HomeMy WebLinkAboutSS3 - Marinapark Parcel - Tidelands BoundaryFebruary 22, 1999
Study Session Item No. 3
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
February 22, 1999
TO: Mayor & Members of the City Council
FROM: Robert H. Burnham, City Attorney
RE: Marinapark Parcel
Tidelands Boundary
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this memo is to summarize the reports and information that may be
relevant to the location of the tidelands boundary on the Marinapark parcel (Parcel) and
to receive direction from the City Council. This report recommends the City Council
authorize staff and Council Member Ridgeway to meet with State Lands Commission staff
and attempt to obtain an agreement that the entire Parcel is uplands. We are making this
recommendation because there is substantial evidence that the entire Parcel is uplands,
a designation of uplands would give the Council the greatest flexibility in deciding on an
appropriate use of the Parcel, and revenue from upland property goes into the general
fund.
REPORTS AND INFORMATION
1. Uzes Report
In 1996, The City retained Francois (Bud) Uzes of Boundaries Unlimited to prepare
a report recommending a tidelands boundary on the Parcel using "accepted boundary
determination practice" (Exhibit A). Uzes was selected because of his experience in
analyzing tideland issues in Newport Bay and tideland boundaries throughout the State.
The Uzes Report analyzes various historical surveys of Lower Newport Bay and
concludes that the 1889 Finley meander survey represents the best "approximation" of
the line of mean high water. Assuming the Finley survey is used as the basis for
establishing the line of mean high water, the majority of the Parcel is tidelands. The
boundary between tidelands and uplands on any parcel is coincident with the mean high
water line as of 1850 subject to "natural and imperceptible" changes. However, the Uzes
Report also summarizes the reasons why all the surveys are, to a greater or lesser
degree, less than conclusive relative to the tidelands boundary on the Parcel.
2. Marinapark Lessees Position
The Marinapark lessees have retained Cary Lowe, an attorney, to evaluate the
Uzes Report and review other documents relevant to the location of the tidelands
boundary on the Parcel. Mr. Lowe, in letters to the State Lands Commission (Exhibit B),
contends the entire Parcel is uplands. According to Mr. Lowe, the primary evidence of
the uplands character is found in judicial decisions establishing the tidelands boundaries
on adjacent parcels (sample decision — Exhibit C) and aerial photographs (Exhibit D)
taken around 1922. The judicial decisions established the tideland boundary on the east
and west side of the Parcel and the photos depict a relatively straight shoreline between
those parcels. The Parcel is uplands assuming the tideland boundary is represented by a
line depicting the shoreline between the judicial established mean high water line on the
adjacent properties.
Mr. Lowe also has submitted a letter from a surveyor (Exhibit E), a letter from an
executive with First American Title Insurance Company ( FATCO) (Exhibit F) and a title
policy from FATCO (Exhibit G) that support his contention the Parcel is uplands based on
the decisions and photos. Lowe acknowledges that Uzes is an expert in the field but
contends that his report is "too speculative ...to rely on" as evidence of the appropriate
tidelands boundary on the Parcel.
3. State Land Commission Staff
Commission staff has indicated a willingness to discuss the issue and are
waiting to receive a final report from the Marinapark Lessees. They do question the value
of the aerial photos since there is some evidence they reflect the condition of the
shoreline after the deposition of dredge spoils. Commission staff has also indicated that
the parcel may be an asset of the tidelands trust if the Parcel was acquired in
consideration for the deposition of dredge spoils which they contend were trust assets.
We recommend that the City Council authorize staff and Council Member Ridegway to
meet with State Lands commission staff and attempt to obtain a determination that the
entire Parcel is uplands.
M
F
3ERT H. BURNHAM
Attorney
REPORT ON
RECOMMENDED TIDELAND BOUNDARY
FOR PROPERTY IN LOWER NEWPORT BAY
LOCATED ALONG THE BALBOA PENINSULA
BETWEEN 15TH AND 18TH STREETS
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR THE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
JUNE, 1996
SUBMITTED BY
BOUNDARIES UNLIMITED
6840 PINE CONE RD.
LOONUS, CA 95650
(916) 652 -5167
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUBJECT PROPERTY .................. ..............................1
PURPOSE........................... ..............................1
RESULT............................ ..............................1
METHOD............................ ..............................1
PROPERTY OWNERSHIP ................ ..............................2
LIMITATIONS OF REPORT ............. ..............................3
DEFINITION OF TIDELAND BOUNDARY ... ..............................3
CONFORMITY WITH NEARBY TIDELAND BOUNDARY DETERMINATIONS ......... 4
ELEVATION OF MEAN HIGH WATER ...... ..............................4
BIOLOGICAL TIDELAND DETERMINATIONS ..............................7
EARLY UPLAND PROPERTY SURVEYS ..... ..............................8
EARLY TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYS ......... ..............................9
FINLEY MEANDER SURVEY ............. .............................12
OTHERSURVEYS ..................... .............................13
ACCURACY OF EARLY SURVEYS ......... .............................14
ARTIFICIAL CHANGES TO SHORELINE ... .............................14
STATE LEASES OF ADJACENT TIDELAND PROPERTY .....................15
ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION ......... .............'...............16
LOCATION OF THE RECOMMENDED TIDELAND BOUNDARY ..................16
APPENDICES
1. Recommended Tideland Boundary
2. Historic Shoreline Positions
3. Portion of 1875 Topographic Survey
4. 1889 Finley Survey, U.S. General Land Office
5. 1905 Section B Subdivision
6. Portion of 1912 Corps of Engineers Survey
7. Portion of c. 1920's Hillyard- Browning Survey
8. Official Map No.. 108 Showing Finley Meander Line Position
J
TIDELAND BOUNDARY
1Wq
CERTAIN CITY -OWNED PROPERTY LOCATED IN
THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
NEWPORT BAY, CALIFORNIA
SUBJECT PROPERTY
This report deals with the tideland property boundary along
the bayward side of the Balboa Peninsula between 15th street and
18th street in Newport Beach.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to recommend a location of the
tideland boundary in keeping with accepted boundary determination
practice. This recommendation will be based upon an analysis of
historical surveys, maps, photographs, deeds, and other records.
No field survey was conducted for this study.
RESULT
This report recommends the 1889 U.S. General Land Office
meander line by S.H. Finley as the tideland boundary for the
subject property. The location of the line is shown in Appendix 1.
METHOD
Historical information shows that the natural bay was filled
at the subject location, probably during the late teens or early
1920's. As a result of the filling, the shoreline was moved some
200 to 250 feet further bayward. This report will attempt to
determine where the line of mean high water was located on the
ground just before the time of the filling.
PROPERTY OWNERSHIP
The city acquired title to most of the adjacent upland
property, together with other off -site lands, by deed dated August
12, 1919, from the Pacific Electric Land Company. The deed is
recorded in Book 342 of Deeds, page 329, Records of Orange County.
The part of the Pacific Electric deed treating this property
describes it as unsubdivided land bounded on the north by the part
of the U.S. Government Meander Line included between Station 68 and
Station 72, as surveyed by S.H. Finley, on the east by the west
line of 15th street, on the south by the subdivision known as
Section B, and on the west by the east line of 19th street.
Without evidence to the contrary, this report treats the deed
reference to the Government Meander Line for the north boundary as
carrying title to the ordinary high water mark of Newport Bay.
The city gained title to the remainder of the adjacent upland
property by deed dated April 24, 1956 from the Pacific Electric
Land Company. This was a conveyance of certain lots in Blocks 115,
116, and 117 in the Section B subdivision. Additional nearby lots
in Block 115 were also deeded to the city the same day by the
Pacific Electric Railway Company.
The abutting tidelands and submerged lands of Newport Bay came
to state ownership upon California's admission to the Union in
1850. Tidelands and submerged lands of the bay that fronted on
lands owned or later acquired by the city were granted in trust by
the State Legislature to the City of Newport Beach in 1919. This
was pursuant to Chapter 494, Statutes of 1919, in effect July 25,
1919. On that date, the upland property at this location was not
yet owned by the city, therefore title to the abutting tidelands
and submerged lands did not transfer immediately. Title to most of
the frontage passed to the city a month later when the city was
deeded the land by the Pacific Electric Land Company. The
remaining tidelands and.submerged lands, involving frontage on two
upland lots, passed when the 1919 legislative grant was amended by
2
subsequent legislation, Chapter 70, Statutes of 1927. The city now
administers the tidelands and submerged lands in trust pursuant to
Chapter 74, Statutes of 1978.
LIMITATIONS OF REPORT
This report is based upon information taken from historic
surveys, records, and maps prepared by federal, state, and local
agencies. Unless otherwise noted, it assumes the information shown
on these records is accurate.
The necessary research materials were obtained from both
current and prior searches of the files of the City of Newport
Beach, County of Orange, California State Lands Commission, and
records of this firm. Some of the data was previously assembled
for earlier Newport Bay tideland boundary studies, and for
litigation involving Upper Newport Bay.
Upland property titles for this report were researched only to
the extent of requesting ownership information from the city. No
independent investigation was conducted on the subject, and the
report does not advance any opinions of upland property ownership.
Comments appearing in the report merely reflect information
furnished by the city.
Within the city, Mr. Paul Medina provided valuable aid in
furnishing copies of maps, deeds, and other records. Mr. Paul
Cuomo, a former supervisory employee with the County of Orange,
assisted in the research of historical survey records.
DEFINITION.OF TIDELAND BOUNDARY
The tideland boundary in Newport Bay is the ordinary high
water mark as set forth in Section 830 of the California Civil
Code. The ordinary high water mark in a tidal estuary under
natural conditions corresponds to the intersection on the ground of
the tidal height of mean high water. That height is determined by
averaging the twice -daily high tides over a full tidal cycle of 19
years. When the available measurements of tide heights do not
extend over the full 19 year cycle, the short -term result is
3
/.
reduced, or extrapolated, to the 19 -year mean value. This is done
from a comparison with simultaneous tide observations made at a
tide station that does have a full 19 years of measurement.
In instances where the position of the line of mean high water
has changed gradually over time due to the natural action of water,
the boundary moves with the changing location of that feature. The
tideland boundary moves with these changes as long as they are
natural, gradual and imperceptible. When the changes are sudden or
avulsive, or result from dredging or filling, or from accretions to
land caused by nearby artificial means, the boundary does not
continue to follow the day -to -day line of mean high water.
CONFORMITY WITH NEARBY TIDELAND BOUNDARY DETERMINATIONS
Tideland boundary determinations involving both court action
and state legislation have be made to neighboring property located
both to the east and west of the subject property. To the west the
boundary was adjudicated in SCC #23682. To the east the boundary
was adjudicated in SCC #23681. The ordinary high tide lines
adopted in these two cases were later further established by an act
of the state Legislature, Statutes of 1929, Chapter 142. The lines
determined by those actions do not comport with the tideland
boundary location recommended in this report. The reason for the
disparity is that the prior determinations were not done according
to the same property boundary guidelines that were used in this
report.
ELEVATION OF MEAN HIGH WATER
The correct 19 -year average tide height of mean high water for
property boundary purposes is somewhat uncertain in Newport Bay.
Changes in the tide elevations have occurred artificially as a
result of harbor improvements such as dredging and filling
operations, and stabilizing the entrance channel. Measured mean
high water elevations in a nearby area of the bay range from
historic government figures as low as 4.0 feet to a recent value of
4.6 feet above the level of mean lower low water. The elevations
are measured above the lower low water reference level, sometimes
called mean lower low water datum. This reference is the same as
4
that used in published tide tables. Thus if the height of mean
high water is determined to be 4.4 feet for boundary purposes, the
line of mean high water could be directly seen on the ground during
still water conditions by noting the edge of the water's surface at
the time of a 4.4 feet tide.
Tide height measurements taken after the harbor was built
found mean high water to be at 4.5 feet beginning in the 1920's.
The most recent known value is 4.6 feet. The correct elevation for
historic boundary purposes, however, is the elevation determined
under natural conditions before the harbor improvements. The
National Ocean Survey publishes a value of 4.4 feet above mean
lower low water at Newport Landing for this historic elevation.
The figure is based upon readings made in 1875, 1887 and 1889.
Newport Landing is located near the highway bridge separating the
upper and lower portions of Newport Bay. It is the nearest
historic tide station to the property.
While 4.4 feet is the official government height for mean high
water, that value is not without some question. In reviewing the
historical records of the National Ocean Survey, it was found that
4.0 feet was the actual mean height as determined from the 19th
century tide measurements. The Chief of.the Tidal Datums Quality
Assurance Section wrote in 1991 that the historic Newport Landing
values were altered to be consistent with other nearby locations.
This was to avoid the appearance of an anomaly. The disturbing
element in this alteration is that the historic hydrographic
conditions in Newport Bay may have been quite different from those
in other nearby locations and a true anomaly may have existed.
This would result in the 4.0 feet figure being a better value for
boundary purposes than 4.4 feet.
One possibility that could lead to an anomalous situation is
that Newport Bay could have different entrance conditions than
other nearby estuaries. In support of the possibility that an
anomaly existed, an early government letter by a person familiar
with such matters mentions the unstable nature of the Newport
entrance channel.
- - The lumber merchant of the place informed me that he had
5
recently been to San Francisco to secure a steamer to run to
Newport Landing but although they would dispatch her that no
insurance could be obtained until the place or rather the
entrance was surveyed by the Coast Survey. A small schooner
with a cargo of 50 [ ?] lumber entered the bay a few days
since and reports 15 feet of water in the channel.
The entrances to these small estuaries and bays are
constantly changing so that I do not suppose that any survey
can do more than give the general depth of water on the bar.
It will be entirely accurate at time of survey and be
inaccurate six hours later owing to changes. The approaches
and inside ork though will be always available for the use
of vessels.
On the other hand, the tide experts of the U.S. Coast &
Geodetic Survey analyzed the available data and arrived at the 4.4
feet figure. While questions are raised here, it is beyond the
scope of this investigation to modify the government's established
tide values.
Information from an early non - government source was also
reviewed for information on tide heights. Several tide
measurements were made at 3 different locations in Newport Bay
during 1920 and 1921 by the office of Leeds and Barnard, Consulting
Engineers. These measurements were done in conjunction with the
project for harbor development. The value for mean high water at
the county bridge at the west end of the turning basin was 4.24
feet, at the Palisades Pier was 4.30 feet, and at the Balboa
Pavilion was 4.24 feet. These figures were not used in this report
for boundary purposes because some were measured after changes were
made to the entrance channel. Also, there was no statement that
the determinations were reduced to mean values (extrapolated to a
19 year period) . If it was certain that the Leeds and Barnard
figures had been reduced to mean values, they would have been
further considered for use by this report.
One other tide height factor arises because of a note
appearing on the 1912 U.S. War Department survey of Newport Bay.
In this note is a statement that the elevation of high water mark
I Letter from A.W'. Chase to C.P. Patterson, February 27,
1875, U.S. Coast & Geodetic Survey, Superintendent's File, 1866-
1910, Assistants, C, 1866 -1875, RG 23, National Archives.
is constant between Promontory Point and the bridge at the Arches,
although the plane of lower low water is inclined upward from
Promontory Point to the bridge at the Arches by 0.9 foot. High
water mark was defined in the note as the physical mark left by the
preceding spring tide. Because we are here concerned with high
water heights rather than low water heights, the effect of this low
water difference could be substantially reduced. Also, it is not
known if the relationship between the high and low water planes is
linear. It was also noted that the area of the bay described in
the note could involve differing hydrologic factors than the
subject property. Because of the uncertainty of how to apply the
information shown on the War Department map, no attempt was made to
adjust the values that were determined for boundary purposes.
The elevation of 4.4 feet is used in this report for boundary
determination purposes because it is the official historic
government figure for Newport Bay. It also has been previously
accepted by the County of Orange in its efforts at tideland
boundary determination.2 If either the government's original 4.0
feet, or the 4.24 to 4.30 feet Leeds and Barnard figures had been
used, the tideland boundary would be located somewhat waterward of
the 4.4 feet height.
BIOLOGICAL TIDELAND DETERMINATIONS
Salt marsh vegetation was historically located along the
margin of the bay at this location. One factor that some
investigators rely upon in locating the line of mean high water is
that it supposedly coincides with the waterward margin of the
marsh. Research done previously by this writer in this and other
nearby areas shows that the principal marsh grasses are pickleweed
(Salicornia) and cord grass (Spartina). Pickleweed typically grows
at slightly higher elevations than does cord grass. The upper
elevation of the pickleweed is usually a foot or two above the
elevation of mean high water. The lower elevation of that plant is
usually at or slightly below the elevation of mean high water.
Cord grass is usually found at elevations ranging from mean high
i Board of Supervisors action authorizing a 4.4 survey of
Newport Bay, May 12, 1925.
7
/0
water to a foot or two below that height. Typically in an
established marsh such as this the band of pickleweed is much wider
than that of cord grass. Thus the intersection of the line of mean
high water along the shore of the bay is usually somewhat landward
of the outer or lower limit of the marsh. For this reason,
topographic maps that show the edge of marsh vegetation without
supporting evidence of the line of mean high water are not accurate
indicators for determining the tideland boundary.
EARLY UPLAND PROPERTY SURVEYS
U.S. General Land Office 1889
The United States became the owner of the upland property
following the war with Mexico and the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe
Hidalgo. In 1889, the U.S. General Land Office contracted with
Solomon H. Finley to survey the swamp and overflowed within Newport
Bay.
Finley's original survey included lands that were determined
not to be in government ownership, so changes in his results were
ordered. An official government plat was approved in 1890 that,
among other things, subdivided the peninsula at the location of
this investigation. The adjacent upland property is located within
Lot 4, Section 33, and Lot 4, Section 34, T. 6 S., R. 10 W., S.B.M.
The swamp and overflowed lands within Newport Bay were bounded
by irregular lines called meanders. Details of how Finley surveyed
the meander lines are given later in this report.
Section B Subdivision Plat, 1905
This plat represents a subdivision of a parcel of upland
property made by the Newport Beach Company. The map of the
subdivision was made by S.H. Finley, the same surveyor who did the
government meander survey 16 years earlier.
The plat shows a heavy freehand shoreline fronting on Newport
Bay, and lighter water lines to the north. The shoreline is not
identified as to what it specifically represents. It is considered
unlikely that it was run as a contour of 4.4 feet elevation.
e
,/
The Orange County Engineers Office has the original field book
collection of S.H. Finley. The field books were researched to
determine if they contained additional information on the heavy
freehand line, or on the location of the line of mean high water at
the time the subdivision survey was made. Unfortunately no
clarifying information was found. Without some indication of what
the freehand line represents, how it was determined, and whether
the conditions under which it was made represent natural shoreline
conditions, the S.H. Finley freehand drawn line was determined
unacceptable for recommendation as a tideland boundary by this
report.
EARLY TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYS
U.S. Coast & Geodetic Survey, 1875
The first detailed topographic survey of Newport Bay was made
by the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey in 1875. This work was part
of a comprehensive survey and was one of the elements needed in
preparing a navigation chart of the bay. The 1875 survey is
recognized as the first accurate topographic representation of
Newport Bay. Unfortunately, there are not enough_ land elevations
shown for locating the line of mean high water. The survey does
show certain visible features, including the upper and lower limits
of the salt marsh vegetation. While some investigators consider
the solid black line located at the outer limit of the marsh
vegetation as the line of mean high water, that is generally not
the case. Any congruency between the two is coincidental.
The bayward limit of the marsh shown on the 1875 topographic
map intrudes well into the Section B subdivision of 1905 between
16th St. and 18th St. Since the marsh line is most usually located
waterward of the line of mean high water, it is probable that
between those two streets the tideland boundary in 1875 was also
located within an area that in 1905 became the Section B
subdivision. As the line proceeds easterly of 16th St., it swings
waterward of the Section B limit.
This survey was used for background information as to the
earliest approximate location of the tideland boundary. It did not
play an important role in recommending the location of the tideland
E
boundary. Also, no independent evidence supports the outer marsh
line to be the line of mean high water.
Corps of Engineers 1912
The next important topographic survey was done by D.E. Hughes
for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 1912, and is depicted on
Orange County surveyors map no. 6883. Another version of the same
survey with harbor lines added is identified as county surveyors
map no. 6885. Unfortunately, no line of mean high water at
elevation 4.4 feet above mean lower low water was surveyed. A 5
feet contour line appears on the map, but that line is at too high
an elevation to be useful for boundary purposes. Spot ground
elevations are shown on transects spaced 450 feet apart that
correspond with the extensions of the upland streets. Using these
spot elevations with the line of 5 feet elevation, an approximate
location for the 4.4 feet contour can be determined by
interpolation. Use of this procedure requires that the ground
surface be at a constant slope between the various elevation
points, a condition that may not actually exist. The spot
elevations were taken at spacings of 150 to 250 feet apart along
the individual transects. These spacings are too great for
accurate work. Also, all of the spot elevation points are located
on tide flats bayward of the marsh while the 5 feet line is back in
the marsh. Experience has shown that berms or ridges oftentimes
exist at the bayward edge of the marsh, and also within the marsh
itself. Thus the ground between the spot elevations and the 5 feet
line may not lie along a constant slope.
The 450 feet transect spacing of the spot elevations is also
less than adequate to define the sinuosities of the line. An
additional problem with the map is it's relatively small scale of
1" = 833 feet, which makes the approximate mean high water line
subject to even more error.
One other feature of the Corps 1912 survey data raises further
doubt about its reliability. Both the high water mark and the spot
elevations that are so important to this tide line determination
differ in some respects between the two different versions of the
Corps' map even though they are both based upon the same field
10
survey. For all of these reasons the correctness of the 4.4 feet
contour line as determined from the 1912 Corps map is considered
suspect.
W.K. Hillyard - C.R. Browning 1920's
Orange County Surveyor, W.K. Hillyard, and the Irvine Company
surveyor, C.R. Browning, appear to have both conducted surveys in
Newport Bay during the 1920's for locating the tideland boundary
line. Existing in the county records are three plats identified by
Orange County surveyors map file numbers 6881, 6892, and 6909.
Another unnumbered version was obtained some years ago from the
Irvine Company files. These plats are believed to be slightly
different depictions resulting from the same field survey, and all
appear to have certain information superimposed upon the same base
map. There is no clear identification of who performed the
original work, and it is possible that both Hillyard and Browning
contributed to the information shown. This report will refer to
this work as the Hillyard - Browning survey even though no evidence
proves that deduction.
The topographic information shown on the maps corresponds to
efforts made in the 1920's to locate the tideland boundary in the
county areas and in a few city areas of Newport Bay. It is evident
there was some uncertainty in knowing the correct elevation of the
boundary line as on two of the plats many spot` elevations were
measured as well as contours of 4.4 feet, 4.6 feet, and 5.1 feet.
Difficulty is met in determining the dates of the field work.
For the most part the shoreline features correspond to those
expected immediately prior to the dredging of the harbor during the
early 1920's. The dates that are customarily used for the Hillyard
and Browning tideland boundary surveys are mid- 1920's, or after the
dredging was well underway. This report considers the actual field
measurements to have been made immediately prior to the county
dredging because that is the situation shown on the maps.
In the subject area of this report the only mapping symbol
shown on the plat that is representative of a shoreline feature is
a single freehand -drawn line. It is not identified on the map as
to elevation, or in fact as to what it purports to represent. Its
11
position closely corresponds to the heavyweight freehand line shown
on the 1905 Section B subdivision map. The freehand line on the
county map only appears westerly from 16th street and does not
extend easterly to 15th street.
The Hillyard- Browning freehand line is located well landward
of the bulkhead line, which suggests it might reflect the shoreline
position prior to final dredging and filling operations. Further
to the northwest in the channel area known as The Rhine, the
freehand line configuration shows a straight channel with parallel
sides that appears to reflect a post- dredging condition. A similar
condition appears at another channel labeled The Hudson. The line
in all these general areas seems to have been done during the time
the dredging was in progress, with some areas already dredged and
filled and others not. The problem is that the freehand line
appears in locations that are not otherwise known to have ever been
shorelines of the bay. It is possible that the lines may reflect
planned shorelines or lines taken from other maps. Even if the
line was known to be a 4.4 feet contour, without other evidence it
could not be completely relied upon to reflect natural conditions
of the shoreline prior to placement of artificial, fill.
At first glance, the freehand lines shown on the Hillyard-
Browning maps appear to be of significant potential value to this
report. Research was therefore conducted in both county and
private records to locate additional data on the survey that formed
the basis of the line. Extant field books of both Hillyard and
Browning were examined. Despite the concerted effort, no
clarifying information was found on what the line represents, how
it was determined, and whether the conditions under which it was
made represent natural shoreline conditions. Therefore, the
Hillyard- Browning freehand line was determined unacceptable for
consideration or recommendation as a tideland boundary by this
report.
FINLEY MEANDER SURVEY
As stated before, $.H. Finley in 1889 performed a meander
survey and subdivision of the swamp and overflowed lands in Newport
Bay, including the Balboa Peninsula. Meander surveys run by
12
government contract surveyors were not expected to closely follow
the mean high water line as are boundary surveys done specifically
for that purpose. Tide heights were not measured, and no contour
line of 4.4 feet elevation, or other constant elevation, was
determined by the survey.
The government surveying instructions in force at the time of
Finley's survey (1881 Instructions) directed that meanders of swamp
and overflowed lands should be run at the ordinary low -water mark.
It is believed that Finley did not have a copy of these out -of-
print instructions.3 In fact, his meanders in the marsh areas more
closely followed what would have been the approximate mean high
water mark. This bears out the experience of the writer that the
tidal low -water mark in marsh areas is oftentimes located in
unvegetated tide flats where the footing is very difficult and
unstable. It is much easier to run a meander line up on the marsh
vegetation, which is closer to the mean high water line.
An individual performing a meander survey would run a line
by course and distance that approximated an on- the -spot visual
determination of the shoreline or bank. The purpose of a meander
survey was to provide information on the amount of acreage in the
upland rather than determine an exact property boundary.
Nonetheless, in some instances government meander lines have been
adopted as tideland boundaries when they were determined to be the
best evidence as to the location of the historic shoreline.
OTHER SURVEYS
Some other surveys were reviewed as part of this study. They
were judged to be of historical interest but for various reasons
did not have a particular bearing on the location of the tideland
boundary. These include the following:
1. Corps of Engineers' Newport Harbor Survey of 1887.
2. Finley's 1889 survey - Santa Ana and Newport Railroad.
3. Finley's 1891 alignment survey of Newport Avenue.
3 Executive Document of the House of Representatives, Session
of Congress 1889 -90, Annual Report of the Commissioner of the
General Land Office (1889).
13
4. U.S.G.S. topographic surveys of 1894 et seq.
ACCURACY OF EARLY SURVEYS
Surveys of the 19th and early 20th century were not made
according to the same standards of accuracy that are used today.
Nineteenth century surveying standards set by the government
expected the meander courses such as those surveyed by Finley to
agree within 99 feet of the corresponding upland measure between
two points located about one mile apart. The survey by Finley
appears to have much less than the maximum allowable error, but
some inaccuracy is still to be expected.
Nineteenth century surveys of the U.S. Coast & Geodetic Survey
are reported by that agency to be accurate to within plus or minus
10 meters, but are often better than that. That distance
corresponds to about 33 feet. Surveys by the Corps of Engineers
were probably done to a slightly lower standard of accuracy than
those of the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey. This latter statement
is based on 40 years personal experience in working with surveys by
both agencies.
These accounts show that it is impossible to locate a historic
line of mean high water with a high degree of accuracy from the
types of historic surveys available here. All due care was
exercised in the relative positioning of the old lines during this
study, but the accuracy of the results are nonetheless hampered by
the early survey limitations.
ARTIFICIAL CHANGES TO SHORELINE
Based upon an inspection of historical maps and other records,
the shoreline in the subject area appears to have remained in a
state of nature and was generally stable in position until the time
of the filling that probably occurred in the late teens or early
1920's. There is some variation in shoreline positions between the
late 19th and early 20th century surveys, but they all fell within
a roughly 100 feet wide. swath. In combination with the nearby
channel construction, dredger spoils were placed along the
shoreline to fill in parts of the natural bay. In this manner the
14
I �'
shoreline was moved about 200 to 250 feet further bayward.
According to statements in the 1973 book, Newport Bay, A
Pioneer History, by Ellen K. Lee, page 82, dredging and filling
operations at the subject property were conducted by the City of
Newport Beach. The city's work in dredging the city channel was
finished in April, 1920. A measure of confirmation on the date of
the filling operation appears on promotional letter paper of the
local Parkinson Syndicate. The paper is dated 1921 and notations
indicate that a [city] channel 10 feet in depth extends a similar
distance [3} miles] to the City turning basin located in the
western arm of the Bay. This is interpreted to mean that the city
channel was already constructed beyond the subject area in 1921.
Since shoreline filling was an adjunct of the dredging, statements
in the Lee history appear to be affirmed.
STATE LEASES OF ADJACENT TIDELAND PROPERTY
At the time of the dredging of the city channel and filling of
the peninsula shoreline, the tidelands and submerged lands fronting
privately owned property within the city limits were still under
the jurisdiction of the state. Only tidelands fronting city -owned
lands were granted to the city by the state Legislature in 1919.
The ungranted filled tidelands remained under state ownership
and control despite the fact they were now of an upland character.
Interest grew in putting the new lands to use, and the Legislature
in 1925 passed an act providing for leasing of the filled property
(Chapter 121, Statutes of 1925). The act applied only to land
adjacent to subdivisions along the south shore of Newport Bay.
Leasing rates were determined by the State Board of Control
and the Surveyor General. The rates were based upon frontage along
the Bulkhead Line, and no attempt was made to define the ordinary
high water mark boundary dividing uplands from tidelands.
Ultimately the boundary along most privately -owned uplands was
established by court and legislative action as previously alluded
to. The new boundaries were set in such position that all of the
leased lands wound up being in private ownership.
15
1�
ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION
The location of the legal ordinary high water mark, or
tideland boundary, has been unknown along the city property since
the natural shoreline was obliterated by filling operations. The
California State Surveyor General in 1925 expressed his views on
the difficulty or impossibility of locating the actual high tide
line as it existed at the time of making the fill.4 Research into
federal, state, and local records did not turn up any survey of the
4.4 feet contour prior to the filling operations. Thus it is
impossible to determine with certainty where the ordinary high
water mark boundary is located. In such a case, other evidence is
studied to determine the location that best represents the position
of the line of mean high water prior to the shoreline filling.
The 1889 Finley meander line through the subject area is
considered an approximation of the high water mark boundary. The
line appears to be located slightly landward of both the c. 1920
Hillyard- Browning freehand line and the 1905 Section B heavy
freehand line, and yet noticeably bayward of the 4.4 feet contour
as determined from the Corps' 1912 survey. It is also bayward of
the outer or waterward edge of marsh as shown on the 1875 USC &GS
topographic map.
It is the opinion and recommendation of this report that the
1889 Finley meander line is the best evidence of, and most closely
reflects the location of the ordinary high water mark and tideland
boundary.
LOCATION OF THE RECOMMENDED TIDELAND BOUNDARY
The 1889 Finley line is mathematically defined in relation to
three government section corners also placed by Finley. Because
the meander and section line surveys both contain some error,
alternative positions of the Finley meander line relative to the
subdivision and pierhead lines can result depending on how the
error is distributed. The mathematical or coordinate locations of
two of these government section corners are shown on the 1912
4 Letter dated September 14, 1925 from W.S. Kingsbury to Mr.
C.T. Peabody, c/o The Parkinson Syndicate, Newport Beach.
16
Ic
Corps' survey, as are positions later adopted for the 1916 Pierhead
and Bulkhead lines. The two section corners located by the Corps'
survey are for sections 27, 28, 33 and 34, and sections 20, 21, 28
and 29. Thus there is an ability to locate the Finley meander line
relative to the 1916 Pierhead and Bulkhead line.
The distance and direction between the two section corners
positioned by the Corps agree exactly with the Finley record
dimensions. This condition could only result if both Finley and
the Corps measured with absolutely no error. Such a situation is
virtually impossible considering the surveying methods and
accuracies attained a century ago. Thus, of the two section
corners shown, it is believed that only one is positioned by field
survey and the other determined by calculation using Finley's
dimensions. Based upon a review of the available data, the Corps'
location for the corner to sections 27, 28, 33 and 34 is believed
to be the result of field measurement, while the corner location
for sections 20, 21, 28 and 29 is believed to have been determined
by calculation from Finely's measurements.
The U.S. government land office method for reestablishing the
position of a meander line involves using two or more section
corner positions. This affords a check on the accuracy attained.
In this instance, there is only one section corner position that is
felt reliable for position determination. Therefore, the location
for Finley's meander line using only Corps of Engineers' data lacks
the check afforded by using two corner positions as provided by
government land office standards.
An alternative location for the Finley meander line appears on
Official Map No. 108 on file in the City of Newport Beach Public
Works Department. The location shown on this official map agrees
within about one foot with the approximate method using the Corps
of Engineers survey. The meander line location shown on Official
Map No. 108 agrees well with the alternative method employed here,
and has the benefit of prior adoption by the city. The Map No. 108
position of the Finley meander line is therefore adopted for
recommendation by this report.
17
2 ca,
Prepared by:
— �� 4�- ZAM L,,e '� I � I
Francois D. Uzes D to
Professional Land Surveyor
My License Expires 6/30/96
�f \
9
Kf OF
ON
Ii
�E� 6
P
PC A
00 IOy
ull
El . 4 o N w CD
Y ! b O
9 .. p, a
I �
a
o z..
p
v
y V
^
a 4 • I
° v U
� 4 �
is
PC
K 4.
L.
'2E
oN I q
CIL
i I 8
�1= 31xi\C�-
I:
°
n V
\ Q
C f
^J a
v 0
C40
O
is l I.
0
n
4
Win- r
r7 3sffc.
d
7
L
Iv
Qi
co
w
O
� a
U � V
IU (g
w
0 O o 0
C7b:>
dd =Cc:
vi
vi U
c
y
H v7 R.
CNI
p Lt. LL a
h U h C'I U
h 00
00 00 a a
U
h i l l
I
I
I 1 1
I I 1
I
I 1
I I 1 1
1111
I
I
n1
1 'tjY
�) fir• ` ,
T U'
j ..V.
7 y
o R Old
o
a
o U
V H
..'..ice:
0000
V
t
I
1
1
,
-,.. -r
�) fir• ` ,
T U'
j ..V.
7 y
o R Old
o
a
o U
V H
..'..ice:
0000
V
t
I
1
1
,
!:
..g
t
I
1
1
,
!:
..g
7
b.
!ƒ so)
v
/ys
\ �
a
,
A
3
/
$
6
/l
)��
�
w:
/'
s
\
§
\ ;L
/er
�E
/\
m!
j)
i
b.
\\
(}
§�
< I�;
\\
»
/
/
/
R
)�\ �
6
wrA). 3
�� 23
d < / |`
\ Sol !
%{ $ : ;! .
2 §n �
2D /3!
!ƒ so)
v
/ys
\ �
a
,
A
3
/
$
a
i
b.
\\
(}
§�
< I�;
\\
»
/
/
/
R
)�\ �
6
wrA). 3
�� 23
d < / |`
\ Sol !
%{ $ : ;! .
2 §n �
2D /3!
/?
\
v
\ �
a
,
"b
7
$
�
\
/?
11 •
�� •t
J, \
w � G
1 '
1
1 �
. v
� W
•\ 1 O
7 a
K
ti•
1
•
' • r
�Ir
r•
r
1
t
' 1
• •tip
4•
� t
1 �
r
i
1
r�
• 1
O o
N
o °
ova
a
O N
uz�
y
a
�
� N
V).
I
I
1
•J
�I
I
11
J \r
V'
I
1
I
I
I
I
I I
f IJI
1
1
I {1I i
1
I
i I
I
I
I
f
II
I
I ,
I
I I ;
I
I
1
V
J'
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
7 I
I !
I
1
I
I
el
I
I
I
I
I '
I
I
1
I I
I
I 1
I
i
i
I I
I
I
I
i 1
I'
I
I
I. I
1'
I
i
f
a I
1
wrJ
Y '
i
i
i
i
i
i e
M
PLOza lit LL��.L
Do]
HH
4 19 --LI
pa�
/i'O
m
� Sec.2g
L ollYP37
no
S�.reyalb ' .,ored,
�►Avmsr..oe �
Ilvlt erconrxl.
,.R'► c " �",.
w,�..,a«c�.n+,
V.ri.�1w- KA.y�.,.,..„� ✓R.wa�.
�•�wto��:;Ie �S« ►Aw.
JM•�.Ry.r:n
. t Ma dda a
/.�.�..y '�` �e ,,,w;e
Abney Abneeai
A'•) /.�•n Mii rd
N. A'bnCeCt
CAMS "b1Yn.w•i
s A! /s:.Ary
fiMwn� /1:�/SJJ
SnaA�e�7ent
.Sip�NeYl^
F•Q r M.y7 "ie ey.
/ edS.
/09J•
/e1e �.
/ee0
/ee!
A. /171ee!
/. .! !! 97
rr.. r. rA
Portion of
U.S. General Land Office Plat
for T.6 S., R.10 W., S.B.M.
Showing 1889 Shoreline Meanders by S.H. Finley
54 189 ��
� r
°
I
I y
iff
a - --
rl
io
r
'�. �':., e. '• > ode ; � . a _ . _..__... ... � �.q '
-
Z-149H TEjflV THj STREET
lip
tN
zz
fLLEY•� [ ,' � i I
00 y
ct
CD CD
Q i 4. . i �. STREE c c
�'' a - SEl!ENTEENTHa
cc
'z.3 {
vv Sw FET Wit
L
I 0
ST
` 3 a ,
e
y
X AD
fD
V Y ~ Q
•t k e r' j.. v
N
0 "
s . '. . o ' � . Y r.✓ o
Qi N i � '� `✓
N
♦ w N w � + y
-4 A
N S A y N ♦ N n {a 0
yp� �
Ek. �, i q Ir '"_— m � • 1. - -o n
V N • _—
_ V �
�'' ___ Q –• .�67y
TA
n
♦ 4� ° I ' C Y as __ a� i '
• ki I �, fr.,,z ✓
a — w
V r-
LLLV F.
q
lII
n
r
oc
zs
.IAN-05 -99 20:50 From:
19100 VON KARMAN
EIGHTH FLOOR
P.O. BOX 19613
IRVINE. CA 926239613
PHONE: 716 -9SS -2900
FAX: 714.955 -9009
E -MAID Inro®paone.com
WEB SITE: hrrpzllw .paone.c m
October 27, 1997
ROBERT E. CALLAHAN
JAMES R. CAVANAUGH
WILLIAM R. DEVINE
RICHARD J. FOSTER
PAULB.GEORGE
ROGER A. GRABLE
SUSAN K. HORI
ALAN J. KESSEL
KENNETH S. KRAMER
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS AND FA CSWIL ; (916/574181M
Robert C. Hight, Executive Officer
California State Lands Commission
100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100 South
Sacramento, CA 95825 -8202
Re: City of Newport Beach
Request for Title Boundary and Land Use Determination
Dear Mr. Hight:
T -N P.0011 Job -576
CARY D. L.OWE Ph.D,
STEVEN A. MoHOLM
KATHLEGN CAROTHERS PAONE
TIM PAONE
G. EMMETT RArrT. JR.
JOHN F. SIMONS
MARTIN J. STEIN
WILLIAM P. TANNER. III
DANIEL K. WINTON
This office represents the Marinapark Homeowners Association, a group of fifty-eight elderly
households which lease homesites from the City of Newport Beach (the "City ") in a mobilehome
park. The park is at a location bounded by 15th Street, 18th Street, West Balboa Boulevard,
and the shore of Newport Bay, on the Newport Peninsula ( "Marinapark "). We understand that
the City has submitted a request to the State Lands Commission (the "Commission "), by letter
dated September 22, 1997, asking that the Commission determine whether any part of
Marinapark occupies land which should be designated as tidelands under state law, and, if so,
whether the current use of the site as a mobilehome park is legally permissible.
Introduction
It is our position, based on our review to date of the public record, that no part of the
Marinapark site should be classified as tidelands, and consequently there should be no issue
before the Commission as to what uses the City may permit under lease on the site. If any part
of the site is determined to be tidelands, we will be prepared to show that the current use is a
permissible one, but we suggest that analysis of that issue is premature.
There are very significant interests at stake here, most notably the opportunity for the residents
of Marinapark to keep their homes of many years. Nonetheless, the City is pressing for hasty
102797 -1745 I M39321L001 1 756)0.2
JAN-05-1999 20:55 98% P.04 O
aAN -05-22 20:51 From:
Robert C. Hight, Executive Officer
California State Lands Commission
October 27, 1997
Pagc -2-
action on the part of the Commission.
approximately two and one -half years
issues affecting the status and use o
deliberate manner.
T-714 P.05 /11 Job -576
This seems particularly inappropriate, since there remains
on the current term of the lease -- ample time for any
f the site to be examined and resolved in a thorough,
As this letter will illustrate, there is a substantial amount of information available which directly
challenges the fundamental contention that Marinapark is a tidelands area. Much of this
information is in the form of old maps, photographs, and other historical records in various
public and private archives. We have only been able to inspect a portion of it so far, but we
are continuing that process. We invite you or your start to review these records with us, as we
expect they will provide a far more accurate and comprehensive record than has been presented
to you to date. In order to accomplish that, however, a reasonable amount of time needs to be
taken before you formulate a response to the City.
Status of Site
The threshold issue is whether or not any part of the Marinapark site is comprised of tidelands.
The City apparently proposes to locate the mean high tide line so as to coincide with the "U.S.
Government meander line" depicted on the City Public Works Department map of the area ( "the
City map ": copy enclosed). The only "evidence" cited by the City in support of that proposition
is a document entitled "Report on Recommended Tideland Boundary" dated June 1996, prepared
by Francois Uzes of Boundaries Unlimited ( "the Uzes report"). Although the report's author
is highly regarded in this field, his analysis in this case is far from compelling. He cites many
prior studies, but concedes they all have flaws in their methodology. All of them, and his own
report as well, place the tidal boundary at approximately the same location, but they are like a
house of cards, each relying upon the ones preceding it for support, and the earliest ones, Uzes
concedes, being questionable in their analysis. The author even goes so far as to acknowledge
(at page 24), after reviewing all the prior tidal boundary studies of the area, "These accounts
show that it is impossible to locate a historic line of mean high water with a high degree of
accuracy from the types of historic surveys available here." How or why he nonetheless settles
on the U.S. Government meander line established by a survey over a century ago is unexplained.
This is particularly puzzling in light of his contention (at page 1) that dredging and filling moved
the shoreline as much as two hundred fifty feet bayward, while the effect of his recommendation
is to move the tidal boundary by less than half that distance. In other words, this report is so
fraught with internal inconsistencies and acknowledged uncertainties that it simply cannot be
relied upon.
102797.17051 M39329MI 175630.2
JAN -05 -1999 20:56 98% P.05 ;4
JAN -05 -99 20:51 From:
Robert C. Hight, Executive Officer
California State Lands Commission
October 27, 1997
Page -3-
T -T14 P.06 /11 Job -576
We further question any tidal boundary analysis which reties on the location of a meander line
established by some prior survey. Meander lines ordinarily are run by surveyors to illustrate
the quantities of land or water on either side of the line, but are not reliable indicators of an
actual boundary location. (See, e.g., City of Los Angeles v. San Pedro. L.A. & S,L R. Co.
(1920) 182 Cal. 652, 189 P. 449, 450.)
Apart from the Uzes report, there is considerable other conflicting information as to where the
mean high tide line properly should be located. The properties immediately adjacent to the
Marinapark site, at both the easterly and westerly ends, had their tidal boundaries established
by adjudication approximately seventy years ago. (See: City of Newport Beach v. Newport Bay
Dredging Co.. et al., OCSC No. 23685 (May 26, 1928); Cry of NewTort Beach v. Storey, et
41., OCSC No. 23683 (July 2, 1928); Cily of Newport Beach v. Newport Company, et al.,
OCSC No. 23682 (July 30, 1928); and Ci!y of Newport Rgcch_v. First National Bank of Santa
Ana. et al., OCSC No. 23679 (November 14, 1928). (However, note that, while these cases
are referenced on the City map, the Uzes report cites only one of these, but also another case
identified as OCSC No. 23681 not referenced by the City.)
In the case of both adjacent properties, the tidal boundary established by the courts coincides
with the U.S. Bulkhead Line, again as depicted on the City map. Yet, if the 1889 U.S.
Government meander litre had been observed by the courts, substantial portions of those adjacent
properties also would have been designated tidelands. Instead, the courts found in all cases that
the mean high tide line had shifted substantially bayward in this area as a result of a process of
accretion, rather than as a result of dredging or other human activity. These were not stipulated
judgments based on prior agreements between the City and affected landowners. Rather, as each
judgment makes clear, they all were based on oral and documentary evidence submitted by all
parties, with the courts considering all such evidence before making findings of fact and
conclusions of law. We will be pleased to provide you with copies of all the pleadings in these
cases for your review, at your request.
The State Legislature concurred with the court decisions, and formalized those decisions, along
with a dozen others, by adoption of Chapter 142, Statutes of 1929. The cases and the
subsequent legislation were part of a large -scale effort by the City to clarify the tidal boundary
between numerous private coastal properties and tidelands granted to the City by the State two
years earlier. The Marinapark site presumably was not included in that process because it was
owned by the City at that date and there was no urgent need to clarify the tidal boundary.
102797 -17451 M38328 -0D] i 75670.2
JPN -05 -1999 20:56 98% P.06 ?5
AN-05-99 20:52 From:
Robert C. Hight, Executive Officer
California State Lands Commission
October 27, 1997
Page -4-
T -714 P.07/II Job-576
Mr. Uzes blithely skips over those court decisions and the related legislative findings without
making any attempt to rationalize them with his conclusions regarding the tidal boundary on the
Marinapark site. In fact, he goes so far as to dismiss the effects of the adjudications merely
by asserting that different boundary guidelines were used at that time, without ever explaining
what those differences are or how they impact his conclusions. Surely, such major discrepancies
deserve more extensive analysis and explanation, if any valid explanation is possible.
Today, it is impossible to distinguish visually the boundary between the Marinapark site and the
property to the west,. as the beach continues uninterrupted. It does not continue in a similar
manner across the property to the east only because a bulkhead was installed, beginning at the
property line, in connection with construction of a marina in front of that property in
approximately 1958. Prior to that, the shoreline in that area followed an unbroken, straight line
along the bay frontage of the Marinapark site and the adjoining properties on both sides. We
have located documentary evidence of this in the form of aerial photographs, taken prior to the
court decisions cited above, which established the tidal boundaries of the adjacent properties at
their current locations. Specifically, these include a series of photographs, taken in the 1920's,
in the Spence Collection of the UCLA Geography Department, all showing the beach at the
Marinapark site in a straight line with the beach on the adjacent properties. Also, a locally
published book entitled Picture History of Balboa Island -1906 -1981 (G. Smith & W. Allen
(Heritage /Galliard Press 1981) appears to support that contention. Yet, it now is being proposed
by the City that the tidal boundary, as it passes through the Marinapark site, should vary by as
much as one hundred feet landward from the lines established judicially and legislatively for the
adjacent properties, and from what is shown to have been the case at Marinapark in photographs
of the period.
We understand there are literally thousands of photographs of the area generally, presumably
including this site, from that period in the collection of the Whittier College Geography
Department and several of the title insurance companies active in this area. Again, we are in
the process of obtaining access to these archives and inspecting them for documentary evidence
relevant to the issue here.
On an important related point, we have found references in literature of the time to federal
legislation not mentioned in the Uzes report or other documents, which appears to affect the
potential tidelands status of the site. We still are attempting to identify and locate that
legislation, and we will share the results with you as soon as they are available.
102797.17451 M3932&WI 175630.2
JAN -05 -1999 20:57 98% P.07 3(0
JAN -05 -99 20:52 From: T -714 P.08 /11 Job -570
Robert C. Hight, Executive Officer
California State Lands Commission
October 27, 1997
Page -5-
It would be simply an error for the Commission to endorse the City's proposed action, and one
which the Commission has ample legal authority to avoid. The Commission is statutorily
authorized to establish the tidal boundary of any property, by negotiated agreement, arbitration,
or judicial action (Pub. Resources Code, § 6357). Where, as here, the State has received a
request from a local jurisdiction to which tidal land previously has been deeded, for a
determination of the tidal boundary on such land, the State may conduct a survey or take other
action to establish the proper location of that boundary (Pub. Resources Code, § 6358), though
no statutory criteria are provided for implementation of such a process. Where such a
determination is to be made on land still owned by the State, there is a statutorily established
rebuttable presumption in favor of recognizing the currently existing tidal boundary (Pub.
Resources Code, § 6332(a)(6)). Had the proposed determination been made at the time of the
grant of tidelands adjacent to the Marinapark site to the City in 1927, the evidence cited above
would have precluded any challenge to the tidal boundary existing then and continuing to exist
today.
Based on all of the foregoing, we contend that the Uzes report is far too uncertain in its analysis
and too speculative in its conclusions to serve as the basis for any advice by the Commission.
The Commission should recognize that, and decline to rely on that to relocate the current tidal
boundary. At the same time, there is considerable information which was neither examined nor
evaluated for that report, and which should help resolve this conflict. It is inappropriate for the
Commission to take any action until all of this information has been reviewed by Commission
staff. Again, there is no reason to hurry this process, and the interests of fairness and accuracy
dictate taking whatever time is necessary, be it days, weeks, or months.
On a final note, we wish to bring to the Commission's attention the possibility that the State may
incur administrative and financial responsibilities in connection with any action which results in
causing closure of the mobilehome park at Marinapark. (See Civil Code § 798, et M., and
Gov. Code § 65863.7, et sere .) At the very least, we assume you will want to look into these
statutory provisions and their possible impacts.
In light of all the foregoing considerations, we ask that you defer your response to the City at
this time, and that you contact us regarding review of the information which we are assembling
regarding documentation of the actual mean high tide location at the time in question,
102197.1145 / M38329 -Ml / 1$630.2
JAN -05 -1999 20:58 98i P.08 2T
AN-05-99 20:53 Frain;
Robert C. Hight, Executive Officer
California State Lands Commission
October 27, 1997
Page -6-
T -714 P.09 /11 Job -579
Finally, in the event that you do respond to the City now, in a mariner at odds with our position,
we request in advance that any such response immediately be scheduled for review by the
Commission itself.
Thanks for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
PAONE CALL AHAN HOLM & WINTON UP
Cary D. Lowe
CDL:mmp
Enclosure
cc: Curtis L. Fossum, Senior Counsel, State Lands Commission
102797.1745 / M38328 -001 / 7S630.2
JAN -05 -1999 20:58 98i P.09 6S
AN-05-99 20:54 From:
19100 VON KARMAN
EIGHTH FLOOR
P.O. BOX 19613
IRVINE. CA 92623.9613
PHONE: 714.955 -2900
FAX: 714- 955.9009
E-MAIL: infodpaone.com
WEB SITE: hrrp./Jwww.paone.com
November 25, 1997
Curtis L. Fossum, Senior Staff Counsel
California State Lands Commission
100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100 South
Sacramento, CA 95825 -8202
ROBERT E. CALLAHAN
JAMES R. CAVANAUGH
WILLIAM R. 05VINE
RICHARD J. FOSTER
PAUL S. G50AGE
ROGER A, GRASLE
SUSAN K. HORI
ALAN J. KC$SEL
KENNETH S. KRAMER
Re: City of Newport Beach -- Marinapark
Request for Tidal Boundary and Land Use Determination
Dear Mt. Fossum:
T -714 P.10 /11 Job -576
CARY O. LOWE Ph,0.
STEVEN A. McHOLM
KATHLEEN CAROTHERS PAONE
TIM PRONE
G. EMMETT RAITT, JA.
JOHN F. SIMONIS
MARTIN J. STEIN
WILLIAM P. TANNER, III
DANIEL K. WINTON
We recently received a letter from you, responding to my letter of October 27, 1997, in which
I discussed the status of the site known as Marinapark in the City of Newport Beach, and argued
that the site is not property classified as tidelands. As your letter indicated that you also are
analyzing the issue of what uses would be permitted on the site in the event that it is determined
to consist partially or entirely of tidelands, we submitted a second letter, dated November 7,
1997, dealing with that issue in particular.
You invited us to continue to submit further evidence of the proper classification of the
Marinapark site, as we are able to gather it. In recent weeks, we have reviewed photographic
archives, historical writings, and miscellaneous other documents which have shed at least some
additional light on the historical condition of the coastline within Newport Bay, including the
Marinapark site. We would like to share with you some additional results of our research,
which we hope will be useful in clarifying the proper location of the tidal boundary.
Court Decisions
You specifically asked that we provide you with copies of pleadings in several quiet title actions
which establish the tidal boundaries on the immediately adjacent properties to the east and west
of Marinapark. Enclosed are copies of the Complaint, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law, and Judgment in each of the four cases cited in my original letter. (City of Newport
Beach v. Newport Bay .Dredging Co., et al., OCSC No. 23685 (May 26, 1928); Ciry of
Newport Beach v. Storey —et al., OCSC No. 23683 (July 2, 1928); City of Newport Beach v.
Newport Company, et al., OCSC No. 23682 (July 30. 1928): and City of Newport Beach v.
First National Bank of Santa Ana et al., OCSC No. 23679 (November 14, 1928)). In every
case, the courts explicitly found that the mean high tide line, as it cxistcd then, was the product
of the natural process of accretion. Photographic and anecdotal evidence indicate that the tidal
11397.1037 i M39328 -001 1 78041.1
JPN -05 -1999 20 59 96i P.10 39
JAN -05 -99 20:54 From: T -714 P.11 /11 Job -576
Curtis L. Fossum, Senior Staff Counsel
California State Lands Commission
November 25, 1997
Page -2-
boundary today is substantially in the same location as it was in 1928. I have flagged some key
passages in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, for your easy reference. .
'Photographs
I also am enclosing two early photographs of the area in question. Both of them come from the
UCLA Air Photo Archives and provide clear images of the site. The earlier photo, dated 1922,
shows the site being used for a tent encampment, which I understand the City of Newport Beach
allowed there for a number of years. The shoreline undulates only sightly along the frontage
of the Marinapark site and the land to the east and west of it. The later photo, dated August 17,
1924, shows the site being vacant, and the shoreline quite similar in configuration to what
appears on the 1922 photo. Interestingly, a dredge may be seen operating off the beach, but it
is depositing dredged material on what was in the process of becoming Lido Isle. Note that the
filled areas on Lido Isle, the Lido Peninsula, and other areas around the Bay stand out as lighter
in color, while the Marinapark site blends in perfectly with the rest of the Balboa Peninsula.
Conclusion
If the shoreline at Marinapark was roughly in line with the adjacent properties in 1922 and 1924
(as seen in the photographs), and the shoreline on those adjacent properties was established by
natural accretion (as determined by the court decisions listed above), then there should be a
presumption in favor of the Marinapark shoreline also having been established at roughly its
present location by accretion. Only a clearly reliable study, based on unquestionable evidence,
should be able to challenge that, and none of the studies offered by the City of Newport Beach
are that credible.
We are nearing completion of our research, and we ask your indulgence to allow us a little more
time to exhaust a few remaining leads. I hope to be able to submit our final research findings
to you by approximately the end of the first week of December.
Very truly yours,
PA E CALLA j N McHOLM & WINTON LLP
Cary b. . Lowe
CDL:mmp
Enclosures
112597 -1057 / M38328 -001 179092.1
JAN -05 -1999 20:59 98% P.11 L/0
IN THE SUPERIOR 'COURT OF THE STATB,60� °.CJILIP'O,6
2
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF OF4MZ
3
4
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a
Municipal Corporation, Y
r 1j
Plaintiff,
6
No. 23683.
7
-vs- +
FINDINGS OF FACT AND
e
EDNA R. STOREY, formerly
EDNA R. FZRGUSON, JOSF.P11 MAG24IS CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ^�•
9
FERGLSON, a Minor, H NRY A. ;
ROBINSON, et al., r
10
,s
Defendants. '
12
This action came on regularly for trial in Departmenfi•.,`T;,
13
1
Two of the above entitled court at ten o'clock A. M., -on the
14
day of April, 19 ?8, Honorable F. J. }larks, Judge, presiding, Via•
15
plaintiff appearing through its attorney Franklin G. West,
16
Esquire, and defeadr: 1._ : ;:• ec.rin Ci4: cL h th_•ir attorneys, James.
17
1.. Ande.,,on, I. C. '�i: :e x:nd J.J.Wilson, Enquires, and said
18
action having in open court been dismissed as to all fictitious
1B
defendants, and evidence both oral and documentary having been';€
20
offered, taken and introduced by both plaintiff and defendanti'
21
the said matter having been submitted to the court for its
22
decision, the court after having fully considered the same is the
23
premises, does now make its Findings of Fact and Conclusions
24
a
of Law as follows:
25
;, •�!
FINDINGS OF FACT
26
I.
27
i
28
The Court finds that all of the allegations contained
29
in paragraphs I. III and IY of plaintiff's complaint are true. "
31
The Court finds that Lot 2, Section 33, Township 6
32
South, Range 10 West, S.B.B.& M., in the City of Newport Beeeh�y ?�.f
ti
—I County of Oranges State of California, Was heretofore tlor patent dli Y
2 issued therefor granted to persons of whom the defendant: / . herec
3 inafter named are the successors in interest to portions of said
4 Lot 2, and that subsequent to said grant there were forded-
5 accretions thereto on the northeasterly boundary thereof.' ihIoh.i,-!•
6 were formed from natural causes by imperceptible degreotf and -
---------- I .. .:.
which now constitute uplands as a part and parcel of said Lot 2
of said Section 33, above described and the respective defendants...
hereinafter named are respectively the owners of those portions,'
0
of said uplands more particularly described as follows, to-witQJW4
Z
A- That the defendants Una R. Storey.9 forml)47 !AkrWi
22
Ferguson, Is the owner of that certain land situated in
the
13
County of Orange, State of California, more particularly des-
,4
cribed as follows, to -wit:
Beginning at the point of intersection of
that particular course of the boundary of
the southerly portion of Lot 2., Section 33,9
T 6 SiPoR. 10 W.,* S.B.B & M.,, which bears S;uth 5 211 East with the southerly line
le
of Lct 2,
Block 223, Section ffAwp Newport
Beach, as shown on map recorded in Book 4,,
page 21 Miscellaneous Maps, Records of
P.0 Orange 6ount,-, California; thence North 350
211 West along said boundary of Lot 2 to the
21 northerly line of Lot 5, said Block 223
Section "Aw; thence east erly along the north6rly'.'
22 >> line of said Lot 5 and its easterly prolongation
to the line of ordinary high tide of the Paciflo
:11 Ocean in Newport Bay hereinafter more particularly
P4 described; thence southerly along the said
tide line to its intersection with the easterly
prolongation of the southerly line of said Lot
25 2, Block 223, which point is South 670 001 029'--."
West, 2406.00 feet from the common corner of
26
Sections 27, 28, 33 and 34 T. 6 S.pR. 10 W.0
27 & M., thence westerly along a straight line to.
the poiht of beginning.
28
29 And the court further finds that the defendant.,
30 Joseph Magenis Ferguson has no right, title, interest or estate.
in or to said lands in this sub-section of said paragraph 11
22 described.
JO J.
L4ii
2 owner of that certain land situated in the,Count -of Or�itig�j;Y. 4
3 State of Californiao more .�ir:..R'
particularly described as folAowe, ^- '''::�:%
4 to -Witt
5 Beginning at the point of intersection of "
g that particular course of the boundary c)f
the southerly portion of Lot 20 Section 330 -'
s 9 T. 6 8., R. 10 W., S.B.B.& M., Which beers_
South 350 tilt Eaat with the southerly line
n of Lot 8, Block 223, Section "A ", Newport
Is 0 y as shown on ma recorded in Book d, pa 0-.81.
p Qg •, .,
Miscellaneous Yaps, Records of Orange,CetmL7'� •yr,.';
i0 California; thence North 350 211 West to
the northerly end of said boundary course. ...
in Lot 7, said Block 223;. thence North '700.
1 OOt East, 157.78 feet to the line of ,orQinary
high tide of the Pacific Ocean in Newporit
■. 12 hereinafter more particularly described; thence -:::
73 southerly along the said tide line dii ittt
intersection with the easterly prolongation
14 the southerly line of said Lot 6; thenco
westerly along a straight line to the point of
15 beginning.
,5 III.
That the plaintiffp the City of Newport BeaOLi, has n0;,
l .q
right, title, interest or estate in or to any of the above des -f'.,
]4 .;,.;.yT. 7
cribed lands.
20
2 IP.
22 That the line of ordinary high tide of the Racific
?3 Ocean in Newpott Bay bordering the lands above described belong- -
?4 ing to the respective defendants and persons hereinbefore
"5 mentioned, is more particularly described as follows,- to -stitt
26 Beginning at 4 point in the northeasterly.
?� prolongation of the southeasterly line
of Lot 2, Block 223 of Section "A", Yawport,.;.;,
28 Beach, as per mpQ_.Uereof recorded is Book.-A
page 21, Miscellaneous Maps, Records of ;
20 Orange County, California, which point o,f
beginning is 34.45 feet northeasterly of ;the,
30 most easterly corner of said lot, meaaur�ad'` "t
along the northeasterly prolongation of +Ghe'':r`
33 southeasterly line of said Lot 2; thence 8ortl -:.
200 04# 27" West, a distance of 139.11 foot`
32 to a point which point is located the following
courses and distances from the most easterly
corner of Lot 7 of the aforesaid Block 223;
NNL�ON ,
B- That tho defendant, Ron" A. Robins ''u .t.
26 Beginning at 4 point in the northeasterly.
?� prolongation of the southeasterly line
of Lot 2, Block 223 of Section "A", Yawport,.;.;,
28 Beach, as per mpQ_.Uereof recorded is Book.-A
page 21, Miscellaneous Maps, Records of ;
20 Orange County, California, which point o,f
beginning is 34.45 feet northeasterly of ;the,
30 most easterly corner of said lot, meaaur�ad'` "t
along the northeasterly prolongation of +Ghe'':r`
33 southeasterly line of said Lot 2; thence 8ortl -:.
200 04# 27" West, a distance of 139.11 foot`
32 to a point which point is located the following
courses and distances from the most easterly
corner of Lot 7 of the aforesaid Block 223;
NNL�ON ,
?.
20 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
The Court, as Conclusions of Lax, does now conclude r[+ya(
22
that a decree should be entered herein as follows: *�
23
First: Declaring that the respective lands herein-
24
before described in the Findings of Fact, belonging to the .re::peo
25
tive defendants, are owned by said respective defendants in
26,f,
accordance with said Findings of Fact, and that said plaintiff has A'4F
27 A
no right, title, interest or estate in or to said land. „`?r•.
28 ":• .i
20 Second: Declaring the line or ordinary high tide of the `v '
zA Pacific Ocean in Newport Boy bordering the lands hereinabove
31 described and belonging to the defendants, to be the line des:- y4
3?,
bMw �. NMUOM - 4 -
LN
North 19° 42' 30" West 14.11 feats North
.2 7
700 East 97.62 feet to the .above taentionedt:.'
point. The aforesaid point of beginning is
3 :
:v South 670 00' 02" West 2406.00 feet from
the corner common to Sections 27,28, 33 and 512
4 T
T. 6 S.,R.10 W.0S.B.33A Y.
s V
V.ltir
e T
That all of the lands contiguous to and abutting the
? l
lands so owned b the respective defendants and .
.-
and lying easterly of the line of ordinary high tide last here-
4 -
-r
inbefore described are tidelands and submerged lands in Netry�Ort '
Bay in Orange County, California, and are owned by the City of
'1 J
J
Newport Beach, the plaintiff herein, by virtue of the grant
12
from the Sta'e of California, referred to in paragraph III c,f
i�
[A
plaintiff's compl.rint, and the court further finds that said, a
14
defendants and said persons heroinabove mentioned have not reor %
%
15
have any of them any right, title, interest or estate in or to,'.:
16 :
:^
the said tidelands and submerged lands and their claims and asseri>
17 t
tions in and to said tidelands and submerged lands are without r �
�.
18 t
l o
right.
zA Pacific Ocean in Newport Boy bordering the lands hereinabove
31 described and belonging to the defendants, to be the line des:- y4
3?,
bMw �. NMUOM - 4 -
LN
hi-
r, ereia. +:...
of Newport Beach
3 Thirds That the City ,,the plaiati``
WE
4 herein, is the owner of all tidelands and submerged laads'cois-
5 tiguous to and abutting the lands horeinabove described as
belonging to the defondants, which has a portion of their exterior,
7 boundary line, the line of ordinary high tide of the Pacific Ooeazi
8
in Newport Bay, as hereinabove described, and that said dofeada�it
9 of them any right, title, interest cr-�es a 0
have act nor have any ;
10
in or to said tidelands and submerged leads..
Let judgment be entered accordingly Y
.2 _
Done in open court this —� day o
19E8. w
13
}4
5 Judge �df the Superior
rs
1^
lA �
20 yd 4
2.1
24
25
28
29
y�.. 32
5
John J. wtuo« - k �
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
31
12
CAW
5
Af
.1
-. ./� \ � g : � '$9
� � . . j ^ � 7 � $
qlwwl
AZCZZL U)
IUM3
t I
Af
.1
-. ./� \ � g : � '$9
� � . . j ^ � 7 � $
qlwwl
AZCZZL U)
IUM3
t I
CCO4
C= 0
1
Z
§§ §!
jimo
. a
a|=|
z
0
jr l
i E �
1 • 1 `I ir', I� S� S I � 11
i.C. an��'.I \\ ,,�J, �.. I�''I'EIIrIVlll�f l'•i � I.i�1111�i,
YI
1'y� `� 1 \:, fir �Q 1I,��Cjlfne x11111, Iln (i ly !I �•
,�, r c• v v ` a � .'�. t�E �[{rI II 1; 1 ,I: ,.
L145 }��r� '� \E1; • r I�)�n��;/j7�ti ll�i I` 'I i r.'!• I
�$�� Jl� lil I•E1f1 Jd1 Ii I(I� i
�1 1 IIKK 1
�', ��` I � 4 Ilrll,r , , � • ,
. �I � tii NI�1 I' V 1 l
/ •� � �p,�r �I�fr It°� t 1 1,1'r�r 1 I �� i II,
11 [
4 � 41 •� �� 1 Ir /
1. ttSy 1 1 t
rte �����?,��• ; � �.. : ,
iS
E
La
PAUL A. CUOMO
PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR
January 15, 1998
Mr. Stewart Berkshire
1770 W. Balboa Blvd. #7A
Newport Beach, CA. 92663
Re: Mean High Tide Line Location at Marinapark
SURVEYOR'S REPORT
Pursuant to your request 1 have reviewed the "Report on Recommended Tideland Boundary"
dated June, 1996, by Mr. Francois Uzes of Boundaries Unlimited, and other documents and
photos supplied by you. You asked me to render an opinion as to the location of the tideland
boundary recommended in that report, pertaining to the Marinapark site in the City of Newport
Beach.
1 have been a California Licensed Land Surveyor ( P.L.S. #4136 ), since 1973. 1 served as Deputy
County Surveyor, Orange County, California, from 1980 to my retirement in 1993. As indicated
in his report, Mr. Uzes utilized my research services in preparing his analysis.
Based on the information in the Uzes report, on the aerial photographs taken of the subject
property between 1923 - 1929, and on the judgements rendered in Orange County Superior Court
Cases 23679, 23682, 23683 and 23685, it is my opinion that the tideland boundary at the subject
property must be located along the line drawn between the limits of the boundaries established by
the court for the easterly and westerly adjoining properties. These boundaries were subsequently
affirmed by the State Legislature in Chapter 142 of Statutes of 1929. The properties which were
the subject of these and other judicial and legislative determinations were all privately held, and
the owners presumably needed to clarify the boundaries for purposes of development. On the
other hand the Marinapark site was owned by the City of Newport Beach, as it is today.
The court found that the shoreline on those adjoining properties was formed by accretion and
therefore belongs to the upland owner. The shoreline is a continuous line along, and on each side
of, the subject property. In the absence of any conclusive evidence to the contrary, the land that
the subject property is situated on should not be classified as tidelands.
Respectfully submitted this fifteenth day of January, 1998. LMD
SU
Paul A. Cuomo, P.L.S. 4136 p�Bppap
Expires 6/30/00 �C�
538 ALISO AVE. NEWPORT BEACH, CA. 92663 (714) 642 -0335 FAX(714)548-4472 [; 2
llhK -uu -bn nuN l4:40
P. 02
MPR 09 '98 02:42PM
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
ROY MINNICK
Assistant Vice President — Waterways, and Boundaries
Corporate Staff - Underwriting
2640 Cordova Lane, Suite 103 Rancho Cordova, CA 95670,
Tcic: (916)- 852 -6705 E -mail: tminnick @firscam.com Fax: (916)- 852 -8014
March 9, 1998
Robert Hight
Executive Officer
California State Lands Commission
100 Howe Ave, Suite 100 South
Sacramento, CA 95825
RE:Marina Park Property, Newport Beach MY 950
After our discussion a week or so ago, I promised you a letter setting forth my views on this
property. You staff has already done some review, and F.D. Uus has prepared a report for the
City, which I believe you have. The attorney for Marina Park, Cary Lowe, has also submitted
photographs, and a copy of their own consultants report, prepared by Paul Cuomo. Your office
also has copies of the judgment and legislative grants, so I will not repeat any of that information.
At a meeting with Mr. Lowe and others in Santa Ana on February 20th, we agreed to remove
several exceptions relating to tidelands from a title policy First American would issue. He asked
me to advise you of this, and to provide a statement summarizing our views on the situation.
It is my belief that the issue of the ordinary high tide lines was settled by the Orange County
Superior Court; while the Court does not address the exact property, it covers adjoining
properties to the northwest and southeast. The cases find facts and set the ordinary high tide
along what became the present day bulkhead line; the additions to the uplands are termed
accretions to the properties described in the judgments.
I see no reason to second guess the Courts finding in 1929. While we do not have the evidence
submitted, the judgment is dear; that ordinary high tide line is confirmed by the legislature in
Chapter 142, Statutes of 1929.
I understand that the specific property was not part of the judgment, but to reexamine the facts
seventy years later seems a moot exercise for a piece of property sandwiched by the judgments.
Land Surveyor Lictwts in Arizona, California, and Oklahoma
Fellow, ACSM
. I
MAR -09 -98 MON 14:45 MAR 09 '98 P042PM
Mt.Uzes's report discusses uncertainties, and recommends a line considerably landward from the
present bulkhead line. He has examined field notes and other material, and he considers a range
of possibilities. These would perhaps be similar possibilities that the court considered before it
reached its conclusions of fact and judgment —there is no reason to believe they did nor.
After weighing the material on hand, I feel that while there are ranges of possibilities and
uncertainties of location described in the Uus report, there is no new evidence -- that is
discovered subsequent to 1929 — that address the location of the ordinary high water mark; there
is no reason to believe the Court didn't consider that same evidence in reaching their decision on
the adjoining properties. With the proximity of the decisions to the property, on each side, I
believe that the finding of the Court should be given great weight.
I also understand the concerns of the Commission, even though these lands believed granted by
the legislature, and the reluctance to dismiss the concerns of the grantee.
I do nor know if you have the 1922 and 1924 photographs from the Spence Collection at UCLA,
so I an including photocopies of them. One of the photographs is taken before the substantial fill
on Lido, and the other during the U. The approximate locations of the property are indicated
with the arrows, put on by Mr. Lowe or his consultant.
I believe that Mt. Lowe, and perhaps several of his clients, are willing to meet to discuss this
matter. Of course there are a number of options to consider, while developing a course of action,
both on the Commissions part, and on the pan of Mt. Lowe and the Marina Park residents; and
the legislative grantee. Perhaps a realistic appraisal of the title and boundary issues by all parties,
and a meeting to identify problems and develop solutions would be desirablc. If First American
can facilitate this meeting, please contact me. I can obtain a conference room in out Santa Ana
office if you want to travel to Southern California, but would prefer to meet in a more neutral
location.
Always, with kind regard,
n,o
Form No. 1402.92
(10/17/92)
ALTA Owner's Policy
POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE
ISSUED By
First American Title Insurance Company
SUBJECT TO THE EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE, THE EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE CONTAINED IN SCHEDULE
B AND THE CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS, FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, a California
corporation, herein called the Company, insures, as of Date of Policy shown in Schedule A, against loss or damage,
not exceeding the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A, sustained or incurred by the insured by reason of:
1. Title to the estate or interest described in Schedule A being vested other than as stated therein;
2. Any defect in or lien or encumbrance on the tale;
3. Unmarketabil'ay of the title;
4. Lack of a right of access to and from the land.
The Company will also pay the costs, attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in defense of the title, as insured, but
only to the extent provided in the Conditions and Stipulations.
First American Title Insurance Company
BY YAL )V I PRESIDENT
ATTEST f // i7 SECRETARY
;a
OR- 9823520
TITLE OFFICER - MC KEE
SCHEDULE A
TOTAL FEE FOR TITLE, EXAMINATION
AND TITLE INSURANCE $450.00
AMOUNT OF INSURANCE: $1,000.00
DATE OF POLICY: MARCH 9, 1998 AT 7:30 A. M.
I. NAME OF INSURED:
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION.
2. THE ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE LAND WHICH IS COVERED BY THIS POLICY IS:
A FEE.
1 TITLE TO THE ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE LAND IS VESTED IN:
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION.
4. THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS POLICY IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
(SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO.)
;7�
ALTA OWNERS POLICY OR- 9823520
REGIONAL EXCEPTIONS
TITLE OFFICER - MC KEE
SCHEDULE B
EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE
THIS POLICY DOES NOT INSURE AGAINST LOSS OR DAMAGE (AND THE COMPANY WILL NOT PAY COSTS. ATTORNEYS' FEES OR EXPENSES) WHICH
ARISE BY REASON OF:
PART ONE:
1. TAXES OR ASSESSMENTS WHICH ARE NOT SHOWN AS EXISTING LIENS BY THE RECORDS OF ANY TAXING AUTHORITY THAT LEVIESTAXES
OR ASSESSMENTS ON REAL PROPERTY OR BY THE PUBLIC RECORDS.
2. ANY FACTS. RIGHTS. INTERESTS. OR CLAIMS WHICH ARE NOT SHOWN BY THE PUBLIC RECORDS BUT WHICH COULD BE ASCERTAINED BY
AN INSPECTION OF SAID LAND OR BY MAKING INQUIRY OF PERSONS IN POSSESSION THEREOF.
3. EASEMENTS. CLAIMS OF EASEMENT OR ENCUMBRANCES WHICH ARE NOT SHOWN BY THE PUBLIC RECORDS.
4. DISCREPANCIES, CONFLICTS IN BOUNDARY LINES. SHORTAGE IN AREA. ENCROACHMENTS. OR ANY OTHER FACTS WHICH A CORRECT
SURVEY WOULD DISCLOSE. AND WHICH ARE NOT SHOWN BY PUBLIC RECORDS.
5. UNPATENTED MINING CLAIMS: RESERVATIONS OR EXCEPTIONS IN PATENTS OR IN ACTS AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE THEREOF: WATER
RIGHTS. CLAIMS OR TITLE TO WATER.
61 ANY LIEN, OR RIGHTTO A LIEN. FOR SERVICES. LABOR OR MATERIAL THERETOFORE OR HEREAFTER FURNISHED. IMPOSED BY LAW AND
NOT SHOWN BY THE PUBLIC RECORDS.
PART TWO:
1. GENERAL AND SPECIAL TAXES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1998 -1999, A LIEN NOT YET DUE OR PAYABLE
2. SECOND INSTALLMENT GENERAL AND SPECIAL TAXES, COVERING THE HEREIN DESCRIBED AND
OTHER LAND, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1997 -1998, AMOUNT $1,741.50; CODE AREA 07001,
A. P. NO. 047- 190 -06, NOW A LIEN NOT YET DELINQUENT- .
3. THE LIEN OF SUPPLEMENTAL TAXES ASSESSED PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 3.5 COMMENCING WITH
SECTION 75 OF THE CALIFORNIA REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE.
4. AN EASEMENT AS SET FORTH IN AN INSTRUMENT RECORDED JANUARY 3, 1923 IN BOOK 451, PAGE
49 OF DEEDS,
IN FAVOR OF: SOUTHERN COUNTIES GAS COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA.
FOR: GAS PIPELINES AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES.
OVER: (BLANKET; PERTAINS TO THE MUNICIPAL GAS DISTRIBUTING SYSTEM).
5. AN EASEMENT FOR EITHER OR BOTH UNDERGROUND LINES, CONDUITS AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES,
INCLUDING ABOVE - GROUND APPURTENANT FIXTURES, AS SET FORTH IN AN INSTRUMENT RECORDED
MAY 23, 1956 IN BOOK 3522, PAGE 124 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
IN FAVOR OF: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY.
OVER: PORTIONS OF THE LAND.
PAGE
r r,
ALTA OWNERS POLICY
REGIONAL EXCEPTIONS
OR- 9823520
TITLE OFFICER - MC KEE
6. THE USE OF A STRIP OF BAY FRONT LAND ABOVE MEAN HIGH TIDE NOT LESS THAN 85 FEET IN
DEPTH OF CITY OWNED WATER FRONT PROPERTY, AS RESERVED TO THE PUBLIC IN THE AMENDMENT
TO SECTION 1402 OF THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, AS SET FORTH IN STATE SENATE
RESOLUTION NO. 11, RECORDED MAY 29, 1957 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 71413 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
7. UNRECORDED LEASES, VARIOUSLY DATED, EXECUTED BY THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, AS
LESSOR, AND THE OCCUPANTS OF TRAILER PARK SPACES IN THE MARINAPARK MOBILE HOME PARK
(ALSO KNOWN AS NEWPORT MARINA MOBILE HOME PARK), AS LESSEES, FOR THE TERMS, AND UPON
THE TERMS, COVENANTS, AND CONDITIONS PROVIDED THEREIN.
8. UNRECORDED RIGHTS AND INTERESTS OF THE MARINAPARK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION IN AND
TO THE AREA OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED MOBILE HOME PARK.
9. RIGHTS OF PARTIES IN POSSESSION OF THE LAND BY REASON OF UNRECORDED LEASES, IF ANY.
PAGE
/T
ALTA OWNERS POLICY OR- 9823520
REGIONAL EXCEPTIONS
'CI77.E OFFICER - MC KEE
EXHIBIT "All
ALL THAT CERTAIN LAND SITUATED IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 4 IN BLOCK 218 OF SECTION B, NEWPORT BEACH, AS
SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 4, PAGE 27 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AND RUNNING THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF 19TH
STREET AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP AND THE NORTHEASTERLY EXTENSION OF SAID EASTERLY LINE TO
AN INTERSECTION WITH THE U. S. BULKHEAD LINE BETWEEN U. S. BULKHEAD STATION 119 AND U. S.
BULKHEAD STATION 120 AS SHOWN ON A MAP OF NEWPORT BAY, CALIFORNIA, SHOWING HARBOR LINES
APPROVED JANUARY I8, 1917 BY WM. M. INGRAM, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF WAR; THENCE SOUTH 47°
00' EAST ALONG SAID BULKHEAD LINE TO SAID U. S. BULKHEAD STATION 119; THENCE SOUTH 800 16'
EAST ALONG THE U. S. BULKHEAD LINE BETWEEN U. S. BULKHEAD STATION 118 AND U. S. BULKHEAD
STATION 119 TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTHEASTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE WESTERLY LINE
OF 15TH STREET AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP OF SECTION B, NEWPORT BEACH; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG
SAID NORTHEASTERLY PROLONGATION OF SAID WESTERLY LINE OF 15TH STREET TO AN INTERSECTION
WITH THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE 20 -FOOT ALLEY SHOWN ON SAID MAP ABUTTING BLOCK 115 OF
SAID SECTION B, NEWPORT BEACH; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID ALLEY
AND THE WESTERLY PROLONGATIONS THEREOF, CROSSING 16TH ST., 17TH ST., AND 18TH ST. TO THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 18 IN BLOCK 218 OF SAID SECTION B, NEWPORT BEACH; THENCE
NORTHERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 18 AND ITS NORTHERLY PROLONGATION 99.96
FEET TO A POINT, AND FROM WHICH SAID POINT A RADIAL LINE BEARS NORTH 17° 49' 43" EAST;
THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHEAST AND HAVING A RADIUS OF
996.27 FEET THROUGH AN ARC DISTANCE OF 87.54 FEET TO A POINT FROM WHICH A RADIAL LINE BEARS
NORTH 220 51'48" EAST; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTH AND HAVING
A RADIUS OF 996.27 FEET THROUGH AN ARC DISTANCE OF 185.85 FEET TO A POINT FROM WHICH A
RADIAL LINE BEARS SOUTH 120 10' 30" WEST; THENCE NORTH 770 49' 30" WEST 25.16 FEET TO THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 4 IN SAID BLOCK 218; THENCE NORTH 770 49' 30" WEST ALONG THE
NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 4, 100 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION LYING WESTERLY OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF 18TH STREET AND
ITS NORTHERLY PROLONGATION AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP OF SECTION B, NEWPORT BEACH.
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION LYING EASTERLY OF THE NORTHERLY PROLONGATION
OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOT 13, BLOCK 115 OF TRACT NO. 234, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN
BOOK 13, PAGES 36 AND 37 OF SAID MISCELLANEOUS MAPS,
PAGE
i-
ALTA OWNERS POLICY
REGIONAL EXCEPTIONS
LN
OR- 9823520
TITLE OFFICER - MC KEE
WARNING
"THE MAP ATTACHED HERETO MAY OR MAY NOT BE A SURVEY OF THE LAND DEPICTED
THEREON. YOU SHOULD NOT RELY UPON IT FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN
ORIENTATION TO THE GENERAL LOCATION OF THE PARCEL OR PARCELS DEPICTED.
FIRST AMERICAN EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY LIARH.PPY FOR ALLEGED LOSS OR DAMAGE
WHICH MAY RESULT FROM RELIANCE UPON THIS MAP."
PAGE
�n
STR££T
m
I
S
�s
i;
o i
O"
b b
a
T
n
W
y
U)
co (�
iCC
/B TH
I,
4
N
— � O
l '
0
V
j 2
r
v
o
I
w
..._. 1�
3
N
ro
r
clb
3 it _
it
F
/7TH STFEETJ�
_
M
3
0
�
T
C' 2
cr
`' --
22
STR££T
m
I
S
�s
i;
o i
O"
b b
a
T
n
W
y
U)
co (�