California Surveyors Forums

Before I start my work grind...got so much to do, I thought I would just post up a simple lot survey I am doing.

The survey involves two tracts that recorded the same day, within a minute of each other I would say.

One tract is senior.

The PDF's I have attached are the following:

1. Yesterdays recon and locations of existing monuments around a portion of the block. The check shot numbers are not on this PDF..no need to clutter.

2. The descriptions of the found monuments with check shots listed.

3. Ascii file of the found monuments.

4. Co Eng FB ties dated Oct 1927. Take note, at that time Del Mar was just a 12 foot wide dirt road.

5. City eng. tie notes Book 79 sht 17

The following links are to the two tract maps in the block, dated 1923. There is also a link to the PWFB for the CR located at the SW corner of Del Mar and Hermosa.

I have doubts on this work..The paving at Del Mar/Hermosa is old..How old, I do not know, but there is zero evidence that an excatition 18 inches deep was done in 1998 according to the PWFB CR...that's just my opinion, but it really looks suspicious..be that as it may..

I may be posting this for nothing..thats OK, gives me something to do before my shower and mapping starts.

The lot I have to survey is Lot 85, Tract No. 4285, MB 71 Pg 98.

I have a solution, what's yours?

I disregarded the c/l ties at Del Mar and Las Tunas listed on the county web site since it had the standard disclaimer on it that basically says "None of this work it worth beans, until the tied out point is proven".

LINKS

http://dpw.lacounty.gov/sur/nas/landrecords/tract/MB0071/TR0071-097.pdf

http://dpw.lacounty.gov/sur/nas/landrecords/tract/MB0071/TR0071-098.pdf

http://dpw.lacounty.gov/sur/nas/landrecords/cornerrecords/PWFB1525-173.pdf

PDFS

Gotta say, my initial reaction is "Wow you can get city ties from 1920s-era monuments, and actually go out and find those ties???" You do not get that in the Bay Area. You are on your own.

Hard to absorb all this data, but aren't you finding some of the 1927 ties and spikes? The only thing I do not see are people tying out the 2 inch block corner monuments. Are those gone?

The 1927 ties are county ties, and yes, two were found.. The rest are bye bye.

The NE Tract corner on the north tract was found in 1927..it's gone. The NW tract corner is also gone. The tract division pipes are also gone. Heavily developed at Las Tunas, so those pipes are a waste to even think of looking for them..

One reason I posted was the hope that others would show a solution. I know, it's not their job it's mine, so interest in doing that may be pretty low. It's not about a contest of who has the best solution, it's just about different professional approaches that I think would be interesting to see.

And...

Maybe someone has a much better way to solve this than I came up with...I am always open to a better way..

I take it curbs appear to be of pedigree? Corner Record seems to imply this.

He found the old stone? I would assume that would be quite the street excavation these days. If I found that I would have tied the hell out of it, not a single, distance-only tie.

btaylor wrote:I take it curbs appear to be of pedigree? .

Yep...

btaylor wrote:.... If I found that I would have tied the hell out of it, not a single, distance-only tie.

I noticed that as well..

Actually my plan was to put hella ties for the stone and file a CR (No disclaimer) for it...but my bubble burst as soon as I saw
the untouched paving...but.. maybe a repaved did take place since 1998, but the lack of additional ties made me wonder.

If the curbs are of pedigree, then it seems like with the ties, later retracement L+T prods, and curb splits, one would get a pretty good resolution out there.

The Corner Record checked an old L+T mark 500+ feet away pretty decent, while holding curbs. Are you finding any significant discrepancies?

The city should have road maintenance records, telling when the repaving occurred. Also, the surveyor may located it some years prior...

btaylor wrote:If the curbs are of pedigree, then it seems like with the ties, later retracement L+T prods, and curb splits, one would get a pretty good resolution out there.

Why hold curbs when there is such an abundance of precedence survey monuments out there?

btaylor wrote:he Corner Record checked an old L+T mark 500+ feet away pretty decent, while holding curbs. Are you finding any significant discrepancies?

I uploaded everything..if you want to know, load that ascii file.

Anthony Maffia wrote:The city should have road maintenance records, telling when the repaving occurred. Also, the surveyor may located it some years prior...

14 years is not that long, and I don't have any interest in finding out paving schedules, I have original 1927 ties.

LS 4722 wrote:Why hold curbs when there is such an abundance of precedence survey monuments out there?

I would not necessarily hold them but I would always see how they fit. Generally if I get "on the original survey" I find curbs are not that far off. Also, since a lot of less diligent surveyors would tend to simply split them, it is nice to know how the discrepancies play out.

btaylor wrote:I would not necessarily hold them but I would always see how they fit. Generally if I get "on the original survey" I find curbs are not that far off. Also, since a lot of less diligent surveyors would tend to simply split them, it is nice to know how the discrepancies play out.

What I said about holding the curbs may have come across differently than I intended, what I was trying to say was the improvements do have a place in a retrace, but with the monuments in place, they came down the priority ladder a few notches.

I understand also that in your area sometimes, maybe a lot of times, all you have are the improvements to base your surveys on..

I think if LA County ever gets financially strapped, they could sell control to other counties and make a bundle...

I have an off topic question for you Bryan.. I'll do a new post for it.