Recorder Requirement Changes

[No_Target]

How long do you think it will be until Recorder Requirements change (including PLS Act)? We are living in a digital age but recording on mylar still. As a result most requirements seem to focus on black and white and text heights of 0.8 or higher. While this makes sense for the medium in which we currently record, it won't make sense if recorders go digital. Electronic storage has become incredibly cheap, I can get terabytes of storage for about $100. While I understand the value of having things backed up in paper copy (and having additional electronic backups), printing in color or grayscale can be done far easier than 50 years ago. I can collect data and tie it in with publicly available LiDAR, satellite images, and more. Additionally I could get higher resolution work if necessary at a higher accuracy. I believe that adding this to my Record of Survey provides value in many cases. I don't think I could get it recorded today, but I would love it if this changed and I could start retracing work and allow others to retrace my work with the aid of this information.

So how do we make this change? Or is it (like many industry wide issues) going to stay stuck in the past and allow the rest of the world to relegate it to a smaller and smaller use case?

Kyle Brook
Confluence Land Surveying

[hellsangle]

Ahhhhh, Kyle you hit on something.

Unfortunately, the California Clerk/Recorders would have to get behind what I think could be the future . . .

My biggest beef with recorded maps are the sheet size. Like you say - it's all digital so why not make sheet size 24"x36" (metrically of course)?

Many years ago I had a discussion with a fella at the Sonoma County Recorder's Office . . . he was thinking along the lines of deed recording. Surveyor records map; Recorder scans map; Recorder mails original back to Surveyor.

As long as the digital copies are archived/safe from massive solar storms and the likes . . . this could work.

Run it up the flagpole, Kyle! LOL

Crazy Phil's two cents

[No_Target]

Anyone know how to reach out to CA Clerk/Recorder groups and press this case? Any enthusiasm for changing the sections of the PLS Act that keep this from being legal?

[Steve Martin]

Changing the law has been discussed several times, but the reality of the legislative process is that if there is significant opposition, any bill we propose will not pass. There has to be outreach to interested groups such as the Recorder's association to get their buy-in before we can move forward.

[David Kendall]

It could be wise for CLSA to have a liaison with the County Recorders Association of California (not that crack) to discuss issues like this along with the disparity in SB2 fees, sharing of record maps, probably some other topics as well....
https://www.craconline.org/

[No_Target]

Forgive my ignorance, but how does CLSA assign or appoint Liaisons?

[Warren Smith]

CLSA liaison officers are appointed by the President.

[David Kendall]

Forgive my ignorance, but how does CLSA assign or appoint Liaisons?

I believe the recommended course of action would be to request the Director from your chapter to make a motion for CLSA Board to create a role and promote a member to the role.

There is a standard form for motions which your chapter Director should be able to provide

[No_Target]

I've reached out to the CRAC email address to see how to get the ball rolling. I can't make my next CLSA Chapter Meeting but I have been trying to get more involved so this might help.

[DevaProto]

Good afternoon! Sonoma County Recorder here. I am also on the CRAC Board. I think that if there is interest from the Surveyors Association in making this change, you should work through your Surveyor Association legislative process to create a legislative proposal, and then your legislative advocates/lobbyists can reach out to the Recorder's legislative advocates/lobbyists to discuss the proposal. I know the surveyor and recorder legislative advocates have worked together before on different items. If you wanted to have a general conversation, you can also reach out to me at Deva.Proto@sonoma-county.org, and I can put you in touch with our legislative committee. I personally don't have an issue with electronic recording, but greyscale or color might be an issue with some recording systems. We like e-recording, so I don't know that the concept would necessarily be opposed by our association.

[No_Target]

Thanks I will reach out! To Surveyors who read this - what would be a helpful/useful change to technical recording requirements in your mind?

[David Kendall]

Electronic document submittal and streamlined sharing of public records with licensed surveyors (research indices, record maps, AP maps and deeds) would all be in the public interest. Reduced survey recording fees as well to encourage filing. I suggest you start the conversation there.

Color map recording is a low priority for me, keep it simple. Thank you for the outreach!

[hellsangle]

Sheet size! 18x26 seems as though it was for simplistic surveys which is a postage stamp size for some onerous retracement surveys.

24x36 or 36x52 (twice the size of current record of survey sheet size)

Record. Scan. Mail original back to Surveyor

Crazy Phil again

[PLS7393]

Sheet size! 18x26 seems as though it was for simplistic surveys which is a postage stamp size for some onerous retracement surveys.

24x36 or 36x52 (twice the size of current record of survey sheet size)

Crazy Phil again

If size is an issue for the recorder, maybe have an option "A" of "B".
Size A: Existing map size of 18"x26" (1" border) for simple record of surveys.
Size B: 24"x36" would be helpful for more complex surveys, and/or details.

36x52 is overkill and I do not want to take a mural into the field if needed for details.
24x36 can reduce down to 11x17 just fine if the surveyor follows the original legibility requirements.

An additional issue to electronically submit would be how the County Surveyor reviews and signs for technicalities (process)?

[RAM]

in the current format, (mylar), 24x36 would be cumbersome for storage. Most small Counties have limited space and resources.

[No_Target]

in the current format, (mylar), 24x36 would be cumbersome for storage. Most small Counties have limited space and resources.

It's pretty much the same amount of storage on a hard drive. Off-site backups are easy. Paper and B+W plotters are holding us back!

[No_Target]

I have a wish list, not entirely feasible, but just to throw at the wall to see what sticks. Want to let me know your thoughts? I want to hear what people are passionate about!

Modernizing California Record of Survey (RS) Recording Requirements
Introduction:
California's Record of Survey (RS) recording requirements are based on outdated physical submission methods that limit efficiency and accessibility. Currently, RS maps must be submitted on 18” x 26” Mylar sheets, drafted in black ink, and signed with a wet signature. These requirements, while historically reliable, do not align with modern digital capabilities.
The following recommendations integrate digital workflows, GIS data, and updated presentation standards while maintaining the integrity and reliability of survey records. Each recommendation includes an overview of the current standard and how the suggested change would impact and improve the process.

Recommended Changes:
1. Allow Digital Submittals
Current Standard: Counties require physical submission of Mylar sheets with wet signatures, making the process costly, time-consuming, and prone to damage.
Suggested Change: Permit submission of certified PDFs or georeferenced CAD files via secure county portals. Recognize digital signatures per California Government Code Section 16.5 for licensed land surveyors. This would reduce printing costs, improve processing time, and enhance record longevity by eliminating degradation risks.
2. Facilitate Digital Review & Redlines by County Surveyors
Current Standard: County Surveyors mark up physical Mylar copies or PDFs and require resubmission for corrections, delaying approval.
Suggested Change: Implement an electronic markup system where County Surveyors can redline and comment digitally, reducing review time and minimizing rework for minor corrections.
3. Standardize County-Level Digital Recording Practices
Current Standard: Each county sets its own requirements for RS submissions, leading to inconsistency and inefficiencies.
Suggested Change: Mandate that all California counties adopt a uniform digital submission policy, ensuring consistency and efficiency across jurisdictions. Establish a statewide digital portal for RS submittals.
4. Permit Color for Enhanced Clarity
Current Standard: Only black-and-white linework is allowed, which can make distinguishing between different features difficult, especially on complex maps.
Suggested Change: Allow color-coded and grayscale linework (e.g., boundary lines in magenta, easements in green, topographic features in gray). This improves readability, reducing errors in interpretation.This also allows for photographs, imagery, and LiDAR overlays to be included.
5. Expand Acceptable Sheet Sizes
Current Standard: RS maps must be submitted on 18” x 26” sheets with a 1” border, limiting flexibility based on project needs.
Suggested Change: Permit alternative sheet sizes (e.g., 24” x 36” or 11” x 17”) to accommodate different project requirements. Smaller sheets benefit urban projects, while larger sheets improve legibility for rural areas. Maintaining a standard margin size would ensure consistency.
6. Modernize Text & Line Weight Standards
Current Standard: Survey maps use outdated fonts and hand-drafting conventions, limiting digital readability.
Suggested Change: Allow modern fonts optimized for digital readability and introduce minimum line weight standards for both print and digital viewing, improving legibility.
7. Streamline Cross-County Access to Recorded Surveys
Current Standard: Surveyors must manually request copies of RS maps from individual counties, which can be time-consuming.
Suggested Change: Develop a statewide digital repository where surveyors can access all recorded surveys in one place. This would reduce redundancy, increase transparency, and improve efficiency.
8. Introduce a State-Wide Interactive GIS Portal for RS Maps
Current Standard: RS maps are static documents without integration into spatial data systems unless implemented at the county GIS level.
Suggested Change: Instead of static PDFs, allow counties to link survey records into a web-based GIS portal where users can overlay survey data onto county parcel maps. Integrating with the California State Plane Coordinate System (CCS83) would enhance spatial accuracy and usability.
9. Support QR Codes for Metadata & Hyperlinks
Current Standard: All supporting documentation (e.g., legal descriptions, monument records) must be submitted separately in physical or PDF format.
Suggested Change: Allow QR codes linking to supplemental digital resources like full survey reports, legal descriptions, monument records, and GIS data. This integrates traditional maps with modern, data-driven resources, improving accessibility.
10. Accept Georeferenced Digital Signatures & Stamps
Current Standard: Only wet-ink signatures and embossed stamps are accepted, restricting digital authentication methods.
Suggested Change: Enable blockchain-backed or digitally encrypted PLS signatures to authenticate surveyor certifications securely. Ensure the state formally recognizes digital professional seals for licensed land surveyors, making the process more efficient and tamper-proof.
11. Integrate GIS & Geospatial Data
Current Standard: RS maps are static and do not include GIS-compatible data, requiring manual input for digital mapping.
Suggested Change: Allow submission of GIS-compatible formats (e.g., shapefiles, GeoTIFFs, LandXML). Counties could overlay survey maps with existing parcel data for verification, reducing misinterpretations and enhancing spatial accuracy.
12. Adopt Digital Monumentation Reporting
Current Standard: Monumentation records (8771 Corner Records) must be submitted in paper format, leading to process delays, printing costs, and difficult cross-referencing.
Suggested Change: When surveyors place or find monuments, allow real-time digital submission of monumentation reports via a state-managed online monument database. This reduces delays in verifying boundary markers and provides a more accessible record for future surveyors.

Conclusion
The current standards for RS recording in California, while historically effective, do not take advantage of modern digital advancements. These proposed changes would significantly improve efficiency, accuracy, and accessibility for surveyors, county recorders, and the general public. By embracing digital technologies, California can streamline its Record of Survey process while maintaining rigorous standards for survey integrity and compliance.

[Mike Mueller]

Kyle,

Not sure if you have checked out this link, but I would suggest it as a great article about how government actually works.

https://medium.com/civic-tech-thoughts- ... 3b1ef10597

Short version is you have to know more about the winners and losers for each new legislative change before you can expect to predict the outcome or accomplish the change.

Case in point: Most of what you are suggesting would require major changes to occur in EVERY single county in CA. Most of those county recorder's offices would ask " who will pay for all of these changes?" unfunded mandates are the bane of every government office.

For example adding color would likely require changes to software. It would lead to significantly higher file sizes. There has been a long term push just to get the recorders office to recognize diacritical marks, but my understand is that just that change is considered tough. It would also cause issues with downstream users who printed it in black and white and lose some information.

Making a state wide standard that would allow for uniform standards would require a major change to our laws and culture. Can you tell me how many of the 58 county recorders are amenable to this? Generally speaking, high population areas like standards and uniformity, low population areas like the freedom to exercise good judgement. State wide rules are forced to balance those two concerns. Which means state wide professional organizations and lobbyists are forced to find sufficient common ground about any particular topic that they can convince most of their members it will at least be "not bad for us".

I believe this is why many of the laws are structured as "do this minimum, and jurisdictions are empowered to add more rules cough(make it worse)cough if they want to". That sort of law lets the "common sense" areas stay simple, and the "rules are good" areas make rules.

I bring all of this up because while I applaud the idea of updating some of the rules around RoS sheets, I personally don't want to waste the surveying community's scarce political power on it. While political power is not supposed to be zero sum, my limited experience is that it often acts that way. https://digitalcommons.csbsju.edu/cgi/v ... olsci_pubs

Exploring areas were there is widespread positive energy could result in some minor tweaks, but my bet is anything that imposes a new cost to the government will not be widely accepted. Same with anything that changes revenue streams.

To that end, I personally think the sheet option to go to 24x36 might be achievable, however I personally have not really had that impact me. I would also bet there would be pushback from the counties that have added extra fees per page, since larger sheets would lower their incomes.


Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[Jim Frame]

I would also bet there would be pushback from the counties that have added extra fees per page, since larger sheets would lower their incomes.

Mandatory filings aren't supposed to be a profit center. In fact, no area of government is supposed to be a profit center. Cost recovery is the most they're *supposed to be* allowed to do.

[No_Target]

Mikey, thanks for the feedback. I'll look into the links you provided and get back to you. I know I am naive and overconfident in a lot of what I would like to see happen. My goal is to get started now at a relatively young age and see what can happen over the course of my hopefully 30 year + career. This is the initial phase of me throwing things at the wall and seeing what sticks.
I would love to see more standardization between recording requirements county to county. This is a start to that conversation (for me).

Building on Jim's comments, let's throw this into a debate to stir up some attention and get me some more feedback on these thoughts (if you or anyone else is willing):
For me the costs of surveying and recording are one of the most frustrating parts of this profession. I am required to file maps regardless of whether or not myself or my client can afford it. Why are county surveyors allowed to follow a more profitable or cost-recovery based structure than me? I am still required to file whether or not my clients are paying bills or are even in business. Go tell this to any other professional (attorney, veterinarian, engineer) and hear their thoughts. If I am supposed to be a public servant, when do I get the pension?

[DWoolley]

...
For me the costs of surveying and recording are one of the most frustrating parts of this profession. I am required to file maps regardless of whether or not myself or my client can afford it. Why are county surveyors allowed to follow a more profitable or cost-recovery based structure than me? I am still required to file whether or not my clients are paying bills or are even in business. Go tell this to any other professional (attorney, veterinarian, engineer) and hear their thoughts. If I am supposed to be a public servant, when do I get the pension?

How a professional chooses to contract (including the costs, method of payment, cost-recovery and profit) with a client, B&P 8759 notwithstanding, is entirely up to the professional. There is nothing to compel a land surveyor to provide a survey. However, once engaged, the land surveyor must provide the services in a lawful manner within an ordinary standard of care.

For the umpteenth time on this forum, a survey is a luxury some folks simply cannot afford. This is not the professionals' concern. Equally, in a charitable instance, the land surveyor is not compelled to charge for the lawful services.

DWoolley

[Mike Mueller]

My goal is to get started now at a relatively young age and see what can happen over the course of my hopefully 30 year + career. This is the initial phase of me throwing things at the wall and seeing what sticks.
I would love to see more standardization between recording requirements county to county. This is a start to that conversation (for me).

I expect that approach to work :) Albeit prolly slower than you want. I did not write my post above to dampen your enthusiasm and re-reading it I think I came across more cynical then I would have liked.

You might consider reaching out to your local recorder and seeing what the options are for meeting with their professional group. They have something like CLSA, and so you could find who is on their legislative committee and get a conversation going with them about what is feasible/possible/unlikley etc.

One of the issues we have at CLSA is folks will come up with a "fix" and ask the leg com to work on it, but that is like floating a baby down the river... you never know where its gonna end up or who is going to pick it up. If you did the legwork and homework on this issue and presented a mostly complete proposal that identified the expected costs and ramifications ( or savings!!), and had at least a "not negative" reaction from the recorders group, then I think you would find a much more favorable reaction and would be more likely to get some traction.

I have noticed our lobbyist express some frustration with how CLSA sometimes seems to tilt at windmills rather then start with a mostly complete package of proposed legislation and supporting documents that has widespread support within the surveyor community. Notching up a few easy base hits would likely help our profession more than swinging for the fences every time :)

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[No_Target]

For the umpteenth time on this forum, a survey is a luxury some folks simply cannot afford. This is not the professionals' concern. Equally, in a charitable instance, the land surveyor is not compelled to charge for the lawful services.

DWoolley

Some folks quickly becomes most folks when you start to add up the costs to do a good job. Surveys are indeed a luxury... and while I might have the option to not charge, I do not have the option to not get charged by county entities because it's pro-bono work. I did find that people were willing to spend a little more for a Record of Survey, but not a lot more. The luxury good is harder to sell when competing with those selling knock-offs for half price.

Even though it's the umpteenth time, and I am arguing the same old thing, I still appreciate the passion you bring to our conversations Dave!

[No_Target]

I expect that approach to work :) Albeit prolly slower than you want. I did not write my post above to dampen your enthusiasm and re-reading it I think I came across more cynical then I would have liked.

Tone is hard to convey in text! I'm a tough person to entirely deter. For better or worse my naivety and passion has carried me this far...

You might consider reaching out to your local recorder and seeing what the options are for meeting with their professional group. They have something like CLSA, and so you could find who is on their legislative committee and get a conversation going with them about what is feasible/possible/unlikley etc.

I will be at the CLSA Board Meeting to do just this. I want to become a CRAC Liaison to start learning more about how they operate. The plan is to start sitting in on our legislative committee sessions as well.

One of the issues we have at CLSA is folks will come up with a "fix" and ask the leg com to work on it, but that is like floating a baby down the river... you never know where its gonna end up or who is going to pick it up. If you did the legwork and homework on this issue and presented a mostly complete proposal that identified the expected costs and ramifications ( or savings!!), and had at least a "not negative" reaction from the recorders group, then I think you would find a much more favorable reaction and would be more likely to get some traction.

This is the next step I needed to hear. A little more in terms of cost projections would be interesting to dive into.

I have noticed our lobbyist express some frustration with how CLSA sometimes seems to tilt at windmills rather then start with a mostly complete package of proposed legislation and supporting documents that has widespread support within the surveyor community. Notching up a few easy base hits would likely help our profession more than swinging for the fences every time :)

I'm just trying to get on base. Getting hits is overrated.

Thanks Mikey!