Map Interpretation

User avatar
mpallamary
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:12 pm

Map Interpretation

Postby mpallamary » Thu Feb 07, 2019 10:42 am

I am taking a poll of surveyors to see how they interpret the attached map. I have highlighted two spots where the lines stop and do not connect to anything. How do you interpret this? Look at the balance of the map in other areas.

Thanks
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
David Kendall
Posts: 334
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2014 1:45 pm
Location: Sonoma

Re: Map Interpretation

Postby David Kendall » Thu Feb 07, 2019 10:56 am

Dynamic boundary - ROW width varies on Boulevard, Cave and Grand

Or it could be beach access.

The other side of the line is Lot numbers 58 and 68

User avatar
mpallamary
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:12 pm

Re: Map Interpretation

Postby mpallamary » Thu Feb 07, 2019 11:27 am

Thanks!!

User avatar
LA Stevens
Posts: 246
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:03 am
Location: Marin County, California
Contact:

Re: Map Interpretation

Postby LA Stevens » Thu Feb 07, 2019 11:59 am

According to the map Grand Avenue is 100 feet wide and all others are 80 feet wide. Where the r/w line goes below MHT, the right of way width will be defined by the the MHT line.

Without any evidence to the contrary, I'd say all of the beach area that is beyond the right of way stated adjacent to the beach, is a private beach from the r/w to the MHT line and controlled by the subdivision lot owners.

If the public has used the beach for the past 140 years, than I'd say it is a public beach.

User avatar
mpallamary
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:12 pm

Re: Map Interpretation

Postby mpallamary » Thu Feb 07, 2019 12:34 pm

Excellent!

Thanks!

It is a shear cliff! You cannot walk on it, drive on it, or access it.

William Magee
Posts: 287
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 12:27 pm

Re: Map Interpretation

Postby William Magee » Thu Feb 07, 2019 1:11 pm

Many instances exist on this map where lot lines fail to terminate on block and R/W lines. For example see the termini of Lots 1&2, 3&4 and 31&32 of Block 55.

It seems clear that the standard of care taken by the drafter was less than stellar, resulting in many instances of visually non-terminating boundaries and boundaries extended beyond their intended termini. There is an abundance of similar and obvious scrivener's errors throughout the map.

As for the 2 locations you have identified, the sloppy drafting should be interpreted as such and addressed in like manners as would much of the rest of the map's similar errors.

While the interpretation of these 2 scrivener's errors should provide for a straightforward and painless field location, I have the upmost confidence the contrary will be pursued.
Don't shoot the messenger.

User avatar
Steve Choy, PLS
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2002 3:48 pm
Location: San Jose, California
Contact:

Re: Map Interpretation

Postby Steve Choy, PLS » Thu Feb 07, 2019 4:56 pm

I think we have to assume the intent is to have a closed figure for Block 58 - La Jolla Park and also for Block 68 - N'ly of State St.

But the determination of how to close the gap and project the sideline of the street to connect with the beach/cliff is the tricky part (for me at least).

If I follow the existing trajectory of the sideline curve, it would add a long sliver or "panhandle" to the respective parcels. I would rather rely on other extrinsic information such as existing deeds and other maps, or current improvements, fences, etc for the accepted line to provide an informed opinion.

User avatar
mpallamary
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:12 pm

Re: Map Interpretation

Postby mpallamary » Thu Feb 07, 2019 6:26 pm

There are no fences or improvements. There is a narrow road at the top, close to the lots and a small parking area. It is a shear cliff.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Steve Choy, PLS
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2002 3:48 pm
Location: San Jose, California
Contact:

Re: Map Interpretation

Postby Steve Choy, PLS » Thu Feb 07, 2019 7:41 pm

mpallamary wrote:There are no fences or improvements. There is a narrow road at the top, close to the lots and a small parking area. It is a shear cliff.


My prayers to that woman's family.

I would have to question how well the topo feature of the top of cliff was drawn in 1887, especially given the faulty drafting. I might also review any available historical aerials from different periods to determine if erosion should be a factor.

Who has been responsible for maintaining the foot trail and parking area? Its beyond the EP or curbline, perhaps creating an attractive nuisance situation?

User avatar
Ian Wilson
Posts: 869
Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2002 6:58 am
Location: Bay Area

Re: Map Interpretation

Postby Ian Wilson » Fri Feb 08, 2019 7:17 am

It's not really a maintained footpath.

Here's another view of La Jolla Cove. You can see the "footpath" meandering down from the parking area to the top of the cliffs.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Ian Wilson, P.L.S. (CA / NV / CO)
San Mateo County Surveyor

User avatar
Steve Choy, PLS
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2002 3:48 pm
Location: San Jose, California
Contact:

Re: Map Interpretation

Postby Steve Choy, PLS » Fri Feb 08, 2019 9:26 am

Maybe the trail path itself is not maintained but someone installed the parking area, benches and signage for "Historic Coast Walk Trail".

In this particular area, I would place the boundary to follow the breakline for the top of cliff (per map). The clear intent along the entire perimeter road seems to follow that line. Is the issue that the incomplete line along old Cave Street should be interpreted to hold an 80-ft width?

Is there continuing conflict between City of San Diego and State of California (California Coastal Commission?) for responsible agency.

User avatar
mpallamary
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:12 pm

Re: Map Interpretation

Postby mpallamary » Fri Feb 08, 2019 10:04 am

Thanks Ian,

The Cove is half a mile away and the first accessible place on the shoreline.

The underlying map is an old pueblo lot which means the old pueblo boundary runs along the MHTL. As to the holding of the 80-ft width, that is a good questions. The real question is the lines that do not connect or close. Does that mean something special to any of you?

At this time, we are not concerned with responsible agencies - just the mapped lines.

I appreciate the comments.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
LS_8750
Posts: 728
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Sonoma
Contact:

Re: Map Interpretation

Postby LS_8750 » Fri Feb 08, 2019 11:50 am

I am in agreement with Mr. Stevens regarding interpretation.
As for the quality of the drafting, I consider it to be pretty good based on similar type maps I've worked off of.

It seems those two highlighted locations were drawn that way intentionally. Why assume otherwise?

User avatar
PLS7393
Posts: 671
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2004 2:09 pm
Location: Bay Area (Fremont)
Contact:

Re: Map Interpretation

Postby PLS7393 » Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:04 pm

I agree the R/W would be concentric to the record width until it hits the MHT (if it does now due to erosion) for both situations.
Without additional field work to establish any existing improvements to support the R/W this would be my first step.

User avatar
mpallamary
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:12 pm

Re: Map Interpretation

Postby mpallamary » Fri Feb 08, 2019 7:52 pm

Good! Thanks.

User avatar
dedkad
Posts: 342
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 3:55 pm

Re: Map Interpretation

Postby dedkad » Mon Feb 11, 2019 2:41 pm

I don't think the intent was to create remnant lots between the streets and the MHTL. There are plenty of locations where the ROW could have been clearly delineated at an 80' offset and a new lot number assigned if that was the intent. See Gold Fish Point as an example.I would interpret the map to say that the ROW is up to the MHTL. And that's coming from someone who works at a public agency and knows what the consequences of this interpretation could mean with regard to liability in that cliff fall.

User avatar
btaylor
Posts: 449
Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2002 4:33 pm
Location: Foster City, CA

Re: Map Interpretation

Postby btaylor » Mon Feb 11, 2019 5:32 pm

Sorry for sidetracking the topic but curious if you have any old improvements up in order to come up with a right of way in the first place. There's essentially no math on this map except for the "regular lots". What a mess of an area to retrace.

User avatar
mpallamary
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:12 pm

Re: Map Interpretation

Postby mpallamary » Tue Feb 12, 2019 2:38 am

Curt Brown wrote about this area. An excerpt of the map is in his book. There are no improvement plans. It is an interesting map.

William Magee
Posts: 287
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 12:27 pm

Re: Map Interpretation

Postby William Magee » Tue Feb 12, 2019 3:55 am

Perhaps the issue is not unlike that old CA LS exam question which is often answered that there is a gap in title left between the subdivision and the true exterior boundary resulting in a sliver left vested in the original subdivider;>)
Don't shoot the messenger.

User avatar
pls5528
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 5:42 pm

Re: Map Interpretation

Postby pls5528 » Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:52 am

My first thought was identical to Mr. Stevens comment above in that the intent of those portions of the map is to hold the right of way as shown until it it daylights with the MHT line. .

User avatar
Peter Ehlert
Posts: 464
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 2:40 pm
Location: N31°43', W116°39'
Contact:

Re: Map Interpretation

Postby Peter Ehlert » Tue Feb 12, 2019 8:05 am

I would consider it a remainder, like Magee.
The map appears to illustrate the top of bluff, not a tide line.
Peter Ehlert

User avatar
marchenko
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 12:24 pm

Re: Map Interpretation

Postby marchenko » Tue Feb 12, 2019 1:19 pm

Boulevard and Cave Street get their 80 feet or less, up to the riparian boundary determined by whichever source of law would apply for the coastline. The lines continue parallel or concentric with the landward side of the street until it hits the seaward boundary. If the road pulls back and can get to 80 feet again, the seaward side parallels the landward side of the street, 80 feet distant. Land in between is a portion of the former Pueblo Lots, not really a remainder since it is a antiquated subdivision.

One could also explore the idea that the land seaward of Cave St. and Boulevard is a part of Lot 68 and Lot 58 respectively, if the streets could get their 80 feet the whole way along, that would be the case.

User avatar
Proud7191
Posts: 105
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 9:42 am

Re: Map Interpretation

Postby Proud7191 » Tue Feb 12, 2019 1:42 pm

All I know is that when I make my fist 100,000,000$ surveying I'm buying a beach bungalow there! :) Jp

Stacilynn
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 3:07 pm

Re: Map Interpretation

Postby Stacilynn » Wed Feb 13, 2019 10:43 am

So, looking at the background of creation of the subdivision:
1) 1887 was right in the middle of a real estate boom (from 1886-1888).
2) The Pacific Coast Land Bureau 'subdivided' the area covered by this map. The 'Bureau' was made up of auctioneers and was headquartered in San Francisco. I found an advertisement in an 1887 San Diego newspaper which showed the Bureau to be RJ Pennell, Manager and "Easton Eldrige & Co", auctioneers (based in Los Angeles). The 'Bureau' was selling land all over southern California during this time.
3) This subdivision was surveyed by the City Engineer. Conflict of interest, much?

My inner cynic sees the potential for careless work due to greed and possible corruption, so I'm thinking there wasn't much thought put into how to finish the lines off as they approach the cliff, therefore we can't necessarily read any intent into design or use of 'Boulevard', Cave St, or any excess land lying on the seaward side of these streets.

I concur with marchenko on the continuation of the width of the right of way as is practicable, considering the geology-I'm not sure how stable those cliffs are. I grew up in Orange County and these beaches were my backyard, so I know how relentless this geological process is. As well, the rising sea levels may make all of this a moot point, but it is fun to discuss.

Stacilynn
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 3:07 pm

Re: Map Interpretation

Postby Stacilynn » Wed Feb 13, 2019 10:58 am

I just checked with Curtis Brown's book (section 5.19). I stand corrected; the widths of Boulevard and Cave Street extend to the natural boundary created by the cliffs....or maybe someday will be bounded by the mean high tide.


Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests