California Surveyors Forums

DWoolley wrote:LS_8750

However, I am intent on eliminating 6731.1. .

DWoolley

Absolutely and utterly ridiculous.

.

The engineer's current legal ability to perform topographic and construction surveys brings up another problem with SB 556, in that it fails to notice and incorporate those aspects of authorities shared with engineers. One of many flaws in this attempt at legislation.

Seems also that I recall not all that long back that a certain someone had a 180 view on this issue when he sent a letter to the American Council of Consulting Engineers of California basically telling them that engineers should take back the full ability to survey. Anybody else remember that?

William Magee wrote:

DWoolley wrote:LS_8750

However, I am intent on eliminating 6731.1. .

DWoolley

Absolutely and utterly ridiculous.

The engineer's current legal ability to perform topographic and construction surveys brings up another problem with SB 556, in that it fails to notice and incorporate those aspects of authorities shared with engineers. One of many flaws in this attempt at legislation demonstrative of the lack of __________ (fill in the blank) by the authors.

When I was teaching n engineering degree requires two surveying classes, Engineering 118 and 119 - Plane Surveying and Advanced Plane Surveying. If that is sufficient education and experience for performing construction staking and topographic mapping with common land surveyor's tools the argument should be to deregulate those activities from licensure. Restated, if the experience and education threshold is held so low we cannot hold the public captive by requiring a license. Fair enough argument. However, I do not subscribe.

We are in agreement the language for SB 556 needs work.

DWoolley

6755.1(b) On and after April 1, 1988, the second division of the examination for registration as a civil engineer shall also include questions to test the applicant’s knowledge of seismic principles and engineering surveying principles as defined in Section 6731.1. No registration for a civil engineer shall be issued by the board on or after January 1, 1988, to any applicant unless he or she has successfully completed questions to test his or her knowledge of seismic principles and engineering surveying principles.

My understanding is the surveying test that engineers have to take is 4 hours and not an easy one.

William Magee wrote:6755.1(b) On and after April 1, 1988, the second division of the examination for registration as a civil engineer shall also include questions to test the applicant’s knowledge of seismic principles and engineering surveying principles as defined in Section 6731.1. No registration for a civil engineer shall be issued by the board on or after January 1, 1988, to any applicant unless he or she has successfully completed questions to test his or her knowledge of seismic principles and engineering surveying principles.

My understanding is the surveying test that engineers have to take is 4 hours and not an easy one.

From what I've seen and heard, the engineering surveying questions are on the order of how to sum up the pluses and minuses in a closed level loop. The LSIT would be a much more difficult exam.

Steve Martin wrote:
From what I've seen and heard, the engineering surveying questions are on the order of how to sum up the pluses and minuses in a closed level loop. The LSIT would be a much more difficult exam.

Apparently Steve hasn't seen or heard about the actual test plan. Looks like a pretty comprehensive test, the biggest difference between it and the LSIT being recognition that engineers aren't licensed to do geodetic calculations.

To say it is simply a test of addition and subtraction appears to be false and misleading.

Following is the link to the test plan that even an old computer illiterate as myself found with little trouble:

https://www.bpelsg.ca.gov/applicants/plan_civsurvey.pdf

William Magee wrote:

Steve Martin wrote:
From what I've seen and heard, the engineering surveying questions are on the order of how to sum up the pluses and minuses in a closed level loop. The LSIT would be a much more difficult exam.

Apparently Steve hasn't seen or heard about the actual test plan. Looks like a pretty comprehensive test, the biggest difference between it and the LSIT being recognition that engineers aren't licensed to do geodetic calculations.

To say it is simply a test of addition and subtraction appears to be false and misleading.

Following is the link to the test plan that even an old computer illiterate as myself found with little trouble:

https://www.bpelsg.ca.gov/applicants/plan_civsurvey.pdf

I don't mislead, and we are not quite on a first name basis.

The Board knows that the test would seem pretty basic to a Surveyor, however if it was any harder, only a small number of PE candidates would pass.

Steve Martin wrote: From what I've seen and heard, the engineering surveying questions are on the order of how to sum up the pluses and minuses in a closed level loop. The LSIT would be a much more difficult exam.

I have one experience substitute teaching a survey class for PE candidates and another experience having attended the previous year's classes with the PE candidates. It was more than closing level loops, but much less than the LSIT of that era.

Throughout the years, I have worked closely with professional engineers performing design, construction management, inspection, geology etc. None of them understand land surveying like a licensed land surveyor - even though 20 years ago, most of them had worked on a land surveying crew. In retrospect, their reverence for land surveying may have been due to the fact they had worked on a land surveying crew. In my experience there are very few post-82 engineers practicing land surveying.

The trend in southern California is for the big contractors to hire unlicensed staff out of the union hall to self perform the land surveying on their projects. Technically and legally, the work is being performed under the supervision of an inhouse PE working for the contractor. When things went sideways, I had one distinction over the contractor's survey crews - working on multiple projects throughout the state - I actually met the PE in charge (in his deposition). He didn't even try to fake it. This utilization of post82 PEs is common practice here. In another case, the newly licensed PE, that normally filled his days as a junior construction manager, having received less than four hours training on the instrument by the salesman, incorrectly staked a bridge structure. I also sat through his deposition. Although a serious matter, he could not differentiate northings from easting when asked to read his raw data file - the error was right there in front of them. It may as well have been written in hieroglyphic. In fact, he didn't really understand how bearings and distances related to coordinates. Fortunately, I was able to clear that up for them in my deposition. I recall that was a $275k check they wrote. I have two more of those stories. Anecdotal information, Magee, I will grant you that, but my experience says everyone is better off without PE Act 6731.1.

Again, I believe the land surveying community needs to distinguish themselves from the tradesman and certainly, the post-82 engineers or cintinue to see the degradation, ultimately Detroit style extinction, of the land surveying profession.

DWoolley

Magee,

I went back and looked at your "proof" of PE's qualifications by reviewing the testing plan provided in your link. Please pass the red herring.

DWoolley

The Board's website is replete with cases of both engineers and surveyors who practiced outside their area of competency. Your experience with some of those is not necessarily indicative of either profession as a whole.

Also, why the change of heart?

Well Mr. Woolley, regarding abolishing 6731.1, before I got my LS I would have vehemently disagreed with you. But, after seeing what I'm seeing with respect to engineers these days I can't say I now disagree with you. Most newer licensed engineers can't tie their shoes let alone survey their way out of a paper bag.

Carry on.

LS_8750 (Clark):

As a PE and a PLS, your perspective carries more credence. In many ways, I have enjoyed working with newer engineers. As a whole, I find them to be smart with the technology and articulate in their correspondence. However, they are not qualified to be in responsible charge of the engineering (6731.1) that closely mirrors the statutory land surveying (8726 (b)). As with anything, there are exceptions to the rule.

The Exception to the Rule

There is one post82 working for a large grading contractor that outfitted their GPS machine guidance systems onto the equipment, builds all of their digital terrain models and lately, has been flying their projects with a drone to test the accuracy of drones. I reach out to him on related technical issues before I would call on 99% of the land surveyors I know. Here's the catch, he insists on having a qualified land surveyor do the surveying outside of the machine control. Frankly, it is not necessary in his particular case. His biggest challenge has been hiring a qualified land surveying company - the last few companies his firm has hired were fired due to incompetence. I wrote the land surveying project specifications over the last 20 years. I sat through many meetings watching these incompetent land surveyors try to explain why they did not or could not comply with the project specifications. Their usual routine was to first try to fake it and/or lie - Starnet is my unfailing lie detector test.

The land surveyors do not read the specifications until after the project has been awarded (palm to forehead) and then, they have no idea how to comply. Finally, after years of watching him struggle with incompetent land surveyors, I explained to this post82 that he could sign and stamp the final as-built plans and quantities - he had no idea. Our last meeting, at his request, was to discuss him documenting his qualifying experience to sit for the PLS exam. He believes he should have a PLS to self perform their land surveying, smart guy. His firm is also exploring hiring an inhouse PLS because they've had it with the locals. Apparently, there are few land surveyors left that understand how to move and document a couple hundred million yards of dirt annually.

I would like to hear from anyone that thinks PE Act 6731.1 should remain in effect. As I have stated, I would like to see it abolished.

DWoolley

DWoolley wrote:

.... His biggest challenge has been hiring a qualified land surveying company - the last few companies his firm has hired were fired due to incompetence.

...... I sat through many meetings watching these incompetent land surveyors try to explain why they did not or could not comply with the project specifications. Their usual routine was to first try to fake it and/or lie - Starnet is my unfailing lie detector test.

The land surveyors do not read the specifications until after the project has been awarded (palm to forehead) and then, they have no idea how to comply.

Finally, after years of watching him struggle with incompetent land surveyors, .....

.... His firm is also exploring hiring an inhouse PLS because they've had it with the locals. Apparently, there are few land surveyors left that understand how to move and document a couple hundred million yards of dirt annually.

DWoolley

Flip flopping all over the place. The above excerpts would seem contradictory to the main premise of SB 556 in attempting to solidify the idea that only licensed surveyors are qualified to perform topographic and construction surveys (i.e. "engineering surveys").

Kind of hard to make that argument when out of the other side of your mouth comes such public negativity about the competence of the survey profession. And sadly its not even close to being the first time such a public display of disparaging remarks has been made.

And in regards to engineers performing engineering surveys (6731.1), I am again reminded of that letter to ACEC trying to get engineers to try and get back full survey authority.

Flipity flop.

Solely for the SB 556's sponsor and author's behalf, I would hope you're not presenting an argument at the April 8th hearing.

On the Association of General Contractor's behalf however, have at it. You're doing a great job of making their case.

William Magee wrote:

DWoolley wrote:

.... His biggest challenge has been hiring a qualified land surveying company - the last few companies his firm has hired were fired due to incompetence.

...... I sat through many meetings watching these incompetent land surveyors try to explain why they did not or could not comply with the project specifications. Their usual routine was to first try to fake it and/or lie - Starnet is my unfailing lie detector test.

The land surveyors do not read the specifications until after the project has been awarded (palm to forehead) and then, they have no idea how to comply.

Finally, after years of watching him struggle with incompetent land surveyors, .....

.... His firm is also exploring hiring an inhouse PLS because they've had it with the locals. Apparently, there are few land surveyors left that understand how to move and document a couple hundred million yards of dirt annually.

DWoolley

Flip flopping all over the place. The above excerpts would seem contradictory to the main premise of SB 556 in attempting to solidify the idea that only licensed surveyors are qualified to perform topographic and construction surveys (i.e. "engineering surveys").

Kind of hard to make that argument when out of the other side of your mouth comes such public negativity about the competence of the survey profession. And sadly its not even close to being the first time such a public display of disparaging remarks has been made.

And in regards to engineers performing engineering surveys (6731.1), I am again reminded of that letter to ACEC trying to get engineers to try and get back full survey authority.

Flipity flop.

Solely for the SB 556's sponsor and author's behalf, I would hope you're not presenting an argument at the April 8th hearing.

On the Association of General Contractor's behalf however, have at it. You're doing a great job of making their case.

And there is the nameless, faceless William Magee we have become accustomed to seeing on the forum. Ever the optimist, I appreciated the earlier contributions to the discussion and look forward to your future contributions, even those in opposition, especially those in opposition. Debate and discussion are part of professional progress.

Why not simply ask how I square those comments with my advocating for SB 556? I do not think that is your point.

Welcome back from under the rock from which you crawled, dear troll.

DWoolley

DWoolley wrote:The individual licensee, even if not a principal, is saddled with the liability. There are licensees that have lost their license in retirement because a company will not own their legal obligations.

That's my understanding as well. I support this.

Point made I presume.

His honor.

Important work.

Wisdom knows no bounds.

As deciphered and translated by the great Robert Langdon.

For God's sake, grow up people. If you're going to post childish comments, then stop complaining about how the profession doesn't get the respect it deserves and start looking in the mirror.

DWoolley wrote:David Kendall:

The trades are absorbing the work traditionally performed by licensed land surveyors. On a construction project they do not call it land surveying, they call it "layout". Typically, layout is the staking of fixed works described in the Professional Engineers' Act. The layout people use the same equipment and oftentimes, procedures traditionally used by the land surveyors. The amendment to Bus. and Prof. Code 8726, shown in SB 556, is intended to use the same industry language used by unlicensed layout folks performing land surveying as part of the statutory description of land surveying. Frankly, in my opinion, the semantics is likely to be insignificant on either side of the discussion e.g. is a rose not a rose by any other name? The unlicensed folks may simply change their layout crew to their ice cube crew, then what? However, if the change in the language will help the licensed brethren create a distinction to eliminate any unlicensed practice I believe the licensed community should support the amendment. To do nothing, even at this late date, allows unlicensed practitioners to continue to perform land surveying services unabated.

In an earlier post I described the reason for licensing businesses with a Certificate of Authority. This creates an authority for BPELSG to regulate and cite businesses that offer land surveying services without a licensed land surveyor on staff. The challenge is the current law allows ancillary businesses to offer services "incidental to" which creates a large loophole for unlicensed practice. The language in SB 556 is intended to close this loophole.

I believe the preservation of the practice requires regulation that distinguishes licensed practice from unlicensed practice. The regulation needs to be strictly and evenly enforced by BPELSG. Anyone familiar with the process knows the enforcement program is currently unjust and needs to be cleaned up. However, they are the only game in town. The professional community is not going to be softserve "educated" into compliance. As I detailed in another post some months ago, the "continuing education" crowd uses this 50 years old mantra as camouflage.

I further believe that if the professional community does nothing they are facing almost certain extinction through combinations of deregulation and loss of marketshare due to unlicensed practice and saturation caused by technology leaps.

DWoolley

Mr Woolley I see now that we are not comparing apples to apples. In fact I suspect that you are playing pool while I am playing golf. I also consider the activities you describe to be layout. Construction layout has been practiced by builders for thousands of years. It is not what I consider to be land surveying. The SB 556 fact sheet describes land surveying as a construction trade. My definition of land surveying involves interpretation of law as well as physical and historical evidence to determine property boundaries. What goes on inside of those boundaries is construction layout and generally irrelevant. Construction layout is marginally complex measurement in my opinion, usually it is simply direct reading of a tape measure. Calculating quantities is 8th grade level mathematics. Not land surveying.

Before I was licensed I held a position as a field engineer's assistant laying out a high rise reinforced concrete hospital building structure. Typically I held the dumb end of the tape on a chalk line. I learned a great deal about how to interpret architectural, structural and mechanical plans, layout a grid, count rebar and estimate a concrete pour as well as the value of tight measurements and hustle. This was not land surveying. We occasionally used a total station and an autolevel. FYI I'd bet on this 60 year old field engineer with the smart end of a 25 foot tape measure and a goofy helper against three of your best 25 year old robotic total station land surveying crews (sight unseen) for interpreting plans and laying out gridlines and floor protrusions accurately and efficiently. He was not a land surveyor.

I don't care to argue this point anymore as the scarcity of licensed land surveyors will likely doom this bill as soon as the legislators realize that in order to change the shelf paper in the cupboard or have their gardener plant a rosebush in the front yard that they will have to pay a LS $250/hr to lay it out for them by the use of mathematics. This idea is ridiculous and I can't believe you can say it with a straight face. I suppose this is why I didn't understand it in the first place and it took me a few days to wrap my head around the simplicity of your argument.

From what I know of the unions they offer excellent training resources but generally discourage advancement to licensure, probably to protect their own interests. If half of the union party chiefs became licensed instead of continuing to operate for 25 years as CST then we would probably not be in this pickle. There is no financial incentive to advance. Same with the 200 or so very well trained Transportation Surveyors in various capacities across the state that are sitting in cubicles and never filing a map throughout a 25 year career. Unfortunately 90% of these practitioners contribute nothing to the development of the LS profession then they retire and disappear completely.

The proliferation of what you consider unlicensed practice is likely related to the low availability of competent land surveyors. This is our own fault for abandoning education and mentoring efforts then wondering why we lack competency. The inability to hire a land surveyor to support the current required workload will likely lead to deregulation faster than anything else. I honestly don't understand if you are for or against deregulation at this point but I don't know if I am either, so fair enough....

Same thing with your determination of quantities example. Just because an engineer or a layman made some mistakes does not make two-bit measuring and calculating it land surveying. I am not first an expert measurer. I do consider myself a land surveyor. Please reconcile that.

I submit that it is prudent to hire a land surveyor to do your construction layout if you want it done right. I am not an advocate for a law to make it a requirement.

The attached is a portion of the Materials for the April 2019 Meeting of the BPELSG.

I support this bill.

Union, not union... who cares?

This bill is meant to help preserve our profession and help protect the public. We need to stick together at some point on something or it has all been for not.

These building designers, architects, contractors and/or developers are doing everything they can get away with. In the private non-union side, they are creating site plans and laying out building foundations based on fences, etc. On the union side, I see them layout everything from curb and gutter, water/sewer lines to utilies poles/boxes etc. It is not simply rebar on highrise buildings (interior building layouts), they are doing it all to save a buck. The current fines for surveying without a license are a joke. We come in behind all the time to clean up the mess as "Aftermath Surveyors" creating easements, LLAs, settlement surveys, etc to best fix whatever the screwup. How is this protecting the public?

The bill may not be perfect, but it gives us a platform to shape and mold in the future. Alot of people put in countless hours (this time and a few years ago). We used to be very respected. We used to been seen as equal to Doctors and Lawyers, now, not so much. Especially when I see 2 or 3 monuments in a 1 foot radius.

I'm afraid that if we bicker about the small stuff and don't come together as a profession on serious issues in the public eye then we will be deregulated. Nobody is going to take us serious. Before you know it, low educated GIS techs will be rubber sheeting boundary determination along with everything else.

At least this Senator still sees us as professionals and is on board with helping us keep our profession! Let's not look the other way.

Slightly off topic,
I've even posted on this website, video footage of the San Jose Police telling a property owner it's ok to remove the newly set brass tag set in a concrete pad on "their property", along with them removing it. This was a learning example for the San Jose Police Dept... Not a single person has ever been prosecuted for disturbing a monument in the State of California. My point with this little story is that we are already not seen as professionals by Law Enforcement.

We are constantly being stepped on by building designers, architects and contractors. Not seen as professionals by Law Enforcement. Viewed as construction measure'res by the public who cant agree with each other (double monuments).

We need salvage and strengthen what's left of our profession.

Let's ride this wave and get something done.

Respectfully.
Drexyl Ekparian, PLS

marois wrote:The attached is a portion of the Materials for the April 2019 Meeting of the BPELSG.

Everyone posting on here should read this. The Board raised some issues with this bill that I bet some people had not thought of. Might change the mind of those who are in blanket support of this bill.

If anyone in this thread has given the bill "blanket support", I missed it. Most have stated some version of "Although various provisions are written poorly and present problems, the basic idea underpinning the effort is a good one".

CELSA tried a similar effort about 3 or 4 years ago and floated it by the CLSA Leg Comm. The language in that bill was similarly problematic, but again, the basic idea was one worth moving forward. Unfortunately, they came to us with their proposal at essentially the last minute and there wasn't sufficient time to wordsmith it into a workable legislative proposal, so we took an "Oppose unless Amended" stance. We asked them to let us work with them to get it into a workable form for the next legislative cycle. Instead, they got upset that we didn't just hop on their bandwagon and moved it forward without us.

That effort died fairly quickly.

This one, much the same proposal with a bunch more stuffed into it is likely to suffer the same fate. Instead of realizing that it would have been far better to bring CLSA Leg Comm in to collaborate when they restarted this effort, and giving the proposal containing most of what they want a better than even chance of getting BPELSG support and of becoming law, they are likely to blame CLSA for killing their proposal again.

Having skimmed through the BPELSG analysis, I agree with at least a good portion of it and perhaps nearly all of it (I need to read it more thoroughly for a more definite level of agreement). As it now exists, I don't see how BPELSG, or the CLSA for that matter can support it. I do see, and believe that both BPELSG and CLSA leadership likely believe the underlying basic premise of the effort is worth pursuing, but unless CELSA is willing to include other organizations in formulating the proposal, it will be a (basically) good idea that never gets implemented in any measure.


As to whether construction surveying is worthy of being considered surveying...

Working as a chainman on a staking crew, whether civil site works or large structure work does not give one nearly enough experience to make an informed judgment on the matter. From the chainman's perspective, a good chief always makes it look easy. But a good chief must be prepared to apply knowledge which goes way beyond what the chainman would perceive.

If you're going to base your judgement on the measuring techniques and calculations alone, you better consider that the same criteria applied to boundary surveying would put it as the simplest of technical exercises the surveyor does. My early career was mostly construction. That was in the days when the chief was handed the plans and told to go stake it so others can build it.

If we start taking the opinion that a certain area (or areas) of practice isn't surveying because "It's not the kind of surveying I do", then we would be breaking our constituency into several far less significant and less effective constituencies. A strong practice act for all the areas of practice that are within it serves all of us well, no matter how many or how few of those areas we actually practice.

Personally, I've shaped the latter half to 2/3 of my career to focus mostly on boundary because I enjoy the type of challenge it provides and the types of problems it presents to be solved. I once enjoyed the challenges presented in construction surveying, but the PITAs that go with billings, extras and other disputed charges, the usually dry and dusty conditions, etc. outweighed the enjoyable aspects for me.

There are other areas of surveying that I rarely, if ever delve into because the challenges of those areas of practice don't hold much interest for me. But that doesn't mean that I am blind that there are professional level challenges to those aspects of surveying. There are others who enjoy those challenges and in many areas, are much more knowledgeable of those areas than I am. I'm glad those who specialize in the areas of practice I rarely if ever practice in are part of my profession.

Rather than seeing those other surveyors as less professional than I because they don't have the same level of knowledge I do in the areas I've chosen to focus on, I see all of us as professionals that complement each others' strengths.

Construction, like boundary and all other areas of survey practice has those who have a wealth of experience and a wealth of knowledge gained from the lessons learned throughout one's career, and it has those who have had one or two years of experience over and over and over again, with the paucity of knowledge that comes from ignoring or not recognizing the many, many lessons presented to them over their career, regardless of time spent at it.