REPORT TO COUNCIL
SUBJECT
Title
Public Hearing: Action on Appeal (PLN26-00318) of a Project Located at 860 and 858 Civic Center Drive and 1526 Alviso Street of an Approval of an Architectural Review Permit (PLN24-00533) for the Demolition of Existing Buildings and Construction of Three Separate Multi-Family Buildings Resulting in 14 Townhomes and a Duplex Building With Commercial Space and Determination of Statutory Exemption from CEQA per Public Resources Code Section 21080.66 (AB 130 (2025))
Report
SUMMARY
The project is before the City Council as an appeal of a Development Review Hearing decision to approve 14 townhomes and a duplex building with 2 residential units over ground-floor commercial space. The appeal is filed by Michael and Cheryl Fisher. The property owner, Speno Enterprises (“Damian Speno”), filed an application on October 21, 2024, requesting an Architectural Review approval to demolish the existing buildings and construct three separate multi-family buildings. The project site includes three lots located at 860 and 858 Civic Center Drive and 1526 Alviso Street, between Lafayette Street and Alviso Street, behind El Camino Real (Attachment 1) and is an infill site. The surrounding neighborhood is developed with multi-family residential, commercial, and single-family residential uses.
The project proposes two affordable units and will pay an in-lieu fee for the remaining 0.4 fractional unit, consistent with the 15% affordable housing requirement under the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance, Santa Clara City Code (SCCC) Section 17.04.080. The applicant is also using State Density Bonus Law (SDBL) to seek waivers and concessions from certain SCCC requirements.
At the June 17, 2026, Development Review Hearing (DRH), per SCCC 18.120.020.D.3 and 18.120.020.D.7, Architectural Review Process - Public Hearing Required, the project was heard by the Development Review Officer (DRO) and approved. At the hearing, members of the public spoke in opposition to the project. Comments included concerns that the project design is inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood, specifically the adjoining townhomes. Speakers also raised concerns regarding the proposed building height, lack of multi-story step-backs, and potential privacy impacts from the proposed balconies.
On June 24, 2026, the adjacent neighbors, Michael and Cheryl Fisher (appellants), filed an appeal of the DRO decision. As this is a project appeal, the project is now scheduled before the City Council for a public hearing. Pursuant to SCCC 18.144.030.E, the City Council hears the Development Review Hearing appeals regarding architecture reviews de novo or “anew.” This means while the City Council may consider the prior arguments and the DRO’s determination as part of its decision-making, the Council will make its own determination based on the record presented. The City Council is not limited to reviewing the prior arguments and decisions for compliance with applicable procedures and policies. The City Council serves as the final City decision-making body on the appeal, but its de novo review is constrained by applicable state housing laws, including the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) and State Density Bonus Law (SDBL).
REPORT IN BRIEF
Appeal Applicant: Michael and Cheryl Fisher
Architectural Review Applicant: Anderson Architects, Inc.
Property Owner: Speno Enterprises
General Plan: Community Mixed-Use
Zoning: MU-CC - Mixed-Use Community Commercial
Site Area: 0.61-acre
Existing Site Conditions: Two lots on Civic Center Drive developed with two building structures with auto-repair uses. The lot on Alviso Street is vacant.
Surrounding Land Uses:
• North: Commercial Uses (MU-CC) across Civic Center Drive
• East: Two-Story Townhomes and Two-Story Single-Family Residence (MU-CC)
• South: Two-Story Hotel (MU-CC)
• West: One-Story Single-Family Residences (MU-CC) and One-Story Commercial Building (MU-CC)
BACKGROUND
On October 21, 2024, the property owner, Damian Speno of Speno Enterprises, submitted an Architectural Review application for the proposed project, as required by SCCC Section 18.120.020.D. Under the General Plan CMU designation and the MU-CC Zoning, the proposed multifamily project is a permitted use. The only entitlement required is a DRH approval for the architecture, which is the land-use approval at issue in this appeal. Under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), if a housing development complies with the applicable objective standards in effect when the application was determined to be complete, the City may not disapprove the project or require a lower-density project unless the project would result in a specific impact on public health or safety. Staff finds the project consistent with the applicable development standards, as modified by the requested SDBL waivers and concession, and has identified no specific in public health or safety impacts meeting the HAA standard.
On September 16, 2025, the applicant held a Community Meeting, in both online and in-person formats. Seven members of the public attended in-person and no members attended online. Comments raised at the meeting generally related to on-street parking, the existing width of Civic Center Drive and privacy concerns. The applicant responded to on-street parking concerns and stated that each townhome unit would provide a two-car garage, the duplex units would have assigned parking, and that Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) are exempt from parking requirements. The applicant also stated that the project proposes a six-foot masonry wall consistent with the Zoning Code along with landscaping along the perimeter to provide additional privacy.
Michael and Cheryl Fisher, the appellants, were also at the DRH meeting. The appellants received entitlements for an adjacent property under the old code. Prior to the DRH, staff received email correspondence from the appellants, regarding concerns about the entitlement process for the appellants’ own project compared to the proposed project, as well as concerns regarding the project’s design compatibility with the neighborhood. Staff provided responses to the comments, included as Attachment 6. On August 13, 2026, staff met with Mr. Fisher to review his concerns and explained that his project was processed under the old code that had a different process for architectural review. The new Zoning Code and State Laws are now applicable to the current development. Furthermore, the El Camino Specific Plan which is cited in the appeal, cannot be retroactively applied.
Summary of Appeal Request:
On June 17, 2026, staff received a public comment letter from the appellants’ attorney in opposition to the project. The letter stated that Brown Act requirements were not met because the statutory CEQA exemption was not listed; that the project did not provide substantial evidence to support requested waivers; and that the project design is inconsistent with the zoning code and adjacent residential uses. Staff addressed these comments during the staff presentation at the June 17, 2026, DRH meeting. The PowerPoint presentation containing staff responses to the comments is included as Attachment 4.
At the publicly noticed DRH on June 17, 2026, the DRO reviewed the request. Following staff and applicant presentations, the DRO opened the hearing for public comment. Four members of the public provided comments in opposition to the proposal. After considering the record and public comments, the DRO approved the project, consistent with staff’s recommendation.
On June 24, 2026, the appellants filed a timely appeal of the DRO’s decision to City Council in accordance with SCCC 18.144.020.B. The appeal raises four primary objections to the project as approved:
• The appellants allege that the project is ineligible to use the statutory CEQA exemption under Public Resources Code Section 21080.66, as amended by (AB 130 (2025)), based on an alleged General Plan inconsistency;
• The appellants claim that the City needed more evidence to approve the requested waivers and concession;
• The appellants believe the City cannot make the necessary findings to approve the architectural review, based on subjective concerns over compatibility of style and privacy; and
• The appellants claim that the Project is inconsistent with the May 2026 El Camino Real Specific Plan.
Brief responses to these allegations are provided below; a more detailed response is attached to this Report as Attachment 6.
DISCUSSION
Proposed Project
Existing Conditions
The project site is located in a neighborhood developed with a mix of residential, commercial, and hotel uses. The surrounding uses include townhomes to the east across Alviso Street, commercial uses to the north and south, a hotel use to the south, and one-story residences to the west. The project site is not located within 200 feet of a Historic Resource. The parcels along Civic Center Drive are currently developed with one-story auto-repair and auto-related uses. The parcel along Alviso Street is currently vacant.
Proposed Project
The proposed project would redevelop the site with 14 four-story “for-sale” attached townhomes distributed across two four-story buildings: one building with eight units and one with six units. The project also includes a three-story building with two residential units, two accessory dwelling units, and approximately 715 square feet of commercial space. The project application was determined to be complete and cleared at the April 14, 2026, Project Clearance Committee meeting.
As provided in more detail below, the proposal is consistent with the City’s Community Design Guidelines in that it would improve the aesthetic condition of the site (Goals 4a and 4b), incorporate a design compatible with the surrounding development pattern (Goal 2a), and would facilitate efficient and convenient layout of parking and pedestrian circulation (Goal 4c).
Affordable Housing and State Density Bonus Waivers
The project proposes two affordable units and payment of an in-lieu fee for the 0.4 remaining fractional unit, consistent with the 15% affordable housing requirement under the Affordable Housing Ordinance, SCCC Section 17.04.080. Because the project includes affordable housing units, the applicant is utilizing the State Density Bonus Law (SDBL) to request four waivers and one concession from certain Santa Clara City Code development standards. The four waivers include:
1. A reduction in the rear setback;
2. A waiver of the front setback requirement along Civic Center Drive;
3. A waiver of the multi-story step-back requirements; and
4. A waiver of the height limit to allow an increase in building height.
The applicant also requests a concession to reduce the commercial Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirement.
Staff has reviewed and approved the requested waivers and concession in accordance with State Density Bonus Law and the applicable provisions of the Santa Clara City Code.
Prior Action
At the June 17, 2026, DRH public hearing, staff recommended approval of the proposed project after making the required Architectural Review findings under SCCC 18.120.020.F. The findings are listed below, with the facts supporting each finding shown in italics. After reviewing the appeal letter, staff have provided further clarification and information for each finding, with the finding listed first in bold text.
1) That any off-street parking area, screening strips, and other facilities and improvements necessary to secure the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code and the General Plan of the City are a part of the proposed development, in that:
• The project is within one-half mile of a major transit stop and therefore is not subject to minimum parking requirement pursuant Government Section 65863.2 (AB 2097 (2022)). Accessory Dwelling Units are not required to provide parking pursuant to Government Code section 66322(a). While parking is not required, each townhome unit will have a two-car garage which provides the Code required two covered parking spaces. Each of the two units in the duplex will have one space assigned, one covered parking space, and a third parking space that will be provided uncovered. An additional ADA parking space is provided in front of the Mixed-Use Building.
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:
• The proposed project would generate less than 100 net new peak hour trips. The number of vehicles entering/exiting the site at any time would be minimal and would not disrupt traffic flow in the existing neighborhood. The project did not meet the threshold for additional evaluation for vehicle miles traveled or a local transportation analysis study. The project includes pedestrian improvements by construction of a new six-foot sidewalk with a four-foot landscape strip along Civic Center Drive and Alviso Street.
• The proposed development is consistent with the objective standards set forth in the General Plan and Zoning Code, and with the waivers and concessions, will comply with the MU-CC zoning district’s development standards. For purposes of the HAA's restrictions on disapproval or reduced density, the City must apply the applicable objective development standards; subjective design preferences cannot supply additional development standards for denying or reducing the density of an objectively compliant project.
• While the applicant requests a waiver to increase the height and waive the multi-story step-back requirement, the project is a contemporary architectural design that incorporates a variety of building materials, textures, and styles to enhance visual interest. The proposed architecture style incorporates existing contemporary Spanish architecture style present in the existing townhome project east of the proposed site. The proposed design conforms to the City’s Community Design Guidelines in that it improves the aesthetic of the existing parcels (the existing site on Civic Center Drive are developed with auto-oriented uses and the site on Alviso Street is vacant), creates a mix of uses by providing residential use in proximity to existing commercial near El Camino Real, and is designed to be compatible with the existing surrounding development.
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 of the City, in that:
• The proposed project is consistent with the surrounding character of the neighborhood by including compatible building color palette, contemporary Spanish architectural design, double pane windows, and metal railings. The architectural features of the proposed design are true to the architectural form and appropriate for the neighborhood. In accordance with the HAA, subjective design criteria cannot be used as additional development standards to disapprove the project or require it to be developed at a lesser density, where it complies with the applicable objective standards. To the extent of complying with development standards, the proposed project complies with the MU-CC zoning district’s development standards, with waivers and concessions.
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:
• 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.
• The project proposes 15 percent (2 units, and for the fractional 0.4 unit, in-lieu fees) of the total unit count for the households at moderate-income. Affordable units shall be reasonably dispersed throughout the project and contain the same number of bedrooms as market rate units.
5) That the proposed development, as set forth 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 City Council, which set shall be maintained in the planning division office, in that:
• The proposal is consistent with the City’s Community Design Guidelines in that it would improve the aesthetic condition of the site (Goals 4a and 4b), incorporate a design compatible with the surrounding development pattern (Goal 2a), and would facilitate efficient and convenient layout of parking and pedestrian circulation (Goal 4c)
Considerations
Appeal Letter
The appellants’ attorney submitted an appeal letter, dated June 24, 2026, included as Attachment 5 stating reasons that substantial evidence does not support the DRO’s approval. The appeal letter raises five main points, as listed below. Staff responses to the concerns raised in the appeal letter are provided briefly below, with a more detailed response in Attachment 6.
1. Use of CEQA Exemption under AB 130 (2025): The Project relies on the AB 130 statutory exemption for qualifying infill residential projects on sites generally not more than 20 acres. The appellant objects because the AB 130 exemption is only available to projects that are consistent with the General Plan, and the Appellant argues that the project is inconsistent. Their argument is based on General Plan policies that require qualitative judgment, such as “high quality design,” compatibility with neighboring uses, and providing adequate transition from surrounding neighborhoods. But AB 130 provides that a housing development project shall be deemed consistent with the applicable General Plan and zoning ordinance if substantial evidence would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the project is consistent. Here, substantial evidence supports that determination, including the Community Mixed Use designation, which authorizes the proposed residential and commercial uses and density. In addition, approval of SDBL concessions and waivers may not be used as grounds for finding that a project is inconsistent with the General Plan under AB 130, so to the extent the Appellants’ objections are related to the height, step back, or setbacks, those factors cannot be considered.
2. Inconsistency with May 2026 El Camino Real Specific Plan. The Project Clearance Committee determined the application was complete on April 14, 2026, before the Specific Plan was adopted on May 19, 2026. HAA compliance is evaluated against the applicable objective general plan, zoning, subdivision, and design-review standards in effect when the application was deemed complete. Accordingly, development standards first adopted through the May 2026 Specific Plan do not apply and cannot be used as the standards against which the City may evaluate this Project for purposes of HAA disapproval or reduced-density review.
3. Evidence supporting requested concession and waivers. The applicant is utilizing a concession to reduce the required commercial square footage, because the unusual and constrained configuration of the Project Site results in a narrow northern leg extending to Alviso Street and the larger portion of the Site is situated behind that frontage. Consequently, only a limited portion of the Site has the street exposure, visibility, and direct pedestrian access ordinarily associated with viable commercial space. The appellants argue that the City should have required additional evidence from the applicant that economic infeasibility justified the granting of the concession. But legally, for a concession, an applicant does not have to prove economic necessity or submit a pro forma or similar evidence, and the City bears the burden to justify denial.
The applicant is also receiving waivers of development standards for front and rear setbacks, the multi-story step back requirement, and the maximum height. The appellants argue that the City should have required additional evidence for the need for these waivers. To grant waivers, there must be a factual basis for concluding a development standard would physically preclude the qualifying project, but the City cannot require the developer to remove amenities or redesign the project merely to eliminate the need for the waiver. Here, the unusual configuration of the Site already limits the horizontal area available for residential buildings. Full application of the setback requirements would further reduce the ground-level building envelope; application of the multi-story step back requirement would reduce the available building envelope on the upper stories; and application of the otherwise-required height limit would prevent the Project from accommodating vertically the residential floor area displaced by those constraints. In combination, these standards would physically preclude construction of the Project at the allowable density.
4. Architectural Review Findings. The appellants also argue that the City cannot make two of the architectural review findings, related to neighborhood compatibility and harmonious development. The HAA does not authorize subjective compatibility criteria to serve as additional development standards for disapproving or reducing the density of an otherwise objectively compliant housing development project. The City may nevertheless make the locally required Architectural Review findings where the record supports them, and the evidence supporting those findings is identified above.
5. Requested design changes. The appellants ask that the Project be redesigned to reduce height and increase setbacks, which are development standards for which the applicant has requested SDBL waivers. But as described above, strict application of the development standards would preclude construction of the project at the allowable density. In addition, the appellants requested changes to specific architectural details (requesting wood trim windows and arches) and wanted to modify the condition on balconies. Staff believes that the current architectural design is of a high caliber and compatible with surrounding developments. Finally, the appellants wanted to constrain the uses allowed at the commercial space. However, this is not one of the relevant topics for an architectural review.
Again, a more thorough analysis of these issues is provided in Attachment 5. In summary, staff believes that none of the objections to the project presented by appellants provide a compelling or legal basis for overturning the DRO’s decision to approve the project.
Recommended City Council Actions
The project is presented to the City Council for consideration and action. The following specific actions are required:
a) Appeal: Adopt the resolution overruling the appeal and upholding the decision to approve the Architectural Review permit for the demolition of existing buildings and construction of three separate multi-family buildings, including an eight-unit townhome building, a six-unit townhome building, and a two-unit duplex building with two accessory dwelling units and 715 square-foot of commercial space; and determine the project to be exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Public Resources Code Section 21080.66 (AB 130 (2025)), located at 860 and 858 Civic Center Drive and 1526 Alviso Street, subject to findings and conditions of approval.
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.
The Architectural Review permit includes the conditions of approval in the form drafted by staff (Attachment 9).
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action being considered is subject to a statutory exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.66 (AB 130 (2025)). AB 130 exempts qualifying infill projects from formal environmental review if the proposed project meets the following criteria:
a) The project site is less than 20 acres;
b) The project site is within the incorporated municipality of City of Santa Clara;
c) The project site was previously developed with an urban use and adjoins other urban uses;
d) The project is consistent with the Zoning Code and General Plan, given that the use is authorized by both the MU-CC zoning and CMU General Plan designation, and meets all objective development standards not subject to a waiver or concession;
e) The project density is 26.2 du/ac, which is above the minimum density requirement of 15 du/ac set forth in Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B);
f) The project meets the requirements of Government Code Section 65913.4(a)(6), in that it is not located in a coastal zone, on farmland or wetlands, on a hazmat site, within an earthquake fault zone, within a special flood hazard area or regulatory floodway, on lands subject to a conservation plan, within habitat for special species, or on lands under a conservation easement;
g) The project will not demolish historic structures on the national, state, or local register;
h) The project is not designated as hotel, motel, or transient lodging;
i) The project will be required to prepare an Environmental Assessment; and
j) The project has completed a Tribal Consultation process, which concluded on July 31, 2025. The City met with the Tamien Nation and Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area.
Based on the record described above, staff finds that the proposed project meets the applicable requirements of AB 130 and is statutorily exempt from CEQA.
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 City 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 August 13, 2026, the notice of public hearing for this item was mailed to 162 property owners and tenants within 500 feet of the project site. At the time of this staff report, no comments have been received by the Planning Division in support or opposition to the project. Previously written comments were submitted for June 17, 2026, Development Review Hearing, included in the June 17th DRH staff report (Attachment 3).
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation
1. Determine the project to be exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.66 (AB 130 (2025)); and
2. Conduct the public hearing, consider all evidence presented and unless the Council determines that the AB 130 CEQA Exemption is inapplicable or that the Project would result in a specific adverse public-health or safety impact, adopt the resolution overruling the appeal and upholding the decision to approve the Architectural Review permit for the demolition of existing buildings and construction of three separate multi-family buildings, including an eight-unit townhome building, a six-unit townhome building, and a two-unit residential building with two accessory dwelling units and 715 square feet of commercial space, located at 860 and 858 Civic Center Drive and 1526 Alviso Street, subject to findings and conditions of approval.
Staff
Prepared by: Meha Patel, Associate 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. Reso. to Overrule Appeal and Approve the Arch. Review
3. Web Link to June 17, 2026 DRH Staff Report
4. June 17 DRH Staff Presentation
5. Appeal Letter
6. Staff Response to Appeal Letter
7. Public Comment Letter from Appellants
8. Project Data Compliance Table
9. Conditions of Approval
10. Development Plans