California Surveyors Forums

Prior to leaving town, I assisted a contractor to survey and prepare a setback certification letter for the foundation forms satisfying the setbacks per plans.

I'm on vacation and the inspector will not except the letter that states I surveyed the property and foundation forms "have been constructed and verified for horizontal position per the approved plans to satisfy the setback requirements."

I received an e-mail that the contractor will not accept the letter because I did not state "structure is placed according to the approved plans". Really?

I sent an e-mail explaining my letter is factual, that I surveyed the forms, and I am not certifying the structure because the structure is not built yet, not even the concrete poured.

Am I crazy, or do you support that the inspector truly doesn't understand what a certification letter is.

Setback letters tend to drive me a little insane.

I have had a city inspector reject a certification where I specified the as-built setback in feet, and wanted a generic "built per plan". I then started doing the "built per plan" thing until a county inspector called me all annoyed that I did not specify the as-built measurements in feet, to which I responded "I was specifically asked not to do this by another inspector recently" which he did not believe. At this point I am back to specifying all setbacks measured which seems to work.

I have had an inspector reject a certification because someone at the front desk wrote the wrong information on the stamped set of plans where "left" and right" were, so I had to re-word a certification to say "left per plan" and "left as one views the property from the front".

I just hate doing them because contractors rarely seem to figure out how this stuff works, wants a letter in a day or two, and then it gets rejected and I am out in the field when the panicked calls come in.

Let me add that the plans show an 18' side setback, and the minimum setback is 10'. This is in Contra Costa County if anyone is curious.

My letter has been amended to include that I surveyed the foundation forms which the structure will be constructed from. I do not think I can legally certify anything other than what has been constructed, and the letter now identifies that.

Any comments?

I totally agree Bryan, and these inspectors have no clue to what they are doing half the time since they do not understand survey technicalities to start with. I'm not even sure they understand that the liability is on us per the certification letters.

Keith I always specify where the forms are. They can do the math if they are concerned about finished surface or something that is not matching where the foundation forms are. Generally it is the foundation edge they care about.

Agencies are so different and particular and nit picky about stuff and why, they are immune from prosecution. Don't believe that, why were agencies never sued during the big construction defects cases of the 80s and 90s. Cases where fireblocks were not installed or proper insulation between common wall on condos, etc.

I am not joking in that I almost was asked to certify where that that clear bubble casing around the electric meter readout was in relation to setback.

I had already certified to the garage which of course was built to some 10-foot setback, yet later that electric meter bubble thing (what the hell is it called?) came up, because it must be in the setback. The meter structure appears to be flush with the garage face, but of course that readout thing sticks out a few inches.

It was an issue where the contractor was going to have to remove it and put it somewhere in the front where the owner was going to have to see it when driving into his garage. I must have asked the contractor if this was a joke, about 3-4 times. I could tell he was serious once I heard the sounds of him ripping his hair out in frustration.

Apparently, he got out of this one. I need to ask what happened.

CCC inspectors are just as Keith says. I was asked to certify a wooden ramp to a portable. Minimum setback was 10 or 20 feet, I don't remember. But the stairs were 250 feet from the nearest PL.

The inspectors are empowered to ask for a setback verification under the building code, generally the UBC. This is a perfect example of an opportunity for CLSA to develop a standardized form for setback certification. You can only certify what is there and that is the forms. It is not uncommon to certify after the pour but all you can do is document what is there.

CLSA should address this and apply its influence. Another example of setting a standard from surveyors and not others.

Good proposal, Michael.

My old company would add the definition of "Certify" and really throw the bureaucrats for a loop. Jp

8770.6. Use of “certifyâ€￾ or “certificationâ€￾
The use of the word “certifyâ€￾ or “certificationâ€￾ by a licensed land surveyor or registered
civil engineer in the practice of professional engineering or land surveying or the preparation of
maps, plats, reports, descriptions, or other surveying documents only constitutes an expression of
professional opinion regarding those facts or findings which are the subject of the certification,
and does not constitute a warranty or guarantee, either expressed or implied.

Inspectors and plan review personal are not always right.
Years ago I did a room addition and included a shower open to the outside of the structure for the kids to rinse off after using the pool. The plan checker insisted it had to be tiled, could not be smooth stuccoed as I wanted. I, in my usual route, when directly to the head of the dept who pulled out the UBC and sure enough, "waterproof coating" smooth stucco is ok.
You have to watch govt people very closely. One city tried to require street widening, curb and sidewalk for a lot split where according to city code only additional street dedication can be required. The asst engr of the dept that made that condition of approval insert justification was "we can get it now instead of later if they don't contest it." It was contested. Same engr that complained about the developer of a 300 unit R1 contesting EVERY item on the conditions of approval including sewer, streets, curbs etc.

Bottom line, make them produce the code requirement.

In addition to the above Keith, I would get on the phone with the Building Official, explain your circumstances, tell him that the contractor is good to go, urge him/her to allow the contractor to continue, and then follow up with an email re-stating the facts and copy your client on the communication.

You are not dodging anything. Chances are with your communication with the BO, he/she will look at your letter and accept it.

It works.

Anthony Maffia wrote:CCC inspectors are just as Keith says. I was asked to certify a wooden ramp to a portable. Minimum setback was 10 or 20 feet, I don't remember. But the stairs were 250 feet from the nearest PL.

I've done some like these. The purpose in such cases is just so that the building department has it in the file just in case the question ever comes up in any context and they can show that they were diligent in ensuring setback compliance.


Keith, you are correct that you cannot certify as to the structure but only to the forms if that is all that was in existence when you made your measurements.

For most of the SBCs that I've done, I was not provided with improvement plans. Besides, it is a SETBACK certification letter, not a COMPLIANCE WITH APPROVED SITE PLAN letter. If I am provided with plans, what assurance do I have that they are the most recent and that there have been no conditions imposed by the local agency that would affect the proper placement of the improvements I'm locating and which may be reflective in correspondence but not on the plans themselves?

Where the distance is relatively close to the setback, I have indicated specific distances from the property boundary to the corners of forms (or in some cases, existing foundations). Where the improvement is orders of magnitude clear of the setback (i.e. improvement 250'+/- from prop line, SB = 20'), I simply state that the proposed (or existing, as the case may be) improvement is placed approximately xxx' from the nearest property boundary and greatly exceeds the minimum setback of xx'.

If getting inconsistent or contradictory direction from inspectors as to what format of information is acceptable, I would go over their heads by meeting with the director of the building department. It sounds as if CCC bldg dept needs to conduct some in-house training to educate inspectors on the purpose of a setback letter and the minimal information required to be included in it.

mpallamary wrote:CLSA should address this and apply its influence. Another example of setting a standard from surveyors and not others.

This would be a great idea if there was a central organization for municipal building officials with whom such a standard could be co-written with, such as has been done with the ACSM/ALTA Standards.

The CLSA could come up with a reasonable standard for setback verifications, but without the buy-in of the building officials, it is a standard that few jurisdictions will recognize or accept. If devised in cooperation with whatever the professional organization is for municipal building officials, at least some of the counties and other local jurisdictions would adopt it - at least in principle.

The biggest stumbling block is that each jurisdiction thinks that they are unique and have certain needs specific to their area that need to be addressed through the vehicle of the setback verification. The same could be said for nearly any submittal and approval process. If these "special" jurisdictions accepted or recognized the standard at all, they would have caveats to that exception to accommodate special circumstances, and nearly all projects would have one or more of those special circumstances.


A setback letter is supposed to have a very limited scope in that it is supposed to be only a statement as to whether or not certain proposed improvements at certain points during construction meet the required setback. It is not supposed to be a short-form as-built assuring substantial compliance with approved plans.

what I state..."The horizontal and vertical location of the asbuilt forms for the construction of the building foundation for the property at 123 main street have been constructed in substantial compliance with the approved plans for this project."

I may include a sketch, maybe not. depends on what the city wants.

Evan

I believe there is such an organization. The "California Building Officials" (CALBO). Website below:

http://www.calbo.org/

If the inspector starts tossing his weight around and demands more than what is actually needed, just call his boss and explain the situation. I have done this for Burbank, Glendale and Los Angeles. Each time I did, the next time the inspector came on site there was no more of a problem with the setback cert. and he went on to other matters.

Inspectors can cost a client needless expense and wasted time.

My certs are dimensioned maps with this standard blurb on them:

PDF attached

Adding the City of --------- in the cert has cut down quite a bit on the inspectors asking for more.

I also list what survey documents were used for the survey, tract maps and tie notes. At times I add " A (Corner record / Record of survey) will be submitted to the county surveyor within statute time frame"

Just don't roll over if you know you are in the right.

This is what a particular county wants lately on their SBC.

If any surveyors who visit this site who work at that particular Public Works and building dept., well, they know who they are.

I am going through this now with daylight plane stuff.

All this stuff is covered under the design criteria so they can establish all the sidewall/roof heights in relation to grade. Plans generally have this dashed line going around and above the rooflines when you look at the elevation details.

My first letter stated the heights of the three main ridges, as well as the subfloor, which was rejected.

After consulting with the architect on the heights of the daylight plane at these locations in relation to the grades he was using, I then stated "The roof heights are under and conform within the daylight plane heights of 17 feet above grade".

That is now rejected, and I am supposed to say "The Ridge heights surveyed are within the daylight plane requirements shown on the plans."

Can we all move on if I say the magic words, if I click my heels together while I stamp the letter?

Maybe crossing the palm with green will speed things up.

btaylor wrote:After consulting with the architect on the heights of the daylight plane at these locations in relation to the grades he was using, I then stated "The roof heights are under and conform within the daylight plane heights of 17 feet above grade".

That is now rejected, and I am supposed to say "The Ridge heights surveyed are within the daylight plane requirements shown on the plans."

You're statement said the same thing but said it with more specificity. I personally don't like "shown on the plans" because plans get updated and not everyone who should be in the loop stays in the loop. Plans can change without the revisions getting properly documented in the revision block. If one such change renders a statement made about something "shown on the plans" incorrect, the finger gets pointed at you and it will take some effort to get it to stop pointing, even if you happened to keep the plans provided to you.

Stating that the ridge lines are below a certain elevation should allow the person(s) in the positions of directing changes, approving plans, and issuing permits to compare that data to whatever version of plans they have and readily determine whether or not the state of compliance has changed due to a plan revision - unless they are too d**n incompetent to interpret the plans that they approved.

The other option is to state "as shown on the plans dated" and then insert the date of the plans to which you refer.

E_Page wrote:You're statement said the same thing but said it with more specificity. I personally don't like "shown on the plans" because plans get updated and not everyone who should be in the loop stays in the loop. Plans can change without the revisions getting properly documented in the revision block. If one such change renders a statement made about something "shown on the plans" incorrect, the finger gets pointed at you and it will take some effort to get it to stop pointing, even if you happened to keep the plans provided to you.

Stating that the ridge lines are below a certain elevation should allow the person(s) in the positions of directing changes, approving plans, and issuing permits to compare that data to whatever version of plans they have and readily determine whether or not the state of compliance has changed due to a plan revision - unless they are too d**n incompetent to interpret the plans that they approved.

I agree. I prefer to be more specific so we are all on the same page.

As it turns out in this case, there must have been miscommunication with the contractor, because my more specific letter was accepted.

As mentioned before, I have been requested to be less specific, so I never know if there was miscommunication or the inspector is being obtuse.