HomeMy WebLinkAboutResponses to Comments - Agenda Item No. 34MEMORANDUM
To:
From
Subject:
Honorable Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, and
Members of the Citv Council
Minh Thai, Executive Director
Planning and Building Agency
U.-J
www.santa-ana.org
Date: November 19.2024
CITY RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED ON APPEAL NO. 2024-01 FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2221 N. HELIOTROPE DRIVE
Prior to the City Council meeting of Tuesday, November 19, 2024, the City had received eight
comments on Appeal No. 2024-01 for the accessory structure proposed at 2221 N. Heliotrope
Drive. The City has prepared a response to each comment to address the specific topic(s) raised
by each comment. None of the comments raise any new information or bring forward any new
information of substance that has not already been addressed by the staff report prepared for
the City Council's consideration of the appeal.
The City's responses to these comments is included in this packet, in order of receipt of
comment. The responses will also be uploaded to the online packet to form part of the project
record.
Enclosures:
1. Public Comments Received (8), with Numbering Annotations
2. City Responses
City Responses to Public Comments on APPL No. 2024-01
Ibarra, Evelyn
From: lauren hartshorne <Ihartshorne21 @gmail.com>
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.
Violation of Residential Zoning Regulations
LH-1 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
LH-2 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.
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
LH-3 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.
10
Traffic, Parking, and Noise Concerns
Converting the Maharaja House into a community cultural center would likely increase traffic, parking demands,
LH-4 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.
Precedent for Future Zoning Violations
Approving this proposal could set a precedent for other property owners to seek similar exceptions, leading to a
LH-5 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
2311 N Heliotrope Dr
Santa Ana, CA
Ibarra, Evelyn
From: Jenny Hartshorne <jennyahartshorne@gmail.com>
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.
Preserving the Integrity of Residential Zoning
Floral Park is a residential neighborhood, and zoning regulations are in place to protect this designation. The conversion
JH-1 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
JH-2 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.
Architectural and Community Concerns
The proposed pagoda construction raises significant questions about its compatibility with the Maharaja House's
JH-3 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.
IS
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
JH-4 such a development would cause.
Setting a Precedent for Future Developments
Approving this proposal would set a precedent for further zoning violations and inappropriate developments in our
JH-5 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 <kevinkbn1968@msn.com>
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,
I 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
I do oppose the notion of using the property as some sort of cultural center to hold meetings and events. I
have witnessed long lines of cars parking on both sides of the street and in surrounding streets for these
KN-1 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
2101 N. Heliotrope Drive
Santa Ana, CA 92706
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
City Council
City of Santa Ana
Re: 2221 N. Heliotrope Drive CUP application 2022-06 Appeal
As a property owner in Floral Park and a former property owner at 2120 N. Heliotrope Dr., 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
MN-1 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 could 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. Granting the CUP
MN-2 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
MN-3 regulations. They could easily remove the stairway to the first level of the structure or lower the soil
level 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
included tarping scaffolding to hide unauthorized changes to the trim on the home (which they
MN-4 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
Limitations of the CUP, for one, that state that the structure is installed 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,
Mason Nakamura
2215 N. Victoria Dr.
Santa Ana, CA 92706
(714) 349-2769
masonn@aol.com
Ibarra, Evelyn
From: Patricia Tornell <ptornell@aol.com>
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
PT-1 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
1717 N Heliotrope Drive
Santa Ana, CA 92706
Ibarra, Evelyn
From: Mike Zachan <mpzachan@gmail.com>
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
MZ-1 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
2109 N Heliotrope Dr
Ibarra, Evelyn
From: emkold@aol.com
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 Tern 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.
I am writing to you as an individual neighbor in Floral Park and resident of the City of Santa Ana, and not
EK-1 as a member or representative of any group or organization. While there maybe 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.
I oppose CUP 6-2022 in its present location in this single-family residential neighborhood.
I 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
21 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,
41 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 Davilion to a location for a Heritage Garden and Cultural Center that will be invitinLy 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 parkin
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
EK-2 March 14, 2023. In her message to Mayor Pro Tern Lopez, she thanked the Mayor Pro Tern and Councilperson Phan
for attending the "preview of Viet Heritage Garden on February 18, 23. The recognition of Viet Heritage Foundation
represents such an encouragement for our endeavors to contribute a genuine Vietnam cultural space for people of
Viet Heritage and also for the community at large." Accompanying photos of the owner as host with her guests
show that the event took place in the backyard of 2221 Heliotrope where the pavilion will be located. The owner's
message was forwarded from the Mayor Pro Tem's Office to the Planning Agency with the request to continue
the permit process. (Enclosure, TLMemo3-14-23) secured from City Public Records Request (CPRR #24-
1822 September 17, 2023). The impact of the Viet Heritage Garden and Foundation, if any, on the
Appellant's premises must be examined before a determination is made.
*2221 Heliotrope Drive has been the address of the Viet Heritage Foundation, a nonprofit corporation
founded by the owners in 2017 and ,possibly inactive since 2021, per the California Secretary of State
(Enclosure, business search records;
(https://bizfileonline.sos.ca.gov/search/business; https://www.bizprofile.net/ca/santa-ana/viet-heritage-foundation
*The Viet Heritage Foundation has published a website, VietHeritage.org, which states that "Our
mission is to preserve and share Vietnamese cultural heritage with future generations. We host
cultural exhibitions, community cultural events, and youth -oriented educational activities." The phone
number to contact appears to be the owner's landline (whitepages. com) and the address is Heliotrope
Drive Santa Ana CA. Hours are gam — 6pm Mon — Friday. It appears from this website that the Moon
Pagoda would be joining several traditional Vietnamese structures in the Viet Heritage
Garden. According to the website, the Heritage Garden is part of the complex that has been opened
to the community. On the website there is a picture of one of the traditional buildings in the owners'
back yard and an invitation to visit the exhibits there. (enclosure: VietHeritage.org/screenshot). The
website may not be active.
These public sources suggest that the installation of the pavilion could be part of a current and
ongoing change to the existing land use from single family residence to public or commercial use as
a Heritage Garden and Cultural Center sponsored by the Heritage Foundation operating onsite. This
past activity may have been closed, or it could have been paused by the owner, to be resumed later. It
is not clear to me from the record that the Pavilion will be restricted to private use.
*Therefore, the Planning Commission's present finding that the standards of Sec 41-638 have been met
must fail. The additional evidence of recent use of the location for public purposes that was not addressed
by the Planning Agency, casts doubt on the finding that the pavilion will not be used for the same public
2
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
EK-3 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
EK-4 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
3
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:Hbizfileonline.sos.ca.gov/search/business; www.bizfile.net), and the
Heritage Foundation website (http://vietheritage.org) 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://bizfi]eonIine.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
EK-5
EK-6
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, 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:Hvietheritage.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:voohnU11)
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
(
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:. <emkold@aol.com>
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 Tern 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.
I 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.
I obbose CUP 6-2022 in its bresent location in this single-familv residential neighborhood.
I 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
21 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 Tern Lopez, she thanked the Mayor Pro Tern 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 eq 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'
backyard and an invitation to visit the exhibits there. (enclosure: VietHeritage.org/screenshot). The
website may not be active.
These public sources suggest that the installation of the pavilion could be part of a current and
ongoing change to the existing land use from single family residence to public or commercial use as
a Heritage Garden and Cultural Center sponsored by the Heritage Foundation operating onsite. This
past activity may have been closed, or it could have been paused by the owner, to be resumed
later. It is not clear to me from the record that the Pavilion will be restricted to private use.
*Therefore, the Planning Commission's present finding that the standards of Sec 41-638 have been met
must fail. The additional evidence of recent use of the location for public purposes that was not addressed
by the Planning Agency, casts doubt on the finding that the pavilion will not be used for the same public
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
3
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:Hbizfileonline.sos.ca.gov/search/business; www.bizfile.net), and the
Heritage Foundation website (http://vietheritage.org) 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.
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,
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,
5
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:Hvietheritage.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:voohnU11)
Fwd: 2221 N. Heliotrope drive, Santa Ana, CA 92706
From: ellen KOLDEWEY (emkold@aol.com)
To: emkold@aol.com
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 <gk4kids@gmail.com>
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
(
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 <stacey.leslie@sbcglobal.net>
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:
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
SK-1 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
SK-2 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
SK-3 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.
SK - 4Lastly, 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
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 34—
APPEAL APPLICATION NO. 2024-01
CITY RESPONSE TO COMMENTS RECEIVED
Lauren Hartshorne
LH-1:
Cultural and/or museum uses are not a permitted use in the single-family residential (R1) zone.
Moreover, the use is not consistent with the underlying general plan land use designation of Low -
Density Residential (LR-7).
LH-2:
The installation of the pavilion would not result in any physical alterations to the historic
structure. As such, the building will continue to retain all of its character -defining features.
Moreover, the proposed structure would not impact any of the view sheds to the Maharajah
House along any public perspectives. Proposed changes, which would be confined to the back
yard, also would not affect the historical integrity of the Floral Park Historic District as a whole.
LH-3:
The pavilion would be confined to the back yard and would not affect the historical integrity of
the Floral Park Historic District as a whole. As proposed, bamboo would be planted near the north
property line to obscure the proposed pavilion from view from the public rights -of -way on Santa
Clara Avenue and Heliotrope Drive. While the new bamboo would be clearly visible from the
rights -of -way, its appearance alongside the existing wall would be consistent with the internal
setting of the Floral Park Historic District, which is characterized in part by its variety of
landscaping.
In addition, the pavilion and bamboo would be confined to an area corresponding to a very
limited portion of the property's northern frontage, approximately 100 linear feet. Because of
the limited physical scale of the changes, the project would be partially visible only from very few
public vantage points, further reducing its visual effects to the internal setting of the historic
district.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 34-
APPEAL APPLICATION NO. 2024-01
LH-4:
Cultural and/or museum uses are not a permitted use in the single-family residential (R1) zone.
To ensure that the proposed pavilion will not negatively affect the neighborhood character or
identity, a condition of approval has been included prohibiting the use of the structure and the
site for any 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 Santa
Ana Municipal Code (SAMC).
LH-5:
The approval of the proposed structure is not a precedent. Future requests for similar structures
will continued to be evaluated on a case -by -case basis by the appropriate review authority,
subject to the requirements outlined in Section 41-638 of the SAMC. Moreover, any accessory
structure, whether administrative or discretionary (i.e., requiring review and approval of the
Planning Commission and/or City Council) is reviewed against the relevant development
standards, City design guidelines, and historic compatibility (as appropriate).
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 34-
APPEAL APPLICATION NO. 2024-01
Jenny Hartshorne
JH-1:
Cultural and/or museum uses are not a permitted use in the single-family residential (R1) zone.
Moreover, the use is not consistent with the underlying general plan land use designation of Low -
Density Residential (LR-7).
JH-2:
The installation of the pavilion would not result in any physical alterations to the historic
structure. As such, the building will continue to retain all of its character -defining features.
Moreover, the proposed structure would not impact any of the view sheds to the Maharajah
House along any public perspectives. Proposed changes, which would be confined to the back
yard, also would not affect the historical integrity of the Floral Park Historic District as a whole.
JH-3:
The pavilion would be confined to the back yard and would not affect the historical integrity of
the Floral Park Historic District as a whole. As proposed, bamboo would be planted near the north
property line to obscure the proposed pavilion from view from the public rights -of -way on Santa
Clara Avenue and Heliotrope Drive. While the new bamboo would be clearly visible from the
rights -of -way, its appearance alongside the existing wall would be consistent with the internal
setting of the Floral Park Historic District, which is characterized in part by its variety of
landscaping.
In addition, the pavilion and bamboo would be confined to an area corresponding to a very
limited portion of the property's northern frontage, approximately 100 linear feet. Because of
the limited physical scale of the changes, the project would be partially visible only from very few
public vantage points, further reducing its visual effects to the internal setting of the historic
district.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 34-
APPEAL APPLICATION NO. 2024-01
J H-4:
Cultural and/or museum uses are not a permitted use in the single-family residential (R1) zone.
To ensure that the proposed pavilion will not negatively affect the neighborhood character or
identity, a condition of approval has been included prohibiting the use of the structure and the
site for any 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 Santa
Ana Municipal Code (SAMC).
JH-5:
The approval of the proposed structure is not a precedent. Future requests for similar structures
will continued to be evaluated on a case -by -case basis by the appropriate review authority,
subject to the requirements outlined in Section 41-638 of the SAMC. Moreover, any accessory
structure, whether administrative or discretionary (i.e., requiring review and approval of the
Planning Commission and/or City Council) is reviewed against the relevant development
standards, City design guidelines, and historic compatibility (as appropriate).
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 34-
APPEAL APPLICATION NO. 2024-01
Kevin Nguyen
W055
Cultural and/or museum uses are not a permitted use in the single-family residential (R1) zone.
To ensure that the proposed pavilion will not negatively affect the neighborhood character or
identity, a condition of approval has been included prohibiting the use of the structure and the
site for any 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 Santa
Ana Municipal Code (SAMC).
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 34-
APPEAL APPLICATION NO. 2024-01
Mason Nakamura
MN-1:
The structure would be ancillary and subordinate the main single-family residence. The height of
the proposed structure in comparison to the main residence is illustrated on the architectural
plans provided in the project staff report. The height of the existing residence is approximately
25 feet while the tallest point of the pavilion (pavilion roof peak) is proposed to be a maximum
of 23'-4". Therefore, the structure would be of an appropriate scale and massing.
Moreover, the structure is built in a traditional Vietnamese design sharing a similar design,
materials, and cultural characteristics as various other structures on the site, including an existing
garden house. Thus, the proposed structure would be harmonious with the surrounding built
environment.
The existing landscaping and mature trees are not proposed to be removed or altered. To ensure
that the existing landscaping conditions are maintained, a condition of approval is recommended
requiring that the trees be preserved and protected in place. Also included is a condition of
approval requiring that the applicant plant additional bamboo behind the existing six-foot high
stucco wall, to help screen any deficient areas.
It's noted that the site will be required to maintain the existing and added landscaping while the
pavilion remains on the site. If the property owner fails to abide by all conditions of approval, the
CUP may be subject to revocation as outlined in Section 41-651 of the SAMC.
MN-2:
The approval of the proposed structure is not a precedent. Future requests for similar structures
will continued to be evaluated on a case -by -case basis by the appropriate review authority,
subject to the requirements outlined in Section 41-638 of the SAMC. Moreover, any accessory
structure, whether administrative or discretionary (i.e., requiring review and approval of the
Planning Commission and/or City Council) is reviewed against the relevant development
standards, City design guidelines, and historic compatibility (as appropriate).
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 34-
APPEAL APPLICATION NO. 2024-01
MN-3:
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.
CUPS may be granted when it can be shown that the proposed project will not adversely impact
the community. If these findings can be made, then it is appropriate to grant the CUP. Conversely,
the inability to make these findings would result in a denial.
The purpose of regulating the height of accessory structures within single-family residential zones
is to minimize impacts to surrounding areas and ensure the structures will provide a positive
contribution to neighborhood character and identity. These types of applications are reviewed
on a case -by -case basis by the appropriate review authority, subject to the requirements outlined
in Section 41-638 of the SAMC. In their approval, the Planning Commission determined that the
structure would not be detrimental, as proposed.
MN-4:
The comment is noted but does not raise any specific points that necessitate a response.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 34-
APPEAL APPLICATION NO. 2024-01
Patricia Tornell
PT-1:
Cultural and/or museum uses are not a permitted use in the single-family residential (R1) zone.
To ensure that the proposed pavilion will not negatively affect the neighborhood character or
identity, a condition of approval has been included prohibiting the use of the structure and the
site for any 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 Santa
Ana Municipal Code (SAMC).
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 34-
APPEAL APPLICATION NO. 2024-01
Michael Zachan
MZ-1:
Cultural and/or museum uses are not a permitted use in the single-family residential (R1) zone.
To ensure that the proposed pavilion will not negatively affect the neighborhood character or
identity, a condition of approval has been included prohibiting the use of the structure and the
site for any 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 Santa
Ana Municipal Code (SAMC).
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 34—
APPEAL APPLICATION NO. 2024-01
Ellen Koldewey
EK-1:
Comment noted.
E K-2:
Cultural and/or museum uses are not a permitted use in the single-family residential (R1) zone.
To ensure that the proposed pavilion will not negatively affect the neighborhood character or
identity, a condition of approval has been included prohibiting the use of the structure and the
site for any 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 Santa
Ana Municipal Code (SAMC).
E K-3:
The proposed structure is not physically altering or changing the exterior of the Maharajah
House. Therefore, the proposed project is not considered a modification, as defined by Chapter
30 of the SAMC, and no additional review by the HRC is required for this project. Moreover,
pursuant to the SAMC Sections 2-350.2 and 41-630, the proposed CUP is a land use application
within the purview and review authority of the Planning Commission, not the HRC.
E K-4:
Cultural and/or museum uses are not a permitted use in the single-family residential (R1) zone.
To ensure that the proposed pavilion will not negatively affect the neighborhood character or
identity, a condition of approval has been included prohibiting the use of the structure and the
site for any 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 Santa
Ana Municipal Code (SAMC).
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 34-
APPEAL APPLICATION NO. 2024-01
EK-5:
The City has no record of any registered complaints related to land use violations such as what
has been described. Furthermore, cultural and/or museum uses are not a permitted use in the
single-family residential (R1) zone. Moreover, the use is not consistent with the underlying
general plan land use designation of Low -Density Residential (LR-7). Any use of the property in
violation of the SAMC or the City's General Plan would be subject to code enforcement action.
As it relates to the proposed CUP, and for added clarity, a condition of approval was added
prohibiting the use of the structure and the site for any commercial purposes, including but not
limited to, tours, museum use, festivals, etc., that the Planning Commission approved on August
26, 2024. The recommended condition of approval reads as follows:
The pavilion shall remain a structure for private use and enjoyment by the private property
owners, thereby preserving the community character. The pavilion shall not be designed or be
intended for public access or viewing, or use by members of the general public. 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 Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC).
E K-6:
The comment is noted but does not raise any specific points that necessitate a response.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 34-
APPEAL APPLICATION NO. 2024-01
Stacey Kato
SK-1:
The pavilion would be confined to the back yard and would not affect the historical integrity of
the Floral Park Historic District as a whole. As proposed, bamboo would be planted nearthe north
property line to obscure the proposed pavilion from view from the public rights -of -way on Santa
Clara Avenue and Heliotrope Drive. While the new bamboo would be clearly visible from the
rights -of -way, its appearance alongside the existing wall would be consistent with the internal
setting of the Floral Park Historic District, which is characterized in part by its variety of
landscaping.
In addition, the pavilion and bamboo would be confined to an area corresponding to a very
limited portion of the property's northern frontage, approximately 100 linear feet. Because of
the limited physical scale of the changes, the project would be partially visible only from very few
public vantage points, further reducing its visual effects to the internal setting of the historic
district.
SK-2:
Comment noted. Comment discusses previous actions by the property owner and have been
resolved. As such, they are not germane to the public hearing consideration.
SK-3:
A previously permitted one-story pool house/cabana (built in 1955) was significantly altered circa
2021. On May 4, 2022, Planning and Building Agency staff conducted a site visit/inspection of the
structure after receiving a public complaint and confirmed the existent of unpermitted work.
Since then, the property owner has taken necessary actions to rectify the unpermitted work and
come into compliance with all PBA building permitting requirements. These steps include
meeting with the Building Office and senior planning staff to identify building and site
deficiencies, submitting the required planning applications, plans, and fees, and officially
submitting through the plan check process for permit issuance.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 34-
APPEAL APPLICATION NO. 2024-01
S K-4:
The proposed structure is not physically altering or changing the exterior of the Maharajah
House. Therefore, the proposed project is not considered a modification, as defined by Chapter
30 of the SAMC, and no additional review by the HRC is required for this project. Moreover,
pursuant to the SAMC Sections 2-350.2 and 41-630, the proposed CUP is a land use application
within the purview and review authority of the Planning Commission, not the HRC.