8771.6 Begins

[No_Target]

8771.6 is here. I have just received my first letter from a county surveyor utilizing it. The CS stated: "the County Surveyors Office will no longer accept the use of nails and/or survey spikes as monuments unless they are drilled, countersunk and epoxied in concrete (e.g., curb, sidewalk, or walls)." I mostly agree with this CS's views on permanence of specific monuments, but the slippery slope is when this comes from a CS that wants every monument placed in 4 feet of concrete.

I haven't been convinced of the benefit of this law, though I do see it a little differently than my previous postings might indicate. I still see this law as a slippery slope that will make things harder on me when I inevitably go to work in other counties with county surveyors who see different materials and monuments as permanent or impermanent. Without a standardized guide, how can we decide what is permanent? As our previous thread on this demonstrated, there is an inability between surveyors to agree on pretty much anything, let alone standards. If it were as easy as reaching out to that county surveyor and asking for their standards and local norms it would be one thing, but many counties take a very long time to even get into contact with, and many more have no published standards to speak of. Some surveyor's may see anything short of a 2' deep well monument as impermanent, while others might see an epoxied tag as enough. With the setting of monuments being a very situation and location dependent task, this new law will only lead to more arguments between surveyors. Most importantly to me, it means I am taking more time in the review process communicating with my county surveyor, while the non-recorder continue to see no changes.

In fairness to the County Surveyor I quoted, I agree with their definition of permanent and durable 95% of the time, and they go out of their way to keep recording prices low. Other counties with several thousand dollar recording costs have essentially pushed me out of the residential markets in favor of non-recording (illegally operating) entities. When these expensive counties start requesting well monuments placed in the middle of busy intersections I think it will end legal practitioners working for the majority of residential clients.

[Ric7308]

Ignoring the fact that perpetuating the location of existing monuments is vital and important, if this CS request is related to any map being filed pursuant to the PLS Act, the CS does not have the statutory authority within the PLS Act to review, request, or enforce that 8771.6 section.

The language as written leaves the licensed land surveyor with the professional responsibility to comply with that section.

[Mike Mueller]

I would suggest trying to educate that CS about the law since 8771(a) and 8772 are what cover the monuments that are being set, and 8771.6 covers those that are found.

I think its prudent to set monuments that will last, but if push came to shove and that CS wanted to add a note on your map I would ask them to write out exactly what their issue is and follow the process as described in 8768. Then if they insist on attempting to enforce standards outside of their review scope, it is an easy thing to send a complaint to the Board. While the complaint process is lacking in certain areas, I think it will need to be utilized a few times on overzealous CS reviews to establish some common practices, especially in the CS community.

Please let us know how it turns out. Also, if you think of something that could be included in the CLSA mon pres guide coming up for a vote/discussion next meeting, please let me know.


Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[No_Target]

I agree with both of you, but want to point out that in my experience what the law says will typically yield to CS preference in the aim of saving time and money on a project with a minor review. If I "pick my battles" it won't be something like this. Being able to point to a state-wide standard would certainly help (I have seen the forum on this and realize it probably won't happen). Even being able to find the PLS Act with the new inclusion would be nice. The BPELSG site has the 2023 PLS Act.

[Ric7308]

Even being able to find the PLS Act with the new inclusion would be nice. The BPELSG site has the 2023 PLS Act.

2024 language is being revised and should be posted soon)

[David Kendall]

in my experience what the law says will typically yield to CS preference in the aim of saving time and money on a project with a minor review. If I "pick my battles" it won't be something like this.

Good point. Filing an extemporaneous board complaint against a county surveyor in a county where you regularly practice is probably not a prudent maneuver.

My preference would be for the board to politely educate and inform all 38 county surveyors of the limits of their authority under 8771.6 so that we don't all receive a goofy letter like this one described... countersunk? Is this really paramount to monument durability?

I usually chamfer the edges around my countersunk brass tags to a 1/4" length and depth. Maybe they would prefer 5/16"? or something in metric....

[RAM]

38? what about the other 20?

[Edward M Reading]

I agree with both of you, but want to point out that in my experience what the law says will typically yield to CS preference in the aim of saving time and money on a project with a minor review....

This is no way to affect change. The CS preference yields to the law, not the other way around. Make them follow the law. Ask them where in the PLS Act they are basing their direction. If they can't show you, tell them to file the map. Use your PPC and the Board Registrar and Executive Director to get the CS to be in compliance. The CS can't act outside of their (narrow) mandate.

[No_Target]

Finding the time to do what might be necessary to affect change is hard to do, especially when this industry is so resistant to change. I would argue that I argue more than most of the people who submit to County Surveyors, and that when necessary I push back. Making others follow the law isn't exactly possible for a small business owner with 1000 other responsibilities, and it shouldn't be my job. I am stretched pretty thin, and distracting myself from real responsibilities with this forum. I can assure you no one pays me to whine and argue otherwise I would be very well paid.

I would like to see guidelines for CS and PLS on what can and cannot be done legally when we find it necessary to change the law. On about 50% of all redlines received a CS or their reviewers comment is asking for something that either cannot be done (PLS Act Prohibits it) or cannot be required. It is a bit exhausting.

Kyle Brook
PLS 9686

[John Williams, PLS]

countersunk? Is this really paramount to monument durability?

YES this paramount to durability in my locale at elevation 8000' where I work. Snowplows "pop" out nails that aren't countersunk, they also pop out monument well lids and concrete collars. I recover plenty of PK nails & washers and minimally sized concrete nails or brass pins that have been in place for 50+ years that seem durable to me. Countersunk by means of hammering down the asphalt just deep enough to protect the nail & washer.
And while on the topic, replacing GLO stone monuments? We commonly recover stone monuments set in the 1870's or earlier. That seems like they've stood the test of time, why not let the next generation of surveyors find 'em the way they were set. On a recent Record of Survey I left the stone in place and set reference pipes within a reasonable distance (5'±').
JW

[DWoolley]

Google "Guide to Records of Survey and Corner Records California".

If it isn't countersunk, it will soon be junk. See the attached photo. The control point was set in our low traffic parking lot for testing. The paint around the point lasted longer than the point itself. I happened to standing there when a forklift ran over it and popped it [check the nick on the washer].

DWoolley

[David Kendall]

Thank you for the clarification. To be clear, the OP is talking about concrete applications. I believe the letter of the law applies to boundary reference monuments not random control points.

In my opinion, anyone setting PK or mag/washer property or witness corners in asphalt has problems that no CS letter or legislation is going to fix

[No_Target]

Just to clarify, I agree with the practices required by the CS, I just wanted to point out that regardless of whether or not the CS is allowed to require these things, they do anyway. 8771.6 adds to the law and there hasn't been enough explanation given to surveyors. The next CS might require that each monument needs to be countersunk and over 4' in length to ensure permanence. They aren't allowed to require this, but will anyway. Is it my responsibility to police each CS who reviews or requires outside of their allowable area?

[PLS7393]

Google "Guide to Records of Survey and Corner Records California".

If it isn't countersunk, it will soon be junk. See the attached photo. The control point was set in our low traffic parking lot for testing. The paint around the point lasted longer than the point itself. I happened to standing there when a forklift ran over it and popped it [check the nick on the washer].

DWoolley

No pun intended Dave, but when setting control points, one needs to set them appropriately in a position and character so they have a better chance to live. Your picture shows you set the control point in the wrong place, or the forklift operator was aiming for the paint mark for driving practice, lol. Isn't that why we paint markers/lath orange on a jobsite, so the operators can hit it the first pass by? LOL

Maybe a concrete nail (with or without shiner) in AC would suffice for smaller (temporary) projects, or a cut "+" in concrete, knowing streets get slurry sealed/overlayed all the time. In my opinion, nails are all temporary but we do our best to set them as permanently as feasible.

I have reset street intersections, and shown on a RS, but if in AC I use a 3" Mag Nail with 1.25" diameter brass washer. Go work in the snowbound/rural areas and realize equipment use blades to scrape snow/debris and will pop that nail with ease.

Just some food for thoughts associated with the new Section 8771.6