HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence - Non-AgendaFlores, Dora
From: Dina Aman <
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2024 8:17 PM
To: Amezcua, Valerie; Lopez, Jessie; Phan, Thai; Vazquez, Benjamin; Bacerra, Phil;
Hernandez, Johnathan; Penaloza, David; eComment
Subject: Resolution in Solidarity with Palestinians in Support of a Ceasefire
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I trust this letter finds you well. It is with a heavy heart and a sense of urgency that I implore you to lend your voices to
the call for justice and humanity by passing the Resolution in Solidarity with Palestinian People in Support of a Ceasefire.
We have witnessed the injustices of the occupation of Palestine, where Israeli occupation forces have massacred 20,000
Palestinians since October 7, including a heartbreaking number of 8,000 children and displaced 1.7 million Gazans. The
world is watching, and Santa Ana, a beacon of diversity and inclusivity, has a unique opportunity to stand on the right
side of history.
The destruction of vital infrastructure of Gaza are haunting reminders that Gaza is now considered a graveyard and is in
urgent need of humanitarian intervention from local members of Congress.
This resolution calls for Santa Ana to be a leader in human rights for all people. In our community, Arabs and Muslims
contribute immensely to the rich tapestry of Santa Ana's cultural diversity. Their voices, experiences, and heritage are
integral parts of the very fabric that makes Santa Ana unique.
By passing a resolution demanding an immediate and permanent ceasefire, Santa Ana has the opportunity to
demonstrate leadership, compassion, and a commitment to protecting families from the backlash of hate crimes.
Santa Ana needs solidarity, and our community can be a source of support for people experiencing the rise of hate
crimes due to the dehumanization of Palestinians in the media and within our governments.
Let Santa Ana be a city that stands united against injustice and bigotry and sends a clear message that we value the lives
of all individuals, regardless of their background or nationality.
Thank you for your time, consideration, and the crucial work you do for our community. We look forward to your City
Council's passing of this humanitarian resolution.
Sincerely,
F 1F _ ITI
Santa Ana, CA 92705
Sent from my iPhone
January 2 l, 2024
Jennif'er L,. Hall
City (r,'Ierk
20 Civic Center Plaza
Sairt 'i Ana. CA 92701
Rel7erence: FLORAL PARK� 2383 N—Flower Street, - Notice (�aI'Alley'l'I�it,,oi,,igi,iwly
Dear Ms. Halk
Firl writing to you in behalf of thea.bov(w referenced Alley Throughway. I find this particular issue extremely upsetting,
and do facet trLdy understand all the cornponents,, I-jowever, I do believe it must be left as is, since it has been this way for
approximately I OO ycars,.
This little Alley is NNell kept and is mainly used for the five houses that border it as lheir inain arld only driveway access,
Actual ly, when you welk through the A I ley, you realize it is nothing; but a dri vcway 'f'llepl-ol)ei-tyisclean a'ideleat-ol'
any obstructions,
Many neighbors, myself included, Use it as a. walk thru. I'm very sorry ffthiS LIPSetS the family who lives at 2383 Noith
Flower, however, they did know they %vere purchasing alley access when they purchased the property.
I understand, perhaps through a. misinformation, that they are concerned for traffic oil the,-rt portion of their driveway,
however, in the thne I've lived in the neighborhood that has never been an issue, In reality, the only cars I see usilig this
Alley is frorn the ljomeowvjjers, whosegarages are on the alleyway. Most of the thrie its foot traffic, and very respectful
foot traffic at that,
Ifthe property owners at 2,383 N. Flower ft.-el concerned for their safety, perhaps they can create a fence around their
property line, and leave the Alley for those must have access to tf-leir homes aanc.I gal -ages.
It is also My understanding (again, I can be mistg,�en), if one of t[w rive home owners bordering the Alley is against the
closure e of the Alley, this proposal is a w 'Iloot issue. Hoever, 4m c
'fhis is not true, I'oncerned about many things clo,.ijag
this pioperty off to through traffic may bring'�
* What the CIOSLIN ofthe property will look like
* Who will be responsible for the closure
Who Nvill pay for the closure
0 How will the current homeowners of property be able to have access to their driveways
0 Who will be responsible for any cleanup ftom traffic Confusion and accidents this will cause
o Is this [lie beginning ofelosing orfoUr public, streets? Please remember Moral Park is in the City of Santa Ana, in
the County of Orainge, in the State of California
. I -low will this closure affect tile property taxes of'the current homes that are on the Alley
a
How will this affect Moral Park's status as an Historic Neighborhood, this will create a rnajor change in the
neighborhood, and 1, believe that can and will remove us from the list.
Thank you for YOUr thne, I do hopC YOU Understand our concern aboUl leaving our public, streets exactly that,
streets. , public
Sincerely,
ale :parr , aleno
238,'IW�rth Heliotrope
92706
Flores, Dora
From: Hallstrom, Darin <
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2024 6:58 AM
To: eComment
Subject: 2379 and 2383 North Flower Street Alley
Attachments: 2379 and 2383 Flower Street Alley.pdf
Please consider the following letter and documents as an impassioned plea by the neighbors surrounding the Flower Street
alley to maintain its current status.
Darin Hallstrom
Santa Ana, CA
Dear City Council,
Re: Flower St. Alley
The property owners directly adjacent to the alley express unanimous support for maintaining
its current status and functionality. The broader community has overwhelmingly signaled a
desire to preserve the alley's existing purpose, as evidenced by the widespread support
garnered through the community petition.
Concerns have been raised regarding what appears to be nefarious intent to disrupt the public
process. Our ward representative, Jessie Lopez, has indicated that mnandatorysignage, crucial
for transparent communication about the vacation application, was reportedly removed by the
petitioners. This action, if proven, could be interpreted as an attempt to impede the
community's awareness and engagement in the decision -making process. Such actions
undermine the principles of an open and fair civic process, raising questions about the
transparency and ethical conduct ufthe applicant inthis process.
These factors contribute to a climate of frustration and weariness among community members
who are genuinely invested in preserving the existing public access use of the alley and ensuring
afair and transparent decision -making process.
Notably, the petitioners themselves have acknowledged that the alley is not noted on their title
and has never been part of their property, emphasizing that the city owns the alley.(see
Moreover, the petitioners were explicitly informed that without the support of adjacent
neighbors, Public Works would not endorse moving the petition forward. In response, the
petitioners made false statements of support to Public Works, claiming backing from the four
adjacent properties. (see attached#2 email datedl1/30/22 9:22arnand attached #3 dated
11/15/22 2:O9pnoand 11/29/22lD:O3anland attached #4email dated 1I/30/2211:05anm\
Again, it's crucial to highlight that the petitioners were fully aware, upon submnitbng applications
and paying fees, that the process might not pass, rendering their investment non-refundable.
Additionally, it is imperative to address the assertion that there is a lingering, obvious, and no
longer necessary railroad right of way. This claim appears to be incorrectly interpreted through
the reading of the ruling. Nowhere in the ruling does it specifically address the petitioner's
property or the alley in question. Therefore, relying on a purported railroad right of way as a
basis for closing the alley seems misplaced and not substantiated by the legal context of the
ruling. This further emphasizes the need for a comprehensive and accurate examination of the
facts surrounding the petition and reinforces our position in advocating for the continued public
use of the alley. (see attached for copy of ruling)
Once again, we would like to express our caution regarding the proposed vacation of the
public's use of the alley. It is crucial to consider that with the closure, the petitioners may open
themselves up to potential litigation from the adjoining neighbor to the south on Flower Street.
California law mandates a centerline/shared equity on public land division.
Closing the alley would create an unfair obstructed entry/egress for those remaining on the
unaffected side, leading to bottleneck issues and compounding rather than solving problems.
Additionally, closing the alley doesn't address concerns about transient populations, as this
complex issue cannot be resolved by simply closing a 50' parcel of land.
To further underscore our stance, it's essential to address a secondary effort by the petitioners
to close the alley. It appears that this secondary effort is driven not only by concerns about
transient activity but also by a broader ambition to acquire additional real estate through any
available means.
This secondary motivation raises questions about the true intent behind the petition. If the
primary concern were indeed the safety and well-being of the community, the focus should
center on addressing the specific issues at hand rather than seeking additional real estate
through the closure of a vital public access point.
As engaged members of the community, we believe it is crucial for the City Council to scrutinize
the petitioners' motives thoroughly and ensure that any decision made is in the best interest of
the community as a whole. We assert that the closure of the alley, driven by a dual rationale,
would not only fail to address the stated concerns effectively but could potentially result in
adverse consequences for the neighborhood.
(71_1,� 647-5703
From: Caroline La <
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2022 8:39 AM
TO: Colin Donnelly f.r Soto, Yvonne >
Subject: Re: FW: Contact Information - Flower & Heliotrope Way
Hi Y-,-onne,
Thank vou for the information provided in your emails., and especially for the folloiv-up specifying the
appropriate fee schedule line item. So as to ensure the submission of a complete application, I wanted to clarify
item 3�: ivhich calls for plan check fee(s) to be payable to Public INVorks Development Engineering Services as
,cell as a submission to and approval by that same entity prior to submission to City Council -- does this
process take place qfre)- our submission of the attached Application or is there some step that vve can initiate
concurrently with the Application (that is separate from simply providing the sketchr plot plan) at this point in
rune'
Lastly, Colin in his line of work f4equentlY orders title reports; holvever, ive are unable to do so writhout an
address to submit to the title compmly - since the alley is oivned by the City, the portion to be vacated
obviously will not appear on a title report on our hoine.,address, HONV would you Public Works like the title
report nit, for tile purposes of this Application =A the alley as outlined by Taig?
Thank -,-on,
Caroline
On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 9:22AM Saba, Nabit <rlsab,
Hi Caroline and Collin,
Thank you for Your emails and application to vacate the City owned alley located at 2383 N. Flower, The reason for the delay
was to hear back from the two of the neighboring property owner of their concurrence in the vacationing of the alley. As aloe
d�uss,efd vd^rm we at an the atley, the Support of thase ri,p�ip ghbnr5 is h'P- Pivotal tri staff recomirrenciation, To datP,,,,,,e liavp not
In addition, we were conscious about
incurring unnecessary expense on you. To that end, your application is incomplete. To complete your initial application the
following are required (please refer to items 2 through 4 of the attached application form):
Application fee of $6-468-
a Copy of the Grant Deed. and
0 A sketch or plot plan of the proposed vacation area (a legal description and plot map
prepared by a California Licensed Land Surveyor of the proposed vacation area must be
submitted to Public Works Agency Development En-aineering Services along ivith associated
plan check fees- and approved prior to submission oftheResolution of Intent to Vacate to the
City Council)
once the fee and the documents are received, staff will evaluate them and if they are proper your application will be
acknowledged complete. Upon receiving a complete application, Public Works Agency staff will present the completed
application to the City's Development Review Committee (DRC), which includes Planning and Building Agency, Orange County
Fire Authority and Police Department to minimize the chances of unintended consequences due to the vacation. Utility
companies will also be notified of the vacation to determine whether easements must be reserved.
Following that, staff will present the item to Planning Commission to adopt a resolution stating the vacation is in conformance
with the City's General Plan, After Planning Commission, staff will present to City Council twice; one to adopt a resolution of
intent to vacate and set a public hearing at least 15 days later, and the second to hold the public hearing and adopt a
resolution vacating the alley.
Cn between the CouncH meeting,, notice of the putift heal Fri accomphi5hed by posting signs at the site, publishing in a local
newspaper and maikrg notice to property ovvners and reside it h r 3 , feet f tote vacation area. At the public hearing, City
r [�t � � 01) e t 0 tj a
Council will listen to interested parties and decide whether to adopt the resolution to vacate the proposed area. Thank you
C'cirdially,
ri
Oo��No-,-15�2022 at2:09PMCaroline Ia -wrote:
Hi Yvonne,
Thank you for Your last email Update of October 21, 2022� 1 hope you've been well.
Since i1has now been two months since *e started working with your office and Taig on this matter --
and now six months since it was first raised to the City in May 2022 — Colin and | will have boproceed
forward with our application at this point without further delay. Please find attached Our formal
submission of the Application for Vacating Public Easement or Right -Of -Way, with Title Repor�Title
Guarantee, tothe City/PVVAfor the vacating of the alleyway expanding the length o[Our home. We
simply cannot ut this time continue towait through more inaction and have ioensure the ball ke
eps
rolling with this resolution because we continue to wrestle with safety concerns in and around
—our
property oil a daily basis, particularly with increasingly opportunistic vagrants, traveling between the
creek and 17th street. who are able to inconspicuously discover and explore our exposed home via the
alleyway during |ateNoryearly morning hours.
As always, you may reach usany time onthis issue, trebenyte that wehave spoken with all oftile
concerned neighbors now hvice tocomfimmeveryone ison-boardand at this time wesimply wish to
proceedfmnmmrdand see progress, mothis-
Thank youa||.
Caroline
0uTue. Nov l�l02Zat0:03��Soto, Y-,nnne nrote:
Good morning Caroline,
My apologies for tile delay in response to your email. I am sorry to hear about the recent criminal activity that has been taking
place near your residence. If you encounter any criminal or suspicious activities please make sure to call 911,
W,-^avecontacteaotmarresiuents who front/use the aHey for direct access, butwe have not received positive response to the
potential auepvacm/on�One sthe residents expressed that they are not wfavor mrthe alley being vacated and closed off.
They also informed its that they use the alxey tudirect�yaccess Flower Street.
Due u»ffirs,e}�pjnum/cw/owks Agentystaff would riot ,ecomrne"rdedvacation cwthe alley at tx:swme.
Thank you,
Yvonne Soto
�s�s�anIo`omee,' oeeiopm�o�snmmeem,,
o��oan�a�na!num/czc,�A,-Tenq(m'sa>
zocmccenterr/aza'Santa ^cAy27o1
From: Caroline La
Sent: Wednesday, : 1(ut
To: Saba, Nabil
Cc ^riEc,4l0, 1 �!L;_ri+err @ray¢ cacr;Ridge, Kristine rtri:L* rt yris rpgel
y;Higgins,Taig<l�fIrt;rz.-� �niaar�,.��';Lopez,
Jessie<Rt l�lL,.:<,er arh;o-�orra�" Phan, Thai CC Chan(, s"g>
Subject: Re: 2383 N. Flower Alley - Request for Vacating
Good Morning Nabil:
Thank you for taking the time to provide us this timeline; it seems consistent with the published Non -Summary Vacation
Flowchart we reviewed (attached). What are the hours and what is the office or desk location where you would like us to make
the deposit? My apologies for not knowing how or where to best do so when the application form was submitted. The Flowchart
also indicates the deposit collected with the application is returned if no approval is recommended — do you have any reason to
contradict this?
Secondly, the opening words of your email no doubt intentionally brand the "City owned alley located at 2383 N. Flower"_
particularly in light of the findings in the third party title guarantee which was forwarded over upon our receipt of same, why or
upon what authority do you maintain this portion of land is nevertheless owned by the People of the State of California/City? I
renew my request for impartiality,
Attached is a copy of the Grant Deed. We will submit the last item as called for in the Application, a sketch or plot plan indicating
exact dimensions of requested area to be abandoned, in a timely manner in -person, along with deposit. For everyone's
edification, we were yesterday rn °zrritten contact avfflj our fora neighbors -- though there were definitely inquMes they had for
Your office„ NabH/Taig/Yvonne (namely privatization of the entire alley a ather Chian any half), not a sungle person expressed to
pour office c;ategoria. opposutiom About ttoas, d^'weyo were adarnant, Obed Garci,a-Colato of 2384 Hehotrope kindly suggests ra group
rrieeting veith your office or repiesentatWe so as to etimlinate delay or misunderstanding. Please advise of your office hours
(and/or appropriate contact) for this eventuality.
From: Higgins, Taig
Sent: Thursday, December 1, 2022 9:16 AM
To: 'Caroline La'
Cc: Saba, Nabil <,iS,� >; e rlrR ,J Z�(fcj f"
xon; Soto, Yvonne
Subject: RE: 2383 N. Flower Alley - Request for Vacating
Hi Caroline,
We can definitely meet at the site. The appointment system is for the City's public counters so, you don't need to use that for the
field meeting. Instead, later today, we will provide some times within the next three weeks to meet. (Please do use the appointment
for your visit to the PWA Development Engineering Counter to submit the processing fee and the plot plan.)
Speaking of the processing fee: thanks for your question. To hopefully clarify, with the initial submittal, we collect a $6468
processing fee as noted previously. We don't collect aseparate deposit. The term "deposit" used in the flow chart accommodates
the possibility that a processing fee is refunded to the applicant if the Development Review Committee (Public Works, Planning and
Building, Police, Fire, other agencies) do not recommend approval and the vacation process stops at that point. If the DRC does not
recommend approval, but you would like US to Continue through to the City Council public hearing, the processing fee would not be
refunded, We wiR take this opportunity to change the flow chart to clarify.
Please let me know if you have follow, questions. Thanks.
Taig
r
p/� 1 ,
KKa7
11I'HN SC?M10R 00URT OF THE STATE OF UALIF(RNIA
Is'AND FOR M OobHTY OF'ORANO&
CITY OF SANTA ANA, a muni0Ipal corporation
Of the, Fifth 0lass, tip'
FINAL JUDpH&HT
plaintiff
Va.
R&BTOp, RIALTY 00I1PANY, a corporation,
i1� of al„
t Defanaauto,
NHSAPu®B,_Snteriooutorq judgments have been dul made and tvea
t y g by the Ooprt,in�
Iths'above entitled aotidn, covering all of the pasoels of lnndjeought tr(tia pond®mired 4a said
n.
action, and such 4nterlooutoay judgments have been duly and re
the. early -entered by the 0ourt aW
gook of Judgments, Records'of the abw a entitled dcurt,.ad9udging"And determining the
BMOUnt® 4o be paid to the respective defendante, and each of'them, 4t.hs shove entitled
aot4pF1, as the owners of s1I interests is the respective percale of property sought to be
oandOmaaB in Said action; and described in the complaint on file berein, for the use of the
Pl5mtlff for the purpooes epacifled in said aomplaYnt, to -wit:
For Street, purposes in the acquisition and openIag of a street aevenly (7Qi feet
in sildth, to be, kncwa as. end called 'Santa Ana Boulevard, lying northeasterly of and 4msiedisttal
lq adjacent to the Southern pacific Railroad 0ampany°s rig--ht-of.
weY beLweeu-Main gprest and
04pman 4venue in the 01ty of Santa Ana, toggtber with the necessary.Paroele'of "lend for slops I, `/ aae.emsnts; rovetment'Work and curves at certain at' atlatdraeotion
the extending cY
�e;
`r $rpadway.%rom the present northerly 11,mile- Of, said stroet'acrose the Southern Paeifid Railroad
!"6ompsgq°a rigut of way and connecting with sald.,Santa km Boulevard, togetber wit jthe nedeseaxy
. .:j Iand fqr the curve at the intersection. of .said Broadway wltb .seats' Ana Soule®ardg the WideningaS J9owar Street between Banta Cbara;Avenue end Santa Ana Boulevard to make said street a
�•mvniforBi width cf eighty (80) feet, together with,the nscsseer
q paroel's of land %or ou)rves at '
certain at eel iataragpt one; affi ai49uflgiag that upon payment to the respective defendants; or
1
into C)o,'urt for tb64r.lbenefit. of the several, amounts %oumi due them as comps and' c8'tt°a'
`?Qatar a$&coed them, wlth'intaxast thereon from the 29th flay of November; 1929, at the rats o%
evQn par can't pe} anaum,boing the date upon'wbtoh the plaintiff 1escueed an order for.,
-
�'tmmusdScte•poeaossloh and ule¢.of said props, the rsepQot4va parcels of •prapartq dve0ribed 4n`
said 4nt.0rlooutor3r.94opts and,iffi•the.:cpffiplalat oa,flle herein abould be:coedemmsd to the use
! of the plaintSf%, -ally: of Santa dna, a'.bdunioiPal' Corporation, and the Public, and dedicated-U
{ohs Ysae':ePao9E4ed in the oompleaili-, and proof having baon,made tp the aeatisYeotion of
opurt thaithe emouata wukded by said respective intarloautor
F 9 dgm •t
u en.s to sthe
aid dsfcndanta. iavi
l ash of 'thsm as the'•ownere oY all Sntereatc. :in and $o said real yTop®r4y wnght to be'taksn
{ ud ppademned in thin. action, with 4aterest thereon from $be 29th deg bf`NovQmber :1g2y, at the
rest® of pavan pob,.oent ,'
P.OV-sillaumv being '.the 'Bate upon which the pint$Yf eepuzed an ceder for
° 1 4r od4at gaoazasatgn am rise of eeid. o
Poz?%Fa hgvs been paid. by tho s°a4d p1a9ntifl'"'to said, I '
c�a�fsndan9,p, or>izat'o coart•�or tb'eii beaafit,:_togethsa w4tb'ths ®cats a:ilomsd tic: thsrB;
' HOB �8 opt mo4lon of Obis ]} �wapztep Attoxmmsy far'1aintiff+hors4na.St imr
f hc&abq ordorsQ, tj od xnd deoroed: asset 4he
l pk^am€nee boroitteftor dapaari .:.V7aing tPis amass f
7 _.:
j
M.
.Property dasor bed in the oomp$alnt on file berein-affi included in the iuterlooutoryfi
udgmss n
,on file taken collectively be and the saW6 are heraby ;00ndemned to the use of th1e_I Plaingif}°'+;.•
I'
�h 0;$y oi,8dnta Aaa +a:6tunl"aipal 00r0ti2ati^ot and dadigateq to the Ube speoifl6dj'i ®aU I
uomplalmt, to -wit. .eor.uae for street purposes in. ths.opening 0f a street seventy'l7Aj fso9,: 11
In wSdQh, to be known as and od118d Banta Ana. HOul;evard,.lying, northeasterly of..'atd Srmvodintely
idj:aosat'to the Southern Pao}yto Ral�raad OompanY°e rights f W between Main S�rsat and okay .~
veaua in;.tb8 City of Santa Ana, together with the necessary pascals of land. for,sl 10e- aaa'enent
gyetmeat work and curves at certain street intersections, the'-sstaa@Sng of Broadway $aom.the•
I
�i esent northerly 1SmA6 of said street across the Southern Pacific Bang"cad Com panYae rigp¢ of
� ay and ooaneotiag with said Santa Ana. Boulevard, together pi.$h:the nscsssaryFlaml for the
curve at tho.inte Action of said Broadway Vith Santa Ana Bout®yard; $hs'wldening'o,P.'Fiawer :I'y
ptreat
batwsen Banta Clara Avenue and Santa Ana Boulevard to make op.ia street a unifoam width..
:of eighty (80) feet, together with thai neeessary parsale of land for ourvee at asr$ain street
Intersections; all of gal B streets beingin the Oity.ot Santa Ana, Aonnty of ,Crangs,'BtaCa;of -
:¢
palifOraia; and'that the plaintiff, 08ty;af Santa Ana, a Munioi al Co p rpoxation, end the pabllo,f
have, hold and enjoy said property for
such public use..
That ®ai®r ,.p aparty rigreby condemned is situated in the City of Banta Ano,.Oovn$y of
Qxange, State of Oaliforala, and partioularly described as follows, to -wit: f
%
All of. a strip of land seventy
(70) feet -in with, lying northeasterly of and
immediately adjacent to the Southern -Pa Iifia Railroad Company°e rig4$-of-cusp batara6a Hnin Stria
and Ohapman Avenue in the City of Santa Ana, together vl'th•tbh0 necessary,paroals of land for
slope Oasemente, revaAment work and curves at certain stseat 4nt®rsootione,eaid atr0et b®ta,g
i own as and called ! Santa Ana,Boulevard• the � o extending of Broadway from the norfihe,4ly 11mi$e
by said street ae:zhe'aaw esieted:at the time of the filing of said complaint aoroee,the
southern Paoif90 Railroad Coupany's right-02mway, and connecting with the said Santa Asa
,Boulevard, together with the necessary land for the curve at the intersection Of said Broadway
with Santa &tie Boulevard;' the widening of r owar�Street between Banta Clara Avenue and'Baa$a 1
Ana Boulevardto make said atr0et a tiIform width of eighty (90) feet'betwosn said boundaries I,
together with the necessary, parcels of land for curves at certain street in$eroestSane.
j
l
( Done in open Court this 17th asy of March, 1931.
H. 0. Ames Judge
. gp of said Superior Qourt. !
!�
I The fdret;oiag instrument is eorreot copy of the original fila
on inlbhis pf¢ios.:
I Attest:.MIJZoh.W, 1931,
I
( (cOHRT S J. M. mks county Mirk and Olerk of the
Superior 0cu2t Is. and for the County oY orange,
State Of California. j
' By A. L. 8i$oha.00k .Deputy
riled Mar. tin a931, 7. ffi. Banks, County Clerk. At 11:4o A. H'.
Beoordad -at request, of ohaa. D. Swannar, Has. 17, 1931,'et 20 min, pad 1 P.:M In
(Rook 46D. page-471, 0l9lolal Records of Or _.
ange.A"of1A$YP Jnatane.Whitney, CountyRegdrdar, Ruby
Ca¢a0rca, Deputy.
Doi; otby Dresses COMPAR'>&D Ads; Robinson
coo
7229
i - r
0RA8? DEED
�
(OOODECY1FSW)
1
' A9B
0 C 10Y�H8 fiD of'long 9oaeh, CAelyornlas, of ttae County
ci ion Angoles State of
�y ca orrla, for is dome derstlon,o the scn of Tou,no9,ja%sO
;tics toos3pS char Oi,le,EaeraOy ..
Plid00 propor;h,situatOQ is
0� O aa�Q4 62�
P�C3 5 '1 a
r
r h
C(SDNTY.OF ORANGE, )ss. On this 8th day o3 Anguso fip rthe yeah nineteen 3iundreq and thixtjf
twd .bet'are me, He""'
en.Bles a.�4otsy I�u'blio in -and Yor.",said Coua�y j
and. State, personally appeared Willir-¢i 'H. BOwmnn; qnd T.,'Ruth Bcraian, bizband and
to me to -be the persons described in'ani. whose name's"fie subscribed to the within"iasfrument.; {
and acknowl.edged.to me that they eae�uted.the "same. 1 j,
YiITNEB3 my hand and ofYiplal seal the flay and year.•in this cextifieate fi wt aiioys'
written.
((3EALs))
j Berralee Notary Public
i
in and for said County and State.
AFFIDAVIT.
i.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
`r COUNTY OF ORANGE ae. -
�i Fli1Li'i H„ Howman, being first duly sworn, "deposes and sa. ys, thin
he is oneof the declarants named in, and whose name -is subbomibed
to the annexed declaration of homestead, that. he has read the same and knows.the contents there
j of, and that the matters contained therein'aretrue of. hi,
sown fknotgledge.
T. Ruth Bowman, wife of the above named afflaht, being first, duly sworn, deposes
and says, that .she, is one of the declarants.named in, and tidOoee n { -
pzne .is subscribed to the an- i
vexed declaration of homestead, that�nbe has read the same and knows the 03ntente thereof, and
that the matters contained therein and-
- true of her own knowledge. I
Pulliam H. Bowman
T. Ruth Horrman
Subscribed and sworn to tiefore me this Stb day of August, 1932,'
((SEAL)) ( Ben Blee Notary Publla �
''RR�'R�'RPSggppp I in and for said County and State
Recorded at r. -
I equest of. William'A. Bowman, Aug. 9 1932, at 46 Min. -
( Book 57?, Page 25•, .Official • II Past 9 A. , 3h
Records �P Orange county. Justine Plhitney, county Recorder, Ruby
McFarland, Deputy.
Lydia Mobr COMPARED _Elea Oonliffe
0 0 0 - - - ..
18189
GRANT 'DEED Y
i
INDIVIDUAL. .j
j IN pON81DER'.4TION of the-eueipt., by the undersigned, of Ten and ua/100,'(410.00)
.� Dollat•e ROSE A: BATTLES, a widow, of!tos Angeles County, State of Califoraia, does l
( grant to
E. R. GIB$017 and DOT GIBSON,.husbandiand wife as joint tenants,'the meal property in the City I!I
Of'San Clemente, County of Orange, State of California, described as follows..-
Lot
Seven (17), Block Twmlt three 2 Y- (3), 0.` Tract No, 7?9; San Clemente, The SpandrJ
/ o
Village', as.sbown.on a Map•reoordedlin Book 93, pages 19 to 25 inclusive, of Miscellaneous brag ,
records ,of Orange County„' U.S:LA.: Q
7. $0,50� 4Cahcelled.
SUDJEOT T0, Oonditions,�restrictions, reservations and rights "oY"way of record..
"The Grantor acknowledges -that this conveyance is freely and fairly fade and that 'f
the consideration received by Crantoli is equal to the fair value of grant or r.s ir_terset in saic(" {
land, and, that there are no'agreemenLl, oralor irritten, other than thig.deed existing;between f
Grantor and grantee with respect to Baia level,ff
70_.HAVE Aflp. TO -HOLD unto+the se.id;grantees is Point tenants,''
wit, 53 My handy this Iirat day Of pagystjT 19�2
hrr5 Ro av �aLtle9
t
rW11 ,p
,7r.,
Flores, Dora
From: Jorge Raya <
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2024 10:12 AM
To: eComment; Lopez, Jessie
Subject: Flower Street Alley
Hi there I will not be able to attend today's meeting at 5:45pm to give our say regarding this issue. We
personally don't have anything against Colin and his wife they seem like nice people . That being said as our
God given opinion we personally like to have the alley open and access to everyone who walks by and would
like being able to use it. That way as worked since this neighborhood was built and it would be nice to keep it
that way
MR. AND MRS. RICHARD KIMBALL
Santa Ana, California 92706
(
Internet E-Mail:
It is also my understanding (again, I can be mistaken), if one of the five home owners bordering the Alley is
against the closure of the Alley, this proposal is a moot issue. However, if this is not true, I'm concerned about
many things closing this property off to through traffic may bring:
• What the closure of the property will look like
• Who will be responsible for the closure
• Who will pay for the closure
• How will the current homeowners of property be able to have access to their driveways
• Who, will be responsible for any cleanup from traffic confusion and accidents this will cause
• Is this the beginning of closing off our public streets? Please remember Floral Park is in the City of Santa
Ana, in the County of Orange, in the State of California
• How will this closure affect the property taxes of the current homes that are on the Alley
• How will this affect Floral Park's status as an Historic Neighborhood, this will create a major change in the
neighborhood, and I believe that can and will remove us from the list.
Thank you for your time, I do hope you understand our concern about leaving our public streets exactly that,
public streets.
Sincerely,
Toni Kimball
Santa Ana, California 92706
alley Itr
MR. AND MRS. RICHARD KIMBALL
Santa Ana, California 92706
(
Internet E-Mail:
January 21, 2024
Jennifer L. Hall
City Clerk
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Reference: FLORAL PARK: 2383 N. Flower Street - Notice of Alley Throughway
Dear Ms. Hall:
Fm writing to you in behalf of the above referenced Alley Throughway. I find this particular issue extremely
upsetting, and do not truly understand all the components, however, I do believe it must be left as is, since it has
been this way for approximately 100 years.
This little Alley is well kept and is mainly used for the five houses that border it as their main and only driveway
access. Actually, when you walk through the Alley, you realize it is nothing but a driveway. The property is
clean and clear of any obstructions.
Many neighbors, myself included, use it as a walk thru. I'm very sorry if this upsets the family who lives at 2383
North Flower, however, they did know they were purchasing alley access when they purchased the property.
I understand, perhaps through a misinformation, that they are concerned for traffic on that portion of their
driveway, however, in the time I've lived in the neighborhood that has never been an issue. In reality, the only
cars I see using this Alley is from the homeowners, whose garages are on the alleyway. Most of the tirne its foot
traffic, and very respectful foot traffic at that.
If the property owners at 2383 N. Flower feel concerned for their safety, perhaps they can create a fence around
their property line, and leave the Alley for those must have access to their homes and garages.
alley,lir
Alcala, Abigail
From: Irene Myers <irene@kentsnyderlaw.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 1, 2024 1:31 PM
To: Carvalho, Sonia R.; Kent Snyder
Cc: Penaloza, David; Hernandez, Johnathan; Bacerra, Phil; Phan, Thai; Lopez, Jessie; Phan,
Thai; Amezcua, Valerie; Cheryl Newton; irenemyers32@gmail.com; eComment
Subject: RE: Vacation of Alley in Floral Park between 2383 N. Flower and 2379 N. Flower Street,
Santa Ana, CA
Attachments: Carvalholtr2124.pdf
Resending to include Ecomment in email chain. Thank you.
Irene Myers
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 transinission 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: Thursday, February 1, 2024 1:25 PM
To: scarvalho@santa-ana.org; Kent Snyder <kent@kentsnyderlaw.com>
Cc: dpenaloza@santa-ana.org; jryanhernandez@santa-ana.org; pbacerra@santa-ana.org; tphan@santa-ana.org;
jessielopez@santa-ana.org; tphan@santa-ana.org; vamezcua@santa-ana.org; Cheryl Newton
<cherylnewton2@cox. net>; irenemyers32@gmail.com
Subject: Vacation of Alley in Floral Park between 2383 N. Flower and 2379 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA
Ms. Carvalho:
Please see attached letter from Kent Snyder regarding the above referenced matter. Please call with any questions
whatsoever. Thank you.
Irene Myers
K pint G. Sinydeir by fireine M ciirs
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
fax (9,49) 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 ifyou are not the addressee. Ifyou have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it. Thank you.
KENT G. SNYDER
KATHLEEN A. KELLY
kent@)kentsflyderIaw.com:
Law qffices of
YCENT G. SNYDER
ATTORNEY ATLAW
2301 DUPONTI)RIVE, SUITE 430
IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92612
February 1, 2024
Ms. Sonia R. Carvalho
City Attorney, City of Santa Ana
22 Civic Center Plaza
Santa, Ana, Cal i fom i a 92 701
I ON-W 0 WE, =1I ffa
(9,49) 833-9078
Fax: (949) 833-8209
kadileeiiCii),keritsflyderlaw.coni
On behalf of my clients, I have written to you at various times in August 2023,
concerning the above matter. That matter has now been calendared for the City
Council on the evening of February 20, 2024. In that connection, I have received
a draft report from the City Staff ("Draft Report"), which is undated, but it is this
Draft Report that the following comments relate to.
I know the Staff is well-meaning and hard-working, but I must object to theDraf-1
Report in one very important area where the Draft Report is in fact completely
wrong, and the Staff completely ignored the letters that I have written to you.
My comments are as follows:
1. The previous City Council resolution 2023-40 was adopted by the City
Council before any Notice had been given to the residents surrounding the
alley. There are four (4) residences abutting the: alley and one addition,,]]
resident that has an easement to the alley. Three (3) of the four (4)
residences abutting the alley oppose the resolution to vacate a portion of the
alley.
February 1, 2024
Page 2
2. For some reason, unktiown to me, the Draft Report states that the alley is a,
Public Street Easement. It is not an Easement, it never was an Easement,
and I have pointed this out carefully to you in nay letters to you dated.
August 8, 2023, copy attached as Exhibit "A", and my letter to you dated
August 22, 2023, attached as Exhibit "B". Nothing has been presented to
rtie or to my clients that the alley in any way was ever a part of Lot 57,
which. is 2383 North Flower Street. The word "Easement" appears twice in
the first paragraph of the Background on page I of the Draft Report.
3. In the next paragraph under "Background", the property owners, report that
they have observed transients. I believe there are City Reports that clearly
indicate that the safest part of the City of Santa Ana is Floral Park and
Floral Park, has had the least number of police calls involving transients.
This is a bogus issue brought up by the Applicants in their attempt to obtain
some "free" land.
4. Page 2 of the Draft Report, in the second paragraph, says the alley would
fully revert to the owners at 2383 North Flower Street, and that is not
accurate. There is no reversion. There is no Easement over the property
for the benefit of the Applicants, so it cannot automatically revert. The
alley is fee simple absolute and belongs to the public and. if the alley is
vacated it would revert to the Public, unless the City Council determines it
should be giM to the Applicants. Again, this would be "free" land being
given to one lot to the detriment of all the other lots in the Floral Park area.
This seems very unusual to me in that the opposition to this actionhas
already obtained and provided to the City approximately 83 signatures
from residents of Floral Park stating their opposition to this action. by the
Council.
5. The word Easement is used again in the second paragraph and in other
portions of the Draft Report.
6,. The second to last paragraph on page 2 of the Draft Report is completely
wrong. Not in the fact that it accurately quotes the Commonwealth l-,and
Title Preliminary Title Reports, but that the Preliminary Title Reports are
incorrect, and I do not believe that the process of a Title Company should
be necessarily relied upon particularly in light of EXhibit "'A" attached to
this letter.
February 1, 2024
Page 3
7. In the same paragraph it says that those Title Reports list an. exception to
the alley casement and that is absolutely untrue and is a misstatement of
fact. Some of those Title Reports do mention an Easement that was given
to the City over the front ten (10') Beet of all the Lots abutting Flower
Street, so that Flower Street could be built wider than was originally
conceived on the Tract Map. There is an Easement over the front ten (10')
feet of all the: lots on Flower Street for street purposes. The Easenient
mentioned in the Title Reports has absolutely nothin. to do with this alley.
8. The top paragraph on page 3 is simply wrong. The alley was not
"dedicated as an Easement', by the subdividers of Tract 754. It was given
in fee simple absolute to the City. Look at the Tract Map, there is no
mention of an Easement for the alley. There are no reversionary rights to
the alley vested in anyone other than the Public.
9. The compensation comments are completely wrong, because the City owns
the alley in fee simple absolute not, by way of an Easement interest, so it is
clear the Staff needs guidance in how to read a TractMap.
10, Under the Process and Notice comments section of the Draft Report, it
says that the owners of the three (3) properties taking vehicular access frorn
the alley were noticed, butI believe your City statutes require Notice of this
type of action to all, persons within 300' of the alley, and that Notice was
certainly not, given. I have in my possession an email from Ms. Soto on
Your Staff indicating that the 'foregoing Notice requirement of 300' is
accurate and it has not been given.
There are numerous other arguments I could make, but .1 willmake those in
person on February 20, 2024.
February 1, 2024
Page 4
If you should wish to discuss any of the above with the undersigned, I would be
happy to come to your offices for a meeting to discuss all the issues that I have
raised in this letter and my previous letters to you, all of which have all been
ignored in the Draft Report.
egy truly Yours,
ENT G. SN' YDER
cc: The Mayor
Thai Viet Phan
Benjamin Vazquez
Jessie Lopez
Phil Bacerra
Johnathan Ryan Hernandez
David Penaloza
Cheryl Newton
Michael Varciag
Irene Myers
Law offices of
KENT G. SNYDER
AIJORNEY AT LAW
Kf',NT G. SNYDER 2301 DUPON-FDRIVE, SU11T, 430
KATHLEEN A. KELLY ( 949) 83 , ; Q0 78
IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92612 klN:
kejit@ker)t-,nyderlaw.com
kath I cen (ii,,keo
Ms. Sonia R, Carvalho
C it y Atto ;Aa-j
22 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, California 92701
Re: Venda Item for Vacation of
FloLyer Itreet Santa Anay, CA ley In 'Floral Park between 2383 N. Flower, and 2379 N
[r")ear Ms. Carvalho�
I have been engaged by two of the residents of Floral Park to represent thern in the abovei-sUbject
matter which comes before the City Council on August 15, 2023. My clients are firene Myers of 2,393
NFlower Street, and Cheryl Newton of 2379 N. Flower Street. My clients oppose the ApplicatioM
I am writing to you about an error in the Application. The error is in the Title Guarantee issued 1,�)y
Cfflcago Title Company, Attached to this letter please find a copy of an email between Colin Donn(-�Hy
arid 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 Off lcer was correct in the first draft that he produced'of the Title Report Guarant'l
in that he included item: 6 which says "the righits of the public to use that portion of the a lk
adjoining said lot 57 on the south!, until such t�ime said alley is yLacated to t.he q4lit'"byti-le
City of Santa Ana, -e ..=
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 rnap forTract 75/1
which was recorded in 1925 and it says that all streets and roadways are dedicated for puWic
use, The ai:lley fits within this category.
3) The alley was dedicated to the City for the use by the Publlic in fee simple absolute, it was
not then, has never been, and is not now any portion of Lot 57, Lot S7 lies contiguous tc) thi
alley, bu,t three other lots also lie contiguous to the, alley. Ms, Newton's lot, plus two 10[,S
which front onto Heliotrople, Mr. Donnelly intentionally suborned the Title Officer to state
Z10"
August 8, 2023
page 2
the Title Report Guarantee that is part of Mr Donnelly's Applicatlon, that the afley woul(I
te 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 o
alley wuld revert to the piublic, the
pubilic owns it now, it's circular, the public owns it now and thiey'l;l 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 No... think anyone else knows either,
5) It seems to methat it is clear that the aPlication is flawed in that the Title Report
Guarantee included has part of the Application has a misstatement of fact in it, �,e., a lie. I
believe that this misstatement of fact was caused by Mr. Donnelly emailing Mr, Josue 13eano
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 vaicated back to us as the
owne,rs?" Mr. Donnelly and all the previous owners to Lot 57 were never the ownerF, of the
alley from the time the Tract Map wais 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 chents arid � woul(j hke
to have my 3-minute time slot used to argue other things than the matter conta4ied in 11iis
letter, so hence, this letter, Please d'iscuss this issue with Your client before the, meeting of
August 151". 1 have sent a copy to the Mayor and to the City Council members, I holpe they
have an opportunity to read it and to read the email attached in which Mr. DonneIly suborns
the Title Officer, who was correct at the outset and is incoirrect asthe appbcation curr(,�ntly
sits.
Very tlrujyours,
Ap
K tit Snyder
KGS:ijn
cc� Thai Viet Phw,i, Councilmernber
Jessie Lopez, Cowiclaterriber
Johnathan Ryan Hernandez, Councilmember
Ben an -Lin Vazquez, Councilm,ember
Phil Bacerra, Counciltnember
David Penajoza, Councilmember
Kristine Ridge, City Manager
Jennif"er L Hall, City Clerk
d'
Law (Y
.fices of
KENT G. SNYDER
V G. S N y D E R
Ms. Sonia R, (I arvilho
City ,� ttorney, City of Santa Ana
"I
22 Civic (,'enter Plaza
San1,,i,/\na, C.'alifornia 92701
A F"FORMIYA V LAW
2301 DUPON"I'DRIVE. SUPT430
IRVINE. C'ALIFORNIA 92612
August 22, 2023
(9,49 , ) 83,-3-()()-,8
Fiv,.� (941)) 833-8209
kc: Vacation of AflEy in Floral Park between 2383 N. Flowet- and 2379 N. Flower
SLreet.,Sqntq �Ana CA
De"'It. Ms, Carvalho:
A"", OU knmv, t represent sorne ofthe property Owners- on North Flower Street conc,r.,rning
proposed vacatioii ofa city -owned alley, which runs between Flower Street and fleliotropc
1)6v", in Ward 3 of the City of Santa Ana, 1, liave now read the entire City file on this inatter,
,A,,mdd like to ma]<,e the following comments and statetnents and ask that you revie,v this
Z.�
IcH.�r al. the appropriate finie with yom- Client:
The Applicants caused the Title Report that the Applicants submitted to the City along
wilh their Application, to contain a I'alse statement that, the alley iszin F"asenienT t, he
alley is im an E'asement and new�erWas an Easement,, The alley \v,Is offmd tit the
City for Dedicatioti for Public Use on the'Fract Map which the City accepted. and
hencc% tine City owvns the alley in fee simple absolute, California law recognizes the
Doctrine of'Merger. If the Ovaier ofthe f'ee also owns an Easernent, t[ie l'arsemernt is
automalically extinguished by merger, Accordingly, there is not now and never vvas
ct it 1:
.asernent in connection with this alle,),. "HIFOUgimut the Cily (JOCUMCIVS I have
l'ound rtwpeated suggestions that this is an Hasement., it is not an Easen-tent, it is a feme
owned by the City dedicated Cor public use,
1 %vould like yenta and your client to consider the fact thatA if pplication is
'approv,ecl. it will create as dangerous traffic condition. "]'his Application will not make
the area safer" if: will make the area ITI(VO pr0ne to tniffic Colli--4;ions. I'lle DonrlcHys
will have to back out of their driveway cotrtco Flower Street, At th4a present time, the
Donnefl) s dri've out of tile alley going forward and exit on Hefiotr(;)pe Drive, A mticl-i
sates driving maneuver than backing out orno heavily trafficked l"lower Street.
Likewise., the people who are USing the alley whose homes front on Heliotrope Drive
ALJJ.,pus� 2.1, 20231
will have to back outfrorn the alley onto Heliotrope \vith the sane dangerous traffic
e ffe C t,
3, ']'here are five homes that abut the alley, J.'our of th(-,In are owned in fee by the
Owners, and one Ovaier uses the alley Nita an casement over one ol'the f�'C Owner's
lot. Four of those Owners have signed a Petition asking the City, Council to vote NO
on this Application, The only one in favor of the Application is the Applicants
themselves,
4, The residents offloral Park have strongly voiced their disapproval of'this ApphcaflOrl
by signing a Petition circulated by my clients opposing the vacation of the, alley or
any Portion thereof. THEY HAVE RECEIVEM AND DELIVERED'I"OTHE
74 SICiNATIRE S, REPRESENTING' THE OWNERS AND/M TENANTS 01`43
[JI)TS.
I declare LvIder penalty of perjury and as a member of tile State Bar ofCalifornia that the
is tf-LIC, and correct,
I have any q ucstions, please do, not hesitate to contact nic,
o�,v truly yours,
ilera C'i, Snyder
C 'HIC, NIIyor
I hai Viet Phan
Benjamin VazqUez
Jessie Lopez
Phil 13acerra
Johnalhan Ryan I lernandez
David Penaloza
Chcr,yl Newton
Irene Myers
Alcala, Abigail
From: notify@proudcity.com on behalf of Michael Wauschek <notify@proudcity.com>
Sent: Monday, February 5, 2024 6:33 AM
To: !City Clerk
Subject: New submission from Contact the Clerk of the Council's Office
Name
Michael Wauschek
Email
Message
Hello my name is Michael wauschek I am concerned citizen this towards you the #notmyMayor how you be one that you the
people that you don't see while you the $ to blow on hotels that cleaning up our hotels. You keep saying Zionist Israel doesn't
effect us but yes it does. It just happened at your last council meeting at yourself refuse the cleaning people of our city hotels to
speak. That your all had to cast a vote to let them speak. Well what all of Palestines genocide speak to or you just simply
looking at the other way. Think some how by not looking it's not there. Well mayor hear it you can't exacpting it. Your the mayor
your going to see it all the good the bad the untold stories, behind the scenes, corruption, greed, egoes, such ect. If you can't
simple of that you why are the mayor. Lease your anger isn't good for our bodies thanks.
MR. AND MRS. RICHARD KIMBALL
2450 North Park Bonlevard
Santa Ana, California 92706
(714) 542.5953
Internet E-Mail: toni-kimball@outlook.com
January 30, 2024
Ms. Jennifer L. Hall
City Clerk
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Reference: FLORAL PARK: 2383 N. Flower Street - Notice of Alley Throughway
Dear Ms. Hall:
I would like to thank Council Member Lopez for conducting the Alley Throughway meeting in Jack Fisher Paris on
January 26, 2024 regarding the above referenced Alley Throughway. Unfortunately, the meeting seemed to be an
appeasement meeting to quiet the neighborhood for the proposed (an predetermined) closure of the alley.
Ms. Lopez and her entourage listened to our objections of one neighbor receiving their request above the majority
of neighbors who are against the closure. They were polite and courteous, but it was obvious that they were not
listening. Seems majority rule does not exist within the limits of Santa Ana City.
It was explained to us that the City spoke to the four other remaining homes adjacent to the Alley, however, only one
home owner was ever contacted and they were misinformed of the potential closure. Seems Ms. Lopez facts were
in error.
Several of the homeowners came up with possible solutions to the problem, however, they were listened to, but not
generously received. Again, it seems the one homeowner at 2383 N. Flower Street has already been awarded the
variance to close off the Alley.
There is more than 100 years of living experience between the four houses vs. the two years experience of the
homeowners located at 2383 N. Flower Street. These four homeowners have never, I repeat, never had personal
liability issues with the Alley. Only one homeowner, guess they just have bad karma. Perhaps they an fix their karma
problem by personally fencing off their home, or even possibly more to more quiet gated community in Irvine for
further down South County.
l understand the current homeowner at 2383 N. Flower Street has allegedly been accosted and the City of Orange
(why not the City of Santa Ana, where this property is located) is handling the situation. This problem, however, has
never happened to any other neighbors on the Alley, with their 100 years combined. Does seem a little strange to
me. Perhaps the homeowner has always been planning on closing off the Alleyway?
tk alley I ltr
MR. AND MRS. RICHARD KIMBALL
2450 North Park Boulevard
Santa Ana, California 92706
(714) 542-5953
Internet E-Mail: tonWmball@outlooLcom
I previously wrote you about my concerns regarding the Alleyway, I would like to restate them now: It is also my
understanding (again, I can be mistaken), if one of the five home owners bordering the Alley is against the closure
of the Alley, this proposal is a moot issue. However, if this is not true, I'm concerned about many things closing this
property off to through traffic may bring:
• What the closure of the property will look like
• Who will be responsible for the closure
• Who will pay for the closure
• How will the current homeowners of property be able to have access to their driveways
• Who will be responsible for any cleanup from traffic confusion and accidents this will cause
• Is this the beginning of closing off our public streets? Please remember Floral Park is in the City of Santa Ana,
in the County of Orange, in the State of California
• How will this closure affect the property taxes of the current homes that are on the Alley
• How will this affect Floral Park's status as an Historic Neighborhood, this will create a major change in the
neighborhood, and I believe that can and will remove us from the list.
At this time I would like to add a few more concerns since this closure has now been decided.
There has never been a homeless problem in this Alleyway. It has always been keep clean with the exception of
transient fruit.
• Since a block wall will be built, this will, of course, bring human transients in who will leave excrement and drug
\paraphernalia, who will be responsible for clean up
• How long will it take before the police arrive (if at all) when there is a problem
• Who will be responsible for the additional four affected houses when there are problems
Thank you for your time, I do hope you understand our concern about leaving our public streets exactly that, public
streets.
Sincerely,
Toni Kimball
Santa Ana, California 92706
tk alley 1.1tr