Correspondence - Non-Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

February 1, 2024 Page 2 2. For some reason, unktiown to me, the Draft Report states that the alley is a, Public Street Easement. It is not an Easement, it never was an Easement, and I have pointed this out carefully to you in nay letters to you dated. August 8, 2023, copy attached as Exhibit "A", and my letter to you dated August 22, 2023, attached as Exhibit "B". Nothing has been presented to rtie or to my clients that the alley in any way was ever a part of Lot 57, which. is 2383 North Flower Street. The word "Easement" appears twice in the first paragraph of the Background on page I of the Draft Report. 3. In the next paragraph under "Background", the property owners, report that they have observed transients. I believe there are City Reports that clearly indicate that the safest part of the City of Santa Ana is Floral Park and Floral Park, has had the least number of police calls involving transients. This is a bogus issue brought up by the Applicants in their attempt to obtain some "free" land. 4. Page 2 of the Draft Report, in the second paragraph, says the alley would fully revert to the owners at 2383 North Flower Street, and that is not accurate. There is no reversion. There is no Easement over the property for the benefit of the Applicants, so it cannot automatically revert. The alley is fee simple absolute and belongs to the public and. if the alley is vacated it would revert to the Public, unless the City Council determines it should be giM to the Applicants. Again, this would be "free" land being given to one lot to the detriment of all the other lots in the Floral Park area. This seems very unusual to me in that the opposition to this actionhas already obtained and provided to the City approximately 83 signatures from residents of Floral Park stating their opposition to this action. by the Council. 5. The word Easement is used again in the second paragraph and in other portions of the Draft Report. 6,. The second to last paragraph on page 2 of the Draft Report is completely wrong. Not in the fact that it accurately quotes the Commonwealth l-,and Title Preliminary Title Reports, but that the Preliminary Title Reports are incorrect, and I do not believe that the process of a Title Company should be necessarily relied upon particularly in light of EXhibit "'A" attached to this letter.