Correspondence - PH #34 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

It is unfair to require those neighbors who are trying to abide by the City's zoning, building, and permit requirements to watch the owners or their successors appear to bypass the usual requirements, build the pavilion, and then resume the public activities not authorized by the City. The City’s position seems to be that no further review or action needs to be taken now because the neighbors will have the right to go through the arduous and expensive process of revocation to get the pavilion torn down at some time in the future as outlined in Section 41-651 of the SAMC. Relying on the code enforcement process to fix foreseeable future problems would require going through the same appeal process again. That is an inadequate remedy for the present situation where there is already significant evidence of recent public use and limited indication in the record that it has been addressed by the City. *Without additional safeguards in place, I believe any attempt by concerned neighbors to repeal the CUP for violation in the future under Section 41-561 of the Code would be fruitless. *If the pagoda is built in its current intended location and that location re-opens to the public, I believe the CUP could have a severe and harmful effect on the quality of life, including traffic flow and safety, of our neighborhood. To sum up, there is not enough accurate information presented to the Planning Commission or the Council on what the actual purpose of this CUP is to decide on any of the provisions of Sec 41-638. Without more, the Planning Agency's conclusion that this pavilion is for private use appears to contradict the statement of the owner in her March 14, 2023, letter to the City to renew the CUP application that was then forwarded to the Agency (PRR #24-1822 enclosed), the filing information from the Secretary of State bizfile, and the owner's apparent website (http://.vietheritage.org). The weight of evidence available publicly suggests recent or ongoing knowledge and support of at least limited ontinued public use. Since the finding of private use supporting the approval seems inaccurate, then the finding that the standards of this provision have been met must fail. I could not find enough reliable evidence to determine what the actual use of the pavilion, or its impact on the neighborhood, would be. 5. Return the matter to the Planning Commission, so the City can find the right location for this wonderful project. *I believe this beautiful pavilion belongs in a Heritage Garden and Cultural Center, that is safe, inviting and open to public view rather than in a single-family residential neighborhood. If this is the owner’s goal, I suggest the City contact the Museum District on Main Street just a few blocks away from our neighborhood of Floral Park where there are several museums, safe surroundings, and ample parking. In the right location, this would be a wonderful project The Viet Heritage Foundation has done extraordinary work. A Cultural Center and Heritage Garden in the Museum District dedicated to the next generation deserves our community’s support. Respectfully Submitted, Mrs. Ellen Koldewey North Heliotrope Drive Santa Ana CA 92706 My neighborhood assocation, Floral Park Neighborhood Association (FPNA) of Santa Ana CA, no longer takes positions in disputes among neighbors, and therefore has taken a neutral position in this matter. Enclosure/citations:: https://vietheritage.org https://www.bizprofile.net/ca/santa-ana/ https://bizfileonline.sos.ca.gov/search/business viet-heritage-foundation 5