PLS Act 8766(a)

[David Kendall]

Do any of the counties follow this law or is it just sort of a joke? I know that some of our county surveyors are understaffed and overworked and all but as long as I've been working around here the 20 working day guideline has been mentioned but mostly ignored for corner records, records of survey and most subdivisions as well. The subdivisions will get slightly higher regard if someone goes down and throws a fit over them. Mostly we get our submittals back when we get them (anywhere from 1 - 6 months) and you might as well not even bother asking when they might be ready because nobody knows the status.

We just got a new county surveyor so my hope is that he will make improvements and I haven't spoken with him directly regarding his personal opinion on this topic. I am simply wondering about the protocol throughout the rest of the state. I believe Warren Smith has implied that he follows the law but how about other counties?

[Warren Smith]

David,

Yes, we do target a three week initial review turnaround, which is within the 20 working days.

Bear in mind that the statute provides for additional time as may be mutually agreed upon by the land surveyor and county surveyor. This applies to records of survey. The submitting surveyor is required to resubmit with corrections within 60 days pursuant to 8767 - also subject to mutual agreement for a longer time.

The SMA does not impose similar deadlines for final and parcel maps, until submitted for approval. That is a 20 day limit per 66442 (b). Given the complexity of concurrent checking of improvement plans, subdivision agreements, bond requirements and other local ordinance and conditions of approval clearances, it necessarily takes longer to reach the "approvable" stage.

[CG Vandrey]

David,
In San Mateo County we rarely go beyond the 20 working day limit. On the initial submittal, surveyors can indicate whether they absolutely need it in the 20 day window or indicate a date beyond it that is convenient to them. We've got a sample at our website: http://publicworks.smcgov.org/surveying ... p-checking

Christopher G Vandrey, PLS

[mpallamary]

More flexibility should be included for everyone's benefit. Turnarounds and timing fluctuate considerably depending on economic factors. There is no uniformity in the process as everyone seems to recognize. This is another one of those topics that needs to be reexamined.

The only real problem exists when the board presses this issue, creating hardship for a private sector surveyor, as he/she runs the risk of a citation or reprimand.

[David Kendall]

That is a fantastic CS website Christopher, thank you for sharing it! I especially liked the survey marker browser but the whole site is slick. I suppose I was using the mobile version as well, it worked seamlessly. Thanks for the feedback guys, I appreciate your input and your attempts to adhere to the mandated timeframe. We just have to live with it up here for now, there is nothing to be done. I can't see how the board could enforce either side of that law (8766 or 8767). It must be one of those politely suggestive type of regulations...

[mpallamary]

Very impressive Christopher and very clear. Awesome data access. Congratulations.

[mpallamary]

Christopher,

Check this out.

http://www.tiepoints.com/