Cupertino planning commission backs Toll Brothers townhome project, despite disputes over contamination and parking

The Cupertino Planning Commission unanimously voted Nov. 12 to recommend City Council approval of a Toll Brothers proposal to redevelop the former United Furniture shopping center on Stevens Creek Boulevard with 55 townhome condominiums and 10 accessory dwelling units (ADUs).

Senior planner John Martier told commissioners the 2.6‑acre site was rezoned in 2024 and the application, submitted under SP3330 before housing‑element certification, proposes 10 three‑story buildings, 11 below‑market‑rate (BMR) units and a series of requested waivers: western side setbacks of about 10 feet instead of roughly 20 feet 8 inches, a rear setback reduced from about 62 feet 2 inches to 9–11 feet to the building face, and a modest lot‑coverage increase from 40% to 43%. Staff said the developer proposes two enclosed parking spaces per unit plus nine guest spaces (119 total) and that state law (AB 2097) restricts the city’s ability to require parking near qualifying high‑transit corridors.

Why it mattered: the public session centered on two issues that divided speakers and commissioners — long‑standing soil and vapor contamination from historical dry‑cleaner operations on the site, and neighborhood parking, setback and tree‑retention concerns. Staff and the city’s environmental consultant, PlaceWorks, advised the commission that the project qualifies for a CEQA Class 32 (infill) categorical exemption and that a revised Condition 7 would tie issuance of grading and building permits to satisfactory remediation or a long‑term mitigation and monitoring plan approved by the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health (DEH).

“When you have an existing condition that requires remediation…that’s not a project impact,” said Alicia Guerra, the applicant’s CEQA attorney, arguing that remediation of historical contamination is an existing‑condition issue overseen by the county rather than a CEQA mitigation the project must itself perform. PlaceWorks staff likewise said the site is not listed on the Cortese (hazardous‑site) list and that the infill exemption criteria applied to this redevelopment.

County oversight and unresolved testing: several public speakers and at least two commissioners urged caution. One commissioner cited a GeoTracker posting and a DEH letter indicating current tetrachloroethylene (PCE) concentrations “exceed the environmental screening level for both commercial and residential land uses by one to two orders of magnitude and continue to represent a risk for vapor intrusion.” PlaceWorks and the applicant’s geoengineer acknowledged that remediation and monitoring are active on the site, and that the county could require either full removal to residential screening levels or installation of a vapor intrusion mitigation system (VIMS) with long‑term monitoring and institutional controls (deed restrictions, required access for county inspections) before people occupy new buildings.

“We will not issue grading or building permits until the county is satisfied,” staff told the commission; the applicant added that Toll Brothers is not the current owner and that contractual arrangements place responsibility for remediation with the seller until the site meets conditions to transfer.

Neighborhood concerns: dozens of residents packed the chamber. Neighbors described existing high levels of on‑street, ungaraged vehicles in the adjacent East Estates and Richwood neighborhoods, urged the developer to add more on‑site parking or neighborhood parking protections, and proposed physical barriers to prevent cut‑through traffic from the new project into local streets. Several speakers urged preservation of mature street trees and objected to replacement of some trees on public rights‑of‑way; the applicant said Public Works requested replacement for reasons including species selection and tree health and that the design adds a second row of new street trees per the Heart of the City specific plan.

On design and housing policy: the developer said the project was intentionally scaled down from densities the site could have supported under other legal pathways and emphasized homeownership‑style townhomes with side‑by‑side garages rather than larger apartment towers. Staff noted the project complies with the city’s BMR requirement (20%), providing 11 restricted units, but also warned that because the housing element had anticipated a much higher density on this site the city now faces a narrow, two‑unit shortfall in the housing element’s expected moderate‑income tally that it will need to reconcile administratively.

Commission action and next steps: after extended questioning and public comment, Chair moved the staff recommendation — find the project exempt under CEQA Class 32, adopt the draft permits with the modified Condition 7 referencing county oversight and a required long‑term monitoring plan or equivalent, and forward the recommendation to City Council. The motion was seconded and carried unanimously. The council will consider the project Dec. 16; if approved by council, the draft permits will still require county sign‑off on remediation before any construction permits or site disturbance are granted.

What speakers said (representative quotes): “Two rows of trees — that’s very, very nice,” said longtime resident Jennifer Griffin in support of the project’s streetscape intent but she also warned, “We need more parking” and urged deed‑restricting ADU rents for BMR owners. Alicia Guerra, the project’s CEQA counsel, said, “When you have an existing condition that requires remediation…that’s not a project impact,” to explain why remediation responsibility and county oversight do not automatically defeat a Class 32 exemption. PlaceWorks’ consultant summarized the firm’s conclusion: the project “meets the criteria for an exemption under CEQA” and the memorandum addresses potential exceptions including hazardous‑site criteria.

Bottom line: the commission recommended approval with a condition that explicitly ties future construction permits to county remediation outcomes and monitoring. Opponents can still press concerns to council — and the county’s remediation process will determine whether and when permits that allow on‑site work may be issued.