REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBJECT
Title
Public Hearing: Action on an Appeal (PLN26-00425) at 2261 Rita Court of a Development Review Officer’s Approval for an Architectural Review (PLN26-00188) for a 517 Square Foot First-Floor and a 1,000 Square Foot Second-Floor Addition to an Existing Single-Story Single-Family Residence on a 6,272 Square Foot Lot. CEQA Status: Exempt from CEQA per Section 15301 (Existing Facilities).
Report
REPORT IN BRIEF
Appellant: Dora Flores
Owner: Nandita Upadhyaya & Kasturi Raghavan
General Plan: Very Low Density Residential
Zoning: Single-Family Residential (R1-6L)
Site Area: 0.14 Acres
Existing Site Conditions: A single-story three-bedroom, one-bathroom ranch-style residence built in 1952
Surrounding Land Uses:
• North: R1-6L - Single-Family Residence
• East: R1-6L - Single-Family Residence
• South: R1-6L - Single-Family Residence
• West: R1-6L - Single-Family Residence
BACKGROUND
On April 14, 2026, Nandita Upadhyaya & Katsuri Raghavan, owners of 2261 Rita Court, applied for an Architectural Review approval to add 517 square feet to the first floor and a new 1,000-square-foot second floor to an existing three bedroom, one bathroom single-story residence (the “project”). The project requires Architectural Review approval at a public hearing under Santa Clara City Code (“SCCC”) Section 18.120.020.D, Architectural Review Process - Public Hearing Required. The subject property is located between Los Padres Boulevard and Juanita Drive in a predominantly single-family residential neighborhood. The homeowners seek to update the existing home into a more current living space for their family. The Development Review Officer (“DRO”) approved the project at a publicly noticed Development Review Hearing (“DRH”) on August 19, 2026. The approval is now being appealed to the Planning Commission. Pursuant to SCCC Section 18.144.030.E, the Planning Commission hears appeals de novo and makes an independent determination based on the record before it.
On August 19, 2026, the Development Review Officer (“DRO”) reviewed a request for a first story and second story addition to an existing single-story home. Two members of the public who are neighbors to the rear of the subject property spoke against the proposal with concerns regarding sightlines, privacy screening, window placement and landscape screening measures. The DRO discussed whether there was substantial distance between the proposed massing and the rear neighbor’s property. The DRO approved the project with an added condition of approval as stated below:
“Before submittal and issuance of building permits, the plan set shall be updated to indicate additional landscape near the rear property line. The proposed landscape (trees) shall provide adequate screening and protect both this property’s and Lot 14’s sight lines. The landscape shall not interfere with the property’s public utility easement.”
On August 25, 2026, the appellant, Dora Flores, filed a timely appeal of the August 19, 2026, DRO’s decision to the Planning Commission in accordance with the SCCC 18.120.020.K. The appellant resides in the property located directly behind 2261 Rita Court,
The appellant contends that the project is inconsistent with Santa Clara’s Single-Family and Duplex Residential Design Guidelines and the SCCC, as it is out of character with the neighborhood, and the second-story addition would adversely affect the appellant’s privacy and general well-being. See Attachment 7 for the appellant’s statement.
DISCUSSION
The site consists of an existing single-story three-bedroom, one-bathroom ranch-style residence built in 1952. The project proposed by the homeowner would result in a 2,629 square foot five-bedroom, four-bathroom two-story residence with a 395 square foot attached garage. The applicant proposes more than the required second-story front & side setbacks to break the mass and add articulation to the proposed second-story element. The design of the residence shifts from ranch-style to modern farmhouse, with a steep-pitched roof and a long-covered porch.
Per the Santa Clara City Code 18.120(D).1, the request to build a new second-story element in an existing single-story residence requires Architectural Review approval through a Development Review Hearing (“DRH”).
Development Review Hearing and Architectural Review Findings
A duly noticed public hearing was conducted on August 19, 2026. Staff made a presentation, the applicants spoke in support of their request, and members of the public were provided an opportunity to comment on the item. Staff supported the owner’s request and recommended that the DRO approve the request after making the required Architectural Review findings under SCCC 18.120.020.F as discussed below:
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:”
• The proposal is consistent with SCCC Section 18.38.060.D.2 as the existing garage meets the 17’ by 18’ minimum two-car parking space dimensions.
• The existing parking spaces are not located in the required front or side yard landscaped areas as they are located inside the existing garage.
• The parking spaces are in an all-weather-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:”
• The proposed construction would not create any traffic congestion or hazards.
• The public streets are adequate in size to accommodate a single-family residence of this size.
• The proposed design matches nearby residences 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:
• Building height and bulk are appropriate relative to the neighborhood.
• Roof materials, building materials, and finishes work in conjunction with one another and are consistent with the proposed architectural style of the building.
• Architectural features of the proposed design are true to the proposed architectural form and are appropriate for the neighborhood.
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 must comply with applicable California Building Code and City Code requirements, which regulate construction to protect public health, safety, and general welfare.
5. “That the proposed development, as specified in the plans and drawings, is 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:”
• With adherence to the Conditions of Approval, the project is consistent with the City’s Single-Family & Duplex Residential Design Guidelines (2014):
i. The project will create a house design that is compatible in scale and character with typical single-family housing types found in the neighborhood, as there are other raised ranch style homes and two-story residences.
ii. The project complies with the R1-6L Zoning District’s development standards.
iii. The project complies with the intent of the applicable policies of the Santa Clara General Plan.
Public Hearing Comments
The DRO received public comments from two community members who live adjacent to the site regarding the proposed project would not alleviate their privacy concerns. To address these concerns, the DRO strengthened the conditions of approval to require the owners to provide adequate landscaping that will screen the sight lines of all parties involved. The DRH staff report for the proposed project is available as Attachment 2.
Appellant Concerns
The appellant, states in their appeal that Findings (1), (2), and (3) under SCCC 18.120.020.F cannot be made and requests the Planning Commission to overturn the DRO’s decision. They further state that the proposed project is not compatible with the prevailing development pattern of the neighborhood, and that it will unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of their property as the elevated second-story bedroom windows will face directly into the courtyard and interior rooms. Based on the appellant’s statement, they seek specific sightline evaluations and detailed conditions of approval regarding the landscape screening along the rear property line.
Planning Commission Consideration
Pursuant to SCCC 18.144.030.E, the Planning Commission hears DRH appeals de novo. During the appeal hearing, the issues that may be raised and considered by the Planning Commission 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 Planning Commission may affirm, affirm in part, vacate, modify or reverse the decision that is the subject of the appeal, based upon findings of fact about the case. The findings shall identify the reasons for the action on the appeal and verify compliance or noncompliance of the subject of the appeal with the Zoning Code. The Commission 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 on the appeal, the Commission may refer the matter back to the DRO for further consideration.
If any party is dissatisfied with the Commission’s decision, it is appealable to the City Council, which serves as the final review authority for Architectural Review decisions concerning single-family residences under SCCC Section 18.144.020.B. Staff continues to recommend approval of the Architectural Review as conditioned, and recommends that the Planning Commission overturn the appeal and affirm the DRO’s decision.
Considerations
Consistency with General Plan
On balance, the project is consistent with the City’s General Plan. Policies to consider include:
• 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 and 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 three feet from the side walls of the first floor. The City of Santa Clara Single-Family and Duplex Residential Design Guidelines implement 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 and Duplex Residential Design Guidelines Chapter 4a - Site Planning, as the project proposes landscaping as a buffer between properties
Consistency with Zoning Code
The project conforms with all of the development standards under the Zoning Code. See Project Data and Compliance Table in Attachment 3.
Consistency with Single-Family and Duplex Residential Design Guidelines
The Design Guidelines seek to maintain a reasonable level of privacy for neighbors, however, there is no prohibition of a second story. Careful consideration is made to minimize or discourage second story balconies or decks (which this project has none); use landscaping to screen the sightlines (which the project is conditioned to do); and maintain setbacks (the project maintains the required 20-foot setback).
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.
Proposed Planning Commission Actions
The project is presented to the Planning Commission for consideration and action. The following specific actions are required:
1. CEQA: Determine the project to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1 - Existing Facilities).
2. Architectural Review: Overturn the appeal and adopt the resolution affirming the DRO’s approval of the Architectural Review for a 517-square-foot first-floor and a 1,000-square-foot second floor addition to an existing single-story residence.
The Architectural Review includes the conditions of approval in the form drafted by staff (Attachment 4).
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action being considered is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(e)(2) (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 10,000 square feet, in an area where all public services and facilities are available and the area is not environmentally sensitive.
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 Planning Commission 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 November 5, 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 comments have been received by the Planning Division in support of or opposition to the project.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation
The project is consistent with the General Plan, Zoning Code, and Design Guidelines and therefore staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the appeal application and:
1. Determine the project to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(e)(2) (Class 1 - Existing Facilities); and
2. Overturn the appeal and adopt a resolution affirming the Development Review Officer’s decision to approve the Architectural Review for the construction of a 517-square-foot first-floor and a 1,000-square-foot second-floor addition to an existing single-story residence on a 6,272-square-foot lot at 2261 Rita Court, subject to findings and conditions of approval.
Staff
Prepared by: Alex Tellez, Associate Planner, Community Development Department
Reviewed by: Alexander Abbe, Assistant City Attorney
Approved by: Afshan Hamid, Director of Community Development
ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity Map
2. DRH Staff Report
3. Project Data Compliance Table
4. Conditions of Approval
5. Resolution to Approve Architectural Review
6. Site Plan
7. Appellant’s Statement