Corner Record or R.o.S.

[Mojavegreen]

I have been contacted by a paving company that has done some work where they destroyed 2 monuments in an alley. The monuments show on a record of survey done back in 2002. I have surveyed the block and found that it is a half a foot short. I don't agree on how the record of survey was done. My question is do I file a corner record using just the data from the record of survey or just file a new record of survey. Just trying to get a feel for how others would do it. The job is in Huntington Beach.

[pls7809]

Well, the paving company only wants the survey to replace the monuments they knocked out, correct?

You could do the CR referring back to the RS, but you could also do an RS, showing the differences you found and still reset the monuments in the same place they were. You could also set points where you think they should have been set on the new RS.

RS's are free to file in OC as long as they are not for future development and this is a retracement or Boundary only type of survey. You would be serving the survey community better to show the discrepancies you have found. In fact, you are already treading in RS territory since you have discovered material discrepancies (0.5' in HB is material). The PLS Act says: "8762 (b)...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: (2) A material discrepancy with the information contained..." It seems like you've done your field survey and the field survey has disclosed a discrepancy.



One question, have you contacted the surveyor from 2002? I think you may owe that LS a chance to explain what he/she did.

Am I the surveyor? I may know them if I am not. I did a couple in HB around that time and a guy I know did some that I chained with him on also. I even remember setting a couple of mons in an alley on PL prods around an oil pump. Give me a call on my cell...951-486-1501

[Mojavegreen]

Yes Ryan...they only want to pay for the monuments destroyed. I understand how the other surveyor came up with his conclusion but I wouldn't feel comfortable doing it that way. He didn't show he went around the block so he doesn't really show how the block totally fits. And no it was not you so I guess I have to buy you a beer at the next CLSA meeting.

[land butcher]

In my early years I did some mapping for a surveyor a project thaT was in HB. There are areas in HB where the C/L of the street is not the c/l of the properties.
Don't know if this is the case but be careful out there.
I'm not sure you can do a corner record were there is that much discrepancy, I'd run it by the County Surveyor before preparing any maps.

[pls7809]

I just facebook messaged you. I didn't realize who you were until I punched your LS number into BPELS.

[Mojavegreen]

I am all over the internet...

[bruce hall]

those monuments were supposed to be located first, then destroyed. How do you really know where they were except via the map? They could have been one foot away-or whatever- from where the 2002 RS said it was.

It is not uncommon to find half a foot in the blocks in old town-downtown- HB. Many of these were originally laid out pre- 1920. But usually this half a foot would have shown up in more recent surveys, except for the many surveys performed by several land surveying companies that worked the downtown area who were notorious for not filing, if in fact this is where the job is.

Most all of the subdivisions in HB since the 60's have pretty good numbers in the field verses the maps of record, but every so often, there is a weird one. At least the stuff that I have surveyed over.

My opinion is to put the monuments back per the original RS and file a CR cause I would think that the 2002 RS that you are refering to shows this half a foot. Therefore this half a foot shows up in the record.

Now if this half a foot doesn't show up on this RS or any other recorded map, then make em pay for the RS(the filing fee is not the issue. It is the time spent to prepare the RS and my experience shows me that a RS takes more time than a CR to prepare, but maybe I am just too old or something). And find out what the other surveyor really did and why.

This is really weird cause the City Surveyor in HB does a real good job in researching the maps of record, centerline ties and corner records and puts this data in the bid documents. This way the contractor knows, kinda sorta, what needs to be perpetuated. At least this is a better shot than a big guess or having the contractor dictate what monuments need to be searched for and tie out.

Maybe it is my survey you are referring to but normally I go around the block, unless there was a real compelling reason not to.

[Willard Hall]

You do not give enough information in your post to make a proper decision.

It makes no difference if you agree on the methods that the other PLS used in regards to the replacement of the two destroyed monuments.

The issue is: Can you reset these two monuments based on the ROS where no material discrepancies exist for the location of the two specific monuments AS SHOWN on the ROS.

Your next problem though is did you survey past the two closest monuments that one would use to locate the two missing monuments? That's what was originally required to reset the two monuments shown on the ROS.

It appears from the little information provided that you surveyed the block and found a material discrepancy not shown on other recorded maps. You are now required to file a ROS for the block, not necessarily for the two destroyed monuments. A ROS requirement is mandated by the state in this case and rests between you and the state, not you and the client. You have expanded the scope of work and found a problem outside what you where contracted to do; Replace two monuments shown on a ROS that where destroyed.

However, due to the lack of information in the your post......

Willard Hall
PLS 6788
1298 Navel Place
Vista, CA 92081

[SteveGardner]

I think I understand the question, but still struggling with the answer.

The contractor is required to replace the destroyed monuments and they want you to do it. Something about the block being a half a foot short makes you disagree with the method by which they were set. That part I understand, I think.

The dilemma is that, assuming you are confident you can put them back where they were, they're going to have your number on them from now on. That would indicate that you agree with their location, wouldn't it?

I agree that your survey has disclosed a material discrepancy in a previously recorded map and that a ROS should be filed to put that on record (that's if the data about the 1/2 foot is not on the old ROS. Even then, your opinion results in alternate positions of points or lines.

So the question I haven't answered to myself yet is whether I would put my tagged mon at the old ROS positions AND put pincushion mon's where I would have put them, put them back in the old positions and record a virtual pincushion with ties from those mon's to your opinion of the corners, or just do what you were hired to do and replace them. I guess that's a multilemma, not a dilemma.

Is there any way you can convince yourself that the old ROS positions from 8 years ago have "become" the property corners by reliance on them by the property owners? Then you could file a ROS with all the data and still just replace the corners where they were, saying "accepted as" the property corners which conflicts with your interpretation of the math.

[VANCE]

What the Record of Survey checking fee in your county?

Is it going to cost you more in the long run defending your decision or Filing a map.

My opinion is if the contractor will not pay for a record of survey (the right thing to do), than do not set the monuments I will quote a Judge "The cheap, becomes the expensive".

[Willard Hall]

The posted surveyor must decide if the replacement of the two destroyed monuments require survey of the block. The question is whether another surveyor, acting within the standard of care, would be required to survey the block to reset these two destroyed monuments based on the ROS.

“The dilemma is that, assuming you are confident you can put them back where they were, they're going to have your number on them from now on. That would indicate that you AGREE WITH THEIR LOCATION (emphasis added), wouldn't it?”

A surveyor agreeing with the location of a destroyed monument does not in and of itself show that the surveyor agrees with the methods used in establishing these two monuments per the ROS. You are only stating that you have replaced these two monuments based on your survey of the two closest monuments which are shown on the existing ROS.

An example is when you file one corner record concerning one lot within a 500 lot subdivision, the lots on both sides having existing monumentation, no material discrepancies within these found monuments, does not mean that you agree with the methods used in establishing the boundary of the suddivision or the proper breakdown of the section were this subdivision resides or the proper placement of the Township and Ranges.


Without further information such as where do these two monuments exist within the block and present monumentation according to the exisiting ROS, a determination on whether a CR or ROS is required cannot be completed. I do know that a ROS is mandated due to the surveyor finding the ½ foot bust not shown on any map; I just do not know if the filing of a ROS is required to replace the two destroyed monuments or the simplier CR is required

[bruce hall]

no checking fee in the OC, which is where HB is located. Filing fee of 7 bucks.

It really isn't up to the contractor to give the go ahead on whether a CR or a RS shall be filed(that is outside of his scope) and near as I can tell, the cost of the filing should not enter into this regarding Mohave's decision to file this or that.

Mohave's obligation regarding the PLSA is HIS(Mohave's) hook, not necesarrily getting paid. Don't get me wrong, I want him to be compensated, but that shouldn't be the issue.

Mojave, What's the RSB number? Then everyone could take a look at this map if they so desire. You then might get so many different opinions you would sit there and wonder, "why did I ever bring this up?"

[VANCE]

WOW no Fee, that great!!!! Napa County charges $1520 + $9 for filing a Record of Survey.

The point I was trying to make was if the costs between a record of survey and a corner record were comparable (In your area this appears to be the case). Than why not file a Record of Survey showing your solution compared to record?

[SteveGardner]

Willard - I guess I'm getting into speculation now, but I'm assuming the destroyed monuments were not original interior lot corners as in your 500-lot subdivision example. If you can confidently put back missing corners within a subdivision in relation to adjacent monuments within that subdivision, I agree you don't care how the outside boundary of the subdivision was determined, because the corners you are replacing are considered an original survey.

If I'm correct in thinking that the old ROS established (there's that word again) some deed corners, that might be considered a "first" survey of those corners, but still subject to disagreement by Mojave unless they have since been accepted and relied upon as the property corners by the affected property owners, which kind of elevates them to the status of original corners.

My point about tagging the replacement monuments when you don't agree with the locations at which they were placed originally, and you don't think they have "become" property corners, is that you could at least be construed to be buying into their locations. Putting a note on the ROS that you've replaced some corners in a position you consider erroneous might help, or it might not if the monuments are challenged.

[Mojavegreen]

Yes..Bruce you are right. It stated it in the bid documents. The paving contractor got his hand caught in the cookie jar on this one. They gave us the oopps...sorry. Now the question at hand. The previous surveyor used just the east and north centerline points and went record measure for the block to set the lot corners. He also accepted c-nails in the alley way to show how he set the rear lot corners. He only shows how one of the c-nails were established and the other at the other end of the alley way was just accepted. He doesn't prove how the block was closed. He states "Centerline not proven". As for the block being a 0.50' short he doesn't directly show it you have to do all math to find it. If I was doing a RS for the lot I would have shown more information on how the block was done that is all. His stuff on the west street is floating.

[Mojavegreen]

Oh I don't know if I want to post up the RSB because some lurkers on here might have there hand on this project. As for original corners this the first time anybody has set any individual lot corners for the block. Up till now just street centerline has been shown and tied out.

[pls7809]

In my first post up there I asked if I did the survey and like Mohave says I did not sign it, but I was right that I did chain on this one, in fact I was the one that actually put the two, now missing, monuments in the ground. This is an old area, no surveys since the original tract map show the lots and a couple of RS's surveyed nearby, but this survey was the first to monument a lot in this block. There was no control on the south street or west street for this block and everything in this area is block by block. The alley runs North/South down the center of the block and we found monuments at the SW, NW and NE CL intersections around the block and a C-nail the CL of the alley at the north end. At the south end of the alley was another C-nail that fit for the CL of the alley (direction, not distance) and we decided to go record from the north with the lot dimensions. The block is odd shaped, so the lots at the south end have odd distances and the rest of the lots to the north are 25'.

I can't remember specifically doing it, but we always checked improvements (walls, fences, etc.) against the calcs, before we set anything permanent.

Maybe more CL control exists there now than when we worked over there. Obviously not being able to close the block, you have no confirmation. Or maybe we didn't look hard enough. I do remember kind of spinning our wheels a bit because we couldn't find anything on one side of the job.

Not sure exactly what Mohave should do on this one.

[bruce hall]

map. There ain't no numbers going south of the piq that gets one to the diagonaly crossing street to the south. All the lots are 25 (or some number)foot wide but the most southerly lot in the block is a triangular lot with no lot dimensions shown on the original survey map. This is pretty much what Ryan said.

I suppose it could be calc'd, and I am sure that Mohave has done this. Without a whole lot of looking into this, I would say, hold the record from the north going southerly, like the 2002 surveyor did, and put em back in there where he said they were.

At first blush, and without getting into the survey to much, the solution that the 2002 surveyor used looks like a viable one to me IMHO.

[Willard Hall]

“My point about tagging the replacement monuments when you don't agree with the locations at which they were placed originally, and you don't think they have "become" property corners, is that you could at least be construed to be buying into their locations. Putting a note on the ROS that you've replaced some corners in a position you consider erroneous might help, or it might not if the monuments are challenged.”

I like and use the note on corner records. However, unless I state that the corner I am replacing or that I have measured is a specific monument, then no one can construe that I am accepting that location. An example is I measure to a monument found at the center of section 34. I state found monument,no tag, per ros.....set tag ls 6788, unless I state, accepted as center of section 34, I have only measured to that found monument. If one construes otherwise, they are making a huge error. A centerline monument that is tied out, CR filed, destroyed, reset, CR filed; is not being shown on the CR as that I am agreeing that this is the centerline intersection, but that I found a monument that is being perpetuated but the actual purpose is not being verified.

The purpose of resetting the monuments at this stage, is to perpetuate the location as shown on the existing ROS. Not the location where you think it should have gone in the first place. This perpetuation helps in case future damage to the other monuments shown on the ROS occurs. It is not the job of the surveyor who are perpetuating the destroyed monuments to reset these destroyed monuments in a different location than what is shown on the referenced map just because the perpetuating surveyor can show that the under lying map is wrong verses other recorded maps.

Mojave has been ( hired )to replace two destroyed monuments.

“I have been contacted by a paving company that has done some work where they destroyed 2 monuments in an alley.”

He goes on to state:

“The previous surveyor used just the east and north centerline points and went record measure for the block to set the lot corners. He also accepted c-nails in the alley way to show how he set the rear lot corners. He only shows how one of the c-nails were established and the other at the other end of the alley way was just accepted. He doesn't prove how the block was closed. He states "Centerline not proven".”

Mojave may be mandated to file a ROS because he states that he has found a 1/2 foot bust verses other recorded maps. However, by review of his posts, he is not mandated though since it appears that Mojave has found this bust only by a cursory math calculation in the office so that he can determine a cost of doing the work for a client. More information is needed to resolve if Mojave is mandated or not to file a ROS based on his finding the discrepancy.

But is the paving contractor obligated to pay for the ROS or just a CR, CR is this case is less expensive for discussion sake.

The question on whether Mojave is mandated by the state on behalf of the paving contractor to file a CR or ROS is whether he can reset these two destroyed monuments based on the existing ROS. So if the answer is “I can find this c nail and that c nail and that centerline tie, etc all shown on the ROS, measurements look good based on the ROS(forget about the block is ½ foot different per other maps) then CR only, with a note like Steve suggests. If Mojave tells the paving contractor(so that he can be paid for the ROS that is not mandated by the state) that the ROS is mandated, with no material discrepancy per the existing ROS, my stance is contract fraud may be being perpetrated.

Mojave states that

"Oh I don't know if I want to post up the RSB because some lurkers on here might have there hand on this project."

suggests that he does not have a contract with the paving company.
I believe that a proposal to the paving contractor showing that a ROS will be filed, both destroyed monumnets will be set in the location shown on the existing ROS for a certain fee. No mention of the mandate. He will then be paid for his work to show the location he thinks these monuments should occupy. If the paving contractor wants only a CR because he believes that is what is needed by other received proposals, then Mojave can turn down the project. I do know that most paving contractors know the cost of replacing monuments, most do not include a ROS and have been told by other surveyors of such.

Willard Hall
PLS 6788
1298 Navel Place
Vista CA 92081

[Mojavegreen]

We already have the contract with the paving contractor. They say they forgot to call us before the monuments got destroyed. Now we are just trying get this job finished. I am just trying to get an idea how others would do would handle this type of problem. I am going with a C.R using the information on the RS. If the county doesn't like it I guess I will file a RS.

[D Ryan]

Willard Hall stated in his post of 12:27:

"The purpose of resetting the monuments at this stage, is to perpetuate the location as shown on the existing ROS. Not the location where you think it should have gone in the first place. This perpetuation helps in case future damage to the other monuments shown on the ROS occurs. It is not the job of the surveyor who are perpetuating the destroyed monuments to reset these destroyed monuments in a different location than what is shown on the referenced map just because the perpetuating surveyor can show that the under lying map is wrong verses other recorded maps."

I think he sums it up correctly. Unfortunately it doesn't sound like you got a chance to RP the mons out prior to destruction, which raises the question of, can you get them back where they were?

If there are other monuments shown on the survey sufficient for perpetuating the location of the destroyed mons, you're good to go. Forget about whether they were "correct" or not. Someone already paid for that survey, and deserve to have their monuments put back where they were. You are not taking any responsibility for the original methodology and should make no assertions on your corner record whether they were "correct" or not.

Now if there is insufficient control to get back on that survey, you have encountered an entirely different situation. Good luck with that. I've been there.

[bruce hall]

that the county would buy into it. It seems reasonable to me, BWTFDIK. You are just putting back something in the position as shown on this recently recorded RS.

[pls7809]

I agree with Mohave's decision to go with the CR also. I am a little biased though.

I think putting them back where they were is the way to go as long as sufficient control from the 2002 RS still exists.

oops...Didn't mean to put your name out there...

[SteveGardner]

Looks like I'm out-numbered on this. Nobody else sees a problem with placing your tag on a replaced monument from somebody else's map that you're convinced was wrong? The question is probably moot (not mute) in this case because from what Ryan posted, it sounds like the 2002 ROS did the best they could with what they had.

[E_Page]

The contractor wants only to pay the minimum required to replace the monuments as they were. The best evidence you have of that is the 2002 RS. So you could replace them per that RS with a reasonable belief that would put them in their previous positions.

But you don't believe that is the correct location for them based upon more extensive surveying that you have already done. And you do not feel good about replacing the monuments per the 2002 RS because of your previous work.

Several things to consider:

1. One of the purposes of a CR is to preserve monument locations without making a judgment call as to whether that monument is in the correct position, in your opinion. This is what the contractor wants, and it is reasonable for him to not want to pay for anything more.

2. What has transpired with respect to those 2002 monuments since they were set? Have the landowners taken any significant actions in reliance on them? How far would you move them to be in your "correct" position? Are you going to upset a settled neighborhood if you move them, and if so, should you? Check Civil Code §1006-1007, and the Civil Code of Procedure covering Quiet Title Actions (somewhere around) §315-325. See if your situation is described there before making a decision where the monuments should be.

3. You could, if you feel that the monuments belong in a location other than as set in 2002, prepare and file the RS and not charge your client any more than you would for the CR. You eat the extra cost, which would be only drafting time since you've already done enough field work to determine where you would set them.

A bit of a dilemma, but not too bad considering that you have some law to refer to and then only need to decide whether you are willing to eat some drafting time to feel better about what you're doing.



Thanks, Steven regarding moot vs mute. Moot = outcome of question asked rendered irrelevant by facts known or discovered. "The answer to that doesn't matter because we now know this."

Mute = unable to speak.