Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence - PH #34Ibarra, Evelyn From: Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2024 5:00 PM To: eComment Cc: Gomez, Pedro; kevinrshuler@gmail.com Subject: Agenda Item: Appeal Application #2024-01/CUP No. 2022-06/2221 N. Heliotrope Drive, Santa Ana Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links. Dear City of Santa Ana City Council Members, usually refrain from commenting on neighborhood and individual projects, but this is an exception. I have been a resident of Santa Ana, and Floral Park, for over 18 years. We love the neighborhood and the community of people that live here. We want to maintain the integrity and nature of the neighborhood. As you must know, the owners of this historic property at 2221 North Heliotrope Drive intend to make their property a cultural center, much like a museum, and they have left the property in their trust to a foundation to do exactly that. I do not believe a cultural center/museum of any kind belongs in the middle of our neighborhood. Buses, traffic, noise and parking issues are a concern yes, but more importantly I am concerned about the precedent this would set. You make an exception for one, you have to make an exception for all. City rules and regulations are in place for a reason and should be enforced. 1. Please redirect this issue to the Historic Property Commission for their review, and determination of compliance with the historic guidelines. 2. Please review all the other structures on their property that are not permitted, and in violation of the City of Santa Ana Codes. Why would you reward them for non compliance?? 3. Please request the current owners to maintain their property according the Mills Act and Historic Preservation guidelines. If they cannot/won't abide to maintaining the structures they already have, why grant them permission for more? 4. Please do not make an exception. You do it for this, then how do you deny a 6 foot perimeter property wall like you denied Mike Ness at 1904 N. Heliotrope in years past? How do you deny a neighbor that wants to put a 23 foot watch tower or Danish Windmill in their yard? I see lawsuits for the city. That is all. Short and simple. Please deny this request. Thank you for your time and consideration. KEVIN SHULER I DRE LIC. #01953088 REALTOR@ & LISTING SPECIALIST Neighbors Real Estate Partners/Keller Williams North Tustin I LIC. #01933507 17822 17th Street, Tustin, California 92780 Ibarra, Evelyn From: Cheryl Conradson < Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2024 10:49 AM To: eComment Subject: Appeal App. No. 2024-01 Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links. I know I wrote before in favor of Chan Q. and Quynh D. Kieu being able to have their structure built on their property behind the wall. Our neighborhood always takes pride in welcoming new families and accepting diversity. We are unique and have been given a historical value to our homes and community. We've accepted many cultures and celebrated with them in sharing their ideas. This family has always tried to join in and share their traditions like the rest of us. Many homes added two stories or additions to their existing properties and we have allowed these changes in the past. I believe this dear family wants to continue working with our neighborhood. Their request doesn't seem unreasonable to me. I would hope our city would approve their request. Thank you. Cheryl Conradson 1 Ibarra, Evelyn From: John Schneiderman < Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2024 11:44 AM To: eComment Subject: Agenda Item #34 Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links. Dear Sir or Madam, I am strongly in support of the Appeal to overturn City approval granted to construct a 23' high "moon pavilion" at 2221 N. Heliotrope Drive. I was shocked to hear that this additional structure, which is outside what is ordinarily allowed by City Code, was approved. The homeowners at 2221 N. Heliotrope Drive have proven on multiple occasions that they do not respect Santa Ana Municipal Codes and have no consideration for their neighbors. They have held a number of large events, open to the public, in which they disturb several blocks of neighbors with large numbers of attendees, exceptionally loud amplified music outside (prohibited by Municipal Code) as well as speakers on a Public Address System. They treat their home and yard as an entertainment venue, without regard to the Peaceful Enjoyment of Property that should be allowed by their neighbors, close and far. I would discourage allowing additional structures that will further add to this problem. The type of events they host should be held at a hotel ballroom, or some other suitable entertainment venue. It is inappropriate and disruptive to allow these types of events in a residential neighborhood. The entitlement of these inconsiderate neighbors must end. Sincerely, John Schneiderman John Schneiderman Website John Schneiderman YouTube Channel John Schneiderman on SoundCloud John Schneiderman on Facebook Ibarra, Evelyn From: Darlene Glenn < Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2024 3:04 PM To: eComment Subject: Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-06 Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links. I live in Floral Park just one street over. Our neighborhood consists of one family historic houses. The Majhara house is a beautiful historic house. Although I can appreciate that the current owners wish to have their personal home developed as a cultural center concentrating on their culture and teaching others, I do not believe that this conditional permit is proper for an historic neighborhood where it is one family homes. Their backyard already has many many outbuildings which have been granted already, their backyard is pretty densely packed with buildings. The building that the owners wish to have is incredibly close to the back wall and will look directly into the private back yards of a number of home owners. When the neighborhood (and the neighbors) applied for Historic designation, it was for the purpose of keeping the historic. Please do not let this conditional use permit go forward. Thank you Darlene Glenn Sent from my iPhone 1 Ibarra, Evelyn From: lauren hartshorne < Sent: Saturday, November 16, 2024 3:46 PM To: eComment Subject: Rebuttal Against the Proposed Pagoda Construction and Community Cultural Center Conversion at the Maharaja House Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links. To Whom It May Concern, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed construction of a large pagoda and the conversion of the Maharaja House, located at 2221 N. Heliotrope Drive in the Floral Park neighborhood of Santa Ana, into a community cultural center. These proposals raise significant concerns regarding zoning compliance, preservation of historical integrity, and the overall impact on our residential community. 1. Violation of Residential Zoning Regulations The Floral Park neighborhood is zoned for residential use, and the proposed conversion of the Maharaja House into a community cultural center directly contravenes these zoning laws. Such a change would set a concerning precedent, potentially leading to further commercial encroachments in our residential area, thereby undermining the community's character and cohesion. 2. Exploitation of Historic Designation Benefits The Maharaja House, also known as the Maharajah's House, is a historically designated property. Owners of such properties receive benefits, including reduced property taxes, intended to support the maintenance and preservation of the home's historical integrity. Utilizing these benefits while pursuing alterations that compromise the property's historical character and violate zoning laws is both inequitable and contrary to the spirit of historic preservation. 3. Impact on Neighborhood Aesthetics and Historical Integrity The construction of a large pagoda on the grounds of the Maharaja House raises concerns about its compatibility with the existing architectural and historical context of the neighborhood. The Maharaja House, built in 1938 in the Streamline Moderne style, holds significant historical value. Introducing a structure that deviates from this architectural style could disrupt the visual harmony and historical integrity of the area. 4. Traffic, Parking, and Noise Concerns Converting the Maharaja House into a community cultural center would likely increase traffic, parking demands, and noise levels in the neighborhood. These changes could adversely affect the quality of life for residents and strain local infrastructure not designed to accommodate such uses. 5. Precedent for Future Zoning Violations Approving this proposal could set a precedent for other property owners to seek similar exceptions, leading to a gradual erosion of the residential character of our neighborhood. Upholding zoning regulations is essential to maintaining the community's integrity and preventing inappropriate developments. Conclusion The Maharaja House is a cherished part of our neighborhood's historical fabric. While cultural initiatives are valuable, they must be pursued in a manner that respects existing zoning laws and preserves the historical and residential character of our community. I respectfully urge the decision -makers to deny the approval of both the pagoda construction and the conversion of the Maharaja House into a community cultural center. Thank you for your attention to this matter and your commitment to preserving the integrity of our historic neighborhood. Sincerely, Lauren Hartshorne Ibarra, Evelyn From: Jenny Hartshorne < Sent: Saturday, November 16, 2024 3:55 PM To: eComment Subject: 2221 Heliotrope Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links. To whom it may concern: I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed construction of a large pagoda on the grounds of the Maharaja House in the Floral Park neighborhood and the conversion of this historic property into a community cultural center. Both proposals would have detrimental effects on the historical, residential, and community -focused character of our neighborhood. 1. Preserving the Integrity of Residential Zoning Floral Park is a residential neighborhood, and zoning regulations are in place to protect this designation. The conversion of the Maharaja House into a community cultural center violates these regulations, creating a commercial or semi - commercial use in a space that was not designed to support such activities. This undermines the intent of the zoning rules and threatens the residential environment we cherish. 2. Misuse of Historic Designation Privileges The Maharaja House, recognized for its Streamline Moderne architecture, benefits from historic designation, including reduced property taxes to encourage proper maintenance and preservation of the property. Using these benefits to further plans that disregard preservation standards and zoning regulations is an inappropriate exploitation of the system. Historic designation is a privilege, not a loophole for commercial development. 3. Architectural and Community Concerns The proposed pagoda construction raises significant questions about its compatibility with the Maharaja House's architectural style and the neighborhood's cohesive aesthetic. While cultural expression is important, it must be balanced with preserving the historic and visual integrity of the community. The pagoda's large scale and divergent style would disrupt the neighborhood's historic charm. 4. Negative Impact on Residents A cultural center in this location would undoubtedly lead to increased traffic, parking issues, and noise, negatively affecting residents' quality of life. Floral Park is not equipped to handle the added congestion or infrastructure strain such a development would cause. 5. Setting a Precedent for Future Developments Approving this proposal would set a precedent for further zoning violations and inappropriate developments in our community. It is essential to uphold zoning laws and historic preservation guidelines to protect the character of Floral Park and ensure fairness in how these standards are applied. Conclusion The Maharaja House is a valued part of Floral Park's historical heritage, and its preservation should be guided by respect for both its architectural significance and the neighborhood's residential character. While cultural initiatives are appreciated, they must be pursued without compromising zoning regulations or the historical and community values we aim to protect. I urge the city to reject this proposal to ensure that Floral Park remains a vibrant, cohesive, and livable residential neighborhood. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Jenny Hartshorne Heliotrope Drive, Santa Ana Ibarra, Evelyn From: KEVIN NGUYEN < Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2024 4:25 PM To: eComment Subject: 2221 N Heliotrope Drive Project Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links. Dear City Council of Santa Ana, grew up in Floral Park since the 1980s and has now own my own home on the same street as the property in question for the past 10 years. I don't oppose to what that homeowner wants to do in their own backyard but do oppose the notion of using the property as some sort of cultural center to hold meetings and events. have witnessed long lines of cars parking on both sides of the street and in surrounding streets for these events and I do not find that appropriate for our residential community. The owners are still alive and living in the property and hence these events have not been overwhelming. But what happens when they pass and whoever is in charge of overseeing the property is now going to hold these events throughout the years and on weekends when all we want as neighbors is some peace and quiet. The environmental impact to our community of having hundreds of cars coming and going is alarming. It is one thing to hold October Fest, Fourth of July activities, Summer Concerts, etc. on our street years after years ... But these events are for the people of Floral Park. Homeowners of North Heliotrope Drive in Santa Ana have shared our street with other Floral Park families through the years with open arms.. But to ask us to share our street for a planned cultural center for public use in our residential community is ridiculous and I oppose to anything that would perpetuate that plan going forward. Kevin K. Nguyen, MD Ibarra, Evelyn From: Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2024 7:50 PM To: eComment Subject: CUP No. 2022-06 Appeal Attachments: CUP2022-06Appeal.pdf Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links. While I intend to attend in person, I am submitting my written comments on the matter in lieu of speaking at the meeting. Regards, Mason Nakamura 1 City Council City of Santa Ana Re: 2221 N. Heliotrope [rive CLIP application 2022-06 Appeal As a property owner in Floral Park and a former property owner at , I am writing to request that the City Council deny the Conditional Use Permit to allow the 23'4 " tall pagoda at 2221 N. Heliotrope Drive. Given the Historical Landmark status of the home and its prominence in Floral Park, as well as its history in the City of Santa Ana, having such a large non -conforming decorative structure in the back yard is precisely what the SAMC regulations was trying to prevent. The structure, based on the renderings, would be of an architecture and scale Inconsistent with and detract from the streamline moderne architecture of the Historic Landmark Maharajah house. The assertion that the pagoda cannot be seen from the street because it is now proposed behind the house relies on landscaping that coed die or be removed at any time. The Landscaping also does not fully hide the structure and potentially poses afire risk due to its proximity to the pagoda and the house. GrantingtheCUP would' also set a precedent for other homeowners to request Conditional Use Permits for overheight or non -conforming structures, the denial of which would place the City at risk for legal action. The City Council should direct the Homeowners to alter the structure to conform to SAMC regulations. They could easily remove the stairway to the first level of the structure or lager the soil bevel to permit the structure to conform to SAMC height regulations. When I lived on Heliotrope Drive, I was horrified by prior actions of the Homeowners, which inctuded tarping scaffotding to hide unauthorized changes to the trim on the home (which they were eventually forced to remove by the City) as well as unauthorized changes to windows done without permission that have never been corrected. I do not trust the Homeowners to adhere to the 11 m Itati ons of the CUP, for one, that state that the structure is i nstatted for personal use, as their intended use of the property as a cultural, center has already been clearly stated by the Homeowners. I kindly request that the City Council deny the Conditional Use Permit and direct the Homeowners to alter the structure to conform to SAMC regulations. Regards, `ham-�----� � �-�--��� Nakamura 2215 Ibarra, Evelyn From: Patricia Tornel I < > Sent: Monday, November 18, 2024 1:08 PM To: eComment Subject: Notice of Appeal of Permit at Historic Landmark Home - Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-06 Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links. To the Santa Ana City Council: My husband and I have lived in our home on Heliotrope Drive for close to 50 years. We are currently unable to be physically present at the meeting involving this matter but want to advise you that we vehemently object to and oppose the erection of a tall Vietnamese pagoda on the property of 2221 N. Heliotrope Drive in Floral Park. This structure and the Vietnamese cultural center the owners are envisioning for the future do not belong in a historical neighborhood zoned RESIDENTIAL let alone on the grounds of the only foreign royal palace ever built in the United States. Please do not permit the erection of this structure. Sincerely, Mr. and Mrs. Edward Tornell Ibarra, Evelyn From: Mike Zachan < Sent: Monday, November 18, 2024 3:06 PM To: eComment Subject: November 19, 2024 City Council Meeting Agenda Item 34 Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links. Re: Appeal Application No. 2024-01 I respectively urge the City Council to carefully consider the Planning Commission's approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-06. As a resident on Heliotrope Dr. I am less concerned about the structure itself than I am by the owners' intended use of the structure. If this structure is approved, the City Council must make it clear to the property owners that the structure is being approved for their personal use only, and not as a venue for public events. This structure will be built in a residential community and cannot result in the property becoming a museum, a cultural center, or site for community gatherings which will impact neighboring properties. I urge you to make this clear to the property owners should you decide to approve the Conditional Use Permit. Michael Zachan 1 Ibarra, Evelyn From: Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2024 11:10 AM To: eComment Subject: Appeal Application No 2024-01, Appealing the Decision of the Planning Commission to Approve Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No 2022-06 Allowing the Construction of an Accessory Structure within the Rear Yard of an Existing Single -Family Residence Located Attachments: Screen Shot 2024-11-17 at 8.56.54 PM.png; TLeeCityMemo3-14-23photos copy.pdf Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links. Subject: Appeal Application No 2024-01, Appealing the Decision of the Planning Commission to Approve Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No 2022-06 Allowing the Construction of an Accessory Structure within the Rear Yard of an Existing Single - Family Residence Located at 2221 North Heliotrope Drive (APNs:002-081-45 And 002-081-46 17 November 2024 Mayor Amezcua Mayor Pro Tem Phan Councilmember Lopez Members of City Council Office of City Clerk 22 Civic Center Plaza M-30 Santa Ana California 92701 Greetings Mayor and Council: The CUP Applicant is requesting approval of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 2022-06 to allow the construction of a moon pavilion 23'4" in height within the rear yard of their existing single-family residence located at 2221 North Heliotrope Drive. Pursuant to Section 41-232.5 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC), accessory buildings more than fifteen feet in height or more than one story require approval of a CUP. am writing to you as an individual neighbor in Floral Park and resident of the City of Santa Ana, and not as a member or representative of any group or organization. While there may be several areas of concern in this matter that my neighbors have brought to your attention, I am only looking at whether there is enough information to establish that this pavilion is for private single-family use in compliance with the standards of SAMC Section 41-638. oppose CUP 6-2022 in its present location in this single-family residential neighborhood. ask the Council to take the following actions. 1. Reject the CUP resolution approved by the Planning Commission for lack of substantial evidence to support the finding that this project is for private single-family use to show compliance with the standards of SAMC Section 41-638, a n d 2) Refer the matter to the Historic Resources Commission for review as maybe 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, (CPRR #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:Hbizfileonline.sos.ca.gov/search/busineSS; https://www.bizprofile.net/ca/santa-ana/viet-heritage-foundation *The Viet Heritage Foundation has published a website, VietHerita_ge.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: VietHerita_ge.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 causes, and thus on the finding that the proposed project will not adversely impact the community as required by Section 41-638 of the SAMC. 2) Refer the matter to the Historic Resources Commission. As described in my previous correspondence to you, I believe that the Planning Agency has exceeded its authority and that the matter must be referred to the Historic Resources Commission pursuant to the Mills Act, for determination whether the use of the building and grounds as a cultural center is compatible with the original historical use as a single family residence. 3) Remand the matter for assessment of the status of the Viet Heritage Garden and Viet Heritage Foundation at 2221 N Heliotrope and how their possible continued operation affects the finding that this project is for private family use. *1 learned about the Garden and Foundation because I was not able to attend the Planning Commission hearing on August 26. However, I submitted a request for City Public Records (CPRR #-1822) and found through this and other public sources information suggesting that the Planning Agency has not yet fulfilled the standards of Sec. 41-638 for granting applications for this conditional use permit. In the project records and correspondence I reviewed, there is little explanation for why the Department believes this pavilion has been or will continue to be limited to personal single-family use, and substantial evidence it may be used to provide a more public service to the community. *First, when the Planning Agency and Commission justify the conditional use permit in their reports because it will be limited to private use it doesn't seem to align with the actual specific use intended for this pavilion that the owner described in her March 14, 2023 note to the Mayor Pro Tern that was forwarded to the Planning Department, and then released in my City public records request (CPRR #24-1822 September 17, 2023). In her March 14, 2023 note to the Mayor Pro Tem, the owner acknowledged the City's recognition of the Heritage Foundation as "encouragement for our endeavors to contribute a genuine Vietnam cultural space for people of Viet Heritage and also for the community at large. "This use of 2221 Heliotrope Drive as a "cultural space for the community at large" has been confirmed by many neighbors' reports of the property owner's use of the site as a cultural center (e.g., seasonal cultural gatherings, festivals, and tours) that brings a high volume of activity, cars, and school buses.) *However, after the owner made her statement in her March 14, 2023, note that was forwarded from City Council to the Planning Agency, (CPRR #24-1822 September 17, 2023, enclosed), I did not find any discussion in the City's records on how whether the property should be allowed to be used fas a Heritage Garden or public as opposed to private use. Although at the Planning Commission hearing the owner clearly that she understood that only private use is allowed, I don't recall any other documents in the City records showing that the City, the Agency, or the owner, considered the Garden and Foundation in the discussion of whether this tower and the residence would be for private or public use. The information and findings in the Planning Agency and Commission reports to secure the Council's approval of this resolution that the pavilion would be used only for private purposes therefore still seem incomplete and possibly inaccurate on this point. *1 concluded there just wasn't enough reliable evidence anywhere in the record to predict that, moving forward, the use of the Pavilion in the new Heritage Garden would be private. * The current and future status, and activities of the owner's apparent nonprofit Heritage Foundation and the Heritage Garden on the pavilion project, the owner's residence, and our neighborhood need to be specifically and publicly addressed now before a fair decision can be reached by Council in this matter. In my review of City public records and the hearing record and evidence, I saw that the City had found there had been other types of code/permit violations in 2022. 1 also saw that there was significant cooperation by the City and the owner's staff addressing these other types of possible building code violations. I found information that the responsibility to limit activities to private use at the owner's residence was specifically addressed by the Planning Department and owner's staff. particularly with the owners or owners' staff. The record also shows that there have been other property related code and building proceedings and decisions such as placing properties in trusts. (E.g. PCA STL 806301; OC 30-2012-00607998-CU-BC-CJC; OC 30-2019-01076395-CU-NP- CIC.) Given the past public use, as well as the possibility of future misunderstanding, a signed and witnessed notice or agreement may help to ensure compliance. It may be helpful to secure an independent examiner to secure an accurate and impartial assessment of this matter. *Consider the correspondence about the project secured in my City Public Records Request (CPRR#24- 1822 September 17, 2024), the information on the nonprofit located at 2221 Heliotrope from the California SOS website(https://bizfileonline.sos.ca.gov/search/business; www.bizfile.net), and the Heritage Foundation website (http://vietheritage. before approving the resolution. *Contrary to the Planning Agency's finding and recommendation that future use is and must remain private, some other publicly available information also suggests that the pavilion will not be used only for the quiet enjoyment of the owner's family for personal use in their backyard. The property was placed in trust in 2014. (p.14, Mills Act Application, (CPRR#24-1822)' The owners founded the nonprofit Viet Heritage Foundation located at their home address in 2017. (https://bizfileonline.sos.ca.gov/search/business,) Per the owner, the City acknowledged the owner and the Viet Heritage Foundation for valued civic service (City staff owner memo 3-14-23 (CPRR#24-1822) enclosed). The Heritage Foundation has publicized on its website that "(w)e host cultural exhibitions, community cultural events, and youth -oriented educational activities, and includes the Viet Heritage Garden, with a scene of one of the traditional buildings in the owner's backyard. Donations and volunteers are requested (http://vietheritage.org) The nonprofit organization and website may not be active at present. *This publicly available information does not seem completely consistent with the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit (CUP No. 2022-06), which refers to Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) sections limiting the use of the subject site to single-family residence. As drafted, the condition of approval restricts the use of the pavilion as a structure for private use and enjoyment by the private property owners and requires that it not be designed or be intended for public access or viewing or use by members of the public. Moreover, the condition of approval states that the use of the structure and the subject property shall be prohibited from use for commercial purposes, including but not limited to, tours, museum use, festivals, etc. The site will be required to remain and operate as a single-family residential site, or the conditional use permit may be subject to revocation as outlined in Section 41-651 of the SAMC. * Unless new information is provided, the CUP should be denied or remanded now, because the resolution appears to rely on information that may be incomplete, out of date, or just plain wrong. Given the information now available that the Moon pavilion may be among several structures in the Heritage Garden at the Heritage Foundation that have been opened for public access and viewing, and for use for members of the general public, and that tours, exhibits, and festivals have been hosted there, the Department and the Owner should seek and provide additional information in support of the finding that this project is for private use only. 4. Revocation process outlined in Section 41-651 of the SAMC is an inadequate remedy for neighbors affected by public use 4 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. *1 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, 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 awonderful 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:Hbizfileonline.sos.ca.gov/search/businessviet-heritage-foundation Secretary of State Secretary of State City Public Records Request (CPRR) (#24-1822) documents Viet Heritage - Home x + A Not Secure vietheritage.org ^ Relaunch to update CD Financial Data C3 Slogs CD News Stites CD imported From Fir Yahoo! C3 Imported From Sa a) CD All Bookmarks Preserving and Sharing Viet Heritage with Future Generations javascript:void(ndl) Fwd: 2221 N. Heliotrope drive, Santa Ana, CA 92706 From: ellen KOLDEWEY ( To: Date: Wednesday, October 16, 2024 at 12:06 PM PDT Begin forwarded message: From: <tlee@santa-ana.org> Subject: FW: Fwd: 2221 N. Heliotrope drive, Santa Ana, CA 92706 Date: March 14, 2023 at 1:11:36 PM PDT To: <PGomez@santa-ana.org>, <APezeshkpour@santa-ana.org> Hi Pedro and Ali, Mayor Pro Tern Lopez asked me to follow with you about scheduling a meeting with Dr. Quynh Kieu &Chan Kieu to continue the permit process. Could you please review and let me know when we can schedule the meeting? Thank you, Tina From: Quynh Kieu < Sent: Monday, March 13, 2023 2:15 PM To: Lopez, Jessie <JessieLopez@santa-ana.org>; Phan, Thai <TPhan@santa-ana.org> Cc: Lee, Tina Do <tlee@santa-ana.org> Subject: Fwd: Dear Jessie and Thai: It was an honor and pleasure to have you at the preview of Viet Heritage Garden on February 18, 23. The recognition for 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. We request your assistance so that we can resume the application for approval of the Moon pavilion. The process was stopped because of some of the neighbors opposition at the hearing, since they felt it differs from the art deco look of the main house. However we have moved it to the Santa Clara garden and given the opportunity to the Floral park Association board to consider it there where it is hidden by the bamboo screen. There is no longer opposition to the relocation, therefore we request to resume the process with the planning department. 1. during the recent rains, the wood has been soaked and in danger of serious damage, since it has been outside for almost 3 years by now. As you have seen from the wood and water pavilions, it is extremely delicate to repair vintage wood and there are no craftsmen here who can do it right. It would be disastrous if the precious moon pavilion which weathered 2 centuries, would end up by being destroyed here because of the delay. Your assistance is much appreciated to save this historical artefacts. This graceful work of art will truly complement the recent elevation of Floral Park to National Historical neighborhood and contribute to cultural diversity of which Santa Ana prides itself. Please advise as to what we need to do, we would like to ask for an appointment with you, so that the process can resume. We are quite seniors and there is no telling what the future holds, we are committed to finish the work and hope to invite you back for the dedication of this unique architectural art, a piece of Vietnam cultural accomplishment. An appointment on mornings Monday through Thursday would work well. Thank you. Quynh & Chan Kieu 2221 N. Heliotrope drive, Santa ana, CA 92706 (714)724-0850 You measure the size of the accomplishment by the obstacles you had to overcome to reach your goals Confidentiality Notice: The information in this communication is confidential and is directed only to the intended recipient. Please do not forward this communication without my permission. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately and delete/destroy this communication. Ibarra, Evelyn From: Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2024 12:23 PM To: eComment; ellen KOLDEWEY Subject: Fw: Appeal Application No 2024-01, Appealing the Decision of the Planning Commission to Approve Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No 2022-06 Allowing the Construction of an Accessory Structure within the Rear Yard of an Existing Single -Family Residence Loca... Attachments: Screen Shot 2024-11-17 at 8.56.54 PM.png; TLeeCityMemo3-14-23photos copy.pdf Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links. ----- Forwarded Message ----- From:. < To: eComments@santa-ana.org <ecomments@santa-ana.org> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2024 at 11.09.46 AM PST Subject: Appeal Application No 2024-01, Appealing the Decision of the Planning Commission to Approve Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No 2022-06 Allowing the Construction of an Accessory Structure within the Rear Yard of an Existing Single - Family Residence Located at 2221 North Heliotrope Drive (APNs:002-081-45 And 002-081-46 Subject: Appeal Application No 2024-01, Appealing the Decision of the Planning Commission to Approve Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No 2022-06 Allowing the Construction of an Accessory Structure within the Rear Yard of an Existing Single -Family Residence Located at 2221 North Heliotrope Drive (APNs:002-081-45 And 002-081-46 17 November 2024 Mayor Amezcua Mayor Pro Tem Phan Councilmember Lopez Members of City Council Office of City Clerk 22 Civic Center Plaza M-30 Santa Ana California 92701 Greetings Mayor and Council: The CUP Applicant is requesting approval of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 2022-06 to allow the construction of a moon pavilion 23'4" in height within the rear yard of their existing single-family residence located at 2221 North Heliotrope Drive. Pursuant to Section 41-232.5 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC), accessory buildings more than fifteen feet in height or more than one story require approval of a CUP. am writing to you as an individual neighbor in Floral Park and resident of the City of Santa Ana, and not as a member or representative of any group or organization. While there may be several areas of concern in this matter that my neighbors have brought to your attention, I am only looking at whether there is enough information to establish that this pavilion is for private single-family use in compliance with the standards of SAMC Section 41-638. oppose CUP 6-2022 in its present location in this single-family residential neighborhood. ask the Council to take the following actions. 1. Reject the CUP resolution approved by the Planning Commission for lack of substantial evidence to support the finding that this project is for private single-family use to show compliance with the standards of SAMC Section 41-638, and 2) Refer the matter to the Historic Resources Commission for review as maybe 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, (CPRR #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:Hbizfileonline.sos.ca.gov/search/busineSS; https://www.bizprofile.net/ca/santa-ana/viet-heritage-foundation *The Viet Heritage Foundation has published a website, VietHerita_ge.orq, 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.orq/screenshot). The website may not be active. 2 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 mustfail. 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 causes, and thus on the finding that the proposed project will not adversely impact the community as required by Section 41-638 of the SAMC. 2) Refer the matter to the Historic Resources Commission. As described in my previous correspondence to you, I believe that the Planning Agency has exceeded its authority and that the matter must be referred to the Historic Resources Commission pursuant to the Mills Act, for determination whether the use of the building and grounds as a cultural center is compatible with the original historical use as a single family residence. 3) Remand the matter for assessment of the status of the Viet Heritage Garden and Viet Heritage Foundation at 2221 N Heliotrope and how their possible continued operation affects the finding that this project is for private family use. *1 learned about the Garden and Foundation because I was not able to attend the Planning Commission hearing on August 26. However, I submitted a request for City Public Records (CPRR #- 1822) and found through this and other public sources information suggesting that the Planning Agency has not yet fulfilled the standards of Sec. 41-638 for granting applications for this conditional use permit. In the project records and correspondence I reviewed, there is little explanation for why the Department believes this pavilion has been or will continue to be limited to personal single-family use, and substantial evidence it may be used to provide a more public service to the community. *First, when the Planning Agency and Commission justify the conditional use permit in their reports because it will be limited to private use it doesn't seem to align with the actual specific use intended for this pavilion that the owner described in her March 14, 2023 note to the Mayor Pro Tern that was forwarded to the Planning Department, and then released in my City public records request (CPRR #24-1822 September 17, 2023). In her March 14, 2023 note to the Mayor Pro Tem, the owner acknowledged the City's recognition of the Heritage Foundation as "encouragement for our endeavors to contribute a genuine Vietnam cultural space for people of Viet Heritage and also for the community at large. "This use of 2221 Heliotrope Drive as a "cultural space for the community at large" has been confirmed by many neighbors' reports of the property owner's use of the site as a cultural center (e.g., seasonal cultural gatherings, festivals, and tours) that brings a high volume of activity, cars, and school buses.) *However, after the owner made her statement in her March 14, 2023, note that was forwarded from City Council to the Planning Agency, (CPRR #24-1822 September 17, 2023, enclosed), I did not find any discussion in the City's records on how whether the property should be allowed to be used fas a Heritage Garden or public as opposed to private use. Although at the Planning Commission hearing the owner clearly that she understood that only private use is allowed, I don't recall any other documents in the City records showing that the City, the Agency, or the owner, considered the Garden and Foundation in the discussion of whether this tower and the residence would be for private or public use. The information and findings in the Planning Agency and Commission reports to secure the Council's approval of this resolution that the pavilion would be used only for private purposes therefore still seem incomplete and possibly inaccurate on this point. *1 concluded there just wasn't enough reliable evidence anywhere in the record to predict that, moving forward, the use of the Pavilion in the new Heritage Garden would be private. * The current and future status, and activities of the owner's apparent nonprofit Heritage Foundation and the Heritage Garden on the pavilion project, the owner's residence, and our neighborhood need to be specifically and publicly addressed now before a fair decision can be reached by Council in this matter. In my review of City public records and the hearing record and evidence, I saw that the City had found there had been other types of code/permit violations in 2022. 1 also saw that there was significant cooperation by the City and the owner's staff addressing these other types of possible building code violations. I found information that the responsibility to limit activities to private use at the owner's residence was specifically addressed by the Planning Department and owner's staff. particularly with the owners or owners' staff. The record also shows that there have been other property related code and building proceedings and decisions such as placing properties in trusts. (E.g. PCA STL 806301; OC 30-2012-00607998-CU-BC-CJC; OC 30-2019-01076395-CU-NP- CIC.) Given the past public use, as well as the possibility of future misunderstanding, a signed and witnessed notice or agreement may help to ensure compliance. It may be helpful to secure an independent examiner to secure an accurate and impartial assessment of this matter. *Consider the correspondence about the project secured in my City Public Records Request (CPRR#24-1822 September 17, 2024), the information on the nonprofit located at 2221 Heliotrope from the California SOS website(https://bizfileonline.sos.ca.gov/search/business; www.bizfile.net), and the Heritage Foundation website (http://vietheritage. before approving the resolution. *Contrary to the Planning Agency's finding and recommendation that future use is and must remain private, some other publicly available information also suggests that the pavilion will not be used only for the quiet enjoyment of the owner's family for personal use in their backyard. The property was placed in trust in 2014. (p.14, Mills Act Application, (CPRR#24-1822)' The owners founded the nonprofit Viet Heritage Foundation located at their home address in 2017. (https:Hbizfileonline.sos.ca.gov/search/business,) Per the owner, the City acknowledged the owner and the Viet Heritage Foundation for valued civic service (City staff owner memo 3-14-23 (CPRR#24-1822) enclosed). The Heritage Foundation has publicized on its website that "(w)e host cultural exhibitions, community cultural events, and youth -oriented educational activities, and includes the Viet Heritage Garden, with a scene of one of the traditional buildings in the owner's backyard. Donations and volunteers are requested (http://vietheritage.org) The nonprofit organization and website may not be active at present. *This publicly available information does not seem completely consistent with the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit (CUP No. 2022-06), which refers to Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) sections limiting the use of the subject site to single-family residence. As drafted, the condition of approval restricts the use of the pavilion as a structure for private use and enjoyment by the private property owners and requires that it not be designed or be intended for public access or viewing or use by members of the public. Moreover, the condition of approval states that the use of the structure and the subject property shall be prohibited from use for commercial purposes, including but not limited to, tours, museum use, festivals, etc. The site will be required to remain and operate as a single-family residential site, or the conditional use permit may be subject to revocation as outlined in Section 41-651 of the SAMC. 4 * Unless new information is provided, the CUP should be denied or remanded now, because the resolution appears to rely on information that may be incomplete, out of date, or just plain wrong. Given the information now available that the Moon pavilion may be among several structures in the Heritage Garden at the Heritage Foundation that have been opened for public access and viewing, and for use for members of the general public, and that tours, exhibits, and festivals have been hosted there, the Department and the Owner should seek and provide additional information in support of the finding that this project is for private use only. 4. Revocation process outlined in Section 41-651 of the SAMC is an inadequate remedy for neighbors affected by public use 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. *1 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, 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 awonderFul 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:Hbizfileonline.sos.ca.gov/search/businessviet-heritage-foundation Secretary of State Secretary of State City Public Records Request (CPRR) (#24-1822) documents 6 Viet Heritage - Home x + A Not Secure vietheritage.org ^ Relaunch to update CD Financial Data C3 Slogs CD News Stites CD imported From Fir Yahoo! C3 Imported From Sa a) CD All Bookmarks Preserving and Sharing Viet Heritage with Future Generations javascript:void(ndl) Fwd: 2221 N. Heliotrope drive, Santa Ana, CA 92706 From: ellen KOLDEWEY ( To: Date: Wednesday, October 16, 2024 at 12:06 PM PDT Begin forwarded message: From: <tlee@santa-ana.org> Subject: FW: Fwd: 2221 N. Heliotrope drive, Santa Ana, CA 92706 Date: March 14, 2023 at 1:11:36 PM PDT To: <PGomez@santa-ana.org>, <APezeshkpour@santa-ana.org> Hi Pedro and Ali, Mayor Pro Tern Lopez asked me to follow with you about scheduling a meeting with Dr. Quynh Kieu &Chan Kieu to continue the permit process. Could you please review and let me know when we can schedule the meeting? Thank you, Tina From: Quynh Kieu < Sent: Monday, March 13, 2023 2:15 PM To: Lopez, Jessie <JessieLopez@santa-ana.org>; Phan, Thai <TPhan@santa-ana.org> Cc: Lee, Tina Do <tlee@santa-ana.org> Subject: Fwd: Dear Jessie and Thai: It was an honor and pleasure to have you at the preview of Viet Heritage Garden on February 18, 23. The recognition for 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. We request your assistance so that we can resume the application for approval of the Moon pavilion. The process was stopped because of some of the neighbors opposition at the hearing, since they felt it differs from the art deco look of the main house. However we have moved it to the Santa Clara garden and given the opportunity to the Floral park Association board to consider it there where it is hidden by the bamboo screen. There is no longer opposition to the relocation, therefore we request to resume the process with the planning department. 1. during the recent rains, the wood has been soaked and in danger of serious damage, since it has been outside for almost 3 years by now. As you have seen from the wood and water pavilions, it is extremely delicate to repair vintage wood and there are no craftsmen here who can do it right. It would be disastrous if the precious moon pavilion which weathered 2 centuries, would end up by being destroyed here because of the delay. Your assistance is much appreciated to save this historical artefacts. This graceful work of art will truly complement the recent elevation of Floral Park to National Historical neighborhood and contribute to cultural diversity of which Santa Ana prides itself. Please advise as to what we need to do, we would like to ask for an appointment with you, so that the process can resume. We are quite seniors and there is no telling what the future holds, we are committed to finish the work and hope to invite you back for the dedication of this unique architectural art, a piece of Vietnam cultural accomplishment. An appointment on mornings Monday through Thursday would work well. Thank you. Quynh & Chan Kieu 2221 N. Heliotrope drive, Santa ana, CA 92706 (714)724-0850 You measure the size of the accomplishment by the obstacles you had to overcome to reach your goals Confidentiality Notice: The information in this communication is confidential and is directed only to the intended recipient. Please do not forward this communication without my permission. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately and delete/destroy this communication. Ibarra, Evelyn From: STACEY KATO < Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2024 1:59 PM To: eComment Subject: Objection to Approval of CUP 2022-06 Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links. My name is Stacey Kato and I reside within the required notification zone for CUP 2022-06. I have resided in this area since 1997. I am submitting a written response as I am not sure I will be able to attend the Council meeting this evening. I have had a chance to review some of the commentary from prior discussions regarding objections to this CUP and will not recap my observations here. Other than to summarize the concerns voiced by other commentators including: 1. Potential safety concerns. 2. The ability for all residents to the right to the quiet enjoyment of their property. 3. Potential nuisance issues. While probably not germane to the discussion regarding the CUP I think it is worth highlighting that this is probably the most important consequential property within the Floral Park National Historic District. It's my opinion that the additional structures on the property have had a detrimental impact on the historical landmark designation and are potentially not compliant with National Park Service guidelines. As noted in the April 25, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes resolution, Exhibit A, point 11, "Prior to building permit final, the property shall be brought into full maintenance compliance with all applicable SAMC standards. Maintenance shall include, but is not limited to: the repair and upkeep of the property; cleanup of trash and debris; repair and upkeep of any damaged and/or weathered components of the historic building (e.g., siding, windows, historic features); repair and upkeep of exterior paint; landscaping and related landscape, furnishing, and hardscape improvements." As noted in the public records there have been at least two, what appear to be, significant code violations for unpermitted construction and are summarized below. The unauthorized removal and replacement of iron casement windows original to the property in violation of the SAMC as cited in the March 28, 2022 Planning Commission Package. I have a couple of comments regarding: As far as I can tell, this replacement was apparently concealed by termite tenting -I thought it was odd that the termite tenting was up for an extended period of time -think it was a couple weeks. While it has been stated that a settlement was reached with the city regarding this violation it does not appear that the Historic Resource Commission was consulted regarding. In public comments made by the applicant at the August 24, 2024 Planning Commission meeting, the cost of compliant casement windows would cost $1 million, however, it appears that no documentation was provided nor requested in support of this estimate. A similar statement was made when the applicant applied to modify the roofline and was subsequently refuted by a roofing specialist with knowledge of the required work that needed to be done and corresponding costs which were substantially less than the applicant's stated repair costs. An unpermitted roof modification to the historic one-story pool house/cabana, noted by City staff during their review for this CUP, was made to the roof increasing the height from thirteen feet to twenty feet and modifying the roof structure from a flat roof to a pitched roof and other alterations changing the character of the pool house. In both situations, it appears that negotiated settlements by the applicant with the City (assuming planning commission) were made regarding the unpermitted work. Clearly both violations would appear to be be non- compliant with applicable SAMC standards. While I am not privvy to the ultimate resolution, I would be curious to see what the final resolution was as well as the level of authority the Planning Commission has in settling unpermitted, unauthorized construction, especially when a repeat offense is involved. Lastly, given that the settlement is public not publicly available I would be cursious to see what level of oversight is excercised by Council to ensure all settlements are applied equitably to all residents. Lastly, it appears very clear to be that the Historic Resource Commission should have been consulted in regards to any negotiated settlement for both of the violations as historical structures were involved. Thank you Stacey Kato 2 Ibarra, Evelyn From: STACEY KATO < Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2024 1:59 PM To: eComment Subject: Objection to Approval of CUP 2022-06 Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links. My name is Stacey Kato and I reside within the required notification zone for CUP 2022-06. I have resided in this area since 1997. I am submitting a written response as I am not sure I will be able to attend the Council meeting this evening. I have had a chance to review some of the commentary from prior discussions regarding objections to this CUP and will not recap my observations here. Other than to summarize the concerns voiced by other commentators including: 1. Potential safety concerns. 2. The ability for all residents to the right to the quiet enjoyment of their property. 3. Potential nuisance issues. While probably not germane to the discussion regarding the CUP I think it is worth highlighting that this is probably the most important consequential property within the Floral Park National Historic District. It's my opinion that the additional structures on the property have had a detrimental impact on the historical landmark designation and are potentially not compliant with National Park Service guidelines. As noted in the April 25, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes resolution, Exhibit A, point 11, "Prior to building permit final, the property shall be brought into full maintenance compliance with all applicable SAMC standards. Maintenance shall include, but is not limited to: the repair and upkeep of the property; cleanup of trash and debris; repair and upkeep of any damaged and/or weathered components of the historic building (e.g., siding, windows, historic features); repair and upkeep of exterior paint; landscaping and related landscape, furnishing, and hardscape improvements." As noted in the public records there have been at least two, what appear to be, significant code violations for unpermitted construction and are summarized below. The unauthorized removal and replacement of iron casement windows original to the property in violation of the SAMC as cited in the March 28, 2022 Planning Commission Package. I have a couple of comments regarding: As far as I can tell, this replacement was apparently concealed by termite tenting -I thought it was odd that the termite tenting was up for an extended period of time -think it was a couple weeks. While it has been stated that a settlement was reached with the city regarding this violation it does not appear that the Historic Resource Commission was consulted regarding. In public comments made by the applicant at the August 24, 2024 Planning Commission meeting, the cost of compliant casement windows would cost $1 million, however, it appears that no documentation was provided nor requested in support of this estimate. A similar statement was made when the applicant applied to modify the roofline and was subsequently refuted by a roofing specialist with knowledge of the required work that needed to be done and corresponding costs which were substantially less than the applicant's stated repair costs. An unpermitted roof modification to the historic one-story pool house/cabana, noted by City staff during their review for this CUP, was made to the roof increasing the height from thirteen feet to twenty feet and modifying the roof structure from a flat roof to a pitched roof and other alterations changing the character of the pool house. In both situations, it appears that negotiated settlements by the applicant with the City (assuming planning commission) were made regarding the unpermitted work. Clearly both violations would appear to be be non- compliant with applicable SAMC standards. While I am not privvy to the ultimate resolution, I would be curious to see what the final resolution was as well as the level of authority the Planning Commission has in settling unpermitted, unauthorized construction, especially when a repeat offense is involved. Lastly, given that the settlement is public not publicly available I would be cursious to see what level of oversight is excercised by Council to ensure all settlements are applied equitably to all residents. Lastly, it appears very clear to be that the Historic Resource Commission should have been consulted in regards to any negotiated settlement for both of the violations as historical structures were involved. Thank you Stacey Kato 2 Ibarra, Evelyn From: T Sherman < Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2024 3:15 PM To: eComment Cc: Lopez, Jessie Subject: Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-06 Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links. I am opposed to the city allowing a cultural center being allowed at 2221 N. Heliotrope. Respectfully. Tony Sherman 1 Alcala, Abigail From: Leslie Kato < Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2024 3:24 PM To: eComment Subject: Appeal Application No 2024-01 Amteiinfi((�in, Tlfis eu uffl nror Onawd fug-mnz onut;n de o, 'Cu y oro ' Sanm Anna. Use �� a°: f onn when opelfing :nflac4gun ews or finks I live 4 houses down from 2221 North Heliotrope Drive/Santa Ana/92706. They claim to be using the property for private use. That is not the case. I have personally seen school buses parked in front of the property (I have photos). I have also seen tour guides holding up signs for people to follow as they prepare to enter the backyard (I have photos). There was also a time when a news van was parked by the property. Mrs. Kieus is a falsifier Prior to a meeting regarding the erection of their Moon Pagoda (led by Jeff Katz in 2022), Mrs. Kieus told me directly that she, and her husband, were planning on making their backyard a cultural center. Hence, she explained the reason they were adding the Moon Pagoda" onto their property. After the meeting, where I repeatedly spoke strongly against the erection of the Moon Pagoda", she handed me a flyer and personally invited me to a Festival they (the Kieus) were having on their "for private use only" property. Why would you invite someone who you don't know and who spoke strongly about the misuse of their property onto your property? I have witnessed many times Mrs. Kuei blatantly lie to people. At a meeting with the Historical Committee, she requested changing the design of the roof from flat to one that would incorporate a slope/s. She stated that she could not afford to repair the flat roof. She claimed poverty. I don't remember what figure she gave, but it was in the six -to -seven -digit range. After her presentation, a gentleman, who had actually looked at their roof, stated the cost to repair it was around $10,000. We are all familiar with the tenting of the house to replace original windows after the Kieus were denied permission to do so. I understand at the last meeting, where the Kieus requested a height variance for their Moon Pagoda, the issue of the windows came up. I understand that she stated it would have cost her one million dollars to have saved/repaired the original windows. Who provided the quote? Has anyone seen a hard copy of this quote? What about other quotes? It would be odd not to get additional quotes for such a project. Has anyone seen any additional quotes? Lastly, by allowing a variance for the Kieus' Moon Pagoda, a precedence is being put in place that will allow anyone to request the same variance. I realize that the Pagoda is an antique and I understand the Kieus' desire to preserve it. But they should have researched City Codes before investing in it. The "ask forgiveness rather than ask permission" is the Kieus' go to, and it needs to be stopped. Leslie Kato Alcala, Abigail From: Christy Allen < Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2024 3:26 PM To: eComment Subject: Appeal #2024-06 written comments for tonight's meeting Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links. Santa Ana City Counsel, I grew up on Flower Street near Santa Clara in the 1970s and 80s, and I now reside at 2036 Greenleaf Street, which is one block over from the project being discussed. This is longstanding residential neighborhood, which I have loved living in as a child and now as an adult. Regarding the issue at hand, I believe the fair course of action now is to repeal the planning commission's decision to approve a conditional use permit for the construction of an accessory structure 23 - 24 feet high in the backyard of 2221 N. Heliotrope. The plain fact is that this is a residential area, not a museum or business district. This is a place where people live. Having a 23 or 24 foot structure would be visible to nearby neighbors and also visible through the opening of a wall to the front yard facing Heliotrope. The owners of the house have already built a number of structures that look like they are creating a cultural center or park, complete with signs with the names of sculptures in the front yard. It's not appropriate or fair to the neighborhood to build this new structure that has been approved by the planning commission. I'm asking the city council to please take action to repeal this decision. Thank you. Sincerely, Christen Allen Alcala, Abigail From: Gomez, Pedro Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2024 4:55 PM To: Alcala, Abigail; Hall, Jennifer Cc: Pezeshkpour, Ali; eComment Subject: FW: statement for CUP2022-06 Attachments: STATEMENT OF CHAN AND QUYNH KIEU ABOUT 2221 N HELIOTROPE DRIVE.docx M02 I on "-W I I wanted to make you aware of a written statement/response received by the property owners of 2221 N. Heliotrope. This is the property which is the subject of Public Hearing Item No. 34 for tonight's City Council meeting. From the email, it looks like the property owner wants this information considered for tonight's public hearing. Is this possible? Pedro Gomez, AICP Senior Planner I Planning Division City of Santa Ana 120 Civic Center Plaza, Ross Annex M 20 1 Santa Ana, CA 92701. Phone: 714.667.2790 1 Erna&a)santa�-anao�r .VgQmez C� From: Quynh Kieu < Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2024 4:42 PM To: Gomez, Pedro <PGomez@santa-ana.org> Cc: CKpersonal < Subject: statement for CUP2022-06 Afteifl.Win,Tlfis eauffl orOnawd fi-mn onutsde o'Ci y o�'Sanm Ana. Use caion when opelfing aflachmews or finks. Dear Mr. Gomez: First to appreciate your extensive work on this project and presentation. Your indulgence is requested in accepting this statement for presentation today, as it is important to address some of the neighbors concerns. Please include the pics as well. There are also 32 of the Homeowners who signed a statement of support including my nextdoor neighbors. Thank you very much and will see you tonight. Quynh You measure the size of the accomplishment by the obstacles you had to overcome to reach your goals Confidentiality Notice: The information in this communication is confidential and is directed only to the intended recipient. Please do not forward this communication without my permission. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately and delete/destroy this communication. STATEMENT OF CHAN AND QUYNH KIEU ABOUT 2221 N HELIOTROPE DRIVE, SANTA ANA, CA 92706 During the past weeks, we heard from our neighbors concerned about our property becoming a cultural center for public access which may result in increased traffic and the Floral Park losing its Residential character. We then decided to inform the neighbourhood about some of the special features we contributed to the property: 1. The garden did not previously have any special character, we have relocated there an authentical historical structure dating from 1843 even older than the Maharajah mansion. This is recognized as original made from one of the rarest wood "iron wood" which is impervious to termite. It also belongs to the District chief in Quynh Luu district, which was part of the famous "Quynh Luu Uprising" as a brave effort to resist communist land reform in 1956. The village was burned with this single house remaining, going into history. This was resettled with building permits legitimately and stands as the only house known outside of Vietnam built according to the traditional technique with good pegs. It has hosted 2 Floral Park Hometour in 2004 and 2008. 2. We have brought 2 gazebos from central Vietnam acquired from the compound of a retired official who was a known poet and author, with the 3rd "Moon pavilion" his main inspiration. The structures were from the 1800's as well and notorious locally. The 2 smaller gazebos did not require any approval from the city because of their sizes. 3. Our family has a long history of public service, my grandfather as a justice -of -piece administering 3-4 provinces and recognized for building schools and rural educational centers. Their pictures grace the traditional house. 4. My own father who graduated as one of the first judges from the first class of law in Hanoi taught by the French law school, was one of the pillars of the effort to get "Independence for Vietnam" from French colonialism. After 1945, he fled attempts on his life to form a nucleus of resistance, and worked with the last Emperor of Vietnam Bao Dai to negotiate a treaty bridging Vietnam towards independence. It allowed the formation of a government in South Vietnam and he was one of the main builders of the government there serving as Secretary of justice to Defense and Health. He was the last Speaker of the House drawing the constitution of South Vietnam Republic before he passed. Because of his special achievement and close work with Emperor Bao Dai, the Emperor visited our family in 1982 when he visited the US for the first time. Later the last Descendant of the dynasty, Prince Vinh San, came to our antique house when he came to Orange county. The above statements and revelations are to update the Floral Park neighborhood that the buildings which grace our garden are special authentic historical structures in their own right. The lifetime savings of 2 physicians have allowed us to accumulate the treasures of Vietnam culture, from true furniture used by the royal family to pictures and artifacts of special meaning. We and our family are committed to preserve it for our own enjoyment and sharing with selected friends. We have lent artifacts of our collection to Los Angeles Museum of Arts, Phenix Museum of Musical Instruments and various colleges for exhibition, including exhibits in Germany and Europe. To protect the art and artifacts, we will not use our house as a museum for public. My children have agreed and will respect our wishes. Again we would like to state : in our lifetime we are contributing a cultural treasure as a legacy and our descendants commit to do so. A lifetime of community service and internation nonprofit work will reinforce and support the above statement. Attachments: Picture of Emperor Bai Dai in 1982 with our family (2 daughters and ourselves) Picture of David Rockfeller in 1912 with my Grandparents and family in Nam Dinh -north Vietnam November 19, 2024 for the City of Santa Ana City Council Good evening, Council members and Mayor. My name is Sonja Melching. My family has Lived directly adjacent to the south side of the appLicant's property since 2009. From our backyard, we can see nearly the entirety of the applicant's backyard and we have truly enjoyed the artistic and historical beauty they have created to honor their culture. We have had several discussions with the applicant regarding placement of the moon pavilion, and they have been proactive to honor both the impact to us in terms of visibility into and from our back yard. They have worked to honor the demands of the concerned neighbors and, most importantly, they have met the city's requirements. We fully support our neighbor's right to enhance their private property while complying with the city's ordinances, and we believe the Planning Commission and city staff performed their due diligence and correctly approved the CUP. I love our neighborhood, and we have fantastic neighbors all around us. Many of us often use our homes and yards to host friends and have parties that range from pure fun to graduation and birthday parties, to political and non-profit fundraisers, to name a few examples. From the flyer I received from the concerned neighbors, it seems that the focus of their concerns is the traffic generated by the applicant's gatherings and whether some of the gatherings fall under the code for homeowners. Personally, I don't find their gatherings to generate any more traffic than some of the parties my husband and I have hosted in the past. And the applicant's gatherings only happen a couple of times a year during the daytime, so they are not disruptive to us at all. In fact, our neighborhood association fully closes down our street several times a year for parties, and don't get me wrong - I love those events, but I do find the street closures much more of an inconvenience than if someone parks in front of my home to go to the applicant's home. I suggest that if the concerned neighbors feel that the types of gatherings hosted are beyond the scope of what is allowed for all homeowners in the city code, that they pursue working with the applicants to get permits for any non -code compliant gatherings. But as far as this CUP application is concerned, it's approval sets no precedent since all CUP's are reviewed for their own merits, and will only enhance the decorative theme the applicants already have. The city staff and Planning Commission have done their due diligence, and I ask you to trust the judgement of your own staff.