California Surveyors Forums

There is a growing trend from various public agencies who believe that they do not have to stamp the documents they review and approve. Has anyone had any experience with this? There appears to be two reasons. The first is they argue they are not subject to state law and the second is the public employees are fearful of liability for doing what they are being paid to do. The gist of this is if there is a problem or a complaint, it can only be filed against the municipality and not the person.

Is there anyone from the public sector who would like to weigh in? I, of course, welcome any comments on this topic.

PLSA: 8725.1. Legislative intent - requirement for responsible charge at state and local government entities

"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."

These are the same arguments why many municipal surveyors do not support placing their license number on the survey monuments they supervise being set.

Thanks to all.

CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS:
411. Seal and Signature. . . .
(g) (1) All professional engineering plans, specifications, reports, or documents (hereinafter referred to as “documents”) shall be signed and sealed in accordance with the requirements of the Professional Engineers Act and any other laws related to the practice of professional engineering and shall be signed and sealed in a manner such that all work can be clearly attributed to the licensee(s) in responsible charge of the work.
(2) All maps, plats, reports, descriptions, or other professional land surveying documents (hereinafter referred to as “documents”) shall be signed and sealed in accordance with the requirements of the Professional Land Surveyors’ Act and any other laws related to the practice of professional land surveying and shall be signed and sealed in a manner such that all work can be clearly attributed to the licensee(s) in responsible charge of the work.
(3) When signing and sealing documents containing work done by, or under the responsible charge of, two or more licensees, the signature and seal of each licensee in responsible charge shall be placed on the documents with a notation describing the work done under each licensee’s responsible charge. (h) Each licensee shall include the date of signing and sealing immediately below or next to the signature and seal.

This will open up a can of worms for some agencies who do not have a Licensed Land Surveyor on staff, as I have brought up to agencies in the past.
Specifically speaking of Lot Line Adjustments, where most agencies have the Planning Department oversee the process and sign the document.
I do know of one (City of Hayward) where a Lot Line adjustment is signed by the City Surveyor (thanks to the past Harold B. Davis and Norman Payne) as well as having the Planning Director sign. When I brought this up with the Planning Dept. at San Mateo County, while employed as their Land Surveyor, I was told to go away and don't cause an issue. The fact is I was actually follow the law, and attempting to have two departments work together, but we all know how two departments under the same umbrella usually have difficulty doing that.

Additionally, I was recently informed by a client that his Lot Line Adj. was approved through Alameda County with the initial submittal, and I am waiting for a copy to see who signed the document. I am surprised as they didn't find anything wrong with my new legals and plats. So who reviewed my docs (I'm not complaining, lol).

As Michael requested, I am curious to hear which agencies have surveyors involved with the review of survey documents.

See the attached for what it is worth.

[Duplicate threads. Confused me.]

Put "review and approve" into context.

Is it relative to: 1) work done under my responsible charge, or are you talking about 2) something like a map or description submitted to an agency as a deliverable of a consultant contract or on behalf of a client in some sort of application process in which the agency surveyor requests additional info or some manner of change to the submitted document or map?

A City Surveyor prepares a technical report analyzing a topographic survey wherein he/she does a detailed analysis and issues a formal report.

A City Surveyor reviews and signs off on a land surveying document like a parcel map, a Certificate of Compliance.

A state agency Surveyor prepares a survey exhibit showing boundary data and dimensions and does not sign or stamp it and merely states "Prepared by XXX state agency.

In one or more of these scenarios, the government surveyor states that he/she does not have to stamp the document because he/she did not prepare it. His/her job was to review on behalf of the public agency (as required by law) and because he/she did not prepare it, he/she does not have to stamp it in recognition of his/her review. It is his/her opinion that the only person who is required to stamp the survey is the person who prepared it. Even though the city surveyor reviewed it, there is no duty to stamp.

More and more govt employees are trying to distance themselves from the rules that apply to everyone. They all want their addresses redacted like the cops have. Elected get caught with their hand in the cookie jar and resign and it all goes away, so the employees feel they should not have to identify themselves or subject themselves to issues that may come due to their negligence. What they are too uninformed to know is that public agencies and employees are exempt from any infractions up to and maybe including murder.
Case in point, the construction defects lawsuits of the 1990's. Many of the issues involved condos/apts where fireblocks were not installed, fire retardent panels between units, attic separations, etc were not installed, things any agency inspector should have caught. When I brought this up with a const defect lawyer he stated "We cannot sue the public agency for not doing it's job, they are exempt". So my question is how do they justify these outrageous inspection fees?