Surveyor Verification/Certification Letters

Jim Frame · Post by **Jim Frame** » Thu Jun 14, 2012 9:35 am

"Pace" comes from the Latin "passus," and even the Romans used it loosely to mean step or stride, in addition to the unit of measure consisting of two steps (a great pace or Roman pace), being roughly 5 feet. Longer distances were denominated in thousands of paces, or "mille passuum" (about 5,000 feet), from which we get the word "mile."

Or so my high school Latin teacher told us.

.

E_Page · Post by **E_Page** » Thu Jun 14, 2012 5:38 pm

According to Davis, Foote, and Kelly, a pace is one step and "each two paces or double step is called a stride."

I'm sure that Jim is correct with regard to the historical definition of a pace and its origins. My understanding has always been as it is stated by Davis, et al.

Ben Lund · Post by **Ben Lund** » Fri Oct 19, 2012 8:13 pm

To me, the bottom line is what is written in the ruling statute. It does not matter how expensive the requirement is or how stupid the law is. It looks like law would dictate a boundary and topographic survey be performed. Yes record of survey requirements may trigger but it seems that this is exactly what the law prescribes. If the law doesn't make sense we need to change it, but in the meantime either obey or risk the consequences.

E_Page · Post by **E_Page** » Sat Oct 20, 2012 6:56 am

Ben,

Please be so kind as to post what the "ruling statute" is for setback verifications since I can't imagine what itight be.

With setbacks being a matter of local zoning, I thought that setback certificatios, where required and if defined by any governmental rule at all, would be addressed in local building or planning ordinance.

Ben Lund · Post by **Ben Lund** » Tue Oct 23, 2012 10:42 am

Evan, my point is that if the agency is asking for a certification of fixed improvements relative to setbacks which are a function of the location of the property boundary, then the statutes that govern topographic surveys and boundary surveys should be followed by both the certifying surveyor and the agency.

It is my opinion that there is already enough law in place in this regard to control the quality and scope of what should be performed for a setback certification letter.

LS_8750 · Post by **LS_8750** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 11:19 am

Following up on Mr. Wooley's post, Current 2010 CA Building Code regarding site plans. Reads as follows:

Chapter 1, Division 1, Section 107.2.5 Site Plan:

"107.2.5 Site plan. The construction documents submitted with the application for permit shall be accompanied by a site plan showing to scale the size and location of new construction and existing structures on the site, distances from lot lines, the established street grades and the proposed finished grades and, as applicable, flood hazard areas, floodways, and design flood elevations; and it shall be drawn in accordance with an accurate boundary line survey. In the case of demolition, the site plan shall show construction to be demolished and the location and size of existing structures and construction that are to remain on the site or plot. The building official is authorized to waive or modify the requirement for a site plan when the application for permit is for alteration or repair or when otherwise warranted"

Here's the link:

http://publicecodes.cyberregs.com/st/ca ... sec032.htm

Ben Lund · Post by **Ben Lund** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 2:37 pm

Clark, Thanks for the updated link. This is another example of the law being on the side of the land surveyor.

Ric7308 · Post by **Ric7308** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 2:47 pm

Ben,

This is another example when the law (State and Consumer Services Agency and California Building Standards Commission) is on the side of the consumer demonstrating recognition of what is in the consumer's best interest.

Ric

Ben Lund · Post by **Ben Lund** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 3:55 pm

Agreed. Just wanted to point out that often, the law has shown to protect the interests of the profession (by protecting the public). And that it is the land surveyor who shoots himself in the foot by trying to circumvent the law to try and beat the other LS who will do the job cheaper (and negligently).

E_Page · Post by **E_Page** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 11:05 am

When did the discussion morph from that of a surveyor being asked to verify if a setback has neen met to that of a surveyor being asked to prepare the site plan?

In my experience, the site plan is a preconstruction document and is usually a basis for project approval. It has been created by someone else long before the setback verification ia asked for. The setback verification is a step that happens during the construction process, usually once foundation forms have been set.

It is not the role of the surveyor who has been asked to verify that setback requirements have been met to enfoce code that was applicable to an earlier step in the planning and construction process. It was the agency's role and responsibility to ensure that the preconstruction docents were complete. The surveyor involved later has no authority to override the agency's decisions and approvals and should take no action in that regard unless he perceives a real danger to health, safety or welfare.

With a setback verification, the surveyor is usually not asked to verify compliance with a site plan, which could be a far more involved question, but merely whether or not a particular improvement meets or exceeds the currently applicable setback requirement. Whether or not that limited task requires a full boundary survey to make that determination ia often a matter of professional judgment. The factors that go into making that judgment include what you can see on site, the approximate distance of the improvement to the pertinent boundary as compared to the setback requirement, the presence of boundary evidence, your level of certainty that the evidence is undisturbed and otherwise reliable. If any of those or other factors are such that you cannot state with reasonable assurance that the setback requirement has been met or exceeded, then don't do it without authorization to perform enough work to satisfy your comfort level.

If you equate reasonable assurance with absolute assurance, then you had best find another line of work because absolute assurance is impossible since surveying is the application of inexact scientific processes to determine spatial relationship of past and present human activity.

Be careful to not attempt to apply code requirements which pertain to a separate task. Take a moment to consider what is really being asked for and what is required to answer the question. Exercise the professional judgment to do what is necessary to answer the question accurately but not burden your client with unnecessary services.

Some of us have the ability to exercise that judgment and to determine when a full boundary survey is required vs when a lesser effort is sufficient. This thread, like some others, exposes those who are unable to consider the possibility of circumstances beyond their own limited experience. In their myopia or lack of ability to exercise judgment in varying circumstances, insist that a one size fits all approach is the only acceptable approach and deride those of us who can apply sense to a task as being unprofessional.

Going back to an obvious example, if someone owns a full section, is building a home in the middle and the setback is 30', and you insist that a full boundary is required to state that the setbacks have been met or exceeded, you will make yourself look like a fool and place a black mark on the profession for those you are dealing with.

By exercising basic sense, the landowner, the inspector, the contractor, and anyone else who looks can say with reasonable certainty that the roughly 2500 to 2600 feet from boundary to house is greater than the 30' from boundary to setback. Why is the surveyor unable to do so.

If this sort of thing happens regularly, officials can become convinced that surveyors are abusing the requirement to provide unnecessary service to charge more fees- i.e. rip off the public, and remove the requirement.

E_Page · Post by **E_Page** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 8:21 pm

Dave,

You assume that no RS has ever been filed and that the site plan did not use info from a previous survey. If the surveyor performing the setback verification is able to find and identify boundary evidence, there must be some record of it.

If there is some record of a previous boundary survey, if there are no apparent problems with it, no significant discrepancies with deed info, if the local agency that approved the project deemed it sufficient as a basis for the boundary on the site plan, and if the other conditions I described in earlier posts exist, then the setback surveyor insisting that another fill boundary survey is needed either lacks judgment or is trying to compel their client into paying for unnecessary services, a highly unethical thing to do.

If the project site plan was based on an erroneous boundary, if the improvement is very close to the setback, then obviously more work, up to and including a full boundary would be called for.

But you seem more interested in taking some of my statements, ignoring the fact set I provide by which those statements are valid, and instead apply them to facts that you have recognized in your experience, and in so doing, attempt to paint my opinion as invalis

In doing that, you have provided a useful example for my observation of many of the replies in this thread.

If you want to submit an intellectually honest response to my statements, how about you present the argument that justifies a full boundary when obvious original boundary evidence is found and the forms are several times the distance of the setback from the boundary. Perhaps you can explain how that would make sense to both the surveyor and to lay people when it otherwise seems more than obvious by simple observation.

I would hope that my perspective is interesting enough to other surveyors that they realize that having a license to survey does not come with the requirement to set aside common sense.

Ben Lund · Post by **Ben Lund** » Wed Dec 26, 2012 11:47 am

Evan,
Do you have the professional responsibility to track down the person(s) who created the unlawful site plan? From your previous posts, I would presume you would say "absolutely."

Are you aiding and abetting when you sign the certification letter that states in part that the "structure is positioned in accordance with the approved plans and meets minimum setback requirements" (see original post) when you know a boundary survey was not conducted in creating the site plan? I would presume from your previous posts you would say "absolutely."

What is the difference between a "full boundary" versus a certification letter? In both, don't you need to establish where the boundary is in relationship to the structure? Don't the laws associated with boundary establishment apply to the certification letter as well as your "full boundary"?

To me establish is establish.

E_Page · Post by **E_Page** » Thu Jan 03, 2013 4:53 pm

PART 1

This is going to be a very long, multi-post response. I've been working on it off & on between actual work and at the end of the day yesterday. I apologize in advance for the length. Read or skip as you like. If you plan to respond to it though, please have the integrity to have read the entire post. Thank you.

Although I start out by responding to Ben Lund in the first part, and finish by addressing his question about reporting the site plan preparer for not basing the plan on a survey in the last part, this response is for anyone who holds the position that a new and complete survey must be performed under any and all circumstances to answer the question of setback compliance.

Note on formatting: I typed this up in Word and cut-n-pasted here. For some reason, that inserts returns where they don't belong and eliminates some spaces between words where they do belong. I'll come back and fix that later.

[font=Verdana","sans-serif]OK Ben, read slowly and absorb each point fully.[/font]

[font=Verdana","sans-serif]My client owns a full section and is building a single family residence near the center of section. The improvements are about 1/2 mile from any given boundary, right? Let's give some leeway for shortage in one or more sides of the section and a little leeway for imprecise placement of the home being built and say that the distance from the home to any given boundary is a half mile +/- 500'.[/font]

[font=Verdana","sans-serif]The original GLO survey was in 1874,various surveys have located various monuments around the section over the years. This section was fully surveyed by Surveyor Snead for my client’s predecessor in title in 1978. The various records show a history of perpetuation of original corner positions or reasonable re-establishment thereof.[/font]

[font=Verdana","sans-serif]Got that? Full section, structure being built roughly at center of section. Decent survey records, full resurvey of this section in 1978.[/font]

[font=Verdana","sans-serif]Good. [/font]

[font=Verdana","sans-serif]Next, the South line of the section is along a county road and there appears to be fences along the East and West lines of the section. The 1978 RS shows monuments at the SW and SE section corners and at the S Â¼ corner being at road centerline and shows fences alongthe East & West lines of the section. Indeed, I find monuments under the pavement at centerline of the road at the southerly extension of each fence line, and another about midway between the fences in a hole in the pavement I spotted as I drove from one fence to the other (about midway by my odometer - Egad! Did he say he measures with an odometer?!). The monuments I found are undisturbed, caps legible and match the descriptions on the record maps. The presumed S 1/4 mon matches by description, stamping, and swing ties from one of the record maps.[/font]

[font=Verdana","sans-serif]Still with me? Mons found along road bordering south line of section, each about 1/2 mile from the adjacent mon(s), matching record descriptions, under pavement and undisturbed. Farthest West and farthest East along extensions of apparent boundary fences as shown on the 1978 RS.[/font]

[font=Verdana","sans-serif]Alright. Let’s continue…[/font]

[font=Verdana","sans-serif]As I stroll up the westerly fence line, I keep pace over the fairly even terrain and after 840 steps I come across an old IP in a stone mound, just like the RS calls for. I even find a 40” oak with what appears to be a faint blaze scar at the approximate distance and direction that the GLO notes called for a 10” oak BT. Satisfied that I’ve found the W Â¼ corner, I take a couple of steps away from the fence, and with my Silva Ranger (properly set for mag declination), I take a reading across the field to the stack of building materials that I know is about 40’ west of the foundation forms, reading N 88 E, and writing that down on my fieldbook sketch.[/font]

[font=Verdana","sans-serif]I take a leisurely stroll back to my truck, drive over near the mon I’ve decided marks the S Â¼, hop out and take another bearing on the material stack. Lucky me, this parcel used to be part of a cattle pasture and the new home is on a slight rise and so easily seen – all job sites should be so easy. I read N 03 W, and knowing that 1 degree over Â½ mile subtends a little under 50’, write N 02 W on the sketch in my field book (nearest degree, plenty close enough).[/font]

[font=Verdana","sans-serif]I’ve now done enough work to satisfy myself that the home being built is about Â½ mile from both the South and West lines, easily within +/- 500’. The 1978 RS shows the section to be pretty regular in shape, with the East & North lines close to parallel with the West & South lines, respectively. Having followed Snead’s work several times in the past, and having found 4 monuments along the South and West lines just as described, I have confidence that the new home’s foundation forms are more than 2000’ from any given boundary.[/font]

[font=Verdana","sans-serif]To recap so far:[/font]
[font=Verdana","sans-serif]- [/font][font=Verdana","sans-serif]Parcel is a full section[/font]
[font=Verdana","sans-serif]- [/font][font=Verdana","sans-serif]South line along a road[/font]
[font=Verdana","sans-serif]- [/font][font=Verdana","sans-serif]Fences along E & W lines[/font]
[font=Verdana","sans-serif]- [/font][font=Verdana","sans-serif]Good survey records including survey of client’s parcel by reputable surveyor[/font]
[font=Verdana","sans-serif]- [/font][font=Verdana","sans-serif]Mons positively identified by matching descriptions and other details with record maps.[/font]
[font=Verdana","sans-serif]- [/font][font=Verdana","sans-serif]Foundation is nearly due E of W Â¼ and nearly due N of S Â¼[/font]

[font=Verdana","sans-serif]You’re keeping up, are you?...[/font]

[font=Verdana","sans-serif]OK, read it again if you have to, I’ll wait…[/font]
[font=Verdana","sans-serif]…[/font]
[font=Verdana","sans-serif]…[/font]

[font=Verdana","sans-serif]Moving along…[/font]

[font=Verdana","sans-serif]I get back to the office, check my copy of the zoning code, and call the planning department to ensure that no recent changes have occurred either to the zoning designation for the property or to the code. Yep, RA-20, front setback 35’, sides & rear of 30’.[/font]

[font=Verdana","sans-serif]So I write my certification letter like so:[/font]

[font=Verdana","sans-serif]“I, Evan A. Page, California PLS #7275, hereby certify that the forms for the foundation as shown on the drawing titled “Site Plan for Proposed Single Family Residence of [client’s name]”, dated9/24/2011, as said forms existed on site on 01/03/2013, lie a distance from the property boundary lines which is greater than the required setback for said property (zoned RA-20).”[/font]

[font=Verdana","sans-serif] Signed, sealed, & dated[/font]

E_Page · Post by **E_Page** » Thu Jan 03, 2013 4:59 pm

PART 2

[font=Verdana","sans-serif]Some of you may be just about apoplectic by now. “Odometer?! Pacing!?! Handcompass!?!! Why…why… that’s not surveying! That’s unprofessional! It’s negligent! Incompetent!! Criminal!!! How did he get his license!?”[/font]

[font=Verdana","sans-serif]Go take a few deep breaths and calm yourself. Come back when you can read and retain what you read…[/font]

[font=Verdana","sans-serif]… You’re back. OK, pay attention.[/font]

[font=Verdana","sans-serif]If you’re a boundary surveyor, you should be able to compare record info about a monument to monuments you find in the field, and given sufficient detail in the record, positively identify a monument found in the field as being the same as one described on a map, in notes, etc., without having to measure between mons, right?[/font]

[font=Verdana","sans-serif]Oh, I just lost a couple of you who work only small lots, have only seen rather generic rebar and IPs with equally generic plastic caps simply marked with a dimple and license number. Either take my word for it that there are conditions by which a competent surveyor can positively identify a monument as one described in a record without the need for detailed measurements, or just forget it and don’t stray too far from your total station.[/font]

[font=Verdana","sans-serif]For the rest of you, you’ve either been there or can imagine such circumstances, let’s continue…[/font]

[font=Verdana","sans-serif]I occasionally check my odometer against mileposts along the highways and occasionally have my mechanic check the speedometer calibration. I have confidence that I can measure with my odometer within +/- 250’ or perhaps a little better, and certainly no worse than +/- 0.1 mile (528’), so at worst the E-W location by these rough measurements has no more than 500’ of error due to odometer measurements. But since I’m using the odometer only to ensure that I’m approximately the right distance from one monument to the next, I’ll trust that Snead measured carefully and use his distances since I’ve never varied more than a foot or so from Snead between adjacent section corners along a road.[/font]

[font=Verdana","sans-serif]My pace is consistently about 32 and 1/3 steps per hundred feet (used to be exactly 32 per 100’, but my steps have gotten a little shorter since I started surveying 30+ years ago). I have a system that every 32 steps, I keep track of the hundreds – like collecting chaining pins (I just lost a couple more, didn’t I?). It’s possible that I “dropped a chain” in my pacing, but not likely since I came upon a monument that matched record description after pacing off roughly 2640'. Again, I usually don’t miss Snead’s distances by much over even terrain, so I’ll go with the distance from his RS.[/font]

[font=Verdana","sans-serif]When discussing the compass, you’ll have to give me just enough credit that I know not to take a reading with the compass sitting on the fence post, while standing near the truck, while holding a hammer, or near other metallic/magnetic materials that could affect the reading. I don’t even wear a watch. I also ask you to presume that I know how to properly set the declination and read the compass.[/font]

[font=Verdana","sans-serif]But if you don’t want to give me that much credit, let’s assume that instead of 14 degrees E (mag dec near Placerville), I set it for 14 deg W – 28 deg off! That would put the material pile I was sighting about 1240’ closer to the South line and 1240’ closer to the East line of the section. [“See Page, I said you were negligent and incompetent. Well here you go – Proof”][/font]

[font=Verdana","sans-serif]Oh gosh. Let’s see… I thought that the forms were about 2640 from the nearestboundary. So, 2640’ – 1240’ = 1400’.[/font]

[font=Verdana","sans-serif]Whew! Still more than 35’, so my certification is still correct. What a relief![/font]

[font=Verdana","sans-serif]What? What was that? All of my possible errors compounded? Oh my, I should have considered that. Alright, alright, let’s check that. If I have 1240’ due to my bonehead declination screw up, and add 500’ for uncertainty in my odometer…better make that 600’ just in case, and I ignore Snead’s taped distance because I have more faith in my odometer, that’s, um… 1840’. And, uh, 2640’ – 1840’ = 600’. [/font]
[font=Verdana","sans-serif][/font]
[font=Verdana","sans-serif]Still more than 35’, but cutting it close. Lucky me! Assuming a similar 600’ of error in my pacing, I’m still OK in the N-S direction too.[/font]

[font=Verdana","sans-serif]Huh? How can my certification still be good with that much error, you ask? Go back and reread what I certified to. It’s at the end of PART 1, scroll back here when you’re done.[/font]

[font=Verdana","sans-serif]Did I certify that the forms were a particular distance from any line or point? No, I didn’t. I simply stated that they were a greater distance from the boundary than the minimum setback requirement. That’s it. Even with a ridiculous amount of measurement error that realistically would not enter into measurements made even with these rough methods, that certification is still true.[/font]

[font=Verdana","sans-serif]With a setback certification, unless the local agency specifically requires it, you do not need to certify that the forms or foundation is a specific distance from the boundary. You only need to certify whether or not they meet or exceed the minimum setback requirements.[/font]

[font=Verdana","sans-serif]I came up with a scenario that was very obvious just to get some of you to recognize that there are some circumstances in which it doesn’t even make sense, professionally or in some cases even morally to insist the client pay you to perform a full boundary survey in order to provide a setback cert. In a case like this, with improvements obviously nowhere near the setbacks, and with a surveyed boundary (even though 34 years old), a new boundary is not necessary - total overkill. There would be no other way to view it than ripping the client off. It would be wholly unethical.[/font]

[font=Verdana","sans-serif]As I’ve said previously, your license does not require you to set aside common sense. In fact, it requires that you make greater use of it with regard to your profession than would a non-surveyor. If you have been taking the stand that any time you make any statements related to boundary locations that you must perform a complete boundary survey to make the statement, you have abandoned your common sense.[/font]

[font=Verdana","sans-serif]Reclaim it! Rather than believing that you must adhere to some strained and arcane interpretation of a rule that is not directly on point simply because the rule is there, consider what is being asked of you, what as a practical matter you need to do to answer what was asked rather than what you think they should be asking, and carefully consider whether or not the rule you are looking at actually applies to what you are doing.[/font]

[font=Verdana","sans-serif]In the case of the CBC section Clark provided, it does not. It applies to site plans. If you are preparing a site plan, follow the rule. Is a 34 year old survey sufficient to meet that requirement for the site plan? That’s a matter of professional judgment for the preparer of the plan and a matter of regulatory judgment for the local agency with jurisdiction. It is not a question for the surveyor later asked whether or not the foundation forms meet or exceed setback.[/font]

[font=Verdana","sans-serif]If the site plan was prepared without benefit of a recent and complete boundary survey, do I, as a licensed surveyor have a duty to report that?[/font]

[font=Verdana","sans-serif]Again, reclaim your common sense before answering this question. What is the purpose of the rule and who is it designed to protect? Would more stringent enforcement of that rule provide greater protection to the person or persons it exists to protect in this case? Who are you going to report it to? Who, or what entity has the responsibility to enforce that rule?[/font]

E_Page · Post by **E_Page** » Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:01 pm

PART 3

[font=Verdana","sans-serif]The rule exists to protect the property owner and any potentially affected adjoiners, right? The requirement is for the purpose of ensuring that the proposed improvement does not violate setback by ensuring that the setback is properly and precisely located relative to the actual boundary. Any disagreement with that? Hopefully not, but I expect a couple of you will post to tell me I’m wrong.[/font]

[font=Verdana","sans-serif]In a case like the one we just went through, would a more precise location of the setback, or a more precise placement of the home’s foundation really make any difference as to whether the foundation is clear of the setback? [/font]

[font=Verdana","sans-serif]I can just about hear at least one of you saying “But how can you be sure of the boundary location…”, and a little bit more clearly hear some of you saying “Even if it doesn’t make any difference, who are you to decide whether or not the rule should have been applied? What authority do you have in the matter?”[/font]

[font=Verdana","sans-serif]To the first question (“How can you be sure…”), I have to ask whether or not you’ve been paying attention. Again, the question isn’t one of absolute certainty of the boundary, setback and improvement locations, it is merely a question of whether one distance is greater than another. If you can view a street and state unequivocally that the curb on the south side of the street is farther away from the sidewalk on the north side of the street than is the curb on the north side of the street without making precise measurements, then you should have no difficulty or qualms about making the statement that the forms as placed are farther from the boundary than is the minimum setback line in the case above.[/font]

[font=Verdana","sans-serif]At risk of drifting off point a little, say that you have a large construction project with lots of things going on at different locations on the site. In the morning you stake a pair of bridge abutments. They have to be pretty tight because I-beam full-span girders are being specially manufactured per plan dimensions and they will need to sit precisely on the completed abutments, providing a certain amount of room for expansion and contraction at each end on the abutments. Your tolerances might be +/- 0.015’ between any two points of the stakeout from one end of the bridge to the other, and you will employ methods accordingly.[/font]

[font=Verdana","sans-serif]In the afternoon, you are flagging clearing limits in the next phase. You turn the angle, direct your chainman to line and take the shot. Your DC tells you “OUT 5.82” to the calced point and you radio “Away six feet”, glance at the plans for a moment and lookup just in time to see your chainman put the rod back up for the store shot. He’s a few tenths off line and the DC reports “IN 0.37, LEFT 0.40”. Since it’s just clearing limits and your just hanging flagging off branches or setting lath, that’s close enough, so you hit “store” and holler “Got it!”.[/font]

[font=Verdana","sans-serif]After writing your store point number next to the point just staked on your worksheet, checking the next point ID, and turning to it, you look up and… wonder where the @#% that lazy chainman is. You look around and see him still standing at the last point, hammer in one hand, tape in the other. He’s waiting for you to tell him how many hundredths in or out. He’s thinking that since you guys do nothing but quality work, he’s gonna put that lath right on the button.[/font]

[font=Verdana","sans-serif]But what’s your reaction most likely going to be as you stand around in 105 degree heat swatting away biting flies and yellow jackets? Probably something like “What the h@## are you waiting on kid?! We’re staking @#$%&^* clearing limits,not building a watch!!! A foot is plenty close enough! Stop wasting time with that! Time is money and you’re wasting both my time and my money!!!”[/font]

[font=Verdana","sans-serif]Why is it that you would expect your chainman to understand the question being asked (clearing limits, not a watch –or a bridge), recognize the appropriate tolerance (a foot is close enough), and adjust his methods accordingly by exercising a bit of common sense but don't hold yourself, a licensed professional to that same expectation in adifferent setting?[/font]

[font=Verdana","sans-serif]Did I catch you a little flat footed on that one? I hope so. It’s not to embarrass you, but to get you to think for yourself and reclaim the common sense that you may have placed in the drawer behind where you keep your stamp.[/font]

[font=Verdana","sans-serif]I suspect that the reason for many is that you may have fully realized only after becoming licensed and having the responsibility to make and defend the decisions that boundaries are legal entities that we locate by measurement rather than plan elements that we stake out according to precalculated parameters and that you are not fully comfortable with your ability to discern proper application of principles found in regulation, statute, or case law. You have an (probably unspoken) idea that law is confusing and difficult to understand, and so you end up largely relying on someone else’s interpretation of the law. And just to be safe, accept the interpretation that always holds the most stringent standard to your function that you are comfortable with as a surveyor – that of measurer. Perhaps also, you don’t want to be the target of one of those who are quick to label others “negligent” for not holding to their interpretation or for not always following the same supposedly higher standard the labelers profess to always follow. “I don’t want to be thought of as negligent, I’d better agree with those guys (the labelers).”[/font]

[font=Verdana","sans-serif]To that I reply: Pfffttt! Think for yourself dammit![/font]

[font=Verdana","sans-serif]While some areas of law seem to be all but divorced from common sense, as surveyors we are fortunate that nearly all of the law we deal with professionally is soundly based in common sense and almost always interpreted (at the appellate level and higher) according to common sense. Don’t look for strained and odd context in which a rule might just maybe apply to justify wholesale application of a rule, law or principle that may not, and most likely does not apply to the broader and more common circumstances. Don’t look past the plain meaning for some hidden and arcane application because if you think you’ve found one, it is most likely an application based on a faulty interpretation. Law for surveyors, although there is a lot of it, is relatively easy to understand if you let it be easy. If you are always looking for hidden meanings, taking only bits of code sections out of the context of the chapter and sections around it, and extrapolating a different context to find application, you are staining the context, applying faulty reasoning, and making it much more difficult to understand than it needs to be. I sometimes wonder if some do that because that's how they think smart people think, and so they do it to be or appear smarter than they really think they are.[/font]

[font=Verdana","sans-serif]I heard a really good piece of advice put very succinctly in a country song: “Don’t outsmart your common sense.”[/font]

[font=Verdana","sans-serif]A whole lot of surveyors are guilty of doing just that. They would appear, and actually be a whole lot smarter if they just let common sense back into the equation.[/font]

E_Page · Post by **E_Page** » Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:02 pm

PART 4

[font=Verdana","sans-serif]Now back to the point I strayed from… what was it? Oh yeah! The second question: “Who am I to decide when a rule should or should not be enforced? What authority do I have?”[/font]

[font=Verdana","sans-serif]The answer is “none”. It is not my place to decide whether or not the rule that a site plan be based on a complete boundary survey should be enforced. Nor is it my place to demand that the enforcing body strictly enforce every rule in every instance. Those decisions lie with the local agency. Unless I’m preparing the site plan, which is not the topic of this thread, I have no part of that decision.[/font]

[font=Verdana","sans-serif]If the site plan was prepared by another, and not based on a recent survey, do I have a responsibility to report that? If so, who should I report it to?[/font]

[font=Verdana","sans-serif]If I report it, it should be to whatever entity is responsible for enforcing the rule. In most cases, that is the local planning & building department. But they are also the ones who reviewed it, approved it, and issued permits based on it, so they are or should be already aware that the plan is not based on a recent and complete boundary survey.[/font]

[font=Verdana","sans-serif]If, as I do the job of verifying setback compliance, I find that the lack of a survey base makes no difference as to setback compliance, what will my reporting of a technical violation that the enforcing body is already aware of and approved anyway serve? Well, it will serve to confirm for the building officials, the preparer of the site plan, and the property owner that some surveyors cost a lot of money while adding little to no value, don’t have much sense, and cause problems with respect to completing a project. Other than that what will it accomplish? Probably nothing, because since I found no actual problems occurring as a result of this technical violation on an approved plan, no one else will care.[/font]

[font=Verdana","sans-serif]What if I find that actual problems of setback compliance do exist and that they occurred because the site plan was not based on a survey? Then, yes, I have an obligation to show the local agency, my client, and the preparer of the site plan what problem did occur because of the lack of a survey base. I have no authority with respect to how that complaint is handled. I have neither the responsibility nor the authority to “correct” the problem by conducting a survey and correcting the site plan unless the client authorizes me to do so. The decision to use an existing survey or conduct a new one is not mine until and unless I am authorized to prepare the site plan. Having been hired only for setback compliance verification, I have no authority to take any corrective action which may be required to other documents or project elements.[/font]

[font=Verdana","sans-serif]How is this different from Ben’s experience with the unlicensed guy using a photocopy of a dead engineer’s signature and seal?[/font]

[font=Verdana","sans-serif]1) [/font][font=Verdana","sans-serif]In verifying setback compliance, the site plan is a completed, reviewed and approved document prepared by someone legally qualified to do so. If were to find that it had actually been prepared by someone not legally qualified and that person was fraudulently using the credentials of a licensee, it’s a completely different matter. If I find that the preparer of the site plan purposely inserted false information to the plan for the purpose of obtaining approval, then again, that's a different matter. Presumably the local agency would not have been aware of the fraudulent use of credentials or that some of the plan info had been falsely reported, so they would need to be informed of this. Additionally, these are both violations of licensing statutes and criminal violations, so BPELSG would need to be informed, with me or BPELSG also notifying the local DA. [/font]

[font=Verdana","sans-serif]2) [/font][font=Verdana","sans-serif]In verifying setback compliance, the surveyor is in a position to determine whether or not actual harm has or will result due to a lack of a survey base and exercise judgment as to whether pointing out that omission will serve to protect the landowner or adjoining landowners. In the case of the fraudulently prepared structural report, you have no way of knowing whether it will result in real harm. But knowing it is a structural report, you should recognize that it will be relied on to assess risk and public safety, and therefore the potential for actual harm is significant.[/font]

[font=Verdana","sans-serif]3) [/font][font=Verdana","sans-serif]In the case of an approved site plan lacking a survey base, the local approving agency knew or should have known of that omission by virtue of its standard review. They should have known of it well before I was engaged in the project. They knew and approved the plan anyway, deeming the need for a survey base not important for this project. Since they are the enforcing body of that rule, I have no authority or basis to disagree with it unless I find a problem that the agency did not foresee. In the case of Ben’s knowledge of the fraudulent structural report, aside from the violator, Ben was presumably the only person to know of the violation. That places an inarguable responsibility on him to report that violation to both the reviewing agency and to BPELSG.[/font]

[font=Verdana","sans-serif]Comparing the finding of a content-based technical omission of information which would have been apparent upon a reasonably careful review by the approving agency to direct knowledge of a fraudulently prepared report that has a distinct potential to affect public safety, a fraud which might well be successfully hidden from the reviewing agency until disaster strikes and people are physically injured or killed, is quite a stretch. [/font]
[font=Verdana","sans-serif][/font]
[font=Verdana","sans-serif]In the first case, the surveyor has the advantage that he is able to gauge the actual result of the omission and the reviewing/enforcing agency had already given its approval.[/font]

[font=Verdana","sans-serif]In the second case, the harm is potential but also potentially more serious, with no way for the surveyor to measure the actual result. The only thing that is certain is the real fraud, the actual criminal violation. Your attempt to deflect from your lack of courage to confront the violator and/or report the criminal violation to the appropriate authorities in the case of the fraudulent structural report doesn’t fly, Ben. You should, really should, follow up on that and do what you should have already done. In the alternative, you should not continue to draw attention to your part, or refusal to fulfill your proper part in it.[/font]

[font=Verdana","sans-serif][DONE][/font]

LS_8750 · Post by **LS_8750** » Fri Jan 04, 2013 8:36 pm

Good grief. Who has the time?

The difference between the engineer and the land surveyor: the surveyor looks for the exact absolute center of the mag nail; engineers normally think if you are within a couple tenths it is all good. Hint, building officials think more like engineers than land surveyors. The site plan requirements are up to the discretion of the BO.

Don't forget the pace and the eyeball are both measurement tools, valid just as the compass and chain...... At least until challenged...

LS_8750 · Post by **LS_8750** » Fri Jan 04, 2013 8:42 pm

Mr. Gonsalves,
Is your concerned improvement set back at least 20 ft. from the Nevada state line?

Start with that logic and work inward. Who has that kind of time to be getting into the uber-hypothetical?

E_Page · Post by **E_Page** » Mon Jan 07, 2013 2:09 pm

LS_8750 wrote:Good grief. Who has the time?

I understand. It would probably take about 15 to 20 minutes to read through it all. It probably took a little over an hour, aggregate over a couple days to write it. If it wasn't that some participants in the discussion were taking a very rigid, all or nothing, one-size-fits-all stand on the matter and setting aside common sense, there would have been no need to set up the "uber hypothetical".

But there are some who otherwise stike me as generally more putting more thinking into their decisions and posts who seem to be going along with the people with the message of "I do it this way, every time, no matter the circumstances, and if you don't do as I do in all circumstances, you're negligent" without giving it a lot of independent thought.

The "uber hpothetical", as you call it, is not a set of circumstances that would represent a typical setback verification by any means, but in some parts of this state, it is not a set of circumstances that is all that far fetched either.

What it is, is a set of circumstances that so obviously would not require a new and complete boundary survey to adequately and responsibly complete the task that anyone arguing otherwise will appear silly doing so. It is presented so that those who have not totally abandoned common sense and are able to think for themselves will open their eyes to the fact that, yes, there may be some circumstances by which a setback verification can be made without the need for a new and complete boundary survey.

Clark, you strike me as one who usually puts independent thought into your answers, but that also seems to depend upon who may have already posted an opinion.

If someone makes reference to various laws and cases in supposed support of their opinion, it is natural to have the tendency to believe the opinion to be very credible. But sometimes people cite laws and cases out of context, or use a portion of a code or a partial quote of a case to support their presented opinion. If the opinion given is expressed as a rigid, only one acceptable answer regardless of circumstances opinion, you will probably find a strained context, a partial cite, or a law or principle of questionable applicability.

Very little in boundary surveying is absolute. There are very few principles that lend themselves to universal application. Nor does the law forbid us to exercise independent judgment and common sense.

LS_8750 wrote:The difference between the engineer and the land surveyor: the surveyor looks for the exact absolute center of the mag nail; engineers normally think if you are within a couple tenths it is all good. Hint, building officials think more like engineers than land surveyors.

Who, in the building department is reviewing the Setback Certification? Where does the Setback Certification fit in the process?

The Setback Certification probably came about because local agencies were being blamed, because they issued permits and occupancy permits, for the placement of structures later found to be in violation of setback. Perhaps some local agencies got nailed because the inspectors were not qualified to determine the relationship of structures to boundary lines. Maybe BPELSG received several complaints about unlicensed local agency inspectors determining boundaries. Somebody probably knows. I don't the specific reasons.

The bottom line is that local agencies came upon the recognition that their inspectors were not qualified to verify actual setback compliance and that there was unnecessary liability to the local agency when the inspectors made this determination themselves. So the Setback Certification by a LS was devised.

Unless the local agency specifically requests a reported precise spatial relationship of the structure to the boundary, along with technical info that lends itself to some manner of checking/review, the Setback Certification is merely a checklist item for the inspector and a piece of paper in the project file that allows the lacal agency to point to a properly licensed professional if a problem with setback compliance is found at some later date.

The mindset of the building official involved at this point is not that of surveyor or engineer. It is that of bureaucrat: "Has a certification been submitted? Check! Does it state that the improvement meets or exceeds the setback requirement? Check! Is my butt covered? Check, check! What's next on the list?" The bureaucrat doesn't care to wade through a new map and doesn't want to wait for the RS to record. He doesn't want to sift through a bunch of numbers in your certification. He wants just enough info to ensure that the certification applies to the project and improvement at hand, and to quickly find the sentence that says it meets or exceeds setback. Quick read, mark the checklist, file the letter, move on to something else.

LS_8750 wrote:The site plan requirements are up to the discretion of the BO.

That was one of my points. It is not up to the discretion of the surveyor providing the Setback Certification. The Site Plan requirements are not the Setback Certification requirements.

LS_8750 wrote:Don't forget the pace and the eyeball are both measurement tools, valid just as the compass and chain...... At least until challenged...

Even when challenged, they are still valid measurement tools as long as they are used for an appropriate purpose and results are reported appropriately.

If I were to report that the forms are approximately 2500' N of the S boundary and that exceeds the 35' minimum setback requirement, then someone comes along and reports that the most southerly corner of the forms lie N 01-35-16 W 2482.33' from the S 1/4 corner, does that render my measurement and reporting incorrect?

The forms are still approximately 2500' from the boundary and an approximate 2500' is still greater than 35'. Still valid.

Peter Ehlert · Post by **Peter Ehlert** » Mon Jan 07, 2013 2:44 pm

PE_PLS wrote:In unincorporated Contra Costa Co., where I live and conduct a small portion of my business all building permits that add square footage, or any landscaping that must meet setback requirements requires a certification letter.

The letter must state that the formwork for the new square footage or whatever else is being constructed is positioned "in accordance with the approved plans and meets minimum setback requirements."

This is required for any and all construction that falls into the above categories.

Oftentimes I get requests for verification/certification for projects that are nowhere close to the minimum setbacks. True case in point: I had a project where the minimum setback was 20', and the project was over 100' from the property line.

Obviously you need to know where the property lines are to be able to write a letter regarding minimum setbacks. In the case mentioned above I can write this letter without taking any equipment out of my truck. Merely getting the underlying maps and pacing a few things off and I can state definitively that the construction is outside of the minimum setbacks.

Is this acceptable?

Yes

PE_PLS wrote:Does one have to definitely locate property boundaries to make a statement that minimum setbacks are being met?

Yes, but only to the accuracy you need to make you comfortable that there is enough setback.

or did that already get said in all of the rambling above? ;-)

E_Page · Post by **E_Page** » Mon Jan 07, 2013 4:28 pm

"or did that already get said in all of the rambling above? ;-)"

Yes, Peter. I already rambled that several times.

Ben Lund · Post by **Ben Lund** » Sun Feb 03, 2013 7:44 am

Now we are getting to the heart.

Concluding that a setback certification letter establishes the relationship between fixed works and land boundaries and;

Concluding that this is called a field survey (whether or not the surveyor uses information from record maps, deeds, tape, transit, GPS, old fences, parole evidence, Google Earth, GIS, pacing, eyeball, etc.) and;

Concluding that establishing the relationship between fixed works and boundary falls within the purview of the Professional Land Surveyor and thus the laws that govern her actions then;

I wonder what the board’s opinion would be in regards to the Record of Survey triggers 8762 specifically:

(4) The establishment of one or more points or lines not shown on any subdivision map, official map, or record of survey, the positions of which are not ascertainable from an inspection of the subdivision map, official map, or record of survey.

Evan,
You have made it clear that the land surveyor can measure anyway she wants and has the professional responsibility to know when pacing can be used to establish the relationship between fixed works and boundary. By doing so, have you performed “a field survey in conformity with the practice of land surveying”? (see 8762)Would you file a Record of Survey in your hypothetical?

Ric (and others),
Does the field survey requirement and subsequent record of survey triggers of 8762 not apply when the surveyor decides to use pacing, eyeball, GIS, Google Earth, etc. to establish the location of the boundary?

Jim Frame · Post by **Jim Frame** » Sun Feb 03, 2013 8:37 am

Does the field survey requirement and subsequent record of survey triggers of 8762 not apply when the surveyor decides to use pacing, eyeball, GIS, Google Earth, etc. to establish the location of the boundary?

As I've indicated previously, my response is "No." In the scenario presented, *the* location of the boundary isn't being established. In effect, what's being established isn't the location of the boundary, but rather where the boundary *is not*, i.e. that the boundary lies farther from the proposed improvement than the minimum setback. That's a very important distinction.

.

E_Page · Post by **E_Page** » Mon Feb 04, 2013 7:43 pm

Ben, I almost think that you must be responding to a different thread. Where is the boundary establishment in the scenario I described?

When the surveyor issues a statement that says "the foundation forms as they existed on 02/04/2013 meet or exceed required minimum building setbacks", there is no establishment by field survey, photo observation, google earth, or by any other method.

If the required minimum setback is 35', does the statement above tell the reader that the forms are 35.00' from the boundary? Does it state that they are 2500' from the boundary? Does it refer to a particular point on the forms or to a particular boundary line?

When you respond, please respond to the facts (real or hypothetical) given to support the other person's argument rather than coming up with counter arguments that have no basis in statements previously made.

In short: read fully, seek to comprehend fully, respond based upon a reasonable level of comprehension. Anything less looks just plain silly to anyone who actually follows the full discussion.

E_Page · Post by **E_Page** » Mon Feb 04, 2013 7:45 pm

Jim Frame wrote:In effect, what's being established isn't the location of the boundary, but rather where the boundary *is not*, i.e. that the boundary lies farther from the proposed improvement than the minimum setback. That's a very important distinction.

.

Exactly Jim. You managed to to say in less than 40 words what it has taken me several thousand to try to explain. I gotta learn to do that.

California Surveyors Forums

Surveyor Verification/Certification Letters

California Building Code: Site Plan