Residents and stakeholders press council over Mary Avenue Villas safety, parking and traffic impacts; supporters stress need for housing for adults with IDD

Cupertino’s City Council heard extensive public comment Sept. 3 on the proposed Mary Avenue Villas, a 40-unit project intended to provide extremely low-income housing for intellectually and developmentally disabled (IDD) adults alongside other below-market-rate units.

The discussion mattered to speakers because the project sits on a narrow, heavily used artery that residents say already carries school traffic, park visitors and service vehicles; speakers warned adding housing there could worsen pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, reduce neighborhood parking and hamper emergency access.

Several residents and property owners urged the council to reconsider or modify the plan. A resident who identified himself as Rajeev said he and neighbors feel their grievances are not being heard and raised concerns about the narrowness of Mary Avenue and its role as the nearest route to the freeway for hundreds of homes. “Just imagine if some emergency happens there, like earthquake or something,” Rajeev said, arguing the roadway is congested during festivals and could be unsafe for new residents.

Longtime Cupertino resident Joe Houser described crossings and access for people who use walkers, canes or wheelchairs, and framed the issue as one of pedestrian safety. “If the proposed housing is built, the residents will have a very difficult time crossing Mary Avenue,” Houser said, noting the nearest marked crossings are a long walk away and that bicycles and motorized devices use the same routes.

Several speakers who live or operate businesses nearby said lost curb parking will push visitors into adjacent properties. A homeowner at Casa De Anza said the project would remove roughly 89 existing on-street spaces and add only 22 parking spaces on site, a net reduction that she said will intensify parking pressure on her community. “We already have problems. We probably spent $300 a month removing trash from the dumpster areas. It probably half of it's put there by outside forces,” she said.

Bridal Avery, who said his family company designed and maintains the Glenbrook property across the street, described an increase in festival traffic and guests from nearby developments and warned the proposal would make existing congestion worse. “Putting a building in the driveways, so directly across is making a situation worse,” Avery said.

Speakers also offered counterpoints. Jean Bedord, a longtime resident, urged the council to move the project forward, saying the city made a commitment years ago to enable this type of housing and worried further delay will increase costs and displacement. “This project has taken too many years to get approval,” Bedord said. She described families that have no suitable local placement for adult children who age out of school-based services.

Lutherne Williams, head of Tessellations School, described the school’s role on the site, said misinformation about student counts had circulated at an earlier hearing, and stressed the school’s contributions to the district. “By renting from the Cupertino Union School District, we contribute over $3,000,000 each year to the district,” Williams said, and noted the school has worked with neighbors on drop-off procedures.

Others raised legal and fiscal questions. A commenter identified as San Ahr urged staff and council to research potential inverse-condemnation claims and longer-term financial obligations the city might assume if street access or parking is restricted. “Please research the implications to the city from inverse condemnation claims that may be potentially filed,” San Ahr said.

Supporters on the dais and in the audience said the site was identified for this use in Cupertino’s housing element and that the city has struggled to find parcels suitable for low-income and special-needs housing. Connie Cunningham, speaking as chair of the Housing Commission, said the project addresses a long-standing need to keep vulnerable adults from falling into homelessness.

The council took public comment and did not take a final vote on the project during the Sept. 3 meeting. Council members briefly exchanged notes about meeting with neighbors; no staff recommendation, motion or council direction was recorded in the transcript for this item.

The project has a history in the city’s housing planning: speakers reminded the council that the site was identified in the housing element process and that a study session on the project took place July 15, 2025. Opponents cited petitions and local sign-ups—one speaker said more than 350 residents in the impacted area had signed a petition opposing the project—while proponents emphasized the shortage of local placements for adults with IDD.

Council members did not announce a timetable for next steps at the Sept. 3 meeting.