Planning Commission recommends approval of 59-unit Stevens Creek townhome project to City Council

The Cupertino Planning Commission on June 10 voted unanimously to recommend that City Council approve a Summerhill Homes proposal to build 59 townhome-style condominium units at 20840 Stevens Creek Boulevard, adjacent to the Crossroads Shopping Center.

The project, as described by city senior planner Emmy Sugiyama and the applicant team, would place 59 units across eight buildings on a site of about 2.9 acres. Twelve units (six at the median-income level and six at the moderate-income level) would be deed-restricted below-market-rate ownership units; the remaining 47 would be market-rate. Unit sizes range roughly from 1,800 to 2,700 square feet. Each unit includes a two-car garage; the project also provides 11 guest parking spaces on-site.

The applicant, Summerhill Homes, submitted a preliminary application under SB 330 (the Housing Crisis Act) in January 2024, which vested the standards in place at that time. Staff said the project makes use of state housing laws including the Housing Accountability Act and the state density bonus law to request concessions and waivers (for example, minor height and setback modifications and reduced parking stall dimensions). The city found the proposal consistent with the General Plan and the Heart of the City Specific Plan and concluded the project qualifies for a Class 32 categorical exemption under CEQA (infill exemption). Staff recommended the commission adopt resolutions finding the project exempt from CEQA, satisfying the city’s no-net-loss obligations, and approving the development permit, use permit, architectural/site approval, a vesting tentative condominium map and tree removals.

Key concessions and waivers identified in the staff report and applicant materials include: two concessions to waive a commercial component requirement in the mixed-use zone; a height modification for two buildings slightly over 45 feet; a reduced front setback (requested reduction from 35 feet to 26 feet at the tightest point); reduced side and rear setbacks in certain locations (example: a requested rear setback reduction from 56 feet to 32 feet for a portion of the site); a modest increase in lot coverage (+3%); and a reduction in standard parking stall dimensions (from 10'×20' to 9'10"×18'). Staff’s review noted that density-bonus concessions can be denied only under limited circumstances (significant impacts to historic resources or public health and safety).

The project would remove approximately 45 existing development trees and plant roughly 71 new trees across the site; staff noted the project proposes additional planting and landscape screening along the property’s southern boundary to improve privacy for the Scofield Drive residences. The applicant said an existing adjacent Valley Oak tree would not be removed; the applicant’s arborist and the city arborist reviewed that tree, and the applicant said the oak is about 20 feet from the property line.

Public commenters raised concerns about noticing, the adequacy of outreach to adjacent Scofield Drive neighbors, privacy and potential noise during construction, and the potential loss of retail in the corridor. Several neighbors said they had not known about the project until they noticed signs on Stevens Creek Boulevard. City staff responded that notice mailings were sent to addresses within a 500-foot radius and a site sign was posted; staff also said an initial neighborhood meeting was held before the formal application and that the city sent e-notifications to subscribers to development notices.

Applicant representatives said the project was revised during review to address neighborhood concerns: the buildings were reoriented so most structures are perpendicular rather than parallel to the rear residential lots, and the applicant increased rear setbacks in portions of the site from the minimum requested 15 feet to roughly 35–37 feet for impacted end units. The applicant also said it has redesigned the front portion of the site to add pedestrian improvements, a small seating plaza with an art element, a double row of street trees along Stevens Creek Boulevard and increased landscape screening to improve transitions to adjoining homes.

Commission discussion focused on the tradeoffs created by the SB 330 vesting, the difference in unit counts compared with the certified Housing Element density for the site (staff noted the Housing Element assumed a higher realistic capacity under the post‑element land use designations), parking and guest parking levels, the Class 32 CEQA exemption, and how to preserve future pedestrian connectivity to the adjacent commercial parcel without imposing an immediate obligation on that parcel. Several commissioners praised the inclusion of 12 BMR ownership units and the project’s all‑electric and solar design elements. The commission asked that the record be clear about access gates shown on plans: commissioners and staff said gates may be installed for future connectivity but can be secured until an adjacent property redevelops and a coordinated opening or easement is feasible.

A motion to accept staff’s recommendation and forward the project to City Council with the findings and conditions as drafted passed unanimously; the commission did not record individual roll-call votes in the transcript. The project will next be scheduled for review by City Council and by other city advisory bodies as required (for example, the Arts and Culture Commission will later review public art details).