Santa Clara County Planning Commission upholds modification for Simoni Drive property amid dispute over alleged grading violations

Santa Clara County Planning Commission — The Santa Clara County Planning Commission on May 28, 2026 voted to uphold the zoning administrator’s decision to approve a modification, grading approval and Tier II design review for a single‑family residence at 15900 Simoni Drive, but the commission directed staff to pare down and refocus conditions of approval on life‑safety and documentation requirements.

The project, processed as PLN25‑032‑MOD1, traces to a 2011 grading permit for construction of a single‑family home. Staff told the commission the property later generated a verified grading violation that prompted a modification application to legalize work found to be outside the scope of the originally issued plans. Staff recommended denying the appeal and upholding the zoning administrator’s March 19, 2026 approval of the modification and associated permits.

Why it matters: neighbors and the property owners disagree about whether work beyond the 2011 grading plans occurred and whether county enforcement followed the correct procedural steps. The dispute has delayed issuance of a certificate of occupancy for a home that residents and supporters said has passed many inspections, and it has raised questions about how the county documents and adjudicates alleged violations.

What staff said: county project staff and the code‑enforcement program manager, Daryl Wong, summarized the permit history and a 2022 notice of violation. Staff identified four general areas where grading or new retaining walls and pads — including pads for additional water tanks — appear outside the footprint shown on the issued 2011 grading plans. Wong described the violation investigation process and said inspectors make field measurements and later calculate rough volumes; he cited the county’s threshold that generally triggers permitting and review and noted uncertainty when field documentation is incomplete. Staff concluded that, because the field work differs from the original approval’s scope, a modification was an appropriate application type and recommended upholding the approved modification while adding conditions to address outstanding safety documentation.

What the appellants and neighbors said: the property owners, represented by an attorney and multiple family members and supporters, argued the project underwent extensive review over many years, that multiple departments signed off on inspections, and that the county had not followed certain procedural steps the owners expected for notice and appeal of a violation. The appellant’s attorney urged the commission to either remove the stop order from county records or grant the appeal and allow issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Dozens of public speakers — neighbors, a physician and a pastor among them — urged the commission to allow occupancy, saying the project improved neighborhood safety and that indefinite delay creates hardship.

Technical and safety questions: commissioners pressed staff about the evidentiary record for the grading violation (photographs, dated survey data and stamped as‑built plans), whether final job cards or signed inspector forms exist for disputed grading, and how permit expirations and reactivations affected inspections. Staff told the commission the land‑development/grading permit had expired at one point and was later reactivated; inspection notes from the violation investigation were described as the basis for the notice of violation. Daryl Wong highlighted geotechnical concerns: the site is within a state seismic hazard and county landslide zone and staff reported that several newly constructed stack‑block retaining walls were recommended by project geotechnical consultants to have piered foundations to reduce failure risk.

Commission action and conditions: after extended public testimony and staff response, the commission directed staff to remove or consolidate many conditions that were redundant with existing county and state law and retain a focused set of requirements aimed at public safety and verifiable documentation. The surviving conditions require, among other items: submission of stamped civil and grading plans that clearly depict scope of work; survey‑verified as‑built drawings and cross sections; engineered retaining‑wall designs and geotechnical sign‑off (including pier foundations where recommended); erosion‑control and drainage plans; and final sign‑off from the fire marshal on the relocated water tanks and pads. The commission’s motion (moved by Commissioner Levy, seconded by Commissioner Headerly) to grant the appeal in part and uphold the zoning administrator’s approval with the modified conditions carried by roll call.

Key numbers and facts: the property’s original grading permit was issued in 2011; a grading violation investigation and a notice were documented in 2022; the modification application was filed as PLN25‑032‑MOD1; staff noted the county’s field threshold for certain enforcement actions (the code referenced a practical limit used in investigations, discussed during testimony). Retaining walls reportedly include a tallest stack‑block wall about six feet high; fire‑safety plans call for two 5,000‑gallon tanks on a pad with a planned third tank for future use per the record presented by the applicant.

Claims and disputes: the appellants said county staff failed to follow department‑level review procedures and that inspectors had signed permit cards for numerous inspections; county staff said the violation file and inspection notes show out‑of‑scope grading and that the appellant’s request for department review was not properly submitted or was untimely. The commission did not resolve competing assertions about every piece of historic documentation; the action focused on locking in a path forward that requires engineer‑stamped plans and geotechnical review before any additional final approvals are issued.

What happens next: the commission’s decision is appealable to the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors within 15 calendar days. The applicant and staff also discussed the possibility of entering a compliance agreement — a negotiated path that can set milestones for abating alleged violations while allowing certain approvals to proceed — but that requires mutual agreement between the property owner and county.

The commission’s action leaves open a path to occupancy if the applicant submits the required engineered documentation and obtains the final sign‑offs mandated in the revised conditions. It also preserves the right of either side to seek further review through the county appeal process.