Building Official Ignores Land Surveying Requirement

[kwilson]

I recently sent an email to the Building Official of Santa Clara County regarding their practice of allowing Site Plans to be prepared without an "accurate boundary line survey" (CBC 107.2.6). Below in double quotes was the response from the County of Santa Clara Building Official. I am working with the County Surveyor to correct this mis-interpretation of the law. As you can see, he states that this is consistent with other jurisdictions who are also ignoring this requirement for a land surveyor to be involved.

" "The Department of Planning and Development does not require a licensed land surveyor to prepare every site or plot plan included as part of a building permit application, especially for residential building permit applications. The issue is that the California Building Code does not provide clear guidance regarding when a boundary line survey is required.

Similar to Business and Professions Code Section 6737.1, an unlicensed individual may prepare plans, drawings or specifications for only certain types of construction.

Sec 6737.1 states "This chapter does not prohibit any person from preparing plans, drawings or specifications for any of the following:

1) Single family dwellings of wood frame construction not more than two stories and basement in height."

Likewise, for residential building permit applications the department has taken a ‘trust, but verify approach’ in regards to the site or plot plan.

As part of their review, the planning office requires a setback certification letter from a licensed land surveyor when an addition or new construction is located within close proximity to a property or lot line.
If this setback certification is required, a licensed land surveyor shall verify the property lines and confirm that the structure is located in accordance with the setbacks shown on the approved plans.

It is important to note that many properties located in unincorporated Santa Clara County are located on large lots some of which are multiple acres in size. The location of many proposed residential buildings on lots of this size are nowhere near the boundaries of the property. As such, it will add considerable cost to the applicant to require a land survey for every site or plot plan where there would be little value added to the applicant in these particular cases. That is why Planning and Development has taken the approach as described above. This is also consistent with other jurisdictions in the Bay Area." "

[mpallamary]

It is evident CLSA needs to embark on an educational program!

[Peter Ehlert]

"located within close proximity to a property or lot line." Is a problem. Close is not defined, is it 50 feet or is it 4.32 inches?
They need some guidance in the language.

I see no need for a boundary determination if it does "appear" to be a long way from the proposed improvement. (long way?, What's that? LoL)

[CBarrett]

There's some talk now about sending letters to a number of city engineers etc. Heightening awareness about proper surveying requirements, to start with I gather it has to do with monument preservation, but I am hopeful other problematic topics will be covered eventually.
I logged in as as an observer in yesterday's stare board meeting and have witnessed some of that discussion. I expect we might see more in the meeting minutes.

Is anyone keeping a list of these issues?
This can all fall under the list of threats (in a business plan)

-lack of education on these matters among a variety of city and county building, planning and public works departments, further broken down into...

[Warren Smith]

You're right, the focus now is on monument preservation. In many instances, site development is permitted without proper review and enforcement of preservation of existing monumentation. And, in disaster recovery, there are building permits processed without proper attention to the same.
With due diligence, this issue will propagate to address working with our sister organization - CALBO.

[CBarrett]

Thank You for clarifying!

In the future, I would love to see some sort of a guideline prepared for a number of municipal agencies which would help them understand at which point in a project Land Surveying services should be retained, and what product/product specifications to ask for.

Site plan discussion for example pops up frequently. Site plan can take many forms. We could take the lead and put together a set of recommendations:
- Site plan for a lot line adjustment... (Rural, suburban, urban...)
- Site plan for a Tentative Parcel Map... (Rural, suburban, urban...)
- Site plan for a Tentative Tract map... (Rural, suburban, urban...)
- Site plan for a Public Works improvement project... (Rural, suburban, urban...)

Does it include boundary - yes/no ---> set of standards for boundary locations (where record boundary may be satisfactory, where a field survey and boundary analysis is required.

This needs to be expanded...

Here is the thing - I know that some people are pushing BPELSG to add these kinds of details into PLS act and codify them, however, I think it would be very suitable for CLSA brains to come up with a white paper making recommendations, similar to the guide to preparation of subdivision maps.

While these are just recommendations, they would raise awareness as to what is expected from an 'average' surveyor - which should be beyond the minimum prescribed by the board. One could also attempt to make some recommendations regarding industry leaders practices and standards.

Many companies have parts of this documentation already developed in house. I know a good number is feeling very proprietary of what they developed on their own time and dime - I understand this. However, if we shared this information on the association level, we could use it as a tool in educating our co-consultants, municipalities etc... I would venture a guess that a number of people have had a similar idea.

From this core document we could then spin off additional educational materials addressing needs of specific groups. (Ie. General public, Civil Engineers, Grading Contractors, municipalities, title companies, Land Developers etc...)

[Warren Smith]

Those are great ideas!
We are circulating a draft Guide for monument preservation in the aftermath of wildfires. When the cleanup activity begins, that is where - historically - a lot of monument destruction takes place. The intent is to have local building officials have a check box along with, say, right of entry to have a land surveyor identify, tie out, or reset corner monuments.
You're right, this goes hand in glove with approving new development or remodeling.

[kwilson]

Thanks for the responses. Monument preservation is important but this thread is about Building Officials not complying with existing law regarding the requirement for a Land Surveyor to provide the location of the boundary of the property and the buildings, curbs and other "fixed works" on the site for any plan that turns into a building permit (not talking about preliminary drawings for planning). Yes this subject could be clarified with further laws but the EXISTING codes in place specifically the California Building Code (107.2.6) and the LS Act sufficiently describes what is required. I brought this up to show what I am doing to bring this to the attention of the Building Officials as they are the ones responsible to enforce the codes.

On an ironic note they all have a what they call a "Code Enforcement" department!

[CBarrett]

Those are great ideas!
We are circulating a draft Guide for monument preservation in the aftermath of wildfires. When the cleanup activity begins, that is where - historically - a lot of monument destruction takes place. The intent is to have local building officials have a check box along with, say, right of entry to have a land surveyor identify, tie out, or reset corner monuments.
You're right, this goes hand in glove with approving new development or remodeling.

Interesting.
Our company (MBI) has worked on some CAL fire projects. I remember being faced with a situation where we couldn't tell cal fire where the property is without a re-survey, and then being told that no-one has budgeted for it. We ere trying to help one of our regional offices while they were down staff members, so I never got to see what happened next. It left me very curious to learn what happens in these situations.

Well, my hands are mostly in land development, Caltrans and Publics Works improvements projects so I am always interested in solving quagmires and knots in those processes.... In hopes it would make my life easier - haha.

[Warren Smith]

With FEMA funds, all it takes is a scope of service to provide that. The Stanislaus National Forest is creating firebreaks up here adjacent to subdivisions, and this is the first order of business because it is budgeted.

[CBarrett]

Thanks for the responses. Monument preservation is important but this thread is about Building Officials not complying with existing law regarding the requirement for a Land Surveyor to provide the location of the boundary of the property and the buildings, curbs and other "fixed works" on the site for any plan that turns into a building permit (not talking about preliminary drawings for planning). Yes this subject could be clarified with further laws but the EXISTING codes in place specifically the California Building Code (107.2.6) and the LS Act sufficiently describes what is required. I brought this up to show what I am doing to bring this to the attention of the Building Officials as they are the ones responsible to enforce the codes.

On an ironic note they all have a what they call a "Code Enforcement" department!

What you are talking about is very important!!! I see a lot of issues surrounding what you are talking about, not just with smaller building permits, but with some of the of the public works projects as well. For example, where Civil Engineers they plot PL's from assesor's maps, then want to do ROW take documents based on those boundaries (and want a surveyor to sign them) - for a few miles of a road. They are sufficiently oblivious to the rules and what is required that they threaten to fire you (the company) off the project if you say no.

[CBarrett]

With FEMA funds, all it takes is a scope of service to provide that. The Stanislaus National Forest is creating firebreaks up here adjacent to subdivisions, and this is the first order of business because it is budgeted.

Very interesting, Thanks for sharing that. I am in southern California, I'll have to do some research to see what kind of efforts exist in this area.

[LS9200]

Thanks for the responses. Monument preservation is important but this thread is about Building Officials not complying with existing law regarding the requirement for a Land Surveyor to provide the location of the boundary of the property and the buildings, curbs and other "fixed works" on the site for any plan that turns into a building permit (not talking about preliminary drawings for planning). Yes this subject could be clarified with further laws but the EXISTING codes in place specifically the California Building Code (107.2.6) and the LS Act sufficiently describes what is required. I brought this up to show what I am doing to bring this to the attention of the Building Officials as they are the ones responsible to enforce the codes.

On an ironic note they all have a what they call a "Code Enforcement" department!

I think it would be great if there was a way to discipline building officials for permitting plans that are in violation of any all licensing laws.

Additionally, Board rules 411 (g) 1, 2, 3 are pretty clear on who signs what on plans.
(g) (1) All professional engineering plans, specifications, reports, or documents
(hereinafter referred to as “documents”) shall be signed and sealed in accordance with the
requirements of the Professional Engineers Act and any other laws related to the practice of
professional engineering and shall be signed and sealed in a manner such that all work can be
clearly attributed to the licensee(s) in responsible charge of the work.
(2) All maps, plats, reports, descriptions, or other professional land surveying
documents (hereinafter referred to as “documents”) shall be signed and sealed in accordance
with the requirements of the Professional Land Surveyors’ Act and any other laws related to the
practice of professional land surveying and shall be signed and sealed in a manner such that all
work can be clearly attributed to the licensee(s) in responsible charge of the work.
(3) When signing and sealing documents containing work done by, or under the
responsible charge of, two or more licensees, the signature and seal of each licensee in
responsible charge shall be placed on the documents with a notation describing the work done
under each licensee’s responsible charge.
(h) Each licensee shall include the date of signing and sealing immediately below or next
to the signature and seal

[DWoolley]

...
I think it would be great if there was a way to discipline building officials for permitting plans that are in violation of any all licensing laws.

Additionally, Board rules 411 (g) 1, 2, 3 are pretty clear on who signs what on plans.
(g) (1) All professional engineering plans, specifications, reports, or documents
(hereinafter referred to as “documents”) shall be signed and sealed in accordance with the
requirements of the Professional Engineers Act and any other laws related to the practice of
professional engineering and shall be signed and sealed in a manner such that all work can be
clearly attributed to the licensee(s) in responsible charge of the work.
(2) All maps, plats, reports, descriptions, or other professional land surveying
documents (hereinafter referred to as “documents”) shall be signed and sealed in accordance
with the requirements of the Professional Land Surveyors’ Act and any other laws related to the
practice of professional land surveying and shall be signed and sealed in a manner such that all
work can be clearly attributed to the licensee(s) in responsible charge of the work.
...

The "building officials" are unlikely to recognize the need for a signature and seal when the submitting professionals routinely submit documents without a signature and seal.

Land surveyors are especially remiss in not signing and sealing documents. Read 8726, does the underlying topography performed by a land surveyor on the construction plans reflect a surveyor's signature and seal? How about the right of way and/or boundary? How about compliance with 8771? Are the engineers or architects signing the site plans with a boundary?

Next time a land surveyor provides topography and/or a boundary for design purposes insist that you sign and seal the construction plans. Insist on 8771 compliance notes on the construction plans with a land surveyor's signature and seal. Why would the survey community expect "building officials" to do something they are not willing to do for themselves?

On the management side and/or agency side, do not accept any final work product from contract land surveyors without a signature and seal. This would include cut sheets, field notes, coordinate lists, anything created by a land surveyor.

[Keep up the good work kwilson. I appreciate the effort and keeping the forum updated].

DWoolley

[LS9200]

Mr. Wooley, I would agree with you there is a lot of ignorance within our own profession when it comes to understanding the legal requirement to sign and stamp surveying work. Hopefully this will change as understanding this is the key to the drum you keep pounding, that a surveyor's license is very powerful. There already is a mechanism in place for disciplining surveyors that do not sign and stamp their work, would just be nice if there was a mechanism to place some blame on building officials / permitting agencies for permitting unlicensed practice.

Personally, if a "site plan" with a boundary on it is shown and something is built over a set back, boundary line, etc., it would be nice to be able to place that blame on the permitting agency. There sole job is to check the plans to make sure they are in compliance to protect the public.

[DWoolley]

...
Personally, if a "site plan" with a boundary on it is shown and something is built over a set back, boundary line, etc., it would be nice to be able to place that blame on the permitting agency. There sole job is to check the plans to make sure they are in compliance to protect the public.

For what it is worth, I believe BPELSG enforcement folks have been citing licensees that prepare site plans that show a boundary without using proper boundary establishment procedures i.e. sufficient found monuments, filing the appropriate map when required etc. The dead give away is a site plan with a squirrel note to the effect "this is not a real boundary". Our local JPPLC will turn site plans with "record" boundaries into BPELSG on the regular - no such thing as a "record boundary" in connection with a field survey for a site plan.

As for blaming a public employee for allowing this practice and causing a problem, I hear you. Public employees have an indemnity from tort liability unless the would-be plaintiff can cross the threshold of proving gross negligence. I am guessing the standard is clear and convincing. A nearly impossible hurdle.

BPELSG enforcement washes approximately 70% of the opportunities to cite the wayward, ergo "compliance achieved" or similar - I believe it is more closely tied to the licensee as an individual rather than even handed application of the law. Riddle yourself this, how is the 30% that are prosecuted decided upon? What separates the infractions of the 30% from the infractions of the 70%? There are only so many fact patterns and even fewer laws to enforce. The Latin term is res ipsa loquitur, "it speaks for itself".

Land surveyors, although less than 5% of the 106, 000 licenses under BPELSG, make up nearly 50% of the complaints. Draw your own conclusions.

DWoolley

[TTaylor]

In the past CLSA (Robert Reese) produced a very good pamphlet to hand to LEOs and property owners on the LS's right of entry.

It looks like Warren and company are doing the same for monument preservation.

Many of these other issues keep on coming up time and time again with what appears to be the same results. Not much happens.

Maybe CLSA could assign to a Standing Committee or organize an Ad Hoc Committee comprised of both public and private surveyors to put together an authoritative booklet (more than a pamphlet) to address the many issues that have vastly different interpretations and applications across the state.
Of course the booklet would be heavily based on current laws, possible proposed changes to law, citations of law, and clear examples of the solutions to described issues.

It would be good to have ACEC CA and BPELSG involved or ar least get their buyoff on the final product if this were to take place..

2 cents

TT, PLS

[mpallamary]

There are so many things CLSA can do and should do... We have a voice but we do not use it.

[CBarrett]

In the past CLSA (Robert Reese) produced a very good pamphlet to hand to LEOs and property owners on the LS's right of entry.

It looks like Warren and company are doing the same for monument preservation.

Many of these other issues keep on coming up time and time again with what appears to be the same results. Not much happens.

Maybe CLSA could assign to a Standing Committee or organize an Ad Hoc Committee comprised of both public and private surveyors to put together an authoritative booklet (more than a pamphlet) to address the many issues that have vastly different interpretations and applications across the state.
Of course the booklet would be heavily based on current laws, possible proposed changes to law, citations of law, and clear examples of the solutions to described issues.

It would be good to have ACEC CA and BPELSG involved or ar least get their buyoff on the final product if this were to take place..

2 cents

TT, PLS

My impression is that CLSA probably has a shortage of people who have time to get involved (I gather this may change).

What could be done is people who are interested in the efforts can start networking and start. We're all licensed and knowledgeable, we don't have to sit and wait for an organization to tell us what to do. Once the CLSA catches up they we could include their efforts and support and clout and connections for outreach efforts.

I'd like to see people here, and those they communicate with on daily basis rally some volunteers. We could make an outline and start writing things... There are also materials that already exist within CLSA that need to be reviewed, and maybe expanded on.

When it comes to ad-hoc committee's usually people who get appointed on ad-hoc committees are those who are already making the efforts, and ad-hoc formalizes it (well, in some cases).

People could also show up at their local chapter meetings and champion certain causes.

We need to break past the apathy (not just at the CLSA level, everyone).

[khuerth]

I am working on Santa Barbara County now, and will move on to the other local jurisdictions soon.

[mpallamary]

I have been a vocal member of CLSA for more than 40 years. I still speak up and I still get involved and I do what I can, when I can. Everyone needs to stand up and be heard.

[LS_8750]

This is nothing new.
Who are they to decipher the signed and sealed garbage they receive every day from the internet derived nonsense?
Is an LS signed and sealed work product any better?
Mr. Woolley's above comment is telling.

[Ric7308]

FWIW - we sometimes receive inquiries from land surveyors with exact opposite concerns of those expressed in this thread (one just this week). They are upset that a local public agency is requiring the property lines be shown on the topographic map and that corners are marked in the field, arguing that the agency is beyond their authority causing unnecessary costs to their clients and they want the Board to do something about it. And in many cases, despite the fact that they have already provided a "topographic map" with the property lines shown.

Suggest you get it straight within your own group so the message(s) being conveyed to the local agencies on this topic is clear and the surveyor community at least appears to be in reasonable sync with one another.

[TTaylor]

See my comment above.

[DWoolley]

FWIW - we sometimes receive inquiries from land surveyors with exact opposite concerns of those expressed in this thread (one just this week). They are upset that a local public agency is requiring the property lines be shown on the topographic map and that corners are marked in the field, arguing that the agency is beyond their authority causing unnecessary costs to their clients and they want the Board to do something about it. And in many cases, despite the fact that they have already provided a "topographic map" with the property lines shown.

Suggest you get it straight within your own group so the message(s) being conveyed to the local agencies on this topic is clear and the surveyor community at least appears to be in reasonable sync with one another.

A land surveyor has to be one of the only professions in which the professional actually does not want to work. In the instant example, why would a land surveyor complain about having to establish and monument property lines? As a matter of protecting the public from the harm of bad design that may encroach or violate setbacks or result in demolition of the adjacent owner's property, a proper boundary survey and monumentation is practically beyond reproach. As a business, it is much more profitable to continue on an existing project than to initiate a contract and begin another project - especially when the local agency is mandating the work to be completed. If we were impalas in the wild, predators would have made a snack out these folks before they could reproduce.

The Board staff should ask for a copy of their ""topographic map" with the property lines shown" and cite them for an unsubstantiated boundary, failure to file, insufficient monumentation or a host of any other infractions that are likely to exist. Again, there is no such thing as a "record boundary" in connection with a field survey for a site plan.

If the land surveyor believes the costs are "unnecessary" or unjust, there is nothing that states the land surveyor has to charge for these services (you can tell them that next time they call). Also, it is unlikely the property being surveyed has a value of less than $1M and the reason for the boundary and topographic survey is for improvements that will likely be 10x the cost of the survey.

Lastly, as I have said many times, a person does not need a survey to build a fence - a ball of string - for a straight line - will suffice. Want the fence relative to the boundary line? Well, that is another matter.

Good grief.

DWoolley

PS Why the heck would these folks call the board to protest having to survey? Weird. 911 would almost seem more logical.