Historical & Landmarks Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you. I'm now talk call to order historical landmarks commission meeting of 06/05/2025 at 06:06PM. We'll start with roll call. And start with vice chair Farga Smith? Here. Commissioner Nciarte? Here. Thank you. Commissioner commissioner stocks?

Here.

Thank you. And I think commissioner Kirby, you are online?

Present. Yes.

Thank you. And then we received words that commissioner Romano and commissioner Celso are going to be out tonight. Do I have a motion to excuse commissioners Romano and Celso?

Motion to excuse.

Thank you. Second.

Okay. Motion by Smith, sec second in Ciate. We'll since, commissioner Kirby is online tonight, we will take it as a as a role. Commissioner Vari Smith?

Here.

Commissioner Stocks?

Aye.

Commissioner N. C. A. Commissioner Kirby? Aye. And then I for me. Unanimous to absence for excuses. Next section, we have continuance and exceptions. This part of the meeting allows for applicants, member of the public, or other interested parties to request an item to be continue one, continue without hearing, the two, withdrawn, or three, taken out of order. Are there any requests from applicants or public or commission for continuance or exception for any of the items that are on tonight's agenda?

None.

There's an, one more announcement since we were not, fully staffed tonight. The historical and landmarks commission has has seven members. Whenever the full commission is not present, applicants have the option to continue the item to another meeting. So I would like to extend that option for the applicant, since we we have four votes tonight and we're, a commission of seven. Any votes that we do tonight has to be unanimous. No. Actually, we have to have four votes. Sorry, commissioner Kirby. We have five tonight. We have to have four votes for any motions to pass.

So if the the applicant would like to continue, this would be the point to do it. Okay. Thank you. The next item on the agenda is 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 members of the historical and landmarks commission staff, the applicant, or member of the public wishes to comment on the consent calendar item I would like the item to be heard on a regular agenda. Make this request now. The items listed in consent calendar of associated file numbers can constitute cup public hearing items. Just realized I wasn't looking at Zoom, and there are quite a few attendees on here too, so I'll check that.

Cool. So we have one item on today's consent calendar. It is the minutes of the HLC meeting for 04/03/2025. Are there any discussions or motion for the consent calendar item?

Make a motion to approve the minutes of April 3.

Thank you. We have a motion. Do I have a second? Second. I have a second. K. So I'll do a roll call vote, by sheriff Barry Smith. Aye. Thank you. Commissioner Stocks? Aye. Commissioner Siddharth? Aye. Commissioner Kirby? Aye. And aye for me. It's unanimous to absence. Consent calendar passes. Thank you. Next item we have on the agenda is public presentation.

This is a section where, anyone here in chamber online, if you have an item that is not on the agenda tonight, they would address the the commission on. If there we are we're not able to action on any items that are brought up during this section, but we can, direct staff to agendize for discussion for a later date. So and then we we do ask that any presentation to be brief. So are there anyone in chamber on commission or in chamber as a as member of public or online? You can raise your hand if you'll have.

I would like to bring up an item that's not, public presentation and not on an agenda tonight. Seeing none, and then we'll move on to public hearing. So we do have one item tonight, and I wanna just kind of declare procedure on it real quick. We'll go, and hear the item. We'll start with a presentation from staff, and then I'll invite the, presentation from staff.

We'll ask any technical questions that we have, like, at the at the time. We'll also invite the, the applicant to come in to address us if they would like. And then I would open it with public comments. So if you have a card and if you haven't coordinated already, please go ahead and fill out a card and, like, send it to your staff, and we'll do public comments. And I'll also take, public comments online as well at that point.

And then we'll have time for the applicant to come in, to to address the public comments, and then we'll we'll close the discussion, and then we'll have a discussion amongst the the commission members. So that's where we're gonna start, and I'm gonna send this over to our staff for item number 225455, public hearing on recommendation on proposed 987 square foot first floor addition and 942 square foot second story addition on PLN 2500049 to existing potentially historic resource at 642 Park Court located within 200 feet of historic resource inventory properties.

Thank you, chair. I will start by, sharing my presentation. Alrighty. Good evening, commissioners, chair, and the public. My name is Alex Teyes.

I'm the assistant planner here with the city of Santa Clara, and tonight's item is on 642 Park Court. As the chair has mentioned earlier, the request tonight is for an architectural review for the construction of sick oh, 942 square foot second story addition and a 987 square foot 1st Floor addition resulting in a 3,377 square foot five bedroom and four and a half three and a half bathroom two story potentially historical residence within 200 feet of our four of four properties on the city's historical resource inventory. Right. So first, I would like to start by talking about the existing site. We'll talk with the lot size.

The lot size is 6,250 square feet. That is meets standard, lot size for our modern zoning code even though this lot was subdivided back in the nineteen twenties. Surrounding uses are similar to this property. They're all single family residential, r one. And just like every property around this neighborhood, the general plan designation is also very low density residential.

Here you can see on the right is the area of the property in question. Alrighty. So this project is in front of the historical landmarks commission due to the fact that the project site is within 200 feet of four properties on the historical resource inventory. According to Santa Clara city code 18.130.07, the HLC shall review the project for neighborhood compatibility and consistency with the city's single family duplex design guidelines. So due to that, I just wanted to give you a little background.

This on the properties here on on the Park Court subdivision, The subject property here 642 is not a property that's on the historical resource or a Melzac property, but it is surrounded just mentioned earlier what other properties start are either on the mill are at Melzac property or are, on the historical resource inventory. And as you can see in the neighborhood, there's other houses. There are two stories. This wouldn't be the first one. Alrighty.

And just like I mentioned, the project is site is not on the historical resource inventory, but we did request the applicant or the homeowner to prepare the DPR five twenty three form by a certified historian, which they did. This form did conclude that the property is eligible for local listing on the historical resource inventory. And based on that, staff wanted, we asked the, the homeowner to make their proposal be consistent with the secretary of interior standards of rehabilitation. The big section that is important for tonight is the section on this, standard stating that new additions, exterior alterations, or related new constructions will not destroy historical materials, features, or in spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historical materials, features, size, scale, and proportions in massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.

The applicant talk can talk more about how the design process, how they first initially submitted, and what is in front of you tonight. But our staff would just talk about what's in front of you tonight. So this is a sketch rendering of the proposal tonight. It keeps the integrity of the original structure, which is right here on the front and all the architectural features that was original to the house all the way up to the nineteen seventies that did some changes in the house. The only thing they are adding to these original structure is this entry feature that and oh, and also the back.

But with the actual original structure, this entry feature, that's pretty common in the subdivision. And here in front of you, I wanted to show you guys the existing and proposed just to talk about the secretary interior centers of rehabilitation. The intent with the proposal is to keep with the spatial relationship with the subdivision. So, therefore, in front of you, the proposal today is being built on the back of the residence. And as the staff has noted here, this addition is about 55 feet away from the property line, and the driveway still con stakes with the spatial relationship with the subdivision being larger than what is recommend been required on the our modern zoning code.

And as you can see with the property next door, it's similar like, it's keeping similar patterns with the construction when it comes to the the driveway. Also, I wanted to show you guys the proposed landscape plan. The homeowner is intending to, you know, maintain and beautify the property. We're proposing new landscaping that's not currently existing on the property. So they really wanna live in this property and actually, you know, make it a sweet home for them and their kids.

Now I'm gonna show you the existing and proposed. Again, talking about the, standard of secretary interior. The original structure, as you can see here on the right, it's being kept. Most none of the most of the all the original window features are being kept at the same location as you can see. You know, they were just being replaced to like for like, just interior remodeling to help with the added space and more modern floor plan.

The only thing they're demoing will be on the back. They as you can see, the laundry room, it's being enclosed to create the new addition space here on the back. But the fireplace is staying in its place and also all of the siding that's currently existing. Here's the roof plan. Same similar thing. The intent of the design is to maintain the original structure's roof. As you can see here on the right, the roof is being capped. It's not being demoed. The only thing is just to make way for the addition on the back. We have more elevations just to show the existing and the proposed.

As you can see with the original structure, all the original windows are being kept at the same location. The fireplace, the little vent they have here, the roof form is not being touched. And the intent is to provide the new masking on the back to not be the predominant feature of the house because of the existential roofline. You won't be seeing too much from the from the front. Again, just wanted to show you the side elevations.

The mass, you know, the second story is substantially away from the proper lines on the side and meets our zoning code, setbacks for second story, which is 10, 10 feet on each side. And as mentioned earlier, there's over 55 feet away from the property line, the the 2nd story mass. As you can see here, compared to the existing and proposed, the original structure's been kept, not being touched. The only thing it's been touched, is just to add the centric feature that's pretty common on the subdivision. All the construction will be mostly done on the back.

Here's another elevation just, again, showing the placement on the windows. The only thing the only reason these windows have to be demoed is to make way for the tenant garage, which I will speak about in a bit about why they had to build that. But, again, just all the original window placements are being kept and also the fireplace. The applicant did provide you this window diagram. It is in our design guidelines to ensure that the windows are not aligned to the neighboring properties.

So I can see here the the windows placements are not aligned with the neighbors' windows, so still meeting our guidelines. Alrighty. So now I'm gonna talk about why they had to build a tenant garage. So this property being built in the nineteen twenties, it wasn't originally built with a garage. The garage is according to the DPR form.

It was built sometime in the nineteen sixties, and it is a substandard even for a one car garage. So to allow the expansion to meet the zoning code, they had to provide a two car garage, which the applicant is providing on this proposal. It is a tandem garage to keep the driveway as consistent with the design pattern of the subdivision. But just like how, Santa Clara city code 18.920.04 when it comes to nonconforming structures, any residential expansion needs to conform with the current applicable zoning code development standards. So that way, the developer I mean, the the homeowner is meeting all the setbacks and lot coverage requirements and meets the height standards.

They had to shrink the proposed height to make sure it fits with the high standard of the city. And now with the, consistency with design guidelines, as mentioned earlier, the staff has to look into the consistency with the proposed design to make sure it meets our guidelines. And, staff has come with the conclusion that it does meet our guidelines because the existing front of the house is is being is to remain and is oriented towards the primary street frontage. A roof will be added over the front door, creating a small front porch or entry line facing the street enhancing the architectural design, which is pretty common in many of the bungalows in the subdivision. The architectural features of the proposed design include wood siding at the front of the structure and siding on the rear of the structure, and the front porch are true to the architectural form and appropriate for the neighborhood.

Currently, the proposal at this time, the siding is similar as the existing siding, but the, homeowner is it's has agreed to make he if recommended to change the siding to make sure it's differentiated from the original structure. Again, the proposal second story is step back 10 feet from the site property lines as required by our zoning code and our guidelines, and the roof form proposal on the second story element derived from those found in the existing Parkour neighborhood, which increases the comparability with the neighborhood. So therefore, in front of you, staff has recommended that the historical landmarks commission find the proposed project located at 640 Park Court will not destroy or have significant adverse effects on the integrity of the listed properties in the historical resource inventory within 200 feet of the subject property, that the proposed construction is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and recommend approval of the architectural review at the development review hearing. And that concludes staff's presentation, and and I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you for our presentation. I failed to mention two things. We do have our state historian and adviser, Lori Garcia, available to us tonight to kinda help us discern some of the items. And, also, I had a few neighbors that contact me about this item, but I did not discuss it with them.

I declare that.

Are there any questions for staff at the moment before I send this over to the applicant?

One question for staff. Partway through your presentation, you showed landscaping. Landscaping is not a permanent installation. Would you agree? So that wouldn't form part of any drawings or plans that were submitted to the city. Is that correct?

We do require a landscape plan for project of this scale. Yes.

And is it requirement for the homeowner to complete that landscaping as part of getting their permanent approval?

Well, they would need to install it as part of to get their final building permit. Yes.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? Amy, do you have anything?

I something that I wanted to point out about the windows. And it just might be aesthetic to me, but when I'm looking at this image here, the windows that are gonna be on the addition, I feel like I don't don't feel like they blend as well when I'm looking at them. Don't know if it's the size with the windows on the rest of the house. That's the only thing I noticed. Aside from that, I think it's a a really nicely done addition. That was just what caught my eyes at first was the windows. Like, specifically, the windows in the front that you're seeing when you're looking at it straight on.

Thank you much, commissioner. And I know, because the, the architect is in in present, so he can talk about, why they chose that particular window.

Anyone else?

Yes. So the garage,

it's not an HRI property, but it's still going to kind of stick out. I guess it's in the report that Yeah. That neighborhood forever. So that's that is

Thank you much, commissioner. I know at at least this rendering doesn't do it justice, but it is about 55 feet away from the I know a lot of many others, homes in this on this subdivision. They have built fences already come out close a lot closer to the property line. So I think the homeowner is trying to lease as much as they can to keep the, I guess, development pattern.

It's

Okay. The other technical question on the on the presentation itself before I send it, when it before I invite the applicant up. Seeing none. I'd like to invite the applicant up to the podium to speak on this project, and welcome.

So staff is gonna be sharing his presentation. One second. Thank you.

Can you hear me? Hi, everyone. My name is Sai Devi. My wife stepped up, so that's my family and two kids. Sorry. Hello? Can you hear me? Okay. Sorry. I'll I'll try to speak first. Oh, I'll hold it, think. It's better, I think. So so my name is Sai Ravi. So that's my family. Just stepped out because the kids were getting cranky.

So little bit so we bought the property so that we can live there and raise our kids, and we can grow old. So that's the main reason why we bought the property. And little bit of our background. So we are from Southern part of India. So we moved here probably around ten years ago, around 2015.

So close to 80% or 70% of our time in America. So we are part of Santa Clara community, 20, mostly in Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, San Jose, all of these areas. So during COVID time, as the company is allowed to work from anywhere, so we moved from San Jose to Bernice Bay, Ganville. And we have been there for close to three years. And I recently changed changed my job to Microsoft 2023. Hello. 2023. So sorry. Yeah. Sorry.

2023. So from last year, I think early next this year, my company has mandated at least 50% of the time, you need to be in the office if you have to keep the job. So from where I live to the current my office in Santa Clara, it's close to 45 to 50 miles, and it takes around probably two hours to and fro. So it's close to four hours. So you saw our kids. They're very little. So so just wasting four hours in the traffic didn't make sense. And my wife works at Salesforce. She but she has permanent remote home remote work availability. And her office is in San Francisco, so she can still work from home.

That's why we thought of instead of wasting time in a commute, we thought of moving closer to Santa Clara. And one more main reason why we choose Santa Clara slash San Jose area is I work in a very narrow niche domain called silicon development. I'm sure probably some might some of you might have heard of it, chip development in Microsoft. So there are probably five to seven or close to 10 different companies in Bay Area around Santa Clara, probably around five to 10 mile radius, which serve this kind of background. So I so I can't stay too far away, or else even if something happens, I can't switch jobs.

So that's why this time, what we thought, instead of trying to find a random place, let's try to find something closer. At least if something happens in the job, I can go and try job in a different company. That's one of the reason why why we chose Sendakura. Right? So coming to why we chose Parkwood, of course, we have been looking for close to six to seven months for the property.

And in in Santa Clara and San Jose, to really get to the square foot what I was looking at, I'll explain why why I may what the square foot means. So probably someone need to spend close to 3,000,000 or 3 and a half million dollars just to get a 3,000 square foot house with a decent lot size, with a backyard, but kids to play. So instead of spending so much money, which we can't afford, we thought probably we'll take something a smaller house smaller house at smaller rate, and we can kind of build build up upon it. So that way, the cost will be minimal. That would kind of save money.

And it's okay. It'll take longer, but at least you can save a significant amount of money. That's one of the reason why we chose that area. And, of course, we like the area because it's more faint in nature, and kids can also play on the road because it's at least when we visited, we found it to be very, very faint. And that's it.

Then next one coming to the design. I think I'll I'll let me talk a little bit of the design. So it has five at the end of birth. I'm not sure if everybody caught the attention of the floor plan. Basically so we have one mother-in-law suit because my mother-in-law visits probably once I mean, three to six months a year from India.

So she's an arthritis patient. So we had a mother-in-law suit inside the fur in the 1st Floor, and we had an office room in the 1st Floor. So that is called as a bedroom because my wife works from works from home, and I do work 50% of the time from home. So that's what is the two bedrooms in the Ground Floor. Then in the in the 2nd Floor, we have one master bed, one primary bedroom, and two bedrooms, two for the kids. That's how we designed it. So it it's not like on purpose. This is what our family needs probably for next ten to fifteen years. That's how we came up with the plan. It's not a random plan.

We chose, okay. Let's try to go as much as we can so that we can bigger build the biggest house in the neighborhood. That's not our goal. This is purely based on our family needs only, not not to kind of go forward. So that's with respect to the design. And I'll try to cover a little bit more about the process which it took to get here. So miss Belinger, I think, and her sister Lori, so they were the guys who who sold the property to us. I think they advertised from somewhere in December. So and we closed January. So because I believe mister Rinnejar told, okay.

I would like to take more time to move my things. I said we said, okay. So and we submitted an initial design. I'm not sure if Alex probably, Scott will cover it. So we gave an initial design in February, early February, and Citi said no. So so you might need to do more than this one. So we took an extra one and a half to two months to come up with this design, which is still respectful to the neighborhood. And, of course so once you start getting things getting delayed, you need to pay interest cost. You know how high the interest are as of today. And it cost more to pay my architect also.

So so all in all, it it kind of added probably 25 just for just for this three months delay because the design what I chose initially was not in compliant with the neighborhood. So I paid 25,000. And if you actually see the the house went too far in the back. The initial design when we chose, it was not so far in the back. So we wanted more backyard. But given we wanted to preserve the structure and we we can only add in the back, I I I couldn't do much. So we had to go back. So that that what it happens is you have to add more foundation. You have to add more roof. So that that kind of increase the cost of the construction also.

So all in all, just to support the neighborhood because we like the neighborhood and we like the area, given all the constraint I explained. So overall cost got increased close to 100,000, including the architect cost and the design cost and the final cost of the building transaction. So we are not at least our goal is to occupy the property, and we at least in my mind, I tried whatever I could in my financial ability to be respectful of the neighbor. That's all I can say.

Thank you. Yeah.

Hello. My name is Scott Gulka. I'm the architect. Been working on this project for a few months now. I think Alex and Cy did a good job of kind of getting the big picture.

I'll just get a little bit of detail, and it seems like everybody's got a lot of things they wanna say, so I'll keep it brief. So the only thing about this diagram I wanted to point out and why we put it in our submittal drawings is that we did a lot of canvassing and understanding of the historical nature of the the lot and the surrounding buildings as well as there's a couple of two story buildings that have been done and trying to get a sense of the historic nature, both of the things that are dedicated to be historic and and branded to be historic, but also the general kind of feeling of the neighborhood. And using that information, it that led us through the design process, trying to keep that in mind with every step that we took. So you can go to the next one. So one of the things that we knew that we were gonna need to do is to add a second story to in order to to meet the the design needs and the and the layout and living needs of Sai and his family.

And so we studied a lot. These these are three examples of, houses that are certified historic down in Southern California in neighborhoods that have this kind of, design to it of two stories two story products of of that design. You know, you can go to the next one. We try and make it brief. The next one kinda shows that when we started on this process, I've done probably 80 projects all over the Bay Area, similar, trying to take an existing house in an existing neighborhood and trying to do a thoughtful remodel slash addition to meet the new needs of the of the new owner.

And so we went through multiple schemes, multiple layouts, multiple massing studies that we worked on with the city to try and come up with a way that would be sensitive to the neighborhood, but also be in line with the planning guidelines and the design guidelines. So this just kinda represents how many schemes some of the schemes we started with. Go to the next one. The one on the top here is the one that we first, we first submitted for review after going through it with the city, and they they were fine with this. And what this ended up doing is a cost effective way.

We do it all the time in in other jurisdictions. Take the existing house, you lift it, and you build a new story underneath. It's very cost effective. It maintains the existing setbacks. You still stay under the the height limits, and you can create a house that, is efficient, gets the needs done, and it's, it's a way to kind of maintain the existing massing in a way, but also lifting it up.

That was approved sort of tentatively when we first, met with the city, and then we formally submitted it, and we got a lot of feedback that this was not gonna fly. So then we went to the the the one below. The one below basically maintains the existing house in the front. We added a front porch after talking to the city staff about trying to make a more pronounced entry. This front porch is seen in a lot of of the houses in the neighborhood. In fact, I think it's exactly the same as the one that's next door. The other thing that we tried to do is a lot of the windows were in there. It's outlined in the DPR. They're they've been replaced over the years. There's a lot of vinyl windows in there.

We were trying to restore it back to what what we imagined it was at the beginning, which was, wood wood clad windows, with lots of muttons on them to kind of, you know, go back to what it was originally intended to do. We can try the next one. And this is a little bit about the massing, and Alex went through it, a bit. The the main addition in the back is basically tacked onto the end of the existing house. It's 55 feet from the a little more than 55 feet from the sidewalk.

The existing garage was, one story that was tacked on in 1961. That existing garage is, I think, 76 feet back. By making it a double car, it ends up being more like 45 feet from the front sidewalk. But we tried to not push it all the way back, so that we don't we it would end up blocking one side of the house for windows. So we worked on trying to find a suitable location for a tandem parking space to meet the planning requirements.

And we showed those models. We did some three d modeling just to kinda show that the massing is going to be back, behind the massing of the existing houses on either side. Next one. And then we could go through aside, kind of already went through this, we have the living space upstairs on the two story this the two story addition. It's three bedrooms with the primary suite and then two bedrooms and a bath upstairs.

And then downstairs, we've got an open plan kitchen, opens up to the backyard. And and the front, basically, we've we've maintained the existing layout as much as we could, but we made it so that it works for what they need, which is a mother-in-law, suite in the front and and living and play space for the kids. And you can see on this slide that the the main house the existing house is all the way to the left. Okay. I think this is the last one.

So what we tried to do is we we canvassed the neighborhood, took a lot of pictures, and, and also trying to maintain what what is existing on the on the house, the 642 House, which some of it is is actually existing and a lot of it has been added to over the years. There's lots t one eleven siding around. I think we'd take that off, but we try and maintain the existing siding. We're open to making a transition from the addition in the back to a different, a different material, making a making an aesthetic change back there. But I think what we're proposing would work to try and tie the whole building in as if it was there from the beginning.

Think that's it. Okay. So I'm here if anybody has any questions.

Thank you for the presentation. Are there any questions from the commission for the applicant at the moment?

Quick question. The second story, how tall is that?

Well, the the it's the maximum height limit is 25. So the peak's at 25, 24 foot nine or something, 25 feet. And the setbacks on the side on on the addition go down to 10 feet on either side when they meet the set setback requirements. Rear setback is is more than what's required.

Question.

The addition of the porch, is that restoring a porch that was already there?

It did it's hard to say if it was there before. We didn't see any old pictures, but what we would we have been told when we were talking to planning is that they suggested that that might be a nice feature to to accentuate the front entrance more than the existing house had.

Can you speak up to the mic, please? Thank you.

We did visit the property when it was raining. So when I tried to open the front door, all the rain was kind of coming right into the house. So that's where we thought, okay. If you can add small porch in the front, that will protect the interior. That's why we added.

I don't have any questions at the moment. I don't know if any other commissioners have any questions. I don't know if, Amy, if you have anything, for the applicant for the moment. I would if we don't, I would actually suggest, like, opening this up to the public for the comments. I would take speakers from the chamber first and then online. And then after that, though, I will open it back up to the the applicant to reply to the to the comments for the public, then we can continue to have a discussion at that time if we have more questions at that point. Does that sound good? Okay. So we'll open it up to the public. So how do we wanna coordinate this? So I know there were

a couple people that were coordinating for larger groups. Maybe we wanna have them go first and then have the individuals.

Yeah. Let's start with those because they did reach out at the time. Okay. Which of you would like to start? David? Okay. And I I do wanna note that, you know, we generally don't time for our comments in here, but I do ask to have folks just keep it to about two minutes per person. I understand there are folks that were asking to yield time, just, like, make that indication, point to the person in chamber that are giving you the time, and then I'll just tally that up, and then I'll try to keep a little bit of time. So be because we do have a large number of speakers, it looks like. Okay.

We have more than enough. So that's right. Okay. Okay. That's great. Please come on up. Yeah. It's it's fine. Like, I'm not that formal here. So David, are you

are you logged in to the Zoom?

Yeah. Okay.

What's your name? Oh, okay. So

if you do have a presentation, I do need to promote you to a panelist so you can share. There you go.

Promise to not show anything offensive, then we'll promote you to the panelist. Thank you.

This photo shows the close knit Park Court neighbors of many backgrounds, ethnicities, political beliefs, and ages, celebrating the centennial of our beautiful historic neighborhood last fall. As soon as we heard about this proposal, the neighbors joined together and submitted dozens of heartfelt letters as well as a petition signed by over a 100 concerned residents. First, I'm gonna give a brief overview of the neighborhood followed by our four main concerns, height, garage placement, a Panamax design, and the owner's inconsistent statements. First, Park Court is unique in its design. At the Central Park Library commissioners as well as prospective residents will find Mark Hoag's book, The Treasures Within.

With over a 100 pages of documentation about the historic nature of Park Court, it's the best way to learn about the typical construction of our historic neighborhood. In this book, you can find lots of historic maps. This one is highlighted to show the proposed development in yellow, Mills Act protected homes in green, and those with California Register of Historic Resources Protection in dark green. Four historic homes are within 200 feet of the proposal, which is why we're here today. As codified in Santa Clara's historic preservation ordinance, one of the seven aspects of integrity for a historic home is sudden or the that the district around the house resembles the historic period in which it was built.

For all four of our for all of our Mills Act homes, Park Court is that sudden, and 642 is a key location visible from much of the Northwest Side of the court. And these are those four Charman Mills Act homes, which will be affected by the proposed development. The property is across the street from one, and the addition would be visible from the backyard of and in between the others. In the brochure tour of historic Santa Clara, the HLC has the following to say about Park Court. Neighborhood is unique because of size, scale, and lot size.

Size, scale, and lot size. As part of a cohesive design, all the homes in Park Court were originally single story. Advertisements at the time talked about the care that went into the layout of the streets and houses to maximize sunlight. Importantly, every feature of Park Court was in balance. The sun still lights our homes well.

Given how narrow the lots are, two stories houses will block sun for the neighbors. In the winter, the sunlight is particularly important as it heats homes, saving the owner's energy. Park Court was developed as part of the Better Homes in America small house movement, homes like these. But a second story does not match that ideal. Instead, greeting visitors with a billboard of windows saying, this is not a historic house.

One of the two story houses the city previously allowed on the edge of Park Court cast a large shadow around 8AM in early June. Despite the large front yard, the shadow extends well into the street. Given how close the homes on Park Court are, Denise, the artist in 652, would lose her dappled golden hour sunlight to a wall of windows in her backyard. On the other side, Lori, the multigenerational resident and retiree in 632, would lose her evening light. Ideally, just keep the development to one story or install story poles as soon as possible and conduct a shadow store study.

Furthermore, if a second story is built, the windows should employ common privacy techniques as the architectural committee has previously required. The iconic layout of Park Court is an oval subdivision flanked by two alleyways, reducing traffic in the Central Court for mixed mode transportation, whether walking dogs, riding bikes, or just kids playing. Homes in the Central Court originally had tire track style driveways, allowing homeowners to store their model t's in a garage away from the elements. Not everyone owned a car as the Alameda Electric Streetcar and Southern Pacific Railroad were just a short walk away, similar to the current Caltrain and soon to be BART extension. Today, driveways are often paved to accommodate heavy modern cars, and the small garages are used for storage or hobbies.

Additionally, many families now own multiple cars, which has led to an increase in on street parking, making it difficult for delivery and emergency service vehicles to navigate Park Court, a deviation from the original vision. Thankfully, all our homes are on the smaller side, so the number and size of vehicles is kept to a natural minimum. The proposed attached two car tandem garage is designed to meet the minimum eight and a half foot width and minimum parking requirements by code. But parking even a small car at the back of this narrow garage would take advanced skills, and maneuvering kids, elderly family, and groceries would be challenging with little to no room on either side. This garage is so impractical, it's likely that the residents would instead park on the street in violation of p five of the owner's conditions of architectural review approval.

In the city's building code, an exception is written for historic neighborhoods like ours, allowing less parking than otherwise required by code. One idea is to rebuild the garage in place large enough to accommodate a modern vehicle. Next, the Panamax layout maximizes the owner's indoor space at the expense of their neighbors' comfort and privacy. Nearly every setback is at the minimum allowed by code. The park court was designed as a cohesive whole in size and scale.

Buildings at the proposed scale at this proposed scale risk taking the park at a park court. Additionally, a land survey survey hasn't been done in generations, so there's risk of encroachment against the property lines. The Panamax designs includes removable removal of a protected tree. This tree should be inspected by an arborist arborist to make sure it's eligible for removal. If removed, the county requires it to be replaced with a similar tree on the same lot, ideally of a heritage variety to preserve the historic nature of Park Court.

Furthermore, the large impervious areas of the Panamax design increase stormwater runoff. Park Court storm drains are already near capacity in the winter and occasionally overflowing. Even as of this week, neighbors are still running their sub pumps. There's standing water on the street, which leads to slippery algae causing hazards for cyclists and pedestrians. Ideally, we want the owners to design a footprint of the house in line with the existing homes on Park Court.

Otherwise, neighbors are asking that that the owner get a land survey, incorporate best practices from Santa Clara County's c three stormwater handbook, including a battery backup for the pump. Additionally, we want an arborist to certify that the large tree in the backyard is in fact eligible for removal. Finally,

we've

been getting mixed message as about the owner's plans for the property. In surrounded neighborhoods, developers have converted single family homes to mini dorms for university students. In a recently deleted Facebook post, investment property influencers, Adam Lancaster and Keith Walker, said they helped the owners acquire the property for investment purposes, including an emoji indicating that the owner's plans was for a multitenant dwelling. In an email to me, the architect claimed that the owner specialized in houses for resale. A multitenant rental for university students can easily gross over $2,000 per month per bed, not bedroom, but per bed.

House of this proposed size could fit over a dozen beds. So even if the owner immediately sold the house as they sometimes claimed is their intent, it would likely sell to one of the existing LLCs in the area, which already manage many, dorms. But the owner told me they were on the fence about whether this is their next home. But the public record statements, the owner claimed that this house is for their family. Which is it?

An investment property, on the fence, or a home for the family? In conclusion, we're asking that the owners maintain the current height as the as the city required of the last application for a second story addition at 722 Park Court while keeping the garage in the back. Otherwise, we ask them to avoid Panamax designs, not remove protected trees, and to be honest about their intentions, including post and required notifications in a timely manner going forward. The commission has any questions. I'm happy to answer them now.

Thank you for that presentation.

I prefer

Thank you. I prefer, like, there's no pause or reaction from the audience, please. Thank you. Just to keep this fair. But, yes, I'm I'm gonna move on to, like, the next speaker. But thank you.

Thank you.

Micah, please come up.

Oh, I don't know if you can make me a presenter. Oh, okay.

You're the promoter.

I will be handling the slides for the coming up speakers. We have our agenda, and we will be starting with the immediate neighbors, Graham, Denise, and Lori.

Hello. My name is Graham Cram, and I am the homeowner at 652 Park Court, which is the direct adjacent neighbor to the right or west of the subject property. We purchased the home in 1991 and have enjoyed our home and neighborhood since moving in just over thirty four years ago. When we were searching for a home in Santa Clara, this small court appealed to all of our considerations for its quaint size, deep yards, historic characteristics, and affordability. We were shocked two weeks ago when we received the outrageously short notice given to adjacent neighbors of the new owners' expansion plans.

There wasn't any outreach to us regarding the egregious changes to the existing lot. As you will be hearing from other neighbors here tonight, the proposed house would be completely out of character for this historic neighborhood. This would also present a detrimental adverse effect on the future property value of our home. Our privacy, being the next door neighbor, would be violated with direct sight lines into our backyard, rear windows, and doors of our home from their second Storey windows. We are also very concerned about the large Panamax home displacing more water into our yard and basement if constructed.

If the proposed five bedroom home is approved as submitted, there is a real strong possibility that the home may be rented out to students at Santa Clara University in the future, creating a very serious impact on the neighbors in terms of parking, noise, trash, security, turnover, and other issues. Street safety will be impacted by the additional traffic and congestion related to the additional residents. Should this become a mini dormitory, you know, to paint a picture, it would be allowing a circus in a Zen garden. So I urge the planning department not to approve the submitted plans for the remodel of 642 Park Court. Thank you.

Thank you.

I think the mic is off.

Okay. Hello. My name is Denise Walker, and I am the homeowner of 652 Park, also on the west side of the proposed property. Thirty four years ago, I fell in love with our house the first time I saw it. I love the 20 style architecture and the charming neighborhood.

I love the open field, the backyard, and all the sunlight pouring inside the house. I can't believe I'm standing here today fighting to save all those things that I hold dear. The proposed monster home going in right next to me with its two story addition and egregious changes will rob me of all those things that I love. The second story addition will throw huge shadows on our home that will block the sunlight, sunlight that I need for my artwork. It will block the sunlight needed for growing my garden, my roses, and our fruit trees.

The two story with its extreme proximity to us will be looming over our backyard like a giant wall. The second story looks directly into our backyard, the back of our home, robbing us of our privacy. An intrusion on our brunches and dinners we hold there most of the year. We fear that the shadow cast by the two story will make our plans for solar panels unfeasible. And then there's the garage, not only out of character with the rest of the neighborhood, but the new placement will block the windows of the only two bedrooms that we have.

This is our forever home. We want our own the owners next door to have this as well, their forever home, but the size they want does not fit on Park Court. Please consider what this huge out of place structure is taking away from my family, from my neighborhood, and from the Santa Clara's history. Thank you. Thank

you. Laurie.

I'm Lori Furtado. I live on the other side of 642, which is 632. My parents have bought that house in 1948 and then turned around and bought 642, in the sixties. I'm concerned about the size of this house. I was thinking about solar, but at this point, I need a new roof.

And if this massive house goes up, it's gonna have shadows and block the sunlight from my house. So solar would not be a significant answer for that. Our street is quiet and quaint. The size of the house will take away from the feeling of the history and will be overwhelming to our neighborhood. Owner told me he was going out the back.

I don't have a problem with that. The street needs to be preserved for its historical assets. Safety is a concern. There is already too many cars on the street. I'm concerned about privacy even if even if trees are planted or they will take a long time to grow to maximize privacy.

I'm concerned about the size of the house impacting my property value, and I would like to live the balance of my life, which is probably not that much, in peace and in tranquility and in the house that I grew up in. And I don't think that's gonna happen if this is allowed. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. Thanks for the opportunity to speak today. The current plan, at least this iteration as it is right now, proposed for June, definitely meets current code. Okay? But that code was never meant for historic districts. And that's exactly why we have you here, this commission. You've seen proposals denied many times before even from the previous owners of six forty two for way smaller changes. This project will irreparably damage the very character that this commission is here to protect. And as such, it will also pose an existential threat to the commission itself. Six forty two sits at the center of the court.

Arguably, they picked one of the worst possible spots to maximize disruption, in particular for the four historic resources within 50 feet, not even 250 feet. Now let's talk MILS Act. My House 63 was approved a couple of years ago. And both in the report and in the meetings with this commission, all the emphasis was about not just the features of my individual house, but on the integrity of the neighborhood. Plus, the MEALS Act is all about preserving the front, the street view, and that's the that's the whole point.

So if you look at 651, which is just behind, the second story will completely alter how it looks from the street. Next slide, please. It's quite a punch in the face. And then if you also go to 631, the other historic resource behind 642, also in that case, that second story, boom. Like, I don't know if you like it, but it's quite a punch in the face.

The second story breaks the continuity that those contracts are meant to protect, and they also and it will also raise questions about their legal integrity. Finally, I want to offer a little perspective here. Our court is 101 years old. The US as a country is 248 years old. That's over 40% of this country's whole history.

And this project, as it is right now, shows a complete disregard for that legacy, for the interest of the city, and for the community that is heavily invested in preserving it. Folks, this isn't a complicated call. It's very easy. I trust your sound judge judgment and your sense of what's right for the city and for this community. Thank you.

Thank you. Richard.

Hey, Siri. Set the timer for two minutes.

Two minutes. Counting down.

Hello. My name is Richard Mitchell. I am a Park Court resident. I live at 753 Park Court. I'm a Mills Act recipient. My wife and I, Carol, who is right there, decided to stay in this neighborhood because we loved it so much. This is a book about the history of my neighborhood. This is a picture of our 100 year anniversary. Our neighborhood is precious. I think you know that. I think you understand from listening to everybody talk, and I am really shocked that the city would even think or consider recommending that this go forward. This is absolutely unbelievable. This is a monster home. These people are gonna flip this house and turn it over and sell it. Okay?

They're not gonna stay there. They're not gonna live there. Come on. Don't be naive. Alright? So the bottom line is and and, of course, it's gonna interfere with a lot of my neighbors, but it's gonna ruin our court, and it's gonna ruin the historical integrity of our court, and this cannot be allowed to happen. I don't know how much money you guys are getting paid to approve plans like this, but if you look down that street, you don't see any houses like that. Okay? That's a monster home. Okay? The impact on our neighborhood will be horrible. This cannot go. It cannot happen, and we're gonna fight it right till the end. We're gonna fight it even if we have to hire an attorney. We're gonna fight it.

Okay? Because we're not gonna allow this to happen. There's no way. I'm gonna live this in the rest of my life like you heard in this house, and there's no way I wanna look across the street and see a monster home there. They're gonna sell this house. They're gonna turn over. They're gonna flip this house. Greed, baby. Greed. It's awesome.

Thank you. Thank you for those comments, by the way. I just wanna make sure we keep our comments directed to the project itself, and we're not we're also not talking about use of the of the project. So just so you know. Okay.

Thank you. I am Carol Mitchell, 753 Park Court, and one of seven Mills Act recipients on the court. First, thank you for the historic commission hearing us and working to preserve the history of the city and to make it the best it can be. I know that the historical committee agrees that the Park Court neighborhood is unique and worth preserving since there's already four no. Seven Mills Act protected historical houses here.

I believe that it's obvious that the proposed two story five bedroom house at 642 is ridiculously oversized for our neighborhood, would change the character of the court. There's already very tight parking on a narrow street, and it would set a dangerous precedent. Can you imagine all the non Mills Act protected houses being knocked down and replaced with houses like this proposed house? Other owners in the past have been denied much smaller projects. Please don't send our beloved, charming, and unique neighborhood down a path of destruction.

If someone has a large family, this neighborhood of original nineteen twenties two bedroom, one bath houses is not for them. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

So we have 12 historic homes on our court. Our neighborhood homes maintain a nineteen twenties aesthetic, and so that's, you know, part of our hundred year part of our hundred year celebration. And, typically, the changes that were made for tip for these two stories that have been pointed out were before conservation efforts were in place. So many of these things were done without, you know, they're they're aged. So there was not as much control as there is now.

Our homes have extra owner investment to maintain the front view from change. We have built a unique community around the court to celebrate our history and connections. Park Court is not a place where the historic neighborhood preservation maintained by its residents should be compromised. Inserting a large two story is severely out of place on this street. There are other neighborhoods more suitable for this large development than ours. There is no going back once the neighborhood and home character has been changed. And meeting codes does not seem to be meeting our true historic significance of Park

Court. Okay.

Park Court historic resource layers show we are connected by the designation of historic homes and adds to the aesthetic we have maintained. The proposal is surrounded by historical homes even those not officially designated on this map. In conclusion, the Park Court appearance, neighbors, character, quality, and community will be compromised and impacted by a two story which presses the setbacks of the property lines. Please do not approve this second story plan. Preservation does not mean no change.

It means a remodel that fits. We accept the homes are smaller and need to be enlarged sometimes. However, the quality of a remodel design should not interfere with the existing congruity of the neighborhood. Many of us have looked at extending the rear of our homes, keeping the home one level. And this has worked for us and the neighborhood.

As park community residents, we expect all documents of public comment and community input in this meeting are reviewed by the planning department and HLC of the City of Santa Clara if and before an approval of the plan is authorized. Also consider those who do not live here. They enjoy walking and visiting our neighborhood because of the beauty, the bungalow and cottage designs add to Santa Clara. And this is not about personal families, it's about the preservation of a unique resource in our city. And now we have neighborhood residents that would like to share stories and opinions. Thank you.

We have to elevate you to a panelist.

My name is Jorge, and I live at 590 Park Court. Hello, Historic Landmarks Commission, city of Santa Clara, and fellow neighbors. Park Court is a gem that is hidden in the busy surroundings of Silicon Valley. Guests that come to visit excuse me. Guests that come to visit family and friends in the neighborhood or visitors that happen to stumble upon the court, while they're out for a gentle walk, comment on how quiet, beautiful, and lovely the neighborhood is.

Park Court is a meaningful place in the community, and what has drawn homeowners to live in the court are the same things that visitors have experienced. The history of Park Court, such as being the last in tax subdivision of the nineteen twenties and thirties, multiple homes within the court with the Mills Act status, Just recently, the court celebrating its centennial is something to preserve. Over the years, there have been upgrades and renovations to the homes at Park Court. Most exterior renovations have kept the look and feel of the neighborhood intact with a nod to the history of the court. Some neighbors have opted to add a basement as opposed to adding a second story, which preserves the single story sideline, especially in the middle of the court.

Current lot layouts of the homes on the court are tight with zero lot lines, making privacy minimal. A towering addition in the neighborhood will take away any remaining privacy and would directly affect the adjacent neighbors. The shadow cast by a second story addition will also impact gardening and natural light of the neighbors. From our house, the Southeast location, the massive addition will be visible while while exiting the front door as well as having a line of sight out of the front living room and bedroom windows. A remodel expansion of this proposed size will change the aesthetics of the court.

The proposed schematic of the first elevation of the front elevation is trying to pull in the surrounding elements of the court, but is still overpowering. Currently, available parking around the court is minimal, and the street itself is extremely narrow. A large addition with multiple rooms and an attached garage towards the front of the lot, it increased the number of cars and parking issues and hinder easy access for emergency and city services. For the addition slash remodel of the of the subject property to fit within the elements of Park Court, a single story expansion to the rear, not adding a new entry porch, and keeping the garage at the rear of the property would blend seamlessly with the architecture of the court. Please consider the input from please consider the input from those in the neighborhood opposing the proposed massive remodel expansion and help preserve the current neighborhood atmosphere and architecture that has kept Park Court special to many of those who not only live in the court but also visit it.

Neighborhoods like Park Court are unique, rare, and integral to documenting the history of Santa Clara. We are the owners of these beautiful homes, but more importantly, we are the caretakers of these homes during our time owning and living in them. We are responsible for preserving and safeguarding these treasures and the court for future generations. Thank you.

Thank you

for your comments.

Welcome.

Testing one two. My name is John Moioli, and I'm at 651 Park Court. I presented myself in front of the HLC roughly twelve years ago after I'd recently lost my wife and had gone through much effort and consideration to buy a new home. I was looking to move closer to a tighter community. That community was that of a local parent participation elementary school, Washington Open, a couple blocks away, and and our neighborhood where there were also past, present, and current Washington Open families at this time, and my efforts were worthwhile.

Prior to buying the home, I met with the city planner multiple times who explained the historic significance of the neighborhood which I understood and aimed to respect. This led me to purchasing the home and building down at significant stress complication and cost, mind you, ultimately raising the home only 13 inches recommended by my architect in the hopes that we would not stick out and defend any other neighbors. Fortunately, the project was approved, and

my high and my home

was approved as a Mills Act home as well at the time. I've also been back here before the AHLC, roughly eight years ago when some flippers had bought and gutted the interior of six eighty Park Court. In this case, they retained the exterior, which was a relief to me at the time. But a week later, we all heart finally discovered the old growth redwood siding that was there had been removed, chopped up, and stuffed in their dumpster because the flippers decided it would look better with new material. But the damage was done.

They were at least made to restore the previous look after we met. And now I'm here again to wonder why I had to jump through so many hoops and spend so much effort, money, and time to build down for the integrity of a neighborhood and aesthetic I value just for someone else to very quickly bypass all that for what clearly appears to be a profit making opportunity with a massive two sec two story addition. If they want to expand, they should at worst consider doing as Joe and Tam at 663 did and expand down, raising the house to five porch steps. Sadly, my project was a little too deep. That way, we won't have to stare at a big blocky structure or maybe build down like 783 Park with a higher one and one third stories addition and, like, a half basement where we hardly notice the height of the added portion.

But even that poses its own complications. That said, I'm not opposed to extending the home back, but as a two story project that's currently presented, I object to the proposed structure and design.

Thank you for your comments.

Thank you.

My name is Mark Kelsey. I live on Hilmar Street, which is adjacent to Park Court. My wife and I, along with our neighbors on Hilmar and the surrounding area, support our Park Court neighbors in seeking to preserve the unique and historic their unique and historical neighborhood. And so we urge the HLC I urge the HLC not to approve this project as presented. I would note that the HLC has faced similar issues in the recent past and protected other areas in with similar historic concerns.

An example is the project at 1485 Bellamy, a project that was just too big for that historic old quad neighborhood. As mayor Lisa Gilmore said about that project, the project and the property and the massing just doesn't fit with the character of the neighborhood. I think we have another example of that, that this project is too big, too massive. It's a design that really maximizes the interior space. And in doing so, I think it it compromises alignment with the historic character, and it compromises views and aesthetics for the neighborhood.

I think the design is really a tower just dropped onto the existing structure with minimal external design characteristics and features and maximum internal effort on floor area and ceiling height. I think the design has an awkward and impractical design for the garage that'll cause more problems than it solves. And I think the design presents significant privacy concerns for neighbors with large bedroom windows overlooking their properties. And the tree I note that these trees and landscaping really can't solve for that as they take years to grow and can easily be removed. The heart of the matter is really the not the use of the property, but rather the quality of the design.

We wanna prioritize the preservation of Park Court's historic charm and ensure that the proposed project aligns with the the neighborhood's character. The project size is simply too substantial. It doesn't align with the neighborhood's unique quality. Think I the design issues can be solved, but the solution can only be done with consideration of the historic character and unique neighborhood of Park Court. And so I urge, HLC not to approve it as presented. Thank you.

You for your comments. If there are speakers online that would like to speak, would you please raise your hands? Okay. We are calling Wendy and Mark first. Wendy, Mark, you're on.

Okay. Hi. I'm gonna speak first. I live at 763 Park Court. My name is Wendy Ho. Can you hear me?

Yep. Okay.

Well, we each own our property. We also have an obligation to the historical neighborhood we live in. The reason I live in this neighborhood has everything to do with the historical houses in the context and history. My husband and I grew up in very old houses and when buying, we looked for a historic neighborhood. For us Park Court was love at first sight and roughly five years later, we decided to add on.

And we considered going up, but we knew there would be no good way to do it and fit into the neighborhood. So of course, we went back and we went down a little bit. And our approach was we to match existing as much as possible. And that meant matching the picture moldings on the interior, the siding, the doors, the wood windows, the oak floors, the lighting fixtures, the kitchen swing door, the French doors, I mean, glass knobs. And we continue to look for vintage pieces to help enhance our house.

Unfortunately, cannot be there in person because we are traveling Route 66 and we realized the parallels and the importance of preserving history. Small and big towns across America are gearing up to celebrate Route 60 Six's one hundredth birthday, as has Park Court. And when visiting the Lincoln Museum, they mentioned the importance of preserving these items from our past, the history of our life. Our trip is about history. The migration moving west on Route 66 to communities like Park Court, newly built for families looking for a better life and new opportunities.

In one historic town, buildings around the town square had signs which stated, National Trust for Historic Preservation, this place matters. And for all of us, Park Court matters. And we have learned, if we have learned anything about history in Santa Clara, once the historic homes and the downtown were destroyed in the old quad, it's impossible to go back. Gone is gone and Park Court matters. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Go ahead.

My name is Mark Hoag. I live at 763 Park Court and have done so for nearly forty years. Park Court is unlike any other neighborhood in Santa Clara. Most of the homes have been lovingly preserved, contributing strongly to the streetscape and historic character. From its beginning back in 1924, generations have helped to protect and embrace this jam that we have.

Park Court is a living, breathing example of an honest to god neighborhood. As you can plainly see from the turnout, we absolutely adore our neighborhood. We know each other, talk to one another, look out for one another, but most importantly, respect each other and their contributions toward preserving this one of a kind place. In all of Santa Clara, Park Court is the only surviving nearly intact neighborhood of smaller, primarily single story bungalow style homes built in the nineteen twenties. We have a true living his history right here.

It is obvious the moment you set foot in the court that it's a lovingly preserved link to our past. Could you imagine Santa Clara without a mission, without its historic railroad depot, without the women's club Adobe, or any of the other thoughtfully maintained historic properties, I, for one, could not. We will not sit idly by while they pave paradise and put up a parking lot. Each one of us has a certain legacy for our time spent on this planet. I want mine to be that I cared enough to do what I could to prevent Park Court from becoming yet another postcard memory.

We don't want to lament Park Court's passing after it's too late. We wanna join hands to protect protect and preserve it now. The proposed project at 642 Park Court is grossly out of scale, completely out of character, and so overwhelmingly out of place for this real life neighborhood. Park Court does matter. Thank you.

Thank you both. Those are all the coordinated speakers that we had. Are there any other speakers that would like to speak on this matter, like, from the chamber? Just come on up. Queue up behind the podium. Same rules apply about two minutes ish. I see people moving. Take your time.

Hi. My name is Terry Jansen. I'm losing my voice. I'm two doors down from this monstrosity of a project. And I'm not gonna reiterate everything that everybody said, but I'm in full agreement with this that this is totally out of character for this neighborhood, and it should not be approved. We did a little bit of research.

Got a

big group here. And we've all jumped in to kinda do our part to push back on this because we don't feel it belongs in our neighborhood. I believe there's no precedent in the 9505O ZIP code where a single family house was tripled in size from the original. And we don't have a single family home of this age and significance over 3,000 square feet on a lot that small. The only single family residence that rivals it in size nearby is the Passetta House at 2390 Park Avenue.

But it's an old Tudor house built on a quarter acre lot almost one hundred years ago, so very different. Allowing this massive home to be built will not only ruin 642 Park Court, but will alter the entire neighborhood. A comment was made about the downtown, and I just wanna say every time I go to the downtown, and I don't go very often because there's not a lot there, but I really rue the day that the city council back in the nineteen sixties made the decision, very shortsighted decision, to raze the downtown, and we can never get that back. And with Park Court, once this monster home goes up, there's gonna be so many monster homes in Park Court. It's gonna lose its charm.

It's gonna lose it's gonna lose the fabric of the neighborhood. When I walk down the street with my dog, which is several times a day, I honestly look at every home. I study the homes. I always think, oh, McKayla did that over there, Denise is is making some changes in her front yard or the plants. I mean, this is beautiful. And I just feel like it's gonna strip us of of this kind of neighborhood where we all come together, and we all support one another. So for that reason, I'm very much against it. And I had another thought, but I guess that's it. I urge you to request modifications of the plans to eliminate the second story and reduce the footprint of the home. Thank you.

For your comments. Anyone else would like to step

up? Already.

On down.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Ajai Sellers. I'm the resident at 722 Park Court, which, as pointed out earlier, is the last house that applied for a second story. Historically, that is why I live at 722 Park Court is because that second story was denied, and the owner moved to another house in Santa Clara. And my realtor, Anne Hanson right here, took me around to see several homes, my husband and I, and I fell in love with that house.

It's got a huge backyard, great sunlight. My dog loves it. I love all these people. These people saved me during COVID. I was home unemployed, and these people came and supported me.

I sat out on my porch one Friday night with my dog, who they all know, and my neighborhood came around and sat in the street because we couldn't be more than six feet together and sat around. And from that, we've had Friday night parties. We've celebrated a hundred years. We've had get togethers. We've had walks.

We've had everything. We've all come to know each other because of our small knit neighborhood and our small homes. And if we lose that, we've lost the heart of what we're all here for.

Thank you. Thank you for your comments.

Hi. My name is Katie. I live at 793 Park Court. We moved here to the court about little over three years ago, and everybody is so welcoming. We felt like we found a family here. We came from the South in North Carolina all the way here without any family, and everybody's just so welcoming, and we definitely welcome your family. We love families. We love kids. We love to see families grow in our neighborhood. I just think that it would be nice to keep the charm and keep the court as quaint and

historical as it is. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Hello. I'm Judy Hoffman, and I live over on Hilmar Street. And I'm here to basically support my neighbors in what's happening with this monster home. The proposal to build a two story, 3,300 square foot home in a historical area characterized by small one story bungalows raises serious concerns regarding its impact on the community's architectural harmony and cultural heritage. While development and modernization are inevitable, it's crucial to ensure that such changes are in line with the historical and aesthetic values that define this neighborhood.

The existing bungalows exemplify a quaint cohesive architectural style that contributes to Park Court's charm. Introducing a two story structure would undermine the neighborhood's historical character. Larger homes such as the one proposed can completely change the character of the neighborhood. The Park Court neighborhood is not just a collection of buildings. It's an embodiment of history, memory, and legacy.

Allowing the construction of such a large incongruous home could set a precedent for further developments that erode this identity. It's like opening the floodgates and issuing in the end of this neighborhood's important history. We can't let that happen. A thoughtful design that respects and complements the existing architectural style would be far more appropriate, ensuring that progress doesn't come at the expense of heritage. We need to preserve and protect the integrity of this unique community. As such, I stand opposed to the approval of the proposed construction. Thank you.

Hi. My name is Ling Long. I live in 2021 Park Avenue. I'm one of the latest neighbor that got welcomed into this neighborhood. Now I want to make sure the message is clear. It wasn't your family that we weren't welcome. It was the house, the humongous house that it just that it would destroy the neighbors

the community.

Character. So I want to make sure the message is clear. Your family is always welcome just like I was welcomed into this community.

Anyone anyone else in Chamber? None. Are there any hands online that are had not spoken already? I see a Parkourt resident. Please go ahead.

Hi there. My name is Dustin Ng. I am

Sounds like you cut out.

Hi. Can you hear me?

There you are. You're back.

Thank you. My name is Dustin Ng. I'm a resident at 743 Park Court. My family's been here for over twenty years. I celebrate heritage and history with the other residents of Park Court, and I am opposed to the building of a structure that is three times the square footage of my home. And I stand with the other residents that oppose this as well. Thank you.

Thank you. Not seeing any hands online. Are there anybody else that would like to speak on this? Oh, please come on now.

Hello. My name is Jomo Queen. My wife and I live at 642 or 663663 Park Court. We are relatively new residents. We've been we've been at our home for almost three years, and we are almost directly across the street.

I do have some notes, but I I just wanna touch on a a couple of things that haven't been addressed yet. Because up until now, the message that the speakers have given has pretty much covered and addressed my concerns. And I think my concerns probably mirror the dozens of people that have not spoken. I think the the residents of Park Court, we definitely have a a cohesive shared perception of this project and and concluding that it is way out of scale. But what I wanted to touch base on is that, and I and I submitted a letter also on this, so I'm just gonna, pare it down.

Parking and and emergency egress. Hopefully, everyone knows that this street, Park Court, which is a circle, is very narrow. It's it's basically 26 feet from curb to curb. And if there are cars on both sides parked on both sides of the street, two moving cars cannot pass, let alone Amazon or a Citi truck. You have to duck in or back up.

And sometimes some sometimes of the day, you know, more, people are at home or away. You know, that that changes. But the the concern that I have, one of the concerns is that the off street parking for a five bedroom home, although it may meet code a requirement, I think it doesn't really pass my litmus test. I I think that that's very insufficient. Cars will end up on the street.

Maybe the the owners do maintain a a small family environment there. But as soon as this home sells, it it it will sell to someone who's probably not a family, but to someone who will rent out rooms. I mean, we know that. We we all experience that. We've before moving to Park Court, we lived closer to, the old quad. We know people that rent, homes as individual rooms. We we know it's very common. We know the pricing structure. Structure. We know that it's a lucrative business.

And whether this owner or the next owner approaches that path, my personal feeling is that the likelihood is very high. And the the impact to the neighborhood, regardless of the sight lines, the impact of the the the congestion to the neighborhood will be very dramatic. So that that was what I

wanted to bring up.

Thank you. Anyone else? Please go on down. And, like, for anyone else that would like to speak, we'll start queuing up.

Oh, hi, everyone. Thank you for being here. I'm a resident of 650 Park Court, and I am against the proposed construction. My primary concern is the value of our homes because when I purchased a house, I was really attracted to this architectural design and the consistency of this neighborhood. And once we start to have this very out of place design, it's gonna impact our smaller homes values and it will attract people who have more money than people who have less than the bigger homes will be built.

And in the long run, the neighborhood is gonna be changed irrevocably. And I'm just really concerned and I hope the city officials will think about the equity and think about the long run, not just the short short term. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. And that's it. One more.

And one on mine as well.

Hi. I'm Maria Malneva. I'm a resident of 555 Park Court. And I also sent a letter. I opposed to this structure with I'm with my neighborhood where all all the concerns are valid. But my main one is quality of life and character of this unique neighborhood. I will share one short story. We're from Ukraine. And when the war started, we made we we did a fundraising bake sale and the whole neighborhood, like, the whole street came together. Like, Terry's dad was handling the money jar.

Lynn was creating bouquets and bringing, like, bunches of flowers to to sell. And, I mean, I was I was so grateful. I did not expect that, but that was so moving. And this is not just a neighborhood. This is the neighborhood with its unique character, unique, I don't know, called the camaraderie.

Like, we we know and love all our neighbors. We participate in our neighbors' lives, and we actually care. So, obviously, we don't want it to turn into, like, standard size modern housing project, which it will after this project is get go. So, yeah, I'm also opposed to this structure.

Thank you.

There's one more speaker online as well.

Yes. Do you see a hand? I have a Google Pixel nine. Your hand raised. Please go ahead. You're gonna unmute yourself.

Hear me?

There you are. I hear you.

Great. Great. Hi. My name is Mari Iwata. I actually do not live on Park Court, but I'm I'm on the neighboring street on Idaho Street. And I walk my dogs in Park Court twice a day. And as everybody has said, this is such a lovely neighborhood. And as you can see, people can't say enough about how special this Park Court is. And as as many people have mentioned, we actually bought our house 17 ago because of the camaraderie in that neighborhood, because of Washington Open and the students that go there. I would hate for you to destroy something that took years to build.

And in one year, it can get destroyed because of one misguided decision. So I hope that you will listen to every one of us that have spoken today and take that seriously when you're making your decision. I understand it's a difficult decision to make that you have to weigh multiple points of view, but gaining something that's special is very hard in this environment. So please keep that in mind. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Give me a minute before I open this back up to the applicant. I'm not seeing any hands. I'm not seeing anybody standing up. Okay. So I'm gonna turn this back over to the applicant for any replies to the comments to that were made on the project itself.

So the only thing I would like to say is thanks for all the feedback. Right? So we'll think about it. Okay? And we'll work with the city. So I come from India, so I I understand how the community works. This is a beautiful beautiful community, and we respect all your comments. Okay? We'll work with the architect, and we'll work with the city. So there's nothing personal here. Okay. So we'll respect your opinions. Thank you.

So I would before I close everything, I do wanna see if the commission has any questions for the applicants based on the public comments that we already we just received. Oh, and I do wanna call to attention that we did receive two bundles of letters in the last couple of days. So anyone who had sent a a email or a letter, like, we did receive them to review before the meeting. And then we also have Laurie.

This is really eye opening to see so so such a cohesive neighborhood. We do realize that Park Court is a special historical neighborhood for years now, and we hope that one day it will be the first district in Santa Clara or maybe the second. But regardless, you've walked into an amazing community, and you've heard everything they had to say. Do you would you consider some modification to your home in order to fit into the neighborhood at this point?

Mind could you

I'm leaning towards that, but I'll work with city and architect to see what is that we can do so that it'll at least fit our family. At the same time, better fit the neighborhood also. I'm leaning towards that.

Positive. There's

also some really good stories here from people who have accommodated their space, their lots. You could take this some good ideas from that as well. There are a few, I think, three homes that were mentioned where they added to the back where it's only 13 inches higher than the front of the house. So you are going the right direction as far as adding to the back, but the height is an issue.

Laurie, anything you wanted to speak? Closed the public hearing yet. I haven't closed public yet. We'll but I can close public.

Just I no. I was going to tell say there was one thing I wanted to say for you to consider as you're making a deliberation of what you wanna go because it keeps coming up over and over and over that that the setting that Park Court or that this property is in within Park Court, but Park Court setting itself, which is so unique to Santa Clara. It it truly is. And while you have these individual properties that have been landmarked and by the way, there are 12 of them. If you're not aware, seven of them are on the of the California register.

And two two of them the two mills two of them the two Mills Act properties that came before you tonight, the speakers, one of those is one of the ones that is on the California register. So you get this feel that within the narrowing down within the specific area right around 642, you have definitely historic properties that will be seriously impacted. So the court will be impacted because of the really where this lot is located. It's not at the ends of the court where you come in. It's really in the middle of this oval.

So you think about it. If you go down the street, you're gonna see it. You're gonna see it from up here coming down that way. So why this whole babbling I'm going on with is important is it's you it's stressed over and over and over, and I'm I'm actually gonna read this so I have the exact wording. Significance is conveyed by the retention of a resources visual and physical characteristics and its surroundings.

And that's a real important part that nobody really talks about when you talk about the structure or this that, but the end of surroundings. And when you when you do what I do when you evaluate these things, for the National Register, on the seven aspects of integrity with the location design, all the materials. Again, one of the ones is setting. And adverse effects include the change of a property setting and the introduction of visual elements that is an adverse effect when it's a change to the setting. So you look at what this house that really anywhere else in town could probably fit in very nicely, but because it's in the middle of what is basically one story small houses that were built that way because of the small house movement that was very specific.

You can see what this property would do where it might not do it in another section of town. And I think that's the hard thing in the decision making to really grasp this the idea that a visual element, a property setting, the surroundings can impact a historic property even though you're not doing anything to that property, the the historic property, or to its actual lot itself. That so I really ask you to think about that. And you who know me, that was short talking coming from this.

Thank you. We appreciate this. Okay. So do I have a motion to close public comments so we can go into deliberation?

Just wanted to ask one thing for the applicant. Were you aware when when you bought the home that you were buying a property in in a a historic neighborhood? And are you open to any modifications given all of the input that your neighbors have presented today? So

as I said earlier, right, so December early means early December is when we put in a deposit. So on the day before we put the deposit, I asked my architect to can you please check with the city if we can build the what what is that we need for our family? So he did check with the city, and he talked to Nimesha of the city staff, I think, or Zoom call. And he said, yes. So this this is a historic neighborhood, but the property is not historic.

So then he specifically asked, so we would like to make a the initial design, what we what he showed, right, where there was a two car garage in the front where we can lift the house so that the house is still retained, and we can have a modern house in the 1st Floor. So he discussed all those specific details, not not not random details, specific details with the city staff. And the city staff clearly said, Scott, that, yes. You can do that, but you have to it has to fill in fill in with the neighborhood. But she was kind of saying that you can do that.

Okay? So we did not miss. The day before even we we sent the deposit to the city I mean, to the close the property. So till it took probably two months to close the property. We were in constant was in constant discussion with the city. Can we still do this? Can we still do this? He he gave some initial proposals, some elevations. It's not we try we try to do something without knowing what we are doing. So he was in constant touch.

In the last six months, he almost met with the city every two weeks. So it's not a randomization. Even knowing the historic, city said that you can do this, that's when we went ahead. Right? So it's not like, why would we waste our money after we wasting six months of time? Right? So as I said, when I submitted in February, the initial plan before submitting, the city was said, okay. After submitting, city said not okay. Then we had to wait for three months. It costed me $25,000, me and my family.

Right? So and we are okay to spend 75 k more even with the design the new design. It's it happened. So yeah.

And I I just kinda wanna follow-up to that. Your neighbors seem open to modifications. They're welcoming you. Are you open to modifications? Okay.

Amy, I see your hand.

I wanted to ask. I know that several commissioners have asked about modifications. The architect mentioned at one time going underground, and I wanted to ask if that is something that the homeowner has possibly considered.

No. No. We don't want that because, typically, once you go underground, at least my experience with active water sessions were water might also seep in, and you won't have proper ventilation, so which I don't want to have for my kids.

Yeah. Would you mind just speaking up so the people online can also hear you? And we are still in public comment. I haven't closed it yet. So

I I just wanted to point out that going down is a problem on Park Court because there are underground streams, and that is why there are so many sump pumps that are going and draining onto the to the curb, basically. Mhmm. I have a river by my house two times a day Mhmm. That goes in because I have a storm drain right in front. So it is a problem in our area that we have these underground areas.

And, yeah, I do. I I will agree with you because I've heard issues when there was storms plus power outage. That was, like, a really bad time last season. Yeah. To have the fire department. I remember this because the water table is really high at that location. That's right.

Okay.

Do I have a motion to close public comments so we can go into deliberation? And and we will probably have more exchanges with the homeowner as well. Yep.

Motion to close public comment.

Thank you. Do I have a second? Second. Second. So commissioner Ari Smith.

Oh, just taking a while. Okay. Commissioner Stocks? Commissioner Sarte? Aye. Commissioner Kirby? Aye. For closing. Thank you. And I for me, unanimous to absence. We're closing public comments. So commission.

So I'm noticing something here where staff is recommending, these modifications technically meet criteria, but, I mean, the rendering, the visuals of, you know, the optics of that don't match the the neighborhood aesthetic is what I'm seeing here.

Thank you. And, actually, before we go forward, I do have to make a a couple of clarifications on what we can deliberate on here. Wait. I heard a lot of comments, and they do touch on a couple of different topics such as used parking and property value. Those are things that are outside of our purview. What we're discussing here is how this proposed design is going to affect the architectural architecturally, how is it going to affect our list of properties that are nearby? And, also, because this is a potentially historic district, how is that going to affect our future ability to get the the area listed as a as a district. So those are the things that we can discuss.

Just on that topic, can I ask the historian a question, Cher?

Please go ahead.

Brie, I believe are you working on a this neighborhood for a historic designation? Oh, are you working on this neighborhood for a historic district?

I've got a totally clogged left ear from coming over Altamont.

You're the wrong side

of the table. You, but I don't.

Okay.

Is it okay with the chair if I just move down there?

Thank you.

I've

been picking it up going this way because the speaker's on that side.

Let me ask you. Are you working on this neighborhood for a historic designation?

Right now? In a matter of speaking, yes. But I'm not getting paid for it. This is my labor of love for Park Court. So to clear that up, there's no financial in in in to this at all. I wanted to do this for years. But, yes, right now, I'm working on a context statement they have for about the last six or seven months because this is one of those spare time things. And then following that, I am going to I wanna meet with the neighbors. I really wanna get their feel. Once I've I've I know, say, definitely go for it.

I'd like to go for a National Register historic nomination, which you can do. Unlike actually having something being placed on the register, if it's found eligible for the register, it goes to that point and it doesn't get placed, but it they'll declare it formally eligible, which gives a lot of protection. So that that's sort of where I'm going with this. If everybody they're wanting to agree, yeah, we want this, that'd be great. We go for the full shebang.

Right? So that's where I'm going with this whole thing. And the big thing, the reason that it so qualifies, it's one of the few places that I, in my life, have ever seen that has over 80% integrity when you look at all the houses around the court. 87% is, I think, credible amount. And and because they can be altered, small alterations, you know, as you all know, small CPF conferences and everything like that, it doesn't change it. So that that's what I'm doing. Yes.

Thank you for that. And then does this property fall within the boundaries of of your your survey there?

Is this proposal?

Right inside the the boundary. Is that accurate?

The boundaries will run from Alviso Street to Park Avenue, Cypress Avenue, or Cypress Alley, excuse me, to the unmarked alley or unnamed alley on the other side where because that's all considered part of the court, which goes back again to that when it was first platted there.

If this proposal went through, do you think it would affect or impact your your work on this particular subject?

The impacts that I feel this has on the whole thing, number one is the big one, of course, is the second story because it just stands right out there. And then, frankly, when you take a house that's replacing and and this neighborhood this neighborhood, it there are these little just a little over a thousand square feet houses. Suddenly, you're taking and you're replacing one of the small little over a thousand foot square houses with something that is, what, 3,777 feet. That's like replacing one of the houses or adding to one of the houses, two more of the houses on the same lot. So if you think of it that way, you have the one house, then you add another house behind it, and then you strip the third house on top of it.

It's that sheer bulk and the massing along with the second story. And then it also disrupts disrupts the the going down the one side to the back. Have the garage. That that's much more minimal, though. But it's it's just this thing of, basically, the amount of volume that you have from one house, now you're gonna have from three on the same lot.

That's just okay. Got it. I mean, you talked about setting earlier on, and I and I hear that now. My question was more about the kind of administrative aspects. If it would be degraded, the application may be at risk, for the historic neighborhood if this was to go to a

two story.

Definitely. On that side, yeah, it it will be. Because you're gonna take out a whole not just the houses on either side, but you're gonna take out that whole back of that part, which you can do because, as you know, with districts, sometimes they jury and man mander around like this. But you really disrupt that whole oval by

Thank you.

Yeah. And and but I wanna make it really clear. You can do this if you do it the right way. You've got houses right around the corner They're on the oval. They're two story. They've been added. But the way that they were added and they were not this big, makes a slight impact on it, but it doesn't destroy the integrity. Know, if you actually go out there and look at them or you look at the way they're settled, yeah, they don't just jump right in your face.

Thank you, Laurie. Thank you so much.

Other questions, more deliberation before I launch into mine? Amy, you have anything else?

I do, but I'm going to wait just a little bit longer.

Sure. Initial thoughts, there are a couple for me, massing, obviously, in the back. Like, I heard, like, all the all the neighbors and stuff. That was actually from my first reaction when I looked at the the application itself. It is it is very disruptive because of the integrity of Park Court itself, as Lori said, is, like, 87% intact currently, as a potentially historic neighborhood that is actually going through review, preparation for getting, getting enlisted.

So that's, very concerning to me. We have had applications for, like, expansions of homes in here, but, like, the way the massing goes, it doesn't it doesn't alter the massing, like, as much. Like, you barely notice it. Extending in the back, great idea. That was a very good change from the initial proposal already, so I applaud that.

But the second story is gonna be a big problem because it does stick out a lot. The other thing I don't think anybody picked up on was the the front porch. I like a French porch idea, but, like, the way that it copies another location, it is actually presenting a false history unless we have photographic evidence that the front porch exactly like that existed before. Because, like, the the way that is it's a smaller thing, but, like, because the way it's presented, it's creating something that wasn't there before in that way. So those are, like, my my two quick things.

But, like, as is, I I understand, you know, there are a little bit of conversation just now before we came to the deliberation that we did ask the applicant if we're, if they're willing to update the the design of it. So I was wondering, like, which way you're you may be leaning on the on the changes because it seems like it would be amenable. And, like, for for any, like, big modifications, we are looking for a continuance to give you enough time to go through the changes.

Yeah. Kinda tell that's where we're heading here. Yeah. Yeah. Well, I guess we would have to ask you what the parameters are because we followed the guidelines that the city lays out in terms of height limit. We're not going over. We're not maximizing the site. So it's it's tricky for us to just tell you what guidelines we should we follow. Like, is 18 feet tall too tall? Is 20 feet too tall? Two stories is not gonna happen? Like, how how are we how are we being guided by you if we were already guided by you and and we're getting this feedback?

Yeah. It's a very tricky question, a very tricky answer as well, like, in that sense. We're we can't design on a dais for you, like, in that

But you guys did design by telling us what the height limits and the setbacks and the second story setbacks and and the two car like, you are providing guidelines on what we can do, and we did it. So we would have to I'm not I'm not sure how to design it without any guidelines from you other than the guidelines you already gave us, I guess, is my question.

Okay. I would actually defer, like, some of that just to, to city staff. There were a couple of points that were were made about guidelines. Actually, I do wanna roll back. There there was one comment about, like, saying that the property is not historic. I do want to point out that the DPR does say this is potentially historic that it's eligible for listing. So that's one. And, also, the do wanna get a clarifying comment saying, like, you know, was the wording of property not historic, or is it not currently on HRI? You know?

To clarify, the property is currently not on the historical resource inventory. So the historian they hire said due to it meets local, I guess, destination based on geographical location. Yeah.

But you're asking specifically the conversation that was had. I wasn't privy to the conversation. I don't think Alex was either. Oh. I don't know if it was in writing via email if how it was stated, whether the property is not currently on the HRI but potentially eligible.

Like, staff and staff.

I think the initial conversation, I was near both both of us were there. But based on the, I guess, the the facts at the time when the the applet I mean, the homeowner bought the house and Scott, the architect, spoke with city staff. No DPR form was provided for this property, and so that's why staff direction was for them to provide a DPR form knowing to the sensitivities of the Parkour neighborhood. And we wanted them to get a historian's opinion on the integrity of the house and just, so, yeah, based on that, factor, initially, staff was, open to the first design just because the house is not historical, it was not on the it's not anywhere on our listings.

Okay. Thank you.

But, again, that was before we had the DPR, but, obviously, we understood the sensitivity of the neighborhood.

Got it.

And then the second part of the of this part is, basically, the city guidelines, those are just from our code that we provided, right, on what is allowable for a single family?

That's correct. So just like any other property on Park Court that's not historical, they follow the the the R 16 L Sony standards and then our design guidelines, which this proposal at this time in front of you, that's why we staff brought it up, does meet everything in our guidelines.

Okay.

And the other thing I was thinking about is, like, does the historic building code provide, like, any additional guidance that our architect can use?

I don't know if the historic building code would be applicable here. Lori, do you know that offhand? Would the would the historic building code be applicable here or no? No. Because the property is not listed.

Coming. No.

So so I was basically like, so the applicant's basically asking us, is there any additional guidance we can give them other than, like, the city's building code to Like, based on the our comments back, like, what would be, like, like, appropriate guidance we give them on, like, the the massing? That's perfectly fine.

Yeah.

Thank you.

All the comments are close. Right?

We are close on public comments. Sorry.

At least for to answer that question, based on just looking up our the California division of state the division of the state architect, the California historical building code, the state historical building code applies to qualified historical buildings and structures as defined by the state historical billing code. Qualified historical billing instruction is defined in chapter two section eight dash two one eight. Staff can look into that further when we converse with the applicant. Anything else? Okay.

Please go ahead.

I have two requests. I think one thing Scott asked Scott asked. Right? I'm with the community. Okay? That okay. Let's start at a second story. Okay. I I can respect that. Okay? I can make the design changes for that. Right? Now most of the people suggested, okay. Go extend in the back. We can go extend in the back again as per the city guidelines, if that is what you are recommending. Right? So we can try that. My only request is see, we bought the property January. We submitted on February. We couldn't get to the historic review committee in March.

April 1, we couldn't get. May 1 got canceled. June 1, we met first time. So it took six months to get here, and we are right back back to Square 1. For six months, I'm paying $10,000 per month as interest for my property. So who is going to bear the cost for this one? I I changed the design months. I changed now as per the community, okay. I respect the community. Because if I want to live in, I'd respect the community.

Again, I have to change the design. Again, it will take three months. So nine months from the time I bought to get to a decision that this could be done or not even after doing every part of due diligence with the city staff. So my only request would be, if at all, if we come up with the design, not adding a second story, but compliant with the city standards as of today, can we get some expedited procedures? That way, we can start the construction and get it done. That's my only request.

I had

a question. Maybe Rebecca Alice can help me. So in the past, we've had homes that are eligible to be historic, and that homeowner has moved forward with the Mills Act. And that's a benefit for property tax. Right? And I'm not sure if you're familiar with that, but he is at a stage where that is a pivot if he wanted to make it go that route. He hasn't done anything to it. It's still eligible for to be historic. And then later on, we've had folks come back and say, I wanna do an addition in the back. And they still have the Mills Act saving on property tax, and now they have a much larger home that fits the neighborhood because now they have to.

They're part of the Mills Act. They're part of the history. I think three of you here had mentioned, yes, all the changes you had to go through to make that all fit. Is that an option for I mean, there's an opportunity to pivot.

It it is an option for the homeowner based now on that information provided by the historian, that DPR form. If they will would like to, they could consent to applying to be added to the historical resource inventory and, I guess, in the same time, apply for the Mills Act.

You had that discussion about the benefits on the Mills Act?

At this time, we've just been discussing the design of this proposal. The intent for the I guess, the homeowner could answer the intent a little bit why they bought this particular property, but I think the intent was that it wasn't listed yet so they were allowed to build what they needed for their needs for their family.

Yes. We did have a discussion about the results of the DPR and, you know, what would listing on our city's HRI mean for the property, and they were not interested in pursuing that at the time of that conversation, which was a few weeks ago or last week.

Are you interested now?

Hold that thought real quick. If we if if the property were to go forward with the present proposal, would we would it still be eligible to be listed in for a MoSEQ?

We would need a new evaluation once the the changes were made to see if it was still eligible for listing. I kinda feel that it would since the addition is proposed on the back of the property so the the historic structure would remain intact.

Got it.

Just a thought, an opportunity maybe that you had not considered

to explore.

It's quite a significant savings

It is.

With the Mills Act on the on the property tax on an annual basis once it goes through. Amy, I see your hand up.

I would like to say that I, support commissioner Vargas Smith and her suggestion. I think that would be a really good avenue to go down. A few moments ago, it was said for guidance. Well, I think with that avenue, you could take in the guidance of your neighbors. You could take in the guidance of the people that you're going to live next door to. And it seems to me, like, that's twofold. Right? You're gonna have a better relationship with the people in your community, and you're going to get the benefits of being part of the Mills Act. So I just wanted to throw that out there.

We we can respect the comments from the community. Right? So I want to work backwards. Okay? So when we started the permit process, we were told if everything is done right within a six months time frame, you can start the work. Okay? So now and things happen, and we thought, okay. Maybe one month might be delayed. So after multiple conversation with the city staff, August still seems unlikely based on the discussion the earliest discussion what we had. So my only request is we can take as much as comments what we can from the community.

We will not add second story. My only request is if we can get if we do everything right, right, get the permits by August as planned. Right? At least the cost on my friend, every month paying 10,000 without without being able to live there can be avoided. So that's my only request. There's any way the city can consider at least considering application that so we can close the things by August. That's my only request.

Timeline wise, I I don't think we can promise anything, like, on what we can do. But Yeah.

Yeah. So as of right now, we do not have a July meeting scheduled. If it's if the commission would like, we can pull for a special meeting once we figure out how long revisions are going to take. Mhmm.

And, I mean, I I would check with staff on if you have enough instructions, like, from us based on discussion on on furthering the discussion with the with the architect on on the modification of the of the project on basically, what we're asking for is just not have the second story and massing in the back to keep it that way. And then what else? I think I I did appreciate, like, the differentiation sightings to show the the difference in the old and new. And then is there anything other Just a concern. The garage? Okay. You wanna talk about the garage and how that works?

I think most of the neighborhood suggests that the garage is not appropriately placed and that it should be further back in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood visually. And that's also just preserving the fabric of the neighborhood, so if that could be considered. It also impacted your neighbor next door. She was saying she looked out her bedroom window, all she saw would see is your garage. So that make your next door neighbor happy would be, you know, happy life.

The reason we had a tandem garage is not because we liked it, but the city has a guideline that if you you add more than thousand square foot to the house, we have to have a two car garage. That was never our intent to add a tandem garage, even make it a two car garage. So we knew that probably keeping the existing garage as is. If it works, we wanted to actually have that. We did never want it.

But there's a guideline from the city that you have to add an extra garage. So, yeah, that kind of disrupts the design also. If we actually add, it looks odd now. Now see, only thing is we can follow as much as we can, but if it triggers more variances, more timeline, that's that's our concern. That that's the only concern. I we are respectful of the community. So we want to take the feedback, but it should not be, like, after three months, again, we are back to Square 1. Again, after three months, we meet. I I don't want that. That that's

my only request. If we

can get things done right, we we'll do our best to get things done right. But if if you can be considered to get things on time, right, So that would be helpful. That's one request. Did

you say you don't need you didn't want the garage? Is that what you said?

We didn't want to move it.

You didn't want to move

it? I see.

You wanna keep it detached. Okay.

Just so you know that that the existing garage is actually closer to the neighbor than the one we're proposing. It's just the one we're proposing is longer, but it's a little farther away than the existing garages to the neighbor's side. And then the other thing I wanted to mention is that people asked about shadow studies or story poles. Those were not requested by planning, so we didn't put them in. It wasn't we sometimes we do have to do that.

We could we'd be willing to do that if that was a requirement for anything that we need to do moving forward so that we can get feedback. I'm not sure how to take the feedback about in the future people might be parking in the street. I I I don't know how we would address that. Or in the future, somebody might rent it out for students or something. I don't know how we would address that those comments. There were quite a few of those.

I think those particular comments about use we're not considering as part of, like, our decision On on use, I think the on the garage side, it's actually the the massing on how it's attached to the to the home because because the major I believe all the garages in the area are detached in the further back as more like a carriage house, like, in the in the back.

Right.

That's that would keep the Yeah.

Look. And, like, I yeah.

I understand. It's the our this garage that we're proposing is 45 feet back from the property line. Mhmm. Existing one's 76, but it's half as long. So we had to double it to meet planning requirements.

Okay.

We could slide it even farther back, but then we're gonna have a long driveway all the way to the back. No no planting. No trees. It's gonna be a driveway all the way back a 140 feet to the back of the property. That doesn't seem great either.

Or for them, and their kids, the garage would take up some of their backyard in the back. But we're open to it if that's better. But I guess back to what Sy was saying, it's costing him a lot of money, and I know that's not your concern, really. But, if we're in and and having an iterative process with the neighbors and with you and with this group a few more times and we're still here in six months, that doesn't seem fair either. So that's why I was asking about trying to what are the guidelines if they're not the guidelines that we were told to follow?

Gotcha.

So that we're not here for a long time trying to figure out a way to satisfy everybody.

I mean, like, with with, like, a continuance, like, we're probably going to propose where we I am I do wanna continue to, like, state certain August, like, on our meeting, like, if we can actually get that done at that point because that is our earliest next meeting.

Yeah.

Yeah.

K.

I don't wanna do it more time than you do. And then, actually, one question for staff. The two car garage requirement, is that set by a square footage of the of the home?

It's set by the square footage of an addition.

Of the addition. Okay.

Right. And there's no provision on our city code of exempting historical or homes in potential historical neighborhoods. I know it was brought up earlier. I think that probably could have been from the the county's code section. Could there be a

variance applied?

The variance would have required them to go to planning commission. Okay. That'd be a longer process. And they wouldn't meet findings, potentially.

Yeah. They potentially wouldn't meet the findings because it requires it to be a unique situation, and this lot is large enough to support a two car garage.

Gotcha. I thought I was gonna be brief. Are there any other questions from the commission?

I have a question to the owner. What made you want to buy a property in Park Court? Why do you like that neighborhood?

Right. As I said, there are two reasons. Right? One is for the home or what I wanted to have, at least what the square foot, what I wanted to have in the San Jose and Santa Clara community, it would cost close to 3,000,000. That's the reality because of the tech boom, what other than even what I was part of. So one way to buy it is you buy all all with your own money, or you try to buy a smaller home. You try to add it carefully. Right? So that way that would probably save 5 to 600 k just as owner. Right? So that's financial reason. Other reason is it's a small quaint neighborhood. So, yeah, as people are saying, it's 26 feet short. So even it's safer. Not much traffic would come there also.

So it's safer anyone to walk around. It's quiet. It's right? So that's where I liked it. Those are the two main reasons. And just to add to it, both my kids are born in Santa Clara. So so I think people had their own stories. I have my own story. Right? So I don't want to bring all of that. Just to say, okay. That that's why I bought it here.

K. So I I see that he likes Park Court because of the aesthetics, the neighborhood. It's safe. But can staff maybe recommend, like or can they provide some kind of modification that meets the historic fabric of Park Court? Like, do you have any other suggestions? Because, I mean, I know we will go over that, but it seems like at the planning level, certain things weren't mentioned. And so this is why we're here.

I think and then I think we could suggest is, like, they're like, I recognize some of the neighbors who had had their applications come through multiple iterations to get to the the part where it would fit in the fabric. Is there a way for us to pull those planning applications to kinda show what kind of modifications they've made in the past that fit into the fabric? And they but that would give you some examples to work with.

Yeah. If you have specific addresses you want us to look up, we can provide that.

I think this crew would have some addresses they can they can provide. Yeah.

Well I think a couple of them are here tonight.

Yeah. There were at least two. Yeah. Okay. Amy, I think that you had your hand up.

I did. So I'm trying to think if this is the right time to say it or not. The whole reason that I chose to be on this commission I'm gonna share a little story with you. Four years ago, in the late nineteen nineties, I have a very close family member who purchased a historic home built in 1910 in a city that borders Santa Clara in a neighborhood much like Park Court. We don't need to talk about where it is.

And they chose to completely rehab their beautiful house, and they paid to actually have the house dug underneath and include a story below. That was the reason I had said that earlier when it was mentioned. So they could keep their house historic. Now since the nineteen nineties, I have spent a lot of time in this neighborhood at holiday functions, with my children trick or treating. And I have watched how house by house, they have been destroyed.

Little cottages, just like Park Court. If it wasn't tore down to make way for a massive new structure, it was added onto in a hugely obvious manner. There was no denying it. It no longer fit on the lot. It didn't fit with the driveway.

It looked out of place. And this happened time and time and time again. So as I'm sitting here at my last meeting and I'm listening to this very dedicated group of residents who have come together to advocate for their community, I can't help but see this other community in my head. And that was the whole reason I wanted to be a historical landmarks commissioner, because of watching this other community go the path it did. They obviously did not have people that advocated for it the way that Parkour does.

And now that community is just it's destroyed. Like, there's no getting it back. There's no way to go back to what it once was. So as I'm sitting here listening to these folks, I've got this running through my mind, right? Thinking, so we have a chance here to really preserve this and not let it start heading down that pathway. So that's what's going through my mind, and I just wanted to share that as I'm listening to both sides of this story. Thank you.

Hey, Sandy. I

would like to add something just to answer the commissioner's questions about guidelines. And I think and end of the day, it comes to city staff reviewing of this, due to the fact that the property is not historical, it was reviewed with the development standards that were objective based on the code at the time. So to for guidelines, there are one another we have converse a little bit with the architect about potentially reducing the mass by by potentially adding dormers or anything like that, maybe, like, kinda like how some certain homes have like, it's like it looks like the the massing of the second story is actually, like, within the roof form even though it still have little space. That's something that can be done. By the end of the day, I think when staff is reviewing this, it's something that's not historical.

We're, you know, we're just bound by, you know, objective design standards, and that's where staff came with you know, and helped with the applicant. So I think without the guidance of the commission, I think it's what do you say? I think it would be beneficial just to get more guidance, I think, for staff, and then staff is willing to work with the the architect and the homeowner to ensure that this is done in a way that, you know, meets their needs and also meets the needs of the neighborhood.

So so I guess it's my question to staff is, do you have enough from us right now, or do you need more specifics?

I mean, if your guidance is no second story, that's pretty clear. But if you're open to a second story, and we would need specific thoughts about how that can be accomplished because this meets all of our step back requirements and actually exceeds them.

Patricia, if I could say one more thing too. I'm hearing what staff is saying, but, you know, we are in this unique position, right, where we have to take what staff says, but we also have to take what the people that live there say as well. So I get that it did meet the requirements when it was proposed, and people go through several revisions. We've had many cases come before us. So I guess I'm a little lukewarm to that, that yes, I understand it did meet it, but that's what we exist for at the historical commission is to sort of take everybody's side into view of that.

I don't want to add to that. I I understand that it meets the requirements, but, again, there's we have Laurie that's working on on potentially entering the, you know, parkour in the national registry. And so if we were to approve this second story, it'll compromise that. And so that's something that won't allow me to approve something like this. And if we can get modifications and examples in the neighborhood that have worked and haven't compromised the integrity, that is something that that I'm open to.

I agree. I think that's why we're kind of proposing pulling, like, previous applications in the Park Art Area that were acceptable and were built in as guidelines, as examples. I I caution against sometimes, like, saying, like, absolutes about saying absolutely no second story. I've I've seen, like, one and a halfs that actually looks fine. Right? But, like, that would kinda constitute as, like, almost like a second story. We've had neighbors that dug down. That's like a like, another creative way of doing that to add, like, a second second story, like, in that way. But as it's, like, you know, the look and feel of a second story is what we're would be objecting to.

Taking a few notes here. Taking a few notes and wondering if we can kind of combine some of the points that have been brought up earlier into some guidance. We don't redesign projects here on on this stage. Right? We just talk about how they affect the neighborhood, and I I kinda summarized my thoughts a little bit.

And I maybe ask if, you know, we were to give some qualitative guidance around, you know, something that address the massing and bringing a design that had more embracement of the historical setting and doesn't introduce new visual elements. And to to kinda give that as as part of a continuance where without specifying a design, we we ask that you do you hear what you've heard what you've feedback and and kind of amalgamate that into a design that would be appropriate in the in the neighborhood rather than trying to specify, you know, meters and feet and and stories and and yards so that there's creative freedom there and maybe taking some cribbage from successful designs, coming up with something that meets this family's make making this design something that this family can bring to

the neighborhood and and and bring their something of their own to the street without us telling you what it should look like. So with that,

could we make a motion that that kind of is a bit more along the lines of a guidance for for revision of the designs?

I mean, just one just again, was that enough for discussion?

I think after this discussion is enough guidance for staff to work with the applicant to reduce the mass and the visual impact of the second story.

Sounds good. And it sounds like if we were to make a motion, it would be for continuance for the applicant to work on rework the design until they certain or until our August meeting. That's what we would go for. Right? I'm wondering if commissioner Kirby would like to make a motion as your last meeting.

Thank you. I am so sorry that I could not be there in person. I someone mentioned COVID, and I'm actually have COVID right now. So that's why I am not there. So I'm very sad that I was not able to be there. Before I make that motion, just again, just to clearly state, you know, I feel bad for the homeowner. I I heard everything they said about coming before, doing everything, all the time it's taken, and and I get that. Just the same way I've gotten it for every other party that's come before us and had to redo things and rewrite things. But at its essence, that's what we're here for. We're to protect and make sure these things don't happen that destroy our communities.

So it's like, well, I feel it, but I also don't want to get in the way of what our job is. With that said, I would like to make a motion to continue and for all of us to do the best that we can to get this project to where it needs to be. But to continue it, I've heard to August, I believe.

That sound meeting. I think the I think the applicant has a has a question.

Is it possible to have a meeting in sometime in July and even mid July instead of them? So at least that would help.

Okay. So we can do either we can we have flexibility in the motion to say

Yes. So we can have flexibility in the motion. It would just mean we would need to renotice it potentially if if we don't state the exact date.

Makes sense. Yeah.

Can in the motion that I make, can I say to continue it either to a special meeting in the month of July or to our next scheduled meeting of August? Or does it need to be more specific than that and actually have the date in July?

Yeah. I would need to have the date.

So Oh, okay.

So we'll just need to renotice it, which is fine. It's a relatively small.

Is that something we could do now as a commission, suggest dates, or no? Is that not something we would do now?

No. Because we don't have the full commission present.

Okay. Got it. Sorry.

I'm just

Yeah. So I'll need to pull for a couple updates and obviously see what the this room availability is. Although it should be pretty clear because there's no meetings that are gone.

So how about make that motion? That's where I'm going at. Like, how would Yeah. Would you word that then?

So either either August meeting or a special meeting prior to that. Right?

Yeah. That would be good. And then if we're not able to do the special meeting, we'll just do August, then we wouldn't need to renotice. Right.

Okay. Does that sound okay? I

would like to make a motion to continue this to our August meeting or a special meeting in July if we are able to come up with that, but if not, our August meeting.

Do I have a second or any friendly amendment? I second. And we have a second. And I will take a a poll. Vice chair of Ari Smith?

Aye. Aye.

Commissioner Stocks? Aye. Commissioner Insiarte? Aye. Commissioner Kirby? Aye. An aye for me. So g nine is two absence. This will be continued until our next meeting, and, hopefully, we'll get this taken care of. And thank you for all your patience and your willingness to work with us, like, on this matter. And thank you for everybody who attended and show and tell let us know how you feel. We really appreciate, like, the the neighborhood coming through and and participating in this process. Thank you very much.

Thank you all.

I'm gonna propose a ten minute recess, a bio break for everyone, so we'll come back at 08:55 ish.

Well, yes. I mean,

We can ask for volunteers. Alright.

Nice to meet you.

Thank you.

I

talked to all these guys. We have some ideas.

Yeah.

Alright.

We are okay. And it is 09:04. We're back. We're done with that public hearing item, so we're gonna move on. The staff report. What were we doing? Okay. I was like I'm looking at a script. I'm like, where are we? Yeah. We have staff report.

Nothing to report. We still do not have the date for the council hearing to present the work plan. Of course, I will update the commission as soon as I do have the date.

I was going to ask. I was like, who's gonna take those trifolds? Cool. I will likely be traveling the week of July 28, so you know.

You said July 28?

Yes. It's,

like, Monday to Thursday.

That would be

Okay. Hentatively, but I'm blocking that wake up. It would be, like, the meeting on the twenty ninth for, council if that was a meeting.

Oh, that's a good question. Does anyone have any known dates they're not available in July just so I don't include that in my poll?

I was thinking about a vacation in week one or week two of July, but I can I hadn't booked it yet,

so I'll get back to you when I've done that?

Like, week one, everybody's off anyway. Like Yeah. A lot of people took the first week off. The days off. Yeah.

And then and not necessarily be a Thursday. It might be, like, a different day too. Right? Yeah. Because we have let's see. Sixteenth, I have the cow train. And then seventeenth, we're do we have a station area? Yeah. And we have a station area. Those are the two days and then the twenty eighth to the thirty first probably out, and that would be my that would be my July.

Okay.

They can be.

Depending on if we're available. Use your mic.

Say it again. Wednesday. Just Wednesdays. Okay.

Mhmm.

Okay. Thank you.

The other two, I can it's a little bit more flexible, but it's okay. Cool. That was half report. Is there there's do wanna mention tonight is commissioner Kirby's last meeting. So thank you.

Yeah. Thank you. I wish I was there and not sick.

No. I wish you were here too. So really appreciated your participation and camaraderie for the last four years. You've been a really invaluable resource for us, like, on the on this commission. And I really appreciate your comments, like, on on this item that we had tonight because, you know, it reminds us, like, on kind of the perspective you've been bringing to our commission in the last four years, and we really appreciate that.

Thank you so much. That really touched me because, like I said, I it's very personal, you know, for me. And I really as they were talking, I was thinking about this is probably why I became a member of this commission, right, was that other experience. And I was like, wow. That really galvanizes that for me. You know?

Yeah. Kinda wanna oh, I think

I was gonna say, what are you gonna do with all your free time?

What free time is that? No.

I was gonna say, hey, Amy. Really appreciate you on this commission. I'm like, I'm obviously the newest one, but some every time that you mention something, you you present some, like, information or, like, input, you always remind, like, you bring the spirit and, like, you put the soul in into what it means to preserve, like, history and that kind of thing. And I really appreciate that from you, and I just wanna make sure that you knew that.

Thank you. I may be back. Who knows? We'll see. I might take a little break and then be back. You never know.

Okay. Yes. Come back.

And then next item we have is training and travel request. I know we just had CPF not that long ago. Yeah. So I don't know if there's any other training and travel requests that people would be submitting currently. Probably not for a moment. Do you want the presentation on the

So Okay.