MySitePlan.com Lawsuit

[khuerth]

The Board doing their work are now getting sued, what could this mean to the future of surveying?

https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7vyj3/ ... reddit.com

[LS9200]

Best case scenario, board is able to find a situation where this guys site plans have cause harm by misinterpretation of the boundary. At the end of the day dimensioning a fixed works to a property line is establishing a property line. Hopefully, this goes lock step with building departments finally not accepting site plans without a legally established boundary line.

Worst case scenario, you no longer need a license to establish boundary lines in California

[CBarrett]

I hope he gets fined again, and again and again....

[Jim Frame]

I hope he gets fined again, and again and again....

I hope the case is adjudicated all the way to the appellate level so that we get some clarity regarding who can legally do what. The Board's ability to regulate will always be tentative until the courts weigh in decisively.

[pls5528]

In reference to the portion of the the article "Building departments regularly accept plan drawings from non-surveyors and even give instructions to contractors and homeowners on how to create their own site drawings."
Now, this is a huge part of the problem. Many times the City/County simply do not know about the laws. If that is the case, it falls on us to assist in that education. In regards to the owner of this company saying that "he has been doing this for years", that is a moot point, and he needs cease and desist. I have seen site plans (generally architects) which show crude renditions of property/topo maps in many jurisdictions in California. Where I used to live at Lake of the PInes near Auburn was full of such "Site Plans". Their, they were required by the HOA for any development. Most of which, were a joke. Education from us to the general public for such things is huge.

[Edward M Reading]

I have often thought that the definition of surveying in California is so overly broad as to be unenforceable. Hopefully, this will clarify some things.

[kwilson]

Every survey company in the state should be concerned about this. I have been paying dues to CLSA for 40 years. What I expect from those who collect them is to work to enforce the laws that are currently in place which are not vague at all. We have the California Building Code on our side. Section 107.2.6. It clearly states that a site plan made in a submittal for a building permit must be drawn "in accordance with an accurate boundary line survey". The problem lies in uneducated Building Officials who accept illegal site plans. This is an ongoing, regular practice. Will CLSA write and speak directly to every Building Official in the state with a simple letter based on 107.2.6? They don't need a 60 page document. Just the facts maam. What is the enforcement? Simple. The Building Departments don't accept plans without an LS stamped Boundary and Topo.

[Warren Smith]

We have presented the paper to CALBO, with an executive summary. CBOs are used to reading detailed specs, and should perk up at the reference to 107.2.6.
Some Counties are small enough to be able to review every building permit application. Our County processes maybe 3,000 permits a year. Others tend to send problematic site plans to their County Surveyors for review and comment. As has been mentioned, some sites are large enough to suffice by inspection that setbacks are not an issue based on prior construction and dimensions to existing structures. For those that the CBO's discretion is applicable, the statutes provide for that.
This issue is more relevant in higher density areas, such as Cities and infill projects.

[Mike Mueller]

It clearly states that a site plan made in a submittal for a building permit must be drawn "in accordance with an accurate boundary line survey".

The Building Departments don't accept plans without an LS stamped Boundary and Topo.

This is were the shades of grey come in though. As I understand the current laws, all people are legally able to prepare their own map, and do their own survey of their own land, and as long as the boundary was done by an LS, a homeowners topo would be legal, even if it is showing a boundary line in relation to fixed or proposed works.

To me, it is similar to practicing law. IE you can always represent yourself and be your own lawyer, but you can't sell that service to another. Just like being your own lawyer, doing it yourself is probably not going to produce the best outcome, but shouldn't be removed from the options that are available to us all as citizens.

Flip it around and consider your views of a law that said only licensed arborists can cut down a tree. I have a forest on my property, and regularly cut trees down for lumber/firewood or forest health and would vehemently oppose any laws saying I couldn't.


Mikey Mueller, PLS
Sonoma County

[Ian Wilson]

...a homeowners topo would be legal, even if it is showing a boundary line in relation to fixed or proposed works..

I could not agree with you more!

Every property owner has the right to survey their own property and their own boundary lines.

But they do not have the right to survey other people's property unless they are licensed to do so.

That boundary line? Half that belong to your neighbor and you are not authorized to lawfully locate that line.

If the building plan is for anything that clearly does not involve boundary lines (e.g. - the are in between buildings on my lot) no worries. Survey away.

If the plans involve building right up to the setback, now we need to know where the PL is to find the setback. If y'all had Phil or Dave locate those lines and they set mo0numents and filed a map, I believe you can apply that information to you building site plan without worry.

Never been surveyed? How do you know exactly where the line is? That's the province of the licensed land surveyor.

There's a lot of red herring wrapped in that article.

[mpallamary]

Does anyone have a copy of the Board complaint?

[DWoolley]

I am attending a land surveying adjacent conference i.e. URISA/GIS this week. I was approached by a GISp that had a newspaper clipping of the article linked above. Apparently, the article was being circulated and discussed among folks at the conference. I was told some folks in the GIS crowd didn't see the issue and believed the disclaimer "this is not a survey" should be sufficient. I explained the question for the public is a $800 vs $4000 site plan - the public only sees it as a piece of paper. Average John Q is unlikely to see value in a proper survey.

I believe my point may have been made, maybe, the concession was the building official accepting the site plan with a record boundary, no signature and seal, was the issue.

Keep in mind, there are land surveyors preparing similar site plans with similar "this is not a boundary" notes. This has to stop. The license doesn't make it acceptable.

DWoolley

[Peter Ehlert]

Does anyone have a copy of the Board complaint?

I suppose the BOR website has it in a viewable format if you dig and know the approximate date of the citation.
I'm too lazy but would like to see it if someone wants to dig and provide a link.

[mpallamary]

Recently, several of us prepared a White Paper addressing this topic. It is our hope that it is circulated amongst local cities and counties. The biggest problem, we see, is the failure to view a site plan as requiring the services of a Land Surveyor.

[mpallamary]

See attached:

[Warren Smith]

That is a fascinating approach, which hinges on the existence of "non authoritative" site plans. It reminds me of the individual in Oregon who timed traffic signal sequences, and was cited for practicing Traffic Engineering.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

[mpallamary]

Indeed.

[mpallamary]

If this isn't a wake up call to everyone, what is?


"Crownholm has teamed up with the Institute for Justice to take the board to federal court, where they’ve brought three claims against the Board. In the first claim, they say that the board violates Crownholm’s First Amendment right to free speech. Secondly, they argue that “California’s definition of land surveying is unconstitutionally overbroad and unconstitutionally vague.” The team argues third for an “in-the-alternative claim under the Fourteenth Amendment,” meaning that the board’s regulations should advance legitimate government interest and not discriminate against “similarly situated people,” which in this case refers to Crownholm and other people who draw their own site plans."

[CBarrett]

Some thoughts on the matter:
This is where the board will hopefully present the concept of protection of the public. The non-expert public does not have the knowledge to tell apart a lawful vs unlawful site plan, and it is jeopardizing their health, safety and property values to have lawful and unlawful site plans floating out there.
Impersonating a land surveyor by producing a site plan should be just as illegal as impersonating a law officer by wearing a fake uniform.
Often financial damages from impersonating a law officer is lesser than from impersonating a surveyor and seriously jeopardizing the value of one's real estate.
This guy founded a business on the basis of tricking the lay people into thinking his service is sound, this is a serious disservice to the consumer, and fraudulent representation. Even ladies painting someone's nails an people cutting hair have to be licensed demonstrating minimum skills in order to protect the consumers from unskilled and fraudulent practices.

Appeal to free speech and fourteenth amendment are unfounded. Nothing in the constitution was intended to allow one to take fraudulent advantage of someone ese by pretending to have skills which they do not. This is exactly why the licensing was implemented, to keep the rif-raf from creating problems. If this guy wants to do site plans, he can take the necessary steps to gain the knowledge in order to get licensed. If he wants to represent boundaries to lay people, he has a duty to understand what it is that he is doing and the ramifications of his actions (to the consumer). Basing a business of fraudulent practices is not a right.

Mike, Having said that this is a wakeup call, what do you propose as the action more surveyors should take?

[Mike Mueller]

Keep in mind, there are land surveyors preparing similar site plans with similar "this is not a boundary" notes. This has to stop. The license doesn't make it acceptable.

DWoolley

I think that is the wrong approach to that issue. I think its a great service for licensed surveyors to prepare GIS site plans. Who else will be able to advise their clients when that sort of document is not sufficient for the purpose?

We regularly prepare such "Record Data Only" siteplans for clients who have 40 acres and their proposed work is in the middle of their property, hundreds of feet from a boundary line. How does a barn being built in the middle of 40 acres need an accurate boundary? What is the nexus between a new septic system with a 30' setback and knowing if the distance to the nearest boundary line is 200-210 feet vs 207.55'? We also explicitly DO NOT provide such maps for projects that are close to a boundary line. Then its either a retracement or RoS as needed. It is a great opportunity to educate clients and convince them of the value of our service.

The published LiDAR topography is amazing(all things considered) and GIS building footprints have been tested to be pretty decent, and the boundary obtained from sources like Parlay or other GIS sources is sometimes atrocious, sometimes pretty spot on. (often correlated with how much surveying was involved in the parcel creation.) But that is my point. I have a far better idea of where the data is on the decent-atrocious spectrum than a non surveyor, and as such I can better help my client not waste money on extraneous precision.

At the end of the day we are licensed to protect the public. Consider this aspect of the public:
We have clients that need to fix their septic system. Often these clients are not rich, and its a big reach to get the money to do the fix. I do not see how making people spend thousands of dollars on extra paperwork (read non record siteplan) so they can fix their septic system so that raw sewage is not seeping to the surface helps the public. What are the other options? Condemn the house? Use "low income housing" money from the public to subsidize the surveying costs? Ignore it and let sewage seep to the surface?

Forcing people to either use a surveyor at 3K vs a non surveyor at $300 will only give impetus to the drive to deregulate. The public will likely only see a protectionist law that is not doing anything because finding out the cheap survey was bad is generally done later in time so there is no immediate connection to their purchasing of a garbage map and the neighbor suing them to move their fence/addition etc. Heck, its often the next owners of the property that are left dealing with the consequences of the bad siteplan so the pain is far removed from the bad action. If operant conditioning has taught us anything, its that action and consequence need to be connected.

The best way I have found for connecting those two in time is for the building inspectors to require offset certificates when the inspector sees its close. That was used to great effect in the rebuilding after the Tubbs fire. It let people get back to building asap, but still had an effective enforcement of the setbacks. It also only requires a handful of people (building inspectors) in any jurisdiction to be trained and educated, and building inspectors seem to have a much slower turnover than planners do in my experience.

Mikey Mueller, PLS
Sonoma County

[mpallamary]

There is one thing to consider and that is, this matter is already in litigation. As such, we will be subject to the ruling of the court. Their primary argument is:

“California’s definition of land surveying is unconstitutionally overbroad and unconstitutionally vague.”

No matter how you look at this case, we are in it and we are in it very deep.

[Warren Smith]

What is key will be the BPELSG response as Defendant as to this issue in particular. Attorney General's office may get involved.

[mpallamary]

Regardless of who is handling it, the court could benefit from the input of licensed land surveyors. The quality of people who are reviewing these plans at local municipalities is abysmal. They need to be educated and this is our opportunity to do that. Whether we like it or not, we may be fighting for our lives.

"Local officials encouraging people to create their own site drawings contradicts the board’s claim that anyone who depicts a site map needs a license. The Institute of Justice wrote about Crownholm’s case that “there is no way to tell why MySitePlan.com’s site plan drawings are illegal but the thousands of site plan drawings submitted by non-surveyors to California building departments are not.”

[mpallamary]

One of the reasons we need to get involved early is to identify ourselves as a "real party in interest." If we do not, we could be precluded from future decisions and involvement.

In law, the real party in interest is the one who actually possesses the substantive right being asserted and has a legal right to enforce the claim (under applicable substantive law). Additionally, the "real party in interest" must sue in his own name. In many situations, the real party in interest will be the parties themselves (i.e., plaintiff and defendant).

[CBarrett]

I can actually see how accuracy statements may help in this case. Beyond field surveying, it may be possible to devise a cartographical accuracy statement which identifies degree of reliability of record data used (considering sources of records and their handling), and then have mapping standards required for a variety of applications.
Precision of each dataset (in GIS) can be quantifies and weighed, similar to the way field measurements are, and then run though least squares to make a statistical determination of accuracy of different dataset layers.

Preliminary site plans requiring higher precision than maybe truck routing GIS, than field monumentation or boundary dispute surveys or tentative maps or final maps or room additions etc.... We seem to get hung up in presenting this as 'one precision level for all. This isn't the case, we already know that in field measurements different precision is used for different applications (1st order, blah blah...)

Each one of these requires different precision when it comes to determining where a parcel of land is located.

Then make it so that only surveyors can determine these accuracies, and have us be in the supervisory capacity of the work. For example planning setting zoning setbacks of 20 feet, it probably never even occurs to many of them that we may measure this to 0.01', and unlikely to consider that many things may end up being built to 0.1'.

This is something I can almost guarantee "my site plan guy" can not do, quantify the accuracy of his work.