Destruction of Bench Marks.

[land butcher]

The leglislation requiring tying out and resetting survey monuments needs to be amended to include Bench Marks.
The only Counties in Southern Calif keeping their BM's up to date is Los Angeles and Orange.
Riverside County is a joke - I was told to use a top of curb off a set of improvement plans.
A corner shopping center project in Temecula used a BM over 8 miles away.
In San Diego I was given 10 BM's only one was in.
Most of the destruction is due to local agency street/curb/sidewalk reconstruction.
AB2886 requires the use of agency published BM's. No private surveyor should have to go more than one mile one way to the nearest BM, as third order levels runs allow too much error.
If Orange and Los Angeles Counties can find the money so can other counties. And these two counties have none or very low R/S checking fees.

[coast]

YEAH!!!

[Bob Hart]

BILL NUMBER : A.B. No. 2886
AUTHOR : Wiggins
TOPIC : Local planning agencies: duties.

TYPE OF BILL :
Inactive
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
2/3 Vote Required
State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy

BILL HISTORY
2002
Sept. 29 Vetoed by Governor.

[land butcher]

AB2886 is a water monitoring well bill.
establishes mininum standards for XYZ reporting on monitoring well data. PAssed in early 2001.

[Patrick Tami]

How are the benchmarks you refer to are being destroyed? If they are being destroyed by street projects in my opinion 8771 would apply. As I read 8771(b) it pertains to any point that is set to “provide survey control.” Unless someone is under the impression that benchmarks do not provide survey control.

8771 b) When monuments exist that control the location of subdivisions, tracts, boundaries, roads, streets, or highways, or provide survey control, the monuments shall be located and referenced by or under the direction of a licensed land surveyor or registered civil engineer prior to the time when any streets, highways, other rights-of-way, or easements are improved, constructed, reconstructed, maintained, resurfaced, or relocated and a corner record or record of survey of the references shall be filed with the county surveyor.

[land butcher]

1. "civic improvements" these particular ones were destroyed due to county road widenings.

2. Roger Frank and I reviewed that same section and the first part would imply that ALL survey control points are included but the second part specifically describes the type of control points and does not specificially include bench marks, so that gives them a way to weasel out.

3.Regardless of the above San Diego county and city, Riverside county and San Bernardino county are not upgrading their BM's, and they are still on 1929 datum.

[James Davis]

I completely agree with you that benchmarks need Legislative protection. As a Survey Party Chief for the City of San Bernardino, the protection of monuments is of upmost concern. I have seen at least 50% of our cities benchmarks lost to contractors and developers who don't understand the importance of their maintance. Our crew is in the process of upgrading our benchmark system to NAVD88 and replacing or adding to our system. We are about 1/3 completed as of this posting. But progress depends on or workload. I don't plan to make this my retirement project, but I will finish it when I can.

[Brooski]

I personally do not see any language in L.S. Act 8771 (b) that specifically excludes Benchmarks (vertical control monuments). Remember that the word "location" is truely three dimensional today. I admit that there's a lot of language in that section (b) which implies only boundary control, i.e., horizontal control. But I believe the words ",or provide survey control..." locks in the vertical component as well as the horizontal. Never-the-less, a section (c) should be added, specifically covering Vertical Control Monumnents, i.e., Benchmarks, to make sure those slimy weasels can't slither out from under the law in the future.

[Jim Langone RLS PE]

I'm going to comment, but don't take what I say wrong...I agree that vertical control is "almost" as important as horizontal.

With a couple of exceptions, the existance of "Regional" vertical control for a "majority" of projects (I'm putting my RCE hat on now) isn't really that critical.

Once a project is built, it's vertical impact is "what it is" whether it's supposed to be that way or not. It doesn't make much difference whether you say the elevation of an inlet to a CB is 893.21 or 100.00. If you have to drain "into it" you have to drain "into it" (as it exists).
If the ground generates certain "shaped" contour lines, it generates certain shaped" contour lines and it doesn't make much difference whether you call them 394, 395, 396 or 100, 101, 102.

Maybe I'm "odd". When I do design, I design "proposed" so as to deal with "existing" and I don't particularly care "what" that "existing" was "supposed to have been" (20 years or 2 weeks before I get there), only "what it is" (now).
There is a mentality that would like to pick up a set of plans "A" and a set of plans "B", dump that data into a PC, and "design" Project "C" connecting the two (sans new topo). Shoot...I'd like to (myself)...but I don't think I (really) ever have...even on situations where "I" did plan "A" and "I" did plan "B", "I" did the construction staking and "I" provided the "as-builts". I typically did some (might have been minimal) checking prior to start of design.

NOTE: When you get into things like "Flood Plain" analysis (FIRM) it's a different story but hey, that's why you get paid the big bucks. LOL

What "torques" my jaws (and maybe this is what you're talking about) is when the "Agency" MANDATES the "system" you're going to use...then let's that system go to H..L (as some have said) mostly because of work that "They" control....or NEVER had the system under control to begin with (ie require things be according to the 83 datum, when the only thing they have is on the 29). When I worked for a couple of Cities out there ('70-80') our phylosophy (sp) was "here's what we have...use it, if something reasonably close is still there...but if it isn't...there's not much sense in running umpteen miles of levels to bring in an elevation that probably won't match (existing) plans anyway so....show us what you used and we'll be happy (of course we did prefer that you didn't use TC of an existing curb, that you were going to replace...LOL).

Of course we didn't have much in the way of GIS or people who "just had to have everything fit into the Big Picture (even though they didn't have a clue what that Big Picture was), so that was a (or a number of) hurdle(s) that we didn't have to deal with...LOL

By the way....Mr. DAVIS...if you are the same Jim Davis that worked for the City of S.B. back in the 80's, I think I know you. If I do? "HI" (and you must be getting pretty "old" by now). If I don't? Well..."HI" anyway (and forget the "old" crack). LOL

Jim Langone LS/RCE

[land butcher]

Local agencies require that plans be submitted based on a Bench Mark. When you use a TC or whatever off a set of "as built" plans and reference the BM shown on those plans you are NOT basing your plan on a BM and to so state should be basis for license suspension.
The State of California ground water monitoring law AB2886 requires that the vertical datum be based on a published BM, using a TC as the County of Riverside suggested is ont complying with the law.
And yes, my complaint is that the local agencies destroy the survey control, horiz &/or vert, with their "civic improvements" and do not replace the survey monuments. One cities reply to my critizism (sp) of the lack of replacement ties was "well you have to go further to survey so you make more money", yeah right, try explaining that to a homeowner.
And, this being from a LS, RCE's have a real lack of respect and use of survey monuments, horiz or vertical.