Board continues appeal of large Cupertino‑area hillside project, sets Aug. 31 resubmittal deadline

The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors on June 22 continued an appeal of a Planning Commission decision that had denied a design‑review and grading application for a prominent hillside estate two miles west of Cupertino.

Planning staff told the board the project had been under review since 2020 and that the Planning Commission on Dec. 18, 2025 could not make required design‑and‑hillside integration findings because of the proposed building’s form and massing and the visual impact of a 3,000‑square‑foot elevated concrete deck. Senior Planner staff said the project “does not mitigate visual impact with the hillside or the neighborhood setting,” citing lack of sufficient tiering and roofline modulation.

Appellant counsel and the project applicant argued their design steps with site contours and that the large elements would be largely invisible from the valley floor. The applicant’s representative urged the board to seek compromise rather than a denial, saying the team had already revised elevations and could accept additional conditions.

Neighbors, professional supporters and other members of the public spoke on both sides. Several neighbors said the applicants have been long‑time county residents and urged leniency; staff and others urged caution on water‑service and visibility issues and flagged a disputed service‑connection history involving the Peacock Mutual Water Company and Environmental Health.

After extended discussion, Supervisor Abe‑Koga told the applicant she wanted clarity on whether the revisions requested in a supplemental memo dated June 22 could be completed. The board ultimately directed the applicant to submit modified entitlement plans that address the memo’s items to the Department of Planning and Development by Aug. 31, 2026 and continued the public hearing to Sept. 15, 2026, with a fallback continuance no later than Nov. 3, 2026. The motion passed 5–0.

What happens next: staff will review any revised plans for consistency with the supplemental memo and the zoning and hillside guidelines. If the applicant cannot meet the stated modifications, the board retains the option to deny the appeal and remand preparation of findings to County Counsel.

Speakers quoted in this article are taken from the meeting transcript and include the Senior Planner (staff), the appellant’s counsel, the applicant (Britain), and Supervisors involved in the motion. The board’s continuance is a procedural step that preserves the public hearing record while giving the applicant time to address key design, visibility and water‑service concerns.