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
Additionally, it is imperative to address the assertion that there is a lingering, obvious, and no <br />longer necessary railroad right of way. This claim appears to be incorrectly interpreted through <br />the reading of the ruling. Nowhere in the ruling does it specifically address the petitioner's <br />property or the alley in question. Therefore, relying on a purported railroad right of way as a <br />basis for closing the alley seems misplaced and not substantiated by the legal context of the <br />ruling. This further emphasizes the need for a comprehensive and accurate examination of the <br />facts surrounding the petition and reinforces our position in advocating for the continued public <br />use of the alley. (see attached for copy of ruling) <br />Once again, we would like to express our caution regarding the proposed vacation of the <br />public's use of the alley. It is crucial to consider that with the closure, the petitioners may open <br />themselves up to potential litigation from the adjoining neighbor to the south on Flower Street. <br />California law mandates a centerline/shared equity on public land division. <br />Closing the alley would create an unfair obstructed entry/egress for those remaining on the <br />unaffected side, leading to bottleneck issues and compounding rather than solving problems. <br />Additionally, closing the alley doesn't address concerns about transient populations, as this <br />complex issue cannot be resolved by simply closing a 50' parcel of land. <br />To further underscore our stance, it's essential to address a secondary effort by the petitioners <br />to close the alley. It appears that this secondary effort is driven not only by concerns about <br />transient activity but also by a broader ambition to acquire additional real estate through any <br />available means. <br />This secondary motivation raises questions about the true intent behind the petition. If the <br />primary concern were indeed the safety and well-being of the community, the focus should <br />center on addressing the specific issues at hand rather than seeking additional real estate <br />through the closure of a vital public access point. <br />As engaged members of the community, we believe it is crucial for the City Council to scrutinize <br />the petitioners' motives thoroughly and ensure that any decision made is in the best interest of <br />the community as a whole. We assert that the closure of the alley, driven by a dual rationale, <br />would not only fail to address the stated concerns effectively but could potentially result in <br />adverse consequences for the neighborhood. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.