Who can prepare a subdivision map?

[mpallamary]

I haven't looked at this Government Code section in awhile:

66445. The parcel map shall be prepared by, or under the direction of, a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor, shall show the location of streets and property lines bounding the property, and shall conform to all of the following provisions . . .

I did not think subdivision maps could be prepared by a civil engineer.

Per the PLSA: 8731. Civil engineers authorization to practice or offer to practice land surveying
A licensed civil engineer and a civil engineer exempt from licensure under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 6700) are exempt from licensing under this chapter and may engage in the practice of land surveying with the same rights and privileges and the same duties and responsibilities as a licensed land surveyor, provided that for civil engineers who become licensed after January 1, 1982, they shall obtain a license as a land surveyor under the provisions of this chapter, before practicing land surveying as defined in this chapter.

Per the B&P Code:
6700. This chapter constitutes the chapter on professional engineers. It may be cited as the Professional Engineers Act.
(Amended by Stats. 1985, Ch. 732, Sec. 1.)

6701. “Professional engineer,” within the meaning and intent of this act, refers to a person engaged in the professional practice of rendering service or creative work requiring education, training and experience in engineering sciences and the application of special knowledge of the mathematical, physical and engineering sciences in such professional or creative work as consultation, investigation, evaluation, planning or design of public or private utilities, structures, machines, processes, circuits, buildings, equipment or projects, and supervision of construction for the purpose of securing compliance with specifications and design for any such work.
(Amended by Stats. 1978, Ch. 1161.)

6702. “Civil engineer” as used in this chapter means a professional engineer in the branch of civil engineering and refers to one who practices or offers to practice civil engineering in any of its phases.

[Jim Frame]

I did not think Civil Engineers could be prepared by a civil engineer.

I would hope that civil engineers can prepare themselves, but maybe that's asking too much.

With regard to the statute, §66445 appears to contain legacy language that ought to be updated. BPELSG long ago abandoned the term "registered civil engineer" in favor of "licensed civil engineer," presumably to affirm its control over practitioners. (Interestingly, §6762, which is titled "Licensure as a professional engineer," states that "any applicant for licensure as a professional engineer...and who has qualified hereunder as a professional engineer, shall have a certificate of registration issued to him or her as a professional engineer.")

[mpallamary]

Thanks buddy! Working too long and too late!

[mpallamary]

Ian Wilson and I chatted about this. I agree with you as to this being legacy language. Here's where it gets slippery. I am writing an article about SB 9 and a lot of municipalities are writing and rewriting their ordinances to come into compliance with it. Some of the new ordinances mimic this language, stating that the "City Engineer" is the only one who can approve a subdivision map. They are also stating that civil engineers can prepare subdivision maps. They are extracting this language. Because SB 9 is a ministerial permit, I am not certain where it will end up or what will be in there.

[CBarrett]

It is meant to mean Civil Engineer authorized to practice surveying, but for the life of me I don't remember which code snippet clarifies that. It may go back to the PLS act, where it is defined who can practice surveying and what falls under surveying (which includes pre-82 engineers)

There are couple of surveyors who taught review classes who walked people through code 'connect a dot' and have talked about this (2 years ago). Jay Kay Seymour was one of them, Kevin Hills (OC County surveyor) were presenters of those two topics.

City ordinance can not overrule SMA, and SMA can not overrule PLS or PE act regarding their codified field of practice. SMA governs how to handle subdivisions, but not how to perform a survey or mapping (beyond just some requirements of a map format) from a technical point of view. For this it relies on the expertise of a surveyor to know how to perform an appropriate field survey and subsequent map to document the map - as defined in their respective governing codes. Preparing a subdivision map involves dealing with locations of property boundaries. There is a number of jurisdictions which require a field survey even for a parcel map, even if SMA Doesn't. Either way, you are dealing with boundaries, and in most cases not just on paper (deed interpretations etc) but in the field too.

At least one of the classes or conferences I attended had a somewhat lengthy discussion on this topic. I'm sorry can't be more specific, I am going from memory here.

[mpallamary]

Thanks.

There is a new state law in play - SB-9. I raise the conflict for discussion. There is no discretion under SB-9.

I am simply reading what it says.

[Edward M Reading]

It seems to be much ado about nothing.

[mpallamary]

Hi Ed,

Thanks for your thoughts. Out of curiosity, has your city adopted any SB-9 procedures? I have been researching the major cities. it is interesting to watch.

[Edward M Reading]

I don't work for a city, Mike. That's why the Public Record's Request that you sent for our Notice of Departmental Designation took so long to get to me. lol

[mpallamary]

Thanks,

Forgive me. I thought you did.

Be well.

[mpallamary]

Then you work for the county?

[mpallamary]

Hi Ed,

As I understand things, San Luis Obispo made no accommodations for SB-9.

"Throughout November and December, locals pushed city officials to pass an urgency ordinance ahead of the new year to protect against SB 9 development, which other cities, like Santa Barbara, did.

"But SLO opted not to, assuring that it already has objective design standards in place that will appropriately guide the "by-right" development allowed by SB 9.

"We are situated differently than a lot of other communities," SLO City Manager Derek Johnson said during a Dec. 7 City Council meeting. "They [Santa Barbara] just frankly did not have many of the objective design standards."

https://www.newtimesslo.com/sanluisobis ... d=11918143

Here is what Santa Barbara's new SB-9 ordinance permits, in part:

27.60.020 Application and Approval.

B. A parcel map for an urban lot split must be prepared by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor in accordance with Government Code Sections 66444 – 66450 and this Chapter, and submitted for approval to the City Engineer. A fee in an amount established by City Council resolution must be paid concurrently with the submission of the parcel map.

C. The City Engineer is the approval authority for parcel maps under this Chapter. The City Engineer shall approve a parcel map for an urban lot split if the Engineer determines that it meets all of the requirements of this Chapter.

Santa Barbara has a city surveyor. Apparently, he/she is not allowed to approve a SB-9 parcel map.

https://www.countyofsb.org/pwd/surveyor.sbc

My point is, the flaw in the state language is seeping into local ordinances, which have not been revised until implementation of SB-9. I believe this is a problem.

This is how a "registered civil engineer" is defined under the B&P Code:

6706.3. References to registered engineer deemed to refer to licensed engineer Any reference in any law or regulation to a registered engineer, or to a registered civil, electrical, or mechanical engineer, is deemed to refer to a licensed engineer, or to a licensed civil, electrical, or mechanical engineer, as the case may be.

The present interim city engineer (apparently they do not have a designated engineer) is not authorized to practice land surveying.

I am sure other municipalities across the state are hastily adopting new regulations in order to comply with SB-9.

[mpallamary]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EC12KUzpeoA&t=73s

So much for that effort.

[Ric7308]

No city/county ordinance pertaining to what you are stating trumps Business and Professions Code, nor does the SMA section referenced. As others have already stated, this does NOT give a licensed civil engineer the authority to certify a subdivision map unless they are a Pre-82 civil engineer. If you have actual copies of subdivision maps where the map was signed/certified to by a person not appropriately licensed, just submit a complaint to the Board. You're spending a great deal of time on something which is simply not what you think it may be.

[mpallamary]

Thank you for your opinion Ric. Be well.

[mpallamary]

If anyone is interested in the mechanics of this issue, I have canvassed all of the major cities in California to see how they are implementing SB-9. Some have adopted emergency ordinances, some have done nothing, and some intend to adopt some form ordinances. Because of the sense of urgency, many cities are rather frantic and not sure what to do. In the case of Santa Barbara, adopting an ordinance that conflicts with the PLSA, undoubtedly, the PLSA would prevail. Notwithstanding that, the problem is a well-intended planner or counter clerk will go over the submittal check list, rather meticulously, as there is so much political pressure to avoid conflicts. If a civil engineer attempts to submit an SB-9 map or project, the planner will presumably accept it as that is what the politically charged ordinance says. That can be a problem and it will lead to an unnecessary waste of time, energy and aggravation. It is my opinion that, if possible, such a conflict can be avoided, that would be preferable.

It is my opinion that the conflict exists because of outdated or contradictory language in the PLSA. As with most things in life, it makes sense to eliminate the source of the confusion for everyone's benefit. Patent ambiguity such as this can only lead to headaches.

In San Diego, there were a lot of questions regarding the preparation of Site Plans. They appear to be an integral part of most submittals under SB-9 throughout the state. When I discussed the issue of Site Plans with the city of San Diego, they compared the PLSA with the city's requirements and modified the terms under which a Site Plan can be prepared; they recognized the importance of the PLSA. It was a good, sound solution to a simple problem.

Such appears to be the case here. Every now and then it is important to review existing laws and regulations to make sure everything is in sync.

[Edward M Reading]

It seems to be much ado about nothing.

[mpallamary]

Thanks for your thoughts.

Be well and stay safe.

[mpallamary]

Interesting article:

https://sanjosespotlight.com/staedler-w ... y-housing/

"The San Jose Planning Commission held a study session last Wednesday to discuss the contentious item of SB 9 and Opportunity Housing. City staff did the best they could to describe the impacts of SB 9 and the amount of housing that potentially could be developed with this legislation. There is a long list of disappointing items that came from this poorly written piece of legislation. It requires a large amount of interpretation by planning employees and the state will not provide guidance until next February.

"The first disappointing item is that the applicant must “attest that they plan to live on one of the lots for at least three years.” This opens up a loophole for an applicant to sign the attestation and then make an excuse for not living there without any recourse by the city for enforcing this requirement.

"Why would legislation be written this way? “Plan to live” seems like a purposefully written way to bait and switch the true intent of this legislation. Affordable housing covenants clearly state the affordability levels with clear income limits. They don’t say “intend to provide” affordable housing to certain income levels. I would like for the writer of this part of the legislation to stand up and explain themselves for this. . . The implementation of SB 9 is going to be difficult for city staff. California should have done a better job drafting this legislation, but again they leave it open to interpretation and potential litigation.

[PLS7393]

Interesting article:

https://sanjosespotlight.com/staedler-w ... y-housing/

I'm glad you found City of San Jose information as I have been dealing with this for a couple months now and have seen it get developed, for better or worse, lol. I say worse, because I am against SB-9 in the stance it takes away from standard of living. Since SB-9 has no provisions to deal with additional parking, and minimum lot size of 1200 SF, a nice neighborhood will now become your standard low income housing neighborhood as this was the concept initiated by realtors in Sacramento. A good friend is a realtor and many realtors hate this too, except it will fatten their commission with all the new sales, lol.

I posted info on this previously before CLSA really discussed this or got involved, and now my phone has blown up for estimates. I'm not complaining as when was the last time any small surveyor did more than one or two PM's in a year, and I'm already under contract for a couple.

SB-9 does not have any effect on the amount of survey work necessary to assist the owner in their subdivision. SB-9 basically simplifies the review process by the agency. You still need a topographic survey for setbacks to the existing structure, area calculations to satisfy SB-9 requirements before you prepare a Tentative Parcel Map. After the TPM is approved, you (the surveyor) has to prepare the Final Parcel Map.

Bottom line for surveyor's: This is great because there are less surveyors, and with the building of ADU's along with SB-9 crap, if your not busy something is wrong with you, lol. Not to mention, I hear residents of Alameda County are having difficulty to hire surveyors, so if your looking for work, they need you!!!

Now back to my Santa Clara County projects!!!

[LS9200]

I would hope that civil engineers can prepare themselves, but maybe that's asking too much.

With regard to the statute, §66445 appears to contain legacy language that ought to be updated. BPELSG long ago abandoned the term "registered civil engineer" in favor of "licensed civil engineer," presumably to affirm its control over practitioners. (Interestingly, §6762, which is titled "Licensure as a professional engineer," states that "any applicant for licensure as a professional engineer...and who has qualified hereunder as a professional engineer, shall have a certificate of registration issued to him or her as a professional engineer.")

Not to hijack the intent of this thread, but when did the term "registered civil engineer" get changed? My thought is that this term was used when civil engineers were authorized to practice land surveying (pre-82). Is there something anyone can cite that would substantiate this? I think it would be helpful in trying to construe the argument for updating many antiquated municipal codes that do not differential the difference between the licenses.

[Warren Smith]

Nathan,

While Professional Engineers are registered under the provisions of the Professional Engineers Act, Board Rule 411 shows required elements of the seal. It states "Registered Professional Engineer" at the top, and the branch at the bottom - above "State of California". Registered Civil Engineer (RCE) is not listed among the protected titles in the PE Act sections 6704 and 6732.

A lot of definitions were amended in 1978.

[mpallamary]

Yes, that is great! Years ago I was doing a project in a SoCal desert town. it involved a subdivision of 700 units. I got into an argument with the city engineer who said I could not sign the map because I was not a civil engineer.

As a corollary, how many pre-82 civils are out there? Perhaps the Board should issue them an LS License and they completely remove the language regarding "pre 82" and end the confusion.

It is clear there needs to be a lot of clean up.

[LS_8750]

The youngest pre 82 civil would be about 65 years old right now.

[mpallamary]

Got it. It would be relatively easy to figure out.