[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6477045,"mediaKeyId","5713859-b2405298f5f1996290e93a320120c1d4","parentId",5713859,"title","Votes at a glance: Cupertino City Council, Sept. 3 — ADU update, parking rules, Stevens Creek study and consent calendar","audioSeconds",7038,"startMs",1612000,"endMs",8650000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5713859-b2405298f5f1996290e93a320120c1d4&start=1612&end=8650","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5713859-b2405298f5f1996290e93a320120c1d4/thumbnail_1612000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6477045/Cupertino/Santa-Clara-County/California/Votes-at-a-glance-Cupertino-City-Council-Sept-3-ADU-update-parking-rules-Stevens-Creek-study-and-consent-calendar","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6477045-a87be13002f1c181329b553f1e8b103b/orig.mp4?Expires=1773609790&Signature=F1gaAdYiYDNEU~ltncdxMNvoyAZmlU9QYmknxtSU72dlVgpOUH86vV7QOiB88sKUlub5Gudw21k91QPevQKOykPqQWN9F7u50q02u9iw48I3cYuWcGcAMM~Yu3i0sLFWa1oXTQRpLAM8KXX7prXbmEkbO9ciz65tCeb3-qurqOBPFvodNxFeCRjJr9Z~npUMMBKQaT-SPHIW32qWTSV4h~4dJ14bliZhDGDuJ862TwrSt08dfUN4B8pVNUlRF-mkBDQp9KaSaIXoHvXnBkuyYX7Aym4xMXh-1nEXIyQpXSnSeAzrojUAcIKQWye4h9EmSSkAFiheG4W0b0F4nzCj7Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Cupertino","date","2025-09-04T07:06:49.393Z","article","Below is a concise summary of formal actions recorded in the Cupertino City Council meeting on Sept. 3. This roundup lists motions, outcomes and the next procedural steps the council set.

1) Postponement: Appeal of business license renewal fee
- Motion: Postpone the appeal hearing on a business license renewal fee to the Nov. 18 meeting (or later as needed).
- Outcome: Motion carried unanimously.
- Next step: City staff to coordinate public notice and confirm date with the appellant.

2) Consent calendar (Items 8–15)
- Motion: Approve consent calendar items 8 through 15.
- Outcome: Motion carried unanimously (voice vote recorded; roll call recorded ayes for all members present).
- Next step: Items will be processed per the approved consent calendar actions.

3) Ordinance (Item 16) — ADU municipal code amendments (first reading)
- Motion: Conduct first reading of ordinance amending municipal code chapters 19.08 and 19.112 regarding accessory dwelling units; return for second reading with planning commission recommendation and a legal memo on multifamily ADU size limits.
- Outcome: Motion carried (4‑1); Councilmember Wong voted no.
- Next step: Staff to prepare legal analysis and revised ordinance for a second reading (targeted for Sept. 16 per staff).

4) Ordinance (Item 17) — Oversized vehicle parking (first reading)
- Motion: Conduct first reading and implement a citywide restriction on overnight oversized vehicle parking (10 p.m.–6 a.m.); create a resident permit program (20 permits per household/year, 72‑hour stays); authorize signage funding and online permit processing; direct staff to return with a one‑year report.
- Outcome: Motion carried unanimously.
- Next step: Staff to implement permit system, install signage, coordinate with Sheriff's Office on enforcement and report back after one year.

5) Vision study (Item 18) — Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study
- Motion: Accept the corridor vision study as a set of recommendations, not commitments; preserve the city’s authority over local projects; request additional regional traffic demand, fiscal and cost‑benefit analyses before endorsing specific projects or funding; authorize the vice mayor to convey these conditions to the steering committee pending a revised council resolution.
- Outcome: Motion carried (4‑1); one councilmember opposed.
- Next step: Staff to prepare a revised resolution incorporating council edits and request the additional analyses for council review.

Ending: Several items required follow‑up from staff (legal memos, implementation budgets, outreach plans and interagency coordination). The motions recorded above match the meeting’s roll call and published summaries.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Cupertino City Council Meeting - September 3, 2025 (Live Streamed Version)","oneSentenceSummary","Summary of formal motions, first‑reading ordinances and consent actions the council recorded on Sept. 3, including vote outcomes and next steps.","taxTitle","Cupertino, Santa Clara County, California","taxId",3985,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6477050,"Council conditionally accepts Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor vision study, asks for legal and fiscal clarifications",518,10791000,11309000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5713859-b2405298f5f1996290e93a320120c1d4&start=10791&end=11309","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5713859-b2405298f5f1996290e93a320120c1d4/thumbnail_10791000.jpg","/articles/6477050/Cupertino/Santa-Clara-County/California/Council-conditionally-accepts-Stevens-Creek-Boulevard-corridor-vision-study-asks-for-legal-and-fiscal-clarifications","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6477050-1770273e7da1551d8b201d1f5a3c2407/orig.mp4?Expires=1773609790&Signature=ouULiu0IXLU7ufts8kAFDBiISHiAl2JPOmgbIdBnMPX2YXQsgYfqkPz1Sl2gf7EaVuelq89~XdH0lTiEu2To5MG5weZNhyWXof7uTV7dAaD1TGR4nM~CE6RMnmQsYPOhhRDIbWHYjfqgqEz17w~hcreZnCoR~8DKoYQgjwsfNlb8KBNbXSRmQTzqjcjxnyZ-nMYJS7-odx8Kz-7IJvS1jy-8hIg3DQWh1~1XkBmLdhx0GrXPrQC25YGXKY0tLmlp52OGHuMUIJJe7v1OGpir9Bnclekbunu8Hz5q9DIoKszef4LsjHDXYkPqTqQumOhgRob55QM8McIc0aihr1Ip5Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Cupertino City Council voted on Sept. 3 to accept the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study with conditions and requested additional information before endorsing any specific projects or funding commitments.

The multi‑agency study — which spans nearly nine miles and crosses Cupertino, Santa Clara and San Jose — proposes a multimodal makeover of the corridor, including near‑term placemaking projects, midterm intersection and crossing upgrades, and a long‑term concept to continue studying grade‑separated high‑capacity transit. The study was developed by a steering committee of elected officials from the jurisdictions and incorporated a community advisory group and extensive public outreach, including Pop‑up events at De Anza College.

Senior transportation planner Matt Schrader summarized the study’s process and recommendations and emphasized that the steering committee relabeled the plan as a set of recommendations (rather than a binding implementation plan) and that each jurisdiction retains authority over projects within its limits.

The council discussion was lengthy and divided. Vice Mayor Moore and several speakers urged acceptance so the city would retain a seat at the regional table and qualify for grant opportunities tied to corridor work. Supporters — including De Anza College representatives, transportation advocates and community groups — said accepting the study does not obligate Cupertino to fund projects but does open grant channels and coordinate planning across agencies.

Opponents and skeptical councilmembers urged caution, citing concerns about missing data and the study’s focus. Councilmember Fruin and others said the study lacked a countywide travel‑demand/land‑use analysis and questioned ridership and cost estimates for a proposed transit option. Fruin said planning decisions should be based on a robust cost‑benefit analysis and not precede feasibility work; she also urged attention to north–south corridors such as Lawrence and De Anza, which she said receive less county attention despite high vehicle volumes.

At the end of the meeting, the council directed staff to prepare a revised resolution combining mayoral and vice‑mayoral suggested edits that: (a) accepts the corridor vision study as a set of recommendations rather than a commitment to specific projects; (b) affirms Cupertino’s authority over local projects and preserves the city’s existing multimodal investments; (c) requests additional regional analyses including traffic‑demand and fiscal impact studies and a cost‑benefit review before the city considers funding or a particular transit alignment; and (d) directs the city’s representative on the steering committee to convey Cupertino’s conditional acceptance and the requested clarifications prior to any steering‑committee action.

The council vote adopted staff’s background report with the conditions included in the revised motion; roll‑call showed one councilmember opposed to the motion.

Ending: Cupertino accepted the study with conditions; staff will return with a revised resolution and requested legal, fiscal and technical analyses and will relay the city’s position to the corridor steering committee so Cupertino’s priorities are reflected in further multijurisdictional planning.","After hours of testimony and debate, the Cupertino City Council conditionally accepted the multi‑jurisdiction Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study, asking staff to return with legal, fiscal and technical clarifications and to preserve flexibility on local projects and priorities.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6477055,"Council backs new ordinance to restrict overnight oversized vehicle parking, allow resident permits",365,8675000,9040000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5713859-b2405298f5f1996290e93a320120c1d4&start=8675&end=9040","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5713859-b2405298f5f1996290e93a320120c1d4/thumbnail_8675000.jpg","/articles/6477055/Cupertino/Santa-Clara-County/California/Council-backs-new-ordinance-to-restrict-overnight-oversized-vehicle-parking-allow-resident-permits","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6477055-1dd49e9f4b6ee122b7c3ab42160b9b95/orig.mp4?Expires=1773609790&Signature=mJtSZ0w0qWMQBgHPz4ziSHvUT1rP0qwuebpCQ7UJBoSKSmVx12rZeS4bNShdp7rkB2WGeanYz4~WLEaq8xXmFS9PVWyfEAigtG4-yXG0gABiIvsEGkAwWUwEqBtPko9cxewxkIn94rioRgCkIKxg04q7-BhMwvC22xnmOEmsMz9bd34Ecv9dPnPNAXH5GRkYMt54nt1HzphNUiptHXSmz6pzyZFzLKvhTpM5tiQzKX7k8YGf6Mza2nVNulCd05OcAsJRgkQXpCZchYKnqf5oE5~r0OQtqR4pVTKLGVDM8xp-bLh9LFemarIW3Frbj1i8gK1yy~sNm~RvTQJm8-d0gw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Cupertino City Council conducted a first reading and approved a staff‑recommended program on Sept. 3 that would prohibit oversized vehicles from parking on city streets overnight and establish a limited resident permit program.

Staff described the proposal as a citywide measure to address complaints about oversized vehicles — including RVs and trailers — parked for extended periods in problem locations. Under the draft ordinance, oversized vehicles would be banned from street parking between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m., with a resident permit program allowing up to 20 free 72‑hour permits per household per year. After one permitted 72‑hour stay, a vehicle would need to move at least 1,500 feet and remain away for 72 hours to prevent continuous occupancy of a single curb space.

Public Works staff and the city attorney said the ban would exclude large pickup trucks and other commonly owned vehicles; it would target towed trailers, boats, and large RVs. Staff also proposed online permit processing, signs at identified problem locations (staff asked the council to approve $10,000 for targeted signage at an area near the Target store), and $25,000 for gateway signs so the ordinance could be enforced consistently. Staff estimated one‑time implementation costs of about $51,000 to stand up the program and handle permit administration for the first year.

The ordinance would also prohibit renting or loaning oversized vehicles for habitation in Cupertino, a provision staff said was intended to limit “van‑lording” or commercialized vehicle‑as‑housing schemes on public right‑of‑way.

Councilmembers asked about enforcement and partnerships. Staff said they had discussed nighttime enforcement logistics with the sheriff’s office and that the sheriff agreed to assist with nighttime enforcement. Councilmembers asked staff to study whether entry to the permit program should be limited to vehicles registered to the permit address and whether signs or portable cameras could support enforcement; staff said those items would be considered as the program is implemented and noted potential logistical complications.

The council approved the first reading unanimously and added a request that staff provide an outreach plan and partner with local service providers for residents living in vehicles. Councilmember Forén (sp?) asked staff to coordinate with West Valley Community Services and other nonprofit partners for outreach; city staff confirmed they would explore partnerships and return with data on permit use and program impacts after one year.

Ending: The city will implement online permits, install targeted signage and begin enforcement after the ordinance’s second reading; staff will return after one year with an assessment of program impacts and permit usage.","The council approved a first reading of an ordinance banning oversized vehicles from overnight citywide street parking and creating a temporary resident permit program; staff will implement permit processing, signage and a one‑year assessment of impacts.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6477060,"Cupertino council advances ADU ordinance revisions in first reading after lengthy debate",529,4810000,5339000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5713859-b2405298f5f1996290e93a320120c1d4&start=4810&end=5339","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5713859-b2405298f5f1996290e93a320120c1d4/thumbnail_4810000.jpg","/articles/6477060/Cupertino/Santa-Clara-County/California/Cupertino-council-advances-ADU-ordinance-revisions-in-first-reading-after-lengthy-debate","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6477060-a312564811ed87f3309b2e57ff45064d/orig.mp4?Expires=1773609790&Signature=ZtkNRU-sCiHOfWuInOBHrBZb9sbGwBQOyo-Hhi~tGEl~UhMiXrxbzzKsgyaiCFMpf1Gy4GAqlnLsesdUbgA0ES8DheTGUfJEG6EOJDgZnI58z7geBOJC~gW41ZxMUh28OdWYPvyLw3qoPWEFQl4p31-Crv7aXSIEDIEBeOmZkgTy256rqXyRY1qiTYm3aDF5YNOHtLskym5p~BoG12XO4HdQI02V4oq0EW9ItqSMWNvmLz2Alaqe7tHcoGcGGImNvnsqN2YkDSjxW13TVf4pYMo-k9OoP4qwkuaAFbedVMTi5fN-BuqRjppE8lbIEm9be2UX-gJx4x8i3XSrLFABTg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Cupertino City Council conducted a first reading on Sept. 3 of an ordinance updating the city’s accessory dwelling unit (ADU) rules to conform to recent state law changes and feedback from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

Staff said the city’s 2023 ADU ordinance became out of date after several state bills and reorganizations of government code sections went into effect in 2024–2025. Senior planner John Martier told the council the draft ordinance removes an earlier 1,200‑square‑foot cap on detached multifamily ADUs (HCD objected to that limit), revises how duplexes are treated under the city code, and clarifies rules on parking, permits and design standards for non‑streamlined ADUs.

The staff presentation noted two state statutes (cited in HCD’s April letter) that prompted the amendments and said the city had committed to reconcile its municipal code by Sept. 30, 2025.

Council members probed legal and policy details at length. Councilmember Fruin asked staff to repeat the provision that the planning commission had recommended removing — a draft requirement that all non‑streamlined detached ADUs match the principal dwelling’s siding and roofing materials — and staff confirmed the planning commission had recommended deleting that blanket requirement for most neighborhoods. Staff said objective design standards would remain in five special zoning districts (for example, Eichler neighborhoods and hillside zones) where explicit quantifiable standards already exist.

Councilmember Mohan and others pressed staff and the city attorney on whether the state government code forbids the city from setting any square‑foot limit for detached ADUs on multifamily parcels. Staff said HCD objected to the previously proposed 1,200‑square‑foot cap; city legal staff said HCD interprets the government code narrowly and that staff would seek clearer legal guidance about whether a different square‑foot or percentage cap would be permissible. Councilmembers requested that staff return before the second reading with a focused legal memo on that narrow question and on how any limits would affect the city’s housing element commitments.

There was extensive public comment and discussion about the broader effect of state ADU law: councilmember Wong noted the half‑mile “high transit” rule that allows greater height and relaxed parking requirements near frequent bus lines and warned the public that the half‑mile threshold can expand ADU rights in many neighborhoods.

After debate, the council conducted the first reading. The roll call and statements recorded during the meeting show Councilmember Fruin, Councilmember Mohan, Vice Mayor Moore and Mayor Chow voting in favor; Councilmember Wong recorded a “no” vote. Staff said the ordinance would return for a second reading and final adoption at a future council meeting (the item was scheduled for a second reading on Sept. 16 per staff). Councilmembers asked staff to include the planning commission’s design recommendations and requested staff provide the legal analysis on multifamily ADU size limits before the second reading.

Ending: The city advanced the update in a first reading but asked staff for targeted legal analysis on square‑foot limits for multifamily ADUs and for a revised ordinance incorporating the planning commission’s edits; a second reading is scheduled.","After extended debate and public input, the City Council held a first reading of ordinance updates to align Cupertino’s accessory dwelling unit (ADU) rules with state law and recent HCD guidance; council members asked staff to return with additional legal clarifications ahead of final adoption.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6477064,"Residents, neighbors press Cupertino council over Mary Avenue Villas plan, citing safety and parking",1321,1809000,3130000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5713859-b2405298f5f1996290e93a320120c1d4&start=1809&end=3130","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5713859-b2405298f5f1996290e93a320120c1d4/thumbnail_1809000.jpg","/articles/6477064/Cupertino/Santa-Clara-County/California/Residents-neighbors-press-Cupertino-council-over-Mary-Avenue-Villas-plan-citing-safety-and-parking","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6477064-b8a52b90d0e09cf564ce151175d6c6b4/orig.mp4?Expires=1773609790&Signature=dSnrvHJRFOksBzHMeykOcjLPVLzU4rc6JyBckKAvwJJAcP7h4~fLdCuUsRTx8HgQrX~mhYlsPNZdTFTwrNyZiDfoyZrB1hjDFq2ckIyyyZwyBvaC2j228mPhBZjVSNiImL8jSm7noRaptWFNZveSYGU9etspxxWIhK~0tQXExizX4T6Jfpqa7tXZ3omdj0FMiXuCN-Kqf1Z-SZm-UCi6EFqijwR-Hy7MIVd-dyEgsz2CqZvDxqFIA8XDQ0txMABZjLN630pmCr6P1netdljhZnY~zKMyflU2MuYyOBMJthbpRthqrQUlxqhAosIN~RdMByAffI0impR8NwjNmw~75g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Dozens of residents and local stakeholders urged the Cupertino City Council on Sept. 3 to address safety, traffic and parking impacts from a proposed 40‑unit housing project along Mary Avenue, near Memorial Park.

Public commenters said the site is a cramped, congested corridor used by students, seniors and cyclists and argued the proposal would worsen pedestrian and emergency access and remove dozens of on‑street parking spaces. Several speakers asked the council and staff to pause or redesign the plan to mitigate impacts before moving forward.

The speakers included longtime residents, nearby property managers and representatives of local schools and nonprofit organizations who offered competing views of the project’s local benefit and harm. Joe Houser, a 50‑year Cupertino resident, said the area is already the city’s densest and “there will be a very difficult time crossing Mary Avenue” for residents who use walkers or wheelchairs. He cited the distance between marked crosswalks and said the nearest retail is on the far side of Memorial Park.

Brian Avery, who said his family company built and maintains a large neighboring property (Glenbrook), said removing about 89 on‑street parking spaces would force his community to consider gating and would compound parking conflicts with nearby Westport development. He told the council the property has experienced vehicle‑pedestrian confrontations and that additional units would “make a situation worse that’s already getting worse.”

Representatives of organizations that would be affected by the site urged the council to balance safety concerns with housing needs. Luthern Williams, head of Tessellations School, described the school’s small‑high‑school program on the site and said the campus provides more than $3 million annually to the Cupertino Unified School District through rent and associated economic activity. Williams said the school has implemented staggered drop‑offs, carpooling and on‑site traffic direction, and that neighbors and parents had formed a neighborhood partnership committee, but that the group had not continued meeting.

Jean Bedord, a longtime resident, urged the council to “expedite the final steps” so clients who need extremely low‑income housing for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities are not forced to leave Cupertino and lose community ties. \"This project has taken too many years to get approval,\" Bedord said, and called for a final decision to avoid further delay and rising costs.

Connie Cunningham, chair of the Housing Commission speaking for herself, said the council previously moved the project forward and that the site is one the city identified in its housing element for lower‑income housing. Cunningham called the development “much needed housing” for residents who would otherwise be at risk of homelessness.

Several speakers pressed the council on traffic and emergency access. Multiple commenters said Mary Avenue is a principal route for families, school traffic, the public works yard and the dog park, and that the project’s ingress/egress points line up opposite two‑way driveways for an adjacent senior community, raising collision and congestion risk during peak hours and events at Memorial Park.

San Rao, a neighborhood resident and planning commissioner who spoke for himself, asked the council to study potential inverse‑condemnation liability and recurring city obligations after development and to consider the financial implications of ongoing support beyond one‑time county or grant funds.

Councilmembers and staff said they had met with neighbors and project stakeholders and that the project had been discussed at the Housing Commission and the Planning Commission. Staff noted the site is one the city identified in its housing element for this use and that the council previously advanced the project into study. They also said the city continues to evaluate parking, traffic and design alternatives and will provide additional information at future hearings.

No final vote on the Mary Avenue Villas appears in the Sept. 3 transcript; public comment occupied much of the meeting’s early evening and the council scheduled further internal discussion and follow‑up with staff and stakeholders.

The council did not adopt or reject the development on Sept. 3. The record shows strong neighborhood opposition focused on safety, parking and circulation, while housing‑commission and some residents urged moving the project forward to meet local housing needs.

Looking ahead, commenters asked for additional neighborhood meetings, refined traffic and emergency‑access studies, and clearer information on long‑term funding and management of supportive housing services for the site’s future residents.

Ending: The Mary Avenue Villas project remains under active city review. Councilmembers and staff signaled they expect additional meetings with neighbors and further technical analysis before any formal approval vote is scheduled.","Dozens of residents, nearby property owners and service providers urged the Cupertino City Council to reconsider a proposed 40‑unit Mary Avenue housing project, raising pedestrian-safety, traffic, and parking concerns and asking councilmembers for more neighborhood outreach and studies.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: Cupertino City Council, Sept. 3 — ADU update, parking rules, Stevens Creek study and consent calendar

Council conditionally accepts Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor vision study, asks for legal and fiscal clarifications

Council backs new ordinance to restrict overnight oversized vehicle parking, allow resident permits

Cupertino council advances ADU ordinance revisions in first reading after lengthy debate

Residents, neighbors press Cupertino council over Mary Avenue Villas plan, citing safety and parking