Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, now I call to order the development review hearing of June 17th, 2026, at the time of 4 o'clock. Good afternoon, my name is Sheldon Ah-Singh, and I'm the hearing officer for today's agenda as delegated by the Director of Community Development, Akshat Vangan. Staff in attendance today, Associate Planner Daniel Subjig, Associate Planner Neha Patel, Associate Planner Alex Tellez, Assistant Planner Summer Foss, Associate Planner Tracy Tam are on Zoom right now, but will join us later in the meeting. We are in a smaller room, so we're trying to manage the agenda. We have 10 items. So when your item is called, we'll get you in the room here, or you may be online, that's fine as well. Do mind your step as you come up or down through the lobby area to the room. Distribution of the agenda. The agenda is available on the state website, on the legislative public meetings webpage. And if you have mobile devices and you're present, please silence those. Copies of the agenda are available for your convenience, as well as there's a QR code available in the meeting room with a link to the agenda and all the supporting documents. Declaration of procedures. The hearing procedure and order of input for the hearing is as follows. I will identify each project as described on the agenda. Those items on the consent calendar, I will ask if anyone wishes to speak on the item. If a separate discussion is warranted, I will move the item to a public hearing portion of the agenda. If a separate discussion is not needed, the item will remain on the consent calendar for approval. For those items that sit on the public hearing, I'll ask staff to provide a brief report. The applicant and the representative will have up to 10 minutes to speak. They should identify themselves by stating their name for the record. After the applicant and the representative has spoken, any member of the public who wishes to speak on an item may provide testimony for up to two minutes per speaker, either for or against the project. 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'll then close the public hearings, may ask staff additional questions, respond to comments made by an applicant or the public. I'll further discuss the item and then I'll take action on the item. If you challenge these land use decisions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at this public hearing or 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. Any requests from the applicants or the public for withdrawal, continuance or exception? Any other items on today's agenda? Looking online. I don't see any hands online. We'll move forward. Public presentations, I remember the public like to briefly address any item or topic not on the agenda today. Maybe, Maya, if you don't mind relaying that outside. We're just asking the people in the lobby if they have any issues on this public presentation portion. I don't see anybody online that has any Public presentation, that's not on the agenda today, I think. Okay. So consent calendar, there's one item on the consent calendar. It's a development item number one, development review hearing minutes of May 13th, 2026. If anyone has any comments on the meeting minutes of the last meeting that we had, please raise your hand. Seeing none. Then item 1 on the consent calendar is approved. So now we're moving on to public hearing. Item number 1 is a public hearing action on architectural review PLN 2600121 for demolition of existing 1 story residence and the construction of a new 4829 square foot 2 story residence located at 108 Brookside Avenue. SQL status is exempt for SQL for section 15303, class 3, new construction. This was continued from the May 13, 2026 developers hearing. I just want to check, Alex, for people outside for item number one, for 108 Brookside. They may be online. That's fine. We have a seat over here for Brookside. Yes. Great. Okay, so Daniel, go ahead.

Good afternoon. Thank you. Thank you very much, Officer Ossing. Annual Subject, City of Santa Clara. The application in front of us today is for the removal of an existing one-story single-family unit and the construction of a new 4,829-square-foot, two-story single-family unit with four-bedroom and three-and-a-half bathrooms. This item was last heard at the meeting held on May 13th. The item was tabled so the applicant's property owners and city could further review and study the landscaping plan and the arborist report for the property. The applicant has subsequently submitted an arborist report for the removal of the oak tree. The report meets all the city code. The applicant also submitted a landscaping plan as seen here. City staff has reviewed the landscaping plan occurs that the plan meets all the city code. With that being said, Staff recommends that staff's recommendation is the same as last meeting and that staff recommends finding the project categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act per section 15303 and to approve the architectural review for the removal of an existing one-story single-family unit and the construction of a new 4,829 square foot two-story single-family home with the four bedrooms and three and a half baths subject to COAs. That is all staff has. The applicant is here today as well to answer anything additional.

Okay, thank you. So now we'll just move on to the applicant. I do recall the last time of visitation, but just anything in addition to add to the record regarding... Your project today?

No, I think we try to take into consideration everything that the neighbors had concerns about invoiced at the end of last meeting and via email. We even provided an additional site line diagram for and updated all of our renderings showing where trees are. You know, Daniel, if you have that new site line one we did for the neighbor or no.

I will have to find it.

Okay. That's okay. I couldn't. to be a big deal. So I think we've been very sensitive to the neighbors and provided them with additional dockings and everything. Do you want me to give you this? Okay. I did just want to clarify, there seemed to be a lot of concern from side neighbors. We don't our 2nd story windows on the addition that's pulled significantly and from side and property lines are only high windows in a bathroom that are obscure on the right hand side.

You just state your name please.

My name is best for semester. You have 3.

Okay, thank you. Thank you. i don't have any questions for you but i'll just ask there's an additional public comment on this item so if anybody online for item number one and this is brookside and alex if you can just ask relay that does anyone item number one brookside public comment thank you anybody careful i can watch for any public comments okay thank you So, thank you for that. And I saw the harvest report and the other additional presentation materials. I do appreciate that. I mean, this is a very large, you know, old tree specimens. I can see why neighbors were concerned. And, you know, I just say, like, people should be stewards of their land and plant appropriate trees in the right locations, like, not necessarily in the middle, you know. So, totally get that. It wasn't the... the issue for the homeowner. I'm sure she's been there for a long time, but I do appreciate you providing that additional information. I would agree and concur about the second story and site lines and everything that you designed meets the guidelines. So we'll close the public hearing and I will determine the project to be categorically exempt from CEQA and as well as approve the architecture review for this project. So thank you.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Okay, item number two is a public hearing action on architecture review PLN 26-008 for the demolition of existing one-story residence and the construction into 2,500 square feet one-story residence located at 717 Flannery Street. The CEQA status exempt from CEQA per section 15303. This is also continued from the May 13, 2026 ERH. Let me see if there's anybody in the lobby outside for that. Thank you so much. Nobody in his lobby? Okay, sorry. Okay. So, Daniel, please go ahead.

Afternoon. Thank you very much. Officer Ah-Singh, Anna Subcheck, 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 2,070-square-foot one-story single-family home with a three-bedroom and two-and-a-half bathrooms. This item was last heard at the meeting held on May 13th. The item was tabled to allow additional time to review the historical provenance of the property and surrounding area. The city found that while the structure is potentially historic due to the age, it does not meet the threshold to be found significant. There is no substantial evidence to a noteworthy architect, a noteworthy owner nor any noteworthy aspects of the home besides the age of the structure. With that being said, Staff's recommendation is the same, and staff recommends to find the project categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15303 and to approve the architectural review 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 home with the three bedrooms and two-and-a-half baths subject to COAs. That's all that the city has. The applicant is online for additional questions.

Thank you for that. I don't have any questions for staff, so I'll go to the applicants. Please just raise your hand if you're online so we can get you. All right. Raman, go ahead and unmute yourself. Yes.

Hello. Can you hear me?

Go ahead. Yes, I can.

Go ahead. Yeah, thank you so much again for having us on this meeting. I think same sort of subject and feedback. So we have last time where obviously we last time we had the historical situation. So seems like that was taken care of, but we haven't made any changes to the design. So hopefully that will still stands and yeah, happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you.

So now I'll just ask if there's any members of the public that want to speak on this item. I'll just say anybody else online or...

There's nobody there for the time.

Okay, so we checked in the lobby against small room. No one's... online or in the lobby wants to speak on this item. So I will close the public hearing. And again, thank you for following up on the concerns about the historic status and nature of this project. And so I do concur with staff about the project being consistent with the findings and the architectural design guidelines. So then I will determine the project to be categorically exempt. And from CEQA, as well as approve the project review for demolition of the existing one-story residence project. So thank you very much for that.

We're just bringing people in.

Okay, move on to item three, which is one of our bigger items today. So we'll get kind of people in here. Public hearing adoption of mitigated negative declaration and mitigation monitoring program and action on the dark test review for PLN 24. 0633 for demolition of existing buildings, construction, 147 units. And 74 story stack flat condos and 7. 3 story attached town home buildings and a 4,991 square foot commercial building. Okay, 35213591 homestead road. Yeah, subject to SP 3 there. So, yes, thanks so much.

Some slides that you later.

For the applicant or for the resident? No, for the resident. Maybe if you don't see the applicants on the table.

Yeah. Oh, hi. Can you present it if you want me to? Yeah, just the last, just the visualization is, I think, is important for people to realize.

Bill, do you want to sit down next to me? This is for the applicants. Sure. Right here. In case I need to ask you a question. Don't hit me. I don't know. I promise I won't.

Find a space. Thank you so much.

Wait, is Tracy coming in later? Yeah. One of my planners from LP.

It's a reunion. Right?

Dude, it's crazy over there.

I was there last night.

I've got to fill you in.

Everybody here from the outside, or are we still tracking some people? Okay, great. Thank you. So I just read the title that's on the agenda for the introduction. Thank you for coming in here. Apologize, the chamber is going to be used later. We've got 10 items on this agenda. It's pretty heavy. So I thought we'd give us some time. May I bring you to the start?

Thank you, Officer. This is Meha Patel, and I will be giving the presentation for the project at 3521 and 3591 Homestead Road. The request is for the adoption of a mitigation negative declaration and mitigation monitoring and reporting program and the architecture review for the demolition of the existing buildings for the construction of the 147-unit residential mixed-use project that includes 94-story stacked condos and 57 three-story townhome units and 4,991 square-foot commercial buildings. The architecture review is required per City Code Section 18.120.020D3 and 7 for new construction of a new multifamily development and size. This is the existing site. The site acreage is 5.5 acres. It's surrounded by multifamily residential to the north, commercial to the south, commercial and multifamily residential to the east, and Lawrence Expressway and multifamily residential to the west. The site is zoned MUNC, which is mixed-use neighborhood commercial, and it has the land use designation of neighborhood mixed-use. This is the proposed... Site plan with 14 buildings in total. Seven buildings are proposed to be four-story stacked condos along Zorns Expressway. And seven buildings are proposed to be three-story townhomes adjacent to other uses. There will be a 5,300-square-foot common open space behind Building 13 and around 5,000-square-foot conventional building along Homestead-Brentage. This is the elevation for the three-story townhome building type. This is the elevation for the staffed condo building type. The elevation for the SAC condo building type, a different unit count, I think 10 units. The previous is 14. And then this is the elevation for commercial building. The top shows what it would look like along Homestead. And then the bottom shows what it would look like along the driveway when you enter the flight. As discussed earlier, the project has 14 residential buildings, two building types, as well as the commercial building and a 5,300 square foot open space with pavilion with tables, benches, barbecue area, top lot. and a usable lawn area with trees. The proposed architecture is a contemporary architectural style. It uses a mix of exterior materials, colors, flat and gable roofs, private balconies, dormer windows, metal elements. various entry types. Materials proposed are stucco, siding, and stone veneer with metal railings for balconies. The variety of residential entries include stoop, covered porches, grade-level portico, and shopfront entrance for commercial building. There will be a direct vehicular access to the site from Homestead Road and Lock and Bar Avenue with 26 foot wide two-way driveways. and there will be an internal H Street that connects to the seven driveways serving the residential buildings. Each townhome will provide a two-car garage that totals to 294 spaces with 47 guests in commercial parking spaces throughout the site, which brings the total to 349 off-street parking spaces. The site also provides 147 class 2 bicycle parking, so one in each townhome garage and 12 class 1 bicycle parking spaces throughout the site. The project includes a mixture of different tree and plant species planted along both frontage, along the pedestrian walkways, as well as along the perimeter and in the common space. A total of 17 trees are proposed to be removed and 139 trees are proposed to be plantized. This project was submitted under Senate Bill 330, which allows a streamlined review if it complies with objective standards in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete. The project proposes 22 affordable units and will pay in lieu fee for the 0.05 remaining fraction, consistent with the city's affordable housing ordinance, which allows the applicant to use the state density bonus law to seek waivers and concession from the city code. The applicant has requested to waive some of those development standards, which include waiving the multi-story step backs, the 45 degree daylight plane requirement, as well as a request to increase the number of stories and height. They're also requesting a concession to reduce the commercial floor area. The applicant held two community meetings, a hybrid meeting on November 13, 2025, with 38 members of the public present in person and 11 members present online, a second in-person meeting at the project site, was held on February 25th, 2026, where 30 members attended in person. The overall concerns that were raised were the loss of retail of the existing commercial space, displacement of small businesses, traffic concerns, questions on the project timeline, and questions on who initiated the redevelopment process. At the meeting, the applicant addressed concerns by explaining the role of the state housing laws, RENA requirements, general plan land use destination allowance for residential development, and the property owner is the one that initiated the sale of the property, which Pultean made known. At the time of writing the staff report, we received six letters in opposition and one letter in support. The overall concerns that were raised were similar to the community meetings. Additionally, concerns regarding privacy due to the height with no daylight plane or multi-story step-backs were raised. Staff provided um responses to address the comments by explaining the role of state housing laws regarding confession and waivers and general plan land use definitions allowed for us to actually develop it four letters were in support were received after the meeting the meeting agenda was posted there are a few conditions of approval that need to be revised to be consistent with the information in the project condition h1 which is a housing condition needs to be revised to reflect the correct affordable housing unit at moderate income. Condition G8 needs to be revised to update the reach code year from 2022 to 2025. Condition PR2 needs to be revised to reflect the correct unit count from 150 units to 147 units. And the removal of W16, the water condition, as there are no existing recycled water sources adjacent to the site. The evaluation takes into account the potential environmental impacts of the project addressed in the mitigated negative declaration prepared for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and was circulated for public review for 20 days. Mitigation measures are proposed for the project and would be implemented through the mitigation monitoring and reporting programs. Staff recommends to adopt the mitigated negative declaration and mitigation monitoring and reporting program based on findings and approve the architecture review of the demolition of the existing buildings for the construction of 147 units subject to conditions of approval and findings with the revised H1, G8, and PR2 conditions and the removed W16 condition. Thank you.

Thank you, Maya. So just a Questions here, so what's outstanding for the process for this project? So we've got the DRH today. What's left of the project?

So there is a tentative maps associated with this project. Fire. I think commission recommendation approval. Okay.

So then regarding the project being subject to objective standards, what kinds of objective standards were in place at the time the project was submitted or the SB 330 modifications?

It was setback requirements, height requirements.

So nothing unique to the design of the building. I know recently the city adopted Objective standards, it deals with massing and some other more detailed with us.

The project was submitted in 2024. And the application was deemed to complete prior to the adoption of the objective design standards.

Okay, so now we'll move on to, um. Applicants, so I know some of you were outside, probably maybe didn't hear sort of the meeting decor, but the applicant team has 10 minutes, and then please state your name for the record. Following that, we'll go to the public, and the public has two minutes per speaker. State your name, and then the applicant, you have an additional five minutes to address any comments that you've received. And I may have some questions, and then we'll close the public hearing and make a decision.

Great.

So go ahead.

Thank you very much. My name is Jim Sullivan and I'm representing the Pulte Group. I have a quick slide presentation and some of the people here might have seen it before, although I've added a couple of slides. Next slide please.

I think it's going to load.

Okay. While I do that, I'll just take this short time as it's loading to thank Mahon, the city planning staff, and just to, although the Pulte Group had filed a preliminary application in basically in the summer about two years ago, And I think in the fall, that's when we submitted our SB 330 application as well as our kind of our first full submittal. I believe that Waymark previously had submitted a preliminary application as early as 2022. So this has been a project actually that has been being kind of processed essentially over the last four years or so. was also wanting to point out that with the mitigated negative declaration, the city hired, in my opinion, a great firm, David J. Powell and Associates. Excuse me, guys, for that. And so we've done noise reports, geotechnical reports, climate action, traffic. So if there's any questions as far as that goes, please feel free to ask. Okay. So this just talks a little bit about Pulte Homes. It's been around for about just over 75 years. Next slide, please. Myself. Got my own slide. You can pass on to me. So just for those that don't kind of know, this is the northeast corner of Homestead and Lawrence Expressway. So kind of kitty corner, if you would, or catty corner from where the Kaiser Hospital is. Next slide, please.

Some site characteristics.

This is just the size 5.55. There was an existing, you know, just over 62,000 square feet of space and obviously has been somewhat dilapidated given its, you know, kind of 70-year history. Next slide, please. These are the project characteristics, which I think Mayhaw already kind of went over. As you can see, the architecture is kind of a contemporary type style. And this is a product that Pulte actually has built in other jurisdictions here in the South Bay. It's been very well received by today's new home buyer. Next slide, please. Again, just kind of a blow up, but I do want to just point out, if you can see, so we mentioned that we have some four story product, and those would be kind of the oranges pinkish on the left, and the orange ones that are right on the corner, so we push those as far away from what I'm going to say are our closest neighbor uses, and we put our three-story product there. And I think on the south side, our neighbor is McDonald's. On our north side, I believe it's a school, like an elementary school. a private elementary school. And then right in between, however, there is a existing PD project. And it's two story, I think.

Yes.

Yeah. Two story, essentially kind of attached product townhomes typically two units or three units per building. And they're directly to our east. And I think that that was a lot of the letters that kind of came in. Next slide, please. Some project benefits, obviously, the 15% affordable housing. And that basically targets the employees and residents. It's not Pulte gets to pick those people. That's through the City of Santa Clara Housing Department. Helping Santa Clara with their RENA numbers. Home ownership, obviously, close to employment. tax revenue, local business revenue. And then obviously, you know, there's some good things about, you know, kind of building increasing just the overall, I'll say, you know, kind of assessed area. I mean, this should end up a project, you know, totaling close to, you know, $200 million or more in assessed valuation. Next slide, please. So this has changed a little bit from when we originally, when the Pulte Group originally filed in September of 2024. We started the environmental review in 2025, and it's kind of gone through this past year that we're in. Anticipated hearings are kind of going through that right now. We hope to get to the Planning Commission and City Council in August or early September. Groundbreaking likely would start in early 2027. And there are even assuming that there was approval, I think I've explained to at least somebody from the news organization that called me that there's a final map and improvement plans that need to be processed through the city, which typically takes six to eight months. So our planned opening for this site would be late 2027, early 2028. Next slide, please. Community outreach, again, so this kind of shows when Waymark did the original pre-application in 2022, then the Pulte Group picked it up and changed it to a product of their choosing in 2024, the SB 330 application in fall of 2025. hybrid community meeting, which may have pointed out an onsite community meeting. And I've basically availed myself. I know I had gotten a call a few weeks ago from the Santa Clara Unified School District wanting to know basically the schedule. And so, you know, provided that information to them along with contact people from Pulte that they can contact in the future. Next slide, please. I think that that might be the end. Yeah. So questions or if you want to open up, Mr. Director, you know, the public, you know, I can kind of wrap it up afterwards.

Thank you for that. So they had mentioned in the presentation about the revised conditions approval. I just wanted to check in if the applicant's okay with those revisions. Yes, we are. Okay. And then... there wasn't a lot of mention about the commercial space, um, the new commercial space. So I just wanted to read, cause I see Pulte's, uh, as a housing builder. Yeah. So how will you, uh, market the retail space?

Yeah. So that's a great question. So the way that it is, um, set up, I met, um, you know, so Waymark had a purchase, a contract with the original property owners and, um, The Pulte Group has an agreement with Waymo. So essentially they're signing their kind of contract rights. In both of the pre-applications, there was no commercial building that was planned there. And essentially what we wanted to use was our concession to eliminate any commercial as their residential developers. In talking with senior staff, as well as the city attorney's office, there was the possibility or likelihood that we would have a negative staff recommendation. And they said that the city was not yet willing to eliminate, but through about a four or five month period, we talked about a reduction. And so we had reduced, had we done the 0.1 FAR that's required under the general plan, It would be about 24,000 square feet that would be required. So we're doing approximately 20% of that, which is the 5,000 square feet. Pulte will actually, it will be its own separate lot. It has its associated parking. Pulte will build the structure. And then, but Pulte will not own the structure. I believe that Waymark, and there's a representative from Waymark that's here with us, will handle the either leasing of that to a tenant or outright selling that to an individual that would want to own it as an owner-operated store.

Okay. Is that correct?

All right. Thank you. I'm going to make questions right now. So we'll open up to the public. And then we'll see kind of where the discussions go from here. So is anybody here that wants to speak on the item? Okay, just raise your hands. Okay. And then anybody online that wants to speak on this item or homestead, please raise your hands. And then Alex, if you could just check outside again, that would be great. Okay, so you'll have two minutes per speaker. State your name for the record. What's up?

Can I stand? Stand or sit?

Whatever you want. Whatever's comfortable for you. Yeah, probably sit down.

It's fine. So my name is Katie Renati. I'm one of the owners of a townhome, which is right adjacent to the property. So we're here together with some other owners. And so we understand that the applicant has using the state density for his provisions and that certain development standards have been waived. We're not asking the city to disregard state law, of course, but we're asking every available opportunity to reduce the massing and some of the impact on our residential community. Thank you. Our primary concern is privacy, so if you could see, just go back one slide, please. see we're just what the circle is so you can imagine um so appreciate that you know the state requirement is zero feet from this the property line so we have 10 feet but when you think what 10 feet is sitting here is 10 feet and our development is two stories so from the two story we would be looking at a massive building just in front of your window. All our windows are facing the property. So the view will not be the hills or anything, it will be just pretty much a wall. So this is definitely a concern that we have. There's also on the design, there's some balconies that actually were placed in the secondary window. You can look at the slides. Next slide, please. That's just, I was trying to figure out what's the, well, here you go. So that gives you, I mean, that's just a conceptual thing. I didn't really spend too much time on it. The exact height is probably not correct, but it gives you an idea that from the window, you'll be looking at this massive, you know, building block, you know. So not only the shade, the shadow is an issue. Privacy, we mentioned before, and kind of the overall neighborhood feel, if you will, visual impact. So several, you know, we've been talking internally. Actually, I was not aware of this project until recently. Unfortunately, I was aware there was an on-site meeting. I had no idea. Reporters Association not really involved that much. So it's kind of, at least for me and some of the neighbors, it was kind of a shock in some ways. We knew there was a development, but we didn't know it was going to be just right in front of our windows pretty much here. So there was also some concerns about parking at some point, making sure that there will be enough parking in the property so that the parking is not going to overflow. We have a private street with limited parking. That's something that Dave just kind of clarified. So we'd like to have the city really listen to our concern and we hope that privacy screening like with maybe a window, some window placements, maybe eliminating the balcony where people just kind of look at the balcony straight into people's bedrooms and living room. and use of landscaping. So putting some evergreen mature trees, not the little tango tree. That tree actually has been removed, the one on our property. I think it's cut it down, it's growing again. But it's something that Wangan obviously offers some screening and looking at the parking impacts and just massivity of that massive building that are not really looking forward to moving out every single day. So thank you for your time.

Okay, thank you. I'll just alternate. So Vince, I just ask you to unmute. Vince, are you there?

I'm not here, but it's two, three feet. Unmute yourself.

It's... Can come back to you. Vita?

Can you hear me?

Yes, I can.

My name is Rita Carr. I'm the president of the Homeowners Association for the Bring Drive condominiums there. And I want to strongly support Katie's concerns. We've been there for several years, since the early 70s, and the prospect of having this huge development facing our windows and impacting the parking and the light is VERY CONCERNING. SO WE WOULD HOPE YOU WOULD TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE NEGATIVE IMPACTS THIS IS GOING TO HAVE ON OUR COMMUNITY THAT IS DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THIS MASSIVE DEVELOPMENT. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

I'M KRISHNA BONI. wanted to support what Katie said. Along with that, I wanted to bring the concern about the increased parking pressure that this project may put on the adjacent streets. And if there's anything that can be done to mitigate that, to reduce the parking pressure in the surrounding residential streets. I just wanted to double tap on what Katie already called out the evergreen trees bordering protecting the privacy on the east side of the project.

Thank you. I'll go back to Vince. Are you available now to speak? Vince? Okay. Anyone else then in? The room here, do you want to speak on the item?

Okay, yeah.

I love the- Sorry, let's state your name before the- Steve Kelly.

Just a couple of shots from there. Great condos.

I wanted to ask where the streetlights would be, because that is relatively dimly lit, so I'd like to hopefully see that area better lit so people feel safe when they're walking at night. And then regarding parking, you know,

The best thing I really think developer could do is to put storage in the garages and either overhead or cabinets on one side.

So people actually utilize the garages for parking. Typically that is the biggest problem and a new project is the easiest time to add additional storage for these units so people park in the garage.

Okay, thank you. Anyone online that wants to speak, please raise your hand. Okay, Vince, let's try this again. Can you hear me? Yes, I can. Go ahead, Vince. Can you state your name? Yep. Hi, Vince.

Okay, sorry about that. I could not get off mute last time. I'm the manager of the building that's sort of being drived. roughly 16 homes. I'm kind of concerned about how close it's going to go to the fence line. What the... Oh, do you hear me? Hello? Anybody hear me?

I can hear you, Vince. I'm having some trouble. Everything's breaking up, so I'm not sure what's going on.

Yeah, so I asked about if it may extend higher than what they have already proposed. I thought I saw some language about that.

Thank you. Sorry, Vince?

Yeah, I can hear you guys.

Okay, sorry. We had some technical difficulties. We dropped out for a little bit. You started off and said how close it was to the fence line, and then that's where you started.

I'm concerned about how close it is to our fence line and how high it may extend beyond what's currently drawn because I thought I saw a mention of wanting to go higher.

Okay. Is that the only thing you wanted clarification on?

Mostly, yes. Okay.

Thank you. Okay, is anyone else here in the room? Yes, go ahead.

My name is Linda Lassen. I just wanted to hear a little bit. I didn't hear that.

space. What were some of the questions that you had? What kind of questions did you have?

Was there something that was already planned?

We're not having a schedule. If you have any more questions, I can ask them. Anyone else online? Page one shows very briefly as we have a lot of gender, which is ours to request that.

Here's the opportunity to review the final landscape that's being placed between the project.

Anyone else here in the room? No, this is big or online. Please raise your hand. Right. Not seeing anybody. So now's the opportunity, Jim, for you. You've heard some things here on your team to address the questions. A lot going on.

Yeah. And so I'm going to address, I think, either some of the questions or the concerns that were brought up by the residents. As far as parking goes, I want to make clear that we are way above what is the requirement by the state under density bonus law for parking spaces. Based on the bedroom count, you can do basically one unit or excuse me, one space to one and a half spaces for two, three and four bedroom units. I think a four bedroom unit actually requires two. And no guest parking is actually required, but Pulte in an effort to market it and get the best price that they can for this particular product has every single unit with attached to car parking, as well as 47 other guest spaces on site. So even though the state limit is much lower because they feel that there's a need and a value to provide more parking for their future homeowners, uh they're they're providing more um with regard to i know where uh on bing street It's kind of around the block, so I don't foresee an issue, particularly within their development, of any residents parking over there because it's very far away. And I think that there's adequate parking. And I do want to point out, because in an unregulated development, you sometimes have people that will store stuff in their garage. And because this is a common interest development, meaning there's a common open space, this will be managed by a homeowners association. And there will be a covenant within that that requires the parking of two vehicles in each garage. On the, I think Katie's concerned, and I did meet with Katie and Krishna before this, this event or before this hearing and had promised to work with them between now and when we go to planning commission on seeing how we can beef up the landscaping between the sides of our units. I think that we have two units that don't front or back on to their development, but we actually side onto their development. to give them as much privacy as we can put in there. So we're willing to look at that. to I think Mr. Kelly's comment with regard to the trees, all the trees on site, and there's a lot of them that we're planning will all be 24 inch box trees. So not 15 gallon, the little saplings. And I will say that the 24 inch box trees actually has a faster growth rate over five years than if you were to plant a 48 inch box. So even with a bigger tree, uh the 24 inch box will uh sprout and bloom uh much more quickly than the other one will um with regard to street lights i think that that might have been mr kelly also that kind of brought that up so we do studies we have a consultant that looks at all of them and the main lights are obviously on the roadway But in the back of those, I'll call them kind of alleys, as you go down between like the yellow buildings, typically we have what are called wall packs that would be on the back of those units. That's where the garages are located. And you can see all the kind of the gobbledygook in between like buildings 11 and 12. That would be a Paseo. which would also be lighted, but typically with a baller style light. Is that correct, Bill?

Baller lighting on the Paseos? Pedestrian pathways will have lighted bollards based on the results from a photometric study.

Yeah. And so we've done photometrics to basically make sure that we're meeting all applicable codes. And I think that the Santa Clara's finest, the police department, reviews that as well to make sure that everything is lighted adequately. But without, I'm going to say, casting light, onto the neighbor's property. So the distance to the fence line is 10 feet from... We've tried to push the building back as far as we can, but still retain as many units that we need to try to put on the site, both to meet the... the zoning and general plan requirements, and also to have a profitable development. I will say that, and I'm not sure, Mayhab, you can pull up if you have a side elevation of a three-story product.

It's on my site, actually.

Okay. The one that you showed, I thought, Katie, was the rear elevation.

It's a side one.

Oh, it's a side elevation? Yeah.

Okay.

I think it's on TM1.

That's the view that shows the existing building property line and then proposed. Okay.

And why Mayha's looking at that. Let me just look at any other notes that I had brought down. I think Linda had brought up with regard to the commercial tenant. I don't believe that typically The looking for a potential tenant or a potential buyer for that site would occur sometime after approval. There will probably be close to a year from if the project gets approved to when it might start being built. And so, you know, it's, you're going to, and we would love to, I'm sure that, you know, waymark would love to find somebody that would uh help you know cater to like the the kaiser workers you know from that area and stuff like that they can go over and you know maybe get a bite it's located so uh we'll go back to the site plan okay so this is looking at okay so the side elevations that will be the view and that the HOA will be... So there's basically two buildings that will side on to where their HOA is. I mean, you can see that we have very well kind of articulated things and you know they're essentially at two stories 20 feet away are you guys a 10 foot setback but they're fronting on they're essentially the front of their unit is looking will be looking at you know these two side elevations on the building and that balcony is recessed on the Indians it doesn't protrude out so closest to the element of the building is 10 feet

That's 10 feet.

So I, I believe, uh, Mr. Director that, uh, I think answers, uh, I think most of the questions that, that people brought up, but, um, You know, and, you know, I think I'm willing to work with the HOA to see what kind of landscaping additions I can do between the sides of these units and the wall that's going to be separating the two projects. Right. Okay.

So I see the side elevations there. What are those for those windows, the bigger windows? Like what kind of rooms are those? Up on the third floor?

It's the living room and then the bedroom on the right. My slides actually have all the floor plans to actually see exactly what you're looking at.

TV and bedroom. Room for the third floor and then the fourth floor is living space and Yeah, two separate units.

Got it. Okay. So I know there's a condition of rule for the use of the garage, right? It should be primarily for vehicles, not only for storage. Are there any windows on those garage doors presently proposed?

No.

No. I think that would help. Amazing. We often have those.

part of our design that we see just to help with kind of making sure that yeah i agreed to do it on my other project in santa clara at the mariani site that we're we're showing windows in the garages uh on that site because i think that you that's one of the new elements probably in the ods uh that requires helps with you know you're you're saying to have like a common you know just management group and that might help with that's the transparency there

So that's, I think, potentially one condition of approval if your panel is there. And it sounds like we're talking about a condition for the landscaping. Is that right?

Yes. I would say the landscaping that separates, you know, our project from the existing HOA on Bing Drive.

So is that building 8, 9, 10, 11, 12? Or what are we... Sorry.

If you pull my slide section, it's your... Everything is there with our unit as well.

I just want to tie it to, like, something on the plans.

Yeah. If you go back to the site plan, so I would say.

Next slide, I think there's a couple slides where it's actually narrowed down a little bit.

Building 10 and 11 clearly are the two buildings. So I would look towards basically improving the landscaping along our eastern boundary between to the east of buildings 10 and 11. Or, you know, from basically building 9, you know, the Paseo that separates building 9 and 10 down to the Paseo that separates, you know, building 11 and 12.

And how improving that, like, what does that mean?

I would say I would be comfortable with a condition of approval that says the developer shall or agrees to work with the HOA in maximizing landscape screening between their buildings and the existing PD development along the way.

And keep in mind, there's entry units, the entry doors, elevation come out of that side. So there's a walkway through there. So it's not a 10-foot area of soft skating. I don't know if we got your name for the record.

Bill Sadler. Bill Sadler, Pulte Homes. Sorry.

But you can zoom in. You could see that there's limited space. We can do what we can make fit, but it needs to be a path of travel. Good. All right.

The window screening, screening or placement, that could help.

Yeah, I'm a little bit more hesitant, Katie, in doing that because there's certain buyer code things that we have to adhere to for escapability. And even on the balconies, you know, that is, you know, part of the computation that the city does that we have that will require to provide, you know, private open space per unit. So I'm less inclined to take away those. The balcony? The balcony and the windows.

What would you need a balcony for, for fire?

No, the balcony is for private open space. Per unit private open space is a requirement that we're required to meet for Sydney-Santa Clara general plan and zoning guidelines, ordinances.

We're selling point two, I mean.

Yeah, well, I mean, it's more valuable as well.

You're going to look straight into people's backyard and windows and bedrooms, so it's going to be interesting.

Thank you for the conversation. So we did have somebody, I haven't closed the public hearing just yet, but Margie, I just wanted to see if... There we go.

Hi.

Hello, hi. Are you trying to speak about the Homestead project?

No, I have a project on Toledo Avenue.

Okay, your item's going to come up in a bit, so just hang tight. Thank you.

Oh, okay. Sounds good. Thank you.

Yeah. Rita has her hand up.

Yeah, I'm not going to take extra... Comments I allowed you to do a little bit there, but okay. So, thank you. I'm going to, I'm going to close the public hearing in this time for this project and sort through some things. You know, this project was submitted. Submitted to state law that kind of. Eyes are hands a bit in the city's hands regarding some design issues. And regarding streamline it, they're limited to a certain number of hearings that they need to go through. And we've worked with them regarding getting some commercial on the site. And it sounds like the applicant is open to additional conditions. I'll say regarding the windows of the garage, and as well as the landscaping for buildings 10 and 11 on that side, that elevation. So there's a condition of approval regarding the use of the garage. So if you're observing that you're seeing some cars or something coming to your neighborhood, I mean, you can always register a complaint with the city. We can look into that and address it. But I think otherwise, the project does meet the code and where they waived it, any codes or concessions, they're allowed to do that. So with that, I will adopt the mitigated negative declaration and the mitigated monitoring reporting program based on findings and approved architectural review for the project subject to the revised conditions and findings, adding the ones about the garage windows and the one about the about the landscaping. Hopefully that will alleviate some of the issues with some windows or the balcony. They can create, you know, get some columnar trees maybe in that space. Think about that. Maybe it's evergreen type of trees. So that way they're not deciduous and they drop off in the winter. So with that, approve the project. The project is subject to an appeal period, seven days. So... work with me on the project planner on those issues in detail. So thank you for your time, everybody, for coming in.

Thank you very much, Sheldon. And I'm sorry, one last thing. This is over, but somebody had talked about a tree. We will not touch any trees on somebody else's property. Yeah.

Yeah, if you have any other sessions, please go outside, lobby outside area. Feel free to chat out there. Thank you, man. We'll move on to the next item.

Cheers, buddy. Have a good day.

Item number four.

Yeah, go ahead.

Item number four?

Yes, we are.

Oh, yeah, go ahead. Find a seat up here. Thank you. Item number four is public hearing action on architectural review. KLN 2400533 for the demolition of existing buildings and construction of three separate multifamily buildings resulting in 14 townhouse homes and duplex building with commercial space located 860, 858 Civic Center Drive and 1526 El Piso Street. Sequel status is exempt from sequel sent to assembly bill AB 130 of 2025. Mayhem?

Thank you, I will just wait for the other members to. And.

So quiet.

Does everybody Alex from outside? Yes. Okay. So I just mentioned the. I just mentioned the title of the project. Um, so the applicant once may has done have 10 minutes to speak up to 10 minutes. And then any members of the public regarding assignments can have up to two minutes per speaker. Then the applicant hearing everybody testimony, you have five minutes to answer some questions. And I may have some questions as well.

Thank you. This is Mayha Patel. I will be giving the presentation for the project at 860 and 858 Civic Center Drive and 1526 Aviso Street. The request is for the architecture review for the demolition of existing buildings and construction. of three separate multifamily buildings, including an eight-unit, 20,672-square-foot building, a six-unit, 15,323-square-foot building, and a two-unit, 6,012-square-foot building with 715-square-foot commercial space. The project is exempt from FIFA per Assembly Bill 130-2025, Public Resource Code Section 2011. or 21,080.66. Architecture review is required per the city code section 18.120.020.D3 and 7 for new construction of new multi-gallery apartments of any size. The existing site has an acreage of 0.61 acre with commercial uses to the north and south, multifamily residential town homes to the east, single family residential to the west. The site is zoned MUCC mixed use community commercial and has mixed use neighborhood commercial general plan land use destination. This is the proposed site plan with the 14 four-story for sale attached townhomes spread out in two four-story buildings, one with eight units and one with six units, a three-story building with two units, two accessory dwelling units, 715 square feet of commercial space, and a 2,097 square foot common building space. This is the proposed town building type. That would be off of Civic Center. And this is the duplex and commercial building off of Alviso Street. And these are the proposed materials and colors for The site lays out two four-story attached townhome buildings and a three-story building with two units, two ADUs, and a commercial space and an open space. It proposes a six-floor masonry wall along all property lines except the frontage. It incorporates contemporary Spanish architectural style using a variety of building materials, textures, and styles. The materials proposed are stucco and brick veneer with metal railings for balconies. The corner townhome entrances are oriented towards the street. There is a direct vehicular access to the site with a 22-foot wide two-way driveway off of Civic Center. And there are pedestrian walkways on either side, on the northeast and northwest sides of the parcel. Building 3, which is a duplex unit with 80 youth and commercial space, does not have driveway access, but provides one back-out parking space. And it is unassigned guest parking. The project includes a mixture of plant and tree species for along both frontages, pedestrian walkways, common open space, and along the project perimeter. A total of seven trees are proposed to be removed and replaced with 24 trees on site. The project includes approximately 2,097 square foot common open space. The project proposes two affordable units and will pay an in lieu fee for the 0.4 remaining fraction consistent with the 15% city's affordable housing ordinance. The project requests waivers for a reduction in the rare setback, the firm setback along Civic Center to waive multi-story setback requirements, daylight plan and requests for a height increase. The project also requests a concession to reduce the commercial floor area ratio requirement. The applicant held a community meeting on September 16, 2025, which was online and in person. Seven members of the public attended in person and no members were present online. The overall concerns were about on-street parking, existing width of Civic Center Drive, and privacy concerns. The applicant addressed some of the comments in that each unit will be provided with a two-car garage. The duplex unit will have assigned parking, and ADUs are exempt from parking requirements by the state. Additionally, the applicant is proposing a six-foot masonry wall and planting landscaping along the perimeter to provide additional parking. Public comment letters were received in regards to privacy, height, and parking concerns. Staff provided responses to address the comments by explaining the role of the state housing laws regarding waivers to request an increase in height and waiving transitional development objective standards. Staff also received a letter in opposition of the project after the meeting agenda was posted. The letter provides the following comments. The letter mentions the project does not meet the Brown Act requirements because it does not list a statutory CEQA exemption. The project does not provide substantial evidence supporting the requested waivers of development standards and the project design is inconsistent with the zoning code and adjacent residential use. Staff has reviewed the letter and is providing the following information in response. The notice of public hearing And the agenda includes the CEQA exemption per Assembly 130-2025. The staff report published with the agenda outlined under the Environmental Review Section of the Project Means and Requirements in Public Resource Code Section 21080.66 for the exception. It also clarifies that tribal consultation was completed on July 31, 2025. The project applicant submitted a completed density bonus supplemental form that I'll share shortly after the presentation to document the requested concession and waivers and the affordable unit. The completed density bonus supplemental form is the provided Substantial evidence. Under the background section in the staff report, the explanation for their qualification is provided. They qualify because they're providing the required affordable units. Under state law, no justification is necessary other than complying with density bonus law. Lastly, the project can only be reviewed for consistency with objective design development standards under state density bonus law. The project design is consistent with the objective development standards except for the standards requested to be waived. The City cannot review the project on subjective design. The listed concerns in the letter are in regards to the incompatible architecture style and privacy concerns. The city has discussed the listed revised design with the applicant. The applicant is not interested in making changes to their proposed design at this time. There's one general condition that needs to be updated, G8, to state the correct reach code year, so from 2022 to 2025. The action being considered is exempt from CEQA Percent to Assembly Bill 130-2025, Percent to Public Resource Code Section 21080.66. AB 130 qualifies CEQA streamlining measures from AB 609 exempting qualifying input projects from full environmental review if the proposed project meets the qualifying criteria. With that, staff recommends to determine the project exempt from CEQA pursuant to 813-2025 Public Resource Code Section 21080-166 and approve the architecture review for the demolition of the existing buildings and construction of the three separate multifamily buildings. LOCATED AT 860 AND 850 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE AND 1526 ELVISO STREET SUBJECT TO BINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF IMPROVAL WITH THE REVISED G-8 CONDITION. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MAYA. ARE THERE ANY OTHER OUTSTANDING PROCESS? THIS PROJECT?

THERE IS ATTENTION ASSOCIATED FOR THIS PROJECT FOR PANDEMIC AND PURPOSES THAT WILL REQUIRE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND City Council at the architecture review. It's just. Through development, you're hearing the process.

Thank you. All right. So, right now, I'll invite the applicant to please state your name and find any.

Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Kurt Anderson, our principal of Anderson Architects. We're the project architects. Before I get into my brief presentation, I just want to extend my appreciation to the staff. Worked really hard with us. We've been through seven different review receivables. And we're very diligent to meet all the criteria of the process and to be able to sequence stuff. I think it's important to... Do you have my... There we go. Can we go to the next slide, please? So this is kind of a history of the project. So we started this project. We did our pre-legislative bill in 2001, 2024. So then we got the comments and we responded to the formal application we did in October of 2024. We've got seven race mills, as I discussed. We've got a gate into a community area, 9-16-25. And we've listed what the neighbors have to say. We've made some modifications based on that. And then we're hoping, you know, we're going today, and we anticipate doing a building prevent towards the end of this year, and then very frankly, out sometime next year. At least probably 18 to 24 months. Okay. So we really feel that there's been adequate time for the public to be involved and review our documents and reach out to us with some concerns about design or whatever. And so we were quite surprised when we received that letter today in such a late date when it's been available since September of last year. So that's why our business is, we've worked really hard to get this point where we can get the site as it is. So we were really taken aback that we received that letter so late. So, we feel that we meet all the criteria as we have pointed out in the presentation. You know, state did see a lot of all those things that we feel that we met the letter of the law, the intent, and we request approval so we can proceed. Okay, thank you.

Anything else in your slides?

Yeah, which is that it's a site land. It's just showing the connection. I think it's important to note that we've got this huge open space here that's shared for everybody, that each one of these units have a large private open space, much more than a normal town. They're about close to Twitter square feet of decks on each one of these units for outdoor open space. And a lot of that was in response to what came out of COVID. You know, people want more open spaces to be able to be outside. So these units reflect that approach. And we greatly exceed that. You can see we've got private open space. We only beat that. I think it's 60 per unit. And we've got 3,794, requires 960. So a huge amount of private open space. And then we've got common open space. We're a little less shiner, but we make up for it in the private space. So I think that's important to know. Okay. Ding, ding, one end. Good. Thank you.

Okay, did you want to speak to the design at all?

Well, and I worked really hard on this design together. We made a lot of changes based on our suggestions. We had a lot of fire in the building and we modified the building accordingly. And in our opinion, it's kind of a mishmash in that area. We think it fits right in next to itself. And I can understand the linearity of the Spanish style, but it's not really a Spanish style design project. This is more of a kind of contemporary Spanish architecture, as you pointed out. We think it's really, there's a lot of interest to the building. There's a lot of ins and outs, articulation, both vertically and horizontal. We think it's a great solution for that site.

So we saw the slide of seven submittals. I mean, what were some of the outstanding issues with the project?

Some of the development and design comments, while the project has been subjected to objective developments, we still worked with the applicant to see how they could improve the building design to be compatible with the neighborhood. There were also concerns from Silicon Valley Power along Civic Center Drive. And Alviso Street, there were some existing Silicon Valley our utilities there that needed to be resolved.

Don't forget, too, that we're working closely with the trash picker people. As well. Solid waste. My modifications for that. We took out trash. So we worked really closely with all the departments, took their inputs, and it was just, it was just quite tuned until we got to the point we're at today. So we really appreciate all the collaborative staff. They were great. So it just took a while.

And regarding like objective standards, can you just describe that a little bit? What was subject to this?

The project was subject to our zoning code requirements. So setback requirements, height requirements, multi-story setbacks, and daylight plane. The project was deemed complete prior to the adoption of our objective design standards.

Okay.

So when we're talking about during the submittals and the working with the applicant about design or just there's some negotiations going on, but there's nothing we could kind of hold them to necessarily, but that's what you're saying. Yeah. Okay. All right. Thank you. So I'll now go to the public. So if you have anything online, if you want any members online, please raise your hand for this project. And then anybody in the room, let's speak on this. Yes. Okay. Great. We'll start in the room then. Go ahead. State your name. Michael Fisher.

So we spent a great effort in 1617 to set the stage for the neighborhood at the city's request. Um, we've probably spent a quarter million dollars. Nothing to do with private land at the city's request to set the stage, the design stage for the neighborhood. Per unit, which inflation, that would be about a 50% bump bump. So you're talking about. 70,000 dollars per unit. to set the design standards for the neighborhood at the city staff request. So I think city staff is being fair, ethical, reasonable, or competent here to go and charge my family that kind of money and then change the design standards for the neighborhood. based on the significant historic eligible property in the neighborhood. So it's a violation of privacy. It's a violation of scale. It's a violation of massing. It's just quite obnoxious to not even consider the people that live there and how much you charged us to live there at the city's whims. And now just to completely abandon the neighborhood that we built and started almost 10 years ago, it's just unthinkable. I think it's the wrong privacy intrusion, it's the wrong massing, it's the wrong scale. Yeah, I think one of the neighbors is already committed to moving. He's still the owner. His voice still matters, but that's just a rumor. That's what he told me. But I think the city staff would do this. And the city council is going to get my thoughts. So, I mean, it's unthinkable. Yeah, I mean, what you guys are doing. It's crazy. So sorry, I guess I lost my thought.

Yeah. That's OK. OK, thank you. So the next online, we have Kevin Chen.

Hi.

Yeah, you're good.

Go ahead. So my name is Kevin Chen. I live at 1530 Elvisa Street. I would be directly adjacent to one of the duplexes. And I'm having similar concerns to, do you guys remember back on like, I didn't remember three when the neighbors were talking about shadow and lighting impacts to their homes, as well as privacy impacts. So I have very similar concerns. Most of our windows on our house are facing south. So the majority of the light comes in from that side. And if this new proposed development were to come in, we would lose most of our natural light. We would be facing basically just either a big wall or we would be directly... adjacent to windows. So I was looking at slide 17, I think was on the development plan. So you can see that the three store three story duplex would be much higher or adjacent to our windows, which would be like privacy concerns, I think there's at least three or four windows that would be like, almost. And so like, I live, you know, in this neighborhood, and then I I feel that we would, it would affect our property value, it would affect our privacy, it would affect our lighting, just having just no light whatsoever, because we're effectively boxed in from from all directions, except for like the front. So Scott was So those were some concerns that I wanted to raise, and also I'm here on behalf of my parents, and they also had the same concerns as well. I was also concerned about parking. So with the existing situation, there's already limited street parking for the residents of the neighborhoods and stuff like that. with the addition of the 14 townhomes, it feels like this might exacerbate the the parking situation. So is there any sort of way to address this sort of concerns? I guess I'm just just curious, because this proposal wasn't really brought to my attention until after the September. The September meeting was We didn't know about it until there was a big sign that said proposed development. Is there any sort of response from the planner to address those sort of concerns that we have for parking, the lighting issues, and then the privacy concerns?

Yeah, there'll be an opportunity after we've heard from the public, the applicant will have some time to address, and then they'll make some questions for the planner as well to address those.

Okay.

Is that all you have? Um... I was looking at the commercial area. Is this like something that's going to be rented out like a storefront? Or is this like a because like, I'm not familiar with any of this jargon and stuff like that. So like, is this like a like a meeting space for like the, like the HOA of those 14 townhouses? Or is like, Is this like a store of some sort? Because if it's like a storefront, then that might also, if customers are coming to said storefront or something like that, then that would also be an issue with parking and stuff like that. Also, the trash, I was wondering, it looks like there was some sort of trash, like big dumpster bin being designated. And so I was wondering if that's going to, attract any sort of pests or anything like that if there's all the trash cans are going to be like just sitting there if it's going to be like a dumpster or something like that that just sits there um is there going to be like an issue with like um like pests and stuff like that because uh it would be unfair for for us to pay for like pest control that would be caused by the neighbor's

uh having their like commercial dumpster there or like sitting there 24 7 something like that okay thank you very much all right thank you very much bye-bye all right let me i see uh anybody else here that wants to speak yes um so my name is cheryl fisher wife to michael fisher over there we actually developed the three well kevin lives in one of them but um This space right adjacent to this development. And we, as Michael said, we bent over backwards to actually meet the requirements of CEQA and every other thing. We couldn't have tandem parking. We had a bunch of, our initial submission had 80s, or our initial submission had townhomes set up for affordable housing and all that other kind of stuff. But the city said, no way, can't do that. Oh, we want to do three-story townhomes. And they said, no way. You can't do that. You have to do two stories. And so we did the two stories. We did all the setbacks like we were supposed to do. We followed all the rules that we were supposed to follow. And then... This group doesn't have to follow any of the rules. They don't have to have a setback. They don't have to be two stories. They don't have to be any of that. That doesn't seem appropriate. We had to do so much of that work and we worked so hard with you guys to get that done. Two story max. We wanted three stories. We got two stories. They're asking for four. It's right next door. Okay. That's not appropriate. And you might have talked to everybody else here, but you certainly didn't talk to your neighbors. And your neighbors would have had a problem. It sure would have been nice if he would have actually came to us and said, hey, Cheryl, Michael, Kevin, I was wondering, I'd like to put this up. I'd like to do this. What do you think about it? But you didn't do that. You didn't do that. You didn't come to my house, knock on the door and say, Cheryl, what do you think about this? And I think that was inappropriate too. You put this other, we had to do the Spanish colonial style. The town homes across the way had to do a Spanish colonial style. They were limited to three stories. We were limited to two stories. They were limited to three stories. This is even closer to our historic house than the town homes. And they get four stories and then nobody gets any light. No one gets any light at all because there's this big wall there and this big mass stuff. So it really depletes the value of the neighborhood completely. We worked so hard to make it a nice neighborhood that people want to come and live in and all that other kind of stuff. And there's no light to live in that. It just seems inappropriate. It seems inappropriate that we had to follow all the rules. And we tried to do everything right. And we made ourselves two stories instead of three. We did everything for the historic stuff and all that kind of stuff. And then to have that completely wiped out in the neighborhood we're trying to build kind of sucks. I mean, we're trying to build that. We tried to make it beautiful, single family homes, whatever. The townhomes weren't over there. We were required to do single family homes. And so now there's going to be four single family homes in this whole area and the rest is, you know, mass density homes like that. It just doesn't seem right. If we had to follow the rules, it seems like they have to follow the rules. If we were limited, they should be limited.

Thank you. I see Jane online.

Jane, you should be able to unmute. There you go. So this is Jane and Chester. So we are out of time, but we were listening. So we are in one of the four single-family houses. And so I think my son already described most of the concerns. But there's one thing I want to kind of emphasize is that So this house is building literally next to our house. And my wife wrote a letter to the city and the response got is there's no setback rules in those. So no setback rules. And so literally you can build a house zero distance setback to our house. So that doesn't seem right. So it literally means that you're going to right next to the edges of the house, and as the sound said, that pretty much blocks everything. So I think besides all the lightning and the trash and the traffic, privacy, and all that concerns we have expressed so far, and then just the houses are literally no setback directly to a house. It doesn't seem right.

Yes, the reason we bought this house is this is single family home. At that time, we saw the putting home, you know, the townhouse, you know, across the street. The reason, you know, we thought over here is single family house. So this is low density. Now, all of a sudden, you got all those exemptions. build a four-story house, you know, blocking all our, you know, lights, you know, this is totally unfair. You know, it just like pushes our current residents, like pushes out. And then your, you know, the owner of that property, you know, the empty lots, you know, constantly not care of this lot. And then recently, they cleaned up the yard. But before, the tree fell down on our property. And also, you know, all kinds of stray animals right there. And then it's totally a mess. It creates so much junk.

Okay, thank you. Is there anyone. I will set it online and speak on this item. All right, so now I'll. The opportunity for the applicant to address you heard a lot of comments here from looks like neighbors.

A couple of things 1 is. I can appreciate what you're saying about the rules, but. I've been doing this, I'm in my 52nd year of architecture. Every year, codes change, general plans change, zoning plan changes, and we have to deal with the current stuff at the time we make the applications. When we filed this application, we did according to the general plan in the zoning and with the state density bonus law, it allows us to increase flexibility. We took advantage of that. As far as reaching out to you, there was signs on the property with my phone number and you can reach out to me anytime. We had a meeting. You didn't discuss any things when it's at that meeting. Your husband was there, you never talked to us about it afterwards. So we made our efforts to go out to the community by the meeting. If you could call me anytime, we've got you seven reiterations. This is a public process. You can look at the drawings anytime, just go on the website. So that information was all there and you could easily reach out to us. So I think we did our part in that regard per the city's requirements. We have a great project here. We're providing affordable housing, which is really necessary for the city of Santa Clara. This is more of a workforce housing type of project so people can afford to buy something. And we've worked super hard for the city to get to the point where we think we have a really good project. And we respectfully request approval to go ahead and proceed.

Thank you, Kurt. So regarding there's some questions about the commercial space. I know it's a small commercial space, maybe 600 or so square feet. Like what's proposed in that?

So that basically has requirements. Yeah, so it is a community meeting room only. It's not retail. It's not a restaurant. It's for the HOA. And then it's available to the community if they want to rent it to have a demurred meeting. So it is a very, very limited use. And there's no dumpster on the project. We just got rid of the dumpster to Some of those issues that were discussed previously, so there's no dumps or all the, all the trash is contained inside the units. They're brought out to the curve for pickup and brought back. And we work very hard with Michigan and have to come up with a plan that would work for them and work for the city as well. So the truck is coming.

To pick up individual bins. That's correct. Individual containers. So maybe you can address some of the parking, the question about parking. I see the attachment to regarding as the site subject to, there's a government code regarding parking. Can you address that? Yeah.

So the townhomes are providing a two-car garage. The duplex have assigned parking off of Civic Center next to the common open space as required by the code. ADUs are exempt from parking requirement by state law. I don't have the exact state law in front of me, but this one might work.

Are the ADUs going to be sold as a part of another townhouse, or are they going to be sold separately? Because they're not supposed to be sold separately, that street dwelling. I would...

i think what is the map they're not a separate property they're not a separate property they're part of the so they're being sold separately as separate units as part of the duplex part of the duplex and they can rent it out i guess all right um for the commercial element um they are within um half a mile of the major transit stop so they're expensive

Overall, more questions, but I mean, there's a theme here. I think what Kurt said, that some of these laws have changed. It sounds like you guys went through an experience that probably other developers, applicants did, and state recognized that there was a crisis regarding housing and they needed to promulgate and adopt laws to streamline that process. A lot of the zoning codes have been one way that kind of decimated in a way. Like we really lost a lot of local control over things that say bonus laws become more strengthened. You got laws that if you provide a certain amount of affordable housing, then transit stops. I mean, it can be ministerial. Then you don't have to go through a process at all. You have to be subject to objective standards. So we're trying to catch up with some of these things as well.

But some of those things, like it's not a... financial constraint to lower the ceiling to, you know, 40 feet. It's not, that's not a financial problem. We actually had to do that for ours. That's not a financial issue. They shouldn't have that exemption. They shouldn't have these other exemptions, like not having to have a six foot setback. They should have a six, we have one. They should have a six foot setback. There's no financial reason why they don't get a six foot setback. No financial reason. There's no financial hardships in doing it the right way.

Right. I understand. I'm going to just officially close the public hearing. You'll have a right to appeal a decision. It sounds like that probably may happen.

Unless you actually say, no, we're going to postpone it until we can get it right.

Yeah. And so I say that.

Yes, we will go.

Yeah. I think, as I mentioned, there's a number of state laws that, you know, I'm not seeing a reason to appeal. delay the project or recommend denial or anything. I think we're... But there isn't a finance patch to make this... And the state has changed that law to say that you don't have to provide justification for a waiver or concession.

But there isn't a justification for it. Yeah, so... You can be assured soon. I understand. You can have a six-foot setback. Okay, there's no problem with having a six-foot setback. We had to do it.

I understand. I understand what you're saying. I have with those of you. But where we are today, and based on the environment of the state laws and our zoning code, I see that the project is consistent with that. And so I'm going to turn the project to being zoned from California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to AB 130 of 2025. approve the architectural review for the demolition of these buildings and construction on three separate multi-family buildings including the commercial space uh for this site subject to the findings and commission's approval it is subject to appeal period um seven days so work with love you so work with uh on that issue thank you

5. All right.

Thank you.

I'll be carrying action on the architectural review and 26, 0, 0, 1, 6, 2. Or 245 square foot 1st floor addition. And 1100, what 2nd floor addition to an existing 1 story residence resulting in 3000. square foot, five bedroom, four bedroom, two-story residence at 2250 Bull Henning Drive. Sequel stands is exempt from CCO 15301. Alex, do we have anybody for that item?

We'll see.

Yeah, we'll see. Hello. I have a seat up here. Let's just see if there's any other person. So Alex comes back. Thanks for your patience. We had a big agenda here today. A lot of people he saw coming in and out. He saw. It was quite busy. I think at this point it should probably mellow out.

Hi there. Good to have a seat at any chair behind the wall.

Thank you. So we just said an introduction about the item, what it is. It's for Bohannon Drive. And... so staff's going to give a presentation and then the applicant will have up to 10 minutes to speak and then um speakers other speakers may have up to two minutes to speak and then uh based on any comments the applicant may have up to five minutes to just kind of respond to those and then i'll close public hearing make a some questions have a decision okay

Okay. Afternoon. Thank you very much, Officer Singh. And our subject, City of Santa Clara. The application in front of us today is for a 245-square-foot first-floor addition and a 1,146-square-foot second-floor addition to an existing one-story home, resulting in a 3,319-square-foot five-bedroom, four-bathroom, two-story home. Per City Santa Clara Code 18.120 D1, new or expanded single-family homes, a new second-story home requires architectural review approval through the DRH. Development review here. The existing site is 5,700 square feet and surrounded by single-family homes on all sides. The zoning is R16L, single-family, and the general plan is very low. The presentation here shows the elevations of the projects. The project proposes modestly sloped roofs, large picture windows at the front and rear of the structure, hipped roof forms at the front to reduce mass and other elements as well. The project proposes to be clad in stucco with wood elements on the front of the structure, as well as a prominent front porch. Here's a closer photo rendering. The site plan here shows the project and it is meeting all setback requirements and other zoning requirements. Notice the large landscaping at the front and rear, the tree in the front yard, and the second floor step backs. This slide shows the floor plan on the left hand side was the first floor plan and the second and on the right hand side is the second floor plan. Second floor floor plan. The project meets all the rules and regulations that the city has the project proposes a style that is similar to the surrounding area, the project is an adequate size and proportions for the property, the project proposes high quality. architectural materials and has a prominent front porch amongst other elements. And the project is categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to the CEQA guidelines section 15303, class three. All in all, staff recommends finding the project categorically exempt from CEQA per Section 15303 and to approve the architectural review for a 245-square-foot first floor addition and a 1,146-square-foot second floor addition to an existing one-story home, resulting in a 3,319-square-foot five-bed, four-bath Sorry, five-bathroom, four-bedroom, two-story home located at 2250 Bohannon Drive, subject to COAs. That is staff's presentation. The applicant is here for additional questions, comments, concerns.

Thank you. So now I'll just allow the applicant to speak a little bit about the projects. Please state your name.

This is Gaurav, Gaurav Sononi. I'm the applicant for the project. And we have followed all the requirements from our customer, which is Kulmala and Preeti. And with that, whatever their family needs were, we accommodated that with the square footage, with the number of rooms. And we also accommodated all the regulations that were listed and observed through the the city website, working with Daniel. There were certain corrections which were requested along the way. We accommodated all of those corrections, which will bring the home with the architectural facade in line with the design guidelines. We did all of that keeping the first floor maximum square footage in mind, the second floor maximum square footage in mind, and the setbacks. in mind. We developed that to achieve all the parties requirement and this is the result of it. Along the way we will be putting like to add more architectural features we will have some lights in the front which will be facing down to add those kind of like to enhance the architectural feature of the house. Thank you.

I don't have any questions for you right now, but we'll have the public, an opportunity for them to speak, and then if they may have something that you want to respond to, you have the opportunity for that. So is there anybody online that wants to speak? Please raise your hands. For this item, we'll hand in. And then in the room.

I also submitted an email.

State your name, please.

My name is Ellie Barbosa. I actually live next door to the proposed pocket, which only I do it to it because of the size of it. Down this particular street, it's all single-story homes, modest single-story homes. That house would be very out of place in that structure of that neighborhood, which I feel impacts the property values of other people's homes. The construction itself will have to be dealt with for the people that live on that street. The noise, the privacy, the general structure and look of the neighborhood, that size of a home, on that street will become i feel will be completely out of place at that home i understand that the wants of having a larger home but on that if you look at the other homes on that street that house would be out of place so i think yeah we have your comment your comment letters and we can kind of delve into that a little bit and if you and i i mean Obviously, if I put it in an email, which is more stuff, and I'm not very good at public speaking. So those are the general points.

Do you want to mention anything?

Well, I'm here with her. She's here with me. So I live in that home, and I also represent the homeowner, who is my dad, who doesn't speak English.

Got it. Okay. Well, thank you for coming. So now you have an opportunity. I don't know if you've read the... I have read. It's a common detail there I see about some privacy and maybe we could bring up some plans more to get into that more. But from now that you've heard what you're talking about, maybe speak to construction duration and things that we put into place about that.

So what we can do, I'll start with a few of your concerns. The first one, we did check during the course of the work, we did check on the Bohannon Street, around the surrounding, there are approximately, and I understand your concern, but there are approximately 15-ish two-story homes in that neighborhood along Bohannon. On that front, there are approximately seven-ish on the Bohanian Street, but we do understand the concern that a two-story home would bring. So that is one of the biggest reason why, if you look at like the window placement, we have one window and we are even open to actually having some obscure windows to maintain your privacy. Other thing to ensure the mass and bulking of the house, there is 31 feet of the backyard space plus that is left for ensuring that the house will stay not too bulky, not too long, which will impact the neighborhood as such. The other part of like the second floor, there are city guidelines that we try to obey and actually do a little bit more on the setbacks, which is on the second story. And we did as much as we can in getting all of that narrowed down that was also trying to be and like honestly in in certain areas where we were thinking about the neighbors that's why if you look at even the windows are very slim uh that we are proposing on even on a master bedroom we were not trying to do that so that it will be like very small on one side The other side is actually a bathroom, which will be obscure. So the windows to maintain the privacy of the neighbors we have taken care of. The two-story keeping the square footage intact. We tried our best to keep the customer's requirement in place and the neighbors in a perspective when we were thinking about a concept of such. Now with respect to construction, we will ensure that we are following the city guidelines. We will not have something start very early in the morning or 30 in the late times where our neighbors would get impacted as such. And we are actually open to discussing with any of the neighbors. We will give them our cards. They feel of anything. We can even take a step to ensure that our work are particularly done in a certain time. The dust and debris, we could have water to bring the dust and debris down. So all of those what are required by code, we will have special precautions. We understand your dad is going to be in the house.

uh we will do our best to accommodate uh what is required in that situation uh i think that there's another two-story houses on that on the immediate oh hannon there are no two-story houses at the ends ends of bohannon more in i believe well sit they are there are there are two-story houses in the neighborhood on bohannon on the direct Halfway of that street, there are some of the ones that are two stories are corner lots, a little bit larger, maybe property sizes. So I don't know the size of the construction of the home versus the plot size to the other homes for this home, how they compare. Yeah, I do feel that it is very large in comparison to the houses that you see on the immediate street. Another concern is this is an older neighborhood and there are a lot of electrical wires in our backyards. And I don't know how that will be impacted and... And affect this construction impact the surrounding houses.

Okay. So let's, let's bring it back. It's not intended to be like a back and forth thing, but I appreciate all the comments. And so just if we can, we can speak to this a little bit. I mean, this looks like you have the house and. it's meeting all the setbacks that we have the zoning code setbacks and what we have in our design guidelines are actually for the second story to step it back so instead of having like a box straight up um we have requirements to move those in what they what they've met so unlike the multi-family since people come and go previously like our hands are kind of tied with those is what we can do We have a lot more discretion on these types of projects, and the applicants met those. So they're in addition to what is, I think they're stepping 10 feet. Is that right, Daniel?

10 and a half feet on the left-hand side and 11 and change on the right-hand side.

And then regarding, I don't know, what side are you on? If I'm looking at this diagram. Where are you? The left side. So on the left side, I don't think there are any windows, right? So you're not looking at any windows on that side. Yeah. The first floor is not really, you have a fence on the first floor. So the second floor, you're not going to have any windows on that side. The opposite side, that's a bathroom or a staircase.

A bathroom, which is opposite.

That's not, you're not going to have any room. In the rear, you have the windows are bigger because those need to be egressed for fire. You need to get out and there's a diversity. That's kind of where we are. I mean, it meets all of our guidelines. I understand that there's not a lot of two-story houses, even the area. There's nothing prohibiting them from doing that. And that's why we have these guidelines.

I totally understand that and just wanted to have my voice heard.

Absolutely. So thank you. We have your information here. You spoke to us. And hopefully I think this dialogue is good. Let's keep that going during the construction to let the neighbors know about what you're doing.

While we are doing anything, we will come and talk to your dad about any concerns we will have, hand out our phone number so he can directly call us. With all intentions, we do not want that to be a very disruptive thing for any of the neighbors. And we do take care of those issues very seriously.

After this phase, this is the planning, tiling phase, there's a building code phase, there's a lot more stringent requirements. I think electrical, you need to get temporary power, if that's the only case, if you have to do that. Whatever you have to do, you have to follow those codes.

We have, just to answer that exact question about power as well, the plan will be to have a temporary power so that nothing that is going to add any safety or fire risk to the neighborhood for any reason. that would be practiced. So all of this is a standard practice for us that we do, and we will ensure those are followed. And then the PG&E connection within the poll has been addressed so that it is the swing of that location will be almost the same as the original one. So a lot of those things were taken into consideration. And even along the way, Daniel had given those corrections of the windows. He had looked at the privacy for the neighbors So he had taken care of the neighborhood for what we would be allowed. And hence, the number of windows we were not even allowed to put more than what we are there.

So that is the situation. But we understand and we will take good care. All right.

So thank you. So I'm going to close the public hearing. And I think, as I mentioned, that the project does meet the city's codes and design guidelines. There's going to be some change, but it sounds like the amounts of communications are there. Hopefully, any type of issues that may come up. And obviously, you can call the city, you know, we can try to look into any issues that may arise during the construction period. So with that, I will determine the project to be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, 7215301, and approve the architecture review for the project subject to the findings and conditions of approval. So thank you for coming. I appreciate that.

Thank you. Daniel?

I'll show you an email. Item number six. Getting there, guys. We are. Public hearing action on architecture review for PLN 2400521 for a demolition of existing 1,200-square-foot one-story residence in the construction of a new 3,800-square-foot two-story residence at 43035 Fillmore Street, and that is located within 200 a few historic resource inventory properties. And the SQL status is exempt from SQL for students who 15332 infill development. We're just waiting to get some people into the room as we've done with the other past items. No one's there.

Okay. It's fine.

It's perfect. Okay. So we have no one in the public here. this item in this room, but there may be people online. So, Maayan, please.

Thank you. Item number six, bye. This is the presentation for 4435 Fillmore Street. The request is for the architecture review for the demolition of the existing residence and the construction of a 3,327 square foot five bedroom for bathroom two-story residence. Architecture review is required per city code section 18.120.0200D7 for the construction of a new two-story structure. In accordance with the City Code Section 18.60.020, accessory dwelling units proposed on the first story can be reviewed ministerially through a building permit application. This project is 200 feet from to a historic resource and did go through, go to historical and landmarks commission on May 7th, where they discussed the item and continued to June 4th. And They discussed the items and continued it with the recommendation to revise the second story design, reduce the massing and visual impact at the front of the residence to minimize potential impacts to the historic resource at 4406 Fillmore Street. On June 4th, Historical and Landmark Commission reviewed the revised design and recommended approval of that revised design. The existing site is around 6,200 square feet. The surrounding uses are all single family residential. The zoning is also R16L and the general plan land use designation is very low density residential. This shows the previous proposed facade design that went to HLC on, in May, and then the right shows the revised proposed facade that HLC approved, so they stepped back the element over the garage an additional two feet to reduce the massing. And this shows the proposed site plan. The first floor is at 25 foot, which already meets both our first and second floor setback requirement. And then the second floor is stepped back additional two feet. This is the first floor floor plan. This is the second story floor plan. The proposed project complies with the city's single-family residential design guidelines in that the second floor is less than 66% of the first floor and is stepped back from the first floor on all sides by residents. two to five feet, resulting in an appropriate mass and bulk for single family residents. The architectural features are true to the proposed architectural form and style in that the materials include stucco with darker wood decorative shutters and garage door with windows and brown Spanish tile roofing. The proposed roof is hipped with a front facing gable. The project is found to be categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15332 in full development. Staff recommends to determine the project exempt from CEQA and approve the architectural review of the demolition and the construction of the new two-story residence located at 4435 Filmore Street, subject to findings and conditions.

Thank you. Thank you. Do we hear from anybody from the public about this item? I received any public comments. Okay. Thank you. All right. So I'll ask now the applicant, if you're online, to raise your hand and you have the opportunity to speak up to 10 minutes about the project. Is there an applicant online?

Yeah. Daniel Warren.

Daniel Warren. Okay. Daniel. I'm asking you to unmute. And so just give you the opportunity to speak on this project. We're having difficulty there. I'll give you a little bit of time here, but I don't have any concerns or issues, questions really on this project. I think it went through the HLC. It looks like the applicant addressed the concerns here. It looks different, but I think it's an improvement. I understand the proximity. It's not an adjacent. It's kind of down the street. I'm understanding the context of this neighborhood. So Daniel, just one more time, if you wanted to address. Okay. Then is there any other members of the public that want to speak on this item? Please raise your hand. This is about Fillmore. Okay, seeing none, I'm going to close the public hearing. And I'll say that, like I mentioned, that I think I support staff's recommendation and appreciate HLC's input on this project, as I do with all projects that go through that process. And so let's get to the recommendation here. So determine the project to be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to guideline section 15332 infill and approved architecture review for the demolition of the residence and the construction of the new two-story residence at Fillmore Street subject to the findings and approval. So thank you for your time. It's a seven-day appeal period for this. Thank you for your time in this meeting. It's been a lot. Thank you. So we're moving on to the next item. Tracy and Summer, I know you're in the wings there. Please make your way here. I'm just going to let everybody in. Item number seven. Daniel, I see you're on there, but we've already approved your project, so I think you're in good shape there.

There's your project eight and also 10, but just wanted to let you know.

There's not that much people out there. Yeah, that's fine. That's fine. Thank you. Thank you for your patience. Appreciate that, guys. Here, wherever you want to sit. You're at the deepest. So we'll move on to item number seven. Your project planners will be on their way here. They were kind of waiting at another part. Is action on architectural review For PLN 260079 for the demolition of more than 50% of an existing single-family residence to construct a 2,387-square-foot, four-bedroom, three-bathroom single-family residence with an attached two-car garage. This is at 2035 Jackson Street. CEQA status is exempt from CEQA. Percent to 15332 infill. Alex.

Just having a little technical difficulties with the Zoom. Let me click to share. One second.

Thanks for your patience again. All right.

Good evening, everybody. My name is Alex Tellez. This is the 790 Associate Planner. As mentioned previously, today's request is on demolition of 50% or more of an existing single-family home to construct this new 2,387-square-foot four-bedroom, three-bathroom single-family residence. As mentioned, due to Santa Clara City Code 18.120.020.D.7, this type of scope requires approval through a development review hearing, which is what it is on tonight. So this project in particular is surrounded by majorly single-family homes and some townhomes on the east that are zone plan development. The zoning for this property is R1-6L, single family residential, and the general plan designation is very low density residential. For this project here at Jackson, this is the rendering. They're trying to keep the form of the patio homes with the shed roof and the low pitch design, and they added some architectural features like the siding and also the windows on the garage door.

Thank you so much.

This is the proposed site plan for Jackson. As you can mention, there is some screening provided on the property on the left to address the privacy concerns that could be potentially half with this construction. This is the proposed follow-up plan. For all projects, staff needs to make sure it's consistent with the objective standards and design guidelines. This project complies with all the city's family and duplex residential design guidelines as the height and bulk is appropriate relative to the neighborhood as it's a single story with a low slope shed roof with a mass break between the garage and the front bedroom. The proposed architectural features of the structure are appropriate to the neighborhood as they are deprived from other architectural features found in patio homes. The roof materials, building materials, and finishes work in conjunction with one another and are consistent with the architectural style of the building as their typical materials used in a patio home residence. All projects need to be evaluated with the California Environmental Quality Act. This project is considered categorically exempt. due to class 32 info development projects as the project site is less than five acres and is served by utilities and complies with the general plan. Therefore, staff is recommending that the development review officer determines the project to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. and also to approve the architecture review for the demolition of more than 50% of an existing single family residence to construct a 2,387 square foot, four bedroom and three bathroom single family residence with an attached two car garage subject to the conditions of approval. This concludes staff presentation for this item. The applicant is online. She did mention this morning that she's may not be able to speak, but I think the name is Min and also probably The other one with the last name Pham, I think, is also part of the applicant team.

Okay. Thank you, Alex, for the presentation. So in the course of the project, have you heard any public comment?

Negative for this project. No public comments were received.

All right. I'll have the opportunity now from the applicants. If they want to speak, it sounds like just please raise your hand. I know last night has identified the Phams, but is this right? Yes, correct. Okay. Okay. So Min, just give me the opportunity here to unmute yourself, and you can speak about your project. It's gone quiet. Which is OK. You don't have to. Is there anybody else in the room here about this project at Jackson online? Anybody for Jackson Street? If you want to speak, please raise your hand. Okay, seeing none there. I'm going to close the public hearing, and I'll just say thank you for the design. I think it's an interesting modernization of this type of house in this neighborhood, just adding that transom, adding some different materials. It's a good facelift, but still adding a little more height. to the building as well. So I think this will be welcomed by the neighbors. I do want to mention that I do agree that the project is consistent with the design guidelines and consistent with the code. So with that, I will turn the project to be exempt from the California Department of Equality Act, submit to guidelines 15332, to infill exemption and approve the architecture review of the project subject to the conditions of approval and the findings, the seven-day appeal period. So thank you. Please work with Alex on it. Okay, next item is item number, Public hearing action on architectural review. PLN 2500453 for the construction of 117 square foot first floor addition, 957 square foot second floor addition, consisting 1700 square foot single family residence at 2693 Toledo Avenue. CEQA status exempt from CEQA pursuant to 15332. That's infill. Alex, precision.

Yes, sir. Good evening again. Alex Seyes, Associate Planner for the City of Santa Clara. To everybody online and in person, thank you for your patience. As the development review officer mentioned, the request tonight is to construct a 117 square foot first floor addition and a 957 square foot second floor addition to this existing single family residence. Due to the construction of a second story element that's being proposed with this project, it requires approval through a development review hearing under Santa Clara City Code 18.120.020.D.1. The existing site is about 5,338 square feet and is surrounded by all single-family homes, as mentioned in the visiting map on the screen. The zoning designation for this property is also single-family, R1-6L, and the general plan designation is very low density residential. Here's the proposed rendering. The architect has done a well job with working with staff to incorporate the second story element into the roof form. Crane is diverse in the structure, which is commonly found across the city, and also incorporates some accent materials like the wood siding. As you can see on the screen, it's the site plan which is existing and proposed. As you can see with the proposed second story element, it's substantially setback and exceeds the setbacks required by our zoning This is the existing floor plan of the residence. This is the proposed floor plan for the first floor and second floor. As mentioned previously, staff needs to make sure that developments that are submitted are consistent with our design guidelines and objective standards. This project complies with all of the city's single-family and duplex residential design guidelines. The height and bulk is appropriate relative to the neighborhood as the second story is incorporated into the roof form, blend in with the predominantly single-story structures in the neighborhood. The proposed architectural features of the structure are appropriate to the neighborhood as they are deprived from architectural features found in other residents in the neighborhood. And the roof materials work well in conjunction with the other proposed materials, whereas they are typical materials found in a modern farmhouse-style residence. Due to being a six-story proposed element on this site, the city does have an early notification notice requirement, which was sent out back in November 18, 2025. We sent it out to 71 owners slash tenants within a 300-foot radius of the project site. Staff did receive one comment, but that was of support this morning. Staff has evaluated this project to be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to the class 32 infill development project as the project site is less than five acres served by utilities and complies with the general plan. Therefore, staff is recommending the project be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to the infill development project of Cargo exemption and also to approve the architecture review for this construction of this 117 square foot first floor addition and 957 square foot second floor addition subject to the conditions of approval. The contractor and homeowner aren't present. If the development review officer has any questions.

Thank you for that. So it's an opportunity now for the applicants to speak on the project. So state your name for the room.

Yes, I'm Donna Chang. I'm the property owner at this Toledo property. Really want to thank you guys for considering this project tonight. We've been homeowners and residents of Santa Clara for over a decade. Really love the community. Our children go to public schools here. Really want to stay in the neighborhood. We have, we unexpectedly had a larger than state of family. So we have four children and we've really outgrown our current three bedroom house. So this remodel would be really important, life-changing for us and really give us that extra space for the growing needs of our family. So we appreciate very much working with Alex on the design changes that the city has requested. We were happy to take all of them. And tonight we really just ask for your approval.

Thank you. Now I'll just ask if anybody else, either in this room or online, needs to raise your hand if you have any comments about this project. Toledo. Okay, seeing no hands, I'll close the public hearing. And thank you for coming forward and working with Alex. That's refreshing. You see a kind of different design. This is a different kind of design that we see all the time. So having that portion in front is great. Having an entryway, it's a little subtle, but not overly grand. So appreciate that. And the project is consistent with our design guidelines and code. So I will... determine that the project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to guidelines 15332 as infill and approve the architectural review for the project subject to the findings and conditions approval. So thank you. It's a seven-day approval period. So we'll take full balance.

Thank you so much for your patience. This is a good night.

Thank you, guys.

Thank you so much. Thank you so much again.

So item number nine is the public hearing action on the architectural view PLN 2630159 for a 1,093-square-foot single-family addition to an existing 1,388-square-foot single-story residence and attached 459-square-foot garage resulting in 2,840 square-foot single-story residence, five bedrooms, four baths, located at 103 Bluebird Avenue. CEQA status is exempt. Can CEQA proceed to 15301 existing facilities? Because of the big agenda, I've asked that we kind of waive a presentation, but I'm sort of surveying the people either in person or online. If you are a neighbor and you want to speak on this item, please raise your hand. not seeing anybody, so that's fine. So I'll ask that if the applicant wants to speak on the item, please raise your hand.

The applicant is online.

Okay. So if you want to speak, you can raise your hand. Otherwise, we'll kind of move on. That's fine. Is there any members of the public asking again, just for rules perspective? Okay, seeing no hands, then I'll close the public hearing. I don't have any comments regarding this project. I think based on the packet and staff report and project does meet the design guidelines and findings. So let's see. determine the project to be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to SQL Guidelines 15301, and approve the architectural review for the project at 1013 Bluebird Avenue, subject to the findings and conditions of approval. So 70 of you will carry it. Thank you, those here, for that item. On to the last item today. Item number 10. It's public hearing action on the architectural review for PLN 2500389 to allow an approximately 310 square foot first floor addition, approximately 440 square foot second floor addition to an existing two-story single family residence located 852 Lorry Avenue. Sequel status is exempt. Pursued from section 150303. Just like the prior item, I had requested to waive a presentation. However, if we have members of the public that want to speak on the item, we can do that. So I'm just surveying if anybody here in the room or online, if you want to speak on this item, a member of the public, please raise your hand. If you want to say something, you can. OK, yeah, that's totally fine. Okay, so thank you for that. Identify yourself. So then I will close the public hearing. And just based on the information in the packet, staff report, degree of staff's findings, that the project is consistent with the zoning code and the design guidelines. So I will then determine the project to be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. So, pursuant to the guidelines 15303, new construction, conversion and install structures, and approve the architectural request for the project at 852 Lowery Avenue, subject to the findings and commission approval. So, you are approved. There's a seven-day period for that. So, thank you for that. Okay, so now we're at the end. We got through 10 items. That was great. Thank you, everybody. So adjournment. I now adjourn the developed view hearing at the time of 625. The next regularly scheduled meeting is on July 8, 2026 at 4 p.m. So thank you.