Historical & Landmarks Commission - Regular Meeting

K.

We're ready to go. It is 06:05PM. I now call to order a historical and landmarks commission meeting of 05/07/2026. Start a roll call. Commissioner Romano? Here. Commissioner Celso? Commissioner Insiarte? Here. Commissioner Varshney is not here, and then commissioner Stocks and commissioner Commissioner Vargas Smith are attending CPF, and I am chair Long. We are here. We have four. So we have quorum. So do we have a motion to excuse those who are absent?

I move to excuse those who are absent.

Thank you. Do I have a second? Second. Thank you. Those who are in favor, say aye. Aye. Those are not, say no and abstain. Unanimous one yeah. Yeah. I'm a three absence.

Just so you know, because we are a body of seven every for any vote that has to go through for now until commissioner Varshney get here, because it sounds like he was in traffic, it has to be unanimous to pass because we do need four votes to pass it. Okay? Next section we have is continuance exceptions. This part of the meeting allows for applicants, members of public, or other interested parties to request an item to be continued without hearing or withdrawn or taken out of order. Are there any requests applicants of public or commission for continuance or exception for any of the items on tonight's agenda?

So I we do have one item that is scheduled just so the applicant knows they are in like, they can ask for a continuous for the item because we actually don't have a full commission tonight if they would like to have a full commission hearing and move it to a different date. So are there any any requests? None. We'll move on to the consent calendar. The procedure for 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 and landmarks commission staff, the applicant, or member of public wishes to comment on a consent calendar item or would like the item to be heard on a regular agenda, make this request now. Items listed on the consent calendar of associate file number numbers constitute public hearing items. And here are items on the consent calendar. It's only one. It's the minutes of the historical landmark's commission for 04/02/2026. Do we have any discussion, poll, or motion to approve the consent calendar?

I move to approve the consent calendar.

A motion. Do we have a second? Second. Thank you. Those who are in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Those who are not, say nay. Abstain. K. Unanimous three absence. Motion passes. And then we move on to public presentations. This is a section where, anyone can address the commission on items that is not agendized for our hearing tonight.

There are limited, actions we can take on that item, but, you can briefly address us. Are there any requests for public presentations tonight? Chamber. Seeing none online, and we'll move on. Alright.

Let's move on to public hearing. First item like, one the one item we have tonight is item two, RTC twenty six four zero four, public hearing for recommendation on architectural review for demolition of existing eleven ninety eight square foot one story residence and the construction of a new thirty eight seventeen square foot two story residence at 4435 Fillmore Street located within 200 feet of two historic resource inventory properties. CEQA status is exempt for CEQA per section fifteen three thirty two. It's a infill development project. I'm gonna turn this over to staff.

Thank you.

So this item will be presented by Mehta Patel, and I wanna point out the commission's role, and this is to provide a recommendation to the development review hearing officer given the proximity of this address to two historic resources. This address itself, the building there is not historic.

Is it both on the merit of the demolition and the and the proposed project? Like, on the on their impact on the two properties?

Yes. So both reasons are why it's going to do the development review hearing, so both reasons is why you

Got it. Thank you.

Thank you. Yes. So this is the this is the presentation for 4435 Fillmore Street. The quest is for a recommendation on the architectural review for the demolition of the existing 1,190 square foot residence in the construction of a 3,327 square foot, five bedroom, four bathroom, two story residence at 4435 Fillmore Street. It is located within 200 feet of a historic resource.

Any projects within 200 feet of a historic resource requires a development review hearing. That requires a development review hearing needs recommendation from the historical and landmarks commission. The existing site is 6,250 square feet. The surrounding, land uses are single family residential. The property itself is zoned r one six l with a very low density residential general plan land use designation.

The site in the graphic is marked with the red rectangle, and then the two blue rectangles are the historic resources. This is the proposed rendering. The proposed design features a Mediterranean architectural style with white stucco, Spanish style roofing, and a dark bronze decorative shutters, window, and door frames, and gutters. The design has architectural elements in keeping with the style, such as the square bay window on the front elevation, windows on the garage door, and decorative columns for the front entry porch. The subject property is not located on the same side of the street of 44406 Fulmer Street and is also situated on a different block from 4433 Cheney Street, which are the historic resources.

Given that the historic resources are not situated on the same street frontage in a way that would affect the predominant frontage pattern, there are no impacts on no anticipated impacts on the resources. This is the site plan, which meets our r one six l development standards. This is the proposed first story floor plan, and this is the second story floor plan. The proposed project complies with the city single family design guidelines in that the 2nd Floor is less than 66% of the 1st Floor and is stepped back from the first floor on all sides by five feet or more resulting in an appropriate mass and bulk for a single family residence. The architectural features are true to the proposed architecture form and style and the proposed hip roof.

And front facing gable are reforms found in the existing neighborhood. The project is found to be categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA guidelines section fifteen three three two in full development. Staff recommends that the historical and landmarks commission finds that the proposed project located at 4435 Fillmore Street will not destroy or have significant adverse effect on the integrity of the HRI listed properties within 200 feet of the subject property. The proposed construction is compatible with the neighborhood and recommend approval of the architectural review at development hearing development review hearing subject to conditions and findings. Thank you.

Thank you for that presentation. Let's

Yeah. Is there the consistency with design guidelines for this one? Okay.

Any technical questions before I turn it over to and I actually had a couple before we ask the applicant. If they have any time.

The applicant is online. I don't believe they have a presentation, but they're available for any questions.

If they wanna address the commission. I'm losing my words here. I had a couple of questions. One is, do we have to hear this operating questions built?

Right.

Like, the the proposed like, the property that's proposed to be demolished, like, do we have the year built on that one?

I can I can take a look?

And then compare to the the year built on the historic properties that are adjacent.

I believe it was the early sixties the existing house was constructed, but we can confirm the exact year. Okay.

I remember Yeah. 1961.

Okay.

And then the the two properties that are within 200 feet, I remember that neighborhood because we've looked at some properties over there. They're they're significantly older. Right?

The yeah. 4406 was built in 1925, and then 4433 Cheney was built in nineteen o five. 1925. This one was built in nineteen o five.

Then if you can if you can, can you pull back up the kinda the yellow the one with the yellow square to highlight the position? There's more of a sight line. 4406 has more of a sight line to this property, and then 4431, it's a block over.

Chair, I have a question. On the packet, it's under points for consideration. It says the project site is surrounded by one story and two story of colonial revival cottage ranch vernacular. Mhmm. I couldn't find any two story around it. Are there the whole block that it's on is one story.

I think I believe 2nd Street has a two story that was approved recently. Behind it? Yeah. Not behind on Cheney Down, I think, on 2nd Street. I can pull up the Google Maps

if you want.

The neighborhood in general.

We're all looking at Google Maps right now. Look at, like, images of, like, what they look like and, like, how what the styles are on the other two property. Can I get an idea of what we're comparing them to?

I have a question. The property on Cheney Street, that's within 200 feet of this property.

It's just 200 feet.

Okay. Thank you.

I don't have any more technical question at the moment. I know we're also just kinda looking at the images on Google Maps.

Subject property. This is a recent one that was approved on 2nd Street. It's a two story. I

think that one came through us as well.

Did the city receive any public feedback or letters to neighbors?

The city hasn't received any public comments.

K.

I'd like to invite the applicant to address this. They they would like to say a few words before we go into discussion, if that's okay. Yes.

This is Daniel Warren with Warren Design. We did design this house, and we've actually done some other, projects kinda in the near area. So we are familiar with kind of the the area and, you know, did try to kinda take in the consideration of some of the other homes. And as far as the the architectural style, the client had seen something kinda nearby that they wanted to kinda mimic with that Spanish. So, we did do that and, trying to match with kinda what's in the neighboring area.

And, as far as two story, we did try to kinda mimic some of the the masking and everything of some of the houses on neighboring streets. If anybody has any other questions as far as, the the house layout design, I'd be happy to answer those questions for you guys.

Thank you. And any questions for the applicant from the commission?

Not at this time. No.

Yeah.

Sure. In that neighborhood, is that the most common siding material is stucco?

Okay. I guess, like, to to kinda rephrase your question, it would be, is that, like, a common material that's used, like, based on your observations on the different the other properties that you're trying to take inspirations from?

Yes. And and there are some stucco. I guess that's the thing is is outside of, like, the the one historic home, there's not a real consistent there is a mixture of of materials on that street. Mhmm. So but, yeah, as far as there there are, on the other streets, and and I'd probably say more consistently with some of the newer homes that are in the area, those did seem to be more of a stucco material versus some of the siding that's used.

Okay. Thank you. There's no other questions. I need to open it up to public. Are there any public comments on this item, either in chamber or online?

Doesn't look like we have any.

Yes. Seeing none online.

Thank you. Do I have a motion to close public comment?

I move to close public comment.

Thank you. Do I have a second?

I second.

Thank you. Those are in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. In that mystery absence, motion passes. So let's go into discussion. I guess, like, to reiterate, we we are evaluating, like, how this project is going to affect the two properties, the two other properties in question. One is down the street. One is, like, a block over. That's why I wanted to see this map that's showing today. I'd like to kinda get some opinions.

I don't think it's gonna have a material impact to the house on Cheney Street, the block over, especially since there's a very large McMansion next to the historical property already. I'm more concerned about the ebb and flow of Fillmore Street and that every house facing Fillmore is all one story.

Right now, I'm looking at Cheney now. I'm like I'm not and I'm not looking at Cheney. There is, like, a a bigger property right next to it.

Yeah. That one next to Cheney looks totally out of place because it's got historical next to it and a farmhouse just on the other side of the historical. But I don't think this project will impact Cheney the Cheney Cheney Street. I

wonder it looks like, you know, this neighborhood maybe generally a lot of the homes seem to be kinda like the one that will be demolished, maybe built around 1960 or so. I know there's some historic houses, like the two that are highlighted. But in general, are most of the homes, like, maybe around nineteen sixties?

Simply, we can check the map. They all look similar enough to be built around the same time.

Okay. Thank you. I agree with the applicant. There's not a whole lot of consistency in the design, but there is somewhat of consistency in the massing of the structures. And, you know, they all seem to be one story, except on the corner of Fillmore Street.

It seems to be one that has I don't know if it's, like, one and a half story or something. Seems to have a little Cape Cod window or something at the top. But pretty much the rest of them, even the ones that look like multifamily units, they're pretty much all, you know, like, just simple kind of ranch houses, you know, one story. So it it it would kind of stick out, but I know that they also showed that that other newer two story home that's in the neighborhood, which does stand out as well. But, yeah, just kind of an observation.

There is some, like, consistency in the design in general in terms of massing and, you know, the being that most of them are one story.

The on 3rd Street, we have multifamily townhome project as well.

On where? 3rd Street. 3rd Street.

Way down at the other end of the block, you mean?

Yeah. There's a big project down 3rd.

I'm looking at from Google Maps, I'm looking at if you were right in front of the historic home and you were looking down towards the project location. It looks like it's gonna be pretty visible if it's a two story house because the house across the street that may have blocked anything is one big long lot that's all empty. So you can see the side of the house that's gonna be demolished and then replaced with a two story. If you I put Google Maps right in front of the historic home, the 4406, looking towards this 4435 Fillmore, and it's gonna be visible from the house. It's gonna be clearly noticeable. I don't know if that matters or not.

That's where you're gonna see it.

Yeah. That's the house that would be demolished. Right?

Yeah.

Now right behind the historical home on 2nd, there's also two stories that are visible from the property. I'll be honest. This gets tough because it's within the five I mean, the 200 feet. And where do we draw the line? The line is 200 feet. So is it materially impacting it?

And the neighborhood was notified of the plans, and no one objected.

We did not receive any comments. We did send out a mailing notice. K. Thank you. I think I had

the same thought about, like, just kinda I've kinda, like, situated myself, like, in front of the property from 4406 Fillmore, like, basically on the street corner. Just kinda looking down the street, I do see that the new build is going to going to stick out a lot. It does change the ebb and flow of that entire street. We're having one property going two stories with, like, very little setback on the second story. So I think that that would be a bit of a material impact on the neighborhood as a whole on because it does actually changes how this historic property is kind of the prominent corner, like, of this neighborhood, and it it changes the focus and make a second property a little bit more prominent, like, a little bit down the way, like, earshot, really.

Can we look at the site plan if you have them? Like, how far Mhmm. With the setback is the the proposal. I mean, like, how far right on the on the lot is. We have that.

Yep. Just a question. The property to the right, if you're facing 4435 Fillmore, there's a fence around that. And the property on the corner of Fillmore And Cheney, I think, it looks like what? Cheney?

Second. Oh, okay. Yeah. So the corner the house on that corner, it looks like the front face of that house is actually facing 2nd Street. And I'm wondering the lot in between that corner house and the 4435 Fillmore Street, where is the front of that house? Is that behind the fence? And is it is the front of that house facing is there a house there at all? Is it an empty lot?

I think those are the outbuildings for the the house that faces

or maybe not.

The house that faces 2nd Street?

It might have.

It's a little hard to tell because it looks like there's a fence between the house and the 2nd Street to that property, but, like, it does kinda look like it's attached to another property in the back. Yeah. Defenses is

a little

hard to

It's a l shaped lot.

There you go.

Oh. Oh, it yeah. I believe an e d u.

It's it goes with the 2nd House

Oh, I see.

2nd Street. The big one, actually.

And then there's, like, a smaller lot kinda nested in

It's an l shape that goes all the way around the corner. Right. Because I imagine, like, this was a lot split at some point where the corner gets split out.

Wonder is that one lot, though, or they just It's still now. I'm just

saying, like, the way it's it's drawn, that's pretty common.

Okay. Yeah. So then neither of those houses are gonna have an adjacent view. It's the back of the properties, So they'll only see the new, you know, house if they're looking out their back windows, I guess. So it's not really gonna

I'd also call out

that View.

4406, the historical property in the corner, is actually the tallest one.

That's why I was saying.

It's the tallest one on that street. Even the three houses next to it are all diminutive to it. Mhmm. So now it will no longer be the tallest house on the block. Yeah. I don't

I'm sorry. Go ahead.

I was agreeing with her point. Yeah.

And I was just gonna say I I think I misspoke. I don't think it's actually a two story. I think that's just, like, a little dormer window for the attic or something. It's not actually upon closer inspection. Doesn't look like a Kate Cott window. So maybe that is a one story, actually, as an attic.

You

mean at 4406? Yeah. Yeah. It's a dormer on top. It's a one story, but it's one and a half because it's raised. Right? It's got a pony wall.

Okay.

Alright. Step back for the first and second for 25 feet for the proposed house.

From the from the property line?

From the property line.

How far is it how far is the current property? Do you know?

Just did a quick measurement. It looked like it was right at 20 feet.

Okay. So it would be further back.

Also, the house that is right next to 4406 Fillmore, it has, like, a flat stucco siding. That looks like a little similar to the plan that they're proposing for the new structure at 4435 on kind of a miniature scale. I don't know if that helps at all.

I'm a little less worried about the materials with this one, actually. I'm just a little bit more worried about the the sizing on how high it is and how far.

Yeah. It looks like I'm sorry. Go on. No. Go ahead. It looks like if you are looking on Google Earth or Apple Maps, whatever, you know, one you prefer, and then you're looking at the house next to 4406 Fillmore, you can see behind that house, there's another two story house, I think, that you can see from the front of that house next to 4406 Fillmore. So there's one other two story house in the neighborhood.

A few behind.

Mhmm. It sounds like every time there's, like, an infill somewhere in that neighborhood, it usually goes from, like, a one to a two. That's what it looks like. It's like the ones that are going two stories, they look a lot a lot more modern than what's been there.

I'm looking at the site plans. It shows the existing property is 22 feet back, and the new property or the new building will be 20 feet. So it's moving up two feet?

The other way around. It's 22 to 25.

Oh.

I was looking at the same page as you. Each one says existing. That says 22. 22226. Right? Because that's where it is currently. And then if you go to the next page

I have it pulled up on this.

25.

I see 25 to the the porch. The porch. Yeah.

Oh, you're looking at the only front side, back line. I was looking at 25 to the porch.

Got it.

Visible structure. I ask this question. Like, what is, like, the kind of floor plan ratio between, like, the 1st Floor and the 2nd Floor?

It is it's less than 66. I can pull up Yeah.

Pretty close to sixties to 62. I mean, blind. Like, usually, for something like this, I would ask for, like, a smaller footprint, like, upstairs. I can push it all the way back in the back of the of the property. So it's less of a visual impact as, like, you're looking down the street. So that's that's just a thought that I had.

Yeah. I find the massing to be too big for the rest of the neighborhood that the 4406 is on.

I think we we have to be pretty explicit about the finding too. It's because, like, currently, in the setting, the historic property in forty four zero six Fillmore is the most prominent building on the street. Having another property that's in that size will have an adverse impact on the on the setting for 4406 Fillmore. Daniel, I see your hand up. You can go ahead.

You're still muted if you if you would like to speak on it.

Sorry. Yeah. No. I was just mentioning that if you're actually standing on that corner there, what is it, Fillmore and second, you know, where that house is, and you just kinda do, like, a three sixty in all the homes around it, I mean, there are a a lot of homes, especially right there on that second side, that are closer to it. And I I feel that their their massing is not as well as done as ours as far as how we step the house back, you know, on the second story and everything.

But, you know, just kinda looking at that visual impact, I mean, when you're standing on that corner and you just kinda look in every direction, you know, there there are some pretty large homes just all in that area. So, again, we are right at that on the outskirt of that 200. I mean, right, we just barely fall in that. And, there there are quite a few homes, you know, even backing up to it that are all two story. You know? So that's why I think we we did a pretty good job of stepping that house back. And, you know, surrounding that, there are quite a few, two story homes, that are closer than ours.

I have a question for staff. What's the total square footage again of the proposed structure?

Total square footage is 3,817. It does have an attached ADU on the 1st Floor, but that is not within the scope of the development review hearing. Those are reviewed under the building permit.

Okay. So the attached ADU, that's part of the central home, though? I mean, it's what's that? Okay. That's pretty big. Thirty hundred square feet. That's a pretty big home. Do we know the square footage of the other home on the corner of Fillmore And 2nd Street, the one that's, you know, kind of like a l lot, the larger of those two homes, just for comparison's sake?

I can find out.

K. Thank you.

I have a question for staff too. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the historical ordinance used to be homes within 500 feet. Right? And then when we redid the order in ordinance, it was reduced to 200. Is that correct?

I vaguely remember that. I don't believe so. I don't think we had a formal ordinance before, so there was never a formal referral process or a that might have been a rule of thumb that maybe staff used, but I don't think it was codified.

A point that I'm getting at is the homes that are all bigger, all look to be from the nineties, eighties, and so on. And the point of having the 200 feet is to keep the encroachment from happening was in my personal opinion, it was added so that we would stop this kind of thing from happening.

I have a question. How is it determined that this would not have a significant adverse effect on, basically, that property and then how, you know, close it is to the historical property. How is that determined?

I mean, there's no exact finding. It's very subjective. You'll see in the staff staff report, we noted staff noted that it's not on the same street frontage, so it won't have an impact to the ebb and flow on that side of the street. I understand the discussion is more both sides of the street. And then the Cheney property, obviously, that's on a completely different block. But, yes, it's it's subjective.

I think we're at a point where we're finding it kinda hard to recommend approval for the proposed build, mostly because of the massing of the property itself and the visual impact on the 4406 Philmoorest property, at least two of us anyway. And I did note, like, in the beginning of the the meeting that we do need to have a unanimous vote for us to make a recommendation for for this. I actually would like to I last applicant, would you like to continue this item so that you have a full commission panel to look at this? You have three more pairs of eyes.

You're asking the applicant if they want to?

The applicant. Yeah. Correct.

I'm sorry. Can you rephrase that again?

Yeah. So I am like, based on a discussion of here, I think we're gonna find we're finding it really hard to recommend approval for the proposed bill due to the massing of the second story, really, like, on on the visual impact. Like, I take your point that there are other properties that were built, like, probably in the eighties, nineties, the more recent that that are, like, in that massing. But, like, the the point is when we had the ordinance put in, it is to try to prevent this kind of impact to happen, like, on the property that's on the HRI. Now, you know, you you do have a choice.

Like, if you would like to continue this, there will be three more people that we can we can run this through because they are absent today. So I wanna make sure that, you know, you you get a fair shake on on this particular proper on this proposal.

To that point. We we we obviously came here to get an approval. So it I mean, if it sounds like you guys need the other ones here or something for that to happen, then, I mean, that's I it it is what it is. But, yeah, I I do think we also need to take into consideration some of the other homes around it. And like you say, we're we're on that other side of the street at the extreme extent of the 200 feet.

And, you know, I think a visual impact when somebody's looking at that house, you do not see our house. Like, if you're standing on the street facing it, it's behind you. So, I mean, I I think we need to take closer consideration into some of that. But, if I'm I mean, if this needs to be pushed back till you guys have a full committee, I mean, I know that's gonna be harder to do as we get into the summertime, but, I mean, we're just we've been working on this for quite a time, and and we've been I mean, that has been a great working with us and taking into consideration all the surrounding properties, like, to get a design to this point. So, I mean, we have literally spent a a lot of time to get here.

So, I mean, I would prefer an approval, but if this needs to be tabled Yeah.

So, Daniel, this is Rebecca, a staff member working with Mehaw. I just wanna clarify the kind of couple of roads you can take. Right? So what chair Lung was saying was that tonight, we don't have a full commission, so we only have four members present. If we were to continue this, it would likely be a very similar discussion just with more people.

So unless in this in between time, you're planning to make any sort of changes that may not be worth it to you, the alternative path is if the four members present tonight were to provide some sort of recommendation about modifying the design or even recommend denial, you could still move forward to your development review hearing, which I think that we were anticipating for June for June. So those are kind of the the two paths you can take.

Yeah. I mean so so you're saying we could push you forward. And I guess that's the thing is that and maybe I I missed that earlier, but, I mean, where where are we at right now? I mean, is there, you know, any significant feedback that's in opposition of what we're proposing, you know, that we could go ahead and move forward, or what's the consistent consensus on this?

So I think what the commission in their discussion, they can correct me, what they were alluding to was concerns about the overall massing, particularly of the second story given the lack of other two stories along the street. So in general, I think it's a concern about the massing and the particularly of the second story.

Yeah. You're correct. It's, masking the second story and, like, the concentration on the second story in the front of the of the proposal.

Okay. So I I I guess there's few things going on. So, I mean, I I could see a couple of ways that we could, you know, do something to get a a let's just propose of, like, a roof facade that we could pay the cost of funds to break up that, you know, over the garage there. I mean, is that something that could be supported? Or

I saw the size, like, literally the massing that's sitting on top of the garage, like, in in that area.

It

I'm kinda looking at the different elevation drawing

this. Yeah. And just one thing I'm noticing about, you know, the house next to 4435 Fillmore, not the one that has the l shaped lot, but it seems to be about the same size as the house that's currently at 44, 35, maybe 1,200 square feet or so. So just kind of, you know, in general, the proposed new home would be literally, like, more than three times the size. I mean, it's kinda gonna dwarf the house next to it and really the other houses on the block.

Because besides the one two story house that's on 2nd Street And then the historic home, which seems to be the tallest home on that block, it's really gonna bless you. Bless you. It's really gonna stand out, you know, as a much larger structure than all of the other homes. Let me

look at something. I I I can try and propose something on that to to help reduce that that front matching a little bit. But, I mean, to that point and and we all know it's only a matter of time, whether it's the house next to us or or down the street. Like, somebody's gonna build a two story, and then they're gonna start creeping down. You know?

So it's kinda one of these, you know we we are the the first one on the street, is always kinda the unfortunate. I this ain't the first time I've done this where I've been, you know, the first one coming in, and it it always makes it trickier, because you are, you know, critiqued a little harder. But, you know, going around the neighborhood and and even looking at some of the other new homes, I don't think that were designed as well as what we've done here. You know, you you kinda get some of that where it's just the the the design or the architectural appeal is not there for a house. So I don't mind trying to you know, I'll sit with the owners, see what we can do to propose to reduce that front math some.

But, I mean, as far as two stories on this house, it's only a matter of time that it's gonna be peppered with several of them on it. And and going to the size and the square footage, it's like nobody builds a 1,200 or a 2,000 square foot house anymore. Like, anything that's built, is in the high twos, the threes, and that's just the nature of our lifestyle. I mean, what people were doing in the sixties, it doesn't support people's lifestyle and, you know, especially what we've got with the Bay Area, you know, people have got, you know, grandparents living with them and stuff. It's just so the size, I think, is justified with the day we live in. A 12 or 1,800 square foot house is not the norm.

Thank you. I have one additional question too. So I'm just curious. The people that are living in that structure at 43 I'm sorry. 4435 Fillmore Street, Are they the current owners, or are you representing new owners who have bought the property?

And They are the they are the current owners. They own it.

Oh, okay. So they're just wanting a a bigger house to

Correct.

Kinda have more space.

For their family. For to expand their family. Yeah. So

Okay.

Yeah. And and the ADU was the intent that, you know, as their parents are getting older, that they wanted a place that they can, you know, live and they can watch them as opposed to putting them in, you know Right. A a care facility. So, I mean, yeah, it's it's just the nature of where we're at in ADU laws, and it's you know, with with everybody's doing it, it's kind of the new norm. And so I I think in this instance, I mean, all that stuff needs to be considered.

Okay. And I'm just wondering about the ADU. Because looking at the floor plan for the 1st Floor, I mean, I see where it's labeled ADU bedroom and ADU living. But if it's part of the same house, I mean, what differentiates that as being an ADU and, you know, versus being just part of the house?

I can answer that.

We

have specific requirements for what require what is considered an ADU based on the state law. They're providing a separate kitchen facility, separate bathroom. They do have an interior access to the main house, which is allowed as long as they have a separate exterior access, which they do.

Oh, okay. So the ADU, is that ADU living, the little kitchen area, the bathroom, and then the ADU bedroom? Correct. Okay. Thank you.

You guys have anything else for me?

No. I don't really

I I guess it sounds like I'm maybe I can get with the owner to see what we can, you know, do that they'll be okay with to maybe help reduce the massing on that front facade and present that hopefully in a manner that'll be acceptable.

I think that would be appreciated. And I think I would make a suggestion, like, if you can make, some sort of visual kinda standing in Fillmore in second, looking down on, like, how the massing is going to look like. That'll give us, like, a better idea, like, how the about the setback of the entire property and, like, in the potential redesign and how that's gonna affect visual. I think that'll that'll give us give us, like, a more solid way of looking at what you're proposing. Okay. And I I think, like, what we're thinking is if we can shrink the massing in in the second story and push it further back.

That

would be I think that would be appreciated.

Let me let me look at some of those options. I mean, pushing it back is always on the owner side. It's kinda the detriment. Nobody wants the, big front yard anymore. Everybody does all the entertaining in the back. So, obviously, we're trying to maximize the backyard. Yeah. So I know that's not desired really by anyone, but, we we can look at that once we kinda revise that second story and see how that all impacts.

And I will say I do appreciate that you you did have the setback of 25 feet for the porch as opposed to 22, like, currently. That's already an improvement. So, like, I appreciate

that. So

Okay. So if we're gonna continue this item, should we make a motion for it for date certain for the June meeting?

There's only two separate. What? Yeah. That'll

I do have one other question. I'm just wondering. I don't know the feasibility of this, but building down, like, into a basement to try and get some of the extra square footage to accommodate the expansion of the family, Is that something that the owner said?

Honestly, the yeah. And and, honestly, that's just not realistic because, I mean, it's going to construction cost. It's literally twice as much. So, I mean, cost wise, it's just not practical.

Okay. That's fine. Monday. Thank you.

It's a good idea, and I I like designing them. But on the cost side, it is it's substantial.

Prohibitive. Okay. Thank you.

It's it's not like outlandish idea because, like, we've we've seen a few properties where they did build down and, like, actually had a lot of their living space, like, under. But completely understand the building cost at this point on, like, how that's gonna affect it. Yeah.

Can have that at Sylvia?

And the other thing is it wouldn't change the footprint at all. The footprint would stay the same. It would just be below. But I think that the other thing is, let me look at what we can do to help with that visual impact over the garage, and, then we can present that to you guys.

I think that's a that's gonna be, like, our biggest concern. Alright.

Perfect. I appreciate you guys' time and feedback on this.

I really appreciate your patience with this.

Thank you so

for that.

Sure. You

know so much stuff there? Yes. Thank you.

And I'd say that it's a beautiful design.

Thank you guys very much. I'll get this revised and back to Mihan. Look forward to seeing you guys in June.

K.

That's great. We do need to have a motion. Can you mute?

Yep. That's We appreciate your flexibility too. I move to continue this item to the following month. To the June meeting? To the June meeting.

With the recommendation with the recommendation.

With the recommendation for the condition for the owner to reduce the massing of the second story above the garage to reduce the visual impact of the massing, you know, in comparison to the so that it weaves better with the surrounding homes. They're much smaller in size.

Amendment. I was thinking about small marshes massing on the second story and push massing to the towards the back

Oh, it's of the Right.

Of the proposal proposed property. And the friendly suggestion to include a visual of the property from from the point of view of Fillmore And 2nd Street and what that would look like. Okay. Is that is that okay? Okay. Cool. Thank you. Do we have a second?

A second.

Thank you. Those are in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Okay. Unanimous three absence. Thank you. We'll talk to you again. And you. Thank you, ma'am.

That's

actually all of our public hearing items. Script has multiple pages. Yeah. Our staff report.

So two quick updates. The first is that in coordinating with commissioner Insiarte, we are moving forward with the gravesite designation tentatively schedule well, as of right now, scheduled for June 23. I know toward the end of the fiscal year, the city manager's office starts messing around with the agendas. But right now, we're on June 23, and, of course, I'll let you know as soon as anything changes. Second update was regarding the historic preservation ordinance update that you all had voted on at the last meeting to start that process with your budget.

So right now, the city is actually going through a process to create a bench of consultants. And so we that RFP was issued, and we are currently reviewing all the responses we received. Since we are going through that process, our purchasing department suggested that we wait to see if any of those cons if we feel any of those consultants would be suitable for the work.

The bench of consultants?

Creating a bench of consultants. My argument was well, not argument, but thought was that perhaps we needed someone with more detailed experience and historic. So I'm going to have a meeting with purchasing and let them know my concerns because, obviously, the bench, their application is for a more general set of services, and this is very, very specific. So ongoing conversation, she said if we do need to end up doing our own RFP, it would be in midsummer because we're wrapping up this other larger RFP for the creation of the bench. And this that RFP also included work for the station area for the zoning district and objective design standards.

So we kind of have a couple ongoing right now that we need to wrap up before we could start this one Okay. If needed.

Miss Bustos, I'm sorry. Could you please explain to us who don't know what what does it mean to have a bench of consultants?

It's like so when we have projects such as the historic preservation ordinance come up or other things that we need outside assistance with that staff either doesn't have capacity for or doesn't have the expertise for, we have a bench who already have an approved contract with us. They've already gone through the vetting process that we can pull from.

Okay. Then what is the RFP? You just send the RFP out to the bench members?

There wouldn't be an RFP anymore. There would just be a a scope of work.

And does the city have anyone right now that they've already have a contract with that's qualified to do

No. So that's what we're working on creating right now.

Okay. Thank you.

Said makes sense, and I support your discussion with purchasing to make sure that we're actually getting consultants that are qualified for the work that we're looking for because it is a very specialized thing that we're asking for.

Yeah. Basically, she said I'm free to make make the argument. I just need to provide more backup of how it's specialized, so I'm I can do that.

Okay. Perfect. Thank you. Are there any other comments on that?

K. Cool.

So still going, so that's good.

And

that the only other staff report item is we are gonna have a very full agenda for June. We have we already had three items, and now we have four. So just keep that in mind. Make sure if you are unable to be present, let

us know as soon as possible. Thank you. Daniel would be very upset if we can't make it. Should make an effort. I will be here.

No. Okay. Just kinda confirming. Okay. Cool. Commissioner reports. That's where we're at. You don't have any subcommittee going this way. Actually, May is preservation month. We didn't do anything this year. I think the whole is screwing us up, you know, because we didn't do banners, but we'll figure it out next time. K. Santa Clara Arts and Historic Consortium. I don't think we have any updates from there because we don't have Anna with us tonight. Historic Preservation Society of Santa Clara home tour stuff. I think we're still looking for another house. Is right? Yes.

I believe they're short one. K. And they have a couple over at Park Court, so they're looking for something that would spread out the traffic. So I think they're looking for something more towards this way, towards City Hall so that they can spread it out. Okay. I build because I think there's a couple in Park Court, and that's such a small area.

So tiny. Yeah. You might have to, like, just close down the street Yeah. Or that night. Yeah.

Okay. So if anyone knows of anyone who would like to have their house on their tour, I think they're looking for one more.

Oh, hi. Residents Association, not a lot of updates. Easter was a resigned success. Easter bunny is still alive. I can happy to report. It was four hours of really, really hot costuming, but the kids loved it. Now we got some great pictures. So we're we are planning on doing a lot more social activities. So you don't have to be a board member to do anything with us, just, like, make a suggestions, and we'll try to make some stuff happen. So just got a broad message we wanna do, and we're trying to do more just general meetings because we it's usually a good time of, like, neighbors meeting neighbors, so that's good.

So that is kinda moving forward. Anyway, development review hearing. I think you had a couple of things to send a note about.

There's actually one on here that perked my interest. I was piqued my interest, I should say. And the development hearing is on the thirteenth, and one of the items is at 717 Flannery Street, which is in the vicinity of the mid century modern where the Eichlers are and the McKay developments. It's not directly in the McKay development. But when I did some quick searching, several of the homes around it had been advertised of being good examples of that kind of style, which is the vaulted ceiling with the exposed beams and the full glass to ceiling floor walls.

I, did reach out to Lori Garcia, our city, historian, if she knew anything about that particular area because it's North Of Prune Ridge, and the McKay developments are all South Of Prune Ridge. But the homes all looked very similar. I don't know anything about this particular home. There's probably not a lot of information on it. And the only reason I was concerned is because it's a complete demolition and a new construction.

They're not just adding on. And looking on Google, none of the other houses have been added on that way. So I I'm not quite sure what the process is because this is the first time we've ever had one come up that would be of interest possibly to HLC. Rebecca, do you know what we do? Do I just go to the the development hearing and raise concerns, or what do we do?

Well, it's a little tough because it doesn't other than its age, it doesn't hit the criteria that we have in our ordinance. Mhmm. There'd be no reason to refer it to you. Mhmm. So, yeah, if you have concerns, I would suggest attending the hearing. Or if if Laurie has any documentation that would suggest that this is historic, you could provide that as well. Okay. Alright. Thank you. Yeah.

Because we don't have anything over there that we do DPRs on or anything, so I wasn't quite sure how we'd do it. Okay.

Call out. I mean, this is something we need to keep in mind too when it comes through the ordinance update.

Yeah. I generally do go through the agenda and look at every home. There's a lot of things that age wise, to Rebecca's point, are in the age, but they may not have any significance. And this is the first one that came up that would be even close to something because the McKays are won all kinds of awards in the '70 I mean, in the fifties, so they're very well known. And if you even just search for the McKay and Eichlers, there are so many real estate agents that just market that. So it is a very well sought after thing. And so I'm just kinda interested how we deal. I'll wait to see if I hear from Laurie. If I don't hear from her before the thirteenth, I'll just attend the meeting and let them know generally what I'm thinking and see if Laurie has anything in the future.

Awesome. Thank you.

Oh, wow.

I am just I was just googling it really quick while you're talking about it, and I found this website. It's called eichlernetwork.com. And on page four, meet the McKays where they're talking about the McKay homes, there is a picture of what says here active McKay owner Steven Estes. Yeah. He was the commissioner. Look. That's crazy.

Oh, yeah. I was just thinking about him. It's on page four. Because he was he was our commissioner that loved modern architecture.

Yeah. Funny. That is a picture of Steven. Yeah. That's awesome.

Yeah. Thank you. That guy. Oh, me too. Okay. He was very eloquent.

Because he might be in that neighborhood, actually. Mhmm. Mhmm. Okay. You're good on the development review item? Okay. Bart High Speed Rail VTA BRT Committee. I think there was a CWG yesterday, but I don't have any reports out of it. What's that? Alkermino Real specific plan community advisory committee. That's still a thing.

So this that is actually scheduled to go to council on the nineteenth. So two weeks in two weeks.

Yes. Soon.

Yes. Okay. So if all goes well, then we can take that off the list. Awesome.

Downtown precise plan. I think the RFP is still going. So that's that. Station area task force. We didn't meet this month because we're waiting for revisions based on the feedback from last month.

Yes. So we will be holding the May meeting. It falls weird. It's on the twenty first this month. We will be holding that meeting to go over some specific guidelines that WRT is proposing and get feedback on those.

Looking forward to it.

We go back. I have a

just a general curiosity question on the downtown precise plan. I know as part of the downtown task force, the consultants had talked about bringing people downtown now to get interest and show developers that people will be here, and we just did the Santa Clara night market in the city owned space. And I was wondering if those two were related and if that kicked it off or how that came about. It was a wonderful event. It was great to see the city sponsor something so large. There were hundreds of people. Yeah.

We were all there. That was really fun.

I think the night market is more in tandem with the stadium events that

are going on. Oh, okay. Alright. Because they did have a lot of the mission.

Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I I was also talking to councilmember Jane about it. It's because, like, we actually got infusion money for promotions for FIFA events, and then we had a commit we had commitment for the city for, like, a million dollars for, like, trying to put up events, and we got some matching funds from some Okay. That's right.

Because there was FIFA stuff there.

Okay.

Yeah.

Thank you.

That's why we had for the three months, like, when FIFA is happening leading up to it.

Good question. We got an email about some FIFA flag raising event or something. What is that?

Next week.

It's and what are we doing exactly?

I think I would be here for flag raising.

It's here at the council chambers.

Is that on I think it's outside. I think it's at nine, right, in the morning?

Yeah.

Outside.

Oh, and they're gonna raise that FIFA flag.

It's a FIFA flag. Yeah.

Oh, okay. Alright. Just wondering. Thank you.

Because we have a consultant that's for protocols, and she has some interesting suggestions. Yeah. I was on a council meeting a couple weeks ago. Oh. Yeah.

Alright. Thank you.

Yep.

So we have on board and committee reports. That's it. That's actually all we have. Do we have a motion to adjourn?

I move we adjourn.

Thank you. Second. Those who are in favor, say aye. Aye. Those opposed?

I opposed. No. Aye.

Alright. Unanimous three absence, and we are adjourned at 07:14. Thanks, everyone.