Appeal Application No. 2024-01 for Maharajah House Moon Pavilion (2221 N.
Heliotrope Drive)
Exhibit 6 - Response to Appeal Comments
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 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 Exhibit 6 - Response to Appeal Comments
Appeal Application No. 2024-01 for Maharajah House Moon Pavilion (2221 N.
Heliotrope Drive)
2 2
3 4
2 5
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 one- story 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.
Exhibit 6 - Response to Appeal Comments
Appeal Application No. 2024-01 for Maharajah House Moon Pavilion (2221 N.
Heliotrope Drive)
3 2
3 4
2 5
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 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 Exhibit 6 - Response to Appeal Comments
Appeal Application No. 2024-01 for Maharajah House Moon Pavilion (2221 N.
Heliotrope Drive)
4 2
3 4
2 5
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.
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 Exhibit 6 - Response to Appeal Comments
Appeal Application No. 2024-01 for Maharajah House Moon Pavilion (2221 N.
Heliotrope Drive)
5 2
3 4
2 5
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 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 continued to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis by the appropriate review authority, Exhibit 6 - Response to Appeal Comments
Appeal Application No. 2024-01 for Maharajah House Moon Pavilion (2221 N.
Heliotrope Drive)
6 2
3 4
2 5
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 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 Exhibit 6 - Response to Appeal Comments
Appeal Application No. 2024-01 for Maharajah House Moon Pavilion (2221 N.
Heliotrope Drive)
7 2
3 4
2 5
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 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 Exhibit 6 - Response to Appeal Comments
Appeal Application No. 2024-01 for Maharajah House Moon Pavilion (2221 N.
Heliotrope Drive)
8 2
3 4
2 5
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.
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 Exhibit 6 - Response to Appeal Comments
Appeal Application No. 2024-01 for Maharajah House Moon Pavilion (2221 N.
Heliotrope Drive)
9 2
3 4
2 5
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.
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:
Exhibit 6 - Response to Appeal Comments
Appeal Application No. 2024-01 for Maharajah House Moon Pavilion (2221 N.
Heliotrope Drive)
10 2
3 4
2 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 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.
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.
Exhibit 6 - Response to Appeal Comments
Appeal Application No. 2024-01 for Maharajah House Moon Pavilion (2221 N.
Heliotrope Drive)
11 2
3 4
2 5
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 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 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.