Hi Ian and my patriots in arms.
I didn't mean to dice and dish. Please forgive me. I have two trials coming up and I am hot and heavy in depo prep. I had to run to two attorney meetings. Coincidentally, one of the cases involves a disputed easement and the map act.
To be truthful, I haven't formulated a solid opinion here although I think I am close. It will require more research. What I was trying to do was to think like a court of law and the court would start with a plain language reading of the enabling statute or ordinance. They would next go through the legislative history to see what the intent was, testimony, etc.
I myself may not necessarily like my answer and that is the problem. As I always say, if you don't like the law, change it. I have done that in the past and if an issue elevates my blood pressure enough, I'll do it again.
I am hoping that my comments will be beneficial and as with you, generate dialogue. A thoughtful deconstruction of the language is a fruitful course.
Thank for the fuse!
Keep e'm coming.
Easements
-
mpallamary
- Posts: 3466
- Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:12 pm
One more for the road
Check out the attached and see what you guys think. It gives cross cites which I think are helpful. It is where I was trying to go.
Good luck.
Good luck.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-
Ric7308
- Posts: 719
- Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 2:50 pm
First of all, let me say that I have very much enjoyed the more recent topics of discussion and the professionalism shown by all...now back to our regularly scheduled program...
Let me ask a couple of questions to all of you regarding this topic on easements:
1. As a Land Surveyor, would any of you ever mark (temporary or not) the limiting lines of an easement without taking into account how, what, where the easement is located with reference to the controlling fee boundary?
2. As a Land Surveyor, would any of you, upon discovery of a marker (temporary or otherwise) marking the location of an easement, disregard that marker in its entirety as evidence to where the controlling fee boundary is located?
Let me ask a couple of questions to all of you regarding this topic on easements:
1. As a Land Surveyor, would any of you ever mark (temporary or not) the limiting lines of an easement without taking into account how, what, where the easement is located with reference to the controlling fee boundary?
2. As a Land Surveyor, would any of you, upon discovery of a marker (temporary or otherwise) marking the location of an easement, disregard that marker in its entirety as evidence to where the controlling fee boundary is located?
-
Peter Ehlert
- Posts: 717
- Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 2:40 pm
- Location: N31°43', W116°39'
- Contact:
-
mpallamary
- Posts: 3466
- Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:12 pm
My eyes have seen the gory
That is a good one. Point well taken.
-
LA Stevens
- Posts: 290
- Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:03 am
- Location: Marin County, California
- Contact:
I also recall Howard Brunner coming to a Marin Chapter meeting about 15 years ago where we were told it was not a requirement to file a Record of Survey if you monumented a described easement. Up until that time it was my, and I think Howards opinion, that they required a ROS. (His change of heart may have had to do with a discipinary action).
Since that time I have marked easements or given calls to witness monuments (my control rebars) to easement angle points. But I do not opine on the boundary location unless I was hired to do that and file the required document. This was also a common practice when I worked at Caltrans. We saw no need to determine every boundary line but would write a through description easement which was controlled by other monuments of record.
1. Yes
2. It depends
Since that time I have marked easements or given calls to witness monuments (my control rebars) to easement angle points. But I do not opine on the boundary location unless I was hired to do that and file the required document. This was also a common practice when I worked at Caltrans. We saw no need to determine every boundary line but would write a through description easement which was controlled by other monuments of record.
1. Yes
2. It depends
Larry
Lawrence A. Stevens, PLS
L.A. Stevens & Associates, Inc.
Professional Land Surveyors
7 Commercial Blvd., Suite One
Novato, CA 94949
P 415-382-7713
http://www.LAStevensInc.com
http://www.LSACTS.com
Lawrence A. Stevens, PLS
L.A. Stevens & Associates, Inc.
Professional Land Surveyors
7 Commercial Blvd., Suite One
Novato, CA 94949
P 415-382-7713
http://www.LAStevensInc.com
http://www.LSACTS.com
-
mpallamary
- Posts: 3466
- Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:12 pm
Hi Ric7308,
I don't have a problem with the questions or answers. As to both - no. That is the point I would make.
In many instances, the easement can be more important than the conventional boundary line. If someone wanted to build a home and a utility easement runs right down the middle of the property, staking the property line may be a moot exercise if the easement line is the delimiting component and it is located between the property line and the structure. If the easement is described by metes and bounds and the metes and bounds are predicated upon the boundaries of real property, then how did you get there? The easement must be based on something.
Oftentimes, building inspectors will ask to see lines stakes as they have that authority under the UBC - good idea. How do you handle that?
As to any interpretations of the LSA, when in doubt, handle it conservatively.
Dave, you didn't hijack this one. You gave it a valued perspective.
Thanks all. This has been a good one.
I don't have a problem with the questions or answers. As to both - no. That is the point I would make.
In many instances, the easement can be more important than the conventional boundary line. If someone wanted to build a home and a utility easement runs right down the middle of the property, staking the property line may be a moot exercise if the easement line is the delimiting component and it is located between the property line and the structure. If the easement is described by metes and bounds and the metes and bounds are predicated upon the boundaries of real property, then how did you get there? The easement must be based on something.
Oftentimes, building inspectors will ask to see lines stakes as they have that authority under the UBC - good idea. How do you handle that?
As to any interpretations of the LSA, when in doubt, handle it conservatively.
Dave, you didn't hijack this one. You gave it a valued perspective.
Thanks all. This has been a good one.
-
Gromatici
- Posts: 335
- Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 7:06 am
- Location: Santa Barbara, CA
- Contact:
II
I just felt the lease issue was another subject - but a good one! It’s along the same line however.
Ric you said: First of all, let me say that I have very much enjoyed the more recent topics of discussion and the professionalism shown by all...now back to our regularly scheduled program."
I think this is a professional subject. It has an everyday affect on what we do as Professionals too.
If you're staking out an easement, and there is not an issue with the boundary it's tied into, do you need to file a CR or RS? Then the issue comes up where some feel "if it's for construction" the answer is no! I've even seen that mentality for boundary lines.
I agree that it's even more important to follow Section 8762 when doing construction staking. I refused to do any staking on a project when there was an obvious issue with the northerly boundary line (4'). I explained why and did a RS. I always verify the boundary before doing any staking, even if it’s “just a fence†as I’ve heard many say to me over the past 18 years of surveying. However, if I simply staked out the setback line without the benefit of a boundary survey, then you're going too see issues down the road- plus the obvious question of professionalism.
Now I write a legal description. It's tied into my new Record of Survey. No issues there with the law. However the contractor wants me to stake out the waterline easement (not the water line). I set hubs at the sidelines. That easement did not show up on any Official Map, subdivision map (§8762)....... so does in trigger a Record of Survey?
Ric, regarding § 8771(b): I think that section has the context of preserving right of way monuments and property monuments that may be destroyed during road improvement projects (since many roads, are in fact easements) and not necessarily causing an interpretation that easements are on the same order as boundaries (but maybe they are!) and subject to §8762. However I posed the question, as some have pointed out, that easements are USUALLY tied into boundaries (except for the ingress/egress easement I gave as an example- which brought up it’s own issues as far as the public resources code) and so should a CR or RS be filed?
Question 1: So, if there is no material discrepancy and the easement is shown on a subdivision map and I set a pipe and Tag (of course!) then I should file a Corner Record form?
Question 2: What if I only set hubs?
According to §8772 “Any monument set by a licensed land surveyor or registered civil engineer to mark or reference a point on a property or land line shall be permanently and visibly marked or tagged with the certificate number of the surveyor or civil engineer setting it, each number to be preceded by the letters “L.S.†or “R.C.E.,†respectively, as the case may beâ€
Question 3: Is setting a hub at the easement lines a violation of §8772?
Question 4: However if there is no material discrepancy with the boundary the easement is written off of but it does not show up on any “official map, subdivision map ..... (§8762)“ then am I required to file a Record of Survey?
Is that really the INTENT of the law?
Question 5 (Similar to question 2): §8772 states Any monument set by a licensed land surveyor or registered civil engineer to mark or reference a point on a property or land line shall be permanently and visibly marked or tagged with the certificate number of the surveyor or civil engineer setting it, each number to be preceded by the letters “L.S.†or “R.C.E.,†respectively, as the case may beâ€
A staked out easement then should always have our LS number on it – even for construction?
Ric you said: First of all, let me say that I have very much enjoyed the more recent topics of discussion and the professionalism shown by all...now back to our regularly scheduled program."
I think this is a professional subject. It has an everyday affect on what we do as Professionals too.
If you're staking out an easement, and there is not an issue with the boundary it's tied into, do you need to file a CR or RS? Then the issue comes up where some feel "if it's for construction" the answer is no! I've even seen that mentality for boundary lines.
I agree that it's even more important to follow Section 8762 when doing construction staking. I refused to do any staking on a project when there was an obvious issue with the northerly boundary line (4'). I explained why and did a RS. I always verify the boundary before doing any staking, even if it’s “just a fence†as I’ve heard many say to me over the past 18 years of surveying. However, if I simply staked out the setback line without the benefit of a boundary survey, then you're going too see issues down the road- plus the obvious question of professionalism.
Now I write a legal description. It's tied into my new Record of Survey. No issues there with the law. However the contractor wants me to stake out the waterline easement (not the water line). I set hubs at the sidelines. That easement did not show up on any Official Map, subdivision map (§8762)....... so does in trigger a Record of Survey?
Ric, regarding § 8771(b): I think that section has the context of preserving right of way monuments and property monuments that may be destroyed during road improvement projects (since many roads, are in fact easements) and not necessarily causing an interpretation that easements are on the same order as boundaries (but maybe they are!) and subject to §8762. However I posed the question, as some have pointed out, that easements are USUALLY tied into boundaries (except for the ingress/egress easement I gave as an example- which brought up it’s own issues as far as the public resources code) and so should a CR or RS be filed?
Question 1: So, if there is no material discrepancy and the easement is shown on a subdivision map and I set a pipe and Tag (of course!) then I should file a Corner Record form?
Question 2: What if I only set hubs?
According to §8772 “Any monument set by a licensed land surveyor or registered civil engineer to mark or reference a point on a property or land line shall be permanently and visibly marked or tagged with the certificate number of the surveyor or civil engineer setting it, each number to be preceded by the letters “L.S.†or “R.C.E.,†respectively, as the case may beâ€
Question 3: Is setting a hub at the easement lines a violation of §8772?
Question 4: However if there is no material discrepancy with the boundary the easement is written off of but it does not show up on any “official map, subdivision map ..... (§8762)“ then am I required to file a Record of Survey?
Is that really the INTENT of the law?
Question 5 (Similar to question 2): §8772 states Any monument set by a licensed land surveyor or registered civil engineer to mark or reference a point on a property or land line shall be permanently and visibly marked or tagged with the certificate number of the surveyor or civil engineer setting it, each number to be preceded by the letters “L.S.†or “R.C.E.,†respectively, as the case may beâ€
A staked out easement then should always have our LS number on it – even for construction?
Eric J Ackerman, PLS, RPLS, CFedS
Licenses: CA. AZ, ID, NV, CO,UT
Gromatici Land Surveying, Inc.
http://www.gromatici.com
proposals@gromatici.com
Licenses: CA. AZ, ID, NV, CO,UT
Gromatici Land Surveying, Inc.
http://www.gromatici.com
proposals@gromatici.com
-
mpallamary
- Posts: 3466
- Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:12 pm
Well played Eric. That is a thoughtful and methodical analysis of this topic.
As an aside, what is disconcerting about this entire dialogue, and not as a criticism of any of us - me included- one would think that because we have all dealt with easements before as it is an essential part of what we do, there would not be any questions. This would suggest there is either a problem with the law or an underlying attitude problem. I'd be curious if the responses are geographically based. Just an observation. In any event, given the various responses, it might be an issue that a group of us ought to debate, discuss and decide and then issue a white paper on our opinion. When done and after the analysis is done (as you did), it gets forwarded to the board for their review and endorsement.
Thoughts?
As an aside, what is disconcerting about this entire dialogue, and not as a criticism of any of us - me included- one would think that because we have all dealt with easements before as it is an essential part of what we do, there would not be any questions. This would suggest there is either a problem with the law or an underlying attitude problem. I'd be curious if the responses are geographically based. Just an observation. In any event, given the various responses, it might be an issue that a group of us ought to debate, discuss and decide and then issue a white paper on our opinion. When done and after the analysis is done (as you did), it gets forwarded to the board for their review and endorsement.
Thoughts?
-
Jim Frame
- Posts: 1599
- Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:52 pm
- Location: Davis, CA
- Contact:
"it might be an issue that a group of us ought to debate, discuss and decide and then issue a white paper on our opinion. When done and after the analysis is done (as you did), it gets forwarded to the board for their review and endorsement."
You can forward anything you want to BPELS, but don't hold your breath waiting for an endorsement. They've has been down that road before, and found out the hard way that they cannot interpret legislation without going through the formal process of adopting binding regulations. That legal detail aside, I can't imagine BPELS taking an unsolicited opinion formulated by a self-selected group and giving it any kind of blessing.
In my opinion this isn't even a matter for the TAC, but rather one that's best addressed either by benign neglect or by legislative change, depending upon your point of view. Personally, I don't think it's a big deal. I see it as an unintended loophole in the statute, but one with little practical effect.
.
You can forward anything you want to BPELS, but don't hold your breath waiting for an endorsement. They've has been down that road before, and found out the hard way that they cannot interpret legislation without going through the formal process of adopting binding regulations. That legal detail aside, I can't imagine BPELS taking an unsolicited opinion formulated by a self-selected group and giving it any kind of blessing.
In my opinion this isn't even a matter for the TAC, but rather one that's best addressed either by benign neglect or by legislative change, depending upon your point of view. Personally, I don't think it's a big deal. I see it as an unintended loophole in the statute, but one with little practical effect.
.
-
mpallamary
- Posts: 3466
- Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:12 pm
Hi Jim,
What I am talking about is taking charge of our profession and the interpretation of the rules that govern us. There are a group of us who meet in San Diego for the specific purpose of debating and trying to solve problems like this through a similar process. We bring to the table various opinions and experiences and we are trying to advance our interpretations. I tend to accomplish this by presenting seminars and writing article and circulating material for others to review and comment on. In this case, I have no dog in the fight. Conversely, I have considerable respect for others who request input or ask for assistance in interpreting things. When I get pressed or am forced to engage, I make my presence known.
As an example, I got into a dispute several years ago with a municipality that exceeded its authority. I developed a white paper, I routed it and Paul Cuomo and I posted it. Locals refer to it and I am asked to send it to others across the state. I have invited and encouraged formal debate on it but no one has risen to the challenge. Please consider reviewing it and this concept. It is attached.
In another recent instance, this group I am involved in, worked with me on developing an outline or recommended procedures for doing survey work. I crafted it and took main authorship. The others reviewed and endorsed it. It has been routed and a copy is attached hereto.
Last, but not least, years ago I got upset with the City of San Diego over their actions related to Lot Line Adjustments. I got upset enough I rewrote the law and CLSA endorsed my actions. I organized the entire state over this issue. See that attached article.
What I, and others are advocating, is elevating the profession by taking proactive steps to frame what we do. As much as the forum serves as a vehicle to trade ideas and provide a soap box, if the important issues that are raised do not produce concrete results and if we do not benefit from the wonderful dialogue that ensues, then it is not a viable forum for change - assuming that is the goal.
My objectives are to stimulate debate and thanks to Eric for asking the initial question, this issue has taken on a much needed life of its own. The question is: now that we have opinions, what are we going to do with them? As I said, I am involved with similar issues and am working to get those ideas implemented. It would be great if someone would tabulate these responses, develop a white paper, take authorship, route it, weigh the pros and cons and then publish it as either an opinion or an article.
"There is a debt of service due from every man to his country, proportioned to the bounties which nature and fortune have measured to him."
- Thomas Jefferson
What I am talking about is taking charge of our profession and the interpretation of the rules that govern us. There are a group of us who meet in San Diego for the specific purpose of debating and trying to solve problems like this through a similar process. We bring to the table various opinions and experiences and we are trying to advance our interpretations. I tend to accomplish this by presenting seminars and writing article and circulating material for others to review and comment on. In this case, I have no dog in the fight. Conversely, I have considerable respect for others who request input or ask for assistance in interpreting things. When I get pressed or am forced to engage, I make my presence known.
As an example, I got into a dispute several years ago with a municipality that exceeded its authority. I developed a white paper, I routed it and Paul Cuomo and I posted it. Locals refer to it and I am asked to send it to others across the state. I have invited and encouraged formal debate on it but no one has risen to the challenge. Please consider reviewing it and this concept. It is attached.
In another recent instance, this group I am involved in, worked with me on developing an outline or recommended procedures for doing survey work. I crafted it and took main authorship. The others reviewed and endorsed it. It has been routed and a copy is attached hereto.
Last, but not least, years ago I got upset with the City of San Diego over their actions related to Lot Line Adjustments. I got upset enough I rewrote the law and CLSA endorsed my actions. I organized the entire state over this issue. See that attached article.
What I, and others are advocating, is elevating the profession by taking proactive steps to frame what we do. As much as the forum serves as a vehicle to trade ideas and provide a soap box, if the important issues that are raised do not produce concrete results and if we do not benefit from the wonderful dialogue that ensues, then it is not a viable forum for change - assuming that is the goal.
My objectives are to stimulate debate and thanks to Eric for asking the initial question, this issue has taken on a much needed life of its own. The question is: now that we have opinions, what are we going to do with them? As I said, I am involved with similar issues and am working to get those ideas implemented. It would be great if someone would tabulate these responses, develop a white paper, take authorship, route it, weigh the pros and cons and then publish it as either an opinion or an article.
"There is a debt of service due from every man to his country, proportioned to the bounties which nature and fortune have measured to him."
- Thomas Jefferson
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-
Gromatici
- Posts: 335
- Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 7:06 am
- Location: Santa Barbara, CA
- Contact:
Letter
My ankle is better now, so I'm back to work but maybe I should just write a letter to BPELS?
Maybe I'll post it here first. This will have to be a weekend project.
Thanks,
Maybe I'll post it here first. This will have to be a weekend project.
Thanks,
Eric J Ackerman, PLS, RPLS, CFedS
Licenses: CA. AZ, ID, NV, CO,UT
Gromatici Land Surveying, Inc.
http://www.gromatici.com
proposals@gromatici.com
Licenses: CA. AZ, ID, NV, CO,UT
Gromatici Land Surveying, Inc.
http://www.gromatici.com
proposals@gromatici.com
-
mpallamary
- Posts: 3466
- Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:12 pm
Letter to Board
I am sorry about the ankle. Get some rest.
If I may suggest, I would frame the letter the way you think it is supposed to be and see if they would endorse it. If the board's response does not suite you and the industry at large, no problem - rewrite the law.
Please see the attached as an example. I have more like this.
BTW, you might like what the attached says.
If I may suggest, I would frame the letter the way you think it is supposed to be and see if they would endorse it. If the board's response does not suite you and the industry at large, no problem - rewrite the law.
Please see the attached as an example. I have more like this.
BTW, you might like what the attached says.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-
mpallamary
- Posts: 3466
- Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:12 pm
Hi Dave,
Our LS law review and act review group will be meeting next week to discuss this issue. Depending on the outcome of that meeting, we may publish and circulate a white paper for others to review and comment on. In the course of our debate, I note the following?
SMA:
66412. This division shall be inapplicable to any of the following:
(a) The financing or leasing of apartments, offices, stores, or
similar space within apartment buildings, industrial buildings,
commercial buildings, mobilehome parks, or trailer parks. . .
66412.2. This division shall not apply to the construction,
financing, or leasing of dwelling units pursuant to Section 65852.1
or second units pursuant to Section 65852.2, but this division shall
be applicable to the sale or transfer, but not leasing, of those
units.
66412. This division shall be inapplicable to any of the following:
(a) The financing or leasing of apartments, offices, stores, or
similar space within apartment buildings, industrial buildings,
commercial buildings, mobilehome parks, or trailer parks.
66412.1. This division shall also be inapplicable to:
(a) The financing or leasing of any parcel of land, or any portion
thereof, in conjunction with the construction of commercial or
industrial buildings on a single parcel, unless the project is not
subject to review under other local agency ordinances regulating
design and improvement.
(b) The financing or leasing of existing separate commercial or
industrial buildings on a single parcel.
66418. "Design" means: (1) street alignments, grades and widths;
(2) drainage and sanitary facilities and utilities, including
alignments and grades thereof; (3) location and size of all required
easements and rights-of-way; (4) fire roads and firebreaks; (5) lot
size and configuration; (6) traffic access; (7) grading; (8) land to
be dedicated for park or recreational purposes; and (9) other
specific physical requirements in the plan and configuration of the
entire subdivision that are necessary to ensure consistency with, or
implementation of, the general plan or any applicable specific plan
as required pursuant to Section 66473.5.
66419. (a) "Improvement" refers to any street work and utilities to
be installed, or agreed to be installed, by the subdivider on the
land to be used for public or private streets, highways, ways, and
easements, as are necessary for the general use of the lot owners in
the subdivision and local neighborhood traffic and drainage needs as
a condition precedent to the approval and acceptance of the final map
thereof.
(b) "Improvement" also refers to any other specific improvements
or types of improvements, the installation of which, either by the
subdivider, by public agencies, by private utilities, by any other
entity approved by the local agency, or by a combination thereof, is
necessary to ensure consistency with, or implementation of, the
general plan or any applicable specific plan.
66424. "Subdivision" means the division, by any subdivider, of any
unit or units of improved or unimproved land, or any portion thereof,
shown on the latest equalized county assessment roll as a unit or as
contiguous units, for the purpose of sale, lease or financing,
whether immediate or future. . .
Semantics to a certain degree I suppose. Does this help or make sense? Is it new (to be constructed) or existing? Is the underlying parcel legal? Is it important? What then is a subdivision involving leases if there are so many exemptions?
There seems to bo some conflicts between what a lease is or isn't and when it is exempt or not.
Thoughts? If anyone wants to jump in, please feel free to do so. We will consider any comments at our review and discussion meeting.
Our LS law review and act review group will be meeting next week to discuss this issue. Depending on the outcome of that meeting, we may publish and circulate a white paper for others to review and comment on. In the course of our debate, I note the following?
SMA:
66412. This division shall be inapplicable to any of the following:
(a) The financing or leasing of apartments, offices, stores, or
similar space within apartment buildings, industrial buildings,
commercial buildings, mobilehome parks, or trailer parks. . .
66412.2. This division shall not apply to the construction,
financing, or leasing of dwelling units pursuant to Section 65852.1
or second units pursuant to Section 65852.2, but this division shall
be applicable to the sale or transfer, but not leasing, of those
units.
66412. This division shall be inapplicable to any of the following:
(a) The financing or leasing of apartments, offices, stores, or
similar space within apartment buildings, industrial buildings,
commercial buildings, mobilehome parks, or trailer parks.
66412.1. This division shall also be inapplicable to:
(a) The financing or leasing of any parcel of land, or any portion
thereof, in conjunction with the construction of commercial or
industrial buildings on a single parcel, unless the project is not
subject to review under other local agency ordinances regulating
design and improvement.
(b) The financing or leasing of existing separate commercial or
industrial buildings on a single parcel.
66418. "Design" means: (1) street alignments, grades and widths;
(2) drainage and sanitary facilities and utilities, including
alignments and grades thereof; (3) location and size of all required
easements and rights-of-way; (4) fire roads and firebreaks; (5) lot
size and configuration; (6) traffic access; (7) grading; (8) land to
be dedicated for park or recreational purposes; and (9) other
specific physical requirements in the plan and configuration of the
entire subdivision that are necessary to ensure consistency with, or
implementation of, the general plan or any applicable specific plan
as required pursuant to Section 66473.5.
66419. (a) "Improvement" refers to any street work and utilities to
be installed, or agreed to be installed, by the subdivider on the
land to be used for public or private streets, highways, ways, and
easements, as are necessary for the general use of the lot owners in
the subdivision and local neighborhood traffic and drainage needs as
a condition precedent to the approval and acceptance of the final map
thereof.
(b) "Improvement" also refers to any other specific improvements
or types of improvements, the installation of which, either by the
subdivider, by public agencies, by private utilities, by any other
entity approved by the local agency, or by a combination thereof, is
necessary to ensure consistency with, or implementation of, the
general plan or any applicable specific plan.
66424. "Subdivision" means the division, by any subdivider, of any
unit or units of improved or unimproved land, or any portion thereof,
shown on the latest equalized county assessment roll as a unit or as
contiguous units, for the purpose of sale, lease or financing,
whether immediate or future. . .
Semantics to a certain degree I suppose. Does this help or make sense? Is it new (to be constructed) or existing? Is the underlying parcel legal? Is it important? What then is a subdivision involving leases if there are so many exemptions?
There seems to bo some conflicts between what a lease is or isn't and when it is exempt or not.
Thoughts? If anyone wants to jump in, please feel free to do so. We will consider any comments at our review and discussion meeting.
-
RAM
- Posts: 770
- Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 8:16 am
- Location: Central Cal Mountains
Ric,
1. Yes I have, it was in the middle of NO where, more up and down than flat and the fee ownership in any direction for several miles was USA. The easements were for telephone mircowave relay sites. If it all works out in June maybe we can view some of the sites. All 7 sites were tied to state plane so the sites could be identified in the future, as the GLO sections in the area had not been resurveyed since the orginal surveys in the 1880's. This was our first GPS project with limited windows for oberservation. Most of the surveys were accessed by snow cat or ski's in January at midnight. Cool stuff.
2. Yes we set rebar for the corners of the easeements for Fed inspectors to view the sites. No we did not file an RS. Yes the rebar where called in the descriptions. Would you hold the rebar if found today?
This is a little different as the easements are under a federal special use permit, and can not be transfered and can be terminated.
Note about special use permits for highways across federal land, you do not need a Cal Trans permit to work.
1. Yes I have, it was in the middle of NO where, more up and down than flat and the fee ownership in any direction for several miles was USA. The easements were for telephone mircowave relay sites. If it all works out in June maybe we can view some of the sites. All 7 sites were tied to state plane so the sites could be identified in the future, as the GLO sections in the area had not been resurveyed since the orginal surveys in the 1880's. This was our first GPS project with limited windows for oberservation. Most of the surveys were accessed by snow cat or ski's in January at midnight. Cool stuff.
2. Yes we set rebar for the corners of the easeements for Fed inspectors to view the sites. No we did not file an RS. Yes the rebar where called in the descriptions. Would you hold the rebar if found today?
This is a little different as the easements are under a federal special use permit, and can not be transfered and can be terminated.
Note about special use permits for highways across federal land, you do not need a Cal Trans permit to work.
-
Ben Lund
- Posts: 371
- Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 3:07 pm
Going back to the Easement thread and what Eric brought up in post #27. I currently feel that separating construction staking (locating fixed works) and staking (monumenting) “instruments of title” (8762(b)(5) is necessary.
On the other hand, it has been made very clear that the surveyors on this forum (except for maybe PE_PLS, aka Dylan Gonzalez) believe that anytime a fixed work is located in relationship to a boundary or right of way this constitutes land surveying and NOT the same portion of land surveying that engineers can perform.
Relating specifically to staking easements, 8762 says anytime you are 1. Performing a field survey (8762(b)) and 2. Practicing land surveying (8762(b)) and any one of the five triggers are applicable, you shall file a record of survey.
Here's the recent thread about what engineer's can survey:
http://www.californiasurveyors.org/clsa ... ght=pe_pls
On the other hand, it has been made very clear that the surveyors on this forum (except for maybe PE_PLS, aka Dylan Gonzalez) believe that anytime a fixed work is located in relationship to a boundary or right of way this constitutes land surveying and NOT the same portion of land surveying that engineers can perform.
Relating specifically to staking easements, 8762 says anytime you are 1. Performing a field survey (8762(b)) and 2. Practicing land surveying (8762(b)) and any one of the five triggers are applicable, you shall file a record of survey.
Here's the recent thread about what engineer's can survey:
http://www.californiasurveyors.org/clsa ... ght=pe_pls
-
Gromatici
- Posts: 335
- Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 7:06 am
- Location: Santa Barbara, CA
- Contact:
Old and New
I've seen many old waterline easements beginning (yes beginning) at a point thousands of feet away encumbering several parcels, but conveyed by different owners. This forced the easement to contain the alignment that was intended. No ties were ever made to the actual boundary that was encumbered. The burden of locating the water easement in relation to the various parcels was laid upon each respective owner, which is what we did 100 years later.
I’ve also seen a State Water project deed written entirely in CCS83 in basically the same manner. Only showing graphically the encumbered deed. It can be retraced. If a land owner wants it staked out, he can hire a surveyor, who will tie into CCS83 and stake it out and pay him to stake out his boundary line and file a RS.
I’ve also seen a State Water project deed written entirely in CCS83 in basically the same manner. Only showing graphically the encumbered deed. It can be retraced. If a land owner wants it staked out, he can hire a surveyor, who will tie into CCS83 and stake it out and pay him to stake out his boundary line and file a RS.
Eric J Ackerman, PLS, RPLS, CFedS
Licenses: CA. AZ, ID, NV, CO,UT
Gromatici Land Surveying, Inc.
http://www.gromatici.com
proposals@gromatici.com
Licenses: CA. AZ, ID, NV, CO,UT
Gromatici Land Surveying, Inc.
http://www.gromatici.com
proposals@gromatici.com
-
mpallamary
- Posts: 3466
- Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:12 pm
-
mpallamary
- Posts: 3466
- Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:12 pm
Thanks Ken, Excellent points.
Not for the purpose of argument but more to add to confusion. It sounds like the LSA could use some cleanup. I searched the word EASEMENT in the act.
8726. Land surveying defined: A person, including any person employed by the state or by a city, county, or city and county within the state, practices land surveying within the meaning of this chapter who, either in a public or private capacity, does or offers to do any one or more of the following . . . (c) Locates, relocates, establishes, reestablishes, or retraces any property line or boundary of any parcel of land, right-of-way, EASEMENT, or alignment of those lines or boundaries. (The reference to "those lines" would suggest they are referring to easement lines amongst other lines)
8771. Record of survey - monumentation (a) Monuments set shall be sufficient in number and durability and efficiently placed so as not to be readily disturbed, to assure, together with monuments already existing, the perpetuation or facile reestablishment of any point or line of the survey.
(b) When monuments exist that control the location of subdivisions, tracts, boundaries, roads, streets, or highways, or provide horizontal or vertical survey control, the monuments shall be located and referenced by or under the direction of a licensed land surveyor or registered civil engineer prior to the time when any streets, highways, other rights-of-way, or EASEMENTS are improved, constructed, reconstructed, maintained, resurfaced, or relocated, and a corner record or record of survey of the references shall be filed with the county surveyor. They shall be reset in the surface of the new construction, a suitable monument box placed thereon, or permanent witness monuments set to perpetuate their location if any monument could be destroyed, damaged, covered, or otherwise obliterated, and a corner record or record of survey filed with the county surveyor prior to the recording of a certificate of completion for the project. Sufficient controlling monuments shall be retained or replaced in their original positions 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. It shall be the responsibility of the governmental agency or others performing construction work to provide for the monumentation required by this section. It shall be the duty of every land surveyor or civil engineer to cooperate with the governmental agency in matters of maps, field notes, and other pertinent records. Monuments set to mark the limiting lines of highways, roads, streets or right-of-way or EASEMENT lines shall not be deemed adequate for this purpose unless specifically noted on the corner record or record of survey of the improvement works with direct ties in bearing or azimuth and distance between these and other monuments of record. (c) The decision to file either the required corner record or a record of survey pursuant to subdivision (b) shall be at the election of the licensed land surveyor or registered civil engineer submitting the document.
8772. Marking of monuments. ANY monument set by a licensed land surveyor or registered civil engineer to mark or reference a point on a property or land line SHALL be permanently and visibly marked or tagged with the certificate number of the surveyor or civil engineer setting it, each number to be preceded by the letters “L.S.” or “R.C.E.,” respectively, as the case may be or, if the monument is set by a public agency, it shall be marked with the name of the agency and the political subdivision it serves. Nothing in this section shall prevent the inclusion of other information on the tag which will assist in the tracing or location of the survey records which relate to the tagged monument.
Also, there is a very specific section of the LSA dealing with exemptions:
8765. Record of survey - exemptions
Easements are not mentioned......
What is a "Land Line."
If we agree that every monument (i.e. stake) we set requires placing an identifying marker with our license number, what does that mean? If it means setting monuments with markes or stamped discs, is the intent to place stamped monuments without some kind of filing? I can state with certainty that irrespective of how we all may agree and disagree, the purpose of a recording process is to put others on notice as to what we have done. What of the instance where someone stakes an easement at an offset line? Very common if construction follows. What of a third party that follows behind? How are they to know where the offsets were placed? What of the surveyor who passes away, and one who has staked an easement but did not file anything?
More to ponder.
Thanks Eric for adding to my insomnia.
Not for the purpose of argument but more to add to confusion. It sounds like the LSA could use some cleanup. I searched the word EASEMENT in the act.
8726. Land surveying defined: A person, including any person employed by the state or by a city, county, or city and county within the state, practices land surveying within the meaning of this chapter who, either in a public or private capacity, does or offers to do any one or more of the following . . . (c) Locates, relocates, establishes, reestablishes, or retraces any property line or boundary of any parcel of land, right-of-way, EASEMENT, or alignment of those lines or boundaries. (The reference to "those lines" would suggest they are referring to easement lines amongst other lines)
8771. Record of survey - monumentation (a) Monuments set shall be sufficient in number and durability and efficiently placed so as not to be readily disturbed, to assure, together with monuments already existing, the perpetuation or facile reestablishment of any point or line of the survey.
(b) When monuments exist that control the location of subdivisions, tracts, boundaries, roads, streets, or highways, or provide horizontal or vertical survey control, the monuments shall be located and referenced by or under the direction of a licensed land surveyor or registered civil engineer prior to the time when any streets, highways, other rights-of-way, or EASEMENTS are improved, constructed, reconstructed, maintained, resurfaced, or relocated, and a corner record or record of survey of the references shall be filed with the county surveyor. They shall be reset in the surface of the new construction, a suitable monument box placed thereon, or permanent witness monuments set to perpetuate their location if any monument could be destroyed, damaged, covered, or otherwise obliterated, and a corner record or record of survey filed with the county surveyor prior to the recording of a certificate of completion for the project. Sufficient controlling monuments shall be retained or replaced in their original positions 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. It shall be the responsibility of the governmental agency or others performing construction work to provide for the monumentation required by this section. It shall be the duty of every land surveyor or civil engineer to cooperate with the governmental agency in matters of maps, field notes, and other pertinent records. Monuments set to mark the limiting lines of highways, roads, streets or right-of-way or EASEMENT lines shall not be deemed adequate for this purpose unless specifically noted on the corner record or record of survey of the improvement works with direct ties in bearing or azimuth and distance between these and other monuments of record. (c) The decision to file either the required corner record or a record of survey pursuant to subdivision (b) shall be at the election of the licensed land surveyor or registered civil engineer submitting the document.
8772. Marking of monuments. ANY monument set by a licensed land surveyor or registered civil engineer to mark or reference a point on a property or land line SHALL be permanently and visibly marked or tagged with the certificate number of the surveyor or civil engineer setting it, each number to be preceded by the letters “L.S.” or “R.C.E.,” respectively, as the case may be or, if the monument is set by a public agency, it shall be marked with the name of the agency and the political subdivision it serves. Nothing in this section shall prevent the inclusion of other information on the tag which will assist in the tracing or location of the survey records which relate to the tagged monument.
Also, there is a very specific section of the LSA dealing with exemptions:
8765. Record of survey - exemptions
Easements are not mentioned......
What is a "Land Line."
If we agree that every monument (i.e. stake) we set requires placing an identifying marker with our license number, what does that mean? If it means setting monuments with markes or stamped discs, is the intent to place stamped monuments without some kind of filing? I can state with certainty that irrespective of how we all may agree and disagree, the purpose of a recording process is to put others on notice as to what we have done. What of the instance where someone stakes an easement at an offset line? Very common if construction follows. What of a third party that follows behind? How are they to know where the offsets were placed? What of the surveyor who passes away, and one who has staked an easement but did not file anything?
More to ponder.
Thanks Eric for adding to my insomnia.
-
mpallamary
- Posts: 3466
- Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:12 pm
Does this help?
Does the attached case help? I am drilling through some case law. I do not believe this matter has ever been tested in a court of law.
Still, there is another way to skin this cat.
Still, there is another way to skin this cat.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-
Gromatici
- Posts: 335
- Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 7:06 am
- Location: Santa Barbara, CA
- Contact:
Letter
Let me know what you think. Maybe I can be a little less wordy?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
TO: BPLES
During the course of performing field surveys many Land Surveyors are asked to stake out easements lines, corners and angle points for construction of sewer lines, water lines and so forth. Many of these are done with temporary points such as 1â€x 2†stakes. In addition clients may request more durable points set, such as steel pipes, even with a LS number or qualifying Engineers number affixed to the monument due to the nature of the easement, such as view easements.
The issue arises if placing stakes or monuments triggers a Corner Record or Record of Survey per the Land Surveyors Act. If it does, then any points set should have a LS or RCE number affixed using that logic.
The following questions address the issues of placing stakes or even monuments at corners and angle points or alignments of easements.
Do the requirements of the Land Surveyor’s Act require filing of a Corner Record for points set during a field survey for an easement shown on a subdivision map or other record map where there is no material discrepancy or other triggers that require filing a Record of Survey per §8762?
Do the points set during this field survey dictate fixing a LS or pre 1982 Engineer number per §8772 if they are “for construction†and at offsets if no other points will be set post-construction?
If the easement being surveyed in the field is not shown on any subdivision map, official map or other qualifying map per section §8762(b)(4) does the placing of monuments with a LS or RCE number require a Record of Survey?
If an easement is laid out by placing monuments at the beginning and terminus of said easements alignment in relation to CCS83 and not in mathematical or geometrical reference to boundary lines of the respective tenements (except a qualifying clause limiting the easement by bounds) is a Record of Survey required where said easement is not shown on a subdivision map or other qualifying map per §8762(b)(4)?
Thank you,
Eric J Ackerman, PLS 8226.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
TO: BPLES
During the course of performing field surveys many Land Surveyors are asked to stake out easements lines, corners and angle points for construction of sewer lines, water lines and so forth. Many of these are done with temporary points such as 1â€x 2†stakes. In addition clients may request more durable points set, such as steel pipes, even with a LS number or qualifying Engineers number affixed to the monument due to the nature of the easement, such as view easements.
The issue arises if placing stakes or monuments triggers a Corner Record or Record of Survey per the Land Surveyors Act. If it does, then any points set should have a LS or RCE number affixed using that logic.
The following questions address the issues of placing stakes or even monuments at corners and angle points or alignments of easements.
Do the requirements of the Land Surveyor’s Act require filing of a Corner Record for points set during a field survey for an easement shown on a subdivision map or other record map where there is no material discrepancy or other triggers that require filing a Record of Survey per §8762?
Do the points set during this field survey dictate fixing a LS or pre 1982 Engineer number per §8772 if they are “for construction†and at offsets if no other points will be set post-construction?
If the easement being surveyed in the field is not shown on any subdivision map, official map or other qualifying map per section §8762(b)(4) does the placing of monuments with a LS or RCE number require a Record of Survey?
If an easement is laid out by placing monuments at the beginning and terminus of said easements alignment in relation to CCS83 and not in mathematical or geometrical reference to boundary lines of the respective tenements (except a qualifying clause limiting the easement by bounds) is a Record of Survey required where said easement is not shown on a subdivision map or other qualifying map per §8762(b)(4)?
Thank you,
Eric J Ackerman, PLS 8226.
Eric J Ackerman, PLS, RPLS, CFedS
Licenses: CA. AZ, ID, NV, CO,UT
Gromatici Land Surveying, Inc.
http://www.gromatici.com
proposals@gromatici.com
Licenses: CA. AZ, ID, NV, CO,UT
Gromatici Land Surveying, Inc.
http://www.gromatici.com
proposals@gromatici.com
-
mpallamary
- Posts: 3466
- Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:12 pm
I think that is pretty excellent. Perhaps you would consider asking what a "land line" is as noted in the LSA?
I would also suggest that you consider formally CC'ing your local chapter of CLSA and the state CLSA so that you can thrust it a little. I will be bringing this matter up Tuesday morning with the advisory group we have formed down here in San Diego.
You have done a masterful job of navigating this dialogue and you are to be commended. As is evident, you struck a chord here. Perhaps at the end of the exercise, you would consider writing an article for the CLSA News as they are always in need of good material. I think you have the makings for a good one here.
If I can provide any addition support, please let me know. I am thankful I was able to participate in your efforts. Again, congratulations.
Stay well.
I would also suggest that you consider formally CC'ing your local chapter of CLSA and the state CLSA so that you can thrust it a little. I will be bringing this matter up Tuesday morning with the advisory group we have formed down here in San Diego.
You have done a masterful job of navigating this dialogue and you are to be commended. As is evident, you struck a chord here. Perhaps at the end of the exercise, you would consider writing an article for the CLSA News as they are always in need of good material. I think you have the makings for a good one here.
If I can provide any addition support, please let me know. I am thankful I was able to participate in your efforts. Again, congratulations.
Stay well.
-
Ric7308
- Posts: 719
- Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 2:50 pm
Wow, leave the forum for a few days and all...
Eric, I understand the idea of easements written in CCS across many miles and record parcels, but intentionally ignored that scenario because I read your original inquiry as discussing marking the easement lines on the ground.
Also, in regards to the type of marker set, it doesn't matter...at all. What matters is what was the marker trying to portray? To others, land surveyors, land owners, tree trimmers for the view corridor, etc.
I guess I need to clarify why I asked the questions I asked...
After reading the earlier replies in this thread, I tried to put myself in the position of either setting the markers or finding and using the markers.
If I was asked to set markers delinating the extents of an easement, I find it hard to believe that in fact the requestor is really asking "show me where this easement is across my property...or next to my property" Or in the case of the view corridor that Eric mentioned, "Show me where to clear the vegetation where I am required to on my property" Any way you look at it, the client's and/or land owner's priority is to see what effect this easement has on their property. And no matter what, the client, easement holder and/or adjoining land owner will always in some shape or form, relate those markers to where their interests are.
In regards to my question 2, if during the course of retracing a boundary, I recover markers that appear to be marking the physical location of an easement, and I am having a difficult time recovering suitable boundary monuments, I may use those markers initially to narrow my search pattern. And who knows, knowing that a land surveyor set those markers and boundary monuments were severely lacking, knowing that those markers were set by a land surveyor that based his/her survey on earlier evidence of the boundary, I would not be able to simply disregard that evidence.
Understanding Eric's earlier reply that he (or his client) wanted more permanent markers set so the land surveyor would not have to come out on a regular basis to mark the easement, there is some practical sense in that request.
Based on all this, I am still leaning to what I originally suggested...consider how 8771(b) applies and proceed accordingly.
Ric
Eric, I understand the idea of easements written in CCS across many miles and record parcels, but intentionally ignored that scenario because I read your original inquiry as discussing marking the easement lines on the ground.
Also, in regards to the type of marker set, it doesn't matter...at all. What matters is what was the marker trying to portray? To others, land surveyors, land owners, tree trimmers for the view corridor, etc.
I guess I need to clarify why I asked the questions I asked...
After reading the earlier replies in this thread, I tried to put myself in the position of either setting the markers or finding and using the markers.
If I was asked to set markers delinating the extents of an easement, I find it hard to believe that in fact the requestor is really asking "show me where this easement is across my property...or next to my property" Or in the case of the view corridor that Eric mentioned, "Show me where to clear the vegetation where I am required to on my property" Any way you look at it, the client's and/or land owner's priority is to see what effect this easement has on their property. And no matter what, the client, easement holder and/or adjoining land owner will always in some shape or form, relate those markers to where their interests are.
In regards to my question 2, if during the course of retracing a boundary, I recover markers that appear to be marking the physical location of an easement, and I am having a difficult time recovering suitable boundary monuments, I may use those markers initially to narrow my search pattern. And who knows, knowing that a land surveyor set those markers and boundary monuments were severely lacking, knowing that those markers were set by a land surveyor that based his/her survey on earlier evidence of the boundary, I would not be able to simply disregard that evidence.
Understanding Eric's earlier reply that he (or his client) wanted more permanent markers set so the land surveyor would not have to come out on a regular basis to mark the easement, there is some practical sense in that request.
Based on all this, I am still leaning to what I originally suggested...consider how 8771(b) applies and proceed accordingly.
Ric