Historical & Landmarks Commission - Regular Meeting

We are now called to order the Historical and Landmarks Commission meeting of June 4th, 2026 at 6.02 PM. We'll start with roll call by Chair Stocks. Commissioner Vargas-Smith, Commissioner Vamano, Commissioner Celso, Commissioner Farcene.

Yeah.

I don't see Commissioner Enciarte on chair alone. We have quorum.

Motion to excuse Commissioner Enciarte.

Thank you for a motion to excuse Commissioner Siarte. Do I have a second?

I'm second.

Thank you. Those who are in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstain? Motion passes. Unanimous, one absence. Next item, continuances, exceptions. This part of the meeting allows for applicants, members of public or other interested party to request an item to be continued without hearing or withdrawn or taken out of order. Are there any requests for applicants, public or commission for continuance or exception for any of the items on tonight's agenda? This would be for in person or online or any written request prior to the meeting.

None from staff.

Thank you. Seeing none, I'm not seeing a hand for it either. So we will continue. Consent calendar following, the consent calendar is as follows. Consent calendar items may be enacted, approved, or adopted by one motion unless requested to be removed by anyone for discussion or explanation. If any member of the Historical Landmarks Commission staff and applicant or member of the public wishes to comment, on a consent calendar item would like them to be heard on a regular agenda, make this request now. The items listed on consent calendar of associate file members constitute a public hearing item. With one item on the consent calendar tonight is the Historical Landmarks Commission meeting minutes of May 7th, 2026. So I have a motion and a second to approve the consent calendar. And also a reminder that if you were not at a meeting, you do have the option to abstain from the vote.

Chair Long, there are actually two items on the consent calendar.

Not in my script, so let me see.

So the second item on the consent calendar is the work plan for fiscal year 2026, 2027. It's my miss. And I will point out that you all have reviewed that last year. There haven't been many changes. We're getting the ball rolling on the historic preservation ordinance update. So I didn't make any sweeping changes to that.

I will note that six or five commissioners CRT also joined us, so we have a full Commission tonight we are on consent calendar. So are there is a motion or.

Last week. Do you want I want to abstain from the minutes, we can make two motion make two motions yeah yep.

was here last month.

I move we approve the minutes from last month.

Thank you. I second. Okay, that's right. I was like, who was here? Those who are in favor say aye.

Aye.

Those who oppose and those who abstain. Abstain. Thank you for the minutes for last month. And do I have a motion for the work plan?

I moved to approve the work plan.

Thank you, do I have a second? Second. Thank you. Those who are in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstain? Yeah, Ms. Motion passes and that concludes consent calendar. We'll move on to public presentations. This is a section where any members of the public or commission can present on an item that is not on the agenda tonight. We can address them briefly, but we cannot take action on them. Are there any members of the public that would like to briefly address the commission on any item not on agenda tonight? soon as well. Not seeing any we'll move on. Public hearing items. Item two is a public hearing consideration of a historic preservation agreement, a Mills that contract for 1261 Jackson Street. That's looking at my script and there's some repeats on there. Is that correct? Oh, 61 Jackson street is the first item. So turn this over to staff. Thank you.

Thank you chair. Along this, I don't want to be presented by summer foster assistant planner summer.

Thank you. Item number two, 1261 Jackson Street. My name is Summer Foss, assistant planner. It says the request for the consideration of a historic preservation agreement, Mills Act contract for 1261 Jackson Street. The site is not currently listed on the HRI. The existing site, so the lot size is 5,500 square feet. The surrounding uses are single family, which is consistent with the zoning of R16L single family residential. The general plan designation is very low density residential. The architectural style of the home is Queen Anne style. It has decorative elements, prominent front facing gable and spindle work details, which is noted in the DPR form as a character defining feature. Here we see on the map the subject parcel highlighted in red. The house next door is a Mills Act. I believe I have that on the next slide here. Sorry, it's HRI. So the two houses next door to the left are HRI properties, as well as to the right is also an HRI property. There's two other Mills Act on the block and three Mills Act properties across the street, as well as another HRI property. The subject property is here with the blue star on it. Here's a photo of what the residence looks like from the front. You can see some of that spindle work detailing there. And then here is another angle of the front of the residence. A 10-year plan has been submitted. In year one, they plan to do exterior envelope restoration, in-kind repair. Oops. in-kind repair of wood siding, application of historical grade primer and paint to address the peeling. For years two and three, they are going to be replacing the front facing windows to be more historic. They are going to prioritize and replace the highly visible front facing windows first and restore them back to the traditional wood double hung configuration with wide board trim to honor the original Queen Anne style features. The original windows were replaced with vinyl. Years four and five, they're going to do ornamental preservation, specialized repair and preservation of what they're calling gingerbread trim and ornate moldings on the front facade, detailed inspection of the gabled roof. And then years six and seven, they're going to do more window and maintenance and seal maintenance, inspection and resealing of the windows to maintain energy efficiency and historic fabric. Then years eight, nine, and 10, they're going to do structural monitoring. The project is found to be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15331 of the CEQA guidelines class 31 historic resource restoration and rehabilitation. Africa amends that the Historic Landmarks Commission determined the project to be exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15331 of the CEQA guidelines class 31 historic resource restoration rehabilitation find that the Mills Act application and associated tenure plan for restoration and maintenance accomplishes the intent of preserving and maintaining the historic significance of the property and therefore recommend city council approve approval of a Mills Act contract and the adoption of a 10-year restoration and maintenance plan associated with the historic preservation agreement for the property located at 1261 Jackson Street, as well as nomination to the HRI. Thank you. Staff has, this is not noticed, so staff didn't receive any comments.

Thank you for that. Are there any questions for staff before I ask if the applicant has any comments for us? question there. So there's no project attaches just purely in those application. Correct. Yes.

And the applicant is here in the audience.

No questions. I can open this up to applicant if you'd like to address us for, you know, say, say a few words about applicant application, if you like, you're welcome to come up to talk to us. Okay, nothing at the time. Thank you so much. Actually, are there any questions for the applicants from the commission?

So just general question, was it ever listed in the HRI or is it the first time you're listing?

So this would be adding it to the HRI. Correct.

First time, okay.

How long have you lived in Santa Clara?

If you don't mind speaking to the mic so that people online can hear you as well. Thank you. Sorry, I'm making you talk over the podium.

Okay, okay, thank you for the question. So we just moved to Santa Clara, like from 2024. So we bought the house like April 29, 2024, yeah.

What brought you to, what attracted you to the historic home in this neighborhood?

Oh, okay, so first of all, yeah, we are engaged with our neighbors, so they say lots of the, just sharing, so the neighbors are the historical building, and also we see some tour, so they will come, like, introduce the historic building, so yeah, and so we love our house, and it's very beautiful, and so yeah, we want to do the better maintenance, something like that, and hopefully it can be added to the historic building and yeah.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. I can open this to public comments. Are there any members of public that would like to comment on this? We can come up or if there's like anyone online that would like to speak to this, you can raise your hand. Not seeing any. Do I have a motion to close public comment?

I move to close public comment.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you. Those who are in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstain? Motion passes. Okay, discussion.

I think this is a great idea. I do like the fact that you have newer families coming to Santa Clara and adding to the preservation. I mean, all I can say is I commend you for that.

Gareth J. echoes points i'm also looking at a 10 year plan i'm seeing some of the things that are really important to a historic home, the windows, the exterior the roof, the foundation i'm. I appreciate that it can be difficult to budget these things. So I want to make sure that it's been made clear to you that this is a contract with the city over 10 years that you're committing to, you know, putting these changes together and the city does come and check with you, um, that these have been done and they ask for either receipts or photographs. So make sure that you keep your documentation, um, But I appreciate the topics. I appreciate the foundation. I appreciate the roof, the water ceiling, the air ceiling. Those are things that deteriorate a property very quickly. So thank you for bringing this in front of us with this care plan.

I wanted to clarify, looking at the plan, was there a plan to remove the fence that goes into the side porch? Did I miss that? Will that be restored or that's going to be left as is?

I'm going to refer to the applicant. I don't believe this portion here is a part of the fence. I think it's just something on the porch.

We can explain a little bit here. So because our house has a dog, so yeah, sometimes he will jump out from it. So we just use a... Yeah, the panel's there, so yeah, we can remove that, but this is just for the preventive dog teacher.

Oh, no problem. I thought it was an extension of the fence that was going into it. Okay, thank you.

We have dogs in the neighborhood, we understand. Any other comments before I launch into mine?

I really appreciate that you understood the historicity of this building you bought, which was not in list. And finally, you, after talking to neighbor, you were able to, you know, restore it to the historical nature.

Thank you. Thank you. yeah um yeah thank you for bringing this property forward it's definitely kind of rounds out this neighborhood very well like in the in the hri listing kind of like in the block um i i am actually very impressed with your 10-year plan it's one of the better ones i've read like in a while well i've been here a long time but um it's one of the better ones i've read like you know since i've started here so like it's um you know it's a it's very well thought out and kind of sequence out, I feel like. And the window part in the front, music to our ears to remove vinyl, to like put it back into original, it wouldn't double hung like in that way. That's definitely something we've always asked people to consider to do that. Like, I'm very, very happy to kind of hear this. So thank you. I would also ask, would you like a plaque for the year, the places your house is built? If you go around the neighborhood, you see the oval plaques on the houses and stuff, that's from us. So if that's something you would like to receive and then you can mount it on your exterior to denote the year this was built, which I have to find on your DPR.

I think it was 1898.

Sorry, Michael, if you were going to say it about the, about the plaque.

Oh yeah, I know you stole my thunder.

Yeah, that's right. I have nothing now.

1898. Circa.

Circa.

Okay. That was a yes, okay. I understand a motion.

Motion. I move the motion.

You move to approve? To recommend approval for the Mills Act contract.

I'd add a friendly amendment that we add in the plaque.

The historic plaque circa 1898.

Yes, with circa 1898.

Thank you. Is the motion maker okay with the friendly amendment to add the plaque? Yes, I move them. Thank you. Do I have a second on this item?

I second.

Thank you. Those who are in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Aye. Abstain? Awesome, unanimous motion passes. So thank you for bringing this property. We're looking forward to the updates you're gonna make to the home and we're very looking, yeah. We're very happy you came by. Thank you. It's a great house. Okay. Item three. Let me scroll. Okay, public hearing item recommendation architectural review for demolition existing 1198 square foot one story residents and construction with new 3817 square foot two story residents and 4435 Fillmore street located within 200 feet of to historic resource inventory properties. So I'm going to turn this back over to staff. And this was the one that we heard last month, correct?

Okay. Yes. So this item was continued from our last meeting. Those of you that weren't present, assuming that you reviewed the materials from the last meeting or reviewed the tape from the last meeting, you can vote on this, but use your discretion if you feel comfortable or not, since this was a continued item.

Thank you.

And may how we'll touch on the changes that have been made between the meeting so you can kind of understand what was asked.

Evening. This is for 4435 Fillmore Street. The request is for a recommendation on the architecture review for the demolition of the existing residence and the construction of a new residence at 4435 Fillmore Street that's located 200 feet of a historic resource. As mentioned before, it was continued from the May 7th Historical and Landmarks Commission meeting. At the May 7th meeting, HLC discussed the proposal and continued the item with the recommendation to revise the second story design. and reduce the massing and visual impact at the front of the residence to minimize the potential impacts to the nearby historic resource at 4406 Fillmore Street, essentially to push it back, reduce the massing on the frontage. The left shows the previous proposed facade. So the second story element to the right was right over the garage. It was proposed at 25 feet, both the first story and the second story, which is consistent with our zoning code. The applicant went back and pushed the second story back even further. So now instead of the first story And the second story being at 25 feet. The first story is that 25 feet consistent with the code and then the second story is pushed further to 27 feet. Again, still consistent with the code. Then this shows the setback line. So the left shows the previous site plan where the second story is in line with the garage. And as you can see in the site plan on the right hand side, the second story has been pushed back two feet more. The applicant the HLC also recommended the applicant to provide some renderings of what it would look like from standing from the historical on. resource site, and this is what the applicant has provided on. For those members that are not here, for the May 7th, the site is across the street, couple of houses down on the corner of 2nd and Fillmore. Siqua, this is exempt from Siqua pursuant to section 15.332 in full development projects and staff recommends that the HLC finds that the proposed project with the revision located at 4435 Fillmore will not destroy or have significant adverse effect on the integrity of the HRI properties within 200 feet of the subject property and the proposed construction is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood recommend approval of the architecture review at the development review hearing subject to conditions and findings. And the architect is available online for any questions. And the owner is present in person for any questions as well.

Thank you so much. Any technical questions for staff before I turn it over to the applicant?

Yeah, apologies if this was covered in the last couple of meetings, I noticed the roofline changed. Is that from feedback from us?

No, that's not part of the feedback. I think this was maybe the architect can elaborate when we speak with them, but I think they decided to change the...

I wasn't here last time, but the neighborhood, are they all ranchers?

There's a mix of architecture style. I can pull up This is a map that the applicant prepared showing the, so the blue marks the existing, oh, I'm not showing that on there. Oh, um, the architect prepared a map showing where the historic property, um, within the 200 feet is and, um, the surrounding neighborhood. Um, the blue marks, what exists, what the proposed site is the red is the HRI property. And this is what the HRI property looks like. The neighborhood has a mix of style, um,

The general comment like from the Commission last time around with our. members like we basically said the property in red is the most is the historic property and it's actually the most prominent property on that street. And, like all the houses in that. All the other houses on that street, down Fillmore, they are not all ranch styles. They are mixed in styles, but they're all single story, like in smaller in scale. And what this house is, it does dramatically increases the scale of that specific property, which makes them, there's a size kind of changes like down the street in that way.

Sorry, the black outlines show all the other second story homes in that neighborhood.

Thank you.

I have a question for staff, maybe Rebecca knows. Was this new version noticed or did we get any feedback on the first or the second?

So we didn't get any feedback, the first time around, and then, since the Commission voted to have this continue to a date certain it didn't require renoticing and the onsite notice has been posted on the site as well, thank you.

Do you have a chance like a slide that shows the floor plan of the first proposed development and then the floor plan of this newer one kind of side by side.

I can pull up both of the floor plans. I don't have a slide prepared. The floor plans haven't dramatically changed. It's just the square footage of the bedroom on the second floor have been reduced. I can pull up both of the plans.

OK. I mean, if that's the only change, I don't really need to see a visual of it. Yeah, thank you.

I'm going to invite the applicant. to come on to address the changes for us. Welcome back.

Hello.

Hey, we can hear you.

Perfect. OK, so this exhibit here, one of the kind of touch on a couple of things that we discussed last time. So one of the main things was, is the predominant setback on that street. Pretty much all those homes are at 20 feet and we've got our setback to the garage at 25 feet. So one kind of speaking to the massing also that kind of helps push that house even further back. I did this exhibit to kind of just help see, you know, some of the other two story homes in the area. And you can see kind of that 200 foot radius, you know, just kind of touches that front corner of our property. So we kind of are at that limit of it. I tried to show a couple different angles. So when you're looking at street views, you know, if you're right in front of the historic home there and you're looking at it, you're seeing, you know, two story structures, you know, on both sides of it, that, that going down that street on second. Um, and then even once you cross over Fillmore on the other side, you know, there's several, uh, two story homes. So kind of what, whichever angle you're standing on the street, looking at that home, uh, you have kind of 360 view of two story homes surrounding it. We prepared that other exhibit that you guys had asked for, and I kind of did it as if you're standing at the intersection of 2nd and Fillmore, one looking a little bit more direct at the house, and then one when you're looking down the street. One thing we didn't do is we didn't show any of the trees because it basically really reduces that view. So I was trying to give you guys a raw picture of, with no landscaping, no nothing, You know, just looking at that house, there's a big fence that kind of lines that street that reduces that view of the structure. But with how we've set it back and some of that existing landscape that's on that street. And again, I think with how we've changed that floor plan, pushing that second story back, I think as far as the massing really helps soften it. And then also the additional setback that, you know, our house is already, you know, five feet back from construction. the other existing homes. So I don't know if there were any other questions. The one that I did that I think was kind of, well, The most kind of shocking is I had taken another drive around there, and I was kind of looking at some of the other homes, and when I was coming up Fillmore, crossing over 2nd, and I kind of put a picture on that slide. It's like, you know, there's a handful of two-story homes, but when you're literally standing at that intersection, probably the most prominent thing you see is that stadium in the background. the end of that street which is again there's there's homes between us and it but uh so when you're standing here i don't think our home is going to be the first thing people are noticing standing and looking at if anybody has any questions regarding design or the aesthetics or anything technical i'd be happy to adjust those thank you for that and thank you for explaining the adjustments are there any questions from commission for the architect

One technical one on floor area, I thought I saw in some of the notes that the floor area was under discussion is that something that was more into the redesign and is combined with Santa Clara city code. On the first and second floor.

Santa Clara doesn't have a floor area ratio for single family. We have a lot coverage requirement. They're in compliance with that. And then we have a setback requirements for the second story as well as second story needs to be 66% of the first floor and they're in compliance with that as well.

Thank you.

Any questions, comments?

Just a quick question. The original design was, I think, 3,800 square feet. And then the new design is something like 3,250 approximately. So they reduced 550 square feet approximately just by reducing the size of one room? Let me confirm on that.

Yeah, that's not accurate. You can check on that now. We did push that back. Yeah, there wasn't the I think some that's not showing correctly or something because yeah, the square footage is very similar. The main thing was we just pushed that room back and just reworked that area. But there wasn't a drastic change in square footage. Oh, not, not to that extent of, I think what you're saying is like, Oh yeah.

No, I think you're right. Yeah. But I think the new square footage is something like 3,300, 3,350 or something. And the original proposed square footage was 3,800.

I'm checking on that. Right.

Okay. Thank you.

My question was about the roof line. Was that something we'd ask them to change? And if it hasn't, then I don't have a further point.

No, that was more just with pushing that back, how the ridge tweaked. But yeah, that wasn't. Yeah. I mean, 90% of the roof is exactly the same. It's just as we pushed it back, the ridge was modified to accommodate that.

Thank you.

The proposed living area for, and that doesn't include the proposed garage, porch, and patio, is 3,330 square feet. It could have been my mistake of not updating the PowerPoint with that information. But the first floor is remaining as the floor plan for the first floor is the same as the May 7th proposal. It's just a second floor. Floor area has reduced by square footage.

That that's my question. Because do you know what the total square footage of the original design was? Was it 37 3800? Something like that? But wouldn't that be at least a 400 square foot difference? So they reduced that front bedroom by 20 by 20. I mean, that's a big room right there in itself. You know, I'm just wondering how they reduce.

I'm pulling up both of the square footage and then we can take a look.

Thank you.

What's the concern you're curious about here whilst they're pulling up those numbers?

I'm just trying to figure out how they reduce so much square footage from the second floor by pushing it back two feet. That doesn't equal a 20 by 20.

I'll make one thing clear. The square footage is almost exactly the same. There's something showing like that. There's a typo on something, but the square footage is very.

Yeah, both are the same. I think it's just in the typing. Yeah. I'll share my screen.

Okay. All right. Thank you.

You could be looking at the difference in floor area, so when we when we create the project data compliance table, we do not include the garage or the at you in that, and then, when we sum up the total. square footage in our just the title of the recommendation we add everything together, so it could be it could be done.

Okay that's fine we don't need to pursue that matter further. Thank you.

Other questions for the applicant from the commission? The owner would like to speak? It's fine if you don't. Can you make sure it's on?

Oh, okay, sorry. So we've been living in Santa Clara for the last 25 years. And then, as you can see, this is my family. So they're growing up. We are just trying to make more space for them. As of now, we have them huddled in one room. So that's why we are trying to increase it a little bit. And then also, we don't have any space for the in-laws to visit. So that's also going to help. yeah.

Thank you for that. there's no other questions comments to applicant. Open it up to public. Actually don't see any other members of public that we receive any comments online or Britain. It doesn't look like it. And we don't have any other attendees actually. So do I have a motion to close public comments?

Motion to close public comment.

Thank you. Do I have a second? Second. Thank you. Those who are in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstain? Motion passes, unanimous. Okay, discussion.

I have a few comments. First, thank you for making the changes and trying to accommodate our requests. I appreciate that. I was going back and looking at how there's other houses the architect showed within the 200-foot radius of the historic property. There were other homes that were two stories. Just from the look of them, they do appear to be pre-2000-ish houses. And our zoning ordinance, we added in this 200 foot radius review because of things like that. It would use only 100 feet before that, was considered historically sensitive, and you would have these larger homes coming up around it. So in 2009, the city council enacted this 200 foot additional review by HLC to kind of slow the encroachment around these homes. So I can see why that was put in place because this historic home is slowly being shrunk compared to the other homes around it. I would take into consideration, too, that this house is farther down. I'm torn on this one because I don't think it fits within the 200 foot designation. It's in the 200 foot designation, but I don't think it meets the requirements of what I would think. And I was going back through the minutes and we didn't explicitly explain what we meant by massing. And that may have been on our part. We just asked for smaller massing, but usually when we're looking at historically impacted properties, we usually mean that the second story is not as obvious from the street. And that we asked to have it pushed back towards the back of the property. They did, but it was only a few feet. So in my mind, I don't know if it's enough when you're looking at the side angle. It's a very large mass across the side of the second story from the historic property. It is unfortunate that there's other large houses around it already. I think the damage is done. I would like to hear from the other commissioners and their thoughts, because I'm on the fence on this one.

I wasn't here, but I do agree with Kathleen's assessment. I think there is concern. Those houses are getting closer to the historical property every year. So it is kind of being threatened a bit. The style of the house, I wasn't here again. It seems very modern, very stucco, very Mediterranean. It doesn't really fit the neighborhood, but it is a pretty house, just the same. But you are right, Kathleen. We do need to keep our eyes on this historical property because this precedent has been set.

Just a comment on a lot of the new construction. I don't know why, but I've noticed in my tenure on this commission in at least six years or so that it seems like this particular style of architecture seems to be like what we usually see when it's new construction. You know what the stucco siding and this particular look and when you when you just drive around the neighborhoods and look at the projects that have come before the Commission. They seem to kind of have this same type of architecture I don't know if this is going to be the new norm for new construction in Santa Clara but just wanted to like you know throw that out there it's just something i've noticed so beautiful home. Yeah, it does seem to be kind of like new construction style in this area.

I'm looking at this simply from what was left over from last time, not having been at the last set of meetings and asking, has the project changed in the way that the Commission asked it to change? Seems like we gave some pretty clear instructions. That's some difference of opinion there, but that's okay. Gareth J. I think that from the list that i've seen of things that were asked to be changed those changes have been made appreciate the homeowner will being willing to do that. Gareth J. that's my contribution, because I wasn't there at the beginning.

Do we need to make a motion? It doesn't sound like there's any other opinions on it.

I was very opinionated about this one as well. I really appreciate the changes like the applicant made with like the basically, you know, kind of moving back the front bedroom. I think it does actually improve on design. Roof line looks good. You know, My concern about like massing is still the same, but then I do recognize that our instructions probably wasn't as clear as probably should have been, but we were also trying to avoid giving a number because that's not what we can do here. So that's a little bit unfortunate in that sense, but I have to say they did do the things to what we asked. in that sense.

I have a question. I hope I pronounced your name correctly. Okay, good. That's why I called you Ms. Patel the first time because I didn't want to risk it. But would it be possible please to put up the diagram that shows the circle of the 200 feet around the property, please? Thank you. Yeah, I appreciate that. No, the homeowner was willing to make the changes that we had suggested. You know, it's a very different design. I, I think, you know, from other built homes that are there, even the larger two story homes, like Commissioner Romano had mentioned, they don't seem as modern or as new. But, you know, for example, the home next to 4435 or Fill more than one, you know, subject property. That one's outside of the 200 foot radius, right? I mean, that property, if the owners decided to demolish it and build a large two-story home, you know, as long as they're within the city limits for new construction, I mean, that could happen, right? So there's nothing really preventing that. It's definitely going to change the fabric of the neighborhood. But I mean we don't have any way to designate a neighborhood historic and that home, I think, was built in the 1960s. So in terms of cultural significance or some kind of historic significance that we know of, it doesn't have that. Also based on age, because it's 50 years old, maybe it could be nominated for the HRI, but that's not the subject of what's been brought before us today or in May. I don't know. I mean, I would, you know, if we're ready to make a motion, I would move to approve. But are we ready to make a motion?

I use a technical question real quick. So that red circle, that's 200. That's the 200 feet radius. Okay. Go ahead. Actually, Kathleen, yeah.

Can I just make one more observation before you do? Thinking about the neighborhood, to your point, it's not like it's a historical neighborhood. It's the one home, and all the houses are very different. It's already kind of lost the fabric of the neighborhood. So when I was looking at when you asked if they were all ranches, they're not all ranches. They may all be one story, but they're all very different styles. It's quite a mishmash and variety of homes. Eclectic.

I think like kind of the other point about like, I was kind of asking about the red circle. Like if we're looking at the house next door or like the two houses like next to it, it's like within that red circle that we're looking at on screen today, I would fight harder, honestly. Because like it would be about the sizing of the property and like how it doors, like the historic property, but like as is when you're looking at it. It's barely in the 200 feet in that way. And plus we're kind of talking about the different styles of the houses. They're already there. It doesn't have the fabric as much as we would like to think it does. Okay. Nothing else. You can go.

Thank you. Commissioner NCRT. Did you have anything to add?

Yes, actually I do. Although this, I'm having a hard time trying to find the words to say, but although this meets the zoning compliance, I feel like it's not meeting the full historic I don't know, analysis. Also, I don't think that the visual impact was, the study was inadequate because although we do have a rendering, we still don't, we still don't have the visual impact as how it would actually look when you have that two-story down the block that it's on, on Fillmore Street. And... I do, I mean, it's just, again, referring back to what Commissioner Romano said, you know, that ordinance changed, and it may be too late, but again, we do have to consider the historic background of that neighborhood, and it's a shame because we don't have the residents that are engaged in that area. And here we are as the commission discussing this. And so, I mean, this is something that we have to really look into and make sure that we can apply this, not to reference the other item that we just heard, but I really enjoy when somebody enters their property into like an HRI or mills contract, because that's something that's, putting the buffer of preservation in the city of Santa Clara. And so it was just a couple of my comments. Okay.

I have some more question to the applicant, the picture on Google is from 2013 so it's pretty old, are there any trees blocking the view between the your home in the historical property. can't remember they may be now, but that was it's an old picture.

yeah and I mean I don't I mean I think that's probably the best example I mean when you look kind of depending on where you're standing but yeah at that intersection you know there's a pretty big tree right there at that house on the corner but I mean yeah so landscaping is kind of one of those depending on what time of year you see and stuff's gonna change a little but yeah there's a decent sized trees and there's some shrubs and even at the fence line there's even more trees but yeah it's just I think my focus was when you're looking at that historic home like you don't see our house our house is a ways away and technically behind you when you're looking at that house so you don't and kind of using the 200 foot I mean it's catching just a sliver of our property and And even going back to the architectural style, I mean, there are several homes, you know, they may not be next door, but, you know, you drive around that block. There's houses pretty close to our style.

Mr. Salsa, were you going to make a motion or you changed your mind?

Yeah, no, I'll still make the motion. I just want to say too, like, I think, you know, important that, you know, we think about the owners in addition, you know, because they're a family, right? And they're living in a house that doesn't have enough space for them. So, you know, in Santa Clara, we want people to live here, to stay here and to be happy here. So if it doesn't have enough space, you know, for their family, then what would the alternative be? Move? That's not, you know, what we want folks to do. Like, we're glad you're here. We're glad you love our city. Now you're going to have to go move because, you know, we can't accommodate your growing family or whatever. So I really appreciate that they did the rework of the original plans. They did reduce the massing somewhat. They pushed the second story back a little bit and it does, it is 25 feet on the front instead of 20 feet, which would be required or standard. It's definitely, I don't think ideal in terms of what we would want as a historical landmarks commission, but in terms of the compromise and that they're willing to make some changes to fit better within the neighborhood And we do advocate for preservation of historical properties and landmarks, but we're also trying to make people happy in the city where they live. And this is a family that's clearly trying to work with us to make changes, but also to have a house that has enough space for them. So I just want to appreciate that for the owners. And with that, I will make a motion to approve the proposed project at 4435 Fillmore Street.

Thank you. Those who are in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Abstain. Okay. Those who oppose. Opposed.

Nay.

And then one abstain. Four in favor, two opposed, one abstain. Motion passes. We will recommend moving forward on the plan. Thank you. Thank you for working with us on this. We really appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you. Item four, elections or chair and vice chair. Do we do it right now or do we wait till we have new people?

Yeah, we can wait if you'd like. I think that makes sense.

We usually do it in August.

Me too. Okay. Admin put it on there and I was like, oh, I guess it's time.

Should we continue to item or.

It's up to you. If you think that your remaining members are want to take the positions, it wouldn't really make sense for the new members to hold those positions anyway.

Fair enough. So with the term be. One year. Okay. Okay. You have everybody tonight that we do have everybody tonight okay let's do a suit to a suit chair and then by sure any nominations.

point of order is anybody not eligible due to term limits.

Well, I just want to confirm this is my last meeting correct isn't yes, I believe so.

This.

And I think Commissioner Vargas-Smith also, unless she is reappointing or being reappointed, I don't know. Is it our last meeting, both of you or both of us?

Both of you. She brought cupcakes.

Okay, thank you.

No, it's their last meeting.

I should have brought something. We're terming out.

They're just terming out.

Our reign is ending.

I see you in the audience. Oh, well, we can circle back to that. Four and four. I know.

I was reminiscing on trying to eat a sandwich whilst the camera was on, you know, and you guys were just, I was kind of new and I kind of had my sandwich on the side and I was like, trying to eat it.

Do ridicule.

During the.

Yes, like okay let's say let's do this thing, though okay let's do let's do things chair and vice chair let's start with nominations. And if the nominee would accept.

A chair long for chair, thank you, I accept.

Thank you any other nominations.

Uh, I nominate, um, commissioner stocks as vice chair.

Thank you. I accept you.

Any other nominations on that? Or is there a motion to extend to approve motion to approve? Is there a second? Thank you. Those who are in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Those who are opposed, abstain. Thank you. We're staying.

Our fastest decision ever.

That was the fastest decision ever. You're like, nope. Gotcha. I get it.

OK.

So that was our public items, actually. Where are we? Staff report? No.

We are not.

Yes. Staff report. I'm so confused.

So just a quick update on the RFP request for proposals for the historic preservation ordinance that you all have green lighted as part of your work plan. So, as I mentioned at the last meeting, and I know some of you weren't here, but as we discussed, we have a general RFP out. Well, it closed, but we did have a general RFP out right now. to create a bench of consultants, general consultants, planning consultants to help us with a variety of projects, nothing specifically in mind, but just to have them on the ready for things as they come up. We've been advised by purchasing that because we have that RFP out right now, some of those that apply may have the qualifications to assist with the historic preservation ordinance. And for that reason, we can't move forward with our own RFP for the historic preservation ordinance until this RFP for the bench is wrapped up. And we give those that are end up being on that planning bench an opportunity to I guess, apply or make their qualifications for this work known. So as far as timing for this current RFP for the bench, They, the RFP has wrapped up. We've received a number of applications and they are having their, I'm not part of the review board for that, but they are having their consensus meeting, meaning all of the reviewers are meeting to discuss the proposals on June 15th. And then from there, we're not certain right now if it would actually require interviews since it's just, there's no specific project in mind. So I'll have a,

better update and a clearer picture for you in august when we reconvene any questions on that thank you go ahead our rfp then will be fully orthogonal to that but in series it has to go afterwards or are they or are they not allowed to to do some things on the bench if they're doing something no the concern is that

Those that will eventually be on the bench would have the qualifications to do this work. So they don't want or have advised us against issuing another RFP for what could potentially be accomplished by the bench. Does that make sense?

We could review the ones that are on the bench and see if they would be appropriate for our project. If so, then we don't have to run RFP and just select one of them. But there's also, because the bench doesn't have a historic focus, there's also a chance that none of them would qualify. Then we'll have to run our RFP. So that would be sequential. But I guess my question would be, if they create a bench, then how would we evaluate if they qualify for the work that we're looking for?

yeah i think there's two or a couple of options we could put it out to those on the bench that this is what we're looking for if they have the capability to do it and then or alternatively i've been told that we could hand select um like a couple to offer it to like if and i haven't reviewed the proposals because i'm not on that board so i can't say whether um right

yeah these are if you would be close to like people not on the board so yeah understood okay who is on the board like on that review board leslie's definitely on it okay so i remember she's aware that we're we're looking for oh yeah so like she would be she would keep an eye out for us yeah and i'll bug her um

And on my argument emails with purchasing and stuff but oh yeah she's CC.

got it.

Thank you. And we do have one hand up online. I don't know that this staff report has a public hearing component but i'll leave it to your discretion.

I'll allow it public comments on this one. Welcome.

My name is Jonathan Evans. Quick question about the process. I'm aware that they were doing a RFP to hire some folks on a bench, but I guess the question is, why does that prevent the city from conducting RFP for other people? I mean, it's one thing. I thought the goal would be to have people that can pick without having to do an RFP, but it seems odd to say that you're restricted to those folks. Cause even the folks maybe have some historical experience. Um, it may not be the right experience or the best option or the best, you know, bang for buck for whatever the HLC wants to do. And so, uh, you know, I have no idea what the experience actually is for these jokes, but it just seems kind of like a weird, weird restriction. Um,

Yeah, and I don't think that purchasing is saying that we are restricted to using the firms that end up on the bench, just that we need to give them the opportunity to show us their qualifications for this work.

But why? Why wouldn't you just put out an open RFP? I don't have an answer for you. Yeah, because that's just a really odd thing to say, oh, we have to give them a chance, because that kind of implies that you can't ask for... More folks who maybe there's a more qualified individual out there, they don't even get a chance to apply if you have to offer first, right? And you just reject somebody who is qualified. It just seems like a weird circular argument from purchasing that doesn't make any sense. So anyway.

Yes, I have made that argument as well.

Okay, cool. Thank you very much, Rebecca. Appreciate it.

Yeah, I think that's, we've been going through this for the last couple of months with kind of the same argument.

Okay, so it sounds like city council might care. Okay, thanks.

I would say between now and August, their qualifications probably won't change. We should be able to determine whether any of the folks on the bench are eligible.

Part of the difficulty is we don't know what the packets are and who actually apply because we're not on the panel. That's why I was asking.

Yeah, it is confidential until the firms are selected and gone into contract. And I'm not on that board. Nor even if I was, I couldn't share it at this point.

And that's why I was asking if we have an advocate like on the review and Leslie is generally a pretty good advocate for us for that kind of stuff too. So that'll be okay for now. I think like one of the maybe a benefit would be the process might be a little bit shorter. Like if there is actually a qualified consultant on bench and also we might save a little money maybe like off of our budget. So we can have, you know, cause, cause we have multiple goals and we had talked about, you know, spending a lot of the money on the ordinance update and then, and then there's a contact statement that we want. So I don't know what that's going to look like.

Okay.

Okay. Oh. I was staff report, are there any training and travel requests we already did cpf and we want to talk about that a little bit too.

So there was cpf and try to put together some of the things that I thought were highlights for it. If there was time in the commissioners reports I show those if that's okay.

Let's do that. And we are at commissioner's report. So why don't we run through the list and then we'll have a little bit of time to talk about CPF. Okay. So commissioner reports subcommittee last month was may technically preservation month. And then we also don't have any flags that we're able to put up because of FIFA. So, so that we didn't actually have like a subcommittee update. So we'll, come back to it next year, like on some of those items.

To rename the stadium on Google Maps, if you look, it's lost its Levi's branding.

Oh, yes.

Because FIFA doesn't allow.

That is correct. They have to cover the sponsorship and the naming rights of those stadiums.

Oh, just for FIFA? Just for FIFA. I thought maybe it expired and the city could name it now.

Oh, no. Not at all. Okay, let's go through a list. Santa Clara Arts and Historic Consortium.

Nothing to report. They're meeting once a quarter. That's it.

Historic Preservation Society of Santa Clara.

They have an event this weekend, June 6th. It's Family Fun Day and they've got bubble machines and arts and crafts and tours of the house. 12 to 3 Saturday. It's going to be a lot of fun. It's free.

I just remember Mary Hannah was supposed to send me information and send out the O-Quad. And I haven't heard from her. So, okay.

Saw her the other day.

Oklahoma Residence Association, nothing to report. We are actually meeting more regularly. I don't know. I just kind of contradicted myself. We are meeting more regularly as a board and those meetings are open to members. So let us know if you would like to join the fun and we can send you a link. We're not publishing it because of Zoom bombing and stuff like that. Yeah, we're trying to get more events and like probably updating the website for better resources or reference and stuff. So that's under discussion. So those are the things. If you have any ideas of like how to improve how we distribute this information, just let me know. Development review hearing.

I was thinking about what you said. There hasn't been a meeting since the last one. If you recall, there was an item that was on their last meeting that I raised here. And the recommendation was that I participate in the development review meeting and let them know that we did have concerns about a home. There was a home that was being requested to be demolished and rebuilt on the land. So it wasn't just even a modification, but the house was in neighborhoods that are known to have homes built by McKay, who was an award-winning architect. And they're very similar to the Eichler style with the exposed beams, very high roofs, all glass kind of thing. And some of the properties that were around it while that particular property that they were tearing down, what they were going to build in its place was very different from the neighborhood. And there were three instances of homes around it that could have been McKay homes. I reached out to our city historian. Lori said she did note, because that particular neighborhood where the home was, was not part of the published areas where McKay had moved. developed districts, but he was known to be a very prolific builder. And so it was very possible that there could have been a home there. She actually said that she had walked the area in the 90s with Commissioner Estes, right? Because he was really big into mid-century design and he was a big proponent when he was on the commission. Unfortunately, she couldn't find her documentation on it. It had been on an old computer that had been stolen many years ago. So we had to defer to the development review and just say, you know, we couldn't find anything on it, but, and no one else, none of the other homes that could have possibly been McKay's, none of them said had brought in any information either. So we ended up deferring back to the development review. I haven't seen the finding on that because I think they were going to try to make a decision before the meeting. I'll have to go back and look.

Thank you for that. Yeah, that was definitely one of the neighborhoods where

I did raise, you know, he says, well, you know, we have a lot of homes from that area. Our DRO said that. And I said, yeah, and I generally just don't bring those up at all because we don't have a context statement for the mid-century modern homes yet, but that it was something that we were working on for our work plan. And the only reason I raised that one to here and with him was because of the significance of the architect in the area.

And I was surprised that none of the homes around it, the homeowners said anything, because generally the owners of McKay or Eichler would be very up in arms if there's a specific change or if there's going to be a bigger building that's going to be built next to them, because it does have impact on the privacy on those homes.

Oh, that's true. Yeah. The way the glasses. Yeah. Yeah. Definitely weren't any Eichler homes. The only Eichler is the one that commissioner Estes was involved with the national that we did. Palmer Roy. I think I keep wanting to say Palm, but it's Palmer Roy. Thank you. Yeah. So, but what was I going to say that it wasn't definitive, but it's advertised with real estate companies. They actually If you want a Eichler or mid-century modern home and you search for that, real estate agents call that neighborhood out as a place to live. So it's actually highly sought after. So I was surprised none of the other neighbors said anything. But that's where it goes. Oh, I could tell you. It started, it's over by Homestead, where it goes out to Santa Mas Expressway. And south between Homestead and El Camino are the known developed areas by McKay. This was just north of Homestead, but the homes were all the same style. So really weren't too sure.

Mm hmm. That's what I'm saying like it's usually the pushback is not on the on the style of home is more on the privacy issue.

yeah.

yeah it's a lot of glass.

A quick housekeeping question Rebecca is there air conditioning in here is anyone else like warm.

It's warm, we're almost done.

Can we turn on the AC? Because Commissioner Stocks is gonna do his presentation about CFP and it's warm in here. Is there any, like, can we turn the AC on? Is that possible?

I think this is the best we can do. So if we keep pushing through and finish this, we can get out of this sauna. So let's go, let's go, let's go. BART, High Speed Road, VTA, BRC Committee.

uh we had a meeting um some of the design members were involved so we looked at the train station for santa clara and the we all agree that the large oak tree is now out of the plaza because it just blocks the view of the train station so it looks like a bunch of trees versus an actual train station so that was unanimous so that tree will not be there initially the idea of the tree was to be a comforting place in the plaza, give you a little shade and everything, but then it became, you know, the forest is all you could see and nothing else with the design. So now they're reconsidering moving the tree to three other possible locations and then maybe sculpture in the plaza. So they're rethinking how the plaza could be used at the future station.

This is the BART station plaza. It's facing Brokaw, right? Mm-hmm.

So it's an ongoing process. We don't have all the funding we need for BART. So it's still not going to be built, what, 2037. So we've got time. But at least we're talking about the potential design.

We would be very big by then if we planned it today. I know. Okay, cool. El Camino Real, specific plan community advisory committee. I apologize for not staying after midnight at city council the other day for that item. It didn't start until after midnight. So, but I'll turn this over to Rebecca.

Yes, so we can take that off the list. It was approved, I think around 1 a.m. Yes, but it was approved, so. It's done.

Was that four years in the making or?

Oh, nine.

Nine years in the making.

Yeah. Leslie was telling me when she joined, it had already been in process for like a year or something like that.

Yeah, actually it might be closer to 10 because when I joined, it was already in process as well.

That's right. It was a while, but it's a really huge one. So yeah, then one of the consultants had like a child in between as well. Yeah, so yeah, it was, yeah, the kid is big. Anyway, that's how precise plan.

The RFP, I spoke to Rena, she says that it's going out, it's looking good. I provided some pictures, so that's happening. So we're moving forward with that. We're working on community benefits. It's basically, we need to zero in on how we're going to have these conversations with developers for higher density and in return, what does the community get? And so it would help that conversation. If we just have a list of things that we are wishlist, you might say of what we can trade for a higher density down Franklin, which is the primary artery for where the density will be. It won't impact the surrounding neighborhood. It'll be down that center street, mostly the density. So. that it'll look like a completely different downtown.

Yeah, it'll be fun. And don't forget, we have a night market this weekend. What? We have the night market number two this weekend at... parking lot so that would be really cool it's a it's a good activation to kind of like get an idea of what kind of traffic we can get like in the downtown area 25,000 and the last go around it was really good it was good it was so fun what is that now

It's in the downtown.

Santa Clara Night Market.

What's that?

They did it in May. They're doing it this weekend. And then July 17th weekend. And it's a crafter handmade market with all kinds of food and music and performances. It's the whole city parking lot. That's behind the old B of A building and Hungry Hound and all that at the corner of Homestead and Lafayette. yeah across from the the um foreign wars building yeah they turned that whole it was huge when is that uh this weekend tomorrow yeah it goes to um on Fridays it's from four to nine and on Saturdays it's from two to nine and in July there's a Sunday oh wow I didn't know about that

I have to echo Cherry Long's comment.

We are both there. We both have booths. Oh, cool.

Nice.

We were right across from each other last time with no planning. I think they're going to have 160 vendors this weekend.

Wow.

Yeah. Yeah. It was huge.

The lines were huge. Everybody was wanting food. There was families. There were pets. There were booths. I think one of the things I really liked that it was they asked the vendors to make the things that they were selling. It wasn't just drop ship like you get at the online festival, you know, that really kind of brought it, it's made it special. And I think it also showed that there's appetite for food trucks, you know.

They were good.

They were good.

Lots of food trucks and stuff. And it actually activated a lot of businesses in, um in franklin square actually so i ended up at tablands for i don't know how many hours after that i know some folks like went to the the other restaurant so in the corner yep so yeah all right thank you it's not fun it's like our stationary task force so we had a meeting um We got some updates to to the plan and actually like gave some feedback to our consultant. it's moving along, we did give them a little bit of feedback on the some of the renderings they did about massing and like what the kind of desired.

hmm.

massing a heist for like some of the properties are. One of the sticking point is there are a couple of applications already in progress within the stationary plan. So some of it is, in townhome style so it's actually smaller than what we actually prefer so like they kind of drafted this as a preferred plan but like if you are a layman then you're not looking through the documentation like for dimensions and all stuff and you're just looking at a picture you think that we prefer townhomes in that spot if in fact we do not so so we did ask them to see if they can up well We very much insisted they update the drawing. Because if you look at the last station area plan and stuff, I don't know, at a glance, or any of the plans, our downtown plan, the last iteration of it, not a lot of people looking through the details and you're just looking at the picture. So like, you just kind of think the sentiment of the, of the committee or task force at the time would be reflected in the rendering itself. But because that there, there are a couple of spots where it really does not reflect our opinion. And it only reflected the current application at the time, the, the consultant, voice that we should look at realistically, like what is going to be there, like in the future, in like the next 50 years, if those plans are approved and go ahead and be built. But like, I also made the point that we're like, the applicants certainly have the right to make an application the way they want to today, but there's actually no guarantee that they will build it in that way. if we put a preferred plan forward on what we would like to see in there, like a higher density, with after RFP and stuff, they have a different path on building, on making a different proposal without having to go through EIR again for a higher density than what they're applying for today, then we shouldn't give them the impression that we would have preferred the lower density by the rendering so that was basically my argument and a few others did you cover sp79 because i i when you said the station it set off my was that part of the discussion um or no that was sp79 was a discussion at some point um

because that's density and rail and everything, and I've got more on it later. I'm just curious about if it, you know, is something that we could use to alleviate some of the SP-35 requirements.

Yes, I think that was under consideration, and also, like, SP-79 does actually force this density, like, around, like, the immediate area of, like, of the station itself, and also our station is, like, elongated, so, like, it's more of an oval instead of a circle in that way, but one of our One of the things that is happening also is BTA is also agreeing that we can put potential housing on their property where the parking lot for BART station is. So that would actually increase our number in the immediate area of the station itself. So having the current application go through would not have no bearing on the numbers around there. Anyway, there was a map. You know math is not my strong suit. But yeah, there's definitely like a lot of discussion about the massing around that area because the SP-79.

That was a hot topic at the conference. Yeah. And they were saying that a half a mile from the train station, it could impact any of the housing there. And so that obviously raised our concern because there's historic homes that are eligible, but yet should those owners sell, then that guy's like, I'm going to step in and do a four-story here because it's in the tier zone. But the ones closest to the train station, like Ed mentioned, those could be up to seven stories. You know, so we, and that's a concern for the downtown as well, because now they're looking at, well, we're within a half mile of the train station. So how dense is that going to be? And that's anything that close is now under their purview. So.

Yeah. And part of the discussion is like, because we started this process before like SB 79, like came into place, like we're actually, we actually have a leg up because like, we're being thoughtful about like how to place the density in the area properly. So. Yeah, it's definitely top of our mind. That's part of that discussion, yeah, yeah.

Well, you might even mention this, but San Francisco remember they were like putting 50 properties at every meeting to to get it on the eligibility list for because they were fearing the impacts of transit home and within that half mile.

So i'm more interested about that, because I think there was like a like a cut off that you have to be listed by a certain day you can't just like keep adding yeah they do like since July. Yeah. Yeah, I know. So we're done with the regular. Let's take a little bit of time to talk about CPF.

So Anna and I were down in beautiful Riverside and the hotel is incredible. And we were at the CPF conference. There were three days of which there were some off sites and some conference room sessions. Some of them ran simultaneously and I went to some, I went to others. And I like to show about 10 slides from two things that caught my eye. uh adaptive reuse start there uh three slides on that um and then the second one is going to be sb 79 to be a more serious subject um i'm on the zoom could uh see if i could present please

I had to log out of Zoom and log back on.

One second. Oh, no, it looks like it might. Let me do this. Too many things. So this is the Farmhouse Collective. It's not quite the right shape. It's a full screen. There's a red stripe on the right-hand side, but we'll see if we can roll with it. That was originally a 1950s motel, and it fell on hard times. And this is some of the changes that were made to the property to work it into an adaptive reuse scenario. So this is just a quick history of the motel.

I move that we continue this item to the next.

I'm just kidding. Zoom.

Okay, this is a brief timeline and I'm apologize for it not showing up on your screen in full screen. It's all full screen online, but essentially the place opens in the 1920s as a motel in the red there, 1953 as it opens and then I'll scoot down to where 1983, the raceway closes. So the property falls into decline. And so what I want to talk to the Historic Commission about the areas in yellow, how the city and the Historic Commission and the owner turn the property around. So 1990s, the city purchases the area and begins working on preserving areas of the University Avenue using a specific plan. 2019, it assigns a historic landmark designation to it. 2020, a Bailey family, a local family purchase the property and begin restoration. And then through 2025, they reopened the building as the farmhouse collective using an adaptive reuse of the motel.

Is it like a marketplace?

me one second okay i have that hopefully just the screen won't advance on me or i'm gonna i'm gonna just show it this way apologies um so in the top left is about the only images i could find online of how it looked like when it opened i think the property has the gamble roof uh uh small barn housing and uh neon sign In 2020, you can see the work begins. So the properties are still remaining, but a metal frame is being erected and boarding outside for ADA compliance outside each of the buildings. And the buildings are being repurposed into cafes, stores, pizza places, and things like that.

So they're all separate little buildings. Oh, I see. One more time, sorry. Because they were little cottages. Got it. Okay.

Oh, very cute. This is a video. This is the video I stole from their website. They kind of have this set up with misters because it's kind of hot down there. And this is the daytime view. Right down at the end here, the city helped with putting in a stage. And they put music there. During the weekends, they have the kind of younger crowd. During the weeks, they'll have line dancing, the kids, they'll have Jenga's. And so some of the points of interest are that they can keep this thing, you know, making money all week, which is what you have to do in a modern society. I think that's very relevant to some of the things we talk about with our downtown and making it family friendly and that people are drinking less these days. And so making it financially successful requires more thought about what features you want to offer and the days you want to offer. So I'll try and go to the next slide if I can. So I'll focus on the things that the Historic Commission and the city really did to make this thing work and some of the points that I think that we need to be aware of if we have an adaptive reuse project. So the city worked on designating it as a historic landmark. That gives it preservation. They worked on a city certificate of appropriates that actually shows up in the SB 79. This is kind of how they, uh, brief pre-assess, um, changes to a building using, uh, an approval process. Um, the, they have a CLG, which is like an HRI, but with, with full-time staff, sorry, an HLC with full-time staff. Um, and they were, they were helpful in influencing some of the code changes that were required. Um, So some of the code changes that were required were around the adaptive reuse on the ADA compliance, fire access, that metal structure fits a fire engine down the center. And they worked on adding certain buildings that were required and making them be compliant. with the existing structures, but not adjusting the existing structures. They actually paint them a different color to indicate the newer properties, which I thought was a nice change. And they also were able to help with the music aspect that kind of making it financially viable during the week. They have a 10 PM curfew, but they were, the city was helpful in working through that aspect as well. Finally, I think one of the points for us was, was figuring out what part of our city codes were not compliant. In this example, the neon sign was both not allowed because it was neon and it was too tall. So they said, okay, well, that's a significant historic part of this property. And they had to adapt their sign code. It took them a long time. And so maybe the... takeaway for us is to kind of figure out if we can create adaptive reuse or in our in our city code that doesn't necessarily talk about signage but once it's a character defining feature of a period property that would be non-compliant in an adaptive reuse that we could you know find an exemption for it that was uh farmhouse these are all my sources um thanks for those that put those together videos any questions

You have a question when you say the city helped out, were they helping financially or were they just helping with the process?

So they're slightly different in that their CLG contains full-time staff. So there is some financial contribution there. Changing the code required some expense of the city. There were assistance with grants as well. The property was eligible for, and it was made a Mills Act property as well. So yes, there was a financial aspect from the city contributions.

The owner owns a construction company. So it kind of was perfect for her resources and her investment. Plus she grew up in the area. And so she just had like this emotional connection to that part of town and she wanted to revitalize it. So she was a very interesting woman.

a really energetic staff there too that were engaged i mean it helps to have somebody with finance behind them that to push a project like this forward but also the city cared you know the houses were getting burned down or places were getting burned down um the city the university ability was in disrepair so folks wanted this for their for their city and there's definitely parallels with with our downtown in many aspects of

So position-wise, like, you know, what kind of area does this situate in? Is it, like, a neighborhood, or is it, like, more industrial, or is it, like?

It's all hotels.

It's all hotels in the area. Motels.

Apparently, Riverside is, like, this popover. Palm Springs.

Right.

So people are like, well, let's just stay here for the night. So they have so many of these little 50s or 20s, 30s. Mentioned the homeless population would move into the vacant areas and start the fire. Right.

drew many parallels with El Camino Real. There's many properties down there that have decaying signs or the old car wash. You know, there's, there's many properties that were part of the fifties boom. And now I've got, you know, the one-on-one comes and they no longer relevant. So.

I can definitely see a lot of parallels like with Camino like particularly stretches where we have a lot of motels and so there are some that has been some adaptive for us was mostly or. or like specific like type of housing their supportive housing that i've seen that a couple of times like like within our city.

Definitely. In the interest of time, I'll move on to SB 79.

I just wanted to mention one thing. I think what intrigued me about the adaptive reuse that Ed and I had, we went to several places actually, was I think our post office would be a great candidate for adaptive reuse because they have a huge lot in the back that could be like a food hall kind of set up with a beer garden and just converting all that land into something where it benefits the community as opposed to a hardly used post office. So I think that would be a perfect candidate for adaptive reuse.

yeah the basement now i've been spitballing ideas for years on that post office pinball for example all kinds of stuff that we can think of it would be it could be interesting yeah oh you got a second one i do um

So his agenda, SB 79, our local impact assessment, a couple of case studies, as mentioned earlier, San Francisco is in there. And then I want to go to a commission discussion on this one. So what is SB 79's challenge? So it's a streamlined approval process that bypasses local review. There are density mandates. Historic districts may not be exempt. Demolition becomes easier under by-right developments. Anything non-designated historic resource is at risk from those demos. And this SB 79, as mentioned earlier, becomes effective July 1st, 2036. There are two tiers that were defined. Tier two doesn't apply, tier one does. So tier one is heavy rail, subway, or more than 72 trains a day. And the accommodations for high density take us up to eight to nine stories in that scenario. The Caltrain, the Bard extension, so the Santa Clara station falls into that tier one. both of those tiers dramatically expand housing requirements, make adaptive reuse of historic, as we previously discussed, difficult and demolition becomes profitable. So These are what I believe from the HR I to be the properties within it's not a circle I didn't realize it needs to be able to put a circle up, and these are what I believe to be the historic HR I properties and the red dots in particular the ones that are on the HR I, but I have no designation listed. There are 25 in that count, although some of them are all at the same place at the university. So I'm not sure if 12 of them are actually protected by the university's protection. There are five with a Mills Act. There are three plus one, which are marked with plaque. And now I think that that means that they have a Mills Act, but I've put them in orange just in case. two on the state register and one on the National Register of Historic Places. So I think probably the red and the orange are the ones that have close to zero local or state protection and face string line demo on the SB 79. And this excludes anything in those areas that didn't make it to the HRI.

Wow, St. Clair's Church is in there? That's dangerous.

It's in the radius, but I think there's kind of like a density scale down.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Wow. It's actually kind of interesting what we have like that are nationally registered properties to smack in the middle.

Yeah, it's much bigger than realized.

Also, from my understanding, the way the bill is written, the radius is actually from entrances to the station, not like the whole station property. So it's likely more of an oval and a little bit smaller than this.

Oh, I see. Okay.

We don't even have those drawings, but that's been discussed.

This is the G. Adolph Street address.

Okay.

tonight just outside the gray circle right here. So a little bit.

So I'm sorry to make sure I understand. No designation listed are the ones that we have on the HRI, but there's nothing associated with them. It's from our old inventory.

But the PDF, they have no designation listed. Yeah. of which 12 are at the university. The gates, you know, a few architectural parts of the university.

Yeah, it's kind of interesting, like in that specific area too, like a majority of it is university property. And then on the other side, like we have Costco over there. And then we have like the Gateway Crossings properties over there. So like, you know, half of it is already built and then the other half is entitled. And those are high density.

Okay.

Yeah.

Okay. I think that understanding if we have to do something here is part of this, right? Like figuring out if there's a tapering that we have to refactor for or if we've already met some of the requirements.

I think like what we're going to be proposing in the stationary area plan is going to meet a lot of requirements. Like kind of putting things in a way that's sane as our preferred alternative, like we're what people should be building and where to satisfy those requirements.

And so how does the bill work? Maybe Rebecca, you might know more. So if someone within the oval shape is within that, they have the ability to override any historical significant, if they want to change their particular property to the tier one standard of seven stories or whatever it is, or is there, is there a requirement from the state down to the city to modify and start changing them to that? Is it, or is it just as a builder comes in? Does that make sense?

Yes. So under the state, law, my understanding is that you can develop your own alternative plan, as long as it meets the requirements of SB 79. But in that case, you can spread the density around, or you can it would be on a project by project basis.

So the train station plan is trying to incorporate that already.

Yeah, we're taking all that into consideration. And part of having the stationary area plan is we're gonna have the EIR and everything done, so it makes it more attractive to them to just follow what we're suggesting on what our preferred density, and we're gonna do a form-based code and stuff like that.

I'm just thinking back where you look at some of the historic areas before there was anything in place you would start seeing a single property torn down and build in apartments and there would just be one set of apartments in the middle you know so I'd be more concerned that yeah I like the idea that we actually be proactive and have a plan as opposed to just being one by one we are proposing very high intensity in the area I think this one's an extreme compared to what's going on.

We had before, yeah.

It's really weird to have a seven, eight story building.

One of the concerns, and I know everybody knows about it, is the fire station over on Benton. And it's sort of like in the middle of these cute little cottage houses. And if that swap had gone through or goes through, and the university is very interested in that property, has been forever, it seems like decades, but I can see them putting high density there. with SB 79 being now active in July, they would look at this like, awesome, let's get this party started. Let's just start building some density now that SB 79 is. Is that neighborhood at risk on Benton? Is it within the radius?

I was thinking about that. We don't know. I mean, that's like kind of,

conjecture on what they're doing but a lot of those little homes they're just eligible but nobody's taking that step or and i know la was there at the conference as well as san francisco and they're like we don't need their permission we're just going to slam them on the list and then we'll deal with it later is that something that santa clara can do too you know just put them on a list as eligible we wouldn't have the time to do it at this point two weeks

It's a good segue into what other cities have done. Sorry. So San Francisco, LA, San Diego, Riverside all kind of gave some ideas about what they've done. So San Francisco began proactively citywide cultural resource survey. So they kind of went out and started updating their HRI. San Diego also began historic district surveys. A theme does show up here. They also kind of looked at transit growth and adaptive reuse, trying to kind of make it less jarring when these projects came in. LA made a demolition notification ordinance for 45-year-old buildings to be part of the project. uh requirements of any any permit application and also set up a database here trying to again identify the historic resources Gareth J. riverside looked up this city of a certificate of appropriation, I can send out some more information on on what that actually meant. Gareth J. But it was it was more it was unlike the dpr or any project that wasn't protected by a historic flag and then also started adding some design guidelines for districts, these are all subjects that we've talked about before, and they all had a different way of doing each of them but. Gareth J. Each of them, you know gave them. You know, a way to improve the protection on their historic homes in the zones.

Yeah, I was just going to say, I mean, we're moving very slow, right, with our work plan and everything we're doing. So there's nothing that we can do immediately to protect those homes. There's a lot of cute little houses over there. Can we notify them that this is, you know, like, can we do any kind of notification?

Perhaps cones and tape.

I don't know. Would this, I guess they'd be notified anyway, or how does this impact like the 200 foot? Does it override even coming to HLC if something came up?

You know i'm not sure that of that. Does it override our entire ordinance but one thing that is kind of. reassuring is that the minimum number of units is five and these entities are so high that they would have to assemble a whole bunch of those little properties in order to do anything.

So yeah, we've had some good discussion already, just kind of three things that I thought we could talk through for opportunities and discussion kickoff. So on completing our HRI mapping, which of them are most vulnerable? Obviously, those that don't have a designation, but I think also those that haven't been even put onto the PDF yet. So to Rebecca's point, are our current protection sufficient for the properties that we already have? And districts, should we be looking at districts? We talked about McKay districts earlier. Are there any districts? I believe Laurie mentioned there may be a Portuguese district in the area. We haven't got time to do all of them, or any of them, but You know the best time to start second best time to start is now. We are further ahead than some other cities, you know they didn't even have a historic Commission in some cities so. I would say we probably mid pack for help so don't feel disheartened I think based on the kind of survey of folks that were there um.

I have a question would that be something that could be within the scope of the consultant that eventually will be hired by the city to help change the ordinance for historic preservation. like how this new SB 79 could potentially affect the historic resources, then, you know, including some verbiage in the ordinance to prevent the demolition of those properties en masse.

Yeah, I think we need to understand better how our current code works to protect the resources. So I think once we have a better understanding about SB 79, we could have our consultant look at strengthening the ordinance to combat potential issues with SB 79. I guess I don't know enough about it to say definitively that we could make these ordinance changes and then SB 79 will go away.

Okay, thank you.

One of the questions in the room from cities like our little city who was concerned, like all of a sudden everybody woke up at once like, oh, is this happening in July? You know, kind of response. And the gentleman from LA and San Francisco was saying, just start. You have the ability to put anything on an eligibility list. So start doing that. That would be his recommendation.

That's all we have to share.

We're kind of behind at this point, but. This is a silly, but if they're on our HRI, already considered.

they're on our, I've always gone back to this, and I, in all the years, I still don't get it, and maybe you can help me. If they're on our HRI, because at some point there was a survey, and we just, and the city decided that they were a historic resource, because they're on the HRI, doesn't that make them eligible? What, how does the eligibility come into play? Am I misunderstanding it?

Eligible for what, the Mills Act contract?

eligible to be designated as something, right? Or are they already designated just because they're on the list?

It's up to the interpretation.

Yeah, so they're locally designated. I believe SB 79 has carve outs for nationally designated.

Okay, got it. All right, thank you. The thing would be then to look at homes that aren't on the HRI and add them to our HRI.

Yes.

Okay. We don't have anything in our work plan to do that immediately. So it's not like something we have budgeted to go out and do a survey or. That was after.

It's not a huge area. We could walk it. I don't know. Gareth J. I don't go down I go down there to go to one ounce so I could probably cover at least one of the roads but um.

Gareth J.

But you know once we've detected properties that could be added to the HR I believe we could nominate them, but the homeowner I believe has to be involved in the nomination we can't memory serves just put something on the list without their consent.

The presentation I did from CPF last year said differently. Sacramento could put them on the list. My home was on the list, but they didn't want it to have a Mills Act or anything, and it sat on the list for 40 years. until i did something and actually got the mills act so um in sacramento just says you can just put it down as um either contributing or non-contributing there's no change in what they're doing the ordinances still apply it's just our list of recognizing the homes Now, we've always said in the past that Santa Clara precedent has always been the homeowner has to agree to it. But from what we went to CPF last year, Sacramento challenged that and said, no, you can just define it. There's nothing wrong with defining the home. There's no change to what you're doing with the home. really interesting to understand how our ordinance is impacted directly. Is that something city attorneys could help us with?

I think our opportunity to do that is like when we do the update, to do an analysis of what we have today.

Oh, okay. And I believe there is preparation of a general SB 79 memo to counsel just with general information about it in the city approach to it. I don't think that's publicly available yet. I haven't seen it, but I think it's underway.

Aren't there implications for the homeowner though? If we place their home on the historic resource index and then they want to remodel, then they're notified by the city, like when they go to the planning department to submit the plans for remodeling that they have to come before the board. And they're like, why? And then you tell them because your house is a historic resource. And they ask, when did that happen? Like, oh, we put you on that list six months ago. You know, like, because if they're not placed on that list, they can just do whatever in terms of, you know, renovations, as long as they're within the development guidelines for any, you know, structure within their particular zoning code. So yeah. I mean, there are implications for the owner if we just designate their home a historic resource and we don't get their consent, right? I mean, how does that work?

That's why, in general, we do need consent from the property owner to place them properly on their property. Most of the time, it's because they're requesting it. We haven't initiated any properties ourselves that are numbered.

Can we do that, Rebecca? Can we just place people on the HRA list? No. No. So we need the homeowner's consent? Correct. OK. But in Sacramento, they don't? In Sacramento, they don't need the homeowner's consent?

They just said they would call a meeting, 50 properties, lay it all out. If the owners didn't show up, then they just proceeded.

I thought like the designation was like before. I don't know.

Yeah, also, I don't think that helps us. And also, it only has a carve out for National Register.

It's weird.

There was definitely a cover I thought the mills act homes were also protected, I do agree, there were deadlines that we've gone past. I thought mills act properties were protected, but perhaps the combination of enough mills act properties, plus the density or footprint or the number of parcels that would be required. creates a. prevents anything being actually demoed and turned into multifamily homes with high density. If the cascaded requirements of parcels and historic and developer desire don't add up, then we could be okay, but it's precarious. still not convinced that everything, there's nothing to do. So I would like to kind of go away and think through if we have any kind of smart ideas that we should be working on.

Would you mind pass on the deck through staff to everybody? Thank you for bringing this up. I guess like the last bit, we do have two commissioners are outgoing. Thank you for your service. And also, would you like to say a few words, parting words, parting wisdoms for the rest of us?

Beauty before age, go ahead. If you wanna, yeah.

I have to say it's been, I loved historical, this commission, you know, I grew up as a history geek. I grew up in the old quad and it's just every beautiful home I walked past on Washington Street, I would just think I want to live here or I want to live there or this is the turret that's going to be my playroom as I headed over to the library in St. Clair's. But it's, I had an incredible time. I'm honored to have worked with all of you. I think you all have your hearts in the right place when it comes to historical preservation. So I feel confident that, you know, the legacy that we built here is going to live on. Didn't feel that way in 2020. I was really concerned we got past it. So I'm really excited to have met you all and to work so many years with you. So it's been great. Keep doing what you're doing.

Back and visit.

Well, I joined the commission, I guess, eight years ago. You know, I really wanted to get involved in community government and be a part of a commission. And now I've gained that experience. It's been a wonderful privilege and honor and really enjoyable to work with so many dedicated individuals. I know they're about half of the people on the commission now are different than when I started, but everyone was just so committed and really, you know, have historic preservation, I think at the core of what you all do. And I know we have various levels of experience and knowledge in the subject area, but I think We work really well together as a team. And that's one thing that I've learned that at times, you know, we made such better decisions as a group. And I feel like I would have individually. And so just learning, you know, really how to work as part of a, you know, government board has been super helpful. And I've just really enjoyed my time. A lot of laughs, you know, I like that we like to keep it light here. Even though, you know, it's a serious topic. And I really enjoyed all the families that came before us, especially those, you know, that had really worked with us on some redesigns. That's always was good to see. So yeah, thank you so much, you know, everyone for giving me the opportunity to be on this commission. And to the city council that elected me, you know, and I'm going to miss you guys very much, you know, but I do think it's time for me to move on. And yeah, but thank you so much, everyone. I appreciate it. I'll be back next month for the public comment. No, I'm just kidding. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

And thank you, Rebecca. All our millions of questions and you always took it in stride, so patient with us because some of us were just learning. So thank you for your patience.

Always learning. Thank you.

Oh, and I want to say also to Commissioner Vargas-Smith, you did a phenomenal job during your term as president too. So I just want to like, you know, give my hat to you for that too. And then under your leadership, you know, we did some really great things. And yeah, so thank you.

Michael, it was a pleasure meeting you. I remember that day very clearly you had on this dapper baby blue suit on, and I knew this guy is going to make the commission.

That didn't last very long.

You stood out in the crowd.

Thank you.

Thank you. Cool. Any other parting comments before we adjourn?

Time to meet up at the night market to celebrate the two outgoing commissioners. So see you guys on Friday.

We won't be in the quorum anymore.

All right.

Thanks, y'all. Do I have a motion to adjourn?

I want to do the honors. You want to do the honors? Anyone? Let's do it.

Let's do it. Commissioner Bergsmith. Motion to adjourn.

Thank you. Do I have a second?

I abstain. I second the motion.

Thank you. Those who are in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? And no, I didn't say no, I'm asking for if anybody opposed, I said aye. And we're adjourned at 8.10. Thank you.