Correspondence - PH #34 — Santa Ana City Council, November 19, 2024

Ibarra, Evelyn
From: [email protected]
Sent: 20245:00PM
To: eComment
Cc: Gomez, Pedro; [email protected]
Subject: AgendaItem: AppealApplication #2024-01/CUPNo. 2022-06/2221N. Heliotrope Drive, SantaAna
Attention: Thisemailoriginatedfromoutsideof Cityof SantaAna. Usecautionwhenopeningattachmentsorlinks.

Dear City of Santa Ana City CouncilMembers,
I usuallyrefrainfrom commentingon neighborhoodand individualprojects, but this is an exception. I have been a residentof SantaAna, and Floral Park, for over 18 years. We love the neighborhoodand the communityof people that live here. We want to maintainthe integrityand nature of the neighborhood.

Asyoumustknow, theownersofthishistoricpropertyat2221NorthHeliotropeDriveintendtomaketheirpropertya culturalcenter, muchlikeamuseum, andtheyhaveleftthepropertyintheirtrusttoafoundationtodoexactlythat. I donotbelieveaculturalcenter/museumofanykindbelongsinthemiddleofourneighborhood. Buses, traffic, noise andparkingissuesareaconcernyes, butmoreimportantlyIamconcernedabouttheprecedentthiswouldset. You makeanexceptionforone, youhavetomakeanexceptionforall. Cityrulesandregulationsareinplaceforareason andshouldbeenforced.

1. PleaseredirectthisissuetotheHistoricPropertyCommissionfortheirreview, anddeterminationofcompliance withthehistoricguidelines.

2. Pleasereviewalltheotherstructuresontheirpropertythatarenotpermitted, andinviolationoftheCityof SantaAnaCodes. Whywouldyourewardthemfornoncompliance??

3. PleaserequestthecurrentownerstomaintaintheirpropertyaccordingtheMillsActandHistoricPreservation guidelines. Iftheycannot/won’t abidetomaintainingthestructurestheyalreadyhave, whygrantthem permissionformore?

4. Pleasedonotmakeanexception. Youdoit forthis, thenhowdoyoudenya6footperimeterpropertywall likeyoudeniedMikeNessat1904N. Heliotropeinyearspast? Howdoyoudenyaneighborthatwantstoput a23footwatchtowerorDanishWindmillintheiryard? I seelawsuitsforthecity.

Thatisall. Shortandsimple. Pleasedenythisrequest. Thankyouforyourtimeandconsideration.

KEVINSHULER | DRELIC. #01953088
REALTOR® & LISTINGSPECIALIST
Neighbors RealEstate Partners/Keller Williams North Tustin | LIC. #01933507 1782217thStreet, Tustin, California92780
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Neighbors — Kevin Shuler
1 Ibarra, Evelyn
From: CherylConradson <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, November
To: eComment
Subject: AppealApp. No. 2024-01
Attention: Thisemailoriginatedfromoutsideof Cityof SantaAna. Usecautionwhenopeningattachmentsorlinks.

IknowIwrotebeforeinfavorofChanQ. andQuynhD. Kieubeingabletohavetheirstructurebuiltontheir propertybehindthewall. Ourneighborhoodalwaystakesprideinwelcomingnewfamiliesandacceptingdiversity. We areuniqueandhavebeengivenahistoricalvaluetoourhomesandcommunity. We’veacceptedmanyculturesand celebratedwiththeminsharingtheirideas. Thisfamilyhasalwaystriedtojoininandsharetheirtraditionsliketherest ofus. Manyhomesaddedtwostoriesoradditionstotheirexistingpropertiesandwehaveallowedthesechangesinthe past. Ibelievethisdearfamilywantstocontinueworkingwithourneighborhood. Theirrequestdoesn’t seem unreasonabletome. Iwouldhopeourcitywouldapprovetheirrequest.

Thankyou.

CherylConradson
1 Ibarra, Evelyn
From: JohnSchneiderman <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, November
To: eComment
Subject: AgendaItem #34
Attention: Thisemailoriginatedfromoutsideof Cityof SantaAna. Usecautionwhenopeningattachmentsorlinks.

DearSirorMadam,
I amstronglyin supportof theAppealtooverturnCityapprovalgrantedtoconstructa23' high "moonpavilion" at2221N. HeliotropeDrive.

I wasshockedtohearthatthisadditionalstructure, whichisoutsidewhatisordinarilyallowedbyCityCode, wasapproved.

Thehomeownersat2221N. HeliotropeDrivehaveprovenonmultipleoccasionsthattheydonotrespectSanta AnaMunicipalCodesandhavenoconsiderationfortheirneighbors. Theyhaveheldanumberof largeevents, opentothepublic, in whichtheydisturbseveralblocksof neighborswithlargenumbersof attendees, exceptionallyloudamplifiedmusicoutside (prohibitedbyMunicipalCode) aswellasspeakersonaPublic AddressSystem. Theytreattheirhomeandyardasanentertainmentvenue, withoutregardtothePeaceful Enjoymentof Propertythatshouldbeallowedbytheirneighbors, closeandfar. I woulddiscourageallowing additionalstructuresthatwill furtheraddtothisproblem. Thetypeof eventstheyhostshouldbeheldatahotel ballroom, orsomeothersuitableentertainmentvenue. It isinappropriateanddisruptivetoallowthesetypesof eventsin aresidentialneighborhood. Theentitlementof theseinconsiderateneighborsmustend.

Sincerely,
JohnSchneiderman
JohnSchneidermanWebsite
JohnSchneidermanYouTubeChannel
JohnSchneidermanonSoundCloud
JohnSchneidermanonFacebook
1 Ibarra, Evelyn
From: DarleneGlenn <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, November
To: eComment
Subject: ConditionalUsePermitNo. 2022-06
Attention: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsideofCityofSantaAna. Usecautionwhenopeningattachmentsorlinks.

IliveinFloralParkjustonestreetover. Ourneighborhoodconsistsofonefamilyhistorichouses. TheMajharahouseisa beautifulhistorichouse.

AlthoughIcanappreciatethatthecurrentownerswishtohavetheirpersonalhomedevelopedasaculturalcenter concentratingontheircultureandteachingothers, Idonotbelievethatthisconditionalpermitisproperforanhistoric neighborhoodwhereit isonefamilyhomes.

Theirbackyardalreadyhasmanymanyoutbuildingswhichhavebeengrantedalready, theirbackyardisprettydensely packedwithbuildings.

Thebuildingthattheownerswishtohaveisincrediblyclosetothebackwallandwilllookdirectlyintotheprivateback yardsofanumberofhomeowners.

Whentheneighborhood (andtheneighbors) appliedforHistoricdesignation, it wasforthepurposeofkeepingthe historic.

Pleasedonotletthisconditionalusepermitgoforward.

Thankyou
DarleneGlenn
SentfrommyiPhone
1 Ibarra, Evelyn
From: laurenhartshorne <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November
To: eComment
Subject: RebuttalAgainsttheProposedPagodaConstructionandCommunityCulturalCenter ConversionattheMaharajaHouse
Attention: Thisemailoriginatedfromoutsideof Cityof SantaAna. Usecautionwhenopeningattachmentsorlinks.

ToWhomIt MayConcern,
I amwriting to expressmystrongoppositionto theproposedconstructionofalargepagodaandtheconversionof theMaharajaHouse, locatedat2221N. HeliotropeDrivein theFloralParkneighborhoodofSantaAna, intoa communityculturalcenter. Theseproposalsraisesignificantconcernsregardingzoningcompliance, preservation ofhistoricalintegrity, andtheoverallimpactonourresidentialcommunity.

1. Violation of ResidentialZoningRegulations
TheFloralParkneighborhoodiszonedfor residentialuse, andtheproposedconversionoftheMaharajaHouseinto acommunityculturalcenterdirectlycontravenesthesezoninglaws. Suchachangewouldsetaconcerning precedent, potentiallyleadingto furthercommercialencroachmentsin ourresidentialarea, thereby underminingthecommunity’scharacterandcohesion.

2. Exploitation of Historic DesignationBenefits
TheMaharajaHouse, alsoknownastheMaharajah’sHouse, isahistoricallydesignatedproperty. Ownersofsuch propertiesreceivebenefits, includingreducedpropertytaxes, intendedto supportthemaintenanceand preservationofthehome’shistoricalintegrity. Utilizingthesebenefitswhilepursuingalterationsthat compromisetheproperty’shistoricalcharacterandviolatezoninglawsisbothinequitableandcontraryto the spirit ofhistoricpreservation.

3. Impacton NeighborhoodAestheticsandHistorical Integrity TheconstructionofalargepagodaonthegroundsoftheMaharajaHouseraisesconcernsaboutits compatibility with theexistingarchitecturalandhistoricalcontextoftheneighborhood. TheMaharajaHouse, built in 1938in theStreamlineModernestyle, holdssignificanthistoricalvalue . Introducingastructurethatdeviatesfromthis architecturalstylecoulddisruptthevisualharmonyandhistoricalintegrityofthearea.

4. Traffic, Parking, andNoiseConcerns
ConvertingtheMaharajaHouseintoacommunityculturalcenterwouldlikelyincreasetraffic, parkingdemands, andnoiselevelsin theneighborhood. Thesechangescouldadverselyaffectthequalityoflife for residentsand strainlocalinfrastructurenotdesignedto accommodatesuchuses.

5. Precedentfor Future ZoningViolations 1
Approvingthisproposalcouldsetaprecedentfor otherpropertyownersto seeksimilarexceptions, leadingto a gradualerosionoftheresidentialcharacterofourneighborhood. Upholdingzoningregulationsisessentialto maintainingthecommunity’sintegrityandpreventinginappropriatedevelopments.

Conclusion
TheMaharajaHouseisacherishedpartofourneighborhood’shistoricalfabric. Whileculturalinitiativesare valuable, theymustbepursuedin amannerthatrespectsexistingzoninglawsandpreservesthehistoricaland residentialcharacterofourcommunity. I respectfullyurgethedecision-makersto denytheapprovalofboththe pagodaconstructionandtheconversionoftheMaharajaHouseinto acommunityculturalcenter.

Thankyoufor yourattentionto thismatterandyourcommitmentto preservingtheintegrityofourhistoric neighborhood.

Sincerely,
LaurenHartshorne
2 Ibarra, Evelyn
From: JennyHartshorne <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November
To: eComment
Subject: 2221Heliotrope
Attention: Thisemailoriginatedfromoutsideof Cityof SantaAna. Usecautionwhenopeningattachmentsorlinks.

Towhomit mayconcern:

Iamwritingtoexpressmystrongoppositiontotheproposedconstructionofalargepagodaonthegroundsofthe MaharajaHouseintheFloralParkneighborhoodandtheconversionofthishistoricpropertyintoacommunitycultural center. Bothproposalswouldhavedetrimentaleffectsonthehistorical, residential, andcommunity-focusedcharacter ofourneighborhood.

1. PreservingtheIntegrityofResidentialZoning
FloralParkisaresidentialneighborhood, andzoningregulationsareinplacetoprotectthisdesignation. Theconversion oftheMaharajaHouseintoacommunityculturalcenterviolatestheseregulations, creatingacommercialorsemi- commercialuseinaspacethatwasnotdesignedtosupportsuchactivities. Thisunderminestheintentofthezoning rulesandthreatenstheresidentialenvironmentwecherish.

2. MisuseofHistoricDesignationPrivileges
TheMaharajaHouse, recognizedforitsStreamlineModernearchitecture, benefitsfromhistoricdesignation, including reducedpropertytaxestoencouragepropermaintenanceandpreservationoftheproperty. Usingthesebenefitsto furtherplansthatdisregardpreservationstandardsandzoningregulationsisaninappropriateexploitationofthe system. Historicdesignationisaprivilege, notaloopholeforcommercialdevelopment.

3. ArchitecturalandCommunityConcerns
TheproposedpagodaconstructionraisessignificantquestionsaboutitscompatibilitywiththeMaharajaHouse’s architecturalstyleandtheneighborhood’scohesiveaesthetic. Whileculturalexpressionisimportant, it mustbe balancedwithpreservingthehistoricandvisualintegrityofthecommunity. Thepagoda’slargescaleanddivergent stylewoulddisrupttheneighborhood’shistoriccharm.

4. NegativeImpactonResidents
Aculturalcenterinthislocationwouldundoubtedlyleadtoincreasedtraffic, parkingissues, andnoise, negatively affectingresidents’ qualityoflife. FloralParkisnotequippedtohandletheaddedcongestionorinfrastructurestrain suchadevelopmentwouldcause.

5. SettingaPrecedentforFutureDevelopments
1 Approvingthisproposalwouldsetaprecedentforfurtherzoningviolationsandinappropriatedevelopmentsinour community. Itisessentialtoupholdzoninglawsandhistoricpreservationguidelinestoprotectthecharacterof FloralParkandensurefairnessinhowthesestandardsareapplied.

Conclusion
TheMaharajaHouseisavaluedpartofFloralPark’shistoricalheritage, anditspreservationshouldbeguidedbyrespect forbothitsarchitecturalsignificanceandtheneighborhood’sresidentialcharacter. Whileculturalinitiativesare appreciated, theymustbepursuedwithoutcompromisingzoningregulationsorthehistoricalandcommunityvalueswe aimtoprotect.

IurgethecitytorejectthisproposaltoensurethatFloralParkremainsavibrant, cohesive, andlivableresidential neighborhood.

Thankyouforyourtimeandconsideration.

Sincerely,
JennyHartshorne
HeliotropeDrive, SantaAna
2 Ibarra, Evelyn
From: KEVINNGUYEN <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November
To: eComment
Subject: 2221NHeliotropeDriveProject
Attention: Thisemailoriginatedfromoutsideof Cityof SantaAna. Usecautionwhenopeningattachmentsorlinks.

DearCityCouncilofSantaAna,
IgrewupinFloralParksincethe1980sandhasnowownmyownhomeonthesamestreetasthepropertyin questionforthepast10years. Idon't opposetowhatthathomeownerwantstodointheirownbackyardbut Idoopposethenotionofusingthepropertyassomesortofculturalcentertoholdmeetingsandevents. I havewitnessedlonglinesofcarsparkingonbothsidesofthestreetandinsurroundingstreetsforthese eventsandIdonotfindthatappropriateforourresidentialcommunity. Theownersarestillaliveandlivingin thepropertyandhencetheseeventshavenotbeenoverwhelming. Butwhathappenswhentheypassand whoeverisinchargeofoverseeingthepropertyisnowgoingtoholdtheseeventsthroughouttheyearsand onweekendswhenallwewantasneighborsissomepeaceandquiet. Theenvironmentalimpacttoour communityofhavinghundredsofcarscomingandgoingisalarming. ItisonethingtoholdOctoberFest, FourthofJulyactivities, SummerConcerts, etc. onourstreetyearsafteryears ... Buttheseeventsareforthe peopleofFloralPark. HomeownersofNorthHeliotropeDriveinSantaAnahavesharedourstreetwithother FloralParkfamiliesthroughtheyearswithopenarms.. Buttoaskustoshareourstreetforaplannedcultural centerforpublicuseinourresidentialcommunityisridiculousandIopposetoanythingthatwould perpetuatethatplangoingforward.

KevinK. Nguyen, MD
1 Ibarra, Evelyn
From: [email protected]
Sent: 17, 20247:50PM
To: eComment
Subject: CUPNo. 2022-06Appeal
Attachments: CUP2022-06Appeal.pdf
Attention: Thisemailoriginatedfromoutsideof Cityof SantaAna. Usecautionwhenopeningattachmentsorlinks.

WhileI intendto attendin person, I am submittingmywrittencommentson the matterin lieuof speakingat the meeting.

Regards,
MasonNakamura
1 Ibarra, Evelyn
From: PatriciaTornell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November PM
To: eComment
Subject: NoticeofAppealofPermitatHistoricLandmarkHome - ConditionalUsePermitNo. 2022-06
Attention: Thisemailoriginatedfromoutsideof Cityof SantaAna. Usecautionwhenopeningattachmentsorlinks.

To theSantaAnaCityCouncil:

MyhusbandandI havelivedin ourhomeon HeliotropeDrivefor closeto 50 years. Wearecurrentlyunableto be physicallypresentat themeetinginvolvingthismatterbutwantto adviseyouthatwevehementlyobjectto andoppose theerectionof a tallVietnamesepagodaon thepropertyof 2221N. HeliotropeDrivein FloralPark. Thisstructureandthe Vietnameseculturalcentertheownersareenvisioningfor thefuturedo notbelongin a historicalneighborhoodzoned RESIDENTIALlet aloneon thegroundsof theonlyforeignroyalpalaceeverbuiltin theUnitedStates. Pleasedonot permittheerectionof thisstructure.

Sincerely,
Mr. andMrs. EdwardTornell
1 Ibarra, Evelyn
From: MikeZachan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November
To: eComment
Subject: November19, 2024CityCouncilMeetingAgendaItem34 Attention: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsideofCityofSantaAna. Usecautionwhenopeningattachmentsorlinks.

Re: AppealApplicationNo. 2024-01
IrespectivelyurgetheCityCounciltocarefullyconsiderthePlanningCommission’sapprovalofConditionalUsePermit No. 2022-06. AsaresidentonHeliotropeDr. IamlessconcernedaboutthestructureitselfthanIambytheowners’ intendeduseofthestructure. Ifthisstructureisapproved, theCityCouncilmustmakeit cleartothepropertyowners thatthestructureisbeingapprovedfortheirpersonaluseonly, andnotasavenueforpublicevents. Thisstructurewill bebuiltinaresidentialcommunityandcannotresultinthepropertybecomingamuseum, aculturalcenter, orsitefor communitygatheringswhichwillimpactneighboringproperties.

IurgeyoutomakethiscleartothepropertyownersshouldyoudecidetoapprovetheConditionalUsePermit.

MichaelZachan
1 Ibarra, Evelyn
From: [email protected]
Sent: 19, 202411:10AM
To: eComment
Subject: AppealApplicationNo2024-01, AppealingtheDecisionofthePlanningCommissionto ApproveConditionalUsePermit (CUP) No2022-06AllowingtheConstructionofan AccessoryStructurewithintheRearYardofanExistingSingle-FamilyResidenceLocated Attachments: ScreenShot2024-11-17at8.56.54PM.png; TLeeCityMemo3-14-23photoscopy.pdf Attention: Thisemailoriginatedfromoutsideof Cityof SantaAna. Usecautionwhenopeningattachmentsorlinks.

Subject: AppealApplicationNo 2024-01, AppealingtheDecisionof thePlanningCommissionto ApproveConditionalUse Permit (CUP) No 2022-06 AllowingtheConstructionof an AccessoryStructurewithintheRearYardof an ExistingSingle- FamilyResidenceLocatedat 2221NorthHeliotropeDrive (APNs:002-081-45 And002-081-46 17November2024
MayorAmezcua
MayorProTemPhan
CouncilmemberLopez
MembersofCityCouncil
OfficeofCityClerk
22CivicCenterPlazaM-30
SantaAnaCalifornia92701
GreetingsMayorandCouncil:

TheCUPApplicantisrequestingapprovalofConditionalUsePermit (CUP) No. 2022-06toallowtheconstructionof amoonpavilion23'4" inheightwithintherearyardoftheirexistingsingle-familyresidencelocatedat2221North HeliotropeDrive. PursuanttoSection41-232.5oftheSantaAnaMunicipalCode (SAMC), accessorybuildingsmore thanfifteenfeetinheightormorethanonestoryrequireapprovalofaCUP.

I amwritingto youasanindividualneighborin FloralParkandresidentof theCityof SantaAna, andnot asa memberorrepresentativeof anygroupororganization. Whiletheremaybeseveralareasofconcern inthismatterthatmyneighborshavebroughttoyourattention, I amonlylookingatwhetherthereisenough informationto establishthatthispavilionis forprivatesingle-familyusein compliancewiththestandardsof SAMCSection41-638.

IopposeCUP6-2022initspresentlocationinthissingle-familyresidentialneighborhood.

IasktheCounciltotakethefollowingactions.

1. RejecttheCUPresolutionapprovedbythePlanningCommissionforlackofsubstantialevidencetosupport thefindingthatthisprojectisforprivatesingle-familyusetoshowcompliancewiththestandardsofSAMCSection 41-638, and
1 2) ReferthemattertotheHistoricResourcesCommissionforreviewasmayberequiredbytheMillsAct, or 3) RemandthematterforassessmentofthestatusoftheVietHeritageGardenandVietHeritageFoundationat 2221NHeliotropeandhowanycontinuedoperationaffectsthefindingthatthisprojectisforprivatefamilyuse, 4) DonotrelyontheprocessofrevocationoutlinedinSection41-651oftheSAMCtoresolvethisissue. Itisan inadequateremedyforthiscase.
5) RecommendtothePlanningCommissionthattheCityfindtherightlocationforthiswonderfulproject. Ifthe owneragrees, relocatethispaviliontoalocationforaHeritageGardenandCulturalCenterthatwillbeinvitingand opentopublicview. IsuggesttheMuseumDistrictonMainStreet justafewblocksawayfromour neighborhoodofFloralParkwherethereareseveralothermuseums, safesurroundings, andampleparking. 1) RejecttheCUPresolutionforfailuretoestablishthatthisprojectisforprivatesingle-familyusetocomplywith thestandardsofSAMCESection41-638.

ThePlanning & BuildingAgency's (PlanningAgency) findingthatthispagodaisforprivateuseonlyseemsinaccurate andmaynotsupportedbycurrentinformation. AccordingtotherecordsreceivedfrommyCityPublicRecords Request, (CPRR #24-1822, September17, 2023) theApplicant (owner) renewedtheapplicationfortheCUPon March14, 2023. InhermessagetoMayorProTemLopez, shethankedtheMayorProTemandCouncilpersonPhan forattendingthe "previewofVietHeritageGardenonFebruary18, 23. TherecognitionofVietHeritageFoundation representssuchanencouragementforourendeavorstocontributeagenuineVietnamculturalspaceforpeopleof VietHeritageandalsoforthecommunityatlarge." Accompanyingphotosoftheownerashostwithherguests showthattheeventtookplaceinthebackyardof2221Heliotropewherethepavilionwillbelocated. Theowner’s messagewasforwardedfromtheMayorProTem'sOfficetothePlanningAgencywiththerequestto continue thepermitprocess. (Enclosure, TLMemo3-14-23) securedfromCityPublicRecordsRequest (CPRR #24- 1822September17, 2023). The impactof the Viet HeritageGardenand Foundation, if any, onthe Appellant's premisesmustbeexaminedbeforea determinationis made. 2221HeliotropeDrivehasbeentheaddressof theVietHeritageFoundation, a nonprofitcorporation foundedby theownersin 2017and ,possiblyinactivesince2021, pertheCaliforniaSecretaryof State Enclosure, business search records;
https://bizfileonline.sos.ca.gov/search/business; https://www.bizprofile.net/ca/santa-ana/viet-heritage-foundation The Viet HeritageFoundationhas published a website, VietHeritage.org, whichstatesthat “Our mission is to preserve and share Vietnamese cultural heritage with future generations. We host culturalexhibitions, communityculturalevents, andyouth-orientededucationalactivities.” Thephone numberto contactappearsto be theowner’s landline (whitepages. com) andtheaddressis Heliotrope DriveSantaAnaCA. Hoursare9am – 6pmMon – Friday. It appearsfromthiswebsitethattheMoon Pagoda would be joining several traditional Vietnamese structures in the Viet Heritage Garden. Accordingto thewebsite, theHeritageGardenis partof thecomplexthathasbeenopened to the community. On the websitethereis a pictureof one of the traditionalbuildingsin the owners' backyardandan invitationto visitthe exhibitsthere. (enclosure: VietHeritage.org/screenshot). The websitemaynot be active.

These public sources suggest that the installation of the pavilion could be part of a currentand ongoingchangeto the existinglanduse fromsinglefamilyresidenceto publicor commercialuse as a HeritageGardenandCulturalCentersponsoredby the HeritageFoundationoperatingonsite. This pastactivitymayhavebeenclosed, or it couldhavebeenpausedbytheowner, to beresumedlater. It is not clearto me fromthe recordthatthe Pavilionwill be restrictedto privateuse.

Therefore, thePlanningCommission's presentfindingthatthestandardsof Sec41-638havebeenmet mustfail. Theadditionalevidenceof recentuseof thelocationforpublicpurposesthatwasnotaddressed bythePlanningAgency, castsdoubtonthefindingthatthepavilionwillnotbeusedforthesamepublic2 causes, andthuson the findingthatthe proposedprojectwillnot adverselyimpactthe communityas requiredbySection41-638of theSAMC.
2) Refer the matter to the Historic Resources Commission. As described in my previous correspondenceto you, I believethat the PlanningAgencyhas exceededits authorityand that the matter must be referred to the Historic Resources Commission pursuant to the Mills Act, for determinationwhetherthe useof the buildingandgroundsas a culturalcenteris compatiblewiththe originalhistoricaluseas a singlefamilyresidence.
3) Remandthe matterfor assessmentof the status of the VietHeritageGardenandVietHeritage Foundation at 2221N Heliotrope and how their possible continued operation affects the finding that this project is for privatefamily use.

I learnedabouttheGardenandFoundationbecauseI wasnotabletoattendthePlanningCommission hearingonAugust26. However, I submitteda requestforCityPublicRecords (CPRR #-1822) andfound throughthisandotherpublicsourcesinformationsuggestingthatthePlanningAgencyhasnotyetfulfilled thestandardsofSec. 41-638forgrantingapplicationsforthisconditionalusepermit. Intheprojectrecords andcorrespondenceI reviewed, thereislittleexplanationforwhytheDepartmentbelievesthispavilionhas beenor willcontinueto belimitedto personalsingle-familyuse, andsubstantialevidenceit maybeused to providea morepublicserviceto thecommunity.

First, whenthe PlanningAgencyand Commissionjustifythe conditionaluse permitin theirreports becauseit will be limitedto privateuse it doesn’t seemto alignwith the actualspecificuseintended for this pavilionthatthe ownerdescribedin her March14, 2023noteto the MayorProTemthat was forwardedto the PlanningDepartment, and then releasedin my City publicrecordsrequest (CPRR 24-1822 September17, 2023). In her March 14, 2023 note to the Mayor Pro Tem, the owner acknowledgedtheCity’s recognitionof theHeritageFoundationas "encouragementfor ourendeavors to contributea genuineVietnamculturalspacefor peopleof VietHeritageandalsofor thecommunity at large. “Thisuseof 2221HeliotropeDriveas a “culturalspacefor the communityat large” hasbeen confirmedby manyneighbors’ reportsof thepropertyowner’s useof thesiteas a culturalcenter (e.g., seasonalculturalgatherings, festivals, andtours) thatbringsa highvolumeof activity, cars, andschool buses.)
However, afterthe ownermadeher statementin her March14, 2023, notethatwasforwardedfrom CityCouncilto the PlanningAgency, (CPRR #24-1822September17, 2023, enclosed), I didnot find anydiscussionin the City’s recordson howwhetherthe propertyshouldbe allowedto be usedfas a HeritageGardenor publicas opposedto privateuse. Althoughat thePlanningCommissionhearing the owner clearly that she understood that only private use is allowed, I don’t recall any other documentsin theCityrecordsshowingthattheCity, theAgency, or theowner, consideredtheGarden andFoundationin thediscussionof whetherthistowerandtheresidencewouldbeforprivateor public use. The informationand findingsin the PlanningAgencyand Commissionreportsto securethe Council's approvalof thisresolutionthatthepavilionwouldbe usedonlyfor privatepurposestherefore stillseemincompleteandpossiblyinaccurateon thispoint.

I concludedtherejustwasn’t enoughreliableevidenceanywherein therecordto predictthat, moving forward, the use of the Pavilionin the newHeritageGardenwouldbe private.

The currentand futurestatus, andactivitiesof the owner’s apparentnonprofitHeritageFoundation and the HeritageGardenon the pavilionproject, the owner’s residence, andour neighborhoodneed to be specificallyandpubliclyaddressednowbeforea fair decisioncanbe reachedby Councilin this matter. In my reviewof Citypublicrecordsand the hearingrecordand evidence, I sawthat the City 3 had found there had been other typesof code/permitviolationsin 2022. I also sawthat therewas significantcooperationby the City and the owner’s staff addressingthese other types of possible buildingcodeviolations. I foundinformationthat the responsibilityto limitactivitiesto privateuse at the owner’s residence was specifically addressed by the Planning Department and owner's staff. particularlywiththe ownersor owners’ staff. Therecordalsoshowsthattherehavebeenother propertyrelatedcode and buildingproceedingsand decisionssuch as placingpropertiesin trusts.

E.g. PCA STL 806301; OC 30-2012-00607998-CU-BC-CJC; OC 30-2019-01076395-CU-NP- CIC.) Giventhe pastpublicuse, as wellas the possibilityof futuremisunderstanding, a signedand witnessed notice or agreement may help to ensure compliance. It maybe helpfulto securean independentexaminerto secureanaccurateandimpartialassessmentof thismatter.

Considerthecorrespondenceabouttheprojectsecuredin myCityPublicRecordsRequest (CPRR#24- 1822September17, 2024), theinformationonthenonprofitlocatedat 2221Heliotropefromthe CaliforniaSOSwebsite(https://bizfileonline.sos.ca.gov/search/business; www.bizfile.net), andthe HeritageFoundationwebsite (http://vietheritage.org) beforeapprovingtheresolution.

Contraryto the PlanningAgency's findingand recommendationthat futureuse is and mustremain private, someotherpubliclyavailableinformationalsosuggeststhatthepavilionwillnotbe usedonly for the quietenjoymentof the owner's familyfor personaluse in their backyard. Thepropertywas placed in trust in 2014. (p.14, Mills Act Application, (CPRR#24-1822)’ The ownersfounded the nonprofit Viet Heritage Foundation located at their home address in 2017. (https://bizfileonline.sos.ca.gov/search/business,) Perthe owner, the Cityacknowledgedthe owner and the Viet HeritageFoundationfor valued civic service (City staff owner memo 3-14-23 CPRR#24-1822) enclosed). The HeritageFoundationhas publicizedon its websitethat “(w)e host culturalexhibitions, communityculturalevents, andyouth-orientededucationalactivities, andincludes the Viet Heritage Garden, with a scene of one of the traditional buildings in the owner’s backyard. Donationsand volunteersare requested (http://vietheritage.org) Thenonprofitorganizationandwebsitemaynot be activeat present.

Moreover, theconditionof approvalstatesthattheuseof thestructureandthesubjectpropertyshallbe prohibitedfromuseforcommercialpurposes, includingbutnotlimitedto, tours, museumuse, festivals, etc.

Thesitewillbe requiredto remainandoperateas a single-familyresidentialsite, or theconditionaluse permitmaybesubjectto revocationasoutlinedin Section41-651of theSAMC.

Unlessnew informationis provided, the CUP should be denied or remandednow, becausethe resolution appears to rely on information that may be incomplete, out of date, or just plain wrong. Giventhe informationnowavailablethattheMoonpavilion may be amongseveralstructures in the HeritageGardenat the HeritageFoundationthat have been opened for public accessand viewing, and for use for membersof the generalpublic, and that tours, exhibits, and festivalshave beenhostedthere, the Departmentand the Ownershould seekandprovideadditionalinformation in supportof the findingthat thisprojectis for privateuseonly.

4. Revocation process outlined in Section 41-651 of the SAMCis an inadequate remedy for neighborsaffectedby public use
4 It is unfairto requirethoseneighborswhoaretryingto abideby theCity's zoning, building, andpermit requirementsto watchtheownersortheirsuccessorsappearto bypasstheusualrequirements, buildthe pavilion, andthenresumethepublicactivitiesnotauthorizedbytheCity. TheCity’s positionseemstobe thatno furtherreviewor actionneedsto be takennowbecausetheneighborswillhavetherightto go throughthearduousandexpensiveprocessof revocationtogetthepaviliontorndownatsometimeinthe futureas outlinedin Section41-651 of the SAMC. Relyingon the codeenforcementprocessto fix foreseeablefutureproblemswouldrequiregoingthroughthe sameappealprocessagain. Thatis an inadequateremedyforthepresentsituationwherethereisalreadysignificantevidenceofrecentpublicuse andlimitedindicationin therecordthatit hasbeenaddressedbytheCity.

Withoutadditionalsafeguardsin place, I believeanyattemptbyconcernedneighborsto repealtheCUP forviolationin thefutureunderSection41-561of theCodewouldbefruitless.

If the pagodais builtin its currentintendedlocationandthatlocationre-opensto thepublic, I believe the CUPcouldhavea severeandharmfuleffecton thequalityof life, includingtrafficflowandsafety, of ourneighborhood. To sumup, thereis notenoughaccurateinformationpresentedto thePlanning Commissionor theCouncilonwhattheactualpurposeof thisCUPis to decideonanyof theprovisions of Sec 41-638. Withoutmore, the PlanningAgency's conclusionthat this pavilionis for privateuse appearsto contradictthe statementof the ownerin herMarch14, 2023, letterto theCityto renewthe CUP application that was then forwarded to the Agency (PRR #24-1822 enclosed), the filing information from the Secretary of State bizfile, and the owner' s apparent website http://.vietheritage.org). The weight of evidence available publicly suggests recent or ongoing knowledge and support of at least limited ontinued public use. Since the finding of privateuse supportingthe approvalseemsinaccurate, thenthe findingthat the standardsof this provisionhave beenmetmustfail. I couldnotfindenoughreliableevidenceto determinewhattheactualuseof the pavilion, or its impacton the neighborhood, wouldbe.

5. Returnthe matterto the PlanningCommission, so the City canfind the right locationfor this wonderful project.

I believethisbeautifulpavilionbelongsin a HeritageGardenandCulturalCenter, thatis safe, invitingand opento publicviewratherthanin a single-familyresidentialneighborhood. If thisis theowner’s goal, I suggesttheCitycontacttheMuseumDistrictonMainStreetjusta fewblocksawayfromourneighborhood of FloralPark wherethereare severalmuseums, safesurroundings, and ampleparking. In theright location, thiswouldbea wonderfulproject TheVietHeritageFoundationhasdoneextraordinarywork. A CulturalCenterandHeritageGardenintheMuseumDistrictdedicatedtothenextgenerationdeservesour community’s support.

RespectfullySubmitted,
Mrs. EllenKoldewey
NorthHeliotropeDrive
SantaAnaCA92706
Myneighborhoodassocation, FloralParkNeighborhoodAssociation (FPNA) of SantaAnaCA, nolonger takespositionsin disputesamongneighbors, andthereforehastakena neutralpositionin thismatter.

Enclosure/citations::
https://vietheritage.org
https://www.bizprofile.net/ca/santa-ana/
https://bizfileonline.sos.ca.gov/search/businessviet-heritage-foundation 5 Secretaryof State
SecretaryofState
CityPublicRecordsRequest (CPRR) (#24-1822) documents
6 Gxe;! 3332! O/! Ifmjpuspqf! esjwf-! Tboub! Bob-! DB!: 3817 Gspn; fmmfo! LPMEFXFZ!)
Up;
Ebuf; Xfeoftebz-! Pdupcfs! 27-! 3135! bu! 23; 17! QN! QEU Cfhjo! gpsxbsefe! nfttbhf;
Gspn;!=umffAtboub.bob/psh?
Tvckfdu;!GX;!Gxe;!3332!O/!Ifmjpuspqf!esjwf-!Tboub!Bob-!DB!:3817 Ebuf;!Nbsdi!25-!3134!bu!22247QN!QEU
Up;!=QHpnf{Atboub.bob/psh?-!=BQf{ ftilqpvsAtboub.bob/psh? Ij! Qfesp!boe!Bmj-
Nbzps!Qsp!Ufn! Mpqf{! btlfe! nf! up!gpmmpx! xjui! zpv!bcpvu!tdifevmjoh! b!nffujoh! xjui Es/!Rvzoi! Ljfv!'! Dibo! Ljfv! up! dpoujovf! uif! qfsnju! qspdftt/! Dpvme! zpv! qmfbtf sfwjfx! boe! mfu! nf! lopx! xifo! xf! dbo! tdifevmf! uif! nffujoh@ Uibol! zpv-
Ujob
Rvzoi! Ljfv!=
Npoebz-!Nbsdi! 24-!3134!3;26!QN
Mpqf{-! Kfttjf!= KfttjfMpqf{ Atboub. bob/ psh?<! Qibo-! Uibj!= UQiboAtboub. bob/ psh? Mff-! Ujob!Ep!=umffAtboub. bob/psh?
Gxe;
Efbs! Kfttjf! boe! Uibj;
Ju!xbt! bo!ipops!boe!qmfbtvsf! up!ibwf! zpv! bu!uif! qsfwjfx! pg!Wjfu! Ifsjubhf! Hbsefo!po Gfcsvbsz!29-!34/
Uif! sfdphojujpo! gps!Wjfu! Ifsjubhf! Gpvoebujpo! sfqsftfout! tvdi! bo!fodpvsbhfnfou! gps!pvs foefbwpst!up!dpousjcvuf!b!hfovjof! Wjfuobn! dvmuvsbm!tqbdf!gps!qfpqmf!pg!Wjfu! Ifsjubhf! boe bmtp!gps!uif! dpnnvojuz!bu!mbshf/
Xf! sfrvftu! zpvs!bttjtubodf! tp!uibu! xf! dbo!sftvnf! uif! bqqmjdbujpo! gps!bqqspwbm! pg!uif Nppo! qbwjmjpo/! Uif! qspdftt! xbt! tupqqfe! cfdbvtf! pg! tpnf! pguif! ofjhicpst! pqqptjujpobu uif! ifbsjoh-! tjodf! uifz! gfmu! ju! ejggfst! gspn!uif! bsu!efdp! mppl! pg!uif! nbjo! ipvtf/! Ipxfwfs! xf ibwf! npwfe!ju!up!uif! Tboub!Dmbsb!hbsefo!boe!hjwfo! uif! pqqpsuvojuz!up!uif! Gmpsbm!qbsl Bttpdjbujpo! cpbse! up! dpotjefs! ju! uifsf! xifsf! ju! jt! ijeefo! cz! uif! cbncpp! tdsffo/! Uifsf! jt! op mpohfs! pqqptjujpo! up!uif! sfmpdbujpo-! uifsfgpsf! xf! sfrvftu! up!sftvnf! uif! qspdftt! xjui! uif qmboojoh!efqbsunfou/
2/! evsjoh! uif! sfdfou! sbjot-! uif! xppe! ibt! cffo! tpblfe! boe! jo! ebohfs! pg! tfsjpvt! ebnbhf- tjodf! ju! ibt! cffo! pvutjef! gps!bmnptu! 4!zfbst! cz!opx/ Bt! zpv! ibwf! tffo! gspn!uif! xppe!boe!xbufs! qbwjmjpot-! ju! jt! fyusfnfmz! efmjdbuf! up!sfqbjs wjoubhf! xppe!boe!uifsf! bsf! op!dsbgutnfo! ifsf! xip! dbo!ep!ju! sjhiu/! Ju!xpvme! cf! ejtbtuspvt! jg uif! qsfdjpvt! nppo! qbwjmjpo! xijdi! xfbuifsfe! 3!dfouvsjft-! xpvme! foe! vq! cz! cfjoh! eftuspzfe ifsf! cfdbvtf! pg!uif! efmbz/! Zpvs! bttjtubodf! jt! nvdi! bqqsfdjbufe! up! tbwf! uijt! ijtupsjdbm bsufgbdut/
Uijt!hsbdfgvm!xpsl!pg!bsu!xjmm!usvmz!dpnqmfnfou!uif!sfdfou!fmfwbujpo!pg!Gmpsbm!Qbsl!up Obujpobm!Ijtupsjdbm!ofjhicpsippe!boe!dpousjcvuf!up!dvmuvsbm!ejwfstjuz!pg!xijdi! Tboub!Bob qsjeft!jutfmg/
Qmfbtf! bewjtf! bt! up!xibu! xf! offe! up!ep-!xf! xpvme! mjlf! up!btl! gps!bo!bqqpjounfou! xjui! zpv- tp! uibu! uif! qspdftt! dbo! sftvnf/! Xf! bsf! rvjuf! tfojpst! boe!uifsf! jt! op!ufmmjoh! xibu! uif! gvuvsf ipmet-! xf! bsf! dpnnjuufe! up!Ñojti! uif! xpsl! boe!ipqf! up!jowjuf! zpv! cbdl! gps!uif! efejdbujpo! pg uijt! vojrvf! bsdijufduvsbm!bsu-!b!qjfdf! pg!Wjfuobn! dvmuvsbm!bddpnqmjtinfou/ Bo! bqqpjounfou! po!npsojoht! Npoebz! uispvhi! Uivstebz! xpvme! xpsl! xfmm/ Uibol! zpv/
Rvzoi!'! Dibo! Ljfv
3332!O/!Ifmjpuspqf! esjwf-! Tboub!bob-!DB!: 3817
825*835.1961
Zpv! nfbtvsf! uif! tj{ f! pg! uif! bddpnqmjtinfou! cz! uif! pctubdmft! zpv! ibe! up! pwfsdpnf! up sfbdi!zpvs!hpbmt
DpoÑefoujbmjuz! Opujdf;! Uif! jogpsnbujpo!jo!uijt! dpnnvojdbujpo!jt! dpoÑefoujbm!boe!jt! ejsfdufe pomz!up!uif! joufoefe! sfdjqjfou/! Qmfbtf! ep!opu!gpsxbse!uijt! dpnnvojdbujpo! xjuipvu! nz qfsnjttjpo/! Jg!zpv! ibwf! sfdfjwfe! uijt! dpnnvojdbujpo! jo! fssps-!qmfbtf! opujgz! nf! jnnfejbufmz boe!efmfuf0eftuspz! uijt! dpnnvojdbujpo/

Ibarra, Evelyn
From: [email protected]
Sent: 19, 202412:23PM
To: eComment; ellenKOLDEWEY
Subject: Fw: AppealApplicationNo2024-01, AppealingtheDecisionofthePlanning CommissiontoApproveConditionalUsePermit (CUP) No2022-06Allowingthe ConstructionofanAccessoryStructurewithintheRearYardofanExistingSingle-Family ResidenceLoca...

Attachments: ScreenShot2024-11-17at8.56.54PM.png; TLeeCityMemo3-14-23photoscopy.pdf Attention: Thisemailoriginatedfromoutsideof Cityof SantaAna. Usecautionwhenopeningattachmentsorlinks.

ForwardedMessage -----
From: . <
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November19, 2024at 11:09:46 AMPST
Subject: AppealApplicationNo 2024-01, AppealingtheDecisionof thePlanningCommissionto ApproveConditionalUse Permit (CUP) No 2022-06 AllowingtheConstructionof an AccessoryStructurewithintheRearYardof an ExistingSingle- FamilyResidenceLocatedat 2221NorthHeliotropeDrive (APNs:002-081-45 And002-081-46 Subject: AppealApplicationNo 2024-01, AppealingtheDecisionof thePlanningCommissionto ApproveConditional UsePermit (CUP) No2022-06 AllowingtheConstructionof an AccessoryStructurewithintheRearYardof an Existing Single-FamilyResidenceLocatedat 2221NorthHeliotropeDrive (APNs:002-081-45 And002-081-46 17November2024
MayorAmezcua
MayorProTemPhan
CouncilmemberLopez
MembersofCityCouncil
OfficeofCityClerk
22CivicCenterPlazaM-30
SantaAnaCalifornia92701
GreetingsMayorandCouncil:

I amwritingtoyouasanindividualneighborinFloralParkandresidentof theCityof SantaAna, andnot as a memberor representativeof any groupor organization. Whiletheremaybe severalareasof concerninthismatterthatmyneighborshavebroughttoyourattention, I amonlylookingatwhetherthere 1 is enoughinformationto establishthatthispavilionis forprivatesingle-familyusein compliancewiththe standardsofSAMCSection41-638.

IopposeCUP6-2022initspresentlocationinthissingle-familyresidentialneighborhood.

IasktheCounciltotakethefollowingactions.

1. RejecttheCUPresolutionapprovedbythePlanningCommissionforlackofsubstantialevidencetosupport thefindingthatthisprojectisforprivatesingle-familyusetoshowcompliancewiththestandardsofSAMC Section41-638, and
2) ReferthemattertotheHistoricResourcesCommissionforreviewasmayberequiredbytheMillsAct, or 3) RemandthematterforassessmentofthestatusoftheVietHeritageGardenandVietHeritageFoundationat 2221NHeliotropeandhowanycontinuedoperationaffectsthefindingthatthisprojectisforprivatefamilyuse, 4) DonotrelyontheprocessofrevocationoutlinedinSection41-651oftheSAMCtoresolvethisissue. Itisan inadequateremedyforthiscase.
5) RecommendtothePlanningCommissionthattheCityfindtherightlocationforthiswonderfulproject. If theowneragrees, relocatethispaviliontoalocationforaHeritageGardenandCulturalCenterthatwillbe invitingandopentopublicview. IsuggesttheMuseumDistrictonMainStreet justafewblocksawayfrom ourneighborhoodofFloralParkwherethereareseveralothermuseums, safesurroundings, andampleparking. 1) RejecttheCUPresolutionforfailuretoestablishthatthisprojectisforprivatesingle-familyusetocomply withthestandardsofSAMCESection41-638.

ThePlanning & BuildingAgency's (PlanningAgency) findingthatthispagodaisforprivateuseonlyseems inaccurateandmaynotsupportedbycurrentinformation. AccordingtotherecordsreceivedfrommyCityPublic RecordsRequest, (CPRR #24-1822, September17, 2023) theApplicant (owner) renewedtheapplicationfor theCUPonMarch14, 2023. InhermessagetoMayorProTemLopez, shethankedtheMayorProTemand CouncilpersonPhanforattendingthe "previewofVietHeritageGardenonFebruary18, 23. Therecognitionof VietHeritageFoundationrepresentssuchanencouragementforourendeavorstocontributeagenuineVietnam culturalspaceforpeopleofVietHeritageandalsoforthecommunityatlarge." Accompanyingphotosoftheowner ashostwithherguestsshowthattheeventtookplaceinthebackyardof2221Heliotropewherethepavilionwill belocated. Theowner’smessagewasforwardedfromtheMayorProTem'sOfficetothePlanningAgencywith the requestto continuethe permit process. (Enclosure, TLMemo3-14-23) securedfromCityPublic RecordsRequest (CPRR #24-1822September17, 2023). Theimpactof theVietHeritageGardenand Foundation, if any, ontheAppellant's premisesmustbeexaminedbeforea determinationis made. 2221HeliotropeDrivehasbeentheaddressof theVietHeritageFoundation, a nonprofitcorporation foundedbytheownersin 2017and ,possiblyinactivesince2021, pertheCaliforniaSecretaryof State Enclosure, business search records;
https://bizfileonline.sos.ca.gov/search/business; https://www.bizprofile.net/ca/santa-ana/viet-heritage-foundation The Viet HeritageFoundationhas publisheda website, VietHeritage.org, whichstatesthat “Our mission is to preserveand share Vietnamesecultural heritage with future generations. Wehost cultural exhibitions, community cultural events, and youth-orientededucationalactivities.” The phonenumberto contactappearsto be the owner’s landline (whitepages. com) andtheaddressis HeliotropeDriveSantaAna CA. Hoursare 9am – 6pmMon – Friday. It appearsfromthiswebsite thattheMoonPagodawouldbe joiningseveraltraditionalVietnamesestructuresin theVietHeritage Garden. Accordingto thewebsite, theHeritageGardenis partof thecomplexthathasbeenopened to the community. On the websitethereis a pictureof one of the traditionalbuildingsin theowners' backyardandan invitationto visittheexhibitsthere. (enclosure: VietHeritage.org/screenshot). The websitemaynot be active.
2 These public sources suggest that the installation of the pavilion could be part of a currentand ongoingchangeto the existinglandusefromsinglefamilyresidenceto publicor commercialuseas a HeritageGardenandCulturalCentersponsoredby theHeritageFoundationoperatingonsite. This past activitymay have been closed, or it could have been paused by the owner, to be resumed later. It is not clearto mefromthe recordthat the Pavilionwill be restrictedto privateuse.

Therefore, thePlanningCommission's presentfindingthatthestandardsof Sec41-638havebeenmet mustfail. Theadditionalevidenceofrecentuseofthelocationforpublicpurposesthatwasnotaddressed bythePlanningAgency, castsdoubtonthefindingthatthepavilionwillnotbeusedforthesamepublic causes, andthuson thefindingthattheproposedprojectwillnotadverselyimpactthecommunityas requiredbySection41-638of theSAMC.
2) Refer the matter to the Historic Resources Commission. As described in my previous correspondenceto you, I believethat the PlanningAgencyhas exceededits authorityand that the matter must be referred to the Historic Resources Commission pursuant to the Mills Act, for determinationwhethertheuseof thebuildingandgroundsas a culturalcenteris compatiblewiththe originalhistoricaluseas a singlefamilyresidence.
3) Remandthe matterfor assessmentof the statusof the VietHeritageGardenandVietHeritage Foundationat 2221N Heliotropeand how their possible continued operation affects the finding that this project is for privatefamily use.

I learned about the Garden and FoundationbecauseI was not able to attend the Planning Commissionhearingon August26. However, I submitteda requestfor CityPublicRecords (CPRR #- 1822) andfoundthroughthisandotherpublicsourcesinformationsuggestingthatthePlanningAgency hasnotyetfulfilledthestandardsofSec. 41-638forgrantingapplicationsforthisconditionalusepermit. In theprojectrecordsandcorrespondenceI reviewed, thereis littleexplanationfor whytheDepartment believesthispavilionhasbeenorwillcontinueto belimitedto personalsingle-familyuse, andsubstantial evidenceit maybeusedto providea morepublicserviceto thecommunity.

First, whenthe PlanningAgencyand Commissionjustifythe conditionalusepermitin theirreports becauseit willbe limitedto privateuse it doesn’t seemto alignwiththe actualspecificuseintended for thispavilionthatthe ownerdescribedin her March14, 2023noteto theMayorProTemthatwas forwardedto the PlanningDepartment, and thenreleasedin my Citypublicrecordsrequest (CPRR 24-1822 September17, 2023). In her March 14, 2023 note to the MayorPro Tem, the owner acknowledged the City’s recognition of the Heritage Foundation as "encouragement for our endeavorsto contributea genuineVietnamculturalspacefor peopleof Viet Heritageand also for the communityat large. “Thisuseof 2221HeliotropeDriveas a “culturalspacefor the communityat large” has been confirmedby manyneighbors’ reportsof the propertyowner’s use of the site as a culturalcenter (e.g., seasonalculturalgatherings, festivals, and tours) that bringsa highvolumeof activity, cars, and schoolbuses.)
However, aftertheownermadeherstatementin herMarch14, 2023, notethatwasforwardedfrom CityCouncilto the PlanningAgency, (CPRR #24-1822September17, 2023, enclosed), I didnotfind anydiscussionin the City’s recordson howwhetherthepropertyshouldbe allowedto be usedfas a HeritageGardenor publicas opposedto privateuse. Althoughat thePlanningCommissionhearing the owner clearly that she understood that only private use is allowed, I don’t recall any other documents in the City records showing that the City, the Agency, or the owner, consideredthe GardenandFoundationin thediscussionof whetherthistowerandtheresidencewouldbefor private or public use. The informationand findingsin the PlanningAgencyand Commissionreportsto 3 secure the Council's approval of this resolution that the pavilion would be used only for private purposesthereforestillseemincompleteandpossiblyinaccurateon thispoint.

I concludedtherejustwasn’t enoughreliableevidenceanywherein therecordtopredictthat, moving forward, the use of the Pavilionin the newHeritageGardenwouldbe private.

Thecurrentandfuturestatus, andactivitiesof theowner’s apparentnonprofitHeritageFoundation andthe HeritageGardenon the pavilionproject, the owner’s residence, andourneighborhoodneed to be specificallyandpubliclyaddressednowbeforea fairdecisioncanbe reachedby Councilin this matter. In my reviewof Citypublicrecordsandthe hearingrecordandevidence, I sawthatthe City had foundtherehad beenothertypesof code/permitviolationsin 2022. I alsosawthattherewas significantcooperationby the City and the owner’s staff addressingtheseother typesof possible buildingcodeviolations. I foundinformationthattheresponsibilityto limitactivitiesto privateuseat the owner’s residence was specifically addressed by the Planning Department and owner's staff. particularlywiththeownersor owners’ staff. Therecordalsoshowsthattherehavebeenother propertyrelatedcodeand buildingproceedingsand decisionssuchas placingpropertiesin trusts.

E.g. PCA STL 806301; OC 30-2012-00607998-CU-BC-CJC; OC 30-2019-01076395-CU-NP- CIC.) Giventhe pastpublicuse, as wellas the possibilityof futuremisunderstanding, a signedand witnessednotice or agreementmay help to ensure compliance. It maybe helpfulto securean independentexaminerto secureanaccurateandimpartialassessmentof thismatter.

Considerthecorrespondenceabouttheprojectsecuredin myCityPublicRecordsRequest CPRR#24-1822September17, 2024), theinformationonthenonprofitlocatedat 2221Heliotropefrom theCaliforniaSOSwebsite(https://bizfileonline.sos.ca.gov/search/business; www.bizfile.net), andthe HeritageFoundationwebsite (http://vietheritage.org) beforeapprovingtheresolution.

Contraryto the PlanningAgency's findingandrecommendationthatfutureuseis andmustremain private, someotherpubliclyavailableinformationalsosuggeststhatthepavilionwillnotbeusedonly for the quietenjoymentof the owner's familyfor personaluse in theirbackyard. Thepropertywas placed in trust in 2014. (p.14, Mills Act Application, (CPRR#24-1822)’ The ownersfoundedthe nonprofit Viet Heritage Foundation located at their home address in 2017. (https://bizfileonline.sos.ca.gov/search/business,) Pertheowner, theCityacknowledgedthe ownerand the Viet HeritageFoundationfor valuedcivic service (City staff ownermemo 3-14-23 CPRR#24-1822) enclosed). TheHeritageFoundationhaspublicizedon its websitethat “(w)e host cultural exhibitions, community cultural events, and youth-oriented educationalactivities, and includesthe Viet HeritageGarden, with a scene of one of the traditionalbuildingsin the owner’s backyard. Donationsand volunteersare requested (http://vietheritage.org) Thenonprofitorganizationandwebsitemaynot be activeat present.

Thispubliclyavailableinformationdoesnotseemcompletelyconsistentwiththeresolutionapproving ConditionalUsePermit (CUPNo. 2022-06), whichreferstoSantaAnaMunicipalCode (SAMC) sections limitingtheuseof thesubjectsitetosingle-familyresidence. Asdrafted, theconditionofapprovalrestricts theuseof thepavilionasa structureforprivateuseandenjoymentbytheprivatepropertyownersand requiresthatit notbe designedor be intendedfor publicaccessor viewingor usebymembersof the public. Moreover, theconditionof approvalstatesthattheuseof thestructureandthesubjectproperty shallbe prohibitedfromusefor commercialpurposes, includingbutnotlimitedto, tours, museumuse, festivals, etc. Thesitewillbe requiredto remainandoperateas a single-familyresidentialsite, or the conditionalusepermitmaybesubjectto revocationasoutlinedin Section41-651of theSAMC. 4 Unlessnew informationis provided, the CUP shouldbe deniedor remandednow, becausethe resolution appears to rely on information that may be incomplete, out of date, or just plain wrong. Given the information now available that the Moon pavilion may be among several structuresin the HeritageGarden at the HeritageFoundationthat have been opened for public accessand viewing, and for use for membersof the generalpublic, and that tours, exhibits, and festivals have been hosted there, the Department and the Owner should seek and provide additionalinformationin supportof the findingthatthisprojectis for privateuseonly.

4. Revocation process outlined in Section 41-651 of the SAMCis an inadequate remedy for neighborsaffectedby public use
It is unfairto requirethoseneighborswhoaretryingto abidebytheCity's zoning, building, andpermit requirementstowatchtheownersortheirsuccessorsappeartobypasstheusualrequirements, buildthe pavilion, andthenresumethepublicactivitiesnotauthorizedbytheCity. TheCity’s positionseemstobe thatno furtherreviewor actionneedsto be takennowbecausetheneighborswillhavetherightto go throughthearduousandexpensiveprocessof revocationto getthepaviliontorndownat sometimein thefutureas outlinedin Section41-651of theSAMC. Relyingonthecodeenforcementprocessto fix foreseeablefutureproblemswouldrequiregoingthroughthesameappealprocessagain. Thatisan inadequateremedyforthepresentsituationwherethereis alreadysignificantevidenceof recentpublic useandlimitedindicationin therecordthatit hasbeenaddressedbytheCity.

Withoutadditionalsafeguardsin place, I believeanyattemptbyconcernedneighborstorepealtheCUP forviolationin thefutureunderSection41-561of theCodewouldbefruitless.

If thepagodais builtin its currentintendedlocationandthatlocationre-opensto thepublic, I believe theCUPcouldhavea severeandharmfuleffecton thequalityof life, includingtrafficflowandsafety, of our neighborhood. To sum up, there is not enough accurate information presentedto the PlanningCommissionor the Councilon whatthe actualpurposeof this CUPis to decideon anyof the provisionsof Sec 41-638. Withoutmore, the PlanningAgency's conclusionthatthispavilionis for privateuseappearsto contradictthe statementof the ownerin her March14, 2023, letterto the Cityto renewthe CUPapplicationthatwasthenforwardedto the Agency (PRR #24-1822enclosed), the filing information from the Secretary of State bizfile, and the owner's apparent website http://.vietheritage.org). The weight of evidence available publicly suggests recent or ongoing knowledgeand support of at least limited ontinued public use. Since the finding of privateuse supportingthe approvalseemsinaccurate, thenthe findingthatthe standardsof thisprovisionhave been met must fail. I couldnot find enoughreliableevidenceto determinewhatthe actualuse of the pavilion, or its impacton the neighborhood, wouldbe.

5. Returnthe matterto the PlanningCommission, so the City can find the right location for this wonderful project.

I believethisbeautifulpavilionbelongsin a HeritageGardenandCulturalCenter, thatis safe, inviting andopentopublicviewratherthanina single-familyresidentialneighborhood. If thisistheowner’s goal, I suggest the City contact the Museum District on Main Street just a few blocksawayfrom our neighborhoodof FloralParkwherethereareseveralmuseums, safesurroundings, andampleparking. In therightlocation, thiswouldbea wonderfulproject TheVietHeritageFoundationhasdoneextraordinary work. A CulturalCenterandHeritageGardenin theMuseumDistrictdedicatedto thenextgeneration deservesourcommunity’s support.

RespectfullySubmitted,
5 Mrs. EllenKoldewey
NorthHeliotropeDrive
SantaAnaCA92706
Myneighborhoodassocation, FloralParkNeighborhoodAssociation (FPNA) of SantaAnaCA, nolonger takespositionsin disputesamongneighbors, andthereforehastakena neutralpositionin thismatter.

Enclosure/citations::
https://vietheritage.org
https://www.bizprofile.net/ca/santa-ana/
https://bizfileonline.sos.ca.gov/search/businessviet-heritage-foundation Secretaryof State
SecretaryofState
CityPublicRecordsRequest (CPRR) (#24-1822) documents
6 Gxe;! 3332! O/! Ifmjpuspqf! esjwf-! Tboub! Bob-! DB!: 3817 Gspn; fmmfo! LPMEFXFZ!)
Up;
Ebuf; Xfeoftebz-! Pdupcfs! 27-! 3135! bu! 23; 17! QN! QEU Cfhjo! gpsxbsefe! nfttbhf;
Gspn;!=umffAtboub.bob/psh?
Tvckfdu;!GX;!Gxe;!3332!O/!Ifmjpuspqf!esjwf-!Tboub!Bob-!DB!:3817 Ebuf;!Nbsdi!25-!3134!bu!22247QN!QEU
Up;!=QHpnf{Atboub.bob/psh?-!=BQf{ ftilqpvsAtboub.bob/psh? Ij! Qfesp!boe!Bmj-
Nbzps!Qsp!Ufn! Mpqf{! btlfe! nf! up!gpmmpx! xjui! zpv!bcpvu!tdifevmjoh! b!nffujoh! xjui Es/!Rvzoi! Ljfv!'! Dibo! Ljfv! up! dpoujovf! uif! qfsnju! qspdftt/! Dpvme! zpv! qmfbtf sfwjfx! boe! mfu! nf! lopx! xifo! xf! dbo! tdifevmf! uif! nffujoh@ Uibol! zpv-
Ujob
Rvzoi! Ljfv!=
Npoebz-!Nbsdi! 24-!3134!3;26!QN
Mpqf{-! Kfttjf!= KfttjfMpqf{ Atboub. bob/ psh?<! Qibo-! Uibj!= UQiboAtboub. bob/ psh? Mff-! Ujob!Ep!=umffAtboub. bob/psh?
Gxe;
Efbs! Kfttjf! boe! Uibj;
Ju!xbt! bo!ipops!boe!qmfbtvsf! up!ibwf! zpv! bu!uif! qsfwjfx! pg!Wjfu! Ifsjubhf! Hbsefo!po Gfcsvbsz!29-!34/
Uif! sfdphojujpo! gps!Wjfu! Ifsjubhf! Gpvoebujpo! sfqsftfout! tvdi! bo!fodpvsbhfnfou! gps!pvs foefbwpst!up!dpousjcvuf!b!hfovjof! Wjfuobn! dvmuvsbm!tqbdf!gps!qfpqmf!pg!Wjfu! Ifsjubhf! boe bmtp!gps!uif! dpnnvojuz!bu!mbshf/
Xf! sfrvftu! zpvs!bttjtubodf! tp!uibu! xf! dbo!sftvnf! uif! bqqmjdbujpo! gps!bqqspwbm! pg!uif Nppo! qbwjmjpo/! Uif! qspdftt! xbt! tupqqfe! cfdbvtf! pg! tpnf! pguif! ofjhicpst! pqqptjujpobu uif! ifbsjoh-! tjodf! uifz! gfmu! ju! ejggfst! gspn!uif! bsu!efdp! mppl! pg!uif! nbjo! ipvtf/! Ipxfwfs! xf ibwf! npwfe!ju!up!uif! Tboub!Dmbsb!hbsefo!boe!hjwfo! uif! pqqpsuvojuz!up!uif! Gmpsbm!qbsl Bttpdjbujpo! cpbse! up! dpotjefs! ju! uifsf! xifsf! ju! jt! ijeefo! cz! uif! cbncpp! tdsffo/! Uifsf! jt! op mpohfs! pqqptjujpo! up!uif! sfmpdbujpo-! uifsfgpsf! xf! sfrvftu! up!sftvnf! uif! qspdftt! xjui! uif qmboojoh!efqbsunfou/
2/! evsjoh! uif! sfdfou! sbjot-! uif! xppe! ibt! cffo! tpblfe! boe! jo! ebohfs! pg! tfsjpvt! ebnbhf- tjodf! ju! ibt! cffo! pvutjef! gps!bmnptu! 4!zfbst! cz!opx/ Bt! zpv! ibwf! tffo! gspn!uif! xppe!boe!xbufs! qbwjmjpot-! ju! jt! fyusfnfmz! efmjdbuf! up!sfqbjs wjoubhf! xppe!boe!uifsf! bsf! op!dsbgutnfo! ifsf! xip! dbo!ep!ju! sjhiu/! Ju!xpvme! cf! ejtbtuspvt! jg uif! qsfdjpvt! nppo! qbwjmjpo! xijdi! xfbuifsfe! 3!dfouvsjft-! xpvme! foe! vq! cz! cfjoh! eftuspzfe ifsf! cfdbvtf! pg!uif! efmbz/! Zpvs! bttjtubodf! jt! nvdi! bqqsfdjbufe! up! tbwf! uijt! ijtupsjdbm bsufgbdut/
Uijt!hsbdfgvm!xpsl!pg!bsu!xjmm!usvmz!dpnqmfnfou!uif!sfdfou!fmfwbujpo!pg!Gmpsbm!Qbsl!up Obujpobm!Ijtupsjdbm!ofjhicpsippe!boe!dpousjcvuf!up!dvmuvsbm!ejwfstjuz!pg!xijdi! Tboub!Bob qsjeft!jutfmg/
Qmfbtf! bewjtf! bt! up!xibu! xf! offe! up!ep-!xf! xpvme! mjlf! up!btl! gps!bo!bqqpjounfou! xjui! zpv- tp! uibu! uif! qspdftt! dbo! sftvnf/! Xf! bsf! rvjuf! tfojpst! boe!uifsf! jt! op!ufmmjoh! xibu! uif! gvuvsf ipmet-! xf! bsf! dpnnjuufe! up!Ñojti! uif! xpsl! boe!ipqf! up!jowjuf! zpv! cbdl! gps!uif! efejdbujpo! pg uijt! vojrvf! bsdijufduvsbm!bsu-!b!qjfdf! pg!Wjfuobn! dvmuvsbm!bddpnqmjtinfou/ Bo! bqqpjounfou! po!npsojoht! Npoebz! uispvhi! Uivstebz! xpvme! xpsl! xfmm/ Uibol! zpv/
Rvzoi!'! Dibo! Ljfv
3332!O/!Ifmjpuspqf! esjwf-! Tboub!bob-!DB!: 3817
825*835.1961
Zpv! nfbtvsf! uif! tj{ f! pg! uif! bddpnqmjtinfou! cz! uif! pctubdmft! zpv! ibe! up! pwfsdpnf! up sfbdi!zpvs!hpbmt
DpoÑefoujbmjuz! Opujdf;! Uif! jogpsnbujpo!jo!uijt! dpnnvojdbujpo!jt! dpoÑefoujbm!boe!jt! ejsfdufe pomz!up!uif! joufoefe! sfdjqjfou/! Qmfbtf! ep!opu!gpsxbse!uijt! dpnnvojdbujpo! xjuipvu! nz qfsnjttjpo/! Jg!zpv! ibwf! sfdfjwfe! uijt! dpnnvojdbujpo! jo! fssps-!qmfbtf! opujgz! nf! jnnfejbufmz boe!efmfuf0eftuspz! uijt! dpnnvojdbujpo/

Ibarra, Evelyn
From: STACEYKATO <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November
To: eComment
Subject: ObjectiontoApprovalofCUP2022-06
Attention: Thisemailoriginatedfromoutsideof Cityof SantaAna. Usecautionwhenopeningattachmentsorlinks.

My nameisStaceyKatoandI residewithintherequirednotificationzonefor CUP2022-06. I haveresidedin thisareasince1997.

I amsubmittingawrittenresponseasI amnotsureI will beabletoattendtheCouncilmeetingthisevening.

I havehadachancetoreviewsomeof thecommentaryfrompriordiscussionsregardingobjectionstothisCUP andwill notrecapmyobservationshere. Otherthantosummarizetheconcernsvoicedbyothercommentators including:

1. Potentialsafetyconcerns.

2. Theabilityforall residentstotherighttothequietenjoymentof theirproperty.

3. Potentialnuisanceissues.

WhileprobablynotgermanetothediscussionregardingtheCUPI thinkit isworthhighlightingthatthisis probablythemostimportantconsequentialpropertywithintheFloralParkNationalHistoricDistrict. It’smy opinionthattheadditionalstructuresonthepropertyhavehadadetrimentalimpactonthehistoricallandmark designationandarepotentiallynotcompliantwithNationalParkServiceguidelines.

Asnotedin theApril 25, 2022PlanningCommissionMinutesresolution, ExhibitA, point11, Priortobuildingpermitfinal, thepropertyshallbebroughtintofull maintenancecompliancewithall applicableSAMCstandards. Maintenanceshallinclude, butisnotlimitedto: therepairandupkeepof the property; cleanupof trashanddebris; repairandupkeepof anydamagedand/orweatheredcomponentsof the historicbuilding (e.g., siding, windows, historicfeatures); repairandupkeepof exteriorpaint; landscapingand relatedlandscape, furnishing, andhardscapeimprovements.” Asnotedin thepublicrecordstherehavebeenatleasttwo, whatappeartobe, significantcodeviolationsfor unpermittedconstructionandaresummarizedbelow.

Theunauthorizedremovalandreplacementof ironcasementwindowsoriginaltothepropertyin violationof theSAMCascitedin theMarch28, 2022PlanningCommissionPackage. I haveacoupleof comments regarding:

AsfarasI cantell, thisreplacementwasapparentlyconcealedbytermitetenting-I thoughtit wasodd thatthetermitetentingwasupforanextendedperiodof time-thinkit wasacoupleweeks.

Whileit hasbeenstatedthatasettlementwasreachedwiththecityregardingthisviolationit doesnot appearthattheHistoricResourceCommissionwasconsultedregarding.

In publiccommentsmadebytheapplicantattheAugust24, 2024PlanningCommissionmeeting, the costof compliantcasementwindowswouldcost $1million, however, it appearsthatnodocumentation wasprovidednorrequestedin supportof thisestimate. A similarstatementwasmadewhenthe 1 applicantappliedtomodifytherooflineandwassubsequentlyrefutedbyaroofingspecialistwith knowledgeof therequiredworkthatneededtobedoneandcorrespondingcostswhichwere substantiallylessthantheapplicant’sstatedrepaircosts.

Anunpermittedroofmodificationtothehistoricone-storypoolhouse/cabana, notedbyCitystaffduringtheir reviewforthisCUP, wasmadetotheroofincreasingtheheightfromthirteenfeettotwentyfeetandmodifying theroofstructurefromaflatrooftoapitchedroofandotheralterationschangingthecharacterof thepool house.

In bothsituations, it appearsthatnegotiatedsettlementsbytheapplicantwiththeCity (assumingplanning commission) weremaderegardingtheunpermittedwork. Clearlybothviolationswouldappeartobebenon- compliantwithapplicableSAMCstandards. WhileI amnotprivvytotheultimateresolution, I wouldbe curioustoseewhatthefinalresolutionwasaswellasthelevelof authoritythePlanningCommissionhasin settlingunpermitted, unauthorizedconstruction, especiallywhenarepeatoffenseisinvolved. Lastly, giventhat thesettlementispublicnotpubliclyavailableI wouldbecursioustoseewhatlevelof oversightisexcercisedby Counciltoensureall settlementsareappliedequitablytoall residents.

Lastly, it appearsverycleartobethattheHistoricResourceCommissionshouldhavebeenconsultedin regards toanynegotiatedsettlementfor bothof theviolationsashistoricalstructureswereinvolved.

Thankyou
StaceyKato
2

Santa Ana City CouncilNovember 19, 2024

Santa Ana City Council
November 19, 2024