4/7/26 Item #7
City Council
April 07, 2026
Item #7 RTC 26-244
2892 Mesquite Drive
1852
THE MISSION CIT
Afshan Hamid
Community Development Director
2892 Mesquite Drive City of
Santa Clara
Request
• Appeal of Planning Commission's affirmation of the Development Review Officer's approval of the architectural review for a 680 square foot first floor addition and a 282 Family rest ence with a d square to tached garage 2,081 square fot single- • Per SCCC 18.144.020B., the City Council serves as the final review authority or urchitectural Review of single-family residential projects 2 POST MEETING MATERIAL
1 4/7/26 Item #7
2892 Mesquite Drive City of
Santa Clara
The Centered Whets Popitte
Appeals
• Pursuant to SCCC 18.144.030.E, the City Council hears appeals as de novo - Issues raised and considered are not limited to those raised by the appellant. - The City Council may affirm, vacate, or reverse the previous decision. - Additional conditions of approval may be added, or the project may be referred to the Development Review Officer or Planning Commission for further consideration. 3 2892 Mesquite Drive City of
Santa Clara
Tie: Central Whack Possible
Background
• July 2025 - Property Owner submitted Architectural Review permit application (PLN25-00295).
• October 2025 - Application is deemed complete and scheduled for November 2025 Development Review Hearing ("DRH").
• November 2025 - Application is scheduled for Development Review Hearing but continued due to technical difficulties and to allow for community feedback to be • December 2025 - Application is reviewed and approved by the Development Review Officer ("DRO"). Neighbor appealed the decision to the Planning Commission. • February 2026 - Planning Commission reviewed appeal and affirmed DRO's decision 4-3. Neighbor appealed the decision to City Council. 4 2
4/7/26 Item #7
2892 Mesquite Drive City of
Santa Clara
The Center of Whats Fossilie
Existing Site
• Acreage: 0.17 (7,351 SF)
• Surrounding Uses:
- N: Single-Family Residential (R1-6L)
- S: Single-Family Residential (R1-6L)
- E: Single-Family Residential (R1-6L)
- W: Single-Family Residential (R1-6L)
• General Plan Designation: Very Low
Density Residential
• Zoning: Single-Family Residential
(R1-6L)
5 Development Standards
Compliance Table - PC's Approval
Standard Existing Proposed Requirement Complies? (Y/N)
% of 2nd floor to 1sf floor: 0.52 0.56 66% max Y
Building Coverage (All): 0.26 0.34 40% max Y
Setbacks
Front (1" floor): 20% 20' Y
(2nd floor): 34 37 25'
Left Side (1et floor): 5-0 5
(2nd floor): 9-3 9'-3
Right Side (1at floor): 6'- 11* 5
(2nd floor): 32 - 11 101 10' Y
Rear (1% floor): 22' - 9 22-9 20°
(2nl floor): 39'- 9" 201
Height 22' - 9" 25 25' 6
3 4/7/26 Item #7
2892 Mesquite Drive City of
Santa Clara
The Center bl White Pussitte
Street View
2892 Mesquite 2896 Mesquite
Owner
Appellant
2892 Mesquite (owner) 2896 Mesquite (appellant)
Site Plan (Existing - Aerial)
Owner
Appellant
-2921
8 8
4 4/7/26 Item #7
Site Plan
89-7 3/16
New 6+1 fence
-
Proposed
23 Addition
-Now 3' low lence
LEGEND Driveway
49-5 1816)
1169-101
Existing Site Plan PROPOSED Proposed Site Plan
29-97/11 9
Mosquite Drive
9 1ST Floor Plan Proposed
Addition
Existing DRO's Approval PC's Approval
685 SF 680 SF
226 SEA- 241 SF
239 SH
255 SH
10 4/7/26 Item #7
2nd Floor Plan Proposed
Addition
Existing DRO's Approval PC's Approval
397 SF 282 SF
- Toget
V
Open 1
below
11 11
Rendering
DRO's Approval PC's Approval
NORTH PROPOSAL ELEVA
12 12
4/7/26 Item #7
Rendering (3D Reference)
DRO's Approval PC's Approval
13 13
Summary of Proposed Changes
DRO's Approval PC's Proposal
First Floor Addition 685 SF 680 SF
- Rear Office 226 SF 241 SF
- Guest Bedroom 255 SF 239 SF
- Porch + Entrance 204 SF 200 SF
Second Story Addition 397 SF 282 SF
TOTAL ADDITION SF 1,082 SF 962 SF
Guest Bedroom Front 21'- 8" 22-9"
Setback (an increase setback)
Guest Bedroom Right 8' 8'
Setback
* Area above Foyer & Stairway is not counted twice
14 14
7 4/7/26 Item #7
2892 Mesquite Drive City of
Santa Clara
The Center often Possible
Consistency with General Plan
• The proposed project as conditioned is consistent with the Santa Clara General Plan through the following policies:
- 5.5.2-P2 - Implement design review guidelines for setback, heights, materials, massing, articulation and other standards to support Transition Policies and promote neighborhood compatibility. • The request conforms with the City of Santa Clara Single-Family & Duplex Residential Design Guidelines Chapter 2b - Sensitive Design Solutions as the second story addition does not exceed approximately 66% of the first-floor area and the side walls of the second story addition are set back at least three feet from the side walls of the first floor. - 5.5.2-P3 - Implement site design solutions, such as landscaping and increased building setbacks, to provide a buffer between non-residential and residential uses. • The request conforms with the City of Santa Clara Single-Family & Duplex Residential Design Guidelines Chapter 4a - Site Planning as the first story addition on the front is setback more than required, preserving the prevailing development pattern in the neighborhood.
15 15
2892 Mesquite Drive City of
Santa Clara
The Center of Whath Possible
Consistency with Zoning Code
• Thandaoposed construction complies with the R1-6l. ZOoning Districts development - The proposal is consistent with SCCC 18.38.060D as the garage still maintains the code compliant two parking spaces of at least 8.5 feet wide by 18 feet deep - The proposal is consistent with SCCC 18.10.030 as it meets the require first story setbacks, second story setbacks for the new construction.
- The structure's height is consistent with the maximum allowed at 25 feet 16 16
8 4/7/26 Item #7
2892 Mesquite Drive City of
Santa Clara
The Center of Whar: Possible
Consistency with Design Guidelines
The proposed project as conditioned complies with the City's Single-Family & Duplex Residential Design Guidelines (2014), in that:
- The design is compatible in scale and character of the typical housing types in the neighborhood. - The design protects the neighboring sight lines to the street. - The second story addition does not exceed 66% of the first-floor area. 17 17
2892 Mesquite Drive City of
Santa Clara
The Center of Whats Possible
Appellant's Request
• Requesting that Condition of Approval P3 & P4 be modified to have an objective measurable criteria. • The Condition of Approval in question:
- P3 Guest Bedroom Setback - "The proposed guest bedroom shall adhere to the prevailing development pattern in the subdivision by reducing the footprint of the proposed guest room by providing a greater front and side setback. The setbacks shall preserve the existing sight line of the adjacent property" - P4 Front Yard Landscape - "Bushes and code-compliant hedges shall be added to the front yard" 18 18
9 4/7/26 Item #7
2892 Mesquite Drive City of
Santa Clara
he Conco ye Possible
Public Outreach
• A public hearing notice was mailed to property owners within a 300-foot radius of the projec site on March 26, 2026, to 67 owners/tenants.
- Staff previously received one public comment in opposition to the proposal after the prior staff report was posted online
• Appellant: The comment was regarding the massing, size of the proposal, and how it would impact privacy. - Staff at the time of writing this presentation has not received any additional comments • A Community Meeting was not required as the proposed project is considered a Small Development Proposal under the Santa Clara Public Outreach Policy. 19 19
2892 Mesquite Drive City of
Santa Clara
The Conter of Whats Posabie
CEQA Evaluation
• The project is found to be Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1 - Existing Facilities), in that the project consists of the addition to an existing structure that will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area before the addition, or 2500 square feet. 20 20
10 4/7/26 Item #7
2892 Mesquite Drive City of
Santa Clara
The Colter of Whit? Possible
Recommendation for 2892 Mesquite Dr:
Determine the project to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) formal pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1 - Existing Facilities); and
2. Affirm the decision of the Planning Commission to approve the Architectural Review 21 21
City Council
April 07, 2026
CITY OF 100000000000000 Item #7 RTC 26-244
2892 Mesquite Drive
1852
THE MISSION CITY
Afshan Hamid
Community Development Director
22 11
4/7/26 Appellant Presentation Item #7
Appeal to Santa Clara City Council
File: PLN26-00094
Location: 2892 Mesquite Drive, a 7,351 square foot lot located south of Mesquite Drive and Applicant:
Andrea Cosmin and Sorin Spanoche
2896 Mesquite Drive, Santa Clara
City Council Hearing - April 7, 2026
We Support the Improvement Project
• We are only asking for measurable, enforceable criteria for Conditions P3 and P4 of the Architectural Review Approval, meant to ensure that at plan check the project aligns with the Santa Clara General Plan's purposes:
• Respect neighborhood scale and spacing (Community Character) • Ensure compatibility with existing homes (Infill and Compatibility) • Protect privacy and livability (Urban Design)
• Preserve street frontage openness (Neighborhood Design) PLN26-00094 - Appeal to City Council - 2892 Mesquite Drive 2/12
POST MEETING MATERIAL
Unique Lot Shapes and Positioning of Properties
15 243 : 239 $9 10283 : 280 gL
14 246 7236 29 29282 31 281 51 800932
13 247 723>28 MESQUITE • - I DRIVE
31 12240 30
259
28 262 283
264 265
33) · 910
40 ft front lot line
2896 Mesquite Dr. 53 ft house front to lot line
49.77 ft front lot line
2892 Mesquite Dr. 38 ft house front to lot line
20.68 ft as proposed
Typical lots ~65 ft front lot line
3D
PLN26-00094 - Appeal to City Council - 2892 Mesquite Drive 3/12 2892 & 2896 Mesquite Dr. / Google Earth
Impact of the Proposed Forward Extension
Standard setback rules assume rectangular
lots:
• These pie-shaped lots converge
• Houses are rotated towards each to face
the street
The proposed forward extension creates
disproportionate impact. Current buitding
including garage 1863 - 500 1
"These are three unique properties... building the property out does impact he neighboring property." - DRO Singh, Dec 2025
2892 & 2896 Mesquite Dr. site plans
PLN26-00094 - Appeal to City Council - 2892 Mesquite Drive (based on 1'= 1/8" scale drawings) 4 / 12 P3 and P4 Conditions for Approval
P3. Guest Bedroom Setback: The proposed guest bedroom shall adhere to the prevailing development pattern in the subdivision by reducing the footprint of the proposed guest room by providing a greater front and side setback. The setbacks shall preserve the existing sight line of the adjacent property.
P4. Front Yard Landscape: Bushes and code-compliant hedges shall be added to the front yard.
Conditions P3 and P4 were added as the key mitigation mechanisms for the impacts we raised at the previous meetings (sight line/openness and privacy/visibility.
The enforceability of these conditions is essential.
PLN26-00094 - Apocal to Cuty Counell-2892 Mesqurto Drive 5/12 What City Officials Have Said
"These are three unique properties in this tract. And building the property out does impact the neighboring property. I...] I think as a condition 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 that number is, because / think there are probably different ways that you could approach it. Maybe there'd be a temper, maybe there'd be, step back, stagger, not sure. Leave that to the flexibility. " DRO Singh - December 10, 2025 (Approval Hearing Transcript) "If everything was allowed by right, then they didn't have to go through a discretionary approval at all.
Why is there a design review committee, then? [...] does your right impact somebody else's life or right? There are balances. Sometimes there are compromises. If I had an opportunity to suggest, [...] / would suggest the architect to rethink the front... "
Commissioner Cherukuru - February 11, 2026 (Planning Commission Hearing Transcript) • The Planning Commission voted 4-3 to keep the P3 and P4 conditions as written and encouraged a neighborly compromise.
• The property owners have refused to make any compromise or engage in any discussion.
PLN26-00094 - Appeal to Cly Council - 2892 Mesquile Orive 6 / 12 Condition P3: Intent vs. Proposed Plan
P3: "The proposed guest bedroom shall
Minimum
adhere to the prevailing development
sight line
pattern... by providing a greater front and side
setback. The setbacks shall preserve the
existing sight line of the adjacent property."
, garage
New 500 sf
front addition
bedroom s bathroggy
New 6+1ft
Newly erected tattfence
6+1ft tall fence
-164 ST
PLN25-00094 - Appeal to City Council - 2892 Mesquite Drive 7/12 Condition P4: Intent vs. Reality
P4: "Bushes and code-compliant hedges shall be added to the front yard." Before (23 years unobstructed sight line) After - 6+1 ft fence was erected (Feb 18, 2026) The newly erected fence obstructs the sight line that P3 was designed to protect and creates a concealment concern near our deep-set front entrance.
PLN26-00094 - Appeal to City Council - 2892 Mesquite Drive 3/12 Feb 162026
PLN26-00094 - Appeat to Gity Council - 2892 Mesquite Drive Feb 19 2026 9/12 The Resolution Depends on a Vague Condition
Proposed Resolution Finding 3.e.i:
The project satisfies design compatibility "with adherence to condition P3." P3 has no measurable criteria:
• No target setback distance for front and/or side
No sight line definition
No compliance measurement method
No minimum threshold
If the Council adopts this resolution, it certifies findings based on a condition definition that demonstrably did not work.
PLN26-00094 - Apocal to Cily Council - 2892 Mesquito Drive 10/12 Our Modest Requests
Condition P3 Condition P4
Guest Bedroom Setback Front Yard Landscaping
Ensure that sight line along the side wall of our Reduce the height of the newly constructed building towards the neighboring building is ~20-foot fence extension from 6+1 feet to 3 feet unobstructed towards the street as it contradicts the purpose of Condition P3 • Set back front wall 4 feet, to align with the foyer plane, or and is not consistent with the character of the • Some other measurable front and side setback increases neighborhood. that achieve the same sight line preservation
Consistent with the prevailing development pattern - no home on pie- Before the newly built fence there were no fences between shaped lots projects significantly in front of an adjacent home's front. neighboring properties in our corner lots May also help preserve at least one of the existing mature Japanese maple trees (Resolution condition 3.c.iii).
We are not asking for the 5-foot side setback from the wall of our building, that all homes on regular lots are entitled to, and were respected in the neighborhood design.
We are asking for conditions that a plan checker can measure.
PLN26-G0094 - 4ppcal to Gily Councr - 2892 Mesquite Drive 11/12 What Does a Plan Checker Do With No
Measurable Criteria?
We trust that the City Council will ensure that the Conditions of the Architectural Review Approval are enforceable - so that they protect not only our home's livability, but also the neighborhood character that made this community worth choosing to be our home 23 years ago and will continue to be so for all neighbors.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
PLN26-00094 - Appeal 10 City Council - 2892 Mesquite Drive 12/12 4/7/26 Applicant Presentation Item #7
CITY OF SANTA CLARA - APPLICANT RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
Project Address: 2892 Mesquite Drive, Santa Clara, CA
File Nos.: PLN25-00295 / PLN25-00561
Property Owner: Annie Zhou
Honorable Members of the Appeals Board:
The applicant respectfully requests that the Appeals Board deny the appeal and uphold the prior approvals of this project
1. Project Compliance with Municipal Code
The proposed project is consistent with all applicable provisions of the Santa Clara Municipal Code, including development standards for setbacks, height, and lot coverage. There are no identified violations, and the project meets all objective zoning requirements
2. Procedural Background
The project has been approved by the Devclopment Review Officer and the Planning Commission (4-3 vote). Conditions of approval, including P3 and P4, were evaluated and deemed sufficient to ensure compatibility.
3. Condition P3 - Setbacks and Compatibility
Condition P3 has been satisfied and exceeded. In coordination with Planning staff, the applicant removed the bay window and increased the front setback by approximately one (I) foot Thesc changes reduce perceived mass and reflect good-faith compliance. The appeal's concom regarding "sight line preservation" relates to maintaining a private view across the subject property, which is not protected under municipal code. The viewing condition described is a function of the neighboring proporty's imegular lot configuration, which was an existing condition at the time of purchase and is not attributable to the applicant's project.
The separation between the two houses
POST MEETING MATERIAL
The distance between two House The city requires a 5-foot side setback on each side. The existing side setback is over 7 feet.
The extension does not extend beyond the existing fence and existing side setback The extension does not extend beyond the existing fence
4. Condition P4 - Front Yard Improvements and Fencing
Condition P4 requires front yard landscaping. The project includes front yard improvements consistent with City standards
Front Yard Improvements (Planting Only)
The design incorporates front yard landscaping consistent with City standards. No fence is proposed outside of the front yard setback area. In fact, we are 24" from the front yard property line setback where 20' is permitted. The other improvement is small shrubbery from the end of the 6+1 fence to the property line. Plantings comply with applicable visibility and landscaping requirements. We had a licensed survey company marking the property side and front property lines
Side/Rear Yard Fence (6' + 1'
The project includes a six (6) foot fence with a one (I) foot extension Under Santa Clara Municipal Code standards for residential fencing, fences of this height are permitted in side and rear yard locations. The proposed fencing complics with applicable height limits and placement requirements outside of visibility triangles.
The inclusion of code-compliant fencing docs not negate landscaping requirements and does not constitute non-compliance with Condition P4
The distance from the front of the house to the end of the existing fence in the front yard is approximately 17 feet. There are still 4 feet remaining within the permitted limit.
5. Good Faith Design Refinements
Although not required, the applicant worked with Planning staff, reduced building massing, and increased setbacks beyond minimum standards. These actions demonstrate a good-faith effort to address compatibility.
6. Basis for Appeal
The appeal docs not identify any violation of the Municipal Code, any failure to comply with conditions, or any new evidence. It reflects disagrement with prior discretionary approvals and sceks to impose additional subjective design restrictions
7. Conclusion
The project complies with all applicable Municipal Codc provisions, has been approved through the City's process. and includes voluntary refinement. The appeal provides no substantive basis to overtum prior approvals,
Request
The applicant respectfully requests that the Appeals Board deny the appeal and uphold the prior approvals.
Respectfully submitted,
Annic Zhou