California Surveyors Forums

It's a good point Dave.

It's surprising that more cities don't require a Record of Survey or Corner Record be filed or in process prior to issuance of building permits. If there is a comment that comes back on plan corrections, from the city, stating they need to see a Record of Survey then it's not some surveyor telling the client they need to charge more for a survey, it becomes a required plan check fee.

Maybe there are situations where there is no building permit, but my guess is that a good percentage of surveys being done are because someone is remodeling or building something new.

In Orange County, the City of Newport Beach is really good about requiring a stamped and signed survey with each building permit. It appears that they lead the County with number of Record of Surveys filed. Other cities don't require it, and my guess is those surveyors are less successful in convincing the client to pay money not perceived as being required.

Mr. Smith wrote: Wed Oct 17, 2018 6:10 am Is it still Andregg Geomatics?

Andregg is no longer in business. Several years ago Psomas bought them out. FYI

It has always been difficult to explain to a client the costs of doing a Record of Survey, and why it needs to be done. These fees are just going to make a typical client decide not to do it at all. Any kind of development is becoming cost prohibitive with all the hands wanting their share from governmental agencies.

pls5528 wrote: Sun May 07, 2023 3:09 pm It has always been difficult to explain to a client the costs of doing a Record of Survey, and why it needs to be done. These fees are just going to make a typical client decide not to do it at all. Any kind of development is becoming cost prohibitive with all the hands wanting their share from governmental agencies.

Precisely my point, surveyors have repeatedly and continuously expressed their concern over the publics' ability to pay for a record of survey. As I have stated many times, a land owner does not need a survey to build a fence. A string line and strong back will suffice. A survey is required to build a fence on the boundary line. If a fence on the boundary line is desired (seldom required), the public can save their money for the record of survey. A land surveyor is under no obligation to provide a survey or a low cost survey. Where is the problem?

Alas, it is the same tired old saw. As I listened to the discussion at the recent Orange County meeting a new idea came to me. California law provides for an owner-builder provision. Outside of well drilling, an owner-builder is not required to have any licenses. In that world, there are "designers" that are not engineers, architects or contractors that work legally under the owner-builder provision.

Read more here: https://www.cslb.ca.gov/consumers/build ... rview.aspx

As we struggle to maintain professional status, like our engineer and architect brethren, fighting the deregulation pushed by the California unions, are we overlooking the public upside to becoming tradesman? Why not an owner-surveyor? If two neighbors want to decide their line, why not complete their owner-surveyor "record of survey" and have it filed like a corner record without review? This removes the largest cost of the record of survey, the surveyor. Simply get a Local 3 or 12 member to stake it on a weekend for $500. Any takers? With surveyors expressing so much concern for John Q. Public's cost of a survey I am expecting a line of supporters longer than a free pancake breakfast at a senior center. Cost of a record of survey...problem solved.

It took me 30 years, but I found a solution. Phil's "surveyor to recorder" on steroids. Now whose ox is gored?

DWoolley

Stanislaus = $810 + $108 for each additional sheet over 4.
Plus recording fees and that housing fee (around $90 for one sheet).

I think you have nailed it Dave!

Joking aside, I actually do think you have a great idea here. I know you are tongue in cheek, but at the end of the day, a neighbor agreed line that had a little paperwork associated with it would let homeowners avoid LLA's and litigation and unnecessary costs of surveyor's precision when they know exactly where they want the line to be.

Add a provision in the law that says the Good Neighbor Boundary Determination (GNBD) would be:
1. Shown on a GNBD document that would be like a Corner Record, but be recorded so its public notice etc.
2. Can only be done on land without a deed of trust, or the deed of trust has to be modified before its recordable. ( damn, we are starting to add costs....)
3. Only on boundaries that have fences;
4. Monumented with at least 2 metal plaques on each side of the line that have the initials of the homeowners on their respective sides and a date;
5. No money can change hands for this work;
6. Can only be recorded if signed by all landowners, and notarized.(darn it, costs going up again...)
7. Reviewed and recorded by the CS, who can only review completeness of the form, which requires pictures of the monuments to add to the file.

Viola!!! BLAs that make all involved happy, that are documented, monumented, and since there are no monuments at the corners, it makes it very unlikely that these GNBD monuments would be latched onto by unwary future surveyors.

These GNBD documents would of course have zero effect on any other title line, and would act like an adjudicated boundary that does not change the underlying, older title lines that would be the basis of easements etc.

The zoning laws etc would be effectively sidelined, which is awesome. The county would not be able to spend 10 months reviewing it just to add silly NIMBY/BANANA derived comments that add wasted costs. All the "fence is the line" folks would be right more often too!

I am not sure if I am in love or in parody...

Mikey Mueller, PLS
Sonoma County

PS Edited to fix acronym

Incidentally, our county surveyor shared historical data on Record of Survey filings, from way back when they were free or extremely low cost to today. This is in OC, shared just last week. There was no visible statistical increase or decrease in trends of numbers of RS filed at the time the RS fee was instituted.

He also shared that most of the RS's are filed in two of the richest cities in OC, Newport Beach and Laguna Beach, mostly connected to multi million dollar homes being remodeled. County Board of supervisors position regarding lowering survey fees was "we don't want to subsidize rich people".

Incidentally, rich people tend to be rich because they are really good at negotiating to keep the money in their pocket, over passing it to (in this case a surveyor). This make sme think maybe the fee for an RS should be expressed in the percentage of the property value. It IS being filed after all in order to provide for safeguarding their investment from boundary litigation risks. the value of protection is commensurate to the value of the property at risk.

That way a small land owner of a $125,000 care of land in the middle of nowhere can just pay basic fee, and the maximum can be charged based on property value. Maybe like capital gains, your property is assessed at $250,000 or less, pay just the recording fee.

I know, I know, more work for those trying to figure out the fees.

Or maybe just legislate for a survey surcharge to property taxes to pay for review and filing of property records, since we are having a hard time getting that money from regular tax flow. (Again surveyors and negotiating money/value of service issues - a business skill that no-one learns through being mentored in Lan Surveying.)

The filing of R of S’s substantially increased in the early 1980’s when CLSA chapters started creating “professional practice committees” to monitor the number of “no record” monument citations appearing on maps being recorded.

dmcdougall wrote: Fri May 05, 2023 1:25 pm It's a good point Dave.

It's surprising that more cities don't require a Record of Survey or Corner Record be filed or in process prior to issuance of building permits. If there is a comment that comes back on plan corrections, from the city, stating they need to see a Record of Survey then it's not some surveyor telling the client they need to charge more for a survey, it becomes a required plan check fee.

This has been an issue in my local county, where lately comments to improvement plans have been indicating a Record of Survey or Corner Record submittal is required in the course of review of the plans. There have been cases where the survey ran into no 8762 triggers. The expressed goal has been to ensure post-construction monumentation of the site. Because preparation of a topo & boundary survey in support of improvement plans doesn't necessarily mean I'll stake the project, it's my opinion the requirement for a post-construction Corner Record should fall on the staking surveyor, and potentially be a prerequisite to acceptance of the improvements. Of course, if a design survey does run into 8762 triggers, then it would be incumbent on the surveyor to prepare and file a Record of Survey - the staking surveyor can then file a Corner Record, if necessary, on the back of the RoS.

I'm not sure a lot of City staff have the training to determine when a Corner Record or RoS would be required, but wouldn't be averse to boilerplate language included in the plan's general notes stating that post-construction monumentation will be set and a Record of Survey or Corner Record, as may be appropriate, will be submitted to the County Surveyor as a condition to acceptance of the improvements. It's too often I'm working on a proposal for a site next door to a relatively recently constructed site that should have triggered an RoS wondering to myself, "How'd they get this built without a boundary survey?"

Chiara wrote: Thu May 11, 2023 2:47 pm This has been an issue in my local county, where lately comments to improvement plans have been indicating a Record of Survey or Corner Record submittal is required in the course of review of the plans. There have been cases where the survey ran into no 8762 triggers. ... Of course, if a design survey does run into 8762 triggers, then it would be incumbent on the surveyor to prepare and file a Record of Survey - the staking surveyor can then file a Corner Record, if necessary, on the back of the RoS.
...

It has been my experience that some surveyors routinely provide "boundary and topo" for design. The "boundary" is incorrectly based on a record figure rotated to two monuments i.e. the two monument tango/record boundary. I challenge any reader to provide a manual, textbook, or any reference that prescribes a procedure for a "record boundary". When there is a field survey a "record boundary" is most often inappropriate, wildly inappropriate. Why? The engineer and/or architect is going to design a [insert multimillion dollar improvement] based on boundary setbacks, right of way lines, etc...lines that will move with a properly established boundary?! Ridiculous on its face, right? Engineers, rightfully, freak out when we come in and "adjust" the alignment or boundary. It costs a lot of money to adjust the design after the fact and there is no way for the design team to recoup the costs.

The CBC and UBC state site plans will be "based on an accurate boundary" for good reason.

Also, construction surveyors, often not well versed in boundary, accept the CAD file and create calculations for staking. Seldom is the case a construction surveyor will establish a boundary, much less, file a record of survey. Over the years, I have asked many of these folks how they "established" the boundary. They usually state the boundary was provided by the engineer or engineer's surveyor and that they were not hired to provided a boundary and they are relying on the CAD file provided. They get their control coordinate from the aerial targets because there are no monuments (maybe two). I have had construction surveyors hire our firm to establish boundaries because they recognized the liability.

Yes, in many instances it is 100% required to file a record of survey if the lot being developed is not monumented with record monuments.

"Record boundaries" when a field survey has been completed is a crime. Turn them into BPELSG, stop crime.

Owner-surveyor to cut out the middleman. Stop the grift.

DWoolley

PS one bona-fide example of an acceptable "record boundary" is for an exhibit that is lieu of a Google Earth or Zillow exhibit or similar. When an error of feet does not matter a "boundary exhibit" with an aerial is oftentimes sufficient. In my mind, a ground survey with ties from structures to the boundary is a boundary survey. Not showing the ties does not make it any less of a boundary survey.

One litmus test as to acceptable work product might be 1. Could a layperson source this matter without a surveyor? 2. Would an engineer or architect accept the on-line sourced material for design purpose?

If a surveyor isn't involved, is it really a survey? Not according to the law. A post-82 engineer cannot be charged with land surveying negligence.

There is likely to be other examples as few things in a profession, necessarily, are absolute. The more experience I get the less I know for certain.

Owner-surveyor, eliminate the middleman.

DWoolley

"A post-82 engineer cannot be charged with land surveying negligence". Really?

Dave Lindell wrote: Fri May 12, 2023 10:30 am "A post-82 engineer cannot be charged with land surveying negligence". Really?

Yep. Neither you or I could be charged with medical negligence if we were performing surgeries - there is probably a host of other charges to be concerned about. I read a California civil case in which an engineer was charged with land surveying negligence. The court determined he could be not charged with land surveying negligence because he was not a land surveyor. Like you, I had never thought of it that way. It makes sense to me.

Here was my question circa 2010-11, if a post '82 engineer is construction staking (or having folks stake under his responsible charge) is he subject to prevailing wage? The answer is no, because he is technically engineering, not land surveying, under 6731.1. However, there is a rub. Land surveying is described in the union's MSA differently than 8726 - which doesn't make sense. For example, in the OE MSA driving a vehicle with a mobile scanner is land surveying. Ask the driver to calibrate the IMU, register the targets and produce a model. Ah, nope, I only drive (wait, shouldn't you be a Teamster?). Interesting to have non-surveyors determining the definition of land surveying that is inconsistent with the law. Before anyone goes hater on the union, know that the definitions were negotiated and agreed upon with members of the professional land surveying community. Stockholm syndrome? Donkey rodeo? Both?

The Operating Engineers has no qualms with the carpenters or laborers claiming and performing land surveying in their MSA, but will put pressure on a non-union firm performing topographic surveys to hire one of their uncredentialled members under a PLA. I would be inclined to join Laborers union due to their good attitude and fully funded pension. Interestingly, signatory land surveying firms appear to support OE working to deregulate their licenses/industry and allowing other trades to self-perform their work without a licensed surveyor within a country mile of the projects. In fact, they are paying OE to destroy their business model. It will all be over soon enough.

An engineer is regarded as as professional, therefore not subject to a PLA or prevailing wage. Word of caution, do not try this unless you are prepared for a protracted legal fight. It is best as sweet tea and porch talk. With the carpenters and laborers Trimbling, as they like to call it, the land surveyors can do their coulda, shoulda, woulda dance in the unemployment line.

Plan B, once we get this owner-surveyor worked out we can move responsible charge of construction staking into the professional realm by having engineers supervise the carpenters and laborers under their inspection teams. It will be cost effective because they do not have to pay professional land surveying wages, simply cost plus on most construction contracts.

Happy Friday.

Owner-surveyor, eliminate the middleman.

DWoolley

If the debt ceiling isn't passed - we'll have more than the-skies-falling to worry 'bout.

Have a nice weekend, all

Crazy Phil - Surveyor to Recorder

Interested readers may want to know more about the Carpenter's Union self-performing land surveying work.

From the Carpenter's Master Labor Agreement:

Section 103.2 of said agreement states:
"All layout work traditionally performed by carpenters, including layout for work to be performed by the carpenter trades shall be performed by carpenters covered by this agreement. This shall include all layout and shooting of grades from the initial control point and/or benchmark and use of all equipment incidental thereto including use of transit, and "total station" equipment, survey instruments and other equipment. This shall include any field adjustments to be used for layout purposes, excluding initial survey and quality control related survey work."

https://www.sccaweb.org/wp-content/uplo ... 2-2026.pdf

What is meant by "initial survey" is the topography with the control and "quality control related survey work" are the seldom requested certifications. The "..."total station" equipment, survey instruments and other equipment." includes their RTK/RTN GPS.

Carpenter's Union Class outline:

"Utilizes the NEW Training Solutions Curriculum available through the Training Solutions Website: Total Station Student Manual #CA0001M & Instructor Guide #CA0001G. Total Station Job Sheets CA0001H

5 Day Workshop

This workshop covers the use of Total Station, equipment for and their application to field layout. The transfer of data from field drawings and CAD programs to the Total Station in the field for layout tasks. Classroom training combined with hands-on training with the Total Station equipment will provide the skills necessary to operate this equipment in the field. Three different types of total stations are covered in this class."

If the engineering team provides the CAD drawings and/or the surveyor provides the control, which they do, the land surveyor will not receive a call to do the work. Bye, Felicia.

Lest we forget the surveyors that chose not to further regulate the profession to differentiate the professionals from the trades.

Happy Friday.

Owner-surveyor, eliminate the middleman.

DWoolley

Davey,

In Marin County, more often than not, they require a building setback certification from a licensed land surveyor before they will allow the foundation to be poured. (See below link)

https://www.marincounty.org/~/media/Fil ... ion_FS.pdf

Have a good weekend,

Phil

Phil - As you know many of the architects and building designers in Marin County prepare site plans without the benefit of a survey. Typically the site plan will show the existing fence along the boundary line and the new addition or existing building setback more than 1 foot beyond the setback. As such, a survey is not required per their requirements.

I have seen very little change in planning department requirements in my 45 years working in the profession. Similar to monument preservation being required and conducted prior to permits being issued. Monument preservation is a great law, but if no one enforces, it provides no value to the public. Still buyer beware scenario.

hellsangle wrote: Fri May 19, 2023 1:33 pm Davey,

In Marin County, more often than not, they require a building setback certification from a licensed land surveyor before they will allow the foundation to be poured. (See below link)

https://www.marincounty.org/~/media/Fil ... ion_FS.pdf

Have a good weekend,

Phil

Cool, good to know.

I am sure licensees will be busy and in high cotton, ah, doing something. My concerns were misplaced [tongue firmly in cheek].

DWoolley