California Surveyors Forums

I'm doing a ROS on Lots 36-39 as shown on an old townsite map circa 1914.
The entire townsite map is situate in a quarter of a section, which was surveyed by the county surveyor just prior to laying out the lots and blocks.
[scan-1]
I retraced the quarter section and found it to be remarkably similar to the 1914 survey. The Entire block structure fits very well within my retracement with only a few hundreths per block (error/adjustment)

In 1941, The County layed out a road over top of 4th street. During that survey, they measured an angle from the e-w-center quarterline, of 71d-26'
to the main RR tracks. Original 4th street is shown as parallel with the main RR tracks. The county road survey states the new Sante Fe Ave to also be parallel with the MAin RR tracks, but makes no reference to its correlation with old 4th street alignment. ie common centerline etc.

Circa the 1960's, a resurvey was prepared [scan-2] Distances and assumptions were made on the 1960 survey and rebars and pipes were set. The map was not filed.

DURING our new survey, we located controlling points for the 1941 survey, the centerline of the current rr tracks, one Rebar and one pipe from the 1960 survey and verified the quarter section.
ADDITIONALLY, we discovered old sidewalk from the original townsite AND we found two original 2-1/2" redwood stakes.

The rebar and pipe do not fit. . .anything.
The two found redwoods fit ties to the section line but are not parallel with the current rr tracks.

both redwoods are exactly 5' back of sidewalk !!

I have the north and east lines of block 15 by calculation from the section breakdown. I have the west line of lots 37-39 and the south line of lot 37 by found redwoods. Where the heck is the easterly lines of Lots 37 - 39 ??

The "comp" numbers from the 1960 map dont fit. . . there are not lines of occupation .

Without evidence to the contrary, I would start with scaling the original map and performing a thorough search in those corner vicinities.

Barring any additional evidence being discovered, I would proportion to the scale of the map to found field evidence. I would map and describe to my client what I believe the best remedy is and suggest to him that we sit down with the adjoiners and execute a line of agreement between the affected parties because of the uncertainties in the map and field evidence.

Good points,

Since the map doesn't scale (which is why I question the 1960 surveyor),
I like your second suggestion.

If for the sake of discussion, use the 1960 "comps", set temporary points and have a nice pow wow with all owners concerned.

For the front line, I hold the 50-feet and the 21.09 as per the old map. The excess (of about 0.11') is prorated into the 9 feet and 78 feet accordingly.
We consider both lines of Lot 38 to be perpendicular to the front line.

Note, the characteristic of the map, doesn't just hold to "even" distances. Many odd parcel dimensions are to the hundreth of a foot, which indicates a field measurement or a very good calculation using a slide rule.


thanks
Good

The 1914 survey is roughly 1”=60’. Scaling the linework I get dimensions for Lots 37-39 that would locate the easterly lines of these lots. The southerly line of Lot 37 is 137’. The southerly line of Lot 38 is 148’. The southerly line of lot 39 is 150’ and the northerly line of Lot 39 is 165’. These dimensions are close to the dimensions shown on the 1960 survey.

It looks like you have an alley that runs through this and other blocks. Are there old buildings somewhere in and outside of this block that can be used for alignment? Once you get that alley in, you offset to get the 25' wide Lot 35, and then you treat your site as the remainder by holding to those redwoods along 4th. I would not take into account the current tracks since you have the old redwoods which match improvements.

I assume you have improvements you can use to get C Street as well. If you are lucky there are some improvements for that small alley coming off 4th. to contrain you there as well.

Thanks !

After visiting with My county Survey office, An original map was available to scale. The scale is 1"=100'.

We found that the east r-o-w line of 4th street does not scale, so I drafted a construction line from the distances shown on lots 31-34.

Lot 36 appears to have widths of 55 feet on top and 40 feet on the bottom.

The sidelines of lot 38 appear to be 155 feet.
Top line of 39 , 173 ' and the bottom line of lot 37, 144 feet.

The entire site is nearly a cattle range with some scattered homes.
One house is on Lot 38 (not centered) a shed sits on the westerly end of Lot 34.

Its time to dig in the scaled locations

Could use some help ? If I BBQ a tri-tip ??

signed;
Ben D. Backen
and
Hans R. Redden

HA HA,

No takers on the BBQ !!

Setting corners this Thursday.
Followed by a nice tritip.

moo

Corner positions set, and agreed by all parties.


Rib eyes were wonderful !!! 8-)

presented the land owner with the original 2x2 stake. He loved it !!!!


Evan and Ian, I'm ready for some spicy Chinese food .

Just tell me when !!


"good"

I'm glad everything worked out. Incidentally, how did the parties agree? Did they sign an agreement? Did they sign the ROS stating they agree?

They brought a gentleman who was raised on the property. He stated that he remembered the lines the way we had them staked out.

I will put a note on the map to this effect. The parties are related by family which makes it easier. They are all pretty happy with the survey. I'm exhausted.