SB 865

User avatar
Posts: 322
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:31 am
Location: Sonoma, CA

SB 865

Postby hellsangle » Thu Oct 15, 2020 2:11 pm ... 20200SB865


SECTION 1. Section 4216 of the Government Code is amended to read:
4216. As used in this article, the following definitions apply:
. . .
(u) “Tolerance zone” means 24 inches on each side of the field marking placed by the operator in one of the following ways:
(1) Twenty-four inches from each side of a single marking, assumed to be the centerline of the subsurface installation.
(2) Twenty-four inches plus one-half the specified size on each side of a single marking with the size of installation specified.
(3) Twenty-four inches from each outside marking that graphically shows the width of the outside surface of the subsurface installation on a horizontal plane.

If SB 865 is what some believe to be the nexus . . . to legislate an "accuracy statement" . . . for two feet?! Come on - is the sky falling again?

razy Phil Surveyor to Recorder

User avatar
Warren Smith
Posts: 774
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 6:41 am
Location: Sonora

Re: SB 865

Postby Warren Smith » Thu Oct 15, 2020 2:54 pm

Close enough for government work, and a careful excavator ...
Warren D. Smith, LS 4842
County Surveyor
Tuolumne County

User avatar
Posts: 757
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2004 2:09 pm
Location: Bay Area (Fremont)

Re: SB 865

Postby PLS7393 » Fri Oct 16, 2020 11:56 pm

I see this was definitely written by a surveyor, since we are talking about inches!
I can throw a pipe and satisfy those accuracy's.
What a waste of time, IMO!!!

Since I was not able to attend the webinar Friday, but just watched on the U Tube link (thanks Kim) I am still not sold this is completely necessary.
If your under contract with a utility company to map out their infrastructure, they have accuracy standards for your product to be delivered.
There was also a concern brought up about digging, and hitting infrastructure mapped incorrectly. Don't you put a disclaimer on your map to contact "USA" before digging? So with your proposed note, it appears you will only bring the surveyor into any potential lawsuits when most (if not all) problems are operator error.

As for a note on a Boundary and Topographic map to be submitted to a city for review of a new structure, addition, or ADU, how many city employees will understand what the note means? My guess says 99% will not understand, and further make some comment to the homeowner about something they truly don't understand. In other words, these potential notes appear to be more government driven.

It is still my opinion this proposed note is not necessary, and only opening up yet another can of worms us surveyors have to deal with.
Last edited by PLS7393 on Mon Oct 19, 2020 1:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Keith Nofield, Professional Land Surveying
PLS 7393

User avatar
Steve Martin
Posts: 541
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 12:24 pm
Location: Hayward

Re: SB 865

Postby Steve Martin » Mon Oct 19, 2020 8:54 am

Backhoe operators work we bucket widths, generally 24"

User avatar
Ian Wilson
Posts: 917
Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2002 6:58 am
Location: Bay Area

Re: SB 865

Postby Ian Wilson » Mon Oct 19, 2020 10:57 am

This amendment is in Division 5 of the GC, concerning public work and public purchases and, more specifically, in the chapter concerning protection of underground infrastructure. The bit being amended in this portion is not the 24”, which has been in the statutes for a good bit of time, but the bit about the internet ”… otherwise posted on the [old bit] Internet Web site[old bit off] [new bit] internet website[new bit off] of the regional notification center”.

And, this portion of the statutes has nothing to do with surveying or surveying marks. It has to do with the marks laid down by underground utility locators and the reliance that can be placed on those marks.
Ian Wilson, P.L.S. (CA / NV / CO)
Alameda County Surveyor

Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests