My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Correspondence - Non-Agenda
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2024
>
02/06/2024
>
Correspondence - Non-Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/28/2024 11:52:29 AM
Creation date
1/22/2024 8:34:32 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Doc Type
Agenda Packet
Date
2/6/2024
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
33
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Dear City Council, <br />Re: Flower St. Alley <br />The property owners directly adjacent to the alley express unanimous support for maintaining <br />its current status and functionality. The broader community has overwhelmingly signaled a <br />desire to preserve the alley's existing purpose, as evidenced by the widespread support <br />garnered through the community petition. <br />Concerns have been raised regarding what appears to be nefarious intent to disrupt the public <br />process. Our ward representative, Jessie Lopez, has indicated that mnandatorysignage, crucial <br />for transparent communication about the vacation application, was reportedly removed by the <br />petitioners. This action, if proven, could be interpreted as an attempt to impede the <br />community's awareness and engagement in the decision -making process. Such actions <br />undermine the principles of an open and fair civic process, raising questions about the <br />transparency and ethical conduct ufthe applicant inthis process. <br />These factors contribute to a climate of frustration and weariness among community members <br />who are genuinely invested in preserving the existing public access use of the alley and ensuring <br />afair and transparent decision -making process. <br />Notably, the petitioners themselves have acknowledged that the alley is not noted on their title <br />and has never been part of their property, emphasizing that the city owns the alley.(see <br />Moreover, the petitioners were explicitly informed that without the support of adjacent <br />neighbors, Public Works would not endorse moving the petition forward. In response, the <br />petitioners made false statements of support to Public Works, claiming backing from the four <br />adjacent properties. (see attached#2 email datedl1/30/22 9:22arnand attached #3 dated <br />11/15/22 2:O9pnoand 11/29/22lD:O3anland attached #4email dated 1I/30/2211:05anm\ <br />Again, it's crucial to highlight that the petitioners were fully aware, upon submnitbng applications <br />and paying fees, that the process might not pass, rendering their investment non-refundable. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.