California Surveyors Forums

In addition to the new laws of 2020, it seems very few cities and counties are complying with Section 8725.1 of the PLSA. I have had one city in particular tell me they are not subject to state laws. In dealing with one of the cities I deal with, they filed their form after I notified them. This was necessary because unlicensed people were reviewing land surveying documents. This was one way to get their attention while assisting me in figuring out who I should be dealing with.

According to the Board, five years ago, on January 1, 2015, changes to both the Professional Land Surveyors’ Act and the Professional Engineers Act that apply to governmental agencies and their employees became effective.

Section 8725.1 was added to the Professional Land Surveyors’ Act (California Business and Professions Code) requiring that all licensure requirements imposed upon private sector professional land surveyors shall be imposed upon individuals performing land surveying for a governmental agency. Section 8725.1 states as follows:

It is the intent of the Legislature that the licensure requirements that are imposed upon private sector professional land surveyors and land surveying partnerships, firms, or corporations shall be imposed upon the state and any city, county, city and county, district, and special district that shall adhere to those requirements. Therefore, for the purposes of Section 8725 and this chapter, at least one person authorized to practice land surveying shall be designated the person in responsible charge of professional land surveying work practiced in any department or agency of the state, city, county, city and county, district, or special district.

This requirement has been a part of the Professional Engineers Act, in Section 6730.2, for many years. The addition of Section 8725.1 has made it clear that professional land surveying services performed for or by a governmental agency are required to be done by a person legally authorized to perform land surveying services. These sections clarify that the requirement for licensure applies to governmental agencies and their employees as well as licensees working in the private sector.

Has anyone else encountered this problem?

I agree that this is a problem in that most agencies do not know of this statute. It is not a grand conspiracy to injure or defraud the public of private surveyors. The change in statute simply wasn't well published. No one I know of has balked at compliance when made aware of the change. [Check on San Mateo & Alameda County - the forms are dated from the start of my tenure with both agencies]

It's not hard to comply with. (Yes, it's OK to end a sentence with a preposition now!)

Send and email to Dallas Sweeney at the the Board and ask for the NOD form. Fill it out. Get it signed. Send it back. Email of a PDF file seems to be OK.

Thanks pal.

It is a real problem for me as I work in multiple cities and it is a struggle to find out who is in "responsible charge" at these places. The days of stating the document was prepared by "the city engineering department" should be long gong.

Ian, once again, this is one of those things CLSA can do to help educate its members. That is also why I have been asking about AB5. The noticing bill is five years old! I am working with one city that simply refuses to comply or let me know who is in charge of survey matters. In another, it turns out it is a contract surveyor. Up until then, I was dealing with interns and that cost my client a ton of money as the intern was clueless.

Even easier than emailing Dallas, simply provide the following link to any public agency that is unaware, perhaps to their Director of Public Works (or equivalent) and legal council.
https://www.bpelsg.ca.gov/licensees/nod ... info.shtml
BPELSG staff have done a number of outreach events specifically to public agencies to make them aware of this, and other laws impacting our profession. As Ian said, once an agency is made aware, they generally step into line quickly.

Thanks Rob!

Happy New Year!