Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Alright. I now call to order the development review hearing of 05/13/2026 at the time of 04:00. Afternoon. My name is Sheldon Aseng, and I am the hearing officer for today's agenda as delegated by the director of community development, Akshab Ahmed. The staff in attendance today are planners Daniel and Summer. Distribution of the agenda. The agenda is available on the city's website under the calendar event on the Friday afternoon preceding the meeting. Those of you, in attendance, please silence your mobile devices. Copies of the agenda are available for your convenience by the door here. Declaration of procedures.

The hearing procedure and order of input for this hearing will be as follows. I will identify each project as described on the agenda. For those items on the consent calendar, I will ask if anyone wishes to speak on the item. If separate discussion is warranted, I will move the item to the public hearing portion of the agenda. The separate discussion is not needed.

The item will be remain on the consent calendar for approval. Those items listed under public hearing, I will ask staff to provide a brief report. The applicant the representative will have up to ten minutes to speak and should identify themselves by state their name for the record. After the applicant or the representative has spoken, any member of the public who wishes to speak on an item may provide testimony up to two minutes per speaker. All speakers are required to state their name for the record.

Following comments from the public, the applicant may make additional remarks for up to five minutes. I will then close the public hearing, and I may ask staff to answer questions, respond to comments made by the applicant or the public, or further discuss the item. I will take action on the item. If you challenge these language decisions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. Actions on the agenda items are final unless appealed within seven calendar days.

Continuances or exceptions, are there any requests from applicants, the public for withdrawal, continuance, or exception to any of the other items on today's agenda? None. Public presentations, would any member of the public like to briefly address any item or topic that is not on today's agenda? See none. Consent calendar.

There's one item on the consent calendar. It is item one, development review hearing minutes of 04/08/2026 meeting. Anyone has any comments on this item, please raise your hand. Seeing no comments, item one on the consent calendar is approved. Moving on to public hearing items.

Item number two is a public hearing action on Arctic's review PLN twenty six zero zero one two one for demolition of an existing one story residence in the construction of a new 4,829 square foot two story residence located at 108 Brookside Avenue. CEQA status is exempt from CEQA for section one five three zero three new construction. So, Daniel, please provide the presentation.

Much appreciation, officer Hausing. Annual subject. City of Santa Clara. The application in front of us today is for the removal of an existing one story single family home and the construction of a new 4,829 square foot two story single family home with four bedrooms and three and a half bathrooms. The existing site is about 13,700 square feet and surrounded by single family homes on all sides.

The zoning is r one eight l, and the general plan is very low. The presentation shows the elevations of the project. The project proposes curved roof forms, arched windows, shutters, and other architectural elements. The project proposes to be clad and stucco with cedar shake roofing and other accents as well. The site plan here and the elevations will show that the project meets all the zoning code requirements, setbacks, height, etcetera.

And the slideshow here shows the floor plans for both the 1st and the 2nd Floor. Please note this that the 2nd Floor meets the 66% threshold that is in the city's rules and regulations. K. The project meets all these city's rules and regulations. The project proposes a style that is similar to the surrounding area.

The project is of adequate size and proportions for the property, and the project proposes high quality high high quality elements and accents as a prominent front porch and amongst other elements. The project is categorically exempt from CEQA per section one five three zero three class three new construction and that the project is a single family home that's being constructed on a single family zone property. All in all, staff recommends finding the project categorically exempt from CEQA per section one five three zero three class three and to approve the architectural review of the of the removal of the existing one story single family home and the construction of a new 4,829 square foot two story single family home with four beds and three and a half baths subject to COAs. That is all that staff has. The applicant is here as well.

Thank you.

Thank you, Danny. Before we get to the applicant, have you heard anything from any neighbors or public on this item?

Yes. Staff has received two two submittals in opposition and one other middle that is that has been attached to the agenda that is not in opposition but has additional questions they were hoping to advance.

Okay then. Can you just go into a little more detail about the ones that were submitted today and kind of their issues or concerns?

Sure. The chief issue that we believe or that I saw in the up in the opposition emails were that the applicant has a very large oak tree in the rear of the property. Let me share my screen and show that real quick. And the removal of this tree, while it is a would be harmful to sight lines, property values, privacy, and general flora and fauna in the area. I believe that that covers most of it.

There were additional questions on if the 2nd Floor window or the project would have sight lines into the surrounding property owner's home as well.

Okay. Thank you for that summary. May go back to that. We'll see how the what the comments are. So first, I wanna invite the, applicant, if you're here in person, to come up and speak at the podium. Please state your name.

Hi. I am Bess Worsama, the principal at Studio three design. I'm the architect for the project. I'm here representing Rashmi and Srinath. They hired me to help them create this family home.

I think one of the things that when I first went to the property that did strike me, and it's obviously something that came up from some of the neighbors, was the substantial oak tree in the backyard. I wish it was actually really in the backyard. If you look at the site plan, you can see it squarely in the middle of the yard, and the drip line is relatively expansive. Based on the setbacks, this actually makes it pretty hard to well, we couldn't even put a single story home on the property with the number of spaces and types that they wanted nor could we really get them any private yard space without looking at removing this tree. The owner desired a an architectural design that actually created a little bit of a an interior rear courtyard for them.

It's part of their goal to maintain privacy to them sell for themselves. So most of the larger windows related to family room, dining, etcetera, or casual dining and hallways are all enclosed in that courtyard. I do think their intent over time would be to well, not even over time, but, obviously, with tree removal, I'm sure we're gonna be required to replace trees. I I think the owner would have no problem dealing with tree replacement in a manner that is helping the neighbors feel more comfortable with the loss of that tree. However, we did look at many layouts for for this home, and the tree really if we stayed outside of the drip line, it really eliminated the the majority of the building area for us, or it would create a a possibility where we would have a much more massive home stretching from both the left and right side property lines with our upper level addition.

Because our upper story addition is two bedrooms and one bathroom kind of pushed out of the dripline and, you know, back off towards the the front side. I think I think one of the other things that was important to my client was to make sure that we had a home that was architecturally responsive to adjacent single story homes even though there is a lot of transition in the neighborhood. With two story homes, one of the things that we really wanted to create was the massing being with the second story being held more in the middle of the property and stepped down on both the left and right side with the lower roofs of the garage and main left wing of the house as well as and the porte cochere on the other side. I think that's it unless you have any questions for me.

Not right now. So let's hear from the public, and then you have an opportunity to come back. Okay. But anything that they may say. Now I will invite any members of the public that are, interested in speaking on this item.

You state your name.

Hi. My name is Tracy Johnson. I live on Bel Air Drive. How much time do I get?

Two minutes.

Okay. I submitted one of the letters, my concern about, you know, trying to preserve the tree. And I do understand the concept of drip lines and sight lines. One suggestion I'm gonna ask city staff is if there was a could possibly do a variance that would allow the house to be maybe moved forward maybe five feet towards the street if that would help accommodate the tree if there's enough room. The other concern is if the tree does come out, there's no indication on landscape there's no landscape plans suggesting that the tree is gonna be replaced.

I think adequate replacement would be at least, you know, three to five trees on the property, preferably native trees. On the resident behind the house, there's a a redwood tree on the northeast corner of her property. One accommodation for nature would maybe to be add some redwood trees in their property into that corner, so we have a little redwood forest in that corner. We have that in some other parts of the neighborhood where the neighbors adjacent neighbors have made their own little grouping of trees at their back fence lines. The other the issue I have with the city only requires a replacement of tree of one on one, and I have and they don't enforce it.

I've seen I've been to planning sessions where applicant assesses, yeah, we're gonna put a tree in the front yard, and it never happens, and nobody comes back and make sure that a tree is put in. So those are my you you can read my letter, and I'll I'll give a copy to the architect to read. But I'm very passionate about the environment, and I feel very passionate about we need to be taking care of our environment here at home and our wildlife here at home. Thank you.

Thank you. Is anyone else that wants to speak on the item? Please come forward. State your name.

Hi. I'm Cindy Baldanzi, and I'm the resident behind 108 Brookside. And, I certainly do commend the architect for a very beautiful design of a house. And I also shared the same concern with the oak tree probably because I've lived there thirty three years, was familiar with, as you can see in the letter, the previous owners in helping maintain the tree. If potentially the tree cannot be the house cannot be shifted to accommodate the tree and the plans, I'd like to see something, in that back for, I I appreciate the fact that you stepped the second story back.

That was incredibly very considerate of you. Thank you. I spend a lot of time out in my driveway, have redone the property in a gazebo and so on, and was concerned about that sight line from the second Story. I don't know if it's gonna be an issue. Just was wondering if we could do, maybe a a proposal if you can draw something to show me what that sight line would be from that lower part of that second story window. And lastly, just from the privacy standpoint, that would be what I'd like to address, and we can certainly talk offline about that if you'd like. Other than that, it's a beautiful property, and I look forward to seeing it evolve in the neighborhood and commend the architect.

Thank you. Okay. Anyone else that will speak, either online or in person? Okay. Seeing none there.

So going back to what we've heard about the public comment about the tree, it seems like that's a big thing. So so, Daniel, what what are the requirements? You know, sometimes we have a commission approval. I don't see that. And one regarding the request to remove the tree, is there an arborist report?

I don't believe that we have an arborist report at this time. I can talk with the applicant to see if they have one. But at this time, we don't I don't believe they were we have one on file.

And what are the requirements for replacement of a of a tree? We'll know if this is a protected tree or not because there's not a ARPS report. But if there if it wasn't a protected tree, what would be the requirement?

Sure. So let me share the city codes. We have that on on the screen. Alright. So trees and shrubs are going to be from chapter 12.35 of the city code.

A protected tree is anything that is 12 inches in diameter at a four to five foot height above ground and meets the species listed in the city code here in section 12 dot three five dot o eight o or any species of tree that is 38 inches in diameter at its four foot to five foot height. Exactly 54 inches above grade. So to replace those trees, that is in section same section, but Subsection 7. And single family homes would have a one to one replacement.

So then on the plans so maybe I can maybe I can have the applicant come back up here. Thank you. I do see the plans, and it shows the tree, and then there's another site plan that shows the removal of the tree. Is there a planting plan?

Is there any planting? Planting plan. No. We do not have a planting plan. We just put we put some annotations for some in the three d renderings. We wanna condition a planting plan with a certain number of trees, and my client would not have a problem with that at all.

Did so I'll give you the opportunity because you heard some of the the neighbors if you wanted to make any statements regarding that or rebuttal.

I I think my only my only comment would be, no, we do not have an arborist report. We're not required to do one. Just so that everyone understands, an arborist report cost starts at about $7,500 today even for one tree. So it's a cost that we did not want to incur at the time, and it is it's not a tiny expense. I do think that I mean, you can kind of tell originally, I think we tried to work around creating a courtyard.

You see that just in the footprint of of what is happening with the house, and it just became apparent that no matter what we did with room sizes and layouts, it just was not something that was feasible unless we threw more more things up on the 2nd Story, which, you know, the owner wants their master suite and and parents' room guest room to be on the main level. Just their kids are upstairs. I would say that I have a client who's very excited about being in the neighborhood, and so I think they would be really happy to coordinate their planting plan and landscape plan with you and participate alongside you in choosing species of trees that, you know, would would help both of you feel good about what's happening on the particular property. I think that's a great image to put up of the of of the of the neighborhood, the Google Earth image, and that, you know, we we like to refer to things as as an urban forest, and yet the the block between Brookside and Herald really isn't forested like the probably city planted tree line along San Tomas Expressway is. So if we're looking for more of a forested feel in that area that protects views and adjacent neighbors, I I think we could work together to come up with a plan that really supports that.

Okay. Thank you. No. That's yeah. I think you that's that's okay. Thank you. So, Danny, can you bring up, the code again? And I think there's section twelve point three five one hundred about construction and development. And this one, it's kinda small for people, but it talks about site development is occurring. A discretionary permit, public hearing required excluding r one six l, which this is not as a r one eight.

Developer and property owner shall meet the following, a tree survey. So I'm I'm kinda thinking we're missing some information. Heard from the public. I think we're missing some information. Maybe there's some opportunity, but we gotta cross those those t's dot those i's, I think, before we can make that appropriate decision and conditions. So I'd like to see a plan planting plan that shows where you're gonna put the replacement tree or trees, work with the neighbors. I think come back here in on June 17. That's the next meeting for the for the DRH and have that report. Hopefully, everything's all buttoned up. And that way, we can we can make a decision on this project.

So I'm gonna keep the public hearing open. You have an opportunity then to have some more comments. Alright? But I'd, you know, really like I think the focus here is on this tree. I think the architecture is looking good. I don't see any issues with that. I also heard about some privacy. But when you're looking at the rear to another rear of a property, that's really not, a big concern. They need a egress ingress type of window. On the sides, you're more concerned. That's where you have the high sill windows. You can do some frosted. So that's that's kind of where we're going with this. So that's what I like to see. We'll continue this item to June 17.

Let's focus on the tree. Let's get the right information in, and then we can make a decision on it. Yeah. I think it'll be appropriate you work with work with the the neighbors on that and then try to capture this this tree survey requirement. And well, I want it to be, what the code says here. Survey showed the location size of the species on the site written report by ISA's survived arborist. Meet tree that's, protect the tree. So it's so it's a big looks like a big tree. It probably meets the criteria, and then, we'll go forward. Okay?

So that's, item number two. Item number three, a public hearing action on architectural review PLN twenty six zero zero zero eight for the demolition of an existing one story residence in the construction of a new 2,050 square foot one story residence located at one seven one seven Flannery Street, CEQA status exempt from CEQA pursuant to section one five three zero three, class three, new construction. Daniel?

Thank you very much, officer Austin. Alright. The request is for the removal of an existing one story single family home and the construction of a new 2,070 square foot one story single family unit with three beds and two and a half bathrooms. The existing site is 5,384 square feet and surrounded by single family homes on all sides. The zoning is R16L, and the general plan is very low.

And city, here are the here is a elevation three d rendering, and it shows the updated single family structure using composition, shingle roofing, stucco with wood siding at the base, and wrapped along the sides of the structure and other accents. The site plan and elevation showed that the project meets all the zoning code requirements. Please note that the ADU is not subject to the public hearing review. As stated previously, this will be a three bedroom and two and a half bathroom home. The project meets all the rules and regulations.

The project proposes an updated single story, single family structure, which is similar to the surrounding area. The proposed is harmonious with the surrounding area as well. Stucco, comp, comp roofing, and wood siding are found throughout the surrounding area, and the project proposes high quality high quality building materials and has a prominent front porch amongst other elements as well. The project is categorically exempt from CEQUA per section one five three zero three class three new construction, and that the project is a single family home being constructed on a single family zoned property. With all that being said, staff recommends finding the project categorically exempt from CEQUA per section one five three zero three and to approve the architectural review for the removal of an existing one stories single family home and the construction of a new 2,070 square foot one story single family unit with three beds and two and a half bathrooms subject to COAs.

That's all that staff has. The applicant is available online as well.

Thank you. So I'll now invite the applicant. If you're online, please raise your hand. Okay. I'm in go ahead and and speak. Yes. Hello? Yes. Hi. Please state your name and continue. Yes.

This is Ramin Zohor. I'm with Nelson Builders. This is regards to the 717 Flannery Street, the new residence. I appreciate everyone's time and reviewing this project. Basically, we are doing a demo of existing single family home and doing a a new single family home on the same lot, trying to achieve a three bedroom, two bath, and a half bath on in main residence.

We do plan to do a a secondary unit in the back, not visible from the street as an attached ADU. And the residence will be occupied by the the owners, and the ADU obviously will be rented out. That's just for creating more housing as ideal. We try to keep the design very simple, matching with the neighborhood in terms of both materials and just the overall feel and the look of the house. We didn't try to do anything out of ordinary.

So, hopefully, that's acceptable to the neighborhood and the neighbors and less of a compact overall. And, yeah, we do appreciate, again, everybody's time to review this. Happy to answer any questions. Hopefully, it's pretty straightforward, and it's a nice addition to to the Florian Street and also just Santa Clara neighborhood.

Okay. Thank you. I don't have any questions for you right now, but we'll see if we have any members of the public that wants to speak, and then, you have opportunity to rebut that.

Sounds good. Thank you very much, everyone.

Alright. So now, I'll ask if there's anybody wants to speak, either in the chambers, online. I do see a Kathleen. Kathleen, you should unmute. Yep. Hi.

Hi, officer Singh. My name is Kathleen Romano. I'm a historical landmarks commissioner, and I'm tasked tasked to to review the items that come up for your agenda and raise anything that we may see as pertinent to what we're doing. This one did not come in front of HLC, and I apologize for not, reaching out to you sooner. I've been waiting to hear back from our city historian, Laurie Garcia, if she had any more information on this area.

We don't have any DPRs specifically on this area, but it is a, the neighborhood and area is very indicative of the post World War two modern architectural style, and the area adjacent to this was the McKay architecture home developments that were a I a award winning designs. And she didn't have time to get back to me on this specific street or homes, but she is saying that it is very prolific for McKay to build in the area, and it's a very special part of our history. And I'm asking if we could get more time for Lori to provide more information. She didn't wasn't able to get anything specific on this property yet, and if it needs to come in front of HLC first.

Okay. Okay.

And the reason I raised the concern, let me add, is because it's a complete demolition as opposed to a modification. Right? We would be removing the original structure altogether Even if it even if the new structure is similar to the neighborhood, we'd have concerns if it's removing, architectural character defining features from the original property.

Okay. Thank you. Anything else on Nope. That's it. Okay. Is there anyone else that would like to, speak on this matter? Right. Seeing none there. So, Ramin, you you heard the commissioner. Any response to that?

No response. I mean, I I if I understand, you're still waiting to hear back. Is that what the the answer was at the end? I wasn't clear on that. Sorry.

Yeah. I think, I'll I'll try to summarize. I think the issue is that there may be some information out there about, this property or or or properties in the area having historic significance. And that that may, weigh into the the approval of this of this project since it's a full demolition.

Understood. Okay. My understanding is, if I may, on the same street, I I I'm familiar with, obviously, the historical, and it can vary in the same street as well. But there is a brand new residence built on at 731 Flair Flenary Street. So there is a brand new street house that was built on a similar street. I don't know the age or the timeline of that house, but just I I wouldn't think there is a significant historical evaluations to us. So, we'll be happy, obviously, to see the results. And when we should hear back, that would be ideal if you can let us know, but that's I I appreciate you looking into it. So thank you.

Right. Kathleen, I I think you're still on and unmuted. So what what is the timeline that we're talking about here?

I would have to ask Laurie how long she's gonna take to get back to me. She was able just to give me her overview in about three or four days. So we would have to get the information back. Maybe I can get it back in the next week or so. And then if she does find anything, we would have to talk about the agenda for HLC getting on the docket. Do you want it just her information? I forwarded her email to the the public notice. This is the first time we one's ever come up, so I'm not quite sure how you'd like to go about it.

Yeah. No. Thank you. And and I know we don't have any, like, context statements for kind of mid century modern type of architecture. There's there's a lot of post World War two Mhmm. Examples that are out there. And it certainly is, you know, something that the HLC could look into explore or, you know, work with staff on. On that, I I I you have to work with the liaison specifically Mhmm. In your work plan. Right?

Yeah. We do have we actually have in a work plan to expand our contact statement to include purse post World War two. The only one and there are plenty of post World War two that you see that, you know, we just we understand it's not in our context yet. But because these could be related to the McKay architecture, that's my only concern.

Yeah. I think just the response to that, like, there's the sequel issue that probably I'm you know, the first thing the first bar that needs to really be considered if it for properties that are over 50 years old. You know, that's sort of the the issue. So I think I'm it sounds like, Ramin, you're okay with if we were to continue this to June 17, we could get a resolution to this. We we get that that report in from from miss Garcia. Does that sound

I mean, obviously, we are trying to, the reason the this project was pushed a month from the last hearing. So we were scheduled for April, and we got pushed to this month. So we already lost about a month, in that time. I don't know the reason behind it. But, obviously, again, I will I'm not trying to cut on the city's review and what they have to go through to make sure this is in compliance full.

We are in the building phase, obviously. The city has helped us also to move forward with that just to get the building review started, while this hearing is happening. I just try to under trying to understand would would be able to get some sort of feedbacks before that just to understand, hopefully, no concerns. Would that happen before maybe the hearing, or we only get to hear it in the hearing of next, next month?

I think as soon as we know, we can we can tell you what those results are.

Okay.

I think Yeah. I

Yeah. Go ahead. Sure.

Yeah. I I so I I think, really, to me, it's about the CEQUA and its relationship to the historic. So given that there is a concern from the public about it, let's let's get the extra information about it, and then we'll know. It sounds like, hopefully, before, Kathleen, we can get that going before the

the next. Okay.

Okay. I'll reach out to miss Garcia right now and ask when she can get that to you and provide any information she has.

Okay. Alright. Thank you. Thank you. So Thank you. I'll I'll keep the public hearing open. We're gonna continue this one to June 17. Let's let's get more information about this historic additional historic issue, and then we'll, we'll make a decision. So thank you for item number three.

Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Daniel. Okay. Item number four. It's a public hearing action on architectural review, PLN2600107 for a 104 square foot first story addition and 875 square foot second story addition to existing 1,305 square foot one story single family house resulting in 2,284 square foot two story residence in a detached garage at 758 Frederick Avenue. Sequa status is a class one existing facilities. Summer?

Thank you, officer Singh. This is item number four, seven fifty eight Frederick Avenue. My name is Summer Foss, assistant planner. This is the request for the action on the architectural review for a 104 square foot first story addition and an 875 square foot second story addition to the existing 1,305 square foot one story single family home resulting in a 2,284 square foot two story residence with a 420 square foot detached garage located at 758 Frederick Avenue. Per the Santa Clara city code 18.12D1T, the request requires architectural review approval through a development review hearing due to the addition of a second story.

The site is a 6,669 square foot lot. The surrounding uses are r one six l single family residential, which this property is as well, and that is consistent with the general plan designation of very low density residential. Here we see the subject property highlighted in red. Here is the proposed front elevation for the property. The front here is existing for the 1st Floor.

We see the detached garage. There is a breezeway here, so the roof is connected. The front door is on the side here facing towards the driveway. The proposed right side elevation, we can see that the window

on

the second story is high sill. Here on the left side in the dashed outline, can see the garage. These windows are full size, but they are quite far from the property line on the side there, which you can see here in the proposed site plan. Here's the garage. The hashed area here is the proposed second story.

This right here is the existing first story and in the gray area is the proposed first story addition. Here we see the proposed floor plans. The addition for the first story is to the primary bedroom. The rest of this 1st Floor is existing. And then on the 2nd Floor, we see a bedroom, bathroom, and a family living space.

The proposed project complies with the city's single family and duplex residential design guidelines in that the second story front wall is set back 33 feet and one inch behind the front property line. The second story right side window is high sill. The 2nd Floor is proposed to be 62% of the 1st Floor, which is consistent with the guideline that the 2nd Floor area should not exceed 66% of the 1st Floor area. An early notification notice was sent to 62 property owners and tenants within a 300 square foot radius or 300 foot radius within thirty days of the filing of this application. Staff has not received any comments from neighbors on this project.

The action being considered is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA guidelines section fifteen three zero one e one class one existing facilities and that the project is a small addition to the existing single family residence. Staff recommends that officer Asing determine the project to be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act formal pursuant to CEQA guidelines section fifteen three zero one e one class one existing facilities and approve the architectural review for a 104 square foot first story addition and a new 875 square foot second story addition to the existing 1,305 square foot one story single family home resulting in a 2,284 square foot two story residence with a 420 square foot detached garage located at 758 Frederick Avenue subject to findings and conditions of approval. That concludes staff presentation.

Okay. Thank you. So now I'll just invite the applicant if you're, here or in person or online. The applicant is online. K. Bob.

Hello? Can you hear me?

Yes. Yes. Go ahead.

Great. This is Bob Bryant, Laurie Bryant Design Group. The the plans, I think, are fairly self explanatory for this project. Staff has been, very helpful in getting us to this point. And there's not much more I can add other than happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Okay. Thank you, Bob. I I don't have any questions right now. We'll we'll go to the public and see if, there's anyone there that has any questions, and we may ask you to come back. Okay?

Okay.

So now for this at Frederick project, do we have anyone from the public that wants to speak on this item? Please raise your hand. Alright. I'm seeing I'm seeing none here. So thank you. I I I don't I don't have any questions or comments about this one. I think we sent the early notification out, which was great, and we didn't hear back from any of the neighbors. So it seems like they got a notice a couple of times for this project. And so I I think the project, as Summer has mentioned, meets the design guidelines. So I don't have any anything to add to it.

So I will I will close the public hearing, and I will determine the project to be categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to a class one exemption. And then approve the architectural review for the, addition, to the to the house 2nd Floor. Let me do the findings and conditions approval. So you, you are approved. You have a appeal period of seven days. At that point, you can work with Summer on, building permits. Thank you.

Great. Thank you very much for your time.

Moving on to item number five, last item. Public hearing action on architecture review PLN twenty five zero zero five one two for the addition of a 533 square feet to an existing one story, 1,487 square foot single story house, resulting in a 2,020 square foot, one story residence at 2179 Monterey Avenue. The CEQA status is exempt for a class one existing facilities. Summer?

Thank you, officer A Singh. This is item number 52179 Monterey Avenue. My name is Summer Foss, assistant planner. This is the request for the action on the architectural review for the addition of a of 533 square feet to the existing one story 1,487 square foot one story single family home resulting in a 2,020 square foot one story residence located at 2179 Monterey Avenue Per the Santa Clara City code section 18.12 d seven, the request requires architecture review approval through a development review hearing due to the demolition of 50% of the existing residents. The site is a 5,050 square foot lot.

The surrounding uses are r r one six l single family residential. The site is r one six l single family residential, and the general plan designation is very low density residential. We can see the subject site highlighted in red here. Here we see a the front elevation for the proposed project. As you can tell, there is brick wainscoting along the bottom.

This is a new garage door. There are windows here at the top, and we can see the lighting as well. Here is the site plan. Highlighted in blue here are the areas of addition. This front room is currently being used as an office space, and there is a closet in inside.

There's no currently no garage for the site. There is a carport located here that will be demolished for the addition. As you can tell, the garage is slightly more forward than the proposed new addition, and this area does count towards the demolition per our Santa Clara City code architecture review section. Here is the proposed floor plan. This area is being converted into a garage and the garage door will be on this side.

Highlighted in blue here is the additions. The proposed project complies with the city's single family single family and duplex residential design guidelines and that the front of the house is oriented towards the primary street frontage. Their brick wainscoting is proposed at the base of the home as we saw on the elevation. The first store storey front wall is set 20 feet eight inches behind the front property line. Staff did add a condition to comply with the city single family and duplex residential design guidelines for the addition of a front entry feature located above the front door without the use of posts or columns.

The approved front entry feature should be installed and maintained and shown on the revised plans when submitted to the building division. And this is per the design guidelines on page 30 for entry features, and that would be under section four d one, a prominent front porch or entry should be provided. The action being considered is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA guidelines section fifteen three zero one e one class one existing facilities and that the project is a small addition to the existing single family residence. Staff recommends that the project be determined categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, formal pursuant to CEQA guidelines section fifteen three zero one e one class one existing facilities and approve the architectural review for converting 400 feet of exist one second. Got a little tongue tied.

Approved the architectural review for converting 400 square feet of existing converted garage space back to a garage and for the addition of 533 square feet to the existing 1,487 square foot one story residence resulting in a 2,020 square foot one story residence located at 2179 Monterey Avenue subject to the findings and conditions of approval. Staff has not received any comments on this project, and that concludes staff presentation. Thank you.

Thank you. So it wasn't just me because I I was struggling with reading that as well. So thank you. So that's the the applicant, I think it's Ramen again again. Right? Yes. That's correct. So, Ramen, you're back. You before you say anything, I just wanted to also, get your, kind of feedback or impressions on the commission approval that Summer had mentioned.

Go ahead. Can you

hear me? Yes. We can.

Oh, excellent. Yeah. Absolutely. I think we work with Summer on this project, and, we we do appreciate her feedbacks on this. So I I think, yeah, we appreciate our time. I I the overall in terms of designs and what we have tried to achieve, obviously, on this project is we have homeowners out there who are excited living where they are, and they just want a a bit of a more room and expanding in terms of the additions and just making a little better layouts with their house. And, obviously, the garage just to be converted back to original conditions and etcetera. So that's that's what we're doing.

Okay. But what about the the condition of approval that Summer had mentioned? Maybe you can bring that back up, Summer. Just I wanted to get your kind of impression about that, if you're okay with that.

Yeah. That's the first line is right. Yeah.

It's the the paragraph below. It says to comply with the city's single family, that that paragraph.

I'm just looking at this. Yep. That's fine. That's not a problem. Yeah. We can comply with that.

Okay. Alright. Thank you. I I don't have any questions for you. So now I'm gonna go to the public. Is there anyone here that wants to speak on this item in person or online? Please raise your hand. Okay. Not seeing anybody. I I don't have any further questions. I I agree with, with staff, so I'm gonna close the public hearing. It looks like Raman, you're gonna come out of here with, 50% here, batting 500 for the projects. So Yes. I'm going to, determine the project to be categorically exempt from CEQA, presented class one existing facilities, determination, and approved architecture review for the, for the project. So that's Thank very much.

Thank you. Was presumptive findings of commission approval. So you have seven days, to anybody appeals.

Alright? Sounds good. Thank you very much, Edwin.

Thank you. So now moving on to adjournment because we're at the end of our agenda. I now adjourn the development review hearing at the time of 04:51. The next regularly scheduled meeting is on 06/17/2026 at 4PM. Thank you.