From: Hannah Tayfour
To: Raul Garcia; Ashleigh Aitken; Rudy Emami; Carlos Castellanos; Bryn Morley Cc: Christopher L. Pitet; Program Learning Light; Learning Light Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Lincoln Avenue Widening Project at and around 1212 E. Lincoln Avenue (LLF) Date: Tuesday, March 18, 2025 2:43:50 AM
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
Raul, Bryn and All Other Silent Observers,
I write in firm response to your email regarding the Learning Light Foundation (LLF) property, received on March 17, 2025 (After Hours) Let me be unequivocally clear: the City of Anaheim’s handling of this matter is unacceptable, fraught with contradictions, and ridden with legal and ethical violations. Your message fails to address the core issues we have raised and instead attempts to pressure us into acquiescing to an unlawful taking of our property.
This will not be tolerated. We hereby formally object to the City’s plans as stated, and we put you on notice that we will aggressively pursue all available remedies if the City continues down this path.
Below, I will address the points in your email and the City’s course of action, and exactly why they are improper. I will also outline the consequences the City will face if our rights continue to be ignored:
1. Ignoring Evidence of Fraud and Property Rights: It is astounding that your email did not acknowledge at all the extensive evidence we provided showing the City’s 53-foot right-of-way claim is likely fraudulent. We have given the City documented proof that calls into question the validity of the claimed public right-of-way across our frontage.
This includes, but is not limited to:
A recorded statement from the City’s own Senior Land Surveyor admitting that “the City already took three feet” of our property in the past without due process.
This statement directly indicates that City personnel were involved in an illicit taking of private land.
Historical property records and prior right-of-way documentation (or lack thereof) that do not support the City’s assertion of a 53-foot dedication across our parcel.
Your email chose to act as if none of this ever happened. You stated that “current evidence strongly supports” the City’s position. That statement is false – in fact, the current evidence (the evidence we provided to you) strongly undermines the City’s position. Simply ignoring facts does not negate them. We consider the City’s silence on these points as a tacit admission that our evidence is correct. If the City disputes our evidence, you need to say so explicitly and prove it. Your failure to do so thus far is noted and will be evidence of bad faith in any future legal proceeding or public inquiry.
2. “Proceed Now, Talk Later” is Unlawful and Unacceptable: Your email outlines a plan to remove and relocate our fence immediately, before the boundary dispute is resolved, with a vague offer to “discuss an appraisal” for the land later if we somehow prove the City was wrong. Let me be clear: this is completely backward and violates our rights.
The City has no legal authority to take our property or even assume possession of it without due process. If the City believes it has a right to this land, it must prove it before acting, or use eminent domain to legally acquire it (which entails paying CS ITEM # 04
compensation upfront, not as an afterthought). Your approach – essentially “take now, maybe pay later” – is a flagrant abuse of power and a violation of the Fifth Amendment (Takings Clause) and Article I, Section 19 of the California Constitution. You are attempting to coerce us into surrendering property rights under duress of project delays. This is not only unconscionable, it’s illegal.
We do not agree to the relocation of our fence or any “temporary” or permanent occupation of our property by the City. We have not signed any Right-of-Entry agreement – the exhibit you attached remains unsigned and for good reason. Until the question of the rightful property boundary is fully settled to our satisfaction (and in line with the facts), any entry by City contractors onto what is our property (up to the 50’ centerline distance that we understand to be the true right-of-way) will be considered trespass. We are prepared to seek an immediate restraining order/injunction from the courts to prevent any work on our property if the City attempts to move forward unilaterally. Consider this letter a formal notice that no agreement exists permitting the City’s planned work on our side of the disputed line, and any claim to the contrary (such as referencing “today’s agreement to proceed”) is false and will be disproven by our documented objections.
3. Contradictions and Misrepresentations in Your Email: Your correspondence contains numerous contradictions and misleading statements:
You claim to be “open to reviewing any additional information” we provide, yet you have ignored the comprehensive information already in your hands. What more do you expect us to provide beyond the proof of fraud already delivered? This comes across as a stalling tactic and insincere politeness while you forge ahead regardless. It is a contradiction to say you remain open-minded, but simultaneously dismiss everything we’ve shown you.
You refer to “the Public Works Director’s position” on the 53’ ROW as if that settles the matter. A City Director’s opinion or position is not law. By leaning on an authority figure’s stance instead of actual documented title evidence, you reveal that the City’s argument rests on internal say-so, not solid ground. This is deeply unconvincing, and frankly it’s an insult to expect us to accept “because the Director says so” in place of deeds or surveys. It also contradicts your supposed openness to evidence – apparently the Director’s mind is made up regardless of evidence.
You describe the plan as if we have a “today’s agreement to proceed”. Let me correct the record: There is no such agreement. If you have interpreted any communication from us as an agreement, you are grossly mistaken. We have consistently stated that we object to the relocation of our fence and any encroachment on our property. The only “agreement” we’ve made is that we are willing to cooperate with the City once our property rights are respected and the dispute is resolved properly. We suspect your phrasing is an attempt to manufacture consent where none exists. This misrepresentation is noted, and we formally request that you cease and desist mischaracterizing our position in any official records. We do not consent – we protest.
You emphasize the need to “prevent further delays” in the City’s project. This indicates the City is prioritizing its schedule over fundamental property rights and justice. That is a dangerous and callous position. It appears you are attempting to guilt or pressure us by implying we are the cause of delays. Let’s be clear: any delays are caused by the City’s insistence on moving forward under disputed and likely fraudulent pretenses. We have been ready to resolve this through proper channels; it is the City’s refusal to address the core boundary issue that has created this impasse. Do not dare insinuate that our defense of our property is an unreasonable obstacle – it is the City’s responsibility to plan projects around legitimate property rights, not steamroll citizens when an inconvenient claim arises.
The email noticeably avoids using the word “permanent” regarding the new fence posts, yet it’s obvious that embedding new posts in concrete outside the 53’ mark is meant to be a permanent relocation of our fence. This coy avoidance is a de facto admission that the City doesn’t want to acknowledge it is permanently taking our property. Such lack of transparency is duly noted. You call something “temporary” and then in the next breath describe the permanent installation – a clear contradiction meant to mislead. We are not fooled by this. Call it what it is:
an attempt at a permanent property grab. Your refusal to use plain language only underscores the City’s awareness that what it’s doing is wrong.
4. Security of Our Property – City’s Responsibility: We have serious concerns about maintaining the security and integrity of our property and operations during any construction activities. Your email made only a passing mention that the contractor “will continuously keep the LLF property secured (likely about 20 feet at a time)”, and then provided no details whatsoever on how security will be ensured. This is grossly inadequate. By removing our existing fence and gating – even in sections – the City is creating vulnerabilities. The burden is on the City to mitigate all security risks that you introduce. Yet, you offered no concrete plan:
Will the construction site (and our exposed property line) be monitored by security personnel after hours? You did not say.
Will there be a secure temporary gate or method to ensure no unauthorized entry, especially overnight when work is not occurring? You did not say.
If an intruder breaches the temporary fence or if any vandalism/theft occurs due to the fence being moved, will the City accept full liability for damages? You did not say.
What about the fact that the temporary fence will have no privacy screening, potentially advertising to passersby an invitation to trespass or theft? You offered no justification for refusing the green screen, which not only provides privacy but also an extra barrier.
The City’s silence on these points is deafening. It appears the City has given zero thought to protecting our property – an unacceptable oversight given that you are the ones causing the security risk. Be advised: we hold the City of Anaheim fully responsible for any security breach or loss that results from the removal or relocation of our fence. We expect, at minimum, 24/7 on-site security personnel (at the City’s expense) during the entire period our perimeter is disrupted, robust temporary fencing that is equivalent in strength and height to our current fence, and restoration of the green privacy screen or similar measures to maintain privacy and deter prying eyes. Anything less is negligence on the City’s part. Your failure to propose such measures in your plan is a glaring sign of bad planning or bad faith (or both). We demand an immediate, written security plan from the City that addresses these concerns in detail. Until such a plan is provided and agreed upon, we will not allow any work to commence, because we will not put our property and the safety of our program at risk.
5. Vagueness as a Form of Evasion – Not Acceptable: Throughout your email, vague terms and ambiguity are used where precision is needed. This stops now. We will no longer accept ambiguous, non-committal statements from the City. For every statement or assurance, you make, we expect clarity and follow-through:
When will the “temporary” fence be installed, and how long will it be in place? We need exact dates and durations – no “within 30 days” vagueness. Give us a schedule we can hold you to. Vague timelines are a way to avoid accountability; we won’t allow the fence to be left in disarray indefinitely.
Will the relocation of our fence and sign be permanent regardless of the dispute, or not? We demand a yes or no answer. If you claim it’s “just temporary for construction,” then logically if we prove our point the fence should be put back to its original location at City expense. Are you prepared to do that? If not, then stop calling it temporary. Put your intentions on record truthfully.
What exactly is the legal basis for the City’s 53-foot ROW claim? You have never provided any documentation to us that definitively establishes this. Show us the recorded tract map, grant deed, easement document, council resolution – whatever it is that you think gives the City title to that strip. Simply saying “it’s the City’s position” is not evidence. We have shown you evidence to the contrary; now you owe us the courtesy of showing the evidence that you believe supports the City. If you fail to do so, we (and eventually a court) will conclude that no such evidence exists and that the claim is baseless.
Your email mentioned discussing appraisal if new evidence “emerges.” To avoid any confusion: the evidence has emerged, and you have it already. We expect you to immediately engage in good-faith negotiations as to how the City will compensate LLF for the portion of land it is effectively taking – because by all indications, that land is ours. If you truly believe in waiting for more evidence, then conversely you must halt your project until that evidence is reviewed. You cannot have it both ways (take the land now and stall evidence review). We demand you clarify your position: either pause and resolve the dispute with evidence and negotiation now, or admit you’re taking the land regardless. Stop hiding behind conditional hypotheticals.
6. Abuse of Authority and Pattern of Illegality: The City’s approach in this matter is not happening in a vacuum – it appears to be part of a pattern of abuse and illegality that we have unfortunately experienced in dealing with Anaheim officials. From the initial misrepresentation of the property line, to the likely fraudulent adjustment of records or markers, to this current high-pressure tactic to finalize the land grab, we see a continuous thread: the City (or individuals within it) attempting to deprive LLF of its rightful property and interests through deceit or coercion. Let this letter serve as notice that we are fully aware of this pattern, and we are prepared to shine a very bright public light on it. The era of backroom deals, false statements, and bullying of private citizens by Anaheim officials is over. We will expose every instance of wrongdoing we uncover. This includes pursuing the matter of the surveyor’s statement – if the City does not adequately address that internally, we will provide that recording to the appropriate investigative authorities and the media. Fraud is a crime. Public corruption is a serious matter that state authorities (and the District Attorney) take an interest in. We strongly suggest the City consider the ramifications of continuing on its current course. Not only will there be civil liability, but there could very well be criminal investigations if fraud is proven.
7. Consequences If the City Continues Its Unlawful Course: We hope to resolve this amicably and fairly, but we must be clear about what will happen if the City ignores this letter and proceeds anyway:
Legal Action: We will immediately file suit seeking injunctive relief to stop the project on our frontage. We will seek a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction in court to prevent any further work that encroaches on our disputed land until the property rights are adjudicated. We are confident any impartial judge, when presented with the evidence of the boundary and the City’s conduct, will side with us in at least pumping the brakes on the City’s actions.
Damages and Attorneys’ Fees: In that lawsuit, we will seek damages for any harm already caused (for example, if the City’s actions to date – including prior removal of markers or any pre-construction activity – have damaged our property or business). We will also seek attorneys’ fees and costs as permitted by law, especially if we demonstrate the City acted in bad faith or beyond the scope of its lawful authority.
Public Exposure: We will not keep this a quiet, private dispute. We are prepared to speak out publicly, contact local news outlets, and share on public forums how the City of Anaheim is treating us and potentially defrauding a local non-profit (if not worse). The court of public opinion matters, and the City’s reputation will rightfully suffer when the community learns that Anaheim officials are forcing a nonprofit’s fence off its property based on dubious claims and then shrugging off evidence of wrongdoing. The current climate in Anaheim is already one of low trust in government (for example, recent scandals involving city officials have not gone unnoticed). Do you think the public or the City Council will look kindly on Public Works bulldozing a small community organization’s property rights? I guarantee they will not.
Escalation to Higher Authorities: If needed, we will bring this issue to the California Department of Justice, the Orange County Grand Jury, and any other oversight body that can investigate municipal corruption. The word “fraud” is not one we use lightly – we use it because the circumstances warrant it. If Anaheim will not police itself, others will. We have already assembled a dossier of evidence and a timeline of events that we are prepared to hand over to state investigators should the City continue to stonewall. The potential fallout – legally and personally – for any City staff involved in fraudulent conduct could be severe. We advise you not to test us on this; it’s not a bluff.
City’s Loss of Development Rights on Our Property: Should you proceed to take our land without due process, not only will we fight it in court, but any notion the City has of using that land peacefully is mistaken. We will treat any encroachment as unlawful. This could mean physically barring access, reinstalling barriers, or any number of self-help remedies a property owner might lawfully undertake when faced with trespass. We will also ensure that any future attempts by the City to claim easements or rights-of-way on our property are met with the most intense opposition and scrutiny possible. In other words, you will have made an enemy out of us – something that was completely avoidable if the City had chosen to act as a partner rather than an adversary. The cost to the City – in legal fees, project delays, and lost goodwill – will far, far exceed the trivial convenience you seek by grabbing this land now.
8. Our Reasonable Demands (what the City must do to avoid the above consequences):
Immediately halt any plan to remove or relocate our fence until the property line dispute is resolved in writing with LLF’s agreement.
Engage in direct, good-faith dialogue with us about each piece of evidence we presented. This means addressing all evidence, recordings, and all records together, rather than issuing one-sided “positions.” If there is information the City has that we haven’t seen, put it on the table. We are more than willing to resolve this through mutual fact-finding – but “my way or the highway” is off the table.
Provide written assurance of how security will be maintained if any work is to occur, and accept liability for any incidents. This includes committing to specific security measures as I outlined earlier.
Correct the record in writing that we have not agreed to the fence relocation, and that our cooperation is contingent on a proper resolution. In other words, rescind or clarify the “today’s agreement” statement from your email so it isn’t misused.
Explore alternatives to the current stalemate. For instance: if timing is so critical, the City could consider a temporary construction easement license that does not prejudice the final outcome (e.g., a temporary use of a portion of our land strictly for construction access, without surrender of title or permanent improvements).
We might consider cooperating with such a plan only if it explicitly preserves our claims and includes a binding commitment to restore or compensate depending on the dispute’s resolution. So far, the City has not proposed any creative solutions – you’ve just demanded our acquiescence. We challenge you to come up with a solution that respects our rights while allowing your project to proceed safely. If you can’t, that’s the City’s failure of imagination and respect, not ours.
Initiate an independent review: We demand that an independent survey or legal review of the property boundary be conducted, mutually agreed upon by both parties. The cost of this should be borne by the City (since it is the City’s project causing the issue). If the independent findings show the City’s claim is incorrect, the City must immediately adjust its project plans to stay within its actual boundaries (or formally negotiate a purchase/compensation for any needed land if we are willing – which at this point is highly doubtful given the approach so far). If by some chance the independent findings support the City (which we sincerely doubt given the evidence of fraud), then at least we have clarity and we would proceed accordingly. What we will not do is continue to engage in a “he said, she said” – resolve it properly. We are offering a path to do so; if the City refuses an independent review, that speaks volumes.
In conclusion, the City’s email and conduct to date show a profound disregard for our property rights, our trust, and the law. This letter is to put you on the sharpest notice that we see through the City’s tactics and we will not stand for them. The era of quietly acquiescing to official bullying is over. We intend to hold the City of Anaheim to the highest standards of accountability.
In Summary,
1. No Acknowledgment of Fraudulent Evidence
Despite receiving certified documents this morning, proving undeniable land theft, property boundary manipulation, and fraudulent city records, you have chosen to respond with a casual, vague email – one that completely ignores ADA compliance, property security, safety concerns, and due process. Your silence on core evidence is a glaring admission of wrongdoing.
2. Ignoring Hazards & Negligent “Solutions”
The City dug up our property without legal justification.
You damaged our fence, creating a safety risk for disabled clients – yet offered no real fix besides jamming a wooden stick in the ground and calling it a “safety measure.” This is reckless and insulting.
You still refuse to address ADA violations, security threats, or the ongoing destruction of client access. We have severely limited – if not blocked – wheelchair access and hindered fire exits, but you act as if none of these matters.
3. Last-Minute Emails & Deadlines as a Weapon
Every time you contact us, it’s with two-day deadlines or after-hours directives, as if urgency absolves you of the fraud we exposed.
You bury us in contrived demands, punishing us for not surrendering to your land grab.
Meanwhile, you won’t answer direct questions about property security, liability, or how you plan to handle trespassing and damage after you rip out our fence.
4. Gas Company Issue & Police Involvement
You mention the Gas Company, yet fail to note that we had to call the police on them for digging into our property, blocking OCTA Access buses, and leaving dirt piles in the path of wheelchair users. You spin it as an innocent “project” when in reality it was another instance of your disregard for private property and disabled individuals’ rights.
5. Fabricated “Process” vs. Reality
This is not a legitimate process – it’s a dictatorship:
You disregard lawful boundaries and forcibly seize land under false pretenses.
Whenever we produce unassailable evidence of your actions, you pretend none of it exists.
Instead of halting to address fundamental fraud issues, you press forward, ignoring all legitimate concerns about safety and documents withheld.
6. Unlawful “Take Now, Apologize Never” Mentality
The City has stripped clients of their garden, obstructed sidewalks, and disrupted participant safety and rights.
Rather than answering to your own fraud and misconduct, you simply declare you will demolish our fence and move forward.
We do NOT consent. We are actively exposing your actions, and we will not stop until every person we can reach (local or beyond) understands the abuse of power happening here.
7. We Provided Overwhelming Proof – You Deny Everything You claim, “If something comes up, we are open to discussing it.” What more do you need? We have shown:
Recorded evidence from the City’s own personnel admitting land was already taken.
Documented discrepancies revealing the City incrementally seizing land for decades.
Fraudulent records that do not align with known property surveys or boundaries.
Your response is to act as though none of it exists, continuing to operate in a fantasy where your “deadline” trumps legality.
8. Our Position Remains Firm
We do NOT agree with any of your unauthorized activities.
We do NOT consent to any “fence removal” or forced compliance under a fraudulent premise.
We will continue fighting back – publicly and through every legal channel available – until you stop this unlawful land grab.
Your refusal to acknowledge hard evidence underscores how deeply this corruption runs.
Anaheim officials are operating with the arrogance that they can move forward without consequence – that is a grave mistake. The difference between our realities is clear:
We stand on documented proof, historical records, and your own staff’s recorded admissions.
You rely on abrupt emails, false deadlines, and illusions of “cooperation” to push an agenda that has no legal merit.
Until you specifically address the fraudulent records and the manipulated boundaries, your repeated calls for “compliance” are meaningless. We will not grant you access to our property, nor will we be coerced into endorsing any of these unlawful actions.
Final Notice: Your refusal to confront these issues head-on has forced us to escalate. If the City takes one more step onto our land without rectifying the fraud and providing the missing public records, we will intensify public exposure, seeking redress beyond city limits. That includes contacting federal, state, and disability advocacy organizations, as well as the media, to ensure this corruption sees the light of day.
The City’s choices now are simple: either correct course and work with us legitimately, or prepare for a battle that the City will surely regret. We remain, as always, ready to find a fair resolution – but we are equally ready to fight to the bitter end to protect our rights if forced.
The Learning Light Foundation Inc.
On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 6:34 PM Raul Garcia <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Christopher and Ms. Tayfour,
Per today’s telephone conversations between Christopher and me and separately between Christopher and Ms. Tayfour, here is the path forward as I understood the outcome of my last phone call with Christopher:
LLF will cooperate with the continuation of the Lincoln Ave. Widening project as designed and awarded. The Right of Entry executed in 2020 is still necessary to complete the work in mutual cooperation (attached herein).
City of Anaheim (COA) will continue to direct the project contractor to ensure the LLF property is continuously fenced in.
COA will revert to the offer previously made to pay the contractor for the relocation of the existing chain link fence from 50 feet from centerline to outside of the 53 foot right of way.
COA will pay for the contractor to install new fence posts in concrete foundations just outside of the 53 foot right of way. Upon proper concrete curing (approximately 3 days), the contractor will re-install LLFs chain link fence on the posts. LLF will still need to discuss and resolve with Code Enforcement and Planning the matter relative to the materials allowed in a commercial zone. The new fence posts in concrete are intended to assist LLF to reuse the poles with other fencing material as allowed by the zoning code.
SHORT TERM SEQUENCE:
On Tuesday morning, the fence contractor will start the removal of the existing chain link fence and posts located at 50’ from centerline, following by installation of the temporary construction chain link fence outside of the 53 foot right of way. The contractor intends to replace the fencing in a manner that will continuously keep the LLF property secured (likely about 20 feet at a time). The temporary construction fence will be supported by posts driven into the ground for proper support. No green screening material is intended to use in the temporary construction fence.
Within the next 30 days, the contractor will install new fence posts embedded in concrete foundations outside of the 53 foot right of way, followed by mounting of the LLF’s chain link fence and green screening material.
The Gas Company needs to perform the service change over and would like a response to their email for access into LLF premises at the convenience of the LLF program. Please respond to Mike Davila from the Gas Company to avoid further delays.
The contractor will also need to adjust the LLF’s irrigation next to the fence to ensure the irrigation heads are relocated properly and outside of the 53 foot right of way.
UPCOMING SEQUENCE:
COA will pay for the relocation of the LLF pole mounted sign outside of the 53 foot right of way. Further coordination with LLF will occur for the temporary construction chain link fence to allow the contractor access for the sign relocation.
There are 2 access points from LLF into the new sidewalk, at the gate and at the east end of the property. The project includes reconstruction of some concrete flatwork to ensure a smooth transition at both points. Please see the attached exhibit for further details.
The project will upgrade the domestic water service and meter and the contractor would like to coordinate with LLF for the switchover of the service and water shut down. The COA Water Department also needs to install a backflow prevention device at this time. Please see the attached exhibit as we would like to discuss and coordinate this work at this time. This work is at COA cost, not LLF.
The project will also upgrade the fire water service up to the city parkway. If in the future LLF installs a fire prevention system, the City would install a meter and LLF would need to install a backflow prevention device.
53 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY
As per my conversation with Christopher, I am restating our Public Works Director’s position on the ROW and if somehow, we find later that the City was in error for the 53 foot right-of-way:
While the current evidence strongly supports the City’s position as to the validity of the 53 foot right of way, we remain open to reviewing any additional information LLF may provide. However, to prevent further delays, we believe the best course of action is today’s agreement to proceed with relocating the LLF improvements out of the public right-of-way so the City project can move forward. If any new evidence emerges that successfully challenges the City’s position, we are willing to discuss an appraisal and the value of the disputed area.
We encourage your team to discuss the findings of D. Woolley and Assoc relative to the boundary for the property with Mr. Bruce Hall (PLS) or any other professional land surveyor of your choosing. If your team would like to meet and discuss any survey boundary items, I’ll be happy to schedule a meeting on site or in City Hall.
If you have any questions on the items above or the work tomorrow, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Thank you,
Raul
Raul Garcia, P.E., P.L.S.
Construction Services Manager
[email protected]
t
Public Works Department │ Construction Services │ Project View Finder │ Permit Inspections City of Anaheim Public Works
200 S. Anaheim Blvd. #276
Anaheim, CA 92805
(714) 765-5255
We are a team of Construction Professionals working collectively to deliver quality projects for our Anaheim Community.