The Santa Clara County Planning Commission on Nov. 20 declared its intent to grant an appeal of a Department of Planning and Development denial and to return the matter for final action with CEQA analysis after hearing oral and written testimony over an unpermitted import of base rock at a nursery in Coyote Valley.

Deputy Director Lisa Mikhail opened the public hearing and Associate Planner Michael Shuey told commissioners that county staff denied the grading abatement application because the compacted base rock on the subject parcel in unincorporated Morgan Hill met the county’s zoning and grading standards for "development area," and the area covered by imported material substantially exceeded the Coyote Valley combining district’s development limits. Staff traced the case history: a county investigation in April 2019 documented compacted base rock spread over multiple acres, a court order directed the previous owner to abate those violations in September 2020, the property was sold in March 2021, the current owner entered a compliance agreement in August 2023, the applicant submitted a grading abatement application in March 2024 that was deemed complete on April 10, 2025, and staff denied the application on June 9, 2025.

The applicant, represented by MH Engineering and land‑use counsel Bart Heckman, presented site photographs and engineering plans and corrected quantities in their submittal: the applicant said it now proposes to remove 1,592 cubic yards of base rock and retain 2,221 cubic yards. Owner Marcus Silva described how nursery operations depend on a hard surface to move carts, forklifts and trucks during wet weather.

Heckman framed the central legal dispute around whether compacted base rock is a "development area" under county code. "That base rock is not stated in your code as a development area," he said, urging commissioners to harmonize ordinances and noting that many wholesale nurseries in the county use base rock to operate. County counsel and staff took the opposite view: Deputy County Counsel Christina Stella told commissioners that "nurseries are commercial uses. They are not considered agricultural uses," and staff maintained that compacted base rock functions similarly to pavement and therefore counts toward the Coyote Valley development‑area limits (2 acres where an on‑site agriculture use is present, 1 acre otherwise).

Commissioners questioned operational details, code definitions and the compliance agreement. Staff emphasized that the current owners had acknowledged nonexempt grading in the compliance agreement and that the grading standards in effect at the time a permit is obtained apply. Staff also warned that because Coyote Valley is an area of statewide importance, overturning the denial would trigger CEQA review to analyze potential impacts to prime agricultural and other protected resources.

During deliberations, commissioners discussed ways to balance the nursery's operational needs with long‑term protections for Coyote Valley, including recorded conditions on the property or financial assurances to guarantee cleanup if uses change. Vice Chair O'Donoghue moved to "declare intent to grant the appeal and rescind the decision of the Department of Planning and Development to deny the grading abatement approval and return to the planning commission for final action." The motion was seconded by Commissioner Escobar and passed on a roll call vote (motion carries with 4 voting in favor). The commission did not issue a final grading approval at the Nov. 20 meeting; it declared intent to grant the appeal so that staff can complete CEQA review, prepare conditions and return the matter for final action.

Next steps: because staff previously denied the application, CEQA analysis was not completed; the commission’s declaration of intent means staff will prepare environmental review and draft conditions (for example, limits on the amount of base rock allowed, restoration requirements or recorded covenants or bonds) for the commission to consider at a later hearing. The commission repeatedly emphasized that an intent vote is a procedural step—not a final permit—and that any final legalization would be subject to CEQA, grading permits and whatever conditions the commission ultimately adopts.