[PLS9591]

So as a Professional Surveyor I will chime in on this and what I think about what has been said above. I welcome anyone to respond and have an open dialogue about the subject.

First, lets define what is a site plan at least here in the State of California. Pursuant to Section 107.2.6 of the California Building Code, commonly known as the “CBC”, a Site Plan is defined as follows:

“The construction documents submitted with the application for permit shall be
accompanied by a site plan showing to scale the size and location of new construction and
existing structures on the site, distances from lot lines, the established street grades and
the proposed finished grades and, as applicable, flood hazard areas, floodways, and
design flood elevations; and it shall be drawn in accordance with an accurate boundary
line survey. In the case of demolition, the site plan shall show construction to be
demolished and the location and size of existing structures and construction that are to
remain on the site or plot. The building official is authorized to waive or modify the
requirement for a site plan where the application for permit is for alteration or repair or
where otherwise warranted.”

According to this definition a Site Plan shall be drawn in accordance with an accurate boundary line survey. According to Miriam-Webster, accurate is defined as “free from error especially as the result of care”. Black’s Law Dictionary defines accurate as

“The lack of error in accounting. All the values are deemed correct. The range of possible error in engineering. The amount of difference between predicted performance and actual performance. The closeness an instrument measures.”

Taking this into consideration please think of the following. If a site plan shall be based from an accurate boundary line survey, can someone utilize data from a GIS source to determine the accurate locations of boundary lines? Most agency GIS websites and sources have a distinct disclaimer stating that the data is “as-is” and there is no guarantee to its accuracy or correctness. Can you tell me that a measurement is good to the nearest 0.01′ between a building corner and a property/boundary line only using data from a GIS source?

In addition to this, Mr. Crownholm has claimed through his Declaration that he doesn’t use just one source for his data, instead, he uses multiple sources to compile the data for his site plan. As GIS Professionals, is there an understanding of Epochs and how they effect the location of data shown on a map? If not, let me try to explain this to you. In California, we sit between two tectonic plates, The North American Plate and the Pacific Plate. The joining line between these two plates is the San Andreas Fault. The State of California has significant movement between these two plates. As a matter of fact, there are a few articles written on the effect of plate tectonics that you can easily find by just using Google to search “understanding epochs”. One particular article written has tracked the movement of just one of our many Continuously Operating GPS Reference Stations in Orange County and found that in 26 years, that same point has moved roughly 3 feet! The difficult thing about this is that it is not a consistent movement year to year, it varies substantially.

I myself have not found a GIS database or website that explains to you which datum & epoch their data is derived from. So lets take an example, if one GIS Source that you are using to determine boundary line locations is using NAD83, 1991.35 Epoch for the derivation of data and another source you are using for aerial photogrammetry to trace buildings and improvements is using NAD83, 2017.50 Epoch you will have an approximate 3′ shift. Do you think that the layman understands this at all?

Now lets get into some of the questions asked.

1 – What is GIS mapping? How does it differ from survey mapping?
To me as Professional Land Surveyor, GIS Mapping is the derivation and compilation of recorded data placed into a database that can be easily accessed and utilized for reference purposes. It differs from survey mapping in that GIS mapping does not contain a field measurement component. GIS Mapping rarely, if ever, takes into account any measurements performed on the ground.

2 – What is the value of geospatial information? How is GIS-based information useful to the public?
The value of geospatial information is in its ease of use, access and manipulation of data for a number of purposes. It is useful to the public as a reference and a way for the public to obtain organized data that is derived from a variety of measured resources.

3 – What is at stake if current Board position is upheld?
This is my own opinion but I don’t think there is any danger of GIS Professionals being turned into the board for compiling data and using it for reference purposes. My thought is that GIS Professionals will be in trouble if they then take that data and begin to use it to create maps and plats that show dimensions from fixed works to boundary lines.

Now lastly lets get into the definition of the board regarding what is the practice of land surveying. It should be noted that this definition is derived from a National Standard from the NCEES Model Law and Model Rules. In regards to the words the words “establish”, “reestablish”, “locate”, “relocate”, “retrace”, this means that if you shown a dimension on a plan from a building corner to a property/boundary line you are establishing where that line is located in relationship to the building corner. I as the homeowner could take those dimensions shown on your plan and with a tape measure, then place that line on the ground.

Professional Land Surveyors are the only profession who should be dealing with boundary/property lines. We have specific knowledge on how to establish or re-establish these lines. We are rigorously tested on this in order to get our license. I cannot say the same about GIS Professionals. How many GIS Professionals know the intricacies of Junior/Senior property rights or know when to use proportionate measurement to re-establish a boundary line? How many know how to pull a chain of title and understand what that even means? Any technician can read a deed or legal description and draw out the lines described but a Profession Land Surveyor is the one who determines how those boundary/deed/property lines relate to the fixed works on the ground.

I apologize for being so long winded but it is necessary for something like this. I welcome anyone to text me at 714-396-1704 and we can set up a call to discuss further. My email is bryanmundiapls@gmail.com if you are more interested in written correspondence.

Let me end by saying that I am of the thought that as a Professional Land Surveyor I truly value what GIS Professionals bring to the table. I utilize the resources you work hard on preparing every day and I am grateful for what they provide to me. I couldn’t be as efficient at my job with you. I want to work together with GIS Professions and educate them on what Land Surveying is and in turn I hope they can teach me more about GIS. There is plenty of room in the sandbox and together we are stronger in building a relationship that is beneficial for both professions.

[PLS9591]

Good Morning Joseph,

You are correct, I got back into surveying about 3 years ago and immediately went and took my exam for my license.

I understand that the court held a hearing on 12/6/2022 for the Preliminary Injunction that I unfortunately was not able to attend. My understanding is that the date for the Motion to Dismiss was slated for 1/10/2023. Is there a date that I am missing in regard to the hearings that isn’t showing up on the Judge’s calendar?

I also understand the thought process behind his case and that it is a question of constitutional rights versus the legality of his work product, hence while the case was filed in Federal Court. I too am not an attorney, and I am just trying to tread water like you in understanding and observing what this case is really going to argue in regard to constitutional rights.

[PLS9591]

Joseph,

But what you don’t seem to be getting is that the building officials can either waive the site plan entirely or modify the definition of a site plan pursuant to the California Building Code. The creator of the map cannot call it a “site plan” and then say that they created the site plan based on a non-existent waiver.

If I was to call a plat a “boundary survey” you would expect it to be exactly that by definition correct? How about a “topographic survey”? There are certain criteria that allow you to call your map what it is. The problem is that without being able to call his plats “site plans”, Mr. Crownholm doesn’t have a viable business. Who is going to pay him for a “site exhibit” or a “site improvement map” or some other variety of the same so he stays away from a “site plan”?

It is similar to your case, the expert didn’t do a great job in regards to the nature of your complaint. Initially, the complaint was regarding your statement of accuracy, that also falls under the definition of land surveying pursuant to California Law. When I filed that complaint that is what it was about, not that you were providing a sketch with a line a calling out the boundary corners pursuant to a record map and overlaying it on a aerial photo. It was in fact that you were telling people your coordinates were +/- whatever they were. The problem is that the layperson doesn’t know the difference between a Lead & Tack and a Spike & Washer or a 2″ Iron Pipe or a 1 1/2″ Iron Pipe. You can see that if you told someone that their corner was within a certain range and they march up to that location only to find an old 2″ fence post within the stated accuracy range you provided, that they may rely on the combination of your map along with the evidence to make an incorrect determination that it is their boundary corner when in fact it is not.

Now take that and fast forward through the beginning of a trial. A competent attorney would require a survey but not all would do so based on the evidence provided by the client. This in turn could cost the client (the general public) a substantial amount of money before it is realized that they are incorrect. Hypothetically speaking of course.

[PLS9591]

Joseph,

That isn’t what I am saying. What I am saying is that a site plan, unless the requirement is waived or modified by the building official, must be based on an “accurate boundary line survey”. Now, the building code does not define what an “accurate boundary line survey” actually is but one should take caution in showing their measurements to 0.01′ with only using GIS Data that hasn’t been verified or warranted free from defects or errors, wouldn’t you agree?

I haven’t even gotten into the thought of him taking GIS data based from 1991.35 epoch and merging that with data on 2017.50 epoch. I know that you are in Washington and might not realize this but between those two epochs there is an approximate 3.0′ shift horizontally due to movement between the Pacific and North American Plates here in California.

If you don’t have any validation as to where the data came from, you could potentially have GIS Parcel Boundaries on one epoch and Aerial Photogrammetry on another and an approximate 3.0′ shift Northwesterly but since you didn’t perform a field survey, or heck even visit the site, you would ever know anything is wrong. Can you see where the knowledge of a professional surveyor is required to show the parcel lines in conjunction with fixed works on the ground yet? I know that there are a number of GISP folks out there that understand epochs and datum shifts but a general contractor who realistically has very little GIS knowledge and background is doing this work by using folks overseas to compile the data. I would suggest you read Mr. Crownholm’s Declaration for the case, it is eye opening to both professions in my opinion.

[PLS9591]

Joseph,

It should also be noted that most, if not all, of the sources that Mr. Crownholm pulls from for his data have a variety of disclaimers that state something of the sort:

“This Site is provided to you on an “as is” basis without any warranties of any kind, whether express or implied. To the extent permissible under applicable law, we hereby disclaim all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to, warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. We do not warrant that the materials on our Site will be error-free, that defects will be corrected or that our Site or its servers are free of viruses or other harmful components. We do not warrant or make any representations regarding the use of the materials on our site with respect to their accuracy or reliability. In addition, we make no representations, warranties, or guarantees that our Site will be secure, accessible continuously and without interruption.”

Would you provide dimensions to anything on a plan to the nearest 0.01′ without any verification of the data on your own based on the note above? I guess you don’t have anything to lose right?

Bryan Mundia, PLS 9591

[PLS9591]

Joseph,

Exactly, as it states in the definition you provided “…shall be drawn in accordance with an accurate boundary line survey.”

The last line which pertains to the building official waiving or modifying the requirements is done by the building official, not Mr. Crownholm. The waiver would need to remove the need for ties from the boundary lines to fixed works but without those boundary lines what good does the site plan do for the building official? I guess it is ok if you are building a pool in the middle of a 4 acre property but it wouldn’t be sufficient for building a fence or a wall on the boundary line or adding on to a house to maximize the use in accordance with the setback lines.

Mr. Crownholm’s base plan provides ties from the building corners and other fixed works to the boundary lines complying with the minimum requirements pursuant to the Code. If Mr. Crownholm left off the ties then I would see a need for a citation but I do imagine a building official would return the site plan asking for the boundary lines and ties to be shown which would trigger a survey.

Does the GIS Profession approve non-professional practitioners who base their work solely from loopholes in the practice or look only for grey areas to perform their work in (Granted I think this is pretty clear cut and not in any grey area of the law)? I am not savvy enough to think of a parallel with the GIS community that would work but I would imagine it is out there.

Bryan Mundia

[PLS9591]

Hello Joseph,

Good to hear from you again. I don’t disagree with you but let me put it this way. Most any car now can go over the posted speed limit on any street, highway, expressway, etc. and every time you drive over the posted speed limit there is a chance that you may receive a citation. Moral of the analogy is, just because you can doesn’t mean that you should nor is it legal to do so if you don’t get caught.

Ignorance of the law based on your intentions does not recuse you from the law. I am sure Mr. Crownholm has good intentions but the fact is he is surveying and honestly I think he got off too easy with a $1,000 fine based on the number of “site plans” he has illegally prepared.

In response to your suggestion, you aren’t wrong, anyone could do it but what do you think would happen if this was brought to court? In addition to this, I think even the layperson who could do what you are proposing, would see that when they click on the corner of the house and measure it to the line they imported, they are not clicking exactly on each point defined correct? They could take 15 measurements and end up with 15 different results.

Besides this, Mr. Crownholm’s CYA note on his maps states “This is not a legal survey, nor is it intended to be or replace one”. Can you tell me what the definition of a “legal survey” is and where I can find reference for that? In my mind, I read that note and think of it as follows “this is an illegal survey”. The CYA note is almost an admission of guilt and a loophole for him to say “well I told them it wasn’t a legal survey” like the general public knows what that means.

In addition to the note, Mr. Crownholm’s website invites reliance with statements such as:

“Guaranteed Acceptance,”

“Widely accepted by building departments and HO’s for residential permitting purposes,”

“OUR SITE PLANS ARE GREAT FOR

 Demolition permits. . . .
 Conditional Use Permits. . . .
 Construction Permits. . . .
 Sign Permits. . . .
 Residential and Commercial Site Plans. . . .
 Tree Removal Permits. . . .
 [etc.].

“SAVE TIME AND MONEY [¶] If your building department DOES NOT REQUIRE a
Surveyor, Engineer, or Architect Stamp our plans are just what you need. We have created
plans in almost every jurisdiction in the U.S. and our plans meet or exceed requirements.

If you read the California Building Code and how it defines a “site plan” do you think that Mr. Crownholm’s work product meets or exceeds the requirements for the State of California which require a site plan to be based on an “accurate boundary survey”?

I am not here to tell GIS Professionals what they can and cannot do, I would encourage some collaboration on how we can work together to better serve the public and do it in a way that is legal in the State.

I appreciate the feedback and welcome the discussion, by no means do I mean any malice or harm to anyone by the discussion, instead I want to bring to light the side of how a professional land surveyor looks at this case and practice.

[PLS9591]

So as a Licensed Land Surveyor I am going to jump in here as I feel the entire case has not been explained.

Although there is a question as to what constitutes Land Surveying as a professional practice, it should be noted right off the bat that Mr. Crownholm and MySitePlan.com had an opportunity for both an informal meeting and to have the case heard by an administrative judge. Both of these opportunities were not taken and as a matter of fact, just 5 days before a scheduled hearing with an administrative law judge (“ALG”), Mr. Crownholm removed his request and accepted the matters of the citation. It should also be noted that Mr. Crownholm’s claims in his Federal Case regarding constitutionality are issues that could have been heard by the ALG and did not require a filing in Federal Court.

Now on to the opinion portion of this post. I believe that Mr. Crownholm is practicing Land Surveying without a license. The practice of taking GIS Data/Layers and compiling them onto a digital or paper plan is not what is in question to me and what makes this land surveying. The part that constitutes land surveying is when he adds new data (i.e. dimensions from property lines to fixed works) to his plans. Even with a disclaimer on his maps, this is land surveying based on the law. You may say that his disclaimer is telling the property owner to be prudent in the use of his product but what I find fascinating is that in his declaration he even admits that he has the property owner “verify” the dimensions on his plans prior to submitting the set that goes to the agency for site plan review. Tells you a lot about the confidence he has in his own data/work product.

The fact is this, as a professional land surveyor my job above all else is to protect the public, and specifically protect them in regard to their property rights. Am I being a prudent surveyor who is performing my duties if I do not report someone who is telling a property owner that their property line is 15.01′ away from the corner of an existing building?

As GIS Professionals do you want Mr. Crownholm’s practice of passing the buck and denying liability by ways of a disclaimer to be tied to your profession? I know I wouldn’t want that. I would encourage you to read the Professional Land Surveyors Act (California Business and Professions Code Sections 8700-8805) and specifically focus on Sections 8726. You will notice that although slightly different, the California LS Act follows the NCEES Model Laws and Rules pretty close.

Besides that, I would encourage you to read the case documents as well as the citation that was issued by the CA Board. I would be happy to provide that to you if you need it. Feel free to message me and we can talk more.

I want to end with this. I am a young surveyor who has a great appreciation for the benefits of GIS. I use it every day in my work and I work closely with a number of GIS professionals on projects. I am very protective of my license and what it took for me to get licensed, which means I am one who goes after those that break the law. I want to work more with GIS Professionals on how we can work together to bolster both professions (something that hasn’t been done for the last 20+ years thanks to the old salty Surveyors). I look forward to more conversation regarding this case.

[Author]

Posts