California Surveyors Forums

Following up on a recent post by LS 4722. Yet another.... Too many architectural site plans showing improvements related to property lines with no reference to surveys. This is annoying. You can't put together a reasonable price to do the staking work with insufficient plan data.

It is far too prevalent. How do we educate the Building Officials, and the architects and engineers about the fact that the basic foundation of all permitted improvement work is being tossed aside every day by everybody?




I've posted this before, but here it is again:


Current 2010 CA Building Code regarding site plans. Reads as follows:

Chapter 1, Division 1, Section 107.2.5 Site Plan:

"107.2.5 Site plan. The construction documents submitted with the application for permit shall be accompanied by a site plan showing to scale the size and location of new construction and existing structures on the site, distances from lot lines, the established street grades and the proposed finished grades and, as applicable, flood hazard areas, floodways, and design flood elevations; and it shall be drawn in accordance with an accurate boundary line survey. In the case of demolition, the site plan shall show construction to be demolished and the location and size of existing structures and construction that are to remain on the site or plot. The building official is authorized to waive or modify the requirement for a site plan when the application for permit is for alteration or repair or when otherwise warranted"

Here's the link:

http://publicecodes.cyberregs.com/st/ca ... sec032.htm

It is a issue and it's up to building depts to require a survey, but most don't.

As I stated once before; a city here that requires setback certs by a surveyor of forms and final building, does not require anything where the architect shows a building setback greater than the required setback such as; 6ft from pl when the setback is 5ft.

The building official is authorized to waive or modify the requirement for a site plan...when otherwise warranted"

If you were to ask the building official at most local agencies, I expect they'd point to those last three words when asked their agency doesn't require a survey.

.

I believe the part, "... and it shall be drawn in accordance with an accurate boundary line survey..." should be edited to say:

"... and it shall be drawn in accordance with an accurate boundary line survey prepared by a licensed land surveyor in accordance with Business and Professions Code §§ 8700-8805."

It seems that if you are showing improvements related to the property line, you are performing land surveying per the LS Act.

Therefore, whoever is preparing the site plan is practicing land surveying.

If they are licensed to practice land surveying, that would be one thing.

If they are not licensed to practice land surveying, then they are practicing land surveying without a license, which is a violation of the LS Act.

Of course the Board can do nothing if they are unaware of the situation. So, if you are licensed to practice land surveying, it would seem to be in your best interest to let them know of a possible violation of the LS Act. DUH!

"The building official is authorized to waive or modify the requirement for a site plan when the application for permit is for alteration or repair or "when otherwise warranted"

This last sentence outlines exceptions. The exceptions are "alteration and "repair". And "when otherwise warranted" is also and exception. This last exception needs to be justified somehow. It is illogical to write a code section and then at the end provide an all encompassing exception that renders the code section useless and meaningless. If there is a local agency that is classifing every permit in the exception of "when otherwise warranted" then that agency is abusing it's discretion. Jim is correct that many may turn to the "when otherwise warranted" as an excuse not to do their job, but they are wrong to do so when and if in fact the the circumstances do not support the "when otherwise warranted" exception.
I am aware that our Board has worked with other Boards closely in recent years to address the confusion that may exist within other disciplines as to proper practice where it relates to boundaries.

I like both Ryan and coast's comments.

To add to what Dane and others have said...

It is unlawful for the agency to ask for a site plan (fixed works shown in relationship to boundary) that is not prepared by someone authorized to practice land surveying.

The point i wanted to make is that The state of matters resembles That of a jaywalking flash mob. I don't have time or resources to point out who is violating the Code. It is easier and near accurate to assume everybody.

Resurrecting this. I've had a couple of surveyors recently contact me about where to find the CBC site plan requirement.

Plus, could not CLSA find the time to notify, or remind, every building official and planning director in the state regarding the CBC requirement for site plans?

Resurrecting this again.

The 2013 CBC is in effect.

Chapter 1, Division 1, Section 107.2.5 Site Plan:

"107.2.5 Site plan. The construction documents submitted with the application for permit shall be accompanied by a site plan showing to scale the size and location of new construction and existing structures on the site, distances from lot lines, the established street grades and the proposed finished grades and, as applicable, flood hazard areas, floodways, and design flood elevations; and it shall be drawn in accordance with an accurate boundary line survey. In the case of demolition, the site plan shall show construction to be demolished and the location and size of existing structures and construction that are to remain on the site or plot. The building official is authorized to waive or modify the requirement for a site plan when the application for permit is for alteration or repair or when otherwise warranted"

Read your local County or City's site plan requirements. Is your local area compliant? Numerous agencies where I work are not. Examples include Sonoma County, the City of Sonoma, Santa Cruz County, the City of Santa Cruz, the City of Capitola, the Town of Los Gatos, the City of Mountain View, Carmel, Pacific Grove, just to name a few.


Sonoma County's site plan requirements, for example, are attached:

Item 2, last sentence states, "While not required, it is the Owner's responsibility to have property lines surveyed." Nice.


Is it possible that CLSA would issue to its members a CLSA approved form letter for its members to issue to their local government agencies recommending that these agencies comply with state law?

I could for example send a copy of the letter to every architect listed in my Linkedin connections, every city and county where I work, or have worked. It would probably drum up more work.

I just finished a setback certification survey for one of the local agencies.

My client told me at the start of our communications that she has a substandard side yard setback of 3 feet and needed an administrative approval of variance from the required side yard for a 45 foot wide lot, which would be 10% of the lot width. The city planner told her she had to obtain a survey of the property before she could submit any plans in for check.

Well, I did the job and it turns out that she will not need a side yard variance.

I have attached two PDF files. One is called "Architects Survey" which really did nothing more than have her needlessly worry and think about how much of a delay the variance would cost her in time.

The second PDF , "Field Survey" shows what actually exists on site as far as setbacks go.

The architects PDF that was emailed to me was lacking any type of name on it. If there was one I probably would have forwarded the PDF to Ric so he could take action on it.

This lady was lucky, a problem was caught before it got out of hand.

Yes Paul, after looking at your links it would be nice to know who that originated from. Two feet difference and an extreme and completely undue headache for the homeowner, not to mention wasted money. We could proceed like we did with that last one. Glad you were able to help.

She should sue the Architect for the cost of the survey and project delays. Maybe if that happened he wouldn't be more inclined to hire a surveyor in the future.

That's going to come in very handy tomorrow. Thanks

Los Gatos, licensed architect hand draws a site plan. I come out to stake the setback lines for the contractor, which results in cutting 4 feet off of the new house construction. Inspector stops the job to send the project back through planning. I then come back and give the owner a proper boundary and topo map. And 4 months later give the contractor his certification letter based on my original setback lines. Nice work City and Architect.

Or how bout the $6mil residential lot within my block in Palo Alto where I found a brand new hub and tack, above an old non-record iron pipe? Cute.

It is all about the appropriate education during the initial communication between you and your client.

In my case the arch has been trying to get us, the civil, or the structural to set the building on his plan. LOL $15 mill house, not my job man.

Here in Truckee the Town requires a licensed surveyor to certify that all property corners have been located or "set" as a condition for any building permit approval and must be shown as such on the project site plan.

Newport Beach, CA also requires a boundary survey to obtain a building permit. I wish they all did.

mfarrauto wrote:Here in Truckee the Town requires a licensed surveyor to certify that all property corners have been located or "set" as a condition for any building permit approval and must be shown as such on the project site plan.

The key part being ....certify that all property corners have been located or "set", Searched Not Found doesn't cut it. The town has kicked back site plans and required that the monuments be set for approval.

We like cities and counties who are clued in. They understand the intent of the California Building Code and the land surveying profession as a whole and the result is these municipalities create less problems. The statistics are out there. CLSA?

Interesting article related to the topic.

Although it implies a survey was done pre-construction in the statement: "The developer argued it should not be penalized for an innocent surveying mistake."

Nonetheless, the potential buyers were smart enough to protect their potential investment by hiring a surveyor to do a boundary survey!

http://www.theindychannel.com/news/u-s-world/18m-house-built-on-park-by-mistake

TOO many CEs today ask for a topo and paper boundary one even asked for a ALTA with a paper boundary LOL.
Anyone have any ideas on how to educate CEs on the benefits of a pre design boundary? About the only one I have found successful is "no extra charge for a boundary and CR or RS if required" at the topo only price of course.

I did a bunch of school topos for an engineer. Usually the boundary can be shown.

This one had an old description in chains and mismatched the adjoining Deed by 40'. He says, "show the boundary." I said I can't without a full boundary survey which will cost $$$$$$ and isn't necessary for your project. The project was all ADA retrofits on existing walks and building none closer than 100' from the boundary. He just wanted the boundary. They never called me again after that and it didn't break my heart. SLOOOOOOOOOOOOOW pay too.

School work. Some of the worst work product I've ever seen. Prostitution rings in action. Reflection of the sad state of society.