California Surveyors Forums

Ken,

Try providing the inspector with this publication:

http://www.bpelsg.ca.gov/pubs/local_officials_guide.pdf

Indeed, it is embarassing. Gook luck with the City, Ken.....

http://www.newportbeachca.gov/Modules/S ... entid=3225

Here are the City of Newport Beach requirements. The city changed their tune a few years ago when some permitted projects caused the city to be sued because the permitted projects caused encroachments onto adjoining properties.

See General No. 5. Technically No. 3 & 5 should also say, "...prepared by a licensed land surveyor..."

Regardless of the particulars of what this link says, NB will not permit an addition, a patio cover, anything without a boundary survey, stamped and sealed.

Right with you, Ken. It is embarrassing that the previous surveyors provided useless service. Worse than useless actually since the work cost $$$$ and eventually had to be performed correctly for additional $$$$.

Too many surveyors don't understand that they are the professionals, and therefore have the responsibility to determine the intended purpose of the survey and then provide the service that will meet those needs.

For site design of a small & steep lot, there is no excuse for the previous surveyors not recognizing that both topo and a (real) boundary survey were needed. Too many surveyors don't want to provide professional level service, but still often insist on being recognized as professionals even as they avoid behaving like professionals.

Kudos for doing your part to lift the bar.

Many times I have been approached by both archs and engrs to do a "lot survey for new or expanded residence". As soon as i mention Boundary survey they say "No, that's not needed" and no amount of discussion changes their mind, but they want pls shown and sometimes ask for line stakes on the PL but still refuse to pay for a boundary survey.
While educating building depts is a good step, archs and engrs need the same education.

Newport Beach only requires a survey and set back cert if you are building to the set back line. Per my experience ~10 years ago, the arch reduced the expansion by one foot thereby putting the expansion 6ft from Pl instead of at the 5ft setback and no sideline cert was required. Spent most of a day meeting at the site for nothing.

My experience in NB is within the last five years. Boundary survey required to install a patio cover on a townhome. Corner Record filed.

Boundary survey required for grading permit after a slope failure. RS filed.

Boundary survey required for new building. RS Filed.

These clients came to me after being denied permits for having no boundary survey.

that the land owners, Architects and Engineers will get 'educated' in this instance will be when the city/county begin to REQUIRE that a boundary survey to be included with the design site plans (which also has the topography). This can be easily done in one project, but there is another issue ...

Please understand that I am NOT condoning past behavior. The specific instance you site in your original post, while 'embarassing' to the profession, most likely reflects the client's (insert land owner, architect, engineer, etc.) 'shopping' (aka low balling) the various required services during the course of the project. I have seen this numerous times, especially during my short stint in the SF Bay area (lots of wheeling dealing, and I lost a many a job because I was offering more than they wanted (or were required). I ran into a few instances where the prior surveyor was 'fired' (many times for lame reasons, but most often the client "found a cheaper surveyor"). And that is also a reflection of too many surveyors NOT acting like professionals (more like hourly blue collar workers, but that's another topic entirely).

The lack of specific requirements/direction by the agency department(s) exacberates these issues.

pls7809 wrote:My experience in NB is within the last five years. Boundary survey required to install a patio cover on a townhome. Corner Record filed.

Boundary survey required for grading permit after a slope failure. RS filed.

Boundary survey required for new building. RS Filed.

These clients came to me after being denied permits for having no boundary survey.

Sounds like all those were at or within (slope) the setback.

What is interesting here is when I brought this up years ago many were of the opinion that it was a "burden" on the public and padding our pockets.

Just for yucks . . .

I found this old ACSM "Technical Standards for Property Surveys" dated 1946. I realize it is out-dated . . . but have standards become better? Sometimes I wonder.

Have a nice day . . . and may the Giants prevail at tomorrow's Home Opener.

Phil - Sonoma

Ric7308 wrote:Ken,

Try providing the inspector with this publication:

http://www.bpelsg.ca.gov/pubs/local_officials_guide.pdf

How old is this booklet.

1948 REPRINT FROM 1946 PUBLICATION, LB

Site plan requirements are State Law. Read below.


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...0_1_sec032.htm

Clark, I can't get that link to work.

Try this:

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


If it does not work, then copy and paste into your google search.

Mr. Wilson is a warrior.

My take:

Cities and Counties shirking this Chapter 1 CBC requirement causes untold problems for the public. Common problems include changes in building dimensions, which domino into architectural, and structural engineering design changes and most commonly delays. This all equates to cost, which could have been avoided had that City/County followed state law.

The government should be accountable for the costs incurred by the public when they don't follow their own laws.

Right?

I find cities are worse than counties. Funny right? Because the setbacks in cities are tighter generally.

My CLSA dues should be dedicated to correcting this problem .

Because the public ends up being the victim.

Mr. Woodcutter, I applaud your passion. Many would mistake your comments as sniveling, but fret not. In my eyes, you are a true crusader!

I am but a slob. I am a 21st Century Digital Boy. I want answers and I want them now! I want everything for nothing! Dues? What dues?

Nice try Meat.

Meat?

Not sure just what that name-calling means. But I do know that it's name calling.

How about editing that last response to find a more adult tone, Clark. If you are involved in some of the work CLSA is doing and thereby making an impact on what your dues are accomplishing, explaining that may add something that a snide mini-tantrum doesn't.

Your dues, and the time that many surveyors donate to accomplish the work of the CLSA goes toward many areas of interest to surveyors in CA. Just one of those areas is coordinating efforts to educate municipalities from time to time about state laws regarding such things as monument preservation, proper licensing, and unlicensed practice.

If you are particularly concerned about local agencies inappropriately deviating from the CBC requirements, and if you haven't already done so, work within CLSA to find others who want to make it a priority to focus on efforts to educate local planning and building officials as necessary.

Your local chapter and the State level PPC would be good places to begin the effort and look for guidance as to how to put together materials for the effort.

The last architurkey's request for "just a topographic survey" with record lot lines plotted onto the drawing got what my contract spelled out. No lot lines would be shown. I told him the topo would be floating out in space somewhere without a proper boundary. He complained for about 3 days about the scope of work and how I should be able to add the lot lines from record as other surveyors had done for him in the past. (wonder what happened to those guys?)

He was the first architurkey I have dealt with who actually accepted scope of work with no lot lines. I had stipulated he and owner could add a boundary survey at anytime as the project went from prelim planning to a final design.

Has been almost a year and have not heard back from him. Maybe the project died on the drawing board. Maybe he was satisfied with improvements floating in space somewhere. He got exactly what the contract spelled out and no more.

If he ever phones me again, no hard feelings, would be happy to go out and do a real-world boundary survey, file any appropriate plat map as needed, and place lot lines onto that topo.