My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
20
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2011
>
120611
>
20
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/2/2011 11:35:46 AM
Creation date
11/30/2011 4:00:35 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
12/6/2011
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
20
Document Relationships
13
(Attachment)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2011\111511
13 Attachments
(Attachment)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2011\111511
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
4111V <br /> KIER t WRIGHT <br /> Civil Engineers Surveyors, Inc. <br /> Perhaps the reader would he confused by the last sentence in section I that states: "the status of these <br /> old streets will not impart Mt .specific conclusions o)this report" however this statement, when taken <br /> in context. is in reference to the fact that the November 3 report did not purport to address the status <br /> of the roadways shown on The 1894 "Amended Map of the Oakland Land and Improvement <br /> Company...". The outline contained in this report focused on the current parcel configurations in <br /> this area. Given the extremely consistent mathematical makeup of the property lines in this area <br /> along with giving consideration to the fact that these parcels have been occupied. improved. <br /> e ncmnhered and conveyed according to the Tract Maps for over 25 years it seemed somewhat <br /> redundant at the time to provide the reader of that letter with the history of the area. A review of this <br /> historical roadway geometry was an integral part of the original exercise but not stated. <br /> However, since it is now clear to me that there are parties that wish to know how the current Tract <br /> Maps interrelate to the original 1 894 map I have attached hereto, a discourse on how the later survey <br /> maps in this area tit with the dimensions shown on the original map-The reader of this should keep in <br /> mind that the preparation of a "resolved boundary survey- not only includes applying principals <br /> contained in the Land Surveying texts but must he approached with an eye to following in the <br /> footsteps of those who have gone before us. the understanding that surveying equipment and the <br /> standard of care both have improved greatly since the I 800's, that lines of occupation must be <br /> considered and that the modern surveyor should strive to do as "little damage to the public- as <br /> possible when applying the incredibly accurate equipment and computers that we use today to a <br /> survey that was made over a 1011 years ago. <br /> I would encourage the reader of this letter to consider the facts outlined in this attachment but I will <br /> provide a brief summary here so that the situation can he made clear. This area was surveyed <br /> originally in 1894 and most likely many surveyors worked in this area in the 80 years hetween then <br /> and 1974 when McKay and Somps filed Parcel Map 1558. However the results of the 1974 survey <br /> show that the distances around the perimeter of this almost 1/2 mile square Fit. at the worst. within 1.3 <br /> feet of the 1894 map dimensions. Five separate Engineering and Surveying firms tiled Parcel and <br /> Tract maps in this area since that time and they are all very consistent in dimensions. <br /> Given the surveying principals which must he applied to historic boundary resolution this would he <br /> considered within the tolerances expected. In summary I will restate my original conclusion that in <br /> my professional opinion there is no problem here with regards to the locations of the roadways. <br /> I would welcome the opportunity to explain and or discuss this matter with anyone who would he <br /> interested in doing so. However it would be best it'any subsequent discussions remain factual based <br /> and that any sort of "smoke and mirrors" discussions he avoided so as to not create any unfounded <br /> confusion. <br /> usion. <br /> 3) Cameron Avenue Private Easement: <br /> The 1894 map shows that Camron as being 58' wide and centered between two tiers of lots. This <br /> • <br /> map is silent as to the purpose of this roadway and contains no language as to its purpose and <br /> • <br /> therefore one must make an assumption as to what the intent of the original subdivider was in <br /> • <br /> showing this on the map. From a review of the subsequent mapping it appears that the general <br /> consensus is that along Cameron Avenue there exists a 58' wide private roadway easement. One <br /> would assume that in the original conveyances of these 1894 lots that an appurtenant easement over <br /> the roadways would have been included in the deed. We have been able to chase the fee parcels that <br /> underlie Tract 5445 back approximately t0 years and we slid not find any reference to an <br /> "appurtenant private roadway easement'' in the legal descriptions. <br /> 2850 Collier Canyon Road, Livermore, California 94551 (925) 245-8788 FAX (925) 245-8796 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.