California Surveyors Forums

May a local agency implement requirements for subdivision projects without basis in code or ordinance? For example, requiring CAD file submittals with maps, mandating maps be based on city coordinate system, etc.?

If not, and I think not, is there a document that says as much to which one could refer in discussing said topic. In effect, that local agency requirements are limited to that which is specified in local code or ordinance?Looking for a reality check and references here...

Thanks all.

I can't comment on the legal fine points, but since subdivision approval is a discretionary act, as a practical matter I would expect that the agency can impose any reasonable requirements it wants to, whether codified in a statute or simply per departmental practice. As long as the requirement isn't applied capriciously and serves a legitimate agency purpose, I don't see how it can be challenged successfully.

So, if the local agency requests CAD files, for whatever reason, the submitting surveyor must provide them, no questions asked? If a survey is conducted and completed without ties to monuments with geodetic coordinates, the local agency may require the surveyor to perform additional field work to connect to such monuments? These mandates may be made in the form of conditions attached to tentative approval, without prior notice to the surveyor or substantiating reasons given, or ordinances or codes supporting said requirements?

A quick google of some cities that require ties to geodetic monuments reveals that some have based such requirements on ordinances mandating such. Am I off base in believing this to be the appropriate way to implement these requirements?

Thanks for your input.

A quick google of some cities that require ties to geodetic monuments reveals that some have based such requirements on ordinances mandating such. Am I off base in believing this to be the appropriate way to implement these requirements?

It seems like an appropriate way, but not the only appropriate way. As long as the agency publishes clear requirements and specifications, I don't see why an ordinance is necessary.

Below is an excerpt from the City of Woodland's engineering standards document that pertains to map submittals. As far as I know this isn't implemented by ordinance, but I might be mistaken.

E. Digital Files: The basis of bearings and coordinates shall be coincident with the
current City of Woodland Geodetic Control Survey (tied into two existing control
network monuments). Requirements for tie-in to two control monuments shall not
apply to remodels of existing single family residences or as determined by the City
Engineer. All other development with on site storm, sewer or water systems shall
tie to two control monuments.

Digital files shall conform to the following:

1. Drawing shall be submitted in AutoCAD .dwg format and PDF.

2. Global Coordinate System for the drawing shall be California
Coordinate System of 1983 (CCS83) (1999.51) California Zone 2 U.S.
Survey Foot.

3. Electronic files to be submitted on Compact Disk/DVD, hard drive or
thumb drive.

4. Text files to be submitted in Microsoft Word.

5. Spread Sheets to be submitted in Microsoft Excel.

As a side note, I know of at least one firm that provides "ties" to City of Woodland monuments that they calculate from record monument values. That might be good enough for GIS applications, but it kind of dilutes the value of the ties for retracement purposes.

To clarify, these requirements are not published in any form, official or otherwise, but enforced on an unpredictable ad hoc basis, hence the question.

Mr. Frame, thanks for your input on this one. Research reveals that City of Woodland does have these requirements in their muni code http://qcode.us/codes/woodland/, if that changes your view. Your opinion though, which I’ve found is shared by some, appeared reasonable to me at first glance. However, on further consideration, I remain unconvinced.

The reason being that if the local agency to implement such requirements at their sole discretion, not based on code, it removes the democratic process from the equation entirely. There is no chance for the participation and voicing of opinions by the stakeholders, i.e. developers, the public, surveyors, etc. that is part of the code-making process. To me that just doesn’t smell right.

Research reveals the following municipalities require ties to geodetic control for subdivision maps, and have put in place those requirements in their codes: Orange County, Lodi, Merced County, San Diego County, City of Santa Rosa, for what it is worth.

If not in code, what is the basis for these conditions? What is the “nexus” between a proposed subdivision and the requirement to tie into geodetic control, and submit cad files for incorporation into a city GIS? I am not opposed to these practices per se, but am opposed to local agency implementation of requirements by fiat, with no input whatsoever from stakeholders. Who isn’t? Is this not the transferring of cost of additional surveying services to the individual applicant - on an arbitrary basis?

Anyone else got an answer on this one?

I have seen this requirement imposed as a condition of approval for the tentative map, presented at the public hearing by the Planning Commission after having been previously presented to the developer and the surveyor.
Without the backing of being codified in the local agency's Ordinance Code, it would be voluntary compliance.

Warren Smith wrote:Without the backing of being codified in the local agency's Ordinance Code, it would be voluntary compliance.

Maybe but my experience with voluntary compliance on subdivisions shows that the more waves you make in the pool, the easier it is to fall off the raft and get soaked. I consider the ‘discretionary approval’ element that Mr Frame mentioned to be paramount.

I believe the geodetic control requirement started before GIS. It was originally used so the first responders could find the burning house using GPS navigation on their trucks. Probably it makes matters very simple for the tax assessor as well.

Noting again that my remarks are seat-of-the-pants rather than legally researched, it seems to me that an "extraordinary burden" test might be useful in distinguishing requirements that must be codified versus those implemented by department policy. For example, I think an agency would be justified in rejecting a tentative map application written in a foreign language, even though the agency *could* hire an interpreter to translate it into a language its staff can understand. The requirement that it be submitted in the department's lingua franca (English, in most cases) wouldn't impose an extraordinary burden on the applicant. Similarly, requiring map submittals in DWG and PDF digital formats is hardly out of line these days; 40 years ago it would have been. And we're at or near the same situation with geodetic network ties; how many survey shops don't have survey-grade GPS equipment in regular use?

As long as a requirement isn't capricious (i.e. it serves a legitimate agency purpose and is applied to all applicants) and doesn't impose an extraordinary burden on the applicant, I wouldn't think it needs to be ensconced in the municipal code.

Elias, as a general rule the adoption of these requirements is the product of an adopted ordinance or public hearing. Some cities have mailing lists. The City of San Diego just raised its fees based on some previous resolution that allowed them to do that.

As to the way they adopt regulations, it reminds me of the way the Coastal Commission works. They have a hearing in Ukiah over a project in San Diego. No one is able to attend or gets notice of the new regulation.

It is important for the agency to reach out to the private sector. That happened in the City of San Diego when we adopted the subdivision and mapping manual. it was a collaborative effort and proved very successful and it was well received.

https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/ ... manual.pdf

http://www.californialandsurveyorsforum ... manual.21/

The former County of San Diego County Surveyor did it differently - he did not want private sector input and he told us it was none of our business.

You would think that there would be better uniformity across the state!

The requirements you mention assist the agency in putting the property lines into their GIS databases. Many agencies make access to their GIS databases available online to the general public. If you appreciate the ability to search these databases, then you would see that complying with this request is a minimal burden on you for the betterment of the public and the profession. Often times, when you submit your map to be recorded, it could take 6 months for the recorder to get it online and into their assessor maps. In the meantime, public improvements are being constructed, building permits are being pulled, and lots are being sold. Having access to the CAD maps to put into their GIS helps the agency deal with the permitting of the improvements, which aids your client. If these property lines have to be entered by the agency's own personnel by hand, then it could delay your client's permits.