REPORT TO COUNCIL
SUBJECT
Title
Public Hearing: Action on Appeal (PLN26-00094) of a Project Located at 2892 Mesquite Drive for Planning Commission’s Affirmation of an Approval of an Architectural Review Permit (PLN25-00561) Decision from the Development Review Hearing for a 621 Square Foot First Floor Addition and a 397 Square Foot Second Floor Addition to an Existing Two-Story 2,081 Square Foot Single-Family Residence with a 500 Square Foot Attached Garage on a 7,351 Square Foot Lot. CEQA Status: Exempt from CEQA per Section 15301
Report
REPORT IN BRIEF
Applicant of the Appeal: Sorin Spanoche & Andrea Cosmin
Property Owner: Ling Zhou
General Plan: Very Low Density Residential
Zoning: Single-Family Residential (R1-6L)
Site Area: 0.13
Existing Site Conditions: The site consists of a two-story raised ranch style four-bedroom, two-bathroom residence built in 1955 at 2892 Mesquite Drive
Surrounding Land Uses:
• North: Two-Story Raised Ranch Style Residence (R1-6L), across from Mesquite Avenue
• East: Single-Story Ranch Style Residence (R1-6L)
• South: Single-Story Tract Home (R1-6L)
• West: Single-Story Ranch Style Residence (R1-6L)
SUMMARY
The property owner, Ling (“Annie”) Zhou, filed an application on July 23, 2025 requesting an Architectural Review approval for an addition and remodel at 2892 Mesquite Drive, a property located between Mesquite and Madrone Avenue in a predominately single-family residential neighborhood. The application is for a 621 square foot first floor addition and a 397 square foot second floor addition to the existing two-story 2,081 square foot single-family residence. As required by Santa Clara City Code (SCCC) 18.120.020.D, Architectural Review Process - Public Hearing Required, the project was heard by the Development Review Officer (DRO) on December 10, 2025 and approved. At the hearing, five members of the public spoke against the project: they argued that the project design was inconsistent with the prevailing development pattern of the subdivision and would create sight line impacts to the neighboring properties due to landscape screening.
The appellants are the neighbors of 2892 Mesquite Drive; and filed an appeal of the DRO decision to the Planning Commission (Commission). The Commission heard the appeal during a duly noticed public hearing meeting on February 11, 2026. After the close of the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted to uphold the DRO’s decision and approve the project with a 4-3 vote.
The appellants have now filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to City Council in accordance with SCCC 18.144.020.B. The project is now scheduled before the City Council for a public hearing, and pursuant to SCCC 18.144.030.E, the City Council hears Commission appeals de novo or “anew.” This means that while the Council may consider the earlier arguments before and determinations by the DRO and the Planning Commission as part of their own decision making, the Council is making its own determination based on the record presented, and is not merely reviewing the earlier arguments and decisions for compliance with applicable procedures and policies. The City Council has broad discretion and serves as the final decision maker on all single-family home design permits under SCCC 18.144.020.B.
BACKGROUND
On July 23, 2025, the owner, Ling (“Annie”) Zhou, submitted an application requesting an Architectural Review approval for the proposed 1,018 square foot first and second floor addition to their existing two-story 2,081 square foot single-family residence as required by SCCC 18.120.020.D., Architectural Review Process - Public Hearing Required. At a publicly noticed meeting - Development Review Hearing (DRH) on November 19, 2025, the Development Review Officer reviewed the request. The review was continued to the December 10, 2025 publicly noticed DRH due to technical difficulties with the meeting’s hybrid capabilities and to allow for community feedback to be received. At the December 10, 2025 DRH, the DRO discussed if the first-floor addition on the front of the residence would break the prevailing development pattern of the subdivision and create sight line impacts to the neighboring properties. Five members of the public spoke against the proposal. The DRO approved the request with the following two additional conditions of approval:
• Condition of Approval P3 (Guest Bedroom Setback):
“The proposed guest bedroom shall adhere to the prevailing development pattern in the subdivision by reducing the footprint of the proposed guest room by providing a greater front and side setback. The setbacks shall preserve the existing sight line of the adjacent property.”
• Condition of Approval P4 (Front Yard Landscape): “Bushes and code-compliant hedges shall be added to the front yard.”
The appellants contested the DRO’s decision as being inconsistent with the Santa Clara’s Single-Family & Duplex Residential Guidelines (“Guidelines”) and filled a timely appeal to the Planning Commission on December 17, 2025.
On February 11, 2026, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the appeal of the DRO’s approval of the Architectural Review Permit. At the meeting, the Commission heard presentations by staff, the appellant, and the property owner. The Commission discussed the appellants’ concerns that the proposal’s interior side and front setbacks were “not adjusted to complement adjacent development or to accommodate the special needs of the development.” No member of the public spoke for or against the appeal, however, staff received three written public comments supporting the appeal (opposing the project) on the day of the meeting, see Attachment 2, February 11, 2026 PC Staff Report weblink.
Staff recommended the approval of the project as designed, as the project is in compliance with development standards in the SCCC, the proposed addition is to an existing two-story residence, and the addition is consistent with the General Plan, Zoning Code and Design Guidelines. After the closure of the public comment, the Commission made a motion to affirm the decision of the DRO to approve the Architectural Review Permit on a 4-3 vote and opened the seven-day appeal period. The Planning Commission asked both parties to work with each other to find a compromise.
Since the February 11, 2026 Planning Commission meeting, staff has had further communication with the applicant and the appellant and worked on addressing some concerns brought up by the Planning Commission. The property owner has agreed to plant bushes instead of constructing a new three-foot fence on her property to reduce any potential obstruction of the neighbor’s sight line, while the appellant has worked on specifying their appeal request. Staff continues to recommend approval without any further modifications to the conditions of approval.
On February 19, 2025, the appellants, Sorin Spanoche and Andrea Cosmin, filled a timely appeal of the Commission’s February 11, 2026, decision to the Santa Clara City Council (“Council”) in accordance with SCCC 18.144.020.B. The appellants allege that the Conditions of Approval P3 & P4 are too vague and subjective and are inconsistent with the Single-Family Design Guidelines.
DISCUSSION
The proposed project is in a residential tract that consists of single-story and two-story
residences built in the ranch style architectural style popular in the 1960s as shown in the Vicinity Map on Attachment 1.
The proposed addition is to an existing two-story single-family home that was constructed in 1955. The current zoning is R1-6L which allows for low density development such as single-family residences. The addition is minor in nature, as it is less than 50% of the floor area and protects the neighboring sight lines to the street. In the front yard, a new guest bedroom and new entry are proposed and in the rear yard, a new office is proposed. On the second floor, a new master bedroom suite is proposed. However the proposed addition meets the Zoning Code, all development standards and does not obstruct any sight lines. Overall, the building height and bulk are appropriate to the neighborhood. The roof materials, building materials and finishes are consistent with the neighborhood. The architectural features are appropriate to the neighborhood.
However, as stated previously, as part of condition P3 the DRO required the homeowner to further reduce the footprint of the proposed guest room by providing a greater front and side setback. The applicant has agreed to do this and has increased the setback by one foot. The applicant has also agreed to condition P4 by adding bushes and code-compliant hedges to the front yard.
Prior Action
At the February 11, 2025 Planning Commission public hearing and the December 10, 2025 DRH public hearing, staff supported the owner’s permit application after making the required Architectural Review findings under SCCC 18.120.020.F. The findings are listed below with the facts that support the finding under each finding in italics.
1. “That any off-street parking areas, screening strips, and other facilities and improvements necessary to secure the purpose and intent of [the] Zoning Code and the General Plan are a part of the proposed development, in that:”
o The proposal is consistent with SCCC 18.38.060.D as the garage still maintains the code compliant two parking spaces of at least 8.5 feet wide by 18 feet deep.
o The proposed parking spaces are not located in the required front yard or side yard landscape areas as they are in the existing garage.
o The vehicle parking is in an all-weather material surfaced area.
2. “That the design and location of the proposed development and its relation to neighboring developments and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood, will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring developments, and will not create traffic congestion or hazard, in that:”
o The proposed construction would not create any traffic congestion or hazards.
o The public streets are adequate in size to accommodate a single-family residence of this size.
o The proposed design matches nearby residence in scale and would not impair the desirability of the neighborhood.
3. “That the design and location of the proposed development is such that it is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and is such as not to be detrimental to the harmonious development contemplated by [the] Zoning Code and the General Plan, in that:”
o Building height and bulk is appropriate relative to the neighborhood and the project meets all development standards in the Zoning Code.
o Roof materials, building materials, and finishes work in conjunction with one another and consistent with the architectural style of the building.
o Architectural features of the proposed design are true to the architectural form and appropriate for the neighborhood.
o A tree will remain in the front yard to provide shade, soften the building, improve the streetscape, and comply with the City’s Climate Action Plan.
4. “That the granting of such approval will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, materially affect adversely the health, comfort or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of said development and will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injuries to property or improvements in said neighborhood, in that:”
o The project is subject to the California Building Code and City Code requirements, which serve to regulate new construction to protect public health, safety, and general welfare.
5. “That the proposed development, as specified in the plans and drawings, are consistent with the set of more detailed policies and criteria for Architectural Review as approved and updated from time to time by the Council, which set shall be maintained in the Department. The policies and criteria so approved shall be fully effective and operative to the same extent as if written into and made a part of [the] Zoning Code, in that:”
o With adherence to condition P3 of the Conditions of Approval, the proposed construction is consistent with the City’s Single-Family & Duplex Residential Design Guidelines (2014):
§ As conditioned, the project would create a house design that is compatible in scale and character with the housing types that are typical in the neighborhood as the proposed design will have similar massing to the adjacent properties.
o The proposed construction complies with the R1-6L Zoning District’s development standards.
o The proposed construction complies with the intent of the Santa Clara General Plan and all its policies.
o
December 2025 DRH Meeting
At the publicly noticed meeting of December 10, 2025, the DRO heard public comments from five members of the public who live in the project vicinity. The commenters expressed concerns regarding the massing of the proposed project (first and second floor additions). To address public concerns, the DRO added additional conditions of approval, P3 and P4, requiring the project to provide increased front and side setbacks to adhere to the prevailing development pattern of the subdivision. The owner accepted the additional conditions of approval and agreed to modify the plans.
2025 Appeal of DRO’s Decision
On December 17, 2025, the appellants filed a timely appeal of the December 10, 2025 decision. On February 11, 2026, the appeal was heard by the Commission within the 60-days of filing in accordance with SCCC 18.144.030. In their appeal application, the appellants alleged that finding five of SCCC 18.120.020.F could not be made and requested that the Commission overturn the DRO’s decision on the basis that the proposal is not compatible with the prevailing development pattern found in the neighborhood.
February 2026 Planning Commission Meeting
On February 11, 2026, the Commission reviewed the request. The Commission discussed whether the updated development plans’ renderings are accurate and noted that they did not show the neighboring properties. They also had concerns with the appellant’s reasoning as their sight lines were already obstructed with the existing kitchen on the site. Staff stated that the Commission has the authority to add or modify conditions of approval as single-family residential projects are discretionary. The Commission voted 4-3 to affirm the DRO’s decision and encouraged both sides to reach a compromise regarding the proposed fencing and air conditioner placement.
The weblinks to the DRH staff reports from November 19, 2025 and December 10, 2025, and the Commission report from February 11, 2026 are available as Attachment 2.
February 2026 Appeal of Commission’s Decision
Following the February 11, 2026 Planning Commission meeting, the appellants filed a timely appeal on February 18, 2026, of the Commission’s decision to affirm the DRO’s approval of the Architectural Review permit. Council will now hear this appeal within 60 days of filing in accordance with SCCC 18.144.030. In their application, the appellants request that the Council modify Conditions of Approval P3 & P4 to be objective by including an enforceable numerical setback distance. Their statements are found in Attachment 7.
Pursuant to SCCC 18.144.030.E, the City Council hears Planning Commission appeals de novo. During the appeal hearing, the issues that may be raised and considered by the City Council are not limited to those raised by the appellant, and may include any aspect of the proposed project, whether or not originally considered as part of the decision being appealed. The City Council may affirm, affirm in part, vacate, modify or reverse the decision that is the subject of the appeal, based upon the required findings for architectural approvals. The City Council may adopt additional conditions of approval, which may address issues or concerns other than the subject of the appeal. If there is new or different evidence presented in the appeal, the City Council may refer the matter back to the DRO or Commission for further consideration.
The City Council serves as the final review authority for all decisions on Architectural Review of single-family residences under SCCC 18.144.020.B and therefore both parties have exhausted all administrative remedies. The City Council’s decision is final. In this matter, staff continues to recommend approval of the Architectural Review as conditioned as it is consistent with the General Plan and the SCCC; therefore staff recommends the City Council affirm the Planning Commission’s decision, approve the project and deny the appeal.
Considerations
Consistency with General Plan
In order to be approved, the project must be found to be consistent with the City’s General Plan. Consistency with the General Plan is demonstrated as follows:
• 5.5.2-P1 - Require that new development incorporate building articulation and architectural features including front doors, windows, stoops, or bay windows along street frontages to integrate new development into existing neighborhoods.
o The request is breaking the mass of the proposed second story addition by nine feet to add articulation and improve the symmetry of the building.
• 5.5.2-P2 - Implement design review guidelines for setback, heights, materials, massing, articulation and other standards to support Transition Policies and promote neighborhood compatibility.
o The request conforms with the City of Santa Clara Single-Family & Duplex Residential Design Guidelines Chapter 2b - Sensitive Design Solutions as the second story addition does not exceed approximately 66% of the first-floor area and the side walls of the second story addition are set back at least 3 feet from the side walls of the first floor. The City of Santa Clara Single-Family & Duplex Residential Design Guidelines is the implementation of General Plan Policy 5.5.2.
• 5.5.2-P3 - Implement site design solutions, such as landscaping and increased building setbacks, to provide a buffer between non‐residential and residential uses.
o The request conforms with the City of Santa Clara Single-Family & Duplex Residential Design Guidelines Chapter 4a - Site Planning as the first story addition on the front is setback more than required, preserving the prevailing development pattern in the neighborhood.
Consistency with Zoning Code
The request conforms with all the development standards under the Zoning Code. See Project Data and Compliance Table in Attachment 4
Community Meeting
This request is a Small Development Proposal under the Santa Clara Public Outreach Policy for Planning Applications therefore a community meeting was not required to be held.
Recommended City Council Actions
The project is presented to the City Council for consideration and action. To approve the project, CEQA and Architectural approval are required because the project is consistent with the General Plan, Zoning Code and Design Guidelines, staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Determine the project to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) formal pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1 - Existing Facilities)
2. A Adopt the resolution overruling the appeal and approving the Architectural Review Permit to allow the construction of a 621 square foot first floor addition and a 397 square foot second floor addition to an existing two-story 2,081 square foot single-family residence with a 500 square foot attached garage. The Architectural Review Permit is a quasi-judicial decision with a list of required findings under SCCC 18.120.020.F. The required findings with the supporting facts were discussed in the Discussion section of this report.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action being considered is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1 - Existing Facilities), in that the project consists of the addition to an existing structure that will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area before the addition, or 2500 square feet.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the City for processing the requested application other than administrative time and expense typically covered by processing fees paid by the applicant.
COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the City Attorney’s Office.
PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email clerk@santaclaraca.gov or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.
On March 26, 2026, the notice of public hearing for this item was mailed to 67 property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the project site. At the time of this staff report, no written comments have been received by the Planning Division in support or opposition to the project. Previously, written comments were submitted for the December 10, 2025 DRH and February 11, 2026 Planning Commission meeting.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation
1. Determine the project to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) formal pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1 - Existing Facilities); and
2. Adopt a resolution to overrule the appeal and affirm the decision of the Planning Commission to approve the Architectural Review for the construction of a 621 square foot first floor addition and a 397 square foot second floor addition to an existing two-story 2,081 square foot single-family residence with a 500 square foot attached garage on a 7,351 square foot lot at 2892 Mesquite Drive, subject to findings and conditions of approval.
Staff
Prepared by Alex Tellez, Assistant Planner, Community Development Department:
Reviewed by: Afshan Hamid, Director of Community Development:
Reviewed by Glen Googins, City Attorney:
Approved by: Jovan Grogan, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity Map
2. Staff Report Web Links
3. Project Data Compliance Table
4. Conditions of Approval
5. Reso. to Approve Architectural Review
6. Development Plans
7. Appellant’s Statement