Planning commission approves 122‑unit Stevens Creek housing development after debate over loss of retail

The Cupertino Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of a 122‑unit for‑sale residential project at the Stevens Creek Office Center, a redevelopment that replaces aging office and retail buildings with 66 single‑family homes and 56 townhomes and provides 24 below‑market‑rate (BMR) units.

Shelby Maples, the city project planner, told commissioners the application requests a use permit, tentative map, architectural and site approval, and a tree removal permit. Maples said the project proposes removal of 249 trees with 151 proposed for on‑site replacement and the remainder addressed through an in‑lieu fee. She summarized that the project was submitted under state streamlining rules and cited the Housing Accountability Act, SB 330/AB 130, and density‑bonus law as relevant state authorities for the review.

Kevin Choi, representing Harvest Properties, described the proposal as “The Canopies,” a 6.8‑acre site redevelopment that he said will deliver for‑sale family housing and historic‑site‑consistent design. Choi told the commission the project provides 24 below‑market‑rate homes (20 percent of the total), and estimated a 40 percent net reduction in vehicle trips compared with existing commercial uses; he also said the project generates approximately $10,000,000 in impact fees and about $160,000 of net revenue for the city’s general fund.

Architect David Burton presented design details, including two housing typologies, varied elevations, and a large central 32,000‑square‑foot courtyard with public art and canopy trees. The design team said homes are three stories, some with rooftop decks, and that the townhome portion includes the affordable units.

Commissioners pressed staff and the applicant on multiple issues during an extended question period: why the applicant did not preserve on‑site retail, how waivers (including a 50‑foot height request) relate to objective standards in the Heart of the City specific plan, whether the project’s tree replacements and off‑site replanting were sufficient, and what measures would prevent residents’ streets from becoming overflow parking for the development.

Several members of the public urged different outcomes. Residents warned that removing active neighborhood cafes and other retail would erode community gathering spaces: “We’re losing community,” Jennifer Griffin said, criticizing SB 330 and the cumulative loss of retail along Stevens Creek Boulevard. Representatives of small businesses and tenants described the financial strain of relocation and asked the city to help via expedited permitting, fee reductions, or other assistance. Whit Turner of the Housing Action Coalition urged approval, saying the project would add family‑sized for‑sale housing in a high‑opportunity job market.

The applicant told the commission it had explored alternatives that preserved retail but said staff advised those changes would require resubmitting under AB 130 and risk losing the project’s vesting protections; the applicant said it is offering relocation assistance and is open to further agreements with affected tenants. The applicant also stated it respects the existing reciprocal easement agreement (REA) with adjacent property owners and does not propose changing that easement as part of this application.

After discussion, a commissioner moved to approve the staff recommendation with an amendment directing staff to explore tangible ways the city could assist displaced retail tenants — such as expedited permitting and potential fee waivers or other supports — and to report feasible options to the commission ahead of the city council hearing. The commission voted to approve the project and the amendment. Staff said it will coordinate with the city’s economic development team and prepare materials for the council meeting on the accelerated schedule.

Next steps: the commission’s recommendation will go to the City Council for final action; staff will also report back on potential, feasible forms of city assistance to displaced retailers prior to that council consideration.