California Surveyors Forums

Layout shall be done by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor Approved by the Engineer.

The verbage that you use-capable-should be used for both the Land Surveyor and Civil Engineer. But really, the word capable, should not be in the sentence at all. Strike that word.

See section 6731.1(a) concerning civil engineers authority to perform construction staking.

Capability and the authorization to practice are two differnt things. Do not ge them confused. There are a few PEs I know who are more capable of practicing land surveying than some of the LSs I've met. The PEs are not authorized to practice land suveying, though.

What you mean is: ...a Registered Civil Engineer AUTHORIZED to practive land surveying under §8731 of the Professional Land Surveyor's Act (California Business and Professions Code)...

.

There are plenty of CEs who are not capable of competently staking anything in the field, and there are many surveyors who are capable of a good deal of appropriately adjusting a design to meet field conditions. But, capabilities and §415 aside, the engineer is authorized to perform both the design and the staking, while the surveyor is authorized to perform the staking and any other surveying that might be required, but not authorized to do any design modifications.

Depending upon the scope of the staking involved, a post-81 CE may be authorized. Depending upon what is meant by "Field Engineering" (does that refer to design adjustment in the field?), a CE may be the porfessional required for the job.

"If the project ties improvements to property lines, then only an LS or pre-82 civil can perform that function."

Which function? Establishing the boundary, or staking improvements related to the boundary?

If the property lines of a project site are unambiguously marked (e.g. as documented via Final Map, Record of Survey, Corner Record, etc.), then anyone authorized to perform construction staking may stake improvements related to those property lines. As long as no interpretation as to boundary location is required, it's not boundary surveying.

Don't lose sight of the fact that corner monuments and their associated records are meant to render property line locations accessible to everyone, not just the annointed.

.

Now I'm wondering why an LS would want to take over design liability . . . by making design adjustments ?

I suppose if we didnt make the Obvious error adjustments, then the preferred staking crew would be that under the direction of the design engineer.

Actually when we are staking a project, we are in essence "engineers' helpers"

How many projects are staked with relationship to the property lines, where thre is no actual monumented boundary in place. Rather, the boundary is calculated off some nearby control.

How many of those staking jobs have been "landed" when the cost of a record of survey was added . . . . not many I suspect.

so then . . . engineers are licensed to "stake" their own projects. they can topo their projects, however, most of them cannot file a ROS on the boundary of the project.

If a Land Surveyor stakes the project, then is he/she required to monument the boundary and file a record of survey. Even at his own expense ?

Certainly if the survey is charged for, the job will not be awarded to the Surveyor.
AND, can projects today, afford the additional expense of a survey and monumentation ?
(not withstanding liability and future encroachment problems.) ????

I'm just wondering how all of the (seemingly) contradictory laws meld into a workable situation for both Project engineer and surveyor, and still meet the developers and public agency criteria ?

This specification is poorly written. Is the spec saying: "engineering design" decisions shall be performed by a registered engineer and these “engineering design” decisions shall be reflected on the “As-Built” set of plans signed and stamped by the engineer who made these “field engineering” decisions.

OR

What everyone else who has posted above thinks it says.

I would think that a change from the approved set of plans drastic enough to necessitate the need to put in on the “As-Built” set would require the license of a professional engineer.

Jim, great post! I think Ian and Evan would say it doesn’t matter how “unambiguously marked” the PL is, the fact is the construction staker is still making the decision that the FD 2” IP is the same 2” IP shown on the recorded document. PE_PLS agrees with you and had this same logic train in a different thread.

Good drives the point home that ANY design decisions should be made by the engineer of work or a professional engineer willing to take over as the engineer of work.

The spec verbiage sounds awfully close to 8728.

"I think Ian and Evan would say it doesn’t matter how “unambiguously marked” the PL is..."

Not so. There are circumstances where there is not much room for confusion. One finds the monuments as described on the map, measures between them and finds those measurements to substantialy match the record, then have at it, Mr. CE.

But what constitutes "unambiguously" marked? Is it simply having monuments in the ground that are described on a map? What about those instances where there may be a pincushion? Or those where there are short jogs along a boundary? Those where someone came along and set another, very similar point nearby but never filed a map? How about where a landowner or utility construction crew moves a monument? And of course, all those subdivisions where the back corners of lots facing opposite streets of the block are all just a couple of feet from those of the lots facing the other way, and the BCs and ECs that are set as well as the front lot corners along the RWs? We've all seen such subdivisions where a BC monument, of the exact same nature and markings as the fronts (all 5/8" rebar with plastic cap mkd "LS 1234") sits just a couple of feet from a front lot corner.

The problem I've seen a few times is where someone (most often a CE or unlicensed) finds two irons that either are as described on a record map, or are close (map cals for 3/4" CIP "LS 1234", and a 3/4" OIP is found at about the right distance), and then proceeds to map the property or stake the improvements based upon those two irons.

Later on, someone comes by to survey the property next door and finds that, oops, the previous CE used an iron at a BC 6' from the actual front corner, or used a rear corner of lots adjoining on the back, and that rear was a few feet from the rear he should have used. But the CE was CERTAIN he had the right mons because they matched the map description and measured only 0.2' long. The CE knew just enough about surveying to be dangerous and didn't know enough to check to other local monumentation to ensure that he was on the mons he thought he was.

That brings us back to that pesky area of competence thing described in §415. But then, there are too many PEs that don't even know enough about surveying, much less respect it as a separate profession, to know what they don't know. There are some that are very good surveyors, having gotten there through good training and experience. But they are becoming fewer.

So which is it, can a CE do construction staking or not? I was shot down several months ago about this same topic. I asked if I could do construction staking for a new subdivision with obvious street monuments. If I recall very few people if any on this board said a CE could do construction staking for building setbacks. I realize this argument is slippery slope, because then a CE will want to take a deed from 1922 and do the same thing. But is there any room to be reasonable here, or is it a simple yes/no answer that a CE can do construction staking involving boundaries....