Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right. Good afternoon. Now call the order the development review hearing. Of 12/10/2025. May I also have a some in the audience?

How are doing? Better? Okay. Thank you. I would get to that part about devices in little bit, but I figured just thank you. Good afternoon. Starting the meeting at 04:00, and, my name is Sheldon Singh, hearing officer for today's agenda as delegated by the director of community development, Akshan Ahmed. Planners in attendance are assistant planner, Alex Tejas and assistant planner Summer Foss. Distribution of the agenda. The agenda is available on the city's website under the calendar event on the Friday afternoon preceding the meeting.

Those of you in in the chambers, please silence mobile devices. Copies of the agenda are available for your convenience at the front there. Declaration of procedures. The hearing procedure and order of input for this hearing will be as follows. I will identify each project as described on the agenda. For those items on the consent calendar, I will ask if anyone wishes to speak on the item. If a separate discussion is warranted, I will move the item to public hearing portion of the agenda. If separate discussion is not needed, the item will be remain on consent calendar for approval. Those items listed under public hearing, I will ask for staff to provide a brief report. The applicant or the representative will have up to five minutes to speak and should identify themselves by stating their name for the record.

After the applicant or the representative has spoken, any member of the public who wishes to speak on an item may provide testimony up to two minutes per speaker either for or against the project. All speakers are required to state their name for the record. Following comments from the public, applicant may make additional remarks for up to five minutes. I will then close the public hearing, and I may ask staff to answer questions, respond to comments made by the applicant or the public, or further discuss the item, and I will then take action on the item. If you challenge these land use decisions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues, you or someone else raised at this public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the city at prior to the public hearing.

Actions on the agenda are final unless appealed within seven calendar days. Continuances and exceptions, are there any requests from applicants or the public for withdrawal, continuance, or exception, or any items on today's agenda? None. Public presentations. Any member of the public like to briefly address any item or topic that is not on today's agenda?

Right. Seeing none. Consent calendar, there's, one item on the consent calendar. It's item one, development review hearing mid meeting minutes of 11/19/2025. If anyone has any comments on this item, please raise your hand regarding the mini minutes.

Okay.

Come forward. Nope. This is, this is the first item, but it's for consent for the meeting minutes. You're good? Okay.

Seeing no comments, then item one on consent calendar is approved. So moving on to the public hearing items. Item number two is a public hearing action on architectural review, PLN twenty five zero zero two nine five for 621 square foot 1st Floor addition, three ninety seven square foot 2nd Floor addition to existing two story 2,081 square foot single family residence on a 7,351 square foot lot at 2892 Mesquite Drive. CEQUA status is exempt from CEQUA pursuant to section one five three three two. This item was continued from 11/19/2025 development view hearing.

So, Alex, are you ready for presentation?

Of course.

Alrighty. Good evening, development review officer, the audience in online and in person. My name is Alex Deyes. I'm an assistant planner here with the city of Santa Clara, and I am the project planner for the item today, 2892 Mesquite Drive. The planning application is PLN25Dash00295.

Alrighty. So as the development review officer has mentioned, this item was continued from last hearing. The request is what follows is a 621 square foot 1st Floor addition and a 397 square foot 2nd Floor addition. This property is an existing two story residence and has a 500 square foot attached garage. Due to the fact that they're extending their existing second story element, it requires approval through the development review hearing before any building permits are, admitted.

Alrighty. So due to a technical difficulty that occurred during the meeting, this item was continued and to allow also community feedback to be received. Alrighty. A recap for anybody in the audience and also online. This is the existing site, about a point 17 of an acre site or 7,351 square foot lot.

All the land uses are similar to this property. They're all single family residential or our zoning district R 1 Dash 6 L. This is the rendering for the proposal. They're going with a modern take on the eclectic style. They're combining a lot of different, architectural styles in this, proposal.

The existing used to be a raised ranch style home. This is the existing site plan. As you can see, it's a large property. Currently, the property is two stories. This is how the existing floor plan looks like for the 1st Floor and the 2nd story.

Alrighty. And so now here's the proposal. As you can see, on the rear, there's an office that they're gonna construct. For our zoning standards, we're gonna consider it a bedroom also. So that's why on the request, it has that, additional bedroom on the request. So it could be converted to a bedroom in the future. I don't think the applicant is, wanting to do that at this time. In the front, we have a guest bedroom. It meets all zoning standards this time. And on the second story, they're extending to add some bedrooms.

It meets the second story setbacks on the rear end in the front and the side. There was a typo that was corrected on our project data sheet, and it will be included in the post meeting material to correct that the second story setback is empty. Does meet our zoning standard. 10 feet second story Alrighty. So with any project, we are checking from consistency with our zoning code as this project is located in a R 1 Dash 60 Zoning District.

This project is consistent with our zoning standards as they comprise with the minimum two car garage parking spaces of 8.5 feet wide by 18 feet deep. Proposal is consistent with our zoning because it needs to require first story setbacks, second story setback for new construction. And the structure highest at the maximum allow at 25 feet. Alrighty. So since the item was continued from last time, we did prior to the hearing, we did receive comments from the public.

And also this time around, we did send notices against the neighborhood, and we received comments. Staff has incorporated them in our conditions of approval to make sure they're consistent with our cities, single family, and duplex residential design guidelines. As standing with the current existing proposal, the proposal height and bulk is not appropriate to the relative relative to the neighborhood. The proposal doesn't adhere to the prevailing development pattern. Also, the proposal has scale, shadow, and view and light impacts to the adjacent property.

But with the following conditions approval, the proposal could will be consistent with our design guidelines, which are following, conditions like front yard landscape, bushes and will will require them to add bushes and co compliant hedges to the front yard and also the setback of the guest bedroom on the first story to adhere to the prevailing development pattern by providing greater front and sidestep. Alrighty. So with our projects, we're also evaluating to make sure they're consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act. This project being located in a already developed area, it meets the conditions to be a categorically exempt under a class 32 infill development project, under the CEQUA guidelines section fifteen thirty three two. The project site is less than five acres.

It is served by utilities and is complying with the general plan. As mentioned previously, we did do additional noticing for this item just because of the of interest from the neighborhood. So on November 26, we sent out notices to about 67 owners and tenants. At this time, we received one additional public comment for the proposal after the staff report was written. Just like previously before the item was continued, many of the comments are regarding the mass size of the proposal setbacks and how, the proposal could reduce, the privacy of the adjacent.

With the additional conditions of approval, staff does recommend that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. And also, we are recommending approval with these conditions. That concludes, staff's presentation. Staff is available for any question.

Okay. Thank you. Right now, I do wanna invite the applicant to speak, and you have five minutes, to speak. Please, if you're if you're online, you raise your hand. You can identify yourself.

Is it Michael?

Yeah. The app He hasn't

raised his hand, though. He's in attendance.

Can you hear me?

Yes, Michael. Yes. I can.

Okay. So I think Annie's here also. And if it's anything relating to the floor plan or or her preferences, she can answer those questions. And if it's anything relating to the planning comments, I can probably talk to you about that.

I mean, well, if you wanna address any of the comments think we shared the comments with you or those have been posted in the packet. Who is the time to do that?

Yeah. So I think one of the comments that the homeowner is not really okay with is changing the floor plan to the front bedroom area, reducing or increasing the setback even further than what she's already given which is more than what is required. She's got seven foot eight for the side setback already. And so it's been requested by planning that we even increase that further by another two feet. And I'm just trying to understand why that is because there seems to be two issues here.

One, the neighbor wanted to maintain a view across the front of the property of the homeowner Annie. And planning said that it was basically, I think they said arbitrary that their decision to require the extra two feet. And, so I'm just trying to understand which one is that? Is it the neighbor that needs the view across the homeowner's property or is it planning it is basically saying, well, we think that the house would look better from the road and fit into the neighborhood better if we had an extra two feet. I've also listed a homeless just three doors down that seems to have everything that she would want, plus less.

It's got a five foot setback. It's a fairly recent, I think, addition. And so I'm I'm wondering what the difference is.

Okay. So thank you for that. I don't know if the applicant the owner wanted to also you have a little bit more time. So if the owner wanna raise their hand, I'm happy to allow you to talk as well.

Yeah.

Okay. Great. Do you wanna say anything more? You you have some more additional time to speak on the item. You you gotta come to the podium and state your name.

It's first.

So when I designed my house because I had my kids go up, we need more space. We didn't open any window except the kitchen window from next to my neighbor's side. So everything others, we kinda, like, follow the city code, I think. That's my archetype suggestion. So I agree with it. But I I don't know why neighbor needed a strip wheel across my property. I need a you know, I I I I kinda like a I didn't get it. But so far, I think my plan's pretty good. It's almost everything follow the city. So I I don't know what I should say.

And Michael mentioned the note from my door down one three door, the another house is similar like mine. It's the same on the same street. So they do have only like a 20 feet setback. That's they do they they they house same thing like an airship. So they push it back. That's almost the same line with the their garage. Mine even shorter than the ground. We didn't overcome the garage. So I I don't know why. That's that's my.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Alright. So now, I'm going to open it up to the public away from the public. I know we got a lot of comments in writing, and so now we'll get to hear from people in person. So just want to gauge who here in the in the chambers wants to speak on this item. Wanna raise your hand? Okay. Couple people. Alright. So go ahead. You're gonna have two minutes. We're gonna have a timer right here. And, Summer, it's okay if you have it kind of parallel with you.

That's alright because I can I can see it? Alright. So go ahead. Come up here. State your name, and then you'll have two minutes.

If it's the same as the ones you've already had in the packet, that's fine. We yeah. We have we have the hard I have, like, I have a hard copy of those that you sent previously, so you can just speak to I I understand. If you're you're

on thank you. I'm sorry, miss Panocci, and my family owns and lives in 2896 Mesquite Drive since 2003. I want to begin by acknowledging the work that the staff may have done since the November meeting and the reduced footprint, the increased setbacks, and the requirements to preserve the sideline to our home, respond to the massing concerns we raised. We appreciate those additions. I will not go through the slides, but basically, in those slides, I show the current situation and what is the impact of the to the sideline of the proposed design.

I I just want to make sure that that that you you I mean, you you you look at those things. Right? So but there are three remaining issues, so I see, and I would like to place firmly on the record. So first, condition p three states that the new guest bedroom footprint must be reduced to increase the setback, but it does not define the setback numerically or tie it to the prevailing pattern of the street. Without that clarity, we risk losing the very openness that P3 is intended to protect.

As we mentioned in those things, I mean, the fact that the two houses are are on a pilot really impacts a lot of the the the the situation. So you you could see from the the drawings and from the pictures that I have submitted. Second, the applicant has agreed to provide privacy screening for the new kitchen window. This is essential because the wall currently has no windows facing the front of our home Front of our any new opening creates a direct line of sight into the primary rooms of our single room house. The screening must fully eliminate that visibility. Third.

You're of time. I just finished up your last point.

Yeah. Last point. Third, the project data. So you mentioned that shows eight feet three inches even though the code list the number listed for that code requires 10 feet for the 2nd Floor. Right?

Sorry. I thought the window issue was Sorry.

It's whoever's speaking, you can't talk right now. Okay?

Yeah. Okay.

Yep. This is not a a cross debate. I'll allow you to speak when it's time to speak. You will have five minutes to speak and rebuttal to any of the comments that you have. Alright. So I'm gonna go online. Is Rebecca's iPhone is that, you're not associated with the applicant?

Sorry, Sheldon. It's me, Rebecca Blues.

Oh, okay. Sorry. Alright. Yes. You can you may speak if you have two minutes.

Hi. My name is Andrea Cosmin. I am also live in 2896 Mesquite Drive. What I want to highlight many times because it was raised just before by the owner that there is another property that is closer. In our situation, it is a pilot, and the pilot, this whole development encroaches significantly on our house. We didn't even debate the fact that it's closing. We have a one story house, which now, if you look at the numbers we the picture we presented, we don't expect no. We don't want the view. We yes. It is.

I understand that there is there are requirement of enablement on easement to as if the lots were that side. We didn't choose the lot. The house is actually even tilted towards the neighbor's house. So it shouldn't apply exactly the numbers as in a square lot. We just want to have the same opening as if if we were on a square lot looking to the street.

That's all we ask. We don't want anything else, but we cannot compare with any. There is no other development where the lots are high, where people build essentially in front of of our house. You see, that's the problem. That's all we are asking. To understand, it's a small house, and now it's encroached. It's boxed in. It's not good for anybody. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Okay. So, anyone else here in the chambers that wants to speak? Okay. Gentlemen in back, please come forward. Come here. You know, we'll we'll we'll sort it out. So, we have everything in writing. That's fine as part of the administrative record. You can amplify any of the points. You'll have two minutes. Okay.

So from

Please state your name.

Kyung Kim from 2921 Maurice Avenue. Basically, the corner adjacent properties owner. And then I had I had a few points, but I think the main point for us is the new 2nd Floor. There and there would be strictly looking down to our master bedroom's patio door. And so I also submitted the in in my most recent email how it would be looking into my patio doors.

I took that picture from within my master bedroom looking out that direction from the patio door. So as as I'd like I don't know what can be really done for that. I but then I'd like to definitely get it somehow taken care of for the privacy and then, you know, like, the feasibility kinda issue.

Okay. Thank you. Anyone else that wants to speak on this item, either in person or online? Okay. So now, Michael, for the property owner, you have five minutes to address any of the things that you've heard. So now would be the time. Wait. I see another Daniel guest.

Hello?

Yep. Hi. You're here to

speak about the Yes. I'm apologize. I cannot attend the meeting in person. I'm also living in the 2911 on the Maurizio side, which is happened to be the back backyard of the of the the the player for the new constructions. And I have to, you know, strongly oppose on this plan.

It has to be realigned because of the the the privacy on on the backyard of the the house. We are all one story house in the neighborhood here. And only the the new constructions will be a, to me, honestly, a master house in the neighborhood here. And the not to mention about the second story of the of the view of all the neighborhood. And and our house is just like a a our bedrooms in the backyard in the in right front of them, in line of sight, which is to be to to to me, to my personal way, that would definitely be a privacy issue.

So I'm not a expert on the on the architectures and those kind of things. I would like to reserve the rights to have a fully review on those architectures to see whether that really complies of these privacy issues here. I already submitted a written request and which is outlined about eight issues in there the major issues in there. So please, planning committee, I would appreciate your with your expertise on this architecture and review it carefully before moving forward on this plan. Thank you.

Thank you. Alright. I think there's no one else online. We have two other gentlemen here at all if you wanna say anything. If not, totally cool. Alright. We're here for another project. Great. So now the, applicant owner, you have five minutes to, any type of rebuttal or response to what you've heard from your neighbors. Now's the time. So, Michael, I'll I'll get you, unmuted here. Alright, Michael. You should be able to

Great. Can you hear me?

Yes. I can.

Okay. Right now, as I understand it, there's a six foot fence between the two properties in question. The homeowner is also considering putting up a new fence that would be a six foot plus one. So I saw those renderings. They they don't address that there's a fence there.

They just show a square where there is a window proposed in the, in Annie's house. But in reality, once that fence is six foot plus one, all they're gonna be looking at is that fence. So Annie's house won't be looking into their windows. They won't be looking into Annie's windows. I kinda thought that that was that had already been addressed.

But okay. So if it hasn't, that would be the response for that. Also, I'm a little bit questioning the why the neighbor would have anything to do with the view across the homeowner's property. And, again, when I was talking to I'm not sure what your name is. I was talking to Alan.

He's not in this he's not here at all, the planner. Hello?

Alex is your is your project planner.

No. Yeah. Alex. I'm sorry.

Yeah. No. It's

okay. So I was just wondering because I wanted to actually have a discussion with him about this, But that's kind of our position where we feel like that two feet is kind of a situation that should be able to or shouldn't be able to be required by planning. I mean, we meet all the other setbacks plus additional setbacks, and that's kind of kind of the position as I see it if maybe if Annie wants to comment as well.

We got a couple more minutes left.

Okay. Could I okay. So so let me bring up one other thing. As I understand that there's two issues here, but I'm trying to understand which is the primary issue. Is the primary issue that you don't like the design of the front? It's not open enough. Is that the issue or is it actually the issue of the neighbor's view across her property? Or are you considering both of those issues?

Okay. If that question's addressed to me, I mean, I'm I'm about to unpack a lot of stuff that the that the neighbor said, including, yourself and the and the owner. So I I will address that those issues.

Okay.

Okay. So then that's, that's it. Thank you.

Well, for me, unless Annie wants to talk about it more.

Yeah. The the she's okay. She say she says it's okay. Alright. So I'm gonna mute you. Thank you. So, yeah, like I said, there's a lot to unpack here. But, so, Alex, can you share the screen about the property? I think it's slide number four. We'll get to that.

So there's a lot there's a couple you you have neighbors on all flanks that are saying different things about different aspects of the of the project. Some are the 1st floor, first or addition that's out in the front, and the other is the second story addition. And I think this there's nothing that in our code says you can't do a second story. I mean, that's just you can do a second story. The the the project meets the, you know, meets the code regarding that, and there's some things regarding egress windows.

The building code requires those for any, you know, rooms that's sleeping sleeping. So I think it's the living room, and there's a bedroom. So that's why you have the egress windows in the back. There's nothing on the side, which kinda makes sense. Usually, on the side, you would have high sill windows as an example. You you know, you wouldn't put necessarily, egress windows on the side. There are no windows on the side, of this second story proposal. If I understand right, there's a 20 foot setback. There's also a 20 foot setback from neighboring properties in the back. And, actually, you'd actually, slide four. One one more. Four. Yeah. That's it. So, in the back, you've got, 20 feet setback.

So it's about 40 feet away. And you have those redwood trees that I know get pruned, but you have those redwood trees. So I don't there's nothing really that we can, prescribe regarding that situation. I I don't see an issue with that. But turning to the 1st Floor addition. And here you see yeah. We're talking about the properties. And I I think one of the property owners, the neighbor did mention about an irregular sized lot. I think she mentioned it was a pie shape. She probably has the most irregular shaped lot here at being at the knuckle of that Mesquite Avenue.

So there are probably, like, three properties, on that knuckle. And so it's not a regular it's not a regular type of rectangle.

Elizabeth just sent a message that the video is frozen.

K. On what slide is it frozen? Dumbnail. Okay. Anyway, so the, the property is an irregular shaped lot. And when this tract was developed, they had to situate this house in a way that it was facing the street, and it's faced at an angle. It's not in a right angle. It's faced at an angle. I know there was something put in the record about a property three houses down. I think it was mentioned today that they did some addition.

That's a a rectangular lot or a square lot. And so that's a normal lot. And so having, the stepbasco, you know, 20 feet and having the addition up to that point, made sense. It was in the character of the neighborhood. These are these are three unique properties in this in this tract.

And building the property out does impact the neighboring property. So I can't say you can't do all the way, but I think as a condition of of approval states, it's something that, would allow and preserve some of that, character from that neighborhood. We don't have a setback, a particular what numb that number is because I do think there are probably different ways that you could approach it. Maybe there'd be a chamfer. Maybe there'd be step back, staggered.

Not sure. Leave that to the flexibility. There was some comment about the environmental, and I think Mr. Tejas mentioned, infill. We could use an also another exemption, I think, existing facilities. I think they would meet the threshold for that as well, so we could add that. You did address the setback, eight foot three setback. That was an error. So that's that's that's actually 10 feet. We're not gonna that's there's no request to, reduce that on the side.

So I think with that, with as it is conditioned, I I think where I'm going is is approving it as staff has has recommended. I know it's not gonna make everybody happy, but there is an appeal process if, anyone, applicant, or, neighbors otherwise. So I I will close the public hearing and determine that this project is exempt from CEQUA pursuant to section one five three three two, as well as exempt for one five three zero one existing facilities and approve the architectural review, consistent with the findings and the conditions of approval that were stated. That includes the the extra setback for the front. So that is a decision.

And if anyone wants to appeal that, they can do so within seven days and work with Alex on that issue. So thank you. Moving on to item number three. It's a public hearing architectural review for the like for like replacement of windows for property on the historic resources inventory located at 1310 Homestead Road. CEQA status is exempt from CEQA pursuant to section one five three three one, historical resources restoration rehabilitation. Summer, your presentation. Others don't have to stick around if you don't want to, but if you wait for Alex, he's, gonna be available.

Hi. My name is Summer Foss, assistant planner. I'll be presenting item number three, thirteen ten Homestead Road. This is the request for the architectural review for the like for like replacement of existing windows on historic resource inventory residence located at 1310 Homestead Road. We went to historic landmarks commission last Thursday.

They recommended that the windows be exempt from title 24 compliant as low e intended glass would significantly alter the historic character of the property. I have double checked with the building division here, and this property is exempt from title 24. They also wanted to add a condition to restore the picture windows and leaded glass on windows twelve and thirteen on the first story of the home. The applicant has already agreed to this. The and then item number three on this list goes with that.

The upper leaded glass will need to be fixed and the lower sash be movable as it was previously. And the glass used in all upstairs and downstairs windows should all be matching with the clear tint and reflectivity to give a consistent and harmonious look. The site is 0.22 acres. The surrounding uses are downtown, single family, public, quasi public, and r two low density residential. This property itself is r three medium density residential, which is consistent with the general plan designation.

There are two multifamily homes on this property. We are looking at 1310, which is here on the right. Here is the site plan. Again, you can see 1340, which is the other multifamily residents on the site and 1310 here. Here are the elevations for the site.

This is a rendering as well. Here we can see some of the windows that are being proposed to be replaced. Here is what the residence looks like from Homestead Road and the view from Monroe. Here we can see windows twelve and thirteen. Here are all the window locations highlighted in red.

This is the 1st Floor and this is the 2nd Floor. These are the type of windows being proposed besides windows twelve and thirteen, which are proposed that need to be replaced a recommendation by HLC with the historically accurate windows. The act should be considered as exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to section fifteen three three one of CEQA guidelines class 31 historical res resource restoration and rehabilitation. This exemption consists of projects limited to maintenance, repairs, sti stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, conservation, or reconstruction of historic resources in a manner consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards. Staff recommends that determine the project to be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, formal pursuant to sequel guidelines.

Sorry. Class 31 and improve the architectural review for the removal and replacement of existing windows on historic resource inventory residents located at 1310 Homestead Road, subjects to the findings and conditions of approval. Staff has not received any comments on this project.

That's it. Thank you. So now I will invite the applicant if you wanna say anything. Okay. Say no. That's fine. Doesn't want that's totally fine. Anybody in the public, online that wants to speak on this item? Seeing none. Okay. So we'll close the public hearing. I, I'm gonna agree with the HLC's recommendation. I I have no further comments to make about this project. Thanks for bringing it forward to the process. Really appreciative for these historic, properties.

So with that, I will determine the project to be exempt from CEQA through one five three three one and then approve the architectural review for this project. Thank you. Project is approved. Right. We come to the end of the meeting. So now adjournment. I now adjourn the development view hearing at the time of 04:43. Next regular scheduled meeting is on 01/14/2026 at 4PM. Thank you.