Correspondence - #27 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

IRENE S. MYERS SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92706 ( July 18, 2023 TO: CITY COUNCIL OF SANTA ANA 22 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA SANTA ANA, CA 92702 SUBJECT: Public Comment—Petition to Vacate Public Right of Way(public alley) HEARING: July 18, 2023/Agenda #27/Application for Abandonment of certain easement/right of way located at 2383 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA (south alleyway) (Abandonment No. 2023-01) Dear Members of the City Council: My name is Irene Myers. I have lived at ,for 45 years. I use the alley in question often,and so do other Floral Park neighbors. Why has this Application gotten to this point? Why would the City of Santa Ana give the Petitioners an additional value of theoretically$200,000 to their property,absolutely free?Suppose that 50'on North Flower is worth$1,000,000,then 10' is worth theoretically $200,000 and the City wants to give it away for free? Why? That alley has been there for 100 years,from when the original tract map was recorded(May 16, 1925—attached—Diagram A).The Petitioners have owned the property for 22 months and believe they are entitled to the additional 10'feet of property? What about the surrounding neighborhood and their use of that alleyway? It's a benefit to the entire community to keep the alleyway as it now exists. By the way, how does this impact the residence at 2379 North Flower? It will totally block the circular drive in front of the residence. In addition, the two properties located at 2346 and 2384 Heliotrope will be greatly affected. They both use that alleyway to get into their property. I have attached a diagram for your use—Diagram B. Notice to your community is primary, not secondary. Why isn't there Notice from City Council to our Community until AFTER the hearing that tentatively approvals the Petitioners'application? Backwards don't you think? Please re read the Application, review the drawings, review the Title Company's statement(See attached CLTA GUARANTEE BY CHICAGO TITLE—Diagram C)stating "Together with that portion of the alley shown on the above referenced tract map adjoining said lot 57 on the south that would REVERT to said Lot 57 by operation of law upon vacation of said alley by the City of Santa Ana"11111 Whoever wrote that is certainly not an attorney. Whoever prepared this report is NOT a lawyer. That statement is dead wrong. The Law in the State of California splits reverted property down the middle-Title Company does not determine the law]I I I Please, please re-evaluate and do not pass this tonight, at the minimum address this with the City Attorney. Who is watching over decisions made by the Planning Department? Look into this, and vote NO until you have full knowledge. Thank you for re-considering. Irene Myers