Correspondence - Non-Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

February 1, 2024 Page 3 7. In the same paragraph it says that those Title Reports list an. exception to the alley casement and that is absolutely untrue and is a misstatement of fact. Some of those Title Reports do mention an Easement that was given to the City over the front ten (10') Beet of all the Lots abutting Flower Street, so that Flower Street could be built wider than was originally conceived on the Tract Map. There is an Easement over the front ten (10') feet of all the: lots on Flower Street for street purposes. The Easenient mentioned in the Title Reports has absolutely nothin. to do with this alley. 8. The top paragraph on page 3 is simply wrong. The alley was not "dedicated as an Easement', by the subdividers of Tract 754. It was given in fee simple absolute to the City. Look at the Tract Map, there is no mention of an Easement for the alley. There are no reversionary rights to the alley vested in anyone other than the Public. 9. The compensation comments are completely wrong, because the City owns the alley in fee simple absolute not, by way of an Easement interest, so it is clear the Staff needs guidance in how to read a TractMap. 10, Under the Process and Notice comments section of the Draft Report, it says that the owners of the three (3) properties taking vehicular access frorn the alley were noticed, butI believe your City statutes require Notice of this type of action to all, persons within 300' of the alley, and that Notice was certainly not, given. I have in my possession an email from Ms. Soto on Your Staff indicating that the 'foregoing Notice requirement of 300' is accurate and it has not been given. There are numerous other arguments I could make, but .1 willmake those in person on February 20, 2024.