C/L-P/L intersection points.

[Dave Lindell]

One of the major jobs in my dotage is replacing monumentation when cities cold mill and repave streets or repair sidewalks or take out property line prolongations marked in curbs. (I got tired of climbing hills and wading through poison oak to set a property corner right where someone decided to create a midden.)

My question is, are cities responsible for replacing the points set where the property prolongation meets the centerline and a spike and washer is set and a Corner Record is filed (that's how I find most of them) even when a one or two foot offset is set in the walk?

One city surveyor told me that even if you set a point in his sidewalk he is not responsible for replacing it, even though it's common practice to set property prolongations in a sidewalk at one or two feet offset to the corner.

[PLS9196]

Well Dave, you are a much more tenured Surveyor than myself, so I suppose you already know 8771(d) makes no distinction between, prods, something in a curb or centerline intersections, so yea, the agency is responsible for assuring their contractor perpetuate anything they potentially are going to destroy.

[mpallamary]

Cities are absolutely responsible. Find out who the "responsible charge" surveyor is. Ask for a Notice of Department Designation Form. If it is not on file, contact the Board and they will get it for you. The law was rewritten so that individuals that work for the agencies are responsible just like private sector surveyors.


*****************************************************************
The Business and Professions Code:

8725.1. Legislative intent – requirement for responsible charge at state and local government entities

It is the intent of the Legislature that the licensure requirements that are imposed upon private sector professional land surveyors and land surveying partnerships, firms, or corporations shall be imposed upon the state and any city, county, city and county, district, and special district that shall adhere to those requirements. Therefore, for the purposes of Section 8725 and this chapter, at least one person authorized to practice land surveying shall be designated the person in responsible charge of professional land surveying work practiced in any department or agency of the state, city, county, city and county, district, or special district.

[mpallamary]

See the attached also.

[Ric7308]

Dave, just contact Dallas Sweeney at the Board and he can assist you. That’s the best answer you’re going to receive and one the agencies will have to listen to. Dallas.sweeney@dca.ca.gov

[mpallamary]

Excellent!

[DWoolley]

Dave, just contact Dallas Sweeney at the Board and he can assist you. That’s the best answer you’re going to receive and one the agencies will have to listen to. Dallas.sweeney@dca.ca.gov

Interesting. Please explain how Dallas Sweeney obtained this "best answer" knowledge and the authority over every agency surveyor in the state. Ideally, a citation to authority would be most appreciated. It would be great if we could all benefit equally from his wisdom.

Equally interesting is the fact the BPELSG staff's recent surreptitious call to the county surveyors to provide land surveying oracle knowledge was not attended by several County Surveyors - apparently the County Surveyors didn't know Dallas Sweeney possessed the best answers and more importantly, the "one the agencies will have to listen to". By my estimate, Dallas Sweeney has been on the BPELSG staff for, maybe, 4-5 years - how did these agencies, some with 10-30 licensed surveyors, function without his guidance the last 100+ years? Rhetorical question.

While we have the omnipotent answering questions, I would like a definition of "professional misconduct" in the context of the recent proposed Board Rules that will be used for future citations. For the uninitiated, there is no definition in the Business and Professions Code. This means professional misconduct means whatever BPELSG staff wants it to mean. Frankly, having witnessed wildly uneven enforcement over the last 10 years, I am not comfortable with the idea.

Last question, why hasn't there been an LSTAC meeting for over 4 years? Rhetorical question. Presumably the organized input from other knowledgable surveyors, appointed by the BPELSG land surveyor member, having wide ranging experience is no longer needed as the best answers are readily available in house, ok, got it.

DWoolley

[Ric7308]

Go forward with your personal attacks all you want Dave. Doesn’t bother me. The Board always appreciates hearing the unique perspective from one of its licensees.

[DWoolley]

Go forward with your personal attacks all you want Dave. Doesn’t bother me. The Board always appreciates hearing the unique perspective from one of its licensees.

I will get back to this...[Ric, in the meantime, read my post again.]

[Edward M Reading]

Dave,
Not sure what your beef is with Dallas. He like his predecessors has always been extremely helpful and knowledgeable when I have contacted him. This "surreptitious" "call" was actually a very good webinar that I think was one part of the Board's effort to try to standardize RS reviews across the state. I'm sure that is something that everyone can get behind. I found it very informative and I'm sure many other CS's and their staff did also. As one of the four members of the LSTAC, I have to admit that I am also confused as to why there has not been a meeting in many years. I do believe that the use of the TAC is at the direction of the Board so any criticism of the lack of the TAC's use should probably be directed at the Board members. This TAC member is ready to work when asked to.

[kwilson]

Hello Dave Lindell

It's nice to know that there is actually someone out there doing what you do. I would like to know who is paying you to do this? Can you come up to the Bay area and do some of that here? I agree that all monuments are pertinent and should be preserved and that the laws in place provide for that. As we all know, we are seeing our streets being paved over, cut into and widened constantly and usually see no evidence of any surveying going on. If a well monument exists (Monument Box if you live in the Bay Area) then there is a slight possibility that it will not get paved over and will actually be raised to the surface. It is actually hilarious to see a monument well filled in with asphalt. Who gives approval to do that?

I appreciate Mike's and others efforts to preserve monuments. But unfortunately, the damage has already been done in many places. But that just makes our job a little more interesting to try to figure out where those original lines are. What is very interesting is that the amount of destroyed monumentation in the South Bay area is directly proportional to the distance from San Francisco and Oakland. The further north you go, the older the subdivisions are, the less you find there and there are more conflicts. Of course this is just a general statement but seems to hold true more often than not.

I am a complainer by nature so i need to work on a good attitude and just try to make the best of things. So i keep telling myself that the challenge makes me a better surveyor and that if it were easy everyone would be doing it. Unfortunately though, the customer ends up paying for it with the increased fees. I have a limit though. I will not step foot in San Francisco. That is a different world altogether. I let the locals take care of that part of town.

[mpallamary]

There is a very simple solution to this problem. In order for it to be implemented, CLSA needs to stand up and say something. I have spoken to many engineers as well as the ASCE about this problem and they all agree, survey monuments are a necessary part of public infrastructure and public improvements. Every single public works project needs to set aside 1.5% of the budget for monument preservation. That way, once budgeted, it will be taken care of. In my many communications with ASCE, they fully support the idea. The problem, they have informed me, is the land surveying community has not weighed in and appears dispassionate about this issue. Other than me reaching out to them, they have not heard from anyone.

In my opinion, this campaign could be a very important effort to unify the surveying community. Why then is is not being pursued?

This is an extraordinary opportunity for CLSA to pursue a Win-Win campaign. When is the last time the surveying community rallied behind a unifying endeavor?

https://www.asce.org/uploadedFiles/Issu ... y-2019.pdf

[mpallamary]

Wouldn't it be wonderful if the entire organization got behind this one issue and made it a mission for all of us. We could embark on a public relations program to lobby and reach out to our local organizations. We could start with CALTRANS and then move on to the biggest cities and then counties. If every single surveyor got on the phone or made a presentation to their city council or board of supervisors we could have a huge impact. This is not very complicated.

[Steve Martin]

We had a pipeline replacement project in an unincorporated neighborhood and my survey crew was very diligent in digging up the old pipes on centerline that have been paved over for the last 60-80 years. The dug down through 2' of pavement in some places. We filed our Corner Records. When the project was complete, the paving crew asked the County inspector to get some monument covers installed and the inspector said "just pave them over". So I talked with the County Surveyor and he asked that we pay to get the covers installed and he would reimburse us.

[BrianSpore]

I was being interviewed for a City Surveyor position about 3 years ago and one of the questions pertained to monument preservation. A part of the question was what is the hardest part to implanting and complying to the statute. My response was the funding in the project, the project managers never take into consideration of the costs to reference monuments for the project. The department head looked at the design manager and made a comment to the effect he better be listing to that.

[mpallamary]

Wouldn't it be wonderful if the entire organization got behind this one issue and made it a mission for all of us? We could embark on a public relations program to lobby and reach out to our local organizations. We could start with CALTRANS and then move on to the biggest cities and then counties. If every single surveyor got on the phone or made a presentation to their city council or board of supervisors we could have a huge impact. This is not very complicated.

[Ric7308]

We had a pipeline replacement project in an unincorporated neighborhood and my survey crew was very diligent in digging up the old pipes on centerline that have been paved over for the last 60-80 years. The dug down through 2' of pavement in some places. We filed our Corner Records. When the project was complete, the paving crew asked the County inspector to get some monument covers installed and the inspector said "just pave them over". So I talked with the County Surveyor and he asked that we pay to get the covers installed and he would reimburse us.

Steve, please email Dallas and I the specifics on this, especially how long ago this occurred.

[Steve Martin]

Sure Ric,

That was 5 years ago and the County did pay I believe.

[Ric7308]

Sure Ric,

That was 5 years ago and the County did pay I believe.

Why didn't you say that to begin with!

[DWoolley]

Go forward with your personal attacks all you want Dave. Doesn’t bother me. The Board always appreciates hearing the unique perspective from one of its licensees.

I will get back to this...[Ric, in the meantime, read my post again.]

My experience and training indicate folks personalizing legitimate questions - such as benign request for professional qualifications and citations to authority – and then, recounting the questions as “personal attacks” are simply avoiding the questions and retreating to a victim status as a distraction. It is deceptive maneuver that is not uncommon. It could be viewed differently if there was an unwarranted defensive posture and yet, subsequently, the questions were answered after a temper has cooled. Of course, even after patiently waiting a few of days, the questions have not been answered. Frankly, I had no expectation the questions would be answered. Thankfully, forum readers were spared the meaningless editorial gymnastics of a contrived authority stating BPELSG staff dictates practice issues. BPELSG licenses folks and is tasked with the enforcement of the various Acts i.e. Professional Land Surveyors' Act. Enforcement of the written law, law we can all read for ourselves, is not the practice of land surveying. Negligence, a professional lung shot, is determined by expert testimony, not BPELSG staff. In turn, the expert testimony will usually hinge on the duty owed, failure of the duty within a standard of practice to determine negligence.

The BPELSG is the authority over the individual’s license and again, does not determine negligence – unless Ric Moore is inferring something I may have overlooked. The inference to the licensed surveyor being “if you do not practice as we [BPELSG staff/Dallas] say your license status will be put into question”, however inappropriate as a threat, it may be something to ponder.

Edward Reading, I have no issue with Dallas Sweeney, to my recollection I have only met him once. Any name presented to me as a single source land surveyor being able to provide the “best answer” on a practice issue would trigger my questions as to the qualifications to provide the “best answers”. Now layer that best answer statement with being the single source that agencies “will have to listen to” and it gets complicated. Suddenly, as it was framed, the credentials should become important to any responsible practicing land surveyor.

I believe Dallas Sweeney has been licensed about 10 years and has been at BPELSG about five of those years. BPELSG land surveyors, Ric Moore and Dallas Sweeney, are state employees and are likely prohibited from practicing in the same field they regulate – I would bet on it. Napkin math would indicate approximately 50% of Ric Moore and Dallas Sweeney’s licensed career has been spent not practicing land surveying. Restated, 50% of their respective licensed years have been working as a testing regulator and managing subject matter experts – together with other administrative tasks. To put a finer point on it, we are talking about nonpracticing land surveyors providing the “best answers” to the practicing public and private surveyors in multiple jurisdictions by word of mouth on an individual by individual basis. That should make any professional uncomfortable.

Additionally, I have not read any peer reviewed publications from either Ric Moore or Dallas Sweeney that would indicate a bottomless well of land surveying knowledge. Based on my own experience, the “best answers” come from a group or minimally, vetted by an informed peer group, are presented as part of a public review process, and published in writing for all practitioners to adopt. For example, the Guide to Records of Survey and Corner Records published by the County Engineers Association of California (“CEAC”).

Why are written opinions, guides, manuals important? It is the best defense against a negligence allegation.

I have no reason to believe Dallas Sweeney, who, again, I have met one time, is anything other than a wonderful human being. He is sure to be as qualified as any other land surveyor with similar years of experience and background. I genuinely hope to get to know him over the next few years. However, as a professional land surveyor, when questioned by a client, judge or attorney as to my procedures, practice or decision process I will not state in my defense “…because Dallas Sweeney told me to” for which he should be thankful. It would be irresponsible for any land surveyor to hang their professional liability on a conversation or a standard that is not published. It may help to think in the terms of a County Surveyor’s signature on a record of survey – the licensee is responsible for the work and County Surveyor is not, not in the least. Any licensee that changes a map to accommodate a County Surveyor had better change the map in a way that will provided an affirmative defense. Stating “the county told me to do it” is not a defense. I have seen this play out firsthand in a courtroom and several times in depositions.

I find it curious BPELSG staff would try to assume such a wildly inappropriate and outsized role in the professional community without the usual public process resulting in a written guide or policy. They cannot even find their way to publish precedent setting cases (I believe there is only one case in the last 30 years and that case, John Combs ((deceased)), serves as a poor example).

As to Edward Reading’s referenced webinar, that excluded the private surveying community, the idea of establishing parity between jurisdictions is certainly a good idea. However, the public and private licensed individuals in the jurisdictions have completed this process through CEAC, resulting in a published guide, with input through the League of California Surveying Organizations, ACEC and CLSA. There may be a role for BPESLG staff as it relates to regulation, but to think or more critically, to state, Dallas Sweeney is the only person practicing land surveyors need to listen to is absurd and irresponsible. The idea any single individual would promote and/or accept this role, without an organized process of public participation resulting in written guidance, actually demonstrates there is a problem.

In closing, any would be defenders of Ric Moore or Dallas Sweeney that feel compelled to write their sentiments please save your key strokes for another thread. I am sure they are both great guys. If you want to talk about them as individuals, you are missing the point entirely. This is conversation about professional practice (thank you Dave L.), not feelings. If anyone can add more to their professional qualifications and the authority to dictate professional practice by edict, please proceed. I welcome many different perspectives - as a professional, I recognize the importance of many varying opinions to help me navigate.

DWoolley

PS Steve Wilson, the former land surveyor BPELSG member, as was his prerogative, did not make use of the Land Surveyor Technical Advisory Committee (“LSTAC”). This was a great disservice to the professional community. We now need a leader with a voice that recognizes the importance of a land surveying specific agenda and the role of the professional community participation through the LSTAC. Our esteemed Governor appears to have his hands full at the moment, but in time I hope he appoints a proactive land surveying leader to the BPELSG.

[Ric7308]

PS Steve Wilson, the former land surveyor BPELSG member, as was his prerogative, did not make use of the Land Surveyor Technical Advisory Committee (“LSTAC”). This was a great disservice to the professional community. We now need a leader with a voice that recognizes the importance of a land surveying specific agenda and the role of the professional community participation through the LSTAC. Our esteemed Governor appears to have his hands full at the moment, but in time I hope he appoints a proactive land surveying leader to the BPELSG.

Usually I don't respond to rhetoric from individuals just itching to create unnecessary controversy, wanting to fight. I could care less in times where he demonstrates his ignorance related to situations where he is filling in the gaps of his knowledge with his own perspectives targeting me. But in this case, he inaccurately disparages former Board Member Steve Wilson when he continues to demonstrate ignorance of the subject matter or processes. Just for EVERYONE's information, Steve talked to us regularly about having an LSTAC meeting and was NOT adverse to having one. However, despite listening to many board meeting recordings, the individual just doesn't seem to understand that the TAC meets SOLEY at the direction of the Board and needs to have a reason to do so. Other than 2-3 other former board members (including the one prior to Steve), Steve was one of the most active board members I've experienced. He contacted us on a regular basis treating his appointment as a responsibility that he took seriously.

Individual perspectives are important, especially and sometimes only, to the individual expressing them. However, filling in gaps of facts with those perspectives doesn't increase the accuracy of those facts.

[DWoolley]

PS Steve Wilson, the former land surveyor BPELSG member, as was his prerogative, did not make use of the Land Surveyor Technical Advisory Committee (“LSTAC”). This was a great disservice to the professional community. We now need a leader with a voice that recognizes the importance of a land surveying specific agenda and the role of the professional community participation through the LSTAC. Our esteemed Governor appears to have his hands full at the moment, but in time I hope he appoints a proactive land surveying leader to the BPELSG.

Usually I don't respond to rhetoric from individuals just itching to create unnecessary controversy, wanting to fight. I could care less in times where he demonstrates his ignorance related to situations where he is filling in the gaps of his knowledge with his own perspectives targeting me. But in this case, he inaccurately disparages former Board Member Steve Wilson when he continues to demonstrate ignorance of the subject matter or processes. Just for EVERYONE's information, Steve talked to us regularly about having an LSTAC meeting and was NOT adverse to having one. However, despite listening to many board meeting recordings, the individual just doesn't seem to understand that the TAC meets SOLEY at the direction of the Board and needs to have a reason to do so. Other than 2-3 other former board members (including the one prior to Steve), Steve was one of the most active board members I've experienced. He contacted us on a regular basis treating his appointment as a responsibility that he took seriously.

Individual perspectives are important, especially and sometimes only, to the individual expressing them. However, filling in gaps of facts with those perspectives doesn't increase the accuracy of those facts.

Please read it again, s-l-o-w-l-y. I do not disparage Steve Wilson. I stated "Steve Wilson, the former land surveyor BPELSG member, as was his prerogative, did not make use of the Land Surveyor Technical Advisory Committee (“LSTAC”). This was a great disservice to the professional community." I went on to say I hope the Governor's next selection is proactive and makes use of the LSTAC.

While I have your attention, would you mind defining professional misconduct as it relates to the proposed Board Rules?

DWoolley

[Ric7308]

Like I responded previously, if you want the best and most accurate answer, simply contact the Board.

[hellsangle]

What the hell is in the water down there?!

Crazy Phil - Sonoma

[Dave Lindell]

Getting back to the subject of the original post, is a City responsible for unrecorded points set by surveyors licensed since 1985?
(I've always been glad to tie out old, old survey tags. I just did LS 1768 this past week.)
If the surveyor isn't proud enough to file his Corner Record, why bother perpetuating it?

(Phil, it's not what's in the water, but what's NOT in it: a good whiskey, maybe?)