What is a Site Plan?

[CBarrett]

That place is practicing surveying without a license.
Maybe that's why it is so hard to find their contact info on the website. Could be an outfit from abroad too.

[mpallamary]

Yup. Does anyone care?

[CBarrett]

Someone should write up a complaint, and then maybe few years down the road they will be banned from california, which is not likely to be very enforceable under current laws and conditions.
Yet again, laws and legal protections are lagging behind the times.

I was just looking some of their writeups, on one hand they say these are not certified plans, on the other hand they are promoting using them for building permits etc...

[hellsangle]

These guys are slicker than snot . . .

Try get your refund: https://www.mysiteplan.com/pages/return-policy

Endless loop to get that "form". LOL

[CBarrett]

I had a nice little chat with them an hour ago (with screenshots), Hi, I need a site plan to split my lot .... my brother in law wants to buy the back half and put up a house for my mother in law, I hear I need a site plan for that.... I don't know how much of that is reportable.

[mpallamary]

Interesting

[mpallamary]

Check out the exhibit. You can mouse around it and see the property lines and dimensions.

https://www.mysiteplan.com/collections/ ... =386904444

[mpallamary]

Here they are showing the dimensions to the property line to the nearest hundredth.

https://www.mysiteplan.com/collections/ ... =386904444

[mpallamary]

Here they are showing the dimensions to the property line to the nearest hundredth.

https://www.mysiteplan.com/collections/ ... =386904444

[DWoolley]

Next question, what specifically do land surveyors do that cannot be done by a contractor, engineer or architect? Serious question.

DWoolley

Amendment: "....done by a contractor, engineer, architect" or a guy with a website and some GIS skills?

I am sure the California land surveyors will be ok *[sarcasm on full blast].

I am 99% sure the website linked is one of the folks cited by BPELSG. The note about the site plan website "not being a survey" is likely approved as shown.

The site plan shown with dimensions to the boundary line was in Virginia - if it was in California and the local planning department will accept it - although illegal here - is unlikely to be found and reported. Of course, if you can do a site plan for less than the advertised $130, no worries. *again, I am sure the readers here will be ok - no accuracy statements, no GIS, no underground utility detection, no topography, no, no, no. Yep, the world is your oyster, party on.

Think about this, there are approximately 50,000 active California Professional Engineers. Suppose they get tired of our land surveyor weirdness [no, no, no] and decide they want to change the law to allow them to survey, who's going to stop them? Has anyone here read Bus. and Prof. 6731.1 lately? Not much different from 8726. How hard would it be for them to make those sections of law the same? How would the practice look if there was 10x number of "qualified" land surveyors. I ask myself, would I lift a finger?

DWoolley

[mpallamary]

Good observations!

[hellsangle]

Good news:
Larkspur, a Marin County town, has rejected one of these site maps. They want one signed by a Land Surveyor or pre '82 Civil.

Maybe it's time to write letters to all cities making them aware that these "mills" are not site plans for design/construction.
(Looks like a duck. Quacks like a duck. But it ain't no duck!)

Let's hope other cities know what a site plan is - like Larkspur.

Have a nice weekend, all.

Crazy Phil - Surveyor to Recorder

[khuerth]

I have a letter into Santa Barbara County to discuss this issue. We are required by the County to certify the height of the building pad prior to foundation work, we recently got a plan set that showed elevations and contours but zero existing grades for us to check into. We had to inform the client it isn't possible based on the approved plans. It turns out the designer from Illinois did a nice google earth site plan.

I am hoping to take these concerns to the 5 or 6 cities in my immediate area as well.

Shutting down mysiteplan.com will be hard, informing your local jurisdictions that they can't accept these "site plans" has a better chance of success. As we all know, they are looking at a checklist, so let's get a stamp requirement onto their checklist.

[mpallamary]

We should send out an industry-wide letter. Does anyone have a master email list for city and county engineers/land surveyors? if not, we can maybe divide up the counties and gather them up. The floodgates have opened with SB-9.

[DWoolley]

If the survey community decides they want to perform site plans (pleasant surprise) - can we agree there is no such thing as a "record boundary" or two monument tango when there is a field survey?

If anyone believes in the record boundary as valid work product, will you please provide a citation/reference as to the procedure?

DWoolley

[Jim Frame]

If the survey community decides they want to perform site plans (pleasant surprise) - can we agree there is no such thing as a "record boundary" or two monument tango when there is a field survey?

I had a circular conversation with a local developer about this yesterday. He bought a parcel that looks like a common city subdivision lot, but it's actually a portion of a 1913 large (100'x450' +/-) subdivision lot. He wants to build a triplex on it, but the city told him he needs to provide a site plan prepared by a land surveyor to accompany his development proposal. I submitted a proposal that includes Record of Survey costs, but he called and said he doesn't need a ROS, just something showing the site conditions. Round and round we went for about 10 minutes, me explaining that I can't show an "approximate boundary" and that I'll be required to file a ROS in this case, he explaining that he doesn't need anything exact. With evident frustration he finally cut the conversation off by saying he needs to "digest all that," which I interpret to mean "I'll find someone else who'll do what I want." I don't expect to hear from him again, and after that conversation I don't think he's the kind of client I want anyway. But I do hope he's not able to find anyone willing to sign off on a bogus site plan.

[CBarrett]

Site plan is such a vague description. People do lot line adjustments with accompanying 'site plans' based on record data and ... who knows what for topographic information.
In OC, when you pulled a tract or parcel or an RS number, the 4"x4" rectangle for a location/vicinity map sketch used to be called site plan, if I remember right.
Site plans need to have a set of specific parameters outlined.
Tentative maps have site plan component to them, but are often done based on a record boundary, +/- a foot.

Recently, I saw there was a set of 'street improvement' feasibility study plans being prepared, based on miles and miles of approximate record data, by city engineering. There are meetings i sit in on and hear engineers talk about 'accurate' boundary information, but all they are willing to pay for is pulling up a record map and plotting it. This is not limited to city and county engineers, but private as well.

I asked a group of engineers in one of the meetings, 'well, for a surveyor' or PLS act dictates that we have to handle boundaries ... and then I described parts relevant to the project. Then I told the engineers, since we are not signing the improvement plans, what are your specifications for boundaries shown on your plans? (For example, I can't just grab assessors parcel map and calc it in). You could hear a pin drop.
Then finally the city engineer asked his right of way dept. surveyor (who was in the meeting sitting silently), and the surveyor told him, well, we have a record of deeds for ROW's (not available to public) and we order title reports and do a field survey when we need to decide on a right of way take. City engineer now expects a response from my engineer - and my engineer says, this was not in the RFP or in out contract.
City engineer was obviously not pleased, and went as far as, maybe we should be doing this in house, rather than contracting it out. After a short pause I chimed in, well, regardless of which surveyor does it, it looks like the process we have to go through is the same... and the city surveying guy agreed.

Anyway, this is obviously not a unique situation.... maybe there should be some BPELSG measures within engineering practice when it comes to the misuse of property boundary information.

[subman]

Mike

I think it depends on the type of approval you are seeking. For example: 1) Zoning approval; 2) Building permit or 3) Encroacment permit.

Most larger agencies have sample handouts specific to their jurisdiction.

At the 60,000 foot level, the purpose is to show the location of a building relative to lot lines and street RW line. I will send you some samples.

A question to be asked: is it appropriate for the Building Official to be the one to determine if a survey is required as part of a site plan as required under the Building Code. One can interpret that as the Building Official being able to determine the location of boundary lines. Shouldn’t it require consultation with the County Surveyor?

[mpallamary]

Thanks,

I have been collecting samples for months, from across the state. I would welcome more information we should all share.

Be well.

[LS9200]

Site plan is such a vague description. People do lot line adjustments with accompanying 'site plans' based on record data and ... who knows what for topographic information.
In OC, when you pulled a tract or parcel or an RS number, the 4"x4" rectangle for a location/vicinity map sketch used to be called site plan, if I remember right.
Site plans need to have a set of specific parameters outlined.
Tentative maps have site plan component to them, but are often done based on a record boundary, +/- a foot.

Recently, I saw there was a set of 'street improvement' feasibility study plans being prepared, based on miles and miles of approximate record data, by city engineering. There are meetings i sit in on and hear engineers talk about 'accurate' boundary information, but all they are willing to pay for is pulling up a record map and plotting it. This is not limited to city and county engineers, but private as well.

I asked a group of engineers in one of the meetings, 'well, for a surveyor' or PLS act dictates that we have to handle boundaries ... and then I described parts relevant to the project. Then I told the engineers, since we are not signing the improvement plans, what are your specifications for boundaries shown on your plans? (For example, I can't just grab assessors parcel map and calc it in). You could hear a pin drop.
Then finally the city engineer asked his right of way dept. surveyor (who was in the meeting sitting silently), and the surveyor told him, well, we have a record of deeds for ROW's (not available to public) and we order title reports and do a field survey when we need to decide on a right of way take. City engineer now expects a response from my engineer - and my engineer says, this was not in the RFP or in out contract.
City engineer was obviously not pleased, and went as far as, maybe we should be doing this in house, rather than contracting it out. After a short pause I chimed in, well, regardless of which surveyor does it, it looks like the process we have to go through is the same... and the city surveying guy agreed.

Anyway, this is obviously not a unique situation.... maybe there should be some BPELSG measures within engineering practice when it comes to the misuse of property boundary information.

A good thing to point out that many are unaware of how it is applied is 8726 (previously g, now 7).
8726 (7) Determines the information shown or to be shown on any map or document prepared or furnished in connection with any one or more of the functions described in paragraphs(1) through (6), inclusive.

[CBarrett]

Thanks, that' a very good point!!!!

[LS_8750]

We are basically talking around the fact that there is little to zero enforcement of the PLS Act, or the site plan requirements of the CBC, and when violations are discovered, enforcement is minimal or non-existent, and the penalties are minute and not at all timely.

The Building Official (look it up in the CBC) has the authority to push the site plan requirement on development projects, but fails miserably up and down the state. To my recollection, there is no authority on the planning side until projects reach the public works departments, where there should be somebody cognizant of the PE and PLS Acts enough to condition developments accordingly.

Nobody is watching over these Building Officials.
That needs to change.

[mpallamary]

SB9 Madness as predicted.

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/ne ... ousing-law

"Less than a month before the state law took effect, Pasadena, a Southern California city of roughly 140,000 people, passed an ordinance that among other restrictions allows officials to exempt eligible areas by declaring them “landmark districts.”

"But no such exemption exists under the law, Bonta said.

"The ordinance “undermines SB 9 and denies residents the opportunity to create sorely needed additional housing, under the guise of protecting ‘landmark districts,’” Bonta said in a statement. “This is disappointing and, more importantly, violates state law.”

"Pasadena Mayor Victor Gordo said the city’s efforts “have been progressive and responsive to the housing crisis and we remain committed to doing our part to help address the state’s housing issues.”

"Bonta’s letter arrived “without any prior conversation regarding the substance of our regulations and how they comply with the law,” he said in a statement. The city’s interpretation “appears to differ” but officials will further review the law and Bonta’s letter, Gordo said.

"Bonta last month issued a similar warning to the wealthy Silicon Valley town of Woodside after it declared that it was exempt because the entire town is habitat for endangered cougars. Hours later, town officials said they would accept applications for increasing housing after all.

[LS_8750]

My recollection is that the cougars in Woodside all hang out at the Pioneer Saloon,.

[mpallamary]

I heard that from a few people. :)