ROW Permit for CL mons?

[TIB]

I needed to shoot a few CL well mons today on a lightly traveled street with a 100' R/W. I put on my bright yellow safety vest then put a circle of cones around the area. I removed the lid and checked the description. Good. Ready to shoot. About that time an employee from the City Engineering Dept. drives up and approaches me. I was expecting a friendly, cordial chat since I am working for, and at request of the City. (City of Poway). He then tells me I have to leave now. He told me it is illegal for me (or any surveyor)to be in the street to recover/measure monuments without an approved permit from City that includes a detailed traffic safety management plan and if I could produce a valid permit I could not shoot the monument. Huh?
There were few cars and safety was not an issue, but I didn't have permit.
I smiled and left deciding to let office management deal with it.
Is this possible? Is this legal? Do they have the authority? My understanding from him was any surveyor, any street in City, needed a permit to shoot CL mons

[bruce hall]

codes would cover that. If what that fella says is true, how do we accomplish our work. That's not right. Least in my brain.

[LS 4722]

I would have packed up, smiled and waved, drove to a coffee hut and then after maybe 15 mins, gone back and shot it all up.

[Stephen Johnson]

It is a PUBLIC street. Open to all.

I was incensed when I found out that Caltrans required a quite expensive permit to be in the right-of-way of a PUBLIC highway. That was nearly 25 years ago and it still PO's me.

[hellsangle]

I rather doubt the DPW would be working on an early Sunday or Saturday morning . . . (For that matter, early during the week before 11 a.m. might work too! LOL)

Phil - Sonoma

[Warren Smith]

When awarding Public Works contracts, project managers generally require an encroachment permit for the General Contractor, which covers all the subcontractors.

I have heard of an annual permit for surveyors in some communities.

It's a matter of consistent enforcement. Ask for the relevant City Code section.

[Jim Frame]

The City of Woodland has similar requirements. It's not a blanket permit, but is project-specific, and includes a traffic management plan. It adds a ton of cost to a two-minute monument tie.

I understand the motivation, they want to control safety and liability within their rights-of-way. But because of the high cost/benefit ratio as perceived by me, I've always ignored the requirement and just hoped not to get caught.

Last year I had to set straddlers for a monument replacement in the city. That required me to occupy the monument for about 15 minutes each at tie-out and tie-in. I did the early Sunday morning thing in that case.

[surveysays]

I had a similar issue here in Southern California many years back. I was setting a standard well monument on a moderately busy street, I was told to leave by a city employee, I laughed and kept working. The city employee called the city police. Of course I wasn’t going to get arrested over a standard well monument and told the city peace officers such. They informed me that they could not arrest me because I was only breaking a city regulation. That really drove the city employee crazy, I had a police escort directing traffic for me while I finished setting the well monument.

[mpallamary]

I have exercised my rights under the PLSA in those situations. Force them to establish your control. I have done it before.

8774. (a) The right of entry upon or to real property to
investigate and utilize boundary evidence, and to perform surveys, is
a right of persons legally authorized to practice land surveying,
and it is the responsibility of the owner or tenant who owns or
controls property to provide reasonable access without undue delay.
The right of entry is not contingent upon the provision of prior
notice to the owner or tenant. However, the owner or tenant shall be
notified of the proposed time of entry where practicable.
(b) The requirements of subdivision (a) do not apply to monuments
within access-controlled portions of freeways.
(c) When required for a property survey, monuments within a
freeway right-of-way shall be referenced to usable points outside the
access control line by the agency having jurisdiction over the
freeway when requested in writing by the registered civil engineer or
licensed land surveyor who is to perform the property survey. The
work shall be done within a reasonable time period by the agency in
direct cooperation with the engineer or surveyor and at no charge to
him or her.

[Jim Frame]

Although it's a nuisance, I don't see any conflict between §8774.a and a city requiring a permit and traffic management plan in order to perform work in a city ROW. (§8774.b and .c don't pertain to city streets.) The phrase "undue delay" is subjective, and reasonable cost for a permit wouldn't constitute a bar to access. I doubt that trying to sneak in under the "not contingent upon the provision of prior notice to the owner" would get very far in court.

I'd love to be proved wrong, though!

[mpallamary]

Hi Jim,

This is a perfect example of an opportunity for CLSA to get involved in an important issue. If I ran into this problem, I would propose a committee of surveyors meet with the City Manager or Mayor to pitch the issue. A local CLSA composed group could do some great things. As far as the plan, I would tell them no, you do your job and if need be, make it painful. That is one way to get a city's attention; force them to go to the bank to finance these things!

[land butcher]

IMO this is a city not reading 8774.
A traffic control plan needs to be prepared by a licensed engineer.
Having to submit your safety plan to a agency to access a monument is unnecessary and a waste of paper (trees).
They surely will find a reason to tack on "appropriate" fees.
Additional work costing the client needless money.
What happens when your research indicates monuments at the 4 intersections of the block you are surveying and your permit is limited to those intersections and one or more of the monuments and ties and not in. How long is your survey delayed while you prepare and submit a new traffic plan with additional fees. Rather than just locating the mon at the next intersection.

I have a real issue with a local city that requires a traffic plan and extensive signage and cones to access a monitoring well in a parking lane, but a contractor working for the city (HC ramps) throws out a few cones and no advance signage. Calls to the city are blown off.

I had one young city employee tell me that if I had survey equipt set up on the sidewalk I had to allow minimum HC room. I immediately pointed out a nearby power pole that only allowed under 3 ft of clearance and asked him if he wanted me to do a personal survey of those conditions in his city and send them to one of those HC access attorneys. He walked away mumbling something about talking to his boss about this.

Time for CLSA to nip this in the bud.

[mpallamary]

Yes! If CLSA wants to be a viable entity and represent the interests of the land surveyor, they need to get involved. This is low hanging fruit and an extraordinary chance to educate while developing some positive PR. Instead of passing plaques back and forth, maybe a pamphlet educating cities and counties would be a good thing?

[land butcher]

Submitting the traffic plan, waiting for approval, agency fees, shutting down lanes in 4 directions could easily take a hour per intersection, which can only be done between 9am and 3pm for something that has been done for decades with 4 cones and almost zero incidents is insane.
New thought. Need to have 3 intersections under TC to set at one and sight and shoot 2 others. TC costs should be extensive.


Big issue here is ALTAs. They are always last minute and the clients hound title companies because they take 2 weeks to send the docs, imagine having to tell a National corp that you can't start the survey for at least 4 weeks due to traffic plan submittal.

I have emailed a client that has to get traffic plans approved a lot and will relay all info I get on time and cost when I get it.

As I expected every agency is different, in what they want and what they charge and in LA county some cities you have to get city and county approval.
Since these are for well sampling some cities will take a TC plan over and over, others require a new one. Moreno Valley just hired some new people and instead of stamping the old plan a new one was required at a specific size on mylar cost the company $1400.
Some charge per traffic setup some one fee no matter how many time TC is moved.
Some approve at the counter others require submittal and you come back. One for R&R of curb and gutter on LA Jolla blvd in San Diego took 6 months. After numerous submittals and changes the final approved TC plan was almost identical to the first submittal.
Fees vary from $100 to $2000-$3000. Plus the cost of making up the plan and the cost of hiring a TC company.
So if this cancer spreads you will have to spend more time getting TC plan approval costs and time to approve which I am sure means calling the agency and leaving a voice mail and waiting days for a return call.

[Jim Frame]

If I ever find myself having to go through the formal process, my approach will be to meet with the appropriate city staffer and come armed with a copy of the Caltrans MUTCD specification for short-duration work (Chapter 6, Section 6G.02). Of particular interest is the following quote:

12 During short-duration work, it often takes longer to set up and remove the TTC zone than to perform the work. Workers face hazards in setting up and taking down the TTC zone. Also, since the work time is short, delays affecting road users are significantly increased when additional devices are installed and removed.

Option:

13 Considering these factors, simplified control procedures may be warranted for short-duration work. A reduction in the number of devices may be offset by the use of other more dominant devices such as high intensity
rotating, flashing, oscillating, or strobe lights on work vehicles.

In other words, if I'm going to be in the intersection taking a shot on a monument for a grand total of 2 minutes, a flashing beacon on the truck parked at the curb and a couple of cones around the monument may be the safest and most practical traffic control plan.

[TIB]

the next day. No cones to attract unwanted attention this time. (traffic plan) Total time in street: less than 1 min

[Jim Frame]

As an example -- perhaps an extreme one -- about 10 years ago I was retained to monitor a cross-section of I-5 in Woodland for settlement during a water line bore-and-jack operation. This involved my instrument man with a level setup outside the freeway ROW while I took 3 shots 5 feet apart on both EPs of both pavement strips. So 12 shots for each monitoring event, and 7 monitoring events spread over about 2 months.

I applied for an encroachment permit, and discussed appropriate traffic control with the Caltrans inspector. Due to the very short duration of each event -- about 10 minutes in the ROW -- we agreed that all that was necessary was for me to park my truck with a rotating beacon on top in the median, and to wear a high-vis vest and be very, very careful when crossing the freeway lanes.

It was a high pucker-factor job. Cars going 70+ cover a lot of distance in a remarkably short time, and finding a break in traffic suitable to safely cross the 3 lanes of each strip was stressful.

My point is that if a flashing beacon and a vest is good enough for I-5, how much traffic control is really necessary for a couple of minutes on a city street?

[land butcher]

Unfortunately it's at the discretion of the agency employee.

The gentleman I discussed this with yesterday stated that he has submitted TC plans designed to CalTrans traffic standards that match the cities standards and been told to change the plan, add signage etc, because they want to. In other words, we don't care what the standard says do it the way I tell you.

We had a crew on Arrow hwy, very low traffic but a State road. They were topoing a lot and the only ROW work was shots along about 300ft of EP. Cal trans sent them home because they didn't have signs out.

I was sent out the next day in high winds so we tied our signs to power poles. We left arrow hwy and drove a few hundred feet down a side street then entered a dirt road to get to the property. I notice a vehicle following me. We get to the property and it's the Caltrans hot shot and he proceeds to get in my face because our signs are on the power poles. Says people will pay less attention to them because they are not out by themselves. He leaves after I inform him we are not working within the Caltrans ROW and only put the sign there because our boss said to.
Later this same hot shot is parked facing the wrong way with 1/2 of his truck on the median the rest blocking the #1 lane and just a rotator on. No cones, no signs. He was there at least 3 hrs repairing a small sign. Hypocrite.

Another time, while under contact with CalTrans to set aerial control on the 91, the aerial mapper spotted a target on the hill opposite Green River golf course and wanted it tied in. 2 man crew we set a triple prism on a previously located target on the shoulder with cones around it. We drive up the hill measure to the fwy target (forward and back verticals) and leave a lath sight. When we get back to where our tripod was it's gone. We are standing there pissed off when a car with 3 men in it stops and the driver gets out and asks what we are doing there (DUH company name and what they do plastered all over the van). He then starts asking for paperwork that I don't have so as I proceed to call our office I tell him our CalTrans contacts name. His whole attitude changes from aggressor to mr nice guy. As he starts to leave he stops and says "I guess this stuff is yours" and opens his trunk with our tripod and cones in it. Our contact with CalTrans was not happy and informed me that he had had trouble with this guy before. In addition this guy was from riverside and we were in OC and technically had zero jurisdiction where we were.

Jim, I would have moved the truck and not crossed the lanes.

[land butcher]

I will say that surveyors need to be educated in the placement of cones and signage and vehicles with rotators.
in one case I was setting up in the middle of a block in a 8-10ft wide painted median. My chainman grabbed 4 cones and placed 2 ahead and 2 behind me on the median stripes. He couldn't understand why I wanted a diamond configuration until I made him walk about 200 feet down and look back - yep looks like a open lane.
Another thought is to place any cones near the tripod in such a location, just ahead of the tripod in the direction of traffic, so that if a car clips the cone it doesn't fly into the tripod.
None of this prevents a catering truck, turning left from a side street, from centerpunching a triple prism in the intersection and then deciding to drive off only to drive in the direction of the survey crew. Yeah, she was embarrassed, don't know if because of hitting the tripod or getting caught.

[E_Page]

Although it's a nuisance, I don't see any conflict between §8774.a and a city requiring a permit and traffic management plan in order to perform work in a city ROW. (§8774.b and .c don't pertain to city streets.) The phrase "undue delay" is subjective, and reasonable cost for a permit wouldn't constitute a bar to access. I doubt that trying to sneak in under the "not contingent upon the provision of prior notice to the owner" would get very far in court.

I'd love to be proved wrong, though!

This isn't proof, but I think it's a good argument.

If a private landowner insisted upon an access fee, even if a nominal one, would that be considered "providing reasonable access without undue delay" or would it be considered to be barring access until the fee was paid?

The Right of Entry statutes provide that access is "a right of persons legally authorized to practice land surveying", not a privilege contingent upon permits and fees.

Second, the rights of way for public streets or rural roads are generally easements, not fee, and they are not limited access freeways. If your activity is not a significant obstruction to traffic, then you are not hindering the use of the right of way easement, and there is no basis for requiring traffic control measures which can end up being a greater hindrance to normal traffic flow than the tripod and cones set around the monument, and no basis for a permit. The local government only has a say inasmuch as any "trespass" by the surveyor hinders their use (or the public's use) of the easement.

If the right of way is held in fee by the local government, unless it is also a limited access freeway, it is still real property subject to §8774(a). Advance notice is encouraged, and shall be given when practical, but is not required.

Third, the only exception made to the surveyor's right of entry is limited access freeways. But that also places a responsibility on the agency controlling that right of way to establish reference points to the monuments within the right of way, and that work must be done within a reasonable time, in coordination with the surveyor requesting the ties, and at no charge. Are the encroachment permits free? Are the traffic control/warning measures commensurate with the extent and duration of the supposed obstruction to traffic, or are they completely out of proportion (i.e. unnecessary lane closures, redundant signage, certified flaggers, etc.), creating unreasonable delays and added costs to the members of the public who are in need of the services of a private land surveyor?

If the permit is free, can be issued by the inspector who meets you on site, and/or is good for any and all projects over a reasonable span of time (a year, several months), and the traffic warning measures are what a prudent surveyor would do anyway (for locating mons: 1 sign for each direction of traffic, cones around the set up), then it might be considered granting reasonable access. If it costs and places unreasonable conditions and/or delay on the access, it runs counter to State law, and I don't see how it would be enforceable.

A permit makes sense for construction activities within the right of way that will, by their nature, cause a significant obstruction to traffic for some period of time. That may include detailed mapping or construction staking within the road itself, or an extended set up in a location that traffic would need to navigate around it.

Extending that to relatively unobtrusive activities like surveying to locate monuments, mapping (topo or GIS), and the like exhibits a lack of judgment on the part of the bureaucrat seeking to enforce it at that level, or fiscal greed on the part of the local agency or government applying it to such uses.

Since CHP performs the vast majority of it's fieldwork within rights of way, do those local agencies also insist that CHP and other law enforcement obtain encroachment permits in order to pull over errant motorists? Do meter readers for the water company (often a public or quasi-public agency) and the electric company (sometimes a public or quasi-public agency) carry encroachment permits to cover their regular, momentary parking on the shoulders, at the curb, or sometimes in the drive lanes while they stop to read a meter? Do bicyclists require encroachment permits (I'll bet many communities in CA require some manner of bike permit, kind of like their own version of a license plate, except in sticker form for bikes)? Are pedestrians required to obtain a permit to use sidewalks and cross roadbeds afoot? Is UPS required to obtain encroachment permits for double parking on the streets while they deliver packages? If any of these require permits, are their fee and traffic control/warning requirements commensurate with their obstruction or hazard to traffic as is the permit required for survey activities?

If the application of the fees and requirements is inconsistent, then the reasoning that excepts some uses would probably also apply to most survey activities. If not, the requirement to surveying and similar activities may be arbitrary and capricious.

[land butcher]

UPS, and other delivery services do receive a number of parking tickets but most cops look the other way.

Friday on a local 4 lane 40mph street a AT&T truck was parked all day, their box is next to a tree so the truck is in shade, blocking most of the #2 lane. 6 cones out, one in back, 4 along the side and one in front, none more then 3ft from the truck.

[BeachBum]

I agree with one of Land Butcher's previous posts, depends on which Government Employee you get.

Working for CT, about a year ago doing a topo of an overcrossing in a small community, one of their public works employees approached me asking where my encroachment permit was since my signs were in his R/W! I simply apologized and moved my signs on to the bridge and continued working. He was not happy, made some phone calls and took off.

[Steve Martin]

I had a City kick one of my survey crews off a busy street because they needed an encroachment permit and traffic control plan.

We had our Construction folks that deal with the City on a regular basis talk with them and they agreed that we did not need a traffic control plan, as long as we notified them ahead of time and had warning signs out along with cones per the CALTRANS short duration standards.