Santa Clara County Planning Commission upholds incompleteness finding for Covello Glen housing project

The Santa Clara County Planning Commission on Aug. 28 upheld the Department of Planning and Development etermination that the Covello Glen housing application was incomplete as of June 26, 2025, denying an appeal from the project applicant.

The vote, taken after about 100 minutes of staff presentations, applicant argument, and more than a dozen public commenters, was 4 in favor and 3 opposed. Commissioners Hederle, Cohen, Levy and Chair Amy Escobar voted to deny the appeal; Commissioners Belska, O'Donoghue and Vice Chair Mark Rausser voted against denying the appeal.

The Covello Glen project, proposed on about 49.7 acres in unincorporated county near the San Jose urban limit, would consist of 173 homes (135 single-family and 38 duet homes) and related amenities. The applicant submitted a preliminary application on Nov. 19, 2024, and a formal application on Feb. 12, 2025. County staff issued an initial incompleteness letter on March 13, 2025 listing 38 items; the applicant resubmitted on May 29, 2025. Staff issued a second incompleteness letter on June 26, 2025 identifying two outstanding items tied to the Almaden Expressway official plan line (OPL). The applicant appealed that June 26 determination on July 10, 2025.

Charu Aluwalia, senior planner for the Department of Planning and Development, told commissioners that the question before them was narrow: whether the application as resubmitted on May 29 was complete as of the June 26 letter. "Staff recommendation is that the planning commission deny the appeal and uphold the Department of Planning and Development's determination," Aluwalia said. The staff report noted that the May 29 submittal did not include the two OPL-related items and that the updated plan sheet showing OPL limits was received by the county only with the July 10 appeal.

Paul Latalla, representing the applicant, said he disagreed. "This application was complete as of 06/26/2025 and should proceed under state housing law," Latalla told the commission, adding the project would reserve 35 homes (about 20 percent of the units) for lower-income households. Latalla and his counsel argued that the applicant had invoked the state Permit Streamlining Act (SB 330) and a state density-bonus waiver that, they said, made the county's OPL demand inappropriate as a basis for incompleteness.

Jenna Yarkin of Holland & Knight, the applicant's attorney, framed the issue as procedural. "The sole issue in front of you this evening is a narrow procedural one," Yarkin said, summarizing the applicant's position that the materials submitted on Feb. 12 and May 29 together constituted a complete application and that the county's incompleteness finding was therefore incorrect.

County counsel and staff said the record supported the county's determination. Christina Stella, deputy county counsel, reminded the panel that the commission's review was limited to whether the application was complete on the date of the county's June 26 letter and not to the project's merits. Staff also confirmed the county had previously told the applicant the missing OPL information had to be shown on plans and that the county did not receive the updated sheet showing the Almaden Expressway OPL until the July 10 appeal submission.

Public response at the hearing was sharply divided. Commenters in support of the appeal urged the commission to follow state housing law and warned the county of potential litigation and state enforcement; Gino Borrello, speaking in favor of the applicant, said "Delay is denial. Choose homes over hurdles." Opponents urged the commission to enforce deadlines and protect rural and environmental constraints; Alice Kaufman of Green Foothills told commissioners that many of the rural-site builder's-remedy projects "are not the type of housing that was intended to be supported by the builder's remedy."

Staff reported 367 written comments on the project in the administrative record. Several speakers and the applicant referenced a July letter from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to the county; HCD's letter and other written materials were submitted into the record during the hearing.

After deliberation, Commissioner Levy moved to deny the appeal and uphold the department's June 26, 2025 determination that the application was incomplete; the motion was seconded and carried on a 4-3 roll call. The commission did not reach any determination tonight about project approvals, environmental review, or whether the applicant's preliminary application retains vesting beyond state or legal review. County staff and the project team indicated the question of OPL application, density-bonus waivers and any vesting dispute could be litigated or further addressed in subsequent planning and legal proceedings.

What happens next: the commission's decision sustains the county's incompleteness finding; the applicant may pursue further administrative or legal remedies, and staff will continue to process the application consistent with the county's position and applicable state law. The county's staff report and the written record contain links to the incomplete letters, resubmittals and the July 10 appeal packet.

(Reporting note: quotes and attributions above are taken verbatim from the Aug. 28 public hearing transcript.)