Correspondence - #29 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Hall, Jennifer From: Caroline La < Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2023 4:02 PM To: Carvalho, Sonia R.; Ridge, Kristine; eComment; Penaloza, David; Hernandez, Johnathan; Vazquez, Benjamin; Bacerra, Phil; Phan, Thai; Amezcua, Valerie; Lopez, Jessie; Rosas, Rudy; Saba, Nabil; Morris, Angie; Ortiz, Lorrie Cc: Colin Donnelly Subject: Documents for Council's 8/15/23 Hearing re: Easement Vacation (2383 N Flower) Attachments: Tract 425 (1923).pdf, Tract 754 (1925).pdf Dear Esteemed Councilmembers: We are the homeowners immediately adjacent to the alleyway that is the subject of Resolution No. 2023-40, which is set to be publicly heard on August 15, 2023. It has come to our attention that contentions have been raised regarding certain writings and documents submitted to Council, which are both outdated and misrepresent the facts and circumstances surrounding the subject 2383 N. Flower Street -adjacent alleyway. Please allow us to address these issues so that everyone has a true and clear account of the history of both the alleyway and the Tract within which it is situated. While it is true that page 1 of the 1923 edition of Tract No. 425 map furnished by Ms. Newton and the Varciags did contemplate dedicating to public use "all the boulevards, avenues, streets, drives, ways, and alleys" shown on that Tract No. 425 map, you will note that page 2 (attached) of this map memorializes a 20' wide alleyway running north to south (highlighted in yellow), beginning at the southern edge of the Sarah Mae Downie Herb Garden on Flower and terminating at 2383 N. Flower - adjacent alleyway. (This map further mis-depicts lots on Flower of a mere 25' wide, and a maximum depth of only 110'.) The operative 1925 Tract No 754 Map for this section of Floral Park (attached) -- which memorializes the abandonment of that North -South alleyway easement in favor of the lots to its west -- omits any reference to deeding of "alleys" to public use, but instead dedicates to public use only the "streets and roads" (see highlights on attachment) and by omission, not any alley shown on the 1925 Tract No. 754 Map. Thus, the lots on Flower, including ours, were each expanded by 20' to the east, subsuming what was that north -south alley into those respective lots. (Additionally, those lots were expanded to a width much greater than 25' reflected on the outdated 1923 edition.) In fact, an attentive review of that obsolete 1923 Tract No. 425 map provided Ms. Newton also depicts two other now -non-existent alleys -- one 20' wide, one 10' wide -- running north -south between Riverside Drive and Heliotrope Drive (highlighted in orange), which similarly have reverted to the adjacent property owners of the tract. It is obvious, then, that the 1923 Tract No. 425 map which contemplated both the north -south alleyway easements, as well as the deeding of all alleys for public use, was supplanted by the 1925 Tract No. 754 map, which eliminated not only the north -south alleys in favor of the adjacent property owners, but also eliminated the provision that any alley was deeded to the public. 1