What is a Site Plan?

[khuerth]

...making progress. I have heard back from the building official to discuss these site plan requirements and looped the County Surveyor into the conversation and he agreed.

"Subdivision Map Act related projects being reviewed by the Subdivision Review Committee have requirement for the site plans to be prepared by a professional surveyor. I believe all site plans being reviewed by the County should have the same requirements."

While he isn't the final word, he is a good person to have on our side. Next stop, get a surveyor's stamp requirement on the checklist.

[kwilson]

I continue receiving many Construction Plans which include a Site Plan prepared without a Land Surveyor. As we all know this is illegal per CBC and LS Act. One in particular from the City of San Jose caught my attention because there was a Red Stamp on the plan with a Civil Engineer's Stamp and Signature stating that the plan has been checked and is in conformance with the Current Building Code.

There seems to be culpability on the part of any Registered Engineer that they would accept such a plan in clear non-compliance with CBC 107.2.6 and the LS Act. I submitted a complaint to the Board for this one. With regard to the Building Official of a City or County who oversees the same checking of plans. Is there an authority that would be in a position to censure them for accepting plans illegally prepared?

The practice of accepting site plans prepared by non-surveyors is an issue that is causing damage when improvements are planned, formed up and sometimes installed where they are within the setback or even on the wrong property. A recent project I worked involced an Electrical Engineer preparing a bogus site plan. Light standards were installed on city property. City asked for a survey after the fact. Now it's possibly a lawsuit.

[kwilson]

Update on efforts to crack down on unlicensed practice of Land Surveying. I have started to look into this issue and have learned a few things.

1. Building Officials are only accountable to the City or County in which they work for. I called the Contractors Board and got an email from the State Architects Board and they both said they are not responsible for the actions of Building Officials.

2. The State Architects Board do not seem to care if an Architect performs land surveying without a license. They say we need to file complaints with the BPELS.

Here is what I am doing. When I come across a Site plan prepared without a survey by a licensed surveyor, I contact the Architect/Building Designer with a letter and also the Building Official. I also attach the plan that was prepared and the other documents I have listed here. I will post any updates to this endeavor.

Letter to Architect

I would like to bring to your attention the unlawful practice of land surveying without a license. As shown on the attached approved plan that your office prepared, the existing condition information shown on the site plan appears to have been prepared by an unlicensed individual and you appear to be using this unlawfully acquired data as the basis for the site plan. There is no indication of the source of the information. As a land surveyor, I was asked to provide certification for the setbacks of the new construction. Typically, the Site Survey that forms the basis for the Site Plan is included as a sheet in the Building Permit Set. This lets everyone know how the data was acquired. Usually, the surveyor who did the original Site Survey also does the setback certification.

Note this point in the document, Building Official Information Guide/Architects Scope of Practice Point 18 regarding Land Surveying. We would like to hear from you regarding this issue as it is a concern to the land surveying community. Would you please contact me regarding this?

Letter to Building Official

I would like to bring to your attention the unlawful practice of land surveying without a license. As shown on the attached approved plan that your office issued a building permit for, the information shown on the site plan appears to have been prepared by an unlicensed individual and the Architect may be using this unlawfully acquired data as the basis for the site plan. There is no indication of the source of the information. As a land surveyor, I was asked to provide certification for the setbacks of the new construction. Typically, the Site Survey that forms the basis for the Site Plan is included as a sheet in the Building Permit Set. This lets everyone know how the data was acquired. Usually, the surveyor who did the original Site Survey also does the setback certification.

You are responsible to check that appropriate licensed individuals prepare documents that form the basis for building permits. (See Building Official Information Guide/Architects Scope of Practice Point 18 regarding Land Surveying). We would like to hear from you regarding this issue as it is a concern to the land surveying community. Would you please contact me regarding this?

[kwilson]

There is a document entitled Building Official Information Guide which I found on the Archtects Board Website. It refers to a law - BPC 5536.2. This seems to form the basis for censure of Building officials who approve permits when the information is prepared by unlicensed individuals. As an example - structural calcs prepared by a Structural Engineer. The building desgner or Architect who is not licensed to provide the structural calcs, hires an engineer and then submits the associated documents with the engineers stamp. Exactly what we do with regard to site surveys.

BPC 5536.2
Each county or city which requires the issuance of any permit as a condition precedent to the construction, alteration, improvement, or repair of any building or structure shall also require as a condition precedent to the issuance of the permit a signed statement that the person who prepared or was in responsible control of the plans and specifications for the construction, alteration, improvement, or repair of the building or structure is licensed under this chapter to prepare the plans and specifications, or is otherwise licensed in this state to prepare the plans and specifications.

The signature and stamp, as provided for in Section 5536.1 , on the plans and specifications by the person who prepared or was in responsible control of the plans and specifications shall constitute compliance with this section.

It is the responsibility of the agency that issues the permit to determine that the person who signed and stamped the plans and specifications or who submitted the signed statement required by this section is licensed under this chapter or is otherwise licensed in this state to prepare the plans and specifications.

This section shall not apply to the issuance of permits where the preparation of plans and specifications for the construction, alteration, improvement, or repair of a building or structure is exempt from this chapter, except that the person preparing the plans and specifications for others shall sign the plans and specifications as provided by Section 5536.1 .

[kwilson]

This is an email from CALBO (California Building Officials) (i think its an organization like CLSA)

Mr. Wilson,

Thank you for reaching out to CALBO. We take our role and ethical public sector services quite seriously and appreciate your correspondence below.

All California building officials are required to meet the provisions outlined within AB 717 of 1995. Here is a link to the legislation: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/95-96/bil ... tered.html

Each jurisdiction is responsible for its own internal enforcement of the state law, but most building officials seek certification though the International Code Council (ICC).

We trust that this information is helpful to you.

California Building Officials
1111 16th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Ph: 916.457.1103
www.calbo.org

[kwilson]

I got a response from a Building Official of a local city (40,000 inhabitants). He seemed irritated and was wondering "what I wanted". I explained that I was trying to inform Building Officials of what the current law is and help them understand how it applies. After a discussion he said he would look into it but it could take some time. So that was a small success i think.

[LS_8750]

Big problem with ADUs, or accessory dwelling units. Zoning Codes are changing everywhere to allow for ADUs.
Lots of ADUs on small lots going the permitting process, small lots. Pushing setbacks.
Seeing it everywhere. Building Officials everywhere are allowing fake site plans, permits issued, then comes the survey. Does the ADU fit?
That shoe is dropping as well.
So where is the Building Official?

[LS_8750]

One example, surveyor gets in contract to do a setback survey in a mapped subdivision.
No problem. Gets ADU site plan and compares to subdivision map to discover ADU will be located in fault line no build area designated on map.
Luckily, owner found they did not get funding that same day.
More of these to come.

[LS_8750]

Building Official permitted that crap.

[LS_8750]

Senate Bill 1214 discussed in 2022 the Site Plan requirement when submitting planning documents to the agency. The Site Plan was defined in SB 1214 fairly well, not to be conflicted much with CBC Chapter 1, Division II, Section 107.2.6 (there are some conflicts tho).

Interestingly, SB 1214 made allowance for public access to the Site Plan for review during planning. Now is your time to contest the boundary lines shown.

Along came SB 1048 in 2024 that revised the Site Plan definition and oddly removed the requirement of displaying on the Site Plan topographic lines, drainage, lighting, distances between buildings, and ground sign locations.

As a professional engineer, I deal enough with drainage, flooding, landslides, and related issues in my litigation support practice that I find it odd that planning agencies would be ok with omitting drainage and topography from site plans, especially when the CBC requires that exact info in flood prone areas. So yes, there is now a conflict now between SB 1048 and CBC Chapter 1, Division II, Section 107.2.6.

See the attached on SB 1048.

Also, here is a link to SB 1214.......... https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/face ... 0220SB1214

We're not dead yet... "I feel happy!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEmfsmasjVA

[LS_8750]

A few common litigation issues I am seeing with deficient site plans:
1. Building Code violation;
2. Breach of Contract; and
3. Professional negligence (when prepared and/or used by professionals).

I am also seeing site plans with apparent intent to deceive the reader, or planning agency. Not the base maps prepared by surveyors, but later manipulation of the base map.

FWIW