wudda think? loop-hole?
-
hellsangle
- Posts: 680
- Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:31 am
- Location: Sonoma, CA
- Contact:
-
Ian Wilson
- Posts: 1087
- Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2002 6:58 am
- Location: Bay Area
Interesting website, I must say. (Egad! Eh? I’m now a Certified Trainer for MicroSurvey MSCAD. MicroSurvey is a Canadian company. Eh? I’m beginning to speak Canadian! Eh?)
The “technology” mentioned in the articles seems to be that created by an Israeli architect/engineer a few years back. It was an interesting system using lasers and mirrors to measure precise dimensions or rooms inside buildings. This type of measurement, in my opinion, does NOT fall under ANY of the parameters of §8726 of the PLS Act. It is incidental to the practice of architecture. It also represents an interesting source of solid data for retro-fits and renovations.
All of the drawings displayed represent architectural renderings either as elevation drawings or floor plans. Not one of the project (pronounced PRO-ject, with a long capital "O") drawings comes close to being a “site plan” that would use survey data.
On the other hand, they do offer a “site plan”.
I got a “Quick Estimate” for a single story single-family manufactured 2,500 square foot house on a suburban irregular lot. This is what I got:
Site Plan
(Architectural Standard)
The Standard Site Plan locates structures, includes a roof plan, key elements and key surfaces. The standard site plan also includes power drop, exposed utilities, and wall location of neighboring structure within 10' of property lines that are assumed from the tax assessor's map.
The Basic Site Plan locates structures, roof outline, and key surfaces only. No roof plan or neighboring structures.
Site plans are not surveys.
$2,170.00
Everything was running along rather smoothly until: “…and wall location of neighboring structure within 10' of property lines…” Granted, the sentence finishes with a disclaimer “…assumed from the tax assessor's map…” The problem with the disclaimer is that the average layperson has no clue what that implies or the havoc that can wreck. Additionally, the average layperson is looking to the licensed architect for professional services, not the superficial twaddle actually being offered.
In my opinion, it is time for BPELS to review this and take appropriate action. A stronger statement regarding the fact that the site plan is not a survey and cannot be used to determine boundaries and that the “site plan” being offered is merely an expensive cartoon devoid of any real information that would be required by most agencies prior to permit processing. In other words, spend more than 2 grand now on a cartoon and a bunch more later with a REAL surveyor turning the expensive cartoon into a useable project document.
There should also be some indication that the “site plan” has no grading information, topographic information or other data required to properly site the anticipated structure on the parcel.
In my opinion, this is not a loop-hole but a noose. It's time for BPELS to step up to the plate and protect the people of California from this potentially harmful "service".
The rest of the ARCHITECTURAL services are quite intriguing, though.
The “technology” mentioned in the articles seems to be that created by an Israeli architect/engineer a few years back. It was an interesting system using lasers and mirrors to measure precise dimensions or rooms inside buildings. This type of measurement, in my opinion, does NOT fall under ANY of the parameters of §8726 of the PLS Act. It is incidental to the practice of architecture. It also represents an interesting source of solid data for retro-fits and renovations.
All of the drawings displayed represent architectural renderings either as elevation drawings or floor plans. Not one of the project (pronounced PRO-ject, with a long capital "O") drawings comes close to being a “site plan” that would use survey data.
On the other hand, they do offer a “site plan”.
I got a “Quick Estimate” for a single story single-family manufactured 2,500 square foot house on a suburban irregular lot. This is what I got:
Site Plan
(Architectural Standard)
The Standard Site Plan locates structures, includes a roof plan, key elements and key surfaces. The standard site plan also includes power drop, exposed utilities, and wall location of neighboring structure within 10' of property lines that are assumed from the tax assessor's map.
The Basic Site Plan locates structures, roof outline, and key surfaces only. No roof plan or neighboring structures.
Site plans are not surveys.
$2,170.00
Everything was running along rather smoothly until: “…and wall location of neighboring structure within 10' of property lines…” Granted, the sentence finishes with a disclaimer “…assumed from the tax assessor's map…” The problem with the disclaimer is that the average layperson has no clue what that implies or the havoc that can wreck. Additionally, the average layperson is looking to the licensed architect for professional services, not the superficial twaddle actually being offered.
In my opinion, it is time for BPELS to review this and take appropriate action. A stronger statement regarding the fact that the site plan is not a survey and cannot be used to determine boundaries and that the “site plan” being offered is merely an expensive cartoon devoid of any real information that would be required by most agencies prior to permit processing. In other words, spend more than 2 grand now on a cartoon and a bunch more later with a REAL surveyor turning the expensive cartoon into a useable project document.
There should also be some indication that the “site plan” has no grading information, topographic information or other data required to properly site the anticipated structure on the parcel.
In my opinion, this is not a loop-hole but a noose. It's time for BPELS to step up to the plate and protect the people of California from this potentially harmful "service".
The rest of the ARCHITECTURAL services are quite intriguing, though.
Ian Wilson, P.L.S. (CA / NV / CO)
Alameda County Surveyor
Alameda County Surveyor
-
hellsangle
- Posts: 680
- Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:31 am
- Location: Sonoma, CA
- Contact:
-
dmi
- Posts: 981
- Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:42 pm
- Location: San Francisco
- Contact:
thanks for the update
Ryan,
Thanks for the update, I am curious to know what there is to appeal. Either they had a party who was responsible charge at the the time they advertised land surveying services or they did not. It seems to me that some folks play way to fast and loose with what consitutes having a licensed person IN CHARGE OF THE SURVEYING SERVICES.
Then again there may be out of state entities that are ignorant of SOP in any of the states where they offer land surveying services without a license. In my opinion, showing a fixed feature in relationship to, APN line, or boundary lines or any purported record title lines, is an activity that falls directly under the provisions of law that defines what land surveying is.
Thanks for the update, I am curious to know what there is to appeal. Either they had a party who was responsible charge at the the time they advertised land surveying services or they did not. It seems to me that some folks play way to fast and loose with what consitutes having a licensed person IN CHARGE OF THE SURVEYING SERVICES.
Then again there may be out of state entities that are ignorant of SOP in any of the states where they offer land surveying services without a license. In my opinion, showing a fixed feature in relationship to, APN line, or boundary lines or any purported record title lines, is an activity that falls directly under the provisions of law that defines what land surveying is.
-
E_Page
- Posts: 2137
- Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 6:49 am
- Location: El Dorado County
On their website, they seemed to use language designed to indicate that their service fell into those exempted from the PLSA.
Not knowing the particulars, I would guess that they got themselves into trouble by indicating some spacial relationship to what they located to supposed boundary lines, or that their verbal, contractual, or other documentary representations of the nature of the services provided stepped over the line.
If they had someone rubberstamping "surveys" for them, I would expect them to be a little more brazen in their descriptions of services provided.
In my observation, unless there is some more obvious infraction involved, BPELS would have more difficulty nailing an outfit using a willing rubberstamper who does not properly oversee the work than they do more blatant violations of performing licensed activities with no licensee involved.
Not knowing the particulars, I would guess that they got themselves into trouble by indicating some spacial relationship to what they located to supposed boundary lines, or that their verbal, contractual, or other documentary representations of the nature of the services provided stepped over the line.
If they had someone rubberstamping "surveys" for them, I would expect them to be a little more brazen in their descriptions of services provided.
In my observation, unless there is some more obvious infraction involved, BPELS would have more difficulty nailing an outfit using a willing rubberstamper who does not properly oversee the work than they do more blatant violations of performing licensed activities with no licensee involved.
Evan Page, PLS
A Visiting Forum Essayist
A Visiting Forum Essayist
-
Administrator
- Posts: 459
- Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2002 9:55 am
-
hellsangle
- Posts: 680
- Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:31 am
- Location: Sonoma, CA
- Contact:
TNX!
thank you ALL . . . I love this forum!!!!