California Surveyors Forums

I know this topic has been discussed before. It seems like building inspectors/departments can't make up their mind on this.

I have been asked to provide a letter that is in line with this statement on the approved plans "Engineer certification letter required to certify that structure is placed according to approved plans" I was told to not note any measurements.

This is in a County that I haven't done much work in.

In other Bay Area Counties/Cities, I have provided dozens of letters that state the date that I came to the site and that measurements to forms and/or walls were made and that I found the following setbacks, etc. I will then state what setback distance I measured to nearest form edge for the relevant property line, etc. (i.e. West side = 5.2', East = 6.3', etc.) This has been fine in unincorporated San Mateo County, Menlo Park, and Palo Alto. I usually don't put a statement that these are in compliance with approved plans and this has been accepted.

I was wondering what others thought of the above statement being requested. In my opinion, it's too broad and opens oneself up for liability. Can Building Depts. require this?

Thanks.

Mike

Sorry, gotta rant.

The arbitrary inspector requirements from agency to agency drive me insane. A few years ago I was also asked by City inspector to remove actual measurements and make a blanket statement, so I started doing the blanket statement thinking the inspectors mentally could not handle "doing the math" per se. This seemed to suffice for a time being.

Then one day a County inspector calls and was very condescending about the cert and demanded specific numbers. I told him I had no problem with doing that, but I had the blanket statement type due to an inspector request from a different City in the first place. He acted like I was full of it.

Since then I break things down into front/left/right/rear with numbers and for the most part it works.

But then recently in one City it was rejected (mad scramble ensues with contractor trying to get ahold of me while in the field of course), until I listed also the setbacks per plan - as if that is a good reason to hold up the concrete pour at the last second.

It's an interesting distinction. The blanket statement is a conclusion based upon measurements. The other is a report of the measurements, without a conclusion. Conformance with the approved plans is the desired result. Either the surveyor makes that certification, or the inspector does - based upon the surveyor's report.
If you are comfortable with making the conclusion, charge accordingly. Sure, it's liability, but it is definable.

Yeah, I know Bryan. I've had the same type of experiences. These folks have trouble deciding what they want. I think there needs to be some uniformity here. San Mateo County used to want (many years ago) that the setbacks, etc. "conform with the approved plans" For the past 10-15 years, they wanted the hard numbers (front, side, rear or north, west, etc.) and that has worked fine.

Warren, I'm ok with making a statement about the conformance with approved plans, but I'd like to add in the dimensions, the date I visited the site and that measurements were made. These guys don't want any mention of measurements.

As Warren said, stating that the improvements meet the setbacks or placement according to the plans is a conclusion for which you can incur additional liability. It is definable as long as you can be assured that the plans that were provided to you are indeed the latest version of the approved plans. I can't imagine the circumstances in which I would be fully comfortable certifying to that conclusion. Even if I walked up to the counter at the Bldg Dept and was provided a plan from them on my way to the job, there is the not unrealistic possibility that the counter person just gave me a copy of a superseded plan because that's what was in the file and the current plan is on some plan reviewer's desk under drawings for some other project.

Having been provided a copy of the plan with local agency approval indicated on it would give me sufficient comfort to certify that the forms or foundation as located on site on such-n-such a date conformed (or did not, as the case may be) to the approved plan prepared on such-n-such drawing date and approved by whatever agency on whichever approval date is indicated. Otherwise, I would report either 1) that it meets or exceeds (or doesn't) current zoning setbacks as published on mm/dd/yyyy, or that the specific perpendicular distances from specific corners of the forms or foundations to specific property lines were measured to be whatever I found them to be. If the inspector starts berating me for not providing a blanket statement, I tell him to ask his supervisor to assist him in reading the plans that were submitted to him so that he can do his job rather than demanding that I do it for him.

Or maybe I just don't take those jobs in those jurisdictions. Probably the easier course of action.

Whenever I prepare a form or building certification I attach the plans I reviewed as an exhibit. I do not ever rely on someone else's characterization as to what constitutes "approved plans."