Historical & Landmarks Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you. I would now call to order historical and landmark commission meeting, 04/02/2026. It is 06:04PM. First item on here, it is roll call. I do have commissioner Varsney online over here, and I will, call on you as well. So I'm gonna start with, vice chair of stocks.

Here.

Commissioner Vargas Smith. She's not here yet. Commissioner Romano? Here. Commissioner Celso?

Here.

Commissioner Insiarte? Here. Commissioner Varsney?

Here.

And I am chairman Wong. Thank you. Do we have do we have a motion to excuse the absence for commissioner Vargas Smith?

Move that we excuse commissioner Vargas Smith.

Do I have a second? Second. Second from vice chair Sachs. I I do have to take roll call vote for every item tonight because we do have one member on online. So I'm gonna start with, vice chair Sachs.

Aye.

Commissioner Romano. Aye. Commissioner Celso.

Aye.

Commissioner Insurrecte. Aye. Commissioner Farshany.

Aye.

Aye from me. Unanimous one absence for excuse of commissioner Argo Smith from the meeting. Thank you. Next item we have is continuances exceptions. This part of the meeting allows for applicants, members of the public, or other interested party to request an item to be continued without hearing or withdrawn or taken out of order.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 from applicants to public or commission for continuance or exception for any of the item that are on tonight's agenda? This is for anybody on the commission in the audience and also online. And if you're online, if you like to speak, please raise your hand. Seeing none, we'll move on to consent calendar. The procedure for consent calendar is as follows.

The 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 members of the historical and landmarks commission staff, the applicant, or member of the public wishes to comment on the consent calendar item or would like the item to be heard on the regular agenda, make this request now. Items listed on the consent calendar with associated file numbers constitute a public hearing item. And tonight, the following items are on tonight's, consent calendar. There are two. One is the minutes from our March 5 meeting, and the second one is the action on a draft certified local government, the CLG annual report.

And that's just for approving to forward to state. Right? Yes. That's correct. The only information, if anyone has any additional trainings that I wasn't made aware of and that aren't in the report, feel free to forward those to me. I believe it's due to this date in two weeks.

Okay. Thank you. Is there a

motion to is there a motion to approve the consent calendar items?

Quick question for staff. The trainings, you said, are due in two weeks, so we have two weeks to complete any additional trainings as as needed.

No. So the reporting period is October 2024 through September 2025. So any trainings you did in

that period.

Okay. Thank you.

Is there a motion to approve the consent calendar?

I move to approve the consent calendar. Thank you. I have

a motion. Do I have a second? Second. I have a second. Okay. I'm gonna take a roll call vote. Vice chair stocks.

Aye.

Commissioner Romano. Aye. Commissioner Celso? Aye. Commissioner Nciarte? Aye. Commissioner Varsney?

Aye.

Aye from me. Unanimous when absence. Motion passes. Next agenda, next item is public presentations. Are there any members of the public that would like to briefly address the commission on the items that is not on the agenda tonight?

Not seeing any hands. Not seeing anybody stand up. Not seeing any commissioners speak up. So we do not have any public presentations tonight, so we'll move on.

I have one, like, one maybe question or something some clarification. Not sure if it would be the appropriate time. Mhmm. But is there a way that we can look into for example, I don't know if we have something for to designate a business that's been here established for over fifty years in Santa Clara. I'm not sure if we have, like, a legacy business or some type of heritage business. Is there a way that we can maybe look into that, or if there's no ordinance, create something in the future?

This would be a quick question for staff. Would this be more appropriate to be part of the would be like a like a a different thing to discuss, like, outside of our ordinance updates, or is it should be part of it if we wanna, like, look into a process to designate businesses for heritage business?

I think we could look at it as part of the ordinance update to expand the definition of what a landmark is in the city? Because right now, it's, like, site location or it doesn't it doesn't have a specification for a business.

Okay. Okay. Is that appropriate? Yeah. Yeah. Let's add that to our scope Sure. When we get to that item. I agree. Cool. Thank you. Okay. So for public hearing, like, move okay. Let's go item two. Twenty six two fifty six public hearing to a rezoning to remove the historic combined district from 1341 Homestead Road, 906 Monroe Street to remain a historic combined district. Sequest says determine to determination and consistency with downtown precise plan final EIR. I'll move this to staff.

Thank you, chair Long. So this item's gonna be presented by our planner here this evening, Daniel. So to clarify your role in this, you are a recommending body. You'll be providing a recommendation to the planning commission to the city council because this property is a one of the properties one of the houses on the property is a historic resource on our historic resources inventory.

Thank you.

Much appreciation there. The request in front of us today is to rezone 1341 Homestead Road and to remove the historic combining zoning from the 1341 Homestead Street Parcel 906 sorry. Homestead Road Parcel 906 Monroe Street will remain and is unchanged. This request must go through HLC, PC, and city council. HLC is tasked with the recommendation of rezoning for 1341 Homestead Road.

PC is tasked with the recommendation of rezoning and the recommendation of the tentative map sub subdivision, and then city council will have the final vote. The existing site is one, point one eight acres. It sits across from Franklin Square and is abutting single family homes. These zoning is DTHT, and the general plan is downtown core. The current zoning map snippet shown here shows the DTHT zoning.

And the proposed zoning map snippet shows the subdivision of the property and the updated zoning for 1341 Homestead Road. It just shows D T or downtown. The rezoning action is consistent with the previously approved EIR for the downtown precise plan, which was approved, on 12/05/2023 by city council and accorded somewhat equal, and no addendum is required for this action. With all that being said, the recommendation from staff is that HLC find that the proposed rezoning to remove the historic combining zoning from 1341 Homestead Road will not destroy or have a significant adverse effect on the integrity of the HRI property and to recommend approval to the PC and DC, respectively. That's all that staff has.

We are here for additional anything additional, and the applicant is also here as well.

Thank you for that report. Any technical questions for staff before I open this to the applicant and the public?

Yeah. I have two. What's the zoning of the two properties going to be after the split?

Right. So the zoning of 906 Monroe will remain as DTHT downtown historic, and the zoning of 1341 Homestead will be only the downtown zoning. 1341 Homestead is not part of the HRI list in the annual plan. So when it's subdivided, would need to be just zoned down.

Okay. And then I do have another follow-up question on that. Maybe some others would. But in the online drawings, the line subdividing the properties is different to the one in your presentation. How will that be determined?

Right. So the AppGun has let me share that map with you. We do have a map that is currently submitted for the subdivision, and I can bring that up in just a second.

So, essentially, we have a much more precise map that public works reviews, and it includes a survey of the property so they can precisely subdivide it.

The map on this, screen showed here, which will also be in the staff report post meeting material, shows the parcel A, which is the 906 Monroe Street, and Parcel B, which is the 1341 Homestead Road.

And by extension, the the vertical line here is is the one that we're gonna use for the assessment tonight? Exactly that. You.

One question.

It's a little technical. How is s p nine going to affect this on lot split? Because, like, I know for s p nine, you can't, like, kinda do inception thing, but this is actually a lot split. Like, that's outside using s p nine. And then can we can can applicant, like, go in and actually, like, try a lot split again?

Right. So s b nine is not pertinent to this application because s b nine is strictly for single family zone properties.

Mhmm.

Because this is zoned downtown S B 9 would not be allowed.

In addition, isn't SB nine not applicable to historic designated properties? So kinda two ways. It's it wouldn't

because, like, we're painfully aware of this specific property on, like, the historic combined zoning as well. So I just wanna make that clarification. That this is, like, actually already on the specific zoning. Right? So that's not, like, a regular single family. Right? That's why it doesn't apply. Okay.

I have a question for staff. In the staff report, it says that there is no active city code enforcement cases for this property. Wasn't this property one that was still needed to have its audit done, or was that updated?

Yes. That's not technically a code enforcement action.

Okay. Thank you.

I have a question. Means what is triggering the rezoning for this property? It it was part of h s you know, historically, not commission, but HRA property. But now what is triggering it to get it removed?

I believe the property owner wants to subdivide it for the purposes of selling it. Correct?

Yes. That is what the applicant has applied for. The applicant is here and may also be able to feel that question a bit more.

We're not removing it from HRI, like, to from the 906 Monroe, because I think that's the that's the only property right now that's on, HRI. So I don't think that's the question today on that one.

Right. My apologies for not explaining that. So the 906 Monroe Street will not change in any way except for the subdivision, which will be a part of the PC and city council votes. We're only looking at the rezoning of 1341 Homestead, which is not a historic property and would be removed historic combining zoning, zone.

The okay. And then the the address the homestead address itself is not on HRI, but it is subject to a 200 feet rule on on review still, like, regardless of, like, what lot it sits on. My understanding?

Exactly that.

What I'm sorry. What rule are you referring to? Is it because it's still within 200 feet of a historic resource?

Immediately just immediately adjacent to a historic resource. So a trigger review here, like, if anything has to be done for the the homestead property.

Okay. I was thinking that too. Thank you.

One more question. You said it wouldn't impact the integrity of the HRI at 906, and that 1341 is not historic. But is there anything in the DPR that ever referenced it as part of the property as a garage or anything?

I could not find it. The DPR, for 906 Monroe is strictly that particular smaller property that we see in the Sanborn maps as well. So when it was when the other 1341 homestead came to be a part of it, still a work in progress, but the DPR form has no account. I believe in it was if, My research, I believe it was 1983 when, this was put historic zoning, and it was because the owner lived in the house behind, and they had their, studio in the 906 Monroe Street property. It was a photography studio.

So I think the city and him made a deal is that, yes, we will allow it to be historic so that you're able to maintain this photography studio and live in the house.

Do we know the year that the house at 1341 Homestead was built? Believe so. Let me

look at the additional information I have. Bills prior to 1968, but we don't have the year itself. So on the right hand side, we have the aerials from 1968. We know that it's about 900 square feet, and it was originally zoned OG, which was office, and then rezoned to R 2 H T in that nineteen thirty two three sorry. Nineteen eighty two, eighty three year.

We know seems it we know the high number of 1968. Do we know the low number or anything from the Sanborn maps or from the census in the forties regarding this property?

I don't have that information on me. The applicant may know a bit more history on the property, but at this time, I let me see what our maps say at least. I think that should be able to help. Yeah.

So this would flip it to the downtown zoning, like the new one that we the city just approved based on okay. I didn't know that when that was put together, this property was basically treated as part of the historic combined. So, like, does it have what kind of effect would it have as, like, a regular downtown zoning?

For the property at 1341? The property at 1341 Homestead would be subject to the same zoning requirements that we see for the other single family homes that surround it, which are I can bring up the zoning map. Mhmm. So 906 Monroe Street, you're exactly right, was carved out, in the downtown's specific plan. So because 1341 Olmsted will be on its own, it'll match the other allowments that we have for 1391 Homestead, 1399 Homestead, etcetera.

What could they do there? We could review the specific plan and tell you a bit more, but I don't believe that there's any yearn from the applicant at this time to redevelop.

Got it.

Also, I think based on the age, they were proposing significant modifications or even demolition, it would probably trigger its own DPR should that be proposed in the future.

Yeah. I have a quick question for staff. That map that you're using online, is that available for the public?

A version of it, yes. It'll be on the city's website, and it'll be under maps. It's a bit not clear cut on how to go there, but if you go to city Santa Clara and then our city, it's Mhmm. And then you have to click again to the map Santa Clara, and you should be able to find historic resources on that map. Okay.

Yeah. Don't

about that. Yeah. It's we've been trying to streamline the mapping process, but we're not Oh, yeah. It's right here. Okay. Not quite there yet, but at least we got it available.

It's fun to poke at, actually. I I've

been there before, but I didn't remember all this level of complexity things that you could select. Cool. Thank you.

Okay. Do we wanna invite the applicant up? We're we're good on we we can go circle back when we're in discussion. I'd like to invite the applicant up if you like to address the the commission, you know, and and if there's any questions. Yeah.

Yeah. We can figure something out for you, and we we should speak up a little

bit.

Are real. It's good. It pushed right here. Okay. Yeah. You should be on top of their platform. I know. We don't

get that part. So Good

evening, all commissioners. Yeah. My name is Paul Thai. I'm the engineer of this job represent the owner, mister Bang. I think this has happened for a long, long time like this.

Since I worked for city here before and also a friend of the previous the previous previous city manager. Rhonda and I, you know, we friend long time ago before before I worked for the city, I used to be developer here too. That time, I know him very well. So his son, Myron, is is a realtor. Right now, represent the bank to settle this to property historical.

He I think that the other one on the side, he already got it. He also want to change something, but then maybe had some problem. Okay. This one right here at the beginning, they have problem. The bank put it for sale. Before, they're not for before only rent rent to some people. And not single not not different. Not ownership. One owner only. But now the bank want to sell, they don't know how to call it out.

Number one problem. Is it of single family home with ATU? No. And not ATU because destroy to organize the the fly no ATU attached to it. Then townhouse? No. Not PD. Not a plan development. So I asked the planning manager or some hit. I think Leslie.

I don't I know her in the same cell she will say before. Said, hey, Leslie. How do you how do we solve this problem? And Leslie, well, maybe call it to single family home. You wrote my email. She wrote my email. I said, not not right. If if if the owners call our two single family home, it's not really on the 10 general plan call our two single family home. We violated it. So the law.

Then in the public, no no no good for the city. No good for us either. So I advise her I advise her maybe we using the bank money right now to pay the fee, subdivide these two to speak a lot. And she thought about for some time and also asked attorney to protect. Then later on, I think, after a couple more weeks, a month something, I talked to Daniel Daniel adviser, okay, do this way.

We showed that 1341 Homestead Road to be nonhistorical. Yeah. 906 remain historical. Then we can then we can subdivide it. Because not belong to historical, then you can subdivide a lot. If all historical have problem. Yeah. So that's why we apply for first result. The 1341 is regular back to to a single family home, and then we subdivide. 22 procedure here, actually.

I think that's all the problem. I said that's very good. So I think that's why we pay the fee almost $10,000 fee. We didn't expect that high. But almost, I think, 50 some thousand and then for 52,000 and then another another $45,000. Very high fee. I hope, you know, it's good for the owner to sell that way. And then the problem is I checked the account of the I said to office. So the one lot, one APM. We want two lot.

And I said I have a problem to accept accept the house. A or b or something. No clear item. So another problem I encounter is, hey. Anybody buy the home, but they need title insurance. How which company would title insurance would guarantee that? The title not not not not separate. Because issue separate, but not two together. One one is historical. One is we don't know. Yeah. So finally, I think this is better for county or the owner right now and also very important for the city. Because in the future, nobody can challenge the city. Hey. I can do the same thing right here.

I can call to home. Actually, San Jose have a lot a lot of situation like that. You go to let's see if I don't know right now. Getting old right now. Forget the name. Another thing is I I can't couple years ago, I contracted the the COVID. I had pneumonia very first time in my life, I said pneumonia when I I job in Oakland. I go to take care of them. It's some problem. Very cold.

I checked the cold. I didn't go home. I had very bad I mean, what? Attack. COVID attack. So my doc my daughter is a lot doctor, so she come to pick me up to her hospital for three weeks. It's that well. First time I didn't notice not anything. They were just sick in the hospital. They don't have experience. Wow. Everybody come in. A very good treat. Very good treat. Two nurse next door for me because it's a emergency room.

And then every twenty or fifteen minute, somebody come in the room ask me pop how good doctor or or other head doing something like that. Every time after breakfast ask me lunch, after lunch ask me dinner, and regular coffee, everything. So wow. I think the culture is so good. Don't really leave it, but at the hotel. So finally, I got well, okay. Such story. But then problem is a hearing with some that's why I cannot hear that. Tell you the truth, I I cannot hear anything you guys talk about. I lost some hearing.

I I tried to get hearing aid right now, but then I still waiting my hearing doctor. I wanna check check it to to on the sixth on the sixteenth, I go to check up again. That that before they can prescribe my hearing aid. So that's that's why I have to push it. No. Can you you you hear me okay? Oh, okay. Good. So now if today, commissioners approve it, then the owner can sell separately, then we have title company, the title insurance for each house. And then we can we can really identify the use for our own real estate department.

What kind of zoning is that? Is that single family home or I'm gonna call it single family home or single home. Yeah. It's not the PT. So so that's why it's not really it's not really a d u. It's not really duplex. Then we can identify on that selling document to the department real estate that they can create title report. Now they're gonna sell now. We have no problem for for the owner and also for the city. So I don't know how that happened.

Okay? Would be like that. Nobody can feel something in a lot without knowing it's a real it's a two prank, it's a 80. But before that, no no 80 u or townhouse or condominium or, you know, a single family home. So that's the reason why we I could really the bank to pay the money, a lot of money.

So they finally okay. Up to today, tonight, hopefully, the reason understand the situation. Epicity or have to own both. Otherwise, if I if I notice, I can build another home in my house like that. Because there's example right here already. That's a a long time ago. Almost forty, fifty years ago. Yeah. We'll stay at it. They own PG and E meter, water meter, utility meter, everything separate. Totally separate. Don't know why. I don't know why. Okay. The other house, same thing.

The store the store at home have another house not house, build another another room. There'll be a separate unit. If store, living room, family room at the back with the main house. If they own utility, own meter, PG and E, everything. That also will be challenged too because you unless you're some right now, that because he's already home.

No no EDU. So how do you call that? Total separate address too. Separate address, separate water meter, separate literal meter. Somebody know that the challenge here. They build something, like, in the house. Right? You have resident set up already. Presence is set up. How how do we there will be a problem. That's why for me, we have to subdivide that. I cannot do something like that. I I got problem, you know, legally. That's the whole reason, actually.

Sounds good. Thank you for your insights. Fortunately,

can you help me? And and and and let's say help me. And let's say attorney help me. Do you hope you guys all help me too? Well, I have help me talk to the owner, not not me as to help to the owner. The owner is the bank because I've been empty for so long, almost more than ten eight months eight to ten months. They put out on the shelf. Nobody buy. That's a big because I realized the problem. So any other question?

I just would I would just like to clarify. Yeah. I have a I have a quest

oh, question for you.

I have a question.

Oh, yeah. Quick.

I was just wondering. So you said you're the engineer. You said you're the engineer? You said you're an engineer?

Oh, okay.

Wow.

Yeah. Yeah. And and so and so and you work for the bank? You you work for the bank now?

Before I'm actually, I'm a consultant engineer. I have my own clinical analysis. It's my firm. Long long time, I think, I think, 82 company. We, my firm, and the other engineering firm is to to help the city hall to do pancake outside pancake.

Do outside. So that city hall, if you hire land, licensed engineer, cost a lot of money. So sometimes sometimes I just see more city like like like, and then and then and then and and one is Saratoga, small city. They cannot hire the entity. They cannot if they had the only entity to do it in how it cost a lot of money, so they submit out.

I'm the first engineer for to submit representative city actually I do for almost whole Bay Area at that at that time, because I'm early. They will say, And some some part of South San Francisco, Chiliando, Alameda, and and Sunnyvale, Seneca. So that's why they don't hire me by the way. Actually, they called me to come to help to do the plan check. So I've been doing plenty more than fifteen year here that week before retiring.

So Paul's business partner is online. Myron, he has his hand raised. Myron, you can go ahead and speak. Myron.

My Myron's online. Myron's online.

Okay. Yeah. Yeah.

Myron. Myron's online.

Go ahead, Myron.

What? Can you hear me now?

Yep. I got you.

Okay. Hi. Paul, thanks for your, for your, dissertation there and the introduction and the history lesson there. That was very nice. Paul is a a good civil engineer.

He's I've known him for a very long time from my early days of selling real estate in Santa Clara and watching him develop a lot of really nice infill projects over the many years. But this project is a is a little unique property in that it has a beautiful Queen Anne Victorian house there on the corner. It has a a an older home, but not historical that was added on sometime, I'm gonna guess, maybe in the fifties. I I maybe maybe sixties, somewhere thereabouts. It's not it's not super old, but it's a it's a stucco house, And it's it's a cute little place.

I don't know how it got put there or when it did or who did it. I don't know none of that history of that. But the unique thing is is is this is the the historical house. As you guys know so very well, historical homes take a lot of money and a lot of work to really keep them looking in their prime. And 906 is no exception to this.

The the current owners of the property want to make some significant repairs to some of the deterioration and dilapidation of the of the decks and stairways and railings that are on the outside, and we wanna keep it true and historic, the way it should be. The house is also due for a a nice paint job. We don't wanna just paint it one color and and ruin it. We wanna keep it to the same historical significance and grandeur that it currently has with the multicolor, paint style that it has, and those all take a lot of money. And we had a hard time or the owners had a hard time, getting rid trying to sell this property with the house behind it.

And, and because of the condition of the existing home, it had been cut up at some point, used as a dorm tiles type dorm style type home and was rented to college students for a period of time. Some bathrooms were converted into dorm style type bathrooms. The current owners wanna fix all of that stuff and make it a true, beautiful, historical home that can be a home for somebody for many, many years to come. And by allowing the split of thirteen forty one and removing that from the historical part, we would like to keep the historical designation and even the HT zoning on 09/2006, but not have that at 1341 where it shouldn't really the historical and the Mills Act shouldn't really apply to 1341. It's not something that should benefit from the benefits that that the the Mills Act provides, but nine zero six should, and it and it's a great property.

So I think by doing this, we actually create a win win win for both the county, the city, and the property owners by allowing us to, sell off the one smaller place, use the funds to do what we need to do to really kinda keep, 906 looking its beautiful, way that it is, make some good improvements to that, and then be able to create a nice home for some, family moving forward on those two houses and creating two ownerships rather than one and creating two tax bases rather than one. And I think this does that. And I think it it becomes something that works out really well for the city and and for every all parties involved. And it, it's it it seems to me to be should be fairly easy, but, you know, we never know with the way of processes and things go. So I'm here to answer any questions you might have, and and if anything that you, you know, wanna know of what the owners would like to do or what they're planning to do in the future.

Any questions for the representative? Because I I I actually you just trigger a couple questions from me, but I see other people unmuting. Go ahead.

Hi. I have a question about the the future plans for the home. You touched on some really interesting points that kind of drift into the Mills Act compliance. But are there any plans around the barn house that you're aware of, such as building a garage?

I'm not aware of that. I we the the bank owned or the investment group that owned that house, we sold that about, I wanna say, six months ago. I can't tell you I know a lot about it only because my dad originally bought that, I think, in 1972. My brother lived in it, and then my dad later sold it to my brother. And then my brother sold it to the previous guy who was trying to develop that 950 Monroe, 906, and all that stuff, and and then that didn't go very well for that guy, apparently.

But and so I now am working for the people that had loaned him the money to try to do his development that that apparently failed. And and now we're trying to sell these properties off to to good owners. So as far as 930 Monroe, the barn house, I know there is a garage that's in the back. The garage has been there.

Think Sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt, but I'm still sticking on 906 Monroe. It has a little barn house between

Oh. Oh, the Tough Shed.

Yeah.

Yeah. At this point, we were planning on leaving that there. Although, I would say if you it we're open to recommendations. If you guys would like to see that go away, we have no problem in if that's

something you

would like to see go away, we would have no problem removing that.

I I can reveal. If you're if you're planning to do, you know, a garage, the setbacks and so on may may affect the historic home. Right? So I'm trying to figure out if if that's something that that you think this home is gonna do once its lot is split.

We're we're not we're not planning on building any kind of garage or any structure. We're only currently planning on fixing the existing house of 906. We're not looking at adding any carports, garages, or changing any of the exterior stuff there. We might do some sprucing up of the landscaping and some planting of some bushes and or trees, but no plans for construction or development of a garage or anything on that property at this point in time. It could be that the family that ends up buying this property may come before you guys, you know, a year or two, three, four years down the road and say, hey.

We wanna build a garage or something. That would be something that you guys would have to look at at that point in time with whoever the new owner would be. Thank you.

Any questions? I might have three questions. So I, so I don't know if you're aware of this. Like, we, we do a Mills Act review, inspection basically, like, every five years, and this is actually one of the houses that we didn't get a response for properly. Right?

Yes. And since that time, we have been in contact with the bank representative.

Okay.

So we're working on getting a on-site inspection posted. They don't have a lot to share in terms of documentation, like receipts and stuff that we would typically see, so we're gonna do opt for the on-site inspection. Okay. That's fair. So that's good to know. Because I

was thinking since you mentioned Mills Act, like, we wanna make sure we have a continuation of the Mills Act for for Prosperity. And I guess this is actually gonna be more question for staff. With the lot split, is that gonna trigger a reassessment on the property property tax on on this property?

That's a good question. But now that you mentioned it, I assume so.

Okay.

Since they're

But it would still take the benefit of Mill Sacks since it's still in place. Yeah. Okay. Got it.

Wait. Can we clarify that? So we'll take the proposal is to take the historical zoning off 1341, but it would still be under the Mills Act? It would it be removed from the Mills Act?

Is it It was was it part of the part of it? It's not

really even on it's not part of the Mills Act. Okay. That's what I wanna clarify.

Thank you. I don't think it was listed as a contributing feature for the historic property at the first place. Yeah. K. Other questions for applicant? I know I kinda went a little sideways there.

I have a question. I just would like to clarify. So the bank owns the property, and then the gentleman who spoke in person and Myron, they are consultants, part of a civil engineering architectural firm that has been hired by the bank to assess this property to figure out the best way to sell it. Okay. And then it sounds like the bank is planning to have the consulting firm continue on and make some improvements to 906 Monroe Street.

And wondering if they're planning on doing anything to the property at thirteen forty one. I heard the speaker in person say something like it would then be free to be, like, demolished. So I'm wondering, is the bank gonna do anything with that property? Are they just gonna sell it?

I I can speak to that.

Thank you.

Yeah. Please do.

Yeah. So, no, 1341 is not gonna be demolished. It's gonna be painted, cleaned up, and we're looking to sell that property and to use a portion of those funds to, reinvest into 906 to make 09/2006, you know, to kinda bring it up to a a good quality standard so that we can later sell that one as well. So, the goal is to ultimately transfer these two properties to, two different individuals. Or if somebody wants to buy both, they can buy both.

Whoever wants to buy them. But we're looking to to sell those properties and to minimize, you know, the the the cost. And we one way to do that is to be able to we can sell $13.41 pretty much right away, and then we can, spend the resources necessary to, spruce up 906 and then sell that one. And we would look to hopefully be done with both of these properties within the next twelve months or sooner, if possible.

Okay. When you say done with them, do you mean, you know, having both of them sold by then?

Yeah. I mean, having yes. Exactly. Having both of them sold to new families, new owners, hopefully, in twelve months or less.

Okay. Thank you.

Mhmm.

Any other questions for the applicant before we move to public comments? No. Thank you. Thank you for both from the applicant for speaking with us. So thank you. If there are any other poll any public comments, please come up. We do have a couple of folks, like, in chamber. And if you have a comment online, you can raise your hand. I do see one hand, so I'll I'll go in person first.

Hi. Okay. Hi. I'm I'm Rick Raffy. I live on Lexington Street about three blocks away from this property, and this has been really informative because we we are in a house that's historic in the Mills Act on Lexington. And we've admired the house at 906 as a a very nice old, you know, old quad resident until we walked in when it was up for sale. And I can see why mister Von Riesfeld is talking about wanting to make it better and sellable, actually, because when that point he made about the dorm style interior,

I mean,

it it's it it's literally like, you know, a place that a bunch of, you know, Santa Clara University students were just treating as a party house and not really and the interior is like, if they've been benefiting from the Mills Act, which we love and that we've benefited from for years, our request coming in here, which we didn't think would be on the table because it's not related to the exact, you know, partitioning the property, but is that that house should do ex should it should be, like, binding that they do what Myron just said they were gonna do, because that's a jewel of an opportunity to make that house really good. So we came in, you know, not knowing anything about the historic of the place that's being subdivided, and everything that's been said now makes sense. And it's it's a it's a great use of the money that's coming in from being able to subdivide it and sell that other property, and we don't have any objection at this point to the historic part designation part as long as you guys as a committee honor the spirit of that neighborhood, which probably several of the houses are historic along that block when the next thing comes in so it doesn't turn into something, know, that's gonna really detract from the neighborhood.

But back on the first house, I mean, the Mills Act makes a huge difference in what one's property taxes are, which presumably hits the bottom line of the city. And the fact that they've been qualified for the Mills Act with this place in whatever state it's been in for years and years really I mean, I we understand how the Mills Act works, and somebody has to come out and do those inspections, and that's, you know, not always staffed to be able to handle that. But at some level, they've benefited financially whoever owned that house for all this time ever since it became dorm style and abandoned any historical interior features. And so I would say that this is an opportunity for the city to, you know, call call Myron and his homeowners on their offer and just make it, you know, make it somehow clear that if they're gonna honor the subdivision and let them use the money to help do everything he said, that that's what should happen, that that house should be brought fully into compliance. And I look forward to somebody going out and inspecting it because we, you know, as homeowners, have been very diligent about making sure that we're very much staying with it because we don't know what a privilege it is to have it and to think that, you know, for twenty years or whatever, that house has been in a place where they they weren't compliant, but they were getting all those benefits at the expense of the city.

That's something that I'd like you guys to assert.

Sounds good. Thank you for your comments. I see one hand online, so we'll move to online comments. Jonathan, you're up.

Hello. My name is Jonathan Evans, and I'm the president of the Old Quad Residence Association. I just had a couple of questions, and I only caught the the latter part of this, discussion, so maybe they weren't answered earlier. You know, it was mentioned about doing a lot split, and then I guess that the MILZAC would that would stay with the nine zero six, and the MILZAC would be removed from the the the old the the newer home. But that I guess the question was, like, is that immediately reassessed now at market rate or, like, Prop 13 versus MELZAC? So I guess that's kind of my first question. My second question is maybe more for planning. But if we go through this sort of lot split, there is something called SB nine, which allows additional splits. Something's been SB nine split, though, you can't subsplit. Is there a restriction on that?

Could they subsequent lot be split via SB 9 in the future using that that mechanism? My other question was actually yeah. They could. Yeah.

The first one, I have no idea how the county will choose to reassess this. We did touch on that earlier. We did touch on S B 9 earlier. This lot in the current configuration or new configuration is not eligible to take advantage of SB 9. One, because it's downtown, and two, because 906 Monroe is currently on the HRI, and you can't use S B 9 on historically designated properties.

Okay. Excellent. Thank you. And and then one other question was, you know, there's a lot of discussion I saw just now about, preserving. And I I guess what I want to understand is, like, if the additional work is done, as I just heard, the applicant, is that all gonna be part of a new ten year plan, and are they gonna be held to that? And will those plans have to go for review before the HLC, or is is this just considered, like, a remodel and there will be no further review? I that's it for my questions. Thanks.

That's a good point. So we're we ourselves have not seen the interior other than photos, so I think we'll take it from the once we do the inspection. However, my conversations with the bank representative, not Myron or Paul that were here tonight, but the actual bank representative was that they don't want to be part of developing the ten year plan because they are not gonna be the owners long term. So we'll need to think about how to handle that.

Okay. Thanks. Thank

you for your comments. Do I have a motion to close public comments?

I have a question for staff. Sure. Is that Okay. We're gonna

go into discussion too if you wanna

Oh, okay. Go into that. Okay. I can wait. Cool.

Motion to close.

I move to close public comments.

You Second. We have a second. I have to do a roll call. Commissioner Soso.

Aye.

By Shared Stocks. Aye. Commissioner Romano. Aye. Commissioner Sarte. Aye. Commissioner Farshane.

Aye.

And I, yeah. Miss one absence. Okay. Public comments. No. I'm I'm sorry. Not public. Comments is closed. We'll go into discussion. Michael, you had a question.

Thank you, My question was in regards to the Mills contract for 906 Monroe Street. I know that consulting firm is, you know, planning to sell both properties or hoping to sell both properties within twelve months. But when does the current Mills Act contract for September expire?

So the contracts don't expire. They're renewed automatically every year unless they go through we go through the termination process. I think you're referring to the ten year plan.

Yes.

Probably twenty years ago. Long time.

Oh, okay.

It hasn't been updated in a really long time. Like, that's part of the struggle that we've been having with the audit to figure out Oh, okay. And to update ten year plans with people.

Oh, I see. Alright. Okay. You.

Additional discussions on item at hand?

Just on that point, I believe I recall this property has a ten year plan in from the eighties. Mhmm. And it didn't get through it. So not only is it behind on the original plan, there's no plan in place. So I I am aware of this one being, as the as the public comment mentioned, quite far behind on its obligations.

I think this was one of the properties that we did forward to counsel to determine, like, how to work with. Right?

Yes. And they forwarded it back to staff and said, try and contact them again. But then we actually were able to get in contact with the bank at that time.

We'll

separately, we'll continue through the process to doing the review and update and see what we need them to do, like, to adhere to the ten year plan.

Yeah. If you recall, the next step after the audit was we're gonna start rounding people up and getting them to do new ten year plans for those that have expired, which is most of them.

No. I remember we were talking about instead of, like, having them all individually, we would do, like, a group with them at a time to, like, do reviews and stuff. A little bit of, like, a hybrid staff and us process.

I'm a little concerned that if the property changes hands, and I recall the foundation was on the ten year plan. The property changes hands, the Mills Act isn't, you know, maintained. Who is responsible for the cost of that putting that foundation in? I wonder if we should be considering that any changes to the property should be tied in with scheduled delivery of of some of the key parts of the ten year plan?

So you all are responsible for making a recommendation on the rezoning. We are it's you can't condition zonings. So

I have a comment. The chair of the old quad association regarding his comment about SB 9, if it was successfully rezoned to remove the historic designation on the property at 1341, they could technically demolish the property and then try and build, like, two residential units. For example, building a duplex or something with one unit on the top, one unit on the bottom. They could, you know, turn it into dorm style housing. The only restriction, right, would be that it's within 200 feet of a historic historic resource.

Right? So then it would come before the HLC commission. We would make a recommendation like, oh, no. You can't do that because it would overshadow the historic resource in in on the just adjacent property. But, basically, like I mean, they could, you know, divide the unit into two lots or build up to have more than one residential unit. I mean, that is possible, isn't it?

So they would not be able to specifically utilize SB 9 because it would still be zoned downtown. SB 9 is only applicable to r one lots, single family lots.

Oh, okay.

The other limitation other than the 200 feet is that we would require a DPR for the 1341 Homestead. So should the DPR say that this is an eligible structure, that would open up a larger can of worms for demoing the house.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Any comments? Questions?

I think my comments for this would be that let's say okay. Let's see. It's I'm looking at I'm looking at the property. 1341 Homestead Road. And, yes, technically, they're not on HRI. They don't meet the criteria. But if I think I'm thinking about the present the precedent that can be set once if we do approve or, you know, go with the the recommendation from staff that, hey. Let's remove them from this this parcel here. They're technically, they're there. Right?

But they're not historic. So I I think the thing that I would wanna prevent or keep in protection is that this would be a onetime specific thing, and we have to be very like, one of the com public comments said, it has to be binding language where we will do this for one time if we're considering, hey. We we we agree with the recommendation. Because, again, as commissioner Salsa was saying, you could have somebody buy that property, and then they're gonna build something. We don't know how they're gonna build that.

And so we we also wanna keep in mind that it's not just a the structure of something that makes it historic. It's the, you know, the the surroundings. And so that's something that we don't want to we don't wanna set precedent. I would not wanna want to recommend something that later on in time, we're gonna have future commissions that are gonna have the same decision. We want to protect that. So that's more of a comment, but it's something to keep in mind.

This does make sense, because this reminded me of what happened in Bellamy where we had the lot split between, like, the two houses over there, and then we had the the nonhistoric property came back, and they were trying to build a house that was taller than the historic home. So I wanna kinda keep that in mind as part of that discussion too because, like, that can happen and has happened. Well or they try to do it, and that was, like, a lot of many, many meetings of discussion to kinda figure that one out. Anyway, I just wanna pull that out.

Put some numbers on that. So I I ran the areas of the two lots. 5,400 square feet for the 906 property and just 2,200 square feet for the new property. So maybe a question for staff. The zoning would be r one six on the smaller property still?

No. The zoning would be the D T The D T. Which is the downtown, which has a maximum of, 28 feet height for that area.

So it potentially could be a 2,200 square foot lot with a 28 foot property.

Don't Correct. Love to go in a high hypotheticals without having any plan in front of me. But

Yeah. So that Daniel's speaking to what the actual downtown precise plan says. However, if they were proposing an r the downtown precise plan does not have standards for single family because it wasn't really contemplating that. Should they choose to redevelop, I believe we would just use the r one standards. So that's a twenty five foot maximum height.

Yeah. I

have a question for staff. Could you, you know, possibly just kinda explain, I guess, what the differences would be in terms of what the owners can do with the property? And I I understand the bank wants to split the property so they can sell it. You know? But does the city lose any kind of historical reservation protections, you know, by splitting the lot?

And, I mean, once the lot is split because the structure at 1341 is not a historic resource. Right? So the owners currently or the bank, I suppose, the way it's currently configured, they could just demolish the structure at 1341. Right? I mean, maybe if they did that, that would trigger if they wanted to do that, that would trigger a DPR. Yeah. And then it would come before us, you know, the commission.

Well, depending what the DPR well no. You're right. It would come before you because of the 200 foot rule. Yeah.

But I'm just wondering, is there any other than the fact that we would be losing some square footage of land in the city that's currently you know, has a historic, like, designation historic district. Is there any actual tangible

Paypal.

Loss to the city if we were to, you know, recommend the rezoning of the property at $13.41?

Not that we see. No.

I'm sorry. Could you repeat the question? I didn't catch the per first part of it.

My question was just, you know, if there's any actual tangible loss to, like, the historic preservation in Santa Clara. I mean, in terms of what the owners can do with the property at 1341 right now, you know, including demolishing it, doing whatever they want. I don't really understand how it was built, though, because, I mean, it's not an ADU. Right? Did it meet ADU standards when it was built back at the time?

I think it probably predates ADUs. I'm not sure what I don't think we could really find any.

Right. So because the structure was built prior to 1968, that was prior to our zoning code being written. So anything that is there now would be fuel nonconforming. So any changes would need to either come into what the code says or yeah. No. Any changes wouldn't need to come into what the code is. Okay.

So that's kind of then a limitation. Right? Because if they wanted to demolish that structure, they would be limited in what they could build there with the current zoning. Whereas if they split the zoning, they would have much more opportunities to develop. You know?

I think it's a really tough if we're going down that road of the hypothetical for that structure to be removed, I think very hard for the future owner to build something of that size on that parcel because that parcel size is so small. Mhmm. It would need to go through a lot of approvals being 2,200 square feet, like, commissioner said, would really limit what can be done. So I'm sure in my humble opinion, what is there now would probably be the best thing to maintain on the lot. To remove that, you would be looking at variances left, right, and center if you try to

do

something of that size.

Okay. So either way, that house is probably just gonna stay there anyway. Okay. I'm just trying to understand what our objection would be. Another question, like, does the city ever receive grants based on the total, you know, volume of historic zoned property No. In the city? No. That's never a metric that potential funders look at, you know, when applying for grants to support historic preservation? No. I don't see like I don't know.

Just at face value, then I don't really see an objection that we would have. I don't know. That's just I'm thinking out loud. Maybe other commissioners have other thoughts about it.

I think my only objection I understand that that property is not historic. My objection is if it's already been zoned, that lot has been zoned as historic. I'm not I don't I'm I agree with, commissioner in Cearte that I don't want to set precedence of downgrading property, to be honest, it may not matter from a zoning standpoint. It's the actual home, the building. So I'm I'm a little uncomfortable about it, but I understand the practicality of it as well.

I share your concern. I think the distance to the rear fence to the historic property is important to commissioner in Ciardi's point. It has to have scale and and is the rear fence far enough away from the main house so that that it doesn't look cramped on the lot? It would be my my first thought. The second thought would be, you know, the risk of of a development of the rear property.

The variances are correct. The setbacks are are less than five feet already, so it would have to be going through quite a few hoops to be redeveloped into a larger home to Chair's Point earlier about the property that caused those problems. So I think there's a fine line, and it just about is on on the side for me where I I would support this one.

Yeah. I'm kinda thinking through all the levers that we have as far as what a HRI is. So if we think about it now, it's the zoning is combined DTHT, which the d t the HT only applies really to 906 as far as it's under the zoning. It's falling under the zoning, the 1341. But when it comes down to it, the Mills Act and the DPR is only on 09/2006.

So if you split them up, there's no loss of documentation. There's no loss of standing for the 1341 property. Can would there be any benefit in staff? Do we have the ability to request a DPR in 1341 before we make a decision? My only concern is that we move ahead without full knowledge of what could possibly be that property.

We don't really have a reason to to request that at this point given that this is just a rezoning and it's not making any modification to the structure. I guess it would be at the applicant's discretion if they wanted to provide that, but I don't think we can require that at this point. Right. Because we we ask applicants. Applicants bring in their choice for the DPR.

We don't go out and ask for DPRs. Correct. And we have certain things that would trigger it normally. That's not the case here. Also, I just wanna remind the commission that we're asking you to make a recommendation on the rezoning, not really the split. Right. You could do the split without the rezoning. You could do the split.

Okay. Alright. Thanks. So I I can't just going through it on my I can't think of a reason why I can't think of any negative impact to the rezoning.

I I do share the concerns of my fellow commissioners, though, as commissioner Romano and commissioner Stocks have expressed, there is somewhat of a risk in rezoning it in that, you know, if the new owners tried to add on or do something that doesn't quite, you know, fit with the fabric of the historic resource at 906 Monroe Street. You know, we're an advising body. We're not a decision making body. So there is somewhat of a chance, you know, or some marginal risk that our recommendations could not be heeded, you know, by plan planning commissioner or city council, and something could get through that we would not have, you know, recommended or approved of. Whereas if it's still zoned as historic, then they're more limited in what they're able to do with that space.

So there is somewhat of a marginal risk involved. But I think in terms of the practicality of what's there and what's possible given the lot size, it probably I think it won't make a whole lot of difference in terms of rezoning it the way that the owners have proposed.

And that's a good point. I would agree that there's always risk in any changes because we are only advisory. A good question. Now that you've said that, staff, if let's say that this the zoning doesn't change and the property is sold as a whole and the new owners want to do a major alteration on 1341 because of the zoning, would it still is there any implication, or it just comes in front of us anyway because of 906?

So there's really no difference. Right? Yeah. There really wouldn't be any difference in the processing of anything.

Does it trigger to they'll still be the same? Yeah. Yeah.

I'm a little concerned. You mentioned this doesn't include the lot split, which I was hadn't you you mentioned this doesn't include the lot split, and I hadn't noticed that that was a specific difference. So there would simply be a line on the lot in the driveway where it goes from historic to not historic. And then if something was built right up to that line, that would not be anything that that triggered a setback concern because there's no lot split. Right?

There is a lot split. We're not commenting on the lot split.

Okay. So they are tied together.

Commenting on the on the

Okay. Yeah.

And then my question is void.

The first step.

But the planning is gonna comment on the lot split on, like, where the lines are going to be. It is gonna be two two lots at the end of the day. Yeah.

I have a question too. Can we make a conditional recommendation that incorporate no no conditional recommendation?

We cannot condition rezonings. There's no it's not a conditionable action.

I was just thinking of the member of the public, you know, who lives on Lexington or has the historic home on Lexington Street. If there was any way that we could try to oh, sorry. Yeah. I was just trying to incorporate the member of the public from Lexington Street, how, you know, he would like the owners to be held accountable, you know, for the changes that they're saying that they wanna do with the money from the sale of the property at 1341 Homestead. I'm wondering if there's any way that we can include that in the recommendation, you know, that we were in support of the rezoning.

But I guess we can't make a condition. But perhaps with the recommendation that the owners work with the city, perhaps, I don't know, to bring the property back in line with what the ten year plan was or something to hold it to, you know, standards of bringing the property back So to historic preservation standards.

I will interject on here because, like, there that is two separate matters that we're looking at. So with the we we can't dictate, like, where they're gonna get the money from to actually, like, go and do the improvements and stuff. There's no dictation, like, of that. And two, we are still going through the process of that review with them for a 906 Monroe. So so the the for the for our inspection side of thing that's moving along per per staff, so they they are they still have to come to us to kinda continue on that process on figuring out how they can adhere to the the ten year plan that is in place that they have to complete, which my understanding is they they haven't.

And also an update of a ten year plan, if it comes to that, we still have to work through that process with them separately.

Okay. And let's say worst case scenario, you know, the bank doesn't make any changes to the property at 09:06, and then a new owner buys it, and maybe they don't make any changes to it either, then how would that work? You know, the assessors working on the mills contract, the inspection, they would say, okay. Well, I'm sorry. You know, the work has not been done to maintain this property, the historic fabric of the interior. We're not gonna support a Mills Act contract unless you make these changes. Or

And we will we and and at that point, we can con we can elect to continue on the process to recommend removal of the Mills Act of their and also of them violating the Mills Act contract, which there is a material assessment on the penalty if

we

were to cancel the the the contract. So the it's it's substantial. It's based on the pro like, the property property value of today's value on market and not the Mills Act value that's assessed.

Okay.

Yeah. So they're we we do have that mechanism, and that's actually we we did get to that point on this property. Mhmm. And then staff was a actually able to make established contact with the with the bank Okay. To to kinda, like, restart this process. So, like, we are still going through that. So it it it's a separate matter for a 906 property. Okay. But it's not part of today's discussion, like, on the on the zoning itself, if that makes sense.

Yes. Alright. Thank you.

Lots? More comments? More discussion?

Just one one more, I guess, comment or maybe recommendation to staff. Can you make sure that, you know, if we're going with the pro, which this is specifically about zoning, can you make it where the findings in language are narrow and explicit that it's because of the structure that we are moving forward with the zone the re the rezoning of that area. Yeah. We can we'll have

a discussion of well, we'll have a discussion of the HLC's discussion in the planning commission staff report so we can include that as a FYI.

I'm just wondering, would the discussion any different if there was no structure at 1341 Homestead if the owners just wanted to split the lot and designate half of the lot that has no structure on it as nonhistoric.

I think you would be having the same discussions about the what ifs of what could be developed there.

Okay.

I

personally don't think they would actually even suggest a lot split because, like, their entire reasoning is that they have two properties on one lot they don't know how to sell.

Yeah. Yeah. And that would make sense if they wanted the Mills Act contract for one. Well, actually, it would kinda make sense if they wanted to split it and then develop one as nonhistoric, build, you know, kinda whatever they can and rent it out or sell it. Or I'm just wondering if there's a lot of lots in the city, you know, that people will say, hey. We can just, you know, split the lot and call this one nonhistoric and then build and sell. Because, technically, then we, you know, could, as a city, be losing some square footage, you know, of historic zoned properties.

Yeah. I think this particular lot was very specific. I think this is the only property in the city that has XT zoning, if I remember correctly. I don't remember there's, like, another one that has XT on it.

There may be one or two others, but, yeah, it's very few and far between.

Super unique in in itself. So

Okay. It just doesn't feel right. Right? Does anyone else feel

like that's it. It's very unique zoning. We don't know for sure why it was zoned that way. We have hearsay on it. We don't have a DPR on the second building to really know if it needed to be included or not.

So it's vague. I'm a proponent of standard ways of doing things, but in an old historic area, it's never standard. And since we don't have documentation on the reasoning why it's like that, it's a difficult choice. I if I have to go on the documentation that's there and that's all we know and that's all we're gonna know until there's an SBA and the SBA is the only way that we'll ever find out, then I would be for it. I I understand why we're doing it.

It's practical. It makes sense. But if I had a DPR on the 1341, I'd wanted to have much more information and really make a decision. Because looking at the building, it looks like it could be 1920. Can't get in close enough. I didn't walk by it. I guess I could've walked by it. It it's borderline. Really hard to say.

It was built in 1968. Right?

Before 1968. I while we were going through here, I went through the Sanborn maps. I didn't see anything. I didn't find it on the directories that were available digitally. I mean, it would require going down to the California room in in San Jose, and that's a lot of work. So that would be a DPR. Right?

Yeah.

So

DPR is expensive, though, I think.

I'm still at a point where the lot split is not mentioned on on the file in front of us, so I couldn't support this unless we stated that it was in tandem with a lot split along the same line as drawn on the maps up here because it's possible that line could move if they're not coupled together in the documentation. So and that would be a problem.

I didn't think about that.

I think from staff's point of view that we wanted to separate the recommend or we wanted to separate out the map terminology from the recommendation and from the request so that there is no confusion from the public on what exactly the purview of the bodies were.

Yeah. That's correct.

This triggered something in my brain. So for so we were simply removing HT from thirteen forty one and moving it to downtown. What was that voluntary from the applicant to move to downtown zoning, or is there any other choices of, like, what we can rezone it to?

Well, it's within the boundary of the precise plan, so I think we just thought that made the most sense.

Just default because it's within the boundary? Okay. Got it.

Do we know how many bedrooms and bathrooms the property at 1341 has?

I don't have that information on me at this point in time. I'm sure that I can find it and send it to you, but, at this point in time, I do not have that in.

Okay. But it is it currently being used as a single family home?

Yes. Okay.

Yeah. Sorry. Making some decisions. I

was just

gonna say maybe we should make a motion. Yeah. Commissioner, Varshney, you've been really quiet.

Oh, this is kind of complex for me because this looks like it will set a precedent that any any historical property can come and split. And so I'm not sure if has there been a rule that if somebody want to get out of MILSAT, is there a what is the process? Means, do they immediately become a regular property taxpayer, or is there a fee for coming out of Millsect? Because for me, I would recommend that, in that case, rezone the entire lot.

To what, though?

I'm here. You saying I mean So the second the property at 1341 is not under the Mills Act, so the rezoning doesn't impact the Mills Act that's on 09/2006. Okay. No difference for the two buildings. Right? The two buildings, one's under a Mills Act and one is not. So by rezoning, the zoning would then actually align closer to the existence of a Mills Act or no Mills Act and a DPR and no DPR. That's basically what's happening.

Okay.

Am I correct, or am I stating that's right? Okay.

What I was thinking that is 1341, which is you are saying that it's not a host historic property. Mhmm. But was it covered under Mills Act and paying less property tax something?

Not.

Are you asking why it's not?

No. Is it currently? Is it how what is the tax rate for that? Thirteen forty one.

It's not under the Mills Act, and it doesn't have a DPR, and it's not a historic resource.

Okay. Yeah. I think then then I'm fine. Then this clarifies everything to me.

I'd just like to clarify. The both properties, they've had the same owner. Right? I mean, now they're owned by the bank, but before the bank owned them, they had the same owner. Right? So it was one person filing taxes for one lot, perhaps two properties. But there was never a point in time where there were two separate owners filing taxes separately, one for 1341 and one for 906 Monroe Street. Right?

That is hard to say. We have the information from the late eighties, early nineties where it was a singular property owner, and then we have today's information that it's a singular property owner. But between those, we did not track down that info if it was one singular property.

And And how long has the bank owned the property?

Since the project went into foreclosures, maybe about three years.

Okay.

Well, I'd like to go ahead and move forward and make a motion because we can just go in circles at this point. I would like to move that we recommend the staff we take we agree

with

the stacks staff's recommendation to rezone, the property, removing the historic combination combining district from 1341 and keep 906 as the historic D T H T, and 1341 just becomes D T.

Thank you. Do I have a second? A second. Thank you. I'm gonna go and do a roll call vote. We'll start with commissioner Salsa. Aye. Vice chair of

stocks. Aye.

Commissioner Romano?

Aye.

Commissioner Sierte? Aye. Commissioner Varshney?

Aye.

And aye for me. Two five ayes, one nay, one absent. Motion passes. That's it for that item. Thank you, everyone.

Yeah. I just wanna make sure, like, all of this discussion gets to planning and, I mean, as much as much as you can, affording our concerns, that would be great.

100%. Yes. This will be well written in the staff report, and we'll make sure to document it. Okay? Thank you. Thank you.

Okay.

Item three, twenty six two eighty, public hearing consideration of a historic resource property designation for the Tuberso Vasquez gravesite located in Santa Clara Mission Cemetery. I'm gonna move this to staff.

Thank you, Cherilyn. So this is a continuation of the conversation you all have been having over the last several meetings. At the last meeting, you all voted to move forward with the designation of the gravesite as a historic resource. Since then, I have been in contact with the representatives from the cemetery. They said that it is obviously a private cemetery and a private grave plot, so they need to look into contacting next of kin for the deceased in terms of, you know, making modifications to actual gravesite or doing a monument as you all had discussed.

For now, we can move forward with the actual designation. That doesn't really, you know, change anything physically to the site, and we'll we can continue those discussions with the cemetery. So your vote tonight would push this forward to city council, and, obviously, I'll coordinate the date with you so you can be present and hopefully give the presentation.

That's all you. I am going to contact Larasa Historical Society. They they usually have present they actually had a presentation in March, which I missed. I don't know how I missed that. But they it's it's I think it's through San Jose State University, and they're always having these, like, remembrances about people to feel, like, every year, and then they have plays of him.

They're gonna there's gonna be a play about him in Gavilan College in Gilroy. That's coming up. And so there is community out there that always remembers him, like Californians, La Raza kind of societies and, like, Chicano American history, that type of stuff. And so, yeah, I I would like to contact them and make sure that they're present, they that they can witness this, and be aware that we actually have him buried in Santa Clara for those that don't know. Yeah.

So I think that's very cool.

Sounds good. I have a question. Do you know when the play at Gavlin College is gonna happen?

I think it's in a it might be this weekend, actually. I'll I'll get the I'll send the detail. If you need the details, I could I mean, I could share it with you and share it with staff or whoever Okay. Who's interested.

Yeah. Is that, Becca, is that something that you could send out to us if if commissioner

It'll be too late if it's this weekend, though, because our city call hall is closed tomorrow.

Oh, okay. That's fine. I can Google it.

Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. I encourage that.

Yeah. And thank you for, you know, bringing this forward about the gravesite. I think it's really wonderful that you're raising awareness, you know, about mister Tubercio.

Yeah. Yeah. It's it's interesting saying the name, but, yeah,

Yeah. Well, I'm I apologize for not saying the name correctly. But, yeah, thank you very much for doing this.

I'll open this with public comment because it is a public item. If there's any there's there's nobody else in the chamber. If there's a member of the public who would like to speak on this, please raise your hand. Don't see a don't see a hand, so we don't have any public comments. Do we wanna make a motion on the designation?

Motion to approve.

Do we have a second?

Second.

We're gonna do a roll call vote. Commissioner Celso?

Aye.

I share stocks?

Aye.

Commissioner Romano? Aye. Commissioner Insiarte? Aye. Commissioner Varsney? Aye. Aye. From me, a unanimous item is approved. Very excited about this and looking forward to hearing your presentation too. I do. I'll work on that. To city council. Yes. Thank you for bringing it. Yeah. Yeah. Yep. A pleasure. Cool. Awesome. And then we'll we'll continue to have a discussion on how to get the plaque out there because, like, you know, we don't know how it's going to happen, but at least we'll have that designation that we can put it on GIS and all that stuff. So it'd be awesome. Item four, twenty six two eighty one, historic preservation ordinance update expenditure funds. Thank

you, chair. This is another continue continuation item from previous discussions of the commission. This item is for the expenditure of your funds from your overflow account to use toward the ordinance update that we've been discussing. So next steps, if you were to approve the expenditure of funds tonight, I will start working with our purchasing department on the RFP and get that moving, develop the scope. And then we would also wanna vote and have we don't need to do this tonight, but just next steps. Vote and have at least maybe one to two of you participate on the selection committee.

Discussion on this? Do we have, like, a numb we had numbers kinda. Right?

Yeah. Let me pull that up. Your how much was in the account?

Yeah. It's 96. Let me see here.

And then we kinda, like we have one consultant that was kinda interested. So, like, we got a number from them for, like, a estimate previously be well, before we decided to go RFP to see if we can get more bids on this. Yeah.

I don't remember, but wasn't the estimate, like, $50,000?

It was more than half of what we have in our account. Okay.

The amount in the Historical Preservation Reserve account is $96,105.

We wish for, like, five minutes until we spend this. So,

typically, I talk to purchasing about this. Typically, as part of the RFP, They don't like to put the amount out there, like your maximum spend out there in the RFP. They wanna see what people come back with. Okay. One, to, like, judge them against each other, and then two, for negotiation purposes. But for tonight, you could do a maximum expenditure of the full amount or some lesser amount you deem fit.

Do we have to put another amount under? Or No. Maximum okay.

I mean, you could say the full the historic preservation reserve account balance.

Yeah. That wouldn't be I would

just be, like, us saying, like, what the balance is. Okay.

Is that all of the budget, or that's just this extra reserve?

That's how much we have that we can spend without asking for counsel for more money.

Oh, okay.

Basically.

So that includes what's in the reserve. That includes everything that we spend including on plaques.

That's a separate budget. This is the overflow.

Okay. Alright. I guess we could just say all of it. Right? And I'm

just gonna

just go all in.

I mean, I'm not saying that we will, and, obviously, at least one or two of you are gonna be on the interview panel and, you know, see the numbers that people come back with. It is a what's it called? What's the professional word for secret? Confidential. It's a confidential process.

Right. Yeah. It would be a confidential process for selection, and so that's usually how the r RFP works. Like I mean, the next step, like, if we vote for funding this RFP, couple of us can actually, like, go and, like, be part of the process and evaluate the the bids and figure out if it's, like, good. Like, I mean, here's the thing. It's a it's a lot of work to put together RFP. We actually don't have to select anybody, you know, and and spend that money. But, like, ideally, we will find, like, a a a good bid that will fit into our budget that we can actually move forward with this.

I feel this is inevitable next step. After several years of discussions, this feels like something we should do because there's no other options.

Yeah. I I mean, I am in support of it, so, like, you know, I I would take a motion for approving the expenditure.

Second? You

want a second? I'll second.

Okay. Perfect.

You can go for it. I'll second. Okay. So motion in. Motion to move forward

to move forward. Second. Okay. I'll take a roll call.

Sorry. Motion to for the expenditure of funds up to the balance

Up to the balance.

Of the historical preservation reserve account.

Correct.

Yes? Yep. Okay. Emptying out all the funds. Just weighing us down.

Actually, there is a public comment. I forgot to take a public comment. Oh, no. We will take a public comment on this one. Jonathan, you're up.

Hi. This is this is Jonathan again. So my my my one question about the this is, like, I understand you're authorizing a certain amount, but, like, know, I guess bidders you know, this is a public meeting. They can come back and watch this. Is there a process by which, like, the the r I mean, hopefully, the RFP comes in significantly below your budget, but, you know, people think that's what you've authorized to. Well, you know, is there a concern that people will just come in with the max bid and, that that's what you'll just end up with from from everybody? I mean, hopefully, people are competitive, but I I just wanted to toss that out that I, you know, it was wasn't clear if you have to authorize a certain amount or if that's just all part of the RFP process to see what what what what that cost was. And you could authorize it after the RFP, you know, once you get some bids back. I was curious if that's how it could be done. Anyway, thank

I share your concern. I I feel like the RFP response should contain, you know, number of hours, tasks that will be achieved, and so on. And, you know, an assessment should be made about whether the value's there and and whether we give them a a high number or not. I still think that steps should be taken to make sure that we're getting good value.

That's a good point. I think tonight's vote is really, like, assurance for staff, for me that this is how we wanna move forward with the use of these funds. I'm not saying the amount, but in good faith so I can start this RFP process. So, yeah, we don't need to identify an amount. And, obviously, the final well, we could bring back the contract once a consultant is selected for a vote, I suppose.

Because it wouldn't be comp wait. It's still confidential at that point until the contract is signed. I think it's confidential until the contract is signed.

It's com

my understanding is confidential until the contract is signed. Jonathan has additional comments because he's actually been through RFP processes in the city.

Yeah. I I think it was confidential. I I I just wanted to make sure that folks are not betting. But I I also wanted to also say that from the opinion of the old club association, all the folks, we definitely wanna see, you know, this ordinance, you know, get updated. So, you know, certainly, we'd like to make sure that you guys vote and and go forward with doing this. I'm just trying to make sure that whatever this process is, you know, it's it's done enough. Know, we'll get the best bang for our dollar as a city as well while we're going on doing this update. So, yeah, wasn't trying to discourage you from voting for this. I I think it's a well needed thing. You know, we would love to see a historic district in the old quad and love to see that go.

The second group to apply for, the first group is gonna be, Parkourt.

Yeah.

You know, honestly, we've said the amount in the account probably at every meet, like, the last three to four meetings.

You know, I you know, I think, like, it is with the understanding that this is not the only thing that we're gonna be doing because part of the discussion we had last month was that we wanna do this. We also wanna do a context statement, and we wanna make sure, like, we we we can do all, like, all of those things. Like, I have an understanding that, like, if we spend, like, a majority of the funds, like, in our account, then we'll have to ask for more money from counsel for it. But, like, ideally, if we can fit, like, everything, like, under our overflow account, that would be that would be great. So, like I think, like, if anybody's, like, watching this and kinda, like, looking at the amounts and that that we've stated and, like, with our stated goals and stuff, we'd understand that we're not looking to spend

the entire amount of the of the account.

We're not gonna pick you. What was that? We're not gonna pick them.

Yeah. Exactly. Exactly. If they the maximum, like, I mean, there's no way. Yeah. It doesn't make sense. Okay. We have a motion. We have a second. Any more discussion before I go to a roll call? No? Yes? Okay. Commissioner commissioner Salso.

Aye.

Commissioner Sox. Aye. Commissioner Romano.

Aye.

Commissioner Insiarte. Aye. Commissioner Farzane. Aye. Aye for me, unanimous unanimous one absence. We'll move forward. I'm really looking forward to this, because we need this very badly. So thank you, everyone, for this support. Pushing forward. I was warned by a member that this is not gonna be done by the time I leave, so Ed's gonna be on you.

No pressure.

Move to staff report.

Thank you, chair. The only item I wanted to bring up to the commission was the status of the May meeting. So as you know, two of our members will be at the CPF conference. You could choose to participate from there if you'd like, but the problem is that we need to have four people in chambers. So I just wanted to confirm. And I know I sent an email, but I did not hear back from everyone. I So just need to confirm everyone's availability for the May meeting in person.

I'm a traveler for that meeting?

Yes.

Going to the CPF?

Yes. I'm going to the CPF.

I'll be here. I'll be here in person. Yeah.

This is Yeah.

I'll be here. Okay.

Alright. Commissioner Varshney, you're participating remotely. Correct?

No. I will be in person. I can just come with the mask. That's fine. Is it

I'll be in person. Seventh.

I'll be in person.

Okay. We should have a physical quorum.

I'll be here in person.

And then commissioner Vargas Smith is also going to the conference. Yep. Okay. So we will have a quorum for that meeting. So we should have two development items.

Sounds good. Thank you. And I'll move to commissioner reports. I don't think we have any subcommittee reports. We're not doing banners this year because the city took over all the banner space. They are everywhere, which is it's cool. Good for our marketing committee. We'll save one year of money. Okay. So okay.

So that that's the only subcommittee we had anyway right now. So I'll go to board and committee alternates, center color arts and historic consortium. Commissioner Fargy Smith is not here. I don't think we have any particular updates because I don't think I receive any updates from her. Historic Preservation Society of Santa Clara, I don't think we have one either, but I think there there's, like, an open house in June, but we can talk about that some other time.

Oak High Residence Association, egg hunt at the Farmer's Market is, on Saturday. Please come with your little ones to come visit to do the the egg hunts. There will be a Easter bunny. Please come and take pictures with the Easter bunny. A very fun Easter bunny in this tone physically. And if you have water, bring water to the Easter bunny. Easter bunny may switch from very active to, like, a Donnie Darko Easter bunny at some point, so we'll see what happens. Depends. Yeah. So that's it.

We actually had a a board meeting. No. A general meeting last week, and a new board has been selected. So we'll be sending out, the communications soon.

Didn't you have, like, a load of applicants for your

We actually had nine applicants with seven slots, but one of them actually withdrew the day

of. Yeah.

Yes. So she decided, like, we need new blood

in the in the board. K.

So, also, we did have we do have a new board member, actually, at Oakwood. So we'll we'll announce that, Yep. Via email. So if you're not signed up for email, please sign up for our email, newsletter. Lots of good stuff coming. So it'll be it'll be very interesting this year, I think. Development review hearing?

I did review the agenda. The only item on there that was historical is the one that we that already came before us last meeting, and so now they're going in front of the review for their, approval. And and everything else didn't apply.

That's good. Bard High Speed Rail VTA BRT Committee, nothing to report at the moment. El Camino Real specific plan community advisory committee, nothing to report ish.

The specific plan is going for recommendation of planning commission next Wednesday, April 8.

Exciting, actually. Downtown precise plan, I think there were a couple of meetings, like, at least one meeting since we met last time, like, for that precise plan, wasn't it? Yeah. Think they got a they got an update from my consultant about the feasibility of the on the baseline exercise and stuff

like that. So that was

it's probably a good meeting to go back to watch. Actually,

I think that was before our last meeting because I remember Anna talking about it, giving an update on it, that the city manager attended.

Oh, that was it was right before our meeting, like, week before. You're right. Okay. Cycler Station area task force. We had a meeting, and we had consultants come in, and we did there were some revisions because of remind me of the SB number of the

79. SP 79.

Because SP 79 of there's a a difference in density that we need to consider, like, for about the the station area. There's a radius of the rapid transit where we actually have to consider a higher density within the radius, and then, like, it tapers off, like, as it goes out. So the recommendation had to be updated to to change some of the density, like, around the station itself. And and that's kinda where that is. So it was a a pretty interesting discussion, actually.

Is that the one the governor's been pushing really hard lately in the past few days that all the cities have to comply?

I have not been paying attention, but maybe.

Okay. But yeah.

It's really like a transit area, but, like, the good thing is we we as a city is actually ahead of a lot of the other cities because we're doing the the stationary task force for the for the specific plan well, the precise plan to figure out, like, where we want to actually locate the density. It's a little bit tricky for us too because we do have a nationally listed historic properties smack in the middle of this to kinda figure out, like, how we can accommodate for it. There so there are different some different heights and different density that are being proposed, but not very different from what we had wanted

to

move forward at the first place.

Stationary task force is kind of an oxymoron, isn't it? Like, the stationary task force. Come on, guys. Let's get going. Let's get to work. Sounds cool. Basically. They don't go anywhere.

I know. Station. We're getting punchy tonight. Okay. We need to wrap this up. So, yeah, that's kinda where we are. Remind me what we're doing next week on stationary. We're moving to the AIR pretty soon. Right? I'm sorry? Like, what what are we doing with next on the stationary task force?

Oh, the WRTR consultant is working on the actual draft plan. Okay. I don't know that that will be ready for April. It might be May.

Okay. And we'll go from there. Yeah. Really interesting inputs, this last month, like, based on all its discussions. So it was good. Okay. Any reports? Was it yeah. That's actually all we have tonight. Do we have a motion to adjourn?

I move we adjourn.

Thank you. Do I have a second?

I second the motion. I

am going to I have to actually take a roll call. Commissioner Soso.

Aye. My share of stocks.

Aye.

Commissioner Romano. Aye. Commissioner Sjorty. Aye. Commissioner Varzney.

Aye. An

aye for me. Unanimous one absence. And thank you, everyone. We'll be back May 7. Thank you.