California Surveyors Forums

Last I checked, after you complete your map, it is your responsibility to submit it to the County Surveyor. It is then the County Surveyor who submits it for filing to the Recorder after having signed it. Unless the law has changed in the past few months and I've overlooked it, you are not responsible to ensure that the map is filed with the Recorder.

If your map satisfies all requirements of the PLSA and it is not otherwise a legibility issue, tell the County Recorder's Office to return it to the County Surveyor, and if the County Surveyor contacts you, put the ball in their court to educate the Recorder (or their staff), or in the alternative, file it with Miscellaneous Maps until such time that someone in County government or someone or some agency at the State level with authority over County Recorders can straighten that office out.

BPELSG does not have authority over the Recorder's Office, but they can contact and offer to educate. If that is unsuccessful, BPELSG staff should be able to assist you in finding an avenue of authority whereby some person or body can correct the Recorder and/or Recorder's staff by directing them to file any map which the County Surveyor has deemed to comply with the PLSA. This being an important public protection issue and a matter of statute compliance directly related to the practice of surveying, I don't think that BPELSG can wash their hands of it after sending a letter or making a phone call to educate, or telling licensees to pick their battles because the issues appear to be minor.

If it were an isolated incident, then "pick your battles" might be the best advice for that specific incident. But this is not the first I've heard of this issue, nor are you the first I've heard it from. If it's an ongoing issue, even if each seems minor and picky when viewed as a single incident, then it's a chronic issue that must be corrected.

Update: I just had another record of survey mylar rejected because I did not have the date of the signature in my surveyors statement.
(not my expiration date - the signature date)

wingding wrote:Update: I just had another record of survey mylar rejected because I did not have the date of the signature in my surveyors statement.
(not my expiration date - the signature date)

Unless I am missing something, there is no provision to include the 'date of signature' within the Surveyor's Statement as described in 8764.5. Someone please let me know if I am missing this. If I'm not, wingding - please email me the information including who contacted you from the Recorder's Office.

Ric,

I see (signed) (date signed) in 8764.5

Not here:
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces ... &article=5.

Nope Warren, I just checked to be certain. The CS indicates the date reviewed within the CS Statement, and the Recorder indicates the date & time filed for record in the Recorder's Statement, but the surveyor of record only enters the month & year of when the request to prepare a record of survey was made, and by whom.

Below that it says (signed & sealed), not (signed & dated).

8761 (d) seems to cover it.

Here's an example of why the PLS Act booklet published for CLSA has a disclaimer in the front. This is from the 2016 edition. It does not appear this way in any other year's version.

Wow...wonder how many other instances of literary license were taken. I looked back and other than removing the 'License Expiration Date' in 2010, I didn't see anything about date of signing...at least through 2008.

It would be a bit pedantic - but in order to comply with 8761 (d), the Surveyor's Statement could be revised. Since a date of signing isn't expressly prohibited, I would think having it included would be in conformance without having to amend 8764.5

Use of the statements listed under 8764.5 is not discretionary and cannot be altered.

The seal needs to be placed near the respective statement and the date of signing and sealing should be near the seal. While there is discretion as to where to place the date of signing, it is preferable near the seal as both are required per 8761(d).

Warren Smith wrote:8761 (d) seems to cover it.

So it does. I shuoldda known that.

E_Page wrote:

Warren Smith wrote:8761 (d) seems to cover it.

So it does. I shuoldda known that.

Evan, maybe you were looking at 8764.5 like I was and focusing on the stated issue even though we both know about the 8761 requirements. It's good that Warren brought it up, but it doesn't excuse the request by the Recorder's Office.

That's exactly it, Ric. And I agree, the Alameda Recorder's Office appears to need some education.

Thanks guys for the continued conversation and issues that may be pertinent to my original topic, as my workload got me sidetracked from the thread.
This may be helpful for someone that isn't clear on the issues at hand.

My resolution to the topic only supports my theory (and opinion) of employees at the Recorder's Office.

It appears the County Recorders office is not open for communication or education, as the County Surveyors Office stated that when they try to talk reason to the Recorder, it isn't appropriate protocol. Here is CA government working at it's finest when two departments within the same county can't even talk to one another.

Mylar and bond copies of maps continue to be rejected for not meeting the minimum size requirements by 1 mm.
My latest map was rejected for being 1/16th of an inch short, even though it had a 1" border, but used a non-calibrated tape, lol.

I have come to the conclusion that the large scale printer I am using is not scanning and printing exactly at 1:1, so no more guide lines to cut, and back to old school in 2017. It's good enough for 57 counties in CA, but not Alameda County. Beware if working in Alameda County and filing a ROS.

Are we truly protecting the public if we have to increase our fees just to cover additional time and costs to satisfy the Recorder? I'm done trying as it just isn't worth it anymore!!! More power to those who want the headaches.