City Engineer or not

TIB · Post by **TIB** » Tue Feb 17, 2015 1:51 am

I am drafting a Parcel Map for City of National City. They provided the Name of City Engineer and sample statement to be used. The sample statement they provided did not include an RCE #. Thinking I should include the License # and expire date as part of statement below signature line, I went to City website and looked up City Engineer. This individual, "S.M.", is listed as "Director of Engineering", but no RCE number shown. I entered the name on "License Lookup" on Board website. Nothing. Hmmm? Spelling error maybe? Nope. Spelling matched what they gave me and City website. After more digging I got copies of recently recorded Final maps. All the same. Each one listed the same name for City Engineers Statement on recorded map and included signature. None had RCE# or stamp. Each statement signed said "I, Sxxxxx Mxxxxx, City Engineer of City of National City......"
I can find no evidence that he has a Valid Cal RCE license (or LS)
Does a "Director of Engineering" of a City have authority to sign Final maps and use title of City Engineer without license? Am I missing something?
Could this affect already recorded Maps?
Whatcha think?

pls7809 · Post by **pls7809** » Tue Feb 17, 2015 9:25 am

Send it to BPELSG, IMO. This is a big deal if true.

The maps are recorded and lots were sold, I presume, so you can't erase that action. But there definitely could be problems.

pls7809 · Post by **pls7809** » Tue Feb 17, 2015 9:30 am

A City Engineer has to have a PE or RCE. A City Engineer with a Post 81 RCE can sign a map but they must have an LS or Pre-82 RCE sign the map also as technically correct. I'll find a sample of this and post it. It's common for cities that have a city engineer licensed as an RCE January 1982 and after.

pls7809 · Post by **pls7809** » Tue Feb 17, 2015 9:41 am

Here is a sample. Pre-82 RCE signs the Engineer's Statement, Post 81 RCE City Engineer signs the City Engineer's Statement and LS signs the "technically correct" part (under the City Clerk's Statement on this example).

TIB · Post by **TIB** » Tue Feb 17, 2015 2:34 pm

city engineer is person authorized to perform functions of Engineer
does not say RCE reqd

dedkad · Post by **dedkad** » Tue Feb 17, 2015 4:42 pm

TIB wrote:city engineer is person authorized to perform functions of Engineer
does not say RCE reqd

Maybe the title "city engineer" is not protected by the PE Act, but according to Sec. 6730.2 of the PE Act: "Therefore, for the purposes of Section 6730 and this chapter, at least one registered licensed engineer shall be designated the person in responsible charge of professional engineering
work for each branch of professional engineering practiced in any department or agency of the state, city, county, or city and county."

They have to have someone on their staff who is registered, and only a qualified individual (LS or pre-1982 CE) can sign the map as being "technically correct."

Here is another two-part City Engineer Statement example:

City Engineers Statement

I, ___________________, acting on behalf of the City Engineer of the City of _________________ hereby state that I have examined this map, that the subdivision shown hereon is substantially the same as it appeared on the tentative map and any approved alterations thereof, and that all provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and local ordinances have been complied with.

[Signature, seal and date of signature of licensed RCE.]

I, ____________________, acting on behalf of the City Engineer of the City of _____________________, as allowed under Section 66431 [or Section 66416.5(c)] of the Subdivision Map Act, do hereby state that I have examined the map shown hereon and I am satisfied that this map is technically correct.

[Signature, seal and date of signature of LS or qualified RCE.]

pls7809 · Post by **pls7809** » Tue Feb 17, 2015 4:45 pm

PE Act
6730. Evidence of qualifications; registration
In order to safeguard life, health, property and public welfare, any person, either in a public or private capacity, except as in this chapter specifically excepted, who practices, or offers to practice, civil engineering, electrical engineering or mechanical engineering, in any of its branches in this state, including any person employed by the State of California, or any city, county, or city and county, who practices engineering, shall submit evidence that he is qualified to practice, and shall be licensed accordingly as a civil engineer, electrical engineer or mechanical engineer by the board.

6730.2. Legislative intent; requirement for responsible charge
(b) Any department or agency of the state or any city, county, or city and county which that has an unregistered unlicensed person in responsible charge of engineering work on January 1, 1985, shall be exempt from this requirement until that time as the person currently in responsible charge is replaced.

Is he grandfathered in? Maybe the board can answer that. 6730.2(b) indicates the city engineer doesn't have to be licensed if they were there prior to Jan 1, 1985.

Josh Tatman · Post by **Josh Tatman** » Tue Feb 17, 2015 6:39 pm

TIB,

City Engineer is not exclusively defined as being a licensed engineer, unless the law has been changed. I believe there was a recent bill that had language intending to change that, along with City Surveyor, however I don't believe it passed. I would review and confirm as necessary. So yes, I believe he can hold the title of City Engineer.

I would suggest reading SMA 66442(a)-(b); (b) discuss what duties that normally fall under the City Engineer/City Surveyor can delegated to authorized personnel. I would presume a City Engineer is authorized at the City to approve maps relative to 'substantial conformance'. I would suggest grabbing a copy of PM 21131 as that was recently recorded (<6 months), ans provides a better picture (contract City Surveyor).
Just my 2 cents based on what's been mentioned.

TIB · Post by **TIB** » Tue Feb 17, 2015 11:05 pm

Ryan "City eng must have RCE" If you can back that up based on law, rule or code as proof, I would love it. I aint gonna open my big mouth without proof only to insert size 16 boot.
I think Josh may be right even though it doesn't seem right.
The Parcel Map(from Josh) is one of the 3 recently recorded maps I found that have the exact same statement. City at first told me to use same statement on mylar, then changed their mind.
Consider:
1.local agency can authorize an employee or city official to preform duties of City ENG. It does not say they need License. These duties are checking maps for substantial conformance, code. compliance etc. do not rise to level of Eng. practice. Since plan checking is not practicing ENG. no license needed. I think most of us think this is a bad idea and should be illegal, but I have not found anything that says it is not legal.
PLEEZ someone tell me I'm RONG

pls7809 · Post by **pls7809** » Wed Feb 18, 2015 9:00 am

TIB,

I was remembering that possible law change, which may or may not have gone through. If it did go through maybe it was a two-year cycle law which would go into effect Jan 1, 2016. But I really can't remembers. I was pretty confident in my answer, but I'm now questioning my memory about this. I also hope someone can disprove you. It appears 6730.2 was meant to bring cities into compliance over time, but maybe he has been the guy in National City for 30 years.

Dave Karoly, PLS · Post by **Dave Karoly, PLS** » Wed Feb 18, 2015 9:33 am

I found a PM in the City of L.A. signed by the City Engineer with no PE given. I can't read the handwriting so can't verify if the person is licensed or not.

Underneath it is signed as technically correct by the City Surveyor.

Warren Smith · Post by **Warren Smith** » Wed Feb 18, 2015 9:48 am

It will be interesting to see the effect of the newly added section 8725.1 to the PLSA, wherein public agencies must designate at least one person authorized to practice land surveying to be the person in responsible charge of professional land surveying work practiced in any department.

Not so much for the larger cities, but the smaller ones which may be contracting out those services.

Semper Fi 713 · Post by **Semper Fi 713** » Wed Feb 18, 2015 10:02 am

This is another good example that points out why we need to have the â€œ2010 BOPELS Guide to Engineering & Land Surveying for City and County Officialsâ€. REVISED...!

http://www.bpelsg.ca.gov/pubs/local_officials_guide.pdf

Thanks,
Semper Fi 713

Jack Gechter-PLS
South Bay Land Surveying
619.852.5440
jackgechter@cox.net

Josh Tatman · Post by **Josh Tatman** » Wed Feb 18, 2015 8:40 pm

Warren Smith wrote:It will be interesting to see the effect of the newly added section 8725.1 to the PLSA, wherein public agencies must designate at least one person authorized to practice land surveying to be the person in responsible charge of professional land surveying work practiced in any department.

Not so much for the larger cities, but the smaller ones which may be contracting out those services.

I don't believe it will be that big of an issue. If those smaller agencies aren't practicing land surveying, there is no person to designate. I believe the new section was to ensure that agencies that are practicing, have a person, if not multiple people, designated as responsible charge. It's probably more of an issue in that sense. Do you put just the department head as they're administratively responsible for the departments work, or do you list multiple people, all of which are actively making survey decisions (responsible charge). I believe in some agencies, county surveyors and deputy county surveyors are in 'responsible charge' or does only one person solely sign maps? Something to think about....
Just my 2 cents of the new law.

land butcher · Post by **land butcher** » Thu Feb 19, 2015 1:22 pm

Some years back the City of Laguna Beach had a post 81 PE signing record maps. The County surveyor put a stop to that immediately.
Govt may have changed the laws since then. If they did it's a huge mistake.

Recently a city PE made me change a lot and block desc to a metes and bounds, so now to retain the L&B of the original desc the legal is 10 times as long as it needs to be. Untrained govt people telling us how to do our job is getting out of control.

geoshale · Post by **geoshale** » Thu Feb 19, 2015 11:52 pm

8725.1 SEZ "...Therefore, for the purposes of Section 8725 and this chapter, at least one person authorized to practice land surveying shall be designated the person in responsible charge of professional land surveying work practiced in any department or agency of the state, city, county, city and county, district, or special district."

So, can a local City designate a civil firm that has a surveyor on staff, or does it have to designate an actual surveyor as a contract City Surveyor (Personally I lean towards the latter)?

TIA

TIB · Post by **TIB** » Thu Feb 19, 2015 11:54 pm

changed how? I based my opinion (guess) from that handout. (see #s 40&41 on pg 17 of 36) the plain language part is clear, but the laws it cites are less clear. But after reading those two paragraph (40 & 41) items it sounds like end of story. RCE not needed

RAM · Post by **RAM** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 8:28 am

look up the definition of the Title "Engineer" in the B&P Code, I believe it states to use the Title Engineer = licensed = RCE

SPMPLS · Post by **SPMPLS** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 8:50 am

RAM,

It appears that the use of the tile "engineer" alone by an unlicensed individual is not a violation of the B & P code, nor is the use of the term City Engineer.

6732. Use of seal, stamp or title by unregistered person
It is unlawful for anyone other than a professional engineer licensed under this chapter to stamp or seal any plans, specifications, plats, reports, or other documents with the seal or stamp of a professional engineer, or in any manner, use the title â€œprofessional engineer,â€ â€œlicensed engineer,â€ â€œregistered engineer,â€ or â€œconsulting engineer,â€ or any of the following branch titles: â€œagricultural engineer,â€ â€œchemical engineer,â€ â€œcivil engineer,â€ â€œcontrol system engineer,â€ â€œelectrical engineer,â€ â€œfire protection engineer,â€ â€œindustrial engineer,â€ â€œmechanical engineer,â€ â€œmetallurgical engineer,â€ â€œnuclear engineer,â€ â€œpetroleum engineer,â€ or â€œtraffic engineer,â€ or any combination of these words and phrases or abbreviations thereof unless licensed under this chapter.

Warren Smith · Post by **Warren Smith** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 9:43 am

Of course, section 6730.2 (a) of the Professional Engineers Act has an impact in that cities shall designate at least one licensed engineer to be in responsible charge of professional engineering work for each branch of professional engineering work in any department.

This provision has been in place since 2001.

Effective this year, the section was amended to add (c), which makes that designated person responsible for monument preservation during construction projects.

FOSTER · Post by **FOSTER** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 10:47 am

Wake up CLSA and California Surveyors the trend to economize government balance sheets is to eliminate the County and Deputy County Surveyor positions. The agencies are using the practice to deputize the licensed Senior Land Surveyor (at less salary) to sign on behalf of the absent County or Deputy Surveyor. This is a real trend just look at the recent ad in Sacramento County hiring a Senior Land Surveyor (with County Surveyor related responsibilities). Our profession is going backwards not forwards by allowing the elimination of the official County Surveyor title to save the CEO funds!

Dave Karoly, PLS · Post by **Dave Karoly, PLS** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 12:31 pm

The County of Sacramento had an ad running for Principle Land Surveyor/County Surveyor before the Senior LS ad came out.

Principle is slightly less than the State's Supervising TS but not by much.

Principle:
http://clsaforum.californiasurveyors.or ... php?t=5863

Senior:
http://clsaforum.californiasurveyors.or ... php?t=5868

land butcher · Post by **land butcher** » Sat Feb 21, 2015 8:07 pm

Promoting from within only.

Comments to this discussion from our State board are posted where?

California Surveyors Forums

City Engineer or not

City Engineer or not

SMA 66416.5

ryan josh ded

semper fi ?

Use of title

County Surveyor & Deputy Surveyor are the next Dinosaurs