Laserfiche WebLink
causes, and thus on the finding that the proposed project will not adversely impact the community as <br />required by Section 41-638 of the SAMC. <br />2) Refer the matter to the Historic Resources Commission. As described in my previous <br />correspondence to you, I believe that the Planning Agency has exceeded its authority and that the <br />matter must be referred to the Historic Resources Commission pursuant to the Mills Act, for <br />determination whether the use of the building and grounds as a cultural center is compatible with the <br />original historical use as a single family residence. <br /> 3) Remand the matter for assessment of the status of the Viet Heritage Garden and Viet Heritage <br />Foundation at 2221 N Heliotrope and how their possible continued operation affects the finding <br />that this project is for private family use. <br /> <br /> *I learned about the Garden and Foundation because I was not able to attend the Planning Commission <br />hearing on August 26. However, I submitted a request for City Public Records (CPRR #-1822) and found <br />through this and other public sources information suggesting that the Planning Agency has not yet fulfilled <br />the standards of Sec. 41-638 for granting applications for this conditional use permit. In the project records <br />and correspondence I reviewed, there is little explanation for why the Department believes this pavilion has <br />been or will continue to be limited to personal single-family use, and substantial evidence it may be used <br />to provide a more public service to the community. <br />*First, when the Planning Agency and Commission justify the conditional use permit in their reports <br />because it will be limited to private use it doesn’t seem to align with the actual specific use intended <br />for this pavilion that the owner described in her March 14, 2023 note to the Mayor Pro Tem that was <br />forwarded to the Planning Department, and then released in my City public records request (CPRR <br />#24-1822 September 17, 2023). In her March 14, 2023 note to the Mayor Pro Tem, the owner <br />acknowledged the City’s recognition of the Heritage Foundation as "encouragement for our endeavors <br />to contribute a genuine Vietnam cultural space for people of Viet Heritage and also for the community <br />at large. “This use of 2221 Heliotrope Drive as a “cultural space for the community at large” has been <br />confirmed by many neighbors’ reports of the property owner’s use of the site as a cultural center (e.g., <br />seasonal cultural gatherings, festivals, and tours) that brings a high volume of activity, cars, and school <br />buses.) <br />*However, after the owner made her statement in her March 14, 2023, note that was forwarded from <br />City Council to the Planning Agency, (CPRR #24-1822 September 17, 2023, enclosed), I did not find <br />any discussion in the City’s records on how whether the property should be allowed to be used fas a <br />Heritage Garden or public as opposed to private use. Although at the Planning Commission hearing <br />the owner clearly that she understood that only private use is allowed, I don’t recall any other <br />documents in the City records showing that the City, the Agency, or the owner, considered the Garden <br />and Foundation in the discussion of whether this tower and the residence would be for private or public <br />use. The information and findings in the Planning Agency and Commission reports to secure the <br />Council's approval of this resolution that the pavilion would be used only for private purposes therefore <br />still seem incomplete and possibly inaccurate on this point. <br />*I concluded there just wasn’t enough reliable evidence anywhere in the record to predict that, moving <br />forward, the use of the Pavilion in the new Heritage Garden would be private. <br />* The current and future status, and activities of the owner’s apparent nonprofit Heritage Foundation <br />and the Heritage Garden on the pavilion project, the owner’s residence, and our neighborhood need <br />to be specifically and publicly addressed now before a fair decision can be reached by Council in this <br />matter. In my review of City public records and the hearing record and evidence, I saw that the City <br />3 <br /> <br />