure that out.
Page 4. Pretty much the same comments as for Page 2. Again, I suppose I could do the research and run the math and figure all that out.
The link between the two Corner Records is very unclear, I would say confusing, but that would lead to more comments about dementia. 🙂
I see no direct RoS triggers, but thankfully 8773.2 now establishes a clear procedural path for working this out with the County Surveyor.
“what a RS would add that this CR lacks?”
Only Drafting Space so you can lay the rest of your cards on the table for the old folk.
Or, make 4 Corner records! Westlawn Ave. establishment, Mascagni Ave. establishment, Green Street establishment, Alley establishment and block breakdown and proportions, South line of Lot 28... oops, that makes 5 CRs.
--
As far as your statement about getting the County Surveyor out of the loop: I believe many of the Land Surveyors in Ca. Have proven that they can not be trusted to work on their own.
Perpetuation of Evidence vs Establishment of Boundary
I think I see what you're saying, Paul. If I'm driving through an intersection and see a pipe and three PK nails in the pavement, I've seen a discrepancy, but I don't rush back to the office and file a Record of Survey on it. If it's part of a job I'm doing, and if the evidence "by reasonable analysis might result in materially alternate positions of lines or points", I think I'm required to file.
I agree that review by County Surveyors doesn't guarantee quality and many of them go way too far in their review and comments on our work, not to mention the outrageous cost in some places, but the law is the law and the Board is the Board, so without a change by the legislature, we're stuck with what we have. At least on Records of Survey, we have the option of thanking the CS kindly for their opinion and filing the survey the way we want it, or demanding that they file a Corner Record even if they think a ROS is more appropriate. Of course, they have the legal right to place their own notes of disagreement on our stuff, which I've never had anybody do, and hope I never do.
Peter
> The link between the two Corner Records is very unclear, I would say confusing, but that would lead to more comments about dementia. 🙂
Please tell me how it is Peter. I thought I made it quite clear, but it's possible that it is only clear to me. Let me mention again Peter that even though this is a four page CR only three pages have been posted. Page 1 and 3 are identical except for the page number. Maybe this is part of the confusion.
I have printed the CR but not sumitted it yet, so any improvements on the final record are welcome and re printing is not a problem.
Like I previously said, the county can not guarantee a competent survey by doing a map check. We need to get RS/CR deregulated to the point that when a RS/CR is submitted for filing or indexing the county goes through a simple 5 minute, if that, check list. If the document passes that list then the record is logged in and filed or indexed as the case may be.
Perpetuation of Evidence vs Establishment of Boundary
> Just like you can't unsay a word or unring a bell, you can't prevent them from having seen that pipe and drawing the conclusions that they naturally would. It's disclosed not only to you, but to whoever saw it whether you did it intentionally or not.
Evan, by that logic doing reconnaissance for a proposal -- digging up and flagging monuments that may or may not coincide with boundary corners -- would obligate the surveyor to perform the research, make the measurements and file the ROS for a job he might not even get.
I can't subscribe to that line of reasoning. Until I issue a document -- or, much less commonly, a verbal statement -- that describes the relationship between a found monument and a line of title, that monument is just a piece of iron in the ground.
Setting a monument is another matter. By installing a monument with my number on it, I put the world on notice (disclose) that a survey has been performed and that there's defined relationship between the monument and a title line. The document I file with a public agency closes the loop by describing what that relationship is.
Perpetuation of Evidence vs Establishment of Boundary
You're carrying the logic to an absurd point, Jim. But I understand what your point is.
But if you're performing a boundary survey, and you know that you will be preparing some form of map, you will often know that the map will need to be a RS before you leave the field, and sometimes as soon as you arrive, with respect to material evidence or physical change.
Perpetuation of Evidence vs Establishment of Boundary
> But if you're performing a boundary survey, and you know that you will be preparing some form of map, you will often know that the map will need to be a RS before you leave the field, and sometimes as soon as you arrive, with respect to material evidence or physical change.
I agree, and I file a ROS on almost every boundary project I take on. The circumstances under which a CR works for boundary jobs are such that I just don't encounter them much.
However -- and getting back to the original focus of the thread -- I don't consider standalone monument preservation projects to be boundary surveying. Land surveying, yes; boundary surveying, no. So when a public agency asks me to tie out and replace a monument that's slated for destruction due to sidewalk or street R&R, I often find a CR to be the appropriate tool.
Perpetuation of Evidence vs Establishment of Boundary
> However -- and getting back to the original focus of the thread -- I don't consider standalone monument preservation projects to be boundary surveying. Land surveying, yes; boundary surveying, no. So when a public agency asks me to tie out and replace a monument that's slated for destruction due to sidewalk or street R&R, I often find a CR to be the appropriate tool.
Oh, was that the original focus?! We go off on tangents sometimes. Yes, I agree with you on jobs where monument preservation is the focus rather than boundary surveying. One of the primary uses for a CR.
