Correspondence - PH #34 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2) Refer the matter to the Historic Resources Commission for review as may be required by the Mills Act, or 3) Remand the matter for assessment of the status of the Viet Heritage Garden and Viet Heritage Foundation at 2221 N Heliotrope and how any continued operation affects the finding that this project is for private family use, 4) Do not rely on the process of revocation outlined in Section 41-651 of the SAMC to resolve this issue. It is an inadequate remedy for this case. 5) Recommend to the Planning Commission that the City find the right location for this wonderful project. If the owner agrees, relocate this pavilion to a location for a Heritage Garden and Cultural Center that will be inviting and open to public view. I suggest the Museum District on Main Street just a few blocks away from our neighborhood of Floral Park where there are several other museums, safe surroundings, and ample parking. 1) Reject the CUP resolution for failure to establish that this project is for private single-family use to comply with the standards of SAMCE Section 41-638. The Planning & Building Agency's (Planning Agency) finding that this pagoda is for private use only seems inaccurate and may not supported by current information. According to the records received from my City Public Records Request, (C PRR #24-1822, September 17, 2023) the Applicant (owner) renewed the application for the CUP on March 14, 2023. In her message to Mayor Pro Tem Lopez, she thanked the Mayor Pro Tem and Councilperson Phan for attending the "preview of Viet Heritage Garden on February 18, 23. The recognition of Viet Heritage Foundation represents such an encouragement for our endeavors to contribute a genuine Vietnam cultural space for people of Viet Heritage and also for the community at large." Accompanying photos of the owner as host with her guests show that the event took place in the backyard of 2221 Heliotrope where the pavilion will be located. The owner’s message was forwarded from the Mayor Pro Tem's Office to the Planning Agency with the request to continue the permit process. (Enclosure, TLMemo3-14-23) secured from City Public Records Request (CPRR #24- 1822 September 17, 2023). The impact of the Viet Heritage Garden and Foundation, if any, on the Appellant's premises must be examined before a determination is made. *2221 Heliotrope Drive has been the address of the Viet Heritage Foundation, a nonprofit corporation founded by the owners in 2017 and ,possibly inactive since 2021, per the California Secretary of State (Enclosure, business search records; (https://bizfileonline.sos.ca.gov/search/business; https://www.bizprofile.net/ca/santa-ana/viet-heritage-foundation *The Viet Heritage Foundation has published a website, VietHeritage.org, which states that “Our mission is to preserve and share Vietnamese cultural heritage with future generations. We host cultural exhibitions, community cultural events, and youth-oriented educational activities.” The phone number to contact appears to be the owner’s landline (whitepages. com) and the address is Heliotrope Drive Santa Ana CA. Hours are 9am – 6pm Mon – Friday. It appears from this website that the Moon Pagoda would be joining several traditional Vietnamese structures in the Viet Heritage Garden. According to the website, the Heritage Garden is part of the complex that has been opened to the community. On the website there is a picture of one of the traditional buildings in the owners' back yard and an invitation to visit the exhibits there. (enclosure: VietHeritage.org/screenshot). The website may not be active. These public sources suggest that the installation of the pavilion could be part of a current and ongoing change to the existing land use from single family residence to public or commercial use as a Heritage Garden and Cultural Center sponsored by the Heritage Foundation operating onsite. This past activity may have been closed, or it could have been paused by the owner, to be resumed later. It is not clear to me from the record that the Pavilion will be restricted to private use. *Therefore, the Planning Commission's present finding that the standards of Sec 41-638 have been met must fail. The additional evidence of recent use of the location for public purposes that was not addressed by the Planning Agency, casts doubt on the finding that the pavilion will not be used for the same public 2