Agenda Packet_2024-11-19 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

From:Julie Humphreys To:eComments, PBA Subject:Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-06 Date:Monday, March 28, 2022 12:00:52 PM Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-06 re: 2221 N Heliotrope I am writing to strongly urge the Planning Commission to DENY the application for a conditional use permit. 1. The Addition of this Structure to this Historic Landmark Site has Not BeenApproved by the Historic Resources Commission as Required by the Mills Actand this Application Should First be Reviewed by the HRC.I vehemently object to the bypassing of the Historic Resources Commission which isrequired to approve any alterations or additions to a Historic Property—whichincludes the building site. To permit city staff and the owners to bypass the HRC inthe approval process for this structure dangerously undermines the purview of theHRC and thereby makes city staff the de facto arbiter of the Mills Act contract andHRC jurisdiction. The owners purchased a Landmark Historic Property which is steeped in history andarchitectural significance. Furthermore, this property has a Mills Act contract fromwhich the owners have been annually benefitting with significantly lower propertytaxes. This historic property includes not just the land but all associated structuresand improvements thereon. As such, the owners are contractually obligated to notonly maintain the Historic Property, but they may not disrupt the view corridor withany new structure . . . so as to prevent the viewing of the historic landmark by thepublic. Furthermore, the owners are contractually prohibited from destruction ofcharacter-defining features of the building or site, or alterations or additionsunless approved by the Historic Resources Commission. Such alterationsinclude a structure . . . which is unsightly by reason of its height, condition, orinappropriate location. The notion that the purview of the Historic Resources Commission is limited only toalterations that physically touch the historic residential structure itself is bothdangerously narrow minded but contrary to the express terms of the Mills Actcontract to which both the owners and the city of Santa Ana are parties. The MillsAct contract clearly applies to the character-defining features of the building siteand the additions of any structure which would interfere with the character-defining features of the site which requires approval by the Historic ResourcesCommittee. Of course, whether the proposed structure, in fact, does interfere withthe character-defining features of the site is for the HRC to determine, after a fairand public review process. To permit city staff to unilaterally conclude that this proposed twenty-three-foot-plus structure has no impact on this historic landmark property and is therefore notwithin the jurisdiction of the HRC reveals a shocking ignorance and appreciation ofthe historic and architectural importance of this historic property, its overall design,architectural intent, and the significance of the present viewing corridor. This factalone is the reason why this CUP application must be deferred to the HRC for firstreview and consideration. To enable city staff to permit the owners to bypass theHRC would result in city staff being the final arbiter of such decisions, in effectusurping the purview of the HRC, and significantly undermining the concept ofhistoric preservation the city professes to support. 2. The Proposed Structure Adversely Impacts the Historic PropertyIn the event the Planning Commission does not elect to refer this matter to theHistoric Resources Commission, the application for CUP should be substantivelydenied because it adversely impacts the historic structure. This proposed structure City Council 34 – 145 11/19/2024