3410 La Sierra Ave. #F41 ~ Riverside, CA 92503 ~ (951) 286-4572
 
Community Forums    Search Site    Explore Our Community    The Board    Login/Signup    Contact Us

RE: GAVILAN PARK 1, 2 & 3 - ROAD EASEMENTS - SUBDIVISION OWNERS

Residents Association of Greater Lake Mathews


RAGLM Board > Road Issues > Re: Gavilan Park 1, 2 & 3 - Road Easements - Subdivision Owners
3/10/2011 11:02:02 PM
Re: Gavilan Park 1, 2 & 3 - Road Easements - Subdivision OwnersPost: Cindy Ferry
 
In a message dated 3/10/2011 1:15:02 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, JCPEREZ@rctlma.org writes:
I am in receipt of both of your e-mails on this topic and will provide you with a brochure next week that has specific information on the different categories of roadways in the County and options for property owners adjacent to non-County maintained roads to pool together to improve them, which involve different financing mechanisms such as assessment districts, CSA's, etc. I don't know in this mobile home park if the lots and therefore the adjacent streets are owned by individual owners, or there is an entity that succeeded the original developer that maintains ownership and the residents rent or lease their space. However, the County is responsible for maintaining roads that are accepted into the County maintained system, and we don't accept roads for maintenance until they have been brought up to a minimum County standard.
Good afternoon Juan. yes, I am aware of the different roadway types within the county. I do have the County of Riverside Transportation Dept., County Maintained and Public Road System maps for this area. Mine is an older one, dating back to 2002, but I know the roads up here have not changed very much, if at all, since then. This is why I am saying the issue of responsibility for these roadways within the mobile home park needs to be resolved. The roadways are in HORRIBLE condition and FAR beyond safe, by any standard. They are a public nuisance and are only adding to the problem of the home costs dropping in this area and revenue being lost by the county. But, the issue is resolving this problem of who is responsible. Looking at page 60 of this county roads map book, section 24, according to the legend page, these are Dedicated & Accepted Public Roads. In looking at the Riverside County Land Information system map/website (link below), the legend there states that the roads are not county maintained. In looking at the lots, as marked, they do not go out into the roadway.
If you then look at this county link:
it looks here as thou there is some kind of center line in the roadways, but one cannot tell if it is just a directional divider on the map for lanes or something to do with property lines.
In searching for info. on the mobile home park itself and the roads it's still very confusing. There was some right in a deed recorded Jan. 21, 1911, in book 324, page 369, dealing with roads and some right to two gentlemen, a Mr. Herbert Bulkley Praed and a Mr. Charles Granville Kekowich. There was a document of Declaration of Restrictions recorded on Feb. 20, 1969 and these expired on Feb. 20, 1979. The controlling committee at that time, via that document names two gentlemen, a Mr. Richard Wilson, M. H. Wilson, living then at 20749 Santa Rosa Mine Road and then a Mr. R. A. Beck, then living on Larson Court, Riverside. There was nothing in there that addressed roads, but it is a very old document and difficult to read. I can imagine what the 1911 document must be like to try and read. There was a modification of Declaration of Restrictions recorded on March 12, 1970, that expired in 1990. The controlling committee at that time was a Mr. T. D. Wilson, then living at 21795 Gavilan Rd. and a Mr. R. A. Beck, living at 6675 Lassen Court, Riverside. I could find nothing in this document regarding the roadways. I asked a title company to search out any roadway easements and their maps showing the easement right of way as per the Jan. 21, 1911 documents. The title company came back saying the County of Riverside never accepted the roadways, but that the roadways were not part of the parcels either and therefore were the responsibility of the person/s that subdivided the project at its inception. I asked them again to be sure on this, because I needed to KNOW who was responsible for the maintenance of the roadways in the mobile home park. They said that though the two gentlemen named in the 1911 document may have recorded a right of way back then, they could find nothing showing anything had ever been done with it and there was nothing regarding who was to be responsible for the roadways should they go in. I'm assuming then that the roads at that time must have still been dirt, unpaved ... back in 1911. This area just seems to be so old and the county didn't have clear and defined descriptions of the roadways and who's roadways they were, who was to maintain them and even just where the roadways were located. I don't know that a surveyor could even understand these roads and where they should be and who they belonged to. Over time, we now see the problems it has created. But, problem or not, it's time for a resolution and understanding as to these roadways.
I've been telling those in the mobile home park that I've talked to, to pull out their title policies and read through them. To call their title companies and ask them to go back and find the paperwork, if they can find any, show who the roadways in front of property belong to and who is responsible for the roads. No one seems to be able to clearly answer this issue. This is why I was asking if the county to pull up the documents in regard to the mobile home park and find anything more.
It is my understanding, in talking with long time residents, that this park was a vacation park. The lots used to be rented out for campers that would come out here to get away. Some became regulars and started leasing for longer periods of time, like for the year. Then I'm told the landowner started selling off the lots and the county allowed the owners to place mobile homes on the lots. I would imagine that this was about the time the first set of restrictions came into being. Some folks say there used to be a committee, but they don't know that roads were ever an issue and don't recall who was to maintain the roads. There don't seem to be any dues and the people own the land as well as the mobile home, so it wasn't like today's mobile home parks and HOA's, no common areas. There also seems to be a number of parks, which make up the park as a whole. I know there is park 1, park 2 and park 3. It may be broken up into even more and there may well be different rules for each park. This is where we need the counties help in pulling up documents, deciphering things and documenting to the community ... at the very least, the property owners within the mobile home parks ... just what has been found. Maybe an old historian could be of help. Know any good historian's?
LOL ... by the way Juan, the county really does need to update these records. This lot within the project site that I used for the land information map, I know this lot and there is NOT a three story home on this lot. There isn't a two story mobile or modular home in the whole mobile home park, yet the 'Property Characteristics' state this lot has a three story home on it. You can even zoom in on that 2007 aerial and see that this is NOT a three story home.
Zoom in on the aerial, at the corner of Oak St. and Esperanza Dr. Back in 2007 you can see the damage to that intersection. Now it is more like a pond in the middle of that cross section of street and anyone driving right through the center of the roadway, would take their front end out. Those that live in that area know this and know how to get around it. But, that said, the pot hole has gotten SO BIG now that maneuvering around it is getting almost impossible to do. Soon you will not be able to cross over or get through here at all. Something has to be done with these streets ... one way or the other. They have just become too dangerous to drive over, especially at night, with no street lights ... and we don't want street lights ... as you WELL know. All one need do is look at these roadways, on this map, zoomed in, at 2007 and you can see all the cracks in the roadway. Knowing roads as you do Juan, you know that if these roads were not addressed between 2007 and now/2011, these roads have eroded away ... and they have. The tax records should show who is paying the taxes on these roadway areas. Whomever pays the taxes, owns the land and owns the maintenance and liability. We just need the counties help to get this resolved. This is the kind of thing the redevelopment dept. was created to help the public with. If it the residents that must maintain these roads, with as much traffic as these roads get every day and the income level of most of the folks that live in this park area, this is where the monies in the redevelopment dept. were meant to go, to be used. To help these folks be able to keep up with the need for repairs to the roadways.
Redevelopment funds generally seem to go toward tearing down old, in need of help homes, and then joint funds are put up by the redevelopment dept. and big developers to bring in shopping centers, apt. complexes and libraries. Where do these folks go to work out a deal where if they put up matching funds they can get the redevelopment dept. to match funds and get these roads fixed? They need that kind of help and I don't see the redevelopment dept. coming out to these folks and asking how they can help them. So, if the documents show that these folks have to repair and maintain these roadways, maybe the redevelopment dept. should look at helping them. This is the most densely populated area in the Greater Lake Mathews area. But, just because it's not in a 'City' shouldn't mean they get treated any differently when it comes to qualifying for help from the redevelopment dept. After all, wasn't all this stimulus money put up to help fix roadways? That's sure what I heard President Oboma say. So, if it's up to these folks, lets help them with the stimulus money.
Cindy Ferry
Proud Member of RAGLM
Unity of Community, Supporting the Rural Way of Life

Current Members: 346  ~ Total Posts: 1589  ~ Total Replies: 1928  ~ Total Polls: 16  ~ Total Poll Answers: 277  ~ Total Views: 2759088