[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",5973308,"mediaKeyId","5829751-b5143f8520418663b85141f89f75a79f","parentId",5829751,"title","Commission upholds incompleteness finding for Circle Hill 20‑unit project; developers urged to supply technical studies","audioSeconds",4903,"startMs",8128000,"endMs",13031000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5829751-b5143f8520418663b85141f89f75a79f&start=8128&end=13031","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5829751-b5143f8520418663b85141f89f75a79f/thumbnail_8128000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/5973308/Santa-Clara-County/California/Commission-upholds-incompleteness-finding-for-Circle-Hill-20unit-project-developers-urged-to-supply-technical-studies","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5973308-9ae84a7699b50a1f13fac25330439013/orig.mp4?Expires=1770504366&Signature=PdseQhF29Do8jAtd5ZdT8XJXWSQrETUeSjuuy6IOOfEyDzCkpdQ6Y~FXgLNOGt5zjhIA~XMQUzrS7VBcU-iM2N2fqE1M3xefOzSEriS0WwF1c951ckICA0S1R~hFuALPjJcPsXWMJ93J2ZJqix4HUI8cJJkyK7vQ1w-vEp7JC19bJjTtWqEslEwLNRYrGvCPhw1gJenj44UStFINwQDh9twDw9FzWJ9rUXy5I4NfsjL-YStuLRbyUnob346h2qni41QdeNap49O99i3T8tujEPFm7rLYKjTN7EzxR8Nu9c41p6fszHTWeuEMqvS9Pn4AkTiAmc9diilYxTJtizWfEA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Santa Clara County","date","2025-09-26T04:38:02.23Z","article","The Santa Clara County Planning Commission on Sept. 25 denied an appeal and upheld a Department of Planning and Development determination that the formal application for the Circle Hill Housing Development Project was incomplete as of the county’s Aug. 1, 2025 letter. The proposed project calls for a major subdivision and grading approval for 20 housing units (16 single‑family homes and four accessory dwelling units) on a roughly 97.5‑acre parcel in a hillsides zoning district.

Senior planner Laura Tran told the commission the county issued five rounds of incomplete letters, beginning with a May 3, 2024 first incomplete letter, and that after several resubmittals the Aug. 1, 2025 (fifth) incomplete letter identified seven outstanding items the county needed to deem the formal application complete. “The fifth incomplete letter dated 08/01/2025 identifies seven incomplete items that are summarized and include: a site plan that identifies all existing and proposed structures and legal access, a proposed floor plan and elevation plan, an energy conservation plan, obtaining a compatible use determination [the parcel is under a Williamson Act contract], provide fire hydrant flow data and provide a geologic investigation report of landslide hazard zone,” Tran said during the staff presentation.

The applicant’s representatives said they had submitted portions of the required materials and disputed whether some items were required at the formal‑application stage. The applicant’s architect and counsel reiterated that certain technical studies (notably a detailed geologic investigation) are time‑consuming and expensive and argued that those studies are often performed after the application is deemed complete and prior to final approval. Travis Brooks, counsel for the applicant, said the applicant intended to continue working with staff to resolve outstanding items. “We will do [the geotech], but we just gotta make sure we have a project,” a project representative told commissioners during rebuttal.

County staff took the opposite position on several items: some checklist materials were not in the plan set; some forms (e.g., the San Francisco Bay watershed questionnaire) contained inconsistent numbers that made the submittal internally contradictory; and other items (fire hydrant flow, geotechnical scope) require coordination with county specialists before a complete report can be accepted. Staff noted that the county’s SB 330 checklist and other subdivision/grading checklists require some items for projects of this type and location.

Neighbors and environmental advocates urged the commission to uphold staff’s determination. Speakers cited wildfire hazard, landslide and seismic vulnerability on steep hillsides, the absence of required fire‑flow data and the lack of geotechnical work to support septic and grading plans. Alice Kaufman of Green Foothills told commissioners the public record included incomplete and, in places, incorrect information and that the county must require accurate technical data before moving applications forward.

After discussion the commission voted to deny the appeal and uphold the Department of Planning and Development’s determination that the Circle Hill application was incomplete. The motion carried 5–2 (Yes: Commissioners Heatherly, Cohen, Levy, Escobar and Chair Rausser; No: Commissioner Belska and Vice Chair O’Donoghue).

Staff reported the county had received hundreds of public comments on the project; Tran noted that 294 comments (as of the hearing) were in the record. County planning staff said plan sets and many submittal materials are available on the county’s SB 330 web page and encouraged applicants to coordinate directly with land development engineering, environmental health, the fire marshal and county geologist to clarify required scope and to supply the outstanding items for re‑review.

What’s next: With the commission upholding the incompleteness determination, the applicant may supply supplemental materials for staff review. Commissioners and staff also noted that the SB 330 vesting dispute and the interpretation of repeated 90‑day resubmittal periods is a separate legal matter pending in court; that question was outside the commission’s scope in this hearing.

(Reporting from the Sept. 25, 2025 Santa Clara County Planning Commission meeting.)","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","County of Santa Clara Planning Commission September 25, 2025 6:00 p.m.","oneSentenceSummary","The Santa Clara County Planning Commission on Sept. 25 denied an appeal and upheld a Department of Planning and Development determination that the Circle Hill Housing Development Project application was incomplete, citing seven outstanding checklist items.","taxTitle","Santa Clara County, California","taxId",2855,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},5973314,"Planning commissioners uphold incompleteness finding for Almaden Road 49‑unit project",6551,1541000,8092000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5829751-b5143f8520418663b85141f89f75a79f&start=1541&end=8092","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5829751-b5143f8520418663b85141f89f75a79f/thumbnail_1541000.jpg","/articles/5973314/Santa-Clara-County/California/Planning-commissioners-uphold-incompleteness-finding-for-Almaden-Road-49unit-project","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5973314-bcde81b8b1df474c2d6a79b61bf2bc2e/orig.mp4?Expires=1770504366&Signature=gfapry6EYARAskKD2TjAaPkai2VgJy3TEScTdNLTjqalkt6ZQlK6ILMXxQBTZe5NbWflwfLj799Jq-21yyr3yvgjRsWRM1rS8tjSkTR4Jk2trnC30FXzJGjSlYN4AL03sHraAVFa2KaUSN55zCD-1cD6dNIlBmG8odQHLaKu0LkmEkxU33Z36KcvBMrOv4-fIec-jrUxhNjgWVYi8hnOdZBuLm6rX1OEcq6W1h1NciRptMVVBFRLtaxyIYoaLZp87Y9JLw~gvkBMxyt3iv5vbPLg297iCAJUhTRns4OmBjC2RHd27r-lqphdfDSk6lfHhgjYLjREZqj-IeLOJBM4bA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Santa Clara County planners on Thursday upheld a Department of Planning and Development finding that the formal application for the Almaden Road Housing Development Project was incomplete, denying the applicant’s appeal in a 5‑2 vote. The project seeks approval of a major subdivision and grading for 49 housing units and related amenities on an existing roughly 19‑acre parcel at 19780 Almaden Road, San Jose.

The incompleteness determination matters because it affects whether the applicant’s filing retains protections under the state Housing Crisis Act (SB 330) and related vesting rules. Senior planner Charu Alwalia told the commission the county issued five rounds of incomplete letters and that the fifth incomplete letter, dated Aug. 7, 2025, identified six outstanding items staff still needed to deem the formal application complete.

Staff said the six outstanding items were: an energy conservation plan; land cover mapping prepared by a qualified biologist; base flood elevations and finished floor elevations for structures proposed in the floodplain; a revised San Francisco Bay watershed questionnaire (impervious area/ stormwater info); fire hydrant flow data; and a geotechnical evaluation of liquefaction potential for soils under the proposed residences. “The sixth incomplete letter identified the six incomplete items,” Alwalia said in presenting staff’s recommendation that the commission deny the appeal.

The applicant’s representatives disputed portions of staff’s analysis and the legal interpretation of which application checklist applies. Kurt Anderson, the project architect, said the energy conservation requirement functioned like a “shadow study” that is not feasible without architectural plans and that a full geotechnical investigation can cost six figures and is difficult to justify until the project is assured. “We have no problem doing [the geotech], but we can’t recommend to our client that we spend $150,000 on geotech reports until we know we have a project that’s going to move forward,” Anderson said.

Appellant counsel Travis Brooks argued the applicant had vested under its October 2023 preliminary application and therefore should be judged against the checklists in effect at that earlier date. Brooks also cited changes in state law (including AB 1893) and court decisions he said limited a county’s ability to strip SB 330 vesting by repeatedly declaring an application incomplete. “HCD has rejected [the county’s] approach in at least half a dozen different jurisdictions,” Brooks told the commission. The commission, however, is limited to reviewing whether the application was complete as of the Aug. 7, 2025 letter, staff said.

Deputy county counsel Nicole Collins explained the county’s legal position on checklists: the department uses the application checklist that is in effect when a formal application is submitted, and many of the items staff sought were required by the county’s SB 330 checklist that was in place before the applicant filed the formal application in April 2024. “The department is taking the position [that] the checklist itself is not an ordinance, it’s a tool to evaluate conformance with existing ordinances,” Collins said.

Members of the public who spoke urged the commission to uphold staff’s determination. Denise Acum, an Almaden Valley resident, told commissioners: “The applicant ... repeatedly failed to provide the information required by the county in order to deem the application as complete. ... He had his many chances and he missed them. Therefore, I urge the planning commission to reject Mr. LaBarbera’s appeal.” Several other neighbors cited fire risk, traffic and septic/watershed concerns and said critical technical reports were still missing.

After discussion the commission voted to deny the appeal and uphold the Department of Planning and Development’s determination that the Almaden Road application remained incomplete. The motion carried 5–2 (Yes: Commissioners Heatherly, Cohen, Levy, Escobar and Chair Rausser; No: Commissioner Belska and Vice Chair O’Donoghue).

County staff reminded the commission that plan sets and many submittal materials are publicly available on the county’s SB 330 project page and that the department would continue to process materials the applicant submits. Counsel and staff also stated that the legal issue over whether multiple 90‑day resubmittal periods can be triggered remains contested in court and noted that separate litigation has been filed addressing that question.

What’s next: the application remains subject to county review; if the applicant supplies the missing checklist items staff will re‑review them. The commission’s ruling preserves the county’s current incompleteness determination as of Aug. 7, 2025; future filings or court rulings could change the project’s legal posture under SB 330.

(Reporting from the Sept. 25, 2025 Santa Clara County Planning Commission meeting.)","Santa Clara County planners on Thursday upheld a Department of Planning and Development finding that the formal application for the Almaden Road Housing Development Project was incomplete, denying the applicant’s appeal in a 5‑2 vote.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commission upholds incompleteness finding for Circle Hill 20‑unit project; developers urged to supply technical studies

Planning commissioners uphold incompleteness finding for Almaden Road 49‑unit project