I took a look at the field notes for Silverwood. It's original name was Devoto that was created in 1924 by Tract No. 7895. The City of Los Angeles set C/L control for Devoto the same year using found 2"x2" hubs that the original surveyor had set. This control is in FB 8111.
In 1964 the city came through with a resurvey and found pretty much all of the 1924 work off in varying amounts. They remonumented the C/L and placed new ties. This
work is in FB 16405. On one page there is a note that says
Long to short. The area is floating around. Not all of it floats at the same rate or in the same direction. Some parts of that hilly area may not float at all. If there was float in 1964, how much more floating has taken place since then?
I went to the site that lies on the north of my lot today, there is construction taking place, and was able to take a look at the site plans. I found a copy of the survey that was done and who did it. On this survey map there was a note that said "Found ancient 1" Iron Pipe at the angle point of Tract No. 7895". Five feet east of that 1" pipe the map shows the west line of lot 149 and has a bearing of N 2° 53' 26" W, 115.81' to the south sideline of Silverwood. Record is N 2° 52' 50" W, 115.98'. The map also showed the found SSM (Standard Survey Monuments) that were set in 1964 and shown in FB 16405 (yet noted on his map as being shown in FB 8111) as his control for the C/L of Silverwood. I *REALLY* wanted to take a copy of that survey but did not. I was taking peg notes of it all. I did get the name and phone number of the surveyor that did the work and gave him a call. More on that later.
That's all fine and dandy finding that 1" iron pipe, but here is what really upsets the apple cart.
To the right of that 1" iron pipe was another found monument shown on the map. It was a 2" iron pipe with a note that read "Found 2" Iron Pipe, tag illegible - 6" South". The distance between the 1" pipe and this 2" pipe was 14.49' or 14.09'. The record distance between the 1" iron pipe and the 2" iron pipe that was set by Tract No 8838 is 14.10'. This 2" iron pipe is *not* the same one that was being discussed in my lath/pipe post. I am assuming that it is the one found by the 82 civil that lies a record distance of 30.57' N'ly of the 2" lath/pipe. The 82 civil placed his tag in that pipe.
The surveyor I spoke with was nice and we talked about the 2" pipe being off, according to him, by 6" south. He also said that the one I was concerned with was 0.34'south of the 30 foot line. He was a bit suprised when I told him that I had found the lath/pipe 0.21' N'ly in relation to the control in Phillips Way. He told me he had tied into the Phillips Way points as well.
He went on to tell me about two 1" pipes he had found to the east near the corner of Parcel B of PM No. LA No 2998. One of the pipes appeared to him to be on a one foot offset and there was another 1" pipe under some asphalt that was one foot away from what he says is a one foot offset pipe. He used the 1" pipe found under the asphalt as his control for the north line of Lot 21 of MONTEZUMAS TRACT as his east control monument, because it matches record angle, and the ancient 1" pipe at the angle point in Tract No 7895 on the west as his west control. The 1" pipe he is holding on the east for the north line of Lot 21 is not referenced, nor is the one that is one foot south of that. He is newly licensed. He is not shown in the boards listing as far as when he got licensed, it only goes to the year 2000.
From the looks of it, his re establishment of the north line of Lot 21 has not been done with certainty. Therefore the establishment of the south line of the 30 foot strip cannot be done. Saying my lath/pipe is 0.34' south is premature. Saying 2" pipe north of my lath/pipe is 6" south is also premature. Using the C/L of Silverwood is fine, but just for Silverwood only. The control is far from the original. It's jumping all over the place and that was noted 46 years ago. Using some "record angle that matches a found 1" untagged and non referenced pipe" from Silverwood is not a good idea.
Jumping Control Points Batman
It may appear to be minor amounts, but they can and do add up.
He also said "Looks like we have a gap". I told him that I did not want to create a gap by record. The plans for the lots north of the 82 tract line and including the 30 foot strip is a new Tract (Subdivision) so if he does not accept my lath/pipe there will be a gap by record because I will have my CR filed way before his subdivision records, if it ever does that is. Later in the conversation he remarked "I can also accept your pipe" or something of that nature.
I am now considering tracing out the north line of Lot 21.
If you want I can make a zip file of the citys notes and email them out. That really is not an issue though since I now know what was done by the surveyor who wrote up that lath.
I am staying with my lath/pipe.
> On this survey map there was a note that said "Found ancient 1" Iron Pipe at the angle point of Tract No. 7895". Five feet east of that 1" pipe the map shows the west line of lot 149 and has a bearing of N 2° 53' 26" W, 115.81' to the south sideline of Silverwood. Record is N 2° 52' 50" W, 115.98'.
> To the right of that 1" iron pipe was another found monument shown on the map. It was a 2" iron pipe with a note that read "Found 2" Iron Pipe, tag illegible - 6" South". The distance between the 1" pipe and this 2" pipe was 14.49' or 14.09'. The record distance between the 1" iron pipe and the 2" iron pipe that was set by Tract No 8838 is 14.10'. This 2" iron pipe is *not* the same one that was being discussed in my lath/pipe post. I am assuming that it is the one found by the 82 civil that lies a record distance of 30.57' N'ly of the 2" lath/pipe. The 82 civil placed his tag in that pipe.
Well, from what you've posted it looks as if you have a reasonable basis for concluding that the 2 in. iron pipe you found at the 1982 surveyor's location of the common corner of Lots 4 and 5 is in fact substantially off the true boundary as the lath writer mentioned. Now all you need is some other good evidence of the original S'ly line of Tract no. 7895 as shown upon the 1924 plat and you're in a good position to get it right.
I'm glad to read that you paid attention to that nagging voice that told you there is more to the story. It sounds to me as if part of the rest of that story may be that the 1982 engineer's work probably should not be blindly relied upon if the relative positions of two marks nominally 14.10 ft. apart were fudged as badly as is suggested.
(********) = head shaking in disbelief
Kent - Hahaha...you are funny guy lol
> Well, from what you've posted it looks as if you have a reasonable basis for concluding that the 2 in. iron pipe you found at the 1982 surveyor's location of the common corner of Lots 4 and 5 is in fact substantially off the true boundary as the lath writer mentioned.
Hahahah...that has to be Texas humor ROFL
>Now all you need is some other good evidence of the original S'ly line of Tract no. 7895 as shown upon the 1924 plat and you're in a good position to get it right.
More humor I guess LOL.
No Kent.I am good with the pipe I found. I will retrace that line but only because I want to, not because I need to. Do you write your own jokes or buy them from a New York Joke Shop?
PS Young surveyor said he will ask his client for a release to send me an acad file..maybe Yes..maybe no. I'm not holding my breath.
> (********) = head shaking in disbelief
Well, since you didn't read the original thread carefully, I assume that you didnt' take in the facts that would indicate that the "ancient 1 in. iron pipe" referred to in what Paul posted was found in place in ... wait for it ... 1924 and was considered by two different surveyors in that year, each surveying land adjoining a line that they reported to have been defined by that pipe, as marking an angle point and lot corner shown upon an 1887 map.
The true N'ly line of Paul's lot is evidently (until he actually digs out the deed of conveyance by which it was severed and related the particulars of the description) to be located 30 ft. distant in a Southerly direction from the line shown upon the 1924 surveyor's plats.
The fact that the 2 in. iron pipe that the 1982 engineer/surveyor reported as lying on the 1924 line was actually about 0.5 ft. S of it should ring your cow bell. :>
> The fact that the 2 in. iron pipe that the 1982 engineer/surveyor reported as lying on the 1924 line was actually about 0.5 ft. S of it should ring your cow bell. :>
Hahaha...you funny man Kent. David Letterman would love having you as a guest. Who knows, maybe you'll start to earn some real money lol
Kent - Hahaha...you are funny guy lol
> > Well, from what you've posted it looks as if you have a reasonable basis for concluding that the 2 in. iron pipe you found at the 1982 surveyor's location of the common corner of Lots 4 and 5 is in fact substantially off the true boundary as the lath writer mentioned.
>
> Hahahah...that has to be Texas humor ROFL
>
Not really. If you look at the 1982 engineer/surveyor's map of Tract No. 40968, you'll see what may have been fudged. Look at the 2 in. iron pipe that was found 14.10 ft. NE'ly from the 1 in. iron pipe that was accepted as the angle point on the S'ly line of Tract No. 7895, that 2 in. pipe is represented as being on the S'ly line of Tract No. 7895. A recent resurvey has found that it is in fact 0.5 ft. South of that line. Big problema there, amigo, for someone who wants to assume that the 1982 map is correct in all particulars.
Kent - Hahaha...you are funny guy lol
(****************) = loud bellringing associated with vicious headshaking
Kent - Hahaha...you are funny guy lol
> A recent resurvey has found that it is in fact 0.5 ft. South of that line. Big problema there, amigo, for someone who wants to assume that the 1982 map is correct in all particulars.
I suggest you re read my OP in this thread Kent. Young surveyor has NOT re established the north line of Lot 21. All he did was find a 1" pipe. He says it is 'ancient' but that also is still an unknown. It takes two valid monuments to fix a line in La La Land, so far junior may only have one...may being the key word.
> Hahaha...you funny man Kent. David Letterman would love having you as a guest. Who knows, maybe you'll start to earn some real money lol
I trust that you realize that you're saying that a California surveyor can't run a line 14.10 ft. long with an uncertainty of less than 0.5 ft.? That's what your dismissal of the recent resurveyor's finding that the 2 in. pipe shown on the map of Tract No. 40968 as being found on a line is actually 0.5 ft. South that line and 14.10 ft. from a 1 in. iron pipe that controls the line amounts to, doesn't it?
Kent - a simple sensible common sense fix
All young surveyor has to do is disregard the 30 foot width in the deed and accept the 82 tract (subdivision) monument as being the SW Corner of that certain Deed recorded in Book 5123 Page 150 of Deeds, Official Records of Los Angeles County.
Problem solved. No Gap. No disharmony in the area.
> I trust that you realize that you're saying that a California surveyor can't run a line 14.10 ft. long with an uncertainty of less than 0.5 ft.? That's what your dismissal of the recent resurveyor's finding that the 2 in. pipe shown on the map of Tract No. 40968 as being found on a line is actually 0.5 ft. South that line and 14.10 ft. from a 1 in. iron pipe that controls the line amounts to, doesn't it?
No, not at all. Simply put, I do not trust any of the decisions he has made so I will stay with the pipe, not create a gap, keep harmony in the area and just move on down the line.
This case is closed Kent, enjoy the rest of your evening.
Kent - Hahaha...you are funny guy lol
> Young surveyor has NOT re established the north line of Lot 21. All he did was find a 1" pipe. He says it is 'ancient' but that also is still an unknown. It takes two valid monuments to fix a line in La La Land, so far junior may only have one...may being the key word.
Well, he's found an ancient 1" pipe that is probably the same 1 in. iron pipe that the 1982 surveyor whose work you rely upon in blind faith accepted as being the same 1 in. iron pipe shown upon the 1924 maps of the the two adjoining tracts as marking their common line.
What part of that is funny? All you need to do is find some more real evidence of that same line and the matter is put to rest. I see plenty of candidates on the 1924 maps.
Kent - a simple sensible common sense fix
> All young surveyor has to do is disregard the 30 foot width in the deed and accept the 82 tract (subdivision) monument as being the SW Corner of that certain Deed recorded in Book 5123 Page 150 of Deeds, Official Records of Los Angeles County.
Translation: Man, I would love to beat up on some young surveyor who is trying to survey correctly so I can feel good about not spending an adequate amount of time to do it right.