Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence - #29Hall, Jennifer From: Caroline La < Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2023 4:02 PM To: Carvalho, Sonia R.; Ridge, Kristine; eComment; Penaloza, David; Hernandez, Johnathan; Vazquez, Benjamin; Bacerra, Phil; Phan, Thai; Amezcua, Valerie; Lopez, Jessie; Rosas, Rudy; Saba, Nabil; Morris, Angie; Ortiz, Lorrie Cc: Colin Donnelly Subject: Documents for Council's 8/15/23 Hearing re: Easement Vacation (2383 N Flower) Attachments: Tract 425 (1923).pdf, Tract 754 (1925).pdf Dear Esteemed Councilmembers: We are the homeowners immediately adjacent to the alleyway that is the subject of Resolution No. 2023-40, which is set to be publicly heard on August 15, 2023. It has come to our attention that contentions have been raised regarding certain writings and documents submitted to Council, which are both outdated and misrepresent the facts and circumstances surrounding the subject 2383 N. Flower Street -adjacent alleyway. Please allow us to address these issues so that everyone has a true and clear account of the history of both the alleyway and the Tract within which it is situated. While it is true that page 1 of the 1923 edition of Tract No. 425 map furnished by Ms. Newton and the Varciags did contemplate dedicating to public use "all the boulevards, avenues, streets, drives, ways, and alleys" shown on that Tract No. 425 map, you will note that page 2 (attached) of this map memorializes a 20' wide alleyway running north to south (highlighted in yellow), beginning at the southern edge of the Sarah Mae Downie Herb Garden on Flower and terminating at 2383 N. Flower - adjacent alleyway. (This map further mis-depicts lots on Flower of a mere 25' wide, and a maximum depth of only 110'.) The operative 1925 Tract No 754 Map for this section of Floral Park (attached) -- which memorializes the abandonment of that North -South alleyway easement in favor of the lots to its west -- omits any reference to deeding of "alleys" to public use, but instead dedicates to public use only the "streets and roads" (see highlights on attachment) and by omission, not any alley shown on the 1925 Tract No. 754 Map. Thus, the lots on Flower, including ours, were each expanded by 20' to the east, subsuming what was that north -south alley into those respective lots. (Additionally, those lots were expanded to a width much greater than 25' reflected on the outdated 1923 edition.) In fact, an attentive review of that obsolete 1923 Tract No. 425 map provided Ms. Newton also depicts two other now -non-existent alleys -- one 20' wide, one 10' wide -- running north -south between Riverside Drive and Heliotrope Drive (highlighted in orange), which similarly have reverted to the adjacent property owners of the tract. It is obvious, then, that the 1923 Tract No. 425 map which contemplated both the north -south alleyway easements, as well as the deeding of all alleys for public use, was supplanted by the 1925 Tract No. 754 map, which eliminated not only the north -south alleys in favor of the adjacent property owners, but also eliminated the provision that any alley was deeded to the public. 1 With respect to the title of our property at 2383 N. Flower St: Documented within the Recorder's Office is the 1931 Final Judgment in the case of City of Santa Ana vs. Restop Realty Company, which memorializes then -existing railroad right-of-ways relative to our property, and which would account for the lingering (but obviously no longer necessary) existence of this 2383 N. Flower -adjacent alley easement. Ms. Newton's contention -- that she should be entitled to some portion of the subject 2383 N. Flower alleyway easement -- is misplaced: As reflected on Tract No. 754 map our property at 2383 N. Flower and the adjacent alleyway comprises the southernmost portion in Tract No. 754 -- the Newton property is not even a part of Tract No. 754; in fact, that Newton tract/property was developed more than a decade later in 1937, and belongs to an entirely separate Tract No.1035. I would hope that Ms. Newton's (as well as the Varciags') failure to bring to your attention the operative 1925 Tract No. 754 map as well as the fact that Ms. Newton's property has had no relationship at any time to Tract No. 754 (or the subject alleyway easement) was one of mere oversight. And lest anyone give even a moment's credence to the spurious and outright slanderous contention that we in any way forged any writing on the Title Guarantee from Chicago Title, I have (and can furnish, upon Council request) the original transmittal email directly from the Senior Vice President of Chicago Title who personally reviewed this matter before issuing the supplemental title document requested by PWA. As to the issues of crime, vagrancy, and traffic -safety: You need look no further than to the records and recommendations of Santa Ana Police voiced to Public Works --'closing off the alleyway would make the neighborhood safer'-- as well as our video evidence supplied to PWA, in addition to the investigation of PWA itself, which documents the traffic -safety issues existing in and about the impermissibly narrowed alleyway easement, which is not of sufficient width to lawfully permit vehicular travel. And speaking as the homeowners whose living room, dining room, and kitchen open onto this alleyway easement: In the modern world of heightened crime and vagrancy, which we have been repeatedly confronted over these last two years, we are both unnerved by these ongoing happenings which we (as well as adjacent neighbors) have relayed to the police, and we wish for nothing more than the same security that exists at every other home within Floral Park that is not on this alley. Should there be any other information that we may provide to Council relative to this easement vacation, as we have previously done with Public Works, we will of course cooperate so that Council may confidently adopt, based upon facts, its intent to abandon resolution relative to the subject alleyway at the upcoming hearing. Thank you, Caroline La & Colin Donnelly 34 l6- TRACT N0.425. NORTH BROADWAY PARK Scale 1* QO" a6 ,L) 50.0, 1 �. w 186 w h Q7 y N 185 i/oN N 6%GS' v 1_153 0 18Z ` 177 N ISI io N I a n S /i0 /33,af , 179 //° N h 178 SHEET 2 of 2 SHEETS Aa/1-or /1/.31 Po 3ordAr? &Sidu/e// G 0 6s' z.ee:- - jb.76' Abe W 191 A 6G2.0aI O n99�� 0, ckyti o WE.Cor. Lot 3. Fbtts, ,30rdeo 8' srdwe/i 7rao/ o {ycor Lvf Z. Potts rRct C °tw. -676.8 Orden � v P 3e :_ _- 0-- - o-- SO-- - 50'- --- 92'-- -- ----- //6'• --- si.40- ,o S jooj scrva an ; f Y Tc%flip qnd /tee r /sf j�e aad /ii/es ' "0 jw W !8 190 M 21 22 Z3 M 24 m 25 M 2 ° ? 27 ; a 28 So O o o' So 6O- So' U6 GSA 60- i q O' III I - 2S- � R' ogr7 N89 53l1! gyp. 371, 90 lil SO" .74 30' SO' So' 30' SO' S0' So 45' R• a7 25 88 ° .5 ° 90 , 91 9Z 9: 94 95 96 0 97 _ ' m o � ---73.L9'---� .5 fibl/ SBYUo O/l {Or /C�f70n a/lU jEG%✓/L' /!j%lf/a lg a//� /qe5 108 107 106 ° o I 05 � 104 � ° 10311 102 10/ ° /00� d ^ 99ho Z O' S01 gg50'I mor1 50,08, SO.ar 75. 4� s• �4i. e ♦ I 6> O � � ;T-fp" I g/50 N M, A m VN 41� 153 LL Kk 5 Wry 6�' • � O' So' 4 GO 5 Go- _ T,4L2.o4' /93sy"�a o pF so SO.Oj' BS' 28,5 SS' SS' 30. 8 241' SS' S3. 41 6o' - G.O. �o/*o' 99�` o 200� 201 22 203 �204 2 �aJ7 0�1498 60 NB°, \ Z07- y 5tafe of Ccr/iforrii�Y j S S. I county of o.-�.�y� f C. ,Jerome, County Auc/ifor, &?Io her-eby certify tha/ /here are no /ie/7s fvr unaarcl Stale, Cour7ftJ or CAy Agnes; �74ce/7/ for 7`oXes r�o7` yer payob/e, ayoir7sf /he /or7� caxer a,'by the pc- compc7n,�ire e4 ibis=c%y of 9,�-'l/913. GYe, Tomes S/er, C/y �Isscssi�q� /YG. u /7rlox Ci>y Ei79ir7eer, do hereby cerfif 7`ho14 llye n have B1Orni 7eq the /oAs of the svbcJivlsior7 Qs shovYr/ on 117e !- Mi'17 rr/ap onq/ fir/p' fhe777 of va/ue for- re•s/or C0177 cio/ uses. ' vgAe� A/7js dQy of ��s. �;rorr7ir7eq' o/�q/ ivr � this 2 f1-lfi. e/rry of 30 30 1 0 - _'�� 6G2.Q5" _ ��--—_ - �✓B9°Sj'iY _ 662.5/_ Y E_ - , Foundio/pe zw W'F r /� S f o f res rvafin for Te% hone a 3 30,9dPa1B --4T.• A0911tr/'6Y. ; 662.E La/ i99 to be reserved for a le,;Y77 a/ ttva years ,oerzdi�✓p /iir exfensiaao/! /Per//COF ffreCl. O�oy n Zj K S1z/Ae of Cq/if0/-17ic7 o Coun/y of 0/—C, qe j SS _ M. F�nc.(-s, County C/erg, j'r/ c?/7c/ for said County , do hereby cerfify ;417 67 �qooq` c71211 suf- f%c1071- bond, ?/Vproyect by The Cour7/y l3oa1-cl of Super visors %7os been f /eo /V,/h �ogrr// �hr'ci7 said b`�r7q' Cor7a'i'fiar7r q' .7`or /he Po 177er7l of Q// A_r-- WhIC17 qre° C71/er7 /onc/ covered by fhe :;'CC F/pcarr ir/9 rno�, r>oA yet- clue cyr�q' poyc�ble r o+r7cr' hat sa/o' boi7Q' suns c//o/orov-�c� by saia` 8ocrr�' of ci u/ar e i/7 �> er�pf; he/d or/ Ahe cloy oy` 4. p. f9Z_3. C.—A. C/erk u- r<.o Gvrk r the .Doord of .S a�viso s. 4",/ 0 y , y 2�0 239 Z38 0 s rower Te%phone c �yh, pai�S TRACT NO. 425 NORTH B ROADWAY PARK �r l3elr?g a Subdivision of POrtior75 of Lots Z, 3, .4 and ap 26 of Potts, J3order2 ar7d Sidwell Tract according to 4 map recorded ir? book 4 page 624 Miscellaneous Records of Los FPngeles County Galiforr7lct . CITY OF SA _ ���- NTA qNA ORANGE COUNTY CALIF. .5 Surveyed (I R.L.L_oucks G.E. f"larc4 192 3 SHEET I of 2 SHEETS Scgle I =100' p !�/e /he �rrdeis�ed, o<urrcrs offfiG farrd coveiod 6y ffi� ciccomoa�y,�y ar7dra/so Q// 07 ei poisons uihosc ca�scof /s r/ecrssary fo,oass cr c%Qr tiffs f such /c�r�d do hore6 car/ f > >h •Sew o c �A//ir�y of svid rricrp L. C0/' Lod 3-fbfi`s, y,,, ru�oso {o si9no{vrC qS .S%70Lf/r74 Borq`en SidweJ/ Tract hrreby 4'edicvfe fo,oub/c use ra//fhe 6ou/edvrds_ c�Uc�r�ues, nF ", h-inn l°e{a, ..Sf s v Lcat � - ��S' o b h,, mu.•h //Uc - LC/l!G .S. 4/70' C�ffC _.S oGUri hercor� ti N W Cor. �, SidrPe�� ?roof N. Line Lot? y v ~ y i �u� T� _ f5orden �2>.a cgs' -_ _ / 1 r L-01 C. N, 84 °2f __,93.7b'____ rjj:�S __�iely - - - AXfen.o M_ .1 �1..� �, . �,+ is - - /y( - _ _ - /%ecJl-l/�_'�✓aM{ = _- _ _ _ _ _- _ _ ,(/n� 26 m 27 My 28 29 30 316 ;� 0 =- --- - ------ - 65 ' GO Sj . 301Z 349 .28 0 a.? i e./zsoeas o, 48 4i Z T.SK29 OD 79q ' t a \ 0 /00' off' 0 347.72 09 gj�.0X b 1� /1/ote: %ran tolpe /z" /or7y se/ 4/rororirno%y /o" �r/geryrourJC/ /G " />?GY s/`o Fe se/ or/ fo/o of,o� at cQch /of car'r�er. L -51:Me o1GollJ`O//7/4 Gour7fy afOrai7gge � °5 • � Or7 fhi s z3 �o day of /1%7rc/7 7�O 1_92� 6Pfore ir7c fj/i9 6ordr7cr a /yofury Pu6/rc 1w arro'for the said Cour�fy of Oi-Ar�q� �Sfc�fe of Cn/forrli4, residn9 thei-vi� 4'u/y cvr��issiorr�d pr�d�suio�� person�r//y c�ie'%�eored _L.:Sfepfzer7,so2 _--/da._�5tealzerrsor/,---Tl F�o6ett�sQr� --- Z�/<7vc e./1.f�a6erfsorz,.._C_A-1-fi_tri7_.�efs, �rr�eGA_P�f_z__ /9r1`hGI_-Fr7e_,_f/.orr_/cZ__f%P.rlc�---_------._-----._____-- -- ----------------- /7ersar7,2y hwaaar7 % we /o be fhe persvr7s tUi7ose 77arr>es Are subscribed /v Ale eli11171i7 ii7strurr/e77i arld Ac//r7ou7/edged to me i/7af Theyr�eXevufed fhe sarr7e. V`P /N f-�/TNESS iYHEREOF,' �%IaUC %JP/'-eG/I7f0 .SC'f /7Ty f7or7o' Ar7v' a Ixedrny o�ciaf seq/,ii7 /he sa/o' Cvur7fy, th, e day ai7o'ye ihi.s cer//cafe first abvae avri75ern U �-^ /Yolaiy Publli,j/ gndfi Orosge lows y .Sib7t of Co% Fornio / hrreby 7ccarrirr7e77d /o fhe Board of TUsfees• of the Cif o/ �3•a.1747 %f77a fhof Phis map be c7,anrvUe o' Da �eoyfhis 26 fh day of //'//arch f O / 3 - a bSfafe of Co/ifornia j coz,".7fy of 0rar79e Cif o Sar71a79r7a J /f u/os on /he 26 f}i doryy o f /✓igrch 19. Qp /923 ordered 6qq fhe Baas/ of TYu fees 117he City of Sr7r�/a f%r7a fhof /his map be apivvroved triad 1haf fhe 517-eels, boa/eaarv's, go'er7ues driries, urays J �,7d n//Pys herc�or7 e crcee�fed os,r7a�i/ic hi�h�nys Dgteo' phis_ _ l y_ dny "vf Cl�%r�i% /9p./923 O'la/e of GQ/iforaia 1 Gvur7fy ofOrr7r7�a J /, �. L . Louc/rs , Licei7sed �5urueyor ce�fy fhof vr� �rcfuq/ �sur//ry of fhe /a, Covered 6V f/ie accompai7yiroy v7vo tr7as rr7gdB ur7der- my d recfior/ q.�d . sa/�ervisior/, rarid fhof this i77r7,o is n cori'Pcf represenfafiorr (hereof Ovfed fhi� 2j rd dvy of /p�p�i'ci7 fi.'I/�/"9z3 G�ens eo' Surde yor State of Colforw/a j Cour�f of .Oran e J 1 before me�Cy�a /�ofary Pub// { q d{o/` the said Go�nf of O/'ariye ,.Strata of Co/forr7�a, res/d/i�g (herein, du/ commis/or�ed' and sworn �ersono/Jy aooeored A,74; 7 me fo b¢ fhe Presider�f and hr7aw17 fo rna fo mc� to be the Secretory sf fh Corporation described i/7 ord iof ¢ r¢cu¢ed fhe wifh/ir /r�s><r�rrrersf and known fo me fo be ffi.iL- /o¢rson.� wi7o ea-ecrihed fhe w11hh7 /issf'rum- a/7f on mho/f of 7`/ie Cor�or4tior� (her gin r�nm¢ci, or�a' o�/sr7o vv/edged fo me fhof suoh corlooro.�ior7 exacU.ferf 7�he dome. 1 v i Y/TNESS WHEREOF /hove hereur�/o .�a7` my hand o77d c7ff:Yeo' r77y officio/ sea% 7`t?e dy oi7d year /n (his" carfific f fr.$f' Q6oYe written. Nofoy1 >°ub/ic in and f i Or)or� e : �<-+y. fe ofC.�/.i arr,.b Gvuafy of Los,9r�ye/ 451i7 17(7 7y of f'O. /923 before me 3i.9 !r_ � f y- a r.� o /1/ Tory F�ub/ic /i7 ar�d for the sole' Coun y of Los Aroye%s .State of Co/iforr7io, resit7iny 7hele,417 du/y coinm/ss/on¢d ibrrsor�o/y, /mown to me to be fhe Persons wi7ose r�oencrf sib asubscribed fo r'hc w/fh/n instrument Q�d Qc6r�avv/e ked fo me fhof 11 11 e recufe d som. IN VY/T/VESS {YC/EREOF /ye hereunto ssf rry ho7�d �r7o o{fired my official sea/ /n fhe sod County, fhe day o/sd�/eor in fh/s cprfif'- ico>� fiis>•• o ev ^ �e- wry 17`en x f rl Na><ory P 6/.� in ono' {or Loa ,9nyQ�a,g Geanf�s...9`of¢ efGv/.fern�o. State of Ca/ifornra� SS Cocvn/y of Orr e AD/926, before rre ENRrchords, a no aiy /au,6hc in and for said Caz/rrty and S/r7/e, residing /herein duly, cornrr./ssron- ed and s vyorr> personally oo neared W� E Ofis, h;,70 r/ /o me fo be fhe President and E B. Sprague /mown /o me /o be The Secre/o y of The Orzrngg'a Cozen/y Trusf crr/d Savings Borth of San/a Ana, which corPorotion executed the vv/fhiit ins/ice mcn/, dnd frnorvri to me /o be The per- sons who exe c u>ed fhe w1/hi17 1-W1 ru- /r/ent o// behcrff of the eorroora/ion /he/e- ir/ /7t7o7ed a1701 ac/rnorv/ed_ged /o rna t/x// sr.Vh car //on execusad "'he sa/rre. 1'N by /VES5 W//ERZ-OF I hcrva /jo contra .sa/ rr/y hand and affixed s eol /he ddy a.7a' yeor his eer// /cafe firs�.bo�v�j vyrif>`e TRACT NO. 754 Bei9g 4 Resubdivisioq of Lots Qr)d portions of Lots 1 to16, 61 to 79, a to 87, 135 to 137 Qqd 164to197 i9clusive of TRACT No. 425 45 per rr)Qp 09 fileln Mi6cella9e0us Mop BooK I6 po9 es 33 a9d 34, Records of Oragge COU09 , CQIIforpla, N<nox sand Loucks 7 Civil Engineers, March 1925 Scale I Inch = dO Feel / P b//a /r/ o' d for sand Coefr//rf cad We,fhe vrrcersrgned owners of /he fond Govcred by the cte- compctnyirtq mop c/nc' o/sa ot/ other persons whose consent rs necessary /orooss ca clear ////e /o svc5 Ian CIS, do hEre6y CO/Ae 7' ro /he rnofrirrg of sold maf as shown WIi112117 the co%red bar der Imes. We hereby dedredte fo PGrchtic crsye / reds ore roods sh //7ereon. f r SFIn7, Mr9Qntfwreir�ifrriga7eC//a S/ote of Ccrtiforr/io7 SS Gocrn/y of Orar/ge r�J Cn /hisB�y ofp��. D /92 s be{ore me �1���� a rotor.� Public in and for sa/d Cocvn/y and State• res/ainq Therein, duly commt'ssianed Gno sworn, person, //y oppeored L L Corv'.sn P�� /,'Er/`!r F G'errderi hrs ryi¢o b'IarrcL,�-r 1r"/. /Po6erl�.ron ,-L✓�: i'Y� Q.�,i T.rcr6e/ !/Y/-ory /�:,r w.i� personally known to me /o be the persons whose names are .5ubscr1,7ied /o fhe within it sfrumerrf and oc/rnow/edged /o me /hat /hey executed fhe same, !/Y WITNESS WIYEFEOF / hpve hereurt/o set myhowd oriel affixed my ofricio/ seal in the sold Cozen/y /h e day and year in /his certificate first above writ/en. IYo /ary Public in and for said County on d State S/a/c of eo'/forma) SS Courrfy of Orange) f P L L. ovcfrs, licensed Surveyor, certify /ha/ on actual survey of the fond covered by 46e rrroo was mode under my oirec%on and suyervision and /hat fhrs map rs a cor-reel rcprFsen/a/ion (hereof paled /hrs 31 day of_- 4LZi-"r �LjJ /9zS Licensed Surveyor I hereby recommend /o the Boatel of Trustees of /he c//y of Santo Arco that /hrs map be opproved.l C/ty E /7 eel - S/a/e of Co/iforrtia) Cavnry of C7ronge j S S It was on Me //� day of ordered by the Boor-o' of Trustees of /✓h e City of Son /o /trio /irv/ /hrs rrtaro be of�raveo' and/ha/ fhe sfrects and roods be nccero/Pd �s public h�rghwoys, Oc/r`ed this l � -' da of rf uc/ A D /92 `� �C/% C/erfr We ✓owes Sleeper, Ci/y Assessor and Naf /i IYeff, Crfy fnyineer, do hereby certify }ho/ We hove examined /fie /o/s of The subdivrsian shown on /he wifhin rnop and friio'/hern of va/ zee for resio`enfio/ or cor/imercio/ rises. ity sseSspr v ' Gity Enginee Examined and aaproved Phis A /"�day aft-�� r Covn/y Svry or----�� S/ors of Ca/ifoy-rrrci Gaon/y of CJroiirye � S'S. I, 1 Yr" C, der©rne, Gour�/y Auditor, do hereby cer/i/y //,50/ r/ierc are no /lens for vn aoid S/a/c, County ar C//y Taxes on the /and covered by /fie accornpanyiny reap, except far /oxen no/ yet die or poyahle. L)rrf c/ this ay of i1r�-- D /92 �i CovriTy Audi or tEf' afSuC�/ Stcrte of Co/ifo nio / Cour//y of Orange s I -/ / / &oc/r s G'oun/y C/erl7 /n and for said Coc/r/Ty, do hereby certifyy thof o 9ood curd suf ficrrrt bard, aG7proved by ripe Coca///y 600rd of Svoer visors has bNer filed with /he said Boc�rd, vs prep sai4 bo/id is cordi/iarrect far the voyrrae/ir` oral/ r`4 +es which sire o /ii<°rr opal/ the /G7no c aYerc d by %he occ61177p"71? y/my rrtop rrof ye/ dcse� oriel ,c/c7yob/c �^-�,`ho/ scyro' ha%a' 012 fhe' — 17 /925 Co /y C'/erh oiler Ex / icio C/er/r of the Board of ervisars . Y 30 3o• We /he 61g61'ers1gned owners o/ the land covered by The accorr/ony/ng map and also a/f o/her persons whose conserrf rs necessary /o Ross a clear ti//e to such /ands, do /sereby carr.sen/ /a //7B moping of said Mcp os shown w/Thin /he co%red border /roes. We hereby dedicate %o nub/ic use a// stree/ and roads shown /here on The 0ro/79e County 7,-u5/ 0/70' So-vrngs f3on/r of Sonfo Artc7. by k i -- President. S�ecre%ry N W. Cor. "a/ 3 Paffs, Borden anon 8rdwe// Tro'cf ___ 5 W Co/, Gat C 7-/dC/ 426 k'a 9 '9 N•W Cat .1 1ry ©o` IO FSy: PS' /56 08 h 6a E7C.88 - 23_'�_g�2.07' 9s �T�W /v. - 79.' Sr -w .� /y0TE/A)The sfree%s ornd alleys shown on this subdivision crr-e the same /oca/ran os ///e /-esrvec/ive streets crnc� alleys shown O an TRACT 425, excep/-ir29 Greerr leaf Street o 0 (d) Arrows /,7. i`—/a Pine /ire of SorTfo Aria valley Jiriyolion Ca. See orange �' p� Cozen/y Boon' of Daeo's s-o7 Page 52 `� � �+ C Sfo/e o/ Co/ifornro �' ": ov County of Gas Ange/e�r O/r/ M/ day of u "{ A.17I9 rrmc �r'o rto/ory od//c rn and for scrid .'.: Count and .Store, residing tho^reirt duly commissior/cd orio/,Sworn perror/o//y o/rpeored persona//y frnawn /o me fo fe the persons whose rromss ore scribed /a 1hE' wr/hrn sir sTrumcn/ oriel aclrr>ow/edrycd to r»e (hot /hey executed /he some 5� Z& W/7-IYE55 W11TRE•0F I have hereunto se'/ my horrid onol : olfiXed rrrJcr offferal s�<r/ /n the sold county /he datf err/cr yct/r ir/ This cer/ifico/e tit obo vP rvritfen. ) /Yorary ub/ic rr/ arr >`o/r said Counr`y � e S/a/s of California) SS Courrfy o% Orange J On /-hrs /8day o! Nloy 14.D. /925'Gafore rr/e o rro/oily pci6tic //7 artd for soro' Caunfy o/761 Stole, resrdrng /herein, da/yy cornrrtissrarred Gyna sworn, r�ersor/a//y aopeored A A' Saxlnn, /mown /o rite /O be fhe Presiden7 e/td O.r•sur, /r/7aw17 /o me to be The .Secretary of the S onto Ana Yo/fey lrrigo•Tion Co/rtrvony e/ 0/-7/y vvh/ch corparafim/r execut ed the wi//rirr r17.s1ru177e1-71' , c;1//4' /fluorin /o me /o fro fhe Persons who executed fhe Wi/pin inrfrume-rrt art b,slia// of /he corPora/ion (herein 174med ctnd oe- frnow/edlged /a me the/ such corrvordfiort executed The yarn IN W/TNESS WHEREQF .I17ove hereu//ta set my ho and affi'xeo'/ny offiCio/ seal fhe day vnd yeor in Jfiis cer/ifrco'r`e f r✓f above wrih`err. Nofary P4,,6hc rn onarfor said Coon/y S/dfe Hall, Jennifer From: Cheryl Newton < Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 11:26 AM To: Carvalho, Sonia R.; Ridge, Kristine; eComment; Penaloza, David; Hernandez, Johnathan; Vazquez, Benjamin; Bacerra, Phil; Phan, Thai; Amezcua, Valerie; Lopez, Jessie; Rosas, Rudy; Saba, Nabil; Morris, Angie; Ortiz, Lorrie Subject: FW: Alley - Flower/Heliotrope - 2383 N. Flower Deeds and comment from California Title Co - in legal description different on Chicago Title policy than previous deeds??? Attachments: Title Report - Copy.pdf, deeds.PDF See below and attached.... From: Marc Serrano - California Title Company <mares@caltitle.com> Sent: Monday, July 31, 2023 4:23 PM To: Cheryl Newton < Cc: TitleOC <TitleOC@caltitle.com> Subject: RE: Alley - Flower/Heliotrope Looking at the provided title report attachment further, this is not a title report, but a policy for an insured value of $1,000. I'm not sure what this policy corresponds to as this policy does not relate to any recording being posted on the chain. I have also included the agreement with the city that also contains a legal description that does not contain the added verbiage from t legal on the policy. You may want to inquire with Chicago Title to see why the added legal portion was added and for a copy of the 1931 easement. Also, you may want to consult with a real estate attorney for further guidance and assistance in your matter, as this is outside the realm of us issuing a title policy. ***Please note, we bank with COMMERCIAL BANK OF CALIFORNIA. Do not send any wires to our old account with COMERICA. * * * Marc Serrano Title Officer California Title Company 28202 Cabot Road, Suite 625 1 Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 Phone: 949-582-8709 • Fax: 949-582-2449 Email: mares&caltitle.com Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this electronic e-mail and any accompanying attachment(s) is intended only for the use of the intended recipient and is non-public in nature and may be confidential and/or privileged. If any reader of this communication is not the intended recipient, unauthorized use, disclosure, dissemination or copying is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail, and delete the original message and all copies from your system and promptly destroy any copies made of this electronic message. Thank you. NChicago Title Insurance Company GUARANTEE NO.: CA-FBSC-IMP-72G28-1-22-00185550 CLTA GUARANTEE FACE PAGE SUBJECT TO THE EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE, AND THE GUARANTEE CONDITIONS ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART OF THIS GUARANTEE, CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY a corporation, herein called the Company GUARANTEES the Assured named in Schedule A of this Guarantee against loss or damage not exceeding the Amount of Liability stated in Schedule A sustained by the Assured by reason of any incorrectness in the Assurances set forth in Schedule A. Chicago Title Insurance Company Countersigned: Michml J. Wan By: <.� eanlenc Authorized Signature ss MmluAemm�x ni Semerory CLTA Guarantee Face Pane (06-05-14) Pane 1 © California Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to CLTA subscribers in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license or express permission from the California Land Title Association. Order No. 00185550-994-LT2-lTW Guarantee No. CA-FBSC-IMP-72G28-1-22-00185550 GUARANTEE EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS (06-05-14) EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE Except as expressly provided by the assurances In Schedule A, the Company assumes no liability for loss or damage by reason of the following: (a) Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters affecting the title to any property beyond the lines of the Land. (b) Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, whether or not shown by the Public Records (1) that are created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by one or more of the Assureds; or (2) that result In no loss to the Assured. (c) Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters not shown by the Public Records. (d) The Identity of any party shown or referred to in any of the schedules of this Guarantee. (a) The validity, legal effect or priority of any matter shown or referred to In any of the schedules of this Guarantee. (f) (1) Taxes or assessments of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property; or, (2) proceedings by a public agency which may result In taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not the matters excluded under (1) or (2) are shown by the records of the taxing authority or by the Public Records. (g) (1) Unpatented mining claims; (2) reservations or exceptions in patents or In Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (3) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excluded under (1), (2) or (3) are shown by the Public Records. GUARANTEE CONDITIONS 1. Definition of Terms. The following terms when used in the Guarantee mean: (a) the "Assured": the party or parties named as the Assured in Schedule A, or on a supplemental writing executed by the Company., (b) "Land": the Land described or referred to In Schedule A, and Improvements affixed thereto which by law constitute real property. The term "Land" does not include any property beyond the lines of the area described or referred to in Schedule A, nor any right, title, Interest, estate or easement in abutting streets, roads, avenues, alleys, lanes, ways or waterways. (c) "Mortgage": mortgage, deed of trust, trust deed, or other security instrument. (d) "Public Records": those records established under California statutes at Date of Guarantee for the purpose of Imparting constructive notice of matters relating to real property to purchasers for value and without knowledge. (a) "Date of Guarantee": the Date of Guarantee set forth in Schedule A. (f) "Amount of Liability": the Amount of Liability as stated In Schedule A. 2. Notice of Claim to be Given by Assured. The Assured shall notify the Company promptly In writing in case knowledge shall come to the Assured of any assertion of facts, or claim of title or interest that Is contrary to the assurances set forth in Schedule A and that might cause loss or damage for which the Company may be liable under this Guarantee. If prompt notice shall not be given to the Company, then all liability of the Company shall terminate with regard to the matter or matters for which prompt notice is required; provided, however, that failure to notify the Company shall in no case prejudice the rights of the Assured under this Guarantee unless the Company shall be prejudiced by the failure and then only to the extent of the prejudice. 3. No Duty to Defend or Prosecute. The Company shall have no duty to defend or prosecute any action or proceeding to which the Assured is a party, notwithstanding the nature of any allegation in such action or proceeding. 4. Company's Option to Defend or Prosecute Actions; Duty of Assured to Cooperate. Even though the Company has no duty to defend or prosecute as set forth in Paragraph 3 above: (a) The Company shall have the right, at its sale option and cast, to institute and prosecute any action or proceeding, interpose a defense, as limited in Paragraph 4 (b), or to do any other act which in its opinion may be necessary or desirable to establish the correctness of the assurances set forth in Schedule A or to prevent or reduce loss or damage to the Assured. The Company may take any appropriate action under the terms of this Guarantee, whether or not it shall be liable hereunder, and shall not thereby concede liability or waive any provision of this Guarantee. If the Company shall exercise its rights under this paragraph, it shall do so diligently. (b) If the Company elects to exercise Its options as stated In Paragraph 4(a) the Company shall have the right to select counsel of Its choice (subject to the right of the Assured to object for reasonable cause) to represent the Assured and shall not be liable for and will not pay the fees of any other counsel, nor will the Company pay any fees, costs or expenses incurred by an Assured In the defense of those causes of action which allege matters not covered by this Guarantee. (c) Whenever the Company shall have brought an action or interposed a defense as permitted by the provisions of this Guarantee, the Company may pursue any litigation to final determination by a court of competent jurisdiction and expressly reserves the right, In its sole discretion, to appeal from an adverse judgment or order. (d) In all cases where this Guarantee permits the Company to prosecute or provide for the defense of any action or proceeding, the Assured shall secure to the Company the right to so prosecute or provide for the defense of any action or proceeding, and all appeals therein, and permit the Company to use, at its option, the name of the Assured for this purpose. Whenever requested by the Company, the Assured, at the Company's expense, shall give the Company all reasonable aid In any action or proceeding, securing evidence, obtaining witnesses, prosecuting or defending the action or lawful act which in the opinion of the Company may be necessary or desirable to establish the correctness of the assurances set forth in Schedule A or to prevent or reduce loss or damage to the Assured. If the Company is prejudiced by the failure of the Assured to furnish the required cooperation, the Company's obligations to the Assured under the Guarantee shall terminate. 5. Proof of Loss or Damage. (a) In the event the Company is unable to determine the amount of loss or damage, the Company may, at its option, require as a condition of payment that the Assured furnish a signed proof of loss. The proof of loss must describe the defect, Ilan, encumbrance, or other matter that constitutes the basis of loss or damage and shall state, to the extent possible, the basis of calculating the amount of the loss or damage. (b) In addition, the Assured may reasonably be required to submit to examination under oath by any authorized representative of the Company and shall produce for examination, inspection and copying, at such reasonable times and places as may be designated by any authorized representative of the Company, all records, books, ledgers, checks, correspondence and memoranda, whether bearing a date before or after Date of Guarantee, which reasonably pertain to the loss or damage. Further, if requested by any authorized representative of the Company, the Assured shall grant its permission, In writing, for any authorized representative of the Company to examine, inspect and copy all records, books, ledgers, checks, correspondence and memoranda in the custody or control of a third party, which reasonably pertain to the loss or damage. All information designated as confidential by the Assured provided to the Company pursuant to this paragraph shall not be disclosed to others unless, in the reasonable judgment of the Company, It is necessary in the administration of the claim. Failure of the Assured to submit for examination under oath, produce other reasonably requested CLTA Guarantee Exclusions and Conditions (06-05-14) Pape 2 © California Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to CLTA subscribers in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license or express permission from the California Land Title Association. Order No. 00185550-994-LT2-1 T W Information or grant permission to secure reasonably necessary Information from third parties as required in the aboye paragraph, unless prohibited by law or governmental regulation, shall terminate any liability of the Company under this Guarantee to the Assured for that claim. 6. Options to Pay or Otherwise Settle Claims: Termination of Liability. In case of a claim under this Guarantee, the Company shall have the following additional options: (a) To pay or tender payment of the Amount of Liability together with any costs, attorneys' fees, and expenses incurred by the Assured that were authorized by the Company up to the time of payment or tender of payment and that the Company is obligated to pay. (b) To pay or otherwise settle with the Assured any claim assured against under this Guarantee. In addition, the Company will pay any costs, attorneys' fees, and expenses incurred by the Assured that were authorized by the Company up to the time of payment or tender of payment and that that the Company is obligated to pay; or (c) To pay or otherwise settle with other parties for the loss or damage provided for under this Guarantee, together with any costs, attorneys' fees, and expenses Incurred by the Assured that were authorized by the Company up to the time of payment and that the Company is obligated to pay. Upon the exercise by the Company of either of the options provided for In 6 (a), (b) or (c) of this paragraph the Company's obligations to the Assured under this Guarantee for the claimed loss or damage, other than the payments required to be made, shall terminate, including any duty to continue any and all litigation initiated by the Company pursuant to Paragraph 4. 7. Limitation of Liability. (a) This Guarantee Is a contract of Indemnity against actual monetary loss or damage sustained or incurred by the Assured claimant who has suffered loss or damage by reason of reliance upon the assurances set forth in Schedule A and only to the extent herein described, and subject to the Exclusions From Coverage of this Guarantee. (b) If the Company, or the Assured under the direction of the Company at the Company's expense, removes the alleged defect, lien or, encumbrance or cures any other matter assured against by this Guarantee in a reasonably diligent manner by any method, including litigation and the completion of any appeals therefrom, It shall have fully performed its obligations with respect to that matter and shall not be liable for any loss or damage caused thereby. (c) In the event of any litigation by the Company or with the Company's consent, the Company shall have no liability for loss or damage until there has been a final determination by a court of competent jurisdiction, and disposition of all appeals therefrom. (d) The Company shall not be liable for loss or damage to the Assured for liability voluntarily assumed by the Assured in settling any claim or suit without the prior written consent of the Company. 8. Reduction of Liability or Termination of Liability. All payments under this Guarantee, except payments made for costs, attorneys' fees and expenses pursuant to Paragraph 4 shall reduce the Amount of Liability under this Guarantee pro tanto. 9. Payment of Loss. (a) No payment shall be made without producing this Guarantee for endorsement of the payment unless the Guarantee has been lost or destroyed, in which case proof of loss or destruction shall be furnished to the satisfaction of the Company. (b) When liability and the extent of loss or damage has been definitely fixed in accordance with these Conditions, the loss or damage shall be payable within thirty (30) days thereafter. 10. Subrogation Upon Payment or Settlement. Whenever the Company shall have settled and paid a claim under this Guarantee, all right of subrogation shall vest in the Company unaffected by any act of the Assured. The Company shall be subrogated to and be entitled to all rights and remedies which the Assured would have had against any person or Guarantee No. CA-FBSC-IMP-72G28-1-22-00185550 property in respect to the claim had this Guarantee not been Issued. If requested by the Company, the Assured shall transfer to the Company all rights and remedies against any person or property necessary in order to perfect this right of subrogation. The Assured shall permit the Company to sue, compromise or settle In the name of the Assured and to use the name of the Assured In any transaction or litigation Involving these rights or remedies. If a payment on account of a claim does not fully cover the loss of the Assured the Company shall be subrogated to all rights and remedies of the Assured after the Assured shall have recovered its principal, interest, and costs of collection. 11. Arbitration. Either the Company or the Assured may demand that the claim or controversy shall be submitted to arbitration pursuant to the Title Insurance Arbitration Rules of the American Land Title Association ("Rules"). Except as provided In the Rules, there shall be no joinder or consolidation with claims or controversies of other persons. Arbitrable matters may Include, but are not limited to, any controversy or claim between the Company and the Assured arising out of or relating to this Guarantee, any service of the Company in connection with its Issuance or the breach of a Guarantee provision, or to any other controversy or claim arising out of the transaction giving rise to this Guarantee. All arbitrable matters when the amount of liability is $2,000,000 or less shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the Assured. All arbitrable matters when the amount of liability is in excess of $2,000,000 shall he arbitrated only when agreed to by both the Company and the Assured. Arbitration pursuant to this Guarantee and under the Rules shall be binding upon the parties. Judgment upon the award rendered by the Arbitrator(s) may be entered In any court of competent jurisdiction. 12. Liability Limited to This Guarantee; Guarantee Entire Contract. (a) This Guarantee together with all endorsements, If any, attached hereto by the Company is the entire Guarantee and contract between the Assured and the Company. In interpreting any provision of this Guarantee, this Guarantee shall be construed as a whole. (b) Any claim of loss or damage, whether or not based on negligence, or any action asserting such claim, shall be restricted to this Guarantee. (c) No amendment of or endorsement to this Guarantee can be made except by a writing endorsed hereon or attached hereto signed by either the President, a Vice President, the Secretary, an Assistant Secretary, or validating officer or authorized signatory of the Company. 13. Severability In the event any provision of this Guarantee, in whole or in part, is held invalid or unenforceable under applicable law, the Guarantee shall be deemed not to include that provision or such part held to be invalid, but all other provisions shall remain in full force and effect. 14. Choice of Law; Forum (a) Choice of Law: The Assured acknowledges the Company has underwritten the risks covered by this Guarantee and determined the premium charged therefor in reliance upon the law affecting interests In real property and applicable to the interpretation, rights, remedies, or enforcement of Guaranties of thejurisdiction where the Land is located. Therefore, the court or an arbitrator shall apply the law of the jurisdiction where the Land Is located to determine the validity of claims that are adverse to the Assured and to interpret and enforce the terms of this Guarantee. In neither case shall the court or arbitrator apply its conflicts of law principles to determine the applicable law. (b) Choice of Forum: Any litigation or other proceeding brought by the Assured against the Company must be filed only in a state or federal court within the United States of America or its territories having appropriate jurisdiction. 15. Notices, Where Sent. All notices required to be given the Company and any statement in writing required to be furnished the Company shall include the number of this Guarantee and shall be addressed to the Company at Chicago Title Insurance Company, Attn: Claims Department, P.O. Box 45023, Jacksonville, FL 32232-5023. CLTA Guarantee Exclusions and Conditions (06-05-14) Pape 3 © California Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to CLTA subscribers In good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license or express permission from the California Land Title Association. Order No.: 00185550-994-LT2-tTW Guarantee No.: CA-FBSC-IMP-72G28-1-22-00185550 CONDITION OF TITLE GUARANTEE SCHEDULE A Order No.: 00185550-994-LT2-1TW Guarantee No.: CA-FBSC-IMP-72G28-1-22-00185550 Amount of Liability: $1,000.00 Date of Guarantee: October 24, 2022 at 7:30 A.M. Fee: $750.00 1. Name of Assured: Colin Edward Donnelly and Caroline La 2. The estate or interest in the Land which is covered by this Guarantee is: A FEE 3. The Land referred to in this Guarantee is described as follows: See Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. 4. ASSURANCES: According to the Public Records as of the Date of Guarantee, a. Title to the estate or interest in the Land is vested in: Colin Edward Donnelly, a single man and Caroline La, a single woman, as joint tenants b. Title to the estate or interest is subject to defects, liens or encumbrances shown in Schedule B which are not necessarily shown in the order of their priority. 72G28 CLTA Guarantee Form No. 28 (06-05-14) Page 4 Condition of Title Guarantee OO California Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to CLTA subscribers in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license or express permission from the California Land Title Association. Order No. 00185550-994-LT2-1TW EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION Policy No. CA-FBSC-IMP-72G28-1-22-00185550 THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF SANTA ANA, IN THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: LOT 57 OF TRACT NO. 754, IN THE CITY OF SANTA ANA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 22, PAGE 37 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF THE ALLEY SHOWN ON THE ABOVE REFERENCED TRACT MAP ADJOINING SAID LOT 57 ON THE SOUTH THAT WOULD REVERT TO SAID LOT 57 BY OPERATION OF LAW UPON VACATION OF SAID ALLEY BY THE CITY OF SANTA ANA. APN : 002-073-14 72G28 CLTA Guarantee Form No. 28 (06-05-14) Condition of Title Guarantee Page 5 © California Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to CLTA subscribers in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohbited. Reprinted under license or express permission from the California Land Title Association. Order No. 00185550-994-LT2-1TW Policy No. CA-FBSC-IMP-72G28-1-22-00185550 SCHEDULE B A. Property taxes, including any personal property taxes and any assessments collected with taxes, are as follows: Tax Identification No.. 002-073-14 Fiscal Year: 2022-2023 1st Installment: $5,374.53, unpaid (Delinquent after December 10) Penalty: $537.45 2nd Installment: $5,374.53, unpaid (Delinquent after April 10) Penalty and Cost: $560.45 Homeowners Exemption: $none Code Area: 11-003 B. The lien of supplemental or escaped assessments of property taxes, if any, made pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 75) or Part 2, Chapter 3, Articles 3 and 4, respectively, of the Revenue and Taxation Code of the State of California as a result of the transfer of title to the vestee named in Schedule A or as a result of changes in ownership or new construction occurring prior to Date of Policy. 1. Water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not disclosed by the public records. 2. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto as condemned by an instrument, Entitled: Final Judgment Court: Superior In favor of: City of Santa Ana Purpose: public street Recording Date: March 17, 1931 Recording No: in Book 460 page 471, of Official Records Affects: a portion of said land 3. Covenants, conditions and restrictions but omitting any covenants or restrictions, if any, including but not limited to those based upon age, race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, disability, veteran or military status, genetic information, medical condition, citizenship, primary language, and immigration status, as set forth in applicable state or federal laws, except to the extent that said covenant or restriction is permitted by applicable law, as set forth in the document Recording Date: in Book 527 page 26, of Official Records 72G28 CLTA Guarantee Form No. 28 (06-05-14) Condition of Title Guarantee Page 6 O California Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to CLTA subscribers in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license or express permission from the California Land Title Association. Order No. 00185550-994-LT2-1Tw Policy No. CA-FBSC-IMP-72G28-1-22-00185550 SCHEDULE B (Continued) 4. A deed of trust to secure an indebtedness in the amount shown below, Amount: $741,600.00 Dated: September 4, 2021 Trustor/Grantor Colin Edward Donnelly, a single man and Caroline La, a single woman, as joint tenants Trustee: Heather Lovier Beneficiary: Rocket Mortgage, LLC., fka Quicken Loans, LLC, a limited liability company Recording Date: September 10, 2021 Recording No: 2021-566541 of Official Records 5. Matters contained in that certain document Entitled: Historic Property Preservation Agreement Recording Date: September 1, 2022 Recording No: 2022-295877, of Official Records Reference is hereby made to said document for full particulars. 6. Rights of the public to use that portion of the alley adjoining said Lot 57 on the South until such time said alley is vacated to the public by the City of Santa Ana. 72G28 CLTA Guarantee Form No. 28 (06-05-14) Page 7 Condition of Title Guarantee © California Land Title Association, All rights reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to CLTA subscribers in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license or express permission from the California Land Title Association. RECORDING REQUESTED BY: Fidelity National Title Company Escrow No. 30294-Cy Title Order No. 09715917 _�— I When Recorded Mail Document and Tax Statement To: Mr. and Mrs. ROBERT H. PRICE 2383 NORTH FLOWER STREET SANTA ANA, CA Recorded in the County of Orange, California L. I II I I I hall 1111111111111111111111111111111 II Illvillll Ileii Clerk/R9.ecorder 19970426487 04:30PM 09/02/97 004 25004528 25 19 G02 2 11 101.75 6.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 101.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 GRANT DEED The undersigned grantor(s) declare(s) Documentary transfer tax is $203.50 I X ) computed on full value of property conveyed, or I I computed on full value less value of liens or encumbrances remaining at time of sale, I I Unincorporated Area City of S'Rpta Qna FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, CAROL COVELL, TRUSTEE OF THE MARY JANE SMART TRUST DTD MAY 30, 1996 hereby GRANTIS) to ROBERT H. PRICE and PATRICIA YOUNG -PRICE, Husband and Wife as Joint -Tenants the following described real property in the County of ORANGE, State of California: Lot 57, Tract 754, County of ORANGE, State of California, as per map recorded in Book 22, Page 37 of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County. 070 DATED: August W, 1997 COU STATE O OFAIRIFORN(A e N before me, L� personally appeared proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the personX whose name is/X subscribed to the within instrument and acknowled ad to me that/she/t* executed the same in F /her/tT<authorized capacity*, and that by t (7,her/tW signaturelk on the instrument the personpqYor the entity upon behalf of which the personli%1 acted, executed the instrument. Witness my h d and official se Signature THE MA ' JANE SMAST TRUST DTD MAY 30, 1996 By: v/l CAROL COVELL, Trustee cwrwii�rlla110� �tiA�CNnq 1lyCml�►41��ONf.1M MAIL TAX STATEMENTS AS DIRECTED ABOVE FD-213 (Rev 7/96) GRANT DEED GOVERNMENT CODE 27361-7 I CERTIFY UNDER THE PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ON THE DOCUMENT TO WHICH THIS STATEMENT IS ATTACHED READS AS FOLLOWS: NAME OF NOTARY: g1'eoe(l� A • Me CG II DATE COMMISSION EXPIRES: ! ) -741 COUNTY IN WHICH BOND IS FILED: , 4t N �ft Alr1 a ►77 COMMISSION 1: 107 (7 0 6 MANUFACTURER/VENDOR NO: N alp ,rMELITY NATIONJP TITLE SANTA ANA / CA - PLACE OF EXECUTION DATE: T`7 -0(/ RECORDING REQUESTED BY: WESTERN RESOURCES TITLE COMPANY RECORDING REQUESTED BY: KelleyEscrow Corporation Order No. 224981 Escrow No. 42721-J Parcel No. 002-073-14 AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: COLIN DONNELLY 2383 NORTH FLOWER STREET SANTA ANA, CA 92706 Recorded in Official Records, Orange County Hugh Nguyen, Clerk -Recorder I[ � � 11 II 11111 111I I[111111 II 10.00 *$ R 0 0 1 3 1 5 6 8 5 3 $ * 202100056654012:05 pm 09/10/21 227 NC-5 G02 2 11 509.85 509.85 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.000.000.00 0.00 W9 GRANT DEED Is USE THE UNDERSIGNED GRANTOR(S) DECLARE(S) THAT DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX IS $1,019.70 and CITY $ Qy ® computed on full value of property conveyed, or I" ❑ computed on full value less liens or encumbrances remaining at the time of sale. ❑ unincorporated area: ® Santa Ana, and FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Jeffrey Michael Plost and Kathleen E. Plost, husband and wife as joint tenants hereby GRANT(S) to COLIN EDWARD DONNELLY, A SINGLE EENMAN AND CAROLINE LA the following described real propertty iG�e Countyp'ot &tinge W to a of aL^h-to3ni S The legal description is supplied by the title company herein and attached hereto as Exhibit "A" Date Aueust 11�2m21 Jeffrey Michol Plost Kathleen E. Pl Jef(yfY I�iC,lnc�1 Vim+ N+h u,&n E- f I o s-fi A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. STATE OF CAL ORNIA COUNTY OF �• v-yZ } S.S. /r On Z, P , before me, Notary Public, personally appeared F_ v ,4- who proved to me on the basis of sa sfactory evidence to be the persons) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity, upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PAY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my Signature Mail T`x-StatGmentstto SAME AS ABOVE or Address Noted Below JUS`n T' S. Comm. M2230048 Notary Public California Orange County Comm. Expires Feb 13, 2022 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION Real properly in the City of Santa Ana, County of Orange, State of California, described as follows: LOT 57 OF TRACT NO..754, AS PER RECORDED IN BOOK 22, PAGE 37, OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. APN: 002-073-14 RECORDING REQUESTED BY LAWYERS TOLE RECORDING REQUESTED BY LAWYERS TITLE COMPANY When recorded mail document and tax statement to: JEFFREY MICHAEL PLOST 2383 NORTH FLOWER STREET SANTA ANA, CA 92706 A.P.N.:002-073-14 Recorded in Official Records, Orange County Tom Daly, Clerk -Recorder IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 9.00 2004000648004 03:59pm 07/16/04 103 18 G02 2 334.95 334.95 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Order No.: 05313104-36 Above This Line for Recorder's Use Only Escrow No.: 63361-LW GRANT DEED THE UNDERSIGNED GRANTOR(s) DECLARE(s) THAT DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX IS: COUNTY $669.90 [ computed on full value of property conveyed, or [ computed on full value less value of liens or encumbrances remaining at time of sale, [ ] unincorporated area; [ X ] City of SANTA ANA , and FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, Receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, JAMES F. KUHNE, JR. and SUZANNE W. KUHNE, HUSBAND AND WIFE AS COMMUNITY PROPERTY hereby GRANT(S) to JEFFREY MICHAEL PLOST, A MARRIED MAN AS HIS SOLE AND SEPARATE a PROPERTY A the following described property in the City of SANTA ANA, County of ORANGE State of California; Lot 57 of Tract No. 754, in the City of SANTA ANA, County of ORANGE, State of California as per map recorded in Book 22, Page 37 of Miscellaneous Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County. AMES '. KUHNE„ JR. SU E W. KUHNE Date: May 15, 2004 STATE OF CALIFQRNIA COUNTY OF ©© )SS Y 1'aAOdG/G personally appeared JoTMe3 F- /Kk#/ttt i JR !/'N/� �i./ZJ9"N/ut /fit/ rC2l lfN� , P ^^�°• Law— - w (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose nameis)-e/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me at t tey execu d the same in 44&41¢r/their authorized capacityM and that by hisfher/their signaturSillon the instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which the person sLacted, executed the instrument. WITNESS `my hand and official seal. Signature This area for official notarial seal. MADE" L. COLON Comnlubn S 1357333 NORNY PtIM - COWaNa Orange Cou ly M V Comm. EIVMtMu/2D, M LuryersTide Company Subsidiary of )<auryeisTlde Insurance CoWmfion PENALTY OF PERJURY AFFIDAVIT (GOVERNMENT CODE 27361.7) I certify under the penalty of perjury that the notary seal on the document to which this statement is attached reads as follows: Name of the Notary: Date Commission expires: County Where Bond is Filed: Feb U Commission No.: 135-7333 ManufacturerNendor No.: Place of Execution: Irvine, Ca. Date 20 Signature: TITLE I further certify under the penalty of perjury that the illegible portion of the document to which this statement is attached reads as follows (if applicable): Date: ,20 Signature: LAWYERS TITLE COMPANY 18551 Von Karman, Suite 100-200, Irvine, California, 92612 (949) 223-5575 RECORDED !AT', 14E Cti1UTO TITL!, RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: JAMES F. KUHNE, JR. SUZANNE W.KUHNE 2383 NORTH FLOWER STREET SANTA ANA, CA 92706 Recorded in Official Records,County of Orange Ga L. Granville, Clerk -Recorder I I II III 1111 III III II I11 6.00 20010150812 03:50pm 03/15/01 103 49 G02 1 178.75 178.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Space Above This Line for Recorder's Use Only A.P.N.: 002-073-14./ Order No.: 18030337 Escrow No.: 52851-LW GRANT DEED / THE UNDERSIGNED GRANTOR(s) DECLARE(s) THAT DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX IS: COUNTY jj57.50 J [ X ] computed on full value of property conveyed, or [[ ] computed on full value less value of liens or encumbrances remaining at time of sale, unincorporated area; [ X ] City of SANTA ANA , and t FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, Receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, MICHAEL J. FELSEN, A MARRIED MAN, who acquired title as MICHAEL J. FELSEN, A SINGLE MAN hereby GRANT(S) to JAMES F. KUHNE, JR. and SUZANNE W. KUHNE, Husband and Wife as Community the following described property in the City of SANTA ANA, County of ORANGE State of California; Property LOT 57 OF TRACT NO. 754, IN THE CITY OF SANTA ANA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 22, PAGE(S) 37, OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. JM&CHA/LJ. FELSEN Document Date: January 26. 2001 STATE OF C. COUNTY OF On L )SS me, 0 A-)L 46- IVAWAWAK/ J�i7� !� j �it Q//C Personally appeared CAS E N P—Rnr""w*16ww.(or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the personal whose namc(,y is/S subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/skek wy executed the same in his/harlawir authorized capacity(.69 and that by his/Ja ' signamre(y# on the instrument the person(y9 or the entity upon behalf of which the person(#) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature This area for official notarial seal. DIA1iE B. ICA'NAWAK7 Can nEssSx a 12666M NOtc.Y isti-6tc — CaAkLrda C :J. Ca�rr!y My Corm. E V*M JW 9, 2,004 Le 1W1qr"W_W_W.% Mail Tax Statements to: SAME AS ABOVE or Address Noted Below by: RECORDING REQUESTED BY: Recording Orange Coast Title Co. Orange AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: Michael J. Felsen \ 2383 No. Flower St. ` Santa Ana, CA 92706 Order No. 269933-1 Escrow No: 89575 - CWS A.P.N.: 002-073-14 Title Recorded in the County of Orange, California Ga L. Granville, Clerk/Recorder I II I I I 11111111111111111111111111111111111111 6.00 19990641842 3:52pm 09/03/99 004 23018681 23 08 G02 1 11 145.75 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 145.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 GRANT DEED THE UNDERSIGNED GRANTOR(S) DECLARE(S) DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX IS $ 911 .SO Q computed on full value of property conveyed, or ❑ computed on full value less value of liens or encumbrances remaining at time of sale. ❑ unincorporated area Q City of Santa Ana, AND FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Patricia Young -Price hereby GRANT(S) to Michael J. Felsen , a single man the following described real property in the County of Orange, State of California: t�l Lot 57 of Tract 754 as shown on a map recorded in Book 22, page 37 of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County. Dated: July 15, 1999 STATE OF CALIFORNIA/ .� } S.S. COUNTY OF y_�Z..' ���L On _ sue_.. r/ bejoreme, Z 41 { k' ` I 1,411 .0 a Nofary Public in and for,syid rounty and St t personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies) and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s), acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. .1 Signaturey,j .�°y'Gc.: J:.l Signature of Notary Patricia Young -Price (This area for official notarial seal) IMICHELE ANN PUACELL N Comm. # 1213815 NOTARY PUBLIC-CALIFORNIA \ Orange County /�3... My Comm. Expires March 21,2003 MAIL TAX STATEMENTS TO: Michael J. Felsen 2383 No. Flower St., Santa Ana, CA 92706 Name Street Address City & State Hall, Jennifer From: Alison DeMark < Sent: Sunday, August 6, 2023 9:50 AM To: eComment Subject: re: abandonment 2023-01 This email is to signify the support the majority of the neighborhood feels towards the abandonment of the easement between flower and heliotrope on the flower side. It's amazing to her how many people feel entitled in this neighborhood to a strip of property that is not even theirs. Wow. Please see email sent to Santa Ana city council members below: Dear Councilmembers: My name is Alison DeMark and I live in Floral Park, in the same tract where this last remaining alley easement still exists I've owned my home for 5 years and am heavily involved in the Floral Park community, having forged relationships with many neighbors both within and outside of the FPNA. I'm very familiar with this alley; I, my husband, and dogs have used it in the past. I write simply to tell you that there are many more neighbors who support the common-sense vacation of this alley easement than who don't. Hearing of a handful of neighbors who are bitterly organizing around a perceived injustice of losing a gratuitous shortcut, and would instead rather impede on the property right of a fellow neighbor to secure their home, is disappointing to say the least. We live on N. Park. It is less than a 1-minute walk from this alley to the next street, my street, for anyone walking within the neighborhood, like my family frequently does. The benefit to the community of eliminating cut -through traffic and a transient pathway far outweighs any arguable 'benefit' to having a public alley in the middle of our neighborhood. These few neighbors' complaints seem very much based in an anger over the idea that a next -door neighbor is being given or gifted something for free, rather than true concern for the neighborhood and community at large. We had believed this issue was resolved as of the last Council meeting in July and I hope that Council will see through this and, on August 15th, proceed forward with the very common-sense resolution to vacate the alley and revert it back to private and secure property like the rest of the homes here, as we continue to band together to face the increase in crime and transient population. I have a list of the names and addresses of at least 10-12 neighborhood homeowners (and counting) who are aware of and support this easement vacation. Though not everyone can make it to the evening hearing on August 15, 2023, 1 am happy to provide this information to Council as necessary to more accurately account for the sentiment of the neighborhood. Again, I am appaled to hear the way some of our neighbors and homeowners (who are not neighbors) have reacted in this matter. As one who works in public service (K-12 education), I understand how a few negative indviduals can occupy so much time and energy and create a false narritive of the communtys' beliefs. I also hope to reiderate the neighbors in Floral Park arent all entitled (hmmm- what's the word?) individuals. I, myself, will continue to advocate to ensure that our communty supports and welcomes our surrounding Santa Ana neighborhoods. Thank you for the work you do. It is greatly appreicated. Sincerely, Alison DeMark Santa Ana, CA 92706 ( Hall, Jennifer From: Rocke DeMark < Sent: Sunday, August 6, 2023 9:56 AM To: eComment Subject: Re: Abandonment 2023-01 Good Morning - I live in Floral Park on North Park Blvd, close to the alley that is associated with the 2023-01 Abandonment decision. I continue to be in support of returning the alley to the home owners as it is a safety concern for our neighborhood. I'm a frequent walker and have seen some issues in this alley and have heard of multiple instances of theft and damage. I'm aware that a group of neighbors who are up in arms about this decision for their own selfish purposes of a cut through from one street to another. They do not reflect the majority of this neighborhood and frankly they are trying to misrepresent what is actually happening here. I hope the city supports this decision for the safety and well being of our neighbors. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to reach out. Thank you for all that you do! Regards, Rocke DeMark Sent from my iPhone Hall, Jennifer From: Jenny Hazen < Sent: Sunday, August 6, 2023 11:01 AM To: eComment Subject: Abandonment 2023-01 (Flower Alley) Hello, I live in the Floral Park neighborhood on Riverside Dr. I recently learned there is a petition being circulated to oppose the alley vacation between Flower and Heliotrope and I strongly disagree. I support the findings of public staff, including public works, planning commission, and the city council thus far and want this easement vacated. Thank you for your time and consideration, Jenny Hazen Hall, Jennifer From: Jaime Saleta < Sent: Sunday, August 6, 2023 11:11 AM To: eComment Subject: Fwd: Abandonment 2023-01 (Flower Alley) Hello, I live in the Floral Park neighborhood on Riverside Dr. I recently learned there is a petition being circulated to oppose the alley vacation between Flower and Heliotrope and I strongly disagree. I support the findings of public staff, including public works, planning commission, and the city council thus far and want this easement vacated. Thank you for your time and consideration, Jaime Saleta, MBA, MSc. Email: Please, thinly twice before printing this email.. 1 Hall, Jennifer From: Cheryl Newton < Sent: Sunday, August 6, 2023 11:40 AM To: Carvalho, Sonia R.; Lopez, Jessie; Rosas, Rudy; Saba, Nabil; Ortiz, Lorrie; Morris, Angie; Amezcua, Valerie; Phan, Thai; Bacerra, Phil; Vazquez, Benjamin; Hernandez, Johnathan; Penaloza, David; eComment; Ridge, Kristine; kent@kentsnyderlaw.com Subject: FW:URGENT!!! note from Cheryl Newton re: opposition to the alley between 2379 N. Flower and 2383 N Flower being given to the owners of 2383 N. Flower- hearing set for 8/15 - CANCEL APP Attachments: alley between 2379 and 2383 flower doc from 1925.pdf, dispute claim about alley not usea blel MG_6988.J PG Dear Ms. Carvalho I spoke with Jessie Lopez last week and she was going to reach out to you so we could set up a meeting tomorrow Monday 8/7/23 1 have not heard back from her or your office I am leaving town August 81" and won't be back until the evening of August 151". (8/15 is the hearing) Please reread my email below regarding 2383 owner application to vacant an easement. I have sent other emails as well. I will reforward after this email I do not believe this to be an easement and have paperwork from 1925 showing the city was given this property. I also sent you an email from California Title Company, with an opinion of a Chicago title report that was presented to The City with the application. Please review. I am not sure if the City is relying on the Chicago title report (presented by 2383 owner) to confirm the easement? As that is the only title document that refers to an easement ... and there is an email trail of the owner at 2383 flower directing Chicago title how to draft. I will send that to you as well. I respectfully request that this application be immediately withdrawn or denied. I believe the owner made false claims about crime and the width of the alley. Three generations of my family have lived in the neighborhood. We have never experienced crime .... and have never had any problem going thru the alley There is a wonderful family that is currently renting the house from me and expecting a baby shortly. They were shocked when I told them what the neighbor was trying to do. They like the alley and are also opposing this as it will affect them as well I asked them about crime ... and they said the neighbor is incorrect. There is no issue there with crime. My gardener/tenant access the alley regularly to maintain the beautiful hedge over the block wall/and cana lilies along the alley side of my lot This alley is beautifully maintained and is an asset to the neighborhood. I did ask for everyone in the City group email sent last week to respond. I only heard from Public Works and Jessie Lopez. I would like to come into your office to discuss this. I have spoken with an attorney who told me this is not an easement. He said he will come with me to the meeting tomorrow..... and asked me to let you know ... 10-15 minutes is all that is needed. If you are busy and agree with me to stop this process immediately, that is fine also. Please send something in writing. Whatever it takes to stop what I consider to be a dishonest application application from the owners at 2383 N. Flower Please let me know your thoughts and if we can meet. Thanks, Cheryl Newton 1 From: Cheryl Newton < Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2023 6:19 PM To: kent@kentsnyderlaw.com;'Irene Myers' <irene@kentsnyderlaw.com> Subject: FW: note from Cheryl Newton re: opposition to the alley between 2379 N. Flower and 2383 N Flower being given to the owners of 2383 N. Flower See below and attached. From: Cheryl Newton < Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2023 11:25 PM To: 'jessielopez@santa-ana.org' <jessielogez( santa-ana.or >; 'Rosas, Rudy' <rE s.gs_(2.s.a.nta-ana .org>; 'Saba, Nabil' <NSaba(snt-na.org>; 'Ortiz, Lorrie' <Iaartiz(snt-neaarg>; 'Morris, Angie' «aarris(snt-naeorg>; ....................b......... ......_..._.. 'vamezcua@santa-ana.org'<v�_rn�zc�a�(�_s�_nt�.-�n1ecorg>; 'tphan@santa-ana.org' <t.ph_�_n.C�2.s nt9.-�nq_ec�rg>; pbacerra@santa-ana.org' <pbcrr_("_s_nt.-necrg>; 'bvazquez@santa-ana.org' <bva.zcguez@santa-ana.org>; 'jryanhernandez@santa-ana.org' <jryanhernandez@santa-ana.org>; 'dpenaloza@santa-ana.org' <dpnInz(snt- n :nrg>; 'ecomment@santa-ana.org' «corn_rn_�.....i - n c rg>; 'kridge@santa-ana.org' <k_ri_d.gLC santa-ana.org>; 'scarvalho@santa-ana.org' <sc ry lhn( sq_nta.- n_ o.Eg> Subject: note from Cheryl Newton re: opposition to the alley between 2379 N. Flower and 2383 N Flower being given to the owners of 2383 N. Flower Dear City of Santa Ana — I am the owner of N. Flower in Santa Ana It has recently come to my attention that the City is gifting the alley between my property ( N. Flower) and the neighbor to the North (2383 N. Flower). I oppose giving the land to the owner at 2383 N Flower. If you agree it is not an easement, I would like something in writing that this application/resolution/process will be terminated immediately... as it was based on the property being an easement. If you decide to move forward with the application/resolution/process, I am requesting that any decision be delayed until I can find out what my legal rights are. If the property is going to be given away, I believe I have a claim to half of the property in question I have a document dated from 1925 attached that I believe shows the alley was given to the City .... and not an easement (see attached) If you have documentation proving it is an easement, please send to me immediately. My property has been used by three generations of my family. My grandmother lived there ... then my parents ... and now I have it leased until I retire. At that time, I plan to move into the house. I am very vested in keeping Floral Park the charming community that it is.... I am very familiar with the alley, and what an asset it is to the community. The alley provides an option to go south without having to make a U turn in the middle of the street on Flower. (I understand there was another recent accident on Flower) Since we moved to Floral Park in the early 1970's, the off ramp at the end of Flower was closed to minimize traffic/Santa Clara traffic going West from Broadway was eliminated and Memory lane( unless changed )had restricted hours ... all because the City wanted to ease the traffic on Flower. So why take away the alley that eases the traffic on Flower and also helps the homeowners have an option to avoid making a u turn on flower? With the cars parked on the street sometimes it is difficult making a u turn. This is just one reason. It also is used by residents walking the beautiful neighborhood with their Loved Ones and pets The alley access allows me to maintain the hedge I have created on the block wall It is a beautiful alley without any trash or debris ... I don't believe the applicant's claim about crime. All of the neighbors I spoke with said that is not true. I haven't verified... but one neighbor said she called the police department and there weren't any police reports for the alley Also, I don't agree with the applicants claim it is hard for a car to drive thru the alley... Attached is a photo of my car going thru just fine. (last weekend) On the right of the photo is my block wall that I keep hedged over to improve the look of the alley I am sure the police/fire/city services have used the alley also Closing off % of the alley means the other side is a dead end street ... which the city will maintain but the community will not be able to use it .... To me, that doesn't make sense. The community is being penalized because a fairly new resident (under two years) thinks they should be given free land, at the expense of the community.. If you agree it is not an easement, how quickly can this application/resolution/process be terminated? (since the application is based on it being an easement) Again, If you decide to move forward I am asking that you postpone the process as I would like to get a legal opinion on what I am entitled to. I would like to something from you in writing that is being delayed and for how long. I found all of this out recently ... and three neighbors I spoke with had no idea what was going on. Public works told me they put up a sign.... but none of the neighbors saw it ... That seems odd??? Unless someone immediately took it down so the community wouldn't have a say? Not sure... but hope that you will make the right decision and stop this process immediately. Please let me know as soon as possible. This is very distressing to my family. Thankyou Cheryl Newton Also, I am not sure if I got all of the emails right. Will everyone please reply to this email so I know you received? of Cz.tm. fCW/b—')S�ry otl, zgg'- t TRACT NO. 754 116199 q Rosubdivislov of Lots Qqd go of .'0w'r'9. 4AM)r� lt'.Ze* Lots 1 to 16, 61 f* 79, a 2 to toll 7 "."'r,0111164foll0l 00dwilivo of TRACT No, 4Z3 as pop map to 55 a94 R"o P09 14, do Couqty ILI, .V pq�aOragge Califorosa, Z.Z KhoAr and 1-oucks Civil Lngfrov Scale I inch ao reef W, far re r 11"I'd 11W —6'� be dMY 'r1b" , I —r Arc C;L �---ry at Y— . .. . . . ..... .. T"7;"S' P'w" S, 0—"qc 141, ,1 Mg Cry A d Nl' AW City Loy hereby 16"' Mete' '/Y ar A/ t"', Ca My S Ar�A- al. A,-6p, AM T re, an rhr ..t Sep .11 IQ in C."ev C—tv w'eh "h, "he, lowo,4 nh,,h are S 7F1— IM, 5 Cd.oAly Cle,* va 4'/eh o/' We C�11-1- 4 �k 11 a. Wr"14-S 'W*'Y'41041C��.-= hrreanta art joa," /he Q�k AoW e—'A—=A' 7,- 34 1'? A (.J"'r N 0. 4 5 SHOE T 2 A!W 6, 4.1 J. N,vM 44, N dbirn GA/fi Y"e±.l "M c7 c Gdl a G, Sr.cIM OQ' ' a ft, 17 to 15rp 121 ` 22 V 124 ;� 8 ? 27 .. 2e , �axac...UtFtz..DRIVE _._.. * FbFAb " � r yrA t .J 4 fv. � t09 d T. .1.1 .,H\➢ »^' 9m:fi:. ?!'!..tt� . �.. -- l� » W \\\ i i 139 "410,b 14 �?142. 143 l44 t 0„ 14G "oU1 p8�� 05 w `kf I!0. `. '.,c's�,>r > � �� •gyp 2 o-' rr r bi'BUX4E,- - m l9a. a I�� �r /9,X°� f31w yV 1 a �a, T�� 1 y'f 005 a .3i re, of Ca/forniq J. S yrors P i . ern/eot .rid v 15.r• .{ + County of dr'*z 9e � oro na / nns � yy e, /, H'=' C./rron.a, County AuUrfo�•, �d SM67r--, ' nr!/ef rha/ /hero l u �. Cor /rf G"/y /axxd by Y cr{/` f " Yaved o yrt _ �y",tl aae'az a.. [� psygb/r., ryoinsl The/urxr' care Gki�d the va -4by of AP/923 �il; Mr iV Wr. Jo.�r ,S.Eefae qfy 9 x ar, oi�� IYG. Q C nfy of O n.,✓el ,.r .,. � +�1 \ ,Y , G/y b'."iiyirleei-. vb /a�Gy cs of Y/,q/ an h /. ,I M Elxka. G only C/rrR n qnd ftv .. +t . /n a aromrnry //a /Ws od ,.xubo�vzAion as /y, A. Awwe v <rr Iiiy' /hqi /ccxs'u ✓ xuF �, ° .xAa. on /ha rr,/h{n map q 41 find them 'a/ //cJdirl drnd, QpproM✓d dy We a ou,'rJy Ch oM $. va/ n /or- re✓iWrrart ar• com mer•cio/ urns of ,yv/•+°rv/sa+v /Ars Darn f.et{ '/h /1 >;p' P /his __cby of _ _ .IR /9ta, kt9aarx>r a:ah,ch .nsJU iw d awn✓ / xd yfv ,Vie ^V z ,r, man/ c q// /r,•w✓ rvhirh ar'r <7 f en e , /✓ar W ry<..J,� /ono' coveia+Y /xl /ha occur /+q,ryyr/ry r up, rad • /r��Y eruai, hr/d nn the :4 f�f._' «ioy w`-- GonA4 1 /s?...3 — e� a. -•a- ..._ <., 7/.'77,�f -"..- F.�. 1.....✓ in..naa.•w .....x..r u""""" ., J C9! II O s° x �I� � I ?7g1178 �79' \ 80� 88 8�. 90; 91 '9ZP 93. 94; 99. %, 97 8z� e1 ro0 riot niA6° ro5 w4 ?103 roz, ror" roawyq _n ............... TRACT 'N 0. It 2 5 NORTH BROADWAY PARK Dei r) a Subdioinior) of orho#75 of Lofs e, 5, 4 and e6 of P016, l3ordety oqcr' idwell Tract accordirig to a n7ap recorded it) book 4 puge 624 MimceilaqaoU5 Records of Los Ongele3 County Goliforrpa. cTy or3ANTA ANA . ORANGE COUNTY CALM l5urop,/4 d pq 9.LLa.,k.5Cr, 4'Arci — 179 � SHEC"r I of Z SHEETS -A"e C/.. AM, A 46— A-Y- Lot C. v to �Zl$ A 97 109 S (to 11' It, - --------- - --- ------- - - ----------- ----- ----------- -.- 1. 1+eAv'jorj w/~. 33 131 Ila 41 rc 130 Ae A+r''rAJ '.4"0 "o Ito 43 7 lza al -Ahe zctf -10,4,rh 44 IN.17 IZ2 nnat1"a dt '91 1/ !7A21 AIV f-4,0 -6 10 '43 55 '4 1W.3 4! a, I4V 41 y 14 0 "m'v' 'N 0av 10I, Mm l,, 40 5ot�44 ewlarAemd ---- - —d' r,OA'& -'A04-1A. .-Mo- ='/$o wo ~r *-,b A4 ,2:v /V ' Pw.- of 1*10. /ire's 2#0 0 A,' A4w Ao-' C oe*, of Me"- of 100 Mo Ap AV WIAO" M lot 0AWWW ;94 -0WAw0lV2**W -A0 Ohm wdhl4 A�Mvma0l' st whoow ow lo - 44o� WA vmcjW w tr W---, / Ava Ao"-M ost' ae 'L:_ PIP :ii A.0 Kew dw -a" // '// —A �gg AW ^P0 r&-7A0�l,,wAeq w o7,V,,yvol0d 94 0'wof" 0 1 , xw'Ie alwe A'p of," at d-c+ /1" RECORDING REOUESTED BY: WESTERN RESOURCES TITLE COMPANY RLt`.bttllTm; RyQurs7"h.1) TIV: Kcliey'lascrow Cotporation Order No. 224981 escrow No. 42721-.1 Parcel No. 002-073.1 d Al\Tl \4 Til ti Itt;CY)TtttN,n MALT, TOt COLIN' DONN'131.1 V 2353 NORTH Fl.LO\VER STREET" SANTA ANA, CA 92706 ft,cortle(l it, Officw Records, orange County IMttlh fJtlttyen, Cle(k•itetriMot l II, I I I II' II I�' III I III II I I h it l l'll fl 10.00 6 H 5 t 202100056654012:05 pm la /10121 221 NC-5 002 211 509,85 509.55 0.00 0.00 3.00 0,00 0,000,000,00 0.00 GRAN'r ai%i) TTIE UNTaFRSIGNEI) GRANTOR(S) DECLARI ('S) T11AT I)OCIIMI3N'l'AIt'Y'll(ANSFisR TAX IS $1,019.70 and CTTY $ (Jf Ni computed on full value of property conveyed, or [] computed on full valueless liens or encumbrances remaining at the time of sale. F unincorporated area: M Santa Ana, and FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Jeffrey Michael Plost and Kathleen E. Plost, husband and wife as joint tenants hereby GRANT(5) to COLIN EDWARD 4DONNELLY, A SINGLE MAN AND CAROLINE LA A SIN.GIE WOMAI �1S J%J.tT � Tlic following described real property m i to County o range, ate of a t o i . The legal description is supplied by the title company herein and attached hereto as Exhibit "A" Date August 1 V2121 Jeffrey Mich Plost # - Kathleen E. Pl t 1&� d �e�{re� r�i(�t�1 'Plost Yci+hl2�r3 E. Flosi A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document Pi to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1 COUNTY OF �'�'�9 Q' I S.S. on <6717 LZ, ( , before me, "��s $- , Notary Public, personally appeared lit ,J P1,51 " z , F °S who proved to me on the basis of satfsfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF WITNESS my Sig nature —/ under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. Mail T`4 - atarnentvlti. g-AME AS A130VE or Address Noted Below COMM. #22 0043 ,� NotatyT"ub11c,•CatitoTnlat� Change o b 1Y Comm. gte t+ 13 2022 RX 111111, T A LWAL I)ESCRIPTION Real prop M��)t In the CItV of Song, Ann, colltltY Of OtAntleStnto of Colltomim, doscribed m fbllows: LOT 57 OF TRACT NO. 754, AS pril 1111CORI)W TN 00OK 22, PAOF 31, OF MISCEUANEOUS MAPS, IN Tile Orricp Or Tilt COUN1Y 015COADO OF SAW COUfftY. Amom gother things, said document provides for - An easement ovet the potlion of said land and for tote parposes therein shf.-iwn,and rights, incidental thereto. For. TELEPHONE ELECAI C LIGHT POLr,.s, wins m comurr PURPOSES AND RIGHTS INCIDENTAL Affetts: THE REAR 3 FEET OF SAID LAND Hall, Jennifer From: Cheryl Newton < Sent: Sunday, August 6, 2023 12:03 PM To: Carvalho, Sonia R.; Lopez, Jessie Cc: eComment; kent@kentsnyderlaw.com Subject: FW: Document Delivery Notice - Order #00185550 Ref 1: 00185550 Ref 2: 2383 N Flower St., Santa Ana CA 92706 Ref 3: Condition of Title Report Guarantee See see email chain below ..... from Chicago Title and the owners of 2383 N. Flower Subject: FW: Document Delivery Notice - Order #00185550 Ref 1: 00185550 Ref 2: 2383 N Flower St., Santa Ana CA 92706 Ref 3: Condition of Title Report Guarantee From: Cheryl Newton < Sent: Monday, July 31, 2023 8:58 PM To: 'Saba, Nabil' <NSaba@santa-ana.org>; 'Rosas, Rudy' <rrosas@santa-ana.org>; 'Morris, Angie' <amorris@santa- ana.org>; 'Ortiz, Lorrie' <lortiz@santa-ana.org> Subject: FW: Document Delivery Notice - Order #00185550 Ref 1: 00185550 Ref 2: 2383 N Flower St., Santa Ana CA 92706 Ref 3: Condition of Title Report Guarantee Apparently, the owners of 2383 Flower directed Chicago Title to draft a conditional title report ..... and told them what to put in the report. See the email chain below The last email is from Chicago Title Officer( most likely superior to the person who wrote the misleading title report) to a concerned neighbor confirming the situation. Very suspect that the owner chose to use a commercial rep from Los Angeles to order the report... The owners of 2383 Flower asked the title company to add the easement clause into Exhibit A -legal description. California Title Co has checked the two previous sales and exhibit A does not show the easement... It was added so you would think it was part of the legal description. I think we have provided enough documentation to show that this is not an easement ... and to me seems to be a fraudulent claim Again, if I am wrong, let me know. If not, I ask that you immediately terminate this application as it is based on lies I look forward to hearing from you. Thanks, Cheryl From: Michael Varciag < Sent: Monday, July 31, 2023 7:41 PM To: cherylnewton2@cox. Subject: Fwd: Document Delivery Notice - Order #00185550 Ref 1: 00185550 Ref 2: 2383 N Flower St., Santa Ana CA 92706 Ref 3: Condition of Title Report Guarantee From: Tan, Ted <ted.tan@ctt.com> Sent: Friday, July 28, 2023 8:19:33 AM To: Subject: RE: Document Delivery Notice - Order #00185550 Ref 1: 00185550 Ref 2: 2383 N Flower St., Santa Ana CA 92706 Ref 3: Condition of Title Report Guarantee From what I see on this the original request was for a report for the purpose of a submission to the City office. We were asked to indicate that in the event the alley was vacated it would go back to the adjacent property owner which is the second paragraph in the legal description. This hasn't happened yet which is why we're also showing exception 6 in Schedule B. %d Ted Tan AVP, Commercial Title Officer Chicago Title Company 725 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 488-4317 Direct (213) 612-4171 Fax Ted.. Ta n_ c tt.,_c:a rT Title Team: Tea mX77.@c.tt.:.coin Jennifer Wright, AVP, Commercial Title Officer (213) 488-4321 1 :ln_n_ifs_r,.1n/ri.rT_ Chuck Hoffman, VP, Sr. Commercial Title Officer (213) 488-4369 1 ct) uj c k..,1h o flfin. i.a.in..@.ctt,.oD.ir..�1 Chelsea Trutanich, Commercial Title Assistant (213) 488-4345 1 Che.l_yea.,.Truta_n.ic.h..@c.tt:.coiii CHICAGO TITLE T ,,Lt e Privileged & Confidential **Be aware! Online banking fraud is on the rise. It you receive are email containing WIRE TRANSFER INSTRUCTIONS call your escrow officer immediately to verify the information prior to sending funds. From: Tan, Ted Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2023 5:22 PM To: Jenphen007 o, RE: Document Delivery Notice - Order 400185550 Ref 1: 00185550 Ref 2: 2383 N Flower St., Santa Ana CA 92706 Ref 3: Condition of Title Report Guarantee I will get back to you on Friday. I can talk to my examiner tomorrow morning who processed the report. %d Ted Tan AVP, Commercial Title Officer Chicago Title Company 725 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 488-4317 Direct 3 (213) 612-4171 Fax Ted.Tan@ctt.com Title Team: TeamX77@ctt.com Jennifer Wright, AVP, Commercial Title Officer (213) 488-4321 I Jennifer.Wright@ctt.com Chuck Hoffman, VP, Sr. Commercial Title Officer (213) 488-4369 1 rwlri.u.a..rw...k..,1h.o:flfin. i.a.in..@.ctt,.oD.ir..�i.. Chelsea Trutanich, Commercial Title Assistant (213) 488-4345 1 Chelsea.Trutanich@ctt.com Privileged & Confidential **Be aware! Online banking fraud is an the rise. It you receive are email containing WIRE TRANSFER INSTRUCTIONS call your escrow officer immediately to verify the information prior to sending funds. From: Colin Donnelly < Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2022 10:41 AM To: Reano, Josue <Josue.Reanogctt.com>; Carolinelagucla. Cc: TeamX77 <TeamX77gctt.com>; Goodman, Joe <GoodmanJgCTT.com> Subject: RE: Document Delivery Notice - Order 400185550 Ref 1: 00185550 Ref 2: 2383 N Flower St., Santa Ana CA 92706 Ref 3: Condition of Title Report Guarantee IMPORTANT NOTICE - This message sourced from an external mail server outside of the Company. 4 Hey there Joe, It seems like this part of the title report reads a little off.....the alley being vacated to the public? Shouldn't the alley be vacated back to us as the owners? Rights of the public to use that portion, of the alley adjoining said Lot 57 on, the South until such, time said alley is vacated to the public by the City of Santa Ana. From: Reano, Josue <Josue.Reanogctt.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 12:43 PM To: Carolinelagucla. Colin Donnelly < Cc: TeamX77 <TeamX77gctt.co >; Goodman, Joe <GoodmanJgCTT.co > Subject: Document Delivery Notice - Order 400185550 Ref 1: 00185550 Ref 2: 2383 N Flower St., Santa Ana CA 92706 Ref 3: Condition of Title Report Guarantee Good Afternoon, Regarding the above referenced order, please find the Condition of Title Report Guarantee, and invoice attached for your review and records. Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you, Josu6 Reano Commercial Title Assistant Chicago Title Company 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 200 Los Angeles, California 90017 (213) 488-4318 To better serve you, please send all correspondence to the teams e-mail Title Team: TeamX77@ctt.com Ted Tan, AVID, Commercial Title Officer (213) 488-4317 1 Ted.Tan@ctt.com Jennifer Wright, AVID, Commercial Title Officer (213) 488-4321 I ;,p� u�u�u�� ii a ullVa tGV;ciri Chuck Hoffman, VP, Sr. Commercial Title Officer (213) 488-4369 1Il�u�� Ik Ihilc�'iri �a.p1a t V V,. cirir Chelsea Trutanich, Commercial Title Assistant (213) 488-4345 1 C hel ;ea. Ia u�V a ii u� II1 a t;;V V c iriri NATIONALCHICAGO TITLE COMMERCIAL SERAM NOTICE: The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, you are hereby notified to: (i) delete the message and all copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender immediately. -------------------------------- This message was secured by Zix°. This message was secured by Zix°. Hall, Jennifer From: Cheryl Newton < Sent: Sunday, August 6, 2023 12:09 PM To: Carvalho, Sonia R.; eComment; kent@kentsnyderlaw.com Subject: FW: letter from neighbor re: alley flower to heliotrope - Attachments: Public Road Closure_ City council.docx The owner of 2383 flower told Jessie Lopez and Public Works that all of the neighbors knew of her application and wanted the property given to them and alley removed (per Jessie and Public Works) That is simply not true All of the neighbors I have spoken with had no idea what was going on. The neighbor to the North of 2383 Flower noticed the 2383 owners in the alley with all of people discussing something. When the neighbor texted the 2383 owner asking if there was an issue, the 2383 owner told the neighbor everything was fine. Not only did they not discuss with neighbors, they went out of their way to conceal what was going on. Cheryl Newton Again please cancel/withdraw/deny this application. From: Cheryl Newton < Sent: Monday, July 31, 2023 8:31 PM To: 'Saba, Nabil' <NSaba@santa-ana.org>; 'Rosas, Rudy' <rrosas@santa-ana.org>; 'Morris, Angie' <amorris@santa- ana.org>; 'Ortiz, Lorrie' <lortiz@santa-ana.org> Subject: FW: letter from neighbor re: alley flower to heliotrope See attached..... Cheryl From: Michael Varciag < Sent: Monday, July 31, 2023 7:55 PM To:.c h.��.r..iInewton2@cox. Subject: letter Michael and Jeni Varciag Santa Ana, CA, 92706 July, 14 2023 TO: City Council of Santa Ana 22 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 CC: City Attorney Subject: Public Comment - Petition to Vacate Public Right of Way (Public alley) Dear Members of the City Council, As a citizen and taxpayer in Santa Ana, and Floral Park resident, I am submitting comment about a petition to vacate a public alley that was transferred by Floral Park residents to the City of Santa in March 1923. I bring your attention to the public record entitled "Tract No. 425 North Broadway Park" which is signed by numerous stakeholders and reads as follows: "We the undersigned owners of the land covered by the accompanying map, and also all other persons whose consent is necessary to pass a clear title to such lands, do hereby consent to the making of said map. We hereby dedicate to public use all boulevards, avenues, streets, drives, ways and alleys shows neuron. On this 23rd day of March 1925 AD. " The questions to be presented are (1) what is the precise legal and political process for ending public use of the alley, (2) what is the complete list of stakeholders, (3) is compensation to the City and/or other utility stakeholders required if the alley reverts to adjacent landowners, and (4) what is the official justification for eliminating emergency vehicle and general public access between Heliotrope and Flower? (1) What is the precise legal and political process for ending public use of the alley? The City Council is treating this matter as a zoning issue. Does it belong with the courts first or in parallel? (2) What is the complete list of stakeholders? Numerous stakeholders were involved in the making of the map that made official and explicit the public use of the alley. Is anyone missing from the conversation to change the scope and consider reversion to private property? One adjacent owner will not be able to exit from their circular driveway should the alley be split down the middle between neighbors. How will that be addressed? Should the City Attorney and City Fire Chief provide input and sign off for legal and practical public safety considerations? (3) Is compensation to the City and/or other utility stakeholders required if the alley reverts to adjacent landowners? The original vehicle to make the alley public use conformed with US constitutional 5th amendment Takings Clause requirements for just compensation to members of the public. How is the inverse case being taken into account? (4) What is the official justification for eliminating access for emergency vehicles and general public access between Heliotrope and Flower? The alley in question provides a practical connection between Flower Street and Heliotrope for pedestrian, emergency and other vehicle access. There are numerous car accidents on Flower that impede traffic on Flower. The alley serves as a critical alternative for vehicle access emergency and otherwise. On a personal level, I heavily rely on the public access provided by this alley for various activities. It allows me to walk my dog safely, navigate the neighborhood to visit friends, and attend community events with greater convenience. Additionally, I have direct access to my backyard through this alley, and I greatly value the ease and convenience it provides. It is worth mentioning that this alley has been an integral part of the community planning for well over a century, and as a resident of nearly six years, I have never witnessed any negative or criminal incidents until it was raised during the recent city planning meeting. The newest members to the neighborhood seem to be the ones who wish to end it for the rest of us. In conclusion, I urge the City Council to carefully consider and answer the questions posed above, and consider the ramifications of vacating public access to the alley. Thank you for your consideration, Michael Varciag Hall, Jennifer From: Cheryl Newton < Sent: Sunday, August 6, 2023 12:14 PM To: Carvalho, Sonia R.; eComment; kent@kentsnyderlaw.com Subject: FW: Alley - Flower/Heliotrope - further information from California Title Co officer Attachments: agreement.PDF; Title Report - Copy.pdf, deeds.PDF From: Cheryl Newton < Sent: Monday, July 31, 2023 5:49 PM To: 'Saba, Nabil' <NSaba@santa-ana.org>; 'Rosas, Rudy' <rrosas@santa-ana.org>; 'Morris, Angie' <amorris@santa- ana.org>; 'Ortiz, Lorrie' <lortiz@santa-ana.org> Subject: FW: Alley - Flower/Heliotrope - further information from California Title Co officer See below and attached.... Please let me know your thoughts. Cheryl From: Marc Serrano - California Title Company < res(c ltitle..e_cQ..m.> Sent: Monday, July 31, 2023 4:26 PM To: Cheryl Newton < Cc: TitleOC <TitlC(cIt%tlecaarn> Subject: RE: Alley - Flower/Heliotrope ***Please note, we bank with COMMERCIAL BANK OF CALIFORNIA. Do not send any wires to our old account with COMERICA. * * * Marc Serrano Title Officer California Title Company cT 28202 Cabot Road, Suite 625 1 Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 Phone: 949-582-8709 • Fax: 949-582-2449 Email: mares&caltitle.com Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this electronic e-mail and any accompanying attachment(s) is intended only for the use of the intended recipient and is non-public in nature and may be confidential and/or privileged. If any reader of this communication is not the intended recipient, unauthorized use, disclosure, dissemination or copying is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail, and delete the original message and all copies from your system and promptly destroy any copies made of this electronic message. Thank you. From: Marc Serrano - California Title Company <m res(c ltitle..:_cQ..m.> Sent: Monday, July 31, 2023 4:23 PM To: Cheryl Newton < Cc: TitleOC <TitlC(cIt%tlecaarn> Subject: RE: Alley - Flower/Heliotrope Looking at the provided title report attachment further, this is not a title report, but a policy for an insured value of $1,000. I'm not sure what this policy corresponds to as this policy does not relate to any recording being posted on the chain. . policy,n that does notappears be partof a legalas reflected on any previous . insured.. going a, a .e attached deeds for... ,. I have also included the agreement with the city that also contains a legal description that does not contain the added verbiage from t legal on the policy. You may want to inquire with Chicago Title to see why the added legal portion was added and for a copy of the 1931 easement. Also, you may want to consult with a real estate attorney for further guidance and assistance in your matter, as this is outside the realm of us issuing a title policy. ***Please note, we bank with COMMERCIAL BANK OF CALIFORNIA. Do not send any wires to our old account with COMERICA. * * * Marc Serrano Title Officer California Title Company CTC 28202 Cabot Road, Suite 625 1 Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 Phone: 949-582-8709 • Fax: 949-582-2449 Email: mares&caltitle.com Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this electronic e-mail and any accompanying attachment(s) is intended only for the use of the intended recipient and is non-public in nature and may be confidential and/or privileged. If any reader of this communication is not the intended recipient, unauthorized use, disclosure, dissemination or copying is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail, and delete the original message and all copies from your system and promptly destroy any copies made of this electronic message. Thank you. From: Cheryl Newton < Sent: Monday, July 31, 2023 10:07 AM To: Marc Serrano - California Title Company <nrres(cltitln.cn> Subject: FW: Alley - Flower/Heliotrope From: Cheryl Newton < Sent: Friday, July 28, 2023 10:31 AM To:'Imlinnaus' < > Subject: FW: Alley - Flower/Heliotrope From: Irene Myers <irp_n_n(2kkntsnyderlaw.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2023 11:31 AM To: Cheryl Newton < ; irpng y Subject: Alley - Flower/Heliotrope Here you go, I'm tight for time right now, but I must have more than this. I think I do. 11 awow Offices of Illteint G Sinydeui. 2301 I111)u11point III'aui.liive, Su Bite d��" 0 II:uirvliiurme, yaIII liitouirinliia 926:1.2 Il:ureine d Illdyeira Administrator Irene@Kentsnyderlaw.com l01 (9,49) 833..,9078 fax (949) 833 209 CONFIDENTIAL PvFORAIATION This e-mail transmission contains confidential information which is intended only for the addressee and which may he privileged under applicable law. IDo not read, copy or disseminate it if you are not the addressee. Iff you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it. Thank you. I RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza (M-30) Santa Ana, CA 92702 Attn: Clerk of the Council Recorded in official Records, orange County Hugh Nguyen, Clerk -Recorder NO FEE IIIII I II (IIIII III IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIII I IIII IIII 2022000295877 11: 30 am 09101122 48 RW11A Al2 18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 45.00 0.00 0.000.000.00 0.00 FREE RECORDING PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE § V383 Return FULLY EXECrUTED coPAMOCOTC M-30 HISTORIC PROPERTY PRESERVATION AGREEMENT A-2022-018 This Historic Property Preservation Agreement ("Agreement") is made and entered into by and between the City of Santa Ana, a charter city and municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the of the State of California (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and Colin Edward Donnelly, a single man and Caroline La, a single woman as joint tenants, (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Owner"), owner of real property located at 2383 North Flower Street, Santa Ana, California, in the County of Orange and listed on the Santa Ana Register of Historical Properties. w z o: P Q,(Pedro Glev�e2) `�. RECITALS U C=J O O N �w a U N A. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana is authorized by • California Q = Government Code Section 50280 et seq. (known as the "Mills Act") to enter into z0 2 LL c contracts with owners of qualified historical properties to provide for appropriate w y O tv use, maintenance, rehabilitation and restoration such that these historic properties zO X �r_ retain their historic character and integrity. UB. The Owner possesses fee title in and to that certain qualified real property z Q together with associated structures and improvements thereon, located at 2383 — p North Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA, 92706 and more particularly described in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and hereinafter c c referred to as the "Historic Property". Q o U C. The Historic Property is officially designated on the Santa Ana Register of rm Y Historical Properties pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 30 of the Santa Ana 0 o Municipal Code. Z. m D. City and Owner, for their mutual benefit, now desire to enter into this Agreement U U which defines and limits the use and alteration of this Historic Property in order to enhance and maintain its value as a cultural and historical resource for Owner and for the community; to prevent inappropriate alterations to the Historic Property and to -ensure that repairs, additions, new building, and other changes are appropriate; and to ensure that rehabilitation and maintenance are carried out in an exemplary manner. 'f MILLS ACT AGREEMENT 2383 North Flower Street Santa Ana, CA 92706 E. Owner and City intend to carry out the purposes of California Government Code, Chapter 1, Part 5 of Division 1 of Title 5, Article 12, Section 50280 et seq., which will enable the Historic Property to qualify for an assessment of valuation as a restricted historical property pursuant to Article 1.9, Sec. 439 et seq., Chapter 3 Part 2 of Division 1 of the California Tax and Revenue Code. NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Santa Ana and the Owner of the Historic Property agree as follows: 1. Effective Date and Terms of Agreement. This Agreement shall be effective and commence on February 16, 2022, and shall remain in effect for a term of ten (10) years thereafter. Each year, upon the anniversary of the effective date of this Agreement, such initial term will automatically be extended as provided in California Government Code Sections 50280 through 50290 and in Section 2, below. 2. Renewal. a. Each year on the anniversary of the effective date of this Agreement, a year shall automatically be added to the initial ten (10) year term of this Agreement unless written notice of nonrenewal is served as provided herein. b. If the Owner or the City desire(s) in any year not to renew the Agreement, the Owner or City shall serve written notice of nomenewal of the Agreement on the other party. Unless such notice is served by the Owner to the City at least ninety (90) days prior to the annual renewal date, or served by the City to the Owner at least sixty (60) days prior to the annual renewal date, one (1) year shall automatically be added to the term of the Agreement as provided herein. C. Within 30 days from receipt of City's notice of nomenewal, the Owner may file a written protest of City's decision of nomenewal. The City may, at any time prior to the annual renewal date of the Agreement, withdraw its notice to the Owner of nomenewal. d. If either the Owner or the City serves notice to the other of nonrenewal in any year, the Agreement shall remain in effect for the balance of the term then remaining, either from its original execution or from the last renewal of the Agreement, whichever may apply. 3. Standards and Conditions for Historic Property. During the term of this Agreement, the Historic Property shall be subject to the following conditions, requirements and restrictions: a. Owner shall maintain the Historic Property in a good state of repair and shall preserve, maintain, and, where necessary, restore or rehabilitate the property and its character - defining features described in the "Historical Property Description" attached hereto, marked as Exhibit B, notably the general architectural form, style, materials, design, scale, proportions, organization of windows, doors, and other openings, textures, details, mass, roof line, porch and other aspects of the appearance of the exterior to the satisfaction of the City. -2- MILLS ACT A GREEMENT 2383 North Flower Street Santa Ana, CA 92706 b. All changes to the Historic Property shall comply with applicable City plans and regulations, and conform to the rules and regulations of the Office of Historic Preservation of the State Department of Parks and Recreation, namely the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Historic Preservation Projects. These guidelines are attached hereto, marked as Exhibit C, and incorporated herein by this reference. Owner shall continually maintain the Historic Property in the same or better condition. C. A view corridor enabling the general public to see the Historic Property from the public right-of-way shall be maintained, and Owner shall not be permitted to block the view corridor to the property with any new structure, such as walls, fences or shrubbery, so as to prevent the viewing of the historic landmark by the public. d. The following are prohibited: demolition of the Historic Property or destruction of character -defining features of the building or site; removal of trees and other major vegetation unless removal is approved by a rehabilitation plan approved by the Historic Resources Commission; paving of yard surface; exterior alterations or additions unless approved by the Historic Resources Commission and such alterations are in keeping with the Secretary of Interior's Standards; deteriorating, dilapidated or unrepaired structures such as fences, roofs, doors, walls, and windows; storage of junk, trash, debris, discarded or unused objects such as cars, appliances, or furniture; and other unsightly by decoration, structure or vegetation which is unsightly by reason of its height, condition, or inappropriate location. e. Owner shall allow reasonable periodic inspection by prior appointment, as needed or at least every five (5) years after the initial inspection, of the interior and exterior of the Historic Property by representatives of the City of Santa Ana, the County Assessor, the State Department of Parks and Recreation, and the State Board of Equalization, to determine the Owner's compliance with the terms and provisions of this Agreement. 4. Furnishing of Information. The Owner hereby agrees to furnish the City with any and all information requested which may be necessary or advisable to determine compliance with the terms and provisions of this Agreement. 5. Cancellation. a. The City, following a duly noticed public hearing by the City Council as set forth in Government Code Section 50280, et. seq., may cancel this Agreement if it determines that the Owner have breached any of the conditions of this Agreement, or has allowed the property to deteriorate to the point that it no longer meets the standards for a qualified Historic Property, or if the City determines that the Owner have failed to restore or rehabilitate the property in the manner specified in Section 3 of this Agreement. If a contract is cancelled for these reasons, the Owner shall pay a cancellation fee to the County Auditor as set forth in Government Code Section 50286. This cancellation fee shall be a percentage (currently set at twelve and one-half (12 '/2) percent by Government Code Section 50286) of the current fair market value of the -3- MILLS ACT AGREEMENT 2383 North Flower Street Santa Ana, CA 92706 property at the time of the cancellation, as determined by the county assessor, without regard to any restriction imposed pursuant to this Agreement. b. If the Historic Property is destroyed by earthquake, fire, flood or other natural disaster such that in the opinion of the City Building Official more than sixty (60) percent of the original fabric of the structure must be replaced, this Agreement shall be canceled immediately because, in effect, the historic value of the structure will have been destroyed. No fee shall be imposed in the case of destruction by acts of God or natural disaster. C. If the Historic Property is acquired by eminent domain and the City Council determines that the acquisition frustrates the purpose of this Agreement, this Agreement shall be cancelled and no fee imposed, as specified in Government Code Section 50288. 6. Enforcement of Agreement. a. In lieu of and/or in addition to any provisions to cancel the Agreement as referenced herein, City may specifically enforce, or enjoin the breach of, the terms of the Agreement. In the event of a default, under the provisions to cancel the Agreement by Owner, the City shall give written notice to Owner by registered or certified mail, and if such a violation is not corrected to the reasonable satisfaction of the City Manager or designee within thirty (30) days thereafter, or if not corrected within such a reasonable time as may be required to cure the breach or default, or default cannot be cured within thirty (30) days (provided that acts to cure the breach or default may be commenced within thirty (30) days, and shall thereafter be diligently pursued to completion by Owner), then City may, without further notice, declare a default under the terms of this Agreement and may bring any action necessary to specifically enforce the obligations of Owner growing out of the terms of this Agreement, apply to any court, state or federal, for injunctive relief against any violation by Owner or apply for such relief as may be appropriate. b. City does not waive any claim of default by the Owner if City does not enforce or cancel this Agreement. All other remedies at law or in equity which are not otherwise provided for in this Agreement or in City's regulations governing historic properties are available to City to pursue in the event that there is a breach of this Agreement. No waiver by City of any breach or default under this Agreement shall be deemed to be a waiver of any other subsequent breach thereof or default hereunder. 7. Binding effect of Agreement. a. Owner hereby subjects the Historic Property, located at 2383 North Flower Street, Assessor Parcel Number, 002-073-14, and more particularly described in Exhibit A, in the City of Santa Ana, to the covenants, conditions, and restrictions as set forth in this Agreement. b. City and Owner hereby declare their specific intent that the covenants, conditions and restrictions as set forth herein shall be deemed covenants running with the land and shall pass to and be binding upon Owner's successors and assigns in title or interest to the Historic -4- MILLS ACT AGREEMENT 2383 North Flower Street Santa Ana, CA 92706 Property. Every contract, deed, or other instrument hereinafter executed, covering or conveying the Historic Property or any portion thereof, shall conclusively be held to have been executed, delivered, and accepted subject to the tenants, restrictions, and reservations expressed in this Agreement regardless of whether such covenants, conditions and restrictions are set forth in such contract, deed, or other instrument. 8. No Compensation. Owner shall not receive any payment from City in consideration of the obligation imposed under this Agreement, it being recognized that the consideration for the execution of this Agreement is the substantial public benefit to be derived therefrom and the advantage that will accrue to Owner as a result of the effect upon the assessed value of the Property on the account of the restrictions on the use and preservation of the Property. 9. Notice. Any notice required by the terms of this Agreement shall be sent to the address of the respective parties as specified below or at other addresses that may be later specified by the parties hereto. City: City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza (M-30) Santa Ana, CA 92702 Attn: Clerk of the Council Owners: Caroline La and Colin Donnelly 2383 North Flower Street Santa Ana, CA 92706 10. General Provisions. a. None of the terms, provisions, or conditions of this Agreement shall be deemed to create a partnership between the parties hereto and any of their heirs, successors, or assigns, nor shall such terms, provisions or conditions cause them to be considered joint ventures or members of any joint enterprise. b. The Owner agrees to and shall indemnify and hold the City and its elected and appointed officials, officers, agents, and employees harmless from liability for damage or claims for damage for personal injuries, including death, and claims for property damage which may arise from the direct or indirect use or operations of the Owner or those of his or her contractor, subcontractor, agent, employee, or other person acting on his or her behalf which relates to the use, operation, and maintenance of the Historic Property. The Owner hereby agrees to and shall defend the City and its elected and appointed officials, officers, agents, and employees with respect to any and all actions for damages caused by, or alleged to have been caused by, reason of the Owner's activities in connection with the Historic Property. -5- MILLS ACT AGREEMENT 2383 North Flower Street Santa Ana, CA 92706 C. This hold harmless provision applies to all damages and claims for damages suffered, or alleged to have been suffered, and costs of defense incurred, by reason of the operations referred to in this Agreement regardless of whether or not City prepared, supplied, or approved the plans, specifications or other documents for the Historic Property. d. All of the agreements, rights, covenants, conditions, and restrictions contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties herein, their heirs, successors, legal representatives, assigns, and all persons acquiring any part or portion of the Historic Property, whether by operation of law on in any manner whatsoever. e. In the event legal proceedings are brought by any party or parties to enforce or restrain a violation of any of the covenants, reservations, or restrictions contained herein, or to determine the rights and duties of any party hereunder, the prevailing party in such proceeding may recover all reasonable attorney's fees to be fixed by the court, in addition to court costs and other relief ordered by the court. f. In the event that any of the provisions of this Agreement are held to be unenforceable or invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, or by subsequent preemptive legislation, the validity and enforceability of the remaining provisions, or portions thereof, shall not be effected thereby. g. This Agreement shall be construed and governed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, with venue in Orange County. 11. Recordation. No later than twenty (20) days after the parties execute and enter into this Agreement, the City shall cause this Agreement to be recorded in the office of the County Recorder of the County of Orange. 12. Amendments. This Agreement may be amended, in whole or in part, only by a written recorded instrument executed by the parties hereto. 13. Effective Date This Agreement shall be effective on the day and year first written above in Section 1. (Signature page follows) A-2022-018 ATTEST: AISY GOMEZ ,Clerk of the. Council - -t OWNER Date: Date: 20 2Z APPROVED AS TO FORM: SONIA CARVALHO City Attorney By: ✓l , W JOHN64. FUNK Assistant City Attorney MILLS ACTAGREEMENT 2383 North Flower Street Santa Ana, CA 92706 CITY OF SANTA ANA KR STINE RIDG City Manager BX� COLIN EDWARD DONNELLY /.,�Z!t / RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: -492jQ�- MINH THAI Executive Director Planning and Building Agency tall attached ACKNOWLEDGMENT by Yvonne Flores, Notary Public, DATED: 5IW Ii�7�Z www. WestcliffPropeniesCA. oom/notary-pubft -7- ACKNOWLEDGMENT A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. State of California County of Orange ) On July 29, 2022 before me, L.J. Ortiz, Notary Public (insert name and title of the officer) personally appeared Kristine Ridge, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s).on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. L. J. ORTIZ Notary Public - California P . Orange County >: Commission C 2406079 • + N67t ,My COMM. Expires May 27, 2026 Signature (Seal) ACKNOWLEDGMENT A notary public or other officer completing this certificate -verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. State of California County of Orange On ZD la'z, before me, Yvonne Flores, Notary Public (� (insert (Jname and title o"f_ the officer) personally appeared ` b"fr7�TJ�( �'� G C1 `o� l n 1✓dLNgrA t�lLhG�� who proved'to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person CpKwhose name(g)49/jq subscribo to the within instrument and acknowledged to that4ae4 executed the same in hi9- I ei authorized capacityQ%), and that by 4L-dher/ Designatur on the instrument the person or the entity upon behalf of which the perso s acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature NOTARY PUBLIC: COMMISSION EXPIRES: TELEPHONE: EMAIL: WEBSITE: (Seal) Yvonne Flores ° z YVONNE FLORES C0YM,8 2250623 N ? R NOTARY PUBLIC-CALIFORNIA N ORANGE CULY2 y�.A.x• Yr Comm. EXP. Jutr It, IBIS July 21, 2022 (714) 215-7421 Yvonne. Flores@Westcliff. Properties www.westcliffpropertiesca.com/notary-public MILLS A CTAGREEMENT 2383 North Flower Street Santa Ana, CA 92706 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION REAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF SANTA ANA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: LOT 57 OF TRACT NO. 754, AS PER RECORDED IN BOOK 22, PAGE 37, OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. Assessor's Parcel Number: 002-073-14 -8- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Head-Wimpey House 2383 N. Flower Street Santa Ana, CA 92706 NAME Head-Wimpey House REF. NO. ADDRESS 2383 N. Flower street CITY Santa Ana ZIP 1 92706 ORANGE COUNTY YEAR BUILT 1935 LOCAL REGISTER CATEGORY: Contributive HISTORIC DISTRICT N/A NEIGHBORHOOD Floral Park CALIFORNIA REGISTER CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION C/3 CALIFORNIA REGISTER STATUS CODE 5S3 Location: ❑ Not for Publication ® Unrestricted ❑ Prehistoric ® Historic ❑ Both ARCHITECTURAL STYLE: Tudor Revival The Tudor Revival looked to medieval England for its inspiration. Signature features of the style include steeply pitched gables; decorative half-timbering; arched openings, often Tudor or Gothic in form; asymmetrical arrangements of building features; tall brick chimneys; and picturesque windows of leaded glass or diamond patterned lights. The more ambitious examples of the Tudor Revival were executed in brick or even stone; however, stucco over wood frame is quite common in the forgiving climate of southern California. The Tudor Revival was favored primarily for residential buildings, although small scale commercial buildings in the style also occur. Originating in the late 19th century, the Tudor Revival was associated with some Craftsman era building but was most popular during the 1920s and 1930s. SUMMARY/CONCLUSION: The Head-Wimpey House qualifies for listing in the Santa Ana Register of Historical Properties under Criterion 1 as an intact example of a Tudor Revival tract home in Santa Ana. Additionally, the house has been categorized as "Contributive" because it "contributes to the overall character and history' of the Floral Park neighborhood and "is a good example of period architecture," representing the Tudor Revival style in Santa Ana (Santa Ana Municipal Code, Section 30-2.2). EXPLANATION OF CODES: • California Register Criteria for Evaluation: (From California Office of Historic Preservation, Technical Assistance Series # 7, "How to Nominate Resources to the California Register of Historical Resources," September 4, 2001.) 3: It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values • It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values. 5S3: Appears to be individually eligible for local listing or designation through survey evaluation State of California —The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial NRHP Status Code Other Listings Review Code Reviewer Page 1 of 3 Resource name(s) or number (assigned by recorder) Head-Wimpey Hous P1. Other Identifier: *P2. Location: ❑Not for Publicafion ■Unrestricted *a. County Orange County *b. USGS 7.5' Quad TCA 1725 Date: March 3, 2015 *c. Address 2383 North Flower Street City Santa Ana Zip 92706 *e. Other Locational Data: Assessor's Parcel Number 002-073-14 *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) Located in Floral Park, the Head-Wimpey House is a one-story single-family residential building constructed in the Tudor Revival style. Asymmetrical in design, the house exhibits a complex gable and wing roof with a moderately steep pitch, clad in composition shingle roofing. The massing, roof configuration, and fenestration define a three -bay fagade, with an overlapping gable front porch and entrance stoop flanked by a side -gabled projecting wing on the south, a side -gabled projecting wing on the north and a prominent front -facing gable along the west elevation. The exterior of the building is clad in hand -troweled textured stucco. The entryway is characterized by a wooden front door, accessed via the entrance stoop. Fenestration consists of multi -paned and fixed casement windows used on the west elevation, while double -hung windows are used along the north, south, and east elevations. The property is simply landscaped with a mature tree, a lawn, low vegetation and simple walkway that connects the entry stoop to the main sidewalk. The driveway is located along the south elevation and leads to the detached, one-story, two -car garage, also clad in sandy -textured stucco. *P3b. Resource Attributes: (list attributes and codes) HP2. Single -Family Residence *P4. Resources Present: ■Building ❑Structure ❑Object OSite DDistrict ■Element of District 00ther Photo P5b. Photo: (view and date) West elevation, view east September2021 *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources: Whistoric 19351 City of Santa Ana Building Permits *P7. Owner and Address: Colin Donnelly and Caroline La 2383 North Flower Street Santa Ana, CA 92706 *P8. Recorded by: Pedro Gomez 20 Civic Center Plaza M-20 Santa Ana, CA 92702 *P9. Date Recorded: November 4, 2021 *P10. Survey Type: Intensive Survey Update *P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none") None *Attachments: ONone ❑Location Map ❑Sketch Map ■Continuation Sheet ■Building, Structure, and Object Record DArchaeological Record ❑District Record ❑Linear Feature Record ❑Milling Station Record ❑Rock Art Record OArtifact Record ❑Photograph Record ❑ Other (list) DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information State of California —The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD Page 2 of 3 *NRHP Status Code 5S3 'Resource Name or #: Head-Wimpey House B1. Historic Name: Head-Wimpey House B2. Common Name: Same B3. Original Use: Single -Family Residence B4. Present Use: Single -Family Residence *B5. Architectural Style: Tudor Revival *B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations): November 1, 1935. Constructed. $4,000. September 10, 1952. Disposal for A. Newcomer by Grimes. March 16, 1953. Range for John Crivner. July 10, 2018. Tear off existing comp shingle/shake roof and apply new comp shingle. $14,500, *B7. Moved? ■No OYes DUnknown Date: Original *88. Related Features: Detached Garage. B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder: H.C. Head *B10. Significance: Theme Residential architecture Area Santa Ana Period of Significance: 1935 Property Type: Single -Family Residence Applicable Criteria: C13 (Discuss importance in terns of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity) The Head-Wimpey House is architecturally significant as a characteristic example of the Tudor Revival style. This house was originally constructed in 1935, and was valued at approximately $4,000 according to the original building permit. It was built by Horace Caldwell Head, son of Dr. and Captain William Head who was a member of the California Assembly and surgeon. Dr. Head was said to have fought in the American Civil War on the Confederate side and was Grand Cyclops to the Ku Klux Klan in Tennessee. Dr. Head is also said to have personally delivered the bill to Sacramento to allow Orange County to secede from Los Angeles County. He Horace Head was a graduate of University of California, Berkeley and was the attorney of the Orange County Flood Control District, and later, was District Attorney for the County of Orange from 1904 to 1908. He served as President of the Orange County Bar Association from 1915 to 1920. The Head-Wimpey House was first sold to Mr. and Mrs. A.B. Wimpey in 1936. Mrs. A.B. Wimpey was a member of the First Presbyterian Woman's auxiliary circles. Their daughter, Shirley Wimpey, was a member of the Christian Endeavor Society of the First Christian Church. The Wimpeys lived in the property until the late 1940s. A. Newcomer purchased the property in 1952 and then latersold it to John Scrivnerin 1953. Since then, the Head-Wimpey House has been occupied by various owners until the current homeowner purchased the home in 2021. (See Continuation Sheet 3 of 3.) B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) *B12. References: City of Santa Ana Building Permits Santa Ana History Room Collection, Santa Ana Public Library Sanborn Maps (See Continuation Sheet 3 of 3.) B13. Remarks: *B14. Evaluator: Sydney Andrea Landers/Chattel Inc. *Date of Evaluation: November 4, 2021 (This space reserved for official comments.) Sketch Map Head-Wimpey House 2383 North Flower Street 4 47 QP�a y 4B 46 45 ,r!B ,.*Xl n 1 54 55 56 5 11 k 72 N0. 4 .1 DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information State of California —The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 3 of 3 Resource Name: Head-Wimpey House 'Recorded by Pedro Gomez *Date November4, 2021171 Continuation ❑ Update '610. Significance (continued): The Head-Wimpey House is located in Floral Park, a neighborhood northwest of downtown Santa Ana bounded by West Seventeenth Street, North Flower Street, Riverside Drive, and Broadway. Groves of orange, avocado, and walnut trees and widely scattered ranch houses characterized this area before 1920. Developer and builder Allison Honer (1897-1981), credited as the subdivider and builder of a major portion of northwest Santa Ana, arrived in Santa Ana from Beaver Falls, New York in 1922 (Talbert, pages 353-356). "Before nightfall on the day of his arrival, Mr. Honer purchased a parcel of land. And that month, he began building custom homes in Santa Ana" (Orange County Register, September 15, 1981). The parcel chosen became the Floral Park subdivision between Seventeenth Street and Santiago Creek. "When built in the 1920s, the Floral Park homes were the most lavish and expensive in the area. They sold for about $45, 000 each" (Orange County Register, September 15, 1981). Revival architecture in a wide variety of romantic styles was celebrated in the 1920s and 1930s and Floral Park showcased examples of the English Tudor, French Norman, Spanish Colonial, and Colonial Revival. The Allison Honer Construction Company went on to complete such notable projects as the 1935 Art Deco styled Old Santa Ana City Hall, the El Toro Marine Base during World War 11, and the 1960 Honer Shopping Plaza. Honer lived in the neighborhood he had helped to create, at 615 West Santa Clara Avenue. In the late 1920s and 1930s, another builder, Roy Roscoe Russell (1881-1965), continued developing the groves of Floral Park. An early Russell project was his 1928 subdivision of Victoria Drive between West Nineteenth Street and West Santa Clara Avenue. The homes were quite grand and displayed various revival styles, including Russell's own large, Colonial Revival mansion at 2009 Victoria Drive. In the early post World War 11 years, Floral Park continued its development as numerous, smaller, single-family houses were built. Continuing in the Floral Park tradition, they were mostly revival in style. In the 1950s, low, horizontal Ranch Style houses completed the growth of Floral Park. Today (2021) Floral Park maintains its identity as the premier neighborhood of Santa Ana, historically home to many affluent and prominent citizens. The Head-Wimpey House qualifies for listing in the Santa Ana Register of Historical Properties under Criterion 1 as an intact example of a Tudor Revival tract home in Santa Ana. Characteristics of the Tudor Revival include steeply pitched complex gable roofs, shallow roof overhangs, asymmetrical massing, stucco exterior and multipaned windows. Additionally, the house has been categorized as "Contributive" because it "contributes to the overall character and history" of the Floral Park neighborhood and "is a good example of period architecture,"representing the Tudor Revival style in Santa Ana. Character - defining features of the house include a complex gable and wing roof of moderately steep pitch; shallow roof overhangs, roof detailing such as wooden bargeboards and exposed rafter tails; multi -paned wood casement windows used on the primary elevation; double -hung wood windows where extant; and hand -troweled textured stucco exterior walls. 'B12. References (continued): Harris, Cyril M. American Architecture: An Illustrated Encvclooedia. New York, WW Norton, 1998. Marsh, Diann. Santa Ana, An Illustrated History. Encinitas, Heritage Publishing, 1994. McAlester, Virginia and Lee. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York. Alfred A. Knopf, 1984. National Register Bulletin 16A. "How to Complete the National Register Registration Form." Washington DC: National Register Branch, National Park Service, US Dept of the Interior, 1991. Office of Historic Preservation. 'Instructions for Recording Historical Resources." Sacramento: March 1995. Santa Ana and Orange County Directories, 1905-2017. Ancestry.com Newspapers.com (Santa Ana Register) Historic Maps, Santa Ana History Room, 1912, 1923, 193Z and 1955. Armor, Samuel. History of Orange County. Los Angeles: History Record Company, 1921, page 989. Arellano, Gustavo. "Gustavo Arellano."OC Weekly, 17Apr.2008, https://www.ocweekly.com/the-kkk-took-my-county-away- meet-the-klansman-who-helped-to-found-orange-county-6398456/ DPR 523L MILLS ACT AGREEMENT 2383 North Flower Street Santa Ana, CA 92706 Exhibit C Exterior work shall be reviewed by the Historic Resources Commission and subject to the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings, as follows: Every reasonable effort shall be made to provide a compatible use for a property which requires minimal alteration of the building, structure, or site and its environment, or to use a property for its originally intended purpose. 2. The distinguishing original qualities or character of a building, structure or site and its environment shall not be destroyed. The removal or alteration of any historic material or distinctive architectural features should be avoided when possible. 3. All buildings, structures, and sites shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to create an earlier appearance shall be discouraged. 4. Changes which may have taken place in the course of time are evidence of the history and development of a building, structure, or site and its environment. These changes may have acquired significance in their own right, and this significance shall be recognized and respected. 5. Distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship which characterize a building, structure, or site shall be treated with sensitivity. 6. Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced, whenever possible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material should match the material being replaced in composition, design, color, texture, and other visual qualities.- Repair or replacement of missing architectural features should be based on accurate duplications of features, substantiated by historic, physical, or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements from the other buildings or structures. 7. The surface cleaning of structures shall be undertaken with the gentlest means possible. Sandblasting and other cleaning methods that will damage the historic building materials shall not be undertaken. 8. Every reasonable effort shall be made to protect and reserve archaeological resources affected by, or adjacent to any project. 9. Contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant historical, architectural or cultural material, an such design is compatible with MILLS ACTAGREEMENT 1383 North F(orver Street Santa Ana, CA 91706 size, scale, color, material and character of the property, neighborhood, or environment. 10. Wherever possible, new additions or alterations to structures shall be done in such a manner that if such additions or alterations need to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. -2- NChicago Title Insurance Company GUARANTEE NO.: CA-FBSC-IMP-72G28-1-22-00185550 CLTA GUARANTEE FACE PAGE SUBJECT TO THE EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE, AND THE GUARANTEE CONDITIONS ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART OF THIS GUARANTEE, CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY a corporation, herein called the Company GUARANTEES the Assured named in Schedule A of this Guarantee against loss or damage not exceeding the Amount of Liability stated in Schedule A sustained by the Assured by reason of any incorrectness in the Assurances set forth in Schedule A. Chicago Title Insurance Company Countersigned: Michml J. Wan By: <.� eanlenc Authorized Signature ss MmluAemm�x ni Semerory CLTA Guarantee Face Pane (06-05-14) Pane 1 © California Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to CLTA subscribers in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license or express permission from the California Land Title Association. Order No. 00185550-994-LT2-lTW Guarantee No. CA-FBSC-IMP-72G28-1-22-00185550 GUARANTEE EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS (06-05-14) EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE Except as expressly provided by the assurances In Schedule A, the Company assumes no liability for loss or damage by reason of the following: (a) Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters affecting the title to any property beyond the lines of the Land. (b) Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, whether or not shown by the Public Records (1) that are created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by one or more of the Assureds; or (2) that result In no loss to the Assured. (c) Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters not shown by the Public Records. (d) The Identity of any party shown or referred to in any of the schedules of this Guarantee. (a) The validity, legal effect or priority of any matter shown or referred to In any of the schedules of this Guarantee. (f) (1) Taxes or assessments of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property; or, (2) proceedings by a public agency which may result In taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not the matters excluded under (1) or (2) are shown by the records of the taxing authority or by the Public Records. (g) (1) Unpatented mining claims; (2) reservations or exceptions in patents or In Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (3) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excluded under (1), (2) or (3) are shown by the Public Records. GUARANTEE CONDITIONS 1. Definition of Terms. The following terms when used in the Guarantee mean: (a) the "Assured": the party or parties named as the Assured in Schedule A, or on a supplemental writing executed by the Company., (b) "Land": the Land described or referred to In Schedule A, and Improvements affixed thereto which by law constitute real property. The term "Land" does not include any property beyond the lines of the area described or referred to in Schedule A, nor any right, title, Interest, estate or easement in abutting streets, roads, avenues, alleys, lanes, ways or waterways. (c) "Mortgage": mortgage, deed of trust, trust deed, or other security instrument. (d) "Public Records": those records established under California statutes at Date of Guarantee for the purpose of Imparting constructive notice of matters relating to real property to purchasers for value and without knowledge. (a) "Date of Guarantee": the Date of Guarantee set forth in Schedule A. (f) "Amount of Liability": the Amount of Liability as stated In Schedule A. 2. Notice of Claim to be Given by Assured. The Assured shall notify the Company promptly In writing in case knowledge shall come to the Assured of any assertion of facts, or claim of title or interest that Is contrary to the assurances set forth in Schedule A and that might cause loss or damage for which the Company may be liable under this Guarantee. If prompt notice shall not be given to the Company, then all liability of the Company shall terminate with regard to the matter or matters for which prompt notice is required; provided, however, that failure to notify the Company shall in no case prejudice the rights of the Assured under this Guarantee unless the Company shall be prejudiced by the failure and then only to the extent of the prejudice. 3. No Duty to Defend or Prosecute. The Company shall have no duty to defend or prosecute any action or proceeding to which the Assured is a party, notwithstanding the nature of any allegation in such action or proceeding. 4. Company's Option to Defend or Prosecute Actions; Duty of Assured to Cooperate. Even though the Company has no duty to defend or prosecute as set forth in Paragraph 3 above: (a) The Company shall have the right, at its sale option and cast, to institute and prosecute any action or proceeding, interpose a defense, as limited in Paragraph 4 (b), or to do any other act which in its opinion may be necessary or desirable to establish the correctness of the assurances set forth in Schedule A or to prevent or reduce loss or damage to the Assured. The Company may take any appropriate action under the terms of this Guarantee, whether or not it shall be liable hereunder, and shall not thereby concede liability or waive any provision of this Guarantee. If the Company shall exercise its rights under this paragraph, it shall do so diligently. (b) If the Company elects to exercise Its options as stated In Paragraph 4(a) the Company shall have the right to select counsel of Its choice (subject to the right of the Assured to object for reasonable cause) to represent the Assured and shall not be liable for and will not pay the fees of any other counsel, nor will the Company pay any fees, costs or expenses incurred by an Assured In the defense of those causes of action which allege matters not covered by this Guarantee. (c) Whenever the Company shall have brought an action or interposed a defense as permitted by the provisions of this Guarantee, the Company may pursue any litigation to final determination by a court of competent jurisdiction and expressly reserves the right, In its sole discretion, to appeal from an adverse judgment or order. (d) In all cases where this Guarantee permits the Company to prosecute or provide for the defense of any action or proceeding, the Assured shall secure to the Company the right to so prosecute or provide for the defense of any action or proceeding, and all appeals therein, and permit the Company to use, at its option, the name of the Assured for this purpose. Whenever requested by the Company, the Assured, at the Company's expense, shall give the Company all reasonable aid In any action or proceeding, securing evidence, obtaining witnesses, prosecuting or defending the action or lawful act which in the opinion of the Company may be necessary or desirable to establish the correctness of the assurances set forth in Schedule A or to prevent or reduce loss or damage to the Assured. If the Company is prejudiced by the failure of the Assured to furnish the required cooperation, the Company's obligations to the Assured under the Guarantee shall terminate. 5. Proof of Loss or Damage. (a) In the event the Company is unable to determine the amount of loss or damage, the Company may, at its option, require as a condition of payment that the Assured furnish a signed proof of loss. The proof of loss must describe the defect, Ilan, encumbrance, or other matter that constitutes the basis of loss or damage and shall state, to the extent possible, the basis of calculating the amount of the loss or damage. (b) In addition, the Assured may reasonably be required to submit to examination under oath by any authorized representative of the Company and shall produce for examination, inspection and copying, at such reasonable times and places as may be designated by any authorized representative of the Company, all records, books, ledgers, checks, correspondence and memoranda, whether bearing a date before or after Date of Guarantee, which reasonably pertain to the loss or damage. Further, if requested by any authorized representative of the Company, the Assured shall grant its permission, In writing, for any authorized representative of the Company to examine, inspect and copy all records, books, ledgers, checks, correspondence and memoranda in the custody or control of a third party, which reasonably pertain to the loss or damage. All information designated as confidential by the Assured provided to the Company pursuant to this paragraph shall not be disclosed to others unless, in the reasonable judgment of the Company, It is necessary in the administration of the claim. Failure of the Assured to submit for examination under oath, produce other reasonably requested CLTA Guarantee Exclusions and Conditions (06-05-14) Pape 2 © California Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to CLTA subscribers in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license or express permission from the California Land Title Association. Order No. 00185550-994-LT2-1 T W Information or grant permission to secure reasonably necessary Information from third parties as required in the aboye paragraph, unless prohibited by law or governmental regulation, shall terminate any liability of the Company under this Guarantee to the Assured for that claim. 6. Options to Pay or Otherwise Settle Claims: Termination of Liability. In case of a claim under this Guarantee, the Company shall have the following additional options: (a) To pay or tender payment of the Amount of Liability together with any costs, attorneys' fees, and expenses incurred by the Assured that were authorized by the Company up to the time of payment or tender of payment and that the Company is obligated to pay. (b) To pay or otherwise settle with the Assured any claim assured against under this Guarantee. In addition, the Company will pay any costs, attorneys' fees, and expenses incurred by the Assured that were authorized by the Company up to the time of payment or tender of payment and that that the Company is obligated to pay; or (c) To pay or otherwise settle with other parties for the loss or damage provided for under this Guarantee, together with any costs, attorneys' fees, and expenses Incurred by the Assured that were authorized by the Company up to the time of payment and that the Company is obligated to pay. Upon the exercise by the Company of either of the options provided for In 6 (a), (b) or (c) of this paragraph the Company's obligations to the Assured under this Guarantee for the claimed loss or damage, other than the payments required to be made, shall terminate, including any duty to continue any and all litigation initiated by the Company pursuant to Paragraph 4. 7. Limitation of Liability. (a) This Guarantee Is a contract of Indemnity against actual monetary loss or damage sustained or incurred by the Assured claimant who has suffered loss or damage by reason of reliance upon the assurances set forth in Schedule A and only to the extent herein described, and subject to the Exclusions From Coverage of this Guarantee. (b) If the Company, or the Assured under the direction of the Company at the Company's expense, removes the alleged defect, lien or, encumbrance or cures any other matter assured against by this Guarantee in a reasonably diligent manner by any method, including litigation and the completion of any appeals therefrom, It shall have fully performed its obligations with respect to that matter and shall not be liable for any loss or damage caused thereby. (c) In the event of any litigation by the Company or with the Company's consent, the Company shall have no liability for loss or damage until there has been a final determination by a court of competent jurisdiction, and disposition of all appeals therefrom. (d) The Company shall not be liable for loss or damage to the Assured for liability voluntarily assumed by the Assured in settling any claim or suit without the prior written consent of the Company. 8. Reduction of Liability or Termination of Liability. All payments under this Guarantee, except payments made for costs, attorneys' fees and expenses pursuant to Paragraph 4 shall reduce the Amount of Liability under this Guarantee pro tanto. 9. Payment of Loss. (a) No payment shall be made without producing this Guarantee for endorsement of the payment unless the Guarantee has been lost or destroyed, in which case proof of loss or destruction shall be furnished to the satisfaction of the Company. (b) When liability and the extent of loss or damage has been definitely fixed in accordance with these Conditions, the loss or damage shall be payable within thirty (30) days thereafter. 10. Subrogation Upon Payment or Settlement. Whenever the Company shall have settled and paid a claim under this Guarantee, all right of subrogation shall vest in the Company unaffected by any act of the Assured. The Company shall be subrogated to and be entitled to all rights and remedies which the Assured would have had against any person or Guarantee No. CA-FBSC-IMP-72G28-1-22-00185550 property in respect to the claim had this Guarantee not been Issued. If requested by the Company, the Assured shall transfer to the Company all rights and remedies against any person or property necessary in order to perfect this right of subrogation. The Assured shall permit the Company to sue, compromise or settle In the name of the Assured and to use the name of the Assured In any transaction or litigation Involving these rights or remedies. If a payment on account of a claim does not fully cover the loss of the Assured the Company shall be subrogated to all rights and remedies of the Assured after the Assured shall have recovered its principal, interest, and costs of collection. 11. Arbitration. Either the Company or the Assured may demand that the claim or controversy shall be submitted to arbitration pursuant to the Title Insurance Arbitration Rules of the American Land Title Association ("Rules"). Except as provided In the Rules, there shall be no joinder or consolidation with claims or controversies of other persons. Arbitrable matters may Include, but are not limited to, any controversy or claim between the Company and the Assured arising out of or relating to this Guarantee, any service of the Company in connection with its Issuance or the breach of a Guarantee provision, or to any other controversy or claim arising out of the transaction giving rise to this Guarantee. All arbitrable matters when the amount of liability is $2,000,000 or less shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the Assured. All arbitrable matters when the amount of liability is in excess of $2,000,000 shall he arbitrated only when agreed to by both the Company and the Assured. Arbitration pursuant to this Guarantee and under the Rules shall be binding upon the parties. Judgment upon the award rendered by the Arbitrator(s) may be entered In any court of competent jurisdiction. 12. Liability Limited to This Guarantee; Guarantee Entire Contract. (a) This Guarantee together with all endorsements, If any, attached hereto by the Company is the entire Guarantee and contract between the Assured and the Company. In interpreting any provision of this Guarantee, this Guarantee shall be construed as a whole. (b) Any claim of loss or damage, whether or not based on negligence, or any action asserting such claim, shall be restricted to this Guarantee. (c) No amendment of or endorsement to this Guarantee can be made except by a writing endorsed hereon or attached hereto signed by either the President, a Vice President, the Secretary, an Assistant Secretary, or validating officer or authorized signatory of the Company. 13. Severability In the event any provision of this Guarantee, in whole or in part, is held invalid or unenforceable under applicable law, the Guarantee shall be deemed not to include that provision or such part held to be invalid, but all other provisions shall remain in full force and effect. 14. Choice of Law; Forum (a) Choice of Law: The Assured acknowledges the Company has underwritten the risks covered by this Guarantee and determined the premium charged therefor in reliance upon the law affecting interests In real property and applicable to the interpretation, rights, remedies, or enforcement of Guaranties of thejurisdiction where the Land is located. Therefore, the court or an arbitrator shall apply the law of the jurisdiction where the Land Is located to determine the validity of claims that are adverse to the Assured and to interpret and enforce the terms of this Guarantee. In neither case shall the court or arbitrator apply its conflicts of law principles to determine the applicable law. (b) Choice of Forum: Any litigation or other proceeding brought by the Assured against the Company must be filed only in a state or federal court within the United States of America or its territories having appropriate jurisdiction. 15. Notices, Where Sent. All notices required to be given the Company and any statement in writing required to be furnished the Company shall include the number of this Guarantee and shall be addressed to the Company at Chicago Title Insurance Company, Attn: Claims Department, P.O. Box 45023, Jacksonville, FL 32232-5023. CLTA Guarantee Exclusions and Conditions (06-05-14) Pape 3 © California Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to CLTA subscribers In good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license or express permission from the California Land Title Association. Order No.: 00185550-994-LT2-tTW Guarantee No.: CA-FBSC-IMP-72G28-1-22-00185550 CONDITION OF TITLE GUARANTEE SCHEDULE A Order No.: 00185550-994-LT2-1TW Guarantee No.: CA-FBSC-IMP-72G28-1-22-00185550 Amount of Liability: $1,000.00 Date of Guarantee: October 24, 2022 at 7:30 A.M. Fee: $750.00 1. Name of Assured: Colin Edward Donnelly and Caroline La 2. The estate or interest in the Land which is covered by this Guarantee is: A FEE 3. The Land referred to in this Guarantee is described as follows: See Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. 4. ASSURANCES: According to the Public Records as of the Date of Guarantee, a. Title to the estate or interest in the Land is vested in: Colin Edward Donnelly, a single man and Caroline La, a single woman, as joint tenants b. Title to the estate or interest is subject to defects, liens or encumbrances shown in Schedule B which are not necessarily shown in the order of their priority. 72G28 CLTA Guarantee Form No. 28 (06-05-14) Page 4 Condition of Title Guarantee OO California Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to CLTA subscribers in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license or express permission from the California Land Title Association. Order No. 00185550-994-LT2-1TW EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION Policy No. CA-FBSC-IMP-72G28-1-22-00185550 THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF SANTA ANA, IN THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: LOT 57 OF TRACT NO. 754, IN THE CITY OF SANTA ANA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 22, PAGE 37 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF THE ALLEY SHOWN ON THE ABOVE REFERENCED TRACT MAP ADJOINING SAID LOT 57 ON THE SOUTH THAT WOULD REVERT TO SAID LOT 57 BY OPERATION OF LAW UPON VACATION OF SAID ALLEY BY THE CITY OF SANTA ANA. APN : 002-073-14 72G28 CLTA Guarantee Form No. 28 (06-05-14) Condition of Title Guarantee Page 5 © California Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to CLTA subscribers in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohbited. Reprinted under license or express permission from the California Land Title Association. Order No. 00185550-994-LT2-1TW Policy No. CA-FBSC-IMP-72G28-1-22-00185550 SCHEDULE B A. Property taxes, including any personal property taxes and any assessments collected with taxes, are as follows: Tax Identification No.. 002-073-14 Fiscal Year: 2022-2023 1st Installment: $5,374.53, unpaid (Delinquent after December 10) Penalty: $537.45 2nd Installment: $5,374.53, unpaid (Delinquent after April 10) Penalty and Cost: $560.45 Homeowners Exemption: $none Code Area: 11-003 B. The lien of supplemental or escaped assessments of property taxes, if any, made pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 75) or Part 2, Chapter 3, Articles 3 and 4, respectively, of the Revenue and Taxation Code of the State of California as a result of the transfer of title to the vestee named in Schedule A or as a result of changes in ownership or new construction occurring prior to Date of Policy. 1. Water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not disclosed by the public records. 2. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto as condemned by an instrument, Entitled: Final Judgment Court: Superior In favor of: City of Santa Ana Purpose: public street Recording Date: March 17, 1931 Recording No: in Book 460 page 471, of Official Records Affects: a portion of said land 3. Covenants, conditions and restrictions but omitting any covenants or restrictions, if any, including but not limited to those based upon age, race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, disability, veteran or military status, genetic information, medical condition, citizenship, primary language, and immigration status, as set forth in applicable state or federal laws, except to the extent that said covenant or restriction is permitted by applicable law, as set forth in the document Recording Date: in Book 527 page 26, of Official Records 72G28 CLTA Guarantee Form No. 28 (06-05-14) Condition of Title Guarantee Page 6 O California Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to CLTA subscribers in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license or express permission from the California Land Title Association. Order No. 00185550-994-LT2-1Tw Policy No. CA-FBSC-IMP-72G28-1-22-00185550 SCHEDULE B (Continued) 4. A deed of trust to secure an indebtedness in the amount shown below, Amount: $741,600.00 Dated: September 4, 2021 Trustor/Grantor Colin Edward Donnelly, a single man and Caroline La, a single woman, as joint tenants Trustee: Heather Lovier Beneficiary: Rocket Mortgage, LLC., fka Quicken Loans, LLC, a limited liability company Recording Date: September 10, 2021 Recording No: 2021-566541 of Official Records 5. Matters contained in that certain document Entitled: Historic Property Preservation Agreement Recording Date: September 1, 2022 Recording No: 2022-295877, of Official Records Reference is hereby made to said document for full particulars. 6. Rights of the public to use that portion of the alley adjoining said Lot 57 on the South until such time said alley is vacated to the public by the City of Santa Ana. 72G28 CLTA Guarantee Form No. 28 (06-05-14) Page 7 Condition of Title Guarantee © California Land Title Association, All rights reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to CLTA subscribers in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license or express permission from the California Land Title Association. RECORDING REQUESTED BY: Fidelity National Title Company Escrow No. 30294-Cy Title Order No. 09715917 _�— I When Recorded Mail Document and Tax Statement To: Mr. and Mrs. ROBERT H. PRICE 2383 NORTH FLOWER STREET SANTA ANA, CA Recorded in the County of Orange, California L. I II I I I hall 1111111111111111111111111111111 II Illvillll Ileii Clerk/R9.ecorder 19970426487 04:30PM 09/02/97 004 25004528 25 19 G02 2 11 101.75 6.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 101.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 GRANT DEED The undersigned grantor(s) declare(s) Documentary transfer tax is $203.50 I X ) computed on full value of property conveyed, or I I computed on full value less value of liens or encumbrances remaining at time of sale, I I Unincorporated Area City of S'Rpta Qna FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, CAROL COVELL, TRUSTEE OF THE MARY JANE SMART TRUST DTD MAY 30, 1996 hereby GRANTIS) to ROBERT H. PRICE and PATRICIA YOUNG -PRICE, Husband and Wife as Joint -Tenants the following described real property in the County of ORANGE, State of California: Lot 57, Tract 754, County of ORANGE, State of California, as per map recorded in Book 22, Page 37 of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County. 070 DATED: August W, 1997 COU STATE O OFAIRIFORN(A e N before me, L� personally appeared proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the personX whose name is/X subscribed to the within instrument and acknowled ad to me that/she/t* executed the same in F /her/tT<authorized capacity*, and that by t (7,her/tW signaturelk on the instrument the personpqYor the entity upon behalf of which the personli%1 acted, executed the instrument. Witness my h d and official se Signature THE MA ' JANE SMAST TRUST DTD MAY 30, 1996 By: v/l CAROL COVELL, Trustee cwrwii�rlla110� �tiA�CNnq 1lyCml�►41��ONf.1M MAIL TAX STATEMENTS AS DIRECTED ABOVE FD-213 (Rev 7/96) GRANT DEED GOVERNMENT CODE 27361-7 I CERTIFY UNDER THE PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ON THE DOCUMENT TO WHICH THIS STATEMENT IS ATTACHED READS AS FOLLOWS: NAME OF NOTARY: g1'eoe(l� A • Me CG II DATE COMMISSION EXPIRES: ! ) -741 COUNTY IN WHICH BOND IS FILED: , 4t N �ft Alr1 a ►77 COMMISSION 1: 107 (7 0 6 MANUFACTURER/VENDOR NO: N alp ,rMELITY NATIONJP TITLE SANTA ANA / CA - PLACE OF EXECUTION DATE: T`7 -0(/ RECORDING REQUESTED BY: WESTERN RESOURCES TITLE COMPANY RECORDING REQUESTED BY: KelleyEscrow Corporation Order No. 224981 Escrow No. 42721-J Parcel No. 002-073-14 AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: COLIN DONNELLY 2383 NORTH FLOWER STREET SANTA ANA, CA 92706 Recorded in Official Records, Orange County Hugh Nguyen, Clerk -Recorder I[ � � 11 II 11111 111I I[111111 II 10.00 *$ R 0 0 1 3 1 5 6 8 5 3 $ * 202100056654012:05 pm 09/10/21 227 NC-5 G02 2 11 509.85 509.85 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.000.000.00 0.00 W9 GRANT DEED Is USE THE UNDERSIGNED GRANTOR(S) DECLARE(S) THAT DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX IS $1,019.70 and CITY $ Qy ® computed on full value of property conveyed, or I" ❑ computed on full value less liens or encumbrances remaining at the time of sale. ❑ unincorporated area: ® Santa Ana, and FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Jeffrey Michael Plost and Kathleen E. Plost, husband and wife as joint tenants hereby GRANT(S) to COLIN EDWARD DONNELLY, A SINGLE EENMAN AND CAROLINE LA the following described real propertty iG�e Countyp'ot &tinge W to a of aL^h-to3ni S The legal description is supplied by the title company herein and attached hereto as Exhibit "A" Date Aueust 11�2m21 Jeffrey Michol Plost Kathleen E. Pl Jef(yfY I�iC,lnc�1 Vim+ N+h u,&n E- f I o s-fi A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. STATE OF CAL ORNIA COUNTY OF �• v-yZ } S.S. /r On Z, P , before me, Notary Public, personally appeared F_ v ,4- who proved to me on the basis of sa sfactory evidence to be the persons) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity, upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PAY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my Signature Mail T`x-StatGmentstto SAME AS ABOVE or Address Noted Below JUS`n T' S. Comm. M2230048 Notary Public California Orange County Comm. Expires Feb 13, 2022 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION Real properly in the City of Santa Ana, County of Orange, State of California, described as follows: LOT 57 OF TRACT NO..754, AS PER RECORDED IN BOOK 22, PAGE 37, OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. APN: 002-073-14 RECORDING REQUESTED BY LAWYERS TOLE RECORDING REQUESTED BY LAWYERS TITLE COMPANY When recorded mail document and tax statement to: JEFFREY MICHAEL PLOST 2383 NORTH FLOWER STREET SANTA ANA, CA 92706 A.P.N.:002-073-14 Recorded in Official Records, Orange County Tom Daly, Clerk -Recorder IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 9.00 2004000648004 03:59pm 07/16/04 103 18 G02 2 334.95 334.95 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Order No.: 05313104-36 Above This Line for Recorder's Use Only Escrow No.: 63361-LW GRANT DEED THE UNDERSIGNED GRANTOR(s) DECLARE(s) THAT DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX IS: COUNTY $669.90 [ computed on full value of property conveyed, or [ computed on full value less value of liens or encumbrances remaining at time of sale, [ ] unincorporated area; [ X ] City of SANTA ANA , and FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, Receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, JAMES F. KUHNE, JR. and SUZANNE W. KUHNE, HUSBAND AND WIFE AS COMMUNITY PROPERTY hereby GRANT(S) to JEFFREY MICHAEL PLOST, A MARRIED MAN AS HIS SOLE AND SEPARATE a PROPERTY A the following described property in the City of SANTA ANA, County of ORANGE State of California; Lot 57 of Tract No. 754, in the City of SANTA ANA, County of ORANGE, State of California as per map recorded in Book 22, Page 37 of Miscellaneous Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County. AMES '. KUHNE„ JR. SU E W. KUHNE Date: May 15, 2004 STATE OF CALIFQRNIA COUNTY OF ©© )SS Y 1'aAOdG/G personally appeared JoTMe3 F- /Kk#/ttt i JR !/'N/� �i./ZJ9"N/ut /fit/ rC2l lfN� , P ^^�°• Law— - w (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose nameis)-e/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me at t tey execu d the same in 44&41¢r/their authorized capacityM and that by hisfher/their signaturSillon the instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which the person sLacted, executed the instrument. WITNESS `my hand and official seal. Signature This area for official notarial seal. MADE" L. COLON Comnlubn S 1357333 NORNY PtIM - COWaNa Orange Cou ly M V Comm. EIVMtMu/2D, M LuryersTide Company Subsidiary of )<auryeisTlde Insurance CoWmfion PENALTY OF PERJURY AFFIDAVIT (GOVERNMENT CODE 27361.7) I certify under the penalty of perjury that the notary seal on the document to which this statement is attached reads as follows: Name of the Notary: Date Commission expires: County Where Bond is Filed: Feb U Commission No.: 135-7333 ManufacturerNendor No.: Place of Execution: Irvine, Ca. Date 20 Signature: TITLE I further certify under the penalty of perjury that the illegible portion of the document to which this statement is attached reads as follows (if applicable): Date: ,20 Signature: LAWYERS TITLE COMPANY 18551 Von Karman, Suite 100-200, Irvine, California, 92612 (949) 223-5575 RECORDED !AT', 14E Cti1UTO TITL!, RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: JAMES F. KUHNE, JR. SUZANNE W.KUHNE 2383 NORTH FLOWER STREET SANTA ANA, CA 92706 Recorded in Official Records,County of Orange Ga L. Granville, Clerk -Recorder I I II III 1111 III III II I11 6.00 20010150812 03:50pm 03/15/01 103 49 G02 1 178.75 178.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Space Above This Line for Recorder's Use Only A.P.N.: 002-073-14./ Order No.: 18030337 Escrow No.: 52851-LW GRANT DEED / THE UNDERSIGNED GRANTOR(s) DECLARE(s) THAT DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX IS: COUNTY jj57.50 J [ X ] computed on full value of property conveyed, or [[ ] computed on full value less value of liens or encumbrances remaining at time of sale, unincorporated area; [ X ] City of SANTA ANA , and t FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, Receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, MICHAEL J. FELSEN, A MARRIED MAN, who acquired title as MICHAEL J. FELSEN, A SINGLE MAN hereby GRANT(S) to JAMES F. KUHNE, JR. and SUZANNE W. KUHNE, Husband and Wife as Community the following described property in the City of SANTA ANA, County of ORANGE State of California; Property LOT 57 OF TRACT NO. 754, IN THE CITY OF SANTA ANA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 22, PAGE(S) 37, OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. JM&CHA/LJ. FELSEN Document Date: January 26. 2001 STATE OF C. COUNTY OF On L )SS me, 0 A-)L 46- IVAWAWAK/ J�i7� !� j �it Q//C Personally appeared CAS E N P—Rnr""w*16ww.(or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the personal whose namc(,y is/S subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/skek wy executed the same in his/harlawir authorized capacity(.69 and that by his/Ja ' signamre(y# on the instrument the person(y9 or the entity upon behalf of which the person(#) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature This area for official notarial seal. DIA1iE B. ICA'NAWAK7 Can nEssSx a 12666M NOtc.Y isti-6tc — CaAkLrda C :J. Ca�rr!y My Corm. E V*M JW 9, 2,004 Le 1W1qr"W_W_W.% Mail Tax Statements to: SAME AS ABOVE or Address Noted Below by: RECORDING REQUESTED BY: Recording Orange Coast Title Co. Orange AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: Michael J. Felsen \ 2383 No. Flower St. ` Santa Ana, CA 92706 Order No. 269933-1 Escrow No: 89575 - CWS A.P.N.: 002-073-14 Title Recorded in the County of Orange, California Ga L. Granville, Clerk/Recorder I II I I I 11111111111111111111111111111111111111 6.00 19990641842 3:52pm 09/03/99 004 23018681 23 08 G02 1 11 145.75 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 145.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 GRANT DEED THE UNDERSIGNED GRANTOR(S) DECLARE(S) DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX IS $ 911 .SO Q computed on full value of property conveyed, or ❑ computed on full value less value of liens or encumbrances remaining at time of sale. ❑ unincorporated area Q City of Santa Ana, AND FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Patricia Young -Price hereby GRANT(S) to Michael J. Felsen , a single man the following described real property in the County of Orange, State of California: t�l Lot 57 of Tract 754 as shown on a map recorded in Book 22, page 37 of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County. Dated: July 15, 1999 STATE OF CALIFORNIA/ .� } S.S. COUNTY OF y_�Z..' ���L On _ sue_.. r/ bejoreme, Z 41 { k' ` I 1,411 .0 a Nofary Public in and for,syid rounty and St t personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies) and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s), acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. .1 Signaturey,j .�°y'Gc.: J:.l Signature of Notary Patricia Young -Price (This area for official notarial seal) IMICHELE ANN PUACELL N Comm. # 1213815 NOTARY PUBLIC-CALIFORNIA \ Orange County /�3... My Comm. Expires March 21,2003 MAIL TAX STATEMENTS TO: Michael J. Felsen 2383 No. Flower St., Santa Ana, CA 92706 Name Street Address City & State Hall, Jennifer From: Michae DeCavallas < Sent: Sunday, August 6, 2023 4:02 PM To: eComment Subject: Abandonment 2023-01 Flower Alley To whom it may concern: My name is Michael DeCavallas and I am writing to ensure that the city moves forward with blocking the alley from flower into the Floral Park Neighborhood. Our neighborhood is not a gated community and the people of Floral Park enjoy opening up our yards and neighborhood to display Holiday Lights and Halloween decorations. Bus loads of kids come every year and we are happy to share our historic community with other residents in Santa Ana and Orange County. That being said, the Alley on flower opens up a path for transients to come into the neighborhood and has left some of our neighbors feeling unsafe. There are no other alleys from flower into the neighborhood, and to me it does not make sense to have one there. Another big issue with that alley is cars pulling in and pulling out to fast (which I have witnessed) making it dangerous for people walking their dogs on flower or on the other side of the alley. To me, there is no reason for this alley to exist. There are main roads that can be accessed to get into the neighborhood, so why would we have a random alley enticing people to come in that are walking down or up from 17th street. Lastly, it saddens me that for some reason this request has been met with some opposition. I have read some of these comments and quite honestly it appears to be personal reasons why they don't want this to happen. One person even had the audacity to say "why are we giving neighbors more land or giving money away?" Or something along those lines. The truth is, no one is giving anything away and as a homeowner in floral park, I am not concerned with the politics of "if they get something then so should I". That is not the way life works. We simply want to make our neighborhood more safe and have the infrastructure to support that. I understand that the people "affected" may live on top of that alley, but this issue also affects all of us that live inside the neighborhood as well. I do not see how the convenience of being able to drive your vehicle (probably too fast) through that alley justifies a safety issue for the rest of the community. Ultimately I would like to see the city proceed and block off this alley for good. Please do not let a small percentage of our neighbors who are playing the victim for their own benefit deter the city from making a safety improvement in our neighborhood. Lastly, we love living here and appreciate all of the support the city has giving floral park residents over the years. Regards, Michael DeCavallas Riverside Drive, Floral Park Hall, Jennifer From: Juliette Varciag < Sent: Sunday, August 6, 2023 4:52 PM To: eComment Subject: Opposition to privatization of Floral Park Alley bw Flower/Heliotrope Dear City of Santa Ana, I support maintaining the status quo to leave the alley between Flower St. And Heliotrope open. If for no other reason than emergency access for an emergency vehicle. Respectfully, Juliette Benton Hall, Jennifer From: colin donnelly < Sent: Monday, August 7, 2023 8:25 AM To: eComment Subject: abandonment 2023-01 Flower Alley Hi there, After seeing everything circulated on this, I fully support the abandonment of this alley. It serves no real purpose, and if it adds to safety as it looks like the Santa Ana PD has stated, I am in agreement of the city vacating it Thank you, P. M Hall, Jennifer From: Alyse DeCavallas < Sent: Monday, August 7, 2023 10:24 AM To: eComment Subject: Abandonment 2023-1 (flower alley) Council, I am a resident of Floral Park in Santa Ana, and am writing to urge you to vacate and close the alley on Flower street. The opposition to the alley vacation is a mean -spirited attempt to stop others from "getting" something for free. They claim that there is no crime, which has been disproven through surveillance footage. They claim that they depend on the alley as a throughway, but it only lies 350ft south of N Park Blvd on the Flower side and even closer on Heliotrope. Council, it only takes looking back on the evidence already provided and the previous findings of public works, the city council and the planning committee to know that the opposition is not based in fact. Please do not subject the homeowners and the community to continued crime that could have been easily prevent over a few loud but meritless voices. Thank you, Alyse DeCavallas Riverside Dr Sent from my iPhone Hall, Jennifer From: Denise Silva < Sent: Monday, August 7, 2023 1:39 PM To: eComment Subject: Abandonment 2023-01 (Flower Alley) To whom it may concern I live in the Floral Park neighborhood, and learned there is a petition being circulated to oppose the alley vacation and I strongly disagree. I support the findings of public staff, including public works, planning commission, and the city council thus far and want this easement vacated. Thank you for your consideration. Best regards, Denise A. Silva ( Hall, Jennifer From: Trace Weatherford < Sent: Monday, August 7, 2023 3:38 PM To: eComment Subject: abandonment 2023-01 (Flower Alley) We live in the Floral Park neighborhood, we learned there is a petition being circulated to oppose the alley vacation and we strongly disagree with this petition. We fully support the findings of public staff, including public works, planning commission, and the city council thus far and want this easement vacated. Kind regards, Trace Weatherford Jonathan Rosenberger Hall, Jennifer From: Sent: To: Subject: To whom it may concern, Ashley Marie Rosas < Monday, August 7, 2023 7:34 PM eComment Flower Alley Abandonment (Floral Park) I am writing to express my strong support for the city's possible decision to abandon the alley located on N. Flower St. to enhance safety in our neighborhood. As homeowners, it is of utmost importance that we prioritize the well-being and security of our community. The presence of transients running through the alley has raised legitimate concerns about safety, not only for us as homeowners but also for anyone passing through the area. The fact that some individuals may not be affected by the alley's situation does not negate the impact it has on the homeowners who reside nearby. It is crucial to remember that what affects one part of the community, ultimately impacts the entire community. I trust that the city will carefully consider the viewpoints of concerned homeowners like myself and the safety benefits this decision brings. I appreciate the efforts put forth by the city in addressing community concerns, and I am confident that this measure will contribute significantly to our collective well-being. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Sincerely, Ashley and Jose Herrera Residents of Floral Park (N Flower) Hall, Jennifer From: Wayne Suraci < Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2023 2:35 PM To: eComment Subject: Floral Park Alley Between Heliotrope and Flower Subject: (Flower Alley) We live in the Floral Park neighborhood, we learned there is a petition being circulated to oppose the alley vacation and we strongly disagree. We support the findings of public staff, including public works, planning commission, and the city council thus far and would like to see this easement vacated. Wayne Suraci and Merle Craig Santa Ana 92706 Hall, Jennifer From: Irene Myers <irene@kentsnyderlaw.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2023 2:49 PM To: Carvalho, Sonia R.; Lopez, Jessie; Bacerra, Phil; Hernandez, Johnathan; Penaloza, David; eComment; Ridge, Kristine; Phan, Thai; Vazquez, Benjamin Cc: Cheryl Newton; irenemyers32@gmail. Subject: Agenda Item Applying for Vacation of Alley in Floral Park between 2383 N. Flower and 2379 N, Flower Street Attachments: City of Santa Ana KGS 8 8 23.pdf Dear Ms. Carvalho and City Council Members: Please see attached letter from attorney Kent Snyder regarding the above referenced matter. Said matter to be heard on August 15, 2023. Please reply with any questions whatsoever. Thank you. Kent Snyder 11 awow Offices of Illteint G Snydeui. 2301 III1)u11point III'aui.liive, Su Bite d��" 0 111urv!I!ine, CaIII l!I!forin!I!ia 926:1.2 Il:ureine d Illdyeirs Administrator Irene@Kentsnyderlaw.com lol (9,49) 232..,90/2 fax (949) 833 2209 CONFIDENTIAL PvFORAIATION This c-mall transmission contains confidential information which is intended only for the addressee and which may he privileged under applicable law. IDo not read, copy or disseminate it ifyou are not the addressee. Ifyou have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it. Thank you. Law Offices of KENT G. SNYDER ATTORNEY AT LAW KENT G. SNYDER 2301DUPONT DRIVE, SUITE 430 (949) 833-9078 KATHLEEN A. KELLY IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92612 Fax: (949) 833-8209 kent@kentsnyderlaw.com kathleen@kentsnyderlaw.com August 8, 2023 Ms. Sonia R. Carvalho City Attorney, City of Santa Ana 22 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, California 92701 Re: Agenda Item for Vacation of Alley In Floral Park between 2383 N Flower and 2379 N Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA Dear Ms. Carvalho: I have been engaged by two of the residents of Floral Park to represent them in the above -subject matter which comes before the City Council on August 15, 2023. My clients are Irene Myers of 2393 N. Flower Street, and Cheryl Newton of 2379 N. Flower Street. My clients oppose the Application. I am writing to you about an error in the Application. The error is in the Title Guarantee issued by Chicago Title Company. Attached to this letter please find a copy of an email between Colin Donnelly and the Title Company dated November 16, 2022 at the time the first draft of the Title Report Guarantee was issued. My observations of this email reveal: 1) The Title Officer was correct in the first draft that he produced of the Title Report Guarantee in that he included item 6 which says "the rights of the public to use that portion of the alley adjoining said lot 57 on the south, until such time said alley is vacated to the Public by the City of Santa Ana. 2) The Title Officer was correct in the above statement because this is a dedicated roadway as stated in the language in the upper right-hand corner of the recorded map for Tract 754 which was recorded in 1925 and it says that all streets and roadways are dedicated for public use. The alley fits within this category. 3) The alley was dedicated to the City for the use by the Public in fee simple absolute. It was not then, has never been, and is not now any portion of Lot 57. Lot 57 lies contiguous to the alley, but three other lots also lie contiguous to the alley. Ms. Newton's lot, plus two lots which front onto Heliotrope. Mr. Donnelly intentionally suborned the Title Officer to state in August 8, 2023 Page 2 the Title Report Guarantee that is part of Mr. Donnelly's Application, that the alley would "revert to the Owner of Lot 57 by operation of law". That statement is untrue. 4) If the City were to grant Mr. Donnelly's application, the alley would revert to the public, the public owns it now, it's circular, the public owns it now and they'll own it if the vacation were granted. It does not "revert" to Mr. Donnelly by operation of law. I have no idea what the Title Officer meant with those words, and I don't think anyone else knows either. 5) It seems to me that it is clear that the application is flawed in that the Title Report Guarantee included has part of the Application has a misstatement of fact in it, i.e., a lie. I believe that this misstatement of fact was caused by Mr. Donnelly emailing Mr. Josue Reano of Chicago Title in which he says "It seems like this part of the title report reads a little off ... the alley being vacated to the public? Shouldn't the alley be vacated back to us as the owners?" Mr. Donnelly and all the previous owners to Lot 57 were never the owners of the alley from the time the Tract Map was recorded in 1925 until today's date. That alley belongs to the public in fee simple absolute. 6) 1 will be in attendance on August 15, 2023, to speak on behalf of my clients and I would like to have my 3-minute time slot used to argue other things than the matter contained in this letter, so hence, this letter. Please discuss this issue with your client before the meeting of August 15tb. I have sent a copy to the Mayor and to the City Council members, I hope they have an opportunity to read it and to read the email attached in which Mr. Donnelly suborns the Title Officer, who was correct at the outset and is incorrect as the application currently sits. Very trul yours, KkG.SnydeYr KGS:im cc: Thai Viet Phan, Councilmember Jessie Lopez, Councilmember Johnathan Ryan Hernandez, Councilmember Benjamin Vazquez, Councilmember Phil Bacerra, Councilmember David Penaloza, Councilmember Kristine Ridge, City Manager Jennifer L. Hall, City Clerk From: Colin Donnelly < > Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2022 10:41 AM To: Reano, Josue < >. Cc: TeamX77 < >, Goodman, Joe < Subject: RE Document Delivery Notice - Order #00185550 Ref 1 Santa Ana CA 92706 Ref 3: Condition of Title Report Guarantee 00185550 Ref 2: 2383 N Flower St., IMPORTANT NOTICE - This message sourced from an external rnail server outside of the Company. Hey there Joe, It seems like this part of the title report reads a little off -the alley being vacated to the public? Shouldn't the alley be vacated back to us as the owners? From: Reano, Josue < > Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 12:43 PM To: ; Colin Donnelly < Cc: TeamX77 < >- Goodman, Joe < Subject: Document Delivery Notice - Order #00185550 Ref 1 Ana CA 92706 Ref 3: Condition of Title Report Guarantee 00185550 Ref 2: 2383 N Flower St., Santa Hall, Jennifer From: Irene Myers <irene@kentsnyderlaw.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 11:19 AM To: Carvalho, Sonia R.; Lopez, Jessie; Bacerra, Phil; Hernandez, Johnathan; Penaloza, David; eComment; Ridge, Kristine; Phan, Thai; Vazquez, Benjamin; Amezcua, Valerie Cc: Cheryl Newton; irenemyers32@gmail. Subject: RE: Agenda Item Applying for Vacation of Alley in Floral Park between 2383 N. Flower and 2379 N, Flower Street Attachments: City of Santa Ana KGS 8 9 23.pdf Dear Mr. Carvalho and City Council Members: Please see attached letter from Kent G. Snyder regarding the above -entitled matter. Thank you. K pint G. u:)r(l it II)1r ]lain M)eiirs 11 awow t2ttliices of Illteint G Snydeui. 2301 III1)u11point III'aui.liive, Su Bite d��" 0 111urv!I!ine, CaIII l!I!forin!I!ia 926:1.2 Il:ureine d Illdyeirs Administrator Irene@Kentsnyderlaw.com lol (9,49) 232..,90/2 fax (949) 833 2209 CONFIDENTIAL PvFORAIATION This c-mall transmission contains confidential information which is intended only for the addressee and which may he privileged under applicable law. IDo not read, copy or disseminate it ifyou are not the addressee. Ifyou have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it. Thank you. From: Irene Myers Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2023 2:49 PM To: scarvalho@santa-ana.org; jessielopez@santa-ana.org; pbacerra@santa-ana.org; jryanhernandez@santa-ana.org; dpenaloza@santa-ana.org; ecomment@santa-ana.org; kridge@santa-ana.org; tphan@santa-ana.org; bvazquez@santa- ana.org Cc: Cheryl Newton <cherylnewton2@cox. net>; irenemyers32@gmail. Agenda Applying for Vacation of Alley in Floral Park between 2383 N. Flower and 2379 N, Flower Street Dear Ms. Carvalho and City Council Members: Please see attached letter from attorney Kent Snyder regarding the above referenced matter. Said matter to be heard on August 15, 2023. Please reply with any questions whatsoever. Thank you. Kent Snyder K pint G. Sinydeir by fireine M ciirs 11 awow t2ttliices of Illteint G Snydeui. 2301 III1)u11point III'aui.liive, Su Bite d��" 0 111urv!I!ine, CaIII l!I!forin!I!ia 926:1.2 Il:ureine S IvIyeirs Administrator Irene@Kentsnyderlaw.com lol (9,49) 833..,9078 fax (949) 833 8209 CONFIDENTIAL PvFORAIATION This e-mail transmission contains confidential information which is intended only for the addressee and which may he privileged under applicable law. IDo not read, copy or disseminate it ifyou are not the addressee. Ifyou have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it. Thank you. Law Offices of KENT G. SNYDER ATTORNEY AT LAW KENT G. SNYDER KATHLEEN A. KELLY kent@kentsnyderlaw.com Ms. Sonia R. Carvalho City Attorney, City of Santa Ana 22 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, California 92701 2301 DUPONT DRIVE, SUITE 430 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92612 August 9, 2023 (949) 833-9078 Fax: (949)833-8209 kathleen@kentsnyderlaw.com Re: Agenda Item for Vacation of Alley in Floral Park between 2383 N. Flower and 2379 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA Dear Ms. Carvalho: I have been advised by my client that the matter concerning the alleyway has been taken off the Agenda for the City Council meeting of August 15, 2023. Accordingly, I will not be present. Please let me know if my information is incorrect. Thank you. I also want you to know that in preparation for the City Council meeting my clients circulated a Petition around the neighborhood in opposition to the Application. Currently, my clients have 52 signatures representing 31 Lots in the immediate area of the alley. There are three other Lots contiguous to the alley, they all signed, as did their neighbors, as did people across the street on Heliotrope and people across the street from the alley on Flower. I believe it is safe to say that the neighborhood wants the alley left alone in its present state. I hope this is the end of this matter and we can all stop wasting our time on it. Thank you for your help. VPntG.i yo ,' nyder KGS:im cc: Thai Viet Phan, Councilmember Jessie Lopez, Councilmember Johnathan Ryan Hernandez, Councilmember Benjamin Vazquez, Councilmember Phil Bacerra, Councilmember David Penaloza, Councilmember Kristine Ridge, City Manager The Mayor Hall, Jennifer From: Hall, Jennifer Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 4:19 PM To: eComment Subject: FW: Alley in Floral Park between 2383 N. Flower and 2379 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA Emailing: Alley Signed Petitions 2, Alley Signed Petitions 3, Alley Signed Petitions 4, Alley Signed Petitions 5, Alley Signed Petitions 1 Attachments: Alley Signed Petitions 2.pdf; Alley Signed Petitions 3.pdf; Alley Signed Petitions 4.pdf; Alley Signed Petitions 5.pdf; Alley Signed Petitions 1.pdf -----Original Message ----- From: Irene Myers <irene@kentsnyderlaw.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 2:59 PM To: Lopez, Jessie <JessieLopez@santa-ana.org>; Kent Snyder <kent@kentsnyderlaw.com> Cc: Cheryl Newton < ; irenemyers32@gmail. Subject: Alley in Floral Park between 2383 N. Flower and 2379 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA Emailing: Alley Signed Petitions 2, Alley Signed Petitions 3, Alley Signed Petitions 4, Alley Signed Petitions 5, Alley Signed Petitions 1 Mr. Lopez: I understand you will help in getting these signed letter petitions to the appropriate files/people. Thank you so much for your help in this matter. I have attached 5 separate PDFs for your use. There are more to come which I will forward to you accordingly. Thank you so much. Kent G. Snyder Kent G. Snyder by Irene Myers Law Offices of Kent G. Snyder 2301 Dupont Drive, Suite 430 Irvine, California 92612 Irene S. Myers Administrator lrene@Kentsnyderlaw.com tel (949) 833-9078 fax (949) 833-8209 CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION This e-mail transmission contains confidential information which is intended only for the addressee and which may be privileged under applicable law. Do not read, copy or disseminate it if you are not the addressee. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it. Thank you. Name: MkQe i A R $, a Address: -- Date: August 2, 2023 Re: City Council Hearing on August 15, 2023 Objection to Application for Abandonment of certain easement/right of way located at 2383 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA; (Abandonment No. 2023-01); Applicants Colin Donnelly and Carolina La Dear Mayor and City Council: We are residents at the above address. We have been residents at said address since 6201s, . We understand that there has been an Application to Abandon the alleyway located between 2379 and 2383 North Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA, our neighborhood alleyway. We strongly are opposed to the reverting of said property as stated on Applicant's application for the following reasons: 1. First, we do not believe there was ever an easement for said alleyway, it is a dedicated roadway. We strongly believe that alley is a PUBLIC ROADWAY. We strongly object to the fact that the City of Santa is intending on GIFTING PUBLIC FUNDS to the Applicants. The alleyway belongs to the People. We are of the opinion that gifting of Public funds for free is illegal. The valve of said "gift" could possibly be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars taken from our community. 2. We believe the gifting of said land increases the Applicants' property by approximately 1,150 sq. ft of prime property in Santa Ana. 3. We object to the fact that our community was not informed properly of the Applicants' application to have the property "reverted" to 2383 North Flower. That property is a PUBLIC ROADWAY —there is nothing to "revert". We, the people, are deserving of proper Notice. 4. We object that the Applicants intend on having a wall built to block the alleyway so no one has access to that public roadway. This is our community; the location of this property is not for individual use. We never agreed to give the property to anyone. This alleyway will be closed for public use should you approve this Application. 5. We also object to the fact that our neighbors adjacent to said alleyway on Heliotrope will be restricted and inconvenienced by said closure of this alleyway. They do not have driveways, so they must access their garages via the alleyway. Those neighbors have legal rights to full access to this alleyway. It also creates a dangerous driving condition in that people may have to back up onto Heliotrope if a car is coming down the alley. 6. The residence located at 2379 North Flower will also be greatly impacted if this "reverting" is approved. This is not an easement, it is a dedicated roadway, nothing to "revert". The property owner at 2379 also has rights, as do we. 7. Said alleyway has been there for 100 years! The Applicants have owned their residence at 2383 N. Flower for 22 months. We love our neighborhood just as it is, we do not need to close alleyways for individuals who have not given thought to our community. 8. Additional verbiage has been added to the legal description of Applicants' application. Applicants are claiming the alleyway belongs to them, and thus, want the alleyway "reverted". This NEW language just appeared out of nowhere. The City must review all ORIGINAL maps and records to disprove this claim. 9. We also believe that alleyway property was DEDICATED to the City of Santa Ana by prior owners of said land/alleyway in the year 1925, and not as an easement over the Applicants' property at 2383 N. Flower. 10. We are adamant and herewith request that the City of Santa Ana either take the matter off calendar for further review by the City Attorney and/or any other departments needed to establish said ownership of that property or that the City Council abolish all further discussion on this matter and terminate said Application with no further discussion. We prefer the latter. Thank you in advance for your consideration into this matter. We wish to be contacted directly by the City with any decisions made on this Application. Our contract information is noted above. Thank you for your time and your efforts in rejecting this Application. By. .Name: f t (Y v\� 74 t Address: Date: August 2, 2023 Re: City Council Hearing on August 15, 2023 Objection to Application for Abandonment of certain easement/right of way located at 2383 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA; (Abandonment No. 2023-01); Applicants Colin Donnelly and Carolina La Dear Mayor and City Council: We are residents at the above address. We have been residents at said address since Jo"se- a0) 6 . We understand that there has been an Application to Abandon the alleyway located between 2379 and 2383 North Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA, our neighborhood alleyway. We strongly are opposed to the reverting of said property as stated on Applicant's application for the following reasons: 1. First, we do not believe there was ever an easement for said alleyway, it is a dedicated roadway. We strongly believe that alley is a PUBLIC ROADWAY. We strongly object to the fact that the City of Santa is intending on GIFTING PUBLIC FUNDS to the Applicants. The alleyway belongs to the People. We are of the opinion that gifting of Public funds for free is illegal. The valve of said "gift" could possibly be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars taken from our community. 2. We believe the gifting of said land increases the Applicants' property by approximately 1,150 sq. ft of prime property in Santa Ana. 3. We object to the fact that our community was not informed properly of the Applicants' application to have the property "reverted" to 2383 North Flower. That property is a PUBLIC ROADWAY —there is nothing to "revert". We, the people, are deserving of proper Notice. 4. We object that the Applicants intend on having a wall built to block the alleyway so no one has access to that public roadway. This is our community, the location of this property is not for individual use. We never agreed to give the property to anyone. This alleyway will be closed for public use should you approve this Application. S. We also object to the fact that our neighbors adjacent to said alleyway on Heliotrope will be restricted and inconvenienced by said closure of this alleyway. They do not have driveways, so they must access their garages via the alleyway. Those neighbors have legal rights to full access to this alleyway. It also creates a dangerous driving condition in that people may have to back up onto Heliotrope if a car is coming down the alley. 6. The residence located at 2379 North Flower will also be greatly impacted if this "reverting" is approved. This is not an easement, it is a dedicated roadway, nothing to "revert". The property owner at 2379 also has rights, as do we. 7. Said alleyway has been there for 100 years! The Applicants have owned their residence at 2383 N. Flower for 22 months. We love our neighborhood just as it is, we do not need to close alleyways for individuals who have not given thought to our community. 8. Additional verbiage has been added to the legal description of Applicants' application. Applicants are claiming the alleyway belongs to them, and thus, want the alleyway "reverted". This NEW language just appeared out of nowhere. The City must review all ORIGINAL maps and records to disprove this claim. 9. We also believe that alleyway property was DEDICATED to the City of Santa Ana by prior owners of said land/alleyway in the year 1925, and not as an easement over the Applicants' property at 2383 N. Flower. 10. We are adamant and herewith request that the City of Santa Ana either take the matter off calendar for further review by the City Attorney and/or any other departments needed to establish said ownership of that property or that the City Council abolish all further discussion on this matter and terminate said Application with no further discussion. We prefer the latter. Thank you in advance for your consideration into this matter. We wish to be contacted directly by the City with any decisions made on this Application. Our contract information is noted above. Thank you for your time and your efforts in rejecting this Application. t/ By: _ By: IRENE S. MYERS SANTA ANA, CA 92706 ( August 3, 2023 Re: City Council Hearing on August 15, 2023; Agenda # Unknown at this time Objection to Application for Abandonment of certain easement/right of way located at 2383 N Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA; (Abandonment No. 2023-01); Applicants Colin Donnelly and Caroline La Dear Mayor and City Council: I am a resident at the above address. I have been a resident at said address since 1978, 45 years. I understand that there has been an Application to Abandon the alleyway located between 2379 and 2383 North Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA, our neighborhood alleyway. I strongly oppose to the reverting of said property as stated on Applicant's application for the following reasons: 1. First, I do not believe there was ever an easement for said alleyway, it is a dedicated roadway. strongly believe that alley is a PUBLIC ROADWAY. I strongly object to the fact that the City of Santa is intending on GIFTING PUBLIC FUNDS to the Applicants. The alleyway belongs to the People. I am of the opinion that gifting of Public funds for free is illegal. The value of said "gift" could possibly be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars taken from our community. 2. 1 believe the gifting of said land increases the Applicants' property by approximately 1,150 sq. ft of prime property in Santa Ana. 3. 1 object to the fact that our community was not informed properly of the Applicants' application to have the property "reverted" to 2383 North Flower. That property is a PUBLIC ROADWAY — there is nothing to "revert". We, the people, are deserving of proper Notice. 4. 1 object that the Applicants intend on having a wall built to block the alleyway so no one has access to that public roadway. This is our community; the location of this property is not for individual use. We never agreed to give the property to anyone. This alleyway will be closed for public use should you approve this Application. 5. I also object to the fact that our neighbors adjacent to said alleyway on Heliotrope street will be restricted and inconvenienced by said closure of this alleyway. They do not have driveways, so they must access their garages via the alleyway. Those neighbors have legal rights to full access to this alleyway. It also creates a dangerous driving condition in that people may have to back up onto Heliotrope street if a car is coming down the alley. 6. The residence located at 2379 North Flower will also be greatly impacted if this "reverting" is approved. This is not an easement, it is a dedicated roadway, nothing to "revert". The property owner at 2379 also has rights, as do we. 7. Said alleyway has been there for 100 years! The Applicants have owned their residence at 2383 N. Flower for 22 months. We love our neighborhood just as it is, we do not need to close alleyways for individuals who have not given thought to our community. 8. Additional verbiage has been added to the legal description of Applicants' application. Applicants are claiming the alleyway belongs to them, and thus, want the alleyway "reverted". This NEW language just appeared out of nowhere. The City must review all ORIGINAL maps and records to disprove this claim. 9. [also believe that alleyway property was DEDICATED to the City of Santa Ana by prior owners of said land/alleyway in the year 1925, and not as an easement over the Applicants' property at 2383 N. Flower. 10. 1 am adamant and herewith request that the City of Santa Ana either take the matter off calendar for further review by the City Attorney and/or any other departments needed to establish said ownership of that property or that the City Council abolish all further discussion on this matter and terminate said Application with no further discussion. I prefer the latter. 11. 1 am attaching a few photos of said public roadway (alley) as it is a beautiful alley and well kept, no broken bottles, no abandoned items, no dead animals, it's a beauty. I invite you to drive by, drive thru, and see for yourself that it is a well -deserved alley that provides safety and access for our neighborhood. Thank you in advance for your consideration into this matter. I wish to be contacted directly by the City with any decisions made on this Application. My contact information is noted above. Thank you for your time and your efforts in carefully reviewing/objecting to this Application. By: � Lad6J oil Now Irene Myers From: Cheryl Newton < Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2023 3:10 PM To: jessielopez@santa-ana.org; scarvalho@santa-ana.org; Kent Snyder Subject: IMPORTANTnote from Cheryl Newton re: 2383 N. Flower application for an easement to be reverted back to them -1 do not believe it is an easement Hi Jessie I am sorry we weren't able to meet this morning. I did meet with Rudy Rosas/Yvonne Soto to go over my concerns about this application My issue is that this application says the alley is an easement. I believe the property to be owned by the City of Santa Ana, not an easement. I was told by Rudy Rosas that it didn't matter if it is an easement or not ... If the application is approved, Alley will go to the owners at 2383 N. Flower I just spoke with my attorney. He said the property is not an easement and I am entitled to half of the property. I would like to get clarity on this legal matter. I would like to set up a short appointment Monday (15 minutes) with Sonia Carvalho and my attorney, Kent Snyder. I need to get clarity on the City's position. My goal is to have this application denied immediately and the beautiful alley left the way it has been for 98 years. I leave town early Tuesday and won't be back in town until late 8/15. Please let me know as soon as this can be arranged. Thank you for all of your help, Cheryl Newton Owner of N Flower, SA Name: 04W kfe,iew Address:_ Date: August 2, 2023 Re: City Council Hearing on August 15, 2023 Objection to Application for Abandonment of certain easement/right of way located at 2383 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA; (Abandonment No. 2023-01); Applicants Colin Donnelly and Carolina La Dear Mayor and City Council: We are residents at the above address. We have been residents at said address since .700f- . We understand that there has been an Application to Abandon the alleyway located between 2379 and 2383 North Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA, our neighborhood alleyway. We strongly are opposed to the reverting of said property as stated on Applicant's application for the following reasons: 1. First, we do not believe there was ever an easement for said alleyway, it is a dedicated roadway. We strongly believe that alley is a PUBLIC ROADWAY. We strongly object to the fact that the City of Santa is intending on GIFTING PUBLIC FUNDS to the Applicants. The alleyway belongs to the People. We are of the opinion that gifting of Public funds for free is illegal. The valve of said "gift" could possibly be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars taken from our community. 2. We believe the gifting of said land increases the Applicants' property by approximately 1,150 sq. ft of prime property in Santa Ana. 3. We object to the fact that our community was not informed properly of the Applicants' application to have the property "reverted" to 2383 North Flower. That property is a PUBLIC ROADWAY —there is nothing to "revert'. We, the people, are deserving of proper Notice. 4. We object that the Applicants intend on having a wall built to block the alleyway so no one has access to that public roadway. This is our community; the location of this property is not for individual use. We never agreed to give the property to anyone. This alleyway will be closed for public use should you approve this Application. 5. We also object to the fact that our neighbors adjacent to said alleyway on Heliotrope will be restricted and inconvenienced by said closure of this alleyway. They do not have driveways, so they must access their garages via the alleyway. Those neighbors have legal rights to full access to this alleyway. It also creates a dangerous driving condition in that people may have to back up onto Heliotrope if a car is coming down the alley. 6. The residence located at 2379 North Flower will also be greatly impacted if this "reverting" is approved. This is not an easement, it is a dedicated roadway, nothing to "revert". The property owner at 2379 also has rights, as do we. 7. Said alleyway has been there for 100 years! The Applicants have owned their residence at 2383 N. Flower for 22 months. We love our neighborhood just as it is, we do not need to close alleyways for individuals who have not given thought to our community. S. Additional verbiage has been added to the legal description of Applicants' application. Applicants are claiming the alleyway belongs to them, and thus, want the alleyway "reverted". This NEW language just appeared out of nowhere. The City must review all ORIGINAL maps and records to disprove this claim. 9. We also believe that alley way property was DEDICATED to the City of Santa Ana by prior owners of said land/alleyway in the year 1925, and not as an easement over the Applicants' property at 2383 N. Flower. 10. We are adamant and herewith request that the City of Santa Ana either take the matter off calendar for further review by the City Attorney and/or any other departments needed to establish said ownership of that property or that the City Council abolish all further discussion on this matter and terminate said Application with no further discussion. We prefer the latter. Thank you in advance for your consideration into this matter. We wish to be contacted directly by the City with any decisions made on this Application. Our contract information is noted above. Thank you for your time and your efforts in rejecting this Application. By: By. Mavy�ec�iNv Name: RarJ4 )hVI h 4(✓rJji (7 Address: Date: August 2, 2023 Re: City Council Hearing on August 15, 2023 Objection to Application for Abandonment of certain easement/right of way located at 2383 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA; (Abandonment No. 2023-01); Applicants Colin Donnelly and Carolina La Dear Mayor and City Council: We are residents at the above address. We have been residents at said address since We understand that there has been an Application to Abandon the alleyway located between 2379 and 2383 North Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA, our neighborhood alleyway. We strongly are opposed to the reverting of said property as stated on Applicant's application for the following reasons: 1. First, we do not believe there was ever an easement for said alleyway, it is a dedicated roadway. We strongly believe that alley is a PUBLIC ROADWAY. We strongly object to the fact that the City of Santa is intending on GIFTING PUBLIC FUNDS to the Applicants. The alleyway belongs to the People. We are of the opinion that gifting of Public funds for free is illegal. The valve of said "gift" could possibly be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars taken from our community. 2. We believe the gifting of said land increases the Applicants' property by approximately 1,150 sq. ft of prime property in Santa Ana. 3. We object to the fact that our community was not informed properly of the Applicants' application to have the property "reverted" to 2383 North Flower. That property is a PUBLIC ROADWAY — there is nothing to "revert". We, the people, are deserving of proper Notice. 4. We object that the Applicants intend on having a wall built to block the alleyway so no one has access to that public roadway. This is our community; the location of this property is not for individual use. We never agreed to give the property to anyone. This alleyway will be closed for public use should you approve this Application. 5. We also object to the fact that our neighbors adjacent to said alleyway on Heliotrope will be restricted and inconvenienced by said closure of this alleyway. They do not have driveways, so they must access their garages via the alleyway. Those neighbors have legal rights to full access to this alleyway. It also creates a dangerous driving condition in that people may have to back up onto Heliotrope if a car is coming down the alley. 6. The residence located at 2379 North Flower will also be greatly impacted if this "reverting" is approved. This is not an easement, it is a dedicated roadway, nothing to "revert". The property owner at 2379 also has rights, as do we. 7. Said alleyway has been there for 100 years! The Applicants have owned their residence at 2383 N. Flower for 22 months. We love our neighborhood just as it is, we do not need to close alleyways for individuals who have not given thought to our community. 8. Additional verbiage has been added to the legal description of Applicants' application. Applicants are claiming the alleyway belongs to them, and thus, want the alleyway "reverted". This NEW language just appeared out of nowhere. The City must review all ORIGINAL maps and records to disprove this claim. 9. We also believe that alleyway property was DEDICATED to the City of Santa Ana by prior owners of said land/alleyway in the year 1925, and not as an easement over the Applicants' property at 2383 N. Flower. 10. We are adamant and herewith request that the City of Santa Ana either take the matter off calendar for further review by the City Attorney and/or any other departments needed to establish said ownership of that property or that the City Council abolish all further discussion on this matter and terminate said Application with no further discussion. We prefer the latter. Thank you in advance for your consideration into this matter. We wish to be contacted directly by the City with any decisions made on this Application. Our contract information is noted above. Thank you for your time and your efforts in rejecting this Application. By: By: Name: LCA) �Vf\o Address: Date: August 2, 2023 Re: City Council Hearing on August 15, 2023 Objection to Application for Abandonment of certain easement/right of way located at 2383 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA; (Abandonment No. 2023-01); Applicants Colin Donnelly and Carolina La Dear Mayor and City Council: We are residents at the above address. We have been residents at said address since We understand that there has been an Application to Abandon the alleyway located between 2379 and 2383 North Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA, our neighborhood alleyway. We strongly are opposed to the reverting of said property as stated on Applicant's application for the following reasons: 1. First, we do not believe there was ever an easement for said alleyway, it is a dedicated roadway. We strongly believe that alley is a PUBLIC ROADWAY. We strongly object to the fact that the City of Santa is intending on GIFTING PUBLIC FUNDS to the Applicants. The alleyway belongs to the People. We are of the opinion that gifting of Public funds for free is illegal. The valve of said "gift" could possibly be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars taken from our community. 2. We believe the gifting of said land increases the Applicants' property by approximately 1,150 sq. ft of prime property in Santa Ana. 3. We object to the fact that our community was not informed properly of the Applicants' application to have the property "reverted" to 2383 North Flower. That property is a PUBLIC ROADWAY — there is nothing to "revert". We, the people, are deserving of proper Notice. 4. We object that the Applicants intend on having a wall built to block the alleyway so no one has access to that public roadway. This is our community; the location of this property is not for individual use. We never agreed to give the property to anyone. This alleyway will be closed for public use should you approve this Application. 5. We also object to the fact that our neighbors adjacent to said alleyway on Heliotrope will be restricted and inconvenienced by said closure of this alleyway. They do not have driveways, so they must access their garages via the alleyway. Those neighbors have legal rights to full access to this alleyway. It also creates a dangerous driving condition in that people may have to back up onto Heliotrope if a car is coming down the alley. 6. The residence located at 2379 North Flower will also be greatly impacted if this "reverting" is approved. This is not an easement, it is a dedicated roadway, nothing to "revert". The property owner at 2379 also has rights, as do we. 7. Said alleyway has been there for 100 years! The Applicants have owned their residence at 2383 N. Flower for 22 months. We love our neighborhood just as it is, we do not need to close alleyways for individuals who have not given thought to our community. 8. Additional verbiage has been added to the legal description of Applicants' application. Applicants are claiming the alleyway belongs to them, and thus, want the alleyway "reverted". This NEW language just appeared out of nowhere. The City must review all ORIGINAL maps and records to disprove this claim. 9. We also believe that alleyway property was DEDICATED to the City of Santa Ana by prior owners of said land/alleyway in the year 1925, and not as an easement over the Applicants' property at 2383 N. Flower. 10. We are adamant and herewith request that the City of Santa Ana either take the matter off calendar for further review by the City Attorney and/or any other departments needed to establish said ownership of that property or that the City Council abolish all further discussion on this matter and terminate said Application with no further discussion. We prefer the latter. Thank you in advance for your consideration into this matter. We wish to be contacted directly by the City with any decisions made on this Application. Our contract information is noted above. Thank you for your time and your efforts in rejecting this Application. / / Name: Addres Phone: Email: Date: August 2, 2023 Re: City Council Hearing on August 15, 2023 Objection to Application for Abandonment of certain easement/right of way located at 2383 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA; (Abandonment No. 2023-01); Applicants Colin Donnelly and Carolina La Dear Mayor and City Council: We are residents at the above address. We have been residents at said address since . We understand that there has been an Application to Abandon the alleyway located between 2379 and 2383 North Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA, our neighborhood alleyway. We strongly are opposed to the reverting of said property as stated on Applicant's application for the following reasons: 1. First, we do not believe there was ever an easement for said alleyway, it is a dedicated roadway. We strongly believe that alley is a PUBLIC ROADWAY. We strongly object to the fact that the City of Santa is intending on GIFTING PUBLIC FUNDS to the Applicants. The alleyway belongs to the People. We are of the opinion that gifting of Public funds for free is illegal. The valve of said "gift" could possibly be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars taken from our community. 2. We believe the gifting of said land increases the Applicants' property by approximately 1,150 sq. ft of prime property in Santa Ana. 3. We object to the fact that our community was not informed properly of the Applicants' application to have the property "reverted" to 2383 North Flower. That property is a PUBLIC ROADWAY —there is nothing to "revert". We, the people, are deserving of proper Notice. 4. We object that the Applicants intend on having a wall built to block the alleyway so no one has access to that public roadway. This is our community; the location of this property is not for individual use. We never agreed to give the property to anyone. This alleyway will be closed for public use should you approve this Application. 5. We also object to the fact that our neighbors adjacent to said alleyway on Heliotrope will be restricted and inconvenienced by said closure of this alleyway. They do not have driveways, so they must access their garages via the alleyway. Those neighbors have legal rights to full access to this alleyway. It also creates a dangerous driving condition in that people may have to back up onto Heliotrope if a car is coming down the alley. 6. The residence located at 2379 North Flower will also be greatly impacted if this "reverting" is approved. This is not an easement, it is a dedicated roadway, nothing to "revert". The property owner at 2379 also has rights, as do we. 7. Said alleyway has been there for 100 years! The Applicants have owned their residence at 2383 N. Flower for 22 months. We love our neighborhood just as it is, we do not need to close alleyways for individuals who have not given thought to our community. 8. Additional verbiage has been added to the legal description of Applicants' application. Applicants are claiming the alleyway belongs to them, and thus, want the alleyway "reverted". This NEW language just appeared out of nowhere. The City must review all ORIGINAL maps and records to disprove this claim. 9. We also believe that alleyway property was DEDICATED to the City of Santa Ana by prior owners of said land/alleyway in the year 1925, and not as an easement over the Applicants' property at 2383 N. Flower. 10. We are adamant and herewith request that the City of Santa Ana either take the matter off calendar for further review by the City Attorney and/or any other departments needed to establish said ownership of that property or that the City Council abolish all further discussion on this matter and terminate said Application with no further discussion. We prefer the latter. Thank you in advance for your consideration into this matter. We wish to be contacted directly by the City with any decisions made on this Application. Our contract information is noted above. Thank you for your time and your efforts in rejecting this Application. By: � By: 2tAkl, 7h let Address: Date: August 2, 2023 Re: City Council Hearing on August 15, 2023 Objection to Application for Abandonment of certain easement/right of way located at 2383 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA; (Abandonment No. 2023-01); Applicants Colin Donnelly and Carolina La Dear Mayor and City Council: We are residents at the above address. We have been residents at said address since ( IL . We understand that there has been an Application to Abandon the alleyway located between 2379 and 2383 North Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA, our neighborhood alleyway. We strongly are opposed to the reverting of said property as stated on Applicant's application for the following reasons: 1. First, we do not believe there was ever an easement for said alleyway, it is a dedicated roadway. We strongly believe that alley is a PUBLIC ROADWAY. We strongly object to the fact that the City of Santa is intending on GIFTING PUBLIC FUNDS to the Applicants. The alleyway belongs to the People. We are of the opinion that gifting of Public funds for free is illegal. The valve of said "gift" could possibly be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars taken from our community. 2. We believe the gifting of said land increases the Applicants' property by approximately 1,150 sq. ft of prime property in Santa Ana. 3. We object to the fact that our community was not informed properly of the Applicants' application to have the property "reverted" to 2383 North Flower. That property is a PUBLIC ROADWAY — there is nothing to "revert'. We, the people, are deserving of proper Notice. 4. We object that the Applicants intend on having a wall built to block the alleyway so no one has access to that public roadway. This is our community; the location of this property is not for individual use. We never agreed to give the property to anyone. This alleyway will be closed for public use should you approve this Application. S. We also object to the fact that our neighbors adjacent to said alleyway on Heliotrope will be restricted and inconvenienced by said closure of this alleyway. They do not have driveways, so they must access their garages via the alleyway. Those neighbors have legal rights to full access to this alleyway. It also creates a dangerous driving condition in that people may have to back up onto Heliotrope if a car is coming down the alley. 6. The residence located at 2379 North Flower will also be greatly impacted if this "reverting" is approved. This is not an easement, it is a dedicated roadway, nothing to "revert". The property owner at 2379 also has rights, as do we. 7. Said alleyway has been there for 100 years! The Applicants have owned their residence at 2383 N. Flower for 22 months. We love our neighborhood just as it is, we do not need to close alleyways for individuals who have not given thought to our community. 8. Additional verbiage has been added to the legal description of Applicants' application. Applicants are claiming the alleyway belongs to them, and thus, want the alleyway "reverted". This NEW language just appeared out of nowhere. The City must review all ORIGINAL maps and records to disprove this claim. 9. We also believe that alleyway property was DEDICATED to the City of Santa Ana by prior owners of said land/alleyway in the year 1925, and not as an easement over the Applicants' property at 2383 N. Flower. 10. We are adamant and herewith request that the City of Santa Ana either take the matter off calendar for further review by the City Attorney and/or any other departments needed to establish said ownership of that property or that the City Council abolish all further discussion on this matter and terminate said Application with no further discussion. We prefer the latter. Thank you in advance for your consideration into this matter. We wish to be contacted directly by the City with any decisions made on this Application. Our contract information is noted above. Thank you for your time and your efforts in rejecting this Application. Name: Addres Phone: Email: Date: August 2, 2023 Re: City Council Hearing on August 15, 2023 Objection to Application for Abandonment of certain easement/right of way located at 2383 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA; (Abandonment No. 2023-01); Applicants Colin Donnelly and Carolina La Dear Mayor and City Council: We are residents at the above address. We have been residents at said address since (jiioZ We understand that there has been an Application to Abandon the alleyway located between 2379 and 2383 North Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA, our neighborhood alleyway. We strongly are opposed to the reverting of said property as stated on Applicant's application for the following reasons: 1. First, we do not believe there was ever an easement for said alleyway, it is a dedicated roadway. We strongly believe that alley is a PUBLIC ROADWAY. We strongly object to the fact that the City of Santa is intending on GIFTING PUBLIC FUNDS to the Applicants. The alleyway belongs to the People. We are of the opinion that gifting of Public funds for free is illegal. The valve of said "gift' could possibly be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars taken from our community. 2. We believe the gifting of said land increases the Applicants' property by approximately 1,150 sq. ft of prime property in Santa Ana. 3. We object to the fact that our community was not informed properly of the Applicants' application to have the property "reverted" to 2383 North Flower. That property is a PUBLIC ROADWAY —there is nothing to "revert". We, the people, are deserving of proper Notice. 4. We object that the Applicants intend on having a wall built to block the alleyway so no one has access to that public roadway. This is our community; the location of this property is not for individual use. We never agreed to give the property to anyone. This alleyway will be closed for public use should you approve this Application. 5. We also object to the fact that our neighbors adjacent to said alleyway on Heliotrope will be restricted and inconvenienced by said closure of this alleyway. They do not have driveways, so they must access their garages via the alleyway. Those neighbors have legal rights to full access to this alleyway. It also creates a dangerous driving condition in that people may have to back up onto Heliotrope if a car is coming down the alley. 6. The residence located at 2379 North Flower will also be greatly impacted if this "reverting' is approved. This is not an easement, it is a dedicated roadway, nothing to "revert". The property owner at 2379 also has rights, as do we. 7. Said alleyway has been there for 100 years! The Applicants have owned their residence at 2383 N. Flower for 22 months. We love our neighborhood just as it is, we do not need to close alleyways for individuals who have not given thought to our community. 8. Additional verbiage has been added to the legal description of Applicants' application. Applicants are claiming the alleyway belongs to them, and thus, want the alleyway "reverted". This NEW language just appeared out of nowhere. The City must review all ORIGINAL maps and records to disprove this claim. 9. We also believe that alleyway property was DEDICATED to the City of Santa Ana by prior owners of said land/alleyway in the year 1925, and not as an easement over the Applicants' property at 2383 N. Flower. 10. We are adamant and herewith request that the City of Santa Ana either take the matter off calendar for further review by the City Attorney and/or any other departments needed to establish said ownership of that property or that the City Council abolish all further discussion on this matter and terminate said Application with no further discussion. We prefer the latter. Thank you in advance for your consideration into this matter. We wish to be contacted directly by the City with any decisions made on this Application. Our contract information is noted above. Thank you for your time and your efforts in rejecting this Application. Name: Adores Phone: Email: Date: August 2, 2023 Re: City Council Hearing on August 15, 2023 Objection to Application for Abandonment of certain easement/right of way located at 2383 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA; (Abandonment No. 2023-01); Applicants Colin Donnelly and Caroiina La Dear Mayor and City Council: We are residents at the above address. We have been residents at said address since . We understand that there has been an Application to Abandon the alleyway located between 2179 and 2383 North Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA, our neighborhood alleyway. We strongly are opposed to the reverting of said property as stated on Applicant's application for the following reasons: 1. First, we do not believe there was ever an easement for said alleyway, it is a dedicated roadway. We strongly believe that alley is a PUBLIC ROADWAY. We strongly object to the fact that the City of Santa is intending on GIFTING PUBLIC FUNDS to the Applicants. The alleyway belongs to the People. We are of the opinion that gifting of Public funds for free is illegal. The valve of said "gift" could possibly be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars taken from our community. 2. We believe the gifting of said land increases the Applicants' property by approximately 1,150 sq. ft of prime property in Santa Ana. 3. We object to the fact that our community was not informed properly of the Applicants' application to have the property "reverted" to 2383 North Flower. That property is a PUBLIC ROADWAY —there is nothing to "revert". We, the people, are deserving of proper Notice. 4. We object that the Applicants intend on having a wall built to block the alleyway so no one has access to that public roadway. This is our community; the location of this property is not for individual use. We never agreed to give the property to anyone. This alleyway will be closed for public use should you approve this Application. 5. We also object to the fact that our neighbors adjacent to said alleyway on Heliotrope will be restricted and inconvenienced by said closure of this alleyway. They do not have driveways, so they must access their garages via the alleyway. Those neighbors have legal rights to full access to this alleyway. It also creates a dangerous driving condition in that people may have to back up onto Heliotrope if a car is coming down the alley. 6. The residence located at 2379 North Flower will also be greatly impacted if this "reverting" is approved. This is not an easement, it is a dedicated roadway, nothing to "revert". The property owner at 2379 also has rights, as do we. 7. Said alleyway has been there for 100 years! The Applicants have owned their residence at 2383 N. Flower for 22 months. We love our neighborhood just as it is, we do not need to close alleyways for individuals who have not given thought to our community. 8. Additional verbiage has been added to the legal description of Applicants' application. Applicants are claiming the alleyway belongs to them, and thus, want the alleyway "reverted". This NEW language just appeared out of nowhere. The City must review all ORIGINAL maps and records to disprove this claim. 9. We also believe that alleyway property was DEDICATED to the City of Santa Ana by prior owners of said land/alleyway in the year 1925, and not as an easement over the Applicants' property at 2383 N. Flower. 10. We are adamant and herewith request that the City of Santa Ana either take the matter off calendar for further review by the City Attorney and/or any other departments needed to establish said ownership of that property or that the City Council abolish all further discussion on this matter and terminate said Application with no further discussion. We prefer the latter. Thank you in advance for your consideration into this matter. We wish to be contacted directly by the City with any decisions made on this Application. Our contract information is noted above. Thank you for your time and your efforts in rejecting this Application. By: M Name: Addres Phone: Email: Date: August 2, 2023 Re: City Council Hearing on August 15, 2023 Objection to Application for Abandonment of certain easement/right of way located at 2383 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA; (Abandonment No. 2023-01); Applicants Colin Donnelly and Carolina La Dear Mayor and City Council: We are residents at the above address. We have been residents at said address since -Z' o a . We understand that there has been an Application to Abandon the alleyway located between 2379 and 2383 North Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA, our neighborhood alleyway. We strongly are opposed to the reverting of said property as stated on Applicant's application for the following reasons: 1. First, we do not believe there was ever an easement for said alleyway, it is a dedicated roadway. We strongly believe that alley is a PUBLIC ROADWAY. We strongly object to the fact that the City of Santa is intending on GIFTING PUBLIC FUNDS to the Applicants. The alleyway belongs to the People. We are of the opinion that gifting of Public funds for free is illegal. The valve of said "gift" could possibly be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars taken from our community. 2. We believe the gifting of said land increases the Applicants' property by approximately 1,150 sq. ft of prime property in Santa Ana. 3. We object to the fact that our community was not informed properly of the Applicants' application to have the property "reverted" to 2383 North Flower. That property is a PUBLIC ROADWAY -there is nothing to "revert". We, the people, are deserving of proper Notice. 4. We object that the Applicants intend on having a wall built to block the alleyway so no one has access to that public roadway. This is our community; the location of this property is not for individual use. We never agreed to give the property to anyone. This alleyway will be closed for public use should you approve this Application. 5. We also object to the fact that our neighbors adjacent to said alleyway on Heliotrope will be restricted and inconvenienced by said closure of this alleyway. They do not have driveways, so they must access their garages via the alleyway. Those neighbors have legal rights to full access to this alleyway. It also creates a dangerous driving condition in that people may have to back up onto Heliotrope if a car is coming down the alley. 6. The residence located at 2379 North Flower will also be greatly impacted if this "reverting" is approved. This is not an easement, it is a dedicated roadway, nothing to "revert". The property owner at 2379 also has rights, as do we. 7. Said alleyway has been there for 100 years! The Applicants have owned their residence at 2383 N. Flower for 22 months. We love our neighborhood just as it is, we do not need to close alleyways for individuals who have not given thought to our community. 8. Additional verbiage has been added to the legal description of Applicants' application. Applicants are claiming the alleyway belongs to them, and thus, want the alleyway "reverted". This NEW language just appeared out of nowhere. The City must review all ORIGINAL maps and records to disprove this claim. 9. We also believe that alley way property was DEDICATED to the City of Santa Ana by prior owners of said land/alleyway in the year 1925, and not as an easement over the Applicants' property at 2383 N. Flower. 10. We are adamant and herewith request that the City of Santa Ana either take the matter off calendar for further review by the City Attorney and/or any other departments needed to establish said ownership of that property or that the City Council abolish all further discussion on this matter and terminate said Application with no further discussion. We prefer the latter. Thank you in advance for your consideration into this matter. We wish to be contacted directly by the City with any decisions made on this Application. Our contract information is noted above. Thank you for your time and your efforts in rejecting this Application. Name: I51 Vr'r�/�CCI`jbl�� Address: Phone: Email: Date: August 2, 2023 Re: City Council Hearing on August 15, 2023 Objection to Application for Abandonment of certain easement/right of way located at 2383 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA; (Abandonment No. 2023-01); Applicants Colin Donnelly and Carolina La Dear Mayor and City Council: We are residents at the above address. We have been residents at said address since —LOL I . We understand that there has been an Application to Abandon the alleyway located between 2379 and 2383 North Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA, our neighborhood alleyway. We strongly are opposed to the reverting of said property as stated on Applicant's application for the following reasons: 1. First, we do not believe there was ever an easement for said alleyway, it is a dedicated roadway. We strongly believe that alley is a PUBLIC ROADWAY. We strongly object to the fact that the City of Santa is intending on GIFTING PUBLIC FUNDS to the Applicants. The alleyway belongs to the People. We are of the opinion that gifting of Public funds for free is illegal. The valve of said "gift" could possibly be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars taken from our community. 2. We believe the gifting of said land increases the Applicants' property by approximately 1,150 sq. ft of prime property in Santa Ana. 3. We object to the fact that our community was not informed properly of the Applicants' application to have the property "reverted" to 2383 North Flower. That property is a PUBLIC ROADWAY — there is nothing to "revert". We, the people, are deserving of proper Notice. 4. We object that the Applicants intend on having a wall built to block the alleyway so no one has access to that public roadway. This is our community; the location of this property is not for individual use. We never agreed to give the property to anyone. This alleyway will be closed for public use should you approve this Application. 5. We also object to the fact that our neighbors adjacent to said alleyway on Heliotrope will be restricted and inconvenienced by said closure of this alleyway. They do not have driveways, so they must access their garages via the alleyway. Those neighbors have legal rights to full access to this alleyway. It also creates a dangerous driving condition in that people may have to back up onto Heliotrope if a car is coming down the alley. 6. The residence located at 2379 North Flower will also be greatly impacted if this "reverting" is approved. This is not an easement, it is a dedicated roadway, nothing to "revert". The property owner at 2379 also has rights, as do we. 7. Said alleyway has been there for 100 years! The Applicants have owned their residence at 2383 N. Flower for 22 months. We love our neighborhood just as it is, we do not need to close alleyways for individuals who have not given thought to our community. 8. Additional verbiage has been added to the legal description of Applicants' application. Applicants are claiming the alleyway belongs to them, and thus, want the alleyway "reverted". This NEW language just appeared out of nowhere. The City must review all ORIGINAL maps and records to disprove this claim. 9. We also believe that alleyway property was DEDICATED to the City of Santa Ana by prior owners of said land/alleyway in the year 1925, and not as an easement over the Applicants' property at 2383 N. Flower. 10. We are adamant and herewith request that the City of Santa Ana either take the matter off calendar for further review by the City Attorney and/or any other departments needed to establish said ownership of that property or that the City Council abolish all further discussion on this matter and terminate said Application with no further discussion. We prefer the latter. Thank you in advance for your consideration into this matter. We wish to be contacted directly by the City with any decisions made on this Application. Our contract information is noted above. Thank you for your time and your efforts in rejecting this Application. By: l By: Name: VI�JA( 5'Pgt�__ Address: Date: August 2, 2023 Re: City Council Hearing on August 15, 2023 Objection to Application for Abandonment of certain easement/right of way located at 2383 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA; (Abandonment No. 2023-01); Applicants Colin Donnelly and Carolina La Dear Mayor and City Council: We are residents at the above address. We have been residents at said address since 7 2 \ . We understand that there has been an Application to Abandon the alleyway located between 2379 and 2383 North Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA, our neighborhood alleyway. We strongly are opposed to the reverting of said property as stated on Applicant's application for the following reasons: 1. First, we do not believe there was ever an easement for said alleyway, it is a dedicated roadway. We strongly believe that alley is a PUBLIC ROADWAY. We strongly object to the fact that the City of Santa is intending on GIFTING PUBLIC FUNDS to the Applicants. The alleyway belongs to the People. We are of the opinion that gifting of Public funds for free is illegal. The valve of said "gift" could possibly be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars taken from our community. 2. We believe the gifting of said land increases the Applicants' property by approximately 1,150 sq. ft of prime property in Santa Ana. 3. We object to the fact that our community was not informed properly of the Applicants' application to have the property "reverted" to 2383 North Flower. That property is a PUBLIC ROADWAY —there is nothing to "revert". We, the people, are deserving of proper Notice. 4. We object that the Applicants intend on having a wall built to block the alleyway so no one has access to that public roadway. This is our community; the location of this property is not for individual use. We never agreed to give the property to anyone. This alleyway will be closed for public use should you approve this Application. 5. We also object to the fact that our neighbors adjacent to said alleyway on Heliotrope will be restricted and inconvenienced by said closure of this alleyway. They do not have driveways, so they must access their garages via the alleyway. Those neighbors have legal rights to full access to this alleyway. It also creates a dangerous driving condition in that people may have to back up onto Heliotrope if a car is coming down the alley. 6. The residence located at 2379 North Flower will also be greatly impacted if this "reverting' is approved. This is not an easement, it is a dedicated roadway, nothing to "revert". The property owner at 2379 also has rights, as do we. 7. Said alleyway has been there for 100 years! The Applicants have owned their residence at 2383 N. Flower for 22 months. We love our neighborhood just as it is, we do not need to close alleyways for individuals who have not given thought to our community. 8. Additional verbiage has been added to the legal description of Applicants' application. Applicants are claiming the alleyway belongs to them, and thus, want the alleyway "reverted". This NEW languagejust appeared out of nowhere. The City must review all ORIGINAL maps and records to disprove this claim. 9. We also believe that alleyway property was DEDICATED to the City of Santa Ana by prior owners of said land/alleyway in the year 1925, and not as an easement over the Applicants' property at 2383 N. Flower. 10. We are adamant and herewith request that the City of Santa Ana either take the matter off calendar for further review by the City Attorney and/or any other departments needed to establish said ownership of that property or that the City Council abolish all further discussion on this matter and terminate said Application with no further discussion. We prefer the latter. Thank you in advance for your consideration into this matter. We wish to be contacted directly by the City with any decisions made on this Application. Our contract information is noted above. Thank you for your time and your efforts in rejecting this Application. By: By: Name: Addres Phone: Email: Date: August 2, 2023 Re: City Council Hearing on August 15, 2023 Objection to Application for Abandonment of certain easement/right of way located at 2383 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA; (Abandonment No. 2023-01); Applicants Colin Donnelly and Carolina La Dear Mayor and City Council: We are r sidents at the above address. We have been residents at said address since We understand that there has been an Application to Abandon the alleyway located between 2379 and 2383 North Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA, our neighborhood alleyway. We strongly are opposed to the reverting of said property as stated on Applicant's application for the following reasons: I. First, we do not believe there was ever an easement for said alleyway, it is a dedicated roadway. We strongly believe that alley is a PUBLIC ROADWAY. We strongly object to the fact that the City of Santa is intending on GIFTING PUBLIC FUNDS to the Applicants. The alleyway belongs to the People. We are of the opinion that gifting of Public funds for free is illegal. The valve of said "gift" could possibly be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars taken from our community. 2. We believe the gifting of said land increases the Applicants' property by approximately 1,150 sq. ft of prime property in Santa Ana. 3. We object to the fact that our community was not informed properly of the Applicants' application to have the property "reverted" to 2383 North Flower. That property is a PUBLIC ROADWAY —there is nothing to "revert". We, the people, are deserving of proper Notice. 4. We object that the Applicants intend on having a wall built to block the alleyway so no one has access to that public roadway. This is our community; the location of this property is not for individual use. We never agreed to give the property to anyone. This alleyway will be closed for public use should you approve this Application. 5. We also object to the fact that our neighbors adjacent to said alleyway on Heliotrope will be restricted and inconvenienced by said closure of this alleyway. They do not have driveways, so they must access their garages via the alleyway. Those neighbors have legal rights to full access to this alleyway. It also creates a dangerous driving condition in that people may have to back up onto Heliotrope if a car is coming down the alley. 6. The residence located at 2379 North Flower will also be greatly impacted if this "reverting" is approved. This is not an easement, it is a dedicated roadway, nothing to "revert". The property owner at 2379 also has rights, as do we. 7. Said alleyway has been there for 100 years! The Applicants have owned their residence at 2383 N. Flower for 22 months. We love our neighborhood just as it is, we do not need to close alleyways for individuals who have not given thought to our community. 8. Additional verbiage has been added to the legal description of Applicants' application. Applicants are claiming the alleyway belongs to them, and thus, want the alleyway "reverted". This NEW languagejust appeared out of nowhere. The City must review all ORIGINAL maps and records to disprove this claim. 9. We also believe that alleyway property was DEDICATED to the City of Santa Ana by prior owners of said land/alleyway in the year 1925, and not as an easement over the Applicants' property at 2383 N. Flower. 10. We are adamant and herewith request that the City of Santa Ana either take the matter off calendar for further review by the City Attorney and/or any other departments needed to establish said ownership of that property or that the City Council abolish all further discussion on this matter and terminate said Application with no further discussion. We prefer the latter. Thank you in advance for your consideration into this matter. We wish to be contacted directly by the City with any decisions made on this Application. Our contract information is noted above. Thank you for your time and your efforts in rejecting this Application. By: By: Name, Addre: Phone Email: Date: August 2, 2023 Re: City Council Hearing on August 15, 2023 Objection to Application for Abandonment of certain easement/right of way located at 2383 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA; (Abandonment No. 2023-01); Applicants Colin Donnelly and Carolina La Dear Mayor and City Council: e re resid n ,s t the above address. We have been residents at said address since b�'� . We understand that there has been an Application to Abandon the alleyway located between 2379 and 2383 North Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA, our neighborhood alleyway. We strongly are opposed to the reverting of said property as stated on Applicant's application for the following reasons: 1. First, we do not believe there was ever an easement for said alleyway, it is a dedicated roadway. We strongly believe that alley is a PUBLIC ROADWAY. We strongly object to the fact that the City of Santa is intending on GIFTING PUBLIC FUNDS to the Applicants. The alleyway belongs to the People. We are of the opinion that gifting of Public funds for free is illegal. The valve of said "gift' could possibly be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars taken from our community. 2. We believe the gifting of said land increases the Applicants' property by approximately 1,150 sq. ft of prime property in Santa Ana. 3. We object to the fact that our community was not informed properly of the Applicants' application to have the property "reverted" to 2383 North Flower. That property is a PUBLIC ROADWAY —there is nothing to "revert". We, the people, are deserving of proper Notice. 4. We object that the Applicants intend on having a wall built to block the alleyway so no one has access to that public roadway. This is our community; the location of this property is not for individual use. We never agreed to give the property to anyone. This alleyway will be closed for public use should you approve this Application. S. We also object to the fact that our neighbors adjacent to said alleyway on Heliotrope will be restricted and inconvenienced by said closure of this alleyway. They do not have driveways, so they must access their garages via the alleyway. Those neighbors have legal rights to full access to this alleyway. It also creates a dangerous driving condition in that people may have to back up onto Heliotrope if a car is coming down the alley. 6. The residence located at 2379 North Flower will also be greatly impacted if this "reverting" is approved. This is not an easement, it is a dedicated roadway, nothing to "revert". The property owner at 2379 also has rights, as do we. 7. Said alleyway has been there for 100 years! The Applicants have owned their residence at 2383 N. Flower for 22 months. We love our neighborhood just as it is, we do not need to close alleyways for individuals who have not given thought to our community. 8. Additional verbiage has been added to the legal description of Applicants' application. Applicants are claiming the alleyway belongs to them, and thus, want the alleyway "reverted". This NEW language just appeared out of nowhere. The City must review all ORIGINAL maps and records to disprove this claim. 9. We also believe that alleyway property was DEDICATED to the City of Santa Ana by prior owners of said land/alleyway in the year 1925, and not as an easement over the Applicants' property at 2383 N. Flower. 10. We are adamant and herewith request that the City of Santa Ana either take the matter off calendar for further review by the City Attorney and/or any other departments needed to establish said ownership of that property or that the City Council abolish all further discussion on this matter and terminate said Application with no further discussion. We prefer the latter. Thank you in advance for your consideration into this matter. We wish to be contacted directly by the City with any decisions made on this Application. Our contract information is noted above. Thank you for your time and your efforts in rejecting this Application. '0711tv �i, Name: ,,,&-A. a./, , Address: Email: Date: August 2, 2023 Re: City Council Hearing on August 15, 2023 Objection to Application for Abandonment of certain easement/right of way located at 2383 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA; (Abandonment No. 2023-01); Applicants Colin Donnelly and Carolina La Dear Mayor and City Council: We are residents at the above address. We have been residents at said address since 067 We understand that there has been an Application to Abandon the alleyway located between 2379 and 2383 North Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA, our neighborhood alleyway. We strongly are opposed to the reverting of said property as stated on Applicant's application for the following reasons: 1. First, we do not believe there was ever an easement for said alleyway, it is a dedicated roadway. We strongly believe that alley is a PUBLIC ROADWAY. We strongly object to the fact that the City of Santa is intending on GIFTING PUBLIC FUNDS to the Applicants. The alleyway belongs to the People. We are of the opinion that gifting of Public funds for free is illegal. The valve of said "gift" could possibly be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars taken from our community. 2. We believe the gifting of said land increases the Applicants' property by approximately 1,150 sq. ft of prime property in Santa Ana. 3. We object to the fact that our community was not informed properly of the Applicants' application to have the property "reverted" to 2383 North Flower. That property is a PUBLIC ROADWAY — there is nothing to "revert". We, the people, are deserving of proper Notice. 4. We object that the Applicants intend on having a wall built to block the alleyway so no one has access to that public roadway. This is our community; the location of this property is not for individual use. We never agreed to give the property to anyone. This alleyway will be closed for public use should you approve this Application. S. We also object to the fact that our neighbors adjacent to said alleyway on Heliotrope will be restricted and inconvenienced by said closure of this alleyway. They do not have driveways, so they must access their garages via the alleyway. Those neighbors have legal rights to full access to this alleyway. It also creates a dangerous driving condition in that people may have to back up onto Heliotrope if a car is coming down the alley. 6. The residence located at 2379 North Flower will also be greatly impacted if this "reverting" is approved. This is not an easement, it is a dedicated roadway, nothing to "revert". The property owner at 2379 also has rights, as do we. 7. Said alleyway has been there for 100 years! The Applicants have owned their residence at 2383 N. Flower for 22 months. We love our neighborhood just as it is, we do not need to close alleyways for individuals who have not given thought to our community. 8. Additional verbiage has been added to the legal description of Applicants' application. Applicants are claiming the alleyway belongs to them, and thus, want the alleyway "reverted". This NEW language just appeared out of nowhere. The City must review all ORIGINAL maps and records to disprove this claim. 9. We also believe that alleyway property was DEDICATED to the City of Santa Ana by prior owners of said land/alleyway in the year 1925, and not as an easement over the Applicants' property at 2383 N. Flower. 10. We are adamant and herewith request that the City of Santa Ana either take the matter off calendar for further review by the City Attorney and/or any other departments needed to establish said ownership of that property or that the City Council abolish all further discussion on this matter and terminate said Application with no further discussion. We prefer the latter. Thank you in advance for your consideration into this matter. We wish to be contacted directly by the City with any decisions made on this Application. Our contract information is noted above. Thank you for your time and your efforts in rejecting this Application. By: I=± �_ Lok Name: Tc,-) rd Address: Date: August 2, 2023 Re: City Council Hearing on August 15, 2023 Objection to Application for Abandonment of certain easement/right of way located at 2383 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA; (Abandonment No. 2023-01); Applicants Colin Donnelly and Carolina La Dear Mayor and City Council: We are residents at the above address. We have been residents at said address since I ,z-;.1 . We understand that there has been an Application to Abandon the alleyway located between 2379 and 2383 North Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA, our neighborhood alleyway. We strongly are opposed to the reverting of said property as stated on Applicant's application for the following reasons: First, we do not believe there was ever an easement for said alleyway, it is a dedicated roadway. We strongly believe that alley is a PUBLIC ROADWAY. We strongly object to the fact that the City of Santa is intending on GIFTING PUBLIC FUNDS to the Applicants. The alleyway belongs to the People. We are of the opinion that gifting of Public funds for free is illegal. The valve of said "gift" could possibly be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars taken from our community. 2. We believe the gifting of said land increases the Applicants' property by approximately 1,150 sq. ft of prime property in Santa Ana. 3. We object to the fact that our community was not informed properly of the Applicants' application to have the property "reverted" to 2383 North Flower. That property is a PUBLIC ROADWAY —there is nothing to "revert". We, the people, are deserving of proper Notice. 4. We object that the Applicants intend on having a wall built to block the alleyway so no one has access to that public roadway. This is our community; the location of this property is not for individual use. We never agreed to give the property to anyone. This alleyway will be closed for public use should you approve this Application. 5. We also object to the fact that our neighbors adjacent to said alleyway on Heliotrope will be restricted and inconvenienced by said closure of this alleyway. They do not have driveways, so they must access their garages via the alleyway. Those neighbors have legal rights to full access to this alleyway. It also creates a dangerous driving condition in that people may have to back up onto Heliotrope if a car is coming down the alley. 6. The residence located at 2379 North Flower will also be greatly impacted if this "reverting" is approved. This is not an easement, it is a dedicated roadway, nothing to "revert". The property owner at 2379 also has rights, as do we. 7. Said alleyway has been there for 100 years! The Applicants have owned their residence at 2383 N. Flower for 22 months. We love our neighborhood just as it is, we do not need to close alleyways for individuals who have not given thought to our community. 8. Additional verbiage has been added to the legal description of Applicants' application. Applicants are claiming the alleyway belongs to them, and thus, want the alleyway "reverted". This NEW language just appeared out of nowhere. The City must review all ORIGINAL maps and records to disprove this claim. 9. We also believe that alleyway property was DEDICATED to the City of Santa Ana by prior owners of said land/alleyway in the year 1925, and not as an easement over the Applicants' property at 2383 N. Flower. 10. We are adamant and herewith request that the City of Santa Ana either take the matter off calendar for further review by the City Attorney and/or any other departments needed to establish said ownership of that property or that the City Council abolish all further discussion on this matter and terminate said Application with no further discussion. We prefer the latter. Thank you in advance for your consideration into this matter. We wish to be contacted directly by the City with any decisions made on this Application. Our contract information is noted above. Thank you for your time and your efforts in rejecting this Application. By: By: Lit" Name: 011m(j GOKC\Q' ca�0.N-o Address: Date: August 2, 2023 Re: City Council Hearing on August 15, 2023 Objection to Application for Abandonment of certain easement/right of way located at 2383 N Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA; (Abandonment No. 2023-01); Applicants Colin Donnelly and Carolina La Dear Mayor and City Council: We are residents at the above address. We have been residents at said address since 20-2.t . We understand that there has been an Application to Abandon the alleyway located between 2379 and 2383 North Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA, our neighborhood alleyway. We strongly are opposed to the reverting of said property as stated on Applicant's application for the following reasons: 1. First, we do not believe there was ever an easement for said alleyway, it is a dedicated roadway. We strongly believe that alley is a PUBLIC ROADWAY. We strongly object to the fact that the City of Santa is intending on GIFTING PUBLIC FUNDS to the Applicants. The alleyway belongs to the People. We are of the opinion that gifting of Public funds for free is illegal. The valve of said "gift" could possibly be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars taken from our community. 2. We believe the gifting of said land increases the Applicants' property by approximately 1,150 sq. ft of prime property in Santa Ana. 3. We object to the fact that our community was not informed properly of the Applicants' application to have the property "reverted" to 2383 North Flower. That property is a PUBLIC ROADWAY —there is nothing to "revert". We, the people, are deserving of proper Notice. 4. We object that the Applicants intend on having a wall built to block the alleyway so no one has access to that public roadway. This is our community; the location of this property is not for individual use. We never agreed to give the property to anyone. This alleyway will be closed for public use should you approve this Application. S. We also object to the fact that our neighbors adjacent to said alleyway on Heliotrope will be restricted and inconvenienced by said closure of this alleyway. They do not have driveways, so they must access their garages via the alleyway. Those neighbors have legal rights to full access to this alleyway. It also creates a dangerous driving condition in that people may have to back up onto Heliotrope if a car is coming down the alley. 6. The residence located at 2379 North Flower will also be greatly impacted if this "reverting" is approved. This is not an easement, it is a dedicated roadway, nothing to "revert". The property owner at 2379 also has rights, as do we. 7. Said alleyway has been there for 100 years! The Applicants have owned their residence at 2383 N. Flower for 22 months. We love our neighborhood just as it is, we do not need to close alleyways for individuals who have not given thought to our community. 8. Additional verbiage has been added to the legal description of Applicants' application. Applicants are claiming the alleyway belongs to them, and thus, want the alleyway "reverted". This NEW language just appeared out of nowhere. The City must review all ORIGINAL maps and records to disprove this claim. 9. We also believe that alleyway property was DEDICATED to the City of Santa Ana by prior owners of said land/alleyway in the year 1925, and not as an easement over the Applicants' property at 2383 N. Flower. 10. We are adamant and herewith request that the City of Santa Ana either take the matter off calendar for further review by the City Attorney and/or any other departments needed to establish said ownership of that property or that the City Council abolish all further discussion on this matter and terminate said Application with no further discussion. We prefer the latter. Thank you in advance for your consideration into this matter. We wish to be contacted directly by the City with any decisions made on this Application. Our contract information is noted above. Thank you for your time and your efforts in rejecting this Application. By. �. By: Ldk Name: Ke r r( Address: Date: August 2, 2023 Re: City Council Hearing on August 15, 2023 Objection to Application for Abandonment of certain easement/right of way located at 2383 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA; (Abandonment No. 2023-01); Applicants Colin Donnelly and Carolina La `_jWW2U0_rj :� he v-f I j-V� tel , � // Dear Mayor and City Council: pj , l pet rk 47je— L f 7 y c &o/ We are residents at the above address. We have been residents at said address since 20it �0 . We understand that there has been an Application to Abandon the alleyway located between 2379 and 2383 North Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA, our neighborhood alleyway. We strongly are opposed to the reverting of said property as stated on Applicant's application for the following reasons: First, we do not believe there was ever an easement for said alleyway, it is a dedicated roadway. We strongly believe that alley is a PUBLIC ROADWAY. We strongly object to the fact that the City of Santa is intending on GIFTING PUBLIC FUNDS to the Applicants. The alleyway belongs to the People. We are of the opinion that gifting of Public funds for free is illegal. The valve of said "gift" could possibly be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars taken from our community. 2. We believe the gifting of said land increases the Applicants' property by approximately 1,150 sq. ft of prime property in Santa Ana. 3. We object to the fact that our community was not informed properly of the Applicants' application to have the property "reverted" to 2383 North Flower. That property is a PUBLIC ROADWAY —there is nothing to "revert". We, the people, are deserving of proper Notice. 4. We object that the Applicants intend on having a wall built to block the alleyway so no one has access to that public roadway. This is our community; the location of this property is not for individual use. We never agreed to give the property to anyone. This alleyway will be closed for public use should you approve this Application. 5. We also object to the fact that our neighbors adjacent to said alleyway on Heliotrope will be restricted and inconvenienced by said closure of this alleyway. They do not have driveways, so they must access their garages via the alleyway. Those neighbors have legal rights to full access to this alleyway. It also creates a dangerous driving condition in that people may have to back up onto Heliotrope if a car is coming down the alley. 6. The residence located at 2379 North Flower will also be greatly impacted if this "reverting" is approved. This is not an easement, it is a dedicated roadway, nothing to "revert". The property owner at 2379 also has rights, as do we. 7. Said alleyway has been there for 100 years! The Applicants have owned their residence at 2383 N. Flower for 22 months. We love our neighborhood just as it is, we do not need to close alleyways for individuals who have not given thought to our community. S. Additional verbiage has been added to the legal description of Applicants' application. Applicants are claiming the alleyway belongs to them, and thus, want the alleyway "reverted". This NEW language just appeared out of nowhere. The City must review all ORIGINAL maps and records to disprove this claim. 9. We also believe that alleyway property was DEDICATED to the City of Santa Ana by prior owners of said land/alleyway in the year 1925, and not as an easement over the Applicants' property at 2383 N. Flower. 10. We are adamant and herewith request that the City of Santa Ana either take the matter off calendar for further review by the City Attorney and/or any other departments needed to establish said ownership of that property or that the City Council abolish all further discussion on this matter and terminate said Application with no further discussion. We prefer the latter. Thank you in advance for your consideration into this matter. We wish to be contacted directly by the City with any decisions made on this Application. Our contract information is noted above. Thank you for your time and your efforts in rejecting this Application. By. ,, 0 L 5+ ` Name: ! LICPrIIS `�j2 �- Address: Phone: Date: August 2, 2023 Re: City Council Hearing on August 15, 2023 Objection to Application for Abandonment of certain easement/right of way located at 2383 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA; (Abandonment No. 2023-01); Applicants Colin Donnelly and Carolina La Dear Mayor and City Council: FWe are residents at the above address. We have been residents at said address since e ZZ ZC( Q . We understand that there has been an Application to Abandon the alleyway located between 2379 and 2383 North Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA, our neighborhood alleyway. We strongly are opposed to the reverting of said property as stated on Applicant's application for the following reasons: 1. First, we do not believe there was ever an easement for said alleyway, it is a dedicated roadway. We strongly believe that alley is a PUBLIC ROADWAY. We strongly object to the fact that the City of Santa is intending on GIFTING PUBLIC FUNDS to the Applicants. The alleyway belongs to the People. We are of the opinion that gifting of Public funds for free is illegal. The valve of said "gift" could possibly be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars taken from our community. 2. We believe the gifting of said land increases the Applicants' property by approximately 1,150 sq. ft of prime property in Santa Ana. 3. We object to the fact that our community was not informed properly of the Applicants' application to have the property "reverted" to 2383 North Flower. That property is a PUBLIC ROADWAY —there is nothing to "revert". We, the people, are deserving of proper Notice. 4. We object that the Applicants intend on having a wall built to block the alleyway so no one has access to that public roadway. This is our community; the location of this property is not for individual use. We never agreed to give the property to anyone. This alleyway will be closed for public use should you approve this Application. 5. We also object to the fact that our neighbors adjacent to said alleyway on Heliotrope will be restricted and inconvenienced by said closure of this alleyway. They do not have driveways, so they must access their garages via the alleyway. Those neighbors have legal rights to full access to this alleyway. It also creates a dangerous driving condition in that people may have to back up onto Heliotrope if a car is coming down the alley. 6. The residence located at 2379 North Flower will also be greatly impacted if this "reverting" is approved. This is not an easement, it is a dedicated roadway, nothing to "revert". The property owner at 2379 also has rights, as do we. 7. Said alleyway has been there for 100 years! The Applicants have owned their residence at 2383 N. Flower for 22 months. We love our neighborhood just as it is, we do not need to close alleyways for individuals who have not given thought to our community. 8. Additional verbiage has been added to the legal description of Applicants' application. Applicants are claiming the alleyway belongs to them, and thus, want the alleyway "reverted". This NEW language just appeared out of nowhere. The City must review all ORIGINAL maps and records to disprove this claim. 9. We also believe that alleyway property was DEDICATED to the City of Santa Ana by prior owners of said land/alleyway in the year 1925, and not as an easement over the Applicants' property at 2383 N. Flower. 10. We are adamant and herewith request that the City of Santa Ana either take the matter off calendar for further review by the City Attorney and/or any other departments needed to establish said ownership of that property or that the City Council abolish all further discussion on this matter and terminate said Application with no further discussion. We prefer the latter. Thank you in advance for your consideration into this matter. We wish to be contacted directly by the City with any decisions made on this Application. Our contract information is noted above. Thank you for your time and your efforts in rejecting this Application. By: By: L,t Name: A . y'7,'IL IAIV 4 . 4//4 Address6_ ✓ Date: August 2, 2023 Re: City Council Hearing on August 15, 2023 Objection to Application for Abandonment of certain easement/right of way located at 2383 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA; (Abandonment No. 2023-01); Applicants Colin Donnelly and Carolina La Dear Mayor and City Council: We are resident the above address. We have been residents at said address since / q1 6 . We understand that there has been an Application to Abandon the alleyway located between 2379 and 2383 North Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA, our neighborhood alleyway. We strongly are opposed to the reverting of said property as stated on Applicant's application for the following reasons: 1. First, we do not believe there was ever an easement for said alleyway, it is a dedicated roadway. We strongly believe that alley is a PUBLIC ROADWAY. We strongly object to the fact that the City of Santa is intending on GIFTING PUBLIC FUNDS to the Applicants. The alleyway belongs to the People. We are of the opinion that gifting of Public funds for free is illegal. The valve of said "gift" could possibly be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars taken from our community. 2. We believe the gifting of said land increases the Applicants' property by approximately 1,150 sq. ft of prime property in Santa Ana. 3. We object to the fact that our community was not informed properly of the Applicants' application to have the property "reverted" to 2383 North Flower. That property is a PUBLIC ROADWAY —there is nothing to "revert". We, the people, are deserving of proper Notice. 4. We object that the Applicants intend on having a wall built to block the alleyway so no one has access to that public roadway. This is our community; the location of this property is not for individual use. We never agreed to give the property to anyone. This alleyway will be closed for public use should you approve this Application. 5. We also object to the fact that our neighbors adjacent to said alleyway on Heliotrope will be restricted and inconvenienced by said closure of this alleyway. They do not have driveways, so they must access their garages via the alleyway. Those neighbors have legal rights to full access to this alleyway. It also creates a dangerous driving condition in that people may have to back up onto Heliotrope if a car is coming down the alley. 6. The residence located at 2379 North Flower will also be greatly impacted if this "reverting" is approved. This is not an easement, it is a dedicated roadway, nothing to "revert". The property owner at 2379 also has rights, as do we. 7. Said alleyway has been there for 100 years! The Applicants have owned their residence at 2383 N. Flower for 22 months. We love our neighborhood just as it is, we do not need to close alleyways for individuals who have not given thought to our community. 8. Additional verbiage has been added to the legal description of Applicants' application. Applicants are claiming the alleyway belongs to them, and thus, want the alleyway "reverted". This NEW language just appeared out of nowhere. The City must review all ORIGINAL maps and records to disprove this claim. 9. We also believe that alleyway property was DEDICATED to the City of Santa Ana by prior owners of said land/alleyway in the year 1925, and not as an easement over the Applicants' property at 2383 N. Flower. 10. We are adamant and herewith request that the City of Santa Ana either take the matter off calendar for further review by the City Attorney and/or any other departments needed to establish said ownership of that property or that the City Council abolish all further discussion on this matter and terminate said Application with no further discussion. We prefer the latter. Thank you in advance for your consideration into this matter. We wish to be contacted directly by the City with any decisions made on this Application. Our contract information is noted above. Thank you for your time and your efforts in rejecting this Application. ' E. By: L,rF Name: 1 4l VlAio / 4- ,4-//c, Address: - - // Date: August 2, 2023 Re: City Council Hearing on August 15, 2023 Objection to Application for Abandonment of certain easement/right of way located at 2383 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA; (Abandonment No. 2023-01); Applicants Colin Donnelly and Carolina La Dear Mayor and City Council: We are residents at the above address. We have been residents at said address since Yb5 We understand that there has been an Application to Abandon the alleyway located between 2379 and 2383 North Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA, our neighborhood alleyway. We strongly are opposed to the reverting of said property as stated on Applicant's application for the following reasons: First, we do not believe there was ever an easement for said alleyway, it is a dedicated roadway. We strongly believe that alley is a PUBLIC ROADWAY. We strongly object to the fact that the City of Santa is intending on GIFTING PUBLIC FUNDS to the Applicants. The alleyway belongs to the People. We are of the opinion that gifting of Public funds for free is illegal. The valve of said "gift" could possibly be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars taken from our community. 2. We believe the gifting of said land increases the Applicants' property by approximately 1,150 sq. ft of prime property in Santa Ana. 3. We object to the fact that our community was not informed properly of the Applicants' application to have the property "reverted" to 2383 North Flower. That property is a PUBLIC ROADWAY -there is nothing to "revert". We, the people, are deserving of proper Notice. 4. We object that the Applicants intend on having a wall built to block the alleyway so no one has access to that public roadway. This is our community; the location of this property is not for individual use. We never agreed to give the property to anyone. This alleyway will be closed for public use should you approve this Application. 5. We also object to the fact that our neighbors adjacent to said alleyway on Heliotrope will be restricted and inconvenienced by said closure of this alleyway. They do not have driveways, so they must access their garages via the alleyway. Those neighbors have legal rights to full access to this alleyway. It also creates a dangerous driving condition in that people may have to back up onto Heliotrope if a car is coming down the alley. 6. The residence located at 2379 North Flower will also be greatly impacted if this "reverting" is approved. This is not an easement, it is a dedicated roadway, nothing to "revert". The property owner at 2379 also has rights, as do we. 7. Said alleyway has been there for 100 years! The Applicants have owned their residence at 2383 N. Flower for 22 months. We love our neighborhood just as it is, we do not need to close alleyways for individuals who have not given thought to our community. 8. Additional verbiage has been added to the legal description of Applicants' application. Applicants are claiming the alleyway belongs to them, and thus, want the alleyway "reverted". This NEW language just appeared out of nowhere. The City must review all ORIGINAL maps and records to disprove this claim. 9. We also believe that alleyway property was DEDICATED to the City of Santa Ana by prior owners of said land/alleyway in the year 1925, and not as an easement over the Applicants' property at 2383 N. Flower. 10. We are adamant and herewith request that the City of Santa Ana either take the matter off calendar for further review by the City Attorney and/or any other departments needed to establish said ownership of that property or that the City Council abolish all further discussion on this matter and terminate said Application with no further discussion. We prefer the latter. Thank you in advance for your consideration into this matter. We wish to be contacted directly by the City with any decisions made on this Application. Our contract information is noted above. Thank you for your time and your efforts in rejecting this Application. 0 LoA �iEimlgi4- % Date: August 2, 2023 Re: City Council Hearing on August 15, 2023 Objection to Application for Abandonment of certain easement/right of way located at 2383 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA; (Abandonment No. 2023-01); Applicants Colin Donnelly and Carolina La Dear Mayor and City Council: We are,residents at the above address. We have been residents at said address since We understand that there has been an Application to Abandon the alleyway locaLld between 2379 and 2383 North Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA, our neighborhood alleyway. We strongly are opposed to the reverting of said property as stated on Applicant's application for the following reasons: 1. First, we do not believe there was ever an easement for said alleyway, it is a dedicated roadway. We strongly believe that alley is a PUBLIC ROADWAY. We strongly object to the fact that the City of Santa is intending on GIFTING PUBLIC FUNDS to the Applicants. The alleyway belongs to the People. We are of the opinion that gifting of Public funds for free is illegal. The valve of said "gift" could possibly be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars taken from our community. 2. We believe the gifting of said land increases the Applicants' property by approximately 1,150 sq. ft of prime property in Santa Ana. 3. We object to the fact that our community was not informed properly of the Applicants' application to have the property "reverted" to 2383 North Flower. That property is a PUBLIC ROADWAY —there is nothing to "revert". We, the people, are deserving of proper Notice. 4. We object that the Applicants intend on having a wall built to block the alleyway so no one has access to that public roadway. This is our community; the location of this property is not for individual use. We never agreed to give the property to anyone. This alleyway will be closed for public use should you approve this Application. 5. We also object to the fact that our neighbors adjacent to said alleyway on Heliotrope will be restricted and inconvenienced by said closure of this alleyway. They do not have driveways, so they must access their garages via the alleyway. Those neighbors have legal rights to full access to this alleyway. It also creates a dangerous driving condition in that people may have to back up onto Heliotrope if a car is coming down the alley. 6. The residence located at 2379 North Flower will also be greatly impacted if this "reverting" is approved. This is not an easement, it is a dedicated roadway, nothing to "revert". The property owner at 2379 also has rights, as do we. 7. Said alleyway has been there for 100 years! The Applicants have owned their residence at 2383 N. Flower for 22 months. We love our neighborhood just as it is, we do not need to close alleyways for individuals who have not given thought to our community. 8. Additional verbiage has been added to the legal description of Applicants' application. Applicants are claiming the alleyway belongs to them, and thus, want the alleyway "reverted". This NEW language just appeared out of nowhere. The City must review all ORIGINAL maps and records to disprove this claim. 9. We also believe that alleyway property was DEDICATED to the City of Santa Ana by prior owners of said land/alleyway in the year 1925, and not as an easement over the Applicants' property at 2383 N. Flower. 10. We are adamant and herewith request that the City of Santa Ana either take the matter off calendar for further review by the City Attorney and/or any other departments needed to establish said ownership of that property or that the City Council abolish all further discussion on this matter and terminate said Application with no further discussion. We prefer the latter. Thank you in advance for your consideration into this matter. We wish to be contacted directly by the City with any decisions made on this Application. Our contract information is noted above. Thank you for your time and your efforts in rejecting this Application. #( By: By: Name: C AY-) C--k)1 iA Qti LQ/ Address: , Date: August 2, 2023 Re: City Council Hearing on August 15, 2023 Objection to Application for Abandonment of certain easement/right of way located at 2383 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA; (Abandonment No. 2023-01); Applicants Colin Donnelly and Carolina La Dear Mayor and City Council: We are residents at the above address. We have been residents at said address since 0�1 We understand that there has been an Application to Abandon the alleyway located between 2379 and 2383 North Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA, our neighborhood alleyway. We strongly are opposed to the reverting of said property as stated on Applicant's application for the following reasons: First, we do not believe there was ever an easement for said alleyway, it is a dedicated roadway. We strongly believe that alley is a PUBLIC ROADWAY. We strongly object to the fact that the City of Santa is intending on GIFTING PUBLIC FUNDS to the Applicants. The alleyway belongs to the People. We are of the opinion that gifting of Public funds for free is illegal. The valve of said "gift" could possibly be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars taken from our community. 2. We believe the gifting of said land increases the Applicants' property by approximately 1,150 sq. ft of prime property in Santa Ana. 3. We object to the fact that our community was not informed properly of the Applicants' application to have the property "reverted" to 2383 North Flower. That property is a PUBLIC ROADWAY — there is nothing to "revert". We, the people, are deserving of proper Notice. 4. We object that the Applicants intend on having a wall built to block the alleyway so no one has access to that public roadway. This is our community; the location of this property is not for individual use. We never agreed to give the property to anyone. This alleyway will be closed for public use should you approve this Application. 5. We also object to the fact that our neighbors adjacent to said alleyway on Heliotrope will be restricted and inconvenienced by said closure of this alleyway. They do not have driveways, so they must access their garages via the alleyway. Those neighbors have legal rights to full access to this alleyway. It also creates a dangerous driving condition in that people may have to back up onto Heliotrope if a car is coming down the alley. 6. The residence located at 2379 North Flower will also be greatly impacted if this "reverting" is approved. This is not an easement, it is a dedicated roadway, nothing to "revert". The property owner at 2379 also has rights, as do we. 7. Said alleyway has been there for 100 years! The Applicants have owned their residence at 2383 N. Flower for 22 months. We love our neighborhood just as it is, we do not need to close alleyways for individuals who have not given thought to our community. 8. Additional verbiage has been added to the legal description of Applicants' application. Applicants are claiming the alleyway belongs to them, and thus, want the alleyway "reverted". This NEW languagejust appeared out of nowhere. The City must review all ORIGINAL maps and records to disprove this claim. 9. We also believe that alleyway property was DEDICATED to the City of Santa Ana by prior owners of said land/alleyway in the year 1925, and not as an easement over the Applicants' property at 2383 N. Flower. 10. We are adamant and herewith request that the City of Santa Ana either take the matter off calendar for further review by the City Attorney and/or any other departments needed to establish said ownership of that property or that the City Council abolish all further discussion on this matter and terminate said Application with no further discussion. We prefer the latter. Thank you in advance for your consideration into this matter. We wish to be contacted directly by the City with any decisions made on this Application. Our contract information is noted above. Thank you for your time and your efforts in rejecting this Application. By: J �I li c nn G, L(2, Name: AA-,4el \ ,\c..a° Address: August 2, 2023 Re: City Council Hearing on August 15, 2023 Objection to Application for Abandonment of certain easement/right of way located at 2383 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA; (Abandonment No. 2023-01); Applicants Colin Donnelly and Carolina La Dear Mayor and City Council: We are residents at the above address. We have been residents at said address since t 00 % . We understand that there has been an Application to Abandon the alleyway located between 2379 and 2383 North Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA, our neighborhood alleyway. We strongly are opposed to the reverting of said property as stated on Applicant's application for the following reasons: 1. First, we do not believe there was ever an easement for said alleyway, it is a dedicated roadway. We strongly believe that alley is a PUBLIC ROADWAY. We strongly object to the fact that the City of Santa is intending on GIFTING PUBLIC FUNDS to the Applicants. The alleyway belongs to the People. We are of the opinion that gifting of Public funds for free is illegal. The valve of said "gift" could possibly be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars taken from our community. 2. We believe the gifting of said land increases the Applicants' property by approximately 1,150 sq. ft of prime property in Santa Ana. 3. We object to the fact that our community was not informed properly of the Applicants' application to have the property "reverted" to 2383 North Flower. That property is a PUBLIC ROADWAY —there is nothing to "revert". We, the people, are deserving of proper Notice. 4. We object that the Applicants intend on having a wall built to block the alleyway so no one has access to that public roadway. This is our community; the location of this property is not for individual use. We never agreed to give the property to anyone. This alleyway will be closed for public use should you approve this Application. 5. We also object to the fact that our neighbors adjacent to said alleyway on Heliotrope will be restricted and inconvenienced by said closure of this alleyway. They do not have driveways, so they must access their garages via the alleyway. Those neighbors have legal rights to full access to this alleyway. It also creates a dangerous driving condition in that people may have to back up onto Heliotrope if a car is coming down the alley. 6. The residence located at 2379 North Flower will also be greatly impacted if this "reverting" is approved. This is not an easement, it is a dedicated roadway, nothing to "revert". The property owner at 2379 also has rights, as do we. 7. Said alleyway has been there for 100 years! The Applicants have owned their residence at 2383 N. Flower for 22 months. We love our neighborhood just as it is, we do not need to close alleyways for individuals who have not given thought to our community. 8. Additional verbiage has been added to the legal description of Applicants' application. Applicants are claiming the alleyway belongs to them, and thus, want the alleyway "reverted". This NEW language just appeared out of nowhere. The City must review all ORIGINAL maps and records to disprove this claim. 9. We also believe that alleyway property was DEDICATED to the City of Santa Ana by prior owners of said land/alleyway in the year 1925, and not as an easement over the Applicants' property at 2383 N. Flower. 10. We are adamant and herewith request that the City of Santa Ana either take the matter off calendar for further review by the City Attorney and/or any other departments needed to establish said ownership of that property or that the City Council abolish all further discussion on this matter and terminate said Application with no further discussion. We prefer the latter. Thank you in advance for your consideration into this matter. We wish to be contacted directly by the City with any decisions made on this Application. Our contract information is noted above. Thank you for your time and your efforts in rejecting this Application. By: By: Name: Addres Phone: Email: Date: August 2, 2023 Re: City Council Hearing on August 15, 2023 Objection to Application for Abandonment of certain easement/right of way located at 2383 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA; (Abandonment No. 2023-01); Applicants Colin Donnelly and Carolina La Dear Mayor and City Council: We are resi ents at the above address. We have been residents at said address since . We understand that there has been an Application to Abandon the alleyway located between 2379 and 2383 North Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA, our neighborhood alleyway. We strongly are opposed to the reverting of said property as stated on Applicant's application for the following reasons: 1. First, we do not believe there was ever an easement for said alleyway, it is a dedicated roadway. We strongly believe that alley is a PUBLIC ROADWAY. We strongly object to the fact that the City of Santa is intending on GIFTING PUBLIC FUNDS to the Applicants. The alleyway belongs to the People. We are of the opinion that gifting of Public funds for free is illegal. The valve of said "gift" could possibly be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars taken from our community. 2. We believe the gifting of said land increases the Applicants' property by approximately 1,150 sq. ft of prime property in Santa Ana. 3. We object to the fact that our community was not informed properly of the Applicants' application to have the property "reverted" to 2383 North Flower. That property is a PUBLIC ROADWAY —there is nothing to "revert". We, the people, are deserving of proper Notice. 4. We object that the Applicants intend on having a wall built to block the alleyway so no one has access to that public roadway. This is our community; the location of this property is not for individual use. We never agreed to give the property to anyone. This alleyway will be closed for public use should you approve this Application. 5. We also object to the fact that our neighbors adjacent to said alleyway on Heliotrope will be restricted and inconvenienced by said closure of this alleyway. They do not have driveways, so they must access their garages via the alleyway. Those neighbors have legal rights to full access to this alleyway. It also creates a dangerous driving condition in that people may have to back up onto Heliotrope if a car is coming down the alley. 6. The residence located at 2379 North Flower will also be greatly impacted if this "reverting" is approved. This is not an easement, it is a dedicated roadway, nothing to "revert". The property owner at 2379 also has rights, as do we. 7. Said alleyway has been there for 100 years! The Applicants have owned their residence at 2383 N. Flower for 22 months. We love our neighborhood just as it is, we do not need to close alleyways for individuals who have not given thought to our community. 8. Additional verbiage has been added to the legal description of Applicants' application. Applicants are claiming the alleyway belongs to them, and thus, want the alleyway "reverted". This NEW language just appeared out of nowhere. The City must review all ORIGINAL maps and records to disprove this claim. 9. We also believe that alleyway property was DEDICATED to the City of Santa Ana by prior owners of said land/alleyway in the year 1925, and not as an easement over the Applicants' property at 2383 N. Flower. 10. We are adamant and herewith request that the City of Santa Ana either take the matter off calendar for further review by the City Attorney and/or any other departments needed to establish said ownership of that property or that the City Council abolish all further discussion on this matter and terminate said Application with no further discussion. We prefer the latter. Thank you in advance for your consideration into this matter. We wish to be contacted directly by the City with any decisions made on this Application. Our contract information is noted above. Thank you for your time and your efforts in rejecting this Application. By: By: Name: Addres Phone: Email: Date: August 2, 2023 Re: City Council Hearing on August 15, 2023 Objection to Application for Abandonment of certain easement/right of way located at 2383 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA; (Abandonment No. 2023-01); Applicants Colin Donnelly and Carolina La Dear Mayor and City Council: We are rese is at the above address. We have been residents at said address since . We understand that there has been an Application to Abandon the alleyway located between 2379 and 2383 North Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA, our neighborhood alleyway. We strongly are opposed to the reverting of said property as stated on Applicant's application for the following reasons: I. First, we do not believe there was ever an easement for said alleyway, it is a dedicated roadway. We strongly believe that alley is a PUBLIC ROADWAY. We strongly object to the fact that the City of Santa is intending on GIFTING PUBLIC FUNDS to the Applicants. The alleyway belongs to the People. We are of the opinion that gifting of Public funds for free is illegal. The valve of said "gift" could possibly be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars taken from our community. 2. We believe the gifting of said land increases the Applicants' property by approximately 1,150 sq. ft of prime property in Santa Ana. 3. We object to the fact that our community was not informed properly of the Applicants' application to have the property "reverted" to 2383 North Flower. That property is a PUBLIC ROADWAY —there is nothing to "revert". We, the people, are deserving of proper Notice. 4. We object that the Applicants intend on having a wall built to block the alleyway so no one has access to that public roadway. This is our community; the location of this property is not for individual use. We never agreed to give the property to anyone. This alleyway will be closed for public use should you approve this Application. 5. We also object to the fact that our neighbors adjacent to said alleyway on Heliotrope will be restricted and inconvenienced by said closure of this alleyway. They do not have driveways, so they must access their garages via the alleyway. Those neighbors have legal rights to full access to this alleyway. It also creates a dangerous driving condition in that people may have to back up onto Heliotrope if a car is coming down the alley. 6. The residence located at 2379 North Flower will also be greatly impacted if this "reverting" is approved. This is not an easement, it is a dedicated roadway, nothing to "revert". The property owner at 2379 also has rights, as do we. 7. Said alleyway has been there for 100 yearsl The Applicants have owned their residence at 2383 N. Flower for 22 months. We love our neighborhood just as it is, we do not need to close alleyways for individuals who have not given thought to our community. S. Additional verbiage has been added to the legal description of Applicants' application. Applicants are claiming the alleyway belongs to them, and thus, want the alleyway "reverted". This NEW language just appeared out of nowhere. The City must review all ORIGINAL maps and records to disprove this claim. 9. We also believe that alleyway property was DEDICATED to the City of Santa Ana by prior owners of said land/alleyway in the year 1925, and not as an easement over the Applicants' property at 2383 N. Hower. 10. We are adamant and herewith request that the City of Santa Ana either take the matter off calendar for further review by the City Attorney and/or any other departments needed to establish said ownership of that property or that the City Council abolish all further discussion on this matter and terminate said Application with no further discussion. We prefer the latter. Thank you in advance for your consideration into this matter. We wish to be contacted directly by the City with any decisions made on this Application. Our contract information is noted above. Thank you for your time and your efforts in rejecting this Application. By:' By: Name: Addres Phone: Email: Date: August 2, 2023 , Re: City Council Hearing on August 15, 2023 Objection to Application for Abandonment of certain easement/right of way located at 2383 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA; (Abandonment No. 2023-01); Applicants Colin Donnelly and Carolina La Dear Mayor and City Council: We are r flts.at the above address. We have been residents at said address since / . We understand that there has been an Application to Abandon the alleyway located between 2379 and 2383 North Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA, our neighborhood alleyway. We strongly are opposed to the reverting of said property as stated on Applicant's application for the following reasons: First, we do not believe there was ever an easement for said alleyway, it is a dedicated roadway. We strongly believe that alley is a PUBLIC ROADWAY. We strongly object to the fact that the City of Santa is intending on GIFTING PUBLIC FUNDS to the Applicants. The alleyway belongs to the People. We are of the opinion that gifting of Public funds for free is illegal. The valve of said "gift" could possibly be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars taken from our community. 2. We believe the gifting of said land increases the Applicants' property by approximately 1,150 sq. ft of prime property in Santa Ana. 3. We object to the fact that our community was not informed properly of the Applicants' application to have the property "reverted" to 2383 North Flower. That property is a PUBLIC ROADWAY —there is nothing to "revert". We, the people, are deserving of proper Notice. 4. We object that the Applicants intend on having a wall built to block the alleyway so no one has access to that public roadway. This is our community; the location of this property is not for individual use. We never agreed to give the property to anyone. This alleyway will be closed for public use should you approve this Application. 5. We also object to the fact that our neighbors adjacent to said alleyway on Heliotrope will be restricted and inconvenienced by said closure of this alleyway. They do not have driveways, so they must access their garages via the alleyway. Those neighbors have legal rights to full access to this alleyway. It also creates a dangerous driving condition in that people may have to back up onto Heliotrope if a car is coming down the alley. 6. The residence located at 2379 North Flower will also be greatly impacted if this "reverting" is approved. This is not an easement, it is a dedicated roadway, nothing to "revert". The property owner at 2379 also has rights, as do we. 7. Said alleyway has been there for 100 years! The Applicants have owned their residence at 2383 N. Flower for 22 months. We love our neighborhood just as it is, we do not need to close alleyways for individuals who have not given thought to our community. 8. Additional verbiage has been added to the legal description of Applicants' application. Applicants are claiming the alleyway belongs to them, and thus, want the alleyway "reverted". This NEW language just appeared out of nowhere. The City must review all ORIGINAL maps and records to disprove this claim. 9. We also believe that alley way property was DEDICATED to the City of Santa Ana by prior owners of said land/alleyway in the year 1925, and not as an easement over the Applicants' property at 2383 N. Flower. 10. We are adamant and herewith request that the City of Santa Ana either take the matter off calendar for further review by the City Attorney and/or any other departments needed to establish said ownership of that property or that the City Council abolish all further discussion on this matter and terminate said Application with no further discussion. We prefer the latter. Thank you in adva esfor your consideration into this matter. We wish to be contacted directly by the with any decis nsl�made on this Application. Our contract information is noted above. Thank you for this Application. By: Name: Addres Phone: Email: Date: August 2, 2023 Re: City Council Hearing on August 15, 2023 Objection to Application for Abandonment of certain easement/right of way located at 2383 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA; (Abandonment No. 2023-01); Applicants Colin Donnelly and Carolina La Dear Mayor and City Council: We are resi ents at the above address. We have been residents at said address since We understand that there has been an Application to Abandon the alleyway located between 2379 and 2383 North Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA, our neighborhood alleyway. We strongly are opposed to the reverting of said property as stated on Applicant's application for the following reasons: I. First, We do not believe there was ever an easement for said alleyway, it is a dedicated roadway. We strongly believe that alley is a PUBLIC ROADWAY. We strongly object to the fact that the City of Santa is intending on GIFTING PUBLIC FUNDS to the Applicants. The alleyway belongs to the People. We are of the opinion that gifting of Public funds for free is illegal. The valve of said "gift" could possibly be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars taken from our community. 2. We believe the gifting of said land increases the Applicants' property by approximately 1,150 sq. ft of prime property in Santa Ana. 3. We object to the fact that our community was not informed properly of the Applicants' application to have the property "reverted" to 2383 North Flower. That property is a PUBLIC ROADWAY —there is nothing to "revert". We, the people, are deserving of proper Notice. 4. We object that the Applicants intend on having a wall built to block the alleyway so no one has access to that public roadway. This is our community; the location of this property is not for individual use. We never agreed to give the property to anyone. This alleyway will be closed for public use should you approve this Application. 5. We also object to the fact that our neighbors adjacent to said alleyway on Heliotrope will be restricted and inconvenienced by said closure of this alleyway. They do not have driveways, so they must access their garages via the alleyway. Those neighbors have legal rights to full access to this alleyway. It also creates a dangerous driving condition in that people may have to back up onto Heliotrope if a car is coming down the alley. l 6. The residence located at 2379 North Flower will also be greatly impacted if this "reverting" is approved. This is not an easement, it is a dedicated roadway, nothing to "revert". The property owner at 2379 also has rights, as do we. 7. Said alleyway has been there for 100 years! The Applicants have owned their residence at 2383 N. Flower for 22 months. We love our neighborhood just as it is, we do not need to close alleyways for individuals who have not given thought to our community. 8. Additional verbiage has been added to the legal description of Applicants' application. Applicants are claiming the alleyway belongs to them, and thus, want the alleyway "reverted". This NEW language just appeared out of nowhere. The City must review all ORIGINAL maps and records to disprove this claim. 9. We also believe that alleyway property was DEDICATED to the City of Santa Ana by prior owners of said land/alleyway in the year 1925, and not as an easement over the Applicants' property at 2383 N. Flower. 10. We are adamant and herewith request that the City of Santa Ana either take the matter off calendar for further review by the City Attorney and/or any other departments needed to establish said ownership of that property or that the City Council abolish all further discussion on this matter and terminate said Application with no further discussion. We prefer the latter. Thank you in advance for your consideration into this matter. We wish to be contacted directly by the City with any decisions made on this Application. Our contract information is noted above. Thank you for your time and your efforts in rejecting this Application. Name: kl--3Q c,, kha rv— Address: Date: August 2, 2023 Re: City Council Hearing on August 15, 2023 Objection to Application for Abandonment of certain easement/right of way located at 2383 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA; (Abandonment No. 2023-01); Applicants Colin Donnelly and Carolina La Dear Mayor and City Council: VA are residents at �ty above address. We have been residents at said address since VC � aL7IWe understand that there has been an Application to Abandon the alleyway located between 2379 and 2383 North Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA, our neighborhood alleyway. We strongly are opposed to the reverting of said property as stated on Applicant's application for the following reasons: I. First, we do not believe there was ever an easement for said alleyway, it is a dedicated roadway. We strongly believe that alley is a PUBLIC ROADWAY. We strongly object to the fact that the City of Santa is intending on GIFTING PUBLIC FUNDS to the Applicants. The alleyway belongs to the People. We are of the opinion that gifting of Public funds for free is illegal. The valve of said "gift" could possibly be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars taken from our community. 2. We believe the gifting of said land increases the Applicants' property by approximately 1,150 sq. ft of prime property in Santa Ana. 3. We object to the fact that our community was not informed properly of the Applicants' application to have the property "reverted" to 2383 North Flower. That property is a PUBLIC ROADWAY —there is nothing to "revert". We, the people, are deserving of proper Notice. 4. We object that the Applicants intend on having a wall built to block the alleyway so no one has access to that public roadway. This is our community; the location of this property is not for individual use. We never agreed to give the property to anyone. This alleyway will be closed for public use should you approve this Application. 5. We also object to the fact that our neighbors adjacent to said alleyway on Heliotrope will be restricted and inconvenienced by said closure of this alleyway. They do not have driveways, so they must access their garages via the alleyway. Those neighbors have legal rights to full access to this alleyway. It also creates a dangerous driving condition in that people may have to back up onto Heliotrope if a car is coming down the alley. 6. The residence located at 2379 North Flower will also be greatly impacted if this "reverting" is approved. This is not an easement, it is a dedicated roadway, nothing to "revert". The property owner at 2379 also has rights, as do we. 7. Said alleyway has been there for 100 years! The Applicants have owned their residence at 2383 N. Flower for 22 months. We love our neighborhood just as it is, we do not need to close alleyways for individuals who have not given thought to our community. 8. Additional verbiage has been added to the legal description of Applicants' application. Applicants are claiming the alleyway belongs to them, and thus, want the alleyway "reverted". This NEW language just appeared out of nowhere. The City must review all ORIGINAL maps and records to disprove this claim. 9. We also believe that alley way property was DEDICATED to the City of Santa Ana by prior owners of said land/alleyway in the year 1925, and not as an easement over the Applicants' property at 2383 N. Flower. 10. We are adamant and herewith request that the City of Santa Ana either take the matter off calendar for further review by the City Attorney and/or any other departments needed to establish said ownership of that property or that the City Council abolish all further discussion on this matter and terminate said Application with no further discussion. We prefer the latter. Thank you in advance for your consideration into this matter. We wish to be contacted directly by the City with any decisions made on this Application. Our contract information is noted above. Thank you for your time and your efforts in rejecting this Application. By: By: Lrk Name: Address: - Phone. Email: Date: August 2, 2023 Re: City Council Hearing on August 15, 2023 Objection to Application for Abandonment of certain easement/right of way located at 2383 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA; (Abandonment No. 2023-01); Applicants Colin Donnelly and Carolina La Dear Mayor and City Council: We aarg residents at the above address. We have been residents at said address since /— 0� . We understand that there has been an Application to Abandon the alleyway located between 2379 and 2383 North Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA, our neighborhood alleyway. We strongly are opposed to the reverting of said property as stated on Applicant's application for the following reasons: 1. First, we do not believe there was ever an easement for said alleyway, it is a dedicated roadway. We strongly believe that alley is a PUBLIC ROADWAY. We strongly object to the fact that the City of Santa is intending on GIFTING PUBLIC FUNDS to the Applicants. The alleyway belongs to the People. We are of the opinion that gifting of Public funds for free is illegal. The valve of said "gift" could possibly be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars taken from our community. 2. We believe the gifting of said land increases the Applicants' property by approximately 1,150 sq. ft of prime property in Santa Ana. 3. We object to the fact that our community was not informed properly of the Applicants' application to have the property "reverted" to 2383 North Flower. That property is a PUBLIC ROADWAY —there is nothing to "revert". We, the people, are deserving of proper Notice. 4. We object that the Applicants intend on having a wall built to block the alleyway so no one has access to that public roadway. This is our community; the location of this property is not for individual use. We never agreed to give the property to anyone. This alleyway will be closed for public use should you approve this Application. 5. We also object to the fact that our neighbors adjacent to said alleyway on Heliotrope will be restricted and inconvenienced by said closure of this alleyway. They do not have driveways, so they must access their garages via the alleyway. Those neighbors have legal rights to full access to this alleyway. It also creates a dangerous driving condition in that people may have to back up onto Heliotrope if a car is coming down the alley. 6. The residence located at 2379 North Flower will also be greatly impacted if this "reverting" is approved. This is not an easement, it is a dedicated roadway, nothing to "revert". The property owner at 2379 also has rights, as do we. 7. Said alleyway has been there for 100 years! The Applicants have owned their residence at 2383 N. Flower for 22 months. We love our neighborhood just as it is, we do not need to close alleyways for individuals who have not given thought to our community. 8. Additional verbiage has been added to the legal description of Applicants' application. Applicants are claiming the alleyway belongs to them, and thus, want the alleyway "reverted". This NEW language just appeared out of nowhere. The City must review all ORIGINAL maps and records to disprove this claim. 9. We also believe that alleyway property was DEDICATED to the City of Santa Ana by prior owners of said land/alleyway in the year 1925, and not as an easement over the Applicants' property at 2383 N. Flower. 10. We are adamant and herewith request that the City of Santa Ana either take the matter off calendar for further review by the City Attorney and/or any other departments needed to establish said ownership of that property or that the City Council abolish all further discussion on this matter and terminate said Application with no further discussion. We prefer the latter. Thank you in advance for your consideration into this matter. We wish to be contacted directly by the City with any decisions made on this Application. Our contract information is noted above. Thank you for your time and your efforts in rejecting this Application By: By: �� Loi Name: Address: Date: August 2, 2023 Re: City Council Hearing on August 15, 2023 Objection to Application for Abandonment of certain easement/right of way located at 2383 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA; (Abandonment No. 2023-01); Applicants Colin Donnelly and Carolina La Dear Mayor and City Council: We are residents at the above address. We have been residents at said address since SO '749 . We understand that there has been an Application to Abandon the alleyway located between 2379 and 2383 North Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA, our neighborhood alleyway. We strongly are opposed to the reverting of said property as stated on Applicant's application for the following reasons: 1. First, we do not believe there was ever an easement for said alleyway, it is a dedicated roadway. We strongly believe that alley is a PUBLIC ROADWAY. We strongly object to the fact that the City of Santa is intending on GIFTING PUBLIC FUNDS to the Applicants. The alleyway belongs to the People. We are of the opinion that gifting of Public funds for free is illegal. The valve of said "gift" could possibly be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars taken from our community. 2. We believe the gifting of said land increases the Applicants' property by approximately 1,150 sq. ft of prime property in Santa Ana. 3. We object to the fact that our community was not informed properly of the Applicants' application to have the property "reverted" to 2383 North Flower. That property is a PUBLIC ROADWAY —there is nothing to "revert". We, the people, are deserving of proper Notice. 4. We object that the Applicants intend on having a wall built to block the alleyway so no one has access to that public roadway. This is our community; the location of this property is not for individual use. We never agreed to give the property to anyone. This alleyway will be closed for public use should you approve this Application. 5. We also object to the fact that our neighbors adjacent to said alleyway on Heliotrope will be restricted and inconvenienced by said closure of this alleyway. They do not have driveways, so they must access their garages via the alleyway. Those neighbors have legal rights to full access to this alleyway. It also creates a dangerous driving condition in that people may have to back up onto Heliotrope if a car is coming down the alley. 6. The residence located at 2379 North Flower will also be greatly impacted if this "reverting" is approved. This is not an easement, it is a dedicated roadway, nothing to "revert". The property owner at 2379 also has rights, as do we. 7. Said alleyway has been there for 100 years! The Applicants have owned their residence at 2383 N. Flower for 22 months. We love our neighborhood just as it is, we do not need to close alleyways for individuals who have not given thought to our community. 8. Additional verbiage has been added to the legal description of Applicants' application. Applicants are claiming the alleyway belongs to them, and thus, want the alleyway "reverted". This NEW language just appeared out of nowhere. The City must review all ORIGINAL maps and records to disprove this claim. 9. We also believe that alleyway property was DEDICATED to the City of Santa Ana by prior owners of said land/alleyway in the year 1925, and not as an easement over the Applicants' property at 2383 N. Flower. 10. We are adamant and herewith request that the City of Santa Ana either take the matter off calendar for further review by the City Attorney and/or any other departments needed to establish said ownership of that property or that the City Council abolish all further discussion on this matter and terminate said Application with no further discussion. We prefer the latter. Thank you in advance for your consideration into this matter. We wish to be contacted directly by the City with any decisions made on this Application. Our contract information is noted above. Thank you for your time and your efforts in rejecting this Application. By:� By: LD4 ` Name: Addres Phone: Email: Date: August 2, 2023 , Re: City Council Hearing on August 15, 2023 Objection to Application for Abandonment of certain easement/right of way located at 2383 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA; (Abandonment No. 2023-01); Applicants Colin Donnelly and Carolina La Dear Mayor and City Council: We are resideatat the above address. We have been residents at said address since re °i' . We understand that there has been an Application to Abandon the alleyway located between 2379 and 2383 North Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA, our neighborhood alleyway. We strongly are opposed to the reverting of said property as stated on Applicant's application for the following reasons: 1. First, we do not believe there was ever an easement for said alleyway, it is a dedicated roadway. We strongly believe that alley is a PUBLIC ROADWAY. We strongly object to the fact that the City of Santa is intending on GIFTING PUBLIC FUNDS to the Applicants. The alleyway belongs to the People. We are of the opinion that gifting of Public funds for free is illegal. The valve of said "gift" could possibly be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars taken from our community. 2. We believe the gifting of said land increases the Applicants' property by approximately 1,150 sq. ft of prime property in Santa Ana. 3. We object to the fad that our community was not informed properly of the Applicants' application to have the property "reverted" to 2383 North Flower. That property is a PUBLIC ROADWAY —there is nothing to "revert". We, the people, are deserving of proper Notice. 4. We object that the Applicants intend on having a wall built to block the alleyway so no one has access to that public roadway. This is our community; the location of this property is not for individual use. We never agreed to give the property to anyone. This alleyway will be closed for public use should you approve this Application. S. We also object to the fact that our neighbors adjacent to said alleyway on Heliotrope will be restricted and inconvenienced by said closure of this alleyway. They do not have driveways, so they must access their garages via the alleyway. Those neighbors have legal rights to full access to this alleyway. It also creates a dangerous driving condition in that people may have to back up onto Heliotrope if a car is coming down the alley. 6. The residence located at 2379 North Flower will also be greatly impacted if this "reverting" is approved. This is not an easement, it is a dedicated roadway, nothing to "revert". The property owner at 2379 also has rights, as do we. 7. Said alleyway has been there for 100 years! The Applicants have owned their residence at 2383 N. Flower for 22 months. We love our neighborhood just as it is, we do not need to close alleyways for individuals who have not given thought to our community. 8. Additional verbiage has been added to the legal description of Applicants' application. Applicants are claiming the alleyway belongs to them, and thus, want the alleyway "reverted". This NEW language just appeared out of nowhere. The City must review all ORIGINAL maps and records to disprove this claim. 9. We also believe that alley way property was DEDICATED to the City of Santa Ana by prior owners of said land/alleyway in the year 1925, and not as an easement over the Applicants' property at 2383 N. Flower. 1D. We are adamant and herewith request that the City of Santa Ana either take the matter off calendar for further review by the City Attorney and/or any other departments needed to establish said ownership of that property or that the City Council abolish all further discussion on this matter and terminate said Application with no further discussion. We prefer the latter. Thank you in advance for your consideration into this matter. We wish to be contacted directly by the City with any decisions made on this Application. Our contract information is noted above. Thank you for your time and your efforts in rejecting this Application. By: Ni- ame: �YQQlL Phone: a �." August2,2023 Re: City Council Hearing on August 15, 2023 Objection to Application for Abandonmem ofwtaln easement right of way located at 2383 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA; (Abandonment No. 2023-01); Applicants Colin Donnelly and Carolina La Dear Mayorand City Council: 3W are res enisattheaboveaddress. Wehavebeenresidentsatsaidaddre&ssince W. We understand that there has been an Application W Abandon the alleyway lowed etween 2379 and 2383 North Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA, our neighborhood alleyway. We strongly are opposed to the reverting of said property as stated on Applicant's application for Me following reasons: I. First, we do not believe there was ever an eawmentforsaid alleyway, It is a dedicated roadway. We strongly believe that alley is a PUBLIC ROADWAY. We strongly object to the fact that the City of Santa is intending on GIFTING PUBLIC FUNDS to the Applicants. The alleyway belongs to the People. We are ofthe opinion that glfting of Public funds for free is Illegal. Thevalveofsaid "Rift' could possibly be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars taken from our community. 2. We believe the gifting of said land increases the Applicants property by approximately 1,15o sq, ft of prime property In Santa Ana, 3. We object to the fact that our community was not Informed property of the Applicants' application to have the property "reverted" to 2383 North Rower. That property is a PUBLIC ROADWAY —there is nothing to"reverl". We, the people, are deserving of proper Notice. 4. We object that the Applicants intend on having a wall built to block the alleyway so no one has access to that public madway. This Is our community; the location of this property Is not for Indlvidualuse. We neveragreed to give the property to anyone. This alleyway will be closed for Public use should you approve this Application. S. We also object to the fact that our neighbors adjacent to said alleyway on Heliotrope will be restricted and Inconvenienced by said closure of MIs alleyway. They do not have driveways, so they must access their garages via the alleyway. Those neighbors have legal rights to full access to this alleyway. It also creates a dangerous driving condition In that people may have W back UP 000 Heliotrope if a car is coming down the alley. 6. The residence located at 2379 North Flower will also be greatly impacted 9 this "reverting"is approved. This is not an easement, it is a dedicated roadway, nothing to "revert". The property owner at 2379 also has rights, as do we. 7. Said alleyway has been there for 100 years) The Applicants have owned their residence at 2383 N. Flower for 22 months. We love our neighborhood just as it Is, we do not need to close alleyways for individuals who have not given thought to our community. 8. Additional verbiage has been added to the legal description of Applicants' application. Applicants are claiming the alleyway belongs to them, and thus, want the alleyway 'reverted". This NEW languagejust appeared out of nowhere. The City most review all ORIGINAL maps and records M disprove this claim. 9. We also believe that alley way property was DEDICATED to the City of Salt Ana by prior owners of said land/alleyway in the year 1925, and not as an easement over the Applicants' property at 2383 N. Flower. 10. We are adamant and herewith request that the City of Santa Ana either take the matter off calendar for further review by the City Attorney and/or any other departments needed W establish said ownership of that property or that the City Council abolish all further discussion on this matter and terminate mid Application with no further discussion. We prefer the latter. Thank you in advance for your consideration into this matter. We wish to be contacted directly by the City With any decisions made an this Application. Our contract Information is noted above. Thank you for your time and your efforts In rejecting this Application. /L. r = � Date: Re: City Council Hearing on August 15, 2023 Objection to Application for Abandonment of certain easement/right of way located at 2383 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA, (Abandonment No. 2023-01j, Applicants Colin Donnelly and Carolina La Dear Mayor and City Council: Weare re�si nts at the above address. We have been residents at said address since cec-sGa We understand that there has been an Application to Abandon the alleyway located between 2379 and 2383 North Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA, our neighborhood alleyway. We strongly areopposed to the reverting of aid pmpertY as ated on Applicant's applicati,nfrhefollowing reasons: 1. First, we do not believe there was ever an easement for said alleyway, It is a dedicated roadway. We strongly believe that alley is a PUBLIC ROADWAY. We strongly object to the fact that the City of Santa is intending on GIFTING PUBLIC FUNDS to the Applicants. The alleyway belongs to the People. We are of the opinion that gibing of Public funds for free is Illegal. Thevalveofmid "gift" could possibly be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars taken from Our community. 2. We believe the gifting ofsaid land Increases the Applian& property by approximately 1,150 sq. R of prime property in Santa Ana. 3. We object to the fact that our community was not informed properly of the Applicants' application to have the property "reverted" to 2383 North Flower. That property's a PUBLIC ROADWAY- there!, nothing to "revert". We, the people, are deserving of proper Notice. 4. We object that the Applicants Intend on having a wall bulk to block the alleyway so no one has access to that public roadway. This is our community, the location of this property b not for Individual use. We never agreed to give the property to anyone. This alleyway will be closed for Public use should you approve this Application. 5. We also object to the fact that our neighbors adjacent to said alleyway on Hellotrope will be restricted and inconvenienced by said closure ofthis alleyway. They do not have driveways, so theymUgLacumtheirgaragesvi. the alleyway. Those neighbors have legal rights to full access to this alleyway. It also creates a dangerous driving condition in that people may have to back up onto Heliotrope if a car is coming down the alley. 6. The residence located at 2379 North Flower will also be greatly Impacted If this"reverting" is approved. This Is not an easement, it is a dedicated roadway, nothing to "revert'. The property owner at 2379 also has rights, as do we. 7. Said alleyway has been there for 100 years! The Applicants have owned their residence at 2383 N. Flower for 22 months. We love ournelghimmoodjustas it Is, wed, not need toclose alleyways for Individuals who have not given thought to our community. 8. Additional verbiage has been added to the legal description of Applicants' application. Applicants are claiming the alleyway belongs to them, and thus, want the alleyway "reverted'. This NEW languagejust appeared out of nowhere. The City must review all ORIGINAL maps and records to disprove this claim. 9. We also believe that alleyway property was DEDICATED to the City of Santa Ana by prior owners of said land/alleyway in the year 1925, and not as an easement over the Applicants' property at 2383 N. Flower. 10. We are adamant and herewith request that the City of Santa Ana either take the matter off calendar for further review by the City Attorney and/or any other departments needed to establish said ownership of that property orthat the City Coundl abolish all further discussion an this matterandterminatesaid Appllat!onwhhnofurtberdiscussion. Wepreferthelatter. Thank you in advance for your consideration Into this matter. We wish to be contacted directly by the City with any decisions made on this Application. Our contract information is noted above. Thank you for your time and your efforts In rejecting this Application. Name:'�&re r\ V0,_r''e.1 a — Address: Date: August 2, 2023 Re: City Council Hearing on August 15, 2023 Objection to Application for Abandonment of certain easement/dght of way located at 2383 N. Flower street Santa Ana, CA; (Abandonment No. 2023-01); Applicants Colin Donnelly and Carolina la Dear Mayor and City Council: e are residents at t above address. We have been residents at said addresssince 4✓e understand that there has been an Application to Abandon the alleyway located between 2379 and 2383 North Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA, our neighborhood alleyway. We strongly are opposed to the reverting of said property as stated on Applicant's application for the following reasons: 1. First, we do not believe there was ever an easement forsaid alleyway, it is a dedicated roadway. We strongly believe that alley is a PUBLIC ROADWAY. We strongly object to the fact that the City of Santa Is Intending on GIFTING PUBLIC FUNDS to the Applicants. The alleyway belongs to the People. We are of the opinion that gifting of Public funds for free is illegal. Thevahreofsaid "gift" could possibly be worth hundreds ofthousands of dollars taken from our Community. 2. We believe the gifting of said land Increases the Applicants property by approximately 1,150 sq. ft of prime property in Santa Ana, 3. We object to the fact that our Community was not informed properly of the Applicants' application to have the property "reverted° to 2383 North Flower. That property Is a PUBLIC ROADWAY —there is nothing to"revert". We, the people, are deservingofproper Notice. a. We objectthat the Applicants intend on having a wall built to block the alleyway so no one has access to that public roadway. This is our community; the location of this property is not for Individual use. We never agreed to give the property to anyone. This alleyway will be dosed for public use should you approve this Application. 5. We also object to the fact that our neighbors adjacent to said alleyway on Heliotrope will be restricted and Inconvenienced by Bald closure of this alleyway. They do not have driveways, so they muse access their garages via the alleyway. Those neighbors have legal rights to full access to this alleyway. It also creates a dangerous driving condition in that people may have to back up onto Heliotrope if a car is coming down the alley. b. The residence located at 2379 North Flower will also be greatly Impacted ifthb "reverting" is approved. This is not an easement, it is a dedicated roadway, nothing to "revert". The property owner at 2379 also has rights, as do we. 7. Said alleyway has been therefor LOG years) The Applicants have owned their residence at 2383 N. Flower for 22 months. We love our neighborhood just as h is, we do not need to close alleyways for Individuals who have not given thought to our Community. S. Additional verbiage has been added to the legal description of Applicants' application. Applicants are claiming the alleyway belongs to them, and thus, want the alleyway "reverted". This NEW language just appeared out of nowhere. The City must review all ORIGINAL maps and records to disprove this claim. 9. We also believe that alley way property was DEDICATED to the City of Santa Ana by prior owners of saitl land/alleyway in the year 1925, and not as an easement over the Applicants' property at 2383 N. Flower. 10. We are adamant and herewith request that the City of Santa Ana either take the matter off calendar for further review by the City Attorney and/or any other departments needed to establish said ownership of that property or that the City Council abolish all further discussion on this matter and terminate said Application with no further discussion. Wepreferthelatter. Thank you in advance for your consideration into this matter. We wish to be contacted directly by the City with any decisions made on this Application. Our Contract Information Is noted above. Thank you for your time and your efforts in rejecting this Application. , � By Date: August 2, 2023 Re: City Council Hearing on August 15, 2023 Objection to Application for Abandonment of certain easement/right of way located at 2383 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA; (Abandonment No. 2023-01); Applicants Colin Donnelly and Carolina to Dear Mayorand City Council: We are residents at the above address. We have been residentsat said addresssince �>- L. We understand that there has been an Application ce Abandon the alleyway located between 2379 and 2383 North Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA, our neighborhood alleyway. We strongly are opposed to the reverting of mid property as stated on Applicant's application for the following reasons: 1. First, we do not believe there was ever an easement for said alleyway, It is a dedicated roadway. We strongly believe that alley is a PUBLIC ROADWAY. We strongly object to the fact that the City of Santa is intending on GIFTING PUBLIC FUNDS to the Applicants. The alleyway belongs to the People. We are of the opinion that gating of Public funds for free is Illegal. The valve of said "gl t" could possibly be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars taken from our community. 2. We belleve the gifting of said land Increases the Applicants' property by approximately 1,150 sq. N of prime property in Santa Ana. 3. We object to the fact that our community was not informed property of the Applicants' application to have the property "reverted" to 2383 North Flower. That property Is a PUBLIC ROADWAY- there is nothing to 'revert. We, the people, are deservingofproper Notice. a. We object that the Applicants Intend on having a wall bulk to block the alleyway so no one has access to that public roadway. This Is our Community; the location of this property is not for Individual use. We never agreed to give the property to anyone. This alleyway will be closed for public use should you approve this Application. S. We also object to the fat that our neighbors adjacent to said alleyway on Heliotrope will be restricted and inconvenienced by said closure of this alleyway. Theydonothavedriveways,so they mug access thelrgarageswa the alleyway. Thoseneighbors have legalrlghtsto full access to this alleyway. It also creates a dangerous driving condition in that people may have to back up onto Heliotrope if a car 11 coming down the alley. 6. The residence located at 2379 North Flower will also he greatly imputed if this "reverting" Is approved. This is not an easement, it is a dedicated roadway, nothing to "revert". The property owner at 2379 also has rights, as do we. 7. Said alleyway has been there for 100 years! The Applicants have owned their residence at 2383 N. Flower for 22 months. We love our neighborhood justas R Is, we do not need to dose alleyways for individuals who have not given thought to our community. B. Additional verbiage has been added to the legal description of Appllrants'application. Applicants are claiming the alleyway belongs to them, and thus, want the alleyway "reverted". This NEW language just appeared out of nowhere. The City must review all ORIGINAL maps and records to disprove this claim. 9. We also believe that alley way property was DEDICATED to the City of Santa Ana by prior owners of said land/alleyway in the year 1925, and not as an easement over the Applicants' Property at 2383 N. Flower. 10. We are adamant and herewith request that the City of Santa Ana either take the matter off calendar for further review by the City Attorney and/or any other departments needed to establish said ownership of that property or that the City Council abolish all further discussion on this matter and terminate said Application with no further discussion. We prefer he latter. Thank you In advance for yourconsideration into this matter. Wewishtobecontacteddirectlybythe City with any decisions made an this Application. Our contract information is noted above. Thank you for your and your e80rts4q rejecting this Application. By: By: Name: PhonPhoness: e: — Email: Date: August2,2023 Re: City Council Hearing on August 15, 2023 Objection to Application for Abandonment of certain easement/right of way located at 2383 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA; (Abandonment No. 2023-01); Applicants Colin Donnelly and Carolina la Dear Mayor and City Council: wq are residents at the above address. We have been residents at saitl address since —. We understand that there has been an Application to Abandon the alleyway located between 2379 antl 2383 North Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA, our neighborhood alleyway. We strongly are opposed to the reverting of said property as stated on Applicant's application for the following reasons: 1. First, we do not believe there was ever an easement for said alleyway, it is a dedicated roadway. We strongly believe that alley is a PUBLICROADWAY. We strongly object to the fact that the City of Santa Is Intending on GIFTING PUBLIC FUNDS to the Applicants. The alleyway belongs to the People. We are of the opinion that giftlag of Publicfunds mrfree is illegal Thevalveofsaid "SWO could Possibly be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars taken from our community. 2. We believe the gifting ofsaid land increases the Applicants' property by approdmately l,150 sq. It of prime Property In Santa Ana. 3. We object to the fact that our community was not Informed properly of the Applicants' application to have the property "reverted" to 2383 North Flower. That property is a PUBLIC ROADWAY -there is nothing to"reverC. We, the people, are deserving of proper Notice. 4. We abject that the Applicants intend on having a wall built to block the alleyway so no one has access to that public roadway. This is our community; the location ofthis property is not for Individual use. We never agreed to give the property to anyone. This alleyway will be closed for Public use should you approve this Application. 5. We also object to the fact that our neighbors adjacent to said alleyway on Heliotrope will be restricted and inconvenienced by said closure ofthis alleyway. They do not have driveways, so they must access theirgamges via the alleyway. Those neighbors have legal rights to full access to this alleyway. It also creates a dangerous driving condition in that people may have to back up onto Heliotrope if a car Is coming down the alley. 6. The residence located at 2379 North Flower will also be greatly impacted if this "reverting' is approved. This is not an easement, it Isa dedicated roadway, nothing to "revert". The property owner at 2379 also has rights, as do we. 7. Said alleyway has been therefor 100yearsl The Applicants have owned their residence at 2383 N. Flower for 22 months. We love our neighborhood just as it Is, we do not need to close alleyways for individuals who have not given thought to our community. 8. Additional verbiage has been added to the legal description of Applicants'application. Applicants are claiming the alleyway belongs to them, and thus, want the alleyway "reverted". This NEW language just appeared out of nowhere. The City must review all ORIGINAL maps and records to disprove this claim. 9. We also believe that alley way property was DEDICATED m the City of Santa Ana by prior owners of saitl land/alleyway in the year 1925, and not as an easement over the Applicants Property at 2383 N. Flower. 10. We are adamant and herewith request that the City of Santa Ana either take the matter off calendar for further review by the City Attorney and/or any other departments needed to establish said ownership of that property or that the City Council abolish all further discussion on this matter and terminate said Application with no further discussion. We prefer the latter. Thank you in advance for your consideration into this matter. We wish to be contacted directly by the City with any decisions made on this Application. Our contract Information is noted above. Thank you for your time and your efforts In rejecting this Application. gy:n '/ By: Y 7--""�Ld r/t t- J � Name: CL.tw Slet Address: Date: August 2, 2023 Re: City Council Hearing on August 25, 2023 Objection to Application for Abandonment of certain easement(right of way located at 2383 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA; (Abandonment No. 2023-01); Applicants Colin Donnelly and Carolina to Dear Mayor and City Council: We are residents at the above address. We have been residents at said address since �% T . We understand that there has been an Application to Abandon the alleyway located between 2379 and 2383 North Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA, our neighborhood alleyway. We strongly are opposed to the reverting of said property as stated on Applicant's application for the following reasons: 1. First, we do not believe there was ever an easement for mid alleyway, It is a dedicated roadway. We strongly believe that alley is a PUBLIC ROADWAY. We strongly object to the fact that the City of Santa is Intending on GIFTING PUBLIC FUNDS w the Applicants. The alleyway belongs to the People. We are of the opinion that gdoing of Public funds for free is Illegal. The va Ne of said "gift" could possibly be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars taken from our community. 2. We believe the gifting ofsaid land Increases the Applicants'property by approximately 1,15o sq. It of prime property in Santa Ana. 3. We object to the fact that our community was not Informed properly of the Applicants' application to have the property "reverted" to 2383 North Flower. That property Is a PUBLIC ROADWAY —there is nothing to "revert". We, the People, are deserving ofproper Notice. 4. We object that the Applicants intend on having a wall built to block the alleyway so no one has accessto that public roadway. This is our community; the location afthis property is not for individual use. We never agreed to give the property to anyone. This alleyway will be closed for public use should you approve this Application. 5. We also object to the fact that our neighbors adleam to said alleyway on Heliotrope will be restricted and Inconvenienced by said closure of this alleyway. They do not have driveways, so they mustaccess their garages via the alleyway. Those neighbors have legal rights to full access to this alleyway. It also creates a dangerous driving condition in that people may have to back up onto Heliotrope if a car Is coming down the alley. 6. The residence located at 2379 North Flower will also be greatly Impacted if this "reverting' Is approved. This is not an easement, a is a dedicated roadway, nothing to "revert". The property owner at 2379 also has rights, as do we. 7. Said alleyway has been there for 100 years) The Applicants have owned their residence at 2383 N. Flower for 22 months. We love our neighborhood lust as it Is, we do not need to close alleyways for individuals who have not given thought to our community. S. Additional verbiage has been added to the legal description of Applicants'application. Applicants are claiming the alleyway belongs to them, and thus, want the alleyway "reverted This NEW language lust appeared out of nowhere. The City most review all ORIGINAL maps and records to disprove this claim. 9. We also believe that alley way property was DEDICATED to the City of Santa Ana by prior owners of said land/alleyway, in the year 1925, and not as an easement over the Applicants' Property at 2383 N. Flower. 10. We are adamant and herewith request hatthe City ofsante Ana either take the matter off calendar for further review by the City Attorney and/or any other departments needed to establish mid ownership of that property or that the City Council abolish all further discussion on this matter and terminate said Application with no furtherdiscusslon. We prefer the latter. Thank you in advance for Your consideration into this matter. We wish to be contacted directly by the City with any decisions made on this Application. Our contract Information is need above. Thank you foryourtimeandyour efforts rejecting this Application. By: By: G'u L"Talw . Name: W &/ Address: ' 1 Date: August'L 2023 Re: City Council Hearing on August 15, 2023 Objection to Application for Abandonment of certain easement/right of way located at 2383 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA; (Abandonment No. 2023-01); Applicants Colin Donnelly and Carolina La Dear Mayor and City Council: We are residents at the above address. We have been residents at said address since a'15 We understand that there has been an Application to Abandon the alleyway located between 2379 and 2383 North Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA, our neighborhood alleyway. We strongly are opposed to the reverting of said property as stated on Applicant's application for the following reasons: 1. First, we do not believe there was ever an easement for mid alleyway, it Is a dedicated roadway. We strongly believe that alley is a PUBUC ROADWAY. We strongly object to the fact that the City of Santa is intending on GIFTING PUBLIC FUNDS to the Applicants. The alleyway belongs to the People. We are of the opinion that gifting of Public funds for free is illegal. Thevalveofsald "gift" could possibly be worth hundreds of thoumnds of dollarstaken from ourcommunity. 2. We belleve the gifting ofmld land Increases the Applicants property by approrimatery, 1,150 sq. It of prime property in Santa Ana. i We objectIn the fact that our community was not Informed properly of the Applicants' application to have the pmperty ^reverted" to 2383 North Flower. That property Is a PUBLIC ROADWAY —there is nothing to'ravert". We, the people, are deserving ofproper Notice. d. We object that the Applicants intend on having a wall built to block the alleyway so no one has accessto that public roadway. This Is our community; the location of this property is not for individual um. We never agreed to give the property to anyone. This alleyway will be closed for public use should you approve this Application. 5. We also object to the fact that our neighbors adJacent to mid alleyway on Heliotrope will be restricted and inconvenienced by mid closure of this alleyway. They do not have driveways, so they must access thelrgarages via the alleyway. Those neighbors have legal rights to full access to this alleyway. It also creates a dangerous drying condition in that People may have to back up onto Heliotrope if a car Is coming down the alley. 6. The residence located at 2379 North Flower will also be greatly Impacted if this "reverting" is approved. This Is not an easement, It is a dedicated roadway, nothing to "revert". The properly owner at 2379 also has rights, as do we. 7. Said alleyway has been there for too years)The Applicants have owned their residence at 2383 N. Flower for 22 months. We love our neighborhood juntas it is, we do not need to close alleyways for individual$ who have not given thought to our community. S. Additional verbiage has been added to the legal description ofAppllcants application. Applicants are claiming the alleyway belongs to them, and thus, want the alleyway "reverted'. This NEW language just appeared out of nowhere. The City must review all ORIGINAL maps and records to disprove this claim. 9. We also believe that alley way property was DEDICATED to the City of Santa Ana by prior owners of said land/alleyway in the year 1925, and not as an easement over the Applicants property, at 2383 N. Flower. 10. We are adamant and herewfth request that the City of Santa All either take the matter off calendar for further review by the City Attorney and/or any other departments needed to establish mid ownership of that property or that the City Council abolish all further discussion on this matter and terminate said Application with no further discussion. We prefer the latter. Thank you in advance for Your consideration into this matter. We wish to be contacted directly by the City with any decisions made on this Application. Ourdntract Information is noted above. Thank you for your time and your efforts In rejecting this Application. By: _t AWV'vh. By: ^ �_ Name: , Q H,-� f IAV� Address-'] Date: August%, 21123 Re: City Council Hearing on August 15,2023 Objection to Application for Abandonment of certain easement/right of way located at 2383 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA; ]Abandonment No. 2023-01). Applicants Colin Donnelly and Carolina La Dear Mayorand City Council: We are residents at the above address. We have been residents at said address since Z 4.1 . We understand that there has been an Application to Abandon the alleyway located between 2379 and 2383 North Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA, our neighborhood alleyway. We strongly are opposed to the reverting of said Property as stated on Applicant's application for the followingreasons: 1. First, we do not believe there was ever an easement for said alleyway, it is a dedicated roadway. We strongly believe that alley B a PUBUC ROADWAY. We strongly object to the fact that the City of Santa is intending on GIFTING PUBLIC FUNDS to the Applicants. The alleyway belongs to the People. We are of the opinion that Bitting of Public funds for free is illegal. The valve of said 'BiW could possibly be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars taken from our community. 2. We believe the gifting of said land Increases the Applicants' property by approximately 1,150 sq. ft of prime property In Santa Ana, 3. We object to the fact that our community was not informed properly of the Applicants' application W have the property "reverted" to 2383 North Flower. That property is a PUBLIC ROADWAY —there is nothing to "revert. We, the people, are deservingof proper Notice. 4. We object that the Applicants intend on having a wall built to block the alleyway so no one has access to that public roadway. This Is our community; the location of this property is not for Individual use. We never agreed to give the property to anyone. This alleyway will be closed for public use should you approve this Application. 5. We also object to the fact that our neighbors adjacent to said alleyway an Heliotrope will be restricted and inconvenienced by said closure ofthis alleyway. They do not have driveways, so they roust access their garages via the alleyway. Those neighbors have legal rights to full access to this alleyway. It also creates a dangerous driving corMRion in that people may have to back Up onto Heliotrope B a car is coming down the alley. b. The residence located at 2379 North Flower will also be greatly impacted If this "reverting" is approved. This is not an easement, it is a dedicated roadway, nothing to "revert". The property owner at 2379 also has rights, as do we. 7. Said alleyway has been there for 100yearsl The Applicants have owned their residence at 2383 N. Flower for 22 months. We love our neighborhood )urt as it is, we do not need to close alleyways for individuals who have not given thought to our community. 8. Additional verbiage has been added to the legal description of Applicants'application. Applicants are claiming the alleyway belongs W them, and thus, want the alleyway "reverted". This NEW language just appeared Out of nowhere. The City must review all ORIGINAL maps and records to disprove this claim. 9. We also believe that alley way property was DEDICATED to the City of Santa Ana by prior owners of said land/alleyway In the year 1925, and not as an easement over the Applicants' property at 2383 N. Flowe, 10. We are adamant and herewith request that the City of Santa Ana either take the matter off calendar for further review by the City Attorney and/or any other departments needed to establish said ownership of that property or that the City Council abolish all further discussion an this matter and terminate said Application wish no further discussion. We prefer the latter. Thank you in advance for your consideration into this matter. We wish to be contacted directly by the City with any decisions made an this Application. Our contract information is noted above. Thank you for your time and your efforts in rejecting this Application. By: Y: 3 P JJ S,PIg Name: 2 I ! t l Address: Phone: Email: Date: Aug US,\ 23 Re: Oty Council Hearingon August 15, 2023 Objection to Application for Abandonment of certain easement/right of way located at 2383 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA; (Abandonment No. 2023-01); Applicants Colin Donnelly and Carolina La Dear Mayorand City Council: We areresidentsat the above address. We have been residents at said address since We Understand that there has been an Application to Abandon the alleyway located between 2379 and 2383 North Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA, our neighborhood alleyway. We strongly are opposed to the reverting of Bald property as stated on Applicant's application for the following reasons: 1. First, we do not believe there was ever an easement for said alleyway, It is a dedicated roadway We strongly believe that alley is a PUBLIC ROADWAY. Westronglyobjeato the fadthatthe City Of Santa is Intending on GIFTING PUBLIC FUNDS to the Applicants. The alleyway belongs to the People. We are ofhe opinion that glfting of Public funds for free is Illegal. Thevalveofsaid "gift" could possibly be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars taken from our community. 2. We believe the gifing ofsaid land increases the Applicants' property by approximately 1,150 sq. If of prime property In Santa Ana. 3. We object to the fact that our community was not informed properly of the Applicants' application to have the property "reverted" to 2383 North Flower. That property Is a PUBLIC ROADWAY —there is nothing to"revert". We, the people, are deserving of proper Notice. a. We object that the Applicants intend on having a wall built to block the alleyway so no one has access to that public roadway. This is our community; the location of this property is not for individual use. We never agreed to give the propertyto anyone. This alleyway will be closed for Public use should you approve this Application. S. We also object to the fact that our neighbors adjacent to said alleyway on Heliotrope will be restricted and inconvenienced by said closure ofthis alleyway. They do not have driveways, so they must access their garages via the alleyway. Those neighbors have legal rights to full access to thus alleyway. It also creates a dangerous driving condition In that people may have to back up onto Heliotrope If a or is coming down the alley. 6. The residence located at 2379 North Flower will also be greatly Impacted If this "reverting' Is approved. This is not an easement, it Is a dedicated roadway, nothing to "revert". The property owner at 2379 also has rights, as do we. 7. Said alleyway has been therefor 100 years l The Applicants have owned their residence at 2383 N. Flower for 22 months. We love ournelghborhood Justasitis, we do not need to close alleyways for Individuals who have not given thought m our community. 8. Additional verbiage has been added to the legal description of Applionte application. Applicants are claiming the alleyway belongs to them, and thus, want the alleyway "reverted". This NEW languagejust appeared out of nowhere. The City must review, all ORIGINAL maps and records to disprove this claim. 9. We also believe that alley way property was DEDICATED to the City of Santa Ana by prior owners of said land/alleyway In the year 1925, and not as an easement over the Applicants Property at 2383 N. Flower. 10. We are adamant and herewith request that the City of Santa Ana either take the matter off calendar for further review by the City Attorney and/or any other departments needed to establish said ownership of that property or that the City Council abolish all further discussion on this matter and terminate said Application with no further discussion. We preferthe latter. Thank you in advance for your consideration into this matter. We wish to be contacted directly by the City with any decisions made on this Application. Our contract infonnatlon Is noted above. Thank you for your time and your efforts in rejecting this Application. M Name: Address: ' . Phone: Email: Date: AugusttQe 2023 Re: City Council Hearing on August 15, 2023 Objection to Application for Abandonment of ortain easement/right of way located at 2383 N. Flower street, Santa Ana, CA; (Abandonment No. 2023-01); Applicants Colin Donnelly and Carolina Fa Oear Mayor and City Council We arerers�ldents at the above address. We have been residents at said address since 1 0 J . We understand Mw M atthehas been an Application to Abandon e alleyway looted between 79 and 2383 North Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA, our neighborhood alleyway. We strongly are opposed to the reverting of said property as stated on Applicant's application for the following reasons: I. First, we do not believe there was everan easement for said alleyway, It is a dedicated roadway. We strongly belleve that alley is a PUBLIC ROADWAY. We strongly object to the fact that the City of Santa Is [Mending on GIFTING PUBLIC FUNDS to the Applicants, The alleyway belongs to the People. We are of the opinion that glfting of Public funds for free is Illegal. The valve of said "gift" Could possibly be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars taken from our community. 2. We believe the gifting of said land increases the Applicants' property by approximately 1,150 sq. IS of prime property In Santa Ana. 3. We objett to the Fact that our community was not informed property of the Applicants' application to have Me property "reverted" to 2383 North Flower. That property is a PUBLIC ROADWAY— there is nothing to "revert". We, the people, are deserving of proper Notice. a. We object that the Applicants intend on having await built to block the alleywayso noone has access to that public roadway. This Is our community; the location of thls property is not for Individualuse. We never agreed to give the property to anyone. This alleyway will be closed for Public use should you approve this Application. 5. We also Object to the ha that our neighbors adjacent to said alleyway In Heliotrope will be restricted and inconvenienced by said closure of this alleyway. They do not have driveways, so they must access their garages via the alleyway. Those neighbors have legal rights to full access to this alleyway. It also creates a dangerous driving condition in that people may have to back up onto Heliotrope Ra car is Coming down the alley. B. The residence looted at 2379 North Flower will also be greatly Impacted if this "reverting"is approved. This is not an easement, it is a dedicated roadway, nothing to "revert'. The property owner at 2379 also has rights, as do we. 7. Said alleyway has been there for too yearst The Applicants have owned their residence at 2383 N. Flower for 22 months. We love aurneighbomood justas his, we do not need to close alleyways for Individuals who have not given thought to our community. S. Additional verbiage has been added to the legal description ofAppliam" ppllcatlo,. Applicants are claiming the alleyway belongs to them, and thus, want the alleyway "reverted". This NEW languagejust appeared out of nowhere. The City must Way, all ORIGINAL maps and records to disprove this claim. 9. We also believe that alley way property was DEDICATED to the City of Santa Ana by prior owners of said land/alleyway in the year 1925, and not as an easement over the Applicants' Property at 2383 N. Flower. 10. We are adamant and herewith request that the City of Santa Ana either take the matter OR calendar for further review by the City Attorney and/or any other departments needed to establish said ownership of that property or that the City Council abolish all further discussion on this matter and terminate said Application with no furtherdiscussion. We prefer the latter. Thank you in advance for your consideration into this matter. We wish In be contacted directly by the City with any decisions made on this Application. Our Contract information is noted above. Thank you for your ti and your efforts siijn�rejecting this Application. By:. Orozco, Norma From: Britiny Cecil < Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2023 12:12 PM To: eComment Subject: Abandonment 2023-01 (Flower Alley) Good Morning, We live in Floral Park and just found out about the petition being circulated to oppose the alley vacation, we strongly disagree with this petition. We fully support the decision to close off the alley between Flower St. and Heliotrope Dr. We support the findings of Public Staff and City Council thus far and want this easement vacated. Thank you, Britiny Cecil Orozco, Norma From: Irene Myers <irene@kentsnyderlaw.com> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2023 3:09 PM To: Lopez, Jessie; Kent Snyder Cc: Cheryl Newton; Carvalho Sonia (Sonia.Carvalho@bbklaw.com); eComment; Montoya, Jose Subject: RE: Alley in Floral Park between 2383 N. Flower and 2379 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA Emailing: Alley Signed Petitions 2, Alley Signed Petitions 3, Alley Signed Petitions 4, Alley Signed Petitions 5, Alley Signed Petitions 1 Attachments: Alley Signed Petitions 6 (3).pdf Ms. Lopez: Attached are additional letters protesting the abandonment/vacating of the alley as stated above. Thank you for your help in this matter. Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Kent Snyder Kent G. Snyder by Irene Myers Law Offices of Kent G. Snyder 2301 Dupont Drive, Suite 430 Irvine, California 92612 Irene S. Myers Administrator Irene@Kentsnyderlaw.com tel (949) 833-9078 fax (949) 833-8209 CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION This e-mail transmission contains confidential information which is intended only for the addressee and which may be privileged under applicable law. Do not read, copy or disseminate it if you are not the addressee. If you have received this message in error,please notify the sender immediately and delete it. Thank you. From: Lopez,Jessie<JessieLopez@santa-ana.org> Sent: Wednesday,August 9, 2023 3:59 PM To: Irene Myers<irene@kentsnyderlaw.com>; Kent Snyder<kent@kentsnyderlaw.com> Cc: Cheryl Newton <cherylnewton2@cox.net>; Carvalho Sonia (Sonia.Carvalho@bbklaw.com) <Sonia.Carvalho@bbklaw.com> Subject: RE:Alley in Floral Park between 2383 N. Flower and 2379 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA Emailing:Alley Signed Petitions 2,Alley Signed Petitions 3,Alley Signed Petitions 4, Alley Signed Petitions 5,Alley Signed Petitions 1 Irene, I wanted to provide you with an update on the matter at hand.The public hearing scheduled for Tuesday,August 15th has been cancelled. This decision stems from the City's Attorney office's need to conduct a legal review. Although the item will remain on the agenda, it will be clearly labeled as canceled. In accordance with your request, I will send the enclosed documents to the Clerk's office for the purpose of submitting them as public records. i Thank you, Jessie Lopez(she/her) Mayor Pro Tem City of Santa Ana 1 20 Civic Center Plaza I Santa Ana, CA 92701 Email:JessieLopez@santa-ana.org Office: (714) 647-6900 Cell: 714 822-0891 Click here to sign up for my Quarterly Newsletter! This email and any files or attachments transmitted with it may contain privileged or otherwise confidential information.If you are not the intended recipient,or believe that you may have received this communication in error,please advise the sender via reply email and immediately delete the email you received. -----Original Message----- From: Irene Myers<irene@kentsnyderlaw.com> Sent:Wednesday,August 9, 2023 2:59 PM To: Lopez,Jessie<JessieLopez@santa-ana.org>; Kent Snyder<kent@kentsnyderlaw.com> Cc: Cheryl Newton< Subject:Alley in Floral Park between 2383 N. Flower and 2379 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA Emailing:Alley Signed Petitions 2,Alley Signed Petitions 3,Alley Signed Petitions 4, Alley Signed Petitions 5,Alley Signed Petitions 1 Mr. Lopez: I understand you will help in getting these signed letter petitions to the appropriate files/people. Thank you so much for your help in this matter. I have attached 5 separate PDFs for your use. There are more to come which I will forward to you accordingly. Thank you so much. Kent G. Snyder Kent G. Snyder by Irene Myers Law Offices of Kent G. Snyder 2301 Dupont Drive, Suite 430 Irvine, California 92612 Irene S. Myers Administrator lrene@Kentsnyderlaw.com tel (949) 833-9078 fax(949) 833-8209 CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION This e-mail transmission contains confidential information which is intended only for the addressee and which may be privileged under applicable law. Do not read, copy or disseminate it if you are not the addressee. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it. Thank you. 2 fl O q a m w G 7 n A w _ .,r O m t9 m o r m Q a ro O •0 ri 7 ? ua 7 - W D s w S m o y v_ m v ro m w w ro w 4 y T O n c q 6 a ro m 4, "h" w a 0 ~r m y a D O rD w O m D m' A' O D In O m mm 3 f0 [ N w N C • ? ,^. { c w 7 m 3 7 v�i a D O C ry 6 N 7 2 - m © z m r v m r'b � m ° m w S a 3 w 3 ro o . s n Q m o mw a ry� K m G 6 �GL p Oq T O 04 T D w m O 1 w 3rtsn m ? W rG w » mD w d, Z q m m u Q 2n o w T. 2 w A 7 c e udi q K w a m a ° _ 7 N w n a ry D e •p D ri b -n D w m - j w CL Q .: w - 10 N m Er m N G .wi CD w �' o wn, o `° ° o m ° n D a m 0 0 o C m ° ° o o 3 z a s n m ° m m m m x d w m a o m b m m O w M a c y m s w o a m s D s - _ is m m x r`m m N as Da o Qma m o w m 3r 5o y a o rr n y v M m m o w o o •c W rn w m a n v+ o w s p, a rN,2 N p o o w w K C O n0 y7 m u S cn rs S O O H n 7 w O 3 y rp m o h m n ?a a ? ° R 7 m 'c a w , a m _ - �- N = oar rP m '^' we o a rrte w owi p a s.' m O N w 'r q C C w m m a C y w m a O wEj7 0 K .wj "9 n m a 0 w v m v � n � a ro m a T M an r°°o a o o m w w D rp 7 _ w w C 3' C 7 q m a 0 3 c. m o m H 1— dp N w s w w a m- y o 't m rho 'c n D C m 6 •w[ d m w 3 3 2 m w w 3. `n ro w OO a ti a rD m @ d m w C y4 N Z D o rs m ro ro w 0 �. � m �? m c a g S D s A ? 0' n D O f�D C .w. -w wm m uu am n N s Om0 7 l m 3 a m ro u a w om o o m a s w : 3 m '� 5 Y m N py 4 D a °a .0 75 m o m 7 n•.3c m o n o_ 3o w N s n = rp ]C m Q Q. -0t m w g m ti m^ O .Z j 3 A •O m m r c a is S a m p w a w eD m m 3 c 0 CL cr rn W p 3 c v m m d o D w m A a o = - a m �" a oq Wft C 00 w o o` O yn A N o` er w m m p 3 - aim CZ o m m m' ,e3o• v I m ? R ro O v m 5 n * m as 3 a- l3 m y to _ _ Tp D 'o m ° m m rt ov m r0 -orn „ O oc !! . a ° . C ro C C ', W m roCL -°1� ti N W m m y D m N o R n ° o m °« a o o n ° Q b o a w w c' CL S 3 I!f 3 m n(0 m 0_ m. a NO d m < m �. m O o N ro m n � a � � m � 0- � m m a °- O acr •{fro C .^W+ 'T n W - 4 O W. A N a M, oex m _ ? o as =° ° N s o w -n Po a N rmo w, o w C ro c o C o m m to 3 6 H ro y n W U fl ro w C m v m N < K �. a 3 `q N Zr ID ° c o n o fl a w` o. q ! a a v ro a _ a o a s C o ° m ro a o ° c< s ° N Sq .1 O 3 a w o ° eb __ 4 < o cr w' • d n' m �' Cs v m fl P 1-' ' 3 a j Z N m y m 0. 3 N Oq a d CL W F y n o n a s ° o d m F ro w c° V rr �. O a m M a i rn o m o E N A N o H-0 C N 9 T _ .n m a z c n m[i _ d m o rn m M 0 9 ^. cm a aC 4c r w m G CL y e3 a 'aCL 3 m m H a c 3 a O �• -C re m N h ao 7' 7 t�i N d m' D ra a �. m et ro% '' {� N o n w 00 a ^ d•cy N rq 3 V ZIL� a d O w m Z ➢ o n c m °° o a m m ro ° u v et D m 0 w c K 3 o^ o m C D y ''� m . .ter 'c m W m m fl d s o s R �•• m n 3 0 p a o � m = a a> `p m ° n ? o 3 a s c m r^ y C f0 w m C a m n m o n o_ ci o ` a a% t` m ° or 3 c m m M E 1 3 'M C w LO m .fie S Q n D CT M ^ N.rt' m �' �' g g s m ,� ID n " D �°ID H e n d 3 F i 3 m r o d a — ro m a — _ a m C a. ? a m m pp - M i N m ro Nn n d KO w ro m 3 D Ct W .. _ N s a _n: �= o ° rap --I c d w � K 3 ° 3 a 3ro = w a W c 0 m a. CL _ �' tD 7 m ra ,� A I N o n S 01 ° d O ID ^ O Q* g o a m °f �. m ro a oval m m m a N a K C a �* a Sn G O 6 ro m a d T 13 m p, N 3 as o !': v N N (_� �* 3 N tO O Mm m = b m _�' m iD ro m G a 3 io a s c n ° Dn w m C O p m oD CT -O„ 4 S C w e C a ^ a Ri a m a ° w Va O co C m D O Q M m m m c w °1 a'o a o '��' o ro ° — m m z H CL �' D O umi w Q (o N '� in .. ro at CL S a 7 /D M m O N fG m m D GS .c a. A 7 O- a M vi d M C O of O r O T, y N 7 T °' tSA' .may v �, a a 9 O- os g a c� n a m v Do w L m e 3 ° Gzi a W m a n s b m O O rD n n T �p OD 9 Q. O N a M l S m "ice' N 0 as w a d ,�' m C N CL' '{ m ro w ' = D sD m a �° o °v'' s o w' � D � � a r`°n ,pro, a moo m Z , an m s w m w $ C ❑ m m v " .c m ao .o. y w z 3 a m zn y v w a ❑ D W. w m a ® C p a d C O fl T fi O a rL {ry F+ rn a m ' . ' a a s » m�c �'< a ro a-ac s 2, s'c f° o off, '° m CL Ca' (p 3 N. a as w. •e m _ s D N rn 0 CD a_ 3Wa �— E;3 ti a u m D a O m x d ~ra A G' m O' H = z y 3 a 4 .��.' rp ' a n o o n 0 c 5 R CL < a +r pry a CL ° o ff o °�D `° m c w CL ° z A co � rn a C m C B O eisyj D D CL a CL z a N fi q 6 O a O W m YI b. s n, C 3 B (� O. y, N ip' Q j d S O O N W 3 o a, c a ro o m ^un d N m e o O O n" m q J CL Obi m m OQ C G H N N fD SD 4 `r M ro G {9' O a O w G A r ' '{ a � [D 63 a W a D WL o a D 3 d a m RI CL`3 d °' C y N m rp = w S o 3 ao. m m ° cp a o a m c W a a c a v E H MCD m m o m 50 WO ° a n ro 'v m q ro ro ao °n v m eL ra oo s ¢ o m a a a p O q g. c a o a q i D m m 3 c ° w IA m2 wv 3 f o 3 n m 2. CL m an w n m a 3 x < ro a E 4 a `a m = = m M as a y OT 'ti _ p CL a inn j' s .7D >D a m g 7 < CL m s a m A a G1 a m ^ iD — -w m � nY ro o_ m e^ v.-Q D p a c r1 CL a ° m m c m 0 a 'c a m M n W .� o o n N ? w N o m m m m a z m °' �ma a a nn � �C]v r� �. � ag 7 n � r w ? 6 � A - •'" N `° .r orIc R c e W A ^1 G m m p ° •c `^ F m vq F d ao m .�"• o w � � � a' � � a p m p m � m Z a a, o A �� C 90 S =' � p Po Oa rpi A Yi Z � m a N 9 A O G `n' y in m 1° o o ro m c o bg — 3 TI x Po F ' m d K _D o'o' o iF ro m m �• o p d EL m m 4 ? o o n 3 ? F .n a v ro cm, 9:m rA "6 n v n c rn ° an 7 •n cC � o � ° �' w N o � 1Q ro rti � a ,�. m n m o m © d o a m ^ m a fS as a• a fl• �- a .N o �'' ^, 7C _ w 0- fp N M Q1 p n n a F a m a - e Po G7`� IC m vg. 2 q m c n m s � w g p � m � m e, �• CL x a p o # a a o a N R1 m [ ° xF o Rs m R �m Ralo ZE !tn 0 n O @ d w a m a CL O @ m c n re m 0 C m :OE `a' m ° o y q 3 o 'F] a 5' c m c O C O to y ' ? 0. E c m W d � � m y Cl n G D 3 0 aT °ET ' ^ay y n W o n z fo 'o Q ry 2 O a 5 ro °. '� �• yigN Q Z n� Q p N 3l i3 f9 3 m m70 o o o e C- �. m E m � 'c. a 3 ai a o' °1 0 *M F E a.a m E m s d N v +E m m a Im s W a. a d a o N 3 Z E � p o n ce m-0 p ro `m om n s ° v ? o ro m 0 OR M ° m O �` a > ° 9 Cc N• m '° n o m y 3 m 0 a t4 a 2' A v m m �• N d Cf n in a w ET O n c ro ro ro 21 '� °�' m � n � o m"'� � �• � y n a ro m a m a p o' ro a ° o m o "' s w cC 0 O m o m 3 �. ti ro c o c o3 a D O y 6" g ,Q,F n d O 3 3 MBE Q 15 m OM1 O C ° C .$ a N �q Q d r a v en V � co C. in' .1°' � rot v�i '�' n m w � ro c ;a 4 � •�.• Q b � ry � � C� 4 � C � H � 2 i ^ Oz '" D na o � 3 SL' a' m n y p ry m a e a v� a m a ° , ? 3 m ` �n F o ° n Er m ro ro m m a .^. ? en v A K o` ° n n a m 5r.S N ry a C K a w EY in p cu ' m �E m a s b •p ort m 5 n z a S o CL ° m N v ^ ro a Q o b y p, ro ; ro K w °° ro 0 y T' 4 h c f 0 m \f a ° .. �o G a v 7 vZ. . ry^ .TT 3 N m R N w 13° ' m = G P. 9 N C •6 u m o w 5 Q c ' E ° m 0 a ° C a� m ¢ m' -o a°a µ a � E 3 3 Q � � w m o g •°, m a s-"' � C, m P 9 a p• n' O bye, Wo d .° a a: o o a 'a' a ro o a v b o o co m ° � .0 � °c o'a �• D v 3 Q m ro o 0 v c a 1 ro o v C m` 0 � O f6 rt N K W � O a K m o v a •* � ° P m a o $ n c ro rn rvo v a o a � Yl °` n C is n ° 3• ry _ o m o n a y m ro a° a» = 3 ix � S •� ° E � '� n ro p '°cl v c s c ro ro 3 W C Q m ,� a- ❑ ro d r� ➢ ?m o .a ua a ro m' m eb n c A° in c ur i Aa w ❑ t; n a c " n d 5-° s w '° w a b° a 3 a Q A m y K C aCQ U n 3 < p S 3 w ^� T ,vi n m ii n p ❑ o. m o m � � w I w 71 a v v g m v K F,' ao o � � m ° � O mO oar m 3K1 ° o ur m d H m m o o n � K K K c b £ 0 w N a ❑ < A N a Z ° b v m � v' n a � � v1 c O• m si o A, � m � � m' n 3 r.i a a v ro a o ua .i n o m a w c va c _c m a m v n a m N. o a a m y o ma o •a m m :OEo ur °° ZE � m' ��� Via. = va m m @ C � n 1p a 7 0 5?4 y y2 p ry C S m m o 3 ❑ 0 rt`mS m T N O N 3 ° O: � � o na ❑ o � � 3 k' ?' ev n fl H O F Q m e o 3@ o g a 7 2 w D m ? ad -p 4 Srm n 3 n z a rt x. O C1 N N< ",� a o n � Yn' y a o m A �0 I O N m c4 n .mar = S w 7 4 o m 9 m Z a a 7 g ab r a y a• ' D m a N D w y Q 4 a 3Fr G m O M A W Q AW a m m No D.Q P C D d < K -y N g o 3 K w 7 N A m m w n "" z 3 O1 m N a rna p K ? = o a N vS ix Rm So g' o a d o, o a a u „v 'o m !° a m a P m H m w .-. a ► m K n s p n .-e o y a P �^ h a m '2S o m v a° m 'ao o^ a eNi b S ° :E on m m y w .. m a a 'S 12 ^ a c A P R 'o wn ' � � as R c a o 3 P y n a c - owNo n w � a � o` — 0 m in a w rd a m n m Q 3 v ° w R fi x o ry@ a v 'o m m m a > > m `�•, on N .o. n a. m e .dam. s < a m ,c m c m m �, '� m rc v a y c ''v zt m w () �' 4 •5 m a O d 1 S m '�' Q� dO W n d n W C m 3 N n m e ,� ry m c o� K OG T ? a OG 2' z 4�➢ � M N O EI' V Q C H � R d 3 N Q J m 0 O p S � d �. a a o v 3 j d o m d .d. K F 'r �' `° d �, m •� v 3 o ate` ro � c n 3 v 1 .� v° y v p w m C E © m a s O is m "' q m a < .G ".Z ®• d m m oa ` a cNu x' u c 0ON ro < o0 dm W �D m V O1 b o `L r`o S A A d z p a sm@ N 4 — SO Fx m o d ' o c w mQ < "0ro aEr N el w 3 n s ro m d A H d a z d d n n. a. q a' K d •5� d m m 10 Do D. O Q y ro a a• O Q z Q C � 0, N z 7 A O d d ro m F+ Q a 0 O Wes, Ol ' ^ Oda N aO m R 3 Vn a ? fi p _n o 0, -1 s 3 n T a v 4 o m � •2m � N _C nao' c � � n� EL '3 a C vdr f^ a ro o ? N n b 3 N m •c } d m m Lp A m n m �N 30 N a 0 04_ n w .mac � �LL<�� °! `_rnm ° gCs � �• � � � 2 ro � m � � `m o °`�' o c � wC ° w fe m � [ c � a p T� a f° n � �. � m m ro .)m m ? � m•� .cin. 2 g5 y^ •� ° a GY r-r �i m ^ C1 O s N o Q ° Z K d c S y. a = a O = a o ,{ T a � a M j m N = a m N a a Z d o ° ! c m m a a 3 ni a �. a s m e ems' a 0 y o S �m -2 .H10. m � o o � ••c E r N N N 4 R p N Z' Ip R O W. b ❑ �` ❑ a A s O c T m = �4 3 _ � as w ME ❑ ° c °d m a ° n o n = re a = a o S = y,; a7y o ° 3 m Zh c ro m a n � w < 3 ° a p y I3°N. El 04 w a m n 0 a 340 A ° � -• m 4 7 7 � a vb'. W '—� n w o� m a m. a°° �,; a m e 3 a 4• � � 1b -°„ S a m v n � c a N 1p c 8 m .3 D.•e ° W m n "' o, ^ m c 3 r. 2. w � n n v Z `G 3. m m o m elm, a m m ° anrom p E y � Fn a N ma 'o v a ••�'� m � = a ' g n °nti� w m m m m 5 0 V u 3 d Q m °• 4 Q P y ' 3 •C S� u n m a K N c o n m a o w o N m Z FL a z a a m m 3 a q a 3, b io m F � � g �'•v m � � � 06 a ��, 7 D 'a n c m�° o i w m ro ro d 50 Q o 3 F d `•e m '" m m o d � o � a E °o v � u Er n -' 4 •C _ n3 qN v 3 ° 3 m it A w a m97 _ m 0 a V C S b N c a a m tr m m a n M Sc c m `° 8 a m w Name: r :r eJill , Address; Phone: { Emall: Date: August 2, 2023 Re: City Council Hearing on August 15, 2023 Objection to Application for Abandonment of certain easement/right of way located at 2383 N. Flower Street,Santa Ana, CA; (Abandonment No. 2023-01);Applicants Colin Donnelly and Carolina La Dear Mayor and City Council: We are residents at the above address. We have been residents at said address since 2_.�D 22_CQ . We understand that there has been an Application to Abandon the alleyway located between 2379 and 2383 North Flower Street,Santa Ana, CA,our neighborhood alleyway. We strongly are opposed to the reverting of said property as stated on Applicant's application for the following reasons: 1. First, we do not believe there was ever an easement for said alleyway, it is a dedicated roadway. We strongly believe that alley is a PUBLIC ROADWAY, We strongly object to the fact that the City of Santa is intending on GIFTING PUBLIC FUNDS to the Applicants. The alleyway belongs to the People. We are of the opinion that gifting of Public funds for free is illegal. The valve of said "gift" could possibly be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars taken from our community. 2. We believe the gifting of said land increases the Applicants' property by approximately 1,150 sq. ft of prime property in Santa Ana. 3• We object to the fact that our Community was not informed properly of the Applicants' application to have the property"reverted"to 2383 North Flower. That property is a PUBLIC ROADWAY—there is nothing to "revert". We,the people, are deserving of proper Notice. 4. We object that the Applicants intend on having a wall built to block the alleyway so no one has access to that public roadway- This is our community; the location of this property is not for individual use. We never agreed to give the property to anyone. This alleyway will be closed for public use should you approve this Application. 5. We also object to the fact that our neighbors adjacent to said alleyway on Heliotrope will be restricted and inconvenienced by said closure of this alleyway. They do not have driveways, so they must access their garages via the alleyway. Those neighbors have legal rights to full access to this alleyway. It also creates a dangerous driving condition in that people may have to back up onto Heliotrope if a car is coming down the alley. 6. The residence located at 2379 North Flower will also be greatly impacted if this "reverting" is approved. This is not an easement, it is a dedicated roadway, nothing to "revert".The property owner at 2379 also has rights,as do we. 7. Said alleyway has been there for 100 years! The Applicants have owned their residence at 2383 N. Flower for 22 months. We love our neighborhood just as it is,we do not need to close alleyways for individuals who have not given thought to our community. 8. Additional verbiage has been added to the legal description of Applicants'application. Applicants are claiming the alleyway belongs to them,and thus, want the alleyway"reverted". This NEW language just appeared out of nowhere. The City must review all ORIGINAL maps and records to disprove this claim. 9. We also believe that alley way property was DEDICATED to the City of Santa Ana by prior owners of said land/alleyway in the year 1925, and not as an easement over the Applicants` property at 2383 N. Flower. 10. We are adamant and herewith request that the City of Santa Ana either take the matter off calendar for further review by the City Attorney and/or any other departments needed to establish said ownership of that property or that the City Council abolish all further discussion on this matter and terminate said Application with no further discussion. We prefer the latter. Thank you in advance for your consideration into this matter. We wish to be contacted directly by the City with any decisions made on this Application. Our contract information is noted above. Thank you for your time and your efforts in rejecting this Application. By: By; Orozco, Norma From: Irene Myers <irene@kentsnyderlaw.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 2:13 PM To: Lopez, Jessie; Kent Snyder Cc: Cheryl Newton; Carvalho Sonia (Sonia.Carvalho@bbklaw.com); eComment; Montoya, Jose Subject: RE: Alley in Floral Park between 2383 N. Flower and 2379 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA Emailing: Alley Signed Petitions 2, Alley Signed Petitions 3, Alley Signed Petitions 4, Alley Signed Petitions 5, Alley Signed Petitions 1 Attachments: Alley Signed Petitions 7.pdf Ms. Lopez: Thank you for your service. Attached are additional letters/petitions regarding the above referenced matter. Kent Snyder Kent G. Snyder by Irene Myers Law Offices of Kent G. Snyder 2301 Dupont Drive, Suite 430 Irvine, California 92612 Irene S. Myers Administrator Irene@Kentsnyderlaw.com tel (949) 833-9078 fax (949) 833-8209 CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION This e-mail transmission contains confidential information which is intended only for the addressee and which may be privileged under applicable law. Do not read, copy or disseminate it if you are not the addressee. If you have received this message in error,please notify the sender immediately and delete it. Thank you. From: Irene Myers Sent: Monday,August 14, 2023 3:09 PM To: Lopez,Jessie<JessieLopez@santa-ana.org>; Kent Snyder<kent@kentsnyderlaw.com> Cc: Cheryl Newton <cherylnewton2@cox.net>; Carvalho Sonia (Sonia.Carvalho@bbklaw.com) <Sonia.Carvalho@bbklaw.com>; eComment<ecomment@santa-ana.org>; Montoya,Jose<jmontoya@santa-ana.org> Subject: RE:Alley in Floral Park between 2383 N. Flower and 2379 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA Emailing:Alley Signed Petitions 2,Alley Signed Petitions 3,Alley Signed Petitions 4, Alley Signed Petitions 5,Alley Signed Petitions 1 Ms. Lopez: Attached are additional letters protesting the abandonment/vacating of the alley as stated above. Thank you for your help in this matter. Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Kent Snyder Kent G. Snyder by Irene Myers Law Offices of Kent G. Snyder 2301 Dupont Drive, Suite 430 Irvine, California 92612 1 Irene S. Myers Administrator Irene@Kentsnyderlaw.com tel (949) 833-9078 fax (949) 833-8209 CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION This e-mail transmission contains confidential information which is intended only for the addressee and which may be privileged under applicable law. Do not read, copy or disseminate it if you are not the addressee. If you have received this message in error,please notify the sender immediately and delete it. Thank you. From: Lopez,Jessie<JessieLopez@santa-ana.org> Sent:Wednesday,August 9, 2023 3:59 PM To: Irene Myers<irene@kentsnyderlaw.com>; Kent Snyder<kent@kentsnyderlaw.com> Cc: Cheryl Newton < ; Carvalho Sonia (Sonia.Carvalho@bbklaw.com) <Sonia.Carvalho@bbklaw.com> Subject: RE:Alley in Floral Park between 2383 N. Flower and 2379 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA Emailing:Alley Signed Petitions 2,Alley Signed Petitions 3,Alley Signed Petitions 4, Alley Signed Petitions 5,Alley Signed Petitions 1 Irene, I wanted to provide you with an update on the matter at hand. The public hearing scheduled for Tuesday,August 15th has been cancelled. This decision stems from the City's Attorney office's need to conduct a legal review. Although the item will remain on the agenda, it will be clearly labeled as canceled. In accordance with your request, I will send the enclosed documents to the Clerk's office for the purpose of submitting them as public records. Thank you, Jessie Lopez(she/her) Mayor Pro Tem City of Santa Ana 1 20 Civic Center Plaza I Santa Ana, CA 92701 Email:JessieLopez@santa-ana.org Office: (714) 647-6900 Cell: 714 822-0891 Click here to sign up for my Quarterly Newsletter! This email and any files or attachments transmitted with it may contain privileged or otherwise confidential information.If you are not the intended recipient,or believe that you may have received this communication in error,please advise the sender via reply email and immediately delete the email you received. -----Original Message----- From: Irene Myers<irene@kentsnyderlaw.com> Sent:Wednesday,August 9, 2023 2:59 PM To: Lopez,Jessie<JessieLopez@santa-ana.org>; Kent Snyder<kent@kentsnyderlaw.com> Cc: Cheryl Newton < ; irenemyers32@gmail.com Subject:Alley in Floral Park between 2383 N. Flower and 2379 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA Emailing:Alley Signed Petitions 2,Alley Signed Petitions 3,Alley Signed Petitions 4, Alley Signed Petitions 5,Alley Signed Petitions 1 Mr. Lopez: 2 I understand you will help in getting these signed letter petitions to the appropriate files/people. Thank you so much for your help in this matter. I have attached 5 separate PDFs for your use. There are more to come which I will forward to you accordingly. Thank you so much. Kent G. Snyder Kent G. Snyder by Irene Myers Law Offices of Kent G. Snyder 2301 Dupont Drive, Suite 430 Irvine, California 92612 Irene S. Myers Administrator lrene@Kentsnyderlaw.com tel (949) 833-9078 fax(949) 833-8209 CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION This e-mail transmission contains confidential information which is intended only for the addressee and which may be privileged under applicable law. Do not read, copy or disseminate it if you are not the addressee. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it. Thank you. 3 m m a m m d s a D In A w N SE •n O n v� o �� � m o• n N ro Y a m o m m ,Z ro a � a ,`°. ' � a G o a- � _. _ w q• P c ru ° D n m ro c a m 3 ro m N a ro to o c N l / x ro c i a i a m ° ov a y •°a _ 'n S EL �c � ro v ro w _ - g 9 - n a ro �,b w w - n. c o'a o m m m i� o o a d ro m w o Q Q P o ^ 3 W o � A. ry a a m w ^ . a •frp w a a. a R > A w a d u 1 O q W mEr a con n o m �� � �. �"� •� m Si Q� w" a �i � mw c o' K < mn � . m E Ck N � W ° E O Z m5 a ro t0 a ro o Z 20 m N a w ro '33v m a Z n 0 m a w C H c oEl w nn. O 0 m rc 15 c � CL m � Q w :o o � rc m o b n z �' rD d n m ro 'n R ®� rc m n „ ao a a v D ' ET I3 a eos y a a - �_ p fl w „ N m N a m j a c 2 T m A D a'n 3 ro a w n w m a +b a. ° n ' n o,4 9 N on a 9 o any 3 z � � � ro 2 ea �To N D. � N �' n � to 3 fq O a w .. T a a d0 m A =y N ty T 0 m w O C ❑ jj m T as d a z -3 5.1 S m 4 y 5. i°• ..i a O H 3 3 d ° a5c 9 �' q oflo a s a Cam 3 °� 00 a •c � y 9 m p O r a �. � � o O B K C m w o t a ° Z ti m n � n � 3 ^ � m a s m e o h m W - ro ` a c m w OL n a+ io 30 1 w m m r a n N N ". o C T !U S 11 91 Gv S G 3 �• y =O S 2 i.. T m F o a n ro n o a 0 b w C 4 A T � = n a s o �•w � R � m m ? fl. � w d b c a v 3 # o x v F m w n p w L'1 w .n°�. a w j n a m a s b a E5 9 m W K O 2r O *{ y 6 m O m y 3 t GZi 72 C a r. �• 4 •`�.' N fb o ° m a, n n m Q v °-° ro n m T w m v '^ 6 n_ c o m �3 2 � ^ a a � �g• v ro m e .�. °i a � � a o F �� c ro ` w Q d E m o ° o f `m m a o ro m a C 0. �' s °_- N (1 > > N � � c o a ? c `{ 4'n a ° .., ° �' .. � � :E o. Fr f° m m m w ' a q Q a m m S v+•a w w a > >• c m m a m` !3 d m m ro a a m a >". j .� � � w o Eac y a q ,°. m ° o °a d m `� o °• n a e � 3 a b a A 3 3 n z v@ D E il fm "' a'-a 2 m unn »' C rm^ -m. n. °e o C 0 ti '� c E' w ° F•� z ° m 2 0 °_ ro w v ° c O y T w a in n °��' a K £ 3 � R � i � rm� m^ � �•mac^� `� > > a a C b S D N IT rp 3 -q n 3• Tn •� ,-�, aci a m �' �, �' � � m � � � Qw a _ m o po w • a c 0 a y ? n a r% m b g a o c ro m 3 O a E n W E O d ry G N a 2L ° A. m' a s a 3 a. O a s 3 o m o 3 m am-o" ci m m 7 � � � y „ �• c � 4. � H, a •e R ° 01 m a 3 -2 ro y a 3 E o 3 O � 3 S .Z ° � E 3 •� ° c p m tp m � 4 •{ °c m ro 5 • a u0°i :z..� con rn x v b y to w o' o°i N of T a d m 3 Sr w '• tin m ro Tf s o�c n w e et Ro = m 014 ° '^ C °, a ° o Po4 fnat o a l V 3 < 1 3 � cS3 Oa Q ry N a ® a 7 COLQ m m m w m a £ m ° ° 3 - rn a £ o c _ o ° n m a a < m o a H d o c C a a ° � a < a � o ra v o � -- — 5. a v o M , ° n m N ° m 'Se n v °• . F - a m m ni D m 5 c ; K Y 3 m m = a m oo m � � � T a ea » S > m tl 4 N L 7 'G v °C g ID 4am2 a 7 al a4 Ij - a a w N' O 3 a n � w �^ A to N �, °' `° �' m a `•° .d. 3 � c d 91 K am+ cam 0 a o a n w 13- W — tR °. O �� c � no � m m rn °° O d ur Tv d m g sw' m b > > 1 a m m � aw 3 d c.- = 3 a ° 8 s b = n a s v � n � nW m n m, ea w n K 3 3 �` v ° .dam. °�' 0 u' ` � � � 550 ILI. C T m c 3 w Z. a a ° m C 4�0 O N ° a v 5 m dq 11 � Oa `^ n m v o w m B m n n a a 'm 7. a a o m p c 2 a i — K S R s f5 m ° o �•v n -n 8: ° v µ c ° d a _ m $ ? °. T m m r09e 6 0 � am a s m a� s fY c G s n s m m a1 `, o n e n 3 ° d m m a m CT c a re s a mCL w � cL 6 a rL w n '-' m m p e1 c - `. .. !^. ro m O. rn m •c m a y N p o c }( a o- E 44 m 1° i" c7Innv � u 5.� � _sad » Q•!_ o � a � � � p ti Y n-cam m ❑ O0 m f1 °1 a: A �° iy � � w ..� S � � h m ° K � {� vroi � "�'. _ � � a � m p• '� .fir � }�1 m m E N S a n O m G ^ N A m °c o C 00 W H m y a sou ". v ,j�' f�9 ZE A A a° d o o 4 p 0 n a a �v Wx A• w � d m O a Ti m m 9 Q' rr G n 3 a rc 2' a w n w ^FN n ^ N r) o w ma a m o n o a on f � p Ip 00 V m s n f f fyy°�� ?n n � a o v 5 A a n c m n [ O m n sFrm o n �n _ ' p o ° g 5'� ' 0 2 m ��-,• �o o m 27 m' c rEo E v m S mM G ° N m .�-e ry n Oo n 3 A. 2 . m m q . ❑ n p a a f ro a m P -4 � c n u. •c Orozco, Norma From: Irene Myers <irene@kentsnyderlaw.com> Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2023 12:47 PM To: Lopez, Jessie; Kent Snyder; sonia.carvalho@bbklaw.com Cc: Montoya, Jose; eComment; Subject: RE: Alley in Floral Park between 2383 N. Flower and 2379 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA Attachments: Alley Signed Petitions 7.pdf, Neighborhood Objection Chart.pdf Ms. Lopez: Attached are a few more petitions/letters opposing the vacating of the alleyway as referenced above (sent yesterday but I do not believe they were received). We are of the opinion that the 74 signatures/43 lots, sends the message how the neighborhood feels about the request to vacate. Do you feel this is sufficient evidence for the City Council that the neighborhood does not want this? If so, we will stop collecting signatures, unless, of course, you advise otherwise. Thank you very, very much for all your help in this matter. Kent Snyder Kent G. Snyder by Irene Myers Law Offices of Kent G. Snyder 2301 Dupont Drive, Suite 430 Irvine, California 92612 Irene S. Myers Administrator IreneCdKentsnyderlaw.com tel (949) 833-9078 fax (949) 833-8209 CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION This e-mail transmission contains confidential information which is intended only for the addressee and which may be privileged under applicable law. Do not read, copy or disseminate it if you are not the addressee. If you have received this message in error,please notify the sender immediately and delete it. Thank you. 1 NEIGHBORS/RESIDENTS OPPOSING VACATING OF ALLEYWAY BETWEEN 2379 AND 2383 NORTH FLOWER 17-Aug-23 RESIDENT/YEAR NAMES ADDRESS LOT SIGN# N. FLOWER Page 1 2013 Dan Lipton NEIGHBORS/RESIDENTS OPPOSING VACATING OF ALLEYWAY BETWEEN 2379 AND 2383 NORTH FLOWER 17-Aug-23 RESIDENT/YEAR NAMES ADDRESS LOT SIGN# N.HELIOTROPE Page 2 2015 Jeff Wertheimer 31 1 NEIGHBORS/RESIDENTS OPPOSING VACATING OF ALLEYWAY BETWEEN 2379 AND 2383 NORTH FLOWER 17-Aug-23 RESIDENT/YEAR NAMES ADDRESS LOT SIGN# N. HELIOTROPE CONTINUED Page 3 2020 Peter and Evan Jackson 43 1 TOTAL 43/LOTS 74 SIGN