Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We will be starting the meeting shortly. Thank you. We are ready to start the meeting.

Called order of the meeting of the Planning Commission of City of Santa Clara starting at 06:04. Okay. Everybody please stand for the pledge of allegiance and then remain standing for the statement of values. I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation

under God, indivisible, and liberty and justice for all.

And please remain standing.

As we and will to perform our obligations and duties to our people with justice to all. Let us seek wisdom so that we may act in the best interest of our people, our neighbors and our country. All this we ask so we may serve our community with fairness and respect putting their needs before all.

Thank you very much please be seated. Elizabeth, please call the roll.

Commissioner Bottinigar? Present. Commissioner Bijini? Here. Commissioner Chair Kuru?

Here.

Commissioner Wang?

Here.

Commissioner Buza?

Here.

Commissioner Salim?

Here.

Chair Kretchlow?

Here.

Thank you.

So Secretary Chiracou, could you read the declaration of commission procedures?

Sure.

Public hearings are conducted by the chair in accordance with the following procedures. The chair of the commission directs all activity during the hearings. All comments shall be addressed to the commission. Any item on this agenda may be continued to a subsequent hearing. Applicants will be allotted up to ten minutes to present and justify proposals.

Following staff presentation of the item. Other speakers will be given up to two minutes. The applicant is allocated up to five minutes for rebuttal or comments. No additional comments will be accepted upon the close of the public hearing although the commission reserves the right to direct questions to any speaker on any matter. Special procedures limits may be applied to any items as prescribed by the chair. Appeal of commission actions must be filed in writing within seven calendar days. Thank you, chair.

Thank you. Copies of the current agenda and staff reports for each of the items on the agenda are available from the planning division office on the Friday afternoon preceding the meeting and available online. Continue instances and exceptions. This part of the meeting allows for applicants, members of the public, or other interested parties to request an item b one, continued without hearing, two, withdrawn, or three, taken out of order. Are there any requests from applicants, the public,

or the commission for continuance

or exception for any items on tonight's agenda?

No, we do not have any requests.

Thank you very much. Okay. So on the consent calendar, there's one item on the consent calendar today. Secretary Cherkuru, would you please read the procedure for the consent calendar.

The procedure for the consent calendar is as follows consent calendar items may be enacted approved or adopted by one motion unless requested to be removed by anyone for discussion or explanation. If any member of the Planning Commission, staff, the applicant or a member of the public wishes to comment on a consent calendar item or would like the item to be heard on the regular agenda, please make this request now. Items listed today on tonight's consent calendar with associated file number do constitute public hearing items. Today's one item only. 1A planning commission meeting minutes of 01/14/2026.

This is where we start public presentation. We want to just vote on the minutes and then go to the break.

Then we're going to go to public presentations after the consent calendar then we're going

to take a break.

Alright.

I move that we approve the Planning Commission meeting minutes of 01/14/2026. I

will abstain. I was not here in January.

Second.

Go

ahead and cast your vote please. And thank you the motion passed.

Okay so the public presentations. Do you wanna take a?

No, after.

After, okay. Yeah. There any members of the public that would like to briefly address the commission on any item not on the agenda? We

do not have any hands raised or anyone in the chambers requesting to make a presentation.

Okay. Moving on to the public hearing.

We are gonna go ahead and take a break at this point.

Okay. How long of a break do we need?

A ten minute break would be great.

Break for ten minutes. We have a few items that we need to prepare for the rest of the night. So we're just technically getting some stuff started. That's why we're taking such an immediate break.

Unmute and save the translator.

You are muted. I cannot hear you.

Can you hear me now?

Yes.

We can hear you.

It possible for you to give us a phone number and for us to have the person call you on the phone so you can just translate to them via phone? Yeah.

Oh, I see.

And maybe you could just hold your phone number up to me on the screen so I don't like it doesn't get broadcast.

816.

Okay. Just hold it up on a piece of paper for me.

Hold on.

I cannot write it on the chat.

We don't have a chat enabled unfortunately, that's our problem. A

little closer. A little bit closer.

Got it. Thank you, perfect. I'm going to have them call you and then that way they can hear you directly and it won't get all messed up with all the conversation going back and forth so they can hear you better.

This item let's see. I'm gonna start with item two.

Okay.

So I want to preface a few things here. We're having a translator here. And so number one, I want to remind everybody, please use your microphones so that the translator can hear you.

And

speak slowly. And if the translator has any problems with hearing or, you know, the Zoom or anything, please let us know, and we'll stop and we'll go back. Any questions from staff or planning commission? Okay. Thank you.

Action

on an appeal PLN25Dash00562 of the community development director's denial of a zoning clearance. PZC20Five-three81. For a smoke shop located at 770. Kylie Boulevard. Kylie Boulevard.

Okay, staff, do you have a presentation?

Through the chair, if I may, do you want to ask about ex parte communications?

So so when I read about the appeal tonight, I did go to the store to look at it. I did not talk to anybody regarding tonight's topic. And that's all I did. Does anybody else have any

okay. I also went to the store. Mister Bousa? Yes. I also went by the store to look at the store and the location.

Okay. So staff presentation.

Yes. Good evening, commissioners. Tracy Tam, associate

planner. Tracy Tam.

The request before you tonight is an action on an appeal of the community development director's denial of a zoning clearance for smoke shop located at 770 Kiley Boulevard. The project site is located roughly at the intersection of Homestead Road and Kaili Boulevard. As noted on the map, you see that it is located within a commercial area surrounded by single family residential to the South and to the West. The general plan designation is neighborhood mixed use. And the zoning district is mixed use neighborhood commercial.

To give a little bit of background, prior to 2024, the zoning code stated that pipe and tobacco shops were not allowed in the neighborhood commercial zoning district. In February '24, The city undertook a comprehensive zoning code update. And as part of that update, a zoning clearance from the planning division was required. Prior to obtaining a business license. In July 2024, the zoning district for the subject property Was changed from neighborhood commercial to mixed use neighborhood commercial.

And so during this July 2024 update, to the zoning code, a pipe and tobacco shops were no longer allowed in any zoning district. In June, the city undertook a second cleanup to the zoning code. Which was adopted by council. As part of that update, a definition for smoke shops was added to the zoning code. And smoke shops were added as a listed use.

But they are not allowed in mixed use neighborhood commercial zoning district. But they are conditionally permitted in the four zones you see on the screen. Do you want to make a correction to the staff report? To note that smoke shops are not allowed in R 6. A bit more background for you all.

In

May, an application for a business tax certificate was submitted to the finance department. And as a reminder, the last cleanup ordinance for the zoning code was adopted in June. In September, planning staff informed the At the subject site. Through conversations with the applicant? Staff suggested the approach of filing.

For zoning clearance for a convenience store. With ancillary tobacco sales. Therefore, the application for zoning clearance was filed in October of informed staff of their intention to operate a smoke shop. As the smoke shop is prohibited at the project site? Staff could not approve the zoning clearance application.

In December, The applicant requested a formal written denial of the zoning clearance for a smoke shop. As noted, a smoke shop is not permitted. In the mixed use neighborhood commercial zoning district. And the city code definition of a smoke shop? Is provided on the screen.

The general plan designation is neighborhood mixed use. And this designation is intended for pedestrian oriented development.

With

a focus on ground level neighborhood serving retail uses. Properties with this general plan land use designation are generally located near single family residential. City staff sent a notice of tonight's hearing at a 300 foot notice radius. And staff received one public comment in opposition of the smoke shop. The public comment is included in your packets tonight.

The California Environmental Quality Act does not apply to projects that are disapproved. As noted in sequel guidelines section one five two seven zero. Staff recommends that the planning commission Determine that the project is not subject to CEQA.

CEQA.

And CEQA guidelines section one five two seven zero. And affirm the community development director's decision. In denying the zoning clearance for a smoke shop. And this concludes staff's presentation.

Thank you, staff. Any questions for staff? Commissioner Bijini?

Staff,

as I understand it, the July 2024 timeframe? Was when the zone was changed to mixed use neighborhood commercial? I'm struggling to be clear about this. Was there any point in time from the July 2024 timeframe Up until today, was any of the updates or changes, did any of them authorize smoke shops in the MUNC zone? No.

No.

And

it's still an MURC zone?

The zoning district is MUNC.

Another question. Let's see. How can I say this? Was it a requirement back in early twenty twenty five? That you had to get a zoning clearance before you got a business tax certificate.

And has that been a recent change?

The requirement for zoning clearance.

Staff, repeat that answer.

Could speak up? Staff?

The zoning clearance was required in 2024.

Before a business tax certificate. Right?

Correct. The zoning clearance was required in 2024, and it was new at that time.

And what at that time?

We can't hear you, Dan. You need to speak up.

The zoning clearance was required in 2024 before obtaining a business tax certificate.

Okay. Thank you. That's all my questions for now.

In our ordinance, do we have a distance to the nearest school?

Could you clarify if that is for a distance requirement for smoke shops?

For a smoke shop. Correct.

Our zoning code does not have a distance requirement from smoke shops to schools. Thank you.

Any other questions from

Yeah, I got something. Can we have staff speak up a little bit so we can hear you, you know, clearer? Speak up. So, missed the last one that you said, the last part that you said. Can you repeat what you said

before regarding the ordinance?

A zoning clearance was required in 2024 prior to the issuance of a business tax certificate.

You good? Thank you, staff. Any other? Anyone else have questions? No?

Thank you very much for the presentation. Thank you, translator. Okay. So now for the appellant's presentation.

So

we will now move to the appellant, Hold on. Just

one moment, please.

One moment. Appellant requested the services of an interpreter who is present online.

One moment. We will be providing you twenty minutes to speak, which is double the time of the normal ten minutes due to the translation.

Thank you.

You may begin.

Evening.

My name is I

am the applicant of this appeal. The file number is Pcc25-three81.

Okay.

I submit the application in April 2025.

Which

is

prior to the changes of the codes in July. Ordinance. So specifically, the decision of the application was made in December 2025.

Which,

that time, it was after the ordinance amendment. The interpreter require repetition.

Okay.

Was applied to my situation in a very, I guess, not applicable way. To that, I visited the ordinance office three times. And I informed I was informed that I don't need the COP.

In

order to avoid any misunderstanding, I follow-up again. Up until now, I still have not received any response. Yeah, I want, the point that I want to make is the appeal that I made this time, it is about the timing and the process of the application.

I

do not mean to challenge the city policy. Yeah. I I'm here not to request any special treatment from the city. I would like to request the party to review according to the the effect of the regulation at that time.

Is that the end of the presentation? Thank you. Are there any questions from the commission for the appellant? Mission to be Eugenie.

Respectfully, you have said you received no communication from the city?

Yeah. So because I went to the office in person three times and then I because I was concerned my English is not good enough, you know, I double confirm again, and I actually also brought a friend with me to make sure that all I needed at that time time is a business certificate.

So I'm a little confused. Did you ever get a formal written denial letter on the planning application in December 2025?

Yeah.

I did not receive any denial letter in July 2025.

No. December 20 do not apologize for your English. You have a good interpreter. I meant denial in December 2025.

Yeah. They did not send me the deny the letter of denial. I have to request them to send me a copy.

Oh, okay.

Specifically, I received the letter, I need to look it up.

I just wanted to make sure that you eventually did get one, but it was after you requested in December?

Yes. I received a letter of denial on 12/15/2020 Thank

you. I wanted to make sure that you did get one but it wasn't until after you asked in December 2025.

Yes, correct. Okay. One

more question.

I

understand a few things. First, I'll go slow. Staff suggested you modify the business from a smoke stop smoke shop to a convenience store, correct, in October 2025?

Yes,

okay. And you did submit a proposed floor plan, but you changed your mind October to do a smoke shop and not a convenience store after all. Correct?

Yes, correct.

Yes, yes. I think the whole process that I'm going through this process, I I don't I I don't think I make any mistake. I didn't do anything wrong.

Thank you. May I ask why you you started with Smoke Shop, you changed to convenience store, and then you changed back to Smoke Shop. May I ask why?

Yeah. So because the CD suggested me and wanted me to change it to the convenience store, but later on, on, I felt like something is not right. I didn't do anything wrong. So that's why I changed it back.

Okay. I was gonna say thank you but maybe she wants to add something.

Oh, also

Hold on. If if you want to come up and help, you're welcome to come up. Yeah.

I want her to feel good. She has everything she needs to say.

Yes, the interpreter require clarification. Okay. Yeah. I would like to remind you, which is the appellant, that you you send them email. You actually ask them is it it for me to to open the smoke store at this site? And I and and you did not get a reply. Okay. No doubt.

Thank you. This was October 2025?

No. That was when in April, I sent the email. And also in April, I talked to them in person face to face three times.

Thank you.

Any other questions from commissioners? Commissioner Wang?

May I speak in Mandarin or I have to speak in Yunishu?

Go ahead in Mandarin and then if you want to translate your own words.

She can translate you too.

No no no. So if you want your own words, fine, but the appellant still has the translator. Would that be okay or?

Through the chair if I may. If you want to speak in Mandarin, I'd just recommend that the translator translate it.

It. So go ahead and do it in Mandarin. The translator will translate your words. Okay.

Yes. You mentioned that in April 2025, you sent e mail to the city, but no reply, correct? Yes. Did you receive any, I guess, this email that the address, the email address may not be correct or wrong address or something? Oh, I have I have a proof Okay.

Yes. So

the cities suggested you to change it to convenience store, and you think it is not appropriate. That's why you didn't make effort to further this to to to further pursue it. Right? No. It's it's not I guess, it's my original plan is to to open a smoke shop, but it ended up right now I am unable to open it.

If at the at the very beginning, the the process, I was given a clear answer that I'm not permitted, then I will not have to spend so much time and investment onto this matter. And also, open the convenience store may replicate some of the businesses adjusting that area.

Translator, can you repeat that last interpretation?

Also, opening a convenience store may replicate similar business that is around that area.

Thanks. Yeah. Thank you.

Any other questions? When

you applied for the business license, Did you apply for a smoke shop specifically or just a retail store license?

Yes. Specifically, it's the smoke shop for the smoke shop, but I also need the retail license. But I apply it at the retail agency.

I'm sorry, I don't know if that explicitly answered. What does your sorry, what does your license specifically give you approval for?

City

staff, do we have the copy of that business permit?

The city has not issued her a business license.

Applicant, can you submit proof of your business license to this commission? Thank you.

Through the chair, if I may ask, is this information that's in our packet today? I'd ask that we take a brief recess just to make sure we have copies of this for everyone.

It will take a brief recess to review the document. Thank you. Were we go ahead, Translator, can you hear us?

Yes. Okay. Thank you.

So we're going to continue with Commissioner Chariku's questions.

Did you get a translation of this application with anybody in when you submitted did you get help reading this? No, I'm asking a question. Did she get help in reading and reviewing what this paper says?

Yeah I read it. I understand.

Okay. Do you see the first line on top that says thank you for your submission. You will receive an email notification once your request has been processed.

Yeah, I received an email.

And what where is the so this is your submission. This is your submission to the city. Did you get the approval back from the city? City.

City.

It says city of Santa Clara.

Yeah. No. I I have not received it. If I receive it, I'm not I won't be here, appealing

my application. Sorry. Could you repeat? Repeat?

Have not received it. If I will receive the application, I won't have be here to

do my filing in front There of you. Are two parts to your process. Two parts. One is the business license.

Second

is the land use itself. So your first one, you did not receive an approval on your business license.

Yeah, I didn't I I did not receive the business license because of misleading from the planning complete committee?

No. So the city business license unit is different from the planning land use. So I'm talking only about your business license. I'll come to your land use.

I I think beginning, I really clean up. I I went to this department three times. Also, I emailed to them. So, them say I only need business and license. Never talk about NAND license. Okay. Okay.

Okay. When did you apply for this? April 2025.

Yes. Correct.

We are almost a year later. Did you follow-up with the business license?

Yes, I did.

Okay. So you do understand. Okay. And what did they tell you when you went for your business license? Not your land use, not the planning department, your business license.

They sent me an email and asked me to wait.

Okay. So I just want you to understand. You do not have a business license.

Through the chair, if I may. I just wanna remind everyone this is clarifying questions portion of the evening.

Okay. Thank you so much. Question two applicant, are you the landlord or just a representative of the LLC?

I ran this shop.

Are you able to translate? Is she owner of the land? Is she the landlord or is she a business operator only?

We are renting the property, not the owner, not the landlord.

Okay. Okay. Thank you for answering.

Commissioner Salim.

Council chamber is muted. I cannot hear.

So, staff, can we make sure that the translator is unmuted because they can't hear?

Let me know when you're ready.

Okay. Can you hear now?

Yes. Now I can hear. Thank you.

Was there anything you had missed?

I think after the gentleman.

Okay. So what I what I had said is Commissioner Salim at the end has some questions.

Actually,

it's question than clarification.

Go ahead. Okay.

I went to the website website for the business. It's 100% smoke shop. Okay. There's no tobacco. It's a vaping and bong shop. Okay. Just for clarification.

Well, is that a question?

It's not a question. That was for commissioner Bianchini's comments. It helps to understand. I have question. Could the Yeah.

I have one second. It's a translator. Did you hear all that? Because I wanna make sure we're not you repeat it? Repeat it. Could you just repeat it as a question, please?

I'll I'll direct it as a question.

Website for the business, and then you say it's 100% smoke shop. And then what?

And there's no tobacco. It's only vaping and pong use equipment. Okay. So the question for the applicant is was there any, I have to re ask it, when did it actually start operation when the paperwork hadn't been complete? That's it.

I'll just leave it at that.

I Sorry. I was trying to understand it.

Does the applicant, appellant, understand that there's a question? Did you hear the question for you?

What was the last question? I'll

try again. When did she start engaging in business when all of the paperwork hadn't been complete? When did she start satisfying orders?

In other words, when was the shop open for business? Yeah.

That's a simple way to put it. Thank you.

So you operated a business without a city business license and without a land use approval to operate a smoke shopconvenience store.

Can you hold on before you respond to this?

Why

don't we take a pause in the public hearing?

I'll take just a short recess. Thank you. So question,

did you operate your business before receiving approval?

Yeah. So at that time, the situation is like that. The the city I applied for the city Santa Clara business license. They asked me to wait, and then

No. Not to wait. He the planning, see, I just the plans of business license. It doesn't don't need to do the anything. And I just wait wait into think it's June June or July, and the fire department come to my store, check license, and them say I'm missing missing one license is a city license.

So this is why I went to the city. Why I'm missing the one city license. So this is the way I I opened the business, like, June or June. I think it's June.

When did you apply for your land use?

I don't know. I need the land use because the department never told me.

Okay.

I think I because I asked you three times and email them. So Okay.

Understood. And I understand. And thank you for being here. We are just trying to to get facts.

Have a question.

Yes, I

have a question. Thank you. How you went ahead and opened the business and started selling products. Is that correct?

Can you repeat the question again?

Yes.

Through the chair, if I may, just clarify something. Right now, we are determining whether or not the director's decision to deny the permit application was accurate, and the information that is being sought is enough for whatever you need to determine whether or not that director's determination was accurate. So we're looking at the facts on whether or not the permit should or should not have been issued.

Thank you so much for making that clear, but I have a question. How did you get a resale license, an SRG license to sell products?

The interpreter does not understand the question.

How do How you did you get to get how did you get a resale license from the state of California, the state of equalization board to sell products if you did not have a business license?

I I have California department and the sales permit and retail license and tobacco license.

So but you didn't have a business license to show them then?

I I saw I got it because planning department say I just need a private business licenses. So so

Okay. So let's just make sure we're focused on what questions we're trying to ask here. As council stated, do they do we have the information we need based on what we're trying to do here with the commission and the city for you know proper and such were issued. Okay? And if you wanna clarify some more. Are you okay? Hold on. Before I before I go too far a translator, did you understand what I was saying?

Can you repeat? I thought you were talking to among each other.

I do, but I want to make sure the applicant knows what we're saying. So I just want to make sure that the commission understands what we're trying to what information we're trying to get in order to look at this appeal and keep it focused on on that. And it's the commission

that I'm talking about,

not anything the applicant appellant has said. Okay. So any more questions for the appellant? Okay. Commissioner Salim and

I'm gonna say the

appellant. Real quick. Thank you very much for your patience.

Thank you, guys. Thank you.

Now hold on. Please just we still I'm sorry. We still have some questions. But you're very patient.

Okay. Commissioner.

Think I think my question is going to be directed to the city attorney, so I guess we can wait until close of presentation. Sure.

Any other questions?

No? Okay.

Thank you very much. You know, I know this has been very hard and we're just trying to to determine the facts here and and make a fair judgment. So that's why we had a lot of questions. But thank you very much for your patience. So you you may sit down.

Okay. So at this time, we're gonna move to public testimony. Each member of the public will have two minutes to speak, and I may allow a little bit more since, obviously, there's translation that needs to be accomplished. So Elizabeth?

We do not have any hands raised on Zoom. If you would like to come up to the podium. And give me just a moment. Child two minutes to speak.

So what I would ask, please come forward and just speak slowly and then try not use any colloquialisms. We wanna make sure that the interpreter understands and that the appellant understands what you're saying. Thank you. Just know you're gonna have to stop at times for the translator. I understand. Thank you.

Please

go ahead.

My name is

go ahead.

My name is Wassupile. I've lived in the city of Santa Clara for thirty five years.

I

own the property at 2800 Homestead Road, which is a AMPM convenience store, cigarette and liquor store. The sad business shares a easement behind my property. The with this is they have been operating a business for six about eight months now. I have operated this business for thirty years and the city is very, very good at noticing things, but what happened here? I paid over $6,000,000 for this property.

And

20 feet away from me, you have a smoke shop that sells cigarettes and all the other stuff? I have nothing against the owners of this property. To date, they have been operating the business in a very responsible way. I have not noticed anything. So I just want to say there is a big misunderstanding somewhere.

The city people drive past there, the mayor drives past there. That's all I gotta say. The only issue here is I it's a shame that I gotta speak against my neighbors. They are really my neighbors, and I'm standing here talking against them, which is not nice. I think it has a lot to do with the planning commission. Thank you. Any questions?

No. We we don't ask questions that will have public comment. But thank you for your time. Clerk, anyone else wants to speak?

Do we have any other speakers in the chambers? No, we do not. And no speakers on Zoom.

Zoom the shipping Okay.

So now to the rebuttal?

Yes.

Okay.

So

at this time, the appellant Wu, if you want to take an opportunity to services of an interpreter who was present online and therefore will be allotted an additional time of up to ten minutes.

No, I it.

Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. I'll now return to staff. Is there anything you would want to clarify or add to the record?

At this time, I'm just gonna ask commissioner Salim. You said you had a question for staff?

No. I need I think we need to close public hearing before we

I'm ready to make the motion.

Motion for closed public hearing?

Motion to close public discussion?

Second.

The motion was made by commissioner BioGenie, seconded by commissioner Wang.

Go ahead and cast your vote, please. Thank you. Public comment is closed. Thank you.

Please translate.

Okay.

So the commission now deliberates and actions, so we're going to go ahead and move to deliberations and any actions. So, they want to speak? Mr. Saline? Through

the chair, and if I may, this is the time when the translator will reach or when our appellant will reach out to the translator, and we will no longer be doing live translation.

So the

interpreter will turn off the video and audio and then accept the phone?

And continue to translate for the appellant over the phone, correct.

Okay. Do I need to make a call or they will call? She

is calling you right now.

Okay. I'm waiting.

Wanna keep that number private so hold on a second.

Haven't received any phone call yet. Wait.

Wait one second. It's coming.

Hello? Okay. Yeah. Right now, I'm on the call with the appellate.

Thank you.

I'm going to mute.

Yes, please. Okay. Can the appellant hear the translator? Is that a yes? Yes?

Miss Wu? You

can hear okay? Thank you. Just wanna So now any questions, comments?

So my question is kind of directly to the city attorney. I'm concerned

Do me a favor, hold up. I got some comments people can't hear on Zoom or listening on TV, so please make sure.

Yeah, I will speak into the microphone. So I'm concerned that you've guided us that we needed to focus on the application, but is it appropriate for us to make rulings on an application for a business that is apparently operating outside of legal status?

So the decision before you tonight is whether or not you will, you agree with or you disagree with the director's decision on the application. So this is an appeal, and on appeal according to the city's municipal code, or zoning code actually. Your options are to affirm the determination that was made on the application, affirm in part, vacate, modify, or reverse the action. That is what is being considered tonight.

It seems very strange because if we are making a decision on the recommendation to deny something for a business, it helps us to realize whether that business is a valid business before we even make any judgments on it. If it is not operating in a valid way, then none of the decisions we make seems to be any way appropriate or applicable. So I'm questioning the legality of us making recommendations and decisions on something that has a more fundamental issue.

So to clarify, the director made a decision to deny the zoning clearance application. The appellant is here because they are appealing the decision of the denial. What's being considered tonight is whether or not the director's decision to deny the zoning clearance, you're gonna affirm that decision, you're gonna affirm in part, vacate, modify, or reverse that action.

I don't think repeating it helps. Yeah, I'm going to defer now to other commissioners, but I think I'm gonna register my concern that the city is asking us to make a decision about something we shouldn't be making a decision about at all. Period.

We're not making a decision on

We're making that a decision as to uphold an action from someone that is officially part of the city and asking us to either affirm or deny. If we affirm or deny, we are doing so outside of the scope of the business possibly being inappropriately running in the city in the first place, which seems completely contradict contradictory to the purpose of the commission.

So what we're deciding tonight is an appeal. So an appeal is someone saying they disagree with the determination that was made by the planning director and you are to consider whether or not based on all the information presented tonight you agree with that determination or you disagree with that determination.

Thank you.

Through the chair, if I might just help legality versus process if I could separate the two. The director has received an application for allowing a land use and has denied it based on facts evidence zoning whatever. The ability for us to take a decision is based on that application whether they are running it illegally is a different question, meaning that they have decided to operate while the land use application has still been in process and that is outside the purview of the city staff at this time if I understand what has happened versus what is in front of us is there was an applicant rental decided to go apply for both a business license was told that they needed or didn't need and was has made an application and the application has been denied. The appeal is on the process that the information did not come timely as claimed by the appellant versus the process that the city staff is saying it was timely, we did make a decision and the decision was to deny based on zoning code.

And I would just add to that

this is a de novo decision so you have the ability to decide whether or not the director was accurate correct in making the determination based on all the information that's been presented tonight. You don't need to base it just on what the director does that use to make their decision.

To be nice de novo being Latin translates into what? Start again.

Try Chinese. Correct. Mandarin.

Going Latin English Mandarin.

The Latin English translation of de novo.

To start again.

You're gonna Brand new application.

It's a new application. It is starting anew, and I couldn't tell you exactly what that translation is off the top of my head, but from the beginning, thank you. And so you are deciding a blank slate based on everything presented before you tonight whether or not a zoning clearance application was accurately denied in these circumstances. And yes, just to add to the question, sorry I misunderstood what you're asking, about whether or not this business is operating appropriately, that would be a code enforcement issue and that's not the question that's being presented tonight.

Okay, thank you. Any other

I have questions. Not clarifying. Please. The question for me outside of the boundaries of this application, this is situated in a larger complex of the spa and the salon, is the city aware of the adjoining businesses? You do know that and they're all legal.

Okay. And when this application came, is there restrictions within a certain fee to operate the same type of business or not? Nothing. Okay. So when we found out that the applicant not the application applicant has already started the business, did you know that they started the business?

I don't think we knew that they'd started the business, no.

But when they came to the application land use floor, did the applicant tell you that they were already operating a business?

No. They did not tell us they were already operating.

Okay. Thank you for all the clarifications. That's all.

Any other questions?

Thank you, Commissioner. Have three questions and direct to staff. If you could just answer in yes or no, that will be very helpful. In the staff presentation, my understanding was that you have stated clearly that at this location, a smoke shop was not permitted since 2024 or a license would have been needed to operate at this location, correct?

So a zoning clearance is required since 2024 to prior to the issuance of a business license but a smoke shop was not permissible at this location.

Correct. Thank you. The second point then, the appellant's case that this appeal should be judged on the basis of the date of their application, therefore, is irrelevant. Right? Because it was not permitted since 2024. Right? And and and, therefore, that vacates all the premises, in my opinion, as to what's going on here. So thank you. I don't need to ask the third question. Thank you.

Okay. Any other questions, Mr. Xuan?

Yeah. I noticed the city staff recommend the applicant to change that to a convenience store. At this point, I mean, just assume if they change to the convenience store, Is the city going to issue them the license, let them to run their business?

Applicant would have to make an application for a new zoning clearance, but a convenience store with ancillary tobacco sales is allowed at this location.

Okay. So then my understanding is if they change their original smoke store plan to a convenience store, they should be able to get that permit? Yes or no?

Yes, staff would issue that zoning clearance.

Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Bellagini.

First I really wanted to thank, I don't know how to say her name, the appellant, that she was very concerned about not challenging city policy, not getting special treatment, not trying to avoid regulations, much appreciated. But what I have to keep coming back to is our decision here is about whether or not we agree, I guess that's one way of saying it, that the development director's decision to deny the zoning clearance was okay. And I have to keep coming back to unless I'm missing something. In the beginning the appellant was told no smoke shop and from as far back as before all the confusion ever started an MUNC zone does not allow for a smoke shop of this type. That's what I have to base my decision on and I think it's kind of clear.

Any other?

Does the attorney want to correct me on something?

I want to clarify something and I'm looking to staff because I wasn't in this process, but I do want to make sure that all the facts are correct. Right. So at one point in time, there was the zoning did not specify whether or not smoke shops were permitted or prohibited. And the strict prohibition on a smoke shop was added to this zoning designation and I'm gonna look to Leslie on when that actually happened.

That was prior to 2024.

That's what I understood.

But uses not listed in our code are prohibited uses.

So in 2024 it did not specify whether or not a smoke shop was permitted or prohibited. And then in, I wanna say it was 2025, is that correct there was a zoning amendment to specifically prohibit a smoke shop in this zone is that accurate

correct that allowed for a smoke shop

that specifically prohibited so originally the zoning code did not specify and in 2025 the zoning code was amended and from what I understand and I'll look to staff to correct me if I'm wrong, was a cleanup to specifically state that this type of use is prohibited in that zone. That is correct.

Let me take a quick look at this.

The code was no longer silent.

I understood that under the updated zoning code on July 2024, pipe and tobacco shops were no longer listed as permissible then there were some cleanup ordinances that resulted in definitively no smoke shops of this type. And that's what I have to look in terms of my decision about whether or not I affirm what the director said and part of what factors into it for me because God knows there was a lot of confusion was that the appellant recognized in the beginning from what she said, no smoke shop was allowed. There was a lot of confusion. I grant that but those are the facts as I see them.

Any other questions?

Mr. Wang? Actually, it's not a question, probably a statement. So my understanding is probably we have a lot of miscommunication. There's a no email response to an applicant.

Maybe also because of the language issue. It's really very unfortunate. But I do appreciate the staff recommend the modifying their plan, change them to a communist store. So, you know, I another thing is I think the major thing is the timeline. Since July since maybe early twenty twenty four or January or July 2024, the city has the new zoning code already.

But the applicants application after that. So personally, I have to say the director's decision is correct. I but I do hope the applicant, they have they can, you know, keep on running their business. Probably they need to modify that and to meet the city requirement.

Thank

you. Just to clarify one thing because I want to make sure I understood this. The current current zoning would allow them to have a convenience store without any additional any permits or such from planning department from the city?

Zoning clearance would be required to operate a convenience store at the location.

Okay. So I still have to get that. Okay. Thank

you. Ahead.

Dhruv, the Chair. So just to clarify one additional question and then I'll go into statements. What is defined ancillary? How much percentage of a convenience store can a smoke, tobacco, vaping can be sold retail? What is the ancillary definition here?

15%, 20%, 25%.

Through the chair our code doesn't define ancillary specifically for this use. It just can't be a majority of the floor plan. If we look at examples in our code for uses that are ancillary, it's 20%.

Look to case law because we have a loophole. We need another cleanup. Coming soon with all the questions, radii to schools, that state law now, most jurisdictions including the county prescribes thousand feet for smoke shops. You do have you cannot have what is it called flavored tobacco especially within a thousand feet of schools to prevent and several cities. So I'm looking at a lot of cleanup.

But I will state now my statement. Santa Clara is a city of immigrants as well. We all come with our barriers, our understanding, a lack of understanding of rules, regulations, requirements, permits galore all duly noted. It is unfortunate that there has been a communication barrier. But that said there are there is a system ecosystem that I'm looking to the applicant in a past world.

There is a landlord. The landlord's responsibility is to advise the tenant of what business and businesses they can or cannot operate. I don't know the lease term of this applicant not to belabor it but just there is a system that the also should have helped. If the landlord knew that's why I was asking if they are the landlord or are they just leasing this. The second, there is clearly process and the process includes the fire marshal inspection, the California state ABC or the alcohol and beverage consumption license which the has obtained but the app also knew that they did not receive a formal email response back.

If the Applint knew enough to make the submission in English there was somebody helping them and it clearly says we will receive you will receive an email notification once your request has been processed. There is no proof that that has been processed. The second part and I'm stating this because the upland is looking at process with the city as being the biggest challenge not that they are challenging the code, not that they are challenging the director's decision but just the process and how information was confirmed or clarified with the process. Due process one clearly says you have not yet received formal approval to operate a business. Two, you made an application when clearly this staff has said that starting 07/16/2024 zoning map and the ordinance was the comprehend.

In fact January 9 was when the comprehensive zoning code update happened, adopted, it was silent, you knew smoke shop was not allowed, they clearly told you to come in with a convenience store as helping you out. July 16 the zoning map was updated but you continued with the application. You started your business in June clearly having had a rapport and understanding with the city staff that your application was for a convenience store and I don't know who said you don't need to do anything. I do not believe that at all. I don't think anybody would have intentionally told anybody in the city especially at the city planning office, clerk's office, business that you don't need to do anything at all.

So based on these facts and the understanding that the appellant while learning some process is here will be able to move forward. There is a that will allow you to move forward. So I will stand by the directors decision to deny the current application as a smoke shop but to allow or understand or work with the applet now knowing all the barriers in an additional more careful way to allow them what is the path forward. So I do encourage the city staff to support our businesses. These are young entrepreneurs so I feel they've done what they thought was probably right.

But I do want to recognize the city staff for having helped the Appalint this far. So with that, I have a decision and motion once again.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments?

Just a comment, Chair. Thank you. Bit of realization on the state of affairs. Right? If the fire department had not gone to their store and told them that they needed a business license, we would not have this case and we would have a smoke shop operating today. It is.

I got one more thing.

Okay.

Okay. Really quick. It's very simple when you operate a business in Santa Clara. I've been a business owner for close to forty years in Santa Clara, just retired. But anyway, if you do not get a business license and nobody's you say nobody sent you an email, I would go right to the business office, sit there and say, please, where's my business license? Cause you need the business license. You cannot operate something, a business without a business license. That's the law. So, there's no excuse saying that nobody email you anything. You go in and you say where is my business license?

What do I need? And I'm pretty sure they will be able to help you out. They'll be more than helpful throughout the years with the city of Santa Clara. And you're correct, the fire department will come and inspect the properties. They were probably inspecting the other properties in that building and they just happens to see that one was open and didn't have a record of them having a business license. That's the way they walked in and wanted to see a business license and they didn't have one. So, I'm gonna go with the city's decision and deny Okay.

Hold on. Hold on. I have one comment, final comment to make. So, I think that clearly there was a lot of miscommunications here. I'm not gonna point out on whose part or whatever, but I'm gonna say one thing.

Let's move forward. In going forward, when you look at however we vote, my suggestion is always try and go to the planning department in person if you can't get something through email. And then the other thing that I'll recommend is at the very beginning of any Planning Commission meeting anybody can come up and make a statement that's not on the agenda. So if you're saying I am very frustrated there's I'm not getting the help that I need, you can come to the Planning Commission just as well. I'm sorry that we had to go through all these different steps, but it is what it is.

So I thank you for coming here and taking these steps. I'm sorry that it came out this way though. There are ways to move forward and we do want to help you get your business going. That's all I have. Okay. Does anybody like to make a motion?

I don't.

Commissioner Bijini? Oh, hold on one quick I have one quick question. There was a part about CEQUA in there. Do we I see the recommendation doesn't say anything about CEQUA. Do we have to vote on that at all? Yes. Is that like

A denial project is not a project under CEQA.

Okay we didn't have to affirm that in any way right?

No if you're upholding if the motion is the staff recommendation it's all included in the resolution.

Good enough. I

don't know Priya if you might want to amend this. I'd like a motion to overrule the appeal and affirm the community development director's decision to deny the zoning clearance for a smoke shop to operate at 770 Kiley Boulevard.

Second that motion.

If I may, through the chair, just to clarify, so the options are on an appeal to affirm the director's decision, which I think is what you're saying, but I wanna make sure that we're accurately reflecting it for the record. And what staff has presented tonight is a resolution that recommends affirming the decision of the planning director. Is that what your motion is?

Yeah, affirming the director's decision to deny the zoning clearance.

I wanna make sure one thing does the appellant understand the translation of what we're saying? Does that you do understand what we're saying here right now with the motion that is made Or do you need any further clarification?

Yes. I understand. But I'm now great.

That's okay. Just as long as you understand that's all I'm asking.

Thank you very much for all of we learned a lot. And she is the mother of a three

year old kid. Understood. Yeah. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. I just wanna make sure everybody was an understanding. Good. Okay. Clerk.

Who made the who seconded the motion?

I second it.

Motion was made by commissioner Biachini, seconded by commissioner Buza to approve a staff recommendation. Go ahead and cast your vote, please. Thank you, the motion passed.

Thank you very much.

Yeah, just a question to the attorney. May I talk to the applicant in Mandarin? Since I have the motion already.

We want it through the chair, would you like to take a break from the meeting?

Five minute recess.

Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Back. Thank you very much for everybody's patience. Item three is the action on appeal.

PLN25Dash00561 of the development review officer's approval at 2892 Mesquite Drive for an architectural review PLN25Dash00295 for a 621 story 21 square foot 1st Floor addition and a 397 square foot 2nd Floor addition to an existing two story I think this is wrong. This is 281. I think it's 2,000 or there's a comma here. It's it's 281 square feet?

2081.

02/2081. 2,081 square feet. Thank you. Single family residence with a 500 square foot attached garage on a 7,351 square foot lot. This item is open to public hearing, which I will now declare open.

Before we begin presentations, do any planning commissioners have any disclosures they would like to make regarding ex parte communications? None being seen. Staff, this time, will you make your

Thank you, chair. Good evening. Good evening, chair and commissioners. My name is Alex Tajous. I'm an assistant planner here with the city of Santa Clara.

And, tonight, I'll be presenting on the appeal for 2892 Mesquite Drive. The residence. Per Santa Clara City code 18.120.020K, the appeal of a single family residential project is reviewed by the Planning Commission. The appellant's justification of appeal is that they state that the fine five of the Santa Clara city code 18 A 120.02 f cannot be made and request that the planning commission to overturn the development review officer's decision as the proposal is not compatible with the prevailing pattern found in the neighborhood as condition p three is not specific or measurable. Condition p three is the following verbiage.

The proposed guest bedroom show here 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 setback shall preserve the existing sideline of the adjacent As this is an appeal, all appeals are heard as de novo. Issues raised and considered are not limited to those raised by the appellant. The Planning Commission may affirm, vacate, or reverse the previous decision. Additional conditions approval may be added or the project may be referred back to development review officer for further consideration.

Now that I explained the reason for the appeal, I will now go over the actual proposal of the project. As seen in front of is the existing site at 2892 Mesquite Drive. It is a point one seven acre site or 7,351 square feet lot surrounded by other single family homes. Zone R 1 Dash 60. The general plan designation matches the zoning designation as being very low density residential.

Further on to just on the context, the property are single family residential. Only other uses near the neighborhood are multifamily on the south and a private school across the subdivision. And on the right is a picture of the street view of the house. If you can see highlighted in in, like, an orange circle, that is the project site. That is and on the middle is the appellant's house, and it is surrounded by other two story homes.

But this currently, on the Orange Circle is the house that is proposing this addition. I wanted to mention the rendering of the original approval. So on the left is what was presented to the development review officer prior to the condition P 3 being added. The development review officer added P 3 as a way to understand the concerns from the neighborhood. And currently in front of you, the current proposal is on the right.

As you can see in the architecture, a lot of the massing has been changed on the building. To we're so some that. Privacy do for the neighbor or in this case, the appellant. The site plan is on the left of existing house, and on the right is what is being proposed. And you can see on the right is all the setbacks for the resident.

As proposed, this residence exceeds the setbacks required for a single family for this type of proposal. Based on the p to three condition, they are on the front addition that was the concern. They have over 22 feet away from the property line and almost eight feet away from the side property line. The requirements for the side property line is five feet for a setback and then for the front is 20 feet. On the back, the addition for the office that is being proposed is about 22 feet away from the rear property line, which exceeds the rear property line requirement of 20 feet.

In front of you is the existing floor plan on the 1st Floor and 2nd Floor. This is the original proposals floor plan as mentioned with the addition on the 2nd Floor for the new bedroom. And on the 1st Floor, there's the office on the rear that I mentioned previously and a guest bedroom on the front next to the entry feature. Tonight, the current proposal is as follow. They did reduce the size of the guest bedroom by removing the bay window, which takes about away about a foot or more from the, I guess, depth of the room.

And for the second story, they added the this entry feature element here for to be able to access the 2nd Floor, which breaks the Massey. For any architectural review, we need to make sure it's consistent with the zoning code. The proposed project complies with the R 16 L zoning district development standards as the garage still maintains code compliant to parking space sublease 8.5 feet wide by 18 feet deep. The proposed the proposals consistent with Santa Clara city code eighteen point ten point zero three point zero three as it meets the required first story setback, second story setback for the new construction. And the structure height is at the maximum allow at 25 feet.

Staff also needs to make sure that a proposal is consistent with the general plan. As mentioned on the slide in front of you, the proposed project is consistent with the the Santa Clara general plan through the following policies. It implements design review guidelines for setback heights, materials, massing articulation, and other standards for transition policies and promote neighborhood comparability is one the Santa Clara general plan policies. The request conforms with the city of Santa Clara's single family and duplex residential design guidelines chapter two b, which is sensitive design solutions. As the second story addition does not exceed approximately 66% of the first floor area and the sidewalls of the second story addition are set back at least three feet from the sidewalls of the 1st Floor.

Another policy in the general plan is that to ensure that the city implements site design solutions such as landscaping increased building setbacks to provide a buffer between nonresidential and residential uses. This project confirms with that through chapter four a of Santa Clara single family duplex residential design guidelines. As the first story addition on the front, it's setback more than required preserving the prevailing development pattern in the neighborhood. To further on with the design guidelines, the proposed project is as condition does comply with the city's single family and duplex residential design guidelines and that the design is compatible in scale and character of the typical housing types in the neighborhood. The design protects the neighborhood sidelines to the street and the second story addition does not exceed 66% of the 1st Floor area.

This project is call is considered a small development proposal under the Santa Clara public outreach policy. Therefore, a community meeting was not required. But as any project that goes into hearing, a public hearing notice was mailed to property owners within 300 feet radius of the project site. This was done in 01/29/2026 to 67 owners and tenants. As mentioned with the as you can see probably in front of you, there's a post meeting material that was which was what was received as public comments in opposition to the proposed project.

All these comments are regarding the massing size of the proposed and how it would impact privacy. When any land use entitlement, we need to make sure it's consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act. And staff has found that this project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to the guidelines section fifteen thirty one, which is class one existing facilities, and that the project consists of the addition to an existing structure that will now result to an increase of more than 50% of La Floria before the addition or 2,500 square feet. Therefore, staff still continues to recommend that the project should be determined to be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to the previous categorical exemption and also to adopt a resolution that affirms the decision of the development review officer to approve the architectural review for the construction of this 621 square foot first Floors addition and a three hundred ninety six seven square foot second floor addition to these existing two story single family residence located at 2892 Mesquite Drive, subject to the financing conditions of approval. That concludes staff's presentation.

Staff is open for we'll see here for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any questions from commission for staff?

Hi. Through the chair, could you

go back to the renderings, although I'm just probably picking it out. When I look at the original approval to the current proposal, is it just the rendering that makes it look bigger?

That's correct. Because based on the floor plan, there is a substantial distance between the entry feature and the second Story. So the current rendering does better reflect that.

And so there's three breaks in the 2nd Floor versus two and no window on the 2nd Floor to the one that is not by the house. My capturing the garage size is the same, the portico is the same and the window it looks wider. Am I missing something?

I

think it's the angle that they did the rendering.

No, but it's one window, two windows. It it clearly has more.

Three windows on the top, three windows on the top.

No. But there's three only two.

No. Both of them have three windows.

No, mate.

Hold on. Going from left to right.

Yeah.

That's three, but now it's kind of

No. But you have a a break. Two. No. It's not about the windows. I'm trying to tell you the whole depth, width. It's just the rendering? Okay, thank you. Because I do want to make sure that I'm not and has the fence height been added because of the requirement from the original first one is the current proposal. Yes,

to mitigate the privacy concerns.

To mitigate from the neighbor's property?

Correct.

Okay. Are there any trees required along that side?

No, due to the, I guess, setback. It's just limited. It was the solution was to just provide us a fence and to provide bushes on the front, I guess, yard.

But we have 22 feet.

Yeah. There's seven feet on the side, I guess, on the port of behind fence. Sorry, I misunderstood your question.

No, but so seven feet to the front, but 22 feet to the back.

Correct, 22 on the back. Yes, yes, yes, that's correct.

Okay.

Sorry

about It's okay. I just want to make sure that I'm elucidating it for a purpose. I get you. But I do want to recognize is there an ability to still ask for trees through this approval?