1124 Holmes Avenue

Current status

Planning permit PLN-2026-53, a proposed four-unit Starter Home project, was voluntarily withdrawn in June 2026. Whole-house demolition permit BLD-2026-894 was issued August 13, 2026, and the existing residence was subsequently demolished. See the City incompleteness review and Version 1 deficiencies →

No new post-demolition Starter Home application has yet been established in the records assembled for this site.

Owner

Rarefund Project 18 LLC. The Santa Clara County Assessor’s APN inquiry screen dated October 15, 2026 lists Rarefund Project 18 LLC as the current owner of APN 424-05-051 (1124 Holmes Avenue), with a deed recorded November 19, 2025 (document 25906625). This supersedes the ownership shown in the earlier November 10, 2025 title report.

Current / most recent application

The most recent documented planning application is PLN-2026-53, the withdrawn four-unit Starter Home proposal. Whole-house demolition permit BLD-2026-894 was later issued and the residence was demolished.

Latest documented activity

By August 31, 2026 — Existing residence demolished. Neighborhood observations place demolition between August 15 and August 31, 2026. Neighborhood photographs document the demolished residence and cleared lot, with construction fencing in place. The posted project notice identifies Team Metric Inc. and lists John Zhang as project manager. No later post-demolition development application has been established in the records assembled for this site.

What we know

• PLN-2026-53 proposed four detached single-family Starter Homes.
• The City issued an incompleteness review on May 20, 2026.
• The applicant withdrew PLN-2026-53 in June 2026.
• BLD-2026-894 was issued August 13, 2026 and the residence was subsequently demolished.

What we don’t know

Version 1 design

City incompleteness review for 1124

The following summarizes deficiencies and unresolved items identified by Campbell Planning, Public Works and the Santa Clara County Fire Department in their review of Planning permit PLN-2026-53. These comments apply only to the withdrawn Version 1 proposal and should not be assumed to apply unchanged to any future redesign.

Threshold and eligibility issue

• Preliminary-application ownership documentation: The City could not confirm that the April 16, 2026 preliminary application was valid because the owner affidavit did not match City ownership records and required deed/LLC documentation was missing.
• Vacancy requirement: If the preliminary application was not valid, Campbell stated that the project would be subject to the revised vacancy rule and would not appear eligible while the existing residence remained on the parcel.

Substantive design and code conflicts

1. Minimum lot size: All but one of the proposed residential lots failed to meet the 1,200-square-foot minimum applicable to the R-1 starter-home subdivision.
2. 2½-story classification: The submitted sections did not demonstrate that the upper floors met Campbell’s definition of a half-story; the wall plates appeared to exceed the four-foot threshold.
3. Property-line openings: The proposed lot lines wrapped closely around the buildings, and the quantity and size of windows appeared to exceed California Building Code limits for openings near property lines.
4. Vehicle backup distance: The plans did not appear to provide the required 25-foot garage backup distance.
5. HOA/common-area structure: The plans did not establish whether an HOA would be formed or how shared rights-of-way, utilities, landscaping and stormwater facilities would be maintained.
6. Access easements: Several lots lacked direct public-street frontage, but the plans did not adequately establish permanent reciprocal vehicular and pedestrian access rights for all parcels.
7. Parking rights: The submittal did not show that each parcel was independently self-sufficient for required parking or that any shared/off-parcel parking was protected by permanent easements.
8. Utility configuration and easements: The plans did not clearly establish utility routing or permanent utility rights benefiting each parcel.
9. Shared-infrastructure maintenance: Responsibility for maintaining common accessways, utilities, stormwater facilities and other private infrastructure was not adequately identified.
10. Window reflectivity / bird safety: Window-reflectivity information needed to demonstrate compliance with Campbell’s bird-safety standards was not provided.

Missing or incomplete application materials

• Photometric plan.
• Construction/staging plan.
• Accessibility review letter prepared by a Certified Access Specialist.
• Current preliminary title report.
• Renter Occupied Housing Declaration.
• Joint trench utility plan.
• Air quality / greenhouse gas report, subject to possible deferral to building-permit review.
• Acoustic/noise study, subject to possible deferral to building-permit review.
• Utility “will-serve” letters.
• Trash management plan.
• Required project data and dimensions on the coversheet and site plan.
• Garage dimensions and mechanical/appliance information on floor plans.
• Dimensioned floor-area diagrams.
• Complete grade, floor, eave/parapet and building-height measurements on sections and elevations.
• Photovoltaic locations on the roof plan.
• Additional tree-survey information.
• Complete landscaping and irrigation information.
• Actual surveyed grading and drainage elevations rather than the assumed elevation shown in the plans.

Public Works issues

• Frontage reconstruction, including removal of non-ADA-compliant improvements and installation of a City-standard five-foot sidewalk and accessible driveway approach.
• Sidewalk, public-utility and private-access/utility easements needed to support the subdivision.
• Joint-trench planning and adequate space/clearance for a likely above-ground transformer.
• Revisions to stormwater, drainage and pervious/impervious-area calculations.
• Use and long-term maintenance of permeable pavement in the common driveway.
• Underground utilities, utility coordination, street restoration and other subdivision infrastructure requirements.

Fire Department issues

• Aerial apparatus access: Portions of the proposed buildings appeared to exceed 30 feet, triggering aerial-access requirements that had not been satisfied.
• Ground-ladder rescue access: Second- and third-floor emergency-rescue openings did not have demonstrated ladder access, and landscaping/setbacks could obstruct access.
• Fire apparatus turning: Plans needed to demonstrate compliant turning radii and roadway access.
• Fire-lane identification: Required fire-apparatus access roads would need to be designated and marked.
• Hydrant fire flow: The project needed confirmation of the required hydrant flow.
• Sprinklers: The plans needed to identify fire sprinklers as a deferred submittal.

Ownership documentation question

The preliminary application identified Jia Guo as property owner and Ziqi Tao of Team Metric as applicant, with an acknowledgement naming Rarefund Project 18 LLC. A title report effective November 10, 2025 showed title vested in Visionary Development, LLC and identified Rarefund Project 18 LLC as proposed insured/buyer. The City’s review said deed and LLC documentation needed to resolve the discrepancy.

A Santa Clara County Assessor APN inquiry dated October 15, 2026 identifies Rarefund Project 18 LLC as the current owner and lists a deed recorded November 19, 2025 (document 25906625). The assessor record resolves the earlier uncertainty about recorded ownership; the deed itself has not been independently reviewed here.

What we’re watching next

• Any new Planning, Starter Home or subdivision application for the now-vacant parcel.
• Whether a future submittal changes the lotting, access, building massing, easements or common-infrastructure approach identified in the Version 1 review.
• Updated ownership/application documentation included with any future filing.

Documents & sources

See the Sources & Methodology library for PLN-2026-53 materials, the May 20 City incompleteness review, withdrawal/refund records and demolition-permit sources.