Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Um, hello? I can't hear me. Also, like, I can't hear any voice, any sound throughout the meeting. I think you were showing like slides and all that. I don't know if you can hear me. But we couldn't hear you at all. I know you were showing like slides, probably introducing like the project, etc. But I couldn't hear anything. Can you track? Can you check?

Does that help at all?

Okay. Now I can hear you.

Okay.

So can you elaborate what just happened? Like what's the procedure? I guess I raised a hand to just letting you know that in the Zoom meeting room, we couldn't hear any audio. So we weren't sure about like the process of the meeting and everything. You know, when to kind of, you know, speak out.

I appreciate that. We have a new setup. It's going to be really awful in this room because of the echo.

I hear that. I hear the echo as well.

Okay. But when you're talking, you don't hear anything.

Sorry, what was that?

Yeah, while you're talking, you don't hear any echo. That's just good.

Okay, that's good.

You saw the slides, so I think that's generally what the description of the project is.

Okay, and we are talking about the project on Oathamp, right?

So go ahead and talk about the project.

Okay, you said like, I can go ahead and talk about this project. Okay, cool. Thank you. Yeah, so yeah, my name is Kaiyi, and I live at 743 Hamilton Lane. So our house is actually directly behind the proposed project. So I, again, I couldn't hear you. So I couldn't hear what you spoke, but I read basically the staff report and really appreciate some round of revision that you had been working with the applicant. For example, some reduced deck size, increased setback, and modifying some of the windows. Still, I think I look at the latest revision of the project and still, unfortunately, I oppose approving the project in its current state because I don't think those revisions fully addressed all the concerns that we have as like a neighboring homes. And my biggest concern is privacy still. So I know like you made some suggestion, for example, using like the frosted windows and all that. But what I wanted to emphasize is that privacy is not just about, you know, individual windows, like how many windows and how they look like the proposed like second story adu actually uh introduced like some unusual exterior staircase um and an upper level like entrance so people can just like go up and down second floor living space so these kind of features actually create elevated daily activity movement and views that simply do not exist today so maybe there are some like There's no direct overlook, but still I feel impacted as the directly adjacent neighbor home because for us, the activity in backyard will be impacted and the enjoyment in backyard will be significantly impacted. And then I guess the second concern is about the neighborhood compatibility issue. So the report did indicate that the east side of the home is a combination of single story and a second story, which I noticed as well. But I think the east side isn't really comparable because they usually have like a larger lot. I think generally over 6,000 square footage, like square foot lot. But we're actually at the west side and most of the west side homes actually only have around like 5,000, 5,200 square foot lot. So it's like much smaller than the east side. That's why majority of the homes at the, or almost all of that, all of the homes on the west side is actually one single, like single story homes. It's less setback between like the fence and the actual living space. So having like a second floor space home and ADU could impact, you know, like make it like feel more crowded and doesn't really fit the neighborhood character. That's, I guess like my second concern. And then checking, I know like the report says like the, it kind of probably meets like the minimum legal requirement but i think this hearing is more about determining whether this specific project fits in this like specific context i just mentioned like in the neighborhood with like less no smaller lot size as well as most of majority of the neighbors are actually single story home So I'd like to request the community and the city to reconsider the current proposal. Again, I want to say I'm not opposed to having ADU. I know some of the neighbors having their one-story ADU in the backyard, and that's completely fine. Or if single-story ADU can be adjusted into this situation of the homeowner, then some modification would further be needed for making it more compatible with the neighborhood and to also reducing the risks of reducing privacy of neighboring homes. But yeah, these are my opinions, and thanks again for your time.

Thank you.

I'm just going to test something.

We have tech in the room, but I'm going to turn off this mic from my laptop. If you can still hear me, please raise your hand. Can you hear me?

I can hear you with echo.

How's that?

Can you hear now? Yeah, I can hear you clearly without echo now.

Okay, great, thank you. Okay, so I'm gonna move on to the next person then. Margaret. Margaret, you can speak now.

Yeah, hi. I needed to unmute myself. Thank you. I was hoping that we could actually see some of the images, the rendition or renderings of the home that were shown briefly when we couldn't hear anything on the call. I also am still against the building of the second story ADU addition, 800 square feet to this property. For a lot of reasons that were just brought up, I do understand that some privacy issues with the windows were put into place. I still think that the bulk was not addressed appropriately, and also the... neighborhood situation. It still seems to be in conflict with the zoning code with the intention that Santa Clara intends to maintain and enhance desirable characteristics of the neighborhoods. From what I saw briefly, while I was struggling to try to hear and figure out what was going on, it looks like the bulk of the ADU, the second story, has kind of shifted to the south part of the building, whereas the townhomes are on the north part. So that is going to actually be different. They're looming over the smaller little house at 740 Woodhams. And that's just it's just going to be a giant, a giant impact for them, as well as to the 739 Hamilton and other Hamilton neighbors behind. So I just wanted to say that I could still feel that whatever was addressed, which we didn't hear if anything particularly was addressed, don't know about the staircase, still kind of seems like it's an apartment building versus a home with an ADU. And it just, I wish it were not able to move forward. I would really appreciate it if Santa Clara would move be able to only move forward with the types of housing that is appropriate in the vicinity. That's all.

Thank you, Margaret. Well, we'll try to get some imagery back up again. We'll have some questions and answers here. Anyone else that wants to speak on this item, please raise your hand. Okay. Maybe Tracy put some images back up and we heard some questions about the exterior staircase, some of the privacy, maybe address some of the windows that are on the side. And then we can have the applicant respond. You heard some things from the two speakers that maybe you want to speak to. Casey's trying to get some images back up here. So maybe you can speak to the staircase on the side. Like sometimes people do an internal, sometimes they do an external. I mean, what's sort of allowed under the code?

So the zoning code does allow for exterior staircases, as you see here in this rendering here. As far as the design of it staff did request the applicant to not only reduce the size of the entryway, but also to have a solid wall to help with some of the privacy concerns that staff shared.

Now the windows that are on the side, are those ingress or egress windows required by building code? Are they higher sill windows? Do they have opaque treatment on them? Can you just describe what's proposed?

So the windows on the side are all high sill windows, which I believe they are set about five feet above the finished floor of the second floor. There is one window, it's a little hard to see in this rendering here, but there is one window that is a frosted window. I'm just going to move to the floor plan. So the window that you see noted on the second floor kitchen, that is not a high sill window. It occurs, I think, approximately where the counter height is for the kitchen, but that window is frosted.

And there are setbacks and then there's stepbacks. So can you describe what is this setback for the building and then the stepback situation for the second?

And so the zoning code does require a 10 foot setback for the second floor, which the applicant is in compliance with. And that is always measured at the property line. The second floor also does include step backs. And so on the second floor floor plan, you can see the outline of the first floor. And then an outline of the second floor. And so generally, the second floor is step back, I think three to five feet from the face of the first floor wall.

So the setback for the first floor is five feet. For the second floor, it's 10 feet.

That's correct. Okay.

All right, so hearing that, and I guess hearing some of the, you know, going to turn to the applicant now, because you have an opportunity to respond to and address some of the concerns you've heard from the speakers.

Just kind of what you think. Thank you again for the comments. We did what we could, along with Tammy, try to, Tracy, to work it out. You know, we stepped, there's two setbacks you can see on the plan. One is required from the garage to the second floor. And then from the property line to the second floor, 10 feet, very, very far in. Then the windows at the kitchen where Tracy mentioned about, that one very tucked in and we make that one frosted. In terms of staircase, we heard the concern about the privacy. That's why we make it more solid and all the seal height raised up by feet. So according to the design guideline, as well as zoning, we fully comply and did what, whatever, you know, less visible, not intruded into privacy of the neighborhood.

Okay, and then just kind of a explanation on there's an exterior staircase, but the reason for an exterior staircase versus like interior, what were some of the constraints maybe that led you to that?

There's one thing we make the ADUs, that's two separate units. So that's why two, you know, essentially two separate families live there. We wanted to separate the staircase from the inside and outside. plus the interior, if you can see the first floor floor plan, there's no room to add the staircase on the interior. Then regarding the massing, whether we put it on south side or north side facing the townhouse, on the north side, we don't have much room because we don't have five foot set back there. We cannot put staircase or any of the massing on that side for that reason. Then on the south side, we have much more setback, more room so we can have space for exterior staircase.

Okay, thank you. Tracy, can you put the rendering back up? Just showing the front. As I understand, the neighborhood is mostly a patio type of space. Houses are kind of lower. This one in particular looks like it's been maybe remodeled. And so it's got that gable kind of roofing. And then adjacent to you is maybe some townhouses or something. So the structures are different. They're a little bit bigger. So this is one that's sort of at the edge. And I think one of the things that just I read in the comments about massing, I mean, you do have the gables or the addition in the front, as well as the entryway, it makes it seem a little bit bigger in that regard. I think one of the things that might help here is changing that to like a hip, because then it'll draw that back a bit. So the roof, you know, you'll see a roof and then, you know, kind of draw that, it'll bring that ridgeline back. a little bit. It's not like as imposing on the street or so. That's what I'm thinking. That's where I'm kind of going with both the entryway and that second story in the front is making that a gable, sorry, a hip instead of a gable. I think it looks based on the floor plans. That's something that looks like it's doable in the design.

earlier version of the design, we went through different schemes and Gable seemed more appropriate in terms of landing with the neighborhood . You drive down Woodhams, you don't see . That's why we make the reconsider Gable versus Hebrew.

Yeah, I see that. It's just, I think with Gables probably makes sense in a very low, like it's very low profile. The patio is a very different kind of design than this. So I think you kind of introduced a little bit of that. I think just to write from this imagery, here's another one, I guess you can show the next slide. You do have some of that shed roof situation going on, right? This pops up a little bit there. Maybe show your cursor there.

It's the living room or something. Your story.

Yeah, so there you kind of have some elements of what's in the neighborhood, but I'm not suggesting any of that. I think the hip is better. I think trying to address like the privacy, you know, I think the high steel windows and five feet, I mean, it's going to be difficult for people to kind of lurk over. I mean, it just doesn't make a lot of sense. I think in that case, that's why you have that design and the frosted window. So I don't think that's going to be an issue and a step back. enough, but we do have objective standards such as height, setbacks, and then we have guidelines that speak to some compatibility and things that is what I'm trying to address with some of these massing issues. Yeah, you don't have to go to 25 feet, but what you're trying to achieve here with the accessory dwelling unit, which would be allowed under the code and state law. So I think that's gonna be my condition. is to change that route form for the entryway and that second story facing the street to a hip. But I think everything else otherwise meets the code in the finding. So with that, I'll close the public hearing and I'll determine the project to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. approved the architecture review for the second story improvements subject to the new condition that we introduced a hip for the hip design for the second story facing the street as well as the entryway so that's approved for those that are interested in appealing as appeal period of seven days uh work with uh tracy on that so thank you so moving on to item number three That's a public hearing action on architectural review PLN 2600130 for 977 square foot, single story addition to an existing 1,176 square foot, one story residence resulting in 2,100 square foot, one story residence located at 1205 Janice Drive. CEQA status is exempt from CEQA. And we have a presentation.

Thank you, Officer Ossing. My name is Summer Foss, Assistant Planner, and this is 1205 Janus Drive. This is the request for the architecture review for a 977 square foot single-story addition to an existing 1,176 square foot single-story residence, resulting in a 2,153 square foot single-story residence. Per the Santa Clara City Code 18.120 D7, the request requires architectural review approval through a DRH hearing due to the demolition of more than 50% of the structure. The lot is 6,048 square feet. The surrounding uses are all entirely single family, which is consistent with this property, also zoned single family and consistent with the general plan designation of very low density residential. Here we can see what the proposed front of the structure will look like. They are saying from here over is new, but it is actually from here over as this new entry, this is a new entryway. Here we kind of see the proposed and existing, the existing site, the garage is detached and in the rear of the structure, and there is a driveway running along the right side. And the proposed structure, as we saw in the previous slide, there will be an attached garage here at the front, kind of highlighted in gray here is the areas of addition. Again, this portion here is also being demolished per our definition in the code as this entryway is new. Here we can see the floor plan. On the left is the existing floor plan and on the right is the proposed. So they are adding that garage in the front here as well as some bedrooms and a new bathroom. A proposed project complies with the city's single family and duplex residential design guidelines in that the front of the house is oriented towards the primary street frontage with an emphasis on the front porch or entry element towards the street by architectural design and landscaping treatment. The massing and scale is appropriate relative to the homes within the neighborhood and the proposed materials update the design of the house while being compatible with the aesthetic of the neighborhood. The action being considered is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15301E1 class one existing facilities in that the project is a small addition to an existing single family residence. Staff recommends that Officer Austin determine the project to be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act formal pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15301E1 class one existing facilities and approve the architectural review for a 977 square foot single story addition to an existing 1,176 square foot one-story residence resulting in a 2,153 square foot one-story residence located at 1205 Janice Drive, subject to the findings and conditions of approval. Staff has not received any comments on this project at this time. And that concludes staff presentation. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have an applicant?

I believe the applicant is online.

Okay, there we go. Nicole, is that the... Is that?

Yes, that's Nicole. She's the applicant.

All right, Nicole, unmute yourself and you may speak.

Hi, I am Nicole. I'm an applicant for the project.

Do you have anything to just present? I know Summer had presented some things. Anything to add to that?

I think she pretty much covered all the design and then the All we're gonna do for the project is pretty straightforward.

Okay, okay, thank you. So I don't have any questions for you right now, but we may have some public speakers and you may be called upon to respond.

Okay.

All right, so next I'll move on to public comment. Is anyone here wants to speak on the item? Yes, oh yeah. Come here and state your name.

So that's all that's gonna be done in this house, right? No ADU. Do we know if it's going to be rented out or flipped?

No, this is mainly for the owner. This is just for their stay. They are not planning to sell or as far as I know, they are not planning to do any other stuff.

This house requires a two-car garage, correct?

Okay, hold on. So you're asking, is this a good question? Nicole, let's hold off on your answering. Okay, go ahead.

Well, this house, because we remodeled, so we don't understand why this is a big deal, because we didn't have to do this, and the neighbors next to them didn't have to do this. There's something that you're doing that's subject to why are we having this hearing, or they're just doing like everybody else does in the neighborhood. But the two-car garage is a two-car garage.

There's a good question. So we're going to have Summer kind of go through the criteria for why projects come here And then, yeah.

So first of all, they do have a two-car garage. It's attached in the front. And I showed that on the plans earlier. Here, if you see on the right in the corner, there's a 400 square foot garage, which would be a two-car garage. This is required to go to architectural review hearing since 50% of the walls are being demolished. Our definition of demolished is anything enclosed behind newly constructed walls. So this area here on the existing house is all determined to be demolished. Again, from about here, if you can see my mouse on the screen up here. From here over, so 50% of the exterior walls are being demolished. And per our code section 18.120 D7, it would require an architectural review hearing.

That's really weird because the people next door, we've lived there 32 years. They tore most of their house down and had one stud and they never had a hearing. And then the house two doors down is doing a lot of remodeling and they're not having a hearing. So why is this special? That's what I don't get.

It depends on how much they're demolishing. If that other house was remodeled under the previous code, it might not have required a development review hearing.

Yeah, no, thank you.

It's a good question. Our codes do change from time to time. And so that's the reason in some cases, like the prior project, it would be a second story addition. Or the other thing is, if you have, I think, five bathrooms or five bedrooms, those things also trigger or exterior entryways. So those are the things of why single-family houses would come to this hearing. Go ahead. Yep.

.

They all look relatively around 6,000 square feet. I don't know exact square footage for the adjacent lots.

There's a lot that this house is on.

Here's a little vicinity map. You can take this with. I mean, we don't have numbers on there, but you can see the relative sizes. Okay, well, thank you. Thank you for your comments. Is there anyone else that wants to speak on this item online? Okay, I've seen none. So I'll close the public hearing. I don't have any questions for this. Thank you for coming through our process. So with that, I will determine the project to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, and I will approve the project subject to the findings and conditions approval. If it's approved, there's a seven-day appeal period. Next item. is action public hearing action on architecture review PLN 2600182 for demolition of existing structure for the construction of a 2025 square foot, four bedroom, three and a half bathroom, two story single family residence with an attached 489 square foot garage and 798 square foot attached accessory dwelling unit at 2331 Castro place. Staff report for this or presentation?

That's correct. Okay perfect good evening everybody, my name is Alex is associate planner and today i'll be presenting item for of the agenda it's PLN 26 dash 00182 Castro place. Project denied is requesting a demolition of the existing structure, and they will be constructing a new two-story single family residence, and it will have an attached accessory dwelling unit. According to Santa Clara City Code section 18.120.D.7, this type of scope of work requires an architectural review hearing due to the full demolition of the existing structure. The proposed accessory dwelling unit meets all objective standards under our city code and will be approved ministerially under our city code. And it's not up for approval tonight. So as you can see, the image on the right is the existing vicinity of the property. All the uses surrounding the property are single family residential, zoned the same as R1-6L. This property has a general plan destination of very low density residential. And it's a 5,942 square foot lot. The front is the rendering of the proposal and with all the accent materials and proposed materials. As you can see, there will have some wood accents on the front elevation just to create a break from the stucco structure. This is the proposed site plan. The attached ADU will be in the back, but it's not in discussion for tonight. But the second story massing is set back substantially and it complies with all our objective design standards.

And this is the floor plan for the proposed first floor.

They have a code-compliant garage. And this is the second story. With all projects, especially single family residential, we need to make sure they're consistent with the city's design guidelines. This project is consistent as the building height in bulk is appropriate relative to the neighborhood, as the roof is low slope with a second story element set back approximately six feet from the first floor's walls. The architectural features of the structure are appropriate as they derive from features commonly found in the residential tract like perpendicular oriental overhanging eaves. All the materials are working in conjunction with one another and are consistent with the style of the building as their typical materials found in other modern California binocular style residents. After reviewing this project with my supervisor, this project is being conditioned, conditioned P2 to redesign their entry feature to blend it with the orientation of the rest of the eaves on the first floor front elevation as currently the proposed entry feature roof is oriented perpendicular to the rest of the first floor's roof. This project being proposed in a second story did require early notification and 81 properties were notified within a 300 foot radius of the project site. No public comments were received at the time that the notices were sent out. Staff did receive a comment this morning of a concerned neighbor about, they were concerned about the construction hours. Staff did inform the neighbor that these are standard hours under our noise ordinance. But if the applicant is amenable to setting an agreement with the neighbor to maybe starting construction later than required, that's something that can be discussed offline. The project was evaluated to ensure that it is consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act. This project is being considered categorically exempt under the Class 32 Infill Development Project. categorical exemption as the project is less than five acres is served by all utilities and complies with the general plan. Therefore, staff is recommending tonight that the project be determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and also to approve the architectural review for the scope of work in front of you tonight. The applicant is online if you have any questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Alex. So just move on to the applicant. So please, who's that? It is Ramin. And also the homeowners. All right, Raman, you can speak now. Can you hear me? Yes, I can. So it's interesting. You heard from Alex about these conditions. So I'm just interested in your feedback on that and as well as just anything you want to say about the project.

Yeah, we do appreciate it. I think we worked with Alex on multiple projects in this one as well. So we do appreciate the feedback I think we came along quite a bit on this front elevations in terms of improvements that have been put in by the city so we'll take that into the considerations and we'll be happy to implement that based on the recommendations I should not be a problem as far as the The design itself and what we went for is, you know, definitely we're trying to comply with all the zoning codes, the neighboring houses, both in terms of the square footage to look. So hopefully there's no problem there. As far as the neighbor with the construction hours, definitely we'll take that into consideration. And we will talk to neighbors and make sure we do as much as we can. So there's not a problem. And again, thank you, Alex, for presentations and your help on this job.

All right, thank you. So now I'll open up to the public. Any members of the public here out there in person or online, please raise your hand for this item. Okay, yes, sir. Please come to the podium and state your name.

My name's Jen Hennermeister. I live in this area, like Kitty Corner, like kind of across the street from it. And I don't have any comments on the particular design features or anything. My comment is more just my frustration with what I've seen in housing over the last several years in my community. in my neighborhood and surrounding streets, where just we have these really monstrous buildings being placed into areas that have relatively small homes. Like mine's the same kind of lot size, but I'm a standard home for that tract of 1053 square feet. And this is three times that. So in Santa Clara, the city of trees, we are kind of blotting out the sun and yards with extremely large housing. I understand a lot of that is because we need housing, but I'm just really frustrated by seeing what's happening to a neighborhood of relatively small modest homes that were affordable And they're one by one seem to be replaced by very, very, very much, you know, not incrementally larger, but order of magnitude larger homes. And maybe that's where Santa Clara wants to go, but I haven't spoken on any of these kinds of things before, but I just find it kind of frustrating. I know as I talk to, you know, just talk to people on the streets, it's very frustrating. see um long-term residents like i've lived in in this place for like my place for like 35 years to see the kind of changes that seem to be coming down the road for all you know all the lots um to just be you know extremely large homes on relatively modest lots

frustrated i'm not sure you can do anything legally and maybe that's just the way the city wants to go but i find it very frustrating thank you thank you for your comment okay is there anybody else either online or in person for this item all right see nothing there no hands i'll close sorry Okay, thank you. Appreciate that. Thank you. All right. So seeing that I'm going to close the public hearing. And so, Alex, the conditions already added there that you mentioned?

That's correct.

Okay, great. Thank you. All right. So I am going to deem the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. and approve the architectural review subject to the findings and conditions of approval. So there's an appeal period of seven days, and your project is approved. Moving on to our last item. McKinley. That's right, McKinley. Action on architectural review to demolish an existing one story residents and construction of new 2,900 square foot, two-story, three-bedroom, four-bath single-family residence at 3074 McKinley Drive. Alex, do you have another one? Second to the last item.

Thank you, Sheldon. Hello, everybody. Again, my name is Alex Tagus, associate planner here for the City of Santa Clara. Tonight's item is on 3074 McKinley Drive, PLN 26-00258. The request for tonight is to demolish the existing one-story residence and construct a new 2,917 square foot, two-story, three-bedroom, four-bathroom single-family residence. They are also proposing an attached accessory dwelling unit that is being approved ministerially under Santa Clara City Code 18.60.20.8. This property in particular is a little different than the other projects. This project originally was approved with a different planning application entitlement back in October 18, 2023. Our planning permits are normally valid for two years if there's no extension. The original entitlement expired in November 8, 2025. Construction must start within the two-year timeframe for the permit to remain valid. There was a building permit for the scope that was still being reviewed when the permit expired. Due to those reasons, this project is here tonight again to be approved with a new entitlement. Here's the existing site. It is a 5,000 square foot lot. It is surrounded by single family residents in the north, east, and west. And on the south, there is regional commercial. The property has a general plan designation of very low density residential. And this is the rendering for the front elevation, trying to keep with the aesthetic of the neighborhood with the low roofs and shared, that's found in this track. Here's the proposed site plan. Originally this development was approved with the previous standards City of Santa Clara standards have changed since the original approval. There is now a second story setbacks that are larger than the existing proposal, but I will discuss further on tonight that this project does meet the findings for minor modification, which will be reviewed administratively after this approval. You can see with the floor plan, They only have the three foot step back, which doesn't add up to the 10 foot required second story setback. As mentioned previously, due to that, there is some inconsistency with our current zoning code. So this proposal will require minor modification. This is a process that can, once this is approved, that can be approved administratively as it meets the findings due to there being an active building permit on the review. The lot is smaller than the required lot size and the lot width is less than the minimum lot width in our zoning district, R1-6L. Like all projects, we need to make sure they're consistent with the design guidelines. This project meets the design guidelines due to the height and bulk being relative to the neighborhood, low pitch shed roofs, and the large front second story step back, which creates a mass break between the garage and the second story third bedroom. Their proposing architectural features are found appropriate throughout the neighborhood. Many of these features are found in other patio-style residence, and all these materials are working in conjunction as their typical materials found in modern patio-home-style residence. This project is evaluated like other projects to be consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act. This project is categorically exempt under class three new construction or conversion of small structures as the proposed use consists of a construction of a new small structure where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure. Therefore staff tonight is still recommending approval of the architectural review and also to determine the project to be exempt from the California environmental quality act. Oh, the applicant or homeowner is abroad, so I think they are online and if they are they can just raise their hand but.

There was having some issues to communicate with them because of the time difference okay Thank you so yeah i'm just going to go to the applicant, then so Karen.

Hi.

Hi there, go ahead.

Yeah, so Alex, thanks for presenting our case. And as Alex was mentioning, we were already in the process of getting the permits done and it was taking, you know, working with multiple engineers and everything was taking some time, I guess. When we designed this project, it was completely compliant and We followed all the design guidelines, everything. And the building permit is almost ready to be pulled when this happened. And we weren't aware that it was going to expire. And this was quite a shock for us because we had spent quite a bit of money on structural engineering and everything, money and time for this. But thank you for presenting this again.

Okay, thank you. I don't have any questions for you. So I'll move on to open the public hearing there any public comment on this item, please raise your hand. Okay, I see one person.

Near Yes, sir, I sorry for the interruption on this project, I don't have any comments. The reason that I'm raising my hand because you mentioned this is going to be the last item that you're going to discuss today. And I just want to make sure we are still on board for today for 745 reach.

Absolutely. Yeah, you probably didn't hear that. I said that this is that was the second to last item. I misspoke. Right. Yeah, nobody's up next. All right. Thank you. okay so i'm going to close the public hearing then um and thank you for uh coming back through the process um and so uh really design has already been kind of reviewed previously and all vetted through so i'm going to determine the project to be categorically exempt or sequa and approve the architecture review subject to the findings that comes approval and then getting the minor modification so thank you for that now the last item is a public hearing action on architecture review PLN 2600029 to allow for the full demolition of existing single family residence, construction of a new 2,600 square foot residence with attached second story accessory dwelling unit, 754 Ridge Road, Tracy.

Yes, thank you, hearing officer. Tracy Tan, associate planner for 754 Ridge Road. The request before you today is an architecture review permit to allow for the full demolition of an existing single family residence and the construction of a new approximately 2,675 square foot single family residence with an attached second story ADU. This project is before you because the architecture review permit is triggered as the project involves a full demolition of a single family residence and the construction of a new two story single family residence. As you can see at the image on the slide the project site is located in a single family neighborhood as noted as our 16 cell in the yellow color with the exception of the property to the West, which is a place of assembly. This is the project rendering it's not noted on this slide, but the red base color that you see on the first floor as confirmed by the applicant is proposed to be a brick material. So you'll see the site plan on the slide here, the area that is sort of hatched is the area of where the second for at us proposed. And on the left hand side, you see the proposed first floor floor plan and on the right hand side, you see the proposed second floor floor plan the proposal does include an interior staircase with a separate entrance for the second story edu. The project is subject to the city's adopted single family and duplex residential design standards or design guidelines rather. And the project is found to be in compliance with these standards as the project does include setbacks between the first floor exterior wall to the second floor exterior wall. The second floor score footage is less than the 66% of the first floor is noted in the design guidelines. The project does include materials commonly found in the neighborhood and surrounding area. And the second story windows are high cell windows, which helps reduce privacy impacts to adjacent properties. And the project is found to be categorically exempt from the account for environmental quality act under class three new construction conversion of small structures. Therefore, staff recommends that the hearing officer determine the project to be categorically exempt from CEQA and to approve the architecture review permit to allow for the full demolition of a single family residence and the construction of a new two-story single family residence subject to findings and conditions of approval. And that concludes staff's presentation. The applicant is also available online.

All right, thank you. We'll go to the applicant. I'm assuming that's Nir? Ramin? Ramin? Okay.

We have Ramin here and myself. I'm the builder. Ramin is the architect and we have the client here as well.

Yes, this is Ramin again. Thank you, Tracy, for the presentation. I think this one, a tricky project we've designed with the second floor in terms of the setbacks. We tried to comply and made some adjustments, significant adjustments in terms of the locations. Just to make sure it complies in all areas. So we do appreciate all the feedbacks. I think with the interior staircase, we tried to minimize any bulkiness look due to the second floor ADU. So that was the intent to make sure the staircases are inside and not visually outside for a bulky look. The front as well, in promise, we did with the materials and finishes and

the the bricks that were added thanks to trace's feedback i think those are the designs happy to answer any questions thank you again okay thank you for that i don't have anything at this time so open the public hearing up to any members of the public that want to speak on the item please raise your hand great just have one member here that the chambers just state your name and then go ahead

My name is Denise Moreno, and I grew up here in Santa Clara. My family's been here since the 1900s. So it's interesting that I noticed that the same builder is also building or renovating and demolishing another house in Santa Clara. It seems to be that all these houses that are popping up and being demolished, they're white boxes. black trim on the windows, black roofs, and wood accents. They're popping up all by Apple, which is the prunerage side of Santa Clara. They're all looking the same. And I want the planning commission to really be mindful and take a look at the houses that you're approving. They're all looking the same, like Santa Clara is just gonna look all the same at some point, especially if you have the same builder that is now building another home. His aesthetic is the same. It doesn't match the mission city of Santa Clara and what's around already. It's turning it into something that belongs in Palo Alto. And it just, everything looks the same. If you guys would take the time of your own time to look on the Apple side of, um, Santa Clara and just peruse that neighborhood, you will see the aesthetic that has just changed. That is these monstrous houses. Like the neighbor said, the one that the gentleman that spoke before these houses are huge, enormous. They don't belong in the aesthetic of the neighborhood and they're just, it's changing everything. And they're just, they look all the same. Like there's no variety. It doesn't go with what Santa Clara was built on. They want to renovate the house and change the house, then make it look in the aesthetic of what's there. And all of these, because you guys, I'm sure, have seen many homes, they're all looking the same. I watched the two that were up there, and everything that you see looks exactly like that. in 20 years, is Santa Clara just going to look like a white box with black trim windows and wood accents? That's what's going on. And you guys should be mindful of that. You're part of building Santa Clara and continuing the tradition of what it was with modernization. That's fine. But turning it into what it is looking like now, and that's going to be in my neighborhood, which is just around, I live on a different street. It's just around the corner, maybe like seven houses from that location. It sounds like this same builder is just buying these houses and flipping them, buying these houses and just making the look all the same. Before you know it, I'm gonna have two monster houses next to me. That's not what I live here for. So I just want the builder, I know he's listening, to be mindful of how he creates these projects. And I want you guys to be mindful of how you approve these projects and how it fits in the aesthetic of Anacap.

I'm happy to answer by the way. Hold on. Yeah, hold on. Okay. So we're going to hear from others and then the applicant will get an opportunity to respond. Okay. So thank you. So now others online that want to speak, please raise your hand. Margaret. Hey, Margaret. Go ahead.

Hi, my name is Margaret Heinbaugh, and I just wanted to say that I agree with the woman who just spoke. I don't live far from this house either, and I'm concerned about the mansionization of Santa Clara. And the height and bulk of this, what's going to be going in here, is not appropriate relative to the neighborhood and the houses nearby and around it. It really isn't. And the same for what I spoke about earlier, which was not addressed at all, the bulk of the house and the appropriateness of how it fits into the neighborhood. And I am curious to know if this is where Santa Clara is heading next. But that's never discussed. We never get to hear that. But anyway, I just wanted to say that I'm having major issues with this remodel, this gutting and rebuilding as well. I do see it also in other areas, just like the one that I saw go on Aspen Drive, which is a monster home that dwarfs the houses next door to it. and completely um looks out of place uh i can't help but think that the this is that's going to happen at this site as well anyway um really disappointed with uh how things are going in santa clara um and uh well thank you for letting me speak thank you your comments is there anyone else that wants to speak on this item okay so now i'll go back to ramen um you heard from

couple of speakers here, so if you have any responses to that, that would be the time to do that.

Can you still hear me?

Yes, I can.

Oh, okay, great. I mean, no comments, no feedback. I think in terms of the builders, obviously Nir is the builder. He can comment in terms of the bulkiness or the constructions that are happening, but I think in terms of the designs, what we try to do is not mimic or match with any other houses. These are built based on the owner's desire. So I can tell you this is not a flip, especially on this project. This is ours of what we put in as a designer, architects on the project, plus the owners, they have put their heart into it and they're envisioning a space that they're gonna spend their many years with their family growing family there as well so i think this is this project i have to disagree that it's a It's matching with the neighborhood. Obviously, I think the taste onto the design can match. I think there are a lot of people that are more into a modern look. So we have tried to obviously do our best to make this a unique project to the client's liking as well as to what the city approves. So we do appreciate the feedbacks as far as us working on other projects in the neighborhoods and Santa Clara. We'll do our best to obviously let the owners know and listen to the neighbors as well and go from there. So we do appreciate it again. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Okay. So I'm going to close the public hearing and thanks for those that have spoken here. We do have for process for new two-story or I think houses that have to do with two-story additions. We have an early notification that we send out. So when the project comes in, usually within 30 minutes, for 40 days or so of that coming in, the project coming in, we do send out a notice very similar to the one that we had for this meeting. So that provides an opportunity for the public to, there's a picture rendering of the project on the notice. So there's opportunity then to contact the planner and provide some early feedback so we can introduce some of those comments to the applicant. But these are very good comments. We do see the same architects do come. because they're familiar with the with the city. So we do see some of that as well happening. And they work with various stuff. So I'm going to close the public hearing. Then I'm going to agree with with the recommendation, determine the project to be exempt for the California Environmental Quality Act. and approved architecture review subject to the findings and condition approval. So that triggers as a as prove that triggers a seven day appeal period. That is the last item. So I now adjourn the development review hearing at the time of 511. And the next regularly scheduled meeting is on August 19, 2026 at 4pm. So thank you.

Thank you.