Correspondence #41 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Santa Ana City Council Re: Amendment Application No. 2022-01 and Appeal No. 2022-02 appealing Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-14 for the Property Located at 1700-1740 E. Garry Avenue December 20, 2022 Page 3 The CUP may not be granted because GPOPA's members own an easement over the Subject property. Each owner of a condominium located at 1800-1820 Garry Ave. owns an undivided 1/84 interest in an easement over the Subject Property. Until or unless each owner has sold its interest in the easementback to the owner of the Subject Property, the City mustnotprocess or approve the CUP. Staff claims that this easement is a non -issue because GPOPA's members will execute a "quitclaim deed" deeding the easement to the owners of the Subject Property, thereby extinguishing the easement. (Agenda Packet, p. 441.) I represent GPOPA. GPOPA has repeatedly stated to the City and to the applicant that the owners of the easement have not agreed to sell their interest in the easement to anyone. Despite this, staff falsely states that they owners will indeed sell their interests in the easement to the applicant. Who is in a better position to inform the City of the owners' positions, City Staff or the owners themselves? Staff should not be falsely contending to the City Council that the owners are willing to do something that they are not willing to do. In addition. staff's claim that the easement does not "specify exactly where the points of cross -parcel ingress and egress are [sic]," (Agenda Packet, p. 441) is false. The easement specifies. Staff's claim that extinguishing the easement will not prohibit the GPOPA members from accessing their property from the street (Agenda Packet, p. 441) is irrelevant, and nonsense. The GPOPA members own the easement. It is theirs. They hold the deed. The City cannot force the GPOPA members to sell their easement to a private party merely because they have other means by which to enter their property any more than the city could force me to sell one of my two cars. The CUP may not be granted because GPOPA's members are the beneficiaries of utility easements over the Subject property. Staff has not evaluated all of the utility easements, nor has the applicant provided staff with accurate depictions of the easements. The utility lines and utility easements for the Subject Property and the GPOPA Property are intertwined. the GPOPA owners are entitled to access to utilities. The location of the easements as well as the locations of the actual utility lines must be checked and evaluated to ensure that extinguishing these easements is feasible, prudent, and will not hinder or disrupt utility access for the GPOPA property before any permits are issued. This should not be the responsibility to the GPOPA owners. This is the responsibility and duty of the applicant and the City. Both have failed in performing their duties in accordance with their responsibilities. Until or unless these easements are evaluated and it is ensured that extinguishing the easements will not negatively affect the rights of the GPOPA owners, the application should not be deemed complete by staff and should not be considered or approved by City Council.