Laserfiche WebLink
Ocampo, Nuvia <br />From: Julie Humphreys <jphlegal @aol.com> <br />Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2024 8:18 PM <br />To: eComments, PBA <br />Subject: Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-06 re: 2221 N Heliotrope <br />Follow Up Flag: Follow up <br />Flag Status: Flagged <br />Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links. <br />Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-06 re: 2221 N Heliotrope <br />I am writing to strongly urge the Planning Commission to DENY the application for a conditional use permit. <br />1. The Addition of this Structure to this Historic Landmark Site has Not Been Anaroved by the Historic Resources <br />Commission as Reauired by the Mills Act and this Analication Should First be Reviewed by the HRC. <br />I vehemently object to the bypassing of the Historic Resources Commission which is required to approve any alterations or <br />additions to a Historic Property —which includes the building site. To permit city staff and the owners to bypass the HRC in the <br />approval process for this structure dangerously undermines the purview of the HRC and thereby makes city staff the de <br />facto arbiter of the Mills Act contract and HRC jurisdiction. <br />The owners purchased a Landmark Historic Property which is steeped in history and architectural significance. Furthermore, this <br />property has a Mills Act contract from which the owners have been annually benefitting with significantly lower property <br />taxes. This historic property includes not just the land but all associated structures and improvements thereon. As such, the <br />owners are contractually obligated to not only maintain the Historic Property, but they may not disrupt the view corridor with any <br />new structure ... so as to prevent the viewing of the historic landmark by the public. Furthermore, the owners are <br />contractually prohibited from destruction of character -defining features of the building or site, or alterations or additions unless <br />approved by the Historic Resources Commission. Such alterations include a structure ... which is unsightly by reason of its <br />height, condition, or inappropriate location. <br />The notion that the purview of the Historic Resources Commission is limited only to alterations that physically touch the historic <br />residential structure itself is both dangerously narrow minded but contrary to the express terms of the Mills Act contract to which <br />both the owners and the city of Santa Ana are parties. The Mills Act contract clearly applies to the character -defining features of <br />the building site and the additions of any structure which would interfere with the character -defining features of the <br />site which requires approval by the Historic Resources Committee. Of course, whether the proposed structure, in <br />fact, does interfere with the character -defining features of the site is for the HRC to determine, after a fair and public review <br />process. <br />To permit city staff to unilaterally conclude that this proposed twenty -three -foot -plus structure has no impact on this historic <br />landmark property and is therefore not within the jurisdiction of the HRC reveals a shocking ignorance and appreciation of the <br />historic and architectural importance of this historic property, its overall design, architectural intent, and the significance of the <br />present viewing corridor. This fact alone is the reason why this CUP application must be deferred to the HRC for first review and <br />consideration. To enable city staff to permit the owners to bypass the HRC would result in city staff being the final arbiter of such <br />decisions, in effect usurping the purview of the HRC, and significantly undermining the concept of historic preservation the city <br />professes to support. <br />2. The Proposed Structure Adversely Impacts the Historic Property <br />In the event the Planning Commission does not elect to refer this matter to the Historic Resources Commission, the application <br />for CUP should be substantively denied because it adversely impacts the historic structure. This proposed structure will be <br />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, <br />location and mass will be extremely a prominent and dominant feature of the main viewing corridor from Heliotrope. So much so <br />that it will compete with the structure of the main residence. The Maharaja built this residence and surrounding improvements <br />(including the long, walled fence) as a fortress, a compound, for his daughter, with the sizing, location and massing of each <br />structure deliberately placed to as to create a cohesive, unified, clean, modern presence. <br />