Santa Clara County planning commissioners uphold finding that Vista De Almaden housing application was incomplete

The Santa Clara County Planning Commission on Oct. 7, 2025 upheld the Department of Planning and Development's determination that the Vista De Almaden land-use application was incomplete, voting 4'0 to deem the county's August 8, 2025 incomplete letter binding. The application covers a proposed five-lot major subdivision on a 7.6-acre unincorporated parcel at 18730 Vista De Almaden (Supervisorial District 5) for four new single-family homes and one existing home.

The commission's action preserves staff's finding that the July 11 resubmittal lacked required materials including geotechnical certification, percolation testing and on-site wastewater design details. Senior planner Charu Aluwalia told commissioners staff found the July 11 submittal still missing nine required items and that one earlier county incomplete letter had identified 26 missing items. "The county correctly determined on 08/08/2025 that the application was incomplete," Aluwalia said during her presentation.

Why it matters: The project was submitted under provisions tied to the state's housing laws (applicants cited SB 330 protections), and the question before the commission combined technical completeness with legal disputes over appeal rights. Applicant counsel argued the county's determination carried consequences that should be administratively reviewable. Melanie Griswold, legal counsel for the applicant, said the county's action effectively disapproved a protected housing project and cited the Housing Accountability Act and county zoning provisions in support of the appellant's right to review.

What the applicants and staff said: The applicant's representative, DJ Edwards of Kimley-Horn, told the commission the team had been coordinating on percolation testing with Department of Environmental Health (DEH) staff, had paid fees and had scheduled witnessed percolation testing for the week of Nov. 4'Nov. 7. "We do have dates assigned for the percolation testing," Edwards said, adding that some materials were relocated within the plan set rather than newly created. DEH representative Darren told the commission that the July 11 submission to DEH was an application but that the actual feasibility testing had not yet occurred: "It was just an application. There was no...additional information as to when that was gonna occur."

What neighbors and other speakers told the commission: Eleven people spoke in chambers and via Zoom. Several nearby residents urged denial of the appeal, citing steep slopes, wildfire and landslide hazards, limited water supply and prior unpermitted work by the property owners. John Elliott, a nearby homeowner, said, "We have a 100,000 gallon water tank that services the area." Other neighbors described prior landslides on adjacent properties and criticized the prospect of multiple septic systems on steep slopes.

Staff's technical findings and missing items: In staff's presentation and the county's second incomplete letter (dated 08/08/2025), the outstanding items included (summarized): - plan-sheet omissions (parcel dimensions, gross/net lot areas, easement labeling, complete tree disposition information and certification stamp on average-slope computations); - missing or unpaired cross-section references on grading plans and clarifications of retaining-wall top/bottom and maximum heights; - geotechnical report delivered as a draft lacking the original wet-signed copy required under county code (c.12.6.12(a)); - DEH-required materials (site assessment, soil profiles, percolation tests) and an OUTS (on-site wastewater treatment system) design package including nitrate loading analysis.

Legal and procedural arguments: Applicant counsel asked the commission to treat the staff's action as an appealable discretionary decision, citing county ordinance section 5.3.0.01 and arguing the county's interpretation that the commission lacked authority was incorrect. County counsel and staff answered that the sole question before commissioners was whether the application submitted and reviewed by the department was complete on the dates identified in the notices and that several of the items appellants cited as in progress (notably DEH testing and a DEH application) post-dated the July 11 resubmittal that staff had reviewed.

Vote and motions: The commission considered more than one motion. An initial motion to deny the appeal was put forward and resulted in a 3'0 tie and did not carry. A subsequent motion to deem the application incomplete as of Aug. 8, 2025 passed 4'0 (Hederle, Cohen, Belska, Escobar voted yes; Vice Chair O'Donohue and Chair Rausser voted no). The motion to deem the application incomplete was made by Commissioner Hederle and seconded by Commissioner Cohen.

Next steps and context: Staff said the applicant has made later resubmittals that were not yet before the commission; the county reported that a subsequent resubmittal was uploaded on Aug. 21 and remained under review. Commissioners and staff discussed that DEH-permitted percolation tests must be witnessed by a county inspector and that nitrate-loading analyses and final OUTS designs generally follow on-site testing. Charu Aluwalia noted 211 comment letters had been received and included in the staff packet.

The commission took no separate legal finding on the applicant's argument about appeal rights under SB 330 and the Housing Accountability Act; that dispute was described by staff and applicant counsel as one that could lead to litigation. Commissioners discussed whether the 90-day statutory timing questions had been noticed for public hearing; county counsel advised that the posted question before the commission was completeness of the application and that other legal interpretations could be litigated.

The Planning Commission record for this item will include the county's incomplete letter(s), the applicant's resubmittals, DEH correspondence and the 211 public comment letters referenced by staff.