Calif only - License expiration date

See:
http://www.pels.ca.gov/licensees/expirationdatelaws.shtml

It is now optional to put your expiration date on there.

from the link:
Changes to Laws Regarding Inclusion of Expiration Date on Engineering and Land Surveying Documents

The 2010 versions of the Professional Engineers Act and the Professional Land Surveyors' Act, which are available on this website, have been updated to reflect these changes.

When you look through the PLS Act the references to expiration dates in the stamp and sign sections have been removed.

Per California Code of Regulations Title 16, Division 5 §§ 400-476
Section 411.00, Subsection (b), 3, (C) effective July 9, 2010
You are still required:

C) Expiration date or space within which the expiration date shall be written. The seal shall be of a design similar to those shown below and shall bear at minimumthose elements specified above.

But thats I'll I got from a quick google.

Jered

that has been stricken out on the PDF on the board website...

http://www.pels.ca.gov/licensees/boardrules.pdf

I like that better because Paul can print that page out and show it to the map checker. It is clearly stricken out, not just disappeared.

Paul,

Section 411 of the Board Rules crosses the requirement out...

http://www.pels.ca.gov/licensees/boardrules.pdf

It is on Page 10-11 of the linked PDF.

Thank you all

Map checkers and what they want, some of it's just a joke. For instance, this particular one does not like my centerline line type, she says it is to close together and wants it changed..not happening, and that's just a sample of what she is asking for.

On November 22, 2010 the developer paid $ 6552 for a private contract firm to check this map. He complained about the gun to the back fee and was assured, that though it seems exorbitant, the map will be checked faster and that will help him out. The checked map was received back Tuesday of last week.

Anyway, thanks for the replies.

keep going through the same

I keep leaving it off per the new rules and I get getting marked up for it and sent a copy of the local standars as if I did not know what the standard is. I have sent copies ,repeatedly, to the county surveyor and checkers in this particular office and they still mark up my submittals. Do I care, no! It is really a matter of no importance and it probaly falls into a gray area where the local agencies can depart from the state law if the choose.

As for the fees, well too bad, we have to pay for what we want, it is either going to be taxes or fees or both. There is no free lunch.

keep going through the same

I recently filed an R/S up north. My signature and stamp has no expiration date but they wanted it on there for the County Surveyor with which I complied. It's optional for me so I opted out and it's optional for him and he wanted it on there. No big deal.

Thank you all

Holy heck, are they using gold infused red ink?

That is totally out of line.

Dane

Is Bruce insisting on the requirement or one of his underlings?

EVAN

Evan, I have no idea as there was no response to my email inquiring what the policy was going to be.

I would just write it on there since more info that what is shown is optional, but only if it's marked. It's not something I would fight to hold up a recording.

> I would just write it on there since more info that what is shown is optional, but only if it's marked. It's not something I would fight to hold up a recording.

If it was a discretionary approval (PM, Final Map or LLA) I'd probably put the expiration date on if asked. For a ROS, I'd say "No thanks. Send me the draft language of the note you plan to add per §8768 and we'll move forward from there." I doubt the issue would get much farther than that.

Since the date of signing is still required, I've taken to putting that date in the blank space on my seal, so the checkers may not notice that there's no expiration date shown.

When I use my digital stamp, I don't put the expiration date but when I use my physical stamp, I do because it has a space for it. I don't see why it's a big deal. Is there something I'm missing? Was the reason for removing the requirement for expiration date because lay people thought we were only going to be licensed until that date? I guess I can understand being stubborn just for the sake of it when a map checker asks for something that is specifically not required by state law. Is that it?

-Confused in California

One client thought the Survey expired at that date like a gallon of milk or dozen eggs.

Oh. That's a good reason I guess. I've never had anybody even mention the expiration date. Dave, do you remember Andrew that used to work for me? He was from Canada and would write "Expiry date" on stuff. Is that Canadian for "expiration"? It sounded kind of silly to me.

I don't remember Andrew.

We are meeting with Jim McCavitt and one of his Cadastral Surveyors on Wednesday to look at some monuments in Section 9.

Dave

Out in the field? That's cool. The BLM rocks in my opinion.

> I guess I can understand being stubborn just for the sake of it when a map checker asks for something that is specifically not required by state law. Is that it?

It's mostly stubbornness in my case. I don't mind complying with legal requirements, but when I'm told by someone other than my client to alter my work product for no good reason, I tend to set my heels. It's not an admirable characteristic, but it's mine!

> It's mostly stubbornness in my case. I don't mind complying with legal requirements, but when I'm told by someone other than my client to alter my work product for no good reason, I tend to set my heels. It's not an admirable characteristic, but it's mine!

That's a perfect way of explaining my position Jim.

If others had of paid attention to what I had written in my "Thank You All" post they would have seen that I was not talking about a county or city employee here who is checking the map, it is a "private engineering firm" who is doing the check.

>On November 22, 2010 the developer paid $ 6552 for a private contract firm to check this map.

The person who I spoke with last week who checked the map said that "the engineering on the second sheet is fine". I am glad she saw that but I am wondering what engineering she is talking about. She also wants me to bend to her drafting style, not happening as I said before.

I want to bring this person up to speed that surveyors are no longer required to place an expiration date of the license on the map so there is no reason to make it a correction. Let her spend her time on more productive corrections like line types and commas, boy this gal likes commas. The commas are there, she just wants them larger.

I had set two centerline spike and washers on the parcel lines produced, she wants those taken off of the map.. They stay. They are set monuments and she should have been aware that the parcel map is based on a 'field survey' and not record compilation and that I have certified that all monuments shown have been set. I know why she wants them off the map. It is because if there is an existing centerline monument within 100 feet of a Tract or Parcel Map line produced we are not required to set any others at CL/PL intersections. Both of these are within 100 feet but I chose to set them anyway. This is a LA County / City thing and not statewide.

I don't like rolling over just because some checker has an itch that they want scratched. If it's a valid request, I do it, if it's just because they want it that way, I wont. If you guys want to bend to the whims of the checkers, be my guest.

Middle eastern accent comes to mind but I wont mention that.