from Vietnam, have introduced new architectural and landscape elements with no apparent relevance to the original architecture of the property or to its significant historical associations with the Maharajah. As such, in its current condition, the backyard would be highly unlikely to contribute to the significance of the property, and the addition of a new pavilion would not affect the property’s continued eligibility as a Santa Ana Landmark or a contributor to the National Register-listed Floral Park Historic District.
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. 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. As stated in the National Register nomination form for the historic district, “Landscaping varies from building to building, but as this is a point of pride within the neighborhood, landscaping is of high caliber. The majority of properties feature shallow lawns, mature shrubs and flower gardens. Perimeter fences, low walls, and hedges are usually present, and some are original to the property.” 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.
General Plan Consistency
Finally, the CUP will be consistent with several goals and policies of the General Plan.
Land Use Element policy LU-2.8 encourages land uses and development projects that promote the City’s image as a cultural regional center. The applicant’s proposed structure furthers this policy as it introduces a cultural element from Vietnam, the native country of the current owners. The structure was previously built in Vietnam and built in a traditional Vietnamese design, fabricated by Vietnamese artisans. Specifically, the structure would include prefabricated wood post members, traditional Vietnamese handcarved wood details, and would include clay roofing tile, all reflective of the Vietnamese cultural architecture. The new structure would also be consistent with existing cultural structures relocated from Vietnam, previously. These structures include a roughly 20- foot-tall wood pavilion with intricately carved details and a tile-clad roof system; a nineteenth-century, traditional residence with an iron wood structural system; and multiple additional smaller structures of a traditional Vietnamese character Policy LU-3.4 advocates for scale and massing of new development to be compatible and harmonious with the surrounding built environment. As designed, the structure would be ancillary and subordinate the main single-family residence. The height of the City Council 34 – 10 11/19/2024
Appeal Application No. 2024-01 for Construction of a 23’-4” Tall Accessory Building (2221 N Heliotrope Drive)
November 19, 2024
proposed structure in comparison to the main residence is illustrated on the architectural plan 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.
Furthermore, Policy LU-3.5 encourages the preservation and reuse of historical buildings and sites through flexible land use policies, while Policy HP-1.4 of the Historic Preservation Element encourages actively protecting historic and cultural resources.
The installation of the proposed structure would not require the removal of any elements of the historic structure and would not result in any physical alterations. 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. As mentioned, the pavilion would be located approximately 30 feet to the east of the Maharajah House, and approximately 15 feet from the rear (east) property line, behind an existing six foot high stucco wall and behind existing mature landscaping (e.g., 25-foot tall mature tree and mature bamboo).
Therefore, all views of the historic structure along Heliotrope Drive and Santa Clara Avenue would remain unimpaired.
The proposed changes would also 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. As previously noted, 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. As stated in the National Register nomination form for the historic district, “Landscaping varies from building to building, but as this is a point of pride within the neighborhood, landscaping is of high caliber. The majority of properties feature shallow lawns, mature shrubs and flower gardens. Perimeter fences, low walls, and hedges are usually present, and some are original to the property.” 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.
City Council 34 – 11 11/19/2024
Appeal Application No. 2024-01 for Construction of a 23’-4” Tall Accessory Building (2221 N Heliotrope Drive)
November 19, 2024
Public Notification and Community Outreach
Project notifications were posted, published, and mailed in accordance with City and State regulations for the Planning Commission hearing and for the City Council appeal hearing, as required by Sec.41-645 of the SAMC.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, the project was reviewed and determined to be exempt from further review pursuant to Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines (Class 3- New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) because the project involves the construction of a small accessory structure. Based on this analysis, Notice of Exemption, Environmental Review No. 2022-11 will be filed for this project.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.
EXHIBIT(S)
1. Appeal Application No. 2024-01 – Peter Christoffersen
2. Resolution Denying Appeal Application No. 2024-01 and upholding the Planning Commission’s Approval of CUP No. 2022-06
3. Planning Commission Staff Report - August 26, 2024
4. Planning Commission Minutes – August 26, 2024
5. Architectural Plan Set
6. Response to Appeal Comments
Submitted By: Minh Thai, Executive Director of the Planning and Building Agency Approved By: Alvaro Nuñez, City Manager
City Council 34 – 12 11/19/2024
City Council 34 – 13 11/19/2024
City Council 34 – 14 11/19/2024
City Council 34 – 15 11/19/2024
City Council 34 – 16 11/19/2024
Resolution No. 2024-xx
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-xx
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SANTA ANA DENYING APPEAL
APPLICATION NO. 2024-01 AND UPHOLDING
THE DETERMINATION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 2022-06 AS CONDITIONED TO
ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE EXCEEDING
FIFTEEN FEET IN HEIGHT WITHIN THE REAR
YARD OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2221
NORTH HELIOTROPE DRIVE (APN: 002-081-45
AND 002-081-46)
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows:
A. Chan Quang and Quynh Dinh Kieu (Property Owners) are requesting approval of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 2022-06 to allow the construction of an accessory structure referred to as a moon pavilion (“pavilion”) exceeding fifteen feet in height, within the rear yard area of an existing single-family residence located at 2221 North Heliotrope Drive.
B. The subject property contains a historical structure known as the Maharajah House, which was constructed in 1938 and was placed on the Santa Ana Register of Historical Properties (“Register”) and categorized as “Landmark” in 2003. The Maharajah House is also listed as contributor to the Floral Park National Historic District.
C. Santa Ana Municipal Code (“SAMC”) Section 41-232.5 requires approval of a CUP for accessory buildings more than fifteen feet in height or more than one story.
D. The proposed accessory structure would be 23’-4” in height, requiring review and approval of a CUP.
E. On March 28, 2022, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on CUP No. 2022-06. At the public hearing the Planning Commission voted unanimously to continue the item to April 25, 2022, to allow staff time to evaluate options of reducing the visual impacts by considering other locations, scale, size massing and screening, or a combination to address community concerns.
City Council 34 – 17 11/19/2024
Resolution No. 2024-xx
F. On April 25, 2022, the Planning Commission held the continued public hearing. At the request of the property owners, the Planning Commission voted unanimously (5-0-0-2, with Commissioners Alderete and Pham absent) to continue the item to a date uncertain.
G. Since the 2022 Planning Commission public hearings, the property owners revised the proposed project. Revisions include relocating the proposed structure away from the south end of the property, updating the site plan to accurately depict existing and proposed conditions, and providing photo simulations (e.g., conceptual renderings). Specifically, under the revised application, the structure is proposed to be located towards the northeast corner of the property, approximately fifteen feet from the rear (east) property line and twelve feet from the side (north) property line, behind an existing six foot high stucco wall and behind existing mature landscaping (e.g., 25-foot tall mature tree and mature bamboo). The pavilion would also be located approximately 30 feet east from the existing single-family residence.
H. On August 26, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on CUP No. 2022-06. After receiving public testimony on the item, the Planning Commission voted unanimously (4-2-0-1 Escamilla and Benninger voting against the motion and Ramos absent) to adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 2022-06.
I. The Planning Commission also modified condition of approval number eight (8) to make reference to Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) sections limiting the use of the subject site to single-family residence.
J. On September 5, 2024, Peter Christoffersen, on behalf of himself and a group of Floral Park residential neighbors, submitted an appeal application pursuant to Section 41-645 of the SAMC appealing the Planning Commission's approval of CUP No. 2022-06. The appellant is requesting that: (1) the City Council overturn the Planning Commission's decision approving CUP No. 2022-06; (2) require all new and/or outstanding City of Santa Ana building permit deficiencies by resolved before further consideration of the proposed pavilion; and (3) that the HRC review all landmark/historical/mills act compliance deficiencies and identify actions required to bring the property back to the original standard. Specifically, the appellant states that:
I. The structure will significantly exceed the existing six-foot high fence and it will be clearly visible from Santa Clara Avenue, despite existing planting and required plantings;
II. The approval of the CUP provides a dangerous precedent providing "tacit" permission to other residents (both within Floral Park and in other neighborhood within Santa Ana) to erect structures that may City Council 34 – 18 11/19/2024
Resolution No. 2024-xx
clearly fall outside the architectural compatibility of the historic neighborhood;
III. The existing accessory structures on the site and the proposed pavilion are not consistent with the Art Moderne style and detract from the historical designation of the home and the neighborhood as a whole;
IV. The property owners have shown a proclivity to violate the statutory requirements of designation as an historical landmark as well as violating the SAMC;
V. The property owner's use of the site as a cultural center (e.g., seasonal cultural gatherings, festivals, and tours) that bring high volume of cars and school buses; and
VI. Questions whether the Planning Commission visited the site prior to approving CUP No. 2022-06 to view the property and surrounding homes and whether the Planning Commission gave any
consideration of the recent designation of Floral Park as a National Historic District. Moreover, the appellant provides further questions about whether the owners will be held accountable for obtaining retroactive building permits for an ADU, as well as
maintenance/upkeep of the "historically important home," and how the City will monitor the site to ensure it is not being used as a cultural center.
K. On November 19, 2024, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on Appeal Application No. 2024-01. Staff notes that the appellant does not provide any evidence that the proposed project would adversely impact the community, pursuant to Section 41-638 of the SAMC.
Specifically, the appellant does not provide evidence to substantiate that the project will be a detriment to the general wellbeing of the neighborhood or the community; detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity; would adversely affect the present economic stability or future economic development of property in the surrounding area; does not comply with the regulations and conditions specified in this chapter for such use; and would adversely affect the general plan of the city or any specific plan applicable to the area of the proposed use. Nevertheless, a comprehensive response on the appeal items previously outlined has been prepared and can be found in Exhibit 6 of the staff report dated November 19, 2024 that was prepared for the appeal.
Section 2. The City Council, after hearing, considering and weighing all evidence in the record presented on behalf of all parties and being fully informed of the application, the Planning Commission’s decision, and the appeal, hereby finds and determines that the Planning Commission’s decision was not made in error, that the City Council 34 – 19 11/19/2024
Resolution No. 2024-xx
Planning Commission’s decision was not an abuse of discretion by the Planning Commission and that the Planning Commission’s decision was supported by substantial evidence in the record.
Section 3. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, the project was reviewed and determined to be categorically exempt from further review per Section 15303 (Class 3 – New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). Class 3 exemption applies to the construction of accessory structures, including, but not limited to, garages, carports, patios, swimming pools, and fences. Based on this analysis, a Notice of Exemption, Environmental Review No. 2022- 11 will be filed for this project.
Section 4. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, authorized volunteers, and instrumentalities thereof, harmless from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other and proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolution procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and such other procedures), judgments, orders, and decisions (collectively “Actions”), brought against the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, any action of, or any permit or approval issued by the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City) for or concerning the project, whether such Actions are brought under the Ralph M. Brown Act, California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivision Map Act, Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085 or 1094.5, or any other federal, state or local constitution, statute, law, ordinance, charter, rule, regulation, or any decision of a court of competent jurisdiction. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the City’s defense, and that Applicant shall reimburse the City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the course of the defense. City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any Action brought and City shall cooperate with Applicant in the defense of the Action.
Section 5. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby denies Appeal Application No. 2024-01, thereby upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 2022-06, with modified conditions of approval to further clarify and make reference to Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) sections limiting the use of the subject site to single-family residence. This decision is based upon the evidence submitted at the above said hearing, which includes, but is not limited to: the Request for City Council Action dated November 19, 2024, and exhibits attached thereto, including the Response to Appeal Comments for Appeal Application No. 2024-01 in Exhibit A of this resolution, and the public testimony, written and oral, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference.
[Signatures on the following page]
City Council 34 – 20 11/19/2024
Resolution No. 2024-xx
ADOPTED this ____ day of ___________, 2024.
_______________________
Valerie Amezcua
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Sonia R. Carvalho
City Attorney
By:________________________
Melissa M. Crosthwaite
Senior Assistant City Attorney
AYES: Councilmembers _______________________________________ NOES: Councilmembers _______________________________________ ABSTAIN: Councilmembers _______________________________________ NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers _______________________________________ City Council 34 – 21 11/19/2024
Resolution No. 2024-xx
CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, Jennifer Hall, City Clerk, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2024-xx to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on _______________, 2024.
Date: ________________ ____________________________________ City Clerk
City Council 34 – 22 11/19/2024
Resolution No. 2024-xx
EXHIBIT A
Response to Appeal Comments for Appeal Application No. 2024-01 Appeal Application No. 2024-01
Pursuant to Section 41-645 of the SAMC, the appellant is requesting that: (1) the City Council overturn the Planning Commission’s decision approving CUP No. 2022-06; (2) require all new and/or outstanding City of Santa Ana building permit deficiencies be resolved before further consideration of the proposed pavilion; and (3) that the HRC review all landmark/historical/mills act compliance deficiencies and identify actions required to bring the property back to original standard. Specifically, the appellant states that:
1. The structure will significantly exceed the existing six-foot high fence and it will be clearly visible from Santa Clara Avenue, despite existing planting and required plantings;
2. The approval of the CUP provides a dangerous precedent providing “tacit” permission to other residents (both within Floral Park and in other neighborhood within Santa Ana) to erect structures that may clearly fall outside the architectural compatibility of the historic neighborhood;
3. The existing accessory structures on the site and the proposed pavilion are not consistent with the Art Moderne style and detract from the historical designation of the home and the neighborhood as a whole;
4. The property owners have shown a proclivity to violate the statutory requirements of designation as an historical landmark as well as violating the SAMC;
5. The property owner’s use of the site as a cultural center (e.g., seasonal cultural gatherings, festivals, and tours) that bring high volume of cars and school buses; and
6. Questions whether the Planning Commission visited the site prior to approving CUP No. 2022-06 to view the property and surrounding homes and whether the Planning Commission gave any consideration of the recent designation of Floral Park as a National Historic District. Moreover, the appellant provides further questions about whether the owners will be held accountable for obtaining retroactive building permits for an ADU, as well as maintenance/upkeep of the “historically important home,” and how the City will monitor the site to ensure it is not being used as a cultural center.
The appellant does not provide any evidence to substantiate that the proposed project would adversely impact the community, pursuant to Section 41-638 of the SAMC.
Specifically, the appellant does not provide evidence that the project will be a detriment to the general wellbeing of the neighborhood or the community; detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity; would adversely affect the present economic stability or future economic development of property in the City Council 34 – 23 11/19/2024
Resolution No. 2024-xx
surrounding area; does not comply with the regulations and conditions specified in this chapter for such use; and would adversely affect the general plan of the city or any specific plan applicable to the area of the proposed use. Nevertheless, a comprehensive response on the appeal items previously outlined has been prepared.
Analysis of Appeal
1. Appellant Request: On behalf of ourselves and the many neighbors who communicated via writing and verbally at the hearing, we respectfully request that the approval on August 26, 2024 of CUP No. 2024-06 be rescinded.
Analysis of Issue: The appellant requests a rescission of the Planning Commission’s approval of the project with modified conditions on August 26, 2024.
A rescission of the Planning Commission’s approval on August 26, 2024, may be made by the City Council, subject to a majority vote in the affirmative to do so by Resolution of the City Council, following a public hearing.
2. Appellant Request: We request that all new and/or outstanding City of Santa Ana building permit deficiencies be resolved before further consideration of any additional projects are permitted on the property.
Analysis of Issue: The appellant’s request and the land use decision considered by the Planning Commission for the proposed structure are unrelated topics.
Moreover, new and/or outstanding projects requiring a building permit are subject to all City of Santa Ana municipal code requirements, including the zoning code requirements.
As noted in the staff report, the only “outstanding” building permit application is the property’s owner request to legalize previously unpermitted alterations to a onestory pool house/cabana in order to establish an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) on the property. The owner has taken necessary actions to complete the ADU process with the City. Specifically, the owner’s architects diligently worked with Planning staff to ensure that the preliminary building plans meet all of the City’s ADU ordinance requirements, prior to the plan check submittal. Moreover, the required building plans were formally submitted to the Planning and Building Agency (PBA) in May 2024, and all required application and plan check fees were paid. Building plan check corrections were issued to the property owner on July 2, 2024. The property owner’s ADU project remains in plan check and has not been approved for permit issuance.
To ensure that all required building permits are obtained in a timely manner for the development of the ADU, the Planning staff recommended a condition of approval as part of the Planning Commission resolution of approval stating the following:
Prior to any City building permits issued for the pavilion, the property owner shall obtain final City approval for any and all required building permits related to the City Council 34 – 24 11/19/2024
Resolution No. 2024-xx
conversion of an unpermitted structure into an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU).
Approval of the CUP shall become null and void if the required building permits for the ADU are not finalized pursuant to all City requirements within two calendar years.
The above-recommended condition ensures that the property owner obtains the necessary approvals for the construction of the ADU. If for some reason the ADU permit does not get issued, then the PBA would not issue a building permit for the proposed pavilion and the CUP would become null and void. Moreover, the matter would be referred to the City’s Code Enforcement Division to address the unpermitted alterations to the pool house/cabana. The property owner would be required to remove the unpermitted work and return the structure back to the original conditions.
3. Appellant Request: We request that The Historical Commission review all Landmark/Historical/Mills Act Compliance deficiencies and identify actions required to bring the property back to original standard.
Analysis of Issue: The property is listed as a Landmark historic property, Number 354 on Santa Ana Register of Historic Properties (“Register”). Pursuant to Chapter 30 (Places Of Historical and Architectural Significance) of the SAMC, listed historic structures (e.g., primary structure and/or accessory structures identified as contributing to historic nature) are protected from physical exterior alterations or modifications. The SAMC defines modification as, “Any change, alteration, restoration, remodeling, rehabilitation, construction, or relocation of the physical exterior of a historic structure.” Moreover, Section 30-6 (a) of the SAMC states that, “No exterior physical modifications, other than those identified by the historic resources commission for administrative approval by city staff, shall be permitted with respect to an historic structure until the historic resources commission approves such request at a duly noticed public hearing and issues a certificate of appropriateness.”
Recognizing the need to preserve and protect these listed historic structures, the SAMC also permits modifications (i.e., exterior alterations) that do not substantially change the character and integrity of the historic property. These are alterations that follow the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (“SOIS”) for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, & Reconstructing Historic Buildings (Kay D. Weeks and Anne E. Grimmer, revised 2017). Moreover, Historic Resources Commission (HRC) Resolution No. 2006-01 outlines limited exterior physical modifications to historic properties that can be reviewed administratively by City staff. Examples include, but are not limited to, like-for-like repairs or replacements using the same material and style as the original; restoration of architectural features that are documented through pictorial evidence; on-site accessory structures (e.g., new detached garage, a shed, or a playhouse); etc.
City Council 34 – 25 11/19/2024
Resolution No. 2024-xx
In this case, 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. a. Appellant Statement – Historical Compatibility: 2221 North Heliotrope Drive, “The Maharaja House.” Is historically significant due to its Art Moderne architecture as well as provenance – listed on the Register of Historical Properties, designated as a Landmark, associated with a foreign ruling family, and given a Mill’s Act Contract. Its Art Modern style fits in well with the varied styles that comprise the neighborhood and its style is multiple other Floral Park homes.
Analysis of Issue: Appellant did not provide a specific reason for an appeal in this subsection. Rather, the appellant stated a known fact about the historic significance of the subject property. Statement noted. b. Appellant Statement – Variance for Project Height: The 23’-4” height of the proposed new structure exceeds the City’s code for accessory height limits of 20’-0”. Because the structure will significantly exceed the approximate six-foot-high fence surrounding the property, it will be clearly visible from Santa Clara Avenue. Despite the fact that existing planting and added required plantings may hide the structure, nothing prevents future pruning of trees or re-landscaping at the sole discretion of the owners.
Of Significant Importance, the approval of the CUP provides a dangerous precedent providing tacit permission to other residents (both within Floral Park and in any other neighborhood within Santa Ana) to erect structures that may clearly fall outside the architectural compatibility of the historic neighborhood.
Analysis of Issue: Pursuant to Section 41-232.5 of the SAMC, accessory buildings more than fifteen feet in height, or more than one story, require approval of a CUP. The property owners are proposing an accessory structure with a total height of 23’-4”, triggering discretionary review and approval of a CUP by the Planning Commission. 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. The height does not need a variance, as the height is permissible subject to approval of a CUP.
The proposed structure has been designed to be located away from adjacent properties to minimize the privacy concerns and visual impacts. By City Council 34 – 26 11/19/2024
Resolution No. 2024-xx
locating the structure towards the northeast end of the property, the design limits the potential impacts to the single-family properties along all elevations due the proposed setbacks (twelve and fifteen feet), the existing six foot high stucco wall, and existing mature landscaping ranging in height from twelve feet to 25-foot tall (e.g., mature tree and mature bamboo). In addition, the public right-of-way parkways are improved with mature oak trees along Santa Clara Avenue, which further help to minimize the privacy concerns and visual impacts of the proposed structure.
The existing landscaping and mature trees are not proposed to be removed or altered. To ensure that the existing landscaping conditions are maintained, the Planning Division recommends a condition of approval 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.
Lastly, the approval of the proposed structure is not a “dangerous precedent.” Future requests for similar structures will continue 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). c. Appellant Statement – Architectural Compatibility: After several years of energy and expense, Floral Park was recently designated a National Historic District. Residents of this special neighborhood were drawn here because of the historic integrity of the homes and strive to maintain that integrity. With its historic status and storied history, The Maharaja House played a key role in obtaining the National Historic District status. The structure added in the past and the addition of this 23’-4” structure are not consistent with the Art Modern style and detract from the historical designation of the home and the neighborhood as a whole.
Analysis of Issue: The installation of the pavilion would not result in any physical alterations to the historic structure. As such, the historic Maharajah House 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. The pavilion would be located approximately thirty feet to the east of the house, and approximately City Council 34 – 27 11/19/2024
Resolution No. 2024-xx
fifteen feet from the rear (east) property line, behind an existing six foot high stucco wall and behind existing mature landscaping (e.g., 25-foot tall mature tree and mature bamboo). Therefore, all views of the historic structure along Heliotrope Drive and Santa Clara Avenue would remain unimpaired.
A review of the developmental history of the Maharajah House’s back yard shows the area has continually evolved since the property’s original construction in 1938 and 1939. Available sources, including building permit records and historical aerial photographs, show there were no notable changes to the backyard until the late 1980s or early 1990s. In 1989, a permit was issued for the construction of a new six-foot-tall wall. While the location of the wall is not indicated in building permit information, a 1991 aerial photograph suggests the wall was then erected at its current location, tracing the north property line, approximately 10 to 20 feet north of the wall’s apparent historical location. By the time the current owners acquired the property in 2000, the back yard had already undergone substantial alterations to its plan and design. Since around 2003, when the property’s current owners received a permit to demolish the swimming pool, there began a program of major alterations to the backyard that included a general remodeling of the area and the installation of a handful of buildings and structures of historical and cultural interest imported from Vietnam.
Structures relocated from Vietnam to the back yard include a roughly 20- foot-tall wood pavilion with intricately carved details and a tile-clad roof system; a nineteenth-century, traditional residence with an iron wood structural system; and multiple additional smaller structures of a traditional Vietnamese character. The series of changes to the backyard described above, especially the introduction of the imported buildings and structures from Vietnam, have introduced new architectural and landscape elements with no apparent relevance to the original architecture of the property or to its significant historical associations with the Maharajah. As such, in its current condition, the backyard would be highly unlikely to contribute to the significance of the property, and the addition of a new pavilion would not affect the property’s continued eligibility as a Santa Ana Landmark or a contributor to the National Register-listed Floral Park Historic District.
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. 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. As stated in the National Register nomination form for the historic district, “Landscaping varies from building to building, but as this is a point of pride within the neighborhood, landscaping is of high caliber. The majority of City Council 34 – 28 11/19/2024
Resolution No. 2024-xx
properties feature shallow lawns, mature shrubs and flower gardens.
Perimeter fences, low walls, and hedges are usually present, and some are original to the property.” 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.
d. Appellant Statement – Current Owner’s Intent and Actions: In addition, the owners of the Maharaja House have shown a proclivity to violate the statutory requirements of the designation as an historical Landmark property as well as violating Santa Ana Municipal Codes. These include:
i. The unauthorized replacement of the roof on the swim house in the backyard;
ii. The use of termite tenting to conceal the unauthorized removal and replacement of the iron casement windows original to the property; iii. Public voicing at large gatherings that their intent is that the property be designated a Vietnamese Cultural Site/Museum in the future.
Analysis of Issues:
Subsection “i”: 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.
In May 2024, the property owners submitted required building plans to the Planning and Building Agency to legalize the unpermitted work, and convert the structure into an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) for a separate living space and storage. Building plan check corrections were issued to the property owner on July 2, 2024. At the time this report was printed, the property owner has yet to re-submit the building plans. The property owner’s ADU project is still in building plan check and it has not been approved for permit issuance.
City Council 34 – 29 11/19/2024
Resolution No. 2024-xx
Subsection “ii”: There is currently no authorized work on the site that has not already been addressed and there are no current open code enforcement cases for the subject property. Moreover, staff is unaware of any attempts by the property owner to replace iron casements windows in the manner that was suggested by the appellant.
On July 15, 2024, Planning staff conducted a follow-up site visit/inspection in order to ensure that no additional work had been constructed without the necessary City permits, and in order to provide more recent site photos to the Planning Commission. While staff did notice construction of two additional structures, these structures did not exceed 120 square feet in size (10 ft. by 12 ft.), and therefore did not require a building permit.
Subsection “iii”: 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).
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. Appellant Statement – Property Use and Traffic: As indication of the owner’s furtherance of the objective towards the re-characterization of this property as a cultural center – hence the continued addition of accessory structures to their property – they hold frequent/seasonal cultural gatherings/festivals and tours, often times with film and sound crews. On more than one occasion, multiple school buses from as far away as Huntington Beach have parked in front of the property as groups disembark for tours (see attached photos taken on March 14, 2024). As well, the several annual event/festivals (such as the Moon Festival on September 10, 2022) have brought a high volume of cars that line Heliotrope and Santa Clara, often times with no consideration for driveways of other homeowners.
Analysis of Issue: The PBA has no record of any registered complaints related to land use violations such as what the appellant has 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.
City Council 34 – 30 11/19/2024
Resolution No. 2024-xx
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).
f. Appellant Statement – City of Santa Ana Oversight: Did the Planning Commission visit the site prior to approving CUP No. 2022-06 to view the property and surrounding homes? Did the Planning Commission give any consideration to the recent designation of Floral Park as a National historic District? As stipulated below in the approval documents of CUP No. 2022- 06, will the owners be held accountable for obtaining retroactive building permits for the unpermitted ADU and changes made thereto, as well as for the appropriate maintenance/upkeep of the historically important home? This task is still incomplete and, therefore, this project should not be approved. As stipulated below in the approval documents of CUP No. 2022- 06, will the City monitor and ensure the home is not used for tours or as a functioning museum/cultural center where festivals for the public occur and what steps before the fact will be taken? What happens when there is an increase in traffic? A very similar situation is happening on Lampson Avenue in Garden Grove. Please contact your colleagues there as their residents have been battling this for five years.
Analysis of Issue: The public hearing and decision-making process require that the Planning Commission be provided with a complete public hearing agenda that includes, but is not limited to, a staff report and staff recommendation, including any relevant exhibits, a resolution of approval or denial, site photos, building plans, and any public hearing comments. The Planning Commission members are not required to visit or inspect a site prior to the public hearing. Planning Division staff provided a complete packet of materials as described above, including all relevant materials/information, including site photos, extensive background, project description, etc., for the Planning Commission to make an informed decision on the public hearing item.
City Council 34 – 31 11/19/2024
Resolution No. 2024-xx
Although the proposed CUP is a land use application within the purview and review authority of the Planning Commission, Planning Division staff did provide an extensive historical analysis, including a review of compatibility with the Floral Park National Historic District, which is included in Exhibit 3 of the staff report. Therefore, the Planning Commission did consider the recent national district designation, as it relates to their land use review authority.
The property owner has taken the necessary actions to rectify the unpermitted alterations and come into compliance with all PBA building permitting requirements. Building plan check corrections were issued to the property owner on July 2, 2024. At the time this report was printed, the property owner has yet to re-submit the building plans. The property owner’s ADU project is still in building plan check and it has not been approved for permit issuance.
Lastly, cultural and/or museum uses are not a permitted use in the singlefamily 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 the code enforcement action. A condition has been added to the approval prohibiting the use of the structure and the site for any commercial purposes, including but not limited to, tours, museum use, festivals, etc.
Remaining comments in Appeal Application No. 2024-01 are excerpts from the August 26, 2024, Planning Commission staff report. Therefore, this analysis acknowledges the included informational excerpts and concludes the appeal analysis with no further responses.
City Council 34 – 32 11/19/2024
Planning and Building Agency
Item # 3
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701
Planning Commission Staff Report
August 26, 2024
Topic: Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-06 – Construction of a 23’-4” Tall Accessory Building (2221 N. Heliotrope Drive)
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-06 as conditioned.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Chan Quang and Quynh Dinh Kieu (property owners and applicants) are requesting approval of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 2022-06 to allow 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). 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. The property owners are proposing an accessory structure referred to as a moon pavilion (“pavilion”) with a total height of 23’-4”, triggering discretionary review and approval by the Planning Commission. Staff is recommending approval of the applicant’s request because the applicant has revised the proposal to address Planning Commission and neighborhood’s concerns, stemming from the original public hearing on March 28, 2022.
Specifically, the applicant has relocated the proposed pavilion away from the south end of the property, updated the site plan to accurately depict existing and proposed conditions, provided photo simulations (e.g., conceptual renderings), and submitted building permit plans to address unpermitted work on an ancillary structure on the site.
Moreover, staff is recommending approval because the new proposed location minimizes impacts to surrounding areas and provides minimal change to the character or identity of the subject property and the neighborhood.
Planning Commission Action March 28, 2022, and April 25, 2022 On March 28, 2022, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing for the proposed project. After posting of the March 28, 2022, public hearing notice, staff received numerous neighborhood concerns regarding the proposed height. In response to these concerns, staff worked directly with the applicant to reduce the proposed height City Council 34 – 33 11/19/2024
CUP No. 2022-06 – Maharajah House Moon Pavilion (2221 N. Heliotrope Drive) August 26, 2024
an additional twenty inches, for an overall height of 21’-8”. Subsequently, staff moved forward with the public hearing with a recommendation of approval.
At the public hearing, the Planning Commission engaged in extensive dialogue and expressed various concerns including the following:
• History of unpermitted work on the site. More recently, an existing permitted pool house was significantly altered without the required City building permits as substantiated by site aerials;
• Potential concerns regarding any proposed lighting within the structure; • Concerns regarding City oversight during construction ; • Primary structure’s landmark historic status and Mills Act agreement; • Proposed structure’s compatibility/historic setting considerations; and • Guidelines/standards for review of proposed project and historic setting considerations.
During the public comments section, various members of the public spoke in opposition of the project. Moreover, 23 letters in opposition were received for the project. These opposition letters can be found on Exhibit 11 of this report. The majority of the comments in opposition can be summarized to concerns regarding the massing, scale, and compatibility of the structure (i.e., too visible and too tall), as well as visual impacts to the community and impacts to the historic structure and site. After additional discussion, the Planning Commission first motioned to approve the project. The motion failed by a vote of 3-4. After the first motion failed, a second motion was made and approved unanimously to continue the public hearing to the April 25, 2022 Planning Commission meeting. This continuance was intended to provide staff time to evaluate options of reducing the visual impacts by considering other locations, scale, size massing and screening, or a combination to address community concerns.
On April 25, 2022, the Planning Commission held the continued public hearing. At the request of the property owners, the recommended action was to continue the public hearing item to a future date. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to continue the item indefinitely. This action required re-noticing of the project for the August 26, 2024, Planning Commission public hearing.
DISCUSSION
Project Description
The applicant is proposing to construct a freestanding pavilion approximately 205 square feet in size and 23’-4” in height, within the rear yard area of an existing singlefamily residence. The subject property is made up of two legal lots including assessor parcel numbers (APNs) 002-081-45 and 002-081-46. The pavilion would only be located on one parcel (APN: 022-081-45). The pavilion is proposed to be located towards the northeast corner of the property, approximately fifteen feet from the rear (east) property City Council 34 – 34 11/19/2024
CUP No. 2022-06 – Maharajah House Moon Pavilion (2221 N. Heliotrope Drive) August 26, 2024
line and twelve feet from the side (north) property line, behind an existing six foot high stucco wall and behind existing mature landscaping (e.g., 25-foot tall mature tree and mature bamboo). The pavilion would also be located approximately 30 feet east from the existing residence and approximately sixteen feet from an existing, freestanding two-story accessory structure.
As designed, 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 plan set provided by the architect (see Exhibit 5). 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”. The pavilion is designed in hexagonal shape and would include three “segments,” with the main floor elevated from the ground floor approximately seven feet and six-inches. The main floor would be accessed by a wood staircase and would have a clearance of floor seven feet and six-inches. The last segment would be from the top plate to the roof peak level, which is approximately eight feet and four-inches in height (total height 23’-4”). There are two additional structures on the site, including a detached two-story accessory structure and a freestanding one-story garden house. The two-story structure is approximately 20 feet in height, while the garden house is a maximum 15 feet in height to the tallest ridge point.
As described by the applicants, the pavilion was previously built in Vietnam. The structure is built in a traditional Vietnamese design and was fabricated by Vietnamese artisans. The pavilion structure was disassembled, shipped to Santa Ana, and would be reconstructed on the subject property. As proposed, the pavilion would share a similar design, materials, and cultural characteristics as various other structures on the site, including an existing garden house. Specifically, the structure would include prefabricated wood post members, traditional Vietnamese hand-carved wood details, and would include clay roofing tile. Lastly, the installation of the structure would be designed and overseen by a licensed structural engineer and the structure would not include mechanical or plumbing equipment. The structure would include two electrical outlets and limited accent lighting, including two to four light fixtures within the structure and three to six landscape/up-lights at the base.
Table 1: Project and Location Information
Item Information
Project Address and Council Ward 2221 North Heliotrope Drive – Ward 3 Nearest Intersection Santa Clara Avenue and Heliotrope Drive General Plan Designation Low Density Residential (LR-7) Zoning Designation Single-Family Residence (R1)
North Single-Family Residences
East Single-Family Residences
South Single-Family Residences
Surrounding Land Uses
West Single-Family Residences
Property Size 0.90 acres (39,547 square feet)
City Council 34 – 35 11/19/2024
CUP No. 2022-06 – Maharajah House Moon Pavilion (2221 N. Heliotrope Drive) August 26, 2024
Site and Project Background
The site contains a historical structure known as the Maharajah House, which was constructed in 1938 and was placed in the Santa Ana Register of Historical Properties (“Register”) and categorized as “Landmark” in 2003. The property qualifies for listing in the Santa Ana Register under Criterion 1 for its exemplification of the Art Moderne variant of the Moderne style and under Criterion 4b, for its association with a foreign ruling family, the Holkars of Indore, India. Moreover, the property satisfied two criteria for landmark categorization: “unique architectural significance” as an example of the Art Moderne style in Santa Ana and “historic/cultural significance” as the residence of a sitting ruler of Indore. The Maharajah House is also listed as contributor to the Floral Park National Historic District. Lastly, the City of Santa Ana entered into a Mills Act Agreement with the property owners in 2014. For reference, additional historic information on the property can be found on Exhibits 7 and 8.
The subject site was previously improved with a freestanding one-story garden house with a porch, built in 2004. Similar to the proposed pavilion, the garden house was dismantled, shipped from Vietnam, and reconstructed on the property. The garden house was built in Vietnam circa 1847 and was brought over piece by piece to Santa Ana. At the time, the property owners also imported a bell tower with three 18th- and 19th-century bells, marble sculptures, a collection of 11th-century foo dogs, and a water feature. The building permits for the garden house were reviewed and processed administratively by City staff. Pursuant to Chapter 30 of the SAMC, on-site accessory structures can be reviewed and approved administratively by staff. Therefore, the structure did not require discretionary review due to the fact that it is considered an accessory structure, it was no more than 15 feet in height, and did not physically change and/or alter the Maharajah House.
As discussed in the Planning Commission Action section of this report, during the March 28, 2022, Planning Commission meeting staff was made aware that 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 and determined that the original one-story pool house/cabana had been significant altered. While the original footprint of the structure was not altered, the height was increased from thirteen feet to twenty feet and the roof structure was modified from a flat roof to a pitched roof. Moreover, the exterior of the structure was modified in an East Asian influence to include new brick veneer, new clay Existing Site Development The subject site is developed with a two-story historic singlefamily residence known as the Maharajah House. The Maharajah House is individually listed on the Register of Historical Properties as “Landmark” and a contributor to the Floral Park National Historic District.
Use Permissions Allowed with a conditional use permit (CUP) Zoning Code Sections Affected Uses Section 41-232.5
City Council 34 – 36 11/19/2024
CUP No. 2022-06 – Maharajah House Moon Pavilion (2221 N. Heliotrope Drive) August 26, 2024
tile roofing, and architectural ornamentation. Staff verified that the structure was not being utilized as a separate living area, but instead was being used as storage for antiquities and cultural artifacts.
Planning staff held various conversations with the property owners and property owner representatives (i.e., architects, engineers, etc.) between 2022 and early 2024 regarding the unpermitted work, and provided two options which included removing the unpermitted work and returning the structure back to the original conditions, or going through the required City permits to legalize the work. In May 2024, the property owners submitted required building plans to the Planning and Building Agency to legalize the unpermitted work, and convert the structure into an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) for a separate living space and storage. At the time this report was printed, the building plans were still in building plan check and have not been approved for permit issuance.
On July 15, 2024, Planning staff conducted a follow-up site visit/inspection in order to ensure that no additional work had been constructed without the necessary City permits, and in order to provide more recent site photos to the Planning Commission.
These site photos have been included as part of Exhibit 3. While staff did notice construction of two additional structures (presented as gazebos in Exhibit 5), these structures did not appear to exceed 120 square feet in size (10 ft. by 12 ft.), and therefore did not require a building permit.
Project Analysis
CUP requests are governed by Section 41-638 of the SAMC. 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.
The installation of the proposed structure would not result in a change to the existing land use. Instead, the property will continue to be used as it was historically, as a single-family residence. In addition, the proposed structure has been designed to be located away from adjacent properties to minimize the privacy concerns and visual impacts. By locating the structure towards the northeast end of the property, the design limits the potential impacts to the single-family properties along all elevations due the proposed setbacks (twelve and fifteen feet), the existing six foot high stucco wall, and existing mature landscaping ranging in height from twelve feet to 25-foot tall (e.g., mature tree and mature bamboo).
In addition, the public right-of-way parkways are improved with mature oak trees along Santa Clara Avenue, which further help to minimize the privacy concerns and visual impacts of the proposed structure. The existing landscaping and mature trees are not proposed to be removed or altered. To ensure that the existing landscaping conditions City Council 34 – 37 11/19/2024
CUP No. 2022-06 – Maharajah House Moon Pavilion (2221 N. Heliotrope Drive) August 26, 2024
are maintained, staff is recommending a condition of approval requiring that the trees be preserved and protected in place. Moreover, staff is recommending 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. Staff is recommending bamboo as it’s one of the fastest-growing plants and it would help maintain consistency with the existing landscaping.
Lastly, by setting back the structure approximately 15 feet from the rear (east) property line, the design limits any potential aesthetic impacts to the property to the east. The overall design and location will ensure that the neighborhood character is maintained along the side elevation (along Santa Clara Avenue). Therefore, the construction of the proposed pavilion will not result in a change to the neighborhood character or identity. To further ensure that the proposed pavilion will not negatively affect the neighborhood character or identify, staff is recommending a condition of approval 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 singlefamily 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).
Historic Analysis
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 as described in Exhibits 7 and 8. Moreover, the proposed structure would not impact any of the view sheds to the Maharajah House, along any public perspectives.
As mentioned, the pavilion would be located approximately thirty feet to the east of the Maharajah House, and approximately fifteen feet from the rear (east) property line, behind an existing six foot high stucco wall and behind existing mature landscaping (e.g., 25-foot tall mature tree and mature bamboo). Therefore, all views of the historic structure along Heliotrope Drive and Santa Clara Avenue would remain unimpaired.
Chapter 30 (Places Of Historical and Architectural Significance) of the SAMC defines modification as, “Any change, alteration, restoration, remodeling, rehabilitation, construction, or relocation of the physical exterior of a historic structure.” Moreover, Section 30-6 (a) of the SAMC states that, “No exterior physical modifications, other than those identified by the historic resources commission for administrative approval by city staff, shall be permitted with respect to an historic structure until the historic resources commission approves such request at a duly noticed public hearing and issues a certificate of appropriateness.” The proposed structure is not physically altering or changing the exterior of the Maharajah House. Therefore, no additional review by the Historic Resources Commission is required for this project.
Moreover, a review of the developmental history of the Maharajah House’s back yard shows the area has continually evolved since the property’s original construction in City Council 34 – 38 11/19/2024
CUP No. 2022-06 – Maharajah House Moon Pavilion (2221 N. Heliotrope Drive) August 26, 2024
1938 and 1939. The earliest available depiction of the internal setting of the property is an aerial photograph taken in 1947, which show the back yard was walled as it is today and was entirely landscaped, principally with a broad lawn. In addition, the photos suggest the wall or fence at the north end of the property was likely set back approximately 10 to 20 feet from the public right-of-way (Orange County aerial photographs 1947). City building permit information suggests the first documented alteration of note to the backyard occurred in 1955, when a swimming pool (not extant) and a cabana (the existing two story ancillary building) were constructed. These changes are further documented in a 1960 aerial photograph depicting the long, rectangular swimming pool situated immediately east of residence and the cabana located just east of the pool.
Available sources, including building permit records and historical aerial photographs show there were no notable changes to the backyard until the late 1980s or early 1990s. In 1989, a permit was issued for the construction of a new six-foot-tall wall.
While the location of the wall is not indicated in building permit information, a 1991 aerial photograph suggests the wall was then erected at its current location, tracing the north property line, approximately 10 to 20 feet north of the wall’s apparent historical location. By the time the current owners acquired the property in 2000, the back yard had already undergone substantial alterations to its plan and design. Since around 2003, when the property’s current owners received a permit to demolish the swimming pool, there began a program of major alterations to the backyard that included a general remodeling of the area and the installation of a handful of buildings and structures of historical and cultural interest imported from Vietnam.
Structures relocated from Vietnam to the back yard include a roughly 20-foot-tall wood pavilion with intricately carved details and a tile-clad roof system; a nineteenth-century, traditional residence with an iron wood structural system; and multiple additional smaller structures of a traditional Vietnamese character. The series of changes to the backyard described above, especially the introduction of the imported buildings and structures from Vietnam, have introduced new architectural and landscape elements with no apparent relevance to the original architecture of the property or to its significant historical associations with the Maharajah. As such, in its current condition, the backyard would be highly unlikely to contribute to the significance of the property, and the addition of a new pavilion would not affect the property’s continued eligibility as a Santa Ana Landmark or a contributor to the National Register-listed Floral Park Historic District.
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. 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 City Council 34 – 39 11/19/2024
CUP No. 2022-06 – Maharajah House Moon Pavilion (2221 N. Heliotrope Drive) August 26, 2024
Park Historic District, which is characterized in part by its variety of landscaping. As stated in the National Register nomination form for the historic district, “Landscaping varies from building to building, but as this is a point of pride within the neighborhood, landscaping is of high caliber. The majority of properties feature shallow lawns, mature shrubs and flower gardens. Perimeter fences, low walls, and hedges are usually present, and some are original to the property.” 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.
General Plan Consistency
Finally, the CUP will be consistent with several goals and policies of the General Plan.
Land Use Element policy LU-2.8 encourages land uses and development projects that promote the City’s image as a cultural regional center. The applicant’s proposed structure furthers this policy as it introduces a cultural element from Vietnam, the native country of the current owners. The structure was previously built in Vietnam and built in a traditional Vietnamese design, fabricated by Vietnamese artisans. Specifically, the structure would include prefabricated wood post members, traditional Vietnamese handcarved wood details, and would include clay roofing tile, all reflective of the Vietnamese cultural architecture. The new structure would also be consistent with existing cultural structures relocated from Vietnam, previously. These structures include a roughly 20- foot-tall wood pavilion with intricately carved details and a tile-clad roof system; a nineteenth-century, traditional residence with an iron wood structural system; and multiple additional smaller structures of a traditional Vietnamese character Policy LU-3.4 advocates for scale and massing of new development to be compatible and harmonious with the surrounding built environment. As designed, 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 plan 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.
Furthermore, Policy LU-3.5 encourages the preservation and reuse of historical buildings and sites through flexible land use policies, while Policy HP-1.4 of the Historic Preservation Element encourages actively protecting historic and cultural resources.
The installation of the proposed structure would not require the removal of any elements of the historic structure and would not result in any physical alterations. As such, the City Council 34 – 40 11/19/2024
CUP No. 2022-06 – Maharajah House Moon Pavilion (2221 N. Heliotrope Drive) August 26, 2024
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. As mentioned, the pavilion would be located approximately thirty feet to the east of the Maharajah House, and approximately fifteen feet from the rear (east) property line, behind an existing six foot high stucco wall and behind existing mature landscaping (e.g., 25-foot tall mature tree and mature bamboo).
Therefore, all views of the historic structure along Heliotrope Drive and Santa Clara Avenue would remain unimpaired.
The proposed changes would also 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. As stated in the National Register nomination form for the historic district, “Landscaping varies from building to building, but as this is a point of pride within the neighborhood, landscaping is of high caliber.
The majority of properties feature shallow lawns, mature shrubs and flower gardens.
Perimeter fences, low walls, and hedges are usually present, and some are original to the property.” 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 Notification and Community Outreach
Project notifications were posted, published, and mailed in accordance with City and State regulations. The Floral Park Neighborhood Association representatives were also contacted to identify any areas of concern due to the proposed project. Copies of the public notice, including a 1,000-foot notification radius map, and the site posting are provided in Exhibit 12. At the time this report was printed, staff did not receive neighborhood concerns regarding the proposed CUP.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, the project is exempt from further review pursuant to Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines (Class 3/New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) because the project involves the construction of a small accessory structure. Based on this analysis, Notice of Exemption, Environmental Review No. 2022-11 will be filed for this project.
City Council 34 – 41 11/19/2024
CUP No. 2022-06 – Maharajah House Moon Pavilion (2221 N. Heliotrope Drive) August 26, 2024
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.
EXHIBIT(S)
1. Resolution
2. Vicinity Zoning and Aerial View
3. Site Photos
4. March 28, 2022 Architectural Plan Set
5. Revised Architectural Plan Set
6. Conceptual Renderings
7. Historic Summary
8. Historic Designation Resolution of Approval
9. March 28, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes
10. April 25, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes
11. March 28, 2022 Planning Commission Packet
12. Copy of Public Notices
Submitted By:
Pedro Gomez, AICP, Senior Planner
Approved By:
Minh Thai, Executive Director of Planning and Building Agency, Planning and Building Agency
City Council 34 – 42 11/19/2024
Resolution No. 2024-XXX
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-XXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 2022-06 AS CONDITIONED TO ALLOW THE
CONSTRUCTION OF AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE
EXCEEDING FIFTEEN FEET IN HEIGHT WITHIN THE REAR
YARD OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2221 NORTH
HELIOTROPE DRIVE (APN: 002-081-45 AND 002-081-46)
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines, and declares as follows:
A. Chan Quang and Quynh Dinh Kieu (Property Owners), are requesting approval of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 2022-06 to allow the construction of an accessory structure referred to as a moon pavilion (“pavilion”), exceeding fifteen feet in height, within the rear yard area of an existing single-family residence located at 2221 North Heliotrope Drive.
B. The subject property contains a historical structure known as the Maharajah House, which was constructed in 1938 and was placed on the Santa Ana Register of Historical Properties (“Register”) and categorized as “Landmark” in 2003. The Maharajah House is also listed as contributor to the Floral Park National Historic District.
C. Santa Ana Municipal Code (“SAMC”) Section 41-232.5 requires approval of a CUP for accessory buildings more than fifteen feet in height or more than one story.
D. The proposed accessory structure would be 23’-4” in height, requiring review and approval of a CUP.
E. On March 28, 2022, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on CUP No. 2022-06. At the public hearing the Planning Commission voted unanimously to continue the item to April 25, 2022, to allow staff time to evaluate options of reducing the visual impacts by considering other locations, scale, size massing and screening, or a combination to address community concerns.
F. On April 25, 2022, the Planning Commission held the continued public hearing. At the request of the property owners, the Planning Commission voted unanimously (5-0-0-2, with Commissioners Alderete and Pham absent) to continue the item to a date uncertain.
City Council 34 – 43 11/19/2024
Resolution No. 2024-XXX
G. On August 26, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on CUP No. 2022-06.
H. Since the 2022 Planning Commission public hearings, the property owners have revised the proposed project. Revisions include relocating the proposed structure away from the south end of the property, updating the site plan to accurately depict existing and proposed conditions, and providing photo simulations (e.g., conceptual renderings). Specifically, under the revised application, the structure is proposed to be located towards the northeast corner of the property, approximately fifteen feet from the rear (east) property line and twelve feet from the side (north) property line, behind an existing six foot high stucco wall and behind existing mature landscaping (e.g., 25-foot tall mature tree and mature bamboo). The pavilion would also be located approximately 30 feet east from the existing single-family residence.
I. Pursuant to Section 30-6 (a) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC), the proposed structure is not physically altering or changing the exterior of the Maharajah House. Therefore, no additional discretionary review is required by the Historic Resources Commission (HRC).
J. The Planning Commission determines that the following findings, which must be established in order to grant a CUP pursuant to SAMC Section 41- 638, have been established for CUP No. 2022-06 to allow the construction of an accessory structure exceeding fifteen feet in height at 2221 North Heliotrope Drive.
1. That the proposed use will provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or community.
The proposed structure, a freestanding pavilion in the rear yard area designed in the traditional Vietnamese style, would have minimal impacts to surrounding areas and would provide a positive contribution to the neighborhood character and identity. In addition, the structure would not result in a change to the existing land use, as the site would continue to be used as a single-family residence. Moreover, the proposed
structure has been designed to be located away from adjacent properties to minimize the privacy concerns and visual
impacts, to ensure that the use will not negatively affect the surrounding community.
2. That the proposed use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity.
City Council 34 – 44 11/19/2024
Resolution No. 2024-XXX
The proposed construction of the accessory structure will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity. The structure would be limited in size (205 square feet) and located towards the northeast end of the property, approximately twelve feet from the side (north) property line and fifteen feet from the rear (east) property line, behind an existing six-foot-high stucco wall and existing mature landscaping. Moreover, the structure would be constructed for private use and enjoyment. In
addition, the structure would be designed by a licensed structural engineer and would not include mechanical or plumbing equipment. The structure would include two
electrical outlets and limited accent lighting, including two to four light fixtures within the structure and three to six landscape/up-lights at the base. However, staff is
recommending a condition of approval limiting light intrusion onto neighboring properties. Therefore, the granting of the CUP will not negatively impact any sensitive land uses that may be nearby.
3. That the proposed use will not adversely affect the present economic stability or future economic development of properties surrounding the area.
The proposed use will not adversely affect the economic stability of the area or future economic development, as this would be a structure constructed for private use and
enjoyment by private property owners in a single-family residential area. The pavilion is not intended to be enjoyed or visited by members of the general public and will therefore not change the character of the existing community. Lastly, to further ensure that the proposed structure will not negatively affect character of the existing community, staff is
recommending a condition of approval 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 singlefamily 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).
4. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in Chapter 41 for such use.
The proposed use will comply with the regulations and
conditions specified in Chapter 41 for such use. Specifically, the proposed accessory structure will exceed the required regulations or development standards, pursuant to the singleCity Council 34 – 45 11/19/2024 Resolution No. 2024-XXX
family residential zoning. The structure would be located approximately twelve feet from the side (north) property line, where the minimum setback is ten feet, and would be located approximately fifteen feet from the rear (east) property line, where the minimum is ten feet. Moreover, the new accessory structure will be compatible in scale, and consistent with the mix of architectural styles and character of the neighborhood.
5. That the proposed use will not adversely affect the General Plan of the city or any specific plan applicable to the area of the proposed use.
The proposed accessory structure will not adversely affect the General Plan. Land Use Element policy LU-2.8 encourages land uses and development projects that promote the City’s image as a cultural regional center. The applicant’s proposed structure furthers this policy as it introduces a cultural element from Vietnam, the native country of the current owners. The structure was previously built in Vietnam and built in a traditional Vietnamese design, fabricated by Vietnamese artisans. Specifically, the structure would include
prefabricated wood post members, traditional Vietnamese hand-carved wood details, and would include clay roofing tile, all reflective of the Vietnamese cultural architecture. The new structure would also be consistent with existing cultural structures relocated from Vietnam, previously. These
structures include a roughly 20-foot-tall wood pavilion with intricately carved details and a tile-clad roof system; a nineteenth-century, traditional residence with an iron wood structural system; and multiple additional smaller structures of a traditional Vietnamese character
Policy LU-3.4 advocates for scale and massing of new
development to be compatible and harmonious with the
surrounding built environment. As designed, 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 plan 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.
City Council 34 – 46 11/19/2024
Resolution No. 2024-XXX
Furthermore, Policy LU-3.5 encourages the preservation and reuse of historical buildings and sites through flexible land use policies, while Policy HP-1.4 of the Historic Preservation Element encourages actively protecting historic and cultural resources. The installation of the proposed structure would not require the removal of any elements of the historic structure and would not result in any physical alterations. As such, the building will continue to retain all of its characterdefining features. Moreover, the proposed structure would not impact any of the view sheds to the Maharajah House, along any public perspectives. As mentioned, the pavilion would be located approximately thirty feet to the east of the Maharajah House, and approximately fifteen feet from the rear (east) property line, behind an existing six foot high stucco wall and behind existing mature landscaping (e.g., 25-foot tall mature tree and mature bamboo). Therefore, all views of the historic structure along Heliotrope Drive and Santa Clara Avenue would remain unimpaired.
The proposed changes would also 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 rightsof-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. As stated in the National Register nomination form for the historic district, “Landscaping varies from building to building, but as this is a point of pride within the neighborhood, landscaping is of high caliber. The majority of properties feature shallow lawns, mature shrubs and flower gardens. Perimeter fences, low walls, and hedges are usually present, and some are original to the property.” 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.
Section 2. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, the project is categorically exempt from further review per Section 15303 (Class 3 – New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). Class 3 City Council 34 – 47 11/19/2024
Resolution No. 2024-XXX
exemption applies to the construction of accessory structures, including but not limited to, garages, carports, patios, swimming pools, and fences. Based on this analysis, a Notice of Exemption, Environmental Review No. 2022-11 will be filed for this project.
Section 3. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, authorized volunteers, and instrumentalities thereof, harmless from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, referendum, and other proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolution procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and such other procedures), judgments, orders, and decisions (collectively “Actions”), brought against the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, any action of, or any permit or approval issued by the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City) for or concerning the project, whether such Actions are brought under the Ralph M. Brown Act, California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivision Map Act, Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085 or 1094.5, or any other federal, state or local constitution, statute, law, ordinance, charter, rule, regulation, or any decision of a court of competent jurisdiction. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve the legal counsel providing the City’s defense, and that Applicant shall reimburse the City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the course of the defense. City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any Action brought and City shall cooperate with Applicant in the defense of the Action.
Section 4. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana, after conducting the public hearing, hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-06, as conditioned in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein, for the project located at 2221 North Heliotrope Drive. This decision is based upon the evidence submitted at the abovereferenced hearing, including but not limited to: The Request for Planning Commission Action dated August 26, 2024, and exhibits attached thereto; and the public testimony, written and oral, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference.
ADOPTED this 26th day of August, 2024 by the following vote.
AYES: Commissioners:
NOES: Commissioners:
ABSENT: Commissioners:
ABSTENTIONS: Commissioners:
Jennifer Oliva
Chairperson
City Council 34 – 48 11/19/2024
Resolution No. 2024-XXX
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney
By:
Laura A. Rossini
Chief Assistant City Attorney
City Council 34 – 49 11/19/2024
Resolution No. 2024-XXX
CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, NUVIA OCAMPO, Recording Secretary, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2024-XXX to be the original resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana on August 26, 2024.
Date:
Recording Secretary
City of Santa Ana
City Council 34 – 50 11/19/2024
Resolution No. 2024-XXX
EXHIBIT A
Conditions of Approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-06 Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-06 to allow the construction of an accessory structure exceeding fifteen feet in height is approved subject to compliance, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager, with all applicable sections of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC), the California Building Standards Code, and all other applicable regulations:
The Applicant must comply with each and every condition listed below prior to exercising the rights conferred by this conditional use permit.
The Applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below throughout the life of the conditional use permit. Failure to comply with each and every condition may result in the revocation of the conditional use permit.
1. Any amendment to the design of pavilion, including modifications to approved height, size, materials, finishes, architecture, and site plan, must be submitted to the Planning Division for review. At that time, staff will determine if administrative relief is available or if the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) must be amended.
2. Prior to any City building permits issued for the pavilion, the property owner shall obtain final City approval for any and all required building permits related to the conversion of an unpermitted structure into an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU).
Approval of the CUP shall become null and void if the required building permits for the ADU are not finalized pursuant to all City requirements, within two calendar years.
3. The pavilion shall be limited in size to 205 square feet, 23’-4” in height, and shall be built in the rear yard, towards the northeast section of the property as per the site plan included as an exhibit to the Planning Commission staff report prepared for the project, dated August 26, 2024. The pavilion shall also maintain a minimum setback of twelve feet from the side (north) property line and fifteen feet from the rear (east) property line, within the rear yard. Lastly, the pavilion shall maintain a minimum separation of thirty feet from the existing residence, a minimum separation of five feet from any ancillary detached structure, and approximately sixteen feet from an existing, two-story accessory structure the same property.
4. Any proposed lighting, including but not limited to, accent lighting within the structure or landscape/up-lights at the base, shall by shut off nightly Monday through Sunday by 10:00 p.m. to prevent light intrusion onto neighboring properties.
5. If lighting is proposed, a photometric plan shall be required to be submitted to the Planning and Building Agency (PBA), prior to permit issuance of the structure to ensure lighting levels do not exceed more than one foot-candles of illumination within 50 feet of an adjoining residential property.
City Council 34 – 51 11/19/2024
Resolution No. 2024-XXX
6. Any proposed lighting shall be arranged to prevent direct glare into adjoining properties, dwelling units and onto neighboring uses, and shall be shielded to confine all direct rays within the subject property.
7. The installation of speakers or other audio-amplifying devices on the structure is prohibited.
8. 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).
9. Prior to building permit issuance, the property owner shall install/plant additional bamboo trees and/or other appropriate screening trees behind the existing six-foot high stucco wall (north and east elevation), to introduce plant materials with similar heights immediately adjacent to the proposed pavilion. The final plant/tree species and final count shall be reviewed and approved by Planning Division staff. An inspection shall be required by the Planning Division and the installation shall be field verified.
10. The property owner shall maintain, preserve, and protect all existing and new landscaping behind the existing six-foot high stucco wall (north and east elevation), where the proposed structure could potentially be viewed by the public. The condition shall apply as long as the property maintains the proposed structure on the subject property, and includes but is not limited to, mature trees, bushes, shrubs, and groundcover. Any dead or withered landscaping shall be immediately replaced with healthy landscaping to maintain the required screening.
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.
City Council 34 – 52 11/19/2024
CUP-2022-06
2221 N. Heliotrope Drive
Exhibit 2 - Vicinity and Aerial View
© 2024 Digital Map Products. All rights reserved.
Santa Ana Boundary
Zoning
Zoning
500 feet
8/6/24, 8:51 AM .
https://apps.spatialstream.com/landvision/production/CurrentBuild/Html/printpreview.html 1/1 City Council 34 – 53 11/19/2024
CUP 2022-06 – 2221 N. HELIOTROPE DRIVE
EXHIBIT 3 – SITE PHOTOS
Santa Clara Avenue – View Southeast Heliotrope Drive – View East Heliotrope Drive – View Northeast Heliotrope Drive – View Southeast City Council 34 – 54 11/19/2024
CUP 2022-06 – 2221 N. HELIOTROPE DRIVE
EXHIBIT 3 – SITE PHOTOS
Santa Clara Avenue – View Southwest
Santa Clara Avenue – View East Santa Clara Avenue – View South City Council 34 – 55 11/19/2024
CUP 2022-06 – 2221 N. HELIOTROPE DRIVE
EXHIBIT 3 – SITE PHOTOS
Rear Yard – View Southwest
Rear Yard – View Northeast
(Proposed Location)
Rear Yard – View Northeast
(Proposed Location)
City Council 34 – 56 11/19/2024
NOTE: NO PROPOSED CHANGES TO
FOOTPRINT OF (E) HOME, OTHER (E)
STRUCTURES, OR LANDSCAPING.
HELIOTROPE DRIVE
SANTA CLARA AVENUE
(E) 1 STORY
GARDEN ROOM -
NOT IN SCOPE
(E) 2 STORY
SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE - NOT
IN SCOPE
(E) 1 STORY
POOL HOUSE -
NOT IN SCOPE
(E) DRIVEWAY
(E) WALKWAY
90° 00' 00"
224.00'
N W
0° 3
2' 4
5" 16
6.51'
S
W
0° 00' 00"
163.66'
S
W
83° 31' 34" 202.99'
S W
50° 00' 08" 31.19'
S
E
(N) GAZEBO/PAVILION,
205 SQ FT
25.00 6.00
APPROX. 38.00 APPROX 83.00
46.11 14.89
21.37 37.37
52.67 (E) STUCCO WALL, 6 FEET TALL
SCALE:
DATE:
NO.
ISSUES:
DATE DESCRIPTION
OWNERS:
DR. CHAN KIEU & DR. QUYNH KIEU
2221 N. HELIOTROPE DR
SANTA ANA, CA 92706
ARCHITECT:
QUENTIN STANTON
ARCHITECTURE
1751 COLORADO BLVD. #333
LOS ANGELES, CA 90041
(323)925-7722
[email protected]
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER:
NOUS ENGINEERING,
INC.
600 WILSHIRE BLVD, SUITE 760
LOS ANGELES, CA 90017
(213)627-6687
HELIOTROPE
PAVILION
2221 N. HELIOTROPE DR
SANTA ANA, CA 92706
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NUMBER:
12/03/21 PLAN'G DEPT. SUB.
1 03/23/22 HEIGHT REVISION
1" = 20'-0"
3/23/2022 7:35:54 PM
G000
COVER
SHEET
03/23/2022
SHEET LIST - ARCHITECTURAL
G000 COVER SHEET
G100 ELEVATION FROM HELIOTROPE
A101 FLOOR PLAN, SECTION & ELEVATION
A110 TYP SLAB DETAILS
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 205 SQ FT FREESTANDING, UNENCLOSED, NON-HABITABLE PAVILION/GAZEBO IN BACKYARD OF PROPERTY.
NO CHANGE TO (E) HOME OR OTHER (E) STRUCTURES ON THE PROPERTY.
SCOPE OF WORK
PROJECT ADDRESS:
2221 N. HELIOTROPE DR
SANTA ANA, CA 92706
ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBERS: 002-081-45 AND 002-081-46
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: TR 1035 LOT 17, LOT 18 AND LOT 19 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: LR 7.0
ZONING DISTRICT: R1
TOTAL LOT SIZE: 39,547 SF (0.908 ACRES)
HISTORIC PROPERTY: YES
HISTORIC DISTRICT: NO
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: V-B - NON-SPRINKLERED
PROPOSED NUMBER OF STORIES: N/A
PROPOSED STRUCTURE HEIGHT: 21' - 8"
OCCUPANCY OF PROPOSED BUILDING: N/A (ACCESSORY
STRUCTURE)
OCCUPANCY OF EXISTING STRUCTURES: R-3
PROPOSED EXTERIOR WALL AND ROOF MATERIALS:
WALL: N/A, NOT ENCLOSED
ROOF: CERAMIC TILE
EXISTING BUILDINGS EXTERIOR WALL AND ROOF MATERIALS:
WALL: STUCCO
ROOF: ASPHALT SHINGLE
GOVERNING CODES:
2019 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE (CRC)
2019 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE (CMC)
2019 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE (CEC)
2019 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE (CPC)
2019 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING CODE (CALGREEN)
AHJ AND LOCAL CODES AND NFPA
CONTRACTOR: TO BE DETERMINED
N
2221 N HELIOTROPE DR
NOT TO SCALE
LEGEND OF PROJECT DATA
DRAWING INDEX
VICINITY MAP
SITE PLAN / PLOT PLAN
OWNERS' NAME AND ADDRESS:
DR. CHAN KIEU & DR. QUYNH KIEU
2221 N. HELIOTROPE DR
SANTA ANA, CA 92706
ARCHITECT / APPLICANT'S NAME AND ADDRESS:
QUENTIN STANTON, RA
QUENTIN STANTON ARCHITECTURE
323-925-7722
[email protected]
1751 COLORADO BLVD., #333
LOS ANGELES, CA 90041
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER:
OMAR GARZA
NOUS ENGINEERING, INC.
213-627-6687
600 WILSHIRE BLVD, SUITE 760
LOS ANGELES, CA 90017
PROJECT TEAM
NN
PROJECT TRUE
1" = 20'-0" 2 SITE PLAN
04/30/2023 1.11
City Council 34 – 57 11/19/2024
City Council 34 – 58 11/19/2024
GRADE
0' - 0"
PAVILION ROOF
PEAK
21' - 8"
(N) PAVILION
(E) STUCCO WALL, 6 FEET TALL
APPROX. TOP OF
(E) HOME
25' - 0"
APPROX. TOP OF
(E) HOME
25' - 0"
NOTE: EXISTING HOME SHOWN FOR MASSING
AND SCALE PURPOSES ONLY - ADDITIONAL
ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS NOT SHOWN
NOTE: HEIGHT OF EXISTING HOME IS SHOWN
APPROXIMATELY FOR SCALE
(N) LANDSCAPING PLANTED
BETWEEN STREET AND GARDEN
WALL FOR SCREENING
SCALE:
DATE:
NO.
ISSUES:
DATE DESCRIPTION
OWNERS:
DR. CHAN KIEU & DR. QUYNH KIEU
2221 N. HELIOTROPE DR
SANTA ANA, CA 92706
ARCHITECT:
QUENTIN STANTON
ARCHITECTURE
1751 COLORADO BLVD. #333
LOS ANGELES, CA 90041
(323)925-7722
[email protected]
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER:
NOUS ENGINEERING,
INC.
600 WILSHIRE BLVD, SUITE 760
LOS ANGELES, CA 90017
(213)627-6687
HELIOTROPE
PAVILION
2221 N. HELIOTROPE DR
SANTA ANA, CA 92706
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NUMBER:
12/03/21 PLAN'G DEPT. SUB.
1 03/23/22 HEIGHT REVISION
1/8" = 1'-0"
3/23/2022 7:35:54 PM
G100
ELEVATION
FROM
HELIOTROPE
03/23/2022
1/8" = 1'-0" 1
ELEVATION FROM HELIOTROPE -
SHOWN WITH HOME
04/30/2023
City Council 34 – 59 11/19/2024
A101
3 2
A101
TYP.
CONCRETE SLAB ON
GRADE
LINE OF ROOF ABOVE
TYP - CONCRETE EXPANSION JOINTS /
CONTRACTION JOINTS, SEE DETAIL ON A110
2% SLOPE 2% SLOPE
TYP - WEATHERPROOF GFCI ELECTICAL
OUTLET, SURFACE MOUNT BOX AND CONDUIT,
CENTERLINE OF JBOX TO BE 16" A.F.F.
15' - 4 3/4"
TYP. 8' - 10 3/4
T
"
YP. 6' - 0"
TYP. 6' - 0"
17' - 9 1/4"
A101
4 MOUNT DIRECTIONAL EXTERIOR LIGHT
FIXTURE ABOVE ELECTRICAL OUTLET,
CENTERLINE OF FIXTURE TO BE 24" A.F.F.
MOUNT DIRECTIONAL EXTERIOR LIGHT
FIXTURE ABOVE ELECTRICAL OUTLET,
CENTERLINE OF FIXTURE TO BE 24" A.F.F.
GRADE
0' - 0"
PAVILION ROOF
PEAK
21' - 8"
SEE STRUCT DWG'S FOR FOUNDATION
DESIGN AND OTHER DETAILING
PREFABRICATED WOOD PAVILION
CERAMIC ROOFING TILE
5' - 10 3/4" 3' - 9 1/4" 5' - 0 3/4" 6' - 11 1/4"
THREE (3) DIRECTIONAL EXTERIOR LIGHT
FIXTURES (FOR ACCENT LIGHTING), MOUNTED
TO TOP OF BEAMS AT FIRST TIER OF ROOFING.
LIGHT TO BE DIRECTED UPWARDS TO
UNDERSIDE OF ROOF.
GRADE
0' - 0"
PAVILION ROOF
PEAK
21' - 8"
NOTE: PAVILION DESIGN IS
THE SAME ON ALL
ELEVATIONS (N, S, E, W).
ELEVATION SHOWN IN THIS
DRAWING IS TYPICAL FOR
ALL SIDES.
SEE STRUCT DWG'S FOR
FOUNDATION DESIGN AND
OTHER DETAILING
PREFABRICATED WOOD
PAVILION
CERAMIC ROOFING TILE
GRADE
0' - 0"
PAVILION ROOF
PEAK
21' - 8"
NOTE: PAVILION DESIGN IS
THE SAME ON ALL
ELEVATIONS (N, S, E, W).
ELEVATION SHOWN IN THIS
DRAWING IS TYPICAL FOR
ALL SIDES.
SEE STRUCT DWG'S FOR
FOUNDATION DESIGN AND
OTHER DETAILING
PREFABRICATED WOOD
PAVILION
CERAMIC ROOFING TILE
0' - 11 3/4"
5' - 8 1/2"
12' - 8 1/4"
10' - 9 1/2"
14' - 0 1/4"
SCALE:
DATE:
NO.
ISSUES:
DATE DESCRIPTION
OWNERS:
DR. CHAN KIEU & DR. QUYNH KIEU
2221 N. HELIOTROPE DR
SANTA ANA, CA 92706
ARCHITECT:
QUENTIN STANTON
ARCHITECTURE
1751 COLORADO BLVD. #333
LOS ANGELES, CA 90041
(323)925-7722
[email protected]
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER:
NOUS ENGINEERING,
INC.
600 WILSHIRE BLVD, SUITE 760
LOS ANGELES, CA 90017
(213)627-6687
HELIOTROPE
PAVILION
2221 N. HELIOTROPE DR
SANTA ANA, CA 92706
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NUMBER:
12/03/21 PLAN'G DEPT. SUB.
1 03/23/22 HEIGHT REVISION
1/4" = 1'-0"
3/23/2022 7:35:53 PM
A101
FLOOR
PLAN,
SECTION &
ELEVATION
03/23/2022
1/4" = 1'-0" 1 FLOOR PLAN
MECHANICAL/ELECTICAL/PLUMBING:
- NO MECH OR PLUMBING WORK PROPOSED.
- PROVIDE TWO GFCI ELECTRICAL RECEPTACLES IN
WEATHERPROOF ENCLOSURE. SEE FLOOR PLAN.
NN
PROJECT TRUE
1/4" = 1'-0" 2 SECTION N/S
1/4" = 1'-0" 3 ELEVATION - TYP
NOTE:
- VERIFY DIMENSIONS OF PRECUT MEMBERS BEFORE
FOUNDATION WORK (OR ANY OTHER WORK THAT RELIES
ON FIT OR ALIGNMENT WITH PRECUT MEMBERS).
1/4" = 1'-0" 4 ELEVATION - TYP (COLORED)
LIGHTING:
- PROVIDE TIMER FOR LIGHTING, AUTO SHUTOFF OF
PAVILION LIGHTING TO OCCUR PER ZONING
REQUIREMENTS.
- ALL LIGHTS TO BE LED, 2700 OR 3000 KELVIN COLOR
TEMPERATURE, MAX 800 LUMENS PER FIXTURE.
04/30/2023
City Council 34 – 60 11/19/2024
Project Information
Plot Plan
c COPYRIGHT; Oldham Architects expressly
reserves all rights to these plans by common
copyright privileges. These plans may not be
reproduced, changed, or copied in any manner or turned over to a third party without the expressed written consent of Ryan E. Oldham.
architects
oldham architect s
680 Langsdorf Drive, Suite 202B
fullerton, california 92831
714.482.8296 | oldham-architects.com
oldham
ISSUE:
CHECK:
DRAWN:
PROJECT No.: 2221 Heliotrope 2221 Heliotrope Drive, Santa Ana, CA 92706
07.12.24 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
RO
DM
23081
2221 HELIOTROPE ADU NEW GAZEBO PAVILION
PROPOSED
PAVILLION
205 SFSANTA CLARA AVENUE
HELIOTROPE DRIVE
Site Plan Scale: 1
1 16" = 1'-0"
(E) 1 STORY
ADU - NOT IN SCOPE
(E) 2 STORY
SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE -
NOT IN SCOPE
(E) 1 STORY
GARDEN ROOM -
NOT IN SCOPE
Project Data
Vicinity Map
A0.0
SCOPE OF WORK:
INSTALLATION OF A PRE-FABRICATED, 205 SF
FREESTANDING, UNENCLOSED, NON-HABITABLE , GARDEN PAVILION IN BACKYARD OF PROPERTY. NO CHANGE TO (E) HOME OR
OTHER (E) STRUCTURES ON THE PROPERTY.
APPLICANTS / OWNERS:
DR. CHAN KIEU & DR. QUYNH KIEU
2221 N. HELIOTROPE DR., SANTA ANA, CA 92706
(714) 724-0855 [email protected]
PROJECT ADDRESS: 2221 N. HELIOTROPE DR.,
SANTA ANA, CA 92706
ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBERS: 002-081-45 & 002-081-46
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: TR 1035 LOT 17, LOT 18 AND LOT 19
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: LR 7.0
ZONING DISTRICT: R1
TOTAL LOT SIZE: 39,547 SF (0.908 ACRES)
HISTORIC PROPERTY: YES
HISTORIC DISTRICT: NO
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: V-B (NON-SPRINKLED)
PROPOSED NUMBER OF STORIES: 1
PROPOSED STRUCTURE HEIGHT: 21' - 4"
OCCUPANCY OF PROPOSED BUILDING: U (ACCESSORY STRUCTURE) OCCUPANCY OF EXISTING STRUCTURES: R-3
PROPOSED EXTERIOR WALL AND ROOF MATERIALS:
STRUCTURE: WOOD
ROOF: CLAY TILE
EXISTING BUILDINGS EXTERIOR WALL AND ROOF MATERIALS:
WALL: STUCCO
ROOF: BUILT UP ROLL ROOFING
GOVERNING CODES:
2022 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE (CRC)
2022 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE (CMC)
2022 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE (CEC)
2022 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE (CPC)
2022 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING CODE (CALGREEN)
AHJ AND LOCAL CODES AND NFPA
City Council 34 – 61 11/19/2024
A2.0
Floor Plan
Elevations
c COPYRIGHT; Oldham Architects expressly
reserves all rights to these plans by common
copyright privileges. These plans may not be
reproduced, changed, or copied in any manner or turned over to a third party without the expressed written consent of Ryan E. Oldham.
architects
oldham architect s
680 Langsdorf Drive, Suite 202B
fullerton, california 92831
714.482.8296 | oldham-architects.com
oldham
ISSUE:
CHECK:
DRAWN:
PROJECT No.: 2221 Heliotrope 2221 Heliotrope Drive, Santa Ana, CA 92706
07.12.24 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
RO
DM
23081
2221 HELIOTROPE ADU NEW GAZEBO PAVILION
Ground Floor Plan Scale: 1
3 16" = 1'-0"
Main Floor Plan Scale: 2
3 16" = 1'-0"
Roof Floor Plan Scale: 3
3 16" = 1'-0"
AA
AA
AA
Scale: 4
3 16" = 1'-0"
Scale: 5
3 16" = 1'-0"
Scale: 6
1 8" = 1'-0"
West Elevation Scale: 7 South Elevation
3 Scale: 10 16" = 1'-0" 3 Section AA 16" = 1'-0"
East Elevation Scale: 8 North Elevation
3 16" = 1'-0"
Composite Elevation
City Council 34 – 62 11/19/2024
Exhibit 6 - Conceptual Renderings
City Council 34 – 63 11/19/2024
City Council
Exhibit 6 - Conceptual Renderings
34 – 64 11/19/2024
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
THE MAHARAJAH HOUSE
2221 North Heliotrope Drive
Santa Ana, CA 92706
NAME Maharajah House REF. NO.
ADDRESS 2221 North Heliotrope Drive
CITY Santa Ana ZIP 92706 ORANGE COUNTY
YEAR BUILT 1938 LOCAL REGISTER CATEGORY: Landmark
HISTORIC DISTRICT N/A NEIGHBORHOOD Floral Park
NATIONAL REGISTER CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION B,C NATIONAL REGISTER STATUS CODE 3S Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted
Prehistoric Historic Both
ARCHITECTURAL STYLE: Moderne
The Moderne style encompassed the Modernistic, Streamlined Moderne, and Art Moderne variants. An evolution of the Art Deco style, the Streamlined Moderne flourished during the 1930s and lingered through the decade following World War II in a simplified version. In contrast to the verticality of earlier Art Deco designs, the Streamlined Moderne emphasized the horizontal, through bands of windows, use of decorative raised or incised horizontal lines, railings, flat canopies with banded fascia, and narrow coping at the roofline. Other characteristics include smooth wall surfaces, usually of stucco; metal detailing; glass block windows; rounded corners, porthole windows, and asymmetry. Incorporation of aerodynamic, transportation related imagery, especially nautical, is a signature of the style. In common with the Streamlined Moderne, Art Moderne buildings also tended to be horizontal in emphasis, but tended to be more clean-lined and rectilinear in their massing and detailing than their streamlined counterparts. Art Moderne designs can be recognized by their flat roofs, smooth stucco exteriors, and use of metal casement windows that often meet at the corners of the building.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSION:
The Maharajah House appears eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historical Resources. It also qualifies for listing in the Santa Ana Register of Historical Properties under Criterion 1, for its exemplification of the Art Moderne variant of the Moderne style, and under Criterion 4b, for its association with a foreign ruling family, the Holkars of Indore, India. The house also contributes to the historic character of the Floral Park neighborhood through its age, style, scale, and historic associations with prominent residents. Additionally, the house has been categorized as “Landmark” for its unique architectural significance as an example of the Art Moderne variant of the Moderne style and its historic/cultural significance to City as the “castle” of a sitting ruler. (Municipal Code, Section 30-2.2).
EXPLANATION OF CODES:
• National Register Criteria for Evaluation: (From Appendix 7 of Instructions for Recording Historical Resources, Office of Historic Preservation)
B: that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.
C: that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.
• National Register Status Code: (From Appendix 2 of Instructions for Recording Historical Resources, Office of Historic Preservation)
3S: Appears eligible for separate listing.
City Council 34 – 65 11/19/2024
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #______________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #__________________________________________________ PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial______________________________________________ NRHP Status Code_____________________________________
Other Listings_____________________________________________________________________ Review Code________ Reviewer________________________ Date_______________ Page _1_ of _4_ Resource name(s) or number (assigned by recorder) Maharajah House P1. Other Identifier:
*P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County Orange County *b. USGS 7.5’ Quad Date:
*c. Address 2221 North Heliotrope Drive City Santa Ana Zip 92706 *e. Other Locational Data: Assessor’s Parcel Number: 002-081-45; TR 1036 Lot: 18 and Lot: 19 *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries.) Located on a double lot on the southeast corner of Heliotrope Drive and Santa Clara Avenue, the Maharajah House is a twostory residence representative of the Art Moderne variant of the Moderne style. A flat roof accented by a thin band at the roofline tops the “T” shaped building, which is finished in smooth stucco. Walls extend to the north and south to enclose gardens and patios. The massing of the structure suggests an assemblage of cubic volumes and reflects the influence of the emerging International Style of architecture. The northwest and southwest corners of the second story of the facade are cut away, creating terraces that are seamlessly integrated into the massing. Horizontal lines are emphasized through the roofline banding, similar banding around the terrace parapets, and architectural details such as window grilles and canopies. A notable feature, and one highly characteristic of the style, is the use of multi-light metal casement windows that wrap the corners of the building. Located at the approximate center of the façade and flanked by pilasters scored to resemble masonry, the tripartite entry is deeply recessed and decorated in an intricate, geometric pattern. An alleé of palms is paved in stone and spans the deep front lawn from the sidewalk to the entrance. On the north elevation, painted wrought iron gates shield the garage. On the south, a bronze equestrian statue is just visible behind the garden wall. In excellent condition, the property is substantially unaltered on the exterior.
*P3b. Resource Attributes: (list attributes and codes) HP2. Single-family Property *P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other P5b. Photo: (view and date)
South and west elevations
April 2003
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Sources: historic
1938/Source: City of Santa Ana
Building Permits
*P7. Owner and Address:
Chan Q & Quynh Kieu
2221 North Heliotrope Drive
Santa Ana, CA 92706
*P8. Recorded by:
Leslie J. Heumann
SAIC
35 S. Raymond Ave. # 204
Pasadena, CA 91105
*P9. Date Recorded:
May 25, 2003
*P10. Survey Type:
Intensive Survey
*P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter “none”) None.
*Attachments: None Location Map Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (list)
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
P5a. Photo
City Council 34 – 66 11/19/2024
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #__________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#______________________________________________
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
*Resource Name or #: Maharajah House
B1. Historic Name: Maharajah House
B2. Common Name: Same
B3. Original Use: Single-family Residence B4. Present Use: Single-family Residence *B5. Architectural Style: Moderne
*B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations): Constructed in 1938-1939.
December 14, 1938. 12 room frame & stucco residence and garages.
May 6, 1941. Reroof.
March 15, 1955. Swimming pool.
May 24, 1955. Cabana for swimming pool.
January 24, 1989. 6’ high bolock wall.
July 21, 1993. Add 2 bedrooms and 1 bath, 319 square feet.
September 15, 1997. Reroof.
*B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date:__________ Original Location:_____________________________ *B8. Related Features:
Garage, garden walls, mature landscaping, statue if original.
B9a. Architect: Donald Beach Kirby b. Builder: Allison Honer *B10. Significance: Theme Residential Architecture Area Santa Ana Period of Significance: circa 1888-1953 Property Type: Single-family Residence Applicable Criteria: B, C (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity) The Maharajah House is architecturally significant as an exceptional example of the residential use of the Art Moderne variant of the Moderne style, one of the best in Orange County. It is historically significant for its association with the Maharajah of Indore, the hereditary ruler of a central Indian state and reputedly one of the richest men in the world at time.
Designed by architect Donald Beach Kirby of Balboa, the house was built in 1938-1939 by prominent Santa Ana contractor Allison Honer for $40,000 according to the building permit, although the local press reported the cost of construction as $50,000 and of the furnishings as $150,000.
(See Continuation Sheet 3 of 4.)
B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) *B12. References:
City of Santa Ana Building Permits
Santa Ana History Room Collection, Santa Ana Public Library Sanborn Maps
(See Continuation Sheet 4 of 4.)
B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: Leslie J. Heumann
*Date of Evaluation: May 25, 2003
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
Sketch Map
(This space reserved for official comments.)
MAHARAJAH HOUSE
2221 NORTH HELIOTROPE DRIVE
City Council 34 – 67 11/19/2024
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________
*Recorded by Leslie J. Heumann, SAIC *Date May 25, 2003 ⌧ Continuation Update DPR 523L
*B10. Significance (continued):
Even before the house was constructed, Yeshwant Rao Holkar, the Maharajah, had captured the public imagination.
Educated at Oxford, the Maharajah had been traveling in the United States in 1936, had taken ill in Los Angeles, and had been nursed by Marguerite Lawler Branyan, an American divorcee. They married in 1938, following the death of the Maharajah’s first wife in 1937. In search of a safe haven prior to the beginning of World War II, the Maharajah decided to settle his young daughter, Princess Usha, and his new wife in Santa Ana. The large home, one of several owned by the Maharajah, was protected by high walls and by interior and exterior gates. According to one account, the Maharajah’s instructions to Allison Honer, the prominent Orange County builder who lived across the street from the property at 615 West Santa Clara Avenue, were to build a modern, but not too severe refuge. Lavishly appointed, the house contained, in 1986 when it was the International Society of Interior Designers Orange County Chapter Design House: three bedroom suites, eight bathrooms, four fireplaces, a grand foyer, spacious living room, formal dining room, library, solarium, kitchen, butler’s pantry, pool house (added later), servants’ and guards’ quarters, and an attached garage.
Said to be a progressive ruler who instituted many reforms, the Maharajah had governed Indore since the abdication of his father in his favor in 1926. The Maharajah and his American Maharani returned to India following an only one-year residence in the house, leaving Princess Usha in the care of a governess in Santa Ana, where she continued to attend public schools. The pair divorced in 1943. The Maharajah married again, to another American, who bore him four children including a male heir, but Princess Usha, as the only offspring born of an Indian woman, succeeded her father as ruler in 1961 following the death of her father. Marguerite, who also remarried, remained in the house until 1952. As of 1994, according to one account (Marsh), Princess Usha occupied one of the Holkar’s hereditary palaces in India, although, other information (“Indore: The Holkar Dynasty”) indicates that she was stripped of her rank and titles by the Indian state in 1970 The Maharajah House is located in Floral Park, a neighborhood northwest of downtown Santa Ana bounded by West Seventeenth Street, North Flower Street, Riverside Drive, and Broadway. Groves of oranges, avocados, and walnuts and widely scattered ranch houses characterized this area before 1920. Developer and builder Allison Honer (1897-1981), credited as the subdivider and builder of a major portion of northwest Santa Ana, arrived in Santa Ana from Beaver Falls, New York in 1922 (Talbert, pages 353-356). “Before nightfall on the day of his arrival, Mr. Honer purchased a parcel of land.
And that month, he began building custom homes in Santa Ana” (Orange County Register, September 15, 1981). The parcel chosen became the Floral Park subdivision between Seventeenth Street and Santiago Creek. “When built in the 1920s, the Floral Park homes were the most lavish and expensive in the area. They sold for about $45,000 each” (Orange County Register, September 15, 1981). Revival architecture in a wide variety of romantic styles was celebrated in the 1920s and 1930s and Floral Park showcased examples of the English Tudor, French Norman, Spanish Colonial, and Colonial Revival. The Allison Honer Construction Company went on to complete such notable projects as the 1935 Art Deco styled Old Santa Ana City Hall, the El Toro Marine Base during World War II, and the 1960 Honer Shopping Plaza. Honer lived in the neighborhood he had helped to create, at 615 West Santa Clara Avenue.
In the late 1920s and 1930s, another builder, Roy Roscoe Russell (1881-1965), continued developing the groves of Floral Park. An early Russell project was his 1928 subdivision of Victoria Drive between West Nineteenth Street and West Santa Clara Avenue. The homes were quite grand and displayed various revival styles, including Russell’s own large, Colonial Revival mansion at 2009 Victoria Drive. In the early post World War II years, Floral Park continued its development as numerous, smaller, single-family houses were built. Continuing in the Floral Park tradition, they were mostly revival in style.
In the 1950s, low, horizontal Ranch Style houses completed the growth of Floral Park. Today (2003) Floral Park maintains its identity as the premier neighborhood of Santa Ana, historically home to many affluent and prominent citizens.
The Maharajah House appears eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historical Resources. It also qualifies for listing in the Santa Ana Register of Historical Properties under Criterion 1 for its exemplification of the Art Moderne variant of the Moderne style and under Criterion 4b for its association with a foreign ruling family, the Holkars of Indore, India. Architecturally, the house is distinguished by its scale, massing, horizontal lines, use of characteristic features such as corner casement windows, and its fortress-like quality. The house also contributes to the historic character of the Floral Park neighborhood through its age, style, scale, and historic associations with prominent residents. Additionally, the house has been categorized as “Landmark” for its unique architectural significance as an example of the Art Moderne variant of the Moderne style and its historic/cultural significance to City as the “castle” of a sitting ruler. All original exterior features of the Maharajah House are considered character defining and should be preserved. These features include, but may not be limited to: materials and finishes (stucco, wrought iron); roof configuration, materials, and treatment; massing and composition; entry, doors and windows; terraces and walled gardens; architectural detailing (banding, window grilles, canopies, entry surround); chimneys and fireplaces; attached garage; original landscaping; and any original interior materials, spaces, finishes, and furnishings.
City Council 34 – 68 11/19/2024
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________
*Recorded by Leslie J. Heumann, SAIC *Date May 25, 2003 ⌧ Continuation Update DPR 523L
*B12. References (continued):
Harris, Cyril M. American Architecture: An Illustrated Encyclopedia. New York, WW Norton, 1998.
Marsh, Diann. Santa Ana, An Illustrated History. Encinitas, Heritage Publishing, 1994.
McAlester, Virginia and Lee. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1984.
National Register Bulletin 16A. “How to Complete the National Register Registration Form.” Washington DC: National Register Branch, National Park Service, US Dept. of the Interior, 1991.
Office of Historic Preservation. “Instructions for Recording Historical Resources.” Sacramento: March 1995. “Alison Honer Dies at 84,” The Santa Ana Journal, September 21, 1981. “Builder of Honer Plaza Dies,” Orange County Register, September 15, 1981. “History of Floral Park.” http://www.floral-park.com/page2.html Talbert, Thomas (editor-in-chief). Historical Volume and Reference Works Including Biographical Sketches of Leading Citizens, Volume I. Whittier, Historical Publishers, 1963.
Pleasants, Mrs. J. E. History of Orange County, California, volume 3. Los Angeles: J. R. Finnell & Sons, 1931.
Orange County Directories, 1928-1952.
Dodd, Richard H. “Art Moderne Style: Fit For a Prince.” Orange County Home, Volume 4 Number 5, May 2003.
Farrar, Robert S. “In the Days of the Maharajah . . . Santa Ana’s Storybook Romance.” Orange County Illustrated, October 1972.
“India Princess, 5, Will Have a $50,000 Home in Santa Ana.” Los Angeles Examiner, December 16, 1938. “Maharajah’s $50,000 Palace to be Built in Santa Ana.” Santa Ana Daily Register, December 15, 1938. “Where a Maharajah Lives in California.” Los Angeles Times, August 4, 1940.
International Society of Interior Designers Orange County Chapter. “Design House 1986.” Brochure. “Indore.” www.maharaja.freewerve.co.uk/indore.html.
“Indore: The Holkar Dynasty.” www.dreamwater.net/regiment/RoyalArk/India/indore4.htm. “Once upon a time in Indore.” www.rediff.com/election/1999/sep/15column.htm.
P5b. Photograph: North and west elevations, April 2003.
City Council 34 – 69 11/19/2024
City Council 34 – 70 11/19/2024
City Council 34 – 71 11/19/2024
City Council 34 – 72 11/19/2024
City Council 34 – 73 11/19/2024
City Council 34 – 74 11/19/2024
City Council 34 – 75 11/19/2024
City Council 34 – 76 11/19/2024
City Council 34 – 77 11/19/2024
City Council 34 – 78 11/19/2024
City Council 34 – 79 11/19/2024
Planning Commission
Regular Meeting Agenda
March 28, 2022
5:30 P.M.
Council Chamber
22 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA
THOMAS MORRISSEY
Chair, Ward 6 Representative
ERIC M. ALDERETE
Citywide Representative
BAO PHAM
ViceChair,
Ward 1 Representative
MIGUEL CALDERON
Ward 2 Representative
ISURI S. RAMOS
Ward 3 Representative
MARK McLOUGHLIN
Ward 4 Representative
ALAN WOO
Ward 5 Representative
MinhThai
Executive Director
John Funk
Legal Counsel
Fabiola Zelaya Melicher, AICP
Planning Manager
Christina Leonard
Acting Recording
Secretary
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this Meeting, contact Michael Ortiz, City ADA Program Coordinator, at (714) 6475624. Notification 48 hours prior to the Meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to this meeting. The City Council agenda and supporting documentation can be found on the City’s website – www.santaana.org/citymeetings.
CALL TO ORDER
Commissioners: Thomas Morrissey, Chair
Bao Pham, ViceChair
Eric M. Alderete
1 Planning Commission
3/28/2022
City Council 34 – 80 11/19/2024
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this Meeting, contact Michael Ortiz, City ADA Program Coordinator, at (714) 6475624. Notification 48 hours prior to the Meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to this meeting. The City Council agenda and supporting documentation can be found on the City’s website – www.santaana.org/citymeetings.
CALL TO ORDER
Commissioners: Thomas Morrissey, Chair
Bao Pham, ViceChair
Eric M. Alderete
Miguel Calderon
Mark McLoughlin
Isuri S. Ramos
Alan Woo
Executive Director Minh Thai
Senior Asst. City Attorney John Funk
Planning Manager Fabiola Zelaya Melicher
Recording Secretary Christina Leonard
ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
PUBLIC COMMENTS (non agenda items)
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS
a. Minutes
Recommended Action: Approve Minutes from March 14, 2022 meeting.
Minutes: Commissioner McLaughlin abstained as he was absent for the last meeting.
Commissioner Ramos arrived at 5:43pm. Commissioner Pham arrived after vote.
Moved by Commissioner Alderete, seconded by Commissioner Woo to Approve.
YES: 5 – Eric Alderete, Miguel Calderon, Tom Morrissey, Isuri Ramos, Alan Woo NO: 0 – ABSTAIN: 1 – Mark McLoughlin
ABSENT: 1 – Bao Pham
Status: 5 – 0 – 1 – 1 – Pass
2 Planning Commission
3/28/2022
City Council 34 – 81 11/19/2024
pp
YES: 5 – Eric Alderete, Miguel Calderon, Tom Morrissey, Isuri Ramos, Alan Woo NO: 0 – ABSTAIN: 1 – Mark McLoughlin
ABSENT: 1 – Bao Pham
Status: 5 – 0 – 1 – 1 – Pass
b. Excused Absences
Recommended Action: Excuse absent commissioners.
*End of Consent Calendar*
BUSINESS CALENDAR
Public Hearing: The Planning Commission decision on Conditional Use Permits, Variances, Tentative Tract and Parcel Maps, Minor Exceptions, Site Plan Review, and Public Convenience or Necessity Determinations are final unless appealed within 10 days of the decision by any interested party or group (refer to the Basic Meeting Information page for more information). The Planning Commission recommendation on Zoning and General Plan amendments, Development Agreements, Specific Developments, and Specific Plans will be forwarded to the City Council for final determination. Legal notice was published in the OC Reporter on March 16, 2022 and notices were mailed on said date.
1. Conditional Use Permit No. 202206 – Pedro Gomez, Case Planner.
Project Location: 2221 N Heliotrope Drive
Project Applicant: Chan Quang and Quynh Dinh Kieu (Property Owners) Proposed Project: The applicant is requesting approval of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 202206 to allow the construction of an accessory structure 23’ – 4” in height within the rear yard of an existing singlefamily residence located at 2221 North Heliotrope Drive. Pursuant to Section 41232.5 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.
Environmental Impact: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, the project is exempt from further review pursuant to Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines (Class 3/New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) because the project involves the construction of a small accessory structure. Based on this analysis, Notice of Exemption, Environmental Review No. 202211 will be filed for this project.
Recommended Action: Adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 202206 as conditioned.
Minutes: Recording Secretary reported that written communication was received and distributed.
ChairMorrisseyopenedthePublicHearingTheapplicantandarchitectspoke 3 Planning Commission
3/28/2022
City Council 34 – 82 11/19/2024
yy,p,
Environmental Review No. 202211 will be filed for this project.
Recommended Action: Adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 202206 as conditioned.
Minutes: Recording Secretary reported that written communication was received and distributed.
Chair Morrissey opened the Public Hearing. The applicant and architect spoke in support of the matter.
The following individuals spoke on the matter:
Julie Humphreys, spoke in opposition.
Ann Etheridge, spoke in opposition.
Ellen Koldewey, spoke in opposition.
Leslie Kato, spoke in opposition.
Jeffery Katz, spoke in opposition.
Tim Rush, spoke in opposition.
Ed Murashie, spoke in opposition.
Eamon Garces, spoke in opposition.
There were no other speakers and the Public Hearing was closed.
Moved by Commissioner Ramos, seconded by Commissioner Calderon to Approve CUP 202206 with added landscaping, including increasing the number of trees, to front yard to screen proposed structure.
Since motion made failed, the Commission discussed having Staff work with the applicant to address the massing, height, visual impacts, location and screening of the accessory structure.
YES: 3 – Miguel Calderon, Isuri Ramos, Alan Woo
NO: 4 – Eric Alderete, Mark McLoughlin, Tom Morrissey, Bao Pham ABSTAIN: 0 – ABSENT: 0 – Status: 3 – 4 – 0 – 0 – Fail Moved by Commissioner Pham, seconded by Commissioner Ramos to continue the item to April 25, 2022 Planning Commission meeting. To allow Staff time to evaluate options of reducing the visual impacts by considering other locations of the structure within the site, scale, size massing and screening or combinations of all of these criteria or other methods to address these issues.
YES: 7 – Eric Alderete, Miguel Calderon, Mark McLoughlin, Tom Morrissey, Bao Pham, Isuri Ramos, Alan Woo
NO: 0 – ABSTAIN: 0 – ABSENT: 0 – Status: 7 – 0 – 0 – 0 – Administrative Matters
4 Planning Commission
3/28/2022
City Council 34 – 83 11/19/2024
YES: 7 – Eric Alderete, Miguel Calderon, Mark McLoughlin, Tom Morrissey, Bao Pham, Isuri Ramos, Alan Woo
NO: 0 – ABSTAIN: 0 – ABSENT: 0 – Status: 7 – 0 – 0 – 0 – Administrative Matters
*End of Business Calendar*
STAFF COMMENTS
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
The next meeting of the Planning Commission will be on April 11, 2022 at 5:30 PM in the Council Chambers located at 22 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701.
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
APPEAL INFORMATION
The formal action by the Planning Commission shall become effective after the tenday appeal period, unless the City Council in compliance with section 41643, 41644 or 41645 holds a public hearing on the matter, then the formal action will become effective on the day following the hearing and decision by the City Council. An appeal from the decision or requirement of the Planning Commission may be made by any interested party, individual, or group. The appeal must be filed with the Clerk of the Council, accompanied by the required filing fee, and a copy sent to the Planning Department, within ten days of the date of the Commission's action, by 5:00 p.m. If the final day to appeal falls on a City Hall observed holiday or a day when City hall is closed, the final day to appeal shall be extended to the next day City Hall is open for public business. Please note: Under California Government Code Sec. 65009, if you challenge in court any of the matters on this agenda for which a public hearing is to be conducted, you may be limited to raising only those issues which you (or someone else) raised orally at the public hearing or in written correspondence received by the Planning Commission or City Council at or before the hearing.
MEETING INFORMATION
If you would like to learn how to use Zoom before the meeting, visit Zoom Video Tutorials.
1. Connecting directly from your computer:
Click on the link on top of this agenda OR
Go to Zoom.us and click "Join a Meeting" at the top. Enter the Meeting ID. The Meeting 5 Planning Commission
3/28/2022
City Council 34 – 84 11/19/2024
MEETING INFORMATION
If you would like to learn how to use Zoom before the meeting, visit Zoom Video Tutorials.
1. Connecting directly from your computer:
Click on the link on top of this agenda OR
Go to Zoom.us and click "Join a Meeting" at the top. Enter the Meeting ID. The Meeting ID is listed at the top of this agenda.
To speak during the meeting: When you wish to comment on an item that is being is discussed, click on the button next to your name to virtually raise your hand and let us know you wish to speak. You will have 3 minutes.
2. Connecting via the Zoom App:
Download the free Zoom Cloud Meetings app from your favorite app store.
Launch the app and click on the blue Join a Meeting button. Enter the Meeting ID, your name, and the blue Join button. The Meeting ID is listed at the top of this agenda.
To speak during the meeting: When you wish to comment on an item that is being is discussed, click on the button next to your name to virtually raise your hand and let us know you wish to speak. You will have 3 minutes.
3. Dialing in from a mobile phone or landline:
Dial (669) 9009128. When prompted, enter the meeting ID. The Meeting ID is listed at the top of this agenda.
To speak during the meeting: When you wish to comment on an item that is being is discussed, press *9 on your phone to virtually raise your hand. You will have 3 minutes.
Submit a written comment
You are invited to submit a written comment in one of the following ways:
Email PBAecomments@santaana.org and reference the topic in the subject line.
Mail to Chrisitna Leonard, Recording Secretary, City of Santa Ana, 20 Civic Center Plaza – M20, Santa Ana, CA 92701.
Deadline to submit written comments is 4:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting. Comments received after the deadline may not be distributed to the Commission but will be made part of the record.
6 Planning Commission
3/28/2022
City Council 34 – 85 11/19/2024
Planning Commission
Regular Meeting Agenda
April 25, 2022
5:30 P.M.
Council Chamber
22 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA
THOMAS MORRISSEY
Chair, Ward 6 Representative
ERIC M. ALDERETE
Citywide Representative
BAO PHAM
ViceChair,
Ward 1 Representative
MIGUEL CALDERON
Ward 2 Representative
ISURI S. RAMOS
Ward 3 Representative
MARK McLOUGHLIN
Ward 4 Representative
ALAN WOO
Ward 5 Representative
MinhThai
Executive Director
John Funk
Legal Counsel
Fabiola Zelaya Melicher, AICP
Planning Manager
Christina Leonard
Acting Recording
Secretary
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this Meeting, contact Michael Ortiz, City ADA Program Coordinator, at (714) 6475624. Notification 48 hours prior to the Meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to this meeting. The City Council agenda and supporting documentation can be found on the City’s website – www.santaana.org/citymeetings.
CALL TO ORDER
Commissioners: Thomas Morrissey, Chair
Bao Pham, ViceChair
EricMAlderete
1 Planning Commission
4/25/2022
City Council 34 – 86 11/19/2024
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this Meeting, contact Michael Ortiz, City ADA Program Coordinator, at (714) 6475624. Notification 48 hours prior to the Meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to this meeting. The City Council agenda and supporting documentation can be found on the City’s website – www.santaana.org/citymeetings.
CALL TO ORDER
Commissioners: Thomas Morrissey, Chair
Bao Pham, ViceChair
Eric M. Alderete
Miguel Calderon
Mark McLoughlin
Isuri S. Ramos
Alan Woo
Executive Director Minh Thai
Senior Asst. City Attorney John Funk
Planning Manager Fabiola Zelaya Melicher
Recording Secretary Christina Leonard
ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
PUBLIC COMMENTS (non agenda items)
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS
a. Minutes
Recommended Action: Approve Minutes from April 11, 2022 meeting.
Moved by Commissioner Woo, seconded by Commissioner McLoughlin to Approve.
YES: 4 – Miguel Calderon, Mark McLoughlin, Isuri Ramos, Alan Woo NO: 0 – ABSTAIN: 1 – Tom Morrissey
ABSENT: 2 – Eric Alderete, Bao Pham
Status: 4 – 0 – 1 – 2 – Pass
Minutes: Commissioner Alderete arrived at 5:50 pm.
b. Excused Absences
RecommendedAction:Excuseabsentcommissioners
2 Planning Commission
4/25/2022
City Council 34 – 87 11/19/2024
Minutes: Commissioner Alderete arrived at 5:50 pm.
b. Excused Absences
Recommended Action: Excuse absent commissioners.
Moved by Commissioner McLoughlin, seconded by Commissioner Woo to Approve.
YES: 5 – Miguel Calderon, Mark McLoughlin, Tom Morrissey, Isuri Ramos, Alan Woo NO: 0 – ABSTAIN: 0 – ABSENT: 2 – Eric Alderete, Bao Pham Status: 5 – 0 – 0 – 2 – Pass
c. CUP No. 202204 – Compass Bible Church (2909 S. Daimler Street) Recommended Action: Adopt a resolution denying Conditional Use Permit No. 202204.
Moved by Commissioner Woo, seconded by Commissioner Calderon to Approve.
YES: 4 – Miguel Calderon, Mark McLoughlin, Isuri Ramos, Alan Woo NO: 0 – ABSTAIN: 1 – Tom Morrissey
ABSENT: 2 – Eric Alderete, Bao Pham
Status: 4 – 0 – 1 – 2 – Pass
*End of Consent Calendar*
BUSINESS CALENDAR
Public Hearing: The Planning Commission decision on Conditional Use Permits, Variances, Tentative Tract and Parcel Maps, Minor Exceptions, Site Plan Review, and Public Convenience or Necessity Determinations are final unless appealed within 10 days of the decision by any interested party or group (refer to the Basic Meeting Information page for more information). The Planning Commission recommendation on Zoning and General Plan amendments, Development Agreements, Specific Developments, and Specific Plans will be forwarded to the City Council for final determination. Legal notice was published in the OC Reporter and Register on April 13, 2022 and notices were mailed on April 13 & 14, 2022
1. Conditional Use Permit No. 202206 – Pedro Gomez, Case Planner Project Location: 2221 N. Heliotrope Drive
3 Planning Commission
4/25/2022
City Council 34 – 88 11/19/2024
Information page for more information). The Planning Commission recommendation on Zoning and General Plan amendments, Development Agreements, Specific Developments, and Specific Plans will be forwarded to the City Council for final determination. Legal notice was published in the OC Reporter and Register on April 13, 2022 and notices were mailed on April 13 & 14, 2022
1. Conditional Use Permit No. 202206 – Pedro Gomez, Case Planner Project Location: 2221 N. Heliotrope Drive
Project Applicant: Chan Quang and Quynh Dinh Kieu (Property Owners) Proposed Project: The applicant is requesting approval of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 202206 to allow the construction of an accessory structure 23’ – 4” in height within the rear yard of an existing singlefamily residence located at 2221 North Heliotrope Drive. Pursuant to Section 41232.5 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.
Environmental Impact: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, the project is exempt from further review pursuant to Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines (Class 3/New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) because the project involves the construction of a small accessory structure. Based on this analysis, Notice of Exemption, Environmental Review No. 202211 will be filed for this project.
Recommended Action: Item to be continued to Future Date.
Moved by Commissioner Woo, seconded by Commissioner Ramos to Approve.
YES: 5 – Miguel Calderon, Mark McLoughlin, Tom Morrissey, Isuri Ramos, Alan Woo
NO: 0 – ABSTAIN: 0 – ABSENT: 2 – Eric Alderete, Bao Pham Status: 5 – 0 – 0 – 2 – Pass
2. Density Bonus Agreement Application No. 202201 – Pedro Gomez, Case Planner
Project Location: 1411 North Broadway
Project Applicant: Brateil Aghasi, representing WISEPlace, on behalf of WISEPlace, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation (Property Owner).
Proposed Project: The applicant proposes to construct a 48unit permanent supportive housing community. In order to facilitate the construction of the project, the applicant is requesting approval of Density Bonus Agreement (DBA) No. 202201 to utilize waivers from development standards and/or development concessions as permitted pursuant to California Government Code sections 65915 through 65918 and as implemented by the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) Sections 411600 through 411607.
Environmental Impact: In accordance with the California Quality Environmental Act (CEQA), the recommended action is exempt from CEQA per Section 15194 (Affordable Housing Exemption). This exemption applies to development projects for affordable housing that meet the threshold criteria set forth in Section 15192; are not located on a site more than five acres in area; are located within an urbanized area with a population density of at least 5,000 persons per square mileandimmediatelyadjacenttoqualifiedurbanuses;andthatconsistofthe 4 Planning Commission
4/25/2022
City Council 34 – 89 11/19/2024
65915 through 65918 and as implemented by the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) Sections 411600 through 411607.
Environmental Impact: In accordance with the California Quality Environmental Act (CEQA), the recommended action is exempt from CEQA per Section 15194 (Affordable Housing Exemption). This exemption applies to development projects for affordable housing that meet the threshold criteria set forth in Section 15192; are not located on a site more than five acres in area; are located within an urbanized area with a population density of at least 5,000 persons per square mile, and immediately adjacent to qualified urban uses; and that consist of the construction of 100 or fewer residential housing units that are affordable to lowincome households. Therefore, no additional environmental review is required.
Based on this analysis, a Notice of Exemption, Environmental Review No. 2022 05 will be filed for this project.
Recommended Action: Item to be continued to May 9, 2022 Moved by Commissioner Woo, seconded by Commissioner McLoughlin to Approve.
YES: 5 – Miguel Calderon, Mark McLoughlin, Tom Morrissey, Isuri Ramos, Alan Woo
NO: 0 – ABSTAIN: 0 – ABSENT: 2 – Eric Alderete, Bao Pham Status: 5 – 0 – 0 – 2 – Pass
3. Public Facilities Naming No. 202201 – Timothy Pagano, Project Manager Project Location: 415 and 423 South Raitt Street
Project Applicant: City of Santa Ana (Timothy Pagano, Community Services Manager)
Proposed Project: Staff is requesting Planning Commission approval of PFN No. 202201 to name the empty lot at 415 and 423 South Raitt Street to El Refugio Park upon completion of the project. Pursuant to Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) Section 335, the Planning Commission is responsible for public facilities naming requests, with City Council consent review thereafter.
Environmental Impact: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the CEQA Guidelines, the recommended action is exempt from further review per Section 15061 (b)(3). This general rule exemption is allowed provided it can be determined with certainty that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. As the project consists of naming of a public facility, the general rule exemption is applicable. Notice of Exemption for Environmental Review No. 202218 will be filed for this project.
Recommended Action: Adopt a resolution approving Public Facilities Naming (PFN) No. 202201 to name the empty lot at 423 South Raitt Street to El Refugio Park.
Minutes: Chair Morrissey opened the Public Hearing. There were no speakers and the Public Hearing was closed.
Commissioners asked to add a condition that a plaque in both English and Spanish be placed in the park stating its history.
5 Planning Commission
4/25/2022
City Council 34 – 90 11/19/2024
Minutes: Chair Morrissey opened the Public Hearing. There were no speakers and the Public Hearing was closed.
Commissioners asked to add a condition that a plaque in both English and Spanish be placed in the park stating its history.
Moved by Commissioner , seconded by Commissioner to Approve.
YES: 0 – NO: 0 – ABSTAIN: 0 – ABSENT: 0 – Status: 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 –
4. Conditional Use Permit No. 202109 – Pedro Gomez, Case Planner Project Location: 2525 N. Grand Avenue, Unit A
Project Applicant: Blanca Toriz, on behalf of El Cangrejo Nice 3 (applicant) Proposed Project: The applicant is requesting approval of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 202109 to upgrade an existing Type 41 onsale beer and wine license to a Type 47 onsale beer, wine and distilled spirits, for onpremise consumption at an existing eating establishment.
Environmental Impact: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, the project is exempt from further review pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines (Class 1/Existing Facilities) because the project involves negligible expansion of an existing use. Based on this analysis, Notice of Exemption, Environmental Review No. 202216 will be filed for this project.
Recommended Action: .Adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 202109
Minutes: Chair Morrissey opened the Public Hearing. The applicant spoke in favor of the matter. There were no other speakers and the Public Hearing was closed.
Moved by Commissioner Calderon, seconded by Commissioner Ramos to Approve.
YES: 6 – Eric Alderete, Miguel Calderon, Mark McLoughlin, Tom Morrissey, Isuri Ramos, Alan Woo
NO: 0 – ABSTAIN: 0 – ABSENT: 1 – Bao Pham
Status: 6 – 0 – 0 – 1 – Pass
5. Tentative Tract Map No. 202201 – Ali Pezeshkpour, Case Planner Project Location: 830 South Harbor Boulevard
Project Applicant: Kim Prijatel with City Ventures, representing property owner MAS Investments LP
Proposed Project: The applicant is requesting approval of a tentative tract map (TM) to permit the subdivision of a proposed 23, threestory attached townhome development.PursuanttoSAMCSection34127,theCityofSantaAnaPlanning 6 Planning Commission
4/25/2022
City Council 34 – 91 11/19/2024
5. Tentative Tract Map No. 202201 – Ali Pezeshkpour, Case Planner Project Location: 830 South Harbor Boulevard
Project Applicant: Kim Prijatel with City Ventures, representing property owner MAS Investments LP
Proposed Project: The applicant is requesting approval of a tentative tract map (TM) to permit the subdivision of a proposed 23, threestory attached townhome development. Pursuant to SAMC Section 34127, the City of Santa Ana Planning Commission is responsible for approving tentative tract maps. Staff is recommending approval of the applicant’s request due to the project’s compliance with the zoning and all corresponding development standards.
Environmental Impact: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), proposed development project has been determined to be adequately evaluated in the previously certified EIR No. 201401 as per Sections 15162 and 15168 of the CEQA guidelines. The project entails construction of an infill residential community whose scope and impacts were evaluated to ensure conformance to the Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2013061027) prepared and certified for the SP2 zoning district. Environmental Review No. 202152 will be filed for the project.
Recommended Action: Adopt a resolution approving Tentative Tract Map No. 202201 (County Map No. 19142) as conditioned.
Minutes: Recording Secretary stated that written communications was received.
Chair Morrissey opened the Public Hearing. The applicant spoke in favor of the matter.
Ed, Teresa and Florencio spoke against the matter concerning parking and the garages being turned into apartments/homes.
Moved by Commissioner Woo, seconded by Commissioner Morrissey to Approve.
YES: 6 – Eric Alderete, Miguel Calderon, Mark McLoughlin, Tom Morrissey, Isuri Ramos, Alan Woo
NO: 0 – ABSTAIN: 0 – ABSENT: 1 – Bao Pham
Status: 6 – 0 – 0 – 1 – Pass
6. Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 202201 – Ali Pezeshkpour, Case Planner
Project Location: Citywide
Project Applicant: City of Santa Ana (Ali Pezeshkpour, Principal Planner) Proposed Project: The City of Santa Ana is proposing to repeal Article XII (OffPremise Commercial Advertising Signs) of Chapter 41 (Zoning) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) and adopt a new ordinance that would allow the construction of new digital billboards and reconstruction of existing billboards with digital displays, subject to certain location and development standards.
Environmental Impact: A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) including one technicalstudyevaluatingairqualityandgreenhousegaswaspreparedforthe 7 Planning Commission
4/25/2022
City Council 34 – 92 11/19/2024
Project Applicant: City of Santa Ana (Ali Pezeshkpour, Principal Planner) Proposed Project: The City of Santa Ana is proposing to repeal Article XII (OffPremise Commercial Advertising Signs) of Chapter 41 (Zoning) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) and adopt a new ordinance that would allow the construction of new digital billboards and reconstruction of existing billboards with digital displays, subject to certain location and development standards.
Environmental Impact: A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) including one technical study evaluating air quality and greenhouse gas, was prepared for the project. No areas of significance or unavoidable impacts were determined to occur from the construction or operation of the proposed project with the implementation of mitigation measures (Exhibit 1). The MND was available for public review and comment for 30 days as required by CEQA between March 7 and April 6, 2022. One comment was received from the City of Orange. Written responses to the comments were prepared and incorporated into the environmental document.
The project requires adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), which will reduce all identified impacts to less than significant with implementation of the MMRP. Based on the environmental checklist form completed for the proposed project and supporting environmental analysis, the project would have no impact or a less than significant impact on the following environmental issue areas: Aesthetics, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfire. The proposed project’s impacts on the following issue areas would be less than significant with the implementation of mitigation: Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Tribal Cultural Resources. All impacts would be less than significant after mitigation.
Recommended Action: Recommend that the City Council approve and adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Environmental Review No. 202219 Recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance approving Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) No. 202201 to repeal Article XII of Chapter 41 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code and adopt a new offpremise commercial advertising signs (billboards) ordinance, and to modify thresholds for development project plan approvals for billboards.
Minutes: Chair Morrissey opened the Public Hearing.
Scott King spoke in favor of the matter. There were no other speakers and the Public Hearing was closed.
Commissioner Ramos asked that an amendment be made, that incentives be added to hire local residents by the companies building the Billboards.
Moved by Commissioner Woo, seconded by Commissioner McLoughlin to Approve.
YES: 6 – Eric Alderete, Miguel Calderon, Mark McLoughlin, Tom Morrissey, Isuri Ramos, Alan Woo
NO: 0 – ABSTAIN: 0 – ABSENT: 1 – Bao Pham
8 Planning Commission
4/25/2022
City Council 34 – 93 11/19/2024
Moved by Commissioner Woo, seconded by Commissioner McLoughlin to Approve.
YES: 6 – Eric Alderete, Miguel Calderon, Mark McLoughlin, Tom Morrissey, Isuri Ramos, Alan Woo
NO: 0 – ABSTAIN: 0 – ABSENT: 1 – Bao Pham
Status: 6 – 0 – 0 – 1 – Pass
Administrative Matters
*End of Business Calendar*
STAFF COMMENTS
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
The next meeting of the Planning Commission will be on May 09, 2022 at 5:30 PM in the Council Chambers located at 22 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701.
Minutes: Commissioner McLoughlin asked to adjourn the meeting in honor of Micheal Marces local and long time Santa Ana florist.
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
APPEAL INFORMATION
The formal action by the Planning Commission shall become effective after the tenday appeal period, unless the City Council in compliance with section 41643, 41644 or 41645 holds a public hearing on the matter, then the formal action will become effective on the day following the hearing and decision by the City Council. An appeal from the decision or requirement of the Planning Commission may be made by any interested party, individual, or group. The appeal must be filed with the Clerk of the Council, accompanied by the required filing fee, and a copy sent to the Planning Department, within ten days of the date of the Commission's action, by 5:00 p.m. If the final day to appeal falls on a City Hall observed holiday or a day when City hall is closed, the final day to appeal shall be extended to the next day City Hall is open for public business. Please note: Under California Government Code Sec. 65009, if you challenge in court any of the matters on this agenda for which a public hearing is to be conducted, you may be limited to raising only those issues which you (or someone else) raised orally at the public hearing or in written correspondence received by the Planning Commission or City Council at or before the hearing. 9 Planning Commission
4/25/2022
City Council 34 – 94 11/19/2024
gee,adacopysettoteagepatet,ttedaysotedateote
Commission's action, by 5:00 p.m. If the final day to appeal falls on a City Hall observed holiday or a day when City hall is closed, the final day to appeal shall be extended to the next day City Hall is open for public business. Please note: Under California Government Code Sec. 65009, if you challenge in court any of the matters on this agenda for which a public hearing is to be conducted, you may be limited to raising only those issues which you (or someone else) raised orally at the public hearing or in written correspondence received by the Planning Commission or City Council at or before the hearing.
MEETING INFORMATION
If you would like to learn how to use Zoom before the meeting, visit Zoom Video Tutorials.
1. Connecting directly from your computer:
Click on the link on top of this agenda OR
Go to Zoom.us and click "Join a Meeting" at the top. Enter the Meeting ID. The Meeting ID is listed at the top of this agenda.
To speak during the meeting: When you wish to comment on an item that is being is discussed, click on the button next to your name to virtually raise your hand and let us know you wish to speak. You will have 3 minutes.
2. Connecting via the Zoom App:
Download the free Zoom Cloud Meetings app from your favorite app store.
Launch the app and click on the blue Join a Meeting button. Enter the Meeting ID, your name, and the blue Join button. The Meeting ID is listed at the top of this agenda.
To speak during the meeting: When you wish to comment on an item that is being is discussed, click on the button next to your name to virtually raise your hand and let us know you wish to speak. You will have 3 minutes.
3. Dialing in from a mobile phone or landline:
Dial (669) 9009128. When prompted, enter the meeting ID. The Meeting ID is listed at the top of this agenda.
To speak during the meeting: When you wish to comment on an item that is being is discussed, press *9 on your phone to virtually raise your hand. You will have 3 minutes.
Submit a written comment
You are invited to submit a written comment in one of the following ways:
Email PBAecomments@santaana.org and reference the topic in the subject line.
Mail to Christina Leonard, Recording Secretary, City of Santa Ana, 20 Civic Center Plaza – M20, Santa Ana, CA 92701.
Deadline to submit written comments is 4:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting. Comments received after the deadline may not be distributed to the Commission but will be made part of the record.
10 Planning Commission
4/25/2022
City Council 34 – 95 11/19/2024
Plaza – M20, Santa Ana, CA 92701.
Deadline to submit written comments is 4:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting. Comments received after the deadline may not be distributed to the Commission but will be made part of the record.
11 Planning Commission
4/25/2022
City Council 34 – 96 11/19/2024
1. Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-06 – Pedro Gomez, Case Planner.
Project Location: 2221 N Heliotrope Drive
Project Applicant: Chan Quang and Quynh Dinh Kieu (Property Owners) Proposed Project: The applicant is requesting approval of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 2022-06 to allow the construction of an accessory structure 23’ – 4” in height within the rear yard of an 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.
Environmental Impact: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, the project is exempt from further review pursuant to Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines (Class 3/New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) because the project involves the construction of a small accessory structure. Based on this analysis, Notice of Exemption, Environmental Review No. 2022-11 will be filed for this project.
Recommended Action: Adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-06 as conditioned.
City Council 34 – 97 11/19/2024
Planning and Building Agency
Item # 1
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701
Planning Commission Staff Report
March 28, 2022
Topic: CUP No. 2022-06 – 2221 N. Heliotrope Drive
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-06 as conditioned.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Chan Quang and Quynh Dinh Kieu (Property Owners) are requesting approval of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 2022-06 to allow the construction of an accessory structure within the rear yard of an 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.
The accessory structure was originally proposed at a height of 23’-4”. However, after posting of the public hearing notices staff received neighborhood concerns regarding the proposed height. Therefore, staff worked directly with the applicant to reduce the proposed structure height an additional twenty inches, for an overall height of 21’-8”.
Staff is recommending approval of the applicant’s request given the reduced height, and due to the proposed project having minimized impacts to surrounding areas and minimal change to the character or identity of the neighborhood.
DISCUSSION
Project Description
The applicant is proposing to construct a freestanding pavilion approximately 205 square feet in size and 21’-8” in height, within the rear yard area of an existing singlefamily residence. The pavilion is proposed to be located towards the south end of the property, approximately 60 feet from the front (west) property line and 25 feet from the rear (south) property line, behind an existing six foot high stucco wall. The pavilion would also be located approximately 65 feet south from the existing residence and approximately 55 feet from an existing, freestanding one-story garden house on the same property.
City Council 34 – 98 11/19/2024
CUP No. 2022-06 – 2221 N. Heliotrope Drive
March 28, 2022
As designed, 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 plan set provided by the architect (see Exhibit 4). 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 21’-8”. There are two additional structures on the site, including a freestanding one-story pool house/cabana and a freestanding one-story garden house. The pool house is approximately 13 feet in height, while the garden house is a maximum 15 feet in height to the tallest ridge point.
As described by the applicants, the pavilion is currently built in Vietnam. It’s built in a traditional Vietnamese design and was fabricated by Vietnamese artisans. The pavilion structure is proposed to be disassembled, shipped to Santa Ana, and reconstructed on the subject property. As proposed, the pavilion would share a similar design, materials, and cultural characteristics as the existing garden house on the site. Specifically, the structure would include prefabricated wood post members, traditional Vietnamese handcarved wood details, and would include ceramic roofing tile.
Lastly, the installation of the structure would be designed and overseen by a licensed structural engineer and the structure would not include mechanical or plumbing equipment. The structure would include two electrical outlets and limited accent lighting, including two to four light fixtures within the structure and three to six landscape/uplights at the base.
Table 1: Project and Location Information
Site and Project Background
The site contains a historical structure known as the Maharajah House, which was constructed in 1938 and was placed in the Santa Ana Register of Historical Properties Item Information
Project Address and Council Ward 2221 North Heliotrope Drive – Ward 3 Nearest Intersection Santa Clara Avenue and Heliotrope Drive General Plan Designation Low Density Residential (LR-7) Zoning Designation Single-Family Residence (R1)
North Single-Family Residences
East Single-Family Residences
South Single-Family Residences
Surrounding Land Uses
West Single-Family Residences
Property Size 0.90 acres (39,547 square feet)
Existing Site Development The subject site is developed with a two-story historic singlefamily residence known as the Maharajah House. The Maharajah House is individually listed on the Register of Historical Properties as “Landmark.”
Use Permissions Allowed with a conditional use permit (CUP) Zoning Code Sections Affected Uses Section 41-232.5
City Council 34 – 99 11/19/2024
CUP No. 2022-06 – 2221 N. Heliotrope Drive
March 28, 2022
(“Register”) and categorized as “Landmark” in 2003. The property qualifies for listing in the Santa Ana Register under Criterion 1 for its exemplification of the Art Moderne variant of the Moderne style and under Criterion 4b, for its association with a foreign ruling family, the Holkars of Indore, India. Moreover, the property satisfied two criteria for landmark categorization: “unique architectural significance” as an example of the Art Moderne style in Santa Ana and “historic/cultural significance” as the residence of a sitting ruler of Indore. For reference, additional historic information on the property can be found on Exhibits 6 and 7.
As mentioned, the subject site was previously improved with a freestanding one-story pool house/cabana built in 1955, and a freestanding one-story garden house with a porch, built in 2004. Similar to the proposed pavilion, the garden house was dismantled, shipped from Vietnam, and reconstructed on the property. The garden house was built in Vietnam circa 1847 and was brought over piece by piece to Santa Ana. At the time, the property owners also imported a bell tower with three 18th- and 19th-century bells, marble sculptures, a collection of 11th-century foo dogs, and a water feature.
The building permits for the garden house were reviewed and processed administratively by City staff. Pursuant to Chapter 30 of the SAMC, on-site accessory structures can be reviewed and approved administratively by staff. Therefore, the structure was not required to be reviewed by any discretionary body due to the fact that it’s considered an accessory structure, it was no more than 15 feet in height, and did not physically change and/or alter the Maharajah House.
In 2021, the applicant submitted a request to allow construction of the 21’-8” tall pavilion in the property’s rear yard that is the subject of this application. Although accessory structures can be reviewed administratively, accessory buildings more than fifteen feet in height or more than one story require approval of a CUP.
Project Analysis
CUP requests are governed by Section 41-638 of the SAMC. 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.
The installation of the proposed structure would not result in a change to the existing land use. Instead, the property will continue to be used as it was historically, as a single-family residence. In addition, the proposed structure has been designed to be located away from adjacent properties to minimize the privacy concerns and visual impacts. By locating the City Council 34 – 100 11/19/2024
CUP No. 2022-06 – 2221 N. Heliotrope Drive
March 28, 2022
structure towards the south end of the property, the design limits the potential impacts to the single-family properties located towards the east, along Greenleaf Street. Moreover, by setting back the structure approximately 25 feet from the rear (south) property line, the design limits any potential impacts to the property to the south. Lastly, the design ensures that the neighborhood character is maintained along the front elevation by locating the structure approximately 60 feet from the front property line. Therefore, the construction of the proposed pavilion will not result in a change to the neighborhood character or identity.
The property features a deep front yard from the sidewalk to the entrance (between 60- 70 feet), along Heliotrope Drive. The front yard is improved with various mature trees varying in height, including two species of palm trees. In addition, the public right-of-way parkways are improved with mature oak trees along Heliotrope Drive, which further help to minimize the privacy concerns and visual impacts of the proposed structure. The existing landscaping and mature trees are not proposed to be removed or altered. To ensure that the existing landscaping conditions are maintained, staff is recommending a condition of approval requiring that the trees be preserved and protected in place.
Moreover, staff is recommending a condition of approval requiring that the applicant plant at least two columnar trees along the front of the existing six-foot high stucco wall, to introduce plant materials with similar heights immediately adjacent to the proposed pavilion.
Historic Consideration
Although the pavilion’s proposed design (traditional Vietnamese design) differs from the characteristic Art Moderne style of the residence, the structure would not detract from the overall historic significance of the property. With the previous installation of the 1955 pool house, and the Vietnamese one-story garden house, along with the additional Vietnamese antiquities (e.g. bell tower, marble sculptures, 11th-century foo dogs, and a water feature), the site has taken on an eclectic architectural style. Moreover, the pavilion would share a similar design, materials, and cultural characteristics as the existing garden house on the site. Therefore, the addition of the pavilion would complement the site’s various structures.
In addition, 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 characterdefining features. Moreover, the structure would not impact any of the view sheds to the Maharajah House, along any public perspectives. As mentioned, the pavilion would be located south of the Maharajah House, 25 feet from the rear (south) property line, behind an existing six-foot high stucco wall. Therefore, all views of the historic structure along Heliotrope Drive and Santa Clara Avenue would remain unimpaired.
Chapter 30 of the SAMC defines modification as, “Any change, alteration, restoration, remodeling, rehabilitation, construction, or relocation of the physical exterior of a historic City Council 34 – 101 11/19/2024
CUP No. 2022-06 – 2221 N. Heliotrope Drive
March 28, 2022
structure.” Moreover, Section 30-6 (a) of the SAMC states that, “No exterior physical modifications, other than those identified by the historic resources commission for administrative approval by city staff, shall be permitted with respect to an historic structure until the historic resources commission approves such request at a duly noticed public hearing and issues a certificate of appropriateness.” The structure is not physically altering or changing the exterior of the Maharajah House. Therefore, no additional review by the Historic Resources Commission is required for this project.
Finally, the CUP will be consistent with several goals and policies of the General Plan.
Policy 3.1 of the Land Use Element encourages development, which provides a positive contribution to neighborhood character and identity. Policy 4.1 of the same element encourages the maintenance of areas of the City with unique characteristics, which contribute positively to the area in which they are located. The proposed accessory structure will contribute to the already eclectic character and identity of the site without negatively affecting any of the adjacent residences or the site’s existing historical structure. Moreover, the installation of the structure will positively contribute to the neighborhood character, which has mix of high-quality architectural styles. Furthermore, Policy 4.2 encourages the retention of historical buildings and sites. The installation of the proposed pavilion structure would not require the removal or alteration of the existing residence, which is an historic structure. The overall design and massing of the new construction will be compatible with, but differentiated from the historic building, in keeping with required historic standards.
Public Notification and Community Outreach
Project notifications were posted, published, and mailed in accordance with City and State regulations. Copies of the public notice, including a 1,000-foot notification radius map, and the site posting are provided in Exhibit 7. At the time this report was printed, staff did receive neighborhoods concerns regarding the proposed CUP. These concerns were regarding the proposed location and/or design as it related to the historical integrity of the Maharajah House.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, the project is exempt from further review pursuant to Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines (Class 3/New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) because the project involves the construction of a small accessory structure. Based on this analysis, Notice of Exemption, Environmental Review No. 2022-11 will be filed for this project.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.
City Council 34 – 102 11/19/2024
CUP No. 2022-06 – 2221 N. Heliotrope Drive
March 28, 2022
EXHIBIT(S)
1. Resolution
2. Vicinity Zoning and Aerial View
3. Site Photos
4. Plan Set
5. Historic Summary
6. Historic Designation Resolution of Approval
7. Copy of Public Notices
Submitted By:
Pedro Gomez, AICP, Senior Planner
Approved By:
Minh Thai, Executive Director of Planning and Building Agency, Planning and Building Agency
City Council 34 – 103 11/19/2024
Resolution No. 2022-XXX
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 2022-06 AS CONDITIONED TO ALLOW THE
CONSTRUCTION OF AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE
EXCEEDING FIFTEEN FEET IN HEIGHT WITHIN THE REAR
YARD OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2221 NORTH
HELIOTROPE DRIVE.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines, and declares as follows:
A. Chan Quang and Quynh Dinh Kieu (Property Owners), are requesting approval of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 2022-06 to allow the construction of an accessory structure exceeding fifteen feet in height, within the rear yard area of an existing single-family residence located at 2221 North Heliotrope Drive.
B. Santa Ana Municipal Code (“SAMC”) Section 41-232.5 requires approval of a CUP for accessory buildings more than fifteen feet in height or more than one story.
C. The proposed accessory structure would be 21’-8” in height, requiring review and approval of a CUP.
D. On March 28, 2022, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on CUP No. 2022-06.
E. The Planning Commission determines that the following findings, which must be established in order to grant a CUP pursuant to SAMC Section 41- 638, have been established for CUP No. 2022-06 to allow the construction of an accessory structure exceeding fifteen feet in height at 2221 North Heliotrope Drive.
1. That the proposed use will provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or community.
The proposed structure, a freestanding pavilion in the rear yard area designed in the traditional Vietnamese style, would have minimal impacts to surrounding areas and would provide a positive contribution to the neighborhood character and identity. In addition, the structure would not result in a change to the existing land use, as the site would continue to be used City Council 34 – 104 11/19/2024
Resolution No. 2022-XXX
as a single-family residence. Moreover, the proposed
structure has been designed to be located away from adjacent properties to minimize the privacy concerns and visual
impacts, to ensure that the use will not negatively affect the surrounding community.
2. That the proposed use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity.
The proposed construction of the accessory structure will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity. The structure would be limited in size (205 square feet) and located towards the south end of the property, approximately 60 feet from the front (west) property line and 25 feet from the rear (south) property line, behind an existing six-foot-high stucco wall. Moreover, the structure would be constructed for private use and
enjoyment. In addition, the structure would be designed by a licensed structural engineer and would not include
mechanical or plumbing equipment. The structure would
include two electrical outlets and limited accent lighting, including two to four light fixtures within the structure and three to six landscape/up-lights at the base. However, staff is recommending a condition of approval limiting light intrusion onto neighboring properties. Therefore, the granting of the CUP will not negatively impact any sensitive land uses that may be nearby.
3. That the proposed use will not adversely affect the present economic stability or future economic development of properties surrounding the area.
The proposed use will not adversely affect the economic stability of the area or future economic development, as this would be a structure constructed for private use and
enjoyment by private property owners in a single-family residential area. The pavilion is not intended to be enjoyed or visited by members of the general public and will therefore not change the character of the existing community.
4. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in Chapter 41 for such use.
The proposed accessory structure will exceed the required regulations or development standards, pursuant to the singlefamily residential zoning. The structure would be located approximately 60 feet from the front property line, where the minimum setback is 20 feet, and would be located
City Council 34 – 105 11/19/2024
Resolution No. 2022-XXX
approximately 25 feet from the side (rear) property line, where the minimum is 10 feet. Moreover, the new development will be compatible in scale, and consistent with the mix of
architectural styles and character of the neighborhood.
5. That the proposed use will not adversely affect the General Plan of the city or any specific plan applicable to the area of the proposed use.
The proposed accessory structure will not adversely affect the General Plan. Policy 3.1 of the Land Use Element encourages development, which provides a positive contribution to
neighborhood character and identity. Policy 4.1 of the same element encourages the maintenance of areas of the City with unique characteristics, which contribute positively to the area in which they are located. The proposed structure will
contribute to the already eclectic character and identity of the site without negatively affecting any of the adjacent
residences. In addition, the installation of the structure will positively contribute to the neighborhood, which has mix of architectural styles. Furthermore, Policy 4.2 encourages the retention of historical buildings and sites. The installation of the proposed structure would not require the removal of any elements of the historic structure. The overall design and massing of the new construction will be compatible with, but differentiated from the historic building, in keeping with required historic standards.
Section 2. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, the project is categorically exempt from further review per Section 15303 (Class 3 – New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). Class 3 exemption applies to the construction of accessory structures, including but not limited to, garages, carports, patios, swimming pools, and fences. Based on this analysis, a Notice of Exemption, Environmental Review No. 2022-11 will be filed for this project.
Section 3. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, authorized volunteers, and instrumentalities thereof, harmless from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, referendum, and other proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolution procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and such other procedures), judgments, orders, and decisions (collectively “Actions”), brought against the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, any action of, or any permit or approval issued by the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City) for or City Council 34 – 106 11/19/2024
Resolution No. 2022-XXX
concerning the project, whether such Actions are brought under the Ralph M. Brown Act, California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivision Map Act, Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085 or 1094.5, or any other federal, state or local constitution, statute, law, ordinance, charter, rule, regulation, or any decision of a court of competent jurisdiction. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve the legal counsel providing the City’s defense, and that Applicant shall reimburse the City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the course of the defense. City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any Action brought and City shall cooperate with Applicant in the defense of the Action.
Section 4. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana, after conducting the public hearing, hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-06, as conditioned in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein, for the project located at 2221 North Heliotrope Drive. This decision is based upon the evidence submitted at the abovereferenced hearing, including but not limited to: The Request for Planning Commission Action dated March 28, 2022, and exhibits attached thereto; and the public testimony, written and oral, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference.
ADOPTED this 28th day of March, 2022 by the following vote.
AYES: Commissioners:
NOES: Commissioners:
ABSENT: Commissioners:
ABSTENTIONS: Commissioners:
Thomas Morrissey
Chairperson
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney
By:
John M. Funk
Sr. Assistant City Attorney
City Council 34 – 107 11/19/2024
Resolution No. 2022-XXX
CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, CHRISTINA LEONARD, Recording Secretary, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2022-XXX to be the original resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana on March 28, 2022.
Date:
Recording Secretary
City of Santa Ana
City Council 34 – 108 11/19/2024
Resolution No. 2022-XXX
EXHIBIT A
Conditions of Approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-06 Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-06 to allow the construction of an accessory structure exceeding fifteen feet in height is approved subject to compliance, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager, with all applicable sections of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC), the California Building Standards Code, and all other applicable regulations:
The Applicant must comply with each and every condition listed below prior to exercising the rights conferred by this conditional use permit.
The Applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below throughout the life of the conditional use permit. Failure to comply with each and every condition may result in the revocation of the conditional use permit.
1. Any amendment to the design of pavilion, including modifications to approved materials, finishes, architecture, and site plan, must be submitted to the Planning Division for review. At that time, staff will determine if administrative relief is available or if the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) must be amended.
2. The pavilion shall be limited in size to 205 square feet, 21’-8” in height, and shall be built in the rear yard, towards the south end of the property. The pavilion shall also maintain a minimum setback of 60 feet from the front (west) property line and 25 feet from the rear (south) property line, within the rear yard. Lastly, the pavilion shall maintain a minimum separation of 65 feet from the existing residence and approximately 55 feet from an existing, freestanding one-story garden house on the same property.
3. Any proposed lighting, including but not limited to, accent lighting within the structure or landscape/up-lights at the base, shall adhere to nighttime by shutoffs 10:00 p.m. to prevent light intrusion onto neighboring properties.
4. Any proposed lighting shall be arranged to prevent direct glare into adjacent dwelling units and onto neighboring uses. A photometric plan shall be required before permit issuance to ensure lighting levels are met and ensure that there is no light intrusion onto neighboring properties.
5. 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 members of the general public.
6. The property owner shall install/plant at minimum two columnar trees along the front of the existing six-foot high stucco wall (west elevation), to introduce plant materials with similar heights immediately adjacent to the proposed pavilion. The final plant species shall be reviewed and approved by planning staff.
City Council 34 – 109 11/19/2024
Resolution No. 2022-XXX
7. The property owner shall maintain, preserve, and protect all existing landscaping on site, including but not limited to, mature trees, bushes, shrubs, and groundcover.
8. 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.
City Council 34 – 110 11/19/2024
2/24/22, 11:09 AM .
https://apps.spatialstream.com/landvision/production/CurrentBuild/Html/printpreview.html 1/1 CUP-2022-06
2221 N. Heliotrope Drive
Exhibit 2 - Vicinity and Aerial View
© 2022 Digital Map Products. All rights reserved.
Santa Ana Boundary
Zoning
300 feet
City Council 34 – 111 11/19/2024
CUP 2022-06
2221 N. HELIOTROPE DRIVE
SITE PHOTOS
EXHIBIT 3
City Council 34 – 112 11/19/2024
CUP 2022-06
2221 N. HELIOTROPE DRIVE
SITE PHOTOS
EXHIBIT 3
City Council 34 – 113 11/19/2024
NOTE: NO PROPOSED CHANGES TO
FOOTPRINT OF (E) HOME, OTHER (E)
STRUCTURES, OR LANDSCAPING.
HELIOTROPE DRIVE
SANTA CLARA AVENUE
(E) 1 STORY
GARDEN ROOM -
NOT IN SCOPE
(E) 2 STORY
SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE - NOT
IN SCOPE
(E) 1 STORY
POOL HOUSE -
NOT IN SCOPE
(E) DRIVEWAY
(E) WALKWAY
90° 00' 00"
224.00'
N W
0° 3
2' 4
5" 16
6.51'
S
W
0° 00' 00"
163.66'
S
W
83° 31' 34" 202.99'
S W
50° 00' 08" 31.19'
S
E
(N) GAZEBO/PAVILION,
205 SQ FT
25.00 6.00
APPROX. 38.00 APPROX 83.00
46.11 14.89
21.37 37.37
52.67 (E) STUCCO WALL, 6 FEET TALL
SCALE:
DATE:
NO.
ISSUES:
DATE DESCRIPTION
OWNERS:
DR. CHAN KIEU & DR. QUYNH KIEU
2221 N. HELIOTROPE DR
SANTA ANA, CA 92706
ARCHITECT:
QUENTIN STANTON
ARCHITECTURE
1751 COLORADO BLVD. #333
LOS ANGELES, CA 90041
(323)925-7722
[email protected]
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER:
NOUS ENGINEERING,
INC.
600 WILSHIRE BLVD, SUITE 760
LOS ANGELES, CA 90017
(213)627-6687
HELIOTROPE
PAVILION
2221 N. HELIOTROPE DR
SANTA ANA, CA 92706
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NUMBER:
12/03/21 PLAN'G DEPT. SUB.
1 03/23/22 HEIGHT REVISION
1" = 20'-0"
3/23/2022 7:35:54 PM
G000
COVER
SHEET
03/23/2022
SHEET LIST - ARCHITECTURAL
G000 COVER SHEET
G100 ELEVATION FROM HELIOTROPE
A101 FLOOR PLAN, SECTION & ELEVATION
A110 TYP SLAB DETAILS
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 205 SQ FT FREESTANDING, UNENCLOSED, NON-HABITABLE PAVILION/GAZEBO IN BACKYARD OF PROPERTY.
NO CHANGE TO (E) HOME OR OTHER (E) STRUCTURES ON THE PROPERTY.
SCOPE OF WORK
PROJECT ADDRESS:
2221 N. HELIOTROPE DR
SANTA ANA, CA 92706
ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBERS: 002-081-45 AND 002-081-46
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: TR 1035 LOT 17, LOT 18 AND LOT 19 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: LR 7.0
ZONING DISTRICT: R1
TOTAL LOT SIZE: 39,547 SF (0.908 ACRES)
HISTORIC PROPERTY: YES
HISTORIC DISTRICT: NO
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: V-B - NON-SPRINKLERED
PROPOSED NUMBER OF STORIES: N/A
PROPOSED STRUCTURE HEIGHT: 21' - 8"
OCCUPANCY OF PROPOSED BUILDING: N/A (ACCESSORY
STRUCTURE)
OCCUPANCY OF EXISTING STRUCTURES: R-3
PROPOSED EXTERIOR WALL AND ROOF MATERIALS:
WALL: N/A, NOT ENCLOSED
ROOF: CERAMIC TILE
EXISTING BUILDINGS EXTERIOR WALL AND ROOF MATERIALS:
WALL: STUCCO
ROOF: ASPHALT SHINGLE
GOVERNING CODES:
2019 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE (CRC)
2019 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE (CMC)
2019 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE (CEC)
2019 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE (CPC)
2019 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING CODE (CALGREEN)
AHJ AND LOCAL CODES AND NFPA
CONTRACTOR: TO BE DETERMINED
N
2221 N HELIOTROPE DR
NOT TO SCALE
LEGEND OF PROJECT DATA
DRAWING INDEX
VICINITY MAP
SITE PLAN / PLOT PLAN
OWNERS' NAME AND ADDRESS:
DR. CHAN KIEU & DR. QUYNH KIEU
2221 N. HELIOTROPE DR
SANTA ANA, CA 92706
ARCHITECT / APPLICANT'S NAME AND ADDRESS:
QUENTIN STANTON, RA
QUENTIN STANTON ARCHITECTURE
323-925-7722
[email protected]
1751 COLORADO BLVD., #333
LOS ANGELES, CA 90041
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER:
OMAR GARZA
NOUS ENGINEERING, INC.
213-627-6687
600 WILSHIRE BLVD, SUITE 760
LOS ANGELES, CA 90017
PROJECT TEAM
NN
PROJECT TRUE
1" = 20'-0" 2 SITE PLAN
04/30/2023 1.11
City Council 34 – 114 11/19/2024
City Council 34 – 115 11/19/2024
GRADE
0' - 0"
PAVILION ROOF
PEAK
21' - 8"
(N) PAVILION
(E) STUCCO WALL, 6 FEET TALL
APPROX. TOP OF
(E) HOME
25' - 0"
APPROX. TOP OF
(E) HOME
25' - 0"
NOTE: EXISTING HOME SHOWN FOR MASSING
AND SCALE PURPOSES ONLY - ADDITIONAL
ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS NOT SHOWN
NOTE: HEIGHT OF EXISTING HOME IS SHOWN
APPROXIMATELY FOR SCALE
(N) LANDSCAPING PLANTED
BETWEEN STREET AND GARDEN
WALL FOR SCREENING
SCALE:
DATE:
NO.
ISSUES:
DATE DESCRIPTION
OWNERS:
DR. CHAN KIEU & DR. QUYNH KIEU
2221 N. HELIOTROPE DR
SANTA ANA, CA 92706
ARCHITECT:
QUENTIN STANTON
ARCHITECTURE
1751 COLORADO BLVD. #333
LOS ANGELES, CA 90041
(323)925-7722
[email protected]
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER:
NOUS ENGINEERING,
INC.
600 WILSHIRE BLVD, SUITE 760
LOS ANGELES, CA 90017
(213)627-6687
HELIOTROPE
PAVILION
2221 N. HELIOTROPE DR
SANTA ANA, CA 92706
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NUMBER:
12/03/21 PLAN'G DEPT. SUB.
1 03/23/22 HEIGHT REVISION
1/8" = 1'-0"
3/23/2022 7:35:54 PM
G100
ELEVATION
FROM
HELIOTROPE
03/23/2022
1/8" = 1'-0" 1
ELEVATION FROM HELIOTROPE -
SHOWN WITH HOME
04/30/2023
City Council 34 – 116 11/19/2024
GRADE
0' - 0"
PAVILION ROOF
PEAK
21' - 8"
(N) PAVILION
(E) STUCCO WALL, 6 FEET TALL
APPROX. TOP OF
(E) HOME
25' - 0"
APPROX. TOP OF
(E) HOME
25' - 0"
NOTE: EXISTING HOME SHOWN FOR MASSING
AND SCALE PURPOSES ONLY - ADDITIONAL
ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS NOT SHOWN
NOTE: HEIGHT OF EXISTING HOME IS SHOWN
APPROXIMATELY FOR SCALE
(N) LANDSCAPING PLANTED
BETWEEN STREET AND GARDEN
WALL FOR SCREENING
SCALE:
DATE:
NO.
ISSUES:
DATE DESCRIPTION
OWNERS:
DR. CHAN KIEU & DR. QUYNH KIEU
2221 N. HELIOTROPE DR
SANTA ANA, CA 92706
ARCHITECT:
QUENTIN STANTON
ARCHITECTURE
1751 COLORADO BLVD. #333
LOS ANGELES, CA 90041
(323)925-7722
[email protected]
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER:
NOUS ENGINEERING,
INC.
600 WILSHIRE BLVD, SUITE 760
LOS ANGELES, CA 90017
(213)627-6687
HELIOTROPE
PAVILION
2221 N. HELIOTROPE DR
SANTA ANA, CA 92706
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NUMBER:
12/03/21 PLAN'G DEPT. SUB.
1 03/23/22 HEIGHT REVISION
1/8" = 1'-0"
3/23/2022 7:35:54 PM
G100
ELEVATION
FROM
HELIOTROPE
03/23/2022
1/8" = 1'-0" 1
ELEVATION FROM HELIOTROPE -
SHOWN WITH HOME
04/30/2023
City Council 34 – 117 11/19/2024
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
THE MAHARAJAH HOUSE
2221 North Heliotrope Drive
Santa Ana, CA 92706
NAME Maharajah House REF. NO.
ADDRESS 2221 North Heliotrope Drive
CITY Santa Ana ZIP 92706 ORANGE COUNTY
YEAR BUILT 1938 LOCAL REGISTER CATEGORY: Landmark
HISTORIC DISTRICT N/A NEIGHBORHOOD Floral Park
NATIONAL REGISTER CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION B,C NATIONAL REGISTER STATUS CODE 3S Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted
Prehistoric Historic Both
ARCHITECTURAL STYLE: Moderne
The Moderne style encompassed the Modernistic, Streamlined Moderne, and Art Moderne variants. An evolution of the Art Deco style, the Streamlined Moderne flourished during the 1930s and lingered through the decade following World War II in a simplified version. In contrast to the verticality of earlier Art Deco designs, the Streamlined Moderne emphasized the horizontal, through bands of windows, use of decorative raised or incised horizontal lines, railings, flat canopies with banded fascia, and narrow coping at the roofline. Other characteristics include smooth wall surfaces, usually of stucco; metal detailing; glass block windows; rounded corners, porthole windows, and asymmetry. Incorporation of aerodynamic, transportation related imagery, especially nautical, is a signature of the style. In common with the Streamlined Moderne, Art Moderne buildings also tended to be horizontal in emphasis, but tended to be more clean-lined and rectilinear in their massing and detailing than their streamlined counterparts. Art Moderne designs can be recognized by their flat roofs, smooth stucco exteriors, and use of metal casement windows that often meet at the corners of the building.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSION:
The Maharajah House appears eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historical Resources. It also qualifies for listing in the Santa Ana Register of Historical Properties under Criterion 1, for its exemplification of the Art Moderne variant of the Moderne style, and under Criterion 4b, for its association with a foreign ruling family, the Holkars of Indore, India. The house also contributes to the historic character of the Floral Park neighborhood through its age, style, scale, and historic associations with prominent residents. Additionally, the house has been categorized as “Landmark” for its unique architectural significance as an example of the Art Moderne variant of the Moderne style and its historic/cultural significance to City as the “castle” of a sitting ruler. (Municipal Code, Section 30-2.2).
EXPLANATION OF CODES:
• National Register Criteria for Evaluation: (From Appendix 7 of Instructions for Recording Historical Resources, Office of Historic Preservation)
B: that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.
C: that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.
• National Register Status Code: (From Appendix 2 of Instructions for Recording Historical Resources, Office of Historic Preservation)
3S: Appears eligible for separate listing.
City Council 34 – 118 11/19/2024
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #______________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #__________________________________________________ PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial______________________________________________ NRHP Status Code_____________________________________
Other Listings_____________________________________________________________________ Review Code________ Reviewer________________________ Date_______________ Page _1_ of _4_ Resource name(s) or number (assigned by recorder) Maharajah House P1. Other Identifier:
*P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County Orange County *b. USGS 7.5’ Quad Date:
*c. Address 2221 North Heliotrope Drive City Santa Ana Zip 92706 *e. Other Locational Data: Assessor’s Parcel Number: 002-081-45; TR 1036 Lot: 18 and Lot: 19 *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries.) Located on a double lot on the southeast corner of Heliotrope Drive and Santa Clara Avenue, the Maharajah House is a twostory residence representative of the Art Moderne variant of the Moderne style. A flat roof accented by a thin band at the roofline tops the “T” shaped building, which is finished in smooth stucco. Walls extend to the north and south to enclose gardens and patios. The massing of the structure suggests an assemblage of cubic volumes and reflects the influence of the emerging International Style of architecture. The northwest and southwest corners of the second story of the facade are cut away, creating terraces that are seamlessly integrated into the massing. Horizontal lines are emphasized through the roofline banding, similar banding around the terrace parapets, and architectural details such as window grilles and canopies. A notable feature, and one highly characteristic of the style, is the use of multi-light metal casement windows that wrap the corners of the building. Located at the approximate center of the façade and flanked by pilasters scored to resemble masonry, the tripartite entry is deeply recessed and decorated in an intricate, geometric pattern. An alleé of palms is paved in stone and spans the deep front lawn from the sidewalk to the entrance. On the north elevation, painted wrought iron gates shield the garage. On the south, a bronze equestrian statue is just visible behind the garden wall. In excellent condition, the property is substantially unaltered on the exterior.
*P3b. Resource Attributes: (list attributes and codes) HP2. Single-family Property *P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other P5b. Photo: (view and date)
South and west elevations
April 2003
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Sources: historic
1938/Source: City of Santa Ana
Building Permits
*P7. Owner and Address:
Chan Q & Quynh Kieu
2221 North Heliotrope Drive
Santa Ana, CA 92706
*P8. Recorded by:
Leslie J. Heumann
SAIC
35 S. Raymond Ave. # 204
Pasadena, CA 91105
*P9. Date Recorded:
May 25, 2003
*P10. Survey Type:
Intensive Survey
*P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter “none”) None.
*Attachments: None Location Map Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (list)
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
P5a. Photo
City Council 34 – 119 11/19/2024
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #__________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#______________________________________________
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
*Resource Name or #: Maharajah House
B1. Historic Name: Maharajah House
B2. Common Name: Same
B3. Original Use: Single-family Residence B4. Present Use: Single-family Residence *B5. Architectural Style: Moderne
*B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations): Constructed in 1938-1939.
December 14, 1938. 12 room frame & stucco residence and garages.
May 6, 1941. Reroof.
March 15, 1955. Swimming pool.
May 24, 1955. Cabana for swimming pool.
January 24, 1989. 6’ high bolock wall.
July 21, 1993. Add 2 bedrooms and 1 bath, 319 square feet.
September 15, 1997. Reroof.
*B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date:__________ Original Location:_____________________________ *B8. Related Features:
Garage, garden walls, mature landscaping, statue if original.
B9a. Architect: Donald Beach Kirby b. Builder: Allison Honer *B10. Significance: Theme Residential Architecture Area Santa Ana Period of Significance: circa 1888-1953 Property Type: Single-family Residence Applicable Criteria: B, C (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity) The Maharajah House is architecturally significant as an exceptional example of the residential use of the Art Moderne variant of the Moderne style, one of the best in Orange County. It is historically significant for its association with the Maharajah of Indore, the hereditary ruler of a central Indian state and reputedly one of the richest men in the world at time.
Designed by architect Donald Beach Kirby of Balboa, the house was built in 1938-1939 by prominent Santa Ana contractor Allison Honer for $40,000 according to the building permit, although the local press reported the cost of construction as $50,000 and of the furnishings as $150,000.
(See Continuation Sheet 3 of 4.)
B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) *B12. References:
City of Santa Ana Building Permits
Santa Ana History Room Collection, Santa Ana Public Library Sanborn Maps
(See Continuation Sheet 4 of 4.)
B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: Leslie J. Heumann
*Date of Evaluation: May 25, 2003
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
Sketch Map
(This space reserved for official comments.)
MAHARAJAH HOUSE
2221 NORTH HELIOTROPE DRIVE
City Council 34 – 120 11/19/2024
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________
*Recorded by Leslie J. Heumann, SAIC *Date May 25, 2003 ⌧ Continuation Update DPR 523L
*B10. Significance (continued):
Even before the house was constructed, Yeshwant Rao Holkar, the Maharajah, had captured the public imagination.
Educated at Oxford, the Maharajah had been traveling in the United States in 1936, had taken ill in Los Angeles, and had been nursed by Marguerite Lawler Branyan, an American divorcee. They married in 1938, following the death of the Maharajah’s first wife in 1937. In search of a safe haven prior to the beginning of World War II, the Maharajah decided to settle his young daughter, Princess Usha, and his new wife in Santa Ana. The large home, one of several owned by the Maharajah, was protected by high walls and by interior and exterior gates. According to one account, the Maharajah’s instructions to Allison Honer, the prominent Orange County builder who lived across the street from the property at 615 West Santa Clara Avenue, were to build a modern, but not too severe refuge. Lavishly appointed, the house contained, in 1986 when it was the International Society of Interior Designers Orange County Chapter Design House: three bedroom suites, eight bathrooms, four fireplaces, a grand foyer, spacious living room, formal dining room, library, solarium, kitchen, butler’s pantry, pool house (added later), servants’ and guards’ quarters, and an attached garage.
Said to be a progressive ruler who instituted many reforms, the Maharajah had governed Indore since the abdication of his father in his favor in 1926. The Maharajah and his American Maharani returned to India following an only one-year residence in the house, leaving Princess Usha in the care of a governess in Santa Ana, where she continued to attend public schools. The pair divorced in 1943. The Maharajah married again, to another American, who bore him four children including a male heir, but Princess Usha, as the only offspring born of an Indian woman, succeeded her father as ruler in 1961 following the death of her father. Marguerite, who also remarried, remained in the house until 1952. As of 1994, according to one account (Marsh), Princess Usha occupied one of the Holkar’s hereditary palaces in India, although, other information (“Indore: The Holkar Dynasty”) indicates that she was stripped of her rank and titles by the Indian state in 1970 The Maharajah House is located in Floral Park, a neighborhood northwest of downtown Santa Ana bounded by West Seventeenth Street, North Flower Street, Riverside Drive, and Broadway. Groves of oranges, avocados, and walnuts and widely scattered ranch houses characterized this area before 1920. Developer and builder Allison Honer (1897-1981), credited as the subdivider and builder of a major portion of northwest Santa Ana, arrived in Santa Ana from Beaver Falls, New York in 1922 (Talbert, pages 353-356). “Before nightfall on the day of his arrival, Mr. Honer purchased a parcel of land.
And that month, he began building custom homes in Santa Ana” (Orange County Register, September 15, 1981). The parcel chosen became the Floral Park subdivision between Seventeenth Street and Santiago Creek. “When built in the 1920s, the Floral Park homes were the most lavish and expensive in the area. They sold for about $45,000 each” (Orange County Register, September 15, 1981). Revival architecture in a wide variety of romantic styles was celebrated in the 1920s and 1930s and Floral Park showcased examples of the English Tudor, French Norman, Spanish Colonial, and Colonial Revival. The Allison Honer Construction Company went on to complete such notable projects as the 1935 Art Deco styled Old Santa Ana City Hall, the El Toro Marine Base during World War II, and the 1960 Honer Shopping Plaza. Honer lived in the neighborhood he had helped to create, at 615 West Santa Clara Avenue.
In the late 1920s and 1930s, another builder, Roy Roscoe Russell (1881-1965), continued developing the groves of Floral Park. An early Russell project was his 1928 subdivision of Victoria Drive between West Nineteenth Street and West Santa Clara Avenue. The homes were quite grand and displayed various revival styles, including Russell’s own large, Colonial Revival mansion at 2009 Victoria Drive. In the early post World War II years, Floral Park continued its development as numerous, smaller, single-family houses were built. Continuing in the Floral Park tradition, they were mostly revival in style.
In the 1950s, low, horizontal Ranch Style houses completed the growth of Floral Park. Today (2003) Floral Park maintains its identity as the premier neighborhood of Santa Ana, historically home to many affluent and prominent citizens.
The Maharajah House appears eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historical Resources. It also qualifies for listing in the Santa Ana Register of Historical Properties under Criterion 1 for its exemplification of the Art Moderne variant of the Moderne style and under Criterion 4b for its association with a foreign ruling family, the Holkars of Indore, India. Architecturally, the house is distinguished by its scale, massing, horizontal lines, use of characteristic features such as corner casement windows, and its fortress-like quality. The house also contributes to the historic character of the Floral Park neighborhood through its age, style, scale, and historic associations with prominent residents. Additionally, the house has been categorized as “Landmark” for its unique architectural significance as an example of the Art Moderne variant of the Moderne style and its historic/cultural significance to City as the “castle” of a sitting ruler. All original exterior features of the Maharajah House are considered character defining and should be preserved. These features include, but may not be limited to: materials and finishes (stucco, wrought iron); roof configuration, materials, and treatment; massing and composition; entry, doors and windows; terraces and walled gardens; architectural detailing (banding, window grilles, canopies, entry surround); chimneys and fireplaces; attached garage; original landscaping; and any original interior materials, spaces, finishes, and furnishings.
City Council 34 – 121 11/19/2024
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________
*Recorded by Leslie J. Heumann, SAIC *Date May 25, 2003 ⌧ Continuation Update DPR 523L
*B12. References (continued):
Harris, Cyril M. American Architecture: An Illustrated Encyclopedia. New York, WW Norton, 1998.
Marsh, Diann. Santa Ana, An Illustrated History. Encinitas, Heritage Publishing, 1994.
McAlester, Virginia and Lee. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1984.
National Register Bulletin 16A. “How to Complete the National Register Registration Form.” Washington DC: National Register Branch, National Park Service, US Dept. of the Interior, 1991.
Office of Historic Preservation. “Instructions for Recording Historical Resources.” Sacramento: March 1995. “Alison Honer Dies at 84,” The Santa Ana Journal, September 21, 1981. “Builder of Honer Plaza Dies,” Orange County Register, September 15, 1981. “History of Floral Park.” http://www.floral-park.com/page2.html Talbert, Thomas (editor-in-chief). Historical Volume and Reference Works Including Biographical Sketches of Leading Citizens, Volume I. Whittier, Historical Publishers, 1963.
Pleasants, Mrs. J. E. History of Orange County, California, volume 3. Los Angeles: J. R. Finnell & Sons, 1931.
Orange County Directories, 1928-1952.
Dodd, Richard H. “Art Moderne Style: Fit For a Prince.” Orange County Home, Volume 4 Number 5, May 2003.
Farrar, Robert S. “In the Days of the Maharajah . . . Santa Ana’s Storybook Romance.” Orange County Illustrated, October 1972.
“India Princess, 5, Will Have a $50,000 Home in Santa Ana.” Los Angeles Examiner, December 16, 1938. “Maharajah’s $50,000 Palace to be Built in Santa Ana.” Santa Ana Daily Register, December 15, 1938. “Where a Maharajah Lives in California.” Los Angeles Times, August 4, 1940.
International Society of Interior Designers Orange County Chapter. “Design House 1986.” Brochure. “Indore.” www.maharaja.freewerve.co.uk/indore.html.
“Indore: The Holkar Dynasty.” www.dreamwater.net/regiment/RoyalArk/India/indore4.htm. “Once upon a time in Indore.” www.rediff.com/election/1999/sep/15column.htm.
P5b. Photograph: North and west elevations, April 2003.
City Council 34 – 122 11/19/2024
City Council 34 – 123 11/19/2024
City Council 34 – 124 11/19/2024
City Council 34 – 125 11/19/2024
City Council 34 – 126 11/19/2024
City Council 34 – 127 11/19/2024
City Council 34 – 128 11/19/2024
City Council 34 – 129 11/19/2024
City Council 34 – 130 11/19/2024
City Council 34 – 131 11/19/2024
City Council 34 – 132 11/19/2024
O R A N G E C O U N T Y R E P O R T E R
OR#
~SINCE 1921~
To the right is a copy of the notice you sent to us for publication in the ORANGE COUNTY REPORTER. Thank you for using our newspaper. Please read this notice carefully and call us with any corrections. The Proof of Publication will be filed with the County Clerk, if required, and mailed to you after the last date below. Publication date(s) for this notice is (are):
Daily Journal Corporation
Serving your legal advertising needs throughout California.
Mailing Address : 600 W SANTA ANA BLVD, SANTA ANA, CA 92701 Telephone (714) 543-2027 / Fax (714) 542-6841
Visit us @ www.LegalAdstore.com
CHRISTINA LEONARD
CITY OF SANTA ANA/PLANNING & BUILDING
20 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA 2ND FLR
SANTA ANA, CA 92702
GPN GOVT PUBLIC NOTICE
2221 N. Heliotrope Dr.
03/16/2022
Publication
Total
$127.10
$127.10
ORANGE COUNTY REPORTER, SANTA ANA (714) 543-2027
BUSINESS JOURNAL, RIVERSIDE (951) 784-0111
DAILY COMMERCE, LOS ANGELES (213) 229-5300
LOS ANGELES DAILY JOURNAL, LOS ANGELES (213) 229-5300
SAN FRANCISCO DAILY JOURNAL, SAN FRANCISCO (800) 640-4829 SAN JOSE POST-RECORD, SAN JOSE (408) 287-4866
THE DAILY RECORDER, SACRAMENTO (916) 444-2355
THE DAILY TRANSCRIPT, SAN DIEGO (619) 232-3486
THE INTER-CITY EXPRESS, OAKLAND (510) 272-4747
Notice Type:
Ad Description
COPY OF NOTICE
3566077
!A000005965230!
The charge(s) for this order is as follows. An invoice will be sent after the last date of publication. If you prepaid this order in full, you will not receive an invoice.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE SANTA ANA PLANNING
COMMISSION
The City of Santa Ana encourages the
public to participate in the decisionmaking process. We encourage you to contact us prior to the Public Hearing if
you have any questions .
Planning Commission Action: The
Planning Commission will hold a Public
Hearing to receive public testimony, and
will take action on the item described
below. Decision on this matter will be final
unless appealed within 10 calendar days
of the decision by any interested party or
group.
Project Location: 2221 N Heliotrope
Drive
Project Applicant:Chan Quang and
Quynh Dinh Kieu (Property Owners)
Proposed Project: The applicant is
requesting approval of Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) No. 2022-06 to allow the
construction of an accessory structure 23’
– 4” in height within the rear yard of an
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.
Environmental Impact: Pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, the
project is exempt from further review
pursuant to Section 15303 of the CEQA
Guidelines (Class 3/New Construction or
Conversion of Small Structures) because
the project involves the construction of a
small accessory structure. Based on this analysis, Notice of Exemption, Environmental Review No. 2022-11 will be filed for this project. Meeting Details: This matter will be heard on Monday, March 28, 2022 at 5:30 p.m. ROSS ANNEX 20 Civic Center Plaza, Room 1600 Santa Ana, CA 92701. Members of the public may attend this meeting in- person or join via Zoom. For the most up to date information on how to participate virtually in this meeting, please visit www.santa-ana.org/pb/meeting- participation.
Written Comments: If you are unable to participate in the meeting, you may send written comments by e-mail to [email protected] (reference the Agenda Item # in the subject line) or mail to Christina Leonard, Recording Secretary, City of Santa Ana, 20 Civic Center Plaza – M20, Santa Ana, CA 92701. Deadline to submit written comments is 4:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting. Comments received after the deadline may not be distributed to the Commission but will be made part of the record. Where To Get More Information: Additional details regarding the proposed action(s), including the full text of the discretionary item, may be found on the City website 72 hours prior to the public hearing at: https://santa- ana.primegov.com/public/portal. Who To Contact For Questions: Should you have any questions, please contact Pedro Gomez with the Planning and Building Agency at PGomez@santa- ana.org or 714-667-2790.
Note: If you challenge the decision on the
above matter, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone
else raised at the public hearing
described in this notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to the Planning
Commission or City Council of the City of
Santa Ana at, or prior to, the public
hearing.
Si tiene preguntas en español, favor de
llamar a Narcedalia Perez (714) 667-
2260..
N u c n liên l c b ng ti ng Vi t,
xin i n tho i cho Tony Lai s (714)
565-2627.
Internal Reference Only:
REF#
Publish: OC Reporter
Date: March 16, 2022
3/16/22
OR-3566077#
City Council 34 – 133 11/19/2024
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Planning and Building Agency
20 Civic Center Plaza ● P.O. Box 1988
Santa Ana, California 92702
www.santa-ana.org/pba
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE SANTA ANA PLANNING COMMISSION
The City of Santa Ana encourages the public to participate in the decision-making process. This notice is being sent to those who live or own property within 500 feet of the project site or who have expressed an interest in the proposed action. We encourage you to contact us prior to the Public Hearing if you have any questions.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission will hold a Public Hearing to receive public testimony, and will take action on the item described below. Decision on this matter will be final unless appealed within 10 calendar days of the decision by any interested party or group.
Project Location: 2221 N. Heliotrope Drive
Project Applicant: Chan Quang and Quynh Dinh Kieu (Property Owners) Proposed Project: The applicant is requesting approval of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 2022- 06 to allow the construction of an accessory structure 23’ – 4” in height within the rear yard of an 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.
Environmental Impact: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, the project is exempt from further review pursuant to Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines (Class 3/New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) because the project involves the construction of a small accessory structure. Based on this analysis, Notice of Exemption, Environmental Review No. 2022-11 will be filed for this project.
Meeting Details: This matter will be heard on Monday, March 28, 2022 at 5:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 22 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701. Members of the public may attend this meeting in-person or join via Zoom. For the most up to date information on how to participate virtually in this meeting, please visit www.santa-ana.org/pb/meeting-participation.
Written Comments: If you are unable to participate in the meeting, you may send written comments by e-mail to [email protected] (reference the Agenda Item # in the subject line) or mail to Christina Leonard, Recording Secretary, City of Santa Ana, 20 Civic Center Plaza – M20, Santa Ana, CA 92701. Deadline to submit written comments is 4:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting. Comments received after the deadline may not be distributed to the Commission but will be made part of the record.
Where To Get More Information: Additional details regarding the proposed action(s), including the full text of the discretionary item, may be found on the City website 72 hours prior to the public hearing at:
https://santa-ana.primegov.com/public/portal.
Who To Contact For Questions: Should you have any questions, please contact Pedro Gomez with the Planning and Building Agency at [email protected] or 714-667-2790.
City Council 34 – 134 11/19/2024
Note: If you challenge the decision on the above matter, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission or City Council of the City of Santa Ana at, or prior to, the public hearing.
Si tiene preguntas en español, favor de llamar a Narcedalia Perez (714) 667-2260.
Nếu cần liên lạc bằng tiếng Việt, xin điện thoại cho Tony Lai số (714) 565-2627.
Publish: OC Reporter
Date: March 16, 2022
City Council 34 – 135 11/19/2024
On-Site Posting – 2221 N. Heliotrope Drive – March 17, 2022 City Council 34 – 136 11/19/2024
On-Site Posting – 2221 N. Heliotrope Drive – March 17, 2022 City Council 34 – 137 11/19/2024
Planning Commission
Public Comments
March 28, 2022
Item No. 1 – 2221 N. Heliotrope Dr.
Written Comments distributed to the Commission
LAST NAME FIRST NAME FAVOR OPPOSE NEUTRAL
Chrsitoffersen
Etheridge
Hart
Hartshorne
Hernandez,
Humphreys
Ch
Kato
Katz
Koldeway
LaFont
Lake
Magnusen
Mates
Murashie
Nakamura
Pero
Rothenberg
Salata
Scauwecker
Silva
McEwen
Stephens
Diana
Ann
Alex
Lauren
Erik
Julie
Jesse
Stacey & Leslie
Jeffery
Ellen
Marc
Julie
Laura
Amber
Ed
Mason
Mary
Mark
George & Linda
Erwin
Denise
Cameron
Stephanie
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City Council 34 – 138 11/19/2024
From: Diana Christoffersen
To: eComments, PBA
Subject: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR HISTORIC LANDMARK HOME at 2221 N. Heliotrope, Santa Ana (commonly known as the “Maharaja House”)
Date: Sunday, March 27, 2022 9:33:20 AM
Regarding: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR HISTORIC LANDMARK HOME at 2221 N. Heliotrope, Santa Ana (commonly known as the “Maharaja House”) In regard to the above referenced variance request that is scheduled to be heard before the Santa Ana Planning Commission on Monday, March 28, 2022, at 5:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, we respectfully submit the following comments/perspective as a neighbor in Floral Park.
The “Maharaja House” is a well-known premiere property within Floral Park situated on a lovely large corner lot with a colorful and storied history.Although a truly unique home and property, it fits well within the community where the Art Deco style is repeated in several other homes within Floral Park.
The current owners of 2221 N. Heliotrope have added many outbuildings and art features that honor their Vietnamese heritage, and that are enjoyed from a distance by neighbors.However, the construction of the proposed 23’4” pagoda that will tower over the existing privacy fence surrounding their property, as well as being on the prominent front side of this beautiful home, is out of scale and obtrusive, and will greatly diminish the beauty of what is already there.
We Floral Park residents take great pride in our neighborhood and happily follow the “rules” in place to ensure and maintain its specialness. Particularly now with the official designation of a Historic Neighborhood, it is important to ensure that the vision of those who worked so diligently to achieve that official designation is not compromised.
There is a point when less is more, and this is clearly one of those situations.The approved construction of this pagoda would diminish the beauty and historic presence of the “Maharaja House,” conflicts with the outbuildings and art sculptures already in place at the property and, by scale alone, will become the dominating feature of this beautiful property. We, therefore, respectfully request that the Planning Commission deny this variance and disallow the construction of this pagoda.
City Council 34 – 139 11/19/2024
From: [email protected]
To: eComments, PBA
Subject: Agenda #1: 2221 N. Heliotrope, Floral Park, Santa Ana Date: Saturday, March 26, 2022 3:23:37 PM
Good morning,
This letter is in reference to the above property and the owners' request for approval to build a 23+ foot high, 205 square foot free standing Vietnamese pagoda in their backyard. This is in addition to the other large structures they have already built in the backyard. Rhetorically, one might ask how many of these outbuildings do they need?
I implore you to deny this request for a number of reasons:
1. Floral Park has been officially designated and registered as a historic neighborhood in the State of California. One of the criteria for this designation is that the neighborhood be an outstanding example of a period, style, or architectural movement. Residents involved with the Floral Park Association worked long and hard to get this designation.
Most people who live in Floral Park are deeply committed to maintaining the ambiance of the neighborhood, and the architectural integrity of the homes here. I've no wish to be misunderstood in these culturally sensitive times, but the fact of the matter is that if one moves into Floral Park and, more specifically, into an outstanding example of the Art Moderne style, then one shouldn't really be defacing the property with large Vietnamese pagodas and tea houses that are visible from the street - as are the dragons snaking across the roofs. These structures are clearly inappropriate for the home's original architecture.
2. "The Maharaja House," as it is known, is a historic landmark listed on the Santa Ana Register of Historic Places. This home is only one of two other examples of the Art Moderne style in Santa Ana. As such, it is worth preserving, as are its surroundings. Why is that not being insisted upon?
3. The owners of this property have a history of ignoring any permit denials they receive from the City or the Historic Resources Commission. Several years ago, they requested permission to change the roof line on the home from flat to pitched. Since a flat roof line is one of the hallmarks of the Art Moderne style, this change would have had a negative effect on the home's historic value and its appearance.
Their request was denied, but the owners went ahead anyway with the changes they wanted. This resulted in the City filing misdemeanor charges and a conflict with the Historic Resources Commission.
The owners also replaced the original steel case windows in secret while the home was tented for fumigation. They sought variance approval after the fact.
So it seems that the owners do what they want, and then the City slaps them on the wrist. This encourages them to engage in the same behavior over and over again. Meanwhile, Floral Park's architectural integrity suffers. Frankly, I find this appalling.
4. It is interesting that a large dumpster has appeared outside the home in the last 24 hours. Does this indicate construction is on the horizon? Are the owners preparing to move forward regardless of the City's decision? Forgive me, but this would fit the pattern of past behavior.
5. Finally, my understanding is that the home on Heliotrope isn't even a primary residence. I respectfully suggest that the owners be told to build any future tea houses and/or pagodas on their other property.
Thank you.
Anne Etheridge
City Council 34 – 140 11/19/2024
2128 N. Greenleaf Street
Santa Ana 92706
City Council 34 – 141 11/19/2024
City Council 34 – 142 11/19/2024
From: lauren hartshorne
To: eComments, PBA
Subject: Re: Permit Request at Historic Landmark
Date: Sunday, March 27, 2022 3:51:57 PM
To whom it may concern:
I am writing in response to a conditional use permit request for a 23’4” tall Vietnamese pagoda to be located within 6’ of the S/W backyard fence at 2221 N. Heliotrope, Santa Ana (commonly known as the “Maharaja House”). This oncestunning historic Art Deco home, built for the Maharaja of Indore in 1939, has quickly been desecrated over the past several years under its current ownership. We strongly oppose the allowance of this structure to be built, as it only moves the home's current state further from its valuable historical character and prominence. Under current ownership, the "Maharaja House" is no longer a gleaming gem of Floral Park, but instead an unkempt, worn-down party house with year-round Christmas lights and molded exterior stucco. It is apparent the owners of this house are unable to maintain the pride of ownership deserving of this once beautiful home or have no desire to do so. We are concerned that adding additional structures to the property would only add to the burden of maintaining such a prominent house, given the owners' current inability to do so. Additionally, it appears the owners of 2221 N. Heliotrope may have already begun work on constructing this public monstrosity. This is an overt snub to their neighbors, this committee, and the City of Santa Ana.
Please honor and support the dignity of our historic neighborhood and deny this building permit.
Lauren Hartshorne
2311 N. Heliotrope Dr, Santa Ana
209-740-7414
City Council 34 – 143 11/19/2024
From: Erik Hernandez
To: eComments, PBA
Subject: Agenda #1
Date: Monday, March 28, 2022 10:27:26 AM
Hello,
I am writing to you today because of my concern for the proposed building of a structure at 2221 N Heliotrope Dr in Santa Ana. I am a neighbor living within viewing distance of this property and the proposed structure.
I am concerned it will deter from the historic value and history of the home. Additionally, past actions of the owners give me cause for concern. Several years ago they requested to change the style/roof line on the home (from flat to pitched) that would have marred its historical value and appearance (the Historic Resources Commission denied the request). Subsequent changes made to the roof - after the Commission's denial - were neither properly permitted nor matched the building's architectural style resulting in the city filing misdemeanor charges and a conflict with the Historic Resources Commission.
They also replaced the home's original steel case windows in secret doing so while the home was tented for fumigation seeking variance approval after the fact.
This home has historical ties to a sitting foreign ruler and is one of only two examples of the Art Moderne style in Santa Ana (the other is a small building that is used for commercial purposes).
I feel in granting this proposal it will alter the historical significance of this address and not enhance the property in any way. Please help to prevent this from happening.
Thank you
Erik Hernandez
2301 N Flower St
City Council 34 – 144 11/19/2024
From: Julie Humphreys
To: eComments, PBA
Subject: Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-06
Date: Monday, March 28, 2022 12:00:52 PM
Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-06 re: 2221 N Heliotrope I am writing to strongly urge the Planning Commission to DENY the application for a conditional use permit.
1. The Addition of this Structure to this Historic Landmark Site has Not Been Approved by the Historic Resources Commission as Required by the Mills Act and this Application Should First be Reviewed by the HRC.
I vehemently object to the bypassing of the Historic Resources Commission which is required to approve any alterations or additions to a Historic Property—which includes the building site. To permit city staff and the owners to bypass the HRC in the approval process for this structure dangerously undermines the purview of the HRC and thereby makes city staff the de facto arbiter of the Mills Act contract and HRC jurisdiction.
The owners purchased a Landmark Historic Property which is steeped in history and architectural significance. Furthermore, this property has a Mills Act contract from which the owners have been annually benefitting with significantly lower property taxes. This historic property includes not just the land but all associated structures and improvements thereon. As such, the owners are contractually obligated to not only maintain the Historic Property, but they may not disrupt the view corridor with any new structure . . . so as to prevent the viewing of the historic landmark by the public. Furthermore, the owners are contractually prohibited from destruction of character-defining features of the building or site, or alterations or additions unless approved by the Historic Resources Commission. Such alterations include a structure . . . which is unsightly by reason of its height, condition, or inappropriate location.
The notion that the purview of the Historic Resources Commission is limited only to alterations that physically touch the historic residential structure itself is both dangerously narrow minded but contrary to the express terms of the Mills Act contract to which both the owners and the city of Santa Ana are parties. The Mills Act contract clearly applies to the character-defining features of the building site and the additions of any structure which would interfere with the characterdefining features of the site which requires approval by the Historic Resources Committee. Of course, whether the proposed structure, in fact, does interfere with the character-defining features of the site is for the HRC to determine, after a fair and public review process.
To permit city staff to unilaterally conclude that this proposed twenty-three-footplus structure has no impact on this historic landmark property and is therefore not within the jurisdiction of the HRC reveals a shocking ignorance and appreciation of the historic and architectural importance of this historic property, its overall design, architectural intent, and the significance of the present viewing corridor. This fact alone is the reason why this CUP application must be deferred to the HRC for first review and consideration. To enable city staff to permit the owners to bypass the HRC would result in city staff being the final arbiter of such decisions, in effect usurping the purview of the HRC, and significantly undermining the concept of historic preservation the city professes to support.
2. The Proposed Structure Adversely Impacts the Historic Property In the event the Planning Commission does not elect to refer this matter to the Historic Resources Commission, the application for CUP should be substantively denied because it adversely impacts the historic structure. This proposed structure City Council 34 – 145 11/19/2024
will be nearly as tall as the main residence, and even though it is proposed to be erected toward the S end of the property, its size, location and mass will be extremely a prominent and dominant feature of the main viewing corridor from Heliotrope. So much so that it will compete with the structure of the main residence. The Maharaja built this residence and surrounding improvements (including the long, walled fence) as a fortress, a compound, for his daughter, with the sizing, location and massing of each structure deliberately placed to as to create a cohesive, unified, clean, modern presence.
The proposed pagoda is neither cohesive with the unique architectural style of the main home nor does it enhance it. It would only distract from and, therefore, detract from and adversely impact the main residence. It would be as much out of place as a lookout tower modeled after a wild west fort. The application for the CUP must be denied.
Julie Humphreys 2112 n Ross St
Sent from Mail for Windows
City Council 34 – 146 11/19/2024
From: Jesse Ch
To: eComments, PBA
Subject: 2221 N Heliotrope
Date: Saturday, March 26, 2022 12:34:46 PM
Good afternon,
This email is to comment about the large structure that is to be built on 2221 N Heliotrope. I am opposed to havening such a large structure built in a residential property. I sympathize with their love for their culture and deisre to have something beautiful in their yard but a residential area is not the place for it.
I wish them all the best and hope they put all of their energy in preserving the rest of the house.
Thank You,
City Council 34 – 147 11/19/2024
From: leslie.kato
To: eComments, PBA
Subject: March 28, 2022 Planning Commision Hearing. Agenda #1 Date: Saturday, March 26, 2022 4:15:53 PM
My husband and I are opposed to the construction of the proposed pavilion at 2221 North Heliotrope Drive, Santa Ana, CA, 92706. Not only do we feel it will deter from the historical design and view of the home, but we also feel it is too tall a structure for its proposed location.
Additionally, this is not the homeowners primary residence, which begs the question as to the reason/purpose for the structure. What we have heard is that the pavilion is being built (as a supplement to a 170+ year old Vietnamese village cheif's home added to the backyard by the owners many years ago) for the site to be used as a Vietnamese cultural location. We believe the property is zoned for private residential use only.
We are also concerned with the lack of response time allotted to the proposal and the placement of a dumpster at the address . Its as if the project has already been given the "green light" and they want to commence with construction quickly before anyone can comment.
Based on the homeowners past actions; removing and replacing the home's original steel case windows with vinyl ones in secrecy while the house was tented for fumigation, and making unpermitted changes to the roof resulting in the city filing misdemeanor charges and conflict with the Historic Resource Commission that required the home owners to make modifications to the unpermitted work, concerns us that the home owners do not have the historical value of the home design (Art Moderne style and only one of two in the city), or it's significant history (it has historical ties to a sitting foreign ruler) as a priority or even a concern.
Sincerely,
Stacey & Leslie Kato
2119 N. Heliotrope Dr
Santa Ana, CA 92706
Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device
City Council 34 – 148 11/19/2024
City Council 34 – 149 11/19/2024
From: Julie Lake
To: eComments, PBA
Subject: 2221 N. Heliotrope, Santa Ana, 92706
Date: Sunday, March 27, 2022 8:32:23 PM
Gentlemen,
Just writing to urge you to vote NO on the construction of a Vietnamese-style pagoda requested by the owners of this property. It is completely at odds with the Art Deco style of the house. This is an historic house, we are an historic neighborhood, don’t let this eyesore be approved.
As a 35-year resident of this neighborhood, I have watched and helped to maintain this lovely area. Please do not let it be diminished in any way.
Thank you for your attention.
Best regards,
Julie Lake
2028 Greenleaf Street
Santa Ana
City Council 34 – 150 11/19/2024
From: Laura Rips
To: eComments, PBA
Subject: 2221 N Heliotrope Project
Date: Monday, March 28, 2022 12:56:22 PM
To whom it may concern,
I am a neighbor in Floral Park and I object to the building of the large two-story pagoda at 2221 N Heliotrope. I feel the structure is too tall and imposing as viewed from the street.
Thank you for taking my comment. I was unable to find the agenda #, which is why it isn’t in the subject line Thank you,
Laura Magnusen
City Council 34 – 151 11/19/2024
From: Amber Matas
To: eComments, PBA
Subject: Objection to the variance request for historic landmark at 2221 N Heliotrope Date: Saturday, March 26, 2022 6:54:15 PM
Good afternoon
I am officially sending in an objection to the variance requested at 2221 Heliotrope.
My credentials are as follows- a Floral Park resident and a Senior Vice President of Design and Construction for a major Southern California
company. I have managed architecture, design, and construction for multiple historically designated neighborhoods and projects over the pst 25 years.
The overall height is far beyond what would be considered within code and moreover, is not in line with with the historical nature of the home as it is on the registry.
Allowing this structure at this height is not only an eyesore to the neighborhood, but it expressly is against the Mills Act.
Moreover, the larger concern would be that the initial structure granted the historical designation (I.e. the home itself) is sadly neglected. The paint, fencing and landscaping is all in need of repair and allowing funds to go towards this build would divert from the preservation of the home itself.
And if the funds are being donated by outside community to erect the structure, the concern would be what is the intent of the structure?
Frankly, we feel this is slowly being transformed into a religious retreat or gathering place/event space as multiple events are held here and our neighborhood is not an event center.
Amber Matas, PMP
714-553-1188
City Council 34 – 152 11/19/2024
From: Ed Murashie
To: eComments, PBA
Subject: March 28 Hearing Re: Request for Variance at historic "Maharaja" house Date: Sunday, March 27, 2022 10:48:01 PM
Attachments: image003.png
Hello, I am Ed Murashie, a Floral Park resident, and Historic Resources Commissioner.
I will be speaking tomorrow night and I want to go on record opposing the variance, and provide a few photos that I will refer to when I speak.
The Maharaja House is a Landmark historic property that is on the Santa Ana Register of Historic Properties (SARHP) and the owners have a Mill Act contract with the city. The home owner has had no respect for the historic integrity of the house and has been trying to change the Moderne architecture style since they bought the house. Considering its registered historic status, modifications of the exterior character defining features are not allowed but have occurred. The owners have also intentionally ignored the city permitting process at least twice. This is shown by the following actions documented in the city’s online planning history shown below :
1. Tried to modify the home on 4/10/2003 and was denied a permit.
2. Tried to appeal the 6/19/2003 decision to place the home on the SARHP on 10/13/2003.
3. Installed an oriental tea house 10/27/2003. It was permitted. The style was not in keeping with the Moderne or Indore, but half of it is hidden by front block wall.
4. Exterior modification 08/24/2007. I don’t have a record of what was changed.
5. Tried to be removed from the SARHP on 1/15/2013 but was denied.
6. Summer of 2021, reroofed and extended the height of pool house above the 15’ limit without a variance and without a permit, see the images below.
7. Added a horse sculpture, and oriental sculpture garden in the front side yard which is a misrepresentation of the Maharaja of Indore or his daughter the Princess.
8. Without a permit, changed out the casement windows and awnings which are historic defining features called out in the DPR and they have yet to be replaced.
9. Window change out on 02/18/2014. The matter was not included in any 2014 HRC minutes so I am not sure if it was presented to the HRC, which it should have.
The Maharaja House is the most historically significant structure in the Floral Park neighborhood. The owners are aware of the historical nature of the house and have been taking advantage of the Mills Act tax saving which protect the historical integrity of the home. The casement windows and awnings should be restored and the pool roof return to its original structure and height before this variance is considered.
Best Regards, Ed
The reroofing of the pool house can be seen in the two images below take over a span of three years.
The earlier image shows the pool house circled in red. Notice the new house circled in green with the incomplete front and back yards.
So you know the image is not “PhotoShop’d”, you can see it for yourself at https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7664955,-117.8748372,94m/data=!3m1!1e3 This is a later image taken within the past year. You can tell by looking at the finished front and backyard of the house circled in green . Notice the pool house roof circled in red is different.
So you know the image is not “PhotoShop’d”, you can see it for yourself at https://zoom.earth/#view=33.766451,-117.874889,20z City Council 34 – 153 11/19/2024
Photo of the home, pool house and garden taken today.
Online Property History http://apps.santa-ana.org/property-info/PropertyActivity.aspx?property_id=284731 , click on Planning History tab.
Application # Application Type Determination Start Project Name CUP-2022-6-OTH Conditional Use Permit Staff Review 02/10/2022 Maharajah House Moon Pavilion Structure DP-2021-35-OTH Development Project Withdrawn/Void 12/06/2021 Maharajah House Moon Pavilion Structure HPPA-2014-25-HPPA Historic Property Preservation Agreement Approved 10/02/2014 Maharajah House Mills Act RES-2014-424-ALT Residential Approved 02/18/2014 Kieu window change out RES-2013-439-ALT Residential Returned To Applicant 05/02/2013 Kieu solar panels HR-2013-1-RML Historic Register Denied 01/15/2013 Removal from SARHP SC-2012-54-SC Street Closure Staff Review 10/15/2012 Floral Park Harvest Festival HEMA-2007-3-HEMA Historic Exterior Modification Application Approved 08/24/2007 Maharajah House Exterior Modification City Council 34 – 154 11/19/2024
PWA-2007-678-BPR Public Works Application Withdrawn/Void 12/07/2007 Kieu - Pool Demo RES-2007-1542-ALT Residential Approved 08/20/2007 Kieu - Pool Demo RES-2006-2768-ALT Residential Approved 11/30/2006 Restucco main house PWA-2004-71-BPR Public Works Application Approved 02/12/2004 Kiev Accessory Structure RES-2003-1838-ADD Residential Approved 10/27/2003 Kiev Accessory Structure APPL-2003-7-AHC Appeal Denied 10/13/2003 Maharajah House HRCA-2003-30-HRCA Historic Resources Commission Application Approved 06/19/2003 Maharajah House HRC-2003-34-HRC Historic Register Categorizations Approved 06/19/2003 Maharajah House RES-2003-138-ALT Residential Denied 04/10/2003 Kieu House City Council 34 – 155 11/19/2024
City of Santa Ana
Planning Commission
Re: 2221 N. Heliotrope Drive CUP application 2022-06
To Whom it May Concern:
As a property owner in Floral Park and a former property owner on Heliotrope Dr., I am writing to request that the Planning Commission deny the Conditional Use Permit 2022-06 to allow construction of lhe 23' 4" height accessory structure in the rear yard a|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 its proposed location and detract from the streamline moderne architecture ofthe Historic Landmark Maharajah house. Ratherthan grantthe CUP, the Planning Commission should direct the Homeowners to alter the structure to conform to both SAMC regulations as well as to the scale of its proposed location.
My concern is that, based on past experience, as well as the presence of a dumpster and work already underway at the proposed work site, is that the Homeowners will once again ignore the historic significance of their home and its place in the history of our neighborhood a nd City and install the proposed structure without permission. I was horrified by prior actions of the Homeowners in previous years, which included tarping scaffolding to hide changes to the trlm on the home (which they were forced to remove by the City), as well as the unauthorized changes to windows done without permission that they have never corrected.
I would encourage the Planning Commission to deny the CUP application and that the City ensure the Homeowners comply with all SAMC regulations. The Homeowners should be directed to work on an installation that complements the design and architecture of the Historic Landmark property rather than proposing one which overshadows lt.
Sincerely,
)
Mason Nakamura
2215 N. Victoria Dr.
santa Ana, cA 92706
City Council 34 – 156 11/19/2024
From: Mary Pero
To: eComments, PBA
Subject: RE: Request for Variance at Historic Home 2221 N Heliotrope Date: Saturday, March 26, 2022 3:24:39 PM
*We request that our name and address remain anonymous* To Whom It May Concern,
My husband and I live in Floral Park not far from 2221 N Heliotrope. We pass their home daily on our walks and had noticed the public notice regarding their requested permit. We didn’t think much of their request until we saw the proposed image of the structure the property owners would like to build.
When we presented our home to the Historic Resources Commission of Santa Ana and were granted status as a contributive historic home, we were told that we may need to consider removing some of the trees close to the front of the house so as not to obstruct the view of the home, or take away from the view of the home. We followed those guidelines and have removed some of the old growth plantings that were threatening to obstruct the view of our home and landscaped our yard.
Shortly after we moved in (May 2017), we heard of another homeowner (1904 Heliotrope Dr) who requested to put a fence/wall around part of their property to create more privacy. As they are a corner lot, the majority of their yard was in the front. It is my understanding that they were denied this request on the grounds of the fence obstructing the view of the home and taking away from the historic nature of the property.
Having reviewed the images of the proposed structure at 2221 N Heliotrope, we feel that this would significantly impact the historic feel of both the home and the neighborhood. I might add, much more than a fence on one side of a property or a large shrub in front of our home.
Thank you for your time.
Mary Pero
2208 Greenleaf Street
City Council 34 – 157 11/19/2024
From: Mark Rothenberg
To: eComments, PBA
Subject: Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-06/2221 North Heliotrope/Development Approvals For Wall and Other Accompanying Structures
Date: Monday, March 28, 2022 2:26:11 PM
Honorable Members of the Planning Commission:
I am writing to request that the Planning Commission either defer the item until a community meeting can be held or the matter be forwarded to the Historic Preservation Commission for review. The crux of the matter and the bulk of the concerns reflected by our neighbors involves the impact on historic Floral Park and an assessment of whether or not the proposed structure is consistent with the historic character and nature of both the subject property and surrounding properties. Thank you for your kind consideration.
Sincerely,
Mark Rothenberg
2042 N Ross Street
City Council 34 – 158 11/19/2024
From: Linda Salata
To: eComments, PBA
Subject: 2221 N Heliotrope Dr
Date: Sunday, March 27, 2022 10:13:25 PM
We are NOT at all in favor of the proposed structure at the home on the corner of Heliotrope Dr and Santa Clara! It is not congruent with historical nature of Floral Park in any way and must not be permitted to be built! Also please have the vector control department continue to regularly inspect the mosquito breeding caldron on the premises outside the fence.
Thank you.
George and Linda Salata
2115 N Heliotrope Dr
City Council 34 – 159 11/19/2024
From: Cameron McEwen
To: eComments, PBA
Subject: March 28 Hearing Re: Request for Variance at historic “Maharaja” house Date: Sunday, March 27, 2022 6:27:05 AM
If this hearing were to be held a few days later, on April 1, it would make sense as an April Fool's Day prank. After all, the proposed structure utterly contradicts the character of the historic property and of the historic neighborhood beyond it. It would be destructive of the character of both and might even jeopardize the application for official historic neighborhood designation. The variance should be denied.
Cameron McEwen
2033 N Flower St
City Council 34 – 160 11/19/2024
From: Stephanie Stephens
To: eComments, PBA
Subject: March 28 Hearing Re: Request for Variance at historic “Maharaja” house Date: Friday, March 25, 2022 8:09:34 PM
To Whom it May Concern,
I respectfully request that the variance request is denied for this build.
Floral Park residents work hard to ensure that the historic and architectural integrity is maintained in our neighborhood. We try to maintain the historic nature and preserve what those before us built and celebrate what our community has become known for with visitors annually coming to tour our neighborhood. I do not want to see this precedence set in the neighborhood which eventually could impact the property values and unique charm. This home currently already stands out with its poorly maintained painted exterior and the warrior statue erected in the front yard atypical of what you would find in a residential neighborhood and one unique like FP. The build proposal creates a highly visible structure that is not aligned with the architecture of the community. This house is on a main road in the neighborhood and distracts from the historic charm Floral Park is known for. With respect, I request that this build is denied.
Thank you for your consideration
Stephanie Stephens
N Ross St - Floral Park
City Council 34 – 161 11/19/2024
From: Erik Hernandez
To: eComments, PBA
Subject: Agenda #1
Date: Monday, March 28, 2022 10:27:26 AM
Hello,
I am writing to you today because of my concern for the proposed building of a structure at 2221 N Heliotrope Dr in Santa Ana. I am a neighbor living within viewing distance of this property and the proposed structure.
I am concerned it will deter from the historic value and history of the home. Additionally, past actions of the owners give me cause for concern. Several years ago they requested to change the style/roof line on the home (from flat to pitched) that would have marred its historical value and appearance (the Historic Resources Commission denied the request). Subsequent changes made to the roof - after the Commission's denial - were neither properly permitted nor matched the building's architectural style resulting in the city filing misdemeanor charges and a conflict with the Historic Resources Commission.
They also replaced the home's original steel case windows in secret doing so while the home was tented for fumigation seeking variance approval after the fact.
This home has historical ties to a sitting foreign ruler and is one of only two examples of the Art Moderne style in Santa Ana (the other is a small building that is used for commercial purposes).
I feel in granting this proposal it will alter the historical significance of this address and not enhance the property in any way. Please help to prevent this from happening.
Thank you
Erik Hernandez
2301 N Flower St
City Council 34 – 162 11/19/2024
From: Jeffrey Katz
To: eComments, PBA
Subject: Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-06
Date: Monday, March 28, 2022 3:56:21 PM
The Floral Park Neighborhood Association requests that the Planning Commission send this CUP application to the Santa Ana Historic Resources Commission for consideration.
This issue needs to be heard by the Historic Resources Commission which has purview of additions which impact not just the character-defining features of the historic structure itself but all improvements thereon, including the building site. The Planning Commission needs to send this to the HRC. FPNA strongly objects to the bypassing of the HRC in this CUP process and permitting city staff to (1) wrongly conclude that the HRC only has jurisdiction over the residential structure itself, and (2) unilaterally determine which additions or alterations interfere with the character-defining features of the Historic Property so as to bypass the HRC. Permitting this CUP process to move forward severely undermines the HRC and is contrary to Santa Ana's professed intent to support the preservation of historic properties (which includes the building site).
Per the city’s own documents which were incorporated when the property was placed on the Historic Register: "All original exterior features of the Maharajah House are considered character defining and should be preserved. These features include, but may not be limited to: materials and finishes (stucco, wrought iron); roof configuration, materials, and treatment; massing and composition; entry, doors and windows; terraces and walled gardens; architectural detailing (banding, window grilles, canopies, entry surround); chimneys and fireplaces; attached garage; original landscaping; and any original interior materials, spaces, finishes, and furnishings." (Packet p. 36/52)
Additionally, owners of properties under a Mills Act contract are prohibited from destruction of character-defining features of the building or site, or alterations or additions unless approved by the Historic Resources Commission.
FPNA objects to bypassing the processes established by the city for reviewing proposed modifications to historic properties. The Planning Commission needs to refer this application to the HRC for consideration.
FLORAL PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION
Jeffrey A. Katz | Attorney at Law
1919 N. Heliotrope Dr.
Santa Ana, CA 92706
Direct Dial: (714) 296-8309
Email: [email protected]
City Council 34 – 163 11/19/2024
From: [email protected]
To: eComments, PBA
Subject: Re: Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-06 Project Location: 2221 N Heliotrope Drive Date: Monday, March 28, 2022 3:55:11 PM
Proposed Project: The CUP Applicant is requesting approval of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 2022-06 to allow the construction of an accessory structure 23’ – 4” (reduced to c. 21 feet) in height within the rear yard of an 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.
My Requested Actions:
1)Postpone the hearing, and remand the matter to the Planning Department for additional Findings of Fact to show compliance with standards ofSAMC Section 41-638; or 2)Deny the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-06 as conditioned due to insufficient evidence to show compliance with standards ofSAMC Section 41-638; and 3) Refer the matter to the Historic Resources Commission for review as required by the Mills Act; ************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************ Greetings Planning Commission,
I respectfully request that the Planning Commission postpone making a decision on this matter. You have insufficient accurate information to make an informed decision to grant a conditional use permit (CUP) under the Municipal Code as the record does not yet establish compliance with Sec. 41-638(Standards for granting applications).
I urge you to remand this matter back to the Planning Department with instructions to make complete and accurate findings of fact about the possible adverse effects of the proposed and actual intended use of the oversize pavilion on the surrounding neighborhood of Floral Park and to publish any revised findings of fact to the surrounding neighborhood before the Planning Commission hears this matter.If the Commission goes forward tonight, I would regretfully oppose the CUP because the record seems to be materially incomplete.As a result, there is possibly significantly inaccurate information in the Planning Department findings, specifically finding no. 5,on which you must base your decision.
Please note that I am not alleging any deliberate wrongdoing either by the Owner/Applicants or by the Planning Department. I appreciate the request for height has been reduced to just over 21 feet.
I have no objection to the immediate construction of a pavilion of 15 feet height.
Here is my objection.The Planning Department has made the following finding:
"5. 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 members of the general public." First, I have heard, but have not verified,that the property owners/applicants now reside primarily in West Floral Park rather than at 2221 North Heliotrope.Further, I have heard, but have not verified,that the 2221 North Heliotrope Drive property will be used primarily as a community resource and cultural center. Finally, there are frequently large numbers of visitors on the property who may be using the pavilion.During past years. the owners have hosted several events inviting large groups of people to the premises just as many neighbors on our street have done.
Of course, even assuming any or all of these things are true, there is absolutely nothing wrong with using the property in this way. Whether or not the owners live on this property and whether or not they use their property as a community gathering place should not be dispositive to their application. The owners can live on or off this property or allow anyone else to live on this property.This is their property to use or not use as they see fit. And the oversize pavilion may be a great idea.
However,if any of these things are true, then the Planning Department is probably wrong when it states in finding 5 that "the use of the pavilion will be very limited and therefore will preserve the community character. " ((“t)he 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 members of the general public.") Rather, it seems more likely that the use of the pavilion may be very extensive and therefore could have a significant, but as yet unevaluated impact on the "community character." While the extent of likely use of the pavilion may fall short of actual "public access and use," it does appear it could likely have significantly more use by more visitors at 2221 than it would in many other single family residences in the neighborhood. (Again, I don’t necessarily have a problem with this or think it is my business.) However,I also don’t think that the likely amount of intended use of the oversize pavilion is what a reasonable person would consider simply continued “private quiet enjoyment by the current owners” as presented by the Planning Department. Rather, it’s been requested by the current owners, who may no longer reside primarily in this property, for use not only by themselves but also by a multitude of students and/or other visitors to the property as part of the property’s possible intended use as a (non)residential community cultural center. Assuming the owners will be inviting many visitors to the property who will be using the pavilion frequently, a large pavilion will be needed.Again, there is nothing inherently wrong with this proposed use.It just does not sound anything like the proposed limited use that the Planning Department has described in its finding of fact 5. In fact, frequent use by many people provides a plausible explanation for why such a large structure was requested....when there is little other information justifying this variance request in the record. Although it is not necessary to justify the request for variance as long as there is no negative impact on the community, in this case, if there is an artistic, religious, spiritual, logistical, or cultural reason for the pavilion to be so large and on apparent stilts, I would encourage this information to be included in the record. Until then, the Planning Commission should remand this matter to the Planning Department for additional accurate supporting evidence on whether the intended use of the pavilion is accurately described and will in fact “preserve the community('s) character”.
I am not necessarily requesting that the CUP be denied when complete and accurate evidence is finally presented for consideration.Rather I am asking that before making the decision the Planning Commission insist that there be present in the record sufficient evidence to make a valid finding and assessment on the frequent use of the large pavilion for such events.Then the Commission can accurately predict the impact of this change on “preserv(ing) the community character.”Consider the possible recurring substantial influx of visitors to our neighborhood, and the resultingadditional noise, traffic and use of onstreet parking. Please factor in the impact of these matters on the surrounding neighborhood homes as required by the code. Due to the inadequacy in the Planning Department’s current findings to justify the proposed size, height, and use of the pavilion, I object to the Planning Department’s granting of the CUP until you havedetermined the actual factsof this application.Please examine more carefully any impact on the neighborhood this actual use will have on“preserv(ing) the community character.” Let the neighborhood know in advance what you learn.
In conclusion, I think the present record is critically insufficient, and it is therefore, premature, for the Planning Commission, to granta conditional use permit (CUP) according to the compliance standards ofSAMC Section 41-638. As I have outlined, there is presently just not enough accurate information in the findings or enclosures to determine that the proposed use of the outsize pavilion "will provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community; that the proposed use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity;that the proposed use will not adversely affect the present economic stability or future economic development of property in the surrounding area; that the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in this chapter for such use;" and that "the proposed use will not adversely affect the general plan of the city or any specific plan applicable to the area of the proposed use." Finally, I believe that the Planning Department has exceeded its authority and that the matter must be referred to the Historic Resources Commission pursuant to the Mills Act.
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 particular group or organization.
Respectfully Submitted,
Mrs. Ellen Koldewey
North Heliotrope Drive
Santa Ana CA 92706
City Council 34 – 164 11/19/2024
From: Laura Rips
To: eComments, PBA
Subject: 2221 N Heliotrope Project
Date: Monday, March 28, 2022 12:56:22 PM
To whom it may concern,
I am a neighbor in Floral Park and I object to the building of the large two-story pagoda at 2221 N Heliotrope. I feel the structure is too tall and imposing as viewed from the street.
Thank you for taking my comment. I was unable to find the agenda #, which is why it isn’t in the subject line Thank you,
Laura Magnusen
City Council 34 – 165 11/19/2024
City of Santa Ana
Planning Commission
Re: 2221 N. Heliotrope Drive CUP application 2022-06
To Whom it May Concern:
As a property owner in Floral Park and a former property owner on Heliotrope Dr., I am writing to request that the Planning Commission deny the Conditional Use Permit 2022-06 to allow construction of lhe 23' 4" height accessory structure in the rear yard a|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 its proposed location and detract from the streamline moderne architecture ofthe Historic Landmark Maharajah house. Ratherthan grantthe CUP, the Planning Commission should direct the Homeowners to alter the structure to conform to both SAMC regulations as well as to the scale of its proposed location.
My concern is that, based on past experience, as well as the presence of a dumpster and work already underway at the proposed work site, is that the Homeowners will once again ignore the historic significance of their home and its place in the history of our neighborhood a nd City and install the proposed structure without permission. I was horrified by prior actions of the Homeowners in previous years, which included tarping scaffolding to hide changes to the trlm on the home (which they were forced to remove by the City), as well as the unauthorized changes to windows done without permission that they have never corrected.
I would encourage the Planning Commission to deny the CUP application and that the City ensure the Homeowners comply with all SAMC regulations. The Homeowners should be directed to work on an installation that complements the design and architecture of the Historic Landmark property rather than proposing one which overshadows lt.
Sincerely,
)
Mason Nakamura
2215 N. Victoria Dr.
santa Ana, cA 92706
City Council 34 – 166 11/19/2024
From: Mark Rothenberg
To: eComments, PBA
Subject: Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-06/2221 North Heliotrope/Development Approvals For Wall and Other Accompanying Structures
Date: Monday, March 28, 2022 2:26:11 PM
Honorable Members of the Planning Commission:
I am writing to request that the Planning Commission either defer the item until a community meeting can be held or the matter be forwarded to the Historic Preservation Commission for review. The crux of the matter and the bulk of the concerns reflected by our neighbors involves the impact on historic Floral Park and an assessment of whether or not the proposed structure is consistent with the historic character and nature of both the subject property and surrounding properties. Thank you for your kind consideration.
Sincerely,
Mark Rothenberg
2042 N Ross Street
City Council 34 – 167 11/19/2024
From: Marc LaFont
To: eComments, PBA
Subject: re: conditional use permit at historic Maharaja House Date: Monday, March 28, 2022 3:33:18 PM
NO!
This is a historic property, possibly one of the most unique in the country: It is the ONLY palace of a reigning foreign Royal in the United States. It is of significant historical importance. Yet this proposed construction has somehow skipped review by the city's Historic Resources Commission. It's also a Mills Act property which means that the owners cannot alter the site without approval by the Commission.
I suspect that approval of this without approval by the Historic Resources Commissions puts the city in a very vulnerable and litigious legal position as well as setting a very dangerous precedent. Regardless of its dubious aesthetics and how it impacts the neighboring community, this simply cannot be approved without approval by the Commission.
Marc LaFont
1816 N. Heliotrope Drive
Santa Ana
City Council 34 – 168 11/19/2024
From: [email protected]
To: eComments, PBA
Subject: 2221 Heliotrope public hearing
Date: Monday, March 28, 2022 3:43:14 PM
I Erwin Schauwecker believe that this proposed project creates an unreasonable invasion of neighbors in an historical and significant protected property.
The significance of this was known to the property owners before they purchased it and they have repeatedly attempted to degrade it’s documented significance.
I recommend that this petition be denied!
Erwin Schauwecker
Sent from my iPhone
City Council 34 – 169 11/19/2024
O R A N G E C O U N T Y R E P O R T E R
OR#
~SINCE 1921~
To the right is a copy of the notice you sent to us for publication in the ORANGE COUNTY REPORTER. Thank you for using our newspaper. Please read this notice carefully and call us with any corrections. The Proof of Publication will be filed with the County Clerk, if required, and mailed to you after the last date below. Publication date(s) for this notice is (are):
Daily Journal Corporation
Serving your legal advertising needs throughout California.
Mailing Address : 600 W SANTA ANA BLVD STE 812, SANTA ANA, CA 92701 Telephone (714) 543-2027 / Fax (714) 542-6841
Visit us @ www.LegalAdstore.com
NUVIA OCAMPO
CITY OF SANTA ANA/PLANNING & BUILDING AGENCY
20 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA 2ND FLR
SANTA ANA, CA 92702
GPN GOVT PUBLIC NOTICE
2221 N Heliotrope Dr
08/16/2024
Publication
Total
$150.15
$150.15
ORANGE COUNTY REPORTER, SANTA ANA (714) 543-2027
BUSINESS JOURNAL, RIVERSIDE (951) 784-0111
DAILY COMMERCE, LOS ANGELES (213) 229-5300
LOS ANGELES DAILY JOURNAL, LOS ANGELES (213) 229-5300
SAN FRANCISCO DAILY JOURNAL, SAN FRANCISCO (800) 640-4829 SAN JOSE POST-RECORD, SAN JOSE (408) 287-4866
THE DAILY RECORDER, SACRAMENTO (916) 444-2355
THE DAILY TRANSCRIPT, SAN DIEGO (619) 232-3486
THE INTER-CITY EXPRESS, OAKLAND (510) 272-4747
Notice Type:
Ad Description
COPY OF NOTICE
3842172
!A000006838904!
The charge(s) for this order is as follows. An invoice will be sent after the last date of publication. If you prepaid this order in full, you will not receive an invoice.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE SANTA ANA PLANNING
COMMISSION
The City of Santa Ana encourages the
public to participate in the decisionmaking process. We encourage you to contact us prior to the Public Hearing if
you have any questions.
Planning Commission Action: The
Planning Commission will hold a Public
Hearing to receive public testimony and
will take action on the item described
below. Decision on this matter will be final
unless appealed pursuant to Article V of
Chapter 41 of the Santa Ana Municipal
Code within 10 calendar days of the
decision by any interested party or group.
Project Location: 2221 North Heliotrope
Drive located within the Single Family
Residence (R1) zoning district.
Project Applicant: Chan Q. and Quynh
D. Kieu (Applicant and Property Owners)
Proposed Project: Applicants are
requesting approval of Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) No. 2022-06 to allow the
construction of an accessory structure
23'-4” in height within the rear yard of an
existing single-family residence. 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. The original Planning Commission
public hearing for this project was held on
March 28, 2022, which was subsequently
continued to the April 25, 2022, Planning
Commission public hearing. On April 25,
2022, the Planning Commission held the
continued public hearing. At the request
of the property owners, the Planning
Commission voted unanimously to continue the item indefinitely. This action required re-noticing of the project as a new Planning Commission public hearing. Environmental Impact: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, the project is exempt from further review pursuant to Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines (Class 3/New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) because the project involves the construction of a small accessory structure. Based on this analysis, Notice of Exemption, Environmental Review No. 2022-11 will be filed for this project. Meeting Details: This matter will be heard on Monday, August 26, 2024, at 5:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 22 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701. Members of the public may attend this meeting in person or join via Zoom. For the most up-to-date information on how to participate virtually in this meeting, please visit https://www.santa-ana.org/planning-and- building-meeting-participation/. Written Comments: If you are unable to participate in the meeting, you may send written comments by e-mail to [email protected] (reference the Agenda Item # in the subject line) or by mail to Nuvia Ocampo, Recording Secretary, City of Santa Ana, 20 Civic Center Plaza – M20, Santa Ana, CA 92701. Deadline to submit written comments is 3:30 p.m. on the day of the meeting. Comments received after the deadline may not be distributed to the Commission but will be made part of the record.
Where To Get More Information:
Additional details regarding the proposed
action(s), including the full text of the
discretionary item, may be found on the
City website 72 hours prior to the public
hearing at https://santaana.primegov.com/public/portal.
Who To Contact For Questions: Should
you have any project questions, please
contact case planner Pedro Gomez with
the Planning Division by phone at (714)
667-2725 or by email at PGomez@santaana.org.
Note: If you challenge the decision on the
above matter, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone
else raised at the public hearing
described in this notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to the Planning
Commission or City Council of the City of
Santa Ana at, or prior to, the public
hearing.
Si tiene preguntas en español, favor de
llamar a Nuvia Ocampo (714) 667-2732.
N u c n liên l c b ng ti ng Vi t,
xin i n tho i cho Tony Lai s (714)
565-2627.
8/16/24
OR-3842172#
City Council 34 – 170 11/19/2024
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Planning and Building Agency
20 Civic Center Plaza ● P.O. Box 1988
Santa Ana, California 92702
www.santa-ana.org/pba
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE SANTA ANA PLANNING COMMISSION
The City of Santa Ana encourages the public to participate in the decision-making process. This notice is being sent to those who live or own property within 1000 feet of the project site or who have expressed an interest in the proposed action. We encourage you to contact us prior to the Public Hearing if you have any questions.
Project Location: 2221 North Heliotrope Drive located within the Single Family Residence (R1) zoning district.
Project Applicant: Chan Q. and Quynh D. Kieu (Applicant and Property Owners) Proposed Project: Applicants are requesting approval of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 2022-06 to allow the construction of an accessory structure 23’-4” in height within the rear yard of an existing singlefamily residence. 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. The original Planning Commission public hearing for this project was held on March 28, 2022, which was subsequently continued to the April 25, 2022, Planning Commission public hearing. On April 25, 2022, the Planning Commission held the continued public hearing. At the request of the property owners, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to continue the item indefinitely. This action required re-noticing of the project as a new Planning Commission public hearing.
Environmental Impact: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, the project is exempt from further review pursuant to Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines (Class 3/New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) because the project involves the construction of a small accessory structure. Based on this analysis, Notice of Exemption, Environmental Review No. 2022-11 will be filed for this project.
Meeting Details: This matter will be heard on Monday, August 26, 2024, at 5:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 22 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701. Members of the public may attend this meeting in person or join via Zoom. For the most up-to-date information on how to participate virtually in this meeting, please visit https://www.santa-ana.org/planning-and-building-meeting-participation/.
Written Comments: If you are unable to participate in the meeting, you may send written comments by email to [email protected] (reference the Agenda Item # in the subject line) or by mail to Nuvia Ocampo, Recording Secretary, City of Santa Ana, 20 Civic Center Plaza – M20, Santa Ana, CA 92701. Deadline to submit written comments is 3:30 p.m. on the day of the meeting. Comments received after the deadline may not be distributed to the Commission but will be made part of the record.
Where To Get More Information: Additional details regarding the proposed action(s), including the full text of the discretionary item, may be found on the City website 72 hours prior to the public hearing at https://santa-ana.primegov.com/public/portal.
Who To Contact For Questions: Should you have any project questions, please contact case planner Pedro Gomez with the Planning Division by phone at (714) 667-2725 or by email at PGomez@santaana.org.
City Council 34 – 171 11/19/2024
Note: If you challenge the decision on the above matter, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission or City Council of the City of Santa Ana at, or prior to, the public hearing.
Si tiene preguntas en español, favor de llamar a Nuvia Ocampo (714) 667-2732.
Nếu cần liên lạc bằng tiếng Việt, xin điện thoại cho Tony Lai số (714) 565-2627. 1000’ RADIUS NOTIFICATION MAP
City Council 34 – 172 11/19/2024
City Council 34 – 173 11/19/2024
City Council 34 – 174 11/19/2024
1 Ocampo, Nuvia
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2024 1:46 PM
To: eComments, PBA
Subject: 2221 N. Heliotrope, Santa Ana: Chan & Quynuh Kieu Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.
This is regarding the Kieu’s applicaƟon to install yet another freestanding structure in the backyard of their property located at 2221 Heliotrope.
This is really beyond the pale. Enough is enough!
I object to this most strenuously.
I have lived in Floral Park for 24 years. I moved here because of the neighborhood’s history and architecture. During the past 24 years, I have worked to maintain the historic integrity of my home at significant personal cost. Most of my neighbors do the same. Would that these same moƟvaƟons and regulaƟons applied to the Kieus. RegreƩably, they do not.
The Kieus seem hell bent on turning their property into a Vietnamese Cultural Center. There are now at least five or six outside structures that have been reconstructed in the back yard. Some have giant dragons snaking across their roofs.
These are visible from the sidewalk. None of these structures have anything even remotely to do with the historic Art Deco property they purchased. I believe the Kieus have imported at least some of these anƟque structures from Asia – I’m sure at considerable cost. If only they spent that money maintaining the original architectural integrity of the property. Why purchase property in an historic district if you’re not interested in maintaining the integrity of said property?
This home ‐ “The Maharaja’s Palace” ‐ is naƟonally recognized for its historic significance. The Maharajah of Indore was the world’s richest man when he built the home for his daughter. The cost was $50,000 – an unbelievable sum in the midst of a Depression.
Most recently, I believe the Kieus have been living in West Floral Park. The home on Heliotrope has been used for public events. Cars and school buses park along Heliotrope and Santa Clara when these events take place. These events are not for personal use. The Kieus are not entertaining personal friends/family. They are hosƟng schools, churches, and other groups. I am all for supporƟng cultural centers, but they do not belong in private neighborhoods with inadequate parking.
AddiƟonally, the Kieus have a history of blatantly ignoring city regulaƟons. They put a new roof on the swim house in the backyard. They also removed/replaced original iron windows under the guise of tenƟng the house for termites. They used the tent covering the house to hide the changing of the windows. Their approach is to ask forgiveness for violaƟng city ordinances. Typically, they do not seek permission when making alteraƟons or structural addiƟons to the property.
The Kieus are aware that the neighborhood is not supporƟve of their efforts, yet they conƟnue to push for the creaƟon of a cultural center. It is rumored that they plan for the property to be designated as such aŌer their passing.
City Council 34 – 175 11/19/2024
2 I urge the City to deny their applicaƟon. There are plenty of commercial lots in Santa Ana desperate for occupancy. Let the Kieus house their cultural center on one of these to the advantage of the City and the local Vietnamese community.
Anne Etheridge
2128 Greenleaf Street
Sana Ana
City Council 34 – 176 11/19/2024
1 Ocampo, Nuvia
From: Maureen Lukaszewski <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2024 7:46 PM
To: eComments, PBA
Subject: 2221 North Heliotrope Dr- Public Hearing Comments Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.
As a resident on Heliotrope Drive I am adamantly opposed to the structure that is being proposed. This is a very unique residential neighborhood and this structure is too obtrusive and inappropriate for this location. I know the intentions of these homeowners is to have this property be open to the public. I have heard this myself from the homeowners. This will ruin our very special neighborhood. All the neighbors have such pride in keeping the historic nature of our homes and the atmosphere of our very special Floral Park. This will impact property values. We are a Historic district. What they are trying to do needs to be somewhere else. Not a residential neighborhood! Thank you‐
Maureen Lukaszewski
2008 N Heliotrope Drive
Sent from my iPad
City Council 34 – 177 11/19/2024
1 Ocampo, Nuvia
From: Cheryl Conradson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2024 4:04 PM
To: eComments, PBA
Subject: Pergala on Heliotrope Dr.
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.
I value these neighbors and they have tried to contribute to the good of our city and neighborhood by sharing their cultures. I would have no objection to their request. If anything, maybe the height may be an obstacle to their nearby neighbors. If that is the concern, could a shorter structure be built? Cheryl Conradson
2391 N. Heliotrope Dr.
Santa Ana. 92706
City Council 34 – 178 11/19/2024
1 Ocampo, Nuvia
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2024 10:16 AM
To: eComments, PBA
Subject: Conditional Use Permit application 2022-06
Attachments: CUP2022-06 Nakamura.pdf
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.
Attached (as a signed PDF) are my comments on the application.
Regards,
Mason Nakamura
2215 N Victoria Dr
Santa Ana, CA 92706
City Council 34 – 179 11/19/2024
City Council 34 – 180 11/19/2024
1 Ocampo, Nuvia
From: Diana Christoffersen <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2024 10:43 AM
To: eComments, PBA
Subject: Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-06
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.
Regarding: Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-06
Location: 2221 North Heliotrope Drive
Project: Construction of an accessory structure 23’4” in height
In regard to the above referenced Conditional Use Permit that is scheduled to be heard before the Santa Ana Planning Commission on Monday, August 26, 2024, at 5:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, I respectfully request that this CUP be denied for the reasons following.
The “Maharaja House” is a historically significant (listed as an historic landmark on the Santa Ana Register of Historic Places) well-recognized property within Floral Park situated on a lovely large corner lot with a colorful and storied background. Although a truly unique home and property, it fits well within the community where its Art Deco style is repeated in several other homes within Floral Park. However, the current owners have added many outbuildings and art features to honor their Vietnamese heritage, and the previously added outbuildings, along with this proposed new 23’4” high structure, has resulted in the property becoming a “manufactured” cultural heritage site that has nothing to do with the original house nor the neighborhood. The owners have also publicly announced on more than one occasion that they have a goal their property become a “museum” in the future, something that most certainly changes the character of this historic home as well as the neighborhood as a whole. Although I respect and appreciate the love of their heritage, Floral Park is not the place to create a “museum” of any kind and does this new structure (and the other previously added structures) even meet the Santa Ana Municipal Code..
Particularly now that Floral Park has been officially designated as a National Historic Neighborhood, it is important to ensure that the vision of those who worked so diligently to achieve this official designation is not compromised. There is a point when less is more, and this is clearly one of those situations. As well, would it not be prudent for the owners of 2221 North Heliotrope Drive to invest funds instead towards maintaining their historic home, as upkeep of the house itself appears to be waning.
Again, I respectfully request that this CUP be denied.
City Council 34 – 181 11/19/2024
1 Ocampo, Nuvia
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2024 3:37 PM
To: eComments, PBA
Subject: CUP DENIAL REQUEST: 2221 North Heliotrope Drive Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.
Notice of Permit Request at Historic Landmark Home
Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-06
Dear City of Santa Ana City Council Members,
I 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.
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 | DRE LIC. #01953088
REALTOR® & LISTING SPECIALIST
Neighbors Real Estate Partners/Keller Williams North Tustin | LIC. #01933507 17822 17th Street, Tustin, California 92780
MOBILE: 949 633 6668 | FAX: 714 426 3801
City Council 34 – 182 11/19/2024
2 The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.
City Council 34 – 183 11/19/2024
City Council 34 – 184 11/19/2024
1 Ocampo, Nuvia
From: Khanh Nguyen <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2024 4:13 PM
To: eComments, PBA
Subject: CUP 2022-06
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.
Sent from my iPhone
City Council 34 – 185 11/19/2024
2 City Council 34 – 186 11/19/2024
1 Ocampo, Nuvia
From: Phuong nguyen <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2024 4:37 PM
To: eComments, PBA
Subject: Subject: Support for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 2022-06 Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.
Phuong Nguyen
2040 N Flower St.
Santa Ana, CA 92706
City of Santa Ana
Planning and Building Agency
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92702
Subject: Support for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 2022‐06
Dear members of The Planning and Building Agency,
My name is Phuong Nguyen, and I have been a proud resident of Floral Park for the past 24 years. I am writing to express my strong support for property owners Chan Q. and Quynh D. Kieu in their request for approval of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 2022‐06, which would allow the construction of an accessory structure standing at 23 feet 4 inches in height within the rear yard of their existing single‐family residence.
This project not only aligns with the architectural charm of our community but also enhances the cultural diversity that makes Floral Park such a unique and vibrant place to live. I believe that this structure will serve as a positive addition to our neighborhood, reflecting the rich diversity of the residents and contributing to the overall cultural enrichment of Floral Park.
While I understand that any new proposal comes with its own set of concerns and challenges, I am confident that the benefits of this project far outweigh any potential drawbacks. I urge you to consider the long‐term positive impact this accessory structure will have on our community.
Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration of this request. I look forward to seeing this project come to fruition.
Sincerely,
Phuong Nguyen
Floral Park Resident
City Council 34 – 187 11/19/2024
1 Ocampo, Nuvia
From: Alyssa Panis <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2024 4:43 PM
To: eComments, PBA
Cc: [email protected]; Mathew Carver
Subject: RE: Chan & Quynh Kieu
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
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 on behalf of the Carver-Panis household at 2224 Greenleaf Street, Santa Ana, CA 92706. We have lived adjacent to Chan & Quynh Kieu for over a decade.
I am writing to express my wholehearted support for the completion of the structure that Chan & Quynh Kieu wish to build at 2221 N. Heliotrope Drive, Santa Ana, 92706. Chan & Quynh Kieu have been remarkable members of the Floral Park community, consistently demonstrating the utmost respect, warmth, and welcome to our family.
Over the years, Chan & Quynh Kieu have earned a stellar reputation for their well-designed, thoughtful, and tasteful improvements to their home. Their home has been a beautiful reflection of a rich culture, bringing a sense of serenity to the Floral Park neighborhood. Additionally, they foster a community spirit that is much needed in the world we live in today.
In addition to their architectural contributions, Chan & Quynh Kieu and their family have played a major role in bringing our community together. Through their generous invitations and the sharing of their traditions and culture, they have created a welcoming and inclusive atmosphere. Their willingness to share their space and host community events has allowed us to experience and appreciate the richness of their heritage, bringing an eastern serenity and culture to an area that truly needs it.
In my opinion, any neighborhood would be honored to have a family like Chan & Quynh Kieu’s express themselves in such a meaningful and impactful way. Their contributions go beyond mere construction; they enrich our community and enhance our quality of life.
I wholeheartedly support Chan & Quynh Kieu and their endeavors, and I believe that their work sets a standard of excellence that we should all aspire to. I am confident that their future projects will continue to bring beauty and value to Floral Park
Alyssa Panis, COO
Barn Life LLC
126 E 16th St Costa Mesa CA 92627
Office: (949) 229‐6853 | Fax: (949) 339‐5378
[email protected]
Barnliferecovery.com
____________________________________________________________ HIPAA Disclaimer:
The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged and confidential information, including patient information protected by federal and state privacy laws. It is intended only for the use of the person(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution, or duplication of this communication is strictly City Council 34 – 188 11/19/2024
2 prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
City Council 34 – 189 11/19/2024
1 Ocampo, Nuvia
From: lauren hartshorne <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2024 9:43 PM
To: eComments, PBA
Subject: Notice of Permit Request at Historic Landmark Home Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-06
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
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 in response to a conditional use permit request for a 23’4” tall Vietnamese pagoda to be located within 6’ of the S/W backyard fence at 2221 N. Heliotrope, Santa Ana (commonly known as the “Maharaja House”). This once-stunning historic Art Deco home, built for the Maharaja of Indore in 1939, has quickly been desecrated over the past several years under its current ownership. We strongly oppose the allowance of this structure to be built, as it only moves the home's current state further from its valuable historical character and prominence. Under current ownership, the "Maharaja House" is no longer a gleaming gem of Floral Park, but instead an unkempt, worn-down party house with year-round Christmas lights and molded exterior stucco. It is apparent the owners of this house are unable to maintain the pride of ownership deserving of this once beautiful home or have no desire to do so. We are concerned that adding additional structures to the property would only add to the burden of maintaining such a prominent house, given the owners' current inability to do so. Additionally, it appears the owners of 2221 N. Heliotrope may have already begun work on constructing this public monstrosity. This is an overt snub to their neighbors, this committee, and the City of Santa Ana.
Please honor and support the dignity of our historic neighborhood and deny this building permit.
City Council 34 – 190 11/19/2024
1 Ocampo, Nuvia
From: Lauren Langry <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2024 9:47 PM
To: eComments, PBA
Subject: Notice of Permit Request at Historic Landmark Home Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-06
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
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 in response to a conditional use permit request for a 23’4” tall Vietnamese pagoda to be located within 6’ of the S/W backyard fence at 2221 N. Heliotrope, Santa Ana (commonly known as the “Maharaja House”). This once-stunning historic Art Deco home, built for the Maharaja of Indore in 1939, has quickly been desecrated over the past several years under its current ownership. We strongly oppose the allowance of this structure to be built, as it only moves the home's current state further from its valuable historical character and prominence. Under current ownership, the "Maharaja House" is no longer a gleaming gem of Floral Park, but instead an unkempt, worn-down party house with year-round Christmas lights and molded exterior stucco. It is apparent the owners of this house are unable to maintain the pride of ownership deserving of this once beautiful home or have no desire to do so. We are concerned that adding additional structures to the property would only add to the burden of maintaining such a prominent house, given the owners' current inability to do so. Additionally, it appears the owners of 2221 N. Heliotrope may have already begun work on constructing this public monstrosity. This is an overt snub to their neighbors, this committee, and the City of Santa Ana.
Please honor and support the dignity of our historic neighborhood and deny this building permit.
City Council 34 – 191 11/19/2024
1 Ocampo, Nuvia
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2024 10:50 PM
To: eComments, PBA
Subject: Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-06 Project Location: 2221 N Heliotrope Drive Santa Ana 92706 Hearing August 26, 2024
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.
Greetings Planning Commission:
The CUP Applicant is requesting approval of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 2022-06 to allow the construction of an accessory structure 23'4" (reduced to c. 21 feet) in height within the rear yard of an 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 asking the Planning Commission to take the same actions in the August 26, 2024 hearing as I requested in my March 28, 2022 letter below. However, since my earlier letter below there are a few changes I would like to note to support these renewed requests.
I request that the Planning Commission:
1) Postpone the hearing, and remand the matter to the Planning Department for new findings of fact to show compliance with the Standards of SAMCE Section 41-638. Since March 2022, I understand that the owners have publicly stated their intent to bequeath their property for use as a museum by a cultural society. The Planning Department's Finding of Fact 5 therefore seems inaccurate and not supported by current information. If it is true that the owners intend to leave their single family residential property for perpetual use as a cultural center, then I think you must find that the structure is clearly not for their "personal use and private enjoyment." Rather, the planned structure, will be just one of many exhibits on the property that are intended for public access and use by members of the general public at the planned cultural center. The use of the structure will not be "very limited, "and therefore its private use can't be assumed to "preserve the community character. " Rather, the new structure appears to be intended for public access or members of the general public. There is concern that the use of this property for large scale community events, is already having, and could certainly continue to have, a significant impact on the community character. (I have also heard concern expressed about school bus visits , numerous cultural gatherings on Saturdays and Sundays, film and sound crews, parked cars up and down the street.) The impact on community character will certainly continue to increase if the building changes ownership and is operated as a cultural center. In short, the Planning Department's previous Finding of Fact 5 may be based on assumptions that now appear to be wrong, Therefore, I ask that you either remand the matter for further investigation OR reject Finding of Fact 5 and
2) Deny the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-06 based on insufficient and inaccurate evidence in the record to show compliance with SAMCE.Section 41-638. AND 3) Refer the matter to the Historic Resources Commission for review as may be required by the Mills Act. Since March 2022, our neighborhood has finally been designated a National Historic District. The City Council 34 – 192 11/19/2024
2 opening of a cultural center with a 21 foot accessory structure as one of many exhibits on a Mills Act property may need to be reviewed for compliance.
Finally, as someone who has supported the City's efforts to preserve our urban forest, I am concerned about the new proposed location of the tower close to the parkway trees on Santa Clara. 4) I request that the Planning Commission refer the matter to the City Arborist, Tree Maintenance Team, Public Works Department, to review the project for its potential impact on nearby City Parkway trees.
Thank you for your consideration of these requests. I will not be able to attend the hearing or to review the updated agenda and records when they are posted on the website, and appreciate the opportunity to send my written comments as well as renewed and updated requests based on the information currently available.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Ellen Koldewey
N Heliotrope Drive
Santa Ana CA 92706
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: . <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022, 3:55:02 PM PDT
Subject: Re: Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-06 Project Location: 2221 N Heliotrope Drive Proposed Project: The CUP Applicant is requesting approval of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 2022- 06 to allow the construction of an accessory structure 23’ – 4” (reduced to c. 21 feet) in height within the rear yard of an 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.
My Requested Actions:
1) Postpone the hearing, and remand the matter to the Planning Department for additional Findings of Fact to show compliance with standards of SAMC Section 41-638; or 2) Deny the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-06 as conditioned due to insufficient evidence to show compliance with standards of SAMC Section 41-638; and 3) Refer the matter to the Historic Resources Commission for review as required by the Mills Act; **************************************************************************************************************** ********************************************************************************************
Greetings Planning Commission,
I respectfully request that the Planning Commission postpone making a decision on this matter. You have insufficient accurate information to make an informed decision to grant a conditional use permit (CUP) under the Municipal Code as the record does not yet establish compliance with Sec. 41-638 (Standards for granting applications).
I urge you to remand this matter back to the Planning Department with instructions to make complete and accurate findings of fact about the possible adverse effects of the proposed and actual intended use of the oversize pavilion on the surrounding neighborhood of Floral Park and to publish any revised findings of fact to City Council 34 – 193 11/19/2024
3 the surrounding neighborhood before the Planning Commission hears this matter. If the Commission goes forward tonight, I would regretfully oppose the CUP because the record seems to be materially incomplete. As a result, there is possibly significantly inaccurate information in the Planning Department findings, specifically finding no. 5, on which you must base your decision.
Please note that I am not alleging any deliberate wrongdoing either by the Owner/Applicants or by the Planning Department. I appreciate the request for height has been reduced to just over 21 feet. I have no objection to the immediate construction of a pavilion of 15 feet height.
Here is my objection. The Planning Department has made the following finding:
"5. 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 members of the general public."
First, I have heard, but have not verified, that the property owners/applicants now reside primarily in West Floral Park rather than at 2221 North Heliotrope. Further, I have heard, but have not verified, that the 2221 North Heliotrope Drive property will be used primarily as a community resource and cultural center. Finally, there are frequently large numbers of visitors on the property who may be using the pavilion. During past years. the owners have hosted several events inviting large groups of people to the premises just as many neighbors on our street have done.
Of course, even assuming any or all of these things are true, there is absolutely nothing wrong with using the property in this way. Whether or not the owners live on this property and whether or not they use their property as a community gathering place should not be dispositive to their application. The owners can live on or off this property or allow anyone else to live on this property. This is their property to use or not use as they see fit. And the oversize pavilion may be a great idea.
However, if any of these things are true, then the Planning Department is probably wrong when it states in finding 5 that "the use of the pavilion will be very limited and therefore will preserve the community character. " ((“t)he 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 members of the general public.") Rather, it seems more likely that the use of the pavilion may be very extensive and therefore could have a significant, but as yet unevaluated impact on the "community character." While the extent of likely use of the pavilion may fall short of actual "public access and use," it does appear it could likely have significantly more use by more visitors at 2221 than it would in many other single family residences in the neighborhood. (Again, I don’t necessarily have a problem with this or think it is my business.) However, I also don’t think that the likely amount of intended use of the oversize pavilion is what a reasonable person would consider simply continued “private quiet enjoyment by the current owners” as presented by the Planning Department. Rather, it’s been requested by the current owners, who may no longer reside primarily in this property, for use not only by themselves but also by a multitude of students and/or other visitors to the property as part of the property’s possible intended use as a (non)residential community cultural center. Assuming the owners will be inviting many visitors to the property who will be using the pavilion frequently, a large pavilion will be needed. Again, there is nothing inherently wrong with this proposed use. It just does not sound anything like the proposed limited use that the Planning Department has described in its finding of fact 5. In fact, frequent use by many people provides a plausible explanation for why such a large structure was requested....when there is little other information justifying this variance request in the record. Although it is not necessary to justify the request for variance as long as there is no negative impact on the community, in this case, if there is an artistic, religious, spiritual, logistical, or cultural reason for the City Council 34 – 194 11/19/2024
4 pavilion to be so large and on apparent stilts, I would encourage this information to be included in the record. Until then, the Planning Commission should remand this matter to the Planning Department for additional accurate supporting evidence on whether the intended use of the pavilion is accurately described and will in fact “preserve the community('s) character”.
I am not necessarily requesting that the CUP be denied when complete and accurate evidence is finally presented for consideration. Rather I am asking that before making the decision the Planning Commission insist that there be present in the record sufficient evidence to make a valid finding and assessment on the frequent use of the large pavilion for such events. Then the Commission can accurately predict the impact of this change on “preserv(ing) the community character.” Consider the possible recurring substantial influx of visitors to our neighborhood, and the resulting additional noise, traffic and use of on-street parking.
Please factor in the impact of these matters on the surrounding neighborhood homes as required by the code. Due to the inadequacy in the Planning Department’s current findings to justify the proposed size, height, and use of the pavilion, I object to the Planning Department’s granting of the CUP until you have determined the actual facts of this application. Please examine more carefully any impact on the neighborhood this actual use will have on“preserv(ing) the community character.” Let the neighborhood know in advance what you learn.
In conclusion, I think the present record is critically insufficient, and it is therefore, premature, for the Planning Commission, to grant a conditional use permit (CUP) according to the compliance standards of SAMC Section 41-638. As I have outlined, there is presently just not enough accurate information in the findings or enclosures to determine that the proposed use of the outsize pavilion "will provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community; that the proposed use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity; that the proposed use will not adversely affect the present economic stability or future economic development of property in the surrounding area; that the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in this chapter for such use;" and that "the proposed use will not adversely affect the general plan of the city or any specific plan applicable to the area of the proposed use." Finally, I believe that the Planning Department has exceeded its authority and that the matter must be referred to the Historic Resources Commission pursuant to the Mills Act.
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 particular group or organization.
Respectfully Submitted,
Mrs. Ellen Koldewey
North Heliotrope Drive
Santa Ana CA 92706
City Council 34 – 195 11/19/2024
1 Ocampo, Nuvia
From: Jeff Melching <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2024 12:25 PM
To: eComments, PBA
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: August 28, 2024 Planning Commission Agenda, Public Hearing Item No. 3:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2022-06 FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2221
NORTH HELIOTROPE DRIVE
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.
Honorable Chair and Members of the Santa Ana Planning Commission:
We are 15-year residents of the City of Santa Ana, and owners of the property at 2205 N. Heliotrope Dr. Our neighbors, Chan Q and Quynh D. Kieu, own the property at 2221 N. Heliotrope Dr, immediately adjacent to our property on the north.
Chan and Quynh have applied for a Conditional Use Permit (No. 2022-06) to authorize the installation of a 23’4” Vietnamese pagoda at 2221 N. Heliotrope Dr. The pagoda is proposed for installation in the northeast corner of the rear yard of the property, a few feet inside the wall that abuts Santa Clara Avenue.
We support, and urge the Planning Commission to approve, the application.
Over the years, Chan and Quynh have enhanced their front and rear yards with artworks and decorations that reflect Vietnamese culture (stone works of art and a sitting bench in the front yard, larger structures in the rear yard). While the pagoda will be behind a fence, to the extent it is visible it will be consistent with, and a positive addition to, the theme and appearance of the structures already in place. In the words of your zoning ordinance, it will provide a “facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community.” In fact, in our view, the pagoda will contribute the well being of both the neighborhood and the community.
For similar reasons, we think you can easily make the second finding for granting the CUP because the pagoda will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity. To the contrary, the pagoda is consistent with, and improves upon, the appearance of the property. We also believe that it celebrates Chan and Quynh’s culture in a tactful and aesthetically pleasing way.
Without belaboring the point, we believe that the Planning Commission can and should make the remaining three findings for granting the conditional use permit. But for the sake of completeness, we note:
The pagoda will not “adversely Affect the present economic stability or future economic development of property in the surrounding area.” Floral Park is a well established residential neighborhood. The pagoda poses no threat to the economic stability of the property, the neighborhood, or the surrounding area. The pagoda will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in Chapter 41 of the Municipal Code. We trust that City staff has prepared conditions to ensure compliance. The pagoda will not adversely affect the general plan of the City or any specific plan applicable to the area of the proposed use. Here again, we can see no way that the pagoda could adversely affect the general plan; it is an architectural enhancement to an already beautiful home and yard.
Last, we want to emphasize that Chan and Quynh are polite, thoughtful, and generous neighbors. They hold periodic events at their home where they share their yard and their culture with their friends and the community. In the 15 years that we City Council 34 – 196 11/19/2024
2 have shared a property line, they have never caused us any disruption (or even any inconvenience). We have no concern whatsoever that adding an additional amenity to their back yard will do anything but improve their property and our neighborhood.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sonja and Jeff Melching
2205 N. Heliotrope
Santa Ana, CA 92706
City Council 34 – 197 11/19/2024
1 Ocampo, Nuvia
From: Linda Salata <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2024 10:27 AM
To: eComments, PBA
Subject: Variance~2221 N Heliotrope
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.
We are very much opposed to the height variance request for 2221 N Heliotrope Dr. if this variance is approved it would set a precedent allowing other neighbors to erect outbuildings exceeding city limitations.
We urge you to please revert this variance request!
Thank you.
George & Linda Salata
2115 N Heliotrope Dr
SA
714 809‐3359
City Council 34 – 198 11/19/2024
1 Ocampo, Nuvia
From: Cecilia Aguinaga <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2024 12:28 PM
To: eComments, PBA
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Gazebo permit
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.
To whom it may concern :
I respectfully asked you to issue a permit to be placed in 2221 Heliotrope Dr. Santa Ana Ca 92706.
Respectfully Yours
Cecilia Aguinaga
2203 N Greenleaf St
Santa Ana CA
92706
City Council 34 – 199 11/19/2024
1 Ocampo, Nuvia
From: Leslie Kato <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2024 2:18 PM
To: eComments, PBA
Subject: CUP 2022-06 - Agenda Item #3 - August 26, 2024 meeting Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.
I am writing in opposition to the Kieus (2221 North Heliotrope Drive, Santa Ana, CA 92706) request for variance to erection a 2-story structure measuring 23 feet, 4 inches in height that exceeds Santa Ana's City height and story limitations (15 feet, 1-story).
If you grant this variance, you are setting a precedence that will not only allow others to erect structures exceeding City height/story limitations but the Kieus as well: A family who has blatantly ignored city regulations in the past. 1 - Their latest violation was in relation to a roofing project on the swim house structure in the backyard of the residence. 2 - They were denied approval to replace the house's original cast-iron windows but ignored the denial. They replaced all but one window under the guise of tenting the house for termites. They used the tent covering of the house to hide their actions of removing and replacing the windows.
3 - In front of the Historical Committee they pleaded poverty in their ability to repair the home's flat roof. They said that the cost to repair the flat roof was astronomical and the only feasible solution was to change the flat roof to a pitched roof. A gentleman who had examined the roof spoke saying that the flat roof was repairable at a nominal cost. Their request for changing the home's roofline was denied by the Historical Committee.
The Kieus are not using their property to entertain friends and family. They host school visits, cultural gatherings, and festivals on the property. School buses and cars line the street, some even blocking neighbors' driveways. There have also been several instances when TV news vehicles have been present.
The Kieus have publicly announced their intentions to designate this property as a Cultural Center. I admire their desire to persevere and share their Vietnamese history and culture. But the property is zoned residential. It was suggested to them in 2022 at a meeting with the Floral Park Association lead by then President Jeff Katz, that they should seek another location for their proposed Center outside of Floral Park.
The Kieus will play out a sob story in relation to this current situation. They will state how they purchased this antiquity to save it from destruction. They may mention the costs they incurred purchasing, deconstructing, shipping, and storing the structure.
All this should be moot in regard to the City's Regulations.
There are historical structures being torn down/destroyed worldwide daily. There is nothing that makes this particular structure worthy of violating City Code. The Kieus should have been aware of the City's height/story limitations prior to the purchasing of this structure. The burden of costs incurred are of their own doing.
Lastly, the original site for the erection of this structure was to be 2 feet from the wall enclosing their backyard facing North Heliotrope Drive. the structure would have been visible from the street, sidewalk, and surrounding homes. What also would have been visible would be the people who stood on the second story of the structure. People who could look into neighbors' yards. The proposed location on Santa Clara, along with the bamboo shield being grown by the Kieus will lessen intrusions. But if you give them this variance, they will use its precedence to erect more structures that exceed City limitations. And the bulk of the open area in their yard faces North Heliotrope Drive: the exact place where they originally wanted to erect this structure and the area with the most visibility.
City Council 34 – 200 11/19/2024
2 Sincerely,
Leslie Kato
2119 North Heliotrope Drive
Santa Ana, CA 92706
City Council 34 – 201 11/19/2024
1 Ocampo, Nuvia
From: Laszlo Biro <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2024 5:26 PM
To: eComments, PBA
Subject: 2022-06. Conditional User Permit application for 2221 N Heliotrope Dr.
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.
For the Conditional Use Permit request that is scheduled to be heard before the Santa Ana Planning Commission on
Monday, August 26, 2024, at 5:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, we respectfully request that it be denied and submit the following comments/perspectives as neighbors in Floral Park.
The current owners of 2221 N. Heliotrope have added a
number of additional structures to their property, including art features, which honor their cultural heritage. The
residents have, on more than one occasion, publicly stated they plan to designate their residential property as a future public “museum”.
This, we feel, will significantly change the character of the surrounding historic neighborhood. The
proposed additional 23’4” high structure will tower over the existing privacy fence surrounding their property. The new structure will be directly adjacent to, and visible from, a prominent street frontage.
We feel this addition is merely a furtherance of the owners’ stated goal of the property becoming a museum/cultural
heritage center. This addition shares nothing in common with the original house, the owners personal/residential use, or with the neighborhood.
For those reasons, we respectfully request that the Planning Commission deny this Conditional Use Permit.
City Council 34 – 202 11/19/2024
2 Laszlo and Tricia Biro
2002 N Heliotrope Dr.
Santa Ana, CA 92706
City Council 34 – 203 11/19/2024
1 Ocampo, Nuvia
From: STACEY KATO <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2024 6:42 PM
To: eComments, PBA
Subject: Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-06
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.
I am writing regarding Conditional Use Permit No. 2022‐06 (CUP) seeking approval under Section 41‐232.5 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code for the construction of a 23’ 4” accessory structure (Vietnamese pagoda) at 2221 North Heliotrope Drive (Maharajah House).
I have lived in Floral Park since 1998. I have always endeavored to maintain the historical integrity of both our residence and the land surrounding our residence‐this is what originally drew me to the neighborhood.
I would like to go on record as opposing the approval of this CUP for a number of reasons including:
1. The Maharajah House is historically significant due to both its Art Moderne architecture as well as its provenance. The several existing accessory structures currently on the property, such as the garden house, are not consistent with the Art Moderne style and detract from the House’s historical Landmark designation.
2. The several existing accessory structures are already more than adequate for a property of this size.
3. The 23’ 4” height of the pagoda is not consistent with the architecture on Heliotrope in terms of both design and height. The pagoda’s height would significantly exceed the proximate six foot high fence surrounding the property. Further, approval of this CUP would have a significant, negative impact on the aesthetics on the surrounding areas of the neighborhood.
4. The approval of this CUP would establish a dangerous precedent providing tacit permission to other residents to do the same.
In addition, the current owners of the Maharajah House have shown a proclivity to violate the statutory requirements of being designated as an historical Landmark property as well as violating Santa Ana Municipal Codes. This includes:
1. The unauthorized replacement of the roof on the swim house in the back yard.
2. The use of termite tenting to conceal the unauthorized removal and replacement of the iron casement windows original to the property.
Lastly, the current owners continue to push for the recharacterization of this property as a cultural center‐ hence the continued addition of accessory structures to the property. On many occasions there have been City Council 34 – 204 11/19/2024
2 several school busses parked in front of the property, most likely in furtherance of this objective, as well as several large public cultural gatherings/festivals.
Again, for all of the above reasons, I respectfully request that the granting of a variance for this CUP be denied.
Stacey Kato
2119 North Heliotrope Drive
City Council 34 – 205 11/19/2024
1 Ocampo, Nuvia
From: Julie Humphreys <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2024 8:18 PM
To: eComments, PBA
Subject: Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-06 re: 2221 N Heliotrope Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-06 re: 2221 N Heliotrope I am writing to strongly urge the Planning Commission to DENY the application for a conditional use permit.
1. The Addition of this Structure to this Historic Landmark Site has Not Been Approved by the Historic Resources Commission as Required by the Mills Act and this Application Should First be Reviewed by the HRC.
I vehemently object to the bypassing of the Historic Resources Commission which is required to approve any alterations or additions to a Historic Property—which includes the building site. To permit city staff and the owners to bypass the HRC in the approval process for this structure dangerously undermines the purview of the HRC and thereby makes city staff the de facto arbiter of the Mills Act contract and HRC jurisdiction.
The owners purchased a Landmark Historic Property which is steeped in history and architectural significance. Furthermore, this property has a Mills Act contract from which the owners have been annually benefitting with significantly lower property taxes. This historic property includes not just the land but all associated structures and improvements thereon. As such, the owners are contractually obligated to not only maintain the Historic Property, but they may not disrupt the view corridor with any new structure . . . so as to prevent the viewing of the historic landmark by the public. Furthermore, the owners are contractually prohibited from destruction of character-defining features of the building or site, or alterations or additions unless approved by the Historic Resources Commission. Such alterations include a structure . . . which is unsightly by reason of its height, condition, or inappropriate location.
The notion that the purview of the Historic Resources Commission is limited only to alterations that physically touch the historic residential structure itself is both dangerously narrow minded but contrary to the express terms of the Mills Act contract to which both the owners and the city of Santa Ana are parties. The Mills Act contract clearly applies to the character-defining features of the building site and the additions of any structure which would interfere with the character-defining features of the site which requires approval by the Historic Resources Committee. Of course, whether the proposed structure, in fact, does interfere with the character-defining features of the site is for the HRC to determine, after a fair and public review process.
To permit city staff to unilaterally conclude that this proposed twenty-three-foot-plus structure has no impact on this historic landmark property and is therefore not within the jurisdiction of the HRC reveals a shocking ignorance and appreciation of the historic and architectural importance of this historic property, its overall design, architectural intent, and the significance of the present viewing corridor. This fact alone is the reason why this CUP application must be deferred to the HRC for first review and consideration. To enable city staff to permit the owners to bypass the HRC would result in city staff being the final arbiter of such decisions, in effect usurping the purview of the HRC, and significantly undermining the concept of historic preservation the city professes to support.
2. The Proposed Structure Adversely Impacts the Historic Property In the event the Planning Commission does not elect to refer this matter to the Historic Resources Commission, the application for CUP should be substantively denied because it adversely impacts the historic structure. This proposed structure will be nearly as tall as the main residence, and even though it is proposed to be erected toward the S end of the property, its size, location and mass will be extremely a prominent and dominant feature of the main viewing corridor from Heliotrope. So much so that it will compete with the structure of the main residence. The Maharaja built this residence and surrounding improvements (including the long, walled fence) as a fortress, a compound, for his daughter, with the sizing, location and massing of each structure deliberately placed to as to create a cohesive, unified, clean, modern presence.
City Council 34 – 206 11/19/2024
2 The proposed pagoda is neither cohesive with the unique architectural style of the main home nor does it enhance it. It would only distract from and, therefore, detract from and adversely impact the main residence. It would be as much out of place as a lookout tower modeled after a wild west fort or a lighthouse. The application for the CUP must be denied.
3. There is No Guarantee That The Current Landscaping Will Be Maintained The architectural renderings imply that the proposed structure will be largely hidden from public view due to current vegetation screening (presumably to make the structure less intrusive as to the view corridor. However, there nothing in the application or recommendation for approval that requires the owners to maintain such foliage. Once the CUP is granted, the owners may remove the vegetation and the structure will visibly loom over the streetscape, disproportionally tall in relation to all other structures.
The application for the CUP should be denied.
Julie Humphreys
2112 N Ross St., Santa Ana, CA 92706
City Council 34 – 207 11/19/2024
1 Ocampo, Nuvia
From: ANNE ETHERIDGE <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2024 8:56 PM
To: eComments, PBA
Subject: CUP 2022-O6. Agenda Item #3 August 26, 2024 meeting Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.
This is regarding the Kieu’s application to install yet another freestanding structure in the backyard of their property located at 2221 Heliotrope.
This is really beyond the pale. Enough is enough!
I object to this most strenuously.
I have lived in Floral Park for 24 years. I moved here because of the neighborhood’s history and architecture. During the past 24 years, I have worked to maintain the historic integrity of my home at significant personal cost. Most of my neighbors do the same. Would that these same motivations and regulations applied to the Kieus. Regrettably, they do not.
The Kieus seem hell bent on turning their property into a Vietnamese Cultural Center. There are now at least five or six outside structures that have been reconstructed in the back yard. Some have giant dragons snaking across their roofs. These are visible from the sidewalk. None of these structures have anything even remotely to do with the historic Art Deco property they purchased. I believe the Kieus have imported at least some of these antique structures from Asia – I’m sure at considerable cost. If only they spent that money maintaining the original architectural integrity of the property. Why purchase property in an historic district if you’re not interested in maintaining the integrity of said property? This home - “The Maharaja’s Palace” - is nationally recognized for its historic significance. The Maharajah of Indore was the world’s richest man when he built the home for his daughter. The cost was $50,000 – an unbelievable sum in the midst of a Depression.
Most recently, I believe the Kieus have been living in West Floral Park. The home on Heliotrope has been used for public events. Cars and school buses park along Heliotrope and Santa Clara when these events take place. These events are not for personal use. The Kieus are not entertaining personal friends/family. They are hosting schools, churches, and other groups. I am all for supporting cultural centers, but they do not belong in private neighborhoods with inadequate parking.
City Council 34 – 208 11/19/2024
2 Additionally, the Kieus have a history of blatantly ignoring city regulations. They put a new roof on the swim house in the backyard. They also removed/replaced original iron windows under the guise of tenting the house for termites. They used the tent covering the house to hide the changing of the windows. Their approach is to ask forgiveness for violating city ordinances. Typically, they do not seek permission when making alterations or structural additions to the property.
The Kieus are aware that the neighborhood is not supportive of their efforts, yet they continue to push for the creation of a cultural center. It is rumored that they plan for the property to be designated as such after their passing.
I urge the City to deny their application. There are plenty of commercial lots in Santa Ana desperate for occupancy. Let the Kieus house their cultural center on one of these to the advantage of the City and the local Vietnamese community.
Anne Etheridge
2128 Greenleaf Street
Sana Ana
City Council 34 – 209 11/19/2024
1 Ocampo, Nuvia
From: Alan Hess <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 1:22 PM
To: eComments, PBA
Subject: Planning Commission agenda re: 2221 N. Heliotrope, Santa Ana (commonly known as the “Maharaja House”)
Attachments: Maharaja house.24.08.25..pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.
Alan Hess
architect
4991 Corkwood Lane
Irvine, CA 92612
949 468 6694
alanhess.net
City Council 34 – 210 11/19/2024
ALA HESS
A R C H I T E C T
4991 CORKWOOD LANE
IRVINE, CA 92612
949 551 5343
[email protected]
August 25, 2024
Planning Commission
City of Santa Ana
[email protected]
re: 2221 N. Heliotrope, Santa Ana (known as the “Maharaja House”) To the Commission:
The house at 2221 N. Heliotrope is one of Orange County’s most unique architectural landmarks, as recognized by the Santa Ana Register of Historic Places. Its significance extends far beyond city boundaries, however; as an example of residential Art Deco architecture it ranks with other notable houses throughout Southern California, where the style captured the spirit of optimism for the future even during the Great Depression.
In discussing the house at your meeting, I strongly recommend that the current proposal’s impact on this historic structure be carefully weighed.
For example, the height of new backyard structures should not compete with, or be similar in height to, the scale and massing of the historic structure. This is in order to protect the setting and context of this acknowledged historic Art Deco landmark.
Unfortunately the character of any historic structure can be lost over time, when numerous “minor” alterations or additions to structure, detail, or setting are allowed, just as it can be lost by a single dramatic demolition.
I write to you as an architect and author of twenty-one books on architectural history. The architectural heritage of Orange County is rich and deserves to be protected.
Thank you for your consideration.
City Council 34 – 211 11/19/2024
Sincerely,
Alan Hess
City Council 34 – 212 11/19/2024
1 Ocampo, Nuvia
From: Ed Murashie <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 2:46 PM
To: eComments, PBA
Subject: August 8, 2024 Hearing Re: Request for Variance at historic "Maharaja" house Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.
Hello, I am Ed Murashie, Floral Park resident and Historic Resources Vice Chairman.
I want to go on record opposing the variance and to share an image.
The Maharaja house was built by the Maharaja of Indore, a wealthy Hindu prince, for his five year old daughter as a place to grow up safe. The “palace” was highlighted in the Santa Ana Daily Register dated December 15, 1938. It is the ONLY royal palace built on the United States mainland. It is listed on the Santa Ana Register of Historic Properties as Landmark and the owners benefit from the Mills Act tax savings. It is also featured in the Floral Park National and State Historic District application.
In our Historic Resource Commission meetings we talk about the term view corridor. The meeting packet shows conceptual renderings from Santa Clara (side of the house) and from the backyard on page 86 and 87 of 197. But more importantly it does not show from the front of the house. It is this view corridor from the sidewalk in front‐left of the house that will shows both the Moderne architectural style and part of Vietnamese pavilion seemingly joined but offset. You can see this on page 84 of the meeting packet and shown below. This is the main reason I oppose the variance. I don’t want the grandeur of a royal palace fighting with a Vietnamese pavilion.
Best Regards, Ed
City Council 34 – 213 11/19/2024
2 City Council 34 – 214 11/19/2024
1 Ocampo, Nuvia
From: Mike Zachan <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2024 12:56 PM
To: eComments, PBA
Subject: Conditional Use Permit 2022-06
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.
Greetings,
I am writing to express my concern over granting of Conditional Use Permit 2022‐06 allowing the construction of a 22’ 4” structure in the backyard of the home located at the home located at 2221 N. Heliotrope Dr. in Floral Park.
While I respect my neighbors desires to put in place a structure that is of significant importance to them, I am concerned that granting a significant waiver like this simply opens the door to other Floral Park residents requesting similar waivers.
If the Planning Commission grants this waiver, how do you justify not granting waivers to other Floral Park residents wishing to erect over‐sized structures in their backyards? As you are well aware, Floral Park is a unique and historic neighborhood that needs to be preservers. Starting down the path of granting waivers to rules that preserve the nature of this neighborhood is simply not a precedent you should set.
I urge you to reject this request.
Michael Zachan
2109 N Heliotrope Dr.
City Council 34 – 215 11/19/2024
Planning Commission
Regular Meeting Agenda Minutes
August 26, 2024
5:30 P.M.
Council Chamber
22 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA
JENNIFER OLIVA
Chair, Ward 6 Representative
ISURI S. RAMOS
ViceChair,
Ward 3 Representative
CHRISTOPHER LEO
Citywide Representative
MANUEL J. ESCAMILLA
Ward 2 Representative
CARL BENNINGER
Ward 4 Representative
BAO PHAM
Ward 3 Representative
ALAN WOO
Ward 5 Representative
Minh Thai
Executive Director
Marco A. Martinez
Legal Counsel
Ali Pezeshkpour, AICP
Planning Manager
Nuvia Ocampo
Recording Secretary
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this Meeting, contact Michael Ortiz, City ADA Program Coordinator, at (714) 6475624. Notification 48 hours prior to the Meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to this meeting. The City Council agenda and supporting documentation can be found on the City’s website – www.santaana.org/citymeetings.
CALL TO ORDER
Commissioners: Jennifer Oliva, Chair
Manuel J. Escamilla
Christopher Leo
1 Planning Commission
8/26/2024
City Council 34 – 216 11/19/2024
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this Meeting, contact Michael Ortiz, City ADA Program Coordinator, at (714) 6475624. Notification 48 hours prior to the Meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to this meeting. The City Council agenda and supporting documentation can be found on the City’s website – www.santaana.org/citymeetings.
CALL TO ORDER
Commissioners: Jennifer Oliva, Chair
Manuel J. Escamilla
Christopher Leo
Carl Benniger
Bao Pham
Isuri S. Ramos
Alan Woo
Executive Director Minh Thai
Chief Asst. City Attorney Marco A. Martinez
Planning Manager Ali Pezeshkpour, AICP
Recording Secretary Nuvia Ocampo
ROLL CALL
Minutes: Quorum was reached at 5:38 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Minutes: None.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS
a. Minutes
Recommended Action: Approve Minutes from August 12, 2024. b. Excused Absences
Recommended Action: Excuse absent commissioners.
Moved by Commissioner Woo, seconded by Commissioner Benninger to Approve Consent Calendar items.
YES: 6 – Bao Pham, Isuri Ramos, Alan Woo, Christopher Leo, Manuel J. Escamilla, Carl Benninger
NO: 0 – ABSTAIN: 0 – ABSENT: 1 – Jennifer Oliva
Status: 6 – 0 – 0 – 1 – Pass
*End of Consent Calendar*
2 Planning Commission
8/26/2024
City Council 34 – 217 11/19/2024
Moved by Commissioner Woo, seconded by Commissioner Benninger to Approve Consent Calendar items.
YES: 6 – Bao Pham, Isuri Ramos, Alan Woo, Christopher Leo, Manuel J. Escamilla, Carl Benninger
NO: 0 – ABSTAIN: 0 – ABSENT: 1 – Jennifer Oliva
Status: 6 – 0 – 0 – 1 – Pass
*End of Consent Calendar*
BUSINESS CALENDAR
Administrative Matters
1. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDING FOR THE SALE OF SUCCESSOR AGENCY PROPERTY TO THE CITY OF SANTA ANA LOCATED AT THIRD STREET AND MAIN STREET
Project Applicant: Community Development Agency of the City of Santa Ana Proposed Project: The Community Development Agency of the City of Santa Ana is requesting to find the sale of Successor Agency property consistent with the General Plan.
Environmental Impact: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the proposed action is not subject to the requirements of CEQA pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3).
Recommended Action:
1. Adopt a resolution finding that the sale of the Successor Agency property to the City of Santa Ana that is located at Third Street and Main Street (APN:
39860102) is consistent with the General Plan.
Moved by Commissioner Woo, seconded by Commissioner Escamilla to Approve.
YES: 6 – Bao Pham, Isuri Ramos, Alan Woo, Christopher Leo, Manuel J.
Escamilla, Carl Benninger
NO: 0 – ABSTAIN: 0 – ABSENT: 1 – Jennifer Oliva
Status: 6 – 0 – 0 – 1 – Pass
Minutes: Community Development Agency Executive Director, Michael Garcia, gave a brief presentation.
Commission had questions for staff.
Staff answered questions from Commission.
Public Hearing: The Planning Commission decision on Conditional Use Permits, Variances, Tentative Tract and Parcel Maps, Minor Exceptions, Site Plan Review, and Public Convenience or Necessity Determinations are final unless appealed within 10 days of the decision by any interested party or group (refer to the Basic Meeting Information page for more information). The Planning Commission recommendation on Zoning and General Plan amendments, Development Agreements, Specific Developments, and Specific Plans will be forwarded to the City Council for final determination. Legal notice was published in the OC Reporter and OC Register on August 16, 2024, and notices were mailed on said date.
1. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 202302 AMENDING SECTIONS 4154.5 AND 41610.5 OF THE SANTA ANA MUNICIPAL CODE TO AMEND THE CITY’S ELECTRIC FENCE STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS, WHICH INCLUDE
MODIFICATIONSTOEXPANDTHEELIGIBILITYFORSITESANDTOENSURE
3 Planning Commission
8/26/2024
City Council 34 – 218 11/19/2024
on Zoning and General Plan amendments, Development Agreements, Specific Developments, and Specific Plans will be forwarded to the City Council for final determination. Legal notice was published in the OC Reporter and OC Register on August 16, 2024, and notices were mailed on said date.
1. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 202302 AMENDING SECTIONS 4154.5 AND 41610.5 OF THE SANTA ANA MUNICIPAL CODE TO AMEND THE CITY’S ELECTRIC FENCE STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS, WHICH INCLUDE MODIFICATIONS TO EXPAND THE ELIGIBILITY FOR SITES AND TO ENSURE CONSISTENCY WITH THE CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 835.
Project Location: Citywide
Project Applicant: Keith Kaneko and Luis Farias representing Amarok, LLC (Applicant).
Proposed Project: Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) application (ZOA No. 2023 02) seeking to amend Section 4154.5 and Section 41610.5 (Wall and Fence Requirements) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) to amend the City’s electric fence standards and requirements, which include modifications to expand the eligibility for sites and to ensure consistency with the California Civil Code Section 835.
Environmental Impact: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, the adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from CEQA review pursuant to Section 15060(c)(2) and Section 15060(c)(3). Environmental Review No. 202441 will be filed upon adoption of this ordinance. In the alternative, the adoption of this ordinance amendment is categorically exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15031 – Class 1, Existing Facilities. Class 1 consists of the “operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, including negligible or no expansion of existing or former use.
Recommended Action:
1. Continue the item to October 14, 2024, pursuant to a request from the applicant.
Moved by Commissioner Leo, seconded by Commissioner Benninger to Approve.
YES: 6 – Bao Pham, Isuri Ramos, Alan Woo, Christopher Leo, Manuel J.
Escamilla, Carl Benninger
NO: 0 – ABSTAIN: 0 – ABSENT: 1 – Jennifer Oliva
Status: 6 – 0 – 0 – 1 – Pass
2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 202411 FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 730 NORTH POINSETTIA STREET, UNIT A LOCATED WITHIN THE TRANSIT ZONING CODE (SD84)
Project Applicant: Dana Neville with Les Brisket Hut (Applicant & Property Owner) Proposed Project: Applicant is requesting approval of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 202411 to allow the sale of beer and wine for onpremises consumption, through a Type41 license from the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC), at a new eating establishment.
Environmental Impact: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, the project is categorically exempt from further review per Section 15301 (Class 1 – Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines. A Notice of Exemption, Environmental Review No. 202457, will be filed for this project.
Recommended Action:
1. Adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 202411 as conditioned
4 Planning Commission
8/26/2024
City Council 34 – 219 11/19/2024
yppg(),
eating establishment.
Environmental Impact: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, the project is categorically exempt from further review per Section 15301 (Class 1 – Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines. A Notice of Exemption, Environmental Review No. 202457, will be filed for this project.
Recommended Action:
1. Adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 202411 as conditioned.
Minutes: Applicant spoke in favor of the project.
Commission had questions for the applicant.
Moved by Commissioner Benninger, seconded by Commissioner Woo to Approve as amended.
YES: 6 – Bao Pham, Isuri Ramos, Alan Woo, Christopher Leo, Manuel J.
Escamilla, Carl Benninger
NO: 0 – ABSTAIN: 0 – ABSENT: 1 – Jennifer Oliva
Status: 6 – 0 – 0 – 1 – Pass
3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 202206 FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2221 NORTH HELIOTROPE DRIVE LOCATED WITHIN THE SINGLEFAMILY RESIDENCE (R1) ZONING DISTRICT.
Project Applicant: Chan Q. and Quynh D. Kieu (Applicants and Property Owners) Proposed Project: Applicants are requesting approval of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 202206 to allow the construction of an accessory structure 23’4” in height within the rear yard of an existing singlefamily residence. Pursuant to Section 41232.5 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. The original Planning Commission public hearing for this project was held on March 28, 2022, which was subsequently continued to the April 25, 2022, Planning Commission public hearing. On April 25, 2022, the Planning Commission held the continued public hearing. At the request of the property owners, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to continue the item indefinitely. This action required renoticing of the project as a new Planning Commission public hearing.
Environmental Impact: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, the project is exempt from further review pursuant to Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines (Class 3/New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) because the project involves the construction of a small accessory structure. Based on this analysis, Notice of Exemption, Environmental Review No. 202211 will be filed for this project.
Recommended Action:
1. Adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 202206 as conditioned.
Minutes: Resident, Tim Rush, spoke in opposition to this project.
Resident, Mark Spratt, spoke in opposition to this project.
Resident, Ed Murashie, spoke in opposition to this project.
Resident, Mike Silva, spoke in opposition to this project.
Resident, Angel Barnes, spoke in opposition to this project.
Resident, Dale Helvig, raised concerns regarding the Mills Act.
Property Owner and Applicant, Quynh Kieu, spoke in support of the project.
Commission had questions for staff and the applicant, about views, the Mills Act, height, the Historic Resources Commission’s role in the project, changes to the project since 2022, property maintenance, input from the neighborhood, and the property’s land use.
ApplicantansweredquestionsfromtheCommissionontheintendedlanduse 5 Planning Commission
8/26/2024
City Council 34 – 220 11/19/2024
Resident, Mike Silva, spoke in opposition to this project.
Resident, Angel Barnes, spoke in opposition to this project.
Resident, Dale Helvig, raised concerns regarding the Mills Act.
Property Owner and Applicant, Quynh Kieu, spoke in support of the project.
Commission had questions for staff and the applicant, about views, the Mills Act, height, the Historic Resources Commission’s role in the project, changes to the project since 2022, property maintenance, input from the neighborhood, and the property’s land use.
Applicant answered questions from the Commission on the intended land use as a private residence, height, working with others on the design, and site maintenance.
Moved by Commissioner Pham, seconded by Commissioner Woo to Approve as amended.
YES: 4 – Bao Pham, Isuri Ramos, Alan Woo, Christopher Leo NO: 2 – Manuel J. Escamilla, Carl Benninger
ABSTAIN: 0 – ABSENT: 1 – Jennifer Oliva
Status: 4 – 2 – 0 – 1 – Pass
*End of Business Calendar*
WORK STUDY SESSION
*End of Work Study Session Calendar*
STAFF COMMENTS
Minutes: Planning Manager, Ali Pezeshkpour, had updates for the Commission.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Minutes: Commission had comments for staff.
ADJOURNMENT
The next meeting of the Planning Commission will be on September 09, 2024 at 5:30 PM in the Council Chambers located at 22 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701.
Minutes: Meeting was adjourned at 8:22 p.m.
APPEAL INFORMATION
The formal action by the Planning Commission shall become effective after the tenday appeal period, unless the City Council in compliance with section 41643, 41644 or 41645 holds a public hearing on the matter, then the formal action will become effective on the day following the hearing and decision by the City Council. An appeal from the decision or requirement of the Planning Commission may be made by any interested party, individual, or group. The appeal must be filed with the Clerk of the Council, accompanied by the required filing fee, and a copy sent to the Planning Department, within ten days of the date of the Commission's action, by 5:00 p.m. If the final day to appeal falls on a City Hall observed holiday or a day when City hall is closed, the final day to appeal shall be extended to the next day City Hall is open for public business. Please note: Under California Government Code Sec. 65009, if you challenge in court any of the matters on this agenda for which a public hearing is to be conducted, you may be limited to raising only those issues which you (or l)idlltthblihiiittdidb
6 Planning Commission
8/26/2024
City Council 34 – 221 11/19/2024
oogteeagaddecsobyteCtyCoucappeaotedecsoo
requirement of the Planning Commission may be made by any interested party, individual, or group. The appeal must be filed with the Clerk of the Council, accompanied by the required filing fee, and a copy sent to the Planning Department, within ten days of the date of the Commission's action, by 5:00 p.m. If the final day to appeal falls on a City Hall observed holiday or a day when City hall is closed, the final day to appeal shall be extended to the next day City Hall is open for public business. Please note: Under California Government Code Sec. 65009, if you challenge in court any of the matters on this agenda for which a public hearing is to be conducted, you may be limited to raising only those issues which you (or someone else) raised orally at the public hearing or in written correspondence received by the Planning Commission or City Council at or before the hearing.
MEETING INFORMATION
If you would like to learn how to use Zoom before the meeting, visit Zoom Video Tutorials.
1. Connecting directly from your computer:
Click on the link on top of this agenda OR
Go to Zoom.us and click "Join a Meeting" at the top. Enter the Meeting ID. The Meeting ID is listed at the top of this agenda.
To speak during the meeting: When you wish to comment on an item that is being is discussed, click on the button next to your name to virtually raise your hand and let us know you wish to speak. You will have 3 minutes.
2. Connecting via the Zoom App:
Download the free Zoom Cloud Meetings app from your favorite app store.
Launch the app and click on the blue Join a Meeting button. Enter the Meeting ID, your name, and the blue Join button. The Meeting ID is listed at the top of this agenda.
To speak during the meeting: When you wish to comment on an item that is being is discussed, click on the button next to your name to virtually raise your hand and let us know you wish to speak. You will have 3 minutes.
3. Dialing in from a mobile phone or landline:
Dial (669) 9009128. When prompted, enter the meeting ID. The Meeting ID is listed at the top of this agenda.
To speak during the meeting: When you wish to comment on an item that is being is discussed, press *9 on your phone to virtually raise your hand. You will have 3 minutes.
Submit a written comment
You are invited to submit a written comment in one of the following ways:
Email PBAecomments@santaana.org and reference the topic in the subject line.
Mail to Nuvia Ocampo, Recording Secretary, City of Santa Ana, 20 Civic Center Plaza – M20, Santa Ana, CA 92701.
Deadline to submit written comments, including any supplemental materials for consideration by the Planning Commission, is 3:30 p.m. on the day of the meeting.
Comments received after the deadline may not be distributed to the Planning Commission but will be made part of the record. All attendees wishing to submit writtencommentsorsupplementalmaterialsfordistributiontoPlanningCommission 7 Planning Commission
8/26/2024
City Council 34 – 222 11/19/2024
gy
Email PBAecomments@santaana.org and reference the topic in the subject line.
Mail to Nuvia Ocampo, Recording Secretary, City of Santa Ana, 20 Civic Center Plaza – M20, Santa Ana, CA 92701.
Deadline to submit written comments, including any supplemental materials for consideration by the Planning Commission, is 3:30 p.m. on the day of the meeting.
Comments received after the deadline may not be distributed to the Planning Commission but will be made part of the record. All attendees wishing to submit written comments or supplemental materials for distribution to Planning Commission members during the inperson meeting must provide 15 printed copies. 8 Planning Commission
8/26/2024
City Council 34 – 223 11/19/2024
Project Information
Plot Plan
c COPYRIGHT; Oldham Architects expressly
reserves all rights to these plans by common
copyright privileges. These plans may not be
reproduced, changed, or copied in any manner or turned over to a third party without the expressed written consent of Ryan E. Oldham.
architects
oldham architect s
680 Langsdorf Drive, Suite 202B
fullerton, california 92831
714.482.8296 | oldham-architects.com
oldham
ISSUE:
CHECK:
DRAWN:
PROJECT No.: 2221 Heliotrope 2221 Heliotrope Drive, Santa Ana, CA 92706
07.12.24 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
RO
DM
23081
2221 HELIOTROPE ADU NEW GAZEBO PAVILION
PROPOSED
PAVILLION
205 SFSANTA CLARA AVENUE
HELIOTROPE DRIVE
Site Plan Scale: 1
1 16" = 1'-0"
(E) 1 STORY
ADU - NOT IN SCOPE
(E) 2 STORY
SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE -
NOT IN SCOPE
(E) 1 STORY
GARDEN ROOM -
NOT IN SCOPE
Project Data
Vicinity Map
A0.0
SCOPE OF WORK:
INSTALLATION OF A PRE-FABRICATED, 205 SF
FREESTANDING, UNENCLOSED, NON-HABITABLE , GARDEN PAVILION IN BACKYARD OF PROPERTY. NO CHANGE TO (E) HOME OR
OTHER (E) STRUCTURES ON THE PROPERTY.
APPLICANTS / OWNERS:
DR. CHAN KIEU & DR. QUYNH KIEU
2221 N. HELIOTROPE DR., SANTA ANA, CA 92706
(714) 724-0855 [email protected]
PROJECT ADDRESS: 2221 N. HELIOTROPE DR.,
SANTA ANA, CA 92706
ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBERS: 002-081-45 & 002-081-46
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: TR 1035 LOT 17, LOT 18 AND LOT 19
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: LR 7.0
ZONING DISTRICT: R1
TOTAL LOT SIZE: 39,547 SF (0.908 ACRES)
HISTORIC PROPERTY: YES
HISTORIC DISTRICT: NO
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: V-B (NON-SPRINKLED)
PROPOSED NUMBER OF STORIES: 1
PROPOSED STRUCTURE HEIGHT: 21' - 4"
OCCUPANCY OF PROPOSED BUILDING: U (ACCESSORY STRUCTURE) OCCUPANCY OF EXISTING STRUCTURES: R-3
PROPOSED EXTERIOR WALL AND ROOF MATERIALS:
STRUCTURE: WOOD
ROOF: CLAY TILE
EXISTING BUILDINGS EXTERIOR WALL AND ROOF MATERIALS:
WALL: STUCCO
ROOF: BUILT UP ROLL ROOFING
GOVERNING CODES:
2022 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE (CRC)
2022 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE (CMC)
2022 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE (CEC)
2022 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE (CPC)
2022 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING CODE (CALGREEN)
AHJ AND LOCAL CODES AND NFPA
City Council 34 – 224 11/19/2024
A2.0
Floor Plan
Elevations
c COPYRIGHT; Oldham Architects expressly
reserves all rights to these plans by common
copyright privileges. These plans may not be
reproduced, changed, or copied in any manner or turned over to a third party without the expressed written consent of Ryan E. Oldham.
architects
oldham architect s
680 Langsdorf Drive, Suite 202B
fullerton, california 92831
714.482.8296 | oldham-architects.com
oldham
ISSUE:
CHECK:
DRAWN:
PROJECT No.: 2221 Heliotrope 2221 Heliotrope Drive, Santa Ana, CA 92706
07.12.24 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
RO
DM
23081
2221 HELIOTROPE ADU NEW GAZEBO PAVILION
Ground Floor Plan Scale: 1
3 16" = 1'-0"
Main Floor Plan Scale: 2
3 16" = 1'-0"
Roof Floor Plan Scale: 3
3 16" = 1'-0"
AA
AA
AA
Scale: 4
3 16" = 1'-0"
Scale: 5
3 16" = 1'-0"
Scale: 6
1 8" = 1'-0"
West Elevation Scale: 7 South Elevation
3 Scale: 10 16" = 1'-0" 3 Section AA 16" = 1'-0"
East Elevation Scale: 8 North Elevation
3 16" = 1'-0"
Composite Elevation
City Council 34 – 225 11/19/2024
Appeal Application No. 2024-01 for Maharajah House Moon Pavilion (2221 N.
Heliotrope Drive)
Exhibit 6 - Response to Appeal Comments