What is a Site Plan?

[bryanmundia]

So yesterday I filed three complaints for online companies that offer these "un-official site plans".

As you come upon these companies on-line, please feel free to private message me with the name of the company and I will happily file complaints. There is no room in our profession for unlicensed practice.

Most of these companies are violating 8726(a), 8726(b), 8726(c), 8726(d), 8726(g), 8726(i), 8726(j), 8726(k), 8726(l), 8726(m) in basic practice. I have created a generic summary for the complaint with some fill in information as needed based on the company standards and website information so filing these doesn't take me long at all.

Thanks!
Please report the response you get.

in the past I got none

I absolutely will let you all know how things progress with these complaints. I feel that the more the Board gets in regards to this, the more serious they will need to investigate and take action.

[bryanmundia]

I wanted to give everyone an update that the Board has opened investigations against three online companies that offer these services that I had found online. I will continue to keep everyone up to date as the investigation progresses.

In the meantime, if you have other companies that you come across that do this sort of thing, please PM me and I will be happy to file the complaint.

[mpallamary]

Bryan,

Please check your private messages. I sent you something.

[bryanmundia]

Bryan,

Please check your private messages. I sent you something.

Thanks Mike, I responded to your message.

[mpallamary]

Thanks! Got it

[LS_8750]

Can somebody explain what the term "plan" means in the context of land surveying?
I don't recall placing a surveyors stamp on any sort of plan.

It seems to me that a "plan" is derived from a "map".....

[mpallamary]

Good question!

[mpallamary]

It took a while but I finally convinced the City of San Diego that a Site Plan is a surveying document. Man that was a slugfest.

[LS_8750]

Mr. Pallamary,
Very encouraging!
How do we spread this trend across the state?

[mpallamary]

Soon! Very soon! There is a plan!

[LS_8750]

In light of the recent passing of SB9, the sooner this site plan white paper gets out there the better....

[mpallamary]

Yes indeed! Thanks!

[kwilson]

Here is a very good Survey Requirements document from the City of Cupertino.

[DWoolley]

I do not readily see how the boundary was established or that the property corners were set according to the policy.

I like the policy, less fond of their example provided. The monuments do not appear to be described ("standard city monument"?) or referenced to a map. It looks like the back lines may be tract lines - no adjoining map or deed information to confirm. Curious as to how those lines were established? There is no place in the world for a two monument tango as boundary establishment.

The policy is a good start. Hopefully the local agency will live up to the policy and the land surveyors will live up to the law.

DWoolley

[mpallamary]

The example should include the most important element - a stamp and the name of the surveyor. Too many companies issue plats like this with only the company name notated.

[mpallamary]

The absence of the stamp creates a number of problems not the least of which is no one is in "responsible charge" of the survey.

[LS_8750]

I notice that attorneys see that stamp as a bulls-eye.

[LS_8750]

It should also be clearly known that geodetic work and conversion from geodetic to CCS is the domain of the land surveyor per 8726(f).

I've seen more than a few public improvement plans prepared by engineers throwing up drones and magically converting their data to CCS with no monument referencing, no control setting, no idea what they are doing. I've seen some County Surveyors and Public Works Directors accept that sort of work. I've seen others say Hell No.

[Edward M Reading]

It should also be clearly known that geodetic work and conversion from geodetic to CCS is the domain of the land surveyor per 8726(f).

I've seen more than a few public improvement plans prepared by engineers throwing up drones and magically converting their data to CCS with no monument referencing, no control setting, no idea what they are doing. I've seen some County Surveyors and Public Works Directors accept that sort of work. I've seen others say Hell No.

Count me in the "hell no" column.

[mpallamary]

Good point Edward!

[PLS7393]

I do not readily see how the boundary was established or that the property corners were set according to the policy.

I like the policy, less fond of their example provided. The monuments do not appear to be described ("standard city monument"?) or referenced to a map. It looks like the back lines may be tract lines - no adjoining map or deed information to confirm. Curious as to how those lines were established? There is no place in the world for a two monument tango as boundary establishment.

The policy is a good start. Hopefully the local agency will live up to the policy and the land surveyors will live up to the law.

DWoolley

The City of Cupertino revised their ordinance after this project was under way and they liked the mapping I guess.
Dave, a couple of your concerns are outlined below:
1) Research will locate a corner record was filed on the property as required under the PLS Act.
2) Topographic maps are not filed, nor regulated by the PLS Act, so some specifics are not required. Monuments on a topographic map satisfy sufficient monumentation and with boundary ties satisfy the requirements as I interpret. Here is a potential difference in interpretation between northern and southern CA, which should be justified by the local agency (again, my opiinion)>
3) You mention a "two monument tango", but I see three monuments, just one was not punched. The field measurement was on the monument and maybe I should have punched it. What is "sufficient monumentation" as outlined in Section 8765 of the PLS Act? When interior streets of a tract map exist and have monuments that fit, some will argue two monuments if set correctly under the licensee of the subdivision map, is sufficient. We have to have some confidence in the map review process that the data shown on a filed map, and signed as "Technically Correct" has some validity.

On a side note, the City of Fremont actually traverses, through all new street monuments before they get punched, and this has been going on since Fremont was incorporated. The following are the necessary steps to set new street monuments per a subdivision map as follows:
A) Surveyor sets 2' straddlers for the disc to be set.
B) After third party company sets disc, surveyor has to scribe the monument before the City survey crew will traverse through and confirm angles are as shown on filed map.
C) After City of Fremont is satisfied, surveyor has to make third trip out to punch monument. Note: If scribe mark does not fit, City Surveyor will discuss their findings and a new scribe shall be set before you can punch. So you can see it is a three step process, so don't forget to include extra time in your proposal.

4) As for adjoiners, I see plenty of information to locate the appropriate parcels, if neighbors need to be contacted, again is not a requirement for a topographic map. See corner record which shows adjoining record lot information. This again is for design purposes, not a legal map.

5)

The example should include the most important element - a stamp and the name of the surveyor. Too many companies issue plats like this with only the company name notated.

I was honored when the City of Cupertino wanted to use my map as part of their ordinance and example which they liked.
Their on-line requirements and mapping example actually showed my business name, address, phone number, LS #, signed and stamped for around three years before they realized they should block out the information. With the contact info of a business, they are influencing and giving reference to one company for the public to contact, so they did the right thing to block out my contact info. Yes I did receive extra calls from it before I'm guessing a local surveyor saw the free advertisement and talked to the cityl. I sure wasn't going to say anything, lol

Bottom line the City of Cupertino is the only City in the Bay Area I know of to change their ordinance and require such efforts by the surveying community. I still have good relationships with the Director of Public Works for the City, and have brought a few issues up as they listen. Getting other cities to follow suit? Good luck as that means you have to have someone with authority to talk sense into management, and with the majority of cities around here with contract surveyors, again Good Luck!!!

In closing you may see many issues which differ here if in a discussion with surveyors from northern and southern CA. There are many issues outlined in the PLS Act which are not 100% clear and open to interpretation, and maybe that is more of an appropriate topic to standardize, in my opinion.

[DWoolley]

I wanted to give everyone an update that the Board has opened investigations against three online companies that offer these services that I had found online. I will continue to keep everyone up to date as the investigation progresses.

In the meantime, if you have other companies that you come across that do this sort of thing, please PM me and I will be happy to file the complaint.

Update: There were four complaints submitted and four citations issued. Each citation included a cease and desist order and a $1,000.00 fine for unlicensed practice. The complaint to citation was approximately 11 months.

DWoolley

[mpallamary]

Thanks!

[Peter Ehlert]

it seems that the consequence of ignoring the cease and desist order and continuing to advertise online...could result in being reported and being subject to a cease and desist order and a $1,000 fine

[mpallamary]

I like cease and desist. I have done some research into SB9 across the state and it appears as if many cities/counties are requiring site plans. There are several civil engineers (Post 1982) who are offering these services to prospective SB9 subdividers as that is what the local ordinances say.