Failure to Monument "Take" Areas

Lee Hixson · Post by **Lee Hixson** » Mon Jul 06, 2009 2:55 pm

I've heard that the Board is taking a harder look at R/W engineering projects involving new "takes" and handing out fines if monuments are not set and R. of S. maps not filed. Is this a new trend? Anyone have any input on this?

Ian Wilson · Post by **Ian Wilson** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 7:56 am

If the agency performs a field survey to determine the current boundary of the private property and then prepares legal descriptions and plats for the new “takes”, where is there any abrogation of any portion of the PLS Act?

The field survey was for the determination of the current boundary.

The lines were established based on the need for the additional R/W, not the new field survey.

The local agency has the right to subdivide land without the benefit of a subdivision map.

While I agree that it is certainly more prudent to set monuments and file the appropriate maps, I do not see that it is mandatory under the auspices of the PLS Act or SMA.

No, I do not agree with nor do I condone this practice. In fact, I would recommend that any land owner being subjected to such “takes” request that monuments be set and a map be filed to delineate the “take” as one of the items negotiated in the conveyance.

Let the games begin!

Steve Martin · Post by **Steve Martin** » Fri Jul 10, 2009 12:34 pm

I respect Dave Wooley's opinions because they are factual, non-derogatory, and based upon research of the law and historical records.

"Practicing Surveyor" addresses Mr. Woolley as "Dave" like he personally knows Dave Woolley yet hides behind a pseudonym to dinigrate Dave's opinion.

If you have no factual rebuttal, simply do not post.

What I like about the CLSA forum is the factual, learned, Professional opinions that are so often shared here. Please keep the mud slinging that you find in so many other places off this forum.

goodgps · Post by **goodgps** » Fri Jul 10, 2009 1:02 pm

A huge part of Being a Land Surveyor is the setting of the monument and filing of the map to memorialize the survey and display the efforts thereon.

A very "wild idea" would be to NOT set monuments or file documents to preserve such efforts.

Whilst there are indeed certain applications whereby monuments and mapping are not "required" how wonderful it would be for all of us (retracers) if such monuments were indeed set :-)

Both (level head) DWoolley and Ian (the great) share good valid professional points.

The best point of all is budget constraints and perhaps back then. . . lack of qualified staff.

Happy surveying to all !!
Dont fight too hard . . . life is too short

Good

bruce hall · Post by **bruce hall** » Fri Jul 10, 2009 1:49 pm

.........b. All lines shown are retracement lines shown previously on a subdivision map, official map or record of survey (8765).......

I envision a "taking" as being encompassed by a new line created on the ground, and this line was never shown anywhere before. I have a situation in a local city where they are in the process of "taking" a portion of several lots to widen a street. The existing centerline of the street and the right of way lines exist on paper and in the field. This taking will create a line on a piece of paper and eventually, via the improvements, a line on the ground.

I guess there is a way to have a taking and "ALL LINES SHOWN...." are shown somewhere, but I think the scenario that I put forth above is probably the most common.

I painted the lines on the ground so that the land owners and city could see "what are we really gonna do here."

I did use record monuments in the field to ascertain this "painting process". This line I painted didn't previously exist anywhere except on an exhibit prepared by the city for talking purposes. Now this painted line exists on the ground. What to do now I wonder.

Ian Wilson · Post by **Ian Wilson** » Fri Jul 10, 2009 4:05 pm

Practicing:

Mr. Woolley wrote:

One of the intentions was to get the Division of Highways to monument their “takes”, thus, requiring Records of Survey.

That means that the legislation tried to force Caltrans to SET monuments for their takes AND file a Record of Survey. It did not mean that they were trying to force Caltrans (or anyone else) from filing Records of Survey for projects in which monuments were not set.

Mud slinging is a lot of fun. As Steve points out, it's just not welcomed here on the Forum. Do it on that other one where opinions do not have to be backed with facts, cases, law and the like.

bruce hall · Post by **bruce hall** » Fri Jul 10, 2009 4:50 pm

ditto the remarks from Ian and Steve regarding the mud. Notice that the post in question was post number 1 from PS at 11:11. It looks like 5 aces to me, and unless something is wild, where did the other ace come from?

Anthony Maffia · Post by **Anthony Maffia** » Sat Jul 11, 2009 9:06 pm

I rarely see the right-of-way lines monumented, always the center line or an offset of it. Changing a half width from 35 to 40 feet, in a road with existing center line monuments, shouldn't require the setting of right-of-way monuments or the filing of a ROS, if I understand correctly.

Where I do see row mons is along freeways, or former large highways, but even then it isn't on parcel lines but at the angle points of the row, or at the ends of blocks. But I just don't see these often in n. cal.

goodgps · Post by **goodgps** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 9:04 am

One of the best places to witness great mud slinging is at the Chimp cages at the San Diego Zoo. Not only do they sling mud, but they set monuments everywhere !!

Maybe they are Surveyors ? is this where we got the term " button pushin monkey" ?

sorry for the levity. . .. I just woke up in a great mood today, Everyone should be so happy :-)

Bye the way. . . opinions and counter opinions is what makes us balanced and helps us to be objective. good qualities for the Land Surveyor.

=)

RasterMaster · Post by **RasterMaster** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:11 pm

Could you imagine the cost to the public if the State was required to set points and file ROS on all takes and excess going back to the public?

Ian has a great idea of asking the State/Agency to set and file, however I would be surprised if a ROS gets filed. I am sure they will set points but...........

bruce hall · Post by **bruce hall** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 7:48 pm

by not monumenting or filing surveys on these "takes" really is penny wise and dollar foolish. The public can be best served, at least with regards to saving money, if the municipalities, cities, counties could get pavement at 5 percent less a ton, or concrete 5 percent less a yard, or something like that. I am sure there are other ways to save money, this is just one.

I don't know if these are good numbers or not, but I do know that surveying and mapping costs are miniscule (really really really really really small) compared to the total costs of construction. Probably less than 2 percent and more likely 1 percent of the total construction budget.

So there really isn't a cost, it's a savings to have this stuff done. In fact the more you buy, the more you save.

RasterMaster · Post by **RasterMaster** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:16 pm

Setting the points, ROS is just the tip of the iceberg. How about the Parcel Maps or Subdivision maps and LLA that are never created. 1-2%, I am not sure but if it was so low they would be doing it.

From my perspective the private Surveyor reaps the benefit at a later date when the properties record needs a cleaning, just make sure you get it right!

Ben Lund · Post by **Ben Lund** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:35 am

I see two issues, one of the need to file a record of survey and the other the need to monument the right of way.

Regarding Monumentation:
I cannot find where it states “thou shalt monument the intersection of adjacent lot lines and new lines of public rights of way.” The SMA requires monumentation of Final and Parcel Maps only.

The underlying intent of Section 8771 is to retain or replace sufficient controlling monuments “to enable property, right-of-way and easement lines, property corners, and subdivision and tract boundaries to be reestablished without devious surveys necessarily originating on monuments differing from those that currently control the area.” This section speaks nothing of the need to monument newly created right of way lines.

Regarding filing a Record of Survey:
I believe right of way lines fall under the category of “land boundaries and property lines” (8762 (b)) and that in order to locate the right of way and stake improvements a surveyor must:

1. Perform a field survey to locate any monuments as described in Section 8771 and insure their perpetuation
2. File a corner record or record of survey showing these monuments before construction
3. Perform a field survey in order to establish the new right of way lines and in so doing trigger 8762(b)(4).
4. Stake improvements
5. Reset all monuments destroyed during construction and file a corner record or record of survey.

Ric7308 · Post by **Ric7308** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:12 pm

Well said Ben.

Ian Wilson · Post by **Ian Wilson** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 1:19 pm

For an engineer, Ben, that was really lucid!

You're finally coming away from the "dark side".

The ONLY addition I would make would be to note that your item #5 triggers the RS under §8762(b)(5) because the point created by the intersection of the "take" and existing property lines will not likely have been shown on a record map.

Ben Lund · Post by **Ben Lund** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 1:20 pm

Thanks Ric & Ian, I wasnâ€™t sure what lucid meant so I had to look it up!

I might be changing my mind or at least confusing myself by rereading 8771(a). By using the rules of grammar 8771(a) â€œRecord of survey â€“ monumentationâ€ says:

â€œMonuments set shall be ... placed so as â€¦ to assure â€¦ the â€¦ facile reestablishment of any point or line of the survey.â€

This seems to mean that points or lines shown on a survey must be monumented or that existing monuments shall assure the simple reestablishment of the shown points or lines. Would the meaning change if the sentence started, â€œMonuments SHALL BE SET â€¦to assure the facile reestablishment of any point or line of the survey.â€? Similar verbiage can be found in the SMA:

66441, 66442.5 66445(i): â€œâ€¦ monuments (set) are, or will be, sufficient to enable the survey to be retraced.â€

66448 has an interesting twist and says you do not need to monument interior lot lines of a parcel map as long as â€œsufficient recorded or filed survey monumentation presently exists to enable the retracement of the â€¦ interior parcel or lot lines of the parcel map.â€

Can the agencies claim that a retracing surveyor can use the original centerline monuments to reestablish the right of way offset and thus there is no need to monument the right of way?

What about something in between like monumenting the right of way at tangents and curves and not necessarily intersections of property lines?

66495 references 8771 for monumentation standards.

Iâ€™ve attached a Caltrans Monumentation Map that shows they monumented the right of way at all intersections of property lines. This seems to coincide with Daveâ€™s Division of Highways monumentation policy.

Ben Lund · Post by **Ben Lund** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 7:31 am

Dave, you said, “Most of the right-of-way (ROW) takes of which I am familiar are not based upon a field survey…”

What are they based on?

How are existing monuments (prior to construction) preserved? How is the right of way designed without topo from a survey? How are improvements staked? And how are monuments destroyed by construction set (and subsequent corner record of record of survey filed)? ALL without a survey?

Does it matter when the survey occurs chronologically? In other words, can a surveyor circumvent the statutes by creating plats and legals of the “take” based on record data only and THEN perform the field survey in order to accomplish the above listed items? Somehow the surveyor can state that this take was NOT based on a survey?

California Surveyors Forums

Failure to Monument "Take" Areas

Failure to Monument "Take" Areas

Pseudonym

Hello Dave:

I would like to just

Professional Mud Slinging

Saving the public money