The lion’s share of the Feb. 11 Santa Clara Planning Commission meeting was devoted to an appeal of the city’s denial of a zoning clearance for a smoke shop at 770 Kiely Blvd. The facts are simple: the applicant opened and has been operating a smoke paraphernalia shop without a use permit — for eight months, according to neighboring business owner Wasu Pile — in an area that doesn’t allow smoke shops.

This should have been cut-and-dry, but the applicant’s very limited English and, apparently, equally limited understanding of city rules for opening businesses turned the appeal into nearly two hours of confusing discussion, all of which had to be translated.

In May 2025, Xiangquong Wu submitted a business tax certificate application for a smoke shop at 770 Kiely Blvd., zoned Mixed-Use Neighborhood Commercial. Since 2024, smoke shops haven’t been permitted, and the planning department notified Wu of that, but suggested she apply for a convenience store with ancillary tobacco sales.

Wu filed a zoning clearance application for this in Oct. 2025, but then reverted to her original smoke shop plan. When her original permit was denied in Dec. 2025, Wu requested a formal written denial, which the city issued, followed by Wu’s appeal heard at the March 11 meeting.

Wu argued that the denial was unfair because she submitted their application before the zoning code was updated in 2025. In fact, smoke shops were prohibited in this zone after the 2024 zoning update, and the applicant was informed of that in Dec. 2025.

The applicant’s limited English proficiency required a remote interpreter which required everything to be repeated at least twice, and even the two Mandarin speakers at the meeting didn’t help. Everything they said had to be translated into English so everyone knew what was being discussed. Technical terms added further confusion.

Wu didn’t appear to understand city procedures. For example, she appeared not to understand that filing applications isn’t the same as getting approved. In another example, she misunderstood key steps, such as believing she only needed a business license without realizing she also needed a clearance.

Commissioners questioned the timeline, the city’s communication and whether the appeal should even proceed given that the business was operating illegally. Ultimately, the commission affirmed the denial, leaving aside the question of illegally operating a business.

The second item on the commission’s agenda was an appeal of the city’s approval of an addition at 2892 Mesquite Dr. The next-door neighbor didn’t oppose the addition but requested two mitigation conditions — related to setbacks and sightline preservation — be clarified with measurable standards. The project included a front addition and a new six-foot-plus-one-inch fence.

Planning confirmed the project complies with zoning, exceeds minimum setbacks, and is exempt from CEQA. The applicant emphasized the addition was designed to be compatible with the neighborhood and to accommodate aging parents. The architect noted design changes, including removing a bay window and increasing setbacks, to address concerns.

Commissioners acknowledged the neighbor’s valid concerns and encouraged neighborly collaboration, but affirmed the approval, emphasizing that the project met all regulatory standards.

The commission continued action, evoking two Mills Act — special tax rates for historic properties — designations, allowing owners more time to comply with the Act’s requirements.

Previous Planning Commission Meetings:
Planning Commission Considers Residential Objective Design Standards
Santa Clara Housing Developments To Get Minor Changes
Planning Commission Recommends Council Approve For-Sale Townhome Developments